Southwest DESCENDS DANGEROUSLY LOW | Triggers Low Altitude Alert!
Vložit
- čas přidán 5. 09. 2024
- Your support is really important and appreciated to keep these videos coming! =)
-- / vasaviation
-- paypal.me/VASA...
Become a VIP member of VASAviation! -- / @vasaviation
Flying Eyes 10% OFF: flyingeyesopti...
Join VASAviation's Discord -- / discord
Twitter/Facebook/Instagram -- @VASAviation
Audio source: www.liveatc.net/
Yea, we'll go around. (We were just lining up on an municipal parking lot.)
walmart parking lot.. they heard there was a sale going on tonight
High School football field lol
Related:
I had another instructor's student on a stage check (evaluation flight) at night,
line me up to land on a mall parking lot.
Obviously, I told his instructor that "Bob has an opportunity to improve his situational awareness at night via more night training" :)
Could they have had their altimeter calibrated incorrectly, thus showing the incorrect AGL, or perhaps using AMSL? OKC is at 1296 feet. Even if so, it still seems pretty low for nine miles out.
@@lawrencewestby9229 Unlikely.
From a former airline pilot who still instructs as a hobby...
Pilots get altimeter settings from ATC during handovers from controller to controller, when flying under 18K feet ....
... and also via ATIS, a recorded and updated info report directly from the landing airport via radio.
Pilots are always asked if they have the current ATIS by ATC prior to it approving an approach.
"You good bro?" is the LAST THING you want to hear coming from ATC, holy shit.
wasn't that big of a deal, relax cupcake
I listened to it three times, "Are you good out there?" was what I heard. What would YOU prefer he had said?
I think it's actually "aye bro watch yo jet."
@@chocolatecoveredgummybearswhat
@@chrismoore9433daddy chill
Was just reading a story about this. When the ATC asks you if you’re good, you’re not good.
Lining up to land at a road. And doing it in FAA's backyard too. Ballsy.
He was lining up on the FAA's parking lot.
“Uhh, Southwest 4069, possible pilot deviation, say when ready to write down a number… sorry, stand by… (few seconds go by). SWA4069, disregard last, they just advised they’re walking over to take care of this face-to-face.”
SWA4069 declares a divert to their secondary.
I'd definitely keep an eye on him when he says "field in sight" the second time considering he said he had it in sight the first time. YIKES
He might have meant a corn field.
Yep which field??? Awfully calm pilot for nearly CFIT. Believe FAA is investigating this one.
Clearly PAPI was not in sight!
When they turned him north the field was out of sight. Proper to call out when it was in sight again. Massive blindspots on that 737!
@@ajg617Juan Brown said that they are.
Reminds me of the Eastern Airlines Flight 401 ATC guy saying "How are things coming along out there?" right before the plane went down due to low altitude from lack of situational awareness. Glad this controller caught it and spoke up.
CLT. They were talking about a tower or ride at CaroWinds amusement park or something on final. That Stephen Colbert guy who was on Comedy Central...one of his siblings, if not more, were on that flight and died in the crash.
I read an alarm alerted this controller??
@@sailormann1 His two brothers and father.
@@wannabetrucker7475 Approach ATC equipment includes low altitude warning systems. Often times in the past they were ignored due to nuisance warnings. They are generally taken more serious these days.
😞 RIP 401 pax and crew
That controller is top notch! After he alerted SW, his instructions were clear concise and appropriate.
Wasn't taking any chances
Living south of ATL we occasionally have a go-around come over the house at 3000'. Very noticeable. Can't imagine 600ft. He'd be flying under any med-evac helicopters. 🙂
That would've been a hell of a mess
i think they were lined up for a visual on Oklahoma St Highway 4...
Which could be plausible
Possibly lined up with Old Oklahoma Hwy 4? Can't imagine it would be lit up like an active runway, but it's directly in line with Rwy 13, and the start of that alignment is exactly 9 miles from the threshold of Rwy 13.
This makes more sense, the intersecting roads and highway also look similar to the airport layout at OKC
That was my thought. There is also a parallel railroad track that might have made the highway appear wider. Also, it is otherwise undeveloped, but with a residential development to the NW and commercial to the SE. I recall pilots often saying they pick out airfields at night by looking for dark areas in an otherwise lit up city. It also intersects I-344, which is roughly in line with 17R-35L.
This is for sure what happened
This makes sense…
I try never to fly visual approaches, but especially at night.
“There’s a runway down there somewhere…”
I have a friend who lives in the area of this, and he physically saw this aircraft and immediately panicked at how low it was compared to all the other traffic.
He is checking his home cameras to see if one caught it.
Tell him to email me if he does
@@VASAviation will do :)
Yeah would love to see the video
@@VASAviationwhas11 channel has it, I think
czcams.com/video/z3Hyb3C7B6s/video.htmlsi=2dcezPHD702Y3-V9
This is why you fly instrument approaches at night, especially into big city airports.
This is why you back it up with an available approach ALWAYS
Too lazy to tune an approach freq???? I wonder what this crew will do with their 90 days off.
@@atpg5 non precision runway, but there's always GPS
@@philtll I dont mean this to be derogatory tordards SWA or airlines in general, but I dont think many SWA liners have state of the art navigation. I am used to flying state of the art Gulfstreams that shoot curve approaches and LPVs to very low minimums. Be well sir
@@atpg5 SW implemented RNP years ago, it's supposedly company policy to backup all visuals, but something clearly went amiss here
@@philtll Thanks, appreciate the information. Be well.
Got to love the Chuck Yeager-like attitude from the PM even though they were probably getting EGPWS left and right in there.
It’s amazing how much Chuck Yeager’s drawl spread among pilots after he rocketed to fame for his Sound Barrier run in the Bell X-1. Tom Wolfe has a whole section about how Yeager influenced radio calls in “The Right Stuff” and how a whole generation of pilots who came to Edwards AFB from the Northeast even began to pick up his West Virginia drawl & cool as a cucumber radio demeanor.
GRound Prox Warning wasnt a factor. - They pulled the breaker.
They were going to land at the wrong airport likely with gear down and landing flaps. GPWS was not likely activated
@@816928
Could be. Not sure what airports are there. Or, it was something that looked like a runway.
SW landed at the wrong field in Missouri a few years ago.
@@WT-ShermanI don’t see any on the map overlay.
Southwest, field at 1 o'clock, 8 miles, contact ground.
Night time visuals, after a potential long day, is asking for errors. Keep it simple… Full automation, ILS approach, if available, or next lower approach, and then disconnect below 1000’ when close in with the runway clearly in sight . No need to hot dog it in.
Most pilots I fly with, train with, will state the night visual approach is the hardest unsafest approach there is. Be well Captin
I think this is the same airport where FedEx landed on the wrong runway on a visual approach, too
Voice recorder will tell the story, if both pilots were distracted or if the FMS was set incorrectly, then the call out read back check was never done.
Voice recorder probably will turn out to be overwritten...
You can’t really set an FMS to land 9 miles short of the threshold unless they have set a waypoint to be an altitude “at or below”.
@@EdOeuna FMS can be set, and normally is, to give a status failure or warning if the terrain proximity and runway GPS do not match up. Distance to runway, relative to your heading and known altitude.
@@japc4326 - I believe that the 777 and 737 FMS’s are different so I’m not familiar with,air with the 737 functionalities.
Ahh, my home airport. Glad everything worked out ok. Very familiar with the area and the airfield, yep that is very low especially over residential areas.
Can you imagine, 😳
Wow!
honestly, to screw up like that in Realtime and sound so nonchalant is a gift! As a Captain for a major airline about to retire in a little over a year I hope you start to take a more active role in your pilot monitoring responsibly in the future. We know the flying pilot was having a bad day but you too...
"Ehhh, Southwest 4069, possible pilot deviation, I have a number for you.
Actually, for this deviation, I have multiple numbers for you."
Crew - your number was almost UP !
"You good out there?"
"We're good. Permission to buzz the tower.".
That was a different SW flight...
@@Wolfeson28 LOL
They *literally* buzzed Yukon High School --- adding power right overtop of it.
My guess the FAA will be having a chat with this pilot.
Correction. The crew.
Minimum of two pilots are required
@VASAviation only 1.5 were present unfortunately.
@@VASAviation 0.5+0.5 = 1
Let me guess, it will be a one way conversation.
He sounds exhausted, also the fact that he said “going around” 9 miles from the airport tells me that he thought he was lined up with a runway when he was actually lined up with a road.
Going around would be the best way to recover from this situation. It takes both pilots into a set procedure and cleans up the aircraft appropriately. They can still cock it up if they haven’t already set the missed approach altitude yet.
The sequel to Air Crash Investigations: Air almost Crash Investigations. Pilot episode is Air Canada 759, 2nd ep is this
When pilot fatigue was mentioned as a possibility on the news about this incident, my first thought went to Colgan 3407. Only time and an investigation (already underway) will tell us exactly what happened here, but thankfully, everyone survived unscathed, and we can hopefully learn something from this incident.
When I think I'm getting close to being fatigued and I'm not 100%, I use as many tools as possible that are available to me to make my workload as low as possible. The amazing tech available today makes it very easy.
Colgan wasn't fatigue, it was pure incompetence
@@zlcju Indeed it was. Marvin Renslow (the captain of Colgan 3407) should have never been behind the controls of that airplane.
@@russell7926 nor the female FO who put the flaps up uncommanded during the stall
It wasn't just the captain at fault. The NTSB could not explain why the first officer retracted the flaps and suggested that the landing gear should also be retracted.
She was a liability not help in that tragedy.
Your fast input of straight-up audio & graphics adds to the great credibility of Blancolirio's NO-BS, factual briefings like this. Well done! All of these rest-of-the-story, exacting aviation details make for a reliable, go-to source. I recall the Eastern Flight 401, L-1011 (1972) which slowly descended into the Everglades while the crew was distracted with a faulty gear-down condition light. I believe that the altitude hold they had set was inadvertently bumped "off" while they both leaned in to look at the panel gear lights, and the "C-chord" warning chime (later determined to be easily missed) went unheard by the crew when the big jet eased away from it's (low, holding) altitude. Today, fast access to investigative details and the improvement /corrective changes that follow these events, offered up to all of us in ADs & NTSB initial / final reports -- greatly augmented by what YOU add to the initial reports graphic & audio impact -- make for a valuable learning and refresher source.
"Hey so what are ya doing out there, Chief?"
That controller probably saved many lives with that low altitude alert.
Or, Sorry about that Chief. ;-)
Always on the ball Vas. Thank you for this channel. Almost left without giving it a like which is criminal.
Haha thanks
The approach for runway 13 goes right over my work. It's about 2 miles from the runway threshold, so this guy had to have been insanely low, being at the altitude he was and still with that far to go.
The pilots might've visually mistaken Interstate 40 for the airport where it turns southeast, on nearly the same 130° heading as the runway, near the Canadian Valley Hospital 10 miles from the OC airport. The visual mistake would've been made about 10 to 20 miles northwest of the OC airport.
@@Raiders33 Then they're not very good pilots if you can't tell the difference in runway lighting, as well as the decision line lighting, and no PAPI lights.
@@douglasiles2024 SWA4069 called “field in sight” at a range of *13 statute mi.* from AER RWY 13. So, no, I doubt they saw runway lights, the PAPI, or flashing neon FBO signs from that range with confirmation. That was at the 2700 altitude in the video, while flying east not 130°, over N. Richland Rd. just south of Sunshine Rd. on the ADS-B flight path map. That’s why there are other theories.
The theory that SWA4069 might have mistaken Rt.4 / RR tracks / I-40 for KOKC, is because the lowest point on their 130° approach at 1,725 MSL / 429 AGL was above the house at 1208 Oakwood Dr. and E Vandament Dr. which is only about 850 feet from Rt. 4 / RR tracks. It's 9 statute mi from SWA4069's lowest altitude at 1208 Oakwood Dr. to RWY 13.
Even though 4069 was VFR, they flew close to the CAMET THREE ARRIVAL or a little south. 4069 should’ve maintained 4000 from the DAWKS IAF to the WABUT IF, but they descended by over 2,000 feet. Maybe they thought they had passed WABUT, and turned to the 130° heading thinking they were at the ELUCK FAF on the same 4 mi final as the RNAV approach and descended accordingly.
There's a reason a lot of airlines don't do night visuals. There's a reason we load the ILS or available approach (RNAV 13) into the FMS even in CAVU wx.
Pilot communicating sounds tired especially for one who just got a low alt alert and a "Are you alright? from ATC.
Thanks for the video🙏
The system worked.
Part of the system worked! Shouldn't the pilots know their altitude 9 miles out?
don't know much about how it works, but shoudn't the cockpit hve had low altitude warnings or below glide slope alarms going off long before the ATC called in?
Conveniently enough, FAA is located on the field!
FAA HQ is located at 800 Independence Ave SW in Washington, DC. The facility at Oklahoma City is the FAA Academy, best known as a training facility for FAA air traffic controllers.
They wouldn't be located there any more if that plane didn't land right. Yikes.
“Yep, we have the airport road and some really bright fast food chain signs in sight.” Hamburger Hill we called it in San Antonio.
I can’t think of an acceptable excuse or reason they would be flying visual and lurking around almost at the MDA looking for a runway that is actually miles away. There is a RNAV GPS approach for 13 with LP and LNAV guidance; obviously not dialed into anything on the panel. Or was there a localized GPS outage or jamming that affected their positioning?? There are ways to cross check that.
They could also have chosen 17 initially - which has several categories of ILS and RNAV approaches. I am not even instrument rated but set up my avionics for applicable instrument approaches as a secondary verification of glideslope guidance and runway verification.
Discovery on this one is going to be interesting.
Maybe they saw the wrong airport?
@@VASAviationThought about that also, but they were already abeam KRCE and KHSD with KPWA well left of their course. They were sort of aligned with KOKC, but at least 9 miles short of the field and almost at MDA. Redefines dive and drive..! Thanks, Victor for the awesome videos you produce. They are much appreciated and relied upon by the aviation community.
@@sonoftherepublic9792yeah I totally agree. Feels like they didn’t load the RNAV 13 and/or PM wasn’t monitoring the advisory glidepath properly. Don’t think it was lining up for another airport, more likely a ground feature they mistook for a runway.
Is it SWA company policy to load an instrument approach to back up visuals? My understanding is that it is NOT required.
I could be mistaken
@@soccerguy2433I believe it is company policy, yes. As far as I know all major 121 operators in the US require their pilots to load an approach if available, even if on the visual. FAA does not require it, but they suggest it (as best practice for all instrument pilots).
Somewhat interesting; the lowest altitude (1800ft) corresponds to the last on the approach chart (FITSO at 1.4nm) and might have been their decision altitude (obv way too early to be that low)
There are those pilots that have lined up on the wrong airport/runway, and those that will. But usually that happens before you make it to the majors.
I believe I remember from a Mentour Pilot video that after a low altitude alert, ATC is supposed to confirm the pilots have the correct QNH or whatever they are using. Is there a reason this wasn't done here?
Might be a European procedure. I haven't heard that in the US.
My first thought was altimeter setting might be wrong
@@pilotcritic I checked the video again. It was during a landing in Paris, so it might be a european thing.
@@eskinkc They had no trouble maintaining the altitude assigned after the go around with no apparent discussion about alt. setting, so that doesn't appear to be the issue. Good guess though.
The correct FAA phraseology is Low altitude alert. Check your altitude immediately. (if outside of FAF) The MVA in your area is ___.
Maybe the FAA isn’t wrong for publishing tower light outages for 50 ft obstacles 9 miles from the field. Apparently there are airplanes that low that far away from an airport.
Would like to hear more of the ATC prior to giving clearance for the visual app. What was the assigned altitude? The clearance was given at 2600' msl and low altitude was given at 1900' msl. Seems like he was already a bit low when the app clearance was given.
The approach entry/"turn ____, call field in sight" height is 3000.
@@philtll And stop calling my Shirley
Sounds like the pilots were half asleep. Surprised ATC didn't ask for a reason.
probably did a few minutes later, they figured the pilots should sort out whatever went wrong, then get the long conversation done with.
@@stanislavkostarnov2157Good point!
I’m sure as much as ATC wanted to ask what the pilot saw up there, that was not the time to ask. That is a very critical moment of flight and you want pilots focused on what is happening now and not what happened a few minutes prior.
Thanks!
Why no query from ATC as to the reason? (I’ve been anxiously awaiting your video on this!) thanks!
ATC said remain on this frequency. Usually means they'll ask questions when they're on the ground or give them a phone number. They don't want to distract a pilot that is obviously disorientated.
Agreed... "reason for Go around"
@@OCinneidethe reason he said remain this frequency is because hes working approach and tower at the same time thats why he cleared him to land. Hes just letting the pilot know they dont need to swap to the tower freq.
I’m guessing ATC knew a mistake was made - probably better to just let the crew focus on getting on the ground safely and they can always discuss more later
@@OCinneide "Remain this frequency" is only because it was during a low demand period (after midnight) when they have combined positions.
I wonder if this was their last leg of the day? He sounded really tired (beyond the "I'm a pilot cool voice")
Back in the day, literally about 80 years ago, a pilot could (and did) get away with flying crazy low on purpose or in error. There was a PAA Captain notorious for buzzing Capitol buildings in Latin America.
That sounds like someone who wont remeber the conversation we're having later. How long has that crew been flying?
Considering this is SWA probably too long. Always skimming at the max what is allowed by law. And considering that the law is way too soft with maximum work hours for pilots...
@@Quotenwagnerianer Airlines need both pilots and planes but quality pilots are hard to come by now. Many aren't going to the army and flying, 1500 hr min compared to Europe's 200 hr is a gap to follow for bad habits to form, also making current crews to fly longer, and keeping bad pilots in with artificial job security, and new people are signing up because airlines need them and could rush training.
Looks like he was lining up for I-40, thats very similar in heading to 13. And about the same distance too.
Its the first time I heard of that being an issue, but not sure what the METARS. Was this IMC?
What I suspect (this did happen once), when Tinker had a B1 emergency land (I was assigned to that crash, no casualties), all orbiting E-3s had to land at Will Rogers, and some of the airliners were messing up their approaches (the guys that did it OFTEN), so when they saw a bunch of AWACS landing on 13, they assumed it was Tinker's 13 runway, and assumed they were much closer to Will Rogers.
I wonder if thats something. Thought 500ft AGL is low! Confirmation bias? Complacency bias?
By the sounds of that pilot, ATC woke him up from his nanna nap lol
Thank you very much for picking this up!👍
I'm glad to see that there is a 3rd pair of eyes at certain airports to remark the pilot and first officer if they go too low too fast on the approach.
It even has a handy LA in red next to it on the atc radar scope similar to emr. When an emergency situation is occurring.
This happened to me one time when I came in too low and got an alert but I just pulled up and hit the turbo thrusters and she wasn't too mad.
I use my oscillating super-boosters, myself
LOL
Isn’t it an FAR that an airline operator must use an electronic glide slope if available? There’s an RNAV approach to this runway.
Surprised ATC didn’t reconfirm altimeter settings.
Two pilots and not one looked over to see where they actually were on the map. Both were biased into thinking that the open spot was the runway.
Tunnel vision. Very dangerous!
Those pilots definitely bought a deal and will go back for training. I’m thinking they dialed the auto pilot accidentally to 400 instead of 4000 and neither pilot checking it during the approach checklist. The controller and his fast STARs software did them a solid.
I wonder if they even had a ILS or RNAV backup in the box. Company requires it but did they actually put one in? You can do a visual but just have an ILS or RNAV to back it up.
This is why you always LOAD AN APPROACH even in visual conditions.
Going to be a mis-configuration, or a fatigue issue or both.
It’s a shame ATC did not give Eastern 401 a low altitude alert but instead, asked “how are things comin’ along out there?”
Dang....Even on an LP approach for 13 you should be at 4k foot descending to 2600 foot 4 miles out. 13 doesn't have ILS approach so just looking at what would do on RNAV/LP instrument approach. Def a little low since there are towers on their path that go up to 500 AGL!!!
He might not be great at flying, but he's nailed the perfect radio voice.
Ever since Branson, why is it putting an approach in just for monitoring isn't SOP, regardless of visual conditions?
There seems to have been an incident related to AC20 from SIN to YVR on Jun 20. Fire trucks were deployed and checked the aircraft on arrival. Any ATC audios related to that day?
You know some pilot or aircraft guy on the plane was looking out thinking this is not right
Well…at least the FAA didnt have to go far to investigate the flight crew as they are based in Oklahoma…luckily the controller noticed and said something quickly…
I'm absolutely amazed this kind of thing can happen these days. You literally have the most advanced systems guiding you down to the touchdown zone. You don't even have to think, it will guide you down to a landing. Just punch a few buttons and it's up there for you to look at. Even if you hand fly, it still shows you the way.
Well, not the most advanced. But your point remains valid.
They are advanced but it still takes the human to set up to approach correctly. I can see this happening to anyone. Fatigue is a nasty thing.
@@saxmanb777 Fatigue affecting both pilots simultaneously?
737's are trash
@@EinkOLED100%! They probably both had the same duty day and amount of sleep.
yikes! great job by the controller, as usual ❤️👏
The pilot seems really tired from the sound of his voice
This was around midnight local time. So that’s a definite possibility. Good observation.
I really don't know why you would do a visual approach in that case. ILS or RNAV would seem like the better options.
Yes, but that would be the pilot monitoring on the radios, not the pilot flying.
@@CraZy291 Most pilots I know will usually put something in for extra guidance, even when flying a visual.
Too many legs that day..
I'm no native English speaker, but why they sound so damn tired?? Can't pinpoint if its an accent thing or they're both really worn out...
I think it's the law that pilots have to sound tired and also say call signs as fast and with little effort as humanly possible.
I think the most logical explanation is that they have reported the wrong airport insight. There is KPWA approx 9 miles northwest of KOKC and also has the rwy 13.
That's not an option, check out the flight's Pat in flight radar and you'll see they were too far from that airport
Nah, they were well southwest of KPWA. It looks like they were right over Old Oklahoma 4 highway.
@Sam-pl5hc or the South Ranchwood Boulevard passed Richmond Street + Old Oklahoma 4, which is right beside and almost all the way in parallel with the railway.
@@gabrielc9397 Because they either were tracking the loc or the assigned heading. But they could have maintained the wrong airport as a reference for descent. That descent was initiated way before this video started. From that far it’s easy to get confused between two airports next to each other. I just don’t see any other reason for them that would explain this. 9 mile final they were supposed to be almost 2500 feet higher.
@Sam-pl5hc Their lateral path is okay because they have been using either the loc or the atc assigned heading. I think they have used the wrong airport as a reference for descent. That descent was obviously started way before the landing clearance
One wonders what they were lined up with. Bold move CREW taking the visual when you don't have the runway in sight.
Hes so fatigued he didnt even get concerned let alone scared about what just happened
"Fatigued" Yeah, that's the ticket. 😉😉
Why does OKC approach give the landing clearance instead of tower.
It was slow and one controller working them both. Pretty typical in smaller airports.
He is working both positions during night time and low traffic volume
Great edit thank you
They were lining up for the highway lol. Thankfully that ATC guy was on his game.
He owes him a case of his favorite booze.
somebody is in trouble
was the cockpit conversation as calm as the coms with ATC
_"We're going to be in the Hudson."_
As a pilot, a sudden altitude loss on short final is one of the few times I've had butterflies.
Windshear.
But, this crew's flight?
Hard to explain that the low altitude was due to a WX incident.
Rather than the pilots failure to monitor, a massive avionics failure, or static port failure.
The 737 has 6 static ports per what I could find via an internet search.
Odds of clogging all? Low.
Looking forward to the final report.
Improper altimeter setting is possible, but unlikely.
We get the altimeter setting well prior to an approach via ATC and ATIS,
and ATC confirms we have the most current ATIS.
So, it's a massive brain fart by the pilots If not updating altimeter settings is found to be the cause.
I'm sure Southwest is listening to the cockpit recording
.... to ensure sterile cockpit rules were followed under 10K feet.
This incident might be the 100% on the pilots, or a combination of factors
..including WX, and/or avionics and system failures.
My guess-
The pilots misprogrammed the approach into the FMS/flight computer,
and failed to properly monitor the approach,
or an incorrect altimeter setting,
or they were flying a visual approach, and didn't back it up with an ILS.
Regardless, there was a situational awareness failure, for whatever the reason.
Getting a flashback to 1972, when pilots crashed on approach into MIA.
Two pilots and engineer were looking at a failed "three green" on the landing gear position indicator ,
...while ignoring altitude, as the plane slowly descended and finally crashed into the Everglades.
Play the radar plot, their speed got as low as 122 kts prior to the descent.
There's an airfield northwest of OKC. Maybe that?
@@VASAviation
Hmmm...curious what Juan Browne/BlancoLirio has to say.
Thanks for yet another interesting, and safety helpful post.
They were on the visual approach and they reported field in sight (as is of course required for a visual approach). In the visual it’s safe to assume they were hand flying. There is no ILS for Rwy 13, only RNAV. In the RNAV the minimums for LP are about 321 AGL, so at most they would have had that programmed in, although one would think they’d leave the RNAV approach in and have that showing an advisory glide path. The PF would have been eyes outside, it the PM should have been looking at the screen. I doubt it has much to do with anything other than them lining up to what they thought was the field and runway, but it was not, and they simply weren’t monitoring the advisory glide path as well as they should have been. They would have received a 500 ft agl callout, and it feels like they realized they weren’t in the right place just as the controller also received low alt warning. So the system worked I guess.
Based on their positioning, I don't think they were lined up for Wiley Post Airport. They were a good distance away still and not in line with the runway. Also there is usually always a note in the ATIS telling pilots to be sure to not confuse Will Rogers Airport with Wiley Post. They should have known to be on the lookout for that.
METAR data showed that weather was very good which kind of rules out WX issues.
Im leaning towards pilot fatigue and not having the approach properly programmed.@@VASAviation
This is on the news too
Are these guys not even using their Nav displays anymore?
I don't know why they wouldn't be cross-checking their visual approach with the RNAV approach for situational awareness. Or at least have the FMS set up to display distance to the runway and use the 3:1 rule. But I also don't understand how they almost nosedived in the Pacific Ocean either.
It appears as though some pilots fail to develop a basic level of skill. I believe we are seeing the result of airlines putting HR qualifications ahead of flight skills. There used to be a time where a simulator eval was part of the interview process, but that went away a long time ago. Seems like a mistake to me.
Is it possible they were using the ILS and ended up on a false glide slope? I know they were on the visual, but at my school most of us have the autopilot fly the approach in since we’re based in a class C. That’s the only thing I can think of, being on a false glide slope and mistaking a highway or something for the runway, making them think they were on glideslope
Rwy 13 is non-precision.
All good. Just a long .03 degree glideslope. What’s the problem
Why is approach providing landing clearances? I know there are facilities where TRACON and tower are a combined facility, but doesn't that usually mean that TRACON is still in the basement? I'm surprised that they're doing approach control on the same frequency as local control.
Midnight at OKC, it's the same controller.
I have been waiting for this one.
Hey, it’s OKC. Say it out loud.. it’s Ok, see? 😂😂
Dad joke of the year.
People seem obsessed with pilots manually flying in order to improve manual skills, but this is the sort of risk that they may encounter. Pilots don’t need to disconnect all automation and hand fly aircraft, fly visually from the IAF, etc.
CFIT in this part of the world would be something 😮
The plane was flying lower than the pilot's voice.
What caused this? VFR issues? 9 miles out, 600 feet altitude is not on any normal glide path.
Someone suspected pilot disorientation, as 9 miles in front of the runway is the start of a highway section that has the same alignment as the runway itself.
They were on a visual approach to 13. That runway has no ILS, and no LPV so at best they would have had an advisory glidepath if they had the RNAV 13 LP loaded. On the visual you’re just flying, usually hand flying, using good old fashioned outside visual references. PM should have been monitoring and if they had the RNAV loaded he or she should have noticed a deviation from the advisory glidepath, but that clearly didn’t happen here.
@@EricEsser Thank you so much!
@@EricEsser Well, for altitude while flying at night you would not use visual references, but rather you use guidelines what the altitude would be at certain distances from the field, and use the (radio-)altimeter to verify that you are at the proper altitude.
That clearly wasn't done here...
@@Rob2 not quite. A visual approach requires only that you maintain visual contact with the airport at all times, it’s is a visual maneuver and the PF will be eyes outside during it, and you are not required to use any navigation aids for either vertical or horizontal guidance. The FAA only encourages (AIM 5-4-23) that pilots use any available aids. Any good and diligent pilot of course will make use of whatever is available and will do flying math to confirm altitudes and distance to TDZ to fly a good approach, and this is particularly true at night. Also, to my knowledge all part 121 operators require (unlike FAA) as company policy that an approach is loaded and the PM monitors against those aids, which as you point did not happen here clearly. But, a visual approach is an eyes out visual descent to land and will be flown by the PF looking outside with visual reference to the airport (and obviously ground). If at any time the PF loses sight of the airport they are required to execute a go around and notify ATC.
It will be interesting to see what caused this incident. Was it pilot error? A problem with the aircraft avionics?
It’s not shown in this video, but their airspeed played a significant role in this event.
Groundspeed is displayed
Care to elaborate? Groundspeed looks totally normal for an approach. In fact the successful approach they flew after they went around was flow at precisely the same speed. Previous flights on FlightAware were also flown at the same speeds. Approach (air)speed for a lightly loaded 737-800 in full flap landing config are in the low 120’s. Even if you assume zero wind they were within that envelope. Why do you think airspeed played a role here? Seems to me they just lined up and executed a (normal) visual approach to a ground feature that looked like the runway but wasn’t.
You’re definitely correct, my bad.
But if you compare their ground speed in that phase of flight to the other SWA inbounds, it’s fairly simple to see the difference.
You've got to get pretty low in order to land..... Ted Stryker
Not that far
@@VASAviation watch the movie “airplane”
Is this the crew that landed the Dreamlifter on the wrong airfield??? Seems like it
I find it interesting that the ATC screen shows the altitude at 019 when it was actually 600 feet. Shouldn't it have read 006? Could this have been caused by an incorrect input of the airport's height above ground level in the Flight Management System? After they start their go around, the altimeter readout matches the clearance they were given of 3,000.
Altitude minus ground elevation equals height, and it is only altitude or flight level that is used on any aviation equipment except radar altimeters and in the few situations that the normal barometric altimeter is set to QFE instead of the two other alternatives - QNH or QNE, these being the altitude corrected for local or area barometric pressure (QNH) and the altitude adjusted to standard temperature and pressure (1013.25 hPa/29.92inHg)(QNE), used in the flight levels, respectively. QFE should result in the altimeter reading zero in the middle of the airfield it is adjusted for, or at the runway threshold, but is only used for local flying and even that, not everywhere - and certainly never by any airline that I've ever heard of. QNE is used above the transition altitude (TA), QNH below the transition level (TL), and the transition layer (TLY) is any space between the flight levels (which use QNE) and the airspace beneath, which uses altitudes (QNH).
Are you confused enough yet, or should I go into MOAs and LOAs with single altitude settings and the Mode C Radar offsets?
Any official invetigation what actually happened? Pilot handling the ATC seemed very cool about but as well he sound very tired to me.
Turns out they had a highway insight......