Plane lands at Air Force base by mistake
 

A simple mistake and could have been sorted quickly but not in america....

June 20, 2004 | ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) -- A Northwest Airlines flight that was headed to Rapid City, S.D., landed a few miles off course at Ellsworth Air Force Base, and passengers had to wait in the plane for more than three hours while their crew was interrogated.

Passengers on Northwest Flight 1152, an Airbus A-319 from St. Paul, expected to be welcomed to Rapid City Regional Airport on Saturday, but after about five minutes they were told to close their window shades and not look out, said passenger Robert Morrell.

"He (the pilot) hemmed and he hawed and he said 'We have landed at an Air Force base a few miles from the Rapid City airport and now we are going to figure out how we're going to get from here to there,"' Morrell told the St. Paul Pioneer Press by cell phone during the delay Saturday.

Eventually, the captain and first officer were replaced by a different Northwest crew for the short hop to the right airport.
Northwest confirmed that the crew made an "unscheduled landing."

"The situation is under review and we have nothing further to add," said Northwest spokesman Kurt Ebenhoch. He would not identify the cockpit crew, or say if the pilot made an error.

Ellsworth controls all air space 40 miles around the base and clears landings at both the civilian airport and the base.

The city's airport runway is "just over the hill" from Ellsworth, and the Northwest crew had to descend through a layer of clouds, said a base spokeswoman, Lt. Christine Millette.

The Federal Aviation Administration is investigating.

Thats a pretty serious error, with serval SOPs probably not complied with.

Why should it be sorted quickly? That crew needs training. You would have to get another one.

Maybe in your country safety isn't taken quite as seriously and known deficiencies are allowed to continue till they kill someone. Is that your position?

Nice dig at America though.


Cheers
Wino

Well safety where i am is pretty cracked up and yes there were failures on behalf of the crew no denying that. However a little jeep with a 'follow me' sign could have come out and displayed a freq so the crew could tune in to the twr.
TWR: ' Youve F:mad: ed up and landed at the wrong airfield, do you have enough fuel for a take off and a 3 min flt or shall i send a truck.
CREW: Ah !!!!!.... sorry

Crew takes off red faced and pax dont need to sit in a plane for 3 hrs to interrogate a stuff up.

I just think the military went overboard. Its a dig at all military's actually.

If you're going to do visuals into airports best be sure you've POSITIVELY identified the field you're going into. As for the reception committee, I guess that's bound to happen considering:

1. Military air base

2. Civil airliner

3. Unannounced arrival

4. 911

Thought you good ol' boys were the best in the world?

NN

and don't look out for Gas Holders when coming into LHR or you might end up in RAF Northolt (and it did happen) :{ :{ :{

ps. it was a long time ago and I think they may have removed the offending Gas Holder in the meantime :p

It can happen to anyone. Around CYUL, a certain airline used to be known as Been Over At Cartierville. :O

I wouldn't categorize 6NM as 'just over the hill'. Wot, no DME ?

Okay so the runways are almost aligned, but the rest of the layouts don't match at all.

Rapid City: http://66.226.83.248/ad/FAA/00877AD.gif
Ellsworth:http://66.226.83.248/ad/FAA/00343AD.gif

Awww... KRAP. And I assume they didn't depart St. Paul as recounted by the redoubtable journo, otherwise that would have been a definite first - from the wrong place to the wrong place.

Back in 95 or 96..wasn't it a Northwest DC-10 who landed in Brussels instead of Frankfurt?!!

flyhardmo:

While landing at the "incorrect" may, in the eyes of the FAA, be a innocent mistake that wasn't the result of a violation of an FAR; departing without the dispatcher's concurrence IS a violation. Pilots who have tried to "correct" the mistake with a rapid departure to the right place have been violated for the infraction--careless and reckless in the FARs.

Military bases are "over the top" with security and in this case I bet they were pretty nasty.

Lesson Learned: Make damn sure of the airport before taking the visual. Yes, it was NWA that landed at BRU instead of FRA and the pax found out FIRST when the automated pax announcement was made based on the lat/long position.

GF

Presumably the photos will appear before too long....

When I was on the B707 we had an item on the checklist which read "Airfield and Runway....Identified and Crosschecked" which meant the airport and landing runway had to identified either by radio aids (ILS) etc and/or "visual" confirmation - having said that this item did not stop the odd incident!

We are only required to announce on-course indications during an instrument approach, or if the ATIS says "ILS approaches in progress (i.e.) to runways 18R and L".

How many of these very embarassing incidents are to happen until ALL US airlines require the non-flying pilot to state "Loc active....glideslope active" or "course active" (with a VOR-so watch out even more...), even during rushed visual approaches? :(.

We are required to use a navaid as a back-up, but the non-flying pilot is not required to say anything about the indications. Many of these approaches take place with several distractions, or with a flying pilot who waits until fairly close to the runway to call "gear down...flaps forty, landing checklist". Almost like playing a game of chicken, leaving the other pilot guessing.......Never mind verifying that tower has given us a landing clearance.

Why did Rapid City Tower give the landing clearance, or was tower already closed (CTAF freq.), as was probably the case here?

Incidentally, just back from southern England last night-beautiful country with courteous drivers.

The story just got posted on Matt Drudge's web-site........


http://www.drudgereport.com/

>>Yes, it was NWA that landed at BRU instead of FRA and the pax found out FIRST when the automated pax announcement was made based on the lat/long position.<<

Actually, I believe the cabin saw the nav progress on the screens in back but the cabin crew thought that possibly a hijack or other emergency had occured and did not convey their concern over the new destination until after landing. At least that was their story at the hearing and they're sticking to it...

That flight was NW52, a DC-10-40 from DTW back in 1995.

Did the DC-10 even have automated PA's?

Just to tie up a couple of loose ends...

1. This flight was scheduled to arrive a little after noon, local time. KRAP tower is advertised as open at this time, so I'll be curious to know whether anyone in the tower attempted to intervene.

2. Ah, the enlightened press... Well... no. Ellsworth approach provides radar service, but does not clear anyone to land at KRAP.

3. Ellsworth is home to the 28th Bomb Wing which fly B1s. This is one of those places you don't want to land at inadvertently. If you're going to make this kind of mistake, do it at a base that has transport aircraft lined up on the flightline. Still not a GREAT idea, but having been assigned to both types of bases back in the old days, the mea culpas tend to have a better chance at the transport bases...

4. Here's the proximity picutre:
http://www.aviationpolicy.org/krap.gif

Dave

Edited to apologize for not leaving a little more of the chart intact on the east side when I cropped it... I cut off "Beefy" intersection. One of the only things missing in my otherwise full life is the opportunity to report beefy... :D

I have been told that there are two types of pilots: "Those that have landed with the wheels up and those that are about to".
Insteresting thought...and there by the grace of GOD...
:uhoh:

Aircraft lands at Civil Airfield by Mistake

Extract from memoirs!!

It was not uncommon for pilots to mistake Blackbushe, the civil airfield 10 miles from Farnborough, for home base. I found myself doing an initial approach on Blackbushe one misty afternoon. I soon recognised my error as the layout of the airfield became clear. Not so with the Egyptian, Fickery Zarr, He followed through to land a Meteor and when he went to turn off the runway on to a taxiway with which he was familiar at Farnborough, the resultant radio chatter became really hilarious.

It was normal practice under these circumstances for Farnborough to retain control over the offending pilot whilst liaising with Blackbushe over a telephone tie-line. So those of us on the same frequency became party to a fascinating sequence of instructions and responses.

Blackbushe was base to a fleet of civil Ambassador type aircraft and it became obvious that one of these was preparing for take off at the holding point when Farnborough said to Fickery " Take the next runway exit left and then the taxiway back to the holding point." Fickery said " I do not understand where I am and what I should do. I have some fuel left and can fly again for 20 minutes." Farnborough came back with "Roger, taxi straight ahead to the Ambassador." Fickery did not respond so Farnborough repeated the instruction. Fickery then came back in a faltering voice with "Please, please, I do not er er I do not wish to see the Ambassador today."

One of the tutors on the radio broke in with " Fickery you idiot, he means the Ambassador aircraft waiting for take off at the holding point." Meanwhile the rest of us had convulsions of laughter at the expense of the hapless and confused Egyptian.

We Australians were sometimes confused by different meanings given to words. The RAE was experimenting with a rapidly configurable inflatable aircraft capable of being carried around on a light road vehicle. The wings were inflatable and normally folded into a container. The engine was fitted with a small air compressor which inflated the wings and fuselage to maintain form and strength of its delta shape. Some intrepid test pilot would occasionally take it for a flight. The craft was always referred to by the British as the Durex Delta. This to us conceptualised a delta aircraft held together by Durex brand transparent sticky tape as marketed in Australia at the time. But the British did not have Durex sticky tape. Their Durex was a brand of condom. In mixed company in the Mess one weekend I casually remarked that I had seen the Durex Delta flying again. Kicks to the shins under the table prompted me to later determine my eror.

During command training on the 'ole B707 over thirty years ago was advised by an old PanAmerican check pilot..."generally speaking, the proper runway lies at the end of the selected instrument approach, but with a visual, anything can happen, and sometimes does..."

Now, lets face facts here.
These guys screwed up big time, and they have positively no excuse.

411A, I liked your Pan Am anecdote, (never a truer word was spoken), but no post from you containing the oh so predictable “they screwed up” until page 2? You’re slipping, old digger… could it be in your old age?