Alaska Lands on Taxiway in SEA..

[CargoFlyer11]

Alaska Airlines pilot mistakes taxiway for runway at Sea-Tac during busy holiday rush - Puget Sound Business Journal (http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2015/12/29/alaska-airlines-pilot-mistakes-taxiway-for-runway.html?ana=yahoo)

An Alaska Airlines passenger jet landed on Seattle-Tacoma International Airport’s central taxiway – not the runway – on Dec. 19, the fourth time a pilot has made the error in the history of the airport......

[kbbt]

This happened once at Paphos (http://avherald.com/h?article=44355a86&opt=0), so they had 'TAXI' markings painted (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.7161817,32.4980519,720m/data=!3m1!1e3) on the parallel taxiway's 'thresholds'. I wonder how effective that might be when a crew's missed all other cues.

[flyingtincan]

When operating into an airport that you have never been to before is it normal practice to do so with someone in the other seat who has been there before?

[JanetFlight]

Well...ate least they did manage to stay on the straight and narrow :E

[Boeing Country]

When operating into an airport that you have never been to before is it normal practice to do so with someone in the other seat who has been there before?

Alaska headquarters is Seattle. Both of these pilots have had plenty of experience with this airport.

I love the headlines trying to defend the home town airline by blaming the holiday rush.

[albatross]

To bush pilots everywhere, not only Alaska, "any road's a runway" ! Highway - Taxiway same thing!
Glad no one was hurt.

[Hotel Tango]

When operating into an airport that you have never been to before is it normal practice to do so with someone in the other seat who has been there before?

In this case, as mentioned above, the crew were familiar with SEA. However, in general the answer is no, with the exception of certain challenging airports around the world. I have in the past flown into airports with crews who have only ever landed there in the simulator. I have to say it did take me by surprise to learn that at the time.

[KBPsen]

It would be a fantastic help if EVERYONE not involved would just shut the f---- up. Why it that everyone have to comment on stuff they know nothing about?

[EEngr]

METAR data anyone?

In the referenced article, the right runway pavement is newer (lighter color) than the taxiway and the other runways. A possible factor?

[Check Airman]

When operating into an airport that you have never been to before is it normal practice to do so with someone in the other seat who has been there before?

Happens all the time. I've been to airports where both of us were unfamiliar. Not necessary to go there in the sim before either. Of course, exceptions exist.

[golfyankeesierra]

So, after all that complaining about too much automation, it seems that too little automation can shoot you in the foot as well…
I feel for those guys, probably got a few runway changes and were finally cleared visual approach, easy pitfall, especially with nice weather, to choose a low level of automation.
Sometimes it's just better to stay on AP, intercept the ILS (was it on?) watch what's it doing and click it off when you are stable at 1000'.
Just my 2P, wonder what (really) happened..

[JammedStab]

The charts at SEA have large warnings not to mistake one of the taxiways for a runway.

[CONSO]

Not mentioned of course is that one regular run way has been closed for major refurb- and that the taxiway is exactly parallel to the active runways.

The center runway was closed for 7 months stafrting in mid april 2015.

Lighting is different for taxiway- but during a bright day- usually not used.

To err is human to foul up takes a bcrat, a computer, and a powerpoint ranger .:ugh:

[Chris2303]

How about painting a big X on each end of the taxiway?

[pattern_is_full]

Just my 2P, wonder what (really) happened..

They were cleared for approach to 16R, offered sidestep to 16C (closer to terminal), accepted it, landed on taxiway T which is halfway between 16R and 16C.

Time for an industry stand-down and refresher course? "RUNWAYS: LAND ON THEM; STAY ON THEM!"

[Longtimer]

Has "Mark One Eyeball" somehow become obsolete?

[Airbubba]

Not the first time. Won't be the last.

As in today's incident:

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/572511-easyjet-a319-lands-closed-runway-pisa-30-12-a.html#post9224156

[KKoran]

metar data anyone?

In the referenced article, the right runway pavement is newer (lighter color) than the taxiway and the other runways. A possible factor?

speci ksea 191637z 12010kt 10sm sct022 03/02 a2991 rmk ao2 $

[Boeing Country]

How about painting a big X on each end of the taxiway?
That taxiway does have a giant X on both ends that light up and flash. The ATIS has been broad casting for the pass ten years not to land on the taxiway. These 2 Seattle based pilots really effed up.

[Kirk out]

And this goes for the Pisa Easy too....no one goes to work expecting this or similar to happen, no one goes to work thinking I'm going to make sure that something like this or similar is not going to happen today. As active commercial pilots, and this applies to most professions, you forget how much knowledge and ability has to be acquired and retained and indeed applied to perform the required duties that are expected. So to say " these guys screwed up" is not just stupidly obvious but massively crass to say the least.
There is no better example of the disparate and toxic state of the industry as the posts castigating the crews so readily. There are so many factors to every accident/incident, and indeed we all know that CRM along with automation has produced the incredibley safe industry that we know today. The true state of the nation discussions happen in the "good "CRM days, where we can chat unrestricted without fear. The way we fly hasn't changed that much, the amount we fly has, the rest between the flying has, how much we can fly has...
Surely the advancement of flight safety through the regulated investigation must have the remit to explore every aspect including commercial interests and the pressures they impose.....

[HighAndFlighty]

It would be a fantastic help if EVERYONE not involved would just shut the f---- up. Why it that everyone have to comment on stuff they know nothing about?

Wow. Did somebody pee in your cornflakes this morning? :D

Given that this is Rumours and News, just how would it help if "...EVERYONE not involved would just shut the f---- up"? Half the point of this forum is that everyone...comment[s] on stuff they know nothing about. :ok:

[cooperplace]

to KPBsen:

"It would be a fantastic help if EVERYONE not involved would just shut the f---- up. Why it that everyone have to comment on stuff they know nothing about?"

I wasn't going to make an inane comment, but seeing this, I have to:

this is an internet forum: what do you expect?

[PrivtPilotRadarTech]

"They were cleared for approach to 16R, offered sidestep to 16C (closer to terminal), accepted it, landed on taxiway T which is halfway between 16R and 16C."

Thanks Pattern is Full, that was a piece of the puzzle.

Also thanks KPBsen:

"It would be a fantastic help if EVERYONE not involved would just shut the f---- up. Why it that everyone have to comment on stuff they know nothing about?"

That would make a great sticky. Or better yet, plaster it in the white space at top, next to the PPRuNE banner. It's a refreshing change from the usual "shut up and wait for the official report", though it's more than a bit "over the top" for this innocuous little thread. Is there is an interesting story behind it...? The way it is worded makes me wonder if you know a lot about landing on taxiways.

[framer]

The way we fly hasn't changed that much, the amount we fly has, the rest between the flying has, how much we can fly has...
I agree 100% with what Kirk says.off topic; The comment did remind me of a book I started reading last week about a WWII DC3 pilot who logged 100hrs airborne in a week running cargo and troops around the South Pacific. Crazy.
Back to landing on taxiways;
Don't accept a runway change after turning base and you'l be good as gold.

[Kal Niranjan]

It would be a fantastic help if EVERYONE not involved would just shut the f---- up. Why it that everyone have to comment on stuff they know nothing about?

What hypocrisy?

Had it been a third world, not western airline you would be the first to join in the chorus!:=:ugh::mad:

[Boeing Country]

"It would be a fantastic help if EVERYONE not involved would just shut the f---- up. Why it that everyone have to comment on stuff they know nothing about?"
This forum wouldn't be called Rumors & News.
"They were cleared for approach to 16R, offered sidestep to 16C (closer to terminal), accepted it, landed on taxiway T which is halfway between 16R and 16C."
This is just a guess, unless you can attach the ATC recording to prove this is what actually happened.

I fly out of KSEA several times a week. Everyone knows this is a taxiway; including all Alaska pilots who are based in KSEA. Yes, runway 16C was closed all summer for construction. It now has beautiful LED lights and I know, because I used that runway last week. That taxiway does not have any runway lights, runway markings, or even an approach lighting system. It has large illuminated X's on both ends and the atis has been broadcasting for over 10 years not to land on it; since American Airlines was the first to do so when 16R was brand new.

I simply don't buy the explanation from the local article, the pilots were confused and were cleared to land 16c and then purposely landed on an active taxiway with aircraft on it. If I was offered a clearance to side step to 16c, I would not land on a taxiway, because I was not issued a clearance to do so. If there was any confusion, then I would have gone around and asked for clarification. Gas is cheap, the weather is good, I get paid by the hour, so Go Around!

[Phantom Driver]

gys

So, after all that complaining about too much automation, it seems that too little automation can shoot you in the foot as well…
I feel for those guys, probably got a few runway changes and were finally cleared visual approach, easy pitfall, especially with nice weather, to choose a low level of automation.
Sometimes it's just better to stay on AP, intercept the ILS (was it on?) watch what's it doing and click it off when you are stable at 1000'.


Yes indeed . Unfortunately, even old timers can fall into the traps , so it always helps to load the dice in your favour, especially in these days of ANP, RNP, RVSM and Big Brother FDAP watching your every move and reporting instantly back to Chief Pilots office. Not much room for the "fun " we used to have in the good old days....

[chucko]

The photo attached to the BizJournal article is an old one, likely shot before 16R/34L was opened a few years ago, as there doesn't appear to be any markings or tire marks on that runway (on the right). Also, 16/34C was "re-cycled" over the summer and looks brand new (at least it did yesterday).

[pattern_is_full]

This is just a guess, unless you can attach the ATC recording to prove this is what actually happened.

A guess? Perhaps - but not mine:

".....on an ILS approach to runway 16R cleared to land on runway 16R, when tower offered a visual swing over to runway 16C, the crew opted to accept runway 16C but aligned with taxiway T in between runways 16R and 16C and continued for a safe landing on taxiway T at 08:31L (16:31Z), no other traffic was on taxiway T at that time."

Incident: Alaska B739 at Seattle on Dec 19th 2015, landed on taxiway (http://avherald.com/h?article=4918ebe1&opt=0)

[Yeelep]

Here's your ATC proof. Between 26:30 and 28:30, flt #AS27
http://archive-server.liveatc.net/ksea/KSEA_TWR-Dec-19-2015-1600Z.mp3

There are no lighted X's on taxiway tango. There used to be painted X's but that didn't stop the problem.

[ZFT]

Quote:
It would be a fantastic help if EVERYONE not involved would just shut the f---- up. Why it that everyone have to comment on stuff they know nothing about?
What hypocrisy?

Had it been a third world, not western airline you would be the first to join in the chorus!

Now isn't that the unfortunate truth? At least there are no attacks on the competence of the operator, their training or the crew so far. Makes a pleasant change.

[woodpecker]

Our school was lined up with the approach to Northolt, so when during break time this Pan Am 707 drifted overhead our playground us aircraft spotters were rather confused. The rest a history, the gasometer at South Harrow aligned with Northolt and the one at Southall aligned with the then runway 23 at LHR. Easy mistake to make. The 707 managed to stop on Notholt's rather short runway, and, a few days later minus all the seats and anything else that could be removed it positioned to Heathrow.

The resulting painting of "NO" (Northolt) on the South Harrow gasometer and "LHR" on the other was most certainly not full proof as a few years later, sitting P3 in a Trident, I tapped the Captain and fellow copilot on their shoulders and pointed out the error of their ways.... "Heathrow is over there on our left, that's Northolt ahead and there's my school"

[CommanderRiker]

ZFT
N4790P

Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Asia
Posts: 1,466
Quote:
Quote:
It would be a fantastic help if EVERYONE not involved would just shut the f---- up. Why it that everyone have to comment on stuff they know nothing about?
What hypocrisy?

Had it been a third world, not western airline you would be the first to join in the chorus!
Now isn't that the unfortunate truth? At least there are no attacks on the competence of the operator, their training or the crew so far. Makes a pleasant change.


We are blessed that we do not have hordes of third world pilots logging in and casting aspersions that our western pilots suck!

Or they may make bold and direct comments that we cant tell a taxiway from a runway. " Hey, it is a visual maneuver! Eyeball the runway; taxiway has no threshold markings, no touchdown zone markings, etc " ;):{

[Boeing Country]

Thank you for finding the ATC recording of the side step to 16C. It was interesting to note that no one pointed out the error on the ATC tape. Maybe it was on the next recording. I still don't understand why they landed on taxiway Tango. The Alaska flight after AS27 refused the side step offer from Seattle Tower. This should be a very important lesson for all of us, if your not sure, don't land. Go around and short it out. My point was, there could have been another aircraft on that taxiway, but there is a FBO on the end of Tango with a ramp of parked airplanes, equipment and people. As for the illuminated X's, I have seen them on that taxiway. Are there currently, I don't know. I'm senior enough to have the holidays off. Happy New Year!

[Two's in]

I still don't understand why they landed on taxiway Tango.

Cognitive Dissonance.

The mind is a wonderful thing, as it struggles to eliminate the visual inconsistencies (lighting, markings, position, color, size) until they eventually match the mental perception that the big long strip of concrete in front of you is the runway. It's more common that most people imagine.

[RAT 5]

The photograph provided in the first post is very confusing, and it made it difficult to understand the whole scenario. I checked the airports charts and this confirmed the confusion. In the photograph the only strips marked as runways are 16L & 16C. Taxiway T 7 RW16R are both bare of conspicuous markings. How old is this photo? I can't believe RW16R could have been in use when that photo was taken.
However, what it does show is the significant difference & contrast between the markings of taxi T & RW16C. . What I remember, when this happened at LGW, is that the taxiway was sometimes used as an 'emergency runway' and had some runway markings on it. It was NOTAM'd as in use as taxi or runway. But, on the day, Murphy was awake.
In this case I also see that sunrise is at 07.56 and the landing was 08.33. Variation is 16 degrees. Would that have caused any sun effect?
I suspect the only people who can answer the curious are the pilots. What always surprises us all in these type of "why did they do that" discussions is that 2 people made an error. This was not a high pressure/stress moment where a cockpit gradient could have been in play. I assume this change was actioned with time to spare in good visibility. Hm????? What was the crew's roster before this landing?

[pattern_is_full]

The photograph provided in the first post is very confusing,.....How old is this photo?

Click on it to get the enlarged version, and you can see the date is recorded in the lower left corner.

August 2008, on which date 16R/34L was still under construction and three months short of becoming operational.

[Arfur Dent]

Woodpecker Man!!
Your comments are brilliant! I had a good belly laugh wondering what "Sir" said next - do tell.
Wonderful………………..:D

[aterpster]

No doubt there is a human-factors problem by having three closely spaced parallel runways. For many years the airport had only two runways.

[FoxHunter]

We now know two pilots that will never do that again.

[HighAndFlighty]

USA Today had an interesting presentation involving use of a SIM here:

Plane lands on taxiway instead of runway in Seattle (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/12/29/plane-lands-taxiway-instead-runway-seattle/78056520/)


Of course, I have no idea as to how up to date the SIM's software was and whether the representation of the approach is currently accurate.

[HighAndFlighty]

This photograph from May 2012 indicates that whilst there are no "X" marks at the end of the taxiway, it is still somewhat self evident that it is not a runway.

http://i287.photobucket.com/albums/ll155/Abacus9999/Sundry%20Net%20Stuff/1024px-Aerial_KSEA_May_2012.jpg

Of course the 2015 reconstruction of runway 16C may have caused some degree of ambiguity if the new surface, lacking the accumulation of rubber and general wear and tear, bore a closer cosmetic look to the taxiway.

That being said, the white markings on the new runway should still be readily visible, and it's pretty hard to miss those big chevrons.

[HighAndFlighty]

This photo from is from the website of the airport's owner, the Port of Seattle...

http://i287.photobucket.com/albums/ll155/Abacus9999/Sundry%20Net%20Stuff/Port%20of%20Seattle.jpg

See https://www.portseattle.org/Environmental/Noise/Pages/Runway-Use-Info.aspx

It doesn't really help matters!!! :D

[KKoran]

This photo from is from the website of the airport's owner, the Port of Seattle...

http://i287.photobucket.com/albums/ll155/Abacus9999/Sundry%20Net%20Stuff/Port%20of%20Seattle.jpg

See https://www.portseattle.org/Environmental/Noise/Pages/Runway-Use-Info.aspx

It doesn't really help matters!!! :D
Why should it? The photo is from the section of their website that covers ENVIRONMENTAL issues, not something a pilot is going to look at.
https://www.portseattle.org/Environmental/Noise/Pages/Runway-Use-Info.aspx

[CONSO]

RE the owners of SEATAC and the neat picture. Prey teel which is the taxiway ?

granted pilots do not usually look at the site, but it do0es help to put things in perspective for the sometimes private pilot new to the area.

IOW there is NO for king excuse for such misinformation to be published on the the ' owners' site.

Your quasi- government at work. Note the Port of seattle gets a fair share of taxpayer money and is run like a fifedom. :ugh:

[DingerX]

First, I don't see the relevance of the half-mislabeling of a taxiway on a photograph intended to inform the public about how aircraft noise is distributed over a large part of Washington State. Sure, in both cases you probably had someone in their office, working to a deadline, making a quick decision and getting it wrong. But that photo is not intended to be used for any safety-critical task, and the person who did it was probably alone.

Second, The Aviation Herald is a valuable internet resource that provides unmatched coverage of aviation events thanks to the tireless work of one individual. Yet that individual (Simon Hradecky) isn't always explicit about his sources, nor does he have unlimited resources. But we can reconstruct his work. In this case, he posted 2239Z on 29 December. The only news item I can find that predates this posting is a piece in the so-called Puget Sound Business Journal (http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2015/12/29/alaska-airlines-pilot-mistakes-taxiway-for-runway.html), stamped "1:59 PM, PST", on 29 December, aka 2159Z. The only person cited in that piece is an airport spokesperson.

So, either the airport sent out a press release, or some similar public information came out on 29 December, or (less likely) the PSBJ writer heard about it from his contacts at SEATAC (AvHerald calls it an "incident", but the FAA does not). All the hard information the PSBJ writer (Steve Wilhelm) had was Aircraft type, flight number, date and approximate time, and that it landed on the taxiway rather than 16C.
Now Simon goes to work. He calls his contacts at AS and the FAA, and gets confirmation; he collects the METARS, and he digs up the information on Flightaware, getting the registration number, more precise arrival times, and even the ADS-B track where you can see the sidestep gone wrong.

The last step is to listen to the audio, which is archived on LiveAtc.Net. Here's where he went wrong. He states:
An Alaska Airlines Boeing 737-900, registration N477AS performing flight AS-27 from Chicago O'Hare,IL to Seattle,WA (USA), was on an ILS approach to runway 16R cleared to land on runway 16R, when tower offered a visual swing over to runway 16C, the crew opted to accept runway 16C but aligned with taxiway T in between runways 16R and 16C and continued for a safe landing on taxiway T at 08:31L (16:31Z), no other traffic was on taxiway T at that time. Tower, maintaining routine communication, cleared the aircraft to cross runway 16L, the crew read that clearance back after a slight hesitation and maintained routine communication, too.
First, he reported that the Tower offered 16C; in fact, as you can hear from the recording posted above, AS27 requested the side-step.
Second, it is true that Tower later cleared the aircraft to cross 16L, but that's not the whole story either. Simon's carefully-worded statement sounds like AS27 landed, acted like nothing happened, and, at the moment they were cleared to cross 16L, they realized their mistake. Some have even drawn the inference that AS27 crossed an active runway (16C) without clearance.

In fact, that's not at all what happened.
LiveAtc's Seattle "Tower" feed is actually two frequencies, East (16L, 119.9) and West (16R/C, 120.95); On the feed, East has priority over West, and in scanner fashion, the beginning of each transmission is not recorded. If you listen to the recording posted above, you'll note that the controller on 119.9 is female and 120.95 is male. If you follow the recording to the next half-hour, you'll hear at 01:28 in the recording "27 left turn on November cross 16C hold short 16L", shortly thereafter (01:50) West hands AS27 off to East, and then (02:05) is instructed to cross 16L.
The "Ground" feed does not have archived recordings for this period, so we have no record of AS27 copying a phone number.

In short, AS27 was cleared for 16R, requested, changed to and was cleared to land on 16C; it then landed on T, and the mistake was known immediately (well, immediately after landing on the taxiway) to all involved.

[pattern_is_full]

@DingerX

First, he reported that the Tower offered 16C; in fact, as you can hear from the recording posted above, AS27 requested the side-step. Can you explain how you come to this conclusion?

Transcript (my own) from the LiveATC recording linked in post 32.

26:34 TWR: "Alaska 27, Seattle Tower, Wind 1-1-0 at 8, Runway 1-6 Right, cleared to land."
26:38 AS27: "Alaska 27, Cleared to land, 1-6 Right."
28:16 TWR: "Alaska 27, if you have the field in sight and would like the Center, it's available."
28:22 AS27: "Alaska 27, Ah...roger, thank you! We'll take, uhh, 1-6 Center."
28:25 TWR: "Alaska 27, Change to runway 1-6 Center; cleared visual approach 1-6 Center, cleared to land."
28:29 AS27: "Alaska 27, cleared visual approach 1-6 Center, cleared to land."

Where do you hear AS27 "request" 16C, before ATC raises the subject - i.e. offers the change? AS27's voice tone expresses surprise at the idea.

[underfire]

SEA is infamous for changeups on final between L C R....

All 3 rwys have been operational for years, so landing on the taxiway, well, no excuse, and Alaska is not new to SEA.

They had plenty of time on visual to notice the wrong approach, and did not GA.

They gave the taxiway a good pounding.

They were lucky.

[wanabee777]

Simple solution would be to put a lighted, yellow, X at the north end of Taxiway T.

How difficult could this be??

[overstress]

Two's in:

Cognitive Dissonance. is the holding of two or more contradictory views at the same time

I think you mean Confirmation Bias where the brain seeks evidence to prove an established belief, such as the 'fact' that the strip of concrete in front is in fact a runway, despite the lack of correct markings.

Simple solution would be to put a lighted, yellow, X at the north end of Taxiway T.

How difficult could this be??

How about identifying a way to avoid the error to begin with? (e.g.that will be the 3rd strip in from the right) or trap - there are no runway markings, let's line up with another next bit of concrete, and finally mitigate - not happy here, go-around.

Sometimes, identifying the threat is the key part - e.g. there are lots of parallel strips at SEA, how will we identify that we are lining up on the correct one, especially if offered a late switch?

[wanabee777]

A similar event occurred a few years ago at ATL when a 767 landed on Taxiway M.

[DingerX]

pattern_is_full: you're right, I'm wrong. Musta misheard it.
Anyway, the key point I wanted to make is that the recording in question is incomplete, and no doubt there was some observation after landing that AS27 was on T, not 16C; but since the feed gives priority to EAST, instead of that discussion, the recording has Delta 2210 lining up on 16L with a passenger going to the bathroom.

[DIBO]

This happened once at Paphos, so they had 'TAXI' markings painted on the parallel taxiway's 'thresholds'. I wonder how effective that might be when a crew's missed all other cues.No matter who is to blame in this second landing mistake on twy T, if SEA authorities do not apply soon a similar solution as the simple but effective one applied at Paphos, then they should be held fully accountable for any further mishap on twy T. Making mistakes is bad, not learning from them is criminal.

Although a bit more costly, putting a big yellow, lighted X on this slope (https://www.google.be/maps/@47.4667646,-122.3129815,3a,25.7y,181.65h,88.58t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGkWZl-OvyEX8-GJr3U5w9Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl) would make it complete. Not visible on the ground, so not confusing anybody on the ground that the twy is closed (as would be the case with a big X painted on, or placed next to the twy as some suggest)

How about identifying a way to avoid the error to begin with?How about not offering anymore, for taxying comfort only, a side step almost 2 minutes after the landing clearance, when all minds are set on the cleared rwy. And when a late side step is to be made for operational reasons, complementing the instruction with the new ILS freq. would facilitate an alignment double check, even when doing a visual app.

[aterpster]

The crew were most likely using Jeppesen charts, not some website chart not intended for navigation. This chart is in the physical or electronic manual. That doesn't necessarily mean it was being used:

http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa214/aterpster/KSEA%20Jepp%2020-9_zps6lzaada1.jpg

[wanabee777]

As opposed to this:

http://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/1513/00582ad.pdf

Sorry. I don't know how to post it as an image.

[captjns]

So... Can someone enlighten me as to where the touchdown zone is located on a taxiway? From 200' 1/3 of a mile from the end of the taxiway would be obvious to a student pilot that this is not a runway, and a go-around would be warranted thus ewsulting in a non event for the crew. There are no reamifications from a go-around versus landing on a taxiway...

[aterpster]

wanabee777:

So far as I know airlines do not use FAA charts. It's either Jeppesen or LIDO.

[wanabee777]

Understand.

The point I failed to make is that the Jepp chart is a bit confusing.

[West Coast]

In which way?

[wanabee777]

It's not obvious?

[core_dump]

The Jepp diagram looks perfectly clear to me, so no it's not obvious. How much clearer can you get?

[wanabee777]

Must be just me.

In that case, never mind.

Can someone post the LIDO runway diagram for KSEA?

[RAT 5]

Guys: red herrings. It's a clear visual day; the crew are familiar with the airport; ATC offer a sidestep if you are visual not only with the original runway, but also with the sidestep runway; the crew accept this under these conditions.
WTF has an airfield chart got to do with anything? Mk.1 eyeball was out the window not goggling at any chart inside.

[wanabee777]

All true, but IMHO, the Jepp depiction is effed up.

[pattern_is_full]

Well, (on the chart) all of the runway designators are offset sideways from the runways, so as not to obscure the approach lighting symbology...

...but that aligns the label (16C) right above which piece of paving? :eek:

I can see both sides of the discussion - but as RAT-5 implies: don't be lookin' at the chart - be lookin' out the windscreen!

[DIBO]

http://i.imgur.com/f6pdaSi.jpg
As was already said, the charts most probably did not come in the 'picture' during the side step...
But on the Jepp putting the 16C tag precisely in front of T, isn't the brightest idea, me thinks. Of course this should never be a problem, anybody can see the solid black rwy's and the grey twy's. But at the wrong place, the wrong moment, having a brain fart, the mind could trick you in thinking that 16C is the concrete strip just next to 16R.
Don't know if FAA's idea of putting things upside down and omitting the HIALS, is much better...

[Phantom Driver]

Good Grief........!:ugh:

[aterpster]

Wherever there are approach lights, Jeppesen offsets the runway number as they have done at Seattle. The "hint" is the thick black graphic for the runway and the light grey for the taxiway.

Note they also have the runway end elevation with an arrow pointing to the runway. They do not have that for any taxiway.

[Richard J.]

The "hint" is the thick black graphic for the runway and the light grey for the taxiway.

There's also rather more than a hint: a text box with an arrow pointing at the taxiway that says
CAUTION:
DO NOT MISTAKE
TAXIWAY T
FOR LANDING
SURFACE

[wanabee777]

As well as a 20-9A1 Alert Notice w/diagram.

[GlobalNav]

There may be some "factors", but, sorry, no excuses. Alaskan pilots are not unfamiliar with SEA. We count on professional pilots to perform professionally. But for the grace of God there was no one else on the taxiway when they landed. This could have been a much different thread.

I hope that every opportunity is taken at Alaska and other airlines as well to emphasize proper practices with their pilots.

There is some good news in that Honeywell has introduced Smart Landing which should "advise" pilots when they line up not on a runway.

[West Coast]

I see SEA 10 or so times a year, use Jepp charts. Haven't landed on a taxiway yet. Don't think you can chalk it up to that, especially given it was a relatively last minute runway change.

[aterpster]

wannabe777:

As well as a 20-9A1 Alert Notice w/diagram.

Yep! Jepp has their butt covered quite well.

[On eyre]

Bored ****less - sterile cockpit - whatever !! I have fifty bucks that says they will not do it again - well not them anyway and particularly not there.

[FlightDetent]

http://i67.tinypic.com/dlthsl.png

[wanabee777]

Is this a LIDO chart?

Whatever it is, it's a big improvement over the FAA and Jepp airport diagrams.

[JammedStab]

Listened to the tape. ATC initiated the sidestep. Listen to it again

Some of the posts that I see here surprise me...

For those that are convinced that these pilots will never do it again...why not, they did it once already. There are people who have made the same mistake twice.

For those that find the Jepp chart confusing, why. It is crystal clear that the taxiway is not a runway and is specifically labelled multiple times as taxiway with separate note not to land on it. None of the runway designators are aligned with their associated runway.

For those baffled as to why this could happen, ask yourself why does an experienced pilot or mechanic walk into a moving prop. It happened to a highly experienced bush instructor pilot this summer in Alaska. Do you think he wasn't aware of the danger. Of course he was.

So one has to make an analysis and ask themselves why. Well, the Alaska pilot had a sudden event happen to him on his sloped terrain with multiple Piper Cubs parked with engines running to keep unexpected swarms of mosquitos at bay. One of the aircraft started moving by itself and the instructor suddenly reacted to this event by forgetting about moving props and running into his own prop while attempting to get toward the moving aircraft.

So what likely happened in Seattle. Likely, a couple of very experienced and locally familiar pilots well aware of this taxiway issue got a last minute runway change as a visual maneuver and the known taxiway issue was completely forgotten about and new important priorities took over requiring a significant amount of new concentration for a procedure not necessarily done on a regular basis.

For those that think something like this, not necessarily specifically this exact event but something along the same lines as this(whether aviation related or not) can't happen to them...you are very wrong.

[FlightDetent]

Yes, Lido. I wonder what the NAVTECH version looks like.

[wanabee777]

I fully agree that the runway diagrams, most likely, had nothing to do with this or the previous three landings on taxiway Tango at KSEA.

The fact remains that this particular runway/taxiway configuration at SEATAC needs some type of enhanced visual cues in addition to the standard taxiway markings or there will continue to be recurrences.

God forbid that it's going to take a collision with another aircraft or a ground vehicle in order to get this accomplished.

[CONSO]

jammedf stab said
For those that find the Jepp chart confusing, why. It is crystal clear that the taxiway is not a runway and is specifically labelled multiple times as taxiway with separate note not to land on it. None of the runway designators are aligned with their associated runway.

well which chart was active ?


http://www.pprune.org/9227078-post56.ht

please note date on chart of 4 dec 15

then note date on
http://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/1513/00582ad.pdf


Then note date of 10 dec 2015 to 07 Jan 2016

Listen for the flapping of posterior covers . . :D

[FlightDetent]

http://i68.tinypic.com/34tbn6r.jpg

Say again?

[wanabee777]

FlightDetent,

Are those things that look like lemons on the LIDO runway diagram depictions of RVR equipment?

If not, what are they?

Regardless, the LIDO chart is a big improvement over the FAA and Jepps charts.

[CONSO]

wannabee said The fact remains that this particular runway/taxiway configuration at SEATAC needs some type of enhanced visual cues in addition to the standard taxiway markings or there will continue to be recurrences.Of course- but adding such markings/lights/ visual cues would cost money- which is obviously better spend on Port of Seattle directors salary and benefits. :rolleyes:

$179,966 ($92.29)
Managing Director, Aviation
Midpoint
$224,972 ($115.37)
Deputy CEO
Maximum
$269,958 ($138.44)
SCHEDULE OF AUTHORIZED NON-REPRESENTED POSITION TITLES
SALARY RANGES EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2015
Annual Base Salary Range (Hourly equivalent in parentheses)

https://www.portseattle.org/Jobs/Documents/current_s_b_res_signed_MASTER.pdf

[Greenlights]

i'm always amazed by this kind of mistake.
what about a briefing before (miscellaneous, runways, taxiways expected...) ?
I always check landing marks or black tires traces on runways.
Mistakes happen to anybody but come on, not all ! especially these ones.

[aterpster]

CONSO:

please note date on chart of 4 dec 15

That is the date Jeppesen issued the chart. Note at the top in bold text, it because effective 10 DEC, same as the FAA chart.

Do you fly with Jeppesen charts?

[overstress]

Are those things that look like lemons on the LIDO runway diagram depictions of RVR equipment?

Yes .

[John in YVR]

I read one report of a previous landing on the taxiway at KSEA that mentioned a recent rain caused the sun to be reflected off all the paved surfaces which blotted out ALL markings.

We know this thread's incident happened about half an hour after sunrise. If the surface conditions were the same then perhaps factors in previous incidents were repeated.

[PPL Hobbyist]

I was looking at the lovely large picture that HighAndFlighty posted for us. Maybe it is just the angle at which the photo was taken, but it looks to me that the chevrons and markings on 16L are faded and not very visible, where as chevrons and markings are much clearer on 16C and 16R. Landing mostly visually myself (due to the fact that most airports I land at have few or no landing aids, let alone runway markings), I think that maybe I have an idea what these pilots may have been thinking. Of-course, I may also be wrong. I am speaking from my own experience now.

My speculation is this, and I welcome your input on this: Because the markings on16L aren’t so clear as far as I can see on the photo, and the markings on 16C and 16R clear and very easy to see, I think they must have assumed that taxiway Tango was 16C. I don't think that they would have seen the runway numbers before they were practically over them, if they were looking for them. How many of you do when you are positive that the “runway” you are lined up on is the correct one? I would have been looking for visual cues rather than runway numbers.

The report will prove me right or wrong. Lets wait and see.

[mike734]

I recently heard the FO speak about the incident. Here are some relevant aspects of the event from his point of view:

It was soon after sun rise. The sun was low and in their face.
It had recently rained, the runways/taxiways were damp.
There were multiple cloud layers which contributed to a bright glare.
The glare and water made runway lights and marking invisible.
The new, center runway has virtually NO tire marks on it yet.
They had departed KORD at 0600 CST (0400 PST) that's a 0200 PST wake up.
He does not believe fatigue was a factor in his case.
He did not enter the new runway in the FMC.
He did switch LOC freq. but assumed it was still inop when it did not center.
He got tunnel vision and did not look right or left to take in the big picture.
The touchdown was normal and they taxied to the gate.

The Capt. was PF and has well over over a decade with ASA.
The FO has less than 2 years with ASA.

[Hotel Tango]

He did switch LOC freq. but assumed it was still inop when it did not center.

Not as a criticism of the F/O, but as a reminder to all, never assume anything in our line of business. I used to try and plant that firmly into my (ATC) trainees heads back in the days when I was coaching.

[John in YVR]

It was soon after sun rise. The sun was low and in their face.
It had recently rained, the runways/taxiways were damp.
There were multiple cloud layers which contributed to a bright glare.
The glare and water made runway lights and marking invisible. Sounds like similar factors to at least two previous SEA landing-on-a-taxi-way incidents.

[slast]

The sun was low and in their face.
Slightly puzzled here. Is the sun shining directly into your face just after it rises at 0830 local when lining up on Rwy 16?

[Hotel Tango]

Slightly puzzled here. Is the sun shining directly into your face just after it rises at 0830 local when lining up on Rwy 16?

The short answer is yes, in Winter, it more or less does. And even more so as you initially swing left from 16R to 16C I'd say.

[Terry Dactil]

Slightly puzzled here. Is the sun shining directly into your face just after it rises at 0830 local when lining up on Rwy 16?
Yep. Quite possible. The data is easy to find on the web. Here it is for today in Seattle.
Sunrise Today: 7:54 AM 122° Southeast
I expect there is a way to go back to the actual date somehow.

[NWstu]

7:54 am/125°

Source (http://www.timeanddate.com/sun/usa/seattle?month=12&year=2015)

[jmmoric]

And moves 15 degrees per hour....

Maybe change of runways with aircrafts on final when flying against a low sun, should be taken into consideration before given?

Could be a part of ATC procedure when danger is landing on TWY/wrong RWY... That would be nursing pilots a little though..

[RAT 5]

Pilots are in charge. ATC offers an option. Airmanship decides if the pilot should accept it or stick with Plan A. It is not an order. B757 AA in Cali is a classic example. If they're stayed with a relaxed plan A in stead of a rushed last minute Plan B there would have been a happier outcome.
I read so many stories of pilots getting hot & hi, even making a G/A, because they accepted an ATC short cut to finals. Daft.
Let's make sure PIC is really in command of the safe operation of the ac/. ATC manages it as a team member; PIC decides if it is acceptable under all criteria.

[wanabee777]

Until some concrete measures are taken by the Seattle Port Authority, unintentional landings on taxiway "T" are going to continue.

JMHO

[slast]

http://www.pprune.org/members/320025-slast-albums-misc-picture110-seatac-sunrise.jpg

Just for info, taking NWStu's data source and assuming that it and Google Earth have the same True North reference, this is the situation about 2.5 miles out... No judgements implied about glare etc, but RAT 5's last comment is right on the nail.

[Hotel Tango]

Perhaps not your intention but your depiction is confusing slast. It gives a totally wrong impression. The direction might be right but the Sun is in the southern hemisphere and low. It would without doubt a) be in the crew's line of vision and b) create glare on a wet surface.

[slast]

HT, the pin is the point at 2. 5 miles out on final to 16R. Sun direction is from the big yellow dot to southeast, in southern segment and pilots field of view. Obviously sun's BEARING would stay the same through the final approach, the dot is not meant to represent the sun's position in space!

[mike734]

Slash, I don't know why you press this point. Even 40° off to the left the glare would be a factor. According to the FO is WAS a factor, not an excuse, a factor.

[Biggles78]

Non airline CPL here.


Taking into account what the FO is reported to have said, then extra markings and lights on the taxiway would not have changed this particular outcome since the glare etc would have "concealed" these markings and lights.


So, is there now justification for adding these additional markings and lights to mark that taxiway? What were the circumstances regarding the other taxiway incidents? Similar or totally different?

[slast]

Mike734, I'm not sure what point you think I'm "pressing" ... the diagram was just to help show the visual situation. My second comment was to try and clarify it as HotelTango said it was misleading.

From the F/O's statement, it seems that in this situation glare was a problem and I specifically said that I wasn't implying anything about that.

[fokker1000]

KBPsen,

Spot on matey.

[sudden twang]

Yes don't make assumptions. I've been told that. I think we all do most of the time unconsciously.
I've also been told to not touch anything hot, don't bang my head, don't leave my house keys in the house when I close the door. Unfortunately I still do all of these things from time to time.
It seems to me the guys made a snap decision with the best of intentions and due to the glare made an error.
Let's all try and use this as a valuable reminder of how easy it is to be caught out.

Next time I fly into SEA I'll try to remember this incident.

To be honest I'm more concerned about flying the ILS onto the 16s in IMC with VFR ish traffic flashing down my port wing causing TCAS RAs. I also remember Aero Mexico and PSA.
Ironically taxiway T is longer than 16R.

[wanabee777]

How about painting a big X on each end of the taxiway? That taxiway does have a giant X on both ends that light up and flash. The ATIS has been broad casting for the pass ten years not to land on the taxiway. These 2 Seattle based pilots really effed up. Is this true?

Google Earth does not depict it.