Another 737 mishap

[y_p_w]

Yes, I like the old movies from the 70's and 80's - Plenty of Boeing 707's with the 4 engines and massive black exhaust coming out of them. Those were made during a time where Boeing's reputation was stellar.

The series Pan Am (from 2011) featured 707s. I'm thinking it was a lot of CGI, but it was interesting where they has a nighttime scene showing the (multiple) nozzles of the turbojets shooting flames. You definitely don't see that on modern turbofans.

 

[Exhaustgases]

It's obvious what happened with that panel. That plane has a honey bee problem.

 

[fdcg27]

What mainly changed was that the airlines established standardized procedures which cockpit crew were expected to adhere to and also enforced a concept of crew resource management. If you have at least two and in the old days many times three pilot qualified personnel in the cockpit, they should all always have something to do and out of that crew compliment, somebody should always be the pilot flying and somebody else should be the pilot monitoring. The guy flying should do that and the other(s) could engage in radio comms and troubleshooting as needed. IOW, spread the workload across the resources you have on hand. It shouldn't be all the guy in the left seat.
In the bad old days when accidents happened at least monthly, things like a crew of three allowing a new L-1011 on a passenger flight to descend into the Everglades while all three of them tried to figure out a light bulb failure with nobody flying or monitoring the aircraft did happen. Planes that had awful records early on ended up quite safe as standards improved, the 727 being a salient example.
Today these accidents don't happen, mainly through standardization to best practice procedures and better use of the available resources in the cockpit.

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

What mainly changed was that the airlines established standardized procedures which cockpit crew were expected to adhere to and also enforced a concept of crew resource management. If you have at least two and in the old days many times three pilot qualified personnel in the cockpit, they should all always have something to do and out of that crew compliment, somebody should always be the pilot flying and somebody else should be the pilot monitoring. The guy flying should do that and the other(s) could engage in radio comms and troubleshooting as needed. IOW, spread the workload across the resources you have on hand. It shouldn't be all the guy in the left seat.
In the bad old days when accidents happened at least monthly, things like a crew of three allowing a new L-1011 on a passenger flight to descend into the Everglades while all three of them tried to figure out a light bulb failure with nobody flying or monitoring the aircraft did happen. Planes that had awful records early on ended up quite safe as standards improved, the 727 being a salient example.
Today these accidents don't happen, mainly through standardization to best practice procedures and better use of the available resources in the cockpit.

Airlines always had SOP’s ( standard operating procedures based on recommendations by the aircraft manufacturer and ultimately approved by that countries aviation regulatory authority ) but CRM was new when it first showed up in the early 1980’s after a few high profile accidents caused by pilot error.

CRM made it easier for other crew members to speak up if a Captain wasn’t following SOPs intentionally, or missed something.

CRM and innovations like TCAS, GPWS ( downward looking only ….little advance warning terrain is rising ) and EGPWS ( predictive, based on GPS database ) made a big difference in my opinion. CFIT ( losing situational awareness and flying into high terrain ) doesn’t happen nearly as much as it used to.

Today, most airlines have in-house flight data analysis which means flight ops will know if pilots are not complying with SOPs in major ways.

 

[fdcg27]

Today, most airlines have in-house flight data analysis which means flight ops will know if pilots are not complying with SOPs in major ways.

Exactly, which is the reason that I wrote about adherence to SOPs. While operating standards may have always existed, they were often ignored. Check out the first year or so of 727 operation and you'll see what I mean.

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

Today, most airlines have in-house flight data analysis which means flight ops will know if pilots are not complying with SOPs in major ways.

Exactly, which is the reason that I wrote about adherence to SOPs. While operating standards may have always existed, they were often ignored. Check out the first year or so of 727 operation and you'll see what I mean.

No, you said the airlines established standard operating procedures.

Of coarse they are going to expect pilots to follow them if they have them. The airline, and aviation regulatory authority will insist on it.

One of the main things airlines watch for is SOP compliance.

I flew the B727. It was a fast, slick machine.

Accidents on the 727 were not caused by pilots not following SOPs primarily ( maybe one I can think of ) , they were the result of pilots not having much experience flying an advanced, swept wing turbo jet.

Some Captain coming off a large, straight wing turbo prop , then going direct Captain on a B727 in the 1960’s was a huge move. Heavier, faster, 3 crew, swept wing , slow response turbo jet engines ( dangerous if at idle on approach if not careful ).

Please share any B727 crashes ( when it was first introduced ) that were the result of pilots not following SOPS if you are aware of them.

I will search but I am not aware of any, just pilot error.

 

[fdcg27]

No, you said the airlines established standard operating procedures.

Of coarse they are going to expect pilots to follow them if they have them. The airline, and aviation regulatory authority will insist on it.

One of the main things airlines watch for is SOP compliance.

I flew the B727. It was a fast, slick machine.

Accidents on the 727 were not caused by pilots not following SOPs primarily ( maybe one I can think of ) , they were the result of pilots not having much experience flying an advanced, swept wing turbo jet.

Some Captain coming off a large, straight wing turbo prop , then going direct Captain on a B727 in the 1960’s was a huge move. Heavier, faster, 3 crew, swept wing , slow response turbo jet engines ( dangerous if at idle on approach if not careful ).

Please share any B727 crashes ( when it was first introduced ) that were the result of pilots not following SOPS if you are aware of them.

I will search but I am not aware of any, just pilot error.

Umm, just take a look at the first year of operations of the 727.
Putting an airliner into the ground because you used full flaps at engine idle and waited too late to apply power cannot have been an SOP.
And yes, airlines do establish SOPs for their crews.

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

Umm, just take a look at the first year of operations of the 727.
Putting an airliner into the ground because you used full flaps at engine idle and waited too late to apply power cannot have been an SOP.
And yes, airlines do establish SOPs for their crews.

You’re in over your head in this section like you were when you blamed the Air Alaska pilot for putting the landing gear through the wing and never had the honesty to admit you were wrong ( said the plane was designed that way to avoid another MD11 type accident like in Japan ). That 737 was not pilot error, it was you thinking you understand stuff that you don’t. You were wrong.

If you hang out in this section expect to be corrected when you talk about stuff you don’t understand.

I have no clue what you are trying to say ….” And yes, airlines do establish SOPS for their crews”

I never said they don’t.

I have never flown for an airline that had ( even on the B727 ) anything written about landing flaps and thrust UNTIL the advent ( like CRM ) of stable approaches.

Airlines didn’t teach crews about stable approach’s in the 1960’s, or even late 1990’s.

Nothing in the Airbus manual that says a pilot must have thrust above idle when full flaps and on final.

That only showed up in our stable approach policy about 10 years ago.

Some pilots were flying the 727 like a large turbo prop.

I bet Boeing issued advice to airlines after a few of those crashes.

Alaska Airlines B737 landing gear collapsed due to fractured pin: NTSB - AeroTime

The NTSB says in a preliminary report that an Alaska Airlines Boeing 737 suffered a fractured pin upon landing and the aircraft did not experience a hard landing.

www.aerotime.aero

The Boeing 727's Early Struggles With Excessive Descent Speeds & Sink Rates

Pilots had trouble learning to fly the jet due to the aircraft's ability to descend fast.

simpleflying.com

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

All B727 pilots had to receive additional training, and, Boeing modified its flight manuals after the crashes.

I vaguely recall hearing that and here it is in this story.

Inexperience on the B727.

One if the two airlines I flew for that operated B727 aircraft, would not allow senior Captains to go from the large turbo prop left seat directly into the left seat of the B727 ( 1980s ), they had to fly as an FO first.

They flew to some demanding places ( on the ice off Greenland, short gravel strips, at night, all non precision dark hole approaches ). They hired a few contract Captains that were retired from major u.s airlines ( Delta iirc ).

https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN1R62HI/

 

[fdcg27]

You’re in over your head in this section like you were when you blamed the Air Alaska pilot for putting the landing gear through the wing and never had the honesty to admit you were wrong ( said the plane was designed that way to avoid another MD11 type accident like in Japan ). That 737 was not pilot error, it was you thinking you understand stuff that you don’t. You were wrong.

If you hang out in this section expect to be corrected when you talk about stuff you don’t understand.

I have no clue what you are trying to say ….” And yes, airlines do establish SOPS for their crews”

I never said they don’t.

I have never flown for an airline that had ( even on the B727 ) anything written about landing flaps and thrust UNTIL the advent ( like CRM ) of stable approaches.

Airlines didn’t teach crews about stable approach’s in the 1960’s, or even late 1990’s.

Nothing in the Airbus manual that says a pilot must have thrust above idle when full flaps and on final.

That only showed up in our stable approach policy about 10 years ago.

Some pilots were flying the 727 like a large turbo prop.

I bet Boeing issued advice to airlines after a few of those crashes.

Alaska Airlines B737 landing gear collapsed due to fractured pin: NTSB - AeroTime

The NTSB says in a preliminary report that an Alaska Airlines Boeing 737 suffered a fractured pin upon landing and the aircraft did not experience a hard landing.

www.aerotime.aero

The Boeing 727's Early Struggles With Excessive Descent Speeds & Sink Rates

Pilots had trouble learning to fly the jet due to the aircraft's ability to descend fast.

simpleflying.com

Okay, you think I'm in way over my head.
Fair enough.
You may well be wrong, but that matters not at all to me nor most here.
Fair winds to you.

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

Okay, you think I'm in way over my head.
Fair enough.
You may well be wrong, but that matters not at all to me nor most here.
Fair winds to you.

I know you talk about stuff you don’t understand, I heard what you said about the Air Alaska incident and how you disrespected the crew by blaming them and not having the integrity to offer an apology to them and admit your were wrong. Even when you were questioned about it, you doubled down.

It’s a place to discuss things but when people are arrogant and won’t admit they are wrong, not many will take them serious , or respect them, in the future.

Don’t speak on behalf of other members whether they care about my experience talking about stuff related to flying. That’s another disrespectful thing.

I don’t hang out ( i just share my own experince about tires, etc ) in other sections, I let far more knowledgeable people than me talk ( and debate ) about stuff and I learn in the process.

As far as flying goes, I have been flying for 40 years, about 26,000 hours, many companies and have an excellent reputation.

How much flying experince do you have, which airlines did you fly for to feel that other members care about what you say with all due respect?

Anytime people at BITOG don’t want me to share my opinion, please let me know. Block me.

I don’t need to be on BITOG, I joined because I felt I had expertise and could add to the discussion in an informed way.

 

[Astro14]

I know you talk about stuff you don’t understand, I heard what you said about the Air Alaska incident and how you disrespected the crew by blaming them and not having the integrity to offer an apology to them and admit your were wrong. Even when you were questioned about it, you doubled down.

It’s a place to discuss things but when people are arrogant and won’t admit they are wrong, not many will take them serious , or respect them, in the future.

Don’t speak on behalf of other members whether they care about my experience talking about stuff related to flying. That’s another disrespectful thing.

I don’t hang out ( i just share my own experince about tires, etc ) in other sections, I let far more knowledgeable people than me talk ( and debate ) about stuff and I learn in the process.

As far as flying goes, I have been flying for 40 years, about 26,000 hours, many companies and have an excellent reputation.

How much flying experince do you have, which airlines did you fly for to feel that other members care about what you say with all due respect?

Anytime people at BITOG don’t want me to share my opinion, please let me know. Block me.

I don’t need to be on BITOG, I joined because I felt I had expertise and could add to the discussion in an informed way.

@Just a civilian pilot - I consider myself experienced in flying airplanes, but I have changed my opinion based on the points you have made, and your experience.

Difficult to find consensus, at times, when the topic is as complex as flying, but I am better for your participation.

Doesn’t mean we will always agree, of course, but I am glad you’re here. I say that as a peer, if you will allow me the courtesy of calling you that.

With that said, I think the discussion in this thread has become a bit too heated. I would like to invite us all to take a step back from the discussion, for a little while.

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

@Just a civilian pilot - I consider myself experienced in flying airplanes, but I have changed my opinion based on the points you have made, and your experience.

Difficult to find consensus, at times, when the topic is as complex as flying, but I am better for your participation.

Doesn’t mean we will always agree, of course, but I am glad you’re here. I say that as a peer, if you will allow me the courtesy of calling you that.

With that said, I think the discussion in this thread has become a bit too heated. I would like to invite us all to take a step back from the discussion, for a little while.

Thank you.

Astro, you are one of the most experienced, and knowledgeable pilots ( and person ) I have "met". I feel the same way about you.

I don't want to leave anyone the impression I do not like non pilots disagreeing with me because that's not good for any forum, it turns people off and is disrespectful.

I don't know everything and if I am wrong I like to think I will admit I am wrong ( same in the cockpit ).

Glad the thread didn't get locked for other members.

Good call.

 

[redhat]

As someone who doesn’t fly, but might have to start due to work (currently out of work but potential traveling IT work could be very lucrative). I have some questions.

What in a domestic airline should I look for?
Are there certain ones to avoid?

I understand perhaps not having a choice always based upon start and destination (may have to take a regional carrier)?

Are there anything considerations I should take as a traveler for safety, reliably of flight, any thing else?

I literally know nothing beyond buying a ticket and getting through Buffalo Niagara. I have flown American Airlines once. My idea of traveling is gassing up the ‘ole Tahoe and putting ‘er on the interstate… but of course I cannot do that if work dictates.

 

[edyvw]

As someone who doesn’t fly, but might have to start due to work (currently out of work but potential traveling IT work could be very lucrative). I have some questions.

What in a domestic airline should I look for?
Are there certain ones to avoid?

I understand perhaps not having a choice always based upon start and destination (may have to take a regional carrier)?

Are there anything considerations I should take as a traveler for safety, reliably of flight, any thing else?

I literally know nothing beyond buying a ticket and getting through Buffalo Niagara. I have flown American Airlines once. My idea of traveling is gassing up the ‘ole Tahoe and putting ‘er on the interstate… but of course I cannot do that if work dictates.

Not that you will have choice, but I never think twice when I get into any US based airline. Are there some flaws in the system? Yes. It is human endeavor, and there are and will be holes in the system. But, pilots from the time they enroll in the training to retirement are part of the system that is not exceptional because people are really good pilots, but because it is very well designed to be reflective of its mistakes and learn from them.
It is one of the few branches where people are very well aware that they must learn throughout their career. And that culture works really, really well in North America.

Now, I personally always preferred Delta, but I think that was because somehow alcohol was flowing there in higher quantities! Now due to location, I am on United most of the time, or Southwest. I prefer UAL, but only bcs. philosophical reasons. I am stuck on SouthWest twice in April.

 

[Astro14]

I have a strong bias for Delta and United. Best training, best operational performance. I’ve worked at Delta’s training center, seen their operation. It’s impressive. United runs a good operation, and their app is simply industry leading and puts everything you need at your fingertips. United has more direct flights worldwide than anyone.

American has operational challenges, reliability and delay issues. Losing money when they should be making it. They’re struggling.

SWA is a good airline, but they don’t offer much (near zero) in the way of international destinations, and I don’t care for the boarding and seat assignment process.

Please let me add that you should avoid Spirit. Lousy operational metrics, awful clientele, and they likely won’t be here in a few years. Jet Blue is struggling. Unhappy employees, cutting routes, losing money.

I say this as a former Diamond Medallion on Delta, 1K on United, and current pilot for United.

Your geography will drive the choice. Where do you live? Where do you need to go?

For example, my daughter lives in Salt Lake City. A major Delta hub. She had a need to travel a lot this year. On my recommendation, she’s a Delta Skymiles member, uses the Delta Skymiles AMEX.

Delta takes great care of her. 15 trips this year (interviews) and on time for every one of them.

 

[edyvw]

I have a strong bias for Delta and United. Best training, best operational performance. I’ve worked at Delta’s training center, seen their operation. It’s impressive. United runs a good operation, and their app is simply industry leading and puts everything you need at your fingertips. United has more direct flights worldwide than anyone.

American has operational challenges, reliability and delay issues. Losing money when they should be making it. They’re struggling.

SWA is a good airline, but they don’t offer much (near zero) in the way of international destinations, and I don’t care for the boarding and seat assignment process.

Please let me add that you should avoid Spirit. Lousy operational metrics, awful clientele, and they likely won’t be here in a few years. Jet Blue is struggling. Unhappy employees, cutting routes, losing money.

I say this as a former Diamond Medallion on Delta, 1K on United, and current pilot for United.

Your geography will drive the choice. Where do you live? Where do you need to go?

For example, my daughter lives in Salt Lake City. A major Delta hub. She had a need to travel a lot this year. On my recommendation, she’s a Delta Skymiles member, uses the Delta Skymiles AMEX.

Delta takes great care of her. 15 trips this year (interviews) and on time for every one of them.

 

[fdcg27]

I guess I really hit a nerve with one member and one can observe this across multiple threads.
We have differences of opinion and reach different conclusions as to cause.
This should not be an issue since this is a forum dedicated to the free exchange of observations and thoughts.
I don't think I've been arrogant and I am always willing to admit to my own errors, but there can be no errors in opinion, only in matters of fact.

 

[Skippy722]

This one is fake (ATC doesn’t call out a “possible pilot deviation, I have a number for you to copy”), but makes me chuckle…

 

[Astro14]

I guess I really hit a nerve with one member and one can observe this across multiple threads.
We have differences of opinion and reach different conclusions as to cause.
This should not be an issue since this is a forum dedicated to the free exchange of observations and thoughts.
I don't think I've been arrogant and I am always willing to admit to my own errors, but there can be no errors in opinion, only in matters of fact.

On that point, we must disagree as well.

Many people have opinions that are unsupported, based on superficial analysis, or are just plain wrong. Not saying that’s you, but in this thread, there are many posts that are flat out wrong. Opinion?

Sure, they’re opinion, but just like our friend who expressed his opinion that the SR-71 flew at over 300,000 feet, and that rockets don’t fly horizontal to get to space, some of the opinions are wrong. Just plain wrong.

So, on the matter of Eastern 401 - the L-1011 that crashed into the Everglades - it was a classic example of human error. While focused on the gear indicator - the autopilot was bumped off, and everyone was so focused on the gear, that nobody noticed, and they flew a perfectly good airplane into the ground.

No SOP fixed that. You’re only partly right that it was fixed by CRM. CRM began in earnest after United 173, in 1978, a very similar case of human error. So focused on the landing gear, that they ran out of fuel. In both cases, while troubleshooting a landing gear indication, a perfectly good airplane crashed.

You’re reducing the entire discipline of CRM into a simple SOP of “everybody should be doing something” but that is like saying surgery is “cutting, then sewing” when really important bit is what to cut, how to cut, and why you cut. I wish I had more time, but to learn what CRM entails takes days, and can’t be reduced to a post.

CRM is a change in how crews interact. It’s a discipline, not just a practice, It’s about leadership, prioritization, and task management. It started at United, and is industry accepted. It includes threat and error management. Identification of threats, applying mitigation strategies, recognizing and repairing errors, recovering an airplane from an undesired state.

SOP is how you perform a task. Simple. Limited in scope.

CRM is a great deal more.

Eastern Air Lines Flight 401 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

United Airlines Flight 173 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org