Southwest lands at wrong airport?

Boris Badenov said:
I might occasionally glance at a sectional at my current job, but when I was flying a jet? Uh, no. I mean they're in there for legal reasons, but I've never seen one that wasn't totally dusty. Let's be realistic, here. Flying around at 250 knots in a little pilot-room with a lot of switches, there's only time to do so much. I think there's maybe a bit of magical thinking going on in this thread. I'm not in any way saying that there weren't some stupid-pilot-tricks going on here...because I've no idea, and neither do you. But as a broader question of how the system works (or doesn't), 99.99% of guys flying jets aren't unfolding the sectional and looking for landmarks. The skills transfer, yes, and they're important skills to learn, but the day-to-day operation of the appliance is rather different...rather a LOT different, it turns out.
Click to expand...

Totally agree. One thing that has helped in my current job is the iPad sectional. No unfurling necessary and going into unfamiliar areas that's one of the things I look at when I have a second in cruise, or if there's time, before the flight. Maybe if shiny wiz-jet had a button in the cockpit to turn the MFD into a VFR sectional overlay?
 
gotWXdagain said:
Maybe if shiny wiz-jet had a button in the cockpit to turn the MFD into a VFR sectional overlay?
Click to expand...

Well there's no such thing as too much available information, but I think there's definitely such a thing as too much displayed information. I mean I know I'm in danger of sounding like some kind of ERAU "Human Factors" nerd here, but my experience has been that our basic skills as more likely to be atrophied than assisted by all the blinking lights and displays, each demanding our immediate attention. The best way I can think to put it is that the best way for systems to work is for them to be engineered in such a way that they help the pilot access the information he/she needs or wants, rather than sort of enforcing some designer's idea of what is relevant or ir-.

Basically, if I want the Sectional, I'll ask for it. The goal (at least as I conceive it) is for the pilots to have a mental image of where they are in three dimensional space and where everything else is (weather, terrain, etc) relative to that place. Everything which doesn't serve that end is extraneous, not to say potentially dangerous. I'm not entirely convinced that this is the logic by which most avionics engineers are proceeding.
 
Boris Badenov said:
Well there's no such thing as too much available information, but I think there's definitely such a thing as too much displayed information. I mean I know I'm in danger of sounding like some kind of ERAU "Human Factors" nerd here, but my experience has been that our basic skills as more likely to be atrophied than assisted by all the blinking lights and displays, each demanding our immediate attention. The best way I can think to put it is that the best way for systems to work is for them to be engineered in such a way that they help the pilot access the information he/she needs or wants, rather than sort of enforcing some designer's idea of what is relevant or ir-.

Basically, if I want the Sectional, I'll ask for it. The goal (at least as I conceive it) is for the pilots to have a mental image of where they are in three dimensional space and where everything else is (weather, terrain, etc) relative to that place. Everything which doesn't serve that end is extraneous, not to say potentially dangerous. I'm not entirely convinced that this is the logic by which most avionics engineers are proceeding.
Click to expand...

Again, I completely agree. I was thinking like a display mode selection on an MFD, like most are setup now. Want to see WX radar? press button for WX radar. Want to see traffic? Press button for traffic. Want to see VFR Sectional? Press button for VFR sectional.
 
gotWXdagain said:
Again, I completely agree. I was thinking like a display mode selection on an MFD, like most are setup now. Want to see WX radar? press button for WX radar. Want to see traffic? Press button for traffic. Want to see VFR Sectional? Press button for VFR sectional.
Click to expand...
That's too simple. Engineers wouldn't feel accomplished making something that makes sense to the average person.
 
gotWXdagain said:
Again, I completely agree. I was thinking like a display mode selection on an MFD, like most are setup now. Want to see WX radar? press button for WX radar. Want to see traffic? Press button for traffic. Want to see VFR Sectional? Press button for VFR sectional.
Click to expand...

Yeah that's pretty much how the MFD on our old "non-NG" PC-12 works. It's brilliant! I have a hard time figuring out how having an FMS and all the rest is necessary or useful on that airframe. But then I'm sure there were guys crying about how the four-course radio range was good enough and "if it ain't broke", etc, etc. I'm not opposed to innovation, I just think we need to pay attention to how it fits in to the larger scheme of things. You get the idea. Take what's useful, leave the rest.
 
Boris Badenov said:
Yeah that's pretty much how the MFD on our old "non-NG" PC-12 works. It's brilliant! I have a hard time figuring out how having an FMS and all the rest is necessary or useful on that airframe. But then I'm sure there were guys crying about how the four-course radio range was good enough and "if it ain't broke", etc, etc. I'm not opposed to innovation, I just think we need to pay attention to how it fits in to the larger scheme of things. You get the idea. Take what's useful, leave the rest.
Click to expand...

An FMS on a PC-12 is a waste of money. Ours run G430/530 or G650/750 (basically the touchscreen versions of the 430/530) and that's plenty for the airplane.
 
Boris Badenov said:
Well there's no such thing as too much available information, but I think there's definitely such a thing as too much displayed information. I mean I know I'm in danger of sounding like some kind of ERAU "Human Factors" nerd here, but my experience has been that our basic skills as more likely to be atrophied than assisted by all the blinking lights and displays, each demanding our immediate attention. The best way I can think to put it is that the best way for systems to work is for them to be engineered in such a way that they help the pilot access the information he/she needs or wants, rather than sort of enforcing some designer's idea of what is relevant or ir-.

Basically, if I want the Sectional, I'll ask for it. The goal (at least as I conceive it) is for the pilots to have a mental image of where they are in three dimensional space and where everything else is (weather, terrain, etc) relative to that place. Everything which doesn't serve that end is extraneous, not to say potentially dangerous. I'm not entirely convinced that this is the logic by which most avionics engineers are proceeding.
Click to expand...
Like @gotWXdagain was saying, in the Lear, next to approach plates, the Sectional has been our second most used chart feature of the iPad. We've found extremely useful for airspace issues. Ya know, that whole 200kts below the Class B shelf thing. Since we're constantly going to airports under the self and being based in LGB it really helps. It's also displaying a GPS position on the Sectional, it's not like we have to look for landmarks to figure it all out. We also use a feature on the MFD where we can draw an extended centerline out from the runway of intended use. It helps tremendously during visuals at night. I can't imagine the SW guys not having the capability to do that?
 
z987k said:
Maybe its time we just put the approach in.
Click to expand...

I guess I'd be more interested in a landing clearance than an approach. They are flying to a Delta airport with a tower, right? Then Approach (or Center, or whoever) flips 'em to tower. What did that conversation sound like? If they thought they were landing at a towered airport, apparently then, they also landed without a landing clearance. Hmm.

Thank all that is good I made it into and out of Wichita this evening without landing or departing at Jabara or McConnell. I always call Signature or Atlantic before I land to verify passenger transportation but mostly to verify that I'm heading to the right place. I'm lazy like that. But I sometimes get lost on short final if my GPS is broken.
 
When I was at Skyway, there was always a rush to call the airport in sight. I was of the school of thought that if I wasn't 1000% sure or if the other pilot wasn't equally sure plus that we can both maintain it, don't call it in sight until you're willing to bet your career (or life) on it.

Procedurally at SouthernJets, we've got to have something tuned in and the difference between how we fly a visual and an ILS are miniscule.

Plus, most airports I operate out of wouldn't make a difference if you had it at 30 miles or 300RVR.
 
Crop Duster said:
I guess I'd be more interested in a landing clearance than an approach. They are flying to a Delta airport with a tower, right? Then Approach (or Center, or whoever) flips 'em to tower. What did that conversation sound like? If they thought they were landing at a towered airport, apparently then, they also landed without a landing clearance. Hmm.
Click to expand...

Maybe, maybe not. I've been handed off to tower (and then cleared to land) 15+ miles away from the airport before. I'm sure at that point tower hasn't done more than maybe seen my landing lights in the distance. Also, I think the tower was already closed at that hour.
 
I'm with @CaptBill on this one. Why are we starting to see a trend of more wrong airport landing incidents? Why is the chain of events leading to a short field landing at an unintended destination occurring? Why is there not a break in the chain of events before they happen?

I agree none of us should ever be so bold as to say it couldn't happen to us, but why do we have professional crews doing a team effort into the wrong airport? There must be some common link between all these incidences... I largely agree, verify runway heading and/or back it up with the needles, but why are these steps getting missed/skipped/ignored?

It seems to not be limited to a specific experience level of pilots, pilot group, or company. We have the USAF, Silver Airways, Atlas, and Southwest ALL making the same mistakes. I know there are several other airlines out there, but these 4 incidences seem most fresh in my mind. So I'm just wondering why?? It seems like in each incident, they were lucky it was no more than a bruised ego, and a logistical issue. When will this not end up so nicely on a short runway?

I have not read much past "oopsies, everyone needs to have an approach loaded and make sure the runway in front of them agrees." There doesn't seem to be a clear answer as to why these mistakes are occurring more often lately and to what degree each crew followed SOPs to cross reference an approach or verify heading.
 
I find it hard to imagine how this would happen. A fairly cursory glance at your ND at any point on final would show that you are 100% not on the 14nm extended runway CL that it draws from your destination. Of course, I fly in Europe so with the lack of GA fields it's harder to make this kind of mistake. Also, our SOPs mandate either adapting a current FMC approach or building our own. The NG will build you a point on the runway CL at a distance and Glide Angle of your choosing.

However, sharp work from the crew to get it stopped when they realised their mistake!!!
 
Derg said:
When I was at Skyway, there was always a rush to call the airport in sight. I was of the school of thought that if I wasn't 1000% sure or if the other pilot wasn't equally sure plus that we can both maintain it, don't call it in sight until you're willing to bet your career (or life) on it.

Procedurally at SouthernJets, we've got to have something tuned in and the difference between how we fly a visual and an ILS are miniscule.

Plus, most airports I operate out of wouldn't make a difference if you had it at 30 miles or 300RVR.
Click to expand...

True story... I had a CA call an airport in sight for me, which I didn't see, at a greater distance to the airport than the visibility reported. I made him take it back.

We don't carry VFR sectionals and we don't have moving map displays with airspace, rivers, or roads. I always fly with AIRPORTS selected on my MFD (good idea for the dreaded dual engine failure too). Our DB shows airports with runways >= 3000.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top