Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Boeing 747 Dreamlifter lands at wrong airport

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Boeing 747 Dreamlifter lands at wrong airport

Old 25th Nov 2013, 19:40
  #241 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Potomac Heights
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The funny thing here is that these guys don't seem to have understood that they landed at the wrong airport until they couldn't find the appropriate runway turn-off -- and their voices were initially rather nonchalant. Not what you would expect if they had just been standing on the brakes in terror.

What do you suppose the DFDR will say about the landing roll at Jabara? Given that they were expecting to land at McConnell on a 12,000 foot runway (or about 11,000 feet after the touchdown zone), would it be reasonable for them to have planned to apply only moderate braking (or autobraking)?

If that was the case, then might they not be in world of hurt landing on a 6110 foot runway, with maybe only 5000 feet remaining after the touchdown zone? How quickly would they need to realize that the end of the runway was approaching much sooner than expected to get on the brakes in time? Or must they (fortuitiously) have had the autobrake set up for a sharper than normal stop? If so, they were pretty lucky.
SeenItAll is offline  
Old 26th Nov 2013, 00:19
  #242 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: chicago
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
remember, runway lighting will show different colors indicating the end is near. someone might even place a color representation of runway lights (and or other lights) indicating the end of the runway is coming !!!
flarepilot is offline  
Old 26th Nov 2013, 01:34
  #243 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Landing on that runway was not a big deal because they only needed half of the intended runway to land on. Our base when I was an airline pilot was SNA which was 5700 ft long. They had no problem stopping but explaining was the problem. With modern day avionics which we rarely had it seems impossible to land at the wrong airport. Guess they proved us wrong.
bubbers44 is offline  
Old 26th Nov 2013, 01:50
  #244 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Midlands
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Flarepilot. I cant find an image apart from a quite poor one in CAP637.

Red and White alternating centreline - for the last 900m of any runway equipped for LVOs as far as...
Solid red centreline - for the last 300m of any runway equipped for LVOs.

Last edited by Burnie5204; 26th Nov 2013 at 02:03.
Burnie5204 is offline  
Old 26th Nov 2013, 12:38
  #245 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 64
Posts: 7,167
Received 363 Likes on 223 Posts
Untitled Page
(Continental lands 737 at wrong airport, Corpus Christi, Tx, 1997).

Back when I was fledgling, early 80's, that landing field was where the T-44 King Airs that the Navy used for multi-engine training did their bounce work. CRP is a few miles to the west. CRP is right next to the refineries and the interstate highway. The Navy OLF is not. When I heard about this from some friends who lived there, at the time, I laughed. The routing in from Houston to Corpus on that milk run is dead simple, coming down the airway.
On May 11, 1997, at 1021 central daylight time, Continental Airlines flight 1760, a Boeing 737-524, landed at the wrong airport near Corpus Christi, Texas.
The 5 crew members and 49 passengers were not injured. The aircraft was being operated as a scheduled domestic passenger flight under the provisions of Title 14 CFR Part 121. Visual meteorological conditions existed at the time, and an instrument flight plan was on file for the flight. The flight departed Houston, Texas, about 0932, with a destination of Corpus Christi International Airport (CRP), Corpus Christi, Texas.

The flight crew reported to the NTSB investigator-in-charge that the First Officer had completed the ground and simulator difference training for the Boeing 737-300/500 series aircraft, and Continental Flight 203 from Newark International Airport (EWR), Newark, New Jersey, to (George Bush) Houston Intercontinental Airport (IAH), Houston, Texas, was the first flight of his initial operating experience (IOE) for differences training in the aircraft.
The Captain was the check airman conducting the training.

It was decided that the Captain would fly this first leg so the First Officer "could get adjusted to the 737-300 cockpit's normal routine since he hadn't actually flown for about three weeks." The First Officer was then to fly the second leg from Houston to Corpus Christi International Airport (CRP), Corpus Christi, Texas. The First Officer mentioned to the Captain that he had never been to that airport and the Captain said the last time he "had been in there was a little over three years ago."

Snip Snip

The flight crew did not properly identify the localizer for Runway 31 via the audio Morse code signal.
As with the event in this current thread, nobody hurt, just some egg in the face.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 26th Nov 2013, 17:53
  #246 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Another Planet.
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
And to think that I got laughed at by my fellow LHS aces because everywhwere I went in the magentawizz equipped NG, I had the landing runway in Fix Page 1 with a 10 mile range ring for extra S A?

And criticised for so doing by line trainer on a checkride and told don't encourage my F/Os to try it for increased S A!!!

We're all human and fallible, so how come that sort of "constructive criticism" is churned out by "training" staff?!

Ah well, back to the knitting, it's getting cold outside.........
BARKINGMAD is offline  
Old 26th Nov 2013, 19:17
  #247 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: chicago
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
thanks for pointing out the non split beacon...when I first read they intended to land at an air force base, I left it at that...it is a joint use base/civil airport...so be it..

but there are two things to note...we are human and failable

and

they simply did not fly the rnav approach correctly, or else the airplane would have been higher over the jabara airport.

oh well, a lesson to us all...be careful and then be paranoid
flarepilot is offline  
Old 26th Nov 2013, 20:14
  #248 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Egremont, MA, USA
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
they simply did not fly the rnav approach correctly, or else the airplane would have been higher over the jabara airport.

oh well, a lesson to us all...be careful and then be paranoid
Well, they clearly didn't fly the approach correctly or they wouldn't have found themselves at the wrong airport. However, they were given a 4000 ft crossing restriction at the IAF, which is pretty darn low that far from the intended airport. So, at that point, they were exactly where they were supposed to be, per their clearance.
acroguy is offline  
Old 26th Nov 2013, 21:33
  #249 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: chicago
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
the at or above 4000' is on the apch, a published part of the procedure...a link to the apch plate is on a previous page of the thread.
flarepilot is offline  
Old 26th Nov 2013, 22:34
  #250 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Egremont, MA, USA
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
the at or above 4000' is on the apch, a published part of the procedure...a link to the apch plate is on a previous page of the thread.
But if you listen to the recording, they were given the crossing restriction at the IAF AT 4000', not at or above. May have been a mistake on ATC's part, but that was the clearance.
acroguy is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2013, 00:24
  #251 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Kansas
Age: 85
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by OK465
In addition, the airport beacon at McConnell does not have a white-white 'split' beacon according to the AFD. Evidently not all mil/joint fields now do.
I noticed that last night, no split.
Also, the X is gone from the west runway, so I assume it is now operational and the ILS's are in service. Approach lights for 1L were on dim last night and then off later.
Ozlander1 is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2013, 00:55
  #252 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If the controller said cross at 4,000 ft rather than 4,000 or above had nothing to do with the accident. Some how they managed to land at the wrong airport because of poor navigation usage. They just screwed up so sometimes that happens. I am sure they will get a lot of sim time before being back flying. End of problem.
bubbers44 is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2013, 01:21
  #253 (permalink)  
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
bubbers44:


If the controller said cross at 4,000 ft rather than 4,000 or above had nothing to do with the accident. Some how they managed to land at the wrong airport because of poor navigation usage. They just screwed up so sometimes that happens. I am sure they will get a lot of sim time before being back flying. End of problem.
Do Altas crews have a union?


If so, I would think the PIC would be reduced to F/O for 12-18 months. If no union I think they would be looking for work.
aterpster is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2013, 01:44
  #254 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Aterpster, you are probably right. We had a captain I flew with but not on this flight make an incredibly stupid approach into SNA in the 80's who destroyed a B737 because he refused a go around but since we had a union he was made an FO for a year because of the union. He was a lousy FO too. I flew in the jump seat and he was totally useless. Unions are great but sometimes they protect people that should be shown the door to leave.
bubbers44 is offline  
Old 28th Nov 2013, 18:38
  #255 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: USofA
Posts: 1,235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
ATLAS

I believe that ATLAS has been an ALPA carrier for some time now and I see no reason that these guys should get fired or even demoted. Sim check and what ever the FAA has in mind will be more than adequate assuming there are not other problems hiding in their folders.

Certainly don't recall TWA firing the Capt that landed his 707 at the wrong airport in Ohio many years ago.
Spooky 2 is offline  
Old 28th Nov 2013, 19:06
  #256 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,919
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
They decertified ALPA and joined the Teamsters a few years ago.
MarkerInbound is offline  
Old 28th Nov 2013, 20:12
  #257 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: USofA
Posts: 1,235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Good for them.

Atlas is a well run operation with an enviable safety record, especially when you consider the nature of a lot of their flying. This crew does not need to be sacrificed just to make an example of them. The media had a field day with this mainly because of the Boeing Dream Liner connection. Believe me there have been dozens of wrong airport landings here in the US and abroad with similar non event results.
Spooky 2 is offline  
Old 28th Nov 2013, 22:26
  #258 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 4,076
Received 50 Likes on 32 Posts
They don't have a history of firing for operational issues. Admittedly this one was front and center with the media. A friend scraped a pod and took out some runway lights in Africa, along with some minor flap damage, still employed. There was some retraining of course.
West Coast is offline  
Old 28th Nov 2013, 22:35
  #259 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
At the risk of throwing the cat among the pigeons, I can't help but wonder if the recent posts would be as supportive if Boeing had contracted the delivery to, say, a South Korean operator...
DozyWannabe is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2013, 00:21
  #260 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 4,076
Received 50 Likes on 32 Posts
Hypotheticals serve a purpose before a course of action, they don't after.
West Coast is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.