Trusting and flying HUD for Cat II and Cat III but not for IMC Cat I and NPA is like not showing threw the windshield during visual approach and VMC (Asiana214).

Surely the conversation had not his place in SFO final, and during a check flight, but that is not the cause of not showing threw the windshield!!

It seems that many today's airlines' instructors never taught basic flight and are themselves not aware of basic flying knowledge importance.

Design of modern FBW is denying that importance too.

At AA the HUD is required for every takeoff and landing, VMC or IMC.

galaxy flyer
 

Scouring the internet, unable to find the cited statement.

gf -- would you please provide a link?

Sorry, I didn't copy it here, but here it is. I've got a miserable cold.

Hersman on SW incident--The Hill Blog

Luck has run out
 

Mea culpa. Post, by yours truly, trying to define or delineate a separation between factors factual in nature on the one hand, and factors called 'luck' or good 'fortune' that are products of random chance on the other hand, has rightfully been scorned as sophomoric and otherwise subjected to ridicule. Deservedly so, I see.
I wonder what the probability calculation would be if one took scheduled passenger service airports in the continental US, then identified those which have proximity to another airfield which could, by luck, chance or mistake, be mistaken for the correct airport - - in situations akin to the SWA incident discussed in this thread and/or the recent Dreamlifter incident -- and then let us assume that the approach has been flown such that the touchdown point is comparable (relative to percentage of lineal distance of straight-line concrete in front of the pointy end of the aircraft). Given the set of 'correct airports in scheduled airline service' matched with airfields which hold some likelihood of being mistaken for the correct ones, what is the probability that runway length at the incorrect airfield will be inadequate? Adequate only with full-on braking? This type of probabilistic assessment was what I was trying to articulate before. Anyway. By the (air)way, no one ever has heard of a U S Navy jet jockey landing on the wrong aircraft carrier flight deck, have they? Makes me wonder...

Willow Run,

Oh, yes they have. In the IO, during the Iranian "Hostage Crisis" an F-14 landed on the wrong ship.

A two-ship, led by a visiting HQ pilot, launched into the haze, flew its mission and returned to "a" ship. The visiting pilot mis-identified CV-64, the Constellation, for the one they left. Being a "visiting" pilot, filling the square of being "the troops" he wasn't very current. To the break they flew, on downwind, neither crew noted the error. Visiting pilot got a wave-off, at which point his RIO noted the wrong number on the island, informed said pilot "wrong ship, xxxxhead". Off they went to the right ship. Poor wingee didn't catch the number at the 90, being well practiced, he trapped. Instantly, the deck crew figured it out, as did the wayward Tomcat crew. Taken to the brig for the night, a ransom demand of ice cream was made. Next day, a helo dropped off a load of ice cream, the -14 and crew launched off, thoroughly zapped and that's the end.

My brother was pre-flighting his Tomcat when it happened, but I'm sure there are others.

Mea Culpa
 

Appreciated. Lets see if "West coast" has the "vis et honor" to do the same.

Sorry, nothing along those lines.

Sorry - is very much along those lines West coast. Well done you too! Wouldn't want you to be the last man standing still thinking they weren't lucky... I have discounted Ancient Geek at this stage.

Heck, it could have been an approach to a grass strip with lights.
At night, you wouldn't know visually until in real close.:}

OK465

Good examples. I'm not sure if I do it out of habit or if its a learned thing, but I report both DM and TUS is sight when planning the visual. Same for Rapid City and the nearby AFB.

Utrinque

I make my share of mistakes. They haven't gotten me on the front page, or more importantly caused damage to the aircraft or injured passengers/crew. I hope to learn the inside scoop about SWA, not because I want to see them hung out but rather so I can figure out the chain of events that allowed an experienced, likely competent crew to land at the wrong airport.

Galaxy Flyer,
The article you posted was dated 17 January, so Hershman obviously did not say it today.
The article only says that they are looking into whether there were improper discussions in the cockpit. Of course, they would check the CVR for sterile cockpit violations whether or not a there was a third person.
Since we haven't heard anymore about it, I'm guessing the NTSB didn't find anything on the CVR.

Is this the NTSB or rumour-mongers.org? How many other "possibilities" is it investigating but not telling us? Perhaps she should take the advice of some Pruners; keep her mouth closed until she issues the report...

She's been to rodeo before, I'm sure there is more to the story. I'm guessing it's on the tape, the possibility the Board is investigating is HOW much the non-pertinent words affected the flight. This wouldn't have been said, if there was nothing to it. What, the Board Chair offers this up, then the report doesn't cite non-pertinent conversation and the transcript doesn't show it? I don't think so.

That speculation given, yes, being quiet would be better.

a matter of grammar
 

three guys in the cockpit of a modern airliner. its night time. none of them have been to "THE" airport at night.

ATC says: Airport 12 o'clock and 14 miles, advise in sight for visual approach


Old game: Who sees airport first?

Captain doesn't want to look upstaged by copilot.

Copilot knows he should be captain.

Jumpseater knows he is a dispatcher but feels the urge to be alpha male.

LOOK says someone (anyone) THERE IS THE AIRPORT.


EVERYONE CHIMES IN : I JUST GOT IT TOO.

NOW everyone feels good about their prowess at sighting airports.


BUT, anytime you see THE AIRPORT. SAY THE WORDS: I SEE "AN" AIRPORT.

KEYWORD "AN" . YOU are now top dog seeing "AN" airport and a SMART PILOT for leaving positive identification to other means.


HOW do you identify an airport?


(for some reason I am reminded of "I LOVE LUCY" and the words: "HELLO BALL", but I digress).


Before radio and any navigation but pilotage, a pilot would fly over an airport and hope to read the name of the airport on a hangar or painted on the taxiway. In the film, "THE SPIRIT OF ST LOUIS" Lindbergh flys over Le Bourget and can read it on the hangar roof.

Years later, many airports had NDB/LOM which would help identify the correct airport. Provided you knew how to identify the NDB/LOM with morse code.


VORs, ILS, RNAV, GPS, IRS, NOW, GPA , MADD (the last three are national organization (for)women, grade point average, mothers against drunk driving).

But we are in a hurry in flying now. Every minute counts. HOW much? What, about 50 bucks a minute or more? You tell me.

So we don't fly over a field and read the name. And all those fancy gadgets are nice, but I SEE THE AIRPORT. THE AIRPORT "THE " airport.

So never say, "THE". Say, "AN" and then confirm it. Confirm it a couple of ways if you can.

That's pretty good, Glenda. What a difference a word could make... :D

Wonderful post! *hitting the "like" button* what a difference "an" and "the" can make. Yet, as well informed and well written your post is...what if it wasn't ego or alpha male issues, but just 3 tired people working hard, together, as a team, to "get there"? Just as likely imho.

glendalegoon
 

Odd this is

bloggs and deptrai: thanks. You guys ''get it". You can , with the use of one word remind everyone that the job ain't over till you're at the right gate with the parking brake set.

Blogg, to be sure, I am glendalegoon as in GLENDALE (CA) and GOON, not glenda.

OK465:OK. I encourage you to watch many golf related sitcoms including lucy and perfect strangers. and don't do a mashie.

AS far as playing the airport game. I think you just didn't know you were playing it. There are so many ego related things in the cockpit (laugh when you hear someone say they check their ego at the cockpit door), you probably haven't noticed them.

Rozy1. Even as we speak our airline is taking delivery of more new tech HUD equipped planes. But our earliest HUD equipped planes (MD80) only used HUD for low vis landings. It is all about technology. You would have to be in aviation for quite awhile to see the old HUD devices.

GG: Ref choice of words. Reminds me of the change from PNF to PM. Redefining the job description without redefining the job (the guy/gal not flying should always monitor, regardless of their title). Whatever works for you...as long as you don't screw the pooch.

I would rather select the FAF or straight-in IAF for an approach to a familiar or unfamiliar airport, day or night, and use that as a confirming reference for intercepting final to the correct airport. Especially important at night...

Glendalegood - Excellent post. Here's another trap that I have come across a few times:

APP: XYZ123, field is at 2 o'clock 15 miles.
PNF looks out the window: XYZ123, field in sight.
APP: XYZ123, cleared visual approach.
PF: Wait, what? Where is it?

Let's at least make sure I can see AN airport, and preferably THE airport before WE call it in sight.

Ending up somwhere other than where they thought they were doesn't constitute a navigation error?

Interesting argument.

they were used with cat iii autoland

and yes I remember when 727's for a certain airline with a face on the tail allowing for hand flown landings.

You are saying that currently the HUD is used for lower than CATI. There was no mention of the past or MD80s.

So why aren't they now being used for other phases such as low vis takeoffs or visual approaches?

Let me clarify for you rozy. My airline has gone through 3 mergers recently.

Some planes from some part of the combined new airline are equipped with new HUDS.

Others have been retired with older huds. OUR OPS SPECS for the older planes (and they are the only planes with HUDS on our ops specs since our mergers have not been completed to the point of the operations side) req'd the use of HUDS for the approaches I've mentioned.

Now, I can understand if this is a bit too complicated to really understand. We basically have three airlines, now all called the same name, but three different pilot contracts, different OPS SPECS, different Planes and equipment.

IF Southwest uses their HUD for everything. Great. OUr old ops specs didn't allow for this.

I am offering this as southwest may not have used their hud to land at the wrong airport.

DO YOU know if the HUD is always used at airports without ILS by southwest?

We currently do hand flown CATIII with the HUD, 737-8.

The HGS at WN can be used for any phase of flight, any airport. The use is only mandated for CATII or III or takeoff below 400 RVR.

The HUD is required for takeoff and landing at Alaska Airlines in the -800, -900, and -900ER because it provides symbology to help avoid tail strikes. It is encourage or at least not discouraged for all other models. We also use the HGS for Low visibility ops in conjunction with the auto land system. Either or both can be used for low vis ops. But auto land used with the HGS gives us the lowest minimums which vary by airport.

The HUD is left side only in the 737, or?

The HUD (HGS) is only on the left side of SWA 737.

Thanks jpjp, someone correct me if wrong, but I seem to recall that HUDs are only certified on the LH side in B737s. So according to Alaska procedure, the Capt either needs to do all takeoffs/landings in -800/-900 or monitor them throught the HUD? Kinda awkward? Or maybe not. Never used a HUD.

I found this article in the Las Vegas Review journal today. Thought it was pertinent to this thread.

The last sentence of the article especially tickled a little :rolleyes:

Report: Pilots often head to wrong airports | Las Vegas Review-Journal

Why... it was written by a reporter, and the alleged quote from the captain is just that.

The crew quotes in the AP article seem to all come from anonymous NASA reports. The idea is that you will candidly share your misadventure with others and help prevent future mistakes. As an incentive, you are offered some protection from FAA enforcement actions:

ASRS - Aviation Safety Reporting System

The anonymity is very questionable in the case of a major incident like the Southwest landing at PLK. News crews have harvested new details of a mishap from NASA reports and used 'sources have told Eyewitness News' to cover their tracks. The union safety folks always say file ASAP and NASA reports, 'it will protect you'. However in a couple of cases I'm familiar with the crew felt like details given in voluntary submissions were used to generate additional lines of attack from the feds.

Happens too often.

[url=http://www.independent.ie/world-news/pilots-landing-gaffes-29996934.html]Pilots' landing gaffes - Independent.ie[/url

Runway condition is also a worry when a plane makes a mistaken approach. When an air traffic controller clears a plane to land on a specific runway, “you know you pretty much have a clear shot at a couple of miles of smooth concrete,” said Rory Kay, a training captain at a major airline. “If you choose to land somewhere else, then all bets are off. There could be a bloody big hole in the middle of the runway. There could be a barrier across it. There could be vehicles working on it.” ....Lucky.