Wrong Airport

[Bubblehead]

This is in reference to the recent landing by a Southwest aircraft the wrong airport. I'm not a pilot (just an FSX one) but I thought that commercial aircraft are under the control of ATC during approach to an airport. Someone in ATC must've vectored the SW aircraft to the wrong airport.

[Jetranger]

You mean, it matters which Airport ya land at ???

Ummmm ?

[c130lover]

Actually, you'd be surprised by how often commercial pilots fly visual approaches.

[PhantomTweak]

Very very easy for a commercial cockpit crew, on visual approach from 35kft MSL out of sheer and utter boredom, in overcast or hazy, no moon, no horizon, conditions to mistake one airport for another, especially when they are out on a flat area and the runways are in-line and close to the same heading, relative to their approach path. Let's face it, visibility from the cockpit isn't all that spectacular to begin with in a commercial bird, and under adverse conditions like those I mentioned, welll.....Also, cockpit crews have so little to actually DO any more, once all the automation has been programmed and set into motion, that it's very easy for simple mistakes like that to creep in. Are we hearing about them more, due to information spreading so much more rapidly these days? Or are they becomming more common, due to the advancing cockpit automation and thus crew inexperience with actual navigation, who's to say....
My father never admitted to having done that in my hearing, altho he said the student Naval Aviators (or Nasal Radiators, as we enlistd called the more obnoxious, arrogant ones... ) that he trained would fairly commonly. By the same token, he was an exptremely competant, and skilled Aerial Navigator, even teaching me stellar nav, which he said they used pretty often back in the day, due to a lack of the widespread navaids available these days, especially overseas.

just my 2¢ worth...

Pat ☺

[Bubblehead]

So what's the purpose of the ATC. I've watch many actual cockpit videos on the Youtube and in all I've noticed and heard constant communication between the pilot and ATC while the aircraft is several miles away.

[pegger]

If they were on a visual approach, the approach controller would have let them go as soon as they reported the field in sight. Unfortunately, they sighted the wrong field. The controllers may help point them in the right direction, but the pilots have ultimate control over the aircraft.

None of us was there on the flight deck, so we'll never know, but consider some of the circumstances that could have lead up to the mistake.

Winds on that day favoured arrivals from the north...so Springfield Approach probably advised the pilots that runway 14 at Branson (KBBG) was in use.
All reports indicate that the pilots were making a visual approach...probably because the 737 they were flying was not certified for RNAV.
Even though they were going to perform a visual approach, they very likely received vectors to final approach, or more likely the IAF for runway 14 at KBBG.
As they received their final position and turn from Springfield Approach, the instruction probably sounded something like "....runway is 13 miles at your 12 oclock."
So the pilots looked out the window and saw a set of lights that looked an awful lot like KBBG, and replied "we have the runway in sight"....followed by..."cleared visual runway 14 approach, contact tower 128.15"

Now some are gonna try to argue that "PLK is 6 NM northwest of BBG. True, but historical visibility for the region on that day is averaged at 10 sm. And the controller told the pilot to look for a runway off his nose, t probably about 10 to 15 miles out. he saw PLK at probably about 9 miles, and if you think you can tell the difference between 9 miles and 13 miles from 4000' through a little bit of haze, at night...

So the pilots have now fixated on the runway they spotted (runway 12 at PLK), and have dialed up Branson Tower, and likely got ..."runway 14 clear to land."

That's all they needed. The controllers all believe that everything is fine. There's no way anything looks out of ordinary. Approach is no longer monitoring him, because the flight now belongs to the tower, so the whole idea that some guy is steering him by radar...just get that out of your head. The tower knows what's going on with traffic, and the runway is good to go, so even though the tower controller can't see the aircraft (or maybe he/she could), the landing clearance is given.

Let's consider other facts that could easily cause the mis-identification....
Runway 14 at KBBG and runway 12 at KPLK are aligned a lot alike. Albeit the runway magnetic headings are 25 degrees different, if the pilots likely did not worry too much about their compass at that point. The runway was spotted, the pilot locked on to his landing target, and was monitoring his speed and decent.

Runway 12 at PLK and 14 at BBG both have a REIL....this could make it VERY easy to misidentify the airports.

The aerodrome beacons at both airports are located on the south side of the runways, and both rotate green/white....another visual clue that aided the misidentification.

Both runways are lighted. 12 at PLK is medium intensity. 14 at BBG is high intensity. from 9 or 10 miles out, and 4000'...the difference wouldn't even be noticeable.

Now the mistake has been made. I know the pilots are both gonna catch heck over it, but I doubt they'll get fired. Nor should they. They safely landed the plane on a runway at an uncontrolled airport...no foul other than that is not where they were supposed to land. And the pilot noticed the problem and averted an accident, so....

It was a build up of circumstances against them...probably some procedures will be examined and revamped, ad the pilots will get some refresh training, and maybe some fines from the NTSB. Hopefully they learn a valuable lesson.

My opinion though, is the whole thing is the fault of the FAA. Why are there two nearly identical runways allowed to be in operation as they are? Why are there no processes in place to ensure that visual reference mistakes are not so easy to make? I mean really...USA has so many bloody airports (why, I don't know) that they should have considered this might be a problem.

It's not the first time this has happened.

[OldAirmail]

That was an exceptionally well made argument. Thank you.


Remember guys, I'm not a real pilot.

After reading the original story I went off to see if I could land the same plane on the same SHORT runway.

Big surprise, I didn't make it.

Capitan Ricky Ricardo, over the edge near KPLK.

Runway no longer in site, as Paul might say.


When I was looking up the two airports, KBBG & KPLK, I noticed one of the things that I heavily depend on - NDBs.

Clark Point Lookout, KPLK, has one.

Branson, KBBG, doesn't.


BTW - Branson, KBBG, is in neither FSX, or Prepar3d V2.

[FlexibleFlier]

Pegger states a very clear explanation of the cause(s) of the mistaken identification but I believe he misses the point. Reference http://www.airnav.com/airport/KBBG there are 3 instrument approaches at Branson: an ILS or LOC Rwy 32, and 2 RNAV approaches. It is probably true that the aircraft and/or crew were not certified for RNAV but that doesn't preclude them from using GPS for situational awareness. And, even on a visual approach the crew is responsible for maintaining the correct approach slope so it should be standard procedure to use the ILS for guidance if it is available.

I flew airplanes professionally for 23 years and helicopters, including IFR, for another 23 years and I can say with absolute confidence that it is the discipline to adhere to procedures and use all the available tools that are the greatest assets for aviation safety. The converse is "Head up and locked"...need I say more?

[pegger]

If the pilots were going visual, then they were not using instrments. If the aircraft was not carrying rnav equipment, then an instrument landing on 14 at BBG was Not available. The gps was where in the cockpit ? If they are not RNAV capable, then a gps suitable for navigation was probably not on board .

We can all speculate what should have happened based on the equipment we use in fs or our past lives...but my point was to illustrate how easy it was for the pilots to make the mistake, and more importantly, to show the OP how ATC can't be the source of the error.

[PhantomTweak]

Thank you to Pegger and Flex, you guys said it a lot bettr than I did. I appreciate the help!



I think this says it all quite succinctly and well....

Granted, that's for the military birds, but the basic idea is there....And people wonder why ATCs have the highest alcoholism and suicide rates of almost any profession...

But as they say, the pilot is the final authority onboard the aircraft, from the time they board to the time the leave the aircraft. He/She/It is, in the end, responsible for everything that aircraft does, no one else. Blindly following ATC direction is as bad as not following it at all... Judgement and good descion making procedures are essential to a pilot.

The military now calls the events leading up to an incident the Swiss Cheese model of Incidents, where all the events leading up to incident are like the holes in slices of swiss cheese all lining up to let the incident through. Used to be a chain, where each link was an event, but they are more modern and up-to-date now!
Dark night, one hole, haze layer, another, tired cockpit crew at the end of a long flight....etc etc...until you get a line of holes leading to the incident.

Anyway, great day and wonderful flying to all!

Pat☺

[FlexibleFlier]

If the pilots were going visual, then they were not using instrments.

Pegger, the point is that even when cleared for a visual approach there is no excuse for not using whatever tools are available in the cockpit. The only reason to NOT use the ILS/LOC for airport identification would be if it was inop.

I agree about the RNAV/GPS assuming that they were not so equipped. Your original comment stated that they might not be RNAV landing certified but that did not necessarily mean they were not equipped.

I am not flaming you, just trying to remind us all that the PIC is responsible for a safe and orderly flight, which means using any and all tools available, including experience and common sense. Though we don't yet have all the facts about this incident, it appears that unfortunately that wasn't the case here.

[Bubblehead]

From what little I know about the intricacies of flying a commercial aircraft, and from the description of possible scenarios by able contributors in the forum, the event although it happens, it does not happen too often. As such I am keeping my faith on the professionalism in most of our commercial airline pilots and the integrity of our airline industry as a whole. But the American public only read what was in the newspaper and newspaper publishers get carried away with sensationalsim at times. But I think that we are overloading our skies which in turn overloads our controllers. I have FlightTracker loaded in my PC. This website shows actual aircraft activities in various cities around the country. I'm from San Diego but my screen shows aircraft activities which include LAX. I'm amazed at the intensity of aircraft traffic around the two cities. I give our ATC operators credit for making sense out of the mess I see.

[pegger]

...there is no excuse for not using whatever tools are available in the cockpit

Good point Flex. I'm not taking any offense by any of your comments. I got kind of long winded answering the OP's question...and was throwing around a lot of theoreticals...

BUT....

From Reuters....

The captain, who has worked for Southwest for 15 years and has about 16,000 flight hours, told investigators it was his first flight into Branson. The first officer, who has been with the airline since 2001, told the NTSB it was his second flight into Branson, but the previous one was during daylight hours.

The pilots said the approach had been programmed into the plane's flight management system, but that they saw the bright runway lights of Clark Downtown Airport and flew a visual approach into what they mistakenly believed to be Branson Airport.

So there you have it folks. Complete breakdown of cockpit resource management, and swiss cheese effects (good one Tweak! ), that thankfully did not end in a bad way for the general public.