Approach to worng airport
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: CYHU
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Approach to worng airport
From Just Planes news
Air Canada (Sep05, 2003)
Flight AC183, an Airbus A319 bound for Kelowna apparently made its approach to the wrong airport shortly before 1900 on 23Aug03. The Airbus was on final approach to Vernon Airport in BC with a small Cessna on final approach at the opposite side of the same runway. The cessna interrupted its approach and veered out of the way when it noticed the Airbus ; the A319, apparently lost over the mountains of British Columbia, was able to go around. Had the aircraft continued to land it would have resulted in serious problems as the strip is too short for this kind of jet with only 3300 feet of the 3800 needed.
Air Canada (Sep05, 2003)
Flight AC183, an Airbus A319 bound for Kelowna apparently made its approach to the wrong airport shortly before 1900 on 23Aug03. The Airbus was on final approach to Vernon Airport in BC with a small Cessna on final approach at the opposite side of the same runway. The cessna interrupted its approach and veered out of the way when it noticed the Airbus ; the A319, apparently lost over the mountains of British Columbia, was able to go around. Had the aircraft continued to land it would have resulted in serious problems as the strip is too short for this kind of jet with only 3300 feet of the 3800 needed.
Here's a more extensive report on the same incident - CBC News
Vernon is about 18 nm north of Kelowna, slightly east of the extended centre line of Kelowna's runway 15. Swan Lake, referred to by the instructor in the CBC report, is about 5 nm northeast of Vernon airport. Vernon's runway is 23/05. The Airbus appears to have been making an approach to 23.
Vernon is about 18 nm north of Kelowna, slightly east of the extended centre line of Kelowna's runway 15. Swan Lake, referred to by the instructor in the CBC report, is about 5 nm northeast of Vernon airport. Vernon's runway is 23/05. The Airbus appears to have been making an approach to 23.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<<what were ATC doing at the time? ....>>
Probably controlling the:
<<A constant stream of five CL 415 water bombers and a Martin Mars bomber battled the stubborn fire all day Friday>>
fighting the fires which have already consumed some 250 homes in Kelowna, and caused extensive evacuations in the area
See http://www.castanet.net
NoD
Probably controlling the:
<<A constant stream of five CL 415 water bombers and a Martin Mars bomber battled the stubborn fire all day Friday>>
fighting the fires which have already consumed some 250 homes in Kelowna, and caused extensive evacuations in the area
See http://www.castanet.net
NoD
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: min rest
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1. AC Vangaurd got down to 200 feet on final to Oaksfield Airport before a GA when it wanted Nassau International in 1965ish.
2. BA landed straight in Easterly at Shj when they wanted Dxb on a first command trip.
3. GF landed straight in Easterly at a military airport when it wanted Khi International.
4. Dan Air Chief Pilot did exactly the same landing error also at Khi 1974/5ish.
IMHO..This error seems to be the eventual fate of the "Keen company pilots" who SOP throw their instrument approach and guidence overboard and decide to call "Field in sight, accept visual"etc. to attempt to save time and fuel.
Interestingly all the above "Pilots" were operating for the first time in these areas, a reason you may think to stick with an approach procedure or at least positively ident the correct airport via a visual circuit.
2. BA landed straight in Easterly at Shj when they wanted Dxb on a first command trip.
3. GF landed straight in Easterly at a military airport when it wanted Khi International.
4. Dan Air Chief Pilot did exactly the same landing error also at Khi 1974/5ish.
IMHO..This error seems to be the eventual fate of the "Keen company pilots" who SOP throw their instrument approach and guidence overboard and decide to call "Field in sight, accept visual"etc. to attempt to save time and fuel.
Interestingly all the above "Pilots" were operating for the first time in these areas, a reason you may think to stick with an approach procedure or at least positively ident the correct airport via a visual circuit.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I appreciate what you say, Scanscanscan, but all of these aircraft were non-glass cockpit. What I'm curious about it, how do you fly a glass cockpit airliner - with all the navigation displays it has - onto an approach to the wrong airport, let alone an aircraft which can't accommodate it? (I had understood that the cockpit ARPT display would only show those capable of accommodating the aircraft in question?)
Surely if the flight plan had been loaded, an error such as this would have been impossible?
Don't want to be hard on AC, which I know is a fine airline, but I'd just like to understand how this could happen on an Airbus?
Surely if the flight plan had been loaded, an error such as this would have been impossible?
Don't want to be hard on AC, which I know is a fine airline, but I'd just like to understand how this could happen on an Airbus?
Trash du Blanc
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: KBHM
Posts: 1,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two of the three airlines I have worked for have had crews mistake a small GA airport for Stewart AFB in Newburgh, NY, USA. Both resulted in low approaches only, but in one of them (a DC10) some wag snapped a picture, resulting in a front page story in the local paper....
(The other a/c was a CRJ, by the way, with the FMS supposedly still showing 6 miles to destination!)
(The other a/c was a CRJ, by the way, with the FMS supposedly still showing 6 miles to destination!)
Kelowna and Vernon are both in a mountain valley.
Once below the mountains, I doubt there's any radar coverage -- think Innsbruck.
Don't believe AC carries VFR charts either and perhaps Kelowna a/p would be obscured by smoke because of the forest fires which have already burned over 200 houses.
TC NOTAMS
030137 CYLW KELOWNA
CYLW ALL INSTRUMENT APCH PROCEDURES AND IFR DEP RWY 15
NOT AUTH DUE FOREST FIRES SR/SS DAILY
TIL 0309142359
030143 CYLW KELOWNA
CYLW PURSUANT TO CAR 601.14 TO 601.16 FOREST FIRE AREA BOUNDED BY
4939N 11943W. 4945N 11943W. 4957N 11930W. 4950N 11910W. 4939N 11910W
TO POINT OF ORIGIN (CENTERED APRX 12 NM S AIRPORT). MAX ALT 8000 FT
MSL. FIRE CONTROL OPS IN PROGRESS. EXCEPT WHERE OPR UNDER CAR 601.17.
ALL ACFT REMAIN CLEAR. SR/SS DAILY
TIL 0309142359
Once below the mountains, I doubt there's any radar coverage -- think Innsbruck.
Don't believe AC carries VFR charts either and perhaps Kelowna a/p would be obscured by smoke because of the forest fires which have already burned over 200 houses.
TC NOTAMS
030137 CYLW KELOWNA
CYLW ALL INSTRUMENT APCH PROCEDURES AND IFR DEP RWY 15
NOT AUTH DUE FOREST FIRES SR/SS DAILY
TIL 0309142359
030143 CYLW KELOWNA
CYLW PURSUANT TO CAR 601.14 TO 601.16 FOREST FIRE AREA BOUNDED BY
4939N 11943W. 4945N 11943W. 4957N 11930W. 4950N 11910W. 4939N 11910W
TO POINT OF ORIGIN (CENTERED APRX 12 NM S AIRPORT). MAX ALT 8000 FT
MSL. FIRE CONTROL OPS IN PROGRESS. EXCEPT WHERE OPR UNDER CAR 601.17.
ALL ACFT REMAIN CLEAR. SR/SS DAILY
TIL 0309142359
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hobie :
quote :
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a question .... what were ATC doing at the time? ....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With no radar not much he could do . Plus the Bus would have most probably been on the Kelovna TWR Frequency, accepted or requested a visual APP, and if TWR had no-one on the runway and the bus guy told them "we have the runway in sight"the Controller would have replied "clear to land ". we do not need to actually see the aircrfat to issue the landing clearance .
But I guess the fires had a lot to do with the error, which, as I understand was corrected in time . . So let,s be kind to our coleagues
411 : The NWA DC10 bound for FRA was all the time on the correct Brussels frequency , they just called them "Frankfurt"all the time and they landed all right
quote :
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a question .... what were ATC doing at the time? ....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With no radar not much he could do . Plus the Bus would have most probably been on the Kelovna TWR Frequency, accepted or requested a visual APP, and if TWR had no-one on the runway and the bus guy told them "we have the runway in sight"the Controller would have replied "clear to land ". we do not need to actually see the aircrfat to issue the landing clearance .
But I guess the fires had a lot to do with the error, which, as I understand was corrected in time . . So let,s be kind to our coleagues
411 : The NWA DC10 bound for FRA was all the time on the correct Brussels frequency , they just called them "Frankfurt"all the time and they landed all right
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: min rest
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Akerosid...Having flown Glass 767/757 for 10years
and Dc3, HS 748,F27 and (L1011 for 14years) I can appreciate the information overload that pilots can experiance in unusual
Non normals!
Landings into areas of reduced visability close to large forest fires must be one!
It is difficult to plan ahead and stick to any plan if things are changeing fast and you become distracted by events outside or inside the cockpit.
I found it helped to only "Priority list" the relevent information I needed to the circumstances.
I tryed to stick to IFR flying and SOPS and avoid offers that I thought could rapidly overload me and my Fo or could rapidly deteriorate, into a "Visit to the office situation."
In fact it became such a habit that I often ran my off duty days when nackered on a Priorities list.
With Boeing glass there is a large amount of information flooding in and the Airbus has more.
Consider this, in a planned Vnav descent in an Airbus, GF072 got high and fast, with all the information available, how could this happen?
DME was available, so was all the glass, the weather was good, everything was working normally, and the pilots were at a familiar home base.
IMHO..What was initially wrong was the pilots were not trained to be up to speed on their Priorities for safe flight and were involved in non essentials, they took their eye off the descent planning and subsequent profile errors were not responded to positively with sufficient urgency. Once priorities slipped other factors caused the whole thing to unravel as the report shows.
I found the more modern the airliner.... It needed to be flown with even more disciplin than the old.
The poor old pilot now needed to be hard wired and interface himself not only with his computers, BUT additionally he also needed to still be interfaced through his backside to the basics of old fashioned airmanship and the real outside world which would kill him when the outside support groups failed to accommodate the precision of his super modern programmed computers.
For example the descent profile and track was amended by ATC,
Or the approach was changed at the last minute to a different runway with only non precision aids available.
Various options suddenly being offered on approaches to different runways at the last minute after a 10hours night duty with a two man crew.
When this occured you might as well be back flying the DC3 although moveing a lot faster.
It then all came back to servival flying and priorities to stay alive and out of the office.
I hope this helps,it is very difficult to put young heads on old shoulders and vv.
As you can imagine I also thought the flight engineers made for a safer flight in non normal situations in strange areas of the world.
Cheers Scan
and Dc3, HS 748,F27 and (L1011 for 14years) I can appreciate the information overload that pilots can experiance in unusual
Non normals!
Landings into areas of reduced visability close to large forest fires must be one!
It is difficult to plan ahead and stick to any plan if things are changeing fast and you become distracted by events outside or inside the cockpit.
I found it helped to only "Priority list" the relevent information I needed to the circumstances.
I tryed to stick to IFR flying and SOPS and avoid offers that I thought could rapidly overload me and my Fo or could rapidly deteriorate, into a "Visit to the office situation."
In fact it became such a habit that I often ran my off duty days when nackered on a Priorities list.
With Boeing glass there is a large amount of information flooding in and the Airbus has more.
Consider this, in a planned Vnav descent in an Airbus, GF072 got high and fast, with all the information available, how could this happen?
DME was available, so was all the glass, the weather was good, everything was working normally, and the pilots were at a familiar home base.
IMHO..What was initially wrong was the pilots were not trained to be up to speed on their Priorities for safe flight and were involved in non essentials, they took their eye off the descent planning and subsequent profile errors were not responded to positively with sufficient urgency. Once priorities slipped other factors caused the whole thing to unravel as the report shows.
I found the more modern the airliner.... It needed to be flown with even more disciplin than the old.
The poor old pilot now needed to be hard wired and interface himself not only with his computers, BUT additionally he also needed to still be interfaced through his backside to the basics of old fashioned airmanship and the real outside world which would kill him when the outside support groups failed to accommodate the precision of his super modern programmed computers.
For example the descent profile and track was amended by ATC,
Or the approach was changed at the last minute to a different runway with only non precision aids available.
Various options suddenly being offered on approaches to different runways at the last minute after a 10hours night duty with a two man crew.
When this occured you might as well be back flying the DC3 although moveing a lot faster.
It then all came back to servival flying and priorities to stay alive and out of the office.
I hope this helps,it is very difficult to put young heads on old shoulders and vv.
As you can imagine I also thought the flight engineers made for a safer flight in non normal situations in strange areas of the world.
Cheers Scan
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: 39N 77W
Posts: 1,630
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm SLF.
My seat mates from SJU to IAD some years ago lived in Puerto Rico. He flew his own light twin, but not on long flights such as to IAD.
He had a story of a chartered UAL B757 bring cruise ship passengers which landed at Isla Grande SIG/TISG instead of at SJU. The runways are nearly in the same heading. 90 for SIG, 80 and 100 for SJU. SIG is 6 miles before SJU on the normal approach. But the SIG runway is 5100 ft long, not 10,000 ft.
The plane landed OK, but couldn't take off for the short hop to SJU being full of pax and cruise luggage.
And no stairs at SIG were tall enough to reach a B757. It was rush hour and took a long time to drive stairs over from SJU to offload the pax.
Talk about a pilot having a bad day.
Once light, the 757 could fly out.
My seat mates from SJU to IAD some years ago lived in Puerto Rico. He flew his own light twin, but not on long flights such as to IAD.
He had a story of a chartered UAL B757 bring cruise ship passengers which landed at Isla Grande SIG/TISG instead of at SJU. The runways are nearly in the same heading. 90 for SIG, 80 and 100 for SJU. SIG is 6 miles before SJU on the normal approach. But the SIG runway is 5100 ft long, not 10,000 ft.
The plane landed OK, but couldn't take off for the short hop to SJU being full of pax and cruise luggage.
And no stairs at SIG were tall enough to reach a B757. It was rush hour and took a long time to drive stairs over from SJU to offload the pax.
Talk about a pilot having a bad day.
Once light, the 757 could fly out.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Moved back to enemy territory... Leeds!!
Age: 49
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Happens all the time with Ryanair flights doesn't it? A/C lands at little strip in the middle of nowhere, miles from final destination...
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: HON121º/14 NM
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Check the ident, check the frequency, check the beam bar, if in doubt go around. Don't know the whole story, so don't want to be too pompous. Those guys must have pretty red faces. Hope I never do it!
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: In the oil wealth of sand dunes
Posts: 293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Someone asked earlier about getting it wrong in an Airbus, possibly high and fast.
I have noticed with experience on the A340 that certain arrivals (STAR) in Europe include a hold when entered into the MCDU. This extra distance is taken into account for the decent, thereby the aircraft is closer to the destination as the crow flies and the distance to be flown is longer. This is normal, however when one doesn't have to fly the actual hold whilst in decent and it is removed from the MCDU, you are 15-16 miles closer. A new decent profile is calculated, you are high and the FMGS could ask for "Extend Speed Brake". This does not guarentee anything, and relying on it and plus a steep profile, I think things could go pear shaped for some crew.
There are many reasons in an Airbus which cause pressure on the pilots and I'm yet to learn all of them.
I remember some saying, a new Airbus pilot asks "What's it doing now?" and the experienced Airbus pilots says "There it does it again!"
This case in Canada looks interesting and I will be reading more right here!
I have noticed with experience on the A340 that certain arrivals (STAR) in Europe include a hold when entered into the MCDU. This extra distance is taken into account for the decent, thereby the aircraft is closer to the destination as the crow flies and the distance to be flown is longer. This is normal, however when one doesn't have to fly the actual hold whilst in decent and it is removed from the MCDU, you are 15-16 miles closer. A new decent profile is calculated, you are high and the FMGS could ask for "Extend Speed Brake". This does not guarentee anything, and relying on it and plus a steep profile, I think things could go pear shaped for some crew.
There are many reasons in an Airbus which cause pressure on the pilots and I'm yet to learn all of them.
I remember some saying, a new Airbus pilot asks "What's it doing now?" and the experienced Airbus pilots says "There it does it again!"
This case in Canada looks interesting and I will be reading more right here!
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: New York
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Despite the red faces after the A319 went around, I'd have to say well done for having managed to catch it prior to touchdown!
I'm understanding of the types of workload that can occur, especially in a stressful situation such as forest fires in the area, restricted airspace, dealing with an approach and landing, etc.
And know history behind other similar goofs in the past where there were two airports spaced nearby and on the same (or close) runway headings.
Still.. in this case... dest airport was rwy 15, nearly landed on rwy 23. Wouldn't have been off by about 80 degrees be a major hint to either crew member? Especially since the report had it down to about 700m and on centerline with gear extended, which makes it sound like it was well established on final.
At any rate, if the TSB report is made public, may be interesting to hear more into the insight into how this developed and perhaps what made the crew finally re-establish situational awareness and climb out.
I only wonder if the CFI of the light plane on the other end had to have any dry cleaning done after observing nothing less than an Airbus 319 established for final on the other end of the runway!
(post edited to change mention of T/D to touchdown since I later realized that T/D could have had been ambiguously read as top-of-descent, however unlikely...)
I'm understanding of the types of workload that can occur, especially in a stressful situation such as forest fires in the area, restricted airspace, dealing with an approach and landing, etc.
And know history behind other similar goofs in the past where there were two airports spaced nearby and on the same (or close) runway headings.
Still.. in this case... dest airport was rwy 15, nearly landed on rwy 23. Wouldn't have been off by about 80 degrees be a major hint to either crew member? Especially since the report had it down to about 700m and on centerline with gear extended, which makes it sound like it was well established on final.
At any rate, if the TSB report is made public, may be interesting to hear more into the insight into how this developed and perhaps what made the crew finally re-establish situational awareness and climb out.
I only wonder if the CFI of the light plane on the other end had to have any dry cleaning done after observing nothing less than an Airbus 319 established for final on the other end of the runway!
(post edited to change mention of T/D to touchdown since I later realized that T/D could have had been ambiguously read as top-of-descent, however unlikely...)
Last edited by Luv 744s; 8th Sep 2003 at 04:30.
Still behind the curtain
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Arizona, USA
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my old reportorial days when I worked for UPI in Washington -- we're talking the 1960s -- we used to have time-to-time incidents when aircraft bound for Washington National, now Reagan, used to get mixed up and land at Bolling Field, a naval airbase close by. Hell of a public relations disaster.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: on this planet
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find it hard to believe that so many of the previous comments show such sympathy for an error of 18nm at the final destination - it makes all the bombs dropped in recent conflicts appear very accurate indeed.
Really, you civilian aviation types need to tighten up on accuracy!
Really, you civilian aviation types need to tighten up on accuracy!