Southwest flight 3461 April 15: "Passengers Cry, Scream in Southwest Airlines Landing"

GE90man · Mon Apr 16, 2018 2:15 pm

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/passengers-cry-scream-in-southwest-airlines-landing/ar-AAvUKsY?ocid=spartanntp
Just me, or does it sound like a *slight* overreaction by the passengers? Some were even texting their loved ones good bye :roll:

Doesn't seem like something that was nearly serious enough to warrant acting as if you were going to die.

KLMatSJC · Mon Apr 16, 2018 2:28 pm

The media always loves running with a theme. Last year it was overbooking flights. This year now looks like it will be safety.

blockski · Mon Apr 16, 2018 2:41 pm

GE90man wrote:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/passengers-cry-scream-in-southwest-airlines-landing/ar-AAvUKsY?ocid=spartanntp
Just me, or does it sound like a *slight* overreaction by the passengers? Some were even texting their loved ones good bye
Doesn't seem like something that was nearly serious enough to warrant acting as if you were going to die.

Huh?

Unless you're asserting that the passengers are somehow faking their fear, I don't see how this is an overreaction. They don't know anything about aviation. For their fear to be an over-reaction, they have to have some baseline of what a normal reaction would be, and they simply don't. They're not safety experts - they just know they had a really bumpy landing.

if there's strong enough turbulence that a passenger is vomiting, I think you can conclude that the passengers aren't overreacting.

If you want to say that the media should do a better job of putting these kinds of stories in context about what is safe vs. unusual vs. unsafe, that's different.

zakuivcustom · Mon Apr 16, 2018 2:55 pm

Looking at Flightaware:
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/SWA ... /KFLL/KECP

A "red" thunderstorm cloud right over the airport when they attempt to land (the first time), wouldn't be surprised if there are microbursts involved also.

On the other hand, things DO get exaggerated in the media. Planes are design to handle that plus more easily anyway. And as some would say, the pilots hate turbulences just as much as the pax.

WaywardMemphian · Mon Apr 16, 2018 3:07 pm

And... if the flight had been cancelled they would have bitched to high heaven as well.

N766UA · Mon Apr 16, 2018 3:28 pm

Did it land safely? Yes? No story.

I’d like the hear some facts about it. Honestly, pax perception and the reality of the situation are almost always going to be very, very different. Back when I flew for commuter airline X, people would often get off saying “that was the worst turbulance I’ve ever seen!” Once a woman asked me “1 to 10, how bad was that?” When I replied “2,” her jaw dropped. “I thought you’d say 9 at least!”

Pax have every right to feel what they feel, and making the flight comfortable is important, but when you start saying “Southwest put us in danger,” then you need something more than “I was airsick” to back that up.

SPREE34 · Mon Apr 16, 2018 3:35 pm

N766UA wrote:
Did it land safely? Yes? No story.

I’d like the hear some facts about it. Honestly, pax perception and the reality of the situation are almost always going to be very, very different. Back when I flew for commuter airline X, people would often get off saying “that was the worst turbulance I’ve ever seen!” Once a woman asked me “1 to 10, how bad was that?” When I replied “2,” her jaw dropped. “I thought you’d say 9 at least!”

Pax have every right to feel what they feel, and making the flight comfortable is important, but when you start saying “Southwest put us in danger,” then you need something more than “I was airsick” to back that up.

That^^^^^^^^right there. Media+Aviation=BS.

flymco753 · Mon Apr 16, 2018 3:37 pm

These folks must never fly out of MCO, some of the roughest TOs and landings I’ve ever experienced.

...heck, the flight left FLL! First time landing into FLL was rough, because of a thunderstorm.

blockski · Mon Apr 16, 2018 3:41 pm

N766UA wrote:
Did it land safely? Yes? No story.

I’d like the hear some facts about it. Honestly, pax perception and the reality of the situation are almost always going to be very, very different. Back when I flew for commuter airline X, people would often get off saying “that was the worst turbulance I’ve ever seen!” Once a woman asked me “1 to 10, how bad was that?” When I replied “2,” her jaw dropped. “I thought you’d say 9 at least!”

Pax have every right to feel what they feel, and making the flight comfortable is important, but when you start saying “Southwest put us in danger,” then you need something more than “I was airsick” to back that up.

But there's really nothing wrong with a passenger saying that - they don't know any better. They're overstepping their own fears, of course - it would be more accurate for that passenger to say "I felt like Southwest put us in danger..." because those feelings are presumably genuine.

The media shouldn't report a claim like that without verification. But don't blame the passengers for freaking out a bit with some turbulence.

flyingclrs727 · Mon Apr 16, 2018 3:55 pm

WN has never killed any of its passengers.
The pilots ultimately diverted rather than land. Everyone eventually got to MSY in one piece.

448205 · Mon Apr 16, 2018 3:58 pm

N766UA wrote:
Did it land safely? Yes? No story.

I’d like the hear some facts about it. Honestly, pax perception and the reality of the situation are almost always going to be very, very different. Back when I flew for commuter airline X, people would often get off saying “that was the worst turbulance I’ve ever seen!” Once a woman asked me “1 to 10, how bad was that?” When I replied “2,” her jaw dropped. “I thought you’d say 9 at least!”

Pax have every right to feel what they feel, and making the flight comfortable is important, but when you start saying “Southwest put us in danger,” then you need something more than “I was airsick” to back that up.

Sounds like they were in a hold waiting for a cell to clear that they didn't want to penetrate, low fuel, went to alternate and life went on.

SWApilotfarmer · Mon Apr 16, 2018 4:00 pm

WaywardMemphian wrote:
And... if the flight had been cancelled they would have bitched to high heaven as well.

Funny....I was thinking the exact same thing.

readytotaxi · Mon Apr 16, 2018 4:01 pm

Fear, based on a lack of knowledge, guess that applies to a lot of the flying public.

alggag · Mon Apr 16, 2018 4:04 pm

I was on a flight like this a few years ago and when it's happening it's incredibly scary and uncomfortable and I had the benefit of knowing some of the aviation that was going on. As for passenger reaction a woman in my row was starting to freak out a bit and myself and a guy in the aisle seat had to talk to her to settle her down so I don't doubt that the passenger reactions as reported are genuine.

UAL747422 · Mon Apr 16, 2018 4:06 pm

sounds like people overreacted- unless it was an actual bad or rough landing.

bennett123 · Mon Apr 16, 2018 4:28 pm

Surely if it was really dangerous the pilots will divert.

Afterall they do not have a death wish.

If the pilots are happy to proceed, then clearly it must be OK.

BN727227Ultra · Mon Apr 16, 2018 4:31 pm

N766UA wrote:
Did it land safely? Yes? No story.

I’d like the hear some facts about it. Honestly, pax perception and the reality of the situation are almost always going to be very, very different. Back when I flew for commuter airline X, people would often get off saying “that was the worst turbulance I’ve ever seen!” Once a woman asked me “1 to 10, how bad was that?” When I replied “2,” her jaw dropped. “I thought you’d say 9 at least!”

Pax have every right to feel what they feel, and making the flight comfortable is important, but when you start saying “Southwest put us in danger,” then you need something more than “I was airsick” to back that up.

I read the book from "Captain X" a long time ago, "he" reacted to a passenger claim of 'severe turbulence'...the reply was along the lines of 'you were maybe in moderate turbulence, because anyone who has been in severe isn't around to talk about it...'

IFlyVeryLittle · Mon Apr 16, 2018 4:35 pm

The media does not "like running with a theme." As a full-time journalist for nearly 35 years, though, I can agree that a lot of media (Im looking at you TV stations and clickbait digital sites) love running to the people with the most dramatic things to say and ignore the 70 percent who might say "yeah, that was a pretty bumpy one" or even the 10 percent who might say "I know the guys in the front of the plane had it all under control.'' For that reason, the corporate statement always ends up sounding rehearsed and overly tamped down. This story seems to have been kicked off by a journo who happened to be on the plane. Its always worse when it happens to us

evank516 · Mon Apr 16, 2018 4:39 pm

zakuivcustom wrote:
Looking at Flightaware:
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/SWA ... /KFLL/KECP

A "red" thunderstorm cloud right over the airport when they attempt to land (the first time), wouldn't be surprised if there are microbursts involved also.

On the other hand, things DO get exaggerated in the media. Planes are design to handle that plus more easily anyway. And as some would say, the pilots hate turbulences just as much as the pax.

If there was a mircoburst in the area then it was definitely NOT safe to land (hence the diversion). Microbursts are airplane kryptonite (See DL191). However, I think planes are equipped with wind shear detection to avoid those situations.

Tucker1 · Mon Apr 16, 2018 4:54 pm

Give them a break, they were scared, so what?

ikramerica · Mon Apr 16, 2018 5:00 pm

Shows how safe and smooth flying has become. When I was a kid this type of incident was common. Barf bags were used by at least one pax in just about every flight. Pilots had to fly through a lot of rough air because it was harder to track and there were fewer flights in the air to give reportsback to ATC.

MrBretz · Mon Apr 16, 2018 5:43 pm

It must have been a slow news day. I recall a flight some years ago on a flight between MIA and MCO. We were told before takeoff to remain in our seats buckled up. There were thunderstorms throughout FL. The plane dropped roughly many, many times. People were screaming. A FA came on the PA and asked if a doctor or nurse was aboard. Apparently, someone passed out. We got to 25000 feet and were out of the turbulence briefly. The pilot told us that shortly we would be descending into MCO and there was bad weather there. It was more bouncing around until we landed. The paramedics met us at the gate and I noticed one passenger removed on a gurney. I think I saw indentations on the armrests where my hands had been as I was leaving the plane.

ACDC8 · Mon Apr 16, 2018 6:04 pm

JAAlbert · Mon Apr 16, 2018 6:05 pm

I love the part of the article that says the passengers said their was no visibility -- as if they were in the cockpit.

Anyway, it sounds like an E-ticket ride and i am glad everyone made it safely. What was that lady doing texting when the plane is on approach?

ACDC8 · Mon Apr 16, 2018 6:09 pm

People have become way to sensitive - media stories like this just make it worse. Over sensationalizing non-events, driving fear into the public that every little bump or rain drop could kill them.

GE90man · Mon Apr 16, 2018 6:25 pm

JAAlbert wrote:
What was that lady doing texting when the plane is on approach?

Wait a second...... that's a good point :shock:

jetwet1 · Mon Apr 16, 2018 6:27 pm

MSN is quoting a Daily Mail story, for those in the US, the Daily Mail makes the New York Post look like the Wall Street Journal.

In ever Daily Mail story regarding aviation there are rules, someone must :
A, Think they were going to die
B, Think they were about to crash
C, Pray
D, Make the fact that at least 2 of the above did not happen into a small foot note, the smaller the better.

alggag · Mon Apr 16, 2018 6:48 pm

GE90man wrote:
JAAlbert wrote:
What was that lady doing texting when the plane is on approach?

Wait a second...... that's a good point

In her defense Southwest has gate to gate wifi and also sells a discounted tier at $2 for messaging services only. If she had purchased it earlier in the flight then she would be able to send the texts without breaking the rules.

ODwyerPW · Mon Apr 16, 2018 7:17 pm

I don't blame the passengers for being scared.

I do however blame the media outlet for blowing it out of proportion.

AApilot2b · Mon Apr 16, 2018 7:19 pm

Only one passenger vomited... couldn’t have been that bad. :scratchchin:

This article might have more credibility if it wasn’t from MSN.

AApilot2b · Mon Apr 16, 2018 7:21 pm

ODwyerPW wrote:
I don't blame the passengers for being scared.

I do however blame the media outlet for blowing it out of proportion.

Agreed.

AApilot2b · Mon Apr 16, 2018 7:27 pm

alggag wrote:
GE90man wrote:
JAAlbert wrote:
What was that lady doing texting when the plane is on approach?

Wait a second...... that's a good point

In her defense Southwest has gate to gate wifi and also sells a discounted tier at $2 for messaging services only. If she had purchased it earlier in the flight then she would be able to send the texts without breaking the rules.

Again, if it was really that bad (as in the way MSN describes it), would you really be able to text with that much “violent jostling?” She has some mad texting skills.

flyingclrs727 · Mon Apr 16, 2018 7:33 pm

GE90man wrote:
JAAlbert wrote:
What was that lady doing texting when the plane is on approach?

Wait a second...... that's a good point

Obviously her phone wasn't in airplane mode.

LAX772LR · Mon Apr 16, 2018 7:54 pm

N766UA wrote:
Did it land safely? Yes? No story.

So by that rather dismissive standard:
the Gimli Glider, Sully's landing, Air Transat transoceanic fuel starvation, BA volcanic engine shutdown, "Titanic in the Sky" (QF032), etc... all were "no story" either?

Seriously?

flyingclrs727 wrote:
WN has never killed any of its passengers.

At some point any airline could make that claim... not sure why anyone would use that as if it were a predictor of future events.

NYPECO · Mon Apr 16, 2018 8:03 pm

Just because some passengers were screaming doesn't mean they were in danger.

This shouldn't be a news story.

wingnutmn · Mon Apr 16, 2018 8:14 pm

As an airline pilot, I can assure you that pilots don't willfully fly into a situation that they don't have an out from. Moderate chop to me and the industry may feel like severe turbulance to a not frequent flyer. Just because it is red on the map, doesn't mean it is a severe thunderstorm. At the end of the day, the flight crew has access to much more information than the passengers in the back. Trust them, they are professionals.

Wingnut

N766UA · Mon Apr 16, 2018 8:31 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
N766UA wrote:
Did it land safely? Yes? No story.

So by that rather dismissive standard:
the Gimli Glider, Sully's landing, Air Transat transoceanic fuel starvation, BA volcanic engine shutdown, "Titanic in the Sky" (QF032), etc... all were "no story" either?

Seriously?

Please tell me you're comparing this with crashing in the Hudson. I want you to actually type out "This non-story is comparable to an A320 going in a river."

frmrCapCadet · Mon Apr 16, 2018 8:33 pm

wingnutmn wrote:
As an airline pilot, I can assure you that pilots don't willfully fly into a situation that they don't have an out from. Moderate chop to me and the industry may feel like severe turbulance to a not frequent flyer. Just because it is red on the map, doesn't mean it is a severe thunderstorm. At the end of the day, the flight crew has access to much more information than the passengers in the back. Trust them, they are professionals.

Wingnut

Well? They did guess that one wrong.

frmrCapCadet · Mon Apr 16, 2018 8:38 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
N766UA wrote:
Did it land safely? Yes? No story.

So by that rather dismissive standard:
the Gimli Glider, Sully's landing, Air Transat transoceanic fuel starvation, BA volcanic engine shutdown, "Titanic in the Sky" (QF032), etc... all were "no story" either?

Seriously?

flyingclrs727 wrote:
WN has never killed any of its passengers.

At some point any airline could make that claim... not sure why anyone would use that as if it were a predictor of future events.

Most aviation enthusiasts would like have found those events a thrill, possibly one they may not have chosen, but still great stories. There were probably a lot of people who were terrified, and us enthusiasts should be sympathetic. I suspect WN personnell were.

LAX772LR · Mon Apr 16, 2018 8:47 pm

N766UA wrote:
Please tell me you're comparing this with crashing in the Hudson. I want you to actually type out "This non-story is comparable to an A320 going in a river."

Uh, no... I'm trying (though clearly failing) to get you to understand that your statement was over-broad to the point of being utter fallacy.

frmrCapCadet wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
the Gimli Glider, Sully's landing, Air Transat transoceanic fuel starvation, BA volcanic engine shutdown, "Titanic in the Sky" (QF032), etc.

Most aviation enthusiasts would like have found those events a thrill.

Quite possibly THE oddest claim I've ever seen on this forum. Wow. :eek:

frmrCapCadet · Mon Apr 16, 2018 9:17 pm

In retrospect only, would you be angry now that you were on the 320 in the Hudson River?

flymia · Mon Apr 16, 2018 10:14 pm

If only one passenger threw up, it probably was not that bad. The problem was a reporter was on the flight.

Anyone remember that PIREP from a CRJ-200 into IAD a few weeks (month?) ago. It stated "bad turbulence, passengers throwing up, pilots almost sick too).

When your pilots almost throw up, that is bad. One passenger?

m0ssy · Mon Apr 16, 2018 10:20 pm

Maybe they were "crisis actors". :white:

I keed I keed!

Look, I'm sure there were some bumps, but this shouldn't be news.

DDR · Mon Apr 16, 2018 10:30 pm

In my years of flying, I've had some doozy landings. It's even worse when you are in the rear jump seats and can't see out side. Back in my early days, we had an aborted landing in DCA on a 757 where we actually touched down but bounced and the pilots went around. The pilots never intended to touch down but there was wind shear and we were too far down the runway. There were lots of screams on that one, lol.

But for people who aren't frequent flyers, I completely understand where they are coming from, and I do my best to make them feel at ease. I've held plenty of hands over the years.

GE90man · Mon Apr 16, 2018 11:15 pm

DDR wrote:
In my years of flying, I've had some doozy landings. It's even worse when you are in the rear jump seats and can't see out side. Back in my early days, we had an aborted landing in DCA on a 757 where we actually touched down but bounced and the pilots went around. The pilots never intended to touch down but there was wind shear and we were too far down the runway. There were lots of screams on that one, lol.

But for people who aren't frequent flyers, I completely understand where they are coming from, and I do my best to make them feel at ease. I've held plenty of hands over the years.

Reminds me of this landing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utpMW1bCiTk

MrBretz · Mon Apr 16, 2018 11:39 pm

GE90man, great video! I can't believe how fast the engines spun up. I thought there was always a slight delay. Maybe they applied power a couple of seconds before the runway impact?

NeBaNi · Tue Apr 17, 2018 12:08 am

LAX772LR wrote:
frmrCapCadet wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
the Gimli Glider, Sully's landing, Air Transat transoceanic fuel starvation, BA volcanic engine shutdown, "Titanic in the Sky" (QF032), etc.

Most aviation enthusiasts would like have found those events a thrill.

Quite possibly THE oddest claim I've ever seen on this forum. Wow.

frmrCapCadet wrote:
In retrospect only, would you be angry now that you were on the 320 in the Hudson River?

I consider myself an aviation enthusiast, but I'd never want to be in any of those aforementioned situations :shock:

Certainly no thrill at all and no, definitely would not want to be there, angry or otherwise, in the A320 on the Hudson.

In any case, despite being an AvGeek, any flight that made me vomit would be a memorable one for all the wrong reasons.

LAX772LR · Tue Apr 17, 2018 12:10 am

frmrCapCadet wrote:
In retrospect only, would you be angry now that you were on the 320 in the Hudson River?

Uh, hell yeah I'd be angry. And I'd sue the piss out of the airline/insurer.

Are you actually being serious with this??

litz · Tue Apr 17, 2018 12:11 am

On a quick search, excluding a CRJ crash in 2011, there hasn't been a microburst related crash since the early/mid 1990s.

That says something about safety regulations, technology, and training and lessons learned from those accidents.

Also, as to the severity of the turbulence ... nobody made dents in the ceiling panels. Either miraculously the entire airplane was actually wearing their seatbelts (and how likely is that?), or it wasn't bouncing around anywhere near as badly as some of those flights where multiples of people were carted off to the ER.

frmrCapCadet · Tue Apr 17, 2018 12:40 am

No I wouldn't sue the piss out of the airline/insurer. I might like a handful of passes for future flights. They say (wrongly I know) that lightning does strike the same place twice. They also say, rightly, that any landing you walk away from (swim?) is a good one. I have been in some dicey situations, I tend to be fairly relaxed about it.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net