ryr Landed In a taxyway by mistake in CAG
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,091
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"...procedures advise against this, as it would distract the pilot in the most critical phase of the flight..."
What a load of cobblers.
If ATC had been in radio contact, they would have told the aircraft to go-around had there been any doubt that they were about to land on the taxiway. If no radio contact, then OK, but I'm puzzled as to who would give clearance to land - the approach/radar controllers? That seems a bit odd, if there is a tower at the airfield.
1300m from the runway = 0.8 miles = about 250ft above threshold = 25 seconds, give or take, from that point until touchdown.
What a load of cobblers.
If ATC had been in radio contact, they would have told the aircraft to go-around had there been any doubt that they were about to land on the taxiway. If no radio contact, then OK, but I'm puzzled as to who would give clearance to land - the approach/radar controllers? That seems a bit odd, if there is a tower at the airfield.
1300m from the runway = 0.8 miles = about 250ft above threshold = 25 seconds, give or take, from that point until touchdown.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Banana Republic
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sure, a go-around instruction was an option, but then again: why would one tell an aircraft to go-around when it's landing on a perfectly suitable (to the point of being used as a runway up to 4 days before), obstacle-free strip? Landing on rwy 32R (or taxiway A as it is now called) was intentional, so no performance (ie. landing distance) issue is involved here, either.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: USA
Age: 66
Posts: 2,183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but then again: why would one tell an aircraft to go-around when it's landing on a perfectly suitable (to the point of being used as a runway up to 4 days before), obstacle-free strip?
The key point here is it was a TAXIWAY used as a RUNWAY FOUR DAYS BEFORE.The runways where I am are inspected regularly for detritus damage and general bits and pieces. I would not let you land on the duty runway without regular inspections, I am sure as a sure thing I am NOT going to let you land on a taxiway.
I don't know who issued landing clearance but Approach (in my airport) has a remote clearance to land system. It is rarely used but is available.
The only form of non radio equipment we have is an ALDIS LAMP set to RED.
Last edited by eastern wiseguy; 14th Apr 2009 at 14:24.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Banana Republic
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder if there seems to be a history of mis-identifying runways/taxiways.....
Indeed a very good point. I remember the case at Gatwick where the parallel strip that is more often used as taxiway than runway was landed on while an Aer Lingus was taxying along it.
No case of the landing aircraft not being in contact with the tower and no case of the tower not being in a position to say go arround back then. Remind me again what the airline involved was and what the result of the investigation was?
In this case, the only question I have regarding the ATC procedures are what happens if say a citation who takes a wrong turn infringes the (real)runway. Seems that even if the tower controller sees the infringement they can not tell the flight that has been cleared to land to go round.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: ireland
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Silver hawk you're spot on. Fr operate to small airfields and pay almost nothing for their services. Starved of money the airfield operators are unable to develop their facilities. While other airlines may also use these stripes Fr use them almost exclusively. There is no free lunch. The parasitic nature of the Fr model which require that facilities are provided by shrinking air forces and maintained to a bare minimum by local government will and does ultimately have a baring on safety and to argue otherwise is either naive or partisan. My condolences to the crew who will no doubt be offered up to cover the wider issue.
More bang for your buck
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 82
Posts: 3,512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC when I mentioned, on page 2 about the Gatwick incidents (there were 2 of them one in 1988 and one in 1993) it got removed for some reason. 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Dre's mum's house
Posts: 1,432
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Incompetence, NOTAMs which did not at all acurately portray the actual conditions on the day
Get there at about 08Z and 13/31 is closed, 06/24 open.
Left hand calling right hand!
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: ITALY
Age: 59
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What about tens of other airliners/private a/c (italian and foreign) which hopefully landed on the correct runway in the last four days ? Pure luck ? Superior airmanship ?
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Europe
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I went into CAG today, and was grateful this poor devil from FR had made the mistake (and I read it here!), or I very well may have done the same thing:
There is NOTHING in the notams to say the main runway is back in use, it merely no longer says that it isn't!
The old runway (now taxiway) is not marked by crosses as you would expect, but did have cones and men and trucks on it today.
The old yellow sidestep plate is the first one in the Jepp book.
ATC did specify the ILS Zulu approach for 32 (the old yellow one is Papa for the sidestep), and for obvious reasons were a bit more pointed than they must have been with the Ryanair! ATC in CAG is generally ****e. It is not unusual to remain on control freq rather than change to tower.
These FR guys, who most likely went into CAG frequently, didn't do this rather painful sidestep manoeuvre for laughs or to save taxi time. It is a infrastructural "Gottcha!" and CRM wise the Italians should be looking what they could have done better, instead of hanging these guys out to dry.
Today, for me, "but for the grace of god" and the FR over Easter, I may have done the same thing.
There is NOTHING in the notams to say the main runway is back in use, it merely no longer says that it isn't!
The old runway (now taxiway) is not marked by crosses as you would expect, but did have cones and men and trucks on it today.
The old yellow sidestep plate is the first one in the Jepp book.
ATC did specify the ILS Zulu approach for 32 (the old yellow one is Papa for the sidestep), and for obvious reasons were a bit more pointed than they must have been with the Ryanair! ATC in CAG is generally ****e. It is not unusual to remain on control freq rather than change to tower.
These FR guys, who most likely went into CAG frequently, didn't do this rather painful sidestep manoeuvre for laughs or to save taxi time. It is a infrastructural "Gottcha!" and CRM wise the Italians should be looking what they could have done better, instead of hanging these guys out to dry.
Today, for me, "but for the grace of god" and the FR over Easter, I may have done the same thing.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In a far better place
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am sure that CAG is not a major airport with numerous daily operations. With that being said plenty of time for coffee and ciggies. So why would the controllers not advise crews, for a period of time, that the runway is now open for business and the taxi way is just a taxi way? Better yet... why not issue a trigger notam in bold letters that normal operations are in effect?
It's such a shame that a developed country has a third world aviation system.
It's such a shame that a developed country has a third world aviation system.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: USA
Age: 66
Posts: 2,183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
why would the controllers not advise crews, for a period of time, that the runway is now open for business and the taxi way is just a taxi way?
Why not keep the lights on?
Why not only put the aircraft to tower when it reports lights in sight?
or
Why not only issue LANDING CLEARANCE when the crew report lights in sight?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: USA
Age: 66
Posts: 2,183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Daylight?....means nothing . At my airport (BFS)lights are selected ON at ANY time when 07 is in use due to potential for mis identing(an unlicensed) runway 3 dme from threshold of 07.
Did the taxiway have PAPI's?
Did the taxiway have PAPI's?
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: ? ? ?
Posts: 2,281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
apparently they might have been cleared to land on Rwy 32R, the now closed RWY
If yes, please share them.
If not, please wait the report and avoid to blame somebodyelse for free.
They did receive dubious Notams, and I still say I did not undertsand them fully
There is NOTHING in the notams to say the main runway is back in use, it merely no longer says that it isn't!
The old runway (now taxiway) is not marked by crosses as you would expect
The old yellow sidestep plate is the first one in the Jepp book
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This situation was allowed to develop from an un-needed sidestep, with the implied intention to land on the wrong runway, to an actual landing on the wrong R/W.
The oft available safety net of a sharp (
) controller noticing something wrong and alerting the crew may not have been available due to an inadequate system whereby the tower were not able to communicate in a timely fashion with the approach controller.
I trust this aspect will receive as much attention as the enac mandated investigation of Ryanair operating standards.
For all the previous reasons stated in other posts (i.e. in case of a R/W infringement delay in communicating same to crew ) I was always wary of this daft procedure - working approach, told to call lights in sight clear to land call tower when on the ground. The only inconsequential advantage is that there is no need to change frequency in the event of a go-around, but really, what proportion of approaches end in a go-around to warrant this crazy procedure.
The only other local wise-guy procedure that sucks even more is the potentially lethal Eindhoven one where you are cleared (even in crap vis) to cross the active runway whilst working the ground frequency. This is a real No No and can only be partially alleviated if you are of a mind to monitor the tower on box2, but it just SHOULD NOT be done that way.
Another accident/incident waiting to happen.
The oft available safety net of a sharp (
) controller noticing something wrong and alerting the crew may not have been available due to an inadequate system whereby the tower were not able to communicate in a timely fashion with the approach controller.I trust this aspect will receive as much attention as the enac mandated investigation of Ryanair operating standards.
For all the previous reasons stated in other posts (i.e. in case of a R/W infringement delay in communicating same to crew ) I was always wary of this daft procedure - working approach, told to call lights in sight clear to land call tower when on the ground. The only inconsequential advantage is that there is no need to change frequency in the event of a go-around, but really, what proportion of approaches end in a go-around to warrant this crazy procedure.
The only other local wise-guy procedure that sucks even more is the potentially lethal Eindhoven one where you are cleared (even in crap vis) to cross the active runway whilst working the ground frequency. This is a real No No and can only be partially alleviated if you are of a mind to monitor the tower on box2, but it just SHOULD NOT be done that way.
Another accident/incident waiting to happen.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,501
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not really surprised. I believe that taxiway has been used for landings and take offs since last summer. It's not a 15-20 meter wide taxiway, it's 40 (45?) meters wide, and when I was there some 8 months ago, it was equipped with white runway edge lights and had a Papi.
These guys have probably been operating in and out of there many times during the main runway closure and had their mind set on a slightly high workload, sidestep procedure in limited vis into an airport with questionable ATC service. Were they transferred to Tower? Don't know, but it's not that unusual to forget a transfer when both pilots are slightly stressed and looking for a non standard landing taxiway.
OK, it was Notam'd. Maybe they did not get it, maybe it was misread, maybe they didn't read it (non of us have ever neglected to read all the NOTAM's, right?), maybe it was unclear, maybe they got different information from approach, maybe, maybe.
In this case I simply think the CAG trap was set a long time ago.
It could have been me.
These guys have probably been operating in and out of there many times during the main runway closure and had their mind set on a slightly high workload, sidestep procedure in limited vis into an airport with questionable ATC service. Were they transferred to Tower? Don't know, but it's not that unusual to forget a transfer when both pilots are slightly stressed and looking for a non standard landing taxiway.
OK, it was Notam'd. Maybe they did not get it, maybe it was misread, maybe they didn't read it (non of us have ever neglected to read all the NOTAM's, right?), maybe it was unclear, maybe they got different information from approach, maybe, maybe.
In this case I simply think the CAG trap was set a long time ago.
It could have been me.
Last edited by ManaAdaSystem; 15th Apr 2009 at 00:17.
If I recall correctly the one at LGW which landed on the taxiway many years ago was a British Island Airways a/c (BAC111 I think).
The Italians seem to have this funny system of not clearing you to land until you declare that you have the runway in sight which gets interesting when the vis is poor.
The Italians seem to have this funny system of not clearing you to land until you declare that you have the runway in sight which gets interesting when the vis is poor.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Henry VIII
I don't think that's what Oleo was saying. What they were saying, I think, from reading their post carefully, is that there has been a NOTAM out since last summer stating that the main runway was out of use and the taxiway was available for landing.
Then, when the runway was available again, the NOTAM was pulled or at least the part about the main runway not being in use and the taxiway to be used, was removed.
Regardless of whether or not
it's not exactly fail safe, and it's not a robust NOTAM if this is indeed the case.
You have a runway that has been out of commission for months. The only way that people know it is back in service is the lack of text on a NOTAM that previously said it is not to be used.
That is not safe!
How many incidents have you seen, read or heard about which were caused by a combination of many little factors?
You must have heard the anecdotal tales of pilots thinking they see 3 greens when they do a gear check when in fact it's 3 reds - i.e. expectation of seeing something sometimes overrides what is actually there.
If the taxiway had been in use for months, don't you think that it would have been better to have a positive instruction via NOTAM i.e. saying something along the lines of 'Runway XYZ is fully serviceable, Taxiway ABC is no longer to be used for landing".
The chances are that this crew were regulars into CAG - which instead of being in their favour because they know th eairport, actualy worked against them.
RAT 5 and Oleo, this is the standard way to build the NOTAM. One day a doc is issued to inform about the starting of such a kind of work on an apt, later a new doc is issued to inform about the closure of the work. It always happened and it always will happen in that way, no more no less.
Then, when the runway was available again, the NOTAM was pulled or at least the part about the main runway not being in use and the taxiway to be used, was removed.
Regardless of whether or not
...this is the standard way to build the NOTAM...
You have a runway that has been out of commission for months. The only way that people know it is back in service is the lack of text on a NOTAM that previously said it is not to be used.
That is not safe!
How many incidents have you seen, read or heard about which were caused by a combination of many little factors?
You must have heard the anecdotal tales of pilots thinking they see 3 greens when they do a gear check when in fact it's 3 reds - i.e. expectation of seeing something sometimes overrides what is actually there.
If the taxiway had been in use for months, don't you think that it would have been better to have a positive instruction via NOTAM i.e. saying something along the lines of 'Runway XYZ is fully serviceable, Taxiway ABC is no longer to be used for landing".
The chances are that this crew were regulars into CAG - which instead of being in their favour because they know th eairport, actualy worked against them.