Boeing 747 Dreamlifter lands at wrong airport
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Western USA
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think we all can agree that if you have it, you should use it. ILS, RNAV, DME, VOR, eyeballs outside, common sense, etc. Brief the arrival/approach, whether visual with an ILS back or whatever, every single time. Good habits, practice and personal capability/skills makes for less errors during the flight.
Some errors are more egregious and unforgivable than others, but we all make mistakes one way or another. My goal was to not land at the wrong airport, no tail strikes, no pod strikes, no gear up landings, no nav errors overwater, no violations and generally not dent aluminum or bruise bodies. So far, so good, but I am human...
Maybe the children of the magenta line and the steam gauge guys/gals should get together and compare notes? It all begins with a good chief pilot and a good training center. Good luck with that, eh?
Some errors are more egregious and unforgivable than others, but we all make mistakes one way or another. My goal was to not land at the wrong airport, no tail strikes, no pod strikes, no gear up landings, no nav errors overwater, no violations and generally not dent aluminum or bruise bodies. So far, so good, but I am human...
Maybe the children of the magenta line and the steam gauge guys/gals should get together and compare notes? It all begins with a good chief pilot and a good training center. Good luck with that, eh?
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.
You can skip forward to about 2:30 in the video
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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'
Also the way the plate depicts the vertical profile of the approach it makes it look like the 3.02 degree slope intersects WITBA at 4000 feet.
It will be interesting to know what exactly they had in their FMS database ? But from what I've seen so far it looks like ATC and the published approach and charts did a nice job of setting them up for failure.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: chicago
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
oops...misread the distance...witba is farther north of jabbara...and that's fine
BUT
the faf is about 5 miles from the air base and past jabbara and you are to cross at or above 3000'...that alone is the clue to me that the crew didn't have the apch up or correct...it is all too easly to just say, :don't bother tuning the radios or entering the apch, I have the field in sight.
but he had the wrong field in sight
as to the amount of time to see the numbers 18 vs 19L, using a king air video isn't very accurate...but there was between 10 seconds and 5 seconds after seeing the numbers before touchdown.
the crew saw a runway and went for it. and contrary to what pattern is full and his video show...there are adequate final apch/visual cues to the runway.
190 degrees is surely different than 180 degrees (actually the difference is 181 vs 187)
but you can see the numbers before touchdown
and the big thing is still a rotating beacon at night shows white / green for a civil airfield and white white green for a military field.
the crew could have asked for apch lights to be turned on full bright as a confirmation of correct runway
BUT
the faf is about 5 miles from the air base and past jabbara and you are to cross at or above 3000'...that alone is the clue to me that the crew didn't have the apch up or correct...it is all too easly to just say, :don't bother tuning the radios or entering the apch, I have the field in sight.
but he had the wrong field in sight
as to the amount of time to see the numbers 18 vs 19L, using a king air video isn't very accurate...but there was between 10 seconds and 5 seconds after seeing the numbers before touchdown.
the crew saw a runway and went for it. and contrary to what pattern is full and his video show...there are adequate final apch/visual cues to the runway.
190 degrees is surely different than 180 degrees (actually the difference is 181 vs 187)
but you can see the numbers before touchdown
and the big thing is still a rotating beacon at night shows white / green for a civil airfield and white white green for a military field.
the crew could have asked for apch lights to be turned on full bright as a confirmation of correct runway
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Intruder, they actualy depart Renton to a variety of airports. The greatest number go to Moses Lake (KMWH); others to Paine Field (KPAE). They occasionally go they occasionally go to Boeing Field (KBFI) or other airports.
I seldom see 737s in PAE. I see LOTS of them at BFI.
While they may fly east and possibly do touch & goes at MWH, they normally land at BFI, where the customer delivery center is. While things may have changed since I left Boeing in 1998, their goal then was that the initial flight would be the ONLY Boeing flight (i.e., no squawks), and the 2nd flight would be the delivery flight.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems to me that the Dreamlifter crew were quite happy that the runway before them was correct....
Certainly their handflying skills cannot be faulted. Magenta line navigators
do quite rightly insist that navaids if available should be used to the max. I remember how delighted I was to pay big bucks for one of the first GPS systems, installed in my single seat glider - no more getting lost, I thought....
and yet, the old training of landmarks and following motorways still came in handy when I had programmed in W instead of E for the coordinates...you chaps in the USA didn't have to worry about that one! When the sun is distinctly declining abeam when it should be behind you, you may have a problem with your nav equipment....
Among all the delightful examples cited in this entertaining thread is mentioned an airliner that aimed for Heathrow and ended up at Northolt Military Airbase - a lot shorter than required for the subsequent departure which badly frightened some lorries on the M40 .....
A glider pilot of my acquaintance was intending to fly from Hinton in the Hedges to Wycombe Air Park. Navigation simples, just follow the aforementioned M40. And WAP will appear beside the motorway. So he followed the M40, and landed at an airfield which turned out to be Northolt.
The Northolt chaps were very friendly and welcoming, and even agreed to arrange for a glider tow plane to retrieve the hapless pilot, however LHR permission would be required. Northolt controller phones up LHR. Asks permission for a glider to be retrieved back to Hinton from Northolt
"WHAT GLIDER!!!!!" Heathrow director was not amused.
The glider went home by road.
Certainly their handflying skills cannot be faulted. Magenta line navigators
do quite rightly insist that navaids if available should be used to the max. I remember how delighted I was to pay big bucks for one of the first GPS systems, installed in my single seat glider - no more getting lost, I thought....
and yet, the old training of landmarks and following motorways still came in handy when I had programmed in W instead of E for the coordinates...you chaps in the USA didn't have to worry about that one! When the sun is distinctly declining abeam when it should be behind you, you may have a problem with your nav equipment....
Among all the delightful examples cited in this entertaining thread is mentioned an airliner that aimed for Heathrow and ended up at Northolt Military Airbase - a lot shorter than required for the subsequent departure which badly frightened some lorries on the M40 .....
A glider pilot of my acquaintance was intending to fly from Hinton in the Hedges to Wycombe Air Park. Navigation simples, just follow the aforementioned M40. And WAP will appear beside the motorway. So he followed the M40, and landed at an airfield which turned out to be Northolt.
The Northolt chaps were very friendly and welcoming, and even agreed to arrange for a glider tow plane to retrieve the hapless pilot, however LHR permission would be required. Northolt controller phones up LHR. Asks permission for a glider to be retrieved back to Hinton from Northolt
"WHAT GLIDER!!!!!" Heathrow director was not amused.
The glider went home by road.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Getting a visual approach vs canceling IFR keeps your missed approach procedure intact if needed. You may be able to land VFR but can you go around VFR?
Landing at RNO one day in a B737 with 1500 overcast doing an NDB approach on short final was told to go around so asked if they wanted me to do the published missed approach. They said yes so did the left turn and half way through the turn they told me to stop my turn. Knowing I was in the clouds heading for high terrain close in asked for a heading. They did not give me one so I continued the turn. The LOC was inop and they forgot the MA was different. The airplane before us didn't clear the runway.
Landing at RNO one day in a B737 with 1500 overcast doing an NDB approach on short final was told to go around so asked if they wanted me to do the published missed approach. They said yes so did the left turn and half way through the turn they told me to stop my turn. Knowing I was in the clouds heading for high terrain close in asked for a heading. They did not give me one so I continued the turn. The LOC was inop and they forgot the MA was different. The airplane before us didn't clear the runway.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TGU, my favorite airport, had no DME, no GS, no LOC and our 757 had no GPS 90 percent of the time. Amazingly with my head in the sand had over 600 uneventful landings. Looking out the window landing at what many consider the most dangerous jet airliner airport in the world.
Perhaps you missed my point. Having those AIM restrictions placed upon me is a major concern. A visual approach at night into a mountain airport such as ASE or EGE and you go around, I have no desire (nor wil I ) enter a VFR traffic pattern as directed by the VFR tower, which is exactly what they'll tell you to do. I will remain on the IAP and own the missed approach. No worrying about legalities at a time like that.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sometimes doing a visual allows you to avoid a cell at your intercept of final so why fly through it if you can get a visual and avoid it? I don't think that would take away your missed approach procedure requiring you to fly through it. That would be really stupid.
OK 465
Incorrect.
There is a special LOC DME 15 that is flown at night, there is no daytime restriction on it. In addition, my company has an FMS visual approach (proprietary) into ASE that many crews fly day and night. I won't fly it at night unless the I-ASE is down and forces me to, even then, I'm quite nervous. Some of the fractional operators also have special IAP's that they fly at night to get in, often with mins far lower than the LOC DME 15.
It's not all about public approaches.
One of the 3 approaches we fly into EGE have a night restriction, a public approach.
Incorrect.
There is a special LOC DME 15 that is flown at night, there is no daytime restriction on it. In addition, my company has an FMS visual approach (proprietary) into ASE that many crews fly day and night. I won't fly it at night unless the I-ASE is down and forces me to, even then, I'm quite nervous. Some of the fractional operators also have special IAP's that they fly at night to get in, often with mins far lower than the LOC DME 15.
It's not all about public approaches.
One of the 3 approaches we fly into EGE have a night restriction, a public approach.
Last edited by West Coast; 24th Nov 2013 at 04:43.
Blubbers
There's no gray area. If you accept a visual approach clearance, you lose the missed approach procedure. Suppose you could always fly it and deal with the consequences later, something I'd likely do if terrain was a concern.
This being the situation in the US, can't speak if other countries handle things differently. In your situation, you have to judge what's the greater threat and make your decision.
There's no gray area. If you accept a visual approach clearance, you lose the missed approach procedure. Suppose you could always fly it and deal with the consequences later, something I'd likely do if terrain was a concern.
This being the situation in the US, can't speak if other countries handle things differently. In your situation, you have to judge what's the greater threat and make your decision.
Flight operations is aware of my reservations. Unfortunately mine is but one voice out of the few dozen that maintain the special aircrew qualification for ASE.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Among camels and dunes
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jetjock330 what did i say wrong?....if you intentionally cancel your IFR clearance you are no longer IFR.
Bubbers is correct regarding visual approaches...you must intentionally cance your IFR plan
If we continue visually into Chicago or Sydney from an ILS and we go-around, we comply with the missed approach procedure for that approach to that runway.
Semantics, I think I would agree
Splitting hairs, visual approach and proceeding visually aren't the same in your ORD example. If you accept a visual approach into ORD, you no longer have authorization to fly the missed approach of the IAP you might have started out on. That said, ATC in ORD will likely issue a heading and altitude to fly. If your FOM, SOP or some other guiding document says to fly the missed of an approach even on a visual approach, all the better. When the FAA comes knocking, you can fall back on the document as requiring it and the heat will be on the company as opposed to a crew member, as it should be.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Among camels and dunes
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Visual segments, visual approaches are different things, I agree. So far on the go arounds in JFK and ORD, LHR, CDG and others places, ATC has stepped in quickly with radar vectored changes as mentioned.
Back to the story but had these guys relied on continuing to minimums on management flight path as if the weather was low, I believe there would be a different outcome. Early disengagement of automation/ and transfer to visual sold them out.
Surely the ATC would also step in and ask why they were low so far out or could make out they were getting it wrong earlier???
Back to the story but had these guys relied on continuing to minimums on management flight path as if the weather was low, I believe there would be a different outcome. Early disengagement of automation/ and transfer to visual sold them out.
Surely the ATC would also step in and ask why they were low so far out or could make out they were getting it wrong earlier???
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
as to the amount of time to see the numbers 18 vs 19L, using a king air video isn't very accurate...but there was between 10 seconds and 5 seconds after seeing the numbers before touchdown.
....
190 degrees is surely different than 180 degrees (actually the difference is 181 vs 187)
but you can see the numbers before touchdown
....
190 degrees is surely different than 180 degrees (actually the difference is 181 vs 187)
but you can see the numbers before touchdown
and the big thing is still a rotating beacon at night shows white / green for a civil airfield and white white green for a military field.
the crew could have asked for apch lights to be turned on full bright as a confirmation of correct runway
I don't know how many night time visuals some people here have performed, but contrary to popular belief, most aren't particularly difficult or dangerous. Our manuals require us to back up ALL visual approaches with a suitable navaid. A fairly robust procedure, and good sense in my opinion.
Instead of clutching at straws by talking about runway numbers and airport beacons, I'm more curious about their deviation from the RNAV approach.
I think somebody may have hit the nail on the head earlier...The approach had a level segment, which is not unusual. The plate had one runway, the ND had one runway, and when they broke out, the saw a runway with an on-slope PAPI.
I'm interested to know what the ND was showing each pilot.
To the 744 pilots, if both FD's are off, will the ND/PFD show the VNAV vertical deviation indicator?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back to the story but had these guys relied on continuing to minimums on management flight path as if the weather was low, I believe there would be a different outcome. Early disengagement of automation/ and transfer to visual sold them out.
So would you prefer your crew watch the AP crash the airplane, or have your crew screw up in an attempt to maintain their skills? From one extreme to the next...