A Real Discussion About the Dreamlifter Accidental Landing
- Thread starter Mike Wise
- Start date
Roger Roger
Bottom of the list
Regarding the beacon, I know when I've been trying to pick out a field in city lights I'd often look for the beacon but if I had runway and approach lights in sight early I could easily not notice that the beacon was the wrong one.
DE727UPS
Well-Known Member
At night, when you're cleared for a visual, it's easy to buy off on the first runway you see and just put the plane there. I almost did it once going into RFD at night. Saw a runway and called the airport in sight. Was given a visual to 7.. Had 7 backed up on the instruments but was working hard to get lined up on final and configured, so never noticed the instruments were not agreeing with the runway. At about 1000 feet ATC says we lined up on 1 instead of 7, oh well, cleared to land on 1. From the angle we were coming in, the first runway we saw was 1, so we went for it and were too busy to notice the instruments were telling us we were wrong.
It would be nice if ATC could have saved the day with the Dreamlifter. There was probably some complacency all the way around but it's not ATC's job to fly the plane. Specifically, with respect to a civillian beacon vs a military beacon question. They are very close to the same at night and pretty difficult to tell between the two. I fly at night a lot and runway lights and airport lights tend to blend in with the background. Surely McConnell had way brighter lights but you look over that way and you might just think it's part of the city. Really, the best thing to do at night is not do visuals. Always take ATC vectors to final and fly an instrument approach.
It would be nice if ATC could have saved the day with the Dreamlifter. There was probably some complacency all the way around but it's not ATC's job to fly the plane. Specifically, with respect to a civillian beacon vs a military beacon question. They are very close to the same at night and pretty difficult to tell between the two. I fly at night a lot and runway lights and airport lights tend to blend in with the background. Surely McConnell had way brighter lights but you look over that way and you might just think it's part of the city. Really, the best thing to do at night is not do visuals. Always take ATC vectors to final and fly an instrument approach.
SFCC/UND
Well-Known Member
When you do instrument training, ALWAYS ALWAYS put your ils freq in regardless. Unless the whole ils is inop, but never had that happen yet. Even if it is a clear sunny day and you are going to do visual approach. Put the ils freq in and use it as a back up.
Not ATCs job at all to fly anyone's plane. That's why I noted in another post that my question of ATC involvement is a secondary or tertiary factor; because at the end of the day, it's still the crew's responsibility to land their plane at the correct field. Im only asking questions, rhetorically, that I would ask if I were investigating this case for whatever reason. I don't have the answers to my own questions, as I wasn't there and am not privy to investigative findings with this incident, so I simply pose the questions.
I only fly at night anymore. It's just the time when Im on shift. And from my own experience, airport beacons vary from low intensity to high intensity, and everything in between. My question stems from what the crew saw (or didn't see) from many miles out [broad view], as opposed to when they were closer towards the field/runway [narrow view]. As I mentioned, we're not talking mistaking one similar sized field for another similar sized field, including in overall layout; so that will be interesing to learn what the crew did or did not see at those two points in time I mention: distant vs close to the field. What did they see that convinced them that they were landing at the correct field? Will be interesting when it comes out.
It appears in the D-NOTAMs for IAB, that RW 1L/19R has been closed since September. And the ILS placed out of service for for that runway. It also appears that 1L/19R was the only runway with an ILS. So that would leave just the TACAN and the RNAV(GPS) IAP procedures available for the remaining runway (1R/19L); or in the case of a civil aircraft, just the RNAV(GPS) approaches.
Autothrust Blue
Welcome aboard the Washington State Ferries
I want to know about "not in sight" and what the weather was - and if the MIL ATCT had the incident aircraft in sight. Because when a tower controller tells me "Not in sight, cleared to land (I guess)" it gets my attention.
Incidentally, I've been to BEC and ICT during the day. "Right on top of each other" doesn't even begin to describe the proximity of all of those airports there. The proximity there makes CMA-OXR look positively long haul.
Not sure if you're current airline, but backing up ANY visual approach with ANY AVAILABLE electronic means is given work at most if not all airlines.
But not really.
I would classify "right on top of each other" as something like ELP and BIF, or even as a stretch, TUS and DMA (about 1 mile and 4 miles as the crow flies, respectively, from one another). IAB and AAO being over 9 miles from each other, is more difficult to classify as "right on top of each other".
Ayork62493
GBR
I remember going into ELP and tower specifically mentioning how close the two airports were and that "our" airport was going to be at our left.
Cal Goat
Prestige Worldwide™
Another interesting consideration is what a professional crew might brief in such a situation. I've flown to a couple of places with airports that are unfortunately close and in the professional 91, 135 and 121 crew environments that I've flown in, it seems like that is something you brief: "Hey, let's be careful for this nearly identical runway that's over here."
I'm still trying to get the full picture on this one but it seems like these airports are not even close enough to brief. Maybe I'm not seeing it for what it really is geographically, but then maybe an experienced 747 crew thought that those smaller runways, however near, weren't a threat to their operation.
genot
Well-Known Member
I tried to post this to the original thread before it closed.
As far as the ATC perspective goes from someone who has never worked a tower and has only a glance at the chart to familiarize myself with the area and a cursory listen to the audio starting from Check Wheels Down from the tower.
I'm not trying to absolve the controllers from blame, much like many experienced pilots here are cautioning others to not hang the crew or cop the attitude of that would never happen to me. It clearly can happen to anyone.
With all those disclaimers, I can imagine a scenario where this easily happens. I'm under the impression that this occurred around midnight. I'm assuming RADAR was combined up in the cab with one controller working. If I'm solo and busy (and lets be fair, I've had 8 hours between shifts) and the plane is on final, no LALA's alarming since you're on an actual final, well, I've already cleared you, you see the field, your mode C readout takes a backseat to my scan out the cab and separating traffic I'm talking to on the CTRD. I'm not saying its acceptable, but it is a possible scenario.
The audio being compressed leaves a lot to be desired as far as the tower goes. If approach cleared them for the visual 20 miles out, shipped them to tower right after and that is when the landing clearance was issued, well, satellite tower controllers tend to focus on the windows and not the CTRD. Its not uncommon to flash a Skyhawk 30 miles away, wait till they are 7 mile final before punching up the line and saying, "hey inbound......" It could have easily gone, cleared to land, cut to the plane SHOULD have been just coming into view in 8 or so SM vis and then you get the, uhhh we're not where we should be call.
I don't think this was a scenario where tower was conducting training. As an OJTI you don't key up and identify yourself as a Supervisor. The supervisor sounded like a slightly freaked out junior NCO (SSGT?).
As far as the ATC perspective goes from someone who has never worked a tower and has only a glance at the chart to familiarize myself with the area and a cursory listen to the audio starting from Check Wheels Down from the tower.
I'm not trying to absolve the controllers from blame, much like many experienced pilots here are cautioning others to not hang the crew or cop the attitude of that would never happen to me. It clearly can happen to anyone.
With all those disclaimers, I can imagine a scenario where this easily happens. I'm under the impression that this occurred around midnight. I'm assuming RADAR was combined up in the cab with one controller working. If I'm solo and busy (and lets be fair, I've had 8 hours between shifts) and the plane is on final, no LALA's alarming since you're on an actual final, well, I've already cleared you, you see the field, your mode C readout takes a backseat to my scan out the cab and separating traffic I'm talking to on the CTRD. I'm not saying its acceptable, but it is a possible scenario.
The audio being compressed leaves a lot to be desired as far as the tower goes. If approach cleared them for the visual 20 miles out, shipped them to tower right after and that is when the landing clearance was issued, well, satellite tower controllers tend to focus on the windows and not the CTRD. Its not uncommon to flash a Skyhawk 30 miles away, wait till they are 7 mile final before punching up the line and saying, "hey inbound......" It could have easily gone, cleared to land, cut to the plane SHOULD have been just coming into view in 8 or so SM vis and then you get the, uhhh we're not where we should be call.
I don't think this was a scenario where tower was conducting training. As an OJTI you don't key up and identify yourself as a Supervisor. The supervisor sounded like a slightly freaked out junior NCO (SSGT?).
Definitely a good question. And as it pertains to this crew on this flight, that would all obviously be on the CVR regarding what was or was not briefed, and whether the crew considered it a factor or not. This, of course, is also part and parcel from whether or not the crew was operating in a fatigued state or not, and to what degree or not; and if so, what effect that may have had. I would be interested to hear the ATC comm, in order to try and gauge what the crews SA level may or may not have been [do they sound like all is good to go, or is there a silent question mark in their responses to ATC], and potential fatigue level [did ATC have to repeat instructions, does the crew correctly readback and excute instructions].
Tommay85
Well-Known Member
I've been to ICT more than I care to admit. I really don't think anyone of those airports are close enough or similar enough looking to mistake them for one another honestly. This from the /U 210 days. Or in other words, don't call something in sight unless you actually have the damn thing in sight. I know of many princesses that want to be cute and call things in sight ASAP at all levels of experience and hours.
That being said, fatigue is a bish... So are all the other human factors uhhh, factors.
That being said, fatigue is a bish... So are all the other human factors uhhh, factors.
A150K
Well-Known Member
It's nice to be able to do that, but the majority of runways in the country lack an ILS. That being said, at my corperate gig, anytime I'm going into an unfamiliar field that has an approach to my intended runway, I load that approach into the 430 for the added situational awareness.
Good perspective to add here.
No blame being place here on anyone, nor any judgements. Just questions from a safety standpoint, and ancilliary discussion on similar scenarios. As facts come out and can be confirmed, then more solid discussion can take place, as Martin alluded to earlier.
Is ICT TRACON co-located with IAB? I ask because TUS TRACON is actually at DMA, the Air Force base, though not co-located with DMA tower.
Should be no big deal. The Dreamlifter was based here at MZJ for a long time, and would takeoff and land from its runway with no problem (6,800'). So long as the runway had the load bearing capacity, it shouldn't be an issue. Sounds like they kept the cargo onboard, and likely minimal required fuel to reposition to IAB?
The only thing I'll add to this is they never called the field in site per the atc recordings. They stated they were established on the RNAV and that was all, landed at the wrong place. They very well may have seen an airport and proceeded visually without regard to the instrumentation but they were never cleared a visual approach.