Boeing 747 Dreamlifter lands at wrong airport

[bubbers44]

Olasek

Visual approaches on an IFR approach is still not cancelling your IFR clearance, sorry. Look it up in FARS. You are wrong.

[8driver]

I'm current on the -400 and the -8, and I find it hard to conceive of how this happened. I've also found a copy of the RNAV 19L at McConnell and that only reinforces my belief.

I believe Spooky2 said the approach probably wasn't in the database. If it wasn't in the database how and why would they accept the approach and attempt to fly it? Did they manually enter waypoints and build it themselves? That's not common practice. If it is a common destination for the airline it is most likely in the database. Either way, whether it was in the database or not, vertical guidance would have been available if it had been programmed correctly.

I have looked at the plate, its a no brainer in LNAV/VNAV. Provided they were using LNAV/VNAV, and who wouldn't, on a dark night? Yes, the runway they landed at was in alignment with 19L at McConnell, but NINE miles short. The VNAV would have been commanding a path almost 3000 ft above threshold elevation at that point. Someone else pointed out that the FAF altitude at Jabara and the IAF at McConnell are the same. The altitude at WITBA (the IAF) on the McConnell plate is 4000 ft or ABOVE. Line underneath. I don't have the Jabara plate but if they were in LNAV/VNAV the airplane would have crossed the IAF on a three degree path. I make that to be about 5600 ft based on what I see, assuming the total distance to be 13.9 miles. The copy of the plate I have isn't as clear as it could be. At any rate I make it out to be some altitude above 4000 ft since its nine miles from WITBA to WARUN, another 4.9? to the runway, and the threshold elevation is 1364.

If they crossed WITBA at 4000 feet they were playing dive and drive unless vectored at that altitude and they would have shown below path. Yes I learned that way (dive and drive) in the 80's, yes I taught it to students in light aircraft back then (more time to get the runway in sight), generally flew that in the 90's in SAAB-340s, and even started out that way in DC-8s in the late 90's. But... the visual descent point was coming into use then and the 3 degree slope and stabilized approach were beginning to be emphasized. Also, none of those aircraft had VNAV guidance. I've been on the -400 since 2004 and at my airline dive and drive hasn't been taught since I've been there. I was initially trained to use VS and reference the descent table but we went to full VNAV usage for non-precision approaches shortly after I was hired.

Yes this has happened a lot in the past and in many cases in earlier aircraft without FMS/RNAV capability. If you can have a three degree slope on a night approach (or any approach) in a heavy jet, why not use it? And as another poster pointed out, ND anyone? Prog page? Not feeling bad for anyone, it was not using the resources available that allowed this to happen.

[-JC-]

If they crossed WITBA at 4000 feet they were playing dive and drive unless vectored at that altitude and they would have shown below path.

They were cleared direct to WITBA right after they checked on with Approach Control. When 25 miles from the airport (KIAB) they were cleared for the GPS RNAV runway 19L with the restriction to cross WITBA at 4000. (from the ATC archive).

If WITBA was coded at 4000A you can't keep it on the VNAV PTH and make the the restriction. So what are you going to do ? Take it out of VNAV PTH and go below the profile using LVL CHG or VS ? Or manually change the altitude to 4000 hard and keep it in VNAV PTH all the way down ?

In any event, crossing WITBA at 4000 feet as per the ATC clearance puts you right on centerline and on the PAPI's for runway 18 at Jabara.

Jabara is not displayed on the approach plate, and obviously wasn't in the aircraft FMS database. You're looking at your approach plate, shows one runway. You're looking at your PFD, shows one runway. You look outside, you see a runway and you're on the PAPI's ....

[8driver]

JC-

No need to take it out of VNAV in a -400. Press the button and descend right away in VNAV SPD to 4000 as directed by ATC, then VNAV ALT. Dial the MCP to a lower altitude such as the MDA when on the published segment and altitudes coded in hard font. Path will come in from above and should go to VNAV PATH, if it doesn't press the Alt selector button once and down she goes on path. One way to do it. We deal with that all the time on PC's.

That's great that WITBA puts you on PAPIs for Jabara at 4000 ft, but situational awareness tells you that you are 14 miles from the runway and that altitude is too low to be on PAPI. Prog page shows 14 miles to run, LEGS page shows the same, VNAV path indicator shows fly up, ND depending on scale might not even show the runway and certainly the runway being nowhere near on ND below 1000 ft might be a clue.

I would guess they didn't use the VNAV, and went visual flying raw data and disregarding everything inside. Pilot monitoring?

[bubbers44]

Looking outside the window and descending on a normal profile always worked for me. Looking inside the window was just to check airspeed. I guess we had a different way of flying.

[8driver]

For heavens sake Bubbers, take your head out of the sand. You have a perfectly good device based on GPS that shows you 14 miles from the field. Does 2600 AGL on a PAPI at that position seem like a "normal" profile? Did you also ignore the DME for a VOR located at the destination airport because it was inside when checking your profile? How about compass locators? Welcome to Jabara.

[Jetjock330]

PA

Bubbers is correct regarding visual approaches...you must intentionally cance your IFR plan

Incorrect. The last piece of an ILS approach is flown from minimum, visually between 200 and touch down (Visual Segment). The same for the VOR approach and this is known as the visual segment of the instrument approach. The same for a circling approach. Once reaching minimums, you circle the visual segment of the instrument approach procedure. Now if you see the runway above minimum and continue visually, you are still flying a visual segment of the instrument approach, you do not cancel IFR to fly visual segment of the instrument procedure!


A good friend of mine flies this very Dreamlifter and is operating the very said one in the coming days. I also learn't that as the tail swings open to load cargo, there is no APU on the Dreamlifter. The cargo hold is not pressurised, and the cockpit sits on top of the chemical toilet system, hence a strong pong on a warm day, due no APU air conditioning. So after they landed and shut down, they would be a little stuck without immediate ground power.

[BOAC]

Originally Posted by bubbers44

Looking outside the window and descending on a normal profile always worked for me.

- yes, it seems to have worked for this crew too

[billabongbill]

bubbers44

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,331
Looking outside the window and descending on a normal profile always worked for me. Looking inside the window was just to check airspeed. I guess we had a different way of flying.

I think that was exactly what the Atlas crew of the Dreamlifter did! Looked out the window, saw the runway, all looked good and employed their vastly superior stick and rudder skills...landing onto such a strip certainly needed that. What went wrong? Simple! They weren't as lucky as bubbers who led a charmed life!

[Heathrow Harry]

Not sure they had McConnell GPS co-ordinates entered or even to hand -

if you listen to the recording of the conversation after some confusion as to the fact that they are stopped but the tower can't see them he asks McConnel

"what are the co-ordinates for your airfield?"

he than copies them and after a short pause says

"looks like we're 6 miles away"

[Capt Fathom]

If their descent profile was based on McConnell, there must have been a significant vertical adjustment made when they spotted Jabara.

Got to say some interesting flying that culminated in that landing!

[Callsign Kilo]

I suppose we can add this to the list of the unfortunate occurrences of the Dreamliner program!

[Kiwithrottlejockey]

If you want the local gossip "straight out of the horse's mouth", here are a couple of stories from the local newspaper, The Wichita Eagle....

Wayward Dreamlifter captivates the Air Capital | Wichita Eagle

NTSB opens investigation into Dreamlifter’s wrong landing | Wichita Eagle

[Andy_S]

Originally Posted by Callsign Kilo

I suppose we can add this to the list of the unfortunate occurrences of the Dreamliner program!

You are aware of the type of aircraft that landed at Jabara, aren't you?

[Tacitus]

I wont argue on how they landed at the wrong airport but those guys must be really good pilots, besides that mistake of course. They managed to land such a massive plane on a narrow, 6000 ft runway ....I think that should have been mentioned. Thanks and wish them good luck from now on

[Capn Bloggs]

Originally Posted by Heathrow Harry

Not sure they had McConnell GPS co-ordinates entered or even to hand -

Might have been on the end of the waypoint list of the RNAV approach they were allegedly doing...

[bubbers44]

I didn't say I routinely do a visual by just looking out the window and cross checking airspeed, just that it is quite simple to do it that way if you do not have GPS, DME, GS, LOC, etc. It is called pilotage, something rarely taught to the new guys and looking at this thread, never learned by many.

[flarepilot]

jetjock


semantics...while an ILS (cat 1 for example) does have a visual component it is not a clearance for a visual approach.

A Visual approach clearance does not cancel an IFR clearance..that's the point and bubbers is right.


as to the concerns about a visual apch, I am sure bubbers means that if you have the correct airport in sight (pilotage) a visual apch should be a part of every pilot's capability.


wondering out loud: would you rather crash at the right airport or land beautifully at the wrong airport...Asiana at SFO...boy those guys would have loved to land at jabara or a wrong airport!


Sadly, there are only three airports in the USA that I wouldn't have to check/crosscheck with other navigation aids for a purely visual approach.

SFO
DCA
LGA

they are just unique to the max.

and it would be really nice for someone to post the RNAVY/GPS apch plate on this thread

[flarepilot]

http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1312/00453R19L.PDF

above is link to rnav apch to air base


it seems to me that an ATC instruction to cross WITBA the IAF at 4000' would put the airplane over the jabbara airport at 4000'


and since ATC has to know where IFR traffic is, the apch control must have been too busy to see that the airplane was very low at the witba/IAF fix.

wondering why the MSAW wasn't working or ignored.


oh, and here is a bit of interesting things...the runway at jabbara is runway 18...if the pilots had seen the number and it wasn't 19left..an early oops might have been available.


and the real kicker...19r at the air force base has an ILS

[DIBO]

to cross WITBA the IAF at 4000' would put the airplane over the jabbara airport at 4000'

WITBA at 4000' puts you close to DEYEK FAF for Jabara (at 3000'), pretty well in the Jabara 18 centreline at 186° and in the Jabara approach lights & PAPI.

The plane came in from Italy via New York. Was it the same crew? Fatigue starting to kick in?