Southwest flight 150agl 4 mile final into TPA

francisco collazos

francisco collazos

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Jun 11, 2021
Messages
467
Display Name
Display name:
ciscovet
This is making the rounds on the internet. THey ended up with a low altitude alert from the tower then diverted to FLL
 
Another RNAV approach. You would think they would get their act together after what happened in OKC.
 
It's not the type of approach, it's the heavy rain, moderate to heavy turbulence, gusty winds( possible wind shear) that makes it challenging.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
Should they be checking altitude periodically? What approach were they using? For example, if I read the chart (link below) properly, they should be no lower than 1600' crossing ZEXXY at 3.5 miles out.
Click to expand...

4.8 nm out, but yeah. Especially after the OKC incident.

I have to believe they would have been receiving all kinds of EGPWS alerts being that low that far from the runway, though. Along with just normal radar altimeter alerts like "500" "400" etc. - which should have seemed really out of place at 5 nm final.
 
Maybe they were trying one of those "short field approaches" in the other thread? (Sorry. I've had too much iced tea tonight.)
 
Once the gear and flaps are down, And a certain distance from the airport, the GPWS doesn't send all normal alerts. Southwest airplanes RA doesn't give 1000 ft and 500 ft calls, I believe.
 
Mikey52 said:
Once the gear and flaps are down, And a certain distance from the airport, the GPWS doesn't send all normal alerts. Southwest airplanes RA doesn't give 1000 ft and 500 ft calls, I believe.
Click to expand...
Alerts? I wonder if the plane had an altimeter? How about this alert, “Captain execute the missed, we are too low”
 
RussR said:
4.8 nm out, but yeah. Especially after the OKC incident.

I have to believe they would have been receiving all kinds of EGPWS alerts being that low that far from the runway, though. Along with just normal radar altimeter alerts like "500" "400" etc. - which should have seemed really out of place at 5 nm final.
Click to expand...
I’ve been impressed with how hard you actually have to work to generate a GPWS callout.
 
RussR said:
I have to believe they would have been receiving all kinds of EGPWS alerts being that low that far from the runway, though. Along with just normal radar altimeter alerts like "500" "400" etc. - which should have seemed really out of place at 5 nm final.
Click to expand...
Callouts, in addition to EGPWS, would have been;

"2,500"
"Approaching Minimums" (526' Baro)
"Minimums" (426' Baro)

and if they continued to touchdown;

"50", "40", "30", "20", "10".
 
MauleSkinner said:
I’ve been impressed with how hard you actually have to work to generate a GPWS callout.
Click to expand...

Granted I operate in an abnormal environment, but not a week goes by where I don't get a few EGPWS warnings during routine operations. Obviously I don't know the 737's implementation of various warnings, but I would think that being in a descent at 150 AGL at 5 nm from the runway would trigger SOME kind of alert.
 
RussR said:
Granted I operate in an abnormal environment, but not a week goes by where I don't get a few EGPWS warnings during routine operations. Obviously I don't know the 737's implementation of various warnings, but I would think that being in a descent at 150 AGL at 5 nm from the runway would trigger SOME kind of alert.
Click to expand...
I give a bad altimeter in the sim that puts people 400 feet low on an approach, and it often only gives cautions by the time they get to the LNAV/VNAV DA.
 
I don’t get judgy about these things. But an observation…

Many here keep referring to an ALARM that should have warned them. This is straight procedural and situational awareness. No matter the conditions, this is a low level failure, likely enabled on by an over reliance on high technology.

Good procedure and situational awareness should have caught it, no matter the failure. It happens. If It happens systemically, we go institutional to figure it out.
 
Last edited:
Tools said:
I don’t get judgy about these things. But an observation…

Many here keep referring to an ALARM that should have warned them. This is straight procedural and situational awareness. No matter the conditions, this is a low level failure, likely enabled on by an over reliance on high technology.

Good procedure and situational awareness should have caught it, no matter the failure. It happens. It happens systemically, we go institutional to figure it out.
Click to expand...
yup. If you really need an alarm to tell you you’re at 150 feet 5 miles from the airport you’re doing something wrong.
 
Interesting based on Juan's report it looks like they were lining up to land on the Cortney Campbell and in that case I imagine the decent countdown would have appeared to be normal. I wonder how often this stuff has happened in the past and only now where we have access to the data does it seem to be more frequent. The checks and balances did work as designed with the low altitude alert from the Tower.
 
I respectfully disagree, the last ditch effort worked. Checks and balances failed miserably….

Semantics, I’m not arguing.

And ya, A LOT. This tattletale system ultimately is good with respect overall awareness.
 
francisco collazos said:
Interesting based on Juan's report it looks like they were lining up to land on the Cortney Campbell and in that case I imagine the decent countdown would have appeared to be normal. I wonder how often this stuff has happened in the past and only now where we have access to the data does it seem to be more frequent. The checks and balances did work as designed with the low altitude alert from the Tower.
Click to expand...
If you're in nasty weather, it's pretty dumb to do a visual approach, and this is the example that explains why.
 
Short of auto-lands, all instrument approaches end in a visual segment. That's where mistakes can be made.
 
And ironically, that’s the ONE place they shouldn’t… ever.

Had a kid nearly kill me once NOT FLARING (at 200’, 200 kts, 2,000fpm down).

“Sir, I was watching the baro”…. This is a purely visual maneuver

Me: have ya considered LOOKING OUTSIDE?!!!
 
They were perfectly aligned with the final approach course, so it wasn't a purely visual approach. Automation mismanagement and lack of SA.
 
dmspilot said:
They were perfectly aligned with the final approach course, so it wasn't a purely visual approach. Automation mismanagement and lack of SA.
Click to expand...
Well, the bridge is pretty darn close to perfectly aligned to the approach course...... not sure you can say it that the alignment was due to using instruments.
 
Salty said:
Well, the bridge is pretty darn close to perfectly aligned to the approach course
Click to expand...
No, it isn't.

Salty said:
...... not sure you can say it that the alignment was due to using instruments.
Click to expand...
Yes, I can. A human hand-flying a visual approach to a road isn't going to fly perfectly straight along the approach course for 5 miles in rain, thunderstorms, and windshear.

Screenshot 2024-07-22 at 12.38.11 PM.png
Screenshot 2024-07-22 at 12.34.23 PM.png
 
dmspilot said:
No, it isn't.


Yes, I can. A human hand-flying a visual approach to a road isn't going to fly perfectly straight along the approach course for 5 miles in rain, thunderstorms, and windshear.

View attachment 131610
View attachment 131609
Click to expand...
Jeez, visualizing that, it’s almost like they mistook ZEXYY for the MAWP. Note how the actual MAWP is buried in the middle of the airport in the planview. No “fletching” of a localizer to tip you off where that happens, either. No REIL or ALS on runway 10 either, just edge lights and a PAPI - doesn’t help distinguishing the runway environment a semi-aligned road.

I’m not saying there aren’t other major holes in the Swiss cheese, but I wouldn’t rule a chart misinterpretation out.
 
Flying Keys said:
Jeez, visualizing that, it’s almost like they mistook ZEXYY for the MAWP. Note how the actual MAWP is buried in the middle of the airport in the planview. No “fletching” of a localizer to tip you off where that happens, either. No REIL or ALS on runway 10 either, just edge lights and a PAPI - doesn’t help distinguishing the runway environment a semi-aligned road.

I’m not saying there aren’t other major holes in the Swiss cheese, but I wouldn’t rule a chart misinterpretation out.
Click to expand...

I think they thought POLVY was the FAF, but I'm not sure why they missed the actual FAF. They might have deleted it or ignored it, thinking it was an unnecessary stepdown.
 
Flying Keys said:
Jeez, visualizing that, it’s almost like they mistook ZEXYY for the MAWP. Note how the actual MAWP is buried in the middle of the airport in the planview. No “fletching” of a localizer to tip you off where that happens, either. No REIL or ALS on runway 10 either, just edge lights and a PAPI - doesn’t help distinguishing the runway environment a semi-aligned road.

I’m not saying there aren’t other major holes in the Swiss cheese, but I wouldn’t rule a chart misinterpretation out.
Click to expand...

I assume the flight crew was using Jepps, so the FAA depiction is likely not a factor.

Does anybody have the Jepp chart for this?
 
RussR said:
I assume the flight crew was using Jepps, so the FAA depiction is likely not a factor.

Does anybody have the Jepp chart for this?
Click to expand...
This is the latest one I have, dated 10/2020:IMG_3386.jpeg

Not quite as bad as the NOS chart, but the MAWP is still buried.
 
Wow, they really got down to 150’msl, miles out?
 

Attachments

  • IMG_5249.jpeg
    IMG_5249.jpeg
    101.3 KB · Views: 10
Let'sgoflying! said:
And what would the needles be saying, for most of the last 5 miles?
Click to expand...
It's flown in LNAV and VNAV. My avatar shows the display. It would require ignoring the vertical path indicator once the "runway" was in sight.

Runway 10/28 is rarely used by transport jets. This may have been their first time attempting to land on 10.
 
RussR said:
I assume the flight crew was using Jepps, so the FAA depiction is likely not a factor.
Click to expand...
Flying Keys said:
Not quite as bad as the NOS chart, but the MAWP is still buried.
Click to expand...

I don't think there are any airlines doing dive-and-drive, we treat every approach, including RNAV, Localizer, VOR, etc., like a precision approach and go missed when we reached the DH/MDA. Therefore the location of the MAP isn't really relevant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top