Or maybe?
 

Maybe the F/O has never upgraded?

My Thoughts
 

I'll probably get flamed, but here are my thoughts.

If this was my first trip into Branson, even running 5 hours late, I think I would have at the very least, gone direct to VUCUG on the RNAV approach.

That would give a great reference point for configuration at 5.2 miles from the runway at 1,700 AGL

Just my $.02

Might help landing at the right airport.
Something that has failed twice recently.
Even BA at Johannesburg could have used a little navigational help (in 500 feet take a slight left)

More likely spent most of his flying time on regionals, military, etc and recently moved up to 737 .

They made a mistake and picked out the wrong runway lights. This has happened many times before. Using modern
GPS nav it doesn't happen much now. This is an eye opener with all the new stuff to use it and extend centerlines like we couldn't in the past. We were happy with the old way but the new way should prevent this from happening.

@Ancient Geek
 

Probably not military as they don't build much time. Maybe the regionals, as you say, and possibly GA instruction.

I looked at the thread about the SW accident at KLGA where the captain landed on the nose gear, and saw that she had been with SW for 13 years (as of July 2013).

That would put this flight's F/O in the mix for an upgrade about now, if he so chose.

There are pilots who simply choose to not upgrade, (for bidding) and some that just cannot, but function well in support positions.

Does anyone here know what the latest is on Southwest's flight deck setup?
I know they were very archaic with their cockpit setups still using the old six pack with no auto throttle and no VNAV in a brand new LCD equipped aeroplane.

Has any of that changed? If not the FAA is going to have to step in and drag them into the 21st century.

Given most aeroplanes built since the 80's have LNAV/VNAV to the runway I don't understand how these guys couldn't have found the strip.

I am assuming they had no reference DME or FMC distance or runway plugged into the FMC. I just don't get how with all the data in front of you could miss the runway.

If however none of that is used and they're still hanging onto the old school dials then it's pretty easy to have the incident they had.

@Neville
 

It's been a long time since I flew the BBJ (737-700/800), but had training at FSI Boeing using the SW cockpit.

The only things that were round dial were the engine instruments, and those were on one of the displays, not actual round gauges.

Autothrottle was used. We did a lot of VNAV training.

The FMS and map displays were the "standard" depictions with moving maps, etc.

As I recall, one of the first things we learned was how to make an extended centerline.

I'm with Bubbers44. They had a lot of information available.

This is the sort of thing I was referring to. It was so they could have a common fleet setup with the older gen 737.

Photos: Boeing 737-7H4 Aircraft Pictures | !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There are photos on there from 2010 still with the old setup.

Correct
 

You are correct. That is a great picture.

It also shows some of the tools they had available.

Ok, I give up, what's with all the round dials on the PFD and the ND?

Round Dials
 

As I remember, when SW was getting the 737NG, they were still operating a lot of the classics, and wanted their cockpits to look the same (dial-wise)

Their classics are the old six pack too not the hybrid glass setup.

They are often blamed for the appalling setup of the B737NG cockpit because they insisted on the 737 being common rated from the 300 to 900. I believe Boeing wanted the 737NG to be similar cockpit to the 777.

acroguy----yes if you had a runway approach selected already and you didn't touch the FM/FMC it would still show the Runway and waypoints on the approach, the only problem comes if they didn't sequence correctly and you subsequently carry out a missed approach and select NAV/LNAV........oops.

Other than that the Map will still show you the Runway correctly, so if they had programmed a RWY before and not cleared it ( why would they ? ) then all they had to do was look at the Map and say "ahhhhh how come the runway we want is 5 nm away over there?????? Map shift?????? No we have 2 GPS's Mmmmmmmm bugga"

It becomes more damming! Captain had not been there before. The FO been there once in the daytime. They are informed that they are 15 miles away from the airport by ATC. Despite all of this neither pilot raised any concern about suddenly accepting a visual. TEM at an all time low. One runway is 45 meters wide the other 30 meters. Anyone who has landed on both will know the pictures are hugely different day or night. Did they even know the runway width? Probably not, as per Capt Bloggs et al, they would not have briefed anything. SA also at all time low.

This seems to be getting to the point where one has to think about how runways are lighted. Maybe there is some way to indicate runway length by lighting. From 5-10 miles out at 5000 feet I'm pretty sure the difference between 3500 and 7000 feet is hard to see if the runways are similarly lighted.

"Slope"....

Irrespective of length if you found yourself in the flare expecting a 45 meter runway and seeing a 30 meter one .. you would go around wouldn't you. These guys had no idea what to expect.

oops 3000 :)

So how to indicate runway length by lighting? Something that says "This ain't a commercial grade runway fellas..." Maybe just put a lighted digit on it divided by 1000.