Southwest oopsie - ‘woman partially sucked out of window’

I have some puzzlement about this situation that maybe the Part 121 folks here can comment on:

Everything I have learned about CRM would say that the pilot-not-flying should be working the checklists and talking to ATC. I guess is might be plausible that the FO was PF on that leg and that Shults was PNF, hence the voice we hear on the recordings. But there is a male voice once in a while too.

So ... from a CRM standpoint, considering that we have very limited information, what should we think about how the flight was handled?
 
airdale said:
I have some puzzlement about this situation that maybe the Part 121 folks here can comment on:

Everything I have learned about CRM would say that the pilot-not-flying should be working the checklists and talking to ATC. I guess is might be plausible that the FO was PF on that leg and that Shults was PNF, hence the voice we hear on the recordings. But there is a male voice once in a while too.

So ... from a CRM standpoint, considering that we have very limited information, what should we think about how the flight was handled?
Click to expand...
I’ll leave the real answer to the 121 guys, but here is my take. The FO was designated as PF and the CA was the PM. Once the issue arose, the roles changed and the CA took over as they’re the ones that will fly the aircraft if an emergency occurs, while the FO will back them up on the radios and checklists.

I don’t think it’s uncommon for the CA to chime in to ATC during an emergency either.
 
Generally, at my airline in an emergency the PF will take over ATC duties while the PM handles the checklists, talks to the FAs, coordinates with dispatch, and so on. Because all the coordination is something the Captain would most likely prefer to do him/herself, in most cases the PF duties and radio work will be handed over to the FO if he’s not already doing them. EDIT: I should add that once all the coordination and checklist stuff is done, the PM will take over radio duties as usual.

Of course the CA can handle this however he/she wants, but the above is how my airline would prefer it to be done. The idea is that handing the controls over to the FO allows the CA to focus on the big picture stuff. Frankly, the flying of the airplane is the easy part. :)
 
Last edited:
drotto said:
are all capable of flying decently, and are capable of performing all normal flight operations with one engine
Click to expand...
That usually blows their minds. Remember many years ago the British Air 747 that lost an engine climbing out of Las Vegas and flew on 3 engines back to Europe?? I think they got sued actually for that.

drotto said:
The media wants everyone to think all pilots are Ted Striker from Airplane.
Click to expand...
Which is why that movie awesome on so many levels. Not only was that funny just to see the over exaggeration of sweat on his face, but it was already a satire of what people assumed happens in cockpits on airliners. Goes to show that as much as times change and #this #that culture evolves, we really actually haven't changed that much

drotto said:
Yes because the plane was " falling" out of the sky.

I saw an interview with one of the passengers on CNN last night. He was telling his story about as they were going down of trying to get an internet connection so he could contact his family just in case the worst happened. But that he was having trouble holding his credit card and entering the numbers so he could gain access to the onboard WiFi service. Eventually he gave up figuring once they were low enough his signal would get out.
Click to expand...
That. Is. Legitimately. Funny. If they ever make an Airplane 3 (please. No. don't ruin something beautiful) then they could have a lot of fun with that whole type of scenario!!!
 
airdale said:
I have some puzzlement about this situation that maybe the Part 121 folks here can comment on:

Everything I have learned about CRM would say that the pilot-not-flying should be working the checklists and talking to ATC. I guess is might be plausible that the FO was PF on that leg and that Shults was PNF, hence the voice we hear on the recordings. But there is a male voice once in a while too.

So ... from a CRM standpoint, considering that we have very limited information, what should we think about how the flight was handled?
Click to expand...
That question cannot be answered with the information that we have.
 
Timbeck2 said:
Pilot male, pilot female? No, that can't be it.

PM, PF, CA, FO,- can we just name them something and stick with it please?
Click to expand...

Dammit - sorry man. I was typing that out on my phone and in a bit of a hurry, and not really thinking. I’m so used to seeing the two letter lingo that it didn’t occur to me what a PITA it might be for someone else to read. :(
 
I know CA and FO, just have never seen PM or PF before. I have several friends who are airline pilots and the term has never came up.

BTW - still don't know what they mean.
 
Ryanb said:
I’ll leave the real answer to the 121 guys, but here is my take. The FO was designated as PF and the CA was the PM. Once the issue arose, the roles changed and the CA took over as they’re the ones that will fly the aircraft if an emergency occurs, while the FO will back them up on the radios and checklists.

I don’t think it’s uncommon for the CA to chime in to ATC during an emergency either.
Click to expand...
That is almost exactly backwards to how we do it. See kayoh’s comment below yours.

Transfer of controls does not typically take place until the situation is stabilized. Then, if the Captain was the pilot flying, s/he would transfer control to the FO while s/he takes care of the administrative stuff and company coordination duties that come up. After everything has been cleaned up and otherwise taken care of, transfer of controls can be transferred back for the landing. Depending on the failure, the Captain may retain Pilot Flying duties for the remainder of the flight.
 
Pilot Flying
Pilot Not Flying

Co-Pilots were getting their feelings hurt:(

Cheers
 
Timbeck2 said:
BTW - still don't know what they mean.
Click to expand...

I’m batting 0 for 2 today! Pilot Flying and Pilot Monitoring. Some places use PNF (Pilot Not Flying).
 
Greg Bockelman said:
That question cannot be answered with the information that we have.
Click to expand...

This is actually the correct response, as in typical PoA fashion I was too busy being a nerd and explaining something that someone didn’t actually ask about!
 
Recall from the Hudson landing that Sully took control ftom Skiles and was also talking to ATC. Skiles kept busy with the checklists and systems.
 
Thanks, folks. My conclusion is that it's plausible that she could have been PF and the one talking to ATC. Since I never fly with FA support or a company to talk to I forgot about all that work! It will be interesting as we hear more.
 
It has always bugged me that Sully was cast as such a hero and now this lady. I mean, if they had the option to jump out with a parachute on versus landing the airplane and saving hundreds of lives that's one thing. We all train for engine out scenarios from day 1 of private pilot training. As others have said, her and Sully acted on their training and did their job. That's why they make 300k a year or more.
 
Grum.Man said:
It has always bugged me that Sully was cast as such a hero and now this lady. I mean, if they had the option to jump out with a parachute on versus landing the airplane and saving hundreds of lives that's one thing. We all train for engine out scenarios from day 1 of private pilot training. As others have said, her and Sully acted on their training and did their job. That's why they make 300k a year or more.
Click to expand...

There’s a reason airliners don’t have ejection seats.

:lol::rofl:
 
Fearless Tower said:
One of the things I noticed on that recording is that when ATC asks her for SOB and fuel, she (like any good naval aviator) gives her fuel state: 5 hours, but then ATC asks for lbs onboard.

Why does ATC care about lbs? Seems like time remaining would be more useful info.
Click to expand...

There was delay before coming back and asking for pounds. That would have come from Crash Crew or a supevisor knowing that the question from Crash Crew was probably coming. Controllers could care less how ‘much’ fuel, just how much time. Crash Crew is interested in how big a fireball they may have to be dealing with.
 
Grum.Man said:
It has always bugged me that Sully was cast as such a hero and now this lady. I mean, if they had the option to jump out with a parachute on versus landing the airplane and saving hundreds of lives that's one thing. We all train for engine out scenarios from day 1 of private pilot training. As others have said, her and Sully acted on their training and did their job. That's why they make 300k a year or more.
Click to expand...
That's the media for you, and what the public seems to want. Everyone has to be a hero, villain, or victim.
 
Grum.Man said:
That's why they make 300k a year or more.
Click to expand...

If pay were connected to piloting skill, fighter pilots would make $500k a year and Naval Aviators would make more than that:cool:.

Not to denigrate the skill involved in such emergencies but IMNSHO the skill difference between a regional pilot at $30k and a main line pilot at $300k is vanishing small.

Cheers
 
Ryanb said:
Yup, and that’s how I pictured it here, but I might be wrong.
Click to expand...
The difference is that in Sully's case, the landing was imminent whereas the Southwest deal had time to do things. Two different situations with two different needs to do it differently.
 
Last edited:
Since we are 48 hours out, lets stir the pot and ask how much damage there would have been if the engine had ingested a drone, causing a blade to break...
 
Greg Bockelman said:
The difference is that in Sully's case, the landing was imminent whereas the Southwest deal had time to do things. Two different situations with btwo different needs to do it differently.
Click to expand...
Ah. That makes sense!
 
wsuffa said:
Since we are 48 hours out, lets stir the pot and ask how much damage there would have been if the engine had ingested a drone, causing a blade to break...
Click to expand...

I think the whole thing was caused by an improperly mounted GoPro. :)
 
Last edited:
Grum.Man said:
It has always bugged me that Sully was cast as such a hero and now this lady.
Click to expand...
Anyone know who Denny Fitch was?
As others have said, her and Sully acted on their training and did their job. That's why they make 300k a year or more.
Click to expand...
I don't think Sully broke $200,000. And a SW Captain makes mid to upper 200's. I think only widebody Captains routinely make over $300,000 at the legacy carriers.

Nitpicking aside, you make a good point.
 
Sully was making about $125/hr when he put it in the Hudson. The post bankruptcy years were tough on everyone, but that Airways contract was particularly brutal.

Things are good now, but people tend to forget how this industry can be when on the downswing.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Anyone know who Denny Fitch was?
Click to expand...
Sioux City was 1989.

Just the other day I was reading a 1972 article from Air Progress magazine, "Trijet from Douglas," by Ted Janczarek. It contains this eerily prophetic passage:

"A feeling of uneasiness creeps into a DC-10 pilot conversation when the discussion centers around the subject of total hydraulic failure. There is NO mechanical control system back-up, as in other airline types. The thought of complete loss of all hydraulic systems is quite remote. But should the unfortunate circumstance somehow occur, the aircraft is doomed to certain destruction."​
 
X3 Skier said:
If pay were connected to piloting skill, fighter pilots would make $500k a year and Naval Aviators would make more than that:cool:.

Not to denigrate the skill involved in such emergencies but IMNSHO the skill difference between a regional pilot at $30k and a main line pilot at $300k is vanishing small.

Cheers
Click to expand...

It's an indirect correlation since airline pay is almost entirely based on years of experience and flight time. One would like to think a guy with 20k hours would be more skilled than one with 1500. Along the same token, a guy with 20k hours of 737 time probably lacks the stick and rudder skills of a 1500 guy unless they also fly small planes for a hobby.
 
Grum.Man said:
It's an indirect correlation since airline pay is almost entirely based on years of experience and flight time. One would like to think a guy with 20k hours would be more skilled than one with 1500. Along the same token, a guy with 20k hours of 737 time probably lacks the stick and rudder skills of a 1500 guy unless they also fly small planes for a hobby.
Click to expand...

Droning across the ocean or trans con for hours at a time on the way to 20000 hours vs days of one hour hops around the country at 2000 hours doesn't measure a real difference to me. I still think anybody flying for an airline likely has equivalent skills to handle an in-flight emergency and salary doesn’t measure a real difference in that skill.

Even I survived an engine failure, put it on the runway unscathed and I don’t even get paid:D.

Cheers
 
Grum.Man said:
It has always bugged me that Sully was cast as such a hero and now this lady. I mean, if they had the option to jump out with a parachute on versus landing the airplane and saving hundreds of lives that's one thing. We all train for engine out scenarios from day 1 of private pilot training. As others have said, her and Sully acted on their training and did their job. That's why they make 300k a year or more.
Click to expand...

To me, the difference is that there are surely written procedures for engine failure and depressurization, whereas there aren't written procedures for ALL engines failing. One of them is trained for, while the other was a "use your knowledge and experience and come up with your own solution" type of situation.
 
Grum.Man said:
a guy with 20k hours of 737 time probably lacks the stick and rudder skills of a 1500 guy unless they also fly small planes for a hobby.
Click to expand...
Um, you really should try landing a 737 in a 30+kt crosswind sometime with a 160+kt target speed on final.

flyingcheesehead said:
To me, the difference is that there are surely written procedures for engine failure and depressurization, whereas there aren't written procedures for ALL engines failing.
Click to expand...
Sure there are. It wouldn't have been too helpful at low-altitude with two damaged engines, though. It is designed to restart one, or both, of the engines. They didn't have time to do many checklists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top