Evening civil twilight ended at 18:26L, so it was effectively full dark if the touchdown time from that site is correct.
I fly in and around EWR's airspace twice a day, and while RJs and smaller AC use 11/29 quite frequently (Im forced to work around them as they come down final), I do believe its fairly rare for heavier eqp such as a 757 to use 29.
For your entertainment-I live under the left base for 29, and a couple years ago on a windy day similar to the past weekend, scores of nervous twits called the newspaper to complain about "low flying jets that might have been hijacked".

http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/RS_OneDay.html

Some 12yrs ago an aircraft landed on a taxiway in Gatwick. As in this case there were no injuries or fatalities as luckily there was no other aircraft on the taxiway. The initial reaction by many people was to call the said pilots incompetent etc. etc. The subsequent AAIB report reached the conclusion that one of the main contributing factors was that with the ILS off the air on the main landing runway, the crew were asked to land on the other runway (Rwy08L) which has no ILS. The lighting etc. was confusing to the crew and they landed on the taxiway to the left of 08L.

Dunno what happened in this case, but before some people with profound knowledge of what goes on in a cockpit comment they'd better wait to see what led to this happening.

FLCH

so, tell us the scoop...what is the truth...of course you can wait until after the investigation into your friend's mistake.

I also published my thoughts on how easily this could have happened.

And I have circled to land 29 from both sides (4 apch and 22 apch).

no one wants to chastise anyone, but by the same token no one wants pilots out there frequently making mistakes.

to be sure, circling to 29 at night, when full night vision has not been achieved is not a piece of cake.

Well your knowledge obiously does not include Human factors. May I suggest for a start Proffessor S. De Dekker excellent articles ( do a search on Google) where you will learn that errors are extremely rarely done by individuals alone.


Nerik, very valid point, you may also add that the central taxi way they landed on in EGKK was also marked as an emergency runway , and it was an error waiting to happen.

Somebody else's post about sunset time, hence lighting conditions, just got deleted, no idea why.

Anyway, we're all speculating, until some kind of preliminary report comes out.

All that's clear from this topic, is that it's been done before, and it will be done again.

Only, if some lessons can be learned this time, maybe it will happen one or two times less often?

info I have was sunset time was 5:50 pm local, landing time 6:31 pm local.

one must recall that while aloft, there may be more light, and as you descend your eyes are not yet accustomed to handle night vision.

I also indicated that PAPI was on the right hand side of 29...all the other runways have it on the left...hmmm

It was probably mine. I had thought the incident was a couple of days later than it actually occured. My cogent analysis was somewhat flawed since EWR went from UTC-4 to UTC-5 over the weekend with the end of daylight savings time.:)

It was indeed your message that disappeared, Airbubba.
I'm sure the time change will help to confuse the enquiry a bit more....

We used to land DC10'S and Classic 747's on 29 and I still see 777's and 744's land on it not infrequently.

You have to put it down in the touch down zone but with very strong Westerly winds it makes more sense sometimes to use the crosswind runway.

Why didn't alarm bells ring?

I understand the difficulties of approaches into the sun and I brief this when expected. It just so happens that today I made an approach into BFS/EGAA on RWY 25 as the sun was sitting on the horizon. By 500ft RA I could not see the runway markings, but shortly after I could see all markings well enough to continue to landing.

Why did the pilots continue to land when there was no clear indication of WHERE they were landing?
If they had not seen the touch down markings, then you could assume the rest of the runway would not have been visible. The next question should naturally be 'How much of the 6800ft is left?'. Don't know! Well I wouldn't want to hang around when I have no idea at what point I touched-down.

Did the pilots review the airport diagram, so that they may have a good idea of what to expect? If the aircraft was able to make a visual approach then tarmac and airport structures should have been visible enough to orientate one's self.

Did the pilots suffer from 'Get-home-titis' after a long flight?
Was Confirmation Bias playing its usual role? (Confirmation Bias is when the brain manipulates facts, or ignores them, to achieve the desired conclusion.)

So far, it seems as if the sun was down for at least half an hour. And from the CNN video, the taxyway didn't look very much like a live runway.

So I would think it's time to stop guessing what went on, and wait for some more concrete information (no pun intended).

We all know about people landing in places where they did not intend to land (Northolt, anybody?).

Until we know what happened and why, and what lessons are to be learned from that, let's give it a rest, maybe?

I think it is important to talk about all possible aspects of this amazing incident...while we could wait for ONE YEAR while NTSB gives us the real story (as they see it), what is to say that just by chatting here someone will have gleaned enough info to be more careful with his/her own flying.

I would like to point out that there have been accidents within an hour of sunset or sunrise...does anyone recall the LAX cleared to land on top of another plane...pilots staring into the sun for hours on a transcon flight...and descending into the dark?

or the recent comair crash in kentucky, just before sunrise


these times of day demand special attention from pilots...and CONTROLLERS

There is no excuse for leaving garbage on your nav display. Radar vectors, be it to an ILS, Rnav or visual approach should always mean that the PM pulls up an approach to that runway and "draws a line" from the runway to the OM. Coupla key strokes and you're done. If the visual turns you inside the OM make it the "from" point...again two or three key strokes. You then have an electronic referance to back you up. Too often we throw away the magic and go visual too soon.

Depends on the airline. Air Canada, for example, doesn't allow route mods in the Boeing below 10,000 feet from what I'm told.

And, using the primitive text based user interface in the 75, do you really want the PNF punching buttons inside the marker? Maybe the PNF was heads down trying to do what you suggested when the miscue occurred.

A non-GPS 75 probably wouldn't be able to accurately tell you were lined up on the taxiway instead of the runway until it was too late, especially with the course up display in a crosswind. You have to mentally rotate the picture on the HSI to try to make it match what you see out the window with a crosswind component. The dotted line would have enough error from map shift to make you disregard a minor displacement I would think.

Nerik, very good statement. the Captain of the EGKK 1-11 is a very fine pilot and instructor. He eventually became Chief Pilot of a UK airline, and I am one of those who benefited from his teaching some years ago (after the incident as it happens.)

If we had 'revoked his licence' as suggested happens to this crew, the UK aviation industry would have lost a very good trainer - and nothing would have been gained, other than revenge. Let's hope the US industry is as enlightened.

We learn from other's mistakes as well as our own.

Maybe color blindness was a factor.

I've seen myself an executive jet pilot fail a color blindness test in the US and the FAA inspector passed him anyway. :uhoh:

The topic now is whether and how severe their punishment should be?
Many years ago, according to his book, world-famous (WW2 fighter pilot) aerobatic expert Bob Hoover took off in his Twin Commander with a few passengers. The fueler had somehow put jet fuel into his (recip.) plane, which caused a dual engine failure, at night.

Mr. Hoover made a good dead-stick landing.
He was told that the fueler was history (would be fired). Bob said no, keep the humiliated guy. The fueler would now be the safest, most careful fueler around.

These two CO pilots will probably be some of the safest pilots-until this incident, they might have already been quite careful. Suddenly they have a major 'glitch' on their record. They probably have no more 'room', from a career perspective, for a major mistake.
The actual danger might now still lurk inside the hundreds or thousands of superior ("Weltflieger" usw) , professional pilots-Pprune fans or otherwise-who feel that they could never :cool: make this type of serious mistake.:ouch:

Years ago being fairly new on the 757 on the visual approach into Orlando (MCO), a Captain asked me to quickly build him an artificial, let's just say "won ton" ;) glidepath. I was slow doing it, having very little time. I could have missed a mistake on his part. Possibly something in the 757's automation at EWR, or a last-minute landing checklist, prevented one of the pilots from catching a trend or normal maneuver, which was missed by the flying pilot. Also, pilots mostly have the HSI in MAP display, instead of VOR, which would give you a normal on- or off-course "localizer" indication, to supplement the flight director. Were the localizer and VASI or PAPI in operation?
The amateurs who read Pprune might not realize how hazardous a visual approach can be, not just with rough, turbulent strong winds which can be quite a challenge, even in a DC-9 or a 757. The 757 often increases your workload, despite some automation, because they take longer to slow to the required max gear and flap extension speeds, as you are constantly descending. Flying a C-172 etc into a large airport can not begin to compare.

while I don't know the particular nav equipment aboard this particular 757, I do know that when making a circling apch to rw 29 in the past, I have used the back course of the ILS 11 localizer to assure line up on centerline.

a 757 pilot friend indicates that selecting this would be no problem.

thoughts?

jon

That makes sense - we call it "cleaning up the map". Three button pushes. It will tell you you're coming from the right direction and even if you're going to land on the right runway but you'd need a magnifying glass to see that you were lined up on a parallel taxiway, even when on the lowest map range...

In another one of those 'amazing things that you can find on the internet', go to the following site:

http://www4.passur.com/ewr.html

Input the date as October 28 and the time as 18:30. Then CLICK on START. It takes a few seconds to load.You will see the approach of the aircraft in question, and it appears to make a last minute correction toward Taxiway Z. If you click on the blue plane, it will give you ID and altitude, etc.

Note that the next plane landing appears to be a FeDex D10 landing on 22L, followed by multiple flights landing on 29.

ChristiaanJ Had the sun been down for a while, then why couldn't the pilots tell the difference between blue and white lights?

I am not a perfect pilot, but there are some mistakes that should never be made!

Another big question!!! IF IT HAS HAPPENED BEFORE, WHY DOES IT STILL HAPPEN???

I think it is time that Situational Awareness is re-addressed.
There have been times when I have flown with guys who have left it to the computers and ended up completely lost.

Could there be another Cali around the corner?

Nice site! Mind you, I questioned it's accuracy when the FDX landed on I 95 :eek: . In fairness though, all the other 29 arrivals had their noses bang on the 29 CL, unlike the incident CO a/c which does make that adjustment to the right and is shown as being lined up on the taxiway.

Complex FMC inputs are discouraged below 10,000ft aal...

Yes, best to keeep your head out of the box down low, besides, even if you do cut inside the course on the rnav approach you will 'reintercept' the final.

here is quite similar incident with totally different acft and cerw. their were not the first and unfortunately probably not the last.
fly safely

Similar to the above, it is rumored (though unconfirmed) that since the CO 757 was kept in service, that data on the FDR was overwritten by subsequent use of the aircraft.

Earthmover I agree with you but I think we may be talking about a different incident. The one I am talking about was a 737.

Thank you, Lou; you have put this very well. We have all "been there and done that" and ultimately, given the nature of the job, it's a case of "there but for the grace . . . "

I find these madcap rushes to premature and ill-informed judgment of someone else's misfortune to be unpleasant and unecessary; particularly so when offered by people who should know a good deal better. I don't include the 150/172 spamcanman in the latter - his supposed level of experience does not qualify him to make any useful contribution in this regard.

Ernest Gann,
Looks not TOTALLY dissimilar.
Onviously it's still a not totally uncommon occurence.

IMHO, these guys should have been hauled into a room somewhere ASAP, given a beer, and asked to recall as closely as possible what they did, and what happened in their opinion.

They were lucky.... nothing was on that taxiway.
Next time, somebody will meet a fully fueled LearJet halfway down the taxiway, and the resulting fireball will make ALL the papers....

If these guys could tell in all honesty what happened, without their names being mentioned in the official reports, and without their career being affected, we might learn something.

But then pigs might fly.

I am a PPL, but am also an anesthetist. It occurs to me that there should be a simple way to use a GPS-oriented system to ensure takeoffs AND landings on the correct runway, at least at airports that are designated for jet service. We have similar "goof-proof" systems up and running in the operating theater, inspired by lessons learned from our aerospace colleagues. I do know that there is a lot of "clutter" and distraction prior to takeoff and landing, but perhaps a simple system could be designed to prevent these situations from arising.

Ok guys, you've all been very understanding to the poor pilot who made this mistake. Now how about giving worldpilot a break?
He's said he retracts what he said, so try accepting his mistake.

So actually assuming that a pilot cannot rely on tower for watching that the correct runway (or any runway at all :}) is being used, what measures can be put in place for this situation? RAAS - how widespread is it?
My feeling is that at decision height a missed approach should have been executed given that the pilot was not visual with the area on which he wished to land. Given that the runway could not be seen, an alternate runway could have then been used or land off instruments. Thoughts on this?

I'm not familiar with ops on this scale so please excuse the lack of knowledge.
--Rob

averow,
As far as I know, such systems already exist.
But getting them qualified, certified, installed on all aircraft, and integrated in the SOP is another story.

Same way as some of the <"goof-proof" systems up and running in the operating theater> that you mention will not be available in small country hospitals for a long time yet.....

Even today, is everybody equipped with EGPWS and TCAS?

Ok, from an engineer's point of view, I'm asking myself on how to prevent such incidents in the future. The only times I have seen a cockpit of a commercial airliner at night was in simulators (EDDF for example), so I'm trying to imagine.

From what I read here, 29 seems to be used if the crosswind component for a landing on 22 would be too high.

What I think contributed to the problem is that:
-The crew were rather busy with the "wind problem"
-They're coming after sunset
-They're flying a visual approach to runway 29
-So they have to find the runway among thousands of lights (taxiways, the turnpike, whatever). A runway that doesn't even have an ILS (probably because an ILS approach would interfere with KLGA approaches), no touchdown zone lighting and no approach lighting whatsoever.

So why does a runway, that is mostly used in adverse conditions, even lack a simple approach lighting?

SailorOrion

I suggest adding to contributing factors:
-Short final approach
-Clearing the New Jersey Turnpike at about 100 ft. altitude, then having to get down near the beginning of the runway which is not probably more than 500 feet or so from the Turnpike.
-A big question is why did they make a quick correction to the right as they were crossing the Turnpike to align themselves with Taxiway Z, rather than continue straight and land on 29?

Maybe that's why there is a displaced threshold on 29..

SailorOrion

Blimey Nerik, I didn't know it had happened at LGW twice.

So we have a regular-ish occurrence of aircraft landing on taxyways. So what's the common denominator folks? Incompetent pilots? ... Hmm. Or is it human factors combined with poor airport markings/design/procedures?

Somewhere in the depths of my mind I seem to think it was Air Malta.....prepared to be shot down though

KM, 737-200, 20 October 1993.

Sailor Orion
 

Sailor Orion


If you don't respond to this I will think that either you are not reading this post or it has been electronically masked .

You asked about ILS on runway 29/ engineering standpoint and all that bit.

While there is NO ILS on RW29, RW 11 has an ILS which also project a BACKCOURSE which would allow line up on RW 29...WHILE not certified as an instrument approach, it would certainly do to help pick out the runway (29) from all the lights in New Jersey on a VMC evening.


Indeed the backcourse of an ILS is even more sensitive at the threshold than the front course for left/right orientation. (no glide slope of course).

And of course 11/29 is the same piece of concrete...(just for those who don't understand such things)


ALSO Sailor: The 29 runway does have REIL lights (runway end identifier lights) and while not a full ALSFII, they are quite helpful.

IT IS my considered opinion that since PAPI is installed on 29, but on the RIGHT SIDE unlike any other papi/vasi at EWR(all to the left of the other runways) , the pilots went to the right of the PAPI (perhaps not briefing this aspect of 29) and that could only lead to the taxiway.


Having flown circling appchs to 29 at EWR in evening hours, I can tell you that there are lots of lights all over the joint including the freeway which almost always causes some degree of confusion.

LOL! We couldn't fly it that was followed.