As others commented, why did the plane divert? Was it to overwrite the CVR? Another reason recording time needs to be extended to 25 hours or even longer. Plus, occasional automatic backing up of both data recorders for even longer-term storage to thwart attempts at hiding what happened in the cockpit.
We couldn't use LPV mins, at either CAL or UAL, up to the point when I retired -- 2020 (no WAAS receiver installed in the aircraft). We used the higher LNAV/VNAV mins & DA/MDA for RNAV (GPS) approaches, and a fairly low mins & DA for the RNAV (RNP) approaches. The CAT C mins on the RNAV (GPS) RWY 10 approach are 480 feet & 1 3/8 mi vis (458 feet, HAT - Height Above Touchdown Zone elevation). IMHO, if they had the approach set up and had been using it as a back up (with the PDI as a descent aid), this probably wouldn't have happened. We were trained to use every available aid during visual approaches -- especially those in marginal VFR conditions, or at night. This same comment applies to the other SWA flight that was approaching OKC.
SWA Retired - Again! - These incidents are inexcusable. An absolute disregard for SOP’s, Approach Procedures, and Common Sense. Especially taking into consideration recent events. CRM isn’t just about common courtesy on the flight deck - It’s very much about mitigating errors by any “one” pilot. You back each other up. I used to brief my partners “If you see something you don’t like - Please bring it up before we have to write it up”. Think/Evaluate before you do virtually anything. Old phrase - “Straighten up and fly right “. Come on guys, don’t mess up a good thing. The procedures exist for a reason. Your elders are watching... Don’t let us down.
Am I hallucinating when I say that I thought SWA had changed their procedures after the Branson incident? It was my understanding that they were going to require that pilots ALWAYS back up any visual approach with an instrument procedure. I assume that SWA crews can fly the RNAV (GPS) RW10. If they had that approach set up in their FMS, they should well have known that they were more than 3 miles from the runway threshold and WELL below the glidepath. As a long-time SWA customer, this is terrible to say, but......I am starting to wonder if that little diversion to FLL was designed to ensure that the CVR would be fully erased. These guys are shaking my faith in an airline I have been flying for a very long time.
@@Turd_Furgesonless inconvenient, then. The Gulf and Atlantic coasts of peninsular Florida are REALLY separate. There are surprisingly few good roads between them. If the passengers had been put on a bus from FLL to TPA it would have been a much longer ride than most people would expect.
The cynic in me thinks they did the diversion to assist them in blaming the low approach on the weather. Or they really still didn't understand what was going on and blamed that on the weather too.
I am a local pilot. The route over the causeway and eventually over TPA's runway 10 is known as the bridge route. VFR pilots use it all the time to transit the class B from west to east and vise versa (with controller's permission of course). So I have flown the bridge route many times over TPA's runway 10. However, if runway 10 at TPA is in use for both IFR and visual approaches, that route is not available. On July 14th we were having our typical afternoon thunderstorms. The outflow from those storms had winds coming from 110. The ceiling was low as well. In other words a typical summer afternoon here in Tampa Bay. Runway 10 was in use. Pilots on approach for runway 10 will often drop low to get under the cloud base and continue visual to the runway. There are very few obstructions between the bay and the runway threshold on this bridge route and most pilots know this if they have flown into TPA enough times or used the bridge route in the past. That may also explain why the controller was so casual when they announced a low altitude alert. They see it all the time as pilots drop low to get a visual on runway 10. That said these SWA pilots descended so low that they were ultimately below the building heights at Rocky Point, which is on the eastern end of the causeway. Rocky Point has hotels and condo high rises. They could have potentially collided with a hotel or condo at Rocky Point if they had continued. That would have led to a horrific disaster. Fortunately they reacted in time and climbed back up. Still, descending that low was something they should have not done. I just think this is ultimately a case of breaking the rules so often that it becomes a normal pattern until someone like these pilots take it a little too far. As far as diverting to FFL? SWA does that all the time during Tampa's afternoon thunderstorms. In fact several planes did exactly that on the same day this plane did. They sit on the ramp there until the thunderstorms pass and then fly back into TPA when the storms have passed. SWA has facilities at FFL so they can get fuel if needed. Passengers rarely deplane there. They are just inconvenienced for an hour or two at most while sitting on the ramp. Been there, done that. But it is preferable to trying to land in a micro burst. Been there, done that too. So I think these pilots are in for a little disciplinary action. Perhaps a little remedial training on company policy?
@@paulsherman51 Yes, they're in the NOTAM for Rwy 10 and marked on the approach plate as well. The MDA for the LNAV/VNAV is 436 and the approach calls for a 3 degree slope from the FAF (crossing at or above 1600 feet). That would, on a normal approach, put them at about 1,000 feet AGL and slightly to the left of Rocky Point. A safe distance. But according to eye witnesses they reached 250 feet AGL directly over the causeway before reaching Rocky Point. I would also assume at that point their GPWS was giving them a warning as well. Also, some ignorant reporters have claimed they mistook the causeway for the runway. I seriously doubt that. The roadway looks nothing like a runway from the air. It curves both right and left too. Not too many runways do that. Just Google Earth it to see what I mean.
As a former B737 Captain at Alaska (the airline that developed the RNAV approach) I ALWAYS had an approach dialed in for the runway that we were flying to. These guys are NOT following FAA standards let alone their own company procedures
@@SpicyRok7482 No, they most likely failed to load and or follow the appropriate approach. I’m betting they saw the lights if the bridge and mistook that for the runway. Total lack of discipline
@@SpicyRok7482 I would always point out to my FO’s “Rushing is a subtle sign that something is about to go wrong. We aren’t intercepting Bear Bombers coming over the pole, we are moving people’s happy asses from one place to another. It took six months the for the wagon trains to come across the Oregon trail, if we are 20 minutes late it won’t matter.” Once I got out of caring about the schedule life as an airline pilot got a lot easier.
(See the correction by bbgun061 in reply to my post as I made below TY :)) The Courtney Campbell Causeway Bridge is 45 feet above the water at the midsection. With light poles doubling that, putting the aircraft about 40-50 feet clear of hazard. That's too many slices of cheese!
They were actually about 240 feet above the bridge. ADS-B reports the altitude as if it's standard pressure. When correcting for atmospheric pressure at the time, 150 feet becomes 370 feet actual altitude. As Juan explained at the start of the video. (I know it's confusing, it took me a while to wrap my head around that.) so that's still quite close, but not as scary. It's probably about the height that airplanes normally fly over the roads near the end of most runways.
I suspect is happens less often (per hour of flight). But with more planes in the air you get more incidents. With the Internet: you are more likely to hear about it.
I disagree, if this was the 50s, they would've crashed. You wouldn't BELIEVE the amount of crashes even as recently as the 80s. Hell, today, even the 90s would be considered a bad decade! (think of the multiple rudder hard over incidents resulting in 3 737 crashes). I agree this shouldn't be happening at all in 2020s. But the outcome would have been far worse just 40 years ago. Let alone the 1950s!
OMG.. I can't believe you posted this video on that Sunday I was outside I live in Clearwater actually Dunedin but this SWA plane flew over my house so low I could see details on the skin of the aircraft I am near an approach for PIE and wonder why the hell they were routing this plane east to west to line up to a north-south runway I figured to go around some of the local thunderstorms that were happening but it's still seems so not correct and was blown away by how low this airplane was, it was so obviously not a normal situation I scratched my head and went on with my day now I ran into this video I watch your channel a lot and now I know the rest of the story story. This one hit close to home Wow just wow.
I live on the final to PIE and some nights it sounds like the inbound flights are right above us. The most recent was a Coast Guard flight very low on final. I confirmed the details online. We love driving past Tampa International when the flights are inbound and you can get a great view, but in 5 years I've never personally witnessed the approach to 10. I'm with whoever surmised that they were lining up with the Causeway. At night in rain it might be hard to discern that the actual runway is further east. Scary stuff!
@@evynmoon4896 not much more I can say the only planes that fly over my house are usually going from a north to south on approach to Clearwater(PIE) and usually only Allegiant airline to see this airplane so low and on an easterly flight path caught me as very strange but I figured there must be a reason so I went on with my day. No I'm not interested in further comment
As a fellow airline captain, I have flown in Tampa numerous amount of times and I have never landed on runway 10 RNAV pr visually, definitely unusual and could pose a Threat. One thing I can say from years of Jumpseat and Southwest is that when they are cleared for the visual, many times they will set 00000 in the ALT selector. Just stating an observation simply. I am always grateful to their professional pilots for thousands of rides to work. Be safe out there everyone! Thanks JB!
I'm a Tampa-area native and lived on the approach path to 10 for a year. When that runway was in use it was loud for us. It rarely happened. It was only during bad weather that they would use it and it was only for as long as they had to.
This makes a lot of sense from a casual flight sim flyer. It sounds like the kind of thing a TH-cam video would recommend for people just learning, but sounds dangerous IRL. Is this kind of thing normal for other airlines as well?
Yup, I hate it too as an operator. There may be a change coming now! It has to do with using a dumbed down software version that will capture altitude hold if the MA altitude was set in the MCP as other carriers do….. Thank God the controller was heads up! Thanks for the excellent coverage Juan.
Confirmation bias is a hell of a thing. When you're expecting lights indicating a certain direction, and you see lights, you fixate on those lights and ignore all evidence that tells you that you're lining up on the wrong set of lights. Imagine if ATC had been a little busier and wasn't able to get back to him on the go-around during those last 150 feet.
This is nuts. The controller only issued the altimeter because it’s required phraseology for a low altitude alert in the 7110.65. That routine alert likely saved the flight
@@davidkavanagh189you’re confusing what he said. He issued the low altitude alert because his scope alerted him of it, but when issuing the alert a controller is required to say current barometric pressure with the callout as well.
Air Force single seat pilot here. Flew into Tucson recently around dusk. Never been there before, did what I always do - backup whatever approach I do with an RNAV. Got cleared the vis into Tuscon after calling it in sight...only I had called in sight after biting off of DM. Good thing I had my white line!
@@bbgun061 DM - Davis Monthan Air Force Base. I saw their runway lit up nice and bright and thought it was Tuscon and started turning to it. But the way I backed myself up allowed me to realize my mistake almost immediately
You're not the first pilot to do that. When you enter Tucson airspace from the North, DM is the first runway that visually grabs your gaze day or night. I got my PPL at KTUS and was warned of this and trained to avoid it esp when approaching from the North.
I’m not a pilot but I really enjoy this channel. This upload reminds me of a story My friends father was a controller at JFK in the 1970s. He told us one night he noticed on his screen a jet off course on approach. Upon communication with the plane , he ascertained they were lining up with the Verrazano Narrows Bridge instead of the assigned runway. He radioed to the plane if they land where they were lining up for that there was a 75 cent toll at the end of the landing area. Buy the way , the toll is $11.19 today.!
You're absolutely correct Juan, fly the plan all the way to the runway. This is purely pilots error in my opinion...why didn't the pilot not flying see this !? Thx Juan
Retired airline captain here, I’m currently flying a Falcon 900 and several different models of the Kingair. We’ve always set up the instrument approach procedure for each runway whether we’re landing, visual or not. We always look at the minimum altitude for each fix and brief that as we’re crossing. We never descend below the final approach fix minimum altitude until we cross that fix and are on glideslope or confirmed gradient path…. we have a lot of low time new hires, flying in the airline in history presently. Please senior pilots be more vigilant with your procedures, and be absolutely alert for any deviations, especially when low to the ground. think through the approach, and brief in detail, and back each other up.
@@TSLAaddictIf you get close enough to the causeway lights in poor vis and rain; they don't look like runway lights any more. Looks IMC disorientation while flying a visual approach. Distance perception gets fouled up.
Ridiculous mistake that should NEVER happen in todays modern Cockpits. The NAV-Display shows exactly where the runway is, you set the scale so you have in front of you the whole time and, especially if you are not using an approach, you back it up with the 3:1 rule. Both Pilots should but the PNF should present this as good CRM every so often (10,5,3 miles etc.) to keep the PF in the loop. Pilots need to focus on what’s important these days, these are not “mistakes”, these are unacceptable gross errors, period!
A few decades ago....a jet airliner landed at the Tucson Air Force Base instead of the Tucson International Airport. You done did got some 'splaining to do Capt'n.
Not once , not twice but three times all in the same airline indicates a serious institutional problem and is completely inexcusable with the modern technology we have available . SWA need to address this ASAP
The captain or FO on radio does not seem concerned enough. Too Cool. Way out, no sense of urgency. No FAA review? This is ridiculous. Thank you for positing this video!
Ive been flyin as a professional pilot for almost 30 years now. Ive flown everything from WW2 birds to modern turbines. Its easy to pass judgement when you arent there. They were on an IFR flight plan and shooting an approach in light rain. My guess is that they mistook the bridge for the runway. From the air, its an easymistake to make. Personally, I dont see this as a "catastrophic" mistake, its just a mistake. The airplane had plenty of fuel to initiate a go around once the pilots realized the issue they fixed it. I wouldnt even call it a close call.
This is the 3rd such incident in recent past. Pretty scary when you look at the altitude and distance from runway data. Thank you again Juan for breaking it down.
@@matt.604 I remember the Gimli Glider, and that entire situation could have been solved from the get-go if the fuel reading had included pounds/gallons/liters during the transition.
My instructor and I were coming back from a night cross-country where we flew from Hayward Executive up to Sacremento International for some night pattern work with the big boys. As I maneuvered for the final on our return to Hayward, my instructor took control suddenly and applied throttle. He returned the controls to me and told me to maintain altitude until we were closer to the runway. Something seemed off, as we were now coming in too high for Hayward which was just a mile off my nose. It then became clear to me that he had lined us up for 28L at Oakland International instead of Hayward. He didn't trust me at first until I showed him on the GPS. Thankfully he was humble enough to admit his mistake and let we made the corrections for a safe landing. He now flies for SouthWest , and I wish him the best - hope he learned from this experience and is safer for it.
Great video! It sounds like this flight crew didn't check approach clearances. As a former railroad conductor, one of my responsibilities was to make sure railroad equipment was not staged too close to switches so that any approaching railroad equipment could make safe clearances past other railroad equipment waiting on sidings. I had to physically check the switchpoints to make sure that the switchpoints are lined and locked correctly for either the mainline or the siding, otherwise there would be a collision, or a near miss. I believe railroads are similar to airlines with regard to Standard Operating Procedures (SOP's), as well as all other rules and regulations that are to be followed in the rulebook that we call the General Code of Operating Rules (GCOR) nicknamed the "railroaders' bible", issued by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). On the railroad, you always follow correct procedures, rules, and regulations as currently issued in the GCOR, or there is a likelihood of an accident that would seriously injure or even kill you!
No, it sounds like they didn’t check ANYTHING. Jimho. Glad no tragedy. Hope they got their wrist slapped though. The tone of the pilot with tower was too slack, IMHO. Almost did not care what he was doing, just sounding ‘cool’ with ‘we gotcha’ … really?
If all of this is accurate, a passenger jet came within 150 feet of plowing into the bridge and causing a horrific American tragedy. Doesn't this latest incident call for the FAA to launch an investigation. Like yesterday???
That difference doesn't explain 150 feet agl miles out, and if they did have 29.92 set, they'd be too high, not too low. Sounds like they did have 30.14 set, though, right?
Here in Finland out local carrier, Finnair, has had trouble using RNAV lately. Russia is disrupting GPS signals all around their land border, and the disruption extends deep enough to Finland to cover major airports.
They will need to use ground based approaches such as an ILS. GPS signals can be disrupted such as you describe. It is too bad they are your "neighbors".
And your "Neighbours" can't figure out why Finland decided to join NATO? I am sure the Russians would not care if they caused a civilian air crash in Finland with their idiocy
The plane before them landed just fine and I'm going to just throw out a guess here that the one behind them did just fine as well. This also needs to be looked at by the FAA if they could actually do their job
1200 ft/min is not a stabilized approach. A 3 degree glideslope will give you around 700ft/min at 140 knots ground so for the 73, you’d probably look at 800ft/min for their faster approach speed.
Bridge is the Courtney Campbell Causeway, Linking Tampa to Clearwater. Several years back, that would have taken them right over my house. Of note, just south of there is the St. Petersburg / Clearwater airport, and their North to South approach to 35R intersects that path.
Presentations are always extremely clear and professional. I always feel like I'm getting an extremely good explanation of these events. Thank you very much.
Glad that the chat with the prior pilot didn't distract too long to issue the warning. Do you think the pilots would have realized in time otherwise? (VAS and You Can See ATC are doing great things for those of us who fly by publishing these videos. Much thanks!!!)
I'm not a pilot, but this is my local airport. For some additional context, that east/west runway is relatively unused by commercial traffic. Flights almost always use the pair of north/south runways (1/19 L and R). I've landed on 10/28 exactly one time, and never taken off from it. I wonder if the pilot was used to the north/south runways, and coming into this runway was new to them. Alignment aside, I'm surprised they'd mistake that stretch of road for a runway. It seems like something went very wrong. I drive that bridge regularly, and it certainly would get my attention to see a jet making that approach at all, let alone coming in that low over that stretch of road.
@@Johnfisher12345gentlemen, top gun rules exist for your safety and they safety of your crew. (And the cars on the bridge) They are not flexible, nor am i. Either obey them, or you’re going to hit a sailboat and have a bad time.
Thanks Juan for once again a stellar video. Does the B737 have an audible altitude alert utilizing the radar altimeter? Just a thought, I think they were planning the visual and hit the heavy rain and lost visual on the airport, then broke out and saw the bridge thinking it was the runway, having said that I think they descend to minimums thinking they were closer to the runway. A classic case of Loss of Situational Awareness. The low altitude alert from ATC saved them from a possible CFIT….
Good thing they weren't lining-up on the Howard-Frankland bridge (the one just south), because that one has two large "humps" halfway across to allow larger vessels to go beneath.. They might have hit the streetlights!
Been waiting on this one! Great video as always! I initially thought windshear as well, but the PIREP from the prior arrival said it wasn't particularly bad. Then the lack of a windshear report from the incident aircraft raised all sorts of red flags.
I noticed while jump seating on SWA they set their altitude preselect down to zero. This seems to serve the function of removing this safety feature from the picture all together.
@@KuostA bear in mind the 737 classic is before my time, but if I recall correctly when flying an LNAV/VNAV on a classic and you set missed approach alt it would boot you off the approach into CWS. So it just became blanket SOP at SWA
Concur Juan, selecting the RNA. Approach path and (critically) a PDI that would have given them an ILS like 3 degree glide slope to the intended runway. As a retired Naval Aviator, ‘GEHOSAFAT’ as Gramps Pettibone would have said! These near misses had better be a wake up call to us all!
Well to SW's credit, they did not suffer from the recent Cloudstrike debacle... their computers still run on Windows 3.1 which predates Win95 and was not affected by the glitchy update...
We were all running DOS until about 10-15 years ago - just like the big banks are stuck with COBALT - no matter how much they try and make you think they are running the latest and greatest - every operating system ran on top of DOS until……..2010?? And if you knew what “the core” of every “money center” bank is based upon, you might just head over to Rosland Capital -
Geez, again! You make an excellent observation about are the SWA crew’s dependence on visual approaches? What is the SWA flight operations policy? Can anyone answer. Obviously some serious SMS risk assessment needs to take place. 325’! Thank goodness the ATC guys are paying attention.
This is old school.. but on MD80 we were ALWAYS running 3:1 math in our heads because the technology was so basic.. have carried that over to other planes and has helped us with “SA” and to stay out of trouble on several occasions . On arrival… on downwind… on base… and especially on final. It’s one more safety device that woulda helped here, and on that other Southwest low altitude episode a few weeks ago. Just do it… Might be awkward at first, but becomes second nature.
Hi Juan: I retired from the airline that you are currently employed, and due to medical problems, I haven't been able to fly an airplane for five years. The altitude alert events at OKC and TPA made me think about the use of RNAV/VNAV and how entering incorrect data into the computer that could be misinterpreted as "on the glide slope" or vertical slope. I seem to remember updating the cruise altitude was needed at times before commencing an RNAV/VNAV approach to ensure proper vertical guidance, incorrect data entered into the CDU may have given the crew a false sense of being on a proper vertical path...If the crew wasn't paying attention. We all know how we become task saturated when dealing with thunderstorms, holding, diversions and the like, but trapping errors is the best safety device on the aircraft. Again, I haven't piloted an aircraft in years, but I would be interested to hear from active crews if some of the data inputs may have been a contributing factor to these events. Stay safe everyone!
In last years we can see, how safety levels in aviation prevented a lot of disasters. There were so many near-catastrofic events happened, at last moment some kind of last safety barriers kicked in and saved situation. But it also shows us, that we need to make significant changes and put some more barriers, befor it is too late. And, unfortunately, i think, noone will do anything before disaster happenes....
I find that when flying an unstable approach on the simulator I crash more often. Sometimes you can save it, sometimes you can’t. Always fly a stable approach. If it becomes unstable, quickly establishing the go-around right away before things get even a little dicey is the safest option.
Just go to West Houston or Sugarland airport and say you’d like a discovery flight. They’re like $50-$100 and an instructor will take you up for an hour. That’s what got me into my flying here in Houston. Sorry I misread your comment. You’re in corpus. Victoria might have a flight school.
@@Grim_Prospects If you are worried about safety, you should hop on the SWA flight, not a local discovery flight. According to recent stats, GA flying is 14 times more dangerous than airline flying per flight hour. Obviously "GA flying" covers a lot of different types of flying, but none of the types of GA flying that I am aware of are safer than airline flying. That said, I fly GA myself, and enjoy it greatly.
The lowest point at 150 Feet is ABSOLUTELY FAKE!!! This "ads-b data" is based on 29.92 altimeter. This channel you chose this time didn't even bother correcting for local altimeter 30.14 at the time. Only morbo, only morbo. Why facts?
For any pilots unfamiliar with doing conversions in inches of mercury: 29.92inHg = 1013.25mbar while 30.14inHg ≈ 1022mbar, the conversion of 27feet per millibar puts them 240 feet higher than the uncorrected ADS-B data shows (from low to high touch the sky)
After the Branson fiasco a few years ago, I thought Southwest changed their procedures to require that an instrument approach be used to back up any visual approach.
That was even a basic FAA rule last time I checked. The solution is for controllers to stop offering the visual as a default. Nowhere else in the world, except maybe Canada sometimes, offers a visual approach as the default. It'll be ILS/RNAV/VOR and only if NONE of those are available, visual. It's just lazy controlling and it'll cause an accident sooner or later.
@@davidkavanagh189 I've been a Southwest customer for many years, and never once worried about safety, as I knew what their hiring requirements were. Historically, they have not hired inexperienced pilots. But as a long-time GA pilot myself, these incidents are starting to shake my faith. All of the recent ones are very difficult to explain with a straight face. It makes you wonder what kind of conversations are going on within the airline's safety office and what they are actually sharing with FAA. This is terrible to say, but after thinking about this one for a while, I am beginning to wonder if this crew diverted to FLL for the sole purpose of ensuring that the CVR would be fully erased before an investigation got going. I never thought I would ever suspect something like that of a crew flying for a major US carrier in 2024.
@@davidkavanagh189 The US system cannot handle the traffic if the majority of airline flights do not accept visual approaches. The NYC airports, SFO, LAX and others simply cannot keep up without the reduced separation requirements allowed with visual approaches.
@@ericmcleod7825 Yes I agree that in those more extreme traffic airports, there is some logic to the visuals. That being said, outside of those specific examples, there is no justification for the hierarchy not being ILS/RNAV/VOR/Visual.
It's kind of funny, I saw VAS aviation video first, 90% of the comments are how this was definitely windshear, and some "other" channel is blaming the pilots. Then I saw your video and the ADS-B data and it's obviously not wind shear.
That's the Courtney Campbell Causeway they lined up on. The Interstate bridge (Howard Frankland bridge) is next South, and the Gandy Bridge is further South.
On the good side, the Courtney Campbell is probably long enough and mostly flat enough to land on. The width of the bridge, on the other hand….. I’m really surprised they had to divert all the way to Fort Lauderdale. I live maybe about 10-15 miles or so from TIA and don’t remember the weather being that bad when this happened.
Did they get cleared a visual on approach control? Ignored all the nav inside and went visual to the highway. Went around because they were unstable for the actual runway or couldn't see it. Went to FLL because the hold ate up any fuel for another shot at TPA without not having enough for FLL? My hazy memory is that once you are airborne you can eat up some of that hold fuel and go to a closer non filed alternate if you take another shot at TPA.
A flying super structure full of people, (Modern airliner), is a huge, huge responsibility. There should be serious re-training and redirection to bring about much more professional acumen in the cockpit at SWA. Some of their captains and 1st officers are lacking situational awareness and not using properly the resources at hand. This trend can end badly.
I lived in El Paso . The airport next to Biggs Air Force base with same runway Markings literally right next door. Couple times planes landed at Biggs by mistake
I remember being stationed at Ellsworth AFB, and a commercial jet landed on our runway. He thought he was dropping in on Rapid City. I'm guessing he saw that long, beautiful runway and got fixated hahaha. Definitely must been confused when he saw all of those B-1s on the ramp.
This has happened elsewhere at Tampa as well. Look at the runway pattern at Knight Airport (a tiny GA field just south of Tampa) and MacDill AFB (directly south of TPA itself). Not only have private pilots landed at MacDill ("why are all those guys with guns coming to meet me?"), a *C17* destined for MacDill landed at Knight! Getting it out of there was a real fun time since the runway is not even 3,600' long.
This is the kind of stuff i beat myself upfor on my FS2004 missions!...love your work, will check out the dam stuff sometime....i still rave about the corsair resto vid and Capt Benham interview.. Gidday from nz
Wow, I lived on the Tampa side of the Courtney Campbell causeway for several years. Wild to see it show up in one of your reports. Glad it didn’t end with a plane on the causeway.
I asked this in the last video, what new procedure has SW added to this part of the flight that is overloading the pilots and causing these distracted low flights.
It’s called ATP flight Academy, you’re starting to see the edge of these kids with little to no experience quickly accelerating through the ranks. Good luck, flying commercial.
@@Jimmer-Space88that makes zero sense--pilots from ATP, Jimbob's Flight Shack, and the USAF alike all have to pass the exact same standards set forth by the airlines if they want to work for them.
@@Bigskitch Apparently you don't understand how shake and bake programs work when there is pressure to keep failures below a certain level. The flight examiners all the way up the chain are typically also students at the same academy they are doing instruction and check rides for, or, employees. There is a lot of pressure for them to pass as many students as possible on the published schedule to keep the personnel moving through the school and keep the money train flowing. Once these kids get to the airline, the airline doesn't recheck all their proficiency. It is assumed they achieved the level of proficiency established by the check ride minimum standards. I guarantee you there are a lot of pilots getting to the airlines who should not have passed one or more check rides to get to that level. Existing senior pilots need to understand that they WILL get some right seaters who they shouldn't trust very much and that need diligent, active supervision. I am based at GYR. I see a lot of United Aviate Academy students out flying solo, where I've said to myself "how the hell did this person get signed off to solo?" Most recently, a girl (only saying that because I would typically say "a guy" and she was not that!) who was flying a VFR approach, and instead of entering the downwind as instructed, blew right through it and followed her magenta line right to the little dot on her screen over the runway, before realizing her pattern wasn't right, veering back out, and cutting me off as I actually entered the downwind rather than following her. Someone signed her off to solo, and she shouldn't have been signed off because she couldn't reliably fly a simple VFR pattern entry. This happens all the way up the line.
The highest point of that causeway - which is just about the point the controller called the low alt alert - is 45 feet above Old Tampa Bay. It is also lined with street lights that are another 20-25 feet above the bridge. They were very likely no more than 70 feet or so above those light posts when they stopped their descent. Would love to hear from some of the folks on that flight to see if they sensed the very real catastrophe that was seconds away from unfolding.
Juan, remember the SouthWest flight that landed at the wrong Branson, MO Airport a few years ago. It had to have been a guardian angel that was pushing on the nose of that aircraft as it got stopped on the 3700 ft runway.
My last SWA flight pulled out all the stops to exit via the taxiway 3300' from the start of the runway that led directly to the terminal. Given that RW 14 at BBG has no taxiways between C and the turn around at the end of the runway, they might have been saved by their desire to shave off a few minutes on the ground!
@@ikkinwithattitude The CVR from the Branson incident apparently recorded the Captain saying: "This ain't it", just seconds after touchdown. I think both were aware that they were not only at the wrong airport, but they were committed to try and get it stopped. To their credit, they did it. If they'd overrun that place, it would have been a big, fatal wreck for sure. There's a steep drop-off at the end of the runway.
@@kipglass6222 Right. What I was saying was that if they were intending to minimize their landing roll at their intended landing point of KBBG (due to the need to back taxi), they could have chosen aggressive reverser/autobrake settings even before realizing that they were on the wrong runway at KPLK and hence saved themselves a few hundred critical feet.
I was the first news photog on scene as I worked in Springfield at the time. Highway 65 at the E end of the runway is below the runway by prob 40ft…I looked up and there was a Southwest tail at the end of the runway. It really was a miracle they stopped because the dropoff would have likely injured or killed folks. KPLK is 12/30, KBBG is 14/32…so similar mistake here.
Thanks Juan; since you’ve also mentioned similar incident with SWA in Oklahoma just 1 month ago, I somewhat got curious and checked corresponding clips on VASAviation. So just few observations wrt incidents with SWA being `actively´ involved within 1 year time-frame according to that: * 9 (+2) total; with * 2 go-arounds due to `low altitude at final approach´ (within last 4 weeks) * 1 take-off on closed runway (within same last 4 weeks) * 6 (+2) severe technical issues (2 of them due to bird-strike) Side observation: SWA seems to operate a lot of B-737 (various versions). Wrt to the technical incidents, it’s easy these days trying to blame Boeing when it comes to the 737 (and I will not defend them …). However, I wouldn’t be surprised if the FAA is already taking a closer look into the overall series of SWA incidences, too; which might add another `flavour´ and might tell a bit different story. Anyone doing statistical analytics will also immediately ask questions like e.g. “how many flights are operated by SWA per year?” and “what’s the incident rate of other airlines in comparison?” Just that my gut feeling and `educated guessing´ tells me issue almost every month is way too much in a business where everything is about safety (and yes, also money of course, I’m realistic about that) … To make it clear: it’s not my intention to assess the individual behaviour of the pilots here. I’m getting concerned if things appear to show patterns … Coming back to the wrong landing approaches. That reminds of an event I’ve witnessed almost around 40 years ago where it appeared to me a civil 4 engine jet (B-707 or DC-8) went for approach on former very small military airfield, while the civil airport `nearby´ had same direction of runway - just 6km / 3.8miles more to the North and also 6km / 3.8miles displacement towards East. Obviously the pilots recognised in time … Felt unbelievable to me; kind of “well, perhaps airports in the US are such large that it’s considered normal to have such spacing and long taxiways in between (would need `speed taxiing´ then 😅) ” 😉. But watching these 2 SWA episodes now tells me also `my episode´ was real.
The correct phraseology is "Tampa Tower, SWA123 on the visual for Runway 10.“ They just said with you for 10. ATC didn't clarify which approach they were on.
I fly for a major. I have never once said what approach I'm performing to the tower, not once. Some do it, it's not required. When cleared for an approach, it is be required to read back 'cleared XYZ approach, runway XX' to the approach controller as a readback.
The piece we don't know yet is what type of approach the airplane was cleared for, because all we have are the conversations with the Local Controller in the Tower. We really need to hear the conversations with Approach Control. I am guessing they will never get a CVR from this flight. That little diversion they made to FLL ensured that it would be fully erased. What scares me is that was possibly their intent with the diversion.
As a truck driver and an aspiring professional pilot, I simply don’t understand how cameras aren’t in the cockpit. Every truck I drive is equipped with driver facing and outward facing cameras that record continuously. If you’re doing what you’re supposed to be doing as a professional, then it’s no factor. Drivers that text on their phones seem to be the only ones complaining, I bet pilots that aren’t doing their jobs properly would complain as well. The pilot part of me wonders what the hell is going on in the cockpit. I have NEVER even come close to failing to maintain a proper glide slope on approach and I sure as hell know when I’m 250 feet AGL. What is going on in that cockpit that’s supposed to have a pilot monitoring? I suspect that professional pilots are relying too much on automation and just don’t fly much. Distractions in the cockpit are probably another issue. There’s two pilots for a reason, the pilots that make these mistakes are talking themselves right out of a job as they make the case for automation. It’s inexcusable, I just don’t understand how this happens…..
Likely union related as mentioned. Also, pretty sure major railroads don't have driver facing cameras either. Yet even retail workers are on camera most all the time.
@@ronbennett7885 what’s crazy is that the cameras have saved my ass more times than I can count. I do my job the way It m trained to by the company, follow the proper policy and procedures and I have zero problems.
There was one a few years ago that almost landed at a small GA airport in the San fernando Valley of Los Angeles, They were supposed to land at Burbank, but lined up on Whiteman luckily recognized their mistake on short final.
Slightly more than a few years ago. It was 1987. I remember that one well. Continental Airlines. My family wasn’t too fond of the airline. At the time , Frank Lorenzo’s leveraged buyout led to my father choosing another career instead of crossing the picket line. We found the event comical and it was very embarrassing for continental.
The oddest thing to me as a TPA native is actually seeing airliner using that runway. I guess they opted for it due to a high easterly crosswind? I have only ever seen them use the 01 and 19 runway so if these pilots were accustomed to those, using 10 might've thrown them off. Not really sure. It almost seems like they were trying to land on the Causeway. I am curious to find out more information as it comes.
How did Southwest fly a visual approach in moderate (within 3 nm) to Heavy (5 nm) rain - as reported by the preceding Southwest aircraft? Sound more like, from the start, Southwest was operating outside the published limits. A visual approach requires either the airport or the preceding traffic in sight - which should have been impossible with moderate rain on final.
The thing about this is though, the Courtney Campbell Causeway Bridge is offset from RW 10/28 to the north and looks NOTHING like the runway at TPA. I live and fly in Tampa so very familiar with the with this airport. They were using the cross runway for landings due to the AA that blew the tire a few days prior to this happening. Said they were still finding debris from that 737 days later so they kept 19R/01L closed until it was cleared. They also don't tend to use this approach very often and prefer to use 28 when doing cross field ops because there are not as many buildings.
Someone miss a zero on the altitude preselect? Like I said on the last SWA incident, there are major and deep rooted problems in Southwest's training department that everyone seems to want to ignore. This isn't new, it goes back at least to 2015-2016 when SWA struggled to get ETOPS authorizations and evidently existed long before that.
Why divert when no one else did? I guess that's one way to "innocently" overwrite the cockpit voice recorder loop. With the captain giving the f/o the "shush" symbol.
You are 100% correct! He was missing the runway and about to land us on the bridge or in the water. I was on the flight. I contacted Southwest. Unaccetpable. If it were not for the Tampa tower agent...he would have crashed.
I'm not a pilot, much less an ATP. And I get wanting to fly visual approaches/landings from time to time to maintain proficiency. But WHY isn't the PM backing it up with the instruments?!
An awareness of distance to the runway is a great tool. In the MD-11 I ALWAYS loaded it into the fix page of the FMS as an additional backup. Though I have probably landed here at least a few hundred times, it was never on this runway. Just a bit short for regular use in our case.
Juan, I have flown into KTPA at least a 100 times, maybe more. I have NEVER once used 10/28. Maybe there’s a reason? The bridge? I don’t know. I can tell you with certainty that the visual approach is tight on the AFB side of the field. Done it many times-at night.
I am a Sim instructor and TCE. What will really pickle your noodle is watching people is the sim dial up an ILS 17R at KDEN and fly a visual to 16R in shaddy visibility. When i ask why the Localizer is full deflected they say IDK instrument error? Scary stuff
For the record, it’s very rare ANYTHING lands on 10. Much less commercial airliners. 28 is more commonly used for small aircraft/corporate jets. When weather permits, they’ll land the airliners on 28 or if the time permits. But it’s EXTREMELY rare for the airlines to be landing 10. I worked there for around 4 years and maybe saw it twice in that time frame. Scary as I was actually driving on the highway at the time this happened, on the Courtney Campbell…
In the NOTAMs for KTPA it is mentioned that 10/28 is not normally available to aircraft over 75K lbs. gross weight. When 28 is used by airliners, it's usually during the Winter when cold fronts move through. I bet most airline pilots flying into KTPA can go years without shooting an approach to 10.
The company I used to work for had a GII hangered there and we always took off westbound on that runaway. When the RR Speys were spooled up for takeoff it was a glorious sound and a quick liftoff.
I worked at TPA for formally Pemco (Airborne) now for 5 years and it was once in a blue moon, maybe a dozen times a year I noticed they used this runway and shockingly enough it was always during IMC weather, they will take the shorter runway if headwinds are favoring the approach rather then a 20 knot crosswind landing. 01L has an ILS where 01R is a Localizer only. Still amazes me they will use this approach during IFR conditions with how short that runway is
This is just a speculative guess: Could the HUD (Heads Up Display) be factor? Even though you can see through the HUD, which is the whole point, the view is not as good in quality or width as the view out the windshield. Perhaps the captain saw something that he thought was the runway and kept the flight path vector on the spot that he thought was the runway. The HUD will definitely suck your eyes in. Again, this is just speculation, and it has been several years since I have flown the HUD on the 737.
Clarification: LNAV/VNAV mins, NOT LPV mins ( No WASS at SWA).
*WAAS. Interesting, didn’t know they hadn’t retrofitted their fleet with receivers!
As others commented, why did the plane divert? Was it to overwrite the CVR? Another reason recording time needs to be extended to 25 hours or even longer. Plus, occasional automatic backing up of both data recorders for even longer-term storage to thwart attempts at hiding what happened in the cockpit.
Hi, I work for FOX13 in Tampa. Are you willing to walk us through some of what you explained on this via Zoom?
You’re fake news, you don’t need to report on anything you know nothing about….go report about what Taylor Swift is eating.
We couldn't use LPV mins, at either CAL or UAL, up to the point when I retired -- 2020 (no WAAS receiver installed in the aircraft).
We used the higher LNAV/VNAV mins & DA/MDA for RNAV (GPS) approaches, and a fairly low mins & DA for the RNAV (RNP) approaches.
The CAT C mins on the RNAV (GPS) RWY 10 approach are 480 feet & 1 3/8 mi vis (458 feet, HAT - Height Above Touchdown Zone elevation).
IMHO, if they had the approach set up and had been using it as a back up (with the PDI as a descent aid), this probably wouldn't have happened. We were trained to use every available aid during visual approaches -- especially those in marginal VFR conditions, or at night.
This same comment applies to the other SWA flight that was approaching OKC.
SWA Retired - Again! - These incidents are inexcusable. An absolute disregard for SOP’s, Approach Procedures, and Common Sense. Especially taking into consideration recent events. CRM isn’t just about common courtesy on the flight deck - It’s very much about mitigating errors by any “one” pilot. You back each other up. I used to brief my partners “If you see something you don’t like - Please bring it up before we have to write it up”. Think/Evaluate before you do virtually anything. Old phrase - “Straighten up and fly right “. Come on guys, don’t mess up a good thing. The procedures exist for a reason.
Your elders are watching... Don’t let us down.
Am I hallucinating when I say that I thought SWA had changed their procedures after the Branson incident? It was my understanding that they were going to require that pilots ALWAYS back up any visual approach with an instrument procedure. I assume that SWA crews can fly the RNAV (GPS) RW10. If they had that approach set up in their FMS, they should well have known that they were more than 3 miles from the runway threshold and WELL below the glidepath. As a long-time SWA customer, this is terrible to say, but......I am starting to wonder if that little diversion to FLL was designed to ensure that the CVR would be fully erased. These guys are shaking my faith in an airline I have been flying for a very long time.
Hey Dave. I remember you. I hope you are doing well.?
@@daveholekamp1069 well said
1500 hr ATP hires. Congrats.
@@thereissomecoolstuff Why aren't the Captains doing their job then?
"Diverted to Ft Lauderdale without incident." Except for all the pax hoping to get to Tampa, who are now on the other side of the state!
They flew back about 30 minutes after landing in Lauderdale
@@Turd_Furgesonwith a new crew?
@@johnnunn8688 not that I am aware of
@@Turd_Furgesonless inconvenient, then.
The Gulf and Atlantic coasts of peninsular Florida are REALLY separate. There are surprisingly few good roads between them. If the passengers had been put on a bus from FLL to TPA it would have been a much longer ride than most people would expect.
The cynic in me thinks they did the diversion to assist them in blaming the low approach on the weather. Or they really still didn't understand what was going on and blamed that on the weather too.
I am a local pilot. The route over the causeway and eventually over TPA's runway 10 is known as the bridge route. VFR pilots use it all the time to transit the class B from west to east and vise versa (with controller's permission of course). So I have flown the bridge route many times over TPA's runway 10. However, if runway 10 at TPA is in use for both IFR and visual approaches, that route is not available. On July 14th we were having our typical afternoon thunderstorms. The outflow from those storms had winds coming from 110. The ceiling was low as well. In other words a typical summer afternoon here in Tampa Bay. Runway 10 was in use. Pilots on approach for runway 10 will often drop low to get under the cloud base and continue visual to the runway. There are very few obstructions between the bay and the runway threshold on this bridge route and most pilots know this if they have flown into TPA enough times or used the bridge route in the past. That may also explain why the controller was so casual when they announced a low altitude alert. They see it all the time as pilots drop low to get a visual on runway 10.
That said these SWA pilots descended so low that they were ultimately below the building heights at Rocky Point, which is on the eastern end of the causeway. Rocky Point has hotels and condo high rises. They could have potentially collided with a hotel or condo at Rocky Point if they had continued. That would have led to a horrific disaster. Fortunately they reacted in time and climbed back up. Still, descending that low was something they should have not done. I just think this is ultimately a case of breaking the rules so often that it becomes a normal pattern until someone like these pilots take it a little too far.
As far as diverting to FFL? SWA does that all the time during Tampa's afternoon thunderstorms. In fact several planes did exactly that on the same day this plane did. They sit on the ramp there until the thunderstorms pass and then fly back into TPA when the storms have passed. SWA has facilities at FFL so they can get fuel if needed. Passengers rarely deplane there. They are just inconvenienced for an hour or two at most while sitting on the ramp. Been there, done that. But it is preferable to trying to land in a micro burst. Been there, done that too.
So I think these pilots are in for a little disciplinary action. Perhaps a little remedial training on company policy?
Agree. Comment quality 2nd to JB. Are those hotels and condos at Rocky Point in the NOTAMs for Rwy 1?
@@paulsherman51 Yes, they're in the NOTAM for Rwy 10 and marked on the approach plate as well. The MDA for the LNAV/VNAV is 436 and the approach calls for a 3 degree slope from the FAF (crossing at or above 1600 feet). That would, on a normal approach, put them at about 1,000 feet AGL and slightly to the left of Rocky Point. A safe distance. But according to eye witnesses they reached 250 feet AGL directly over the causeway before reaching Rocky Point. I would also assume at that point their GPWS was giving them a warning as well.
Also, some ignorant reporters have claimed they mistook the causeway for the runway. I seriously doubt that. The roadway looks nothing like a runway from the air. It curves both right and left too. Not too many runways do that. Just Google Earth it to see what I mean.
@@logictheorist
According to another source,they were 600f above ground(granted,lower than their supposed altitude).
Scud running is how you get yourself killed. Just don't do it. Fly the instrument approach until you have visual with the runway.
Accident waiting to happen just because it has become the norm
Wonder if anyone on that bridge had a dashcam, that would have given them a fright - pretty low right over the road.
Oh yeah, that would be sweet.
At that height the traffic cams probably caught it.
@@Milkmans_Son Some unlucky person probably a ticket for speeding at 200+ MPH. 🤣
Keep check Tampa News
"Just a little more speed and I'll get his tail number on the dashcam."
As a former B737 Captain at Alaska (the airline that developed the RNAV approach) I ALWAYS had an approach dialed in for the runway that we were flying to. These guys are NOT following FAA standards let alone their own company procedures
Hi there. I work for FOX13 in Tampa. Are you willing to chat with us about this approach and what may have happened as a former captain?
You say they are "Barnstormers"?
@@SpicyRok7482 No, they most likely failed to load and or follow the appropriate approach. I’m betting they saw the lights if the bridge and mistook that for the runway. Total lack of discipline
@@Gundog55 Shortcuts. Shortcuts. Everyone is always in such a hurry. ( Many times, I catch up to them at the red-light. )
@@SpicyRok7482 I would always point out to my FO’s “Rushing is a subtle sign that something is about to go wrong. We aren’t intercepting Bear Bombers coming over the pole, we are moving people’s happy asses from one place to another. It took six months the for the wagon trains to come across the Oregon trail, if we are 20 minutes late it won’t matter.” Once I got out of caring about the schedule life as an airline pilot got a lot easier.
I retired 6 years ago from a US major and it was always a practice to backup a vis with some kind of approach.
Pilots I have trained with , we all do that .
(See the correction by bbgun061 in reply to my post as I made below TY :))
The Courtney Campbell Causeway Bridge is 45 feet above the water at the midsection.
With light poles doubling that, putting the aircraft about 40-50 feet clear of hazard. That's too many slices of cheese!
They were actually about 240 feet above the bridge. ADS-B reports the altitude as if it's standard pressure. When correcting for atmospheric pressure at the time, 150 feet becomes 370 feet actual altitude. As Juan explained at the start of the video. (I know it's confusing, it took me a while to wrap my head around that.) so that's still quite close, but not as scary. It's probably about the height that airplanes normally fly over the roads near the end of most runways.
@@bbgun061 Thank you for correcting my misinformation. :)
Holy camole! Wow.
All I can say is WTF???
Landing on the tampa bay bridge in a 737, not advised.
Fly a different airline!.
What amazes me is that with all those fancy modern instruments, LCD screens, GPS, these incidents keep happening as if it's 1950's and not the 2020's.
I suspect is happens less often (per hour of flight).
But with more planes in the air you get more incidents.
With the Internet: you are more likely to hear about it.
@@jamesphillips2285 What I heard was we should have been worried a lot more in the past. Cool.
It's happening because pilots are hand flying like the 1950s and not using the instrumentation of the 2020s.
I disagree, if this was the 50s, they would've crashed. You wouldn't BELIEVE the amount of crashes even as recently as the 80s. Hell, today, even the 90s would be considered a bad decade! (think of the multiple rudder hard over incidents resulting in 3 737 crashes).
I agree this shouldn't be happening at all in 2020s. But the outcome would have been far worse just 40 years ago. Let alone the 1950s!
You likely never would have heard about this 10 years ago. You definitely would not have heard about this 20 years ago unless you were there.
OMG.. I can't believe you posted this video on that Sunday I was outside I live in Clearwater actually Dunedin but this SWA plane flew over my house so low I could see details on the skin of the aircraft I am near an approach for PIE and wonder why the hell they were routing this plane east to west to line up to a north-south runway I figured to go around some of the local thunderstorms that were happening but it's still seems so not correct and was blown away by how low this airplane was, it was so obviously not a normal situation I scratched my head and went on with my day now I ran into this video I watch your channel a lot and now I know the rest of the story story. This one hit close to home Wow just wow.
I live on the final to PIE and some nights it sounds like the inbound flights are right above us. The most recent was a Coast Guard flight very low on final. I confirmed the details online. We love driving past Tampa International when the flights are inbound and you can get a great view, but in 5 years I've never personally witnessed the approach to 10. I'm with whoever surmised that they were lining up with the Causeway. At night in rain it might be hard to discern that the actual runway is further east. Scary stuff!
@@sololobo74that’s what GPS is for.
Thankfully, it DIDN’T hit close to home!
Hi there. I work for FOX13 in Tampa. Are you willing to chat with us about seeing this approach and what you thought?
@@evynmoon4896 not much more I can say the only planes that fly over my house are usually going from a north to south on approach to Clearwater(PIE) and usually only Allegiant airline to see this airplane so low and on an easterly flight path caught me as very strange but I figured there must be a reason so I went on with my day.
No I'm not interested in further comment
As a fellow airline captain, I have flown in Tampa numerous amount of times and I have never landed on runway 10 RNAV pr visually, definitely unusual and could pose a Threat. One thing I can say from years of Jumpseat and Southwest is that when they are cleared for the visual, many times they will set 00000 in the ALT selector. Just stating an observation simply. I am always grateful to their professional pilots for thousands of rides to work. Be safe out there everyone! Thanks JB!
I'm a Tampa-area native and lived on the approach path to 10 for a year. When that runway was in use it was loud for us. It rarely happened. It was only during bad weather that they would use it and it was only for as long as they had to.
Question is, did you ever line up and land on the "old" Hwy-4? 🤣🤣
This makes a lot of sense from a casual flight sim flyer. It sounds like the kind of thing a TH-cam video would recommend for people just learning, but sounds dangerous IRL. Is this kind of thing normal for other airlines as well?
Yup, I hate it too as an operator. There may be a change coming now! It has to do with using a dumbed down software version that will capture altitude hold if the MA altitude was set in the MCP as other carriers do…..
Thank God the controller was heads up! Thanks for the excellent coverage Juan.
I am surprised they didn't put DH in there.
Confirmation bias is a hell of a thing. When you're expecting lights indicating a certain direction, and you see lights, you fixate on those lights and ignore all evidence that tells you that you're lining up on the wrong set of lights. Imagine if ATC had been a little busier and wasn't able to get back to him on the go-around during those last 150 feet.
The two opposing lanes are close together, so the headlights of oncoming cars would probably be plainly visible.
@@thedevilinthecircuit1414 But, only if they were "paying attention".
This is nuts. The controller only issued the altimeter because it’s required phraseology for a low altitude alert in the 7110.65. That routine alert likely saved the flight
The altimeter call was him confirming with them because he could see them too low too far out. It wasn't just the standard routine call.
@@davidkavanagh189you’re confusing what he said. He issued the low altitude alert because his scope alerted him of it, but when issuing the alert a controller is required to say current barometric pressure with the callout as well.
@@EstorilEm I need to listen to it again but didn't he confirm altimeter setting before then mentioning the alt alert shortly after?
There’s a 15 story hotel right where they were flying. The Westin Tampa Bay. Scary stuff.
I think that controller just saved 200 lives
This came very close to disaster. The FAA better show up at SWA headquarters tomorrow to find out what the hell is going on in their training program.
Their flight training has always been a mess. Too many colonels.
@@mike73ng Sounds like you know from experience.
@@fastmph many friends fly there.
I think this all started in the hiring process.
Air Force single seat pilot here. Flew into Tucson recently around dusk. Never been there before, did what I always do - backup whatever approach I do with an RNAV. Got cleared the vis into Tuscon after calling it in sight...only I had called in sight after biting off of DM. Good thing I had my white line!
What does "biting off of DM" mean?
@@bbgun061 DM - Davis Monthan Air Force Base. I saw their runway lit up nice and bright and thought it was Tuscon and started turning to it. But the way I backed myself up allowed me to realize my mistake almost immediately
@@belky501what does biting off mean though
You're not the first pilot to do that. When you enter Tucson airspace from the North, DM is the first runway that visually grabs your gaze day or night. I got my PPL at KTUS and was warned of this and trained to avoid it esp when approaching from the North.
@@yungrichnbroke5199 means you started to head towards it
I’m not a pilot but I really enjoy this channel. This upload reminds me of a story
My friends father was a controller at JFK in the 1970s. He told us one night he noticed on his screen a jet off course on approach.
Upon communication with the plane , he ascertained they were lining up with the Verrazano Narrows Bridge instead of the assigned runway. He radioed to the plane if they land where they were lining up for that there was a 75 cent toll at the end of the landing area.
Buy the way , the toll is $11.19 today.!
Well at least they can join the secret service if the whole airline thing doesn't work out for them.
I have got to stop trying to scroll YOUR screen on MY iPad …. I do this every time 🤦♂️ Lol
We all do it... 🤣😂
😂👍🏼
Ha ha ha ha me too.
Yeah, I get impatient sometimes.😅
You're absolutely correct Juan, fly the plan all the way to the runway. This is purely pilots error in my opinion...why didn't the pilot not flying see this !?
Thx Juan
That C-17 at Peter O Knight still holds the prize though.
Amen to that.
Sorry I didn't see your comment..I said the same.
had to search this and look it up. whole-lee-fuck that was an amazing landing and takeoff!
Hold up... A C17... At Peter O Knight?! Now this I gotta go look up!
OK I'm back. Holy crap that's nuts!
Retired airline captain here, I’m currently flying a Falcon 900 and several different models of the Kingair. We’ve always set up the instrument approach procedure for each runway whether we’re landing, visual or not. We always look at the minimum altitude for each fix and brief that as we’re crossing. We never descend below the final approach fix minimum altitude until we cross that fix and are on glideslope or confirmed gradient path…. we have a lot of low time new hires, flying in the airline in history presently. Please senior pilots be more vigilant with your procedures, and be absolutely alert for any deviations, especially when low to the ground. think through the approach, and brief in detail, and back each other up.
He was lining up on the Countney Campbell Causeway.
So he noticed lights moving on the supposed runway and pulled up.
@@TSLAaddictIf you get close enough to the causeway lights in poor vis and rain; they don't look like runway lights any more. Looks IMC disorientation while flying a visual approach. Distance perception gets fouled up.
@@kevin.keen.socialmedia thank you for the explanation!
Ridiculous mistake that should NEVER happen in todays modern Cockpits. The NAV-Display shows exactly where the runway is, you set the scale so you have in front of you the whole time and, especially if you are not using an approach, you back it up with the 3:1 rule. Both Pilots should but the PNF should present this as good CRM every so often (10,5,3 miles etc.) to keep the PF in the loop. Pilots need to focus on what’s important these days, these are not “mistakes”, these are unacceptable gross errors, period!
A few decades ago....a jet airliner landed at the Tucson Air Force Base instead of the Tucson International Airport.
You done did got some 'splaining to do Capt'n.
Not once , not twice but three times all in the same airline indicates a serious institutional problem and is completely inexcusable with the modern technology we have available . SWA need to address this ASAP
The captain or FO on radio does not seem concerned enough. Too Cool. Way out, no sense of urgency. No FAA review? This is ridiculous. Thank you for positing this video!
There is a reason the ILS technology of the 1940s stayed around for so long...
Ive been flyin as a professional pilot for almost 30 years now. Ive flown everything from WW2 birds to modern turbines. Its easy to pass judgement when you arent there. They were on an IFR flight plan and shooting an approach in light rain. My guess is that they mistook the bridge for the runway. From the air, its an easymistake to make. Personally, I dont see this as a "catastrophic" mistake, its just a mistake. The airplane had plenty of fuel to initiate a go around once the pilots realized the issue they fixed it. I wouldnt even call it a close call.
Great job by the TPA Local controller! I think they were possibly descending to the bridge!
“Southwest 245 you’re cleared to land on the Skyway, taxi direct to the toll booth.”
When you see sail boats Pull Up!
Hey, go-around! There are cars on the runway...LOTS of them.
"sailboats, PULL UP!" "sailboats, PULL UP!"
"Tower, get those Toyota Camrys off runway 10"
This is the 3rd such incident in recent past. Pretty scary when you look at the altitude and distance from runway data. Thank you again Juan for breaking it down.
Man i never tought i would say it,
but at least air canada makes it to the airport and lands on the taxi way
and not the highway!
So does Harrison Ford.
Well, there was the time where an Air Canada landed on a closed runway that was being used as an auto racing track.
@bobroberts2371 are you referring to gimli glider? They had to land there because the plane ran out of fuel.
@@matt.604 I remember the Gimli Glider, and that entire situation could have been solved from the get-go if the fuel reading had included pounds/gallons/liters during the transition.
@@matt.604 Yep, still an operational failure.
My instructor and I were coming back from a night cross-country where we flew from Hayward Executive up to Sacremento International for some night pattern work with the big boys. As I maneuvered for the final on our return to Hayward, my instructor took control suddenly and applied throttle. He returned the controls to me and told me to maintain altitude until we were closer to the runway. Something seemed off, as we were now coming in too high for Hayward which was just a mile off my nose. It then became clear to me that he had lined us up for 28L at Oakland International instead of Hayward. He didn't trust me at first until I showed him on the GPS. Thankfully he was humble enough to admit his mistake and let we made the corrections for a safe landing. He now flies for SouthWest , and I wish him the best - hope he learned from this experience and is safer for it.
following I-880 N it's an extremely easy mistake to make, especially when there's a night game at the colesium ballpark off to the right.
this is very scare, my cat is sad
Great video! It sounds like this flight crew didn't check approach clearances.
As a former railroad conductor, one of my responsibilities was to make sure railroad equipment was not staged too close to switches so that any approaching railroad equipment could make safe clearances past other railroad equipment waiting on sidings.
I had to physically check the switchpoints to make sure that the switchpoints are lined and locked correctly for either the mainline or the siding, otherwise there would be a collision, or a near miss.
I believe railroads are similar to airlines with regard to Standard Operating Procedures (SOP's), as well as all other rules and regulations that are to be followed in the rulebook that we call the General Code of Operating Rules (GCOR) nicknamed the "railroaders' bible", issued by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA).
On the railroad, you always follow correct procedures, rules, and regulations as currently issued in the GCOR, or there is a likelihood of an accident that would seriously injure or even kill you!
No, it sounds like they didn’t check ANYTHING. Jimho. Glad no tragedy. Hope they got their wrist slapped though. The tone of the pilot with tower was too slack, IMHO. Almost did not care what he was doing, just sounding ‘cool’ with ‘we gotcha’ … really?
If all of this is accurate, a passenger jet came within 150 feet of plowing into the bridge and causing a horrific American tragedy. Doesn't this latest incident call for the FAA to launch an investigation. Like yesterday???
All of this is not accurante. Barely anything is on that screen. 30.14 was the local altimeter, not 29.92.
That difference doesn't explain 150 feet agl miles out, and if they did have 29.92 set, they'd be too high, not too low. Sounds like they did have 30.14 set, though, right?
@@VASAviation So the plane was 220 feet higher than 150 feet. That makes the plane specifically
at 370 feet - that IS still a big deal!
Here in Finland out local carrier, Finnair, has had trouble using RNAV lately. Russia is disrupting GPS signals all around their land border, and the disruption extends deep enough to Finland to cover major airports.
They will need to use ground based approaches such as an ILS. GPS signals can be disrupted such as you describe. It is too bad they are your "neighbors".
And your "Neighbours" can't figure out why Finland decided to join NATO? I am sure the Russians would not care if they caused a civilian air crash in Finland with their idiocy
Maybe it was too soon to get rid of the NDB’s!
The plane before them landed just fine and I'm going to just throw out a guess here that the one behind them did just fine as well. This also needs to be looked at by the FAA if they could actually do their job
1200 ft/min is not a stabilized approach. A 3 degree glideslope will give you around 700ft/min at 140 knots ground so for the 73, you’d probably look at 800ft/min for their faster approach speed.
Bridge is the Courtney Campbell Causeway, Linking Tampa to Clearwater. Several years back, that would have taken them right over my house. Of note, just south of there is the St. Petersburg / Clearwater airport, and their North to South approach to 35R intersects that path.
Presentations are always extremely clear and professional. I always feel like I'm getting an extremely good explanation of these events. Thank you very much.
Glad that the chat with the prior pilot didn't distract too long to issue the warning. Do you think the pilots would have realized in time otherwise? (VAS and You Can See ATC are doing great things for those of us who fly by publishing these videos. Much thanks!!!)
I'm not a pilot, but this is my local airport. For some additional context, that east/west runway is relatively unused by commercial traffic. Flights almost always use the pair of north/south runways (1/19 L and R). I've landed on 10/28 exactly one time, and never taken off from it.
I wonder if the pilot was used to the north/south runways, and coming into this runway was new to them. Alignment aside, I'm surprised they'd mistake that stretch of road for a runway. It seems like something went very wrong. I drive that bridge regularly, and it certainly would get my attention to see a jet making that approach at all, let alone coming in that low over that stretch of road.
Below the hard deck doesn’t count Maverick! 😂
😂
I was only over the bridge for a few seconds. There was no danger. I had the shot so I took it.
@@dougrobinson8602 🤣
@dougrobinson8602 YOU took it. And broke a major rule of engagement!
@@Johnfisher12345gentlemen, top gun rules exist for your safety and they safety of your crew. (And the cars on the bridge) They are not flexible, nor am i. Either obey them, or you’re going to hit a sailboat and have a bad time.
Thanks Juan for once again a stellar video. Does the B737 have an audible altitude alert utilizing the radar altimeter? Just a thought, I think they were planning the visual and hit the heavy rain and lost visual on the airport, then broke out and saw the bridge thinking it was the runway, having said that I think they descend to minimums thinking they were closer to the runway. A classic case of Loss of Situational Awareness. The low altitude alert from ATC saved them from a possible CFIT….
Good thing they weren't lining-up on the Howard-Frankland bridge (the one just south), because that one has two large "humps" halfway across to allow larger vessels to go beneath.. They might have hit the streetlights!
That causeway (bridge) has one big hump in the middle, along with a pedestrian bridge next to it too.
Been waiting on this one! Great video as always!
I initially thought windshear as well, but the PIREP from the prior arrival said it wasn't particularly bad.
Then the lack of a windshear report from the incident aircraft raised all sorts of red flags.
I noticed while jump seating on SWA they set their altitude preselect down to zero. This seems to serve the function of removing this safety feature from the picture all together.
that was a carry over from the 737 classic days and is no longer SOP
@@Bigskitch why was this SOP on the 37 classic? What was the point?
@@KuostA bear in mind the 737 classic is before my time, but if I recall correctly when flying an LNAV/VNAV on a classic and you set missed approach alt it would boot you off the approach into CWS. So it just became blanket SOP at SWA
@@Bigskitch ohhh naw i saw them so it recently
@@collinl.179 how recent? Because I can say for a fact it’s not SOP any more
Concur Juan, selecting the RNA. Approach path and (critically) a PDI that would have given them an ILS like 3 degree glide slope to the intended runway. As a retired Naval Aviator, ‘GEHOSAFAT’ as Gramps Pettibone would have said! These near misses had better be a wake up call to us all!
Well to SW's credit, they did not suffer from the recent Cloudstrike debacle... their computers still run on Windows 3.1 which predates Win95 and was not affected by the glitchy update...
Windows 3.1 🤣🤣🤣🤣 That's as low-cost as it gets 😁😁
It's a good thing they weren't still running DOS... They would have needed a hangar for their computers.
Were talking possible death here not a computer inconvenience.
Um, there is something you need to know about Windows as an operating system @TheGospelQuartetParadise . It has been built by adding layers. 😊
We were all running DOS until about 10-15 years ago - just like the big banks are stuck with COBALT - no matter how much they try and make you think they are running the latest and greatest - every operating system ran on top of DOS until……..2010?? And if you knew what “the core” of every “money center” bank is based upon, you might just head over to Rosland Capital -
6:11 that gut wrenching pause after the controller asked (suggested?) if they were planning to go around. Realizing he just screwed up big time.
Geez, again! You make an excellent observation about are the SWA crew’s dependence on visual approaches? What is the SWA flight operations policy? Can anyone answer.
Obviously some serious SMS risk assessment needs to take place. 325’!
Thank goodness the ATC guys are paying attention.
That's the Courtney Campbell Causeway and that is a rare runway for Tampa International they usually flip around the North and South
I think they were flying into pie. Pie you flew over sky bridge. Maybe they got confused which airport to land at.
Baltimore: ship hits bridge.
Tampa Bay: HOLD MY BEER
Empire State Building: Rookies
It wouldn’t be the first time Tampa had a ship collide with a bridge. The Skyway got taken out by a merchant ship in 1980.
Holy crap! Another one?
This is old school.. but on MD80 we were ALWAYS running 3:1 math in our heads because the technology was so basic.. have carried that over to other planes and has helped us with “SA” and to stay out of trouble on several occasions . On arrival… on downwind… on base… and especially on final. It’s one more safety device that woulda helped here, and on that other Southwest low altitude episode a few weeks ago. Just do it… Might be awkward at first, but becomes second nature.
Hi Juan: I retired from the airline that you are currently employed, and due to medical problems, I haven't been able to fly an airplane for five years.
The altitude alert events at OKC and TPA made me think about the use of RNAV/VNAV and how entering incorrect data into the computer that could be misinterpreted as "on the glide slope" or vertical slope.
I seem to remember updating the cruise altitude was needed at times before commencing an RNAV/VNAV approach to ensure proper vertical guidance, incorrect data entered into the CDU may have given the crew a false sense of being on a proper vertical path...If the crew wasn't paying attention.
We all know how we become task saturated when dealing with thunderstorms, holding, diversions and the like, but trapping errors is the best safety device on the aircraft.
Again, I haven't piloted an aircraft in years, but I would be interested to hear from active crews if some of the data inputs may have been a contributing factor to these events.
Stay safe everyone!
In last years we can see, how safety levels in aviation prevented a lot of disasters. There were so many near-catastrofic events happened, at last moment some kind of last safety barriers kicked in and saved situation. But it also shows us, that we need to make significant changes and put some more barriers, befor it is too late. And, unfortunately, i think, noone will do anything before disaster happenes....
SOP :(
I find that when flying an unstable approach on the simulator I crash more often. Sometimes you can save it, sometimes you can’t. Always fly a stable approach. If it becomes unstable, quickly establishing the go-around right away before things get even a little dicey is the safest option.
And here I was thinking me and my kid would take a quick hop from Corpus to Houston on Southwest so he could go on his first flight lol
@Forthecasuals - Or maybe not...
Hop by foot. Safer.
Just go to West Houston or Sugarland airport and say you’d like a discovery flight. They’re like $50-$100 and an instructor will take you up for an hour. That’s what got me into my flying here in Houston. Sorry I misread your comment. You’re in corpus. Victoria might have a flight school.
@@KevinDC5 Appreciate the info!!
@@Grim_Prospects If you are worried about safety, you should hop on the SWA flight, not a local discovery flight. According to recent stats, GA flying is 14 times more dangerous than airline flying per flight hour. Obviously "GA flying" covers a lot of different types of flying, but none of the types of GA flying that I am aware of are safer than airline flying. That said, I fly GA myself, and enjoy it greatly.
The lowest point at 150 Feet is ABSOLUTELY FAKE!!!
This "ads-b data" is based on 29.92 altimeter. This channel you chose this time didn't even bother correcting for local altimeter 30.14 at the time. Only morbo, only morbo. Why facts?
For any pilots unfamiliar with doing conversions in inches of mercury: 29.92inHg = 1013.25mbar while 30.14inHg ≈ 1022mbar, the conversion of 27feet per millibar puts them 240 feet higher than the uncorrected ADS-B data shows (from low to high touch the sky)
After the Branson fiasco a few years ago, I thought Southwest changed their procedures to require that an instrument approach be used to back up any visual approach.
That was even a basic FAA rule last time I checked. The solution is for controllers to stop offering the visual as a default. Nowhere else in the world, except maybe Canada sometimes, offers a visual approach as the default. It'll be ILS/RNAV/VOR and only if NONE of those are available, visual. It's just lazy controlling and it'll cause an accident sooner or later.
@@davidkavanagh189 I've been a Southwest customer for many years, and never once worried about safety, as I knew what their hiring requirements were. Historically, they have not hired inexperienced pilots. But as a long-time GA pilot myself, these incidents are starting to shake my faith. All of the recent ones are very difficult to explain with a straight face. It makes you wonder what kind of conversations are going on within the airline's safety office and what they are actually sharing with FAA. This is terrible to say, but after thinking about this one for a while, I am beginning to wonder if this crew diverted to FLL for the sole purpose of ensuring that the CVR would be fully erased before an investigation got going. I never thought I would ever suspect something like that of a crew flying for a major US carrier in 2024.
There was another such incident just a couple of months ago with SW, think it was covered on this channel.
@@davidkavanagh189 The US system cannot handle the traffic if the majority of airline flights do not accept visual approaches. The NYC airports, SFO, LAX and others simply cannot keep up without the reduced separation requirements allowed with visual approaches.
@@ericmcleod7825 Yes I agree that in those more extreme traffic airports, there is some logic to the visuals.
That being said, outside of those specific examples, there is no justification for the hierarchy not being ILS/RNAV/VOR/Visual.
It's kind of funny, I saw VAS aviation video first, 90% of the comments are how this was definitely windshear, and some "other" channel is blaming the pilots. Then I saw your video and the ADS-B data and it's obviously not wind shear.
That's the Courtney Campbell Causeway they lined up on.
The Interstate bridge (Howard Frankland bridge) is next South, and the Gandy Bridge is further South.
On the good side, the Courtney Campbell is probably long enough and mostly flat enough to land on. The width of the bridge, on the other hand…..
I’m really surprised they had to divert all the way to Fort Lauderdale. I live maybe about 10-15 miles or so from TIA and don’t remember the weather being that bad when this happened.
This is bananas, B-A-N-A-N-A-S.
Ain’t no hollaback plane!
Did they get cleared a visual on approach control? Ignored all the nav inside and went visual to the highway. Went around because they were unstable for the actual runway or couldn't see it. Went to FLL because the hold ate up any fuel for another shot at TPA without not having enough for FLL? My hazy memory is that once you are airborne you can eat up some of that hold fuel and go to a closer non filed alternate if you take another shot at TPA.
A flying super structure full of people, (Modern airliner), is a huge, huge responsibility. There should be serious re-training and redirection to bring about much more professional acumen in the cockpit at SWA. Some of their captains and 1st officers are lacking situational awareness and not using properly the resources at hand. This trend can end badly.
I lived in El Paso . The airport next to Biggs Air Force base with same runway
Markings literally right next door. Couple times planes landed at Biggs by mistake
I hope the pilot and first officer get some additional training after this incident.
Hopefully it will pertain to pizza delivery.
it would be nice if there was a followup on everything that did happen (to the pilots) from this incident - this was not good.
I remember being stationed at Ellsworth AFB, and a commercial jet landed on our runway. He thought he was dropping in on Rapid City. I'm guessing he saw that long, beautiful runway and got fixated hahaha. Definitely must been confused when he saw all of those B-1s on the ramp.
This has happened elsewhere at Tampa as well. Look at the runway pattern at Knight Airport (a tiny GA field just south of Tampa) and MacDill AFB (directly south of TPA itself). Not only have private pilots landed at MacDill ("why are all those guys with guns coming to meet me?"), a *C17* destined for MacDill landed at Knight! Getting it out of there was a real fun time since the runway is not even 3,600' long.
Saw all the B-1’s on the ramp😂; what a beautiful sight for the passengers.
Out here in the mountainous Nevada desert if you get one dot low on approach your life expectancy is very limited.
We’ flying Southwest to New Orleans in September. Hope the bridge over Lake Ponchartrain doesn’t confuse anyone. Looking at *you* captain.
This is the kind of stuff i beat myself upfor on my FS2004 missions!...love your work, will check out the dam stuff sometime....i still rave about the corsair resto vid and Capt Benham interview.. Gidday from nz
Seems like the SWA approach was precise but not accurate.
Wow, I lived on the Tampa side of the Courtney Campbell causeway for several years. Wild to see it show up in one of your reports. Glad it didn’t end with a plane on the causeway.
would have been a lot of dead people on the causeway - don't think the plane would have survived.
I asked this in the last video, what new procedure has SW added to this part of the flight that is overloading the pilots and causing these distracted low flights.
It’s called ATP flight Academy, you’re starting to see the edge of these kids with little to no experience quickly accelerating through the ranks. Good luck, flying commercial.
@@Jimmer-Space88that makes zero sense--pilots from ATP, Jimbob's Flight Shack, and the USAF alike all have to pass the exact same standards set forth by the airlines if they want to work for them.
@@Bigskitch Apparently you don't understand how shake and bake programs work when there is pressure to keep failures below a certain level. The flight examiners all the way up the chain are typically also students at the same academy they are doing instruction and check rides for, or, employees. There is a lot of pressure for them to pass as many students as possible on the published schedule to keep the personnel moving through the school and keep the money train flowing. Once these kids get to the airline, the airline doesn't recheck all their proficiency. It is assumed they achieved the level of proficiency established by the check ride minimum standards. I guarantee you there are a lot of pilots getting to the airlines who should not have passed one or more check rides to get to that level. Existing senior pilots need to understand that they WILL get some right seaters who they shouldn't trust very much and that need diligent, active supervision. I am based at GYR. I see a lot of United Aviate Academy students out flying solo, where I've said to myself "how the hell did this person get signed off to solo?" Most recently, a girl (only saying that because I would typically say "a guy" and she was not that!) who was flying a VFR approach, and instead of entering the downwind as instructed, blew right through it and followed her magenta line right to the little dot on her screen over the runway, before realizing her pattern wasn't right, veering back out, and cutting me off as I actually entered the downwind rather than following her. Someone signed her off to solo, and she shouldn't have been signed off because she couldn't reliably fly a simple VFR pattern entry. This happens all the way up the line.
The highest point of that causeway - which is just about the point the controller called the low alt alert - is 45 feet above Old Tampa Bay. It is also lined with street lights that are another 20-25 feet above the bridge. They were very likely no more than 70 feet or so above those light posts when they stopped their descent.
Would love to hear from some of the folks on that flight to see if they sensed the very real catastrophe that was seconds away from unfolding.
The hotel at the east end is much higher and so is the other hotel closer to the airport
Juan, remember the SouthWest flight that landed at the wrong Branson, MO Airport a few years ago. It had to have been a guardian angel that was pushing on the nose of that aircraft as it got stopped on the 3700 ft runway.
My last SWA flight pulled out all the stops to exit via the taxiway 3300' from the start of the runway that led directly to the terminal. Given that RW 14 at BBG has no taxiways between C and the turn around at the end of the runway, they might have been saved by their desire to shave off a few minutes on the ground!
@@ikkinwithattitude You don't know the story obviously. This was a landing a KPLK. They mistook it for KBBG
@@ikkinwithattitude The CVR from the Branson incident apparently recorded the Captain saying: "This ain't it", just seconds after touchdown. I think both were aware that they were not only at the wrong airport, but they were committed to try and get it stopped. To their credit, they did it. If they'd overrun that place, it would have been a big, fatal wreck for sure. There's a steep drop-off at the end of the runway.
@@kipglass6222 Right. What I was saying was that if they were intending to minimize their landing roll at their intended landing point of KBBG (due to the need to back taxi), they could have chosen aggressive reverser/autobrake settings even before realizing that they were on the wrong runway at KPLK and hence saved themselves a few hundred critical feet.
I was the first news photog on scene as I worked in Springfield at the time. Highway 65 at the E end of the runway is below the runway by prob 40ft…I looked up and there was a Southwest tail at the end of the runway. It really was a miracle they stopped because the dropoff would have likely injured or killed folks. KPLK is 12/30, KBBG is 14/32…so similar mistake here.
Thanks Juan; since you’ve also mentioned similar incident with SWA in Oklahoma just 1 month ago, I somewhat got curious and checked corresponding clips on VASAviation. So just few observations wrt incidents with SWA being `actively´ involved within 1 year time-frame according to that:
* 9 (+2) total; with
* 2 go-arounds due to `low altitude at final approach´ (within last 4 weeks)
* 1 take-off on closed runway (within same last 4 weeks)
* 6 (+2) severe technical issues (2 of them due to bird-strike)
Side observation: SWA seems to operate a lot of B-737 (various versions).
Wrt to the technical incidents, it’s easy these days trying to blame Boeing when it comes to the 737 (and I will not defend them …).
However, I wouldn’t be surprised if the FAA is already taking a closer look into the overall series of SWA incidences, too; which might add another `flavour´ and might tell a bit different story. Anyone doing statistical analytics will also immediately ask questions like e.g. “how many flights are operated by SWA per year?” and “what’s the incident rate of other airlines in comparison?” Just that my gut feeling and `educated guessing´ tells me issue almost every month is way too much in a business where everything is about safety (and yes, also money of course, I’m realistic about that) …
To make it clear: it’s not my intention to assess the individual behaviour of the pilots here. I’m getting concerned if things appear to show patterns …
Coming back to the wrong landing approaches. That reminds of an event I’ve witnessed almost around 40 years ago where it appeared to me a civil 4 engine jet (B-707 or DC-8) went for approach on former very small military airfield, while the civil airport `nearby´ had same direction of runway - just 6km / 3.8miles more to the North and also 6km / 3.8miles displacement towards East. Obviously the pilots recognised in time … Felt unbelievable to me; kind of “well, perhaps airports in the US are such large that it’s considered normal to have such spacing and long taxiways in between (would need `speed taxiing´ then 😅) ” 😉. But watching these 2 SWA episodes now tells me also `my episode´ was real.
The bridge on the Courtney Campbell Causeway is 40 feet or more above Sea Level according to my Garmin computer.
The correct phraseology is "Tampa Tower, SWA123 on the visual for Runway 10.“ They just said with you for 10. ATC didn't clarify which approach they were on.
I fly for a major. I have never once said what approach I'm performing to the tower, not once. Some do it, it's not required. When cleared for an approach, it is be required to read back 'cleared XYZ approach, runway XX' to the approach controller as a readback.
@@jameshill7637 sounds like you’re another clown that shouldn’t be flying for the airlines
If an airplane isn't doing the current ATIS "advertised" approach, it is up to approach control to inform the tower.
The piece we don't know yet is what type of approach the airplane was cleared for, because all we have are the conversations with the Local Controller in the Tower. We really need to hear the conversations with Approach Control. I am guessing they will never get a CVR from this flight. That little diversion they made to FLL ensured that it would be fully erased. What scares me is that was possibly their intent with the diversion.
As a truck driver and an aspiring professional pilot, I simply don’t understand how cameras aren’t in the cockpit. Every truck I drive is equipped with driver facing and outward facing cameras that record continuously. If you’re doing what you’re supposed to be doing as a professional, then it’s no factor. Drivers that text on their phones seem to be the only ones complaining, I bet pilots that aren’t doing their jobs properly would complain as well. The pilot part of me wonders what the hell is going on in the cockpit. I have NEVER even come close to failing to maintain a proper glide slope on approach and I sure as hell know when I’m 250 feet AGL. What is going on in that cockpit that’s supposed to have a pilot monitoring? I suspect that professional pilots are relying too much on automation and just don’t fly much. Distractions in the cockpit are probably another issue. There’s two pilots for a reason, the pilots that make these mistakes are talking themselves right out of a job as they make the case for automation. It’s inexcusable, I just don’t understand how this happens…..
Unions is my bet.
Likely union related as mentioned. Also, pretty sure major railroads don't have driver facing cameras either. Yet even retail workers are on camera most all the time.
@@ronbennett7885 what’s crazy is that the cameras have saved my ass more times than I can count. I do my job the way It m trained to by the company, follow the proper policy and procedures and I have zero problems.
There was one a few years ago that almost landed at a small GA airport in the San fernando Valley of Los Angeles, They were supposed to land at Burbank, but lined up on Whiteman luckily recognized their mistake on short final.
I remember that one. Sounded like Harrison Ford at the controls.
Slightly more than a few years ago. It was 1987. I remember that one well. Continental Airlines. My family wasn’t too fond of the airline. At the time , Frank Lorenzo’s leveraged buyout led to my father choosing another career instead of crossing the picket line. We found the event comical and it was very embarrassing for continental.
The oddest thing to me as a TPA native is actually seeing airliner using that runway. I guess they opted for it due to a high easterly crosswind? I have only ever seen them use the 01 and 19 runway so if these pilots were accustomed to those, using 10 might've thrown them off. Not really sure. It almost seems like they were trying to land on the Causeway. I am curious to find out more information as it comes.
How did Southwest fly a visual approach in moderate (within 3 nm) to Heavy (5 nm) rain - as reported by the preceding Southwest aircraft? Sound more like, from the start, Southwest was operating outside the published limits. A visual approach requires either the airport or the preceding traffic in sight - which should have been impossible with moderate rain on final.
The thing about this is though, the Courtney Campbell Causeway Bridge is offset from RW 10/28 to the north and looks NOTHING like the runway at TPA. I live and fly in Tampa so very familiar with the with this airport. They were using the cross runway for landings due to the AA that blew the tire a few days prior to this happening. Said they were still finding debris from that 737 days later so they kept 19R/01L closed until it was cleared. They also don't tend to use this approach very often and prefer to use 28 when doing cross field ops because there are not as many buildings.
Someone miss a zero on the altitude preselect? Like I said on the last SWA incident, there are major and deep rooted problems in Southwest's training department that everyone seems to want to ignore. This isn't new, it goes back at least to 2015-2016 when SWA struggled to get ETOPS authorizations and evidently existed long before that.
They are too busy firing flight attendants who don't go along with their woke polices.
Why divert when no one else did? I guess that's one way to "innocently" overwrite the cockpit voice recorder loop. With the captain giving the f/o the "shush" symbol.
How about those people driving on the bridge. Probably thought it was an air show.
You are 100% correct! He was missing the runway and about to land us on the bridge or in the water. I was on the flight. I contacted Southwest. Unaccetpable. If it were not for the Tampa tower agent...he would have crashed.
I'm not a pilot, much less an ATP. And I get wanting to fly visual approaches/landings from time to time to maintain proficiency. But WHY isn't the PM backing it up with the instruments?!
An awareness of distance to the runway is a great tool. In the MD-11 I ALWAYS loaded it into the fix page of the FMS as an additional backup. Though I have probably landed here at least a few hundred times, it was never on this runway. Just a bit short for regular use in our case.
Good vid. Juan, glad they got the computers fixed
I fly in and out of TPA a few times per month and 10 is hardly ever used for commercial flights, so you'd think the crew would be more on the ball.
If they were lining up on the bridge it's probably because two rows of lights on either side of the bridge could of looked like a runway?
Juan, I have flown into KTPA at least a 100 times, maybe more. I have NEVER once used 10/28. Maybe there’s a reason? The bridge? I don’t know. I can tell you with certainty that the visual approach is tight on the AFB side of the field. Done it many times-at night.
My best friend's son, a retired KC-135 Air Guard pilot, is a senior pilot with SWA. Perhaps I'll make a inquiry what the heck's going on.
Do you think they’re gonna let a current employee or the public know what happened?
Please do and fill the rest of us passengers in 😁😁
Do it quickly! Lives depend on it!
I’m glad I’m retired and don’t have to fly anymore.
Thank you Juan. Hope you and family are doing well.
They will probably blame Boeing 😮
I am a Sim instructor and TCE. What will really pickle your noodle is watching people is the sim dial up an ILS 17R at KDEN and fly a visual to 16R in shaddy visibility. When i ask why the Localizer is full deflected they say IDK instrument error?
Scary stuff
For the record, it’s very rare ANYTHING lands on 10. Much less commercial airliners. 28 is more commonly used for small aircraft/corporate jets. When weather permits, they’ll land the airliners on 28 or if the time permits. But it’s EXTREMELY rare for the airlines to be landing 10. I worked there for around 4 years and maybe saw it twice in that time frame. Scary as I was actually driving on the highway at the time this happened, on the Courtney Campbell…
In the NOTAMs for KTPA it is mentioned that 10/28 is not normally available to aircraft over 75K lbs. gross weight. When 28 is used by airliners, it's usually during the Winter when cold fronts move through. I bet most airline pilots flying into KTPA can go years without shooting an approach to 10.
ty, jb...would get a little noisy on the ground there, too
I’m an aircraft mechanic and worked. I don’t know if five or six months in Tampa never saw anybody but corporate landing on that runway.
The company I used to work for had a GII hangered there and we always took off westbound on that runaway. When the RR Speys were spooled up for takeoff it was a glorious sound and a quick liftoff.
I worked at TPA for formally Pemco (Airborne) now for 5 years and it was once in a blue moon, maybe a dozen times a year I noticed they used this runway and shockingly enough it was always during IMC weather, they will take the shorter runway if headwinds are favoring the approach rather then a 20 knot crosswind landing. 01L has an ILS where 01R is a Localizer only. Still amazes me they will use this approach during IFR conditions with how short that runway is
This is just a speculative guess: Could the HUD (Heads Up Display) be factor? Even though you can see through the HUD, which is the whole point, the view is not as good in quality or width as the view out the windshield. Perhaps the captain saw something that he thought was the runway and kept the flight path vector on the spot that he thought was the runway. The HUD will definitely suck your eyes in. Again, this is just speculation, and it has been several years since I have flown the HUD on the 737.