Delta Flight From Rio Lands On Taxiway

[learjet45]

Just reported on local radio news, WSB750 here in ATL, that a Delta flight from Rio landed on an ATL taxiway around 6am yesterday morning. Anyone have anything else?

[Machaca]

WSB reports:
Delta Flight Lands on Taxiway

By Jon Lewis @ October 20, 2009 9:32 AM Permalink (http://wsbradio.com/localnews/2009/10/delta-flight-lands-on-taxiway.html) |

(WSB Radio) The FAA is investigating why a Delta flight coming in from Rio landed on a taxiway at the Atlanta airport, instead of the runway.

The FAA's Kathleen Bergen tells WSB's Bob Coxe Delta Flight #60 from Rio had been cleared to land on runway 27R just after 6 Monday morning.

Instead, it landed on a parallel taxiway:

"Pilots are trained to land on the runway," Bergen says. "Taxiway landing is not appropriate, so we will be investigating it very thoroughly in determining why that happened.

"We did receive a report that there was a medical emergency on board the aircraft when the landing occurred," she says, "but the pilot still is required to follow all proper procedures and land on the runway."

There were no planes on the taxiway, and no one was hurt.

Bergen says the crew had reported a medical emergency on board, but that wouldn't excuse a taxiway landing.

Such landings are rare, but have happened.

"I can't think of any prior occasion in Atlanta," says Bergen. "But we have had patterns of taxiway landings at other airports in the southeast."

One southern airport, in particular, has had its share of taxiway landings.

"We've had a number of these cases occurring at Palm Beach International Airport," she says. "That is causing us to take a look at the airport layout."


The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports:
Delta flight lands on taxiway instead of runway (http://www.ajc.com/news/delta-flight-lands-on-167519.html)


By Rhonda Cook

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
3:18 p.m. Tuesday, October 20, 2009

The Federal Aviation Administration is investigating the circumstances that caused a Delta Air Lines flight from Rio de Janeiro land on a taxiway instead of the prescribed runway at Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport.

FAA spokeswoman Kathleen Bergen said Tuesday the pilot of Delta 60 had declared a medical emergency just before landing in Atlanta at 6 a.m. Monday but even so should not have landed on the taxiway. She did not know the nature of the emergency.

The Boeing 767 touched down on the taxiway running parallel and north of runway No. 27.

No one was injured and there were no other aircraft on the taxiway, Bergen said.
“The aircraft landed safely,” she said. “The FAA is investigating and looking at all aspects of the event… Our goal is to find out what happened and to ensure it doesn’t happen again.”

She said it was “very, very rare” for a plane to land on a taxiway rather than the runway. “None of us here, anecdotally, can remember this happening,” she said.
A spokesman for Delta was not available for comment.


DL60 arrived at 6:09 local. Sunrise was 7:46 local.


DL60 track inbound:

http://i337.photobucket.com/albums/n385/motidog/DL60-19102009A.jpg


KATL:

http://i337.photobucket.com/albums/n385/motidog/KATL-27L27R.jpg

[Flintstone]

Didn't think this could happen, at least with a company such as Delta. We'll not know for sure how this came about until the preliminary report so.......um....thread over I suppose?

I'm curious though. What does their inbound track (above) have to do with it?

[gcap]

Typically,at ATL, approaches are flown to the outside runways and departures from the inside. If given a side-step to 27R, radios are unlikely tuned and the final approach flown visually. This is much easier to do than we would like to believe. More so after flying all night.
There but for the grace of God...........

[RobertS975]

Over an hour before sunrise, this crew somehow ignored the intended runway with full TDZL and CL lighting. This will need some explaining because right now, it is really hard to understand. (I am assuming that all the lighting was operational.)

It is pure luck that this landing 767-300 did not collide with anything on the taxiway. I can't wait for the tapes and transcripts. This flight would have had three pilots aboard due to stage length.

Also, redeyes into ATL often use the inner runways for landing simply because there are virtually no flights departing before 0730. And there are reports that this flight had a medical issue aboard and would likely have welcomed a shorter taxi to terminal E.

[p51guy]

Even though landing on a taxiway can't be justified I am sure they would have seen any aircraft taxiing. It was a mistake and they will pay dearly. I don't think it is career ending. You can bet they will never do it again.

Transisioning to the inner runways might have just one row of lights to the right instead of the other runway. Bad on them, wrong colored lights but they screwed up and am sure admitted it. They were tired and made a mistake. I quit doing the long hauls for that reason. Fatigue. I like daylight flying.

[galaxy flyer]

If you're running late, this will shorten the taxi time some. :}

At Eastern, we used remind the DL boys about landing at the right airport after several flights arrived at the wrong airport; say FLL instead of MIA, or McDill AFB instead of TPA; there were others. So, at least, they're at ATL.

Yes, we beat them into Ch 11. :}

[411A]

Didn't think this could happen, at least with a company such as Delta.
Well, lets see.
When DAL first started transAtlantic service, gross navigational errors were common...for awhile.

Then, about a dozen years ago, one of their DC-9's landed in gusty winds, and dragged a wing tip.
The airplane was taxied straight to the hangar, and the incident was not reported to the FAA for three days.
Fact.

...radios are unlikely tuned
Big mistake.:ugh:

[Desert Diner]

At Eastern, we used remind the DL boys about landing at the right airport after several flights arrived at the wrong airport; say FLL instead of MIA, or McDill AFB instead of TPA

Delta also developed a reputation out west for arriving at the wrong airports after they bought Western.

[RobertS975]

p51guy, it is hard to argue that they would have seen an aircraft on the taxiway, especially at night. From the rear, there is not much to see amidst the clutter of lights. It is even harder to argue this when they didn't even notice that they were landing on a taxiway, not a runway.

[DownIn3Green]

P51Guy...What IS your experience with "Long Haul"?...The tone of your posts indicate it may be "Parker"51...

[Airbubba]

Typically,at ATL, approaches are flown to the outside runways and departures from the inside. If given a side-step to 27R, radios are unlikely tuned and the final approach flown visually. This is much easier to do than we would like to believe. More so after flying all night.
There but for the grace of God...........

Amen. I don't fly into ATL much anymore but I did do the sidestep from the 27L ILS to 27R landing through a low cloud layer in the middle of the night a couple of years ago. You are instantly high on profile from the difference in thresholds and I kept asking 'does this look right?'.

At Eastern, we used remind the DL boys about landing at the right airport after several flights arrived at the wrong airport; say FLL instead of MIA, or McDill AFB instead of TPA; there were others. So, at least, they're at ATL.

They also did Frankfort instead of Lexington (both in Kentucky, at least). It was observed that Delta was an acronym for 'Don't Ever Land There Again!'

When DAL first started transAtlantic service, gross navigational errors were common...for awhile.


Yep, for instance: 2 JETS NEARLY COLLIDE OVER THE ATLANTIC - The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/1987/07/09/us/2-jets-nearly-collide-over-the-atlantic.html)

[Mactlsm1]

Amen. I don't fly into ATL much anymore but I did do the sidestep from the 27L ILS to 27R landing through a low cloud layer in the middle of the night a couple of years ago. You are instantly high on profile from the difference in thresholds and I kept asking 'does this look right?'.ATL this morning was clear (cold but clear) so low cloud and RVR shouldn't have been an issue. Not making an issue and am SO glad that all on board are safe. Thereby but for the grace...... I bet the pax didn't even notice that they had not landed on the runway.

Mac

[muduckace]

The strongest but still weakest argument here is human factors. I chock it up to the idiot factor.

[Noxegon]

There's only one word for this - particularly since ATL is a Delta base that these pilots must have known.

Oops :rolleyes:

[HXdave]

Quote from WBS as shown above:

"Pilots are trained to land on the runway," Bergen says.

really? well, you learn something new every day!

[WHBM]

The FAA's Kathleen Bergen ........."Pilots are trained to land on the runway," Bergen says. "Taxiway landing is not appropriate....
A bright career in aviation administration nowadays probably awaits someone with this level of understanding :rolleyes:

She said it was “very, very rare” for a plane to land on a taxiway rather than the runway. “None of us here, anecdotally, can remember this happening,” she said.Clearly the new FAA world includes key staff who have no idea about aviation. Many on here will be able to recall a number of such incidents off the top of their head, including locations where it has happened more than once.

[Monom]

Many years ago, landing at Ovda (S. Israel) a similar thing nearly happened. 2 parallel r/w's and a narrow taxiway. Right hand r/w closed, so fairly straightforward - not! VOR let down, 30 deg offset. On limits, just rained, sun setting in our eyes. Breakcloud and there were the 2 r/w's. Took the left one until about 200 ft when it became apparent that the r/w was much narrower than the right hand one. Doubts, then certainty - it was the taxiway. Just time to switch (B757) and land. Phew! But I had a CAA inspector sitting by my shoulder. What we did not know was that the runway was not only closed but completely dug up. Sun shone off the wet r/w and taxiway giving a very false picture. Ovda is in the desert and there is very little other reference. I was reaching for my licence to rip it up when the inspector said "I was fooled too." The (NL) CAA then issued a cautionary note about such circumstances and my career continued. Easily done if the cheese holes line up, so don't be too hasty in condemnation.

[captjns]

GCAP says... Typically,at ATL, approaches are flown to the outside runways and departures from the inside. If given a side-step to 27R, radios are unlikely tuned and the final approach flown visually. This is much easier to do than we would like to believe. More so after flying all night.
There but for the grace of God...........

Yeah I agree... perhaps for a simulator pilot who is color blind, or perhaps a Tyro:rolleyes:.

I have to say, after 34 years of flying combination of long haul, and all night flying, I still find it hard to land on a taxiway...

By the way... can everyone say Localizer and Glide Slope... oh and Magenta line?

[Checkboard]

Took the left one until about 200 ft when it became apparent that the r/w was much narrower than the right hand one. Doubts, then certainty - it was the taxiway. Just time to switch (B757) and land.
Many years ago, you might even get a pat on the back for a good bit of handling - today you would be severely chastised for not going around for a second approach rather than repositioning an airliner onto a different runway at less than 200 feet. :}

[Graybeard]

Hmm, thinking of AF447: maybe there's something in the water in Rio...

[ddive]

"By the way... can everyone say Localizer and Glide Slope... oh and Magenta line?"

Sounds like this was a sidestep from 27L. 27R ILS usually isn't up. If they got the sidestep at the marker, probably not time to reload the FMS... or maybe one of them was trying.

[FlexibleResponse]

Monom, Very good post...thank you for sharing.

[mary meagher]

reminds me of an incident at Austin Executive; a Mooney had engine failure high enough to turn back, only to find the single runway now occupied by a helicopter doing pressups, so he sensibly crashed onto the taxiway, (forgot in all the excitement to put his wheels down). Turns out the helicopter was occupied by somebody from the FAA checking out the heli pilot, he presented himself to the fortunately uninjured couple in the Mooney (I'm from the FAA and I'm here to ......give you a ticket for landing on the taxiway). No kidding.

The unkindest cut of all, word had it, was that the young lady in the right seat of the Mooney was not the wife of the pilot.......

[WorkInProgress]

Did this happen or nearly happen at London Gatwick a few years back on their parallel taxiway??:suspect:

[JW411]

Yes; and it has been done to death a hundred times before on pprune.

[DC-ATE]

Can one of you local ATL pilots confirm that Runway 27R has WHITE lights and the parallel taxiway has BLUE lights?

[BOAC]

Am I confused - was there not a similar incident somewhere else in the good ol' US within the last year on PPRune?

[sharksandwich]

IT WAS Ryanair that pioneered the art of flying passengers to sometimes far-flung airfields and telling them that they had arrived in one of Europe’s loveliest cities.
So it should have come as no surprise yesterday to travellers on board Flight 9884 from Liverpool to City of Derry when they landed not in the Maiden City but Ballykelly Camp instead — an army airfield five miles away.
Ryanair passengers are also accustomed to not having an air-bridge to get them inside the terminal, but in this case they didn’t even have any steps to get them off the jet. Luckily, the flight’s original destination was close enough for ground-staff to bring the steps by road to the army base
.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article699176.ece

[Cows getting bigger]

Ryanair didn't pioneer that trick. Try a 707 landing at RAF Northolt in October 1960. I'm sure there are many other examples.

[lomapaseo]

Let's not wander into other incidents where the wrong airfield was involved and instead stick to the difference between a runway landing vs a taxiway landing error.

[gcap]

GCAP says...
Quote:
Typically,at ATL, approaches are flown to the outside runways and departures from the inside. If given a side-step to 27R, radios are unlikely tuned and the final approach flown visually. This is much easier to do than we would like to believe. More so after flying all night.
There but for the grace of God...........
Yeah I agree... perhaps for a simulator pilot who is color blind, or perhaps a Tyro.

I have to say, after 34 years of flying combination of long haul, and all night flying, I still find it hard to land on a taxiway...

By the way... can everyone say Localizer and Glide Slope... oh and Magenta line?
captjns is offline Report Post Reply

Well...after 43 years..30,000 hours, although I find it HARD to land on a taxi-way, I can see how it can happen...
If it was a sidestep, there was no loc, gs, or magenta line

[Re-Heat]

Also, redeyes into ATL often use the inner runways for landing simply because there are virtually no flights departing before 0730.
You overlook the simple mistake that could arise if the outer runway lights were not illuminated and the inner ones were, with the taxiway also illuminated. Simple assumption is that the one to the right is the inner runway, rather than the outer one, as the other runway even further out is not illuminated.

Happened at Gatwick a few times, with operaters who weren't total muppets.

[Raz_]

I assume when the guy who is quoted as saying the taxiway to the north of runway no. 27 that he is referring to north of 27R as that is the runway to which I am lead to believe the flight was cleared to land...

If this is the case... am i right in thinking it was taxiway M that was used of the landing ??


I couldn't locate a video of a landing to 27R... but here is a night landing from KATL on 26R

YouTube - Midwest Airlines Boeing 717 Cockpit View of an ILS Approach, KATL (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72T701ZfBKE)

I can only assume 27R has a different lighting format to 26R as it seems pretty clear where the runway is in this vid!!

Any pilots flying around that part of the world can inform us what the 27R approach is like in comparison?

[Carbon Bootprint]

Am I confused - was there not a similar incident somewhere else in the good ol' US within the last year on PPRune?Yes, COA did it on arrival at KEWR not that long ago, perhaps longer than a year but not more than two or three years ago.

[varkdriver495]

I've heard through the grapevine that 27R lights were out or dim compared to taxiway lights and no ILS up....medical emergency as well...no excuses, just waiting for more details and how to avoid similar pitfalls.

[ironspud]

I guess that not even the famous Delta "wind check" request would have helped in this one.

[bluefishbeagle]

From Galaxy Flyer:

At Eastern, we used remind the DL boys about landing at the right airport after several flights arrived at the wrong airport; say FLL instead of MIA, or McDill AFB instead of TPA; there were others. So, at least, they're at ATL.



As I recall the gouge was "We're Delta Pilots and we never make the same mistake three times."

from a rEAL pilot

[Old glass]

If had not been a 67, I would have bet it was one of those low-life, scum bag, red bookers.

[wes_wall]

This from the NTSB
quote
A check airman was on the flight deck along with the captain

and first officer. During cruise flight, the check airman

became ill and was relocated to the cabin for the remainder

of the flight. A medical emergency was declared and the

company was notified by the crew. A determination was made

to land at the scheduled destination of ATL.



The flight was cleared to land on runway 27R but instead

landed on taxiway M, which is situated immediately to the

north and parallel to runway 27R. The runway lights for 27R

were illuminated; the localizer and approach lights for 27R

were not turned on. Taxiway M was active but was clear of

aircraft and ground vehicles at the time the aircraft

landed. The wind was calm with 10 miles visibility.

Night/dark conditions prevailed; twilight conditions began

at about 7:20 a.m. EDT and the official sunrise was at 7:46

a.m. EDT. Unquote

[bluefishbeagle]

If had not been a 67, I would have bet it was one of those low-life, scum bag, red bookers.


Red Bookers????? who's that

[Rapid D]

Then, about a dozen years ago, one of their DC-9's landed in gusty winds, and dragged a wing tip.
The airplane was taxied straight to the hangar, and the incident was not reported to the FAA for three days.
Fact

Well, another FACT for you - Delta got rid of their last DC-9 in 1993

[Machaca]

Full text of NTSB Advisory:

NTSB Advisory
National Transportation Safety Board
Washington, DC 20594
October 21, 2009

NTSB INVESTIGATING LANDING OF COMMERCIAL JETLINER ON TAXIWAY IN ATLANTA

The National Transportation Safety Board is investigating the landing of a Delta B-767 on an active taxiway at Atlanta Hartsfield International Airport (ATL).

According to preliminary information received from several sources, on Monday, October 19, 2009, at 6:05 a.m. EDT, a Boeing B767-332ER (N185DN) operating as Delta Air Lines flight 60 from Rio de Janeiro to Atlanta landed on taxiway M at ATL after being cleared to land on runway 27R. No injuries to any of the 182 passengers or 11 crewmembers were reported.

A check airman was on the flight deck along with the captain and first officer. During cruise flight, the check airman became ill and was relocated to the cabin for the remainder of the flight. A medical emergency was declared and the company was notified by the crew. A determination was made to land at the scheduled destination of ATL.

The flight was cleared to land on runway 27R but instead landed on taxiway M, which is situated immediately to the north and parallel to runway 27R. The runway lights for 27R were illuminated; the localizer and approach lights for 27R were not turned on. Taxiway M was active but was clear of aircraft and ground vehicles at the time the aircraft landed. The wind was calm with 10 miles visibility. Night/dark conditions prevailed; twilight conditions began at about 7:20 a.m. EDT and the official sunrise was at 7:46 a.m. EDT.

A team of four from the NTSB, led by David Helson, is investigating the incident.

The issue of runway safety has been on the NTSB's Most Wanted List of Safety Improvements since its inception in 1990. Information on the NTSB's work on runway safety is available at NTSB - Most Wanted (http://www.ntsb.gov/Recs/mostwanted/runways.htm)

###

NTSB Media Contact: Peter Knudson
[email protected]
(202) 314-6100

[dvv]

Come on, guys! Nothing beats Aeroflot's landing in Barcelona.

[Huck]

If had not been a 67, I would have bet it was one of those low-life, scum bag, red bookers.

That's beautiful. You meant to say low-life scumbags that can find the runway, I guess.

[Airbubba]

The flight was cleared to land on runway 27R but instead landed on taxiway M, which is situated immediately to the north and parallel to runway 27R. The runway lights for 27R were illuminated; the localizer and approach lights for 27R were not turned on.[my italics]

Sounds like quite a setup for a mishap to me. I think this was exactly the scenario when I landed on 27R at night a couple of years ago.

Wonder how the line check went...

[Lightning Mate]

........."Pilots are trained to land on the runway,"

..and for some of us German autobahns!

[protectthehornet]

redbookers...this is a holdover from the republic/northwest merger. one group was the green book and one was the redbook for seniority.

Did anyone think that whatever made the checkairman sick just might be starting to make the pilot and copilot sick, reducing their judgement.

Yes, Continental landed on a taxiway with a 757 at EWR.

I remember back in prehistoric times how easy it was sidestep...you simply tuned up the other ILS/LOC and went for it. Now, it is so hard to change things and pilots don't even write notes on their appch plates anymore. I always wrote the parallel runway ILS freq so I would have it for a sidestep.

Every airline has screwed up. Some are just much better at hiding it from the public!


Has anyone seen the United A320 that landed at DIA with a total hydraulic failure????quite recent.

[Earl]

New Sop and Company slogan.
D- Dont
E- Ever
L- Land
T-Taxi way
A- Again
Sorry couldn't resist.
Just wanted to beat Jay Leno to the punch.

[AKAAB]

I first heard about this from a Delta colleague during a meeting in Toulouse this morning. From what he was told:

Check airman on board for line check with new Captain.

Check airman got ill and left the cockpit.

Last minute request to sidestep to save taxi time.

REILs possibly not working. Questions about the approach lights and runway light operation.

Someone is getting an unscheduled vacation...:bored:

[Earl]

What I posted was a joke AKAAB,
What you posted was not believable, credible or even funny.

[Machaca]

Earl, AKAAB's comment is believable, likely credible, and genuinely concerned.

[RobertS975]

Hey, a good thing that there wasn't anyone coming down that taxiway for a takeoff on 27R, landing lights off as a courtesy to the incoming arriving aircraft. It could have been Tennerife II.

Often enough, the only thing that separates an "incident" from a horrific accident is luck... Ernest K. Gann wrote about this a half century ago in "Fate is the Hunter".

My opinion only, but if enough attention gets paid to the "incidents", it could conceivably prevent a future accident.

[freighternav]

And how many seconds crew was going cut for taxying to apron. Nice safety desicion.

[Reefdweller123]

I remember being on a visual at Bermuda not to long ago. We were turning final to rwy 30 (ils out of service) following a c-130 on a pretty short final when it became clear that he was lined up for the parallel taxiway ...alpha I believe?? ...anyway before we could chime in the controller recognized (frantically) and instructed him to go around. At first i thought how ludicrous that was (especially after one would have noticed a rather tall lighthouse so close to your approach path :=).....but after operating there a few more times in certain conditions i guess????;) i could maybe see how one could become disorientated?????:eek:...but in night/dawn conditions with approach lighting working correctly is a different story...eithery way it will be interesting to hear the details of the delta flight once released.

[mermoz92]

Isn'it mandatory to select the runway ILS frequency before landing ?

[411A]

I remember back in prehistoric times how easy it was sidestep...you simply tuned up the other ILS/LOC and went for it.
Yup...and we still do.:ok:

[Airbubba]

Uh, the LOC for 27R was not turned on.

See the NTSB advisory above.

[ironbutt57]

Red book..."real" Northwest..greenbook Republic pilot list pre aquisition by Northwest usual seniority slagfest

[MaxTOW]

Yeah, P51 is definitely Pentel or Parker. :ouch:

[RWEDAREYET]

Has anyone seen the United A320 that landed at DIA with a total hydraulic failure????quite recent.

Wasn't a total hydraulic failure!

[747Flyer]

Quote:
Didn't think this could happen, at least with a company such as Delta.
Well, lets see.
When DAL first started transAtlantic service, gross navigational errors were common...for awhile.

Then, about a dozen years ago, one of their DC-9's landed in gusty winds, and dragged a wing tip.
The airplane was taxied straight to the hangar, and the incident was not reported to the FAA for three days.
Fact.

Quote:
...radios are unlikely tuned
Big mistake.:ugh:

411A - Delta hasn't operated DC-9s for 17 years...until the NWA merger last year...MD-88s yes...and ATC does not turn on the LOC on the inboard (takeoff) runway...

[FullWings]

From a worldwide aviation perspective, this isn't an isolated incident. Not having been in the cockpit at the time, the only thing I'm fairly certain of is that they didn't intend to land on the taxiway.

Looking at the preliminary statement, the "holes in the cheese" are lining up already: long night flight, medical emergency, one crewmember down, landing just before dawn, late change of runway, strange lighting configuration, lack of electronic guidance, taxiway clear of aircraft, etc. There was a lot of pressure, some of it probably self-generated, to get the aircraft on the ground ASAP - this was the result.

I hope the eventual report will have some interesting learning points for the rest of us, so for the moment I would suggest not condemning the crew involved out-of-hand...

[Gegenbeispiel]

AKAAB was right in at least this: NTSB confirms KATL 27R app. lights and loc. were off.

[jackharr]

There have been numerous incidents along similar lines. I never managed to do that myself and being retired, wouldn't get the chance to do so now. But, I might not have been so lucky.

Incidents that come to mind:
Dan Air 1-11 wrong runway at Gatwick (but some good extenuating circumstance)
Dan Air 748 wrong airfield at Belfast (Nutts Corner instead of Aldergrove)
Charter on behalf of RyanAir landed Ballykelly instead of Londonderry
RAF Argosy of my Squadron circa 1963, Lasham when meant to land at Odiham. Both airfields snow covered.

Twice when on the jump seat I had to point out that we were not aiming for the correct runway. Once we were making approach to Essen instead of Dusseldorf. But perhaps the funniest of all was on an RAF Argosy going into Aden at night. The hairy old training captain was at pains to point out how it was all to easy to line up on a well-lit dual carriageway instead of the runway at Khormaksar. He then made his approach towards the road and it was with great bravery (a very green co-pilot at the time) I had little choice but to speak up from the jump seat.

Jack

[JW411]

Actually Jack, the 1-11 at Gatwick was BIA and not Dan Air.

[jackharr]

I'm sure you are correct. I cannot recall the precise details. DanAir/BIA - they have both disappeared.

Jack

[Semaphore Sam]

If ATL authorities authorize a visual Parallel runway landing, why would they NOT turn on the ILS and approach lights? Do they not have some blame here?
Sam

[fran35780]

Fatigue , or tirednesss (on final approach ending this Long Haul Flight )is ,for me , the main contributing factor.

According NTSB , only 2 pilots were on command ( flight time : 9h55)

I's seems that the check airman is on cockpit for Pilots Check ( + supervising and Safety )...?..

[411A]

If ATL authorities authorize a visual Parallel runway landing, why would they NOT turn on the ILS and approach lights? Do they not have some blame here?

I would certainly think so, and if I were one of the pilots I would hammer this point, totally.
No excuse in my book for not having navaids turned on...and functioning properly, when you have landing aircraft...especially at night.

[lomapaseo]

411A

I would certainly think so, and if I were one of the pilots I would hammer this point, totally.
No excuse in my book for not having navaids turned on...and functioning properly, when you have landing aircraft...especially at night.

with respect, would that not be a contributing factor and not a causal factor?

(In other words the crew still should have been able to land on the runway with normal skills.)

[AKAAB]

It's not all about you, EARL.

I posted a factual recounting of what I was told from someone getting the word from within Delta. It had nothing to do with you and was in no way meant to be funny. Not everything here is meant to be a joke. This was a potential disaster that could wind up being a career-shortening mistake regardless of the outcome. There are going to be a lot of human factors coming into play as the investigation plays out.

Back to the matter at hand.

[411A]

with respect, would that not be a contributing factor and not a causal factor?

Absolutely.
Perhaps the ATL airport folks are behind on their electric bill....:}

[Dawdler]

I remember the Gatwick incident too, but the name of the airline escapes me.

Another incident which I saw, but heard nothing about later was one very busyday at Gatwick an aircraft landed on the runway before the aircraft taking off had left the ground! They were on the same runway for maybe a second or two only. It struck me as "interesting" at the time.

Sorry to intrude.

Dawdler.

[AirRabbit]

It looks like the prize goes to ddive for recognizing what it “sounded like.” As has been said by several here, 27R is typically used for departures – and there hadn’t been any and weren’t any scheduled for quite a while … so the runway lights for 27R were not on. The localizer/GS for 27R were not on either, as they are very rarely used. The flight crew was cleared for the ILS to 27L and, likely, because of the medical emergency on board, asked to side step the approach to land on 27R, to cut down on taxi time because of the medical emergency. After the request was made, the tower cleared them to land on 27R.

Not passing judgment on anyone here – merely stating the facts (along with some suppositions about the reason for requesting the runway change). There is certainly enough blame to go around to almost anyone who was there and working that morning.

[Liffy]

Maybe I’m missing something here?

From the NTSB Advisory the incident occurred at 6:05 A:M EDT. From somewhere else in the thread sunrise was at 7:46 A:M. That implies night time dark conditions to me.

Can’t remember any place I’ve flown in and out of where taxiways were lighted with other than blue lights and runways with white lights. In the last mile to touchdown it shouldn’t be too hard to distinguish either on a clear night. So, how could this happen?

What am I missing here?

[50100]

There was a Delta DC-9 aircraft that hit the hangar many years ago but not by a pilot. Mechanics were doing a layover check which requires a cross tie relay check. This check requries the ground control cbs pulled to check the system. The mechanic did the check but forgot to reset the cbs. They then taxied the aircraft to the hangar on the other side of the field. With the cbs pulled only brakes available are accumulator pressure. They ran out of pressure at the time they reached the hangar and hit the door, which by the way came off the track. They were fortunate that the doors did not fall down.

[FullWings]

Can’t remember any place I’ve flown in and out of where taxiways were lighted with other than blue lights and runways with white lights.
True, but the blue lights are generally not very bright and green lights (which are) can be found on both runways and taxiways. Stop bars, RWY end lighting, threshold lighting - all can contrive to look somewhat like the other to someone in a hurry, especially when the approach/runway/taxiway is not lit "normally". Colour vision isn't very good at low intensities and you tend to get white or shades of grey (rods take over from cones), so weak blue can quite easily be interpreted as RWY edge rather than taxiway, especially as that's what you're expecting.
In the last mile to touchdown it shouldn’t be too hard to distinguish either on a clear night. So, how could this happen?
Fatigue, conformation bias, time pressure, external complicity, inaccurate mental models, etc. A large amount of HF at work here...

[jackharr]

Dawdler: "Another incident which I saw, but heard nothing about later was one very busy day at Gatwick an aircraft landed on the runway before the aircraft taking off had left the ground!"

I had similar incident at LGW when a BIA Herald captain. I was cleared to “line up and hold” (or whatever the terminology was but definitely not cleared to take off). As I lined up, I heard an aircraft cleared to land (on my runway) and almost immediately saw it break cloud at around 200 feet. I used a lot of power, was prepared to go on to the grass but managed to get on to a bit of concrete at the edge of the runway.

Calm (of a sort) was restored and I flew to Rotterdam and back. It was not a happy flight as I was certain I must have been at fault. There was the inevitable phone call on return. A profusely apologetic controller said it was entirely his fault and did I want to put in a formal report? I suppose I should have done so, but I said to him that there wasn’t much point. “I guess you’ll never do that again”. “No I won’t!” He was a very relieved controller. I was a very relieved pilot.

Jack

[Robert Campbell]

Did anyone think that whatever made the checkairman sick just might be starting to make the pilot and copilot sick, reducing their judgement.

I just started looking through this thread, and when I heard that the check airman was ill, I wondered what the cause was, and whether the PIC and SIC were affected to some extent.

Does anyone know what happened to the check airman?

[RobertS975]

jackharr, how did you see an aircraft on short final if you were on the runway awaiting a takeoff clearance? I am not sure where you were exactly?

[jackharr]

jackharr, how did you see an aircraft on short final if you were on the runway awaiting a takeoff clearance? I am not sure where you were exactly?

As I taxied on to the runway as cleared, (I had earlier used the standard aviation jargon, lined up so that might have been what confused) I heard the ATC transmission "cleared to land" and looking hard left saw the aircraft break cloud. I then exited runway as quickly as I could. Quite simple really.

Jack

[Halfnut]

For October 20, 2009 at KATL (-4:00 GMT) I plot:

Civil Twilight 07:21 EDT

Sunrise 07:46 EDT

[Chuck Canuck]

Food for thought:
Robert CampbellRe #49 Protect the Hornet (a beauty)
Quote:
Did anyone think that whatever made the checkairman sick just might be starting to make the pilot and copilot sick, reducing their judgement.
I just started looking through this thread, and when I heard that the check airman was ill, I wondered what the cause was, and whether the PIC and SIC were affected to some extent.

[LastCall]

Interesting point, but if there’s any merit to it, then what happened in the 24 hours following the incident?

Did the condition of the check airman improve, worsen or remain the same? And, what about the other 2 guys who landed on the taxiway? Did they get sick or have any symptoms of being sick, or were they O.K. health-wise?

If they were O.K., then whatever was affecting the check airman couldn’t have been anything that was applicable to all 3, nor have any bearing on what caused the incident in question.

[kk pilot]

It's afterall an honest mistake exacerbated by the crew's haste to get the plane down to the best point in the airport to facilitate medical attention for a fellow crew member. Luckily, nothing untoward happened. Sure, the pilots are going to be reprimanded but I don't think their careers are in any jeopardy.

In the far east, a couple of years ago a Korean Air B737 landed mistakenly on a taxiway in Akita; the skipper was fired!

[Pugilistic Animus]

...and At least they did not take off from the wrong taxiway:}

[Airbubba]

...and At least they did not take off from the wrong taxiway

As you probably know, they've had a problem with that at ANC.

Dynasty took off on taxiway Kilo with an A340 in 2002 and EVA took off on taxiway Yankee in 2005 with an MD-11F.

Both had been cleared for the customary 'runway 32 at Kilo' intersection departure.

[RobertS975]

kkpilot, I am not sure whether you are being facetious or not, but I hope that you post was in jest. While I agree that landing on the taxiway was an "honest" mistake, in other words not a deliberate move, I do not know what the rest of your post means.

If the taxiway landing had resulted in a Tennerife II with hundreds of casualties, would you feel differently? It was just pure luck that this incident did not result in an accident. The ultimate success of a landing should not be a flip of a coin, heads you win, tails you lose.

And on a different note, why has nothing else come out here on this incident? It was superceded in the US news market by Northwest, but I would have expected some more factual data would have come out by now.

[RWEDAREYET]

Delta has always been very media savvy, the Northwest incident helped. Kind of interesting that Northwest and Delta are now the same company, but again the Big D media machine was able to keep the Delta name out of the MSP incident.

I imagine, much like other incidents in the past involving Delta, this one will be kept under tight wraps and will not be heard about much.

[lomapaseo]

I imagine, much like other incidents in the past involving Delta, this one will be kept under tight wraps and will not be heard about much

Perhaps it will stay faded in memory from the press, while songs and parodies continue about other unfortunates, but it will still remain of interest to the NTSB and the FAA.

[Airbubba]

As predicted, the RD's at ATL will be going back to work after a trip to the sim and a line check with a better result:

Delta Pilots Who Landed on Taxiway Set to Avoid Punishment

By ANDY PASZTOR

Two Delta Air Lines Inc. pilots who mistakenly landed a jetliner filled with 182 passengers on a taxiway at Atlanta Hartsfield International Airport last month are expected to avoid punishment, according to people familiar with the matter.

The weather and visibility were both good on Oct. 19, when the Delta pilots mistakenly landed their widebody Boeing 767 jet on a taxiway instead of a parallel runway. Despite the error, both pilots are expected to keep their licenses and their jobs, these people said. The pilots are currently suspended, but Delta intends to retrain them and return them to flight status.

The taxiway incident happened just several days before a pair of pilots flying for Delta's Northwest Airlines unit lost radio contact with air-traffic controllers for more than an hour and cruised past their airport destination. The Northwest pilots – whose flight sparked a broader debate about cockpit distractions -- had their licenses revoked by the Federal Aviation Administration. They are appealing that decision. Delta doesn't intend to reinstate the Northwest pilots under any circumstances, according to industry officials. Delta press officials have declined to comment.

The stark contrast in the treatment of the two cockpit crews has angered pilot union leaders and illustrates different FAA enforcement standards. Nobody was hurt in either incident, and neither plane was damaged. Both crews quickly filed voluntary reports alerting airline officials and regulators about their safety lapses, and were suspended from flying duties...



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125816841453048137.html

[Airbubba]

NTSB: Delta pilots were fatigued before taxiway landing

By Kelly Yamanouchi

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

6:56 p.m. Wednesday, November 17, 2010

By the time a Delta Boeing 767 accidentally landed on a taxiway at Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport instead of a runway, the captain had been awake more than 22 hours, the National Transportation Safety Board said in a new report on the October 2009 incident.

The NTSB said the probable cause of the incident was the flight crew's failure to identify the correct runway because of fatigue, exacerbated by several other factors.

The flight, which had departed from Rio de Janeiro for Atlanta late on a Sunday evening, was arriving Oct. 19 just after 6 a.m. One of the flight's three pilots had fallen ill with a gastrointestinal disorder, so the remaining two pilots conducted the entire flight without their customary break, according to the NTSB report released this week...

NTSB: Delta pilots were fatigued before taxiway landing | ajc.com (http://www.ajc.com/business/ntsb-delta-pilots-were-744869.html)

Here's the NTSB report:

OPS10IA001 (http://ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20091020X05636&ntsbno=OPS10IA001&akey=1)

[atakacs]

By the time a Delta Boeing 767 accidentally landed on a taxiway at Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport instead of a runway, the captain had been awake more than 22 hours, the National Transportation Safety Board said in a new report on the October 2009 incident.


How can that be (ie. I would think that he should not be allowed to fly under such circumstances) ?

[fox niner]

Awake for more than 22 hours....

Wow what a shock. What are we going to do about that? I regularly land aeroplanes after being awake for that amount of time. I don't want to, but hey, it is part of my job!

I woke up three hours ago. brought one kid to school, changed the diapers of the other kiddo, and I will fly a B777 to Singapore this evening! And I cannot guarantee that I will be able to sleep on board toward the far east. So I might end up landing the plane after 24 waking hours. I don't want to, but it's the reality of the glamourous world of AVIATION.

[VONKLUFFEN]

had been a Latin pilot, Asian or African the tone of the threat would be completely different. MMM interesting ....

[atakacs]

I will fly a B777 to Singapore this evening

No reserve crew ?!

[golfyankeesierra]

Quote:
I will fly a B777 to Singapore this evening
No reserve crew ?!
I guess he just left so don't expect an answer for the next 13 hours:rolleyes:

[golfyankeesierra]

And moreover, he is probably asleep by now:}

[JW411]

atacaks:

No doubt things have changed since I flew DC-10s in the USA for a Part 121 airline. However, it was perfectly possible to be scheduled and to fly a 24 hour FDP, for the international part of Part 121 stated that it was not allowed to fly for more than 12 hours (scheduled aloft - IE from take-off to landing [not chock to chock]) in any 24 hour period.

In other words, it was perfectly possible to fly 12 hours on the first day and then carry straight on to fly another 12 hours on the second day without rest.

And then there was what could be done even after that under Part 91.

This was only possible on international flights. US domestic flights had a much stricter 8 hours aloft (with 2 hours rest per hour aloft) for no US Senator wanted a disaster on his own territory. (There was a concession for trans-continental flights up to 10 hours aloft).

Believe you me, European FDP regulations were like a vacation compared with what could be done on the other side of the pond.

[Rwy in Sight]

Maybe no rest for our fellow ppruner between AM Dutch time and taking off for the Far East.

Rwy in Sight

[Shell Management]

From the Wall Street Journal
Both crews quickly filed voluntary reports alerting airline officials and regulators about their safety lapses

I bet they did to try to get immunity. More abuse of the fine ASAP program.

The difference is that Delta would not terminate a crew for being fatigued by their roster but would when they blab in the cockpit when they should be flying.

Well done Delta! Excellent Just Culture!

To learn more of fatigue managment at Delta see this
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/afs/afs200/media/aviation_fatigue_symposium/NewAppComplete.pdf

[blind pew]

sympathize for the crew after a night flight landing early morning,

Many other incidents - first was a BOAC VC10 at Sharjah - flew downwind at high speed and with the larger turn radius rolled out on finals with the new runway of Dubai on the nose. taxiways hadn't been built but had enough juice to take off and land at the correct.

Another gem was the 707 or DC8 that carried out three approaches before it landed Juhu military airport near Bombay - wrong airfield and rather too short for the 4 engined jet - ran off the end to prove the point.

And a couple of years ago Marseilles had the main runway closed for resurfacing - had the pleasure of flying with a low cost carrier who lined up on the runway full of rather large machinery - approach was burnt around 400ft - ten minutes later we landed on the open runway - day flight. Obviously wasn't reported as I haven't read about it.
As was said - there but the grace of dog !

[atakacs]

In other words, it was perfectly possible to fly 12 hours on the first day and then carry straight on to fly another 12 hours on the second day without rest.

Wow - I learned something ! Still not convinced it's a good idea, though...

[Admiral346]

atakacs,

can you sleep whenever you want to?

That plane arrived at 0605EDT after 10 hours of flight. I am too lazy to look up the time difference, but it can't be much from ATL to GIG. That means the flight left arround 8pm. Now if that pilot got up at 8 in the morning, he might just simply not have been tired until he had to leave the hotel.

That happens a lot on long haul flights, and it even gets worse when large time differences come into play...

Nic

[Shell Management]

There is some good news. Such plans really should be done by every operator irrespective of if their is a rule or not

http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/airline_safety/info/all_infos/media/2010/Info10020.pdf

[fox niner]

Hey everyone, we made it to Singapore all in one piece. Was able to Catch 3 hours of sleep on our way overhere. Yes, of course we have an augmented crew. (4 of us)
The point i was trying to make was:
No matter what all the regulators are trying to achieve by making up FTL rules, there is never a guarantee that a given pilot is actually able to catch some rest during a long flight. Regardless of whether he is 'entitled' to get some rest.
Also, a pilot on a long haul flight (like the one from rio to atl) is never able to accurately predict his future state of drowsiness during the upcoming landing.
You might feel fit when you start, but after 12 hours everything is different.

I can guarantee the non-flying public that every crew is at its most tired (by definition) at the end of the flight, during landing. Some people simply don't realize that.

Safe flying, cheers.

[protectthehornet]

fox niner is correct

the most tired point of the flight, for the pilots is the final few seconds of the approach to landing.

I recall when JETBLUE was testing out the idea that you could fly new york to california and back to new york with one crew in one day.

it don't work! so give up.

when I started with the BIG AIRLINE we got plenty of rest and time for food, exercise in very nice hotels. no longer

[Uncle_Jay]

Also note the Western Airlines 2605 LAX-MEX (DC10-10 N903WA). although with some assist from ATC