The EGPWS takes the runway from the FMS and builds it's hole around that so it should trigger if you approach the wrong runway. The cut out area around the selected runway is not just a big circle, the sides parallel to the runway are filled in sloping down from 245ft to ground level at the runway edge.

http://code7700.com/images/egpws_imp...al_page_26.png

Correct. When Frankfurt opened its latest runway (07L/25R) a couple of years ago, we discovered that the EGPWS database was not up to date when some of our crew got a "tow low - terrain" warning.

Cheers :cool:

OK so it does take "some" runway data base info but...

How come if you program runway 24L and at the last minute they change you to runway 24R more than 1/2 mile away you don't get a warning?

Also if you do a "circle to land" procedure you would have programmed the initial runway for the approach and then have to manoeuvre to the other runway perhaps more than 2 miles away at low altitude how come there is no warning then?

Could it be because the aircraft is "configured to land"?

The only time one of our crews got a warning was going into the new Athens airport many years ago. Obviously it was not in the EGWPS’ data base ad had to be turned off for the landing.

In this incident if there is no runway info in the data base of the EGWPS and the aircraft is fully configured to land, how would it know the pilots are landing on the wrong runway?

for this they need the RAAS option, function of the EGPWS, but optional..

Most of approach lights poles are installed on both directions of the runway. I doubt if they are already operational.

Prominence of the new runway was reported by EPKT-based pilots several times. Local policy has been introduced a few months ago to turn on approach lights for any approach, even in bright sunlight.

They were. Some machinery is usually left on site during off hours. And even at night there are small technical tasks performed (cutting, sealing, measuring, watering, checking, whatever).

As far as I know this was VOR approach (with 11° offset), not visual.

Another contributing factor: both runway thresholds are almost exactly in line with tower, so it is very hard to visually distinguish if an aircraft aims for the right (well, left actually) one. Approach radar resolution is also not enough.

Finally, hint for crews flying to EPKT: ILS 27 GP is out of service, however LLZ is not turned off. Use if in doubt.

First I think it depends on what version of EGPWS is installed. Our CRJ's level D simulators had Mark V's, so I would assume this aircraft does too.
Second, there are a bunch of different software versions/mod status for the installation, and no real requirement (in the US) that I know of to keep the fleet at the same status. You would assume everyone does, but...:ooh:
Third, was the terrain database current?
The Install manual does say it receives "Selected Runway Heading" from a ARINC 710 (FMS) source.
From what FE Hoppy was saying, and the Mark V pilot guide:
That is one very very smart box.

@ mnttech...
 

Thanks for the info...

That would explain (perhaps) that during a circling and a side step to another runway the EGWPS doesn't give you warnings.

Ptkay,

Would you mind pointing me to that definition? ICAO Annex 14 ("Aerodromes"), from which the diagram showing how to mark "closed runways" is taken, does not define the term "Closed Runway" in the definitions part.

It only says

For a runway to be considered "closed" it is not required that it had been in use before.

As to how many "X" there should be, it goes on to say:

So single crosses on each end are definitely not sufficient.

Reading on, a runway close to completion could be considered "temporarily closed", as the above only refers to "permanently closed" runways, and for those cases there is only a recommendation, not a requirement:

Bernd,

the piece of tarmac, with people and machinery moving around is not a "runway". It is, what it is, a strip of concrete or asphalt.
No taxiways, no markings, no lights.

If you insist on calling it a runway, tell me, when, (point in time) it became a runway?
Hence, when the crosses should be applied by the airport authority?

When the first layer of humus was removed and light sand strip was visible?
(Some "bush "runways" look like this.)
Or when the first layer of "light" concrete was laid, and gray strip of tarmac was visible?
Was it already a runway?
Or maybe, when the firs dark layer of asphalt was laid?

NOTAMs, ATIS, AIP, and visual contact with the proper runway are pilot's tools.

They were supposed to use them, before landing.

Ptkay, so where is the definition of what exactly a "closed runway" is?

It becomes wise to mark it closed (as has been done half-heartedly) as soon as the risk arises that it can be mistaken for a runway from the air. Academic definitions of when it is a runway by the letter of the law are unhelpful.

Still, since ICAO only regulates permanently closed runways explicitly (which probably fall into the category you call "closed runway"), marking it in this case was not required, since it's only a recommendation and the closure is temporary, and means of informing pilots were apparently in place. (NOTAMS, ATIS, etc.)

That it still happened is an indication, however, that this was not enough and it should have been considered a temporarily closed runway and marked appropriately. In aviation, nobody is served by just saying "these pilots (controllers/technicians/...) were idiots, and shouldn't have done what they did", and consider the case closed.

People do make mistakes, and what we must do is try to ensure that (1) these mistakes become less likely and (2) the consequences of such mistakes have no grave consequences.

To Bsieker
 

I am amazed by your support to your German colleagues! What would you have told whether the incident would have been with Wizzair, Ryanair or similar operators?

This being said, when referring to ICAO, I agree there is no definition of a "closed runway", but there is a definition of a "runway":

A defined rectangular area on a land aerodrome prepared for the landing and take-off of aircraft.

The less we can say is that that rectangular area was not exactly "prepared" for landing. But you will likely challenge me on the fact there is no definition of "prepared".:)

I think that we can consider that what you call a runway was not an operative runway; effectively, when a paved runway is to be operative, the ICAO requirement (not recommandation) is that "A runway designation marking shall be provided at the thresholds
". The definition of the required marking is given in the paragraph 5.2.2.4 of the Annex 14.

I fully agree with you that anybody can make mistake - and in this event, I do not blame the crew - but your support to this mistake is beyond the reasonable, simply because you try to use unreasonable arguments.

Bidule,

this has nothing to do with "support for my German colleagues", and yes, I will say the exact same things for almost any other airline.

And so what would you do? Just blame the pilots and be done with it? And hope that by deterrent you keep all other pilots from making mistakes. Good luck with that.

"Oh, maybe someone could mistake that rectangular area prepared for the landing and takeoff of aircraft as a runway. But that's ok, if they do it we'll just punish them, and everyone will be safe."

One question shall still be answered by the incident report, if the approach lights on the active runway were on or off.

I found another NOTAM, that also should have caused increase alertness of the crew:

POSSIBLE POWER OUTAGE OF VISUAL NAVIGATIONAL AIDS DUE TO TECR.
DURING POWER OUTAGES LVP NOT AVBL.

E1328/14
FROM: 31 MAY 2014 07:52 TO: 30 AUG 2014 23:59 EST

Usually, on CAVOC sunny day, with vis >4km the lights are off anyway.

Could a low sun reflect in the runway lights, and make them appear to be on?

There are all sorts of markings on a runway, but do we actually look at them?

White runwaymarkings tend to dissapear when you're flying toward a low sun.

And when you're on a final approach you don't look at the big .... numbers, you look at your touchdown zone and the runway as a whole.

Once you've identified the runway, it really takes someone to shake you to make your brain realize you're doing something wrong.

Bernd,

Nobody is calling for the punishment of these guys. At least not as far as I'm aware. Sure they made a mistake, and honestly they could and should have known about the situation. But they are human and humans make mistakes. I don't expect the airline to do anything more than a thorough debriefing with the training department to be quite honest with you.

It's not the first time pilots landed where they weren't supposed to. But the responsibility shouldn't just be shrugged off as "oh the runway was marked improperly" or whatever the newspapers were trying to suggest. It was all pretty clear and well documented and published. One would reasonably expect for them to have known this and prepared for it. It never would have ended up this way. But now that it did, take responsibility and man up to it. That's all.

Jmmoric,

normally, one should have a certain expectation of what the runway and its surroundings look like. Some fields have just a single runway, some have a runway and a parallel taxiway and some others show a wide selection of parallel paved areas.

If someone is not familiar with an airfield, he will certainly read up on the field in question and get a picture of what is to be expected, what its present state is, and what all those parallel strips are used for. Paradoxically, things are more difficult if someone has often been to an airport and may be considered familiar with the field. I may assume this applies to the LH crew on the flight in question, as KTW has at least a daily flight. Without carefully sifting through all the notams on closed parking stands, grass cutting, runway construction, bird activity etc., one may well miss the fact that the active runway is no longer the northernmost paved strip on the field but has been doubled by another paved strip to the north. One will then fly any kind of (non-ILS) approach against a blinding sun, albeit in otherwise fine weather. Then the habit of landing on the northernmost strip will kick in; there may be some weird feeling in the back of the head (...was the runway always that clear of rubber marks and made of such beautiful fresh concrete?), but it is too easy to just shrug it off and continue. On a visual approach without appropriate nav setting, at such a point this error becomes rather hard to catch.

The best cure against such a mishap is to make the error blindingly obvious to the crew. Why not:

- place red (flashing?) lights in an X pattern on the runway ends (just like on the taxiway between 04L and 04R at LFMN) and/or use the same in place of the approach lighting system. Switching ON the normal approach lights on the active runway while showing such lights on a closed/inactive runway will surely help.

- declutter the NOTAMs. Often, they are presented as a mess with the really important stuff hidden among grass cutting, closed parking stands and other secondary information. One might introduce a priority tag that when attached to a NOTAM will place it right at the top of the NOTAM list for the field in question. Thus, one might group runway closures, outages of navaids, FFC downgrades and other critical information at the top and avoid it getting lost among all the other information.

- name a runway according to common principles already while it is under construction. In this case, the old runway at KTW would have been 09R/27L, while the new one would have been 09L/27R; the approach and landing clearance would have been issued accordingly and offered another clue.

Tu.144,

I know, I do fly myself. But there are always more than one reason to such a mishap, and the only thing we all can do is learning from it.

A lot of arguments about how "poor" airmanship the pilots performed in this thread helps noone, the pilots didn't get up that morning to land on the wrong runway.

And I bet most pilots, myself included, has made a bad decision at some point in their carreer, now the real challenge is how do we prevent it in the future, as you also write :o)

This is just the latest in a long line of landings on the wrong runway, on a taxiway or even at the wrong airport.

The photo is a bit misleading as to get an idea what the pilots might have seen you need one that was taken on a 3deg approach a couple of miles out, not a god’s-eye view from one side.

The most effective “closed” sign I have seen was a big “X” made of bright red lights stood up vertically just in from the threshold. You could see it from miles away and it would get more and more obvious as you got closer. It was also mobile, so could be repositioned while work was ongoing.

I’m sure the crew of this aircraft will be asked a fair few questions to try and find out how they managed to land on an unopened runway but I’m also sure they didn’t set out to do that. If there had been obstructions on the runway, I don’t think they’d have landed either.

It wasn’t the most professional piece of flying in aviation history but I wouldn’t label them as idiots, certainly not yet.

To bsieker
 

You wrote: "And so what would youdo? Just blame the pilots and be done with it?"

So, it seems that you did not read my reply until the end as I wrote: "I fully agree with you that anybody can make mistake - and in this event, I do not blame the crew"....

On the link below, it appears that the REDL lights are on during the subsequent departure. So the explanation of them being on as well during the landing is actually quite possible.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=y...&v=hLLqIrf5l1Q

Placing a non standard cross, on a non standard position, with a non standard colour (should be yellow) is quite close to negligence. A lot of airports I know even have such a cross lit by a mobile runway closure marker:

Runway Closure Marker - Sherwin