|
The good news is Jet-A is only $5.20 at Clark, but $5.79 at KBBG. I truly don't know where the portable stairs came from, but I know in a situation without a fire or other emergency situation, you simply would have to wait for stairs. |
the report said ATC cleared them for a visual and landing on runway 14 at branson.
and that can be taken to mean apch control/ center cleared them for a visual and tower cleared them to land. both are atc. one person indicated branson was a NFCT. They still exercise ATC function. go to airnav.com for branson and graham airports and both have pilot controlled lighting on ctaf freq. I mentioned this before and I offer it again. IF you have an airport in sight in the night sea of lights or dark and there is a tower, ask them to change the lights to full bright for a moment to confirm you are looking at the correct airport. try it, you'll like it. once on final you can have them restore the low setting often favored for landing. |
I had a positive sabotage threat as a new captain on a 737 200 one day landing at LAX with a new hire FO. We asked for air stairs in flight and again on the ground but got no air stairs so used all 4 slides. I hated to do it but had no choice.
The fire trucks were there and assisted us with the firemen assisting each passenger get off safely at the bottom of the slide. We would have had injuries if they hadn't assisted. They did the right thing by waiting with their situation. |
ok465:
I trust you agree that only local controllers can issue a landing clearance. In unusual circumstances approach control can relay a landing clearance issued by the tower. |
ok465:
Do you know that tower was manned? Tell us and put it to rest then. I stand by a sloppy brief by the NTSB. I respect your experience in all the various circumstances. That is not the point, and I hope you understand I was not challenging you as to your flying experience. I wasn't going there at all. Quite the contrary I know you are very experienced and was hoping for your concurrence that the NTSB brief did not make sense as it pertained to the landing clearance. |
I might just draw everyone's attention...
... to this incident.
Incident: Air India B788 at Melbourne on Jan 14th 2014, nearly landed on small airport Wide-body inbound to a much bigger city, with the newest, fanciest cockpit available - still lines up with the wrong airport. Holding an approach plate that specificially warns of the the secondary airport. Fortunately, ATC was more in the loop on this one (and no doubt was well experienced with the potential for confusion) and gave the crew the heads-up. |
Bloggs - sounds to me like you have never come in on a 30 meter runway. Not really interested whether you buy it or not. It was another one of many signs that the crew missed.
Many of us land on 60 metre runways and 45 metre runways regularly - how many land on 30 ... not many. Do SWA have any on their network? Think of the difference between 60 and 30 .. its huge. It is still significant from 45 to 30. 30m is closer to a taxiway than it is to a 45m runway. I will let you Google taxiway width rather than educate you again Bloggs. People will no doubt point out that folk have landed on taxiways in the past...but that is about as rare as landing at the wrong airport. These guys are up against it. |
Utrinque, stop trolling. You're behaving badly. And...from my observations you appear to be just rattling off stuff you learned in a book or website somewhere.
Why are you so intent on hanging these guys? You don't know them. I just hope when you screw up (and you will) there's someone like you standing by to judge you. What you should be doing is waiting to find out more information and learn from their mistake so you don't repeat it. I personally think you're barking up the wrong tree here in your analysis. |
lifeafteraviation:
What you should be doing is waiting to find out more information and learn from their mistake so you don't repeat it. I personally think you're barking up the wrong tree here in your analysis. Part 121 pilots are required to be airport qualified for every Regular, Provisional, and Refueling airport set forth in their ops specs. Perhaps SWA's flight ops management shares some of the blame if their airport qualifications program is inadequate. That we don't know but I hope we eventually find out about their program. Also, their HUD SOPs. Also, their requirements, or lack thereof, of using the pertinent instrument approach procedure as a backup to a visual approach. I don't buy tickets for myself or my family on cargo-hauling 747s. I do on SWA and other Part 121 airlines. I know the basic rules for landing on the correct runway at the correct airport quite well. I lived under those rules for 27 years, and they remain unchanged. These folks came within a couple of hundred feet, or so, of going down that 40' embankment. That gives me pause for reflection as a member of the airline flying public. |
....was hoping for your concurrence that the NTSB brief did not make sense as it pertained to the landing clearance. The times involved weren't in that summary but the last MDW to BBG shows a scheduled arrival of 1720 local. 5 hours late (if truly correct) would put them in at 2220 local. Normal closing for the tower is 2100 local, but maybe special arrangements were made. I'll quit beating a dead horse now and wait for a more detailed coherent report. |
I will give you the benefit of the doubt "lifeafteraviation". I learnt a lot of what I know in books, a lot was and is learnt flying the line.
I am angered by how close these guys came to killing so many. This was not a screw up or a mistake (which we all make along the way). This was a whole host of mistakes and screw ups rolled into one ... Resulting in very near catastrophe. If my family or friends were on that flight I would be suing for gross negligence. You can not reasonably class landing at the wrong airport as just a mistake can you? |
aterpster - "I'm sure we will learn something from their obvious screw-up. Having said that a Part 121 operator has a higher duty of standards and care than the folks flying 787 parts into Kansas.
Part 121 pilots are required to be airport qualified for every Regular, Provisional, and Refueling airport set forth in their ops specs. Perhaps SWA's flight ops management shares some of the blame if their airport qualifications program is inadequate. That we don't know but I hope we eventually find out about their program." Atlas is a 121 operator. I'm not sure the FAA holds them to a lessor standard when they're flying parts. Not sure what you mean by "airport qualified for every Regular, Provisional, and Refueling airport..." I wonder how many guys have flown a 777 into Barrow, Alaska (6500') which is one of the options. |
misd-agin:
Atlas is a 121 operator. I'm not sure the FAA holds them to a lessor standard when they're flying parts. Not sure what you mean by "airport qualified for every Regular, Provisional, and Refueling airport..." I wonder how many guys have flown a 777 into Barrow, Alaska (6500') which is one of the options. Are you saying some operators use Barrow as a refueling airport for 777s? Seems inadequate for that task. |
One of the problems in aviation, IMO, is that we delve so massively and completely into significant accidents, ie. fatal accidents or even spectacular accidents without fatalities (Hudson River miracle), but as a rule, the industry seems to gloss over the incidents that occur that easily could have been horrific accidents but for the thinnest of margins.
What would our attitude be with this WN incident if the runway was only 3500 feet long or the crew took and extra 2-3 seconds to figure out that something was very wrong, and the airplane ended up rolling off the cliff and exploded? What would our attitude have been about the DL 767-300 from South America that landed on an ATL taxiway if it had collided with another airliner taxing out for an early AM departure, landing lights out in deference to the inbound landing aircraft? How much attention would the CRJ at LEX received for taking off on a 3500 foot runway if it had shredded some leaves at the treetops and successfully became airborne? Suppose the BOS JL 787 battery fire had happened while the plane was airborne over one of the more remote stretches between NRT-BOS? The safety record of Western air carriers is extraordinary... but the various players... the governments, manufacturers, carriers and crews really need to put much more emphasis on the accidents that didn't happen, but easily could have! |
Back about 1983 I made the first ever landing by a jet aircraft at PLK. A Branson time-share condo developer traded in his King Air for an early serial number Falcon 10 w/o thrust reversers and hired me to fly it, since I had flown that airframe for the previous owner. Before accepting the job, I set some non-negotiable limits with him for PLK - weight, weather, dry runway only, etc. He sometimes pushed, but I never gave in.
On the day of the first landing, nobody from the company wanted to ride with us, so the F/O and I went in empty for a pick-up. The airport in those days was owned and operated by College of the Ozarks and all the students worked their way through school. As we lined up on final the F/O said to me, "Don't *** it up." I asked why, and he pointed out that all the instructors and student workers in the aviation technology program had come out and lined up along the edge the ramp to watch the landing. No pressure there. Later on, a guy in a 20-series Lear with T/R's would occasionally drop in. Years later the school operated a Citation, but the whole aviation technology program folded after the school's av-tech manager, I think, ran the Citation into a hillside about 4nm out during a GPS approach in wx below minimums, killing all aboard. Operating a Falcon at Point Lookout was fun, but I can't imagine stuffing a 737 in there, especially at night. The drop offs at the runway ends are sobering. :eek: |
Murexway, thanks for sharing your first hand experience about this field. Makes my point from the preceding post even more cogent. This should be called "miracle of the Ozarks"... for that it how close this could have been a disaster.
|
RobertS975:
The safety record of Western air carriers is extraordinary... but the various players... the governments, manufacturers, carriers and crews really need to put much more emphasis on the accidents that didn't happen, but easily could have! and ASN Aircraft accident Boeing 767-223ER N330AA Los Angeles International Airport, CA (LAX) did not meet the formal definition of aircraft accident - but got NTSB's attention because of the obvious safety-of-flight implications. In my career, I've seen many cases where the OEM put a lot of engineering effort into investigation of suspicious hardware - parts that had not broken, but which were "incipient failures". The public never hears about these, but owes its safety to this behind-the-scenes work. |
I'm sure we will learn something from their obvious screw-up. Having said that a Part 121 operator has a higher duty of standards and care than the folks flying 787 parts into Kansas. Part 121 pilots are required to be airport qualified for every Regular, Provisional, and Refueling airport set forth in their ops specs. Perhaps SWA's flight ops management shares some of the blame if their airport qualifications program is inadequate. That we don't know but I hope we eventually find out about their program. Also, their HUD SOPs. Also, their requirements, or lack thereof, of using the pertinent instrument approach procedure as a backup to a visual approach. I don't buy tickets for myself or my family on cargo-hauling 747s. I do on SWA and other Part 121 airlines. I know the basic rules for landing on the correct runway at the correct airport quite well. I lived under those rules for 27 years, and they remain unchanged. These folks came within a couple of hundred feet, or so, of going down that 40' embankment. That gives me pause for reflection as a member of the airline flying public. I'm not saying these guys are heroes or that they didn't screw up seriously. I'm just saying you are not qualified to judge them. |
Our airline that was major flew into hundreds of airports domestic and international. I estimate 15 you had to be airport qualified, mostly central and south america.
I chose the most restrictive, Tegucigalpa, Honduras because it was the most fun and it required 3 flights with a check airman to get qualified and if you didn't fly there in the last 3 months you had to get requalified. One bonus was you got displaced a lot for training. Flying to an airport at night you have never landed at by either pilot was common. Any crew should be able to do this with no difficulty. |
TGU is 2 flights. The second is to make sure you didn't get lucky on the first flight.
No requirement to 'qualify' into alternate, provisional, or refueling airports. Destinations that you're flying to? Yes. Most are online videos that you watch. TGU, LPB, EGE, GUC, and maybe another (GUA?) require a CKA. |
It has been 10 years since my last flight before the video training so things might have changed. It was 3 ten years ago. I guess they found another way to cut training costs. I only knew of the few restricted airports we did so thought there were more. I knew about EGE and the south airports we flew into so added what I wasn't sure of. Do you have to just watch the video now to stay qualified at TGU?
|
upt what point could they have made a successful go around ? While we all have it drummed into us to bin a bad landing, in GA at least there seem to be a lot worse outcomes from late go arounds than from just eating the fence. Of course a drop off is another matter but would they have even known it was there ?
|
Nothing to stop you doing a go around after touchdown BEFORE selecting Reversers, then you are committed.
We train for aborted landings after touchdown. A little different and a few bells and whistles go off but easy enough to do if the situation warrants. |
Yeah we call it a "touch n go!":ok:
|
RobertS975:
One of the problems in aviation, IMO, is that we delve so massively and completely into significant accidents, ie. fatal accidents or even spectacular accidents without fatalities (Hudson River miracle), but as a rule, the industry seems to gloss over the incidents that occur that easily could have been horrific accidents but for the thinnest of margins. |
lifeafteraviation:
If you don't know what I am talking about it is you who obviously know little about Part 121 and Operations Specifications. As to Atlas someone corrected me that they are, indeed, a Part 121 operator. |
To be fair, Beanbag, I think Rob is not far off the mark in many respects. How much has been done about aircon fumes? Or the lack of feedback from Airbus FBW controls? What about EASA's contempt for scientific or expert input into the new FTL regs? And what reactions do we get if we pro-actively report a concern over systems or circumstances we consider may lead to an accident, rather than just sticking to report post-event? The regulators and companies all stick their head in the sand, especially if it's going to cost money, and when things do go wrong just look for scapegoats before seeing if something needs fixing.
|
Originally Posted by aterpster
(Post 8272481)
Part 121 pilots are required to be airport qualified for every Regular, Provisional, and Refueling airport set forth in their ops specs.
|
"Part 121 pilots are required to be airport qualified for every Regular, Provisional, and Refueling airport set forth in their ops specs"
Not sure whose quote this, (aterpster perhaps) but could you please provide a reference to the requirement? If indeed it says something to that effect, then I question the way it's being interpreted. Sure, there are special airports that require a checkout, there's airports that have special approaches, there's airports that I'm required to review the pictorials for, but to say every airport requires me to be qualified has me scratching me arse a bit. If to say I review 10-7 charts, study in depth the expected STAR and approach, airport diagram and ramp set up along with anything else I can get my hands on qualifies as a qualification, then we agree. If to say the first time I went to Des Moines I had a LCA riding shotgun, then we disagree. |
If I can cast a little UK light on this issue?
Airports under the UK system are Categorised A, B and C. Airlines are required to certify crews as 'qualified' to operate into the appropriate airports. Cat A ('Normal' airports) are re-certified at each Sim check as a 'routine' general clearance. Cat B require crews to make a thorough self-brief, by written brief or audio-visual, on the particular 'differences' from 'normal' for these. Cat C require either a specific sim check or actual flight under check. If the US is similar, I think too much is being made of Aterp's post? I assume Branson would either be Cat A or B in the UK system. |
It's not the same.
|
Originally Posted by West Coast
(Post 8274504)
It's not the same.
Training and qualification may have been required for every single airport at TWA, but it's not generally true that it's a Part 121 requirement. We also have qualifications to go destinations with less than 80% runways, And a multi-tiered system of qualification depending on how short the runway is and what the other challenges are there, but that a whole different ball of wax. |
I think you hit on it, the fuzzy difference between company and FAA mandated training. We have airports where we mandate training that the FAA doesn't require. All the crews know is the man is requiring them to do the training, who the man is isn't important.
|
"It's not the same."
I disagree - it is essentially pretty much the same! "We have "special" airports, and regular airports." ie Cat B/C and Cat A. Two countries separated by a common language? |
Pretty sure you understand what I and A squared are getting at.
|
Originally Posted by BOAC
(Post 8274651)
"It's not the same."
I disagree - it is essentially pretty much the same! "We have "special" airports, and regular airports." ie Cat B/C and Cat A. Two countries separated by a common language? |
Originally Posted by BOAC
I think too much is being made of Aterp's post?
|
Part 121 pilots are required to be airport qualified for every Regular, Provisional, and Refueling airport set forth in their ops specs. Perhaps SWA's flight ops management shares some of the blame if their airport qualifications program is inadequate. That we don't know but I hope we eventually find out about their program. §121.443 Pilot in command qualification: Route and airports. (a) Each certificate holder shall provide a system acceptable to the Administrator for disseminating the information required by paragraph (b) of this section to the pilot in command and appropriate flight operation personnel. The system must also provide an acceptable means for showing compliance with §121.445. (b) No certificate holder may use any person, nor may any person serve, as pilot in command unless the certificate holder has provided that person current information concerning the following subjects pertinent to the areas over which that person is to serve, and to each airport and terminal area into which that person is to operate, and ensures that that person has adequate knowledge of, and the ability to use, the information: (1) Weather characteristics appropriate to the season. (2) Navigation facilities. (3) Communication procedures, including airport visual aids. (4) Kinds of terrain and obstructions. (5) Minimum safe flight levels. (6) En route and terminal area arrival and departure procedures, holding procedures and authorized instrument approach procedures for the airports involved. (7) Congested areas and physical layout of each airport in the terminal area in which the pilot will operate. (8) Notices to Airmen. §121.445 Pilot in command airport qualification: Special areas and airports. (a) The Administrator may determine that certain airports (due to items such as surrounding terrain, obstructions, or complex approach or departure procedures) are special airports requiring special airport qualifications and that certain areas or routes, or both, require a special type of navigation qualification. (b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no certificate holder may use any person, nor may any person serve, as pilot in command to or from an airport determined to require special airport qualifications unless, within the preceding 12 calendar months: (1) The pilot in command or second in command has made an entry to that airport (including a takeoff and landing) while serving as a pilot flight crewmember; or (2) The pilot in command has qualified by using pictorial means acceptable to the Administrator for that airport. (c) Paragraph (b) of this section does not apply when an entry to that airport (including a takeoff or a landing) is being made if the ceiling at that airport is at least 1,000 feet above the lowest MEA or MOCA, or initial approach altitude prescribed for the instrument approach procedure for that airport, and the visibility at that airport is at least 3 miles. (d) No certificate holder may use any person, nor may any person serve, as pilot in command between terminals over a route or area that requires a special type of navigation qualification unless, within the preceding 12 calendar months, that person has demonstrated qualification on the applicable navigation system in a manner acceptable to the Administrator, by one of the following methods: (1) By flying over a route or area as pilot in command using the applicable special type of navigation system. (2) By flying over a route or area as pilot in command under the supervision of a check airman using the special type of navigation system. (3) By completing the training program requirements of appendix G of this part. |
I doubt aterpster was referring to 121.443 which simply says the company has to provide you with all the charts, weather and other info you need for the airport you're assigned to fly to that day. This is true of any flight operation, even private, except the part about the company providing.
I think aterpster was just spouting off random stuff and doesn't understand the regulations this flight was operating under. It has nothing to do with what they might or might not do in the UK or anywhere else. I know the basic rules for landing on the correct runway at the correct airport quite well. I lived under those rules for 27 years, and they remain unchanged. I take issue with people arrogantly judging others especially when they don't seem to know what they're talking about themselves. A pilot who believes they are above making mistakes is the most dangerous kind. Anytime there is an accident or an incident, rules and procedures are adjusted and tweaked. They almost certainly will be in this case. This will cause more than just a "new memo" being generated. |
lifeafteraviation:
I take issue with people arrogantly judging others especially when they don't seem to know what they're talking about themselves. A pilot who believes they are above making mistakes is the most dangerous kind. If an airline pilots uses all the tools he is supposed to use he/she simply will not land at the wrong airport. What these folks did is inexcusable. You want to give them a pass, fine by me. That's what these forums are about. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 21:06. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.