Seriously people, it isn't that hard

I have had zero problems with SLC and I go there a lot. Always get 17 or 35.

On topic, it can happen to anyone who doesn't take measures to prevent it. I got a visual into Spokane and had started lining up on the AFB. Realized it because things weren't lining up with the visual we had set up in the FMS and luckily caught it in time to correct and land on the right piece of pavement. Take as many steps as you can to prevent yourself from goofing up.
What if you're fatigued or otherwise distracted and don't know it?

I highly doubt any of the higher profile wrong runway/airport landings weren't doing exactly what you mentioned. Everyone has buttons that can be pushed...

I'm not saying we should throw our hands in the air and say there isn't a solution, but it's still happening, and doesn't appear to be air carrier or experience level specific on the surface. Only said air carriers would have any kind of common data point, if one exists. If it does, please share! :)
 
What if you're fatigued or otherwise distracted and don't know it?

I highly doubt any of the higher profile wrong runway/airport landings weren't doing exactly what you mentioned. Everyone has buttons that can be pushed...

I'm not saying we should throw our hands in the air and say there isn't a solution, but it's still happening, and doesn't appear to be air carrier or experience level specific on the surface. Only said air carriers would have any kind of common data point, if one exists. If it does, please share! :)
Complacency. It is a FAR requirement for 121 ops to use a navigational aid as backup. Because it's a FAR, it's in every airlines SOP/FOM. It's also a FAR to be fit for duty. And with 117 it's not "am I fit now?" it's "will I be fit during flight?" So the fatigued and didn't know it is out the window.

(In no way am I saying the crew wasn't fatigued. I know absolutely zero, zilch, none, nada, nein about the circumstances here. More of a "what leg do you have to stand on?" with the company/FAA?)
 
What if you're fatigued or otherwise distracted and don't know it?

I highly doubt any of the higher profile wrong runway/airport landings weren't doing exactly what you mentioned. Everyone has buttons that can be pushed...

I'm not saying we should throw our hands in the air and say there isn't a solution, but it's still happening, and doesn't appear to be air carrier or experience level specific on the surface. Only said air carriers would have any kind of common data point, if one exists. If it does, please share! :)
Oh I'm with you. Not casting judgement here. Sometimes you can do everything right and still be human. My point was, as I'm sure we'd all agree, to take as many preventative steps as possible to keep the human factor from rearing its ugly head.
 
Complacency. It is a FAR requirement for 121 ops to use a navigational aid as backup. Because it's a FAR, it's in every airlines SOP/FOM. It's also a FAR to be fit for duty. And with 117 it's not "am I fit now?" it's "will I be fit during flight?" So the fatigued and didn't know it is out the window.

(In no way am I saying the crew wasn't fatigued. I know absolutely zero, zilch, none, nada, nein about the circumstances here. More of a "what leg do you have to stand on?" with the company/FAA?)
It's the same policy where I currently work; part 135 single pilot/crew (depending on the plane) freight trash.

117 is another debate and I don't have any experience operating under those rest rules to really have an opinion. If that really throws fatigue out of the window, great!
 
It's the same policy where I currently work; part 135 single pilot/crew (depending on the plane) freight trash.

117 is another debate and I don't have any experience operating under those rest rules to really have an opinion. If that really throws fatigue out of the window, great!
Like I said, in no way was I saying the crew wasn't fatigued. With the whole "fatigued out the window" bit was more along the lines of: created from science, reviewed by pilots, and written by lawyers.

It was a legitimate statement, and question which I didn't punctuate properly, in that with 117 now, and having to be fit for duty for the duration of the flight, the crew couldn't blame fatigue. 117 certainly doesn't mean one can't be fatigued. MY interpretation is that it is much harder for the crew to blame an incident on fatigue now.

It used to be: are you fatigued? No. Go. Why did you land at the wrong airport? I became fatigued in flight. Now it's: are you fatigued? No. Will you be? Ummmm. Why did you land at the wrong airport? I became fatigued in flight. Why did you takeoff then? That's up to the individual/crew.
 
Last edited:
So even "tier 1" pilots make mistakes??? I wonder if those pilots finished their degrees in four years? Or if they had at least a 3.75 gpa? Not poking fun, just pointing out even the daddy of all airlines is not immune to these whoopsie daisies as we are all Human!!
Eh, I don't know if anyone would call any carrier the end all be all of the best ability in the industry. Delta is probably the big daddy of guys most would rather spend 4 days or more with on a trip during normal operations though. Which might be an environment that would be more likely to be a success in an outside the book, life or death emergency. I'm not sure anyone has data backing that, but during normal ops, yeah, I'd rather fly with someone I get along with (most days) over someone that isn't very pleasant to fly with but have incredible machinery interaction skills when poop his the fan (less likely). I suppose it's possible to have both skills of course... :) No one has the corner of the market on that though
 
Last edited:
Like I said, in no way was I saying the crew wasn't fatigued. With the whole "fatigued out the window" bit was more along the lines of: created from science, reviewed by pilots, and written by lawyers.

It was a legitimate statement, and question which I didn't punctuate properly, in that with 117 now, and having to be fit for duty for the duration of the flight, the crew couldn't blame fatigue. 117 certainly doesn't mean one can't be fatigued. MY interpretation is that it is much harder for the crew to blame an incident on fatigue now.

It used to be: are you fatigued? No. Go. Why did you land at the wrong airport? I became fatigued in flight. Now it's: are you fatigued? No. Will you be? Ummmm. Why did you land at the wrong airport? I became fatigued in flight. Why did you takeoff then? That's up to the individual/crew.
Oh I know what you're getting at and only just now tried to glance at 117, friggen rum... :) I'm just skeptical of any official policy or FAR regarding fatigue. Your post, if anything, puts more liability on the crew under 117? I don't like that fatigue is magically "ruled out" if that's the case. I may be misunderstanding you and what I only briefly skimmed through of course. I've yet to come across anyone that's made a mistake that has said, "Well, I was tired, you shouldn't do anything about what I just messed up.".

One likely knows if they did or didn't sleep well, maybe, and if aware, shouldn't be flying, agreed. I've seen it first hand, during a frustrating day, particularly with ACP crap piled on on the side that I've thought I had handled or said "screw it, I'll deal with it tomorrow", but was found to still be distracting and even fatiguing looking back after a flight that became a little hairy. My day is only 11 hours long on a fixed 5 day work week, same hours every day. I'm getting specific here, but Venezuela days are particularly dangerous for me. I purposefully try to not do ANY management duties on those days, but sometimes things creep in in the morning without me necessarily realizing. It's become better over time, but yes, outside factors still affect your performance. Maybe it's not fatigue necessarily.

All I'm getting at is that fatigue or other distractions can still creep up and everyone has their buttons that can be pushed to screw up almost anything.
 
"Report airport in sight" just means that "I'm tired of controlling you, take over responsibility for separation, wake turbulence avoidance and vectoring, AMMA hafta scratch my nether regions and I gotta step back from the scope for a second" :)

My rant is over, I'll check out the specifics of this event.

Well in our defense when you've been sittin on your ass for 8 hours trying to save y'all from yourselves sometimes the hemmerhoids start acting up and require attention.
 
Complacency. It is a FAR requirement for 121 ops to use a navigational aid as backup. Because it's a FAR, it's in every airlines SOP/FOM. It's also a FAR to be fit for duty. And with 117 it's not "am I fit now?" it's "will I be fit during flight?" So the fatigued and didn't know it is out the window.

(In no way am I saying the crew wasn't fatigued. I know absolutely zero, zilch, none, nada, nein about the circumstances here. More of a "what leg do you have to stand on?" with the company/FAA?)

If it is I've never seen the requirement and I'll state for the record I've done many visuals in 121 without backup of a navaid. Or are we talking about something as simple as having a runway selected in the box with a 5-mile line? Do you have a reference?

When executing a visual approach, the Flight Crew should utilize any published approach procedure for the runway of intended landing as a backup for the visual procedure. Additionally, the Crew should use all navigational aids, including radar, to the extent they are available.

Should != Shall

If the airport does not have a usable instrument approach for the runway of landing, night visual approaches are prohibited unless there is an operable Visual Approach Slope Indicator (VASI), Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI) installed for the particular runway.
 
Last edited:
As a newly minted PPL I took a buddy for a short trip from Burbank to Palomar that almost ended up in Oceanside.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bp
If it is I've never seen the requirement and I'll state for the record I've done many visuals in 121 without backup of a navaid. Or are we talking about something as simple as having a runway selected in the box with a 5-mile line? Do you have a reference?



Should != Shall

Should != Shall only when there is a valid reason. Saying oh I don't feel like doing that is not a valid reason.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
 
Oh, look: more pilots that it can't happen to.

For anyone who has this thought that (about this, or any other error in judgment or airmanship), ask yourself about the experience and professionalism of all of the people this is happened to in the past.

Then think of the incredible arrogance and lack of self-awareness to say that you are incapable of making the same mistake.

Fate is the hunter, fellas. Stay frosty.
 
Meh. I'd argue against that. It's really hard, in fact impossible, to land at the wrong airport following company and FAR requirements.

It becomes easy to do when one becomes complacent. And yes, it can be really easy to become complacent. Is that what you're referring to? The complacency?

I'd argue that error is inevitable.

I look forward to your justification for perfection when we know it's not attainable.
 
The belief you can't make a mistake is the first step in making the mistake

Which is precisely what I tell Glock owners when the invariably start in with the silly, "It won't go off as long as ya keep yer booger hook off da bang switch," nonsense.

Humans err. Period. Relying solely upon a human to not err is a recipe for disaster.
 
There have been a number of these stupid stunts over the past few years. I am mind-boggled that these keep happening; Tampa, Branson, Jabara (a Dreamlifter no less) and now this one.

This one and Jabara are beyond belief based on the size of the airport, location of buildings, and the length of the runway between their goal and their landing spot. Amazing level of incompetence!!

That having been stated, we really don't know what was going on in the cockpit, there might have been an argument the entire way down.

In a "no sh.. I was there story", I was flying to Battle Creek with a VERY senior corporate Captain. As we approached the area from the west, on a assigned heading and holding a 3,000' assigned altitude, the Captain says "Airport in sight" and starts a sharp turn and descent. I tell him no less than three times that we are to hold the heading and 3,000' but he keeps on his little venture. We argue a bit about last assigned vs what he sees but in a minute we're fully configured and on a 3 mile finale. Then he yells, "The airport is right there, tell approach we need to switch to tower now!". I started to respond, but the Captain keys up and yells at approach that he was kept up too long. He says, "You need to give me an immediate switch to tower".

VERY calmly and VERY thick with sarcasm, the controller says, "YOU need to IMMEDIATELY climb BACK up to 3,000' and IMMEDIATELY turn BACK to your last assigned heading and clear Kalamazoo airspace. IMMEDIATELY"

Annnnnnd away we went..........

A few moments of out loud cussing and yelling by the Captain about "How this has never happened to me before" and "How could you just sit there and not say anything, blah, blah, blah...." But He went from mad to pissed when I laughed........he bitched at me the whole flight back home. So I guess it COULD have happened to me...........not to my certificate, but to me.

And after all that, you let him speak to you like that?

"Hey listen d-bag, I tried to tell you. But you refused to hear me."

If an argument like that happens, remove yourself from the situation. You did the right thing by trying to tell the captain. He refused to listen. Now turn it to something of a more immediate safety concern, like that recent crash into an apparent complex in Ohio.

You don't have to listen to me, but we both need to agree that things look right, and if they don't, and one refuses to double check, one of us is getting off the airplane and getting a ride home rather than providing it.

You honestly should have gotten off the airplane. Especially with what sounds like a captain with a superiority complex. I lasted 6 months at one shop like that.

"Hey, you mind if I fly a leg today?"

"What, you think because you were a CFI, you know how to fly a jet now?"

"No, I think because I have a wider range of experience than you, and I've flown a few jets, and I was hired to fly not just be a gear swinger, I should get a leg every once in a while. That's why I was hired here, because of my experience. But that's fine, you can fly them all."

I worked radios and gear for the empty leg back to base.

When we got back to base....

"Hey boss, this is my two weeks notice."

"WHAT! WHY?!"

After a long talk, and some back and forth with me, that captain, and the boss, I decided that that would be my last day. No room for that kind of attitude anywhere near an airplane. The two heads up front have to be in the game together, you should never talk down to one another, you should trust and respect that person sitting next to you, and when either the trust or respect is gone, you ahould remove yourself from the situation.
 
Back
Top