Southwest flight came within 400 feet of crashing into the ocean
cnn.com
cnn.com
While at 600 feet, the “newer” first officer inadvertently pushed forward on the control column for about 3 seconds. In the span of 3 seconds the plane dropped from 600 to 400 feet. Then the situation was corrected and the airplane climbed. So if the first officer had kept the same rate of descent for 6 more seconds, it would have crashed. The article quotes the rate of descent as 4000 feet/minutes.
Some more details here: https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/southwest-plane-plunged-within-4...
Edit: for the curious here is the flight data: https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/SWA2786/history/2024... and the track log: https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/SWA2786/history/2024... you can see at around Thu 4/11 at 10:12:47 PM PDT the airplane made the rapid descent, then climbed back up quickly. However the ADS data shown by flightaware is too granular (one data point every 16-18 seconds) so we see the minimum altitude as 875 feet, but in reality the plane went lower. Apparently some other site (ADS-B Exchange) has more granular data, but I don't have access to it and am too lazy to create an account (is it free?)
It's when you are low and slow and try to pull up with the elevator that you may stall the aircraft. You need to push the throttle to gain some airspeed.
It's not a question of whether you are strong enough to move the flight controls.
The only thing the hydraulics do for you is to reduce your effort in moving those controls.
Control surfaces don't magically make the plane go up or down, or left or right. The only way they work is by pushing against the air flowing over them.
If there is not enough airflow over the actual controls - ailerons, elevator, rudder - you won't be able to control the airplane.
And if there isn't enough airflow over the wings, they won't provide lift. That is when you stall and lose all control, until you find a way to increase your airspeed and get some air moving over the wings and flight controls, so they have something to push against.
Source: my basic pilot training where I practiced stalls and spins and all kinds of loss of control.
Anybody who flew a badly trimmed plane at high speed will disagree. Of course more airflow over the wings will mean your GA cessna 172 controls require more human strength to operate. They are also more effective as you say, but that's not what the previous poster meant.
I think a good rule of thumb would be heading towards the ground fastly isn't a good thing
The first officer had to do several things at the same time, and for a few seconds did not monitor the aircraft pitch attitude well enough.
In a jet the difference between a normal (about 600 to 700 ft/min) descend or this rapid descend is only something like 5 degrees. So it's easy to get this wrong if you look away from the instruments for just a few seconds. Especially if you're changing configuration (flaps) and power at the same time, because both have an effect on pitch.
A go-around is the right call whenever the approach is not stabilized, even if visibility is perfect.
https://www.thedrive.com/news/airlines-are-pushing-to-legali...
Anyway, the point is that if "the computers" had been flying, this would never have happened in the first place. Perhaps we just need one pilot to take over in case there is some emergency that can't be handled by the autopilot.
There is a real danger when bean-counters with no practical experience run a company and look at every component, including the employees, as a cost center that can be trimmed as needed to tailor results for quarterly reports that guarantee that investors will remain engaged.
While most extreme of the measures were cut, railroads are still far away from operating safely. There is a John Oliver episode on Freight trains. You know things are bad, when he has an episode.
Before the agreement, when it looked to all the trainmen like they were gonna get fucked again, there was a lot of anger and frustration with their near total absence of control of important things in their lives. They were literally meat to be shuffled like rolling stock up and down the tracks at the whim of their employer. As the terms of the agreements became more clear they realized that the railroads had to back off on their most destructive terms such that trainmen can now have a predictable work schedule, a higher rate of pay, better benefits, etc so it is definitely true that a lot of shit on railroads was broken and contributed to unsafe rolling stock and working conditions, some of that has been corrected simply by insuring that crews have sufficient manpower to manage the longer trains that are running and that the crews are more likely to be rested before they get on the trains. There has been a total attitude adjustment about employment conditions such that there are fewer trainmen looking to change jobs.
This whole collective bargaining exercise began with a majority of trainmen feeling like they had no opportunity to change anything and has resulted in a new-found respect for union leadership in effecting changes that benefit the people doing the work. The railroads, the FRA, the unions, and the administration sat down and worked through problems in a way that gave the employees tangible concessions and that was one thing that most employees would never have counted on happening since the unions had been nearly neutered since the previous collective bargaining agreements were signed around 20 years earlier.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkp9m8/what-choice-do-i-have...
I believe that you are mistaken. Everything that I have ever read indicates that he buys companies that are already well-managed with good long-term prospects and then he lets those proven managers operate without interfering.
I could be wrong. As far as BNSF goes, I know that when Matt Rose was running it after BH bought BNSF that he was highly regarded at BH. I think he was rumored to be in line to replace Buffett if Buffett decided to hand off his position to someone else. I don't think that happened but I know that Rose was a good person who was available to speak with anyone on the railroad if they wanted to talk directly to him.
Like I said, I believe that Buffett looks to make his money by owning profitable companies with strong leadership in markets where they can remain competitive for a long time.
Perhaps to you that means that quarterly reports, though required by the SEC, are not important to Buffett or BH since they obviously take a long view before buying the company in the first place. I don't think it means that BH controls the day-to-day operations of any of the companies that they own or invest in.
I don’t think it does either.
> Like I said, I believe that Buffett looks to make his money by owning profitable companies with strong leadership in markets where they can remain competitive for a long time.
Presumably by employing people who make long term decisions. Why would Buffett keep leadership in place that he thinks are making short term decisions to boost quarterly numbers?
Shareholders can get in line behind employees as far as I'm concerned.
I'd say even more, if a company is large enough they should get in line behind workers, and society at large.
For such amount of power there should be systemic mechanisms putting society's interests above shareholders. They can get their share of the pie after that, they definitely wouldn't starve if so.
That's why trains have a dead man's switch but planes don't. Though I guess at some point in the future they may. Cirrus already has a system that can be engaged by the passengers in case of a problem with the pilot and that will perform a completely autonomous landing. That's on tiny aircraft though.
Care to share some of these?
In other words, this has absolutely nothing to do with the aircraft. This is a deficiency in the first officer's instrument flying.
However, at 600' any loss of altitude without a suitable runway beneath you and an aircraft ready to greet it is a very alarming prospect.
As for this incident, it sounds like a junior pilot accidentally hit the control column while going for another control. It's only notable for having occurred at the very moment you don't want such things to occur. I suggest a corrective action of briefing pilots not too hit the control column.
Busting MDA on a missed approach is a fail on your Instrument Rating flight test.
That said, a 737 is pitch sensitive. No mention is made of the flight mode.
Not some huge plunge. Worth an investigation but the headline’s clickbaity.
that newbie has at least 1500 hours of flying in order to qualify as a first officer. not exactly new to flying. in europe(and used to be in the US before one accident that was not really related to their experience flying) it's something like 300 for FO but the captain is much more experienced.
It’s actually 0 in Europe.
> What happened in these 16 seconds is described in an internal memo circulating in Southwest Airlines stating, that during the go around due to weather conditions the first officer, pilot flying, inadvertently pushed the control column forward while monitoring the power settings causing the aircraft to descend to about 400 feet MSL before the aircraft started climbing again.
Happens every time.
This story was sort of refreshing as they didn't call out the make, model and history of the aircraft.