Lufthansa lands on construction site at EPKT

[barti01]

Today at 15:45 ZULU a CRJ700 landed on a new strip at EPKT airport which is still under construction. Allegedly it was LH1360 from Frankfurt. 51 souls on board, nobody got hurt. There's no taxiway yet available for this runway, so the plane may stay there for a while.

[Superpilot]

Disaster waiting to happen. The new runway is far more prominent. At minimums sometimes it's the only thing you see with the crazy VOR offset.

[Bearcat]

There's a big X at the threshold.......and no markings on the runway. I find this incident highly embarrassing for LH or any airline for that matter. I see they now have to use the same runway to take off on as there are no taxiways to vacate.

[Dysonsphere]

Well at least they got the right airfield unlike many others.

[AtomKraft]

Dyson.
Correct!

It's a start. :ok:

[CL300]

This is somewhat embarrassing; i remember a story from the good old days in the USofA in Huntsville, AL; VERY LARGE airport and massive parallel runways with terminal in the middle. When pilots were cleared to land on 36L coming from the East, they were landing on the taxiway of 36R....

The officials toured all the operators implicated on these mishaps, reminding gently that a runway has BIG F.. Numbers on it....:)

[Al Murdoch]

Just imagine the tone of this thread if it had been Ryanair.

[Ptkay]

LH got permission from Polish CAA for "technical take off" from EPKT.
I expect they will just fly the patten and land on the proper runway this time to pick up pax and return to Frankfurt.

[Ptkay]

Some images:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=824950644184796&set=a.220609361285597.69109.126545364025331&type=1&relevant_count=1

[Ptkay]

There's a big X at the threshold.....

Clearly visible here:

http://blog.katowice-airport.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/nds.jpg

More images here:

https://www.katowice-airport.com/pl/lotnisko/pokaz-galerie/337126#

[Ptkay]

Since April 2nd ILS is NOTAMed as INOP.
VOR 27 approach has 11 deg offset.

http://wstaw.org/m/2014/06/05/VOR_jpg_750x750_q85.jpg

The PIC asked for visual approach and got it granted.
Landing against the sun in the evening certainly contributed to the confusion.
Luckily Saturday evening there were no workers or machinery on the RWY.

[Tu.114]

They were rather lucky that there was no construction equipment present on the runway. Also, if the picture above is representative of the runways completion state, the incomplete areas in the middle section were obviously avoided.

An opportunity for learning that came without damage to anything but some egos this time.

[Ptkay]

...Also, if the picture above is representative of the runways completion state, the incomplete areas in the middle section were obviously avoided.

The picture is from April, the runway is wider now, they are in the process of adding safety strips on both sides.

An opportunity for learning that came without damage to anything but some egos this time.

I am afraid it will have much bigger consequences for the pilots.

[Tu.114]

So what does the runway look like now? It is physically completed and marked with crosses painted on both ends - is it blank otherwise or does it show other runway markings that might lead to a mix-up?

[Kubalson]

Start techniczny Lufthansy z nowego pasa w KTW - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLLqIrf5l1Q&feature=youtu.be)

[lomapaseo]

Well at least they got the right airfield unlike many others.

I would be much more concerned about landing on a closed runway with an "X" than the wrong airport.

[Phileas Fogg]

I would be much more concerned about landing on a closed runway with an "X" than the wrong airport.

Whilst I'm more accustomed to white (or in snowy countries yellow) "X"'s on that runway there are no threshold markings, no centreline markings, I mean there's not a drop of white paint to be seen, were they blindfolded when they landed?

[barti01]

wondering whether same crew executed the technical takeoff, or they're not allowed to fly until investigation is performed

[Machinbird]

Since the runway has not been commissioned, does it even appear on approach charts/ airport diagrams as a closed runway?

I'm assuming that a text type Notam was in the briefing for the flight, but without a visual presentation of the under-construction runway relative to the operational runway, the crew might not have had a mental picture of what to expect.

Add in a low sun angle and, Voilà, embarassment and potential for serious hazard.

[Superpilot]

It's Notammed but doesn't appear on any Jepp airport diagrams. As of today they now mention it on the ATIS!

[barti01]

Machinbird-17:45 local time at this time of year in Northern Europe and the sun would be still pretty high over the horizon, me think.

[FougaMagister]

I flew into KTW on 24th June. The "works in progress" area was depicted on Jeppesen chart EPKT 10-8 which refers to the latest NOTAMs. One reads:

EPWW-E0505/14
A) EPKT KATOWICE
B) 2014 Apr 07 15:00 C) 2014 Aug 31 23:59 EST
E) CONSTRUCTION OF NEW RWY IN A DISTANCE 150M NORTH PARALLEL TO RWY
09/27. DO NOT USE NEW PAVEMENTS FOR OPERATIONAL PURPOSES.

Hard to miss... The VOR approach is offset by 11°... so what? If properly briefed, then it shouldn't come as a surprise. Late afternoon, ie facing the sun? That should be part of the briefing too.

Cheers :cool:

[BRE]

Technically speaking, it was not Lufthansa but Lufthansa CityLine. And the article does not quote a Lufthansa spokesman (why would Lufthansa speak for a separate entity?). The correct translation is along the lines of "At Lufthansa, the word is ...".

[BRE]

Do the subsidiary airlines of LH these days get pilots from the same school as mainline? Do they operate to the same SOPs and overall safety philosophy?

An old Spiegel article from more than 30 years ago implied that this was not the case back then.
DER SPIEGEL 10/1993 - Anflug verpatzt (http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-13682266.html)

At that time, in an expanding market, LH was bringing in already existing airlines to fly for them, much as the legacy carriers in the US did and still do.

Similarly, in the 90s, Crossair had some incredible lapses that were several notches below Swissair's high standards.

[Ptkay]

According to aerotelegraph a Lufthansa spokesman said the airport markings were misleading: they claim no crosses were painted on the runway, but the new runway was fully lit. If that was true then the airport was asking for trouble.

Typical German arrogance. Always other to blame, we are the best.

How could the runway be "fully lit", when the taxiways are still under construction, side pavements of the runway are still not ready.
There are also no approach lights installed yet.

There was NOTAM, there was ATIS, there was CAVOC.

Instead of blaming others, do apologize and make sure, it will never happen again.

(BTW: Close to the airfield there is a motorway under construction.
Also straight and wide, and no crosses, be careful.)

[172_driver]

But they've all gone through the DLR assessment.. so I guess it's alright then ;)

[what next]

Typical German arrogance. Always other to blame, we are the best.This is simply what every operator in the world would do to protect his company from claims by looking for reasons why others may be to blame as well. This is totally independent of nationality (and I don't say that because I happen to be german myself).

According to ICAO, a closed runway is supposed to be marked with one or more crosses along the centreline, so this little cross offset to the side that we see in one of the earlier postings might indeed be a bit misleading.

http://www.skybrary.aero/images/CLSD_RWY_and_TXY_markings.jpg

[Ptkay]

Technically speaking, it was not Lufthansa but Lufthansa CityLine. And the article does not quote a Lufthansa spokesman (why would Lufthansa speak for a separate entity?). The correct translation is along the lines of "At Lufthansa, the word is ...".

BRE, it was Lufthansa:

Bei der Lufthansa heißt es, dass die Kennzeichnung des Flughafens irreführend gewesen sei. «Nach unserer Information war die Bahn nicht wie im Weltluftverkehr üblich durch Kreuze gekennzeichnet», so ein Sprecher zu aeroTELEGRAPH. Zudem sei sie voll beleuchtet gewesen, sodass die Crew den Eindruck haben musste, die Bahn sei nutzbar.

It was Lufthansa spokesman, quoted here.

"...the crew must have had an impression (Eindruck), the runway were in use."

I would prefer they would fly according to procedures and knowledge, not "impressions".

They shouldn't start blaming others for their own clear cock-up.

Let's wait for the preliminary report of the Polish AAIB (PKBWL) to have all the relevant facts.

Regrading Lufthansa and Lufthansa CityLine, I was flying few weeks ago to MUC with LH, and back with CityLine.
There was clear difference (by the same ticket price) in quality of on board service between the two. It could be assumed there might be the same difference in other aspects of procedures between the two operators.

[Ptkay]

According to ICAO, a closed runway is supposed to be marked with one or more crosses along the centreline, so this little cross offset to the side that we see in one of the earlier postings might indeed be a bit misleading.

The key word here is "closed runway".

Closed runway, per definition, is a runway once in use, present in older maps and approach charts, which shouldn't be used any more, for whatever reason.

The "runway" in question was just a construction site, a straight strip of concrete, changing it's appearance every day, as new layers were put on top of older one.
There were no centre line markings, no threshold markings, no old paint.

The crosses you refer to are usually put on "closed runways" to avoid confusion, when the remains of old markings are still there.

Nevertheless, as seen on the image posted above, there were crosses present. If they are to small or to big, is irrelevant. It was not "closed runway", it was a construction site.

I would be glad to know, that pilots are not inclined to "have an impression" that a 2 miles straight strip of concrete is a runway, when there are no ICAO crosses on it.

In Poland military is still using parts of motorways as emergency runways. When under construction, they look very much like a normal runway, with turning tarmac on each end, and parking tarmac in close vicinity. And there are no crosses. So, be careful, flying next time to Poland.

[FE Hoppy]

No mention of RAAS or EGPWS TCF. City line ejects have it. What about the CRJs?

[EDMJ]

Typical German arroganceInstead of blaming others, do apologize and make sure, it will never happen again.It could be assumed there might be the same difference in other aspects of procedures between the two operators. My, what an axe you have to grind with Germany and Lufthansa, Ptkay :eek:

Topped up with an ever so slightly contradictory statement:

They shouldn't start blaming others for their own clear cock-up.

Let's wait for the preliminary report of the Polish AAIB (PKBWL) to have all the relevant facts.

[jackharr]

No doubt a single X meets the legal requirements but a series of Xs for the first few hundred metres wouldn't exactly cost a great deal and make the situation more obvious.

And I notice on that photo that the single X is offset from actual centre line. It's 15+ years since I flew professionally so maybe I should shut up. But it does strike me as odd that the symbol isn't on the centre (or extended centre) line precisely where a pilot looks when landing.

[Ptkay]

Topped up with an ever so slightly contradictory statement:

EDMJ, you got me. :)

Forgetting the NOTAM, not listening to ATIS and landing off the runway is probably not a clear cock-up.
Maybe there were really clear runway numbers and threshold markings and full lighting on the stripe of tarmac. So:

...let's wait for the preliminary report of the Polish AAIB (PKBWL) to have all the relevant facts.

[Ptkay]

No doubt a single X meets the legal requirements but a series of Xs for the first few hundred metres wouldn't exactly cost a great deal and make the situation more obvious.

And I notice on that photo that the single X is offset from actual centre line. It's 15+ years since I flew professionally so maybe I should shut up. But it does strike me as odd that the symbol isn't on the centre (or extended centre) line precisely where a pilot looks when landing.


I would say again, it was not a "closed runway". The piece of new tarmac in the place, were there was no runway before is not "closed runway", because it was never "open" before, not in any charts, Jeppesen or maps.

They did, what they could, taking into consideration, that multiple layers of concrete and asphalt were put on top of each other, and putting crosses all the way down on every layer would be little troublesome.

Also on the image you can see, they are still adding width to the left side of the tarmac, so nobody actually knows, where the central line is...

[drfaust]

It's not that complicated. Do your due diligence and you won't land on a construction site. If this had been RYR, EZY or WZZ I'm sure our German colleagues wouldn't have been so understanding as they appear to be in this thread.

Admit the mistake, all of us should learn from it and move on. I mean, KLM also took off from a taxiway in their own home base a while ago. That stuff happens. I don't think they were trying to make the excuse that the runway wasn't marked well enough. Don't blame the Poles for building a better runway instead of that roller coaster they have there now. If you fly in somewhere and you're not familiar, do your homework.

There I go pre-empting the 'relevant facts', yet somehow this situation feels very obvious to me.

[Jet Jockey A4]

"No mention of RAAS or EGPWS TCF. City line ejects have it. What about the CRJs?"

IMHO, RAAS or EGPWS would not have helped in this case because their software would not have been updated yet with the new status of that airport.

I was in Calgary (CYYC) last week and they have a fully operational new runway and we did not get the RAAS warning for it.

We also didn't get the normal warnings at a Middle-East airport last year (can't remember which one).

So the manufacturers of the equipment needs the info to load it up in their database.

[FE Hoppy]

@JJA4

I'll be surprised if they didn't get a too low terrain from the EGPWS TCF but you could well be right about RAAS.

[Jet Jockey A4]

"I'll be surprised if they didn't get a too low terrain from the EGPWS TCF but you could well be right about RAAS."

Again I believe when it comes to EGWPS it only looks at the airport that's in the data base and it is not runway specific.

So if you have programmed in your FMS that you are landing at XXXX but in fact you are landing at YYYY (or an airport that is non-existent anymore), then yes you would get a warning.

However if the aircraft is fully configured to land at XXXX the EGWPS doesn't know which runway you are landing on thus wouldn't give a warning... Case in point a circling approach which cannot be programmed in the FMS.

[jigger01]

Tut, tut ,PTKAY
A bit harsh on our German cousins , shades of beach towels on the
sun loungers and all that.
Maybe they wanted to be the first Deutsche sponsored aircrew
(who says they were German Nationals?) to land on newly formed
Polish soil...

[mnttech]

Again I believe when it comes to EGWPS it only looks at the airport that's in the data base and it is not runway specific.
The EGPWS data bases do appear to know the runways too. It would not know which one you were landing on, but it does change the protection. Did a lot of work with KFJK 4L/4R in a level D simulator and found that the database did have an error.
Per an EGPWS database web site:
COUNTRY CITY AIRPORT_NAME AREA ICAO RW_ID
POLAND KATOWICE PYRZOWICE EEU EPKT
POLAND KATOWICE PYRZOWICE EEU EPKT RW09
POLAND KATOWICE PYRZOWICE EEU EPKT RW27
New runway is not there, nor would I expect it.

[FE Hoppy]

The EGPWS takes the runway from the FMS and builds it's hole around that so it should trigger if you approach the wrong runway. The cut out area around the selected runway is not just a big circle, the sides parallel to the runway are filled in sloping down from 245ft to ground level at the runway edge.

http://code7700.com/images/egpws_improved_tcf_plan_view_honeywell_egpws_manual_page_26. png

[FougaMagister]

Correct. When Frankfurt opened its latest runway (07L/25R) a couple of years ago, we discovered that the EGPWS database was not up to date when some of our crew got a "tow low - terrain" warning.

Cheers :cool:

[Jet Jockey A4]

OK so it does take "some" runway data base info but...

How come if you program runway 24L and at the last minute they change you to runway 24R more than 1/2 mile away you don't get a warning?

Also if you do a "circle to land" procedure you would have programmed the initial runway for the approach and then have to manoeuvre to the other runway perhaps more than 2 miles away at low altitude how come there is no warning then?

Could it be because the aircraft is "configured to land"?

The only time one of our crews got a warning was going into the new Athens airport many years ago. Obviously it was not in the EGWPS’ data base ad had to be turned off for the landing.

In this incident if there is no runway info in the data base of the EGWPS and the aircraft is fully configured to land, how would it know the pilots are landing on the wrong runway?

[CL300]

for this they need the RAAS option, function of the EGPWS, but optional..

[Wojtus]

There are also no approach lights installed yet.
Most of approach lights poles are installed on both directions of the runway. I doubt if they are already operational.

Prominence of the new runway was reported by EPKT-based pilots several times. Local policy has been introduced a few months ago to turn on approach lights for any approach, even in bright sunlight.

Luckily Saturday evening there were no workers or machinery on the RWY.
They were. Some machinery is usually left on site during off hours. And even at night there are small technical tasks performed (cutting, sealing, measuring, watering, checking, whatever).

As far as I know this was VOR approach (with 11° offset), not visual.

Another contributing factor: both runway thresholds are almost exactly in line with tower, so it is very hard to visually distinguish if an aircraft aims for the right (well, left actually) one. Approach radar resolution is also not enough.

Finally, hint for crews flying to EPKT: ILS 27 GP is out of service, however LLZ is not turned off. Use if in doubt.

[mnttech]

OK so it does take "some" runway data base info but...
How come if you program runway 24L and at the last minute they change you to runway 24R more than 1/2 mile away you don't get a warning?
First I think it depends on what version of EGPWS is installed. Our CRJ's level D simulators had Mark V's, so I would assume this aircraft does too.
Second, there are a bunch of different software versions/mod status for the installation, and no real requirement (in the US) that I know of to keep the fleet at the same status. You would assume everyone does, but...:ooh:
Third, was the terrain database current?
The Install manual does say it receives "Selected Runway Heading" from a ARINC 710 (FMS) source.
From what FE Hoppy was saying, and the Mark V pilot guide:
The Terrain Clearance Floor (TCF) function (enabled with TAD) enhances the basic GPWS Modes by alerting the pilot of descent below a defined “Terrain Clearance Floor” regardless of the aircraft configuration. The TCF alert is a function of the aircraft’s Radio Altitude and distance (calculated from latitude/longitude position) relative to the center of the nearest runway in the database (all runways greater than 3500 feet in length). The TCF envelope is defined for all runways as illustrated below and extends to infinity, or until it meets the envelope of another runway. The envelope bias factor is typically 1/2 to 2 nm and varies as a function of position accuracy.

That is one very very smart box.

[Jet Jockey A4]

Thanks for the info...

That would explain (perhaps) that during a circling and a side step to another runway the EGWPS doesn't give you warnings.

[bsieker]

Ptkay,

Closed runway, per definition, is a runway once in use, present in older maps and approach charts, which shouldn't be used any more, for whatever reason.

Would you mind pointing me to that definition? ICAO Annex 14 ("Aerodromes"), from which the diagram showing how to mark "closed runways" is taken, does not define the term "Closed Runway" in the definitions part.

It only says

7.1.1 A closed marking shall be displayed on a runway or taxiway, or portion thereof, which is permanently closed to the use of all aircraft.

For a runway to be considered "closed" it is not required that it had been in use before.

As to how many "X" there should be, it goes on to say:


Location
7.1.3 On a runway a closed marking shall be placed at each end of the runway, or portion thereof, declared closed, and additional markings shall be so placed that the maximum interval between markings does not exceed 300 m.

So single crosses on each end are definitely not sufficient.

Reading on, a runway close to completion could be considered "temporarily closed", as the above only refers to "permanently closed" runways, and for those cases there is only a recommendation, not a requirement:


7.1.2 Recommendation.— A closed marking should be displayed on a temporarily closed runway or taxiway or portion thereof, except that such marking may be omitted when the closing is of short duration and adequate warning by air traffic services is provided.

[Ptkay]

Bernd,

the piece of tarmac, with people and machinery moving around is not a "runway". It is, what it is, a strip of concrete or asphalt.
No taxiways, no markings, no lights.

If you insist on calling it a runway, tell me, when, (point in time) it became a runway?
Hence, when the crosses should be applied by the airport authority?

When the first layer of humus was removed and light sand strip was visible?
(Some "bush "runways" look like this.)
Or when the first layer of "light" concrete was laid, and gray strip of tarmac was visible?
Was it already a runway?
Or maybe, when the firs dark layer of asphalt was laid?

NOTAMs, ATIS, AIP, and visual contact with the proper runway are pilot's tools.

They were supposed to use them, before landing.

[bsieker]

Ptkay, so where is the definition of what exactly a "closed runway" is?

It becomes wise to mark it closed (as has been done half-heartedly) as soon as the risk arises that it can be mistaken for a runway from the air. Academic definitions of when it is a runway by the letter of the law are unhelpful.

Still, since ICAO only regulates permanently closed runways explicitly (which probably fall into the category you call "closed runway"), marking it in this case was not required, since it's only a recommendation and the closure is temporary, and means of informing pilots were apparently in place. (NOTAMS, ATIS, etc.)

That it still happened is an indication, however, that this was not enough and it should have been considered a temporarily closed runway and marked appropriately. In aviation, nobody is served by just saying "these pilots (controllers/technicians/...) were idiots, and shouldn't have done what they did", and consider the case closed.

People do make mistakes, and what we must do is try to ensure that (1) these mistakes become less likely and (2) the consequences of such mistakes have no grave consequences.

[Bidule]

I am amazed by your support to your German colleagues! What would you have told whether the incident would have been with Wizzair, Ryanair or similar operators?

This being said, when referring to ICAO, I agree there is no definition of a "closed runway", but there is a definition of a "runway":

A defined rectangular area on a land aerodrome prepared for the landing and take-off of aircraft.

The less we can say is that that rectangular area was not exactly "prepared" for landing. But you will likely challenge me on the fact there is no definition of "prepared".:)

I think that we can consider that what you call a runway was not an operative runway; effectively, when a paved runway is to be operative, the ICAO requirement (not recommandation) is that "A runway designation marking shall be provided at the thresholds
". The definition of the required marking is given in the paragraph 5.2.2.4 of the Annex 14.

I fully agree with you that anybody can make mistake - and in this event, I do not blame the crew - but your support to this mistake is beyond the reasonable, simply because you try to use unreasonable arguments.

[bsieker]

Bidule,

this has nothing to do with "support for my German colleagues", and yes, I will say the exact same things for almost any other airline.

And so what would you do? Just blame the pilots and be done with it? And hope that by deterrent you keep all other pilots from making mistakes. Good luck with that.

"Oh, maybe someone could mistake that rectangular area prepared for the landing and takeoff of aircraft as a runway. But that's ok, if they do it we'll just punish them, and everyone will be safe."

[Ptkay]

One question shall still be answered by the incident report, if the approach lights on the active runway were on or off.

I found another NOTAM, that also should have caused increase alertness of the crew:

POSSIBLE POWER OUTAGE OF VISUAL NAVIGATIONAL AIDS DUE TO TECR.
DURING POWER OUTAGES LVP NOT AVBL.

E1328/14
FROM: 31 MAY 2014 07:52 TO: 30 AUG 2014 23:59 EST

Usually, on CAVOC sunny day, with vis >4km the lights are off anyway.

[jmmoric]

Could a low sun reflect in the runway lights, and make them appear to be on?

There are all sorts of markings on a runway, but do we actually look at them?

White runwaymarkings tend to dissapear when you're flying toward a low sun.

And when you're on a final approach you don't look at the big .... numbers, you look at your touchdown zone and the runway as a whole.

Once you've identified the runway, it really takes someone to shake you to make your brain realize you're doing something wrong.

[drfaust]

Bernd,

Nobody is calling for the punishment of these guys. At least not as far as I'm aware. Sure they made a mistake, and honestly they could and should have known about the situation. But they are human and humans make mistakes. I don't expect the airline to do anything more than a thorough debriefing with the training department to be quite honest with you.

It's not the first time pilots landed where they weren't supposed to. But the responsibility shouldn't just be shrugged off as "oh the runway was marked improperly" or whatever the newspapers were trying to suggest. It was all pretty clear and well documented and published. One would reasonably expect for them to have known this and prepared for it. It never would have ended up this way. But now that it did, take responsibility and man up to it. That's all.

[Tu.114]

Jmmoric,

normally, one should have a certain expectation of what the runway and its surroundings look like. Some fields have just a single runway, some have a runway and a parallel taxiway and some others show a wide selection of parallel paved areas.

If someone is not familiar with an airfield, he will certainly read up on the field in question and get a picture of what is to be expected, what its present state is, and what all those parallel strips are used for. Paradoxically, things are more difficult if someone has often been to an airport and may be considered familiar with the field. I may assume this applies to the LH crew on the flight in question, as KTW has at least a daily flight. Without carefully sifting through all the notams on closed parking stands, grass cutting, runway construction, bird activity etc., one may well miss the fact that the active runway is no longer the northernmost paved strip on the field but has been doubled by another paved strip to the north. One will then fly any kind of (non-ILS) approach against a blinding sun, albeit in otherwise fine weather. Then the habit of landing on the northernmost strip will kick in; there may be some weird feeling in the back of the head (...was the runway always that clear of rubber marks and made of such beautiful fresh concrete?), but it is too easy to just shrug it off and continue. On a visual approach without appropriate nav setting, at such a point this error becomes rather hard to catch.

The best cure against such a mishap is to make the error blindingly obvious to the crew. Why not:

- place red (flashing?) lights in an X pattern on the runway ends (just like on the taxiway between 04L and 04R at LFMN) and/or use the same in place of the approach lighting system. Switching ON the normal approach lights on the active runway while showing such lights on a closed/inactive runway will surely help.

- declutter the NOTAMs. Often, they are presented as a mess with the really important stuff hidden among grass cutting, closed parking stands and other secondary information. One might introduce a priority tag that when attached to a NOTAM will place it right at the top of the NOTAM list for the field in question. Thus, one might group runway closures, outages of navaids, FFC downgrades and other critical information at the top and avoid it getting lost among all the other information.

- name a runway according to common principles already while it is under construction. In this case, the old runway at KTW would have been 09R/27L, while the new one would have been 09L/27R; the approach and landing clearance would have been issued accordingly and offered another clue.

[jmmoric]

Tu.144,

I know, I do fly myself. But there are always more than one reason to such a mishap, and the only thing we all can do is learning from it.

A lot of arguments about how "poor" airmanship the pilots performed in this thread helps noone, the pilots didn't get up that morning to land on the wrong runway.

And I bet most pilots, myself included, has made a bad decision at some point in their carreer, now the real challenge is how do we prevent it in the future, as you also write :o)

[FullWings]

This is just the latest in a long line of landings on the wrong runway, on a taxiway or even at the wrong airport.

The photo is a bit misleading as to get an idea what the pilots might have seen you need one that was taken on a 3deg approach a couple of miles out, not a god’s-eye view from one side.

The most effective “closed” sign I have seen was a big “X” made of bright red lights stood up vertically just in from the threshold. You could see it from miles away and it would get more and more obvious as you got closer. It was also mobile, so could be repositioned while work was ongoing.

I’m sure the crew of this aircraft will be asked a fair few questions to try and find out how they managed to land on an unopened runway but I’m also sure they didn’t set out to do that. If there had been obstructions on the runway, I don’t think they’d have landed either.

It wasn’t the most professional piece of flying in aviation history but I wouldn’t label them as idiots, certainly not yet.

[Bidule]

You wrote: "And so what would youdo? Just blame the pilots and be done with it?"

So, it seems that you did not read my reply until the end as I wrote: "I fully agree with you that anybody can make mistake - and in this event, I do not blame the crew"....

[Pander216]

On the link below, it appears that the REDL lights are on during the subsequent departure. So the explanation of them being on as well during the landing is actually quite possible.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=hLLqIrf5l1Q

Placing a non standard cross, on a non standard position, with a non standard colour (should be yellow) is quite close to negligence. A lot of airports I know even have such a cross lit by a mobile runway closure marker:

Runway Closure Marker - Sherwin (http://www.sherwinindustriesinc.com/sherwin/virtuemart/22.html)

[Wojtus]

On the link below, it appears that the REDL lights are on during the subsequent departure. So the explanation of them being on as well during the landing is actually quite possible.

I've never seen any lights on the new runway so far. What you see in this video are most probably REDL of the old runway.

Finally, hint for crews flying to EPKT: ILS 27 GP is out of service, however LLZ is not turned off. Use if in doubt.

I have to call this one off: it was just turned off recently.

[Ptkay]

On the link below, it appears that the REDL lights are on during the subsequent departure. So the explanation of them being on as well during the landing is actually quite possible.


No, they are not.
The film is taken with a very long lens from outside the fence.
The lights you see are on the old runway, just optical illusion due to long lens distorted perspective.

[Pander216]

Check! Makes sense indeed...

[Wojtus]

Preliminary report has been published (in Polish only, but with many pictures):
http://www.mir.gov.pl/Transport/Transport_lotniczy/PKBWL/Rejestr_zdarzen/Documents/2014_0982_RW.pdf

Findings:


APP offered visual approach which was accepted by the crew
existing runway, approach and PAPI lights were turned on at 100%
ATIS did not contain information about rwy in construction
markings on the rwy were not sufficient
observation from TWR is difficult due thresholds displacement
visibility was limited due rainshowers
EGPWS had no "Smart landing" feature installed and its map resolution was too low to detect the mistake

[gchriste]

I don't read Polish, but I think the pictures really do speak a 1,000 words!

[baselb]

Preliminary report has been published (in Polish only, but with many pictures):
http://www.mir.gov.pl/Transport/Tran...14_0982_RW.pdf
Drugi pilotSeems a bit harsh...

[drag king]

wondering whether same crew executed the technical takeoff, or they're not allowed to fly until investigation is performed

I VERY much doubt it, at the best it would say the have been replaced by a crew granted permission to perform the T/O.

MY guess is they are suspended on full pay while waiting to have a loooong meeting with their CP, FSO and local CAA...I wish them only the very best.

[Schipholhand]

If you take the time to check, you will find that aircraft have landed not only on the wrong runways but, believe it or not, at the wrong airport, in the past. No reason to be too hard on the crew. The system is there to penalise people for errors and I am sure it will be used adequately.

[RedFoxy_PL]

And now English version too.
Preliminary Report English (http://www.mir.gov.pl/Transport/Transport_lotniczy/PKBWL/Rejestr_zdarzen/Documents/2014_0982_RW_EN.pdf)

[Diesel8]

Heck, on occasion aircraft have landed in the wrong country.

[Schipholhand]

My addition was meant to read that any penalty be tailored to take relevant factors into account, in that mistakes are human and therefore should be dealt with humanely. I have, unfortunately, seen instances where a good telling off would have been more suitable than a written reprimand, which was the custom, in past times, without regard to the consequences to the career of the individual at fault.