Plane lands at Air Force base by mistake
Grim Sleeper
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air-hag said:
I think visual approaches in borderline conditions in Europe are a bit more risky from the point of view that there is a very high density of large, paved runways (eg southern England) not all of which are civil, suitable or useable, in close proximity to target airports.
Also with our smaller landmass we have a very large coverage of radar due to close proximity of several busy control zones and military LARS - your mistakes can get picked up pretty quickly and tea and biks is a worrying prospect.
I know the American posters on Pprune have been getting tetchy about their status recently and wails of "America-bashing" are frequent these days (don't you have your own US version of prune or what?) but the way to alleviate that is probably not to start willy-waving about euro pilots' lack of moral fibre!!! Safety first - who's gonna argue with that?
Why are euros so afraid of visual approaches
Also with our smaller landmass we have a very large coverage of radar due to close proximity of several busy control zones and military LARS - your mistakes can get picked up pretty quickly and tea and biks is a worrying prospect.
I know the American posters on Pprune have been getting tetchy about their status recently and wails of "America-bashing" are frequent these days (don't you have your own US version of prune or what?) but the way to alleviate that is probably not to start willy-waving about euro pilots' lack of moral fibre!!! Safety first - who's gonna argue with that?
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: posts: 666
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
you have a choice of a precision or visual approach what is the professional answer? Which is the safer approach?
It's not about safety, it's about movements per hour, shaving off flight hours, saving that 0.5t of fuel, noise abatement over some MP's house, whatever. The bean-counters dictate and the drivers do.
If at Sydney airport (the be-all and end-all, as we all know) during parallel ops, they ask if you're visual on a CAVOK day and you say "No" because you need to fly your full ILS procedure to avoid wetting yourself then you'll find yourself out doing scenic laps of the beaches while others who CAN fly a visual approach are vectored in.
I think visual approaches in borderline conditions in Europe are a bit more risky from the point of view that there is a very high density of large, paved runways (eg southern England) not all of which are civil, suitable or useable, in close proximity to target airports
I love the blank look of incomprehension on these guys' faces when they hear the APP guy say, "Make visual approach, not below the glideslope," or however they put it. It's hilarious for about 5 seconds or so, until I have to explain how to land the a/c without any needles.
Hey Slim20 you should be nice to Americans on "your" beloved pprune or the Americans might remove you from "their" internet.
There are two serious safety issues here:
First, the appalling safety culture shown by this operator’s management in the way in which they punished the crew without apparent identifying or fixing the root cause of the problem. Following on from safetypee’s quote, then ‘if your investigation concludes that crew error is the cause then start again, because there is always something else behind crew error’. Also another quote from James Reason, “Don’t swat the mosquitoes – drain the swamp”
Second, the warning signs from this incident - "have been several previous instances" "almost happened a couple of times earlier today" and apparently many other similar incidents in our industry. This is a particularly worrying trend (if it is increasing or just improved reporting), in that many of the aircraft involved (world-wide) have databases, and map displays showing airports and beacons. Why then are crews loosing positional awareness when the aircraft are better equipped to show location? Complacency, lacking discipline, inappropriate training, and it’s not just the captain who is making the mistake, it is the crew. Many of these aspects are very similar to the precursors of the spate of CFIT accidents several years ago. Thankfully, for CFIT we now have EGPWS, but until we get RAAS that has the capability to announce or question the runway that the aircraft is lined up with, we may have to face many more embarrassing incidents and increased risks from runway incursion or airborne collision.
con-pilot Visual approaches – “it's about movements per hour, shaving off flight hours, saving that 0.5t of fuel”; so why do the large US airports get all snarled up when the weather goes IFR? Reduced movements, delay, fuel burnt on the ground, etc.
Your 21,000hs? The last two fatal accidents that I investigated both captains had over 19,000 hrs, didn’t do them much good either. However, during my career with very much less flying time than yours, I have probably made more mistakes.
First, the appalling safety culture shown by this operator’s management in the way in which they punished the crew without apparent identifying or fixing the root cause of the problem. Following on from safetypee’s quote, then ‘if your investigation concludes that crew error is the cause then start again, because there is always something else behind crew error’. Also another quote from James Reason, “Don’t swat the mosquitoes – drain the swamp”
Second, the warning signs from this incident - "have been several previous instances" "almost happened a couple of times earlier today" and apparently many other similar incidents in our industry. This is a particularly worrying trend (if it is increasing or just improved reporting), in that many of the aircraft involved (world-wide) have databases, and map displays showing airports and beacons. Why then are crews loosing positional awareness when the aircraft are better equipped to show location? Complacency, lacking discipline, inappropriate training, and it’s not just the captain who is making the mistake, it is the crew. Many of these aspects are very similar to the precursors of the spate of CFIT accidents several years ago. Thankfully, for CFIT we now have EGPWS, but until we get RAAS that has the capability to announce or question the runway that the aircraft is lined up with, we may have to face many more embarrassing incidents and increased risks from runway incursion or airborne collision.
con-pilot Visual approaches – “it's about movements per hour, shaving off flight hours, saving that 0.5t of fuel”; so why do the large US airports get all snarled up when the weather goes IFR? Reduced movements, delay, fuel burnt on the ground, etc.
Your 21,000hs? The last two fatal accidents that I investigated both captains had over 19,000 hrs, didn’t do them much good either. However, during my career with very much less flying time than yours, I have probably made more mistakes.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Ohio, USA
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eh... it happens, shouldn't, but it does...
In 1967, the crew of a TWA 707 mistook the Ohio State University Airport (KOSU) for Port Columbus International Airport (KCMH). After shuttling all passengers and baggage to Port Columbus, and removing all galley equipment and seats, the plane was light enough to depart for the larger facility across town.
There are pictures of a B707 holding position on our tiny 5000'x100' rwy
Layout is not similar, direction is, however the rwys at KCMH are twice as long if not longer.
KCMH (RWYs 10L-28R, 10R-28L)
KOSU (RWYs 9R-27L, 9L-27R)
ALSO SEE http://www.thirdamendment.com/wrongway.html
A little history... This stuff happens a lot
In 1967, the crew of a TWA 707 mistook the Ohio State University Airport (KOSU) for Port Columbus International Airport (KCMH). After shuttling all passengers and baggage to Port Columbus, and removing all galley equipment and seats, the plane was light enough to depart for the larger facility across town.
There are pictures of a B707 holding position on our tiny 5000'x100' rwy
Layout is not similar, direction is, however the rwys at KCMH are twice as long if not longer.
KCMH (RWYs 10L-28R, 10R-28L)
KOSU (RWYs 9R-27L, 9L-27R)
ALSO SEE http://www.thirdamendment.com/wrongway.html
A little history... This stuff happens a lot
Guest
Posts: n/a
Air Hag
You don't seem to understand how the internet works.
If you cut us off from "it", it will find another to route us, using other resources globally and you will then have cut yourself off from the world.
Well, maybe that's in line with what your President's actions will likely achieve
You don't seem to understand how the internet works.
If you cut us off from "it", it will find another to route us, using other resources globally and you will then have cut yourself off from the world.
Well, maybe that's in line with what your President's actions will likely achieve
Aviator Extraordinaire
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
Age: 76
Posts: 2,394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
alf5071h actually I did not write that, however I will try to answer your question.
Under VFR conditions, good VFR such as ceiling greater than 5,000ft and five miles, many more aircraft can land and takeoff in any given time period because the ATC can use visual separation for traffic rather than the standard IFR/radar separation.
A good case in point is St. Louis (KSTL) airport. The runways are too close together to allow parallel approaches under IMC operations, therefore in IMC the landing operations are nearly cut in half when compared to VMC operations. The same problems exists for departures, the controllers can depend on the pilots to provide visual separation with the instructions of, “Cleared for takeoff, keep the aircraft in front of you in sight.” Or something like that. When the aircraft in question have similar operational profiles both aircraft came climb on the same vector, with slower aircraft one of the two are given a turn to assist in separation. An excellent airport to observe how effective VMC operations can be is Chicago O Hara (KORD). I truly believe that the best air traffic controllers in the world work at KORD; they are akin to poetry in motion.
I have always been under the impression from my experience in Europe that the same separation standards are used regardless of the weather conditions; I very well could be mistaken. I realize that overall the weather is generally better in the US and we have a lot more airspace. There is an advantage of always using standard IFR separation regardless of weather conditions, which is of course knowing the precise number of aircraft operations per hour one can have at any given airport. However this does little to promote traffic flow.
When weather conditions exists I will always request a visual approach, however, if there is a precision approach available for the runway I will have it on the flight director and monitor the approach while performing the visual approach. This is just good common sense. In the absence of a precision approach one must use situational awareness to help determine alignment on the proper runway, such as knowing which side of the runway the taxiways and buildings are on as in the case of Rapid City (KRAP).
I in no way believe that the fact that I have 21,000 hours will prevent me from having an accident or incident, however the fact that have never had an accident or incident in those 21,000 hours shows that I have been doing something right and I would be a liar not to also admit that sometimes good old fashion luck has played a role in my career. Any pilot near my experience level that claims lady luck has not helped them is a liar. At least in my humble opinion.
Any way I hope this helped clear up any questions you had on the subject of visual approaches here in the US.
PS everybody knows that Al Gore invented the internet, he said so!
Under VFR conditions, good VFR such as ceiling greater than 5,000ft and five miles, many more aircraft can land and takeoff in any given time period because the ATC can use visual separation for traffic rather than the standard IFR/radar separation.
A good case in point is St. Louis (KSTL) airport. The runways are too close together to allow parallel approaches under IMC operations, therefore in IMC the landing operations are nearly cut in half when compared to VMC operations. The same problems exists for departures, the controllers can depend on the pilots to provide visual separation with the instructions of, “Cleared for takeoff, keep the aircraft in front of you in sight.” Or something like that. When the aircraft in question have similar operational profiles both aircraft came climb on the same vector, with slower aircraft one of the two are given a turn to assist in separation. An excellent airport to observe how effective VMC operations can be is Chicago O Hara (KORD). I truly believe that the best air traffic controllers in the world work at KORD; they are akin to poetry in motion.
I have always been under the impression from my experience in Europe that the same separation standards are used regardless of the weather conditions; I very well could be mistaken. I realize that overall the weather is generally better in the US and we have a lot more airspace. There is an advantage of always using standard IFR separation regardless of weather conditions, which is of course knowing the precise number of aircraft operations per hour one can have at any given airport. However this does little to promote traffic flow.
When weather conditions exists I will always request a visual approach, however, if there is a precision approach available for the runway I will have it on the flight director and monitor the approach while performing the visual approach. This is just good common sense. In the absence of a precision approach one must use situational awareness to help determine alignment on the proper runway, such as knowing which side of the runway the taxiways and buildings are on as in the case of Rapid City (KRAP).
I in no way believe that the fact that I have 21,000 hours will prevent me from having an accident or incident, however the fact that have never had an accident or incident in those 21,000 hours shows that I have been doing something right and I would be a liar not to also admit that sometimes good old fashion luck has played a role in my career. Any pilot near my experience level that claims lady luck has not helped them is a liar. At least in my humble opinion.
Any way I hope this helped clear up any questions you had on the subject of visual approaches here in the US.
PS everybody knows that Al Gore invented the internet, he said so!
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Avondale Heights
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Early 1990's.
I'm flying MIA-SDQ (Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic.)
The ILS is out of service, wx is marginal VFR w/ CB's in the
vicinity. Approach in use is a VOR, overhead teardrop
style. There was (still is) a caution on the plate about
mistaking a military airfield for SDQ. Said airfield is located
1-1:30 as one turns inbound on the final course.
In the old days my carrier considered SDQ as a 'special
hit city' and required us to observe a video. We put
a B747 into that military field in the early 70's.
F/O is flying and I mention the importance of 'raw data' to
verify proper landing.
The F/O seemed both surprised and happy as he stated;
"oh, you don't know about me."
The week prior he had landed a B727 at that military airfield.
This is the best part! -
On that appoach (week prior/wrong airport) a
F/C passenger yelled to the F/A; "tell the pilot that he is landing
at the wrong airport!!!" The F/A told him; "Sir, this is American
Airlines, not Dominicana, we don't do that kind of
thing."
-True story.
I'm flying MIA-SDQ (Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic.)
The ILS is out of service, wx is marginal VFR w/ CB's in the
vicinity. Approach in use is a VOR, overhead teardrop
style. There was (still is) a caution on the plate about
mistaking a military airfield for SDQ. Said airfield is located
1-1:30 as one turns inbound on the final course.
In the old days my carrier considered SDQ as a 'special
hit city' and required us to observe a video. We put
a B747 into that military field in the early 70's.
F/O is flying and I mention the importance of 'raw data' to
verify proper landing.
The F/O seemed both surprised and happy as he stated;
"oh, you don't know about me."
The week prior he had landed a B727 at that military airfield.
This is the best part! -
On that appoach (week prior/wrong airport) a
F/C passenger yelled to the F/A; "tell the pilot that he is landing
at the wrong airport!!!" The F/A told him; "Sir, this is American
Airlines, not Dominicana, we don't do that kind of
thing."
-True story.
Clipper 811. Excellent story. So much for that Flight Attendant's arrogance/ignorance, and unwillingness to share vital safety concerns with her crew.
It is also a bit strange how Tower (or Approach) Controllers can clear an airplane to land and then never notice that the plane has disappeared.
It is also a bit strange how Tower (or Approach) Controllers can clear an airplane to land and then never notice that the plane has disappeared.
"This is the best part! -
On that appoach (week prior/wrong airport) a
F/C passenger yelled to the F/A; "tell the pilot that he is landing
at the wrong airport!!!" The F/A told him; "Sir, this is American
Airlines, not Dominicana, we don't do that kind of
thing."
-True story"
This is beginning to sound like the light house story and the US Navy ship. Everyone ends the tale with "True story"
Funny enough that same light house has also repelled a number of other navies ships, all depending on who tells it.
True story
On that appoach (week prior/wrong airport) a
F/C passenger yelled to the F/A; "tell the pilot that he is landing
at the wrong airport!!!" The F/A told him; "Sir, this is American
Airlines, not Dominicana, we don't do that kind of
thing."
-True story"
This is beginning to sound like the light house story and the US Navy ship. Everyone ends the tale with "True story"
Funny enough that same light house has also repelled a number of other navies ships, all depending on who tells it.
True story
(a bear of little brain)
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: 51 10 03.70N 2 58 37.15W
Age: 75
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
West Coast.
It is also the most mobile lighthouse I have ever heard of (over the course of the years it has been positioned off both the East and West coasts of Canada, off Ireland, off Lands End (England), close to the Scilly Isles and off Crete (I think it must have been on it's holidays for the last one).
It is also the most mobile lighthouse I have ever heard of (over the course of the years it has been positioned off both the East and West coasts of Canada, off Ireland, off Lands End (England), close to the Scilly Isles and off Crete (I think it must have been on it's holidays for the last one).
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Avondale Heights
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ignition Overide,
Another oversight/mistake was that in the rush to land the crew never obtained landing clearance.
Sorry for the "True Story" label but it's actually well known among the crews who flew the B727 into/out of MIA in the early to mid 90's.
Just for info, you might be surprised to know that the a/c *with* passengers was flown on the short hop to SDQ by the same crew, albeit after a lengthy delay.
Not the case with the years earlier B747.
Cheers, 811
Another oversight/mistake was that in the rush to land the crew never obtained landing clearance.
Sorry for the "True Story" label but it's actually well known among the crews who flew the B727 into/out of MIA in the early to mid 90's.
Just for info, you might be surprised to know that the a/c *with* passengers was flown on the short hop to SDQ by the same crew, albeit after a lengthy delay.
Not the case with the years earlier B747.
Cheers, 811
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It even happens to Prime Ministers
Prime Minister Takes a Wrong Turn
The Royal Air Force had a red face on Friday when they were taking the Prime Minister from London to Scotland. The BAe 146 jet of the Queen's Flight took the PM to Edinburgh instead of Glasgow! Due to "an administrative error" the paperwork for the flight had the wrong destination and the plane landed at the airport - much to everyone's surprise. After safety checks, the plane took off again for the 50 mile flight to Glasgow. Later in the day the PM went to Perth - by road.
Source: http://www.rampantscotland.com/letter1998.htm
The Royal Air Force had a red face on Friday when they were taking the Prime Minister from London to Scotland. The BAe 146 jet of the Queen's Flight took the PM to Edinburgh instead of Glasgow! Due to "an administrative error" the paperwork for the flight had the wrong destination and the plane landed at the airport - much to everyone's surprise. After safety checks, the plane took off again for the 50 mile flight to Glasgow. Later in the day the PM went to Perth - by road.
Source: http://www.rampantscotland.com/letter1998.htm
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Surrounded by aluminum, and the great outdoors
Posts: 3,780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilots can land at the wrong airfield when procedures are not strictly folowed, when crew not properly rested, when an adjacent airfield comes into view during the carrying out of a non precision approach procedure before the intended landing airfield...many reasons..don't think "drunk" had anything to do with it...and if u have to ask this,"mdfun80" one would be led to believe you are inexperienced, or not even a pilot...
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Perth Australia
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Getting back to the Brussels/Frankfurt incident. It was Northwest and Flight International headlined the story with "DC-10 misses runway by 300 miles."
According to Flight, it was the passengers who altered the cabin crew to the problem which they were watching unfold on the airshow mapping program.
The crew continued with the landing and for memory the captain resigned.
GT
(www.flightpaths.com.au)
According to Flight, it was the passengers who altered the cabin crew to the problem which they were watching unfold on the airshow mapping program.
The crew continued with the landing and for memory the captain resigned.
GT
(www.flightpaths.com.au)
