Pilots often head to wrong airports, reports show

[PeanuckleCRJ]

I'll buy the breakdown in CRM for sure. But the common link in a lot of these is "oh, hey look, a runway! Let's go visual!"

I just came out of AQP, as in TODAY. There was a lot of discussion about "being careful on a visual approach. This is what we have been seeing lately.". Even going so far as to show a few videos, and setting us up in the Sim for a scenario where we could make the wrong choice and point at the wrong airport. We, as humans, tend to disregard perceived instrument "failures" because "the runway is right there.". And we are also a heard/pack animal, that once one see it, the other may agree if unsure.

I'm not trying to discount a breakdown of CRM, but I feel like you are trying to disassemble the link that is undeniable in a visual approach.

The lure of "OH LOOK! There is the runway" can be pretty big. It can quickly lead to *bloup bloup bloup* "That was me, autopilot off, I'm going to hand fly the visual.". Then, "why don't the instruments agree? They must be wrong, because I am super pilot and can see the damn runway!"

You just outlined exactly why this is 100% a CRM/TEM issue.

 

[derg]

You just outlined exactly why this is 100% a CRM/TEM issue.

Correcto.

Even the basics of TEM makes you realize the nagging pointlessness of calling the airport in sight, except for tighter sequencing or short approaches.

30 miles out, straight in, "airport's in sight!" — you're still going to hit the 3:1 and fly a glidepath/slope in.

 

[mshunter]

You just outlined exactly why this is 100% a CRM/TEM issue.

And the trap that a visual approach can play in its breakdown.

 

[PeanuckleCRJ]

And the trap that a visual approach can play in its breakdown.

Yep, it's all about being intentional and continuing vertical/lateral crosscheck and verification even when you've clicked it all off. No matter what approach you're on, that aspect should never change.

 

[mshunter]

Yep, it's all about being intentional and continuing vertical/lateral crosscheck and verification even when you've clicked it all off. No matter what approach you're on, that aspect should never change.

Agreed. But would you also agree that if two pilots see a runway, and interpret the data being presented incorrect, can and is happening?

 

[PeanuckleCRJ]

Agreed. But would you also agree that if two pilots see a runway, and interpret the data being presented incorrect, can and is happening?

Hence the threat and error management aspect of it. Is the GPS and/or electronic guidance giving you verified info? Look at your distance from the field, are you on the 3:1 path you're aiming for and does that match? If I'm doing a visual approach, I always draw a 3 mile circle on the ND around the threshold of the runway I'm landing on. That's your 900 foot check.

If you've got good data, and the vertical profile is off and what you see does not match the picture on the ND, the problem is probably you're looking at the wrong trip of pavement. That cross check works 100% of the time without fail.

We've all bitten off on the wrong piece of pavement before, but the error management process is what fixes it 99.999+% of the time.

 

[Houston]

Atlas was cleared for the RNAV approach.

That's correct. That is why neither I nor the statistics (that I saw earlier and can't find now) said that 100% of all wrong airport landings were when they were conducting a visual approach.

 

[Houston]

It is no surprise that you want to break it down to 'it is the visual approach' because those you work with want to do the same thing. Blame it on the individual pilots, instead of working to find the systemic problems.

You have a very active imagination.

 

[Houston]

There was a lot of discussion about "being careful on a visual approach.

Very sound guidance.

 

[Cal Goat]

I've landed at the wrong airport literally dozens of times, but only after I tried to land at the correct airport first and couldn't for whatever reason.