Most of the cowboys who land at wrong airports are those over confident of their stick-rudder seat of pants type who are are so gungho about showing off their " superior manual flying " skills at the first opportunity once they have an airfield in sight.

I am an old school, old timer who flew thousands of visual missions; but I bloody made sure I had other confirmation before I committed to diving down for the runway. Once in Quang Tri, I headed for a strip which looked exactly like my intended destination. Just fresh green aviator in my early twenties, I was quick to make a split arse turn and dove for the field...only my peripheral catching of the heading which was about 20 degrees off saved the day. I pulled out pronto, fast enough to avoid the bullets and rpgs that almost peppered my arse.

Trust your manual skills, but do verify!

Yes, they made a bad mistake but don't crucify them, they only missed the airport by about 6 miles. I think it was back in Sept 1995 that a major airliine (US) landed not only at the wrong airport but in the wrong country, missing the intended destination (Frankfurt, Germany) by about 160 nm and landed on the right runway but in the wrong country (Brussells, Belgium). A combination of errors on the part of pilots and ATC.

"To err is human, to forgive devine."

"The engines are fully charged" "he has good speed" "flaps are fully deployed"

If ever there was a reason to to study, understand and minimize the occurrences of these events, its so no one has to listen to newsies giving the play by play of the subsequent takeoff.

OK, yes, the PIC is ultimately responsible, but..., what about the tower guys looking out the window to verify that the plane is in fact on final when they clear them to land, especially if the tower is non radar?
Seems ATC is always anxious to get rid of you by constantly asking if you have the "airport in sight?".
Just wondering, not throwing stones.

Thanks for posting this, terrific pictures.

Sad that I couldn't do the flyby that time and I appreciate the folks that take the great photographs. :ok:

CT.Yankee:

The controller was required to advise him not in sight with the landing clearance.

With the NTSB in charge, we will find out if that call was made.

If not, that shifts about 1% of the blame to the FAA in my view.

Here's a similar incident from 1997, in a 737-500:

NTSB CO1760 Corpus Christi

Here's the link again. I pulled the earlier post after further consideration regarding past events.

KPAE Paine Field

Sure.

First, there is not, so far as I can see, a STAR for either of these airports. Not sure how SWA SOPs would program for that situation - direct to the airport itself?

(Second, and probably made irrelevant by point one, keep in mind that U.S. STARs are not usually, as with many EU STARs, to a specific runway, but to the general vicinity of the airport, from which point in space (or before reaching it) one is dependent on ATC instructions to join an approach (which may include "Cleared for the visual...".)

Between them, the two airports have only one ILS (KBBG 32), and that was not the runway favored by the winds (150/180).

According to a witness on avherald, the plane started to enter a visual downwind (heading ~320) for the correct runway at the correct airport, but than joined a downwind for the other airport. "Downwind" as in, how you visually land a Cessna: downwind - base - final. Only higher and faster.

Looking at the geometry of the airports, I can see where they'd end up with the wrong airport visible to the right seat at 1 o'clock, and the correct airport invisible to either pilot, behind them at about 7 o'clock.

As to why (perhaps) no RNAV approach - well, you're (so it appears) 5 hours late and have a choice of:

- a visual to an airport which seems to be clearly visible (and with passengers enroute to evening stage shows, with the curtains going up in an hour - what Branson is famous for), or

- wandering 15 miles out into the wilderness to set up and fly an RNAV back another 15 miles.

None of the above "justifies" the mistake, of course. If one is going to be casual about skipping the automation to save some time, one better bring one's "A" game for SA and all the other pilot skills.

Why not a display that is visible on the approach with bright lights showing: LGW (or whatever)?
Didn’t Northolt/Heathrow do something similar years ago on a hangar roof to reduce chances of landing at the wrong airfield?

Jack

...the "LH" and big arrow pointing towards Heathrow is still painted on the side of the gasholder by Southall Railway Station.

I fly the 737 NG across Europe. A simple solution to prevent this from happening again is this...

We cannot approach an airport with a 3800 ft runway, because such an airport is not loaded in our FMS nav database. Therefore the TAWS will start yelling TOO LOW TERRAIN when below a certain radio altitude ( unless terrain inhibit is selected)

Northolt/Heathrow
 

Apperntly there were two gasometers. One with NO, and one with LH and arrow on the side.

The LH one is still there.

From: [OT] Mysteries seen from the air - Page 2 - London Banter

LH Bing Maps


Southall Gas Tower | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
On the train to Slough | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
The Tower | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

pattern is full makes some good points and I guess you are saying that they landed on runway 14.

The reason this happened is that some pilots (and not just with southwest) are always looking for shortcuts.

It is faster and therefore cheaper (except in this case) to fly a visual pattern than to fly a full instrument approach. So, you see what you want to see and you take the shortcut and OOOPS.


In older planes you could get the back course of the localizer, even if not published, at least on short final , to confirm the right airport. So we tuned up the front course ILS and the needle centered up or OOOPS. Not sure about this plane (involved)

IF you can screw it up, you will screw it up, so you must always be sure with all means. INCLUDING asking RADAR are we on five mile final to the correct airport? OR asking tower to increase the intensity of the runway lights momentarily also providing a confirmation.

I've been in the copilot seat and the captain went off towards the wrong place. It is almost always at night, so be alert even more so then.

FOX NINER, it's very unlikely that this airport was in the NDB on this SWA flight. I can't explain what they were looking at but it probably was nothing that had been pulled up.

ATC at KOSH has it right: "Blue and yellow biplane, rock your wings" :ok:

video showing the takeoff here

The routing given by flightaware.com is ACITO ADELL AKMIE ARLYN STL MAP DGD.

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/...145Z/KMDW/KBBG

I would certainly at least terminate it with KBBG in the box with a discontinuity for a mileage and fuel crosscheck but some folks leave the endpoint out until the actual runway and approach is known. And others would omit the discontinuity and have DGD direct KBBG as the last leg in the FMS.

These different ways of programming the box are considered to be in the realm of technique where I work, at some places they may be overridden by SOP.

And, there are subtle differences in the ancient cryptic user interface on different models of FMS I've flown with over the years. Rather than simplify the user interface, many training hours are spent with wacky route mods and tricks that work on some boxes but are gotchas on others. Many 'modern' aircraft still have FMS's with memory measured in megs, not gigs, and databases will be missing some waypoints and approaches to get a region to fit into the limited memory.

Once I figured out that we would probably be landing on 14, I'd select the RNAV (GPS) Rwy 14 approach in the box even if I planned vectors to a visual. It would give advisory path guidance for the night approach with no PAPI's or VASI.

As Huck speculated, one possible scenario is that the crew were set up for the ILS 32 and switched to the visual 14 late and decided not to mess with the FMS down low. Seems like years ago places like Air Canada had a policy that you wouldn't change anything in the box below 10,000 feet and instead rely on raw data if you had a runway change. Unfortunately, these RNAV (GPS) approaches don't have a lot of raw data.

Southwest certainly has a traditional reputation as a raw data, round dial, hand flying, no VNAV, visual approach airline. Kinda like Piedmont back in the day with the V1, Rotate taxi speeds.

Airbubba:


Seeing as how the crews are long since all trained to fly RNP AR approaches, they are at least trained to know better.

Doesn't seen like it would have been difficult at all for the PNF to retrieve the RNAV Runway 14 approach and used it as a back up to the visual.

OK we get it... "Airmanship".

Thank the lord that in these days of PC BS it has not been translated into
'airpersonship'.

Interesting to hear the various speculative theories about this incident, and to hear the NTSB/FAA is making an investigation. Their conclusion will be interesting; especially in light of the generally well received and supported "Children of the Magenta Line" video. I agree with the philosophy of that presentation, but as it says, use the tools wisely. A slave to one does not mean gung-ho is the opposite. A careful measured use of what is needed, from Mk.1 eyeball to triple autopilot, is the name of the game. Having the judgement to decide is sometimes what is missing.

If the AvHerald 'observer's ' report is correct, I am flabberghasted. To go from visual left-hand downwind to visual right-hand downwind for the wrong airport without an apparent whimper takes some beating.

Are US pilots adopting the Ryanair policy of not landing you where you think you are going?:)

Shame on you, US of A - this is getting a bit repetitive. What is going on?

AvHerald - "wrong airport" - You may see many carriers other than US ones listed. I do see listed the mention a few weeks ago of a certain 747's wing slicing a building nearly in half. Two closely timed incidents do not indicate a trend.

- yes, but it was at the right airport:D

Don't forget the good old USAF recent screw up.

He simply reminding you that you're not purer than than the newly fallen snow.

Oh I don't think they did too bad.

After all, they did land in the correct state, near the correct city (actually in the city when you think about it) AND most importantly, on the proper mainland.

Unlike a former chief pilot I once flew for that not only landed at the wrong airport, the wrong city but completely missed the mainland and landed on an island.

Now that took some doing. And no, I was not the co-pilot on that trip.

Strangely enough, a few months later I was the Chief Pilot of the man that owned the aircraft on that trip. :p



Now, who here remembers Kansas City airport (MKC) back in the late 60s to the mid 70s before the new MCI airport became operational?

Those that do will also remember the Fairfax airport on the Kansas side of the river, just west of MKC right across the river from MKC with the same basic runway set up.

Now you talk about a trap for the unwary pilot/crew, that was it. In poor weather, with a crosswind from the west, when you broke out of the clouds anywhere from around one to three thousand feet with five or less miles visilibty on the ILS landing to the south, you were lined up perfectly with a runway at Fairfax. You had to force yourself to look left for MCI.

This situation trapped pilots private pilots, charter pilots, coporate pilots, military pilots, airline pilots and even a few TWA pilots whose home base at the time was MKC.

Landing at the wrong airport has happened in the past, happens now and will on into the future.

But I managed not to for 42 plus years. Knock on wood. :\

Process as product.

Before the whiz-bang computer did all the flight planning chores for pilots, we had to get out charts, approach plates, supplements, etc, and go through an information gathering process as we built flight plan, alternates, and fuel ladder/fuel plan.
In ths process, such things as airport diagrams, were airfield is located vis a vis local geography (particularly for unfamiliar fields) and lther fields, and a lot of other detail had to be looked into before ever taking off. Just by digging into that detail, getting one's hands dirty, once could find any number of interesting local issues to be on guard for.

For an airliner, on standard routes, some of that function can come in a pre made flight packet. All well and good, but a given crew may go to one location more than others, and not be as familiar with a given locale as other crews are.

On a given day, what process does the average FO and CAPT go thorugh in discussing the take off, and then each of the planned destinations, and alternates, for that days sectors flown for the company?

"As loaded in the FMS" strikes me as a severe short circuit of the process of becoming familiar with where one is going before one takes off.

Just a thought from a luddite. :O

As con-pilot points out, even with that old process as a helpful tool toward focing SA into one's planning, people still ended up in the wrong place.

''Having said that, we don't need ATC in the cockpit anymore than they already are.''

Such a turgid comment from somebody who should perhaps, and I suggest actually does, know better.

If ATC had been doing their job properly and not clearing a/c to land without either
a. identifying them visually or
b. monitoring them on the radar/tower atm (as we are compelled to do here in the UK)
then this would not have happened.

However superior we feel, we all, on occasion, need saving from ourselves just as the TWA crew did on almost landing wheels up at LHR back in the 80's. :ok:

ATC watch out
 

@Rage :

I'm afraid there is no more FAA tower in Branson airport since may 5 th, 2013 and operating as a ATCT non federal tower from may 6th .

But you're right, no airplane lights in sight from tower when airplane annouced in final , should have been an alert : sometimes back to basics upthere too .

You might want to dig deeper into your system details. You might be right given what database option your company installed, but at my US carrier and it sounds the same at SouthWest, any airport with a runway >3500' in in the GPWS database and will not sound off if on normal approach course.

This is different from the FMS database where the airport options are much more restricted to approved airports available to display on the screens.

Me thinks it's that way in case of a split-s whilst on fire and landing on the first available piece of concrete. Last thing needed would be a "Too Low Terrain" blaring.

Yes, they screwed up but can you imagine what Asiana would have done? They will be back to work in two weeks and hope they have a great retirement party in the future. We all have screwed up and got by with it. Sometimes you can't.

REGARDING ATC's role.

Please recall the deadly accident in kentucky in which a regional jet took off on the wrong runway. ATC didn't look out the window to make sure they were on the right,make that correct, runway.

LOTS of mistakes are caught with cooperation between pilots and ATC. WE all need to look out for each other.

I've seen screw ups similiar to the SOUTHWEST thing, that didn't go all the way to a landing. Caught way early by someone, somewhere.

JUST glad no one was hurt.

MAYBE BOEING is doing this to show their good short field capabilities on 737 and Dreamlifter? ;-)

Branson tower closes at 2100 local.

Many towers remain open to allow late airline flights to land with ATC's watchful eyes, and local arff available.

My airline has actually paid for this on occasion, paying the overtime of controller through some arangement with somebody. Even though we have approval for CTAF use.

con-pilot:

I dunno. I flew into MKC as a TWA F/O circa 1965. I was then based there in 1967-68 flying captain on the DC-9-10.

We were all quite familiar with Fairfax, and well knew the relationship of the two airports.

Any TWA flight that landed in error at Fairfax was before 1964.

CNN: Third person suspended in runway mixup
 

Seems the captain and FO weren't alone...

3rd person in Southwest 737 cockpit raises new questions - CNN.com

@ Old Boeing Driver (post 79) - in "the old days" it happened as well you know :bored:

@ Surplus 1 (post 83) - your incident in more details (DC-10 misses Frankfurt runway - by 300km - 10/11/1995 - Flight Global)

I remember that some time after the incident the F/O of this flight was hired by DHL Brussels to fly cargo at night....can't remember what happened to the Capt and the F/E however.....
Anybody an update on this? ....

I assume that's non-refundable. :}

It's a bit eerie that in two months there are two incidents like this where the wrong airport CTAF controlled lighting just unfortuitously happened to be on.

While not quibbling with the thrust of your post, the Blue Grass take off was from a runway which had almost coincident threshold with the correct runway. From the tower the positioning on the incorrect runway may not have been apparent. By the time it would have been visually apparent to the tower whatever was said could have made things worse.

However, back to this thread , as you say - this is a team event and there can be problems with authority gradients from cockpit to ATC at times. So it pays to accept checks from ATC as much as from the junior FO in the right hand seat.

I think this incident hit VERY VERY CLOSE to home for some people!;)

The comment about Asiana is utter codswallop.

Sawbones62

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: KSAN
Age: 51
Posts: 8
CNN: Third person suspended in runway mixup
Seems the captain and FO weren't alone...

3rd person in Southwest 737 cockpit raises new questions - CNN.com

Some say : a third pair of eyes makes for safer operations. Now before someone scream" he's not a pilot ", hey he is a qualified dispatcher! He would certainly be in the loop.:ok: