Esse site utiliza cookies. Ao usá-lo e continuar a navegar, você concorda com isso.
Ignorar
Você sabia que o rastreamento de voos da FlightAware é patrocinado por anúncios?
Você pode nos ajudar a manter o FlightAware gratuito, permitindo anúncios de FlightAware.com. Trabalhamos muito para manter nossa publicidade relevante e discreta para criar uma ótima experiência. É rápido e fácil permitir anúncios no FlightAware ou, caso prefira, considere nossas contas premium.
Ignorar
Back to Squawk list
  • 96

SWA Lands at wrong Branson, MO airport

Enviado há
 
SWA landed at the much shorter College of the Ozarks runway instead of the intended Branson airport (www.jrn.com) Mais...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


blueashflyer
blueashflyer 21
Jet fuel is almost 60 cents a gallon cheaper at PLK Clark Downtown airport than at BBG Branson. Maybe just looking for a good deal on a fillup.
Wayne47
Michael Townsley 3
At 60 Cents a gallon SWA will probably make PLK their regularly scheduled airport for future Branson bound flights.
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
I like your way of thinking... That is a possibility...
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
Now we know why he made a pit stop!!! LOL
arunhn
Arun Nair 16
I guess those Dreamlifter pilots who landed on the wrong runway in Wichita Kansas were hired by Southwest!
tssmith2
Trevor Smith 5
After those C-17 pilots were hired at Boeing after landing at the wrong airport a couple months back
skylloyd
skylloyd 2
If memory serves me correctly, it a 747 that landed at the wrong airort carrying 787 parts.
preacher1
preacher1 1
tssmith2
Trevor Smith 1
Do you remember that C-17 that screwed up to
gavinatc
Michael Gavin 1
July 2012 http://www.tampabay.com/news/military/macdill/air-force-blames-pilot-fatigue-for-c-17-landing-4-miles-from-macdill/1272014
tssmith2
Trevor Smith 0
Im talking about that C-17 that landed at the wrong about back in 2012. I know about the Dreamlifter
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 2
Funniest comment if the day, that belies how common it must be for pilots to neglect to username nav equipment when identifying their landing runway. Except this one had 124 pax and 5 crew, many more than the Dreamlifter.

Glad their piloting skills are up to snuff. Almost makes up for their lacking navigation skills.
AABABY
AABABY 1
Regarding the comment about navigating skills-- Didn't airlines, in the distant past, actually have a member of the flight crew whose sole task was to be the NAVIGATOR?
Electronic aids can be daunting when the PILOTS are actually trying to FLY THE PLANE and it's dark and the field is UNFAMILIAR. Right?
Maybe it's time to go a bit back in time as there seem to be so many airstrips around the countryside. Couldn't be that expensive to hire a High School Grad with computer skills to help find the right destination. Probably WAY cheaper that the cost of just one ferry flight a month.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 2
You have that now.

A pilot and a back-up pilot. They're known as the
1. Pilot Flying
2. Pilot Monitoring aka Pilot Not Flying aka Pilot Navigating.
AABABY
AABABY 1
Well, if both pilots are in unfamiliar territory, a third person to watch navaids would be good? Not talking about someone on a 'Fam' ride.
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 2
You're talking about the days of flight engineers. At that time the co-pilot or First Officer was still the navigator charged with the tasks you describe.

The flight engineer's job was to monitor systems which was a full-time job before automation made it easy to detect anomalies that previously took putting eyes on a specific item among a hundred plus indicators.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 2
These two pilots were perfectly capable of flying into the correct airport on that day, had they bothered to look at any one of the navigational screens before landing the plane on the wrong runway. To boot, potentially killing everyone aboard, had the plane gone over the cliff at the end of the runway.
AABABY
AABABY 2
I wonder if the SWA guys are regulars on FlightAware? Thus possibly posting snide remarks about the Dreamlifter guys.
joelwiley
joel wiley 2
Oh that is just terrible! Love it. Down voters probably never heard the word petard.
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
May be... If I still worked for SWA, I would probably have my head ducked in the sand right now.
jct1967
Chris Thompson 10
There are a couple of openings at the truck driving school S. of Dallas, classes start soon!
dax9876
dax9876 2
I'm guessing those pilots may be interested in this info.

I agree with MANBOI... how the hell do TWO ATPs land 120+ passengers on a runway that is half the length of where they should be landing. They should be fired, without question.
devsfan
ken young 1
When I was discussing this incident with a friend who is a pilot he deadpanned "there's two new job openings at Southwest today".
chalet
chalet 1
You mean Dallas, USA or Tinbuktu, Africa
THRUSTT
THRUSTT 2
Monsieur, that's Timbuktu...
devsfan
ken young 1
Ya know what...An over the road truck driver can make more than the average regional jet pilot these days.
horlosky
Henry Orlosky 18
Let’s not denigrate this fine SW crew who tried to do their very best because they are one of us and they are good people. They tried to do the right thing but fixated on the wrong set of runway lights at night. Think about it. It can happen to us so let’s learn from what happen to them so that we don’t land off-site.

Agree, we need to avoid errors in pilotage, in low visibility, at night, with similar runways, pointed in similar directions in close proximity to each other. Should we establish a new procedure that if an airport is within 25 miles with similar features we do additional checks as apparently seeing the runway in the windscreen just before landing convinced these pilots that they were doing the right thing?

All of us should applaud the crew for what they did after touchdown. Upon realizing their error they took immediate corrective action with 100% Full-on Reverse Thrust … “Leave it on”, Brakes Full-ON. It takes skill to recognize your error and get stopped in time. I thank them for not pulling the reverse thrust back, which is against company rules, because they got stopped on a 3,700ft runway. What say you as to how we implement a procedure that is fail safe? I would hope that I would have done what the SW guys did after touchdown and I want to learn how I can be a safer pilot. Should we have a check list cross-check for the appropriate airport after visual contact?

I want to be a proud safe pilot…What say you?
royalbfh
royalbfh 2
If it was low visibility the pilots should have followed the ILS or GPS into the "correct" airport and runway. If they called the "field in sight" then its up to them to see the correct airport! This really is inexcusable for this to happen. Airport environment looks different at these two airports. I am a professional pilot and I fly throughout the United States. Often when approaching an unfamiliar airport you don't call it and let ATC vector you until you do see it! I have a panel mounted GPS and two tablets with a chart program on them. I am sure that they had similar equipment on board. Granted that they did a great job getting the airplane stopped but they should have never put themselves in that position. Just sloppy and poor practice. These guys should be let go and make some room for some competent aviators.
preacher1
preacher1 5
I sure am glad you are a PROFESSIONAL PILOT. That'll make me sleep a lot better knowing that there is at least one knowledgeable comment on here instead of the other 262 that don't know what they are talking about.
royalbfh
royalbfh 2
I never intimated that there are people making comments that do not know what they are talking about. And I only specified that I fly for a living to qualify my answer. I am curious to know your thought. Are you thinking that this was not a big deal? If I land at the wrong airport my passengers are gonna want my skin! I do not see any good reason for the mistake, the runways are not even the same heading. While I appreciate your expertise in the aviation field I would imagine that you would hold these guys to a higher standard.
Good flying
preacher1
preacher1 1
Well, I hold them to a higher standard and think we all do, based on the comments made here, AND, you are correct in that there is not a logical explanation. Based on the fact they did get it stopped also points out that they realized their mistake immediately but other than stopping the plane, there probably was not much they could do. What started out as a routine stop, nearly turned disaster. Unfortunately, they are not the first ones to do this and they probably won't be the last. One of these days, luck will run out and it won't be that pretty. No excuse, but there are thousands of flights per day, and we have had only 3 of these in a year and a half. Not a bad record. I personally think they saw a lighted field(probably still lit from an arriving aircraft), called the field and there they went. IMHO
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 3
Actually that's 3 in about half a year. You must be forgetting that incident in FL in summer.

A question for commercial passenger pilots:
What are the relative merits of doing a touch and go, when you realize you're on the wrong field and about to land on a much shorter runway than anticipated?

Is it safer to reverse trust and stand on the brakes? Is it reasonable to try to fly away? (Immediately push throttles to toga thrust, starting at Vref or higher, it shouldn't take long to get to positive climb, if the engines aren't already in idle.)

Long wrong runways don't matter. You'll just land safely at the wrong airport. This question concerns unexpectedly short wrong runways. Those could kill you.

We've had 3 unexpectedly short runway landings recently, that made the news. The long wrong runways we won't hear about. In that other case, the plane will just take off again and continue to the correct destination.
carlsonj
James Carlson 3
The big problem is with the odds. If you elect to reject the landing, and you don't make it, what you've done by releasing brakes, stowing reversers, and applying power is that you've increased your speed at the crash site, and energy goes as the square of velocity. On the other hand, if you take wheels down to be committed to the landing, you can do everything possible in your power to make sure that the crash at the far end is at the lowest possible energy.

It's a tough choice, as a successful go-around means a completely undamaged plane, but the odds aren't really with you in that kind of error. There are a lot of accidents that include "during an attempted go-around ..."
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 3
Thanks James. That exactly the kind of intelligent, informed discussion of the relative merits of the options I was hoping to read.

My concern was in the condition of the runway being too short, which you tacked capably.

In a similar vein, the Asiana crash had much more energy has the engines were spooling up as they crashed. That extra energy helped worsen the injuries to the passengers.

At least these pilots (and the pilots of the errant Dremalifter) knew how to land. The pilots of the Asiana needed better training.

Besides knowing their flight modes and knowing to constantly scan their monitors (particularly at low altitude), they need to know how to recover from a stall at low altitude (aka knowing how to crash nicely).

The Asiana crew choose to go around (even though it was too late). But had they been mindful of their AOA, they wouldn't have pointed the nose up until the reached the speed necessary to gain altitude. Instead of sending their plane into an instant stall by raising their attitude, they needed to aim lower. They could've aimed for the runway or at even the spot just past the concrete seawall.

Even though those guys were choosing to incease their energy, in case of an accident, dissipating that energy by sliding across the airfield would've been preferable to to dissenting the energy by breaking the plane in a violent tailstrike at a high altitude follow by cartwheeling and/or a series on uncontrolled impacts with energy impacting from different directions as the plane is tossed about.

I can see, as you explain, that it may be safer for pilots to land (even at an unexpectedly and extremely short runway) and throw everything possible in their bag of tricks to try to stop. A low impact crash at the end of the runway is preferable to trying to 'unland' and failing miserably sending the plane into a wild and catastrophic crash, potentially much worse than the Asiana knock-around.

------
So the next question:

What are the minimums,* after which for better or worse the pilots must be committed to the landing. The Asiana pilots were clearly past published minimums for a TOGA. But in a real life and death situation, how should a pilot decide at what point, they've gone to far to call a TOGA. How much past published minimums is it reasonable to consider not landing.

* (I understand that minimums would change given the plane and conditions). I'd appreciate a similar discussion to the above discussion.

Not sure when the SW or Dresmlifter crews noticed they were at the wrong strip, but doubt it was much before the flare (if that). They were clearly committed to landing, when they discovered their mistaken location. But in both cases, it wasn't much past touchdown either (if that). The crews activated their aggressive stopping fairly early on. I might even suggest that in each of the two landings, the crews realized they had a short runway, then stopped aggressively (due to instinctive immediate reaction to situation, and training), then after stopping, needed to take a moment to regain situational awareness (navigationslly speaking) and figure out they were at the wrong airport.

I can't discuss the Asisna crew's rationale 'cause none is evident.

Those last few most important moments of each flight happened in seconds. The SW and Dreamlifter crew made the right decisions when presented with an unexpected situation and safely landed their aircraft. The Asiana crew did not react well at low altitude and compounded an already unavoidably catastrophic incident.

In some flight deck videos (like Guido's) you can hear the pilot(s) briefing the speed after which they're committed to taking off. Guido and/or other pilots who share videography of their flying with world, also brief their landings. How much detail is briefed (or should be) about the decision point to land or not. (In these discussions, I'm only concerned with landing. Taking off is a much easier decision. Under x speed, stop, stop, stop. Once x speed is attained, stopped is no longer considered.)

Is the decision process in landing similarly simple? What ard the important criteria in decided whether it us to late to go around? (altitude, airspeed?)
carlsonj
James Carlson 1
Yes, it's basically the same, and it depends on each aircraft and on the runway itself, so it's something you have to decide (or have decided for you by someone else) well in advance.

Normally, the rule for jets is that if you're not stabilized by a particular point in the approach (usually 1000' or 500' AGL) and assured of a good touch-down, then you're going around. You check early because a late go-around is so risky.

Asiana seemed to be a different matter. They'd apparently misconfigured the autothrottles and weren't monitoring either the airspeed or the visual glidepath indications. It's sort of unclear what they *were* monitoring. Whether that late attempt at a go-around contributed significantly to the outcome, I don't know. But it's certainly the case that coming up short on an approach is almost always very, very bad, as you have no time at all to dissipate all that kinetic energy -- with or without power applied. Trying to spool up may well have been the least worst of all the things they could do by that point.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
Maybe spooling was the 'least worst' option, as you say.

The best thing thy could've done was to get over the seawall without striking it and breaking apart. They would've needed to spool up, sure. But they needed to be mindful of their pitch. Had they continued aiming for the runway, or better the stop zone just past the seawall and before the runway, they would've had a better chance tonclear the seawall and crash onto their wheels into the stop zone or if a bit luckier on the runway. Maybe even get a chance to flare, and put her down largely normally if a bit harder.

What they were looking at: some combination of practicing manual landing (the plane was all over the place laterally and decaying continuously in altitude at the end) and the beautiful view over the bay toward the city that would've been in front and to the right of them.

----

Unfortunately the Asiana make too many mistake. One of them was to not go around earlier. They were in a much less stable approach then they were aware (until they were low and slow and staring at the seawall comng at them at slightly faster than 100 knots. They only only planned to intercept the glideslope in the last minute of flight. So they set up the possibility of only realizing that their approach was intrinsically unstable below minimums (worsened the the lack of monitoring.

So their worst actions were in not setting up properly in advance, moreso than the reactions in the last seconds. But the nose-up attitude doesn't seem to be the wisest move.

In setting their rate of descent in the last minute or two of flight, anything else was better than what they did. They could've come in less steep (aiming for the treshold) and would've noticed that their airspeed was decaying much, much earlier and just adjusted their thrust or gone around when either was no big deal (more than a minute of flight left). They would've been above the glideslope's 3% descent rate and maybe hit the rubway a touch harder than some other pilots but otherwise landed without incident.

Their vertical speed was already quite high. But their other slightly less good (but way better than what they did) option was to descend much steeper in the first of the last two minutes acquiring the glideslope at a higher altitude. Makin a last minute change is questionable. Acquiring the glideslope a 900 to 1000 ft would give them more maneuverability and decision time than the actual plan of doing so at 600, with little time to test the stability of their approach before hitting their decision minimums.

Finding out after decision minimums that the approach was intrinsically unstable led to people dying. Also contributing to the high energy impact, was putting the nose up and going into a stall ahead of the seawall (that was struck with a lowered tail).

----//-----

Redirect on the question:
While it is clearly smarter to avoid getting into the situation entirely:
How does a pilot decide in the last seconds, whether they can attempt to go around? Let's say they are already clearly past their briefed minimums?
carlsonj
James Carlson 2
I can't speak for others, but I don't think "deciding" is wise. Having a plan is much wiser. A possible plan (depending, obviously, on the characteristics of the plane itself) might be: "once the wheels touch pavement, we will complete the landing and accept the consequences, whatever they may be." That gives a clear line of demarcation, similar to the "if not stabilized at 1000' or become unstabilized at any point below that, then go around" rule.

That's the key point for me: having a plan based on known limitations and considering the possible outcomes, and then putting it in action when needed. That plan is certainly different for different aircraft, and might be different for different pilots or operators.

If you're somehow operating outside of your plan -- i.e., if your plan was inadequate to begin with or if you failed to implement the plan -- then you're obviously going to have to wing it, and what you do might well just be an educated guess. The idea of a good, safe plan is to avoid putting yourself in that circumstance by putting in some buffer (time, altitude) between you and a bad outcome.

In other words, I don't have a good answer for you. At least for me, my goal in an accident is to be at minimum possible airspeed, in a level flight attitude, and keeping positive control of the aircraft through the whole crash sequence. Assuming I've already screwed things up to the point of failure, I'm just looking to survive the result.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
Thanks. Seems that having a plan is a good idea.

Surviving is a laudable goal.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Short runway and already at flare, in most cases you don't have time to spool up for a TOGA. I thought the C17 in Florida was in 2012
royalbfh
royalbfh 1
c-17 was , 7/2012.
preacher1
preacher1 1
He is saying 3 recently. Did I miss one somewhere?
preacher1
preacher1 1
If engines are at idle, you are looking at 3-3.5 seconds for a pool up to 75% power. That is an eternity on a short runway. Bad low chances to get off.
onceastudentpilot
tim mitchell 1
smart aleck...lol
Steve1822
Steve1822 1
Henry, I can appreciate your comment on not denigrating this SWA cockpit crew. Of course not. However, after after 38 years of flying, the operators I have been affliated with or flown for, be it the airlines, charter or corporate all had specific SOP's for conducting visual approaches. Nearly all do, including SWA. So the new procedures within 25 miles of an airport that you propose have been around for years. In the end and after the final NTSB report is published we will find that this well trained and intentioned cockpit crew had a lapse in PF/PM SOP's and had a bad day at the office. Again, fortunately no one was injured or aircraft damaged. I'm sure at the very least the FAA will update their AC's on visual approaches.
preacher1
preacher1 4
Can we just say "BRAIN FART" and leave it at that
Steve1822
Steve1822 1
Yep. Succinctly sums it up.
preacher1
preacher1 1
They are still not going yet. Fueling done for awhile but tug is still in front and stairs/ramp is still up to side. I think crew is on board. CNN and several others per links here are streaming live with no audio.
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 1
It has one of those foreign-made whirlybird things sitting in front, too.

A friend manages their programs at FSI in Fort Worth.
preacher1
preacher1 1
I couldn't tell what that was
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 1
Augusta Eurocopter

http://www.helicopterbusinessindex.com/aircraftPictures/aircraft/52263-0-233024.jpg
preacher1
preacher1 1
Looks like he's just now doing preflight walkaround. Probably walking off nerves. LOL
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 2
I wonder who's watching closer... his wife or life insurance underwriter?
preacher1
preacher1 1
Steve, you and I have about the same amount of time in, and we both know things don't always happen as it is written on paper. On a familiar field, I have cut IFR and gone visual for the short remainder. By the same token, if someplace new, all there is for guidance is chart/plate and you need to be sure of your instruments before heading in. As lights are pilot activated here, as with the Deramlifter at Jabarra, there must have been a landing ahead of them and the lights not timed out. Fatigue may play a part here, idk but in all defense of the crew, they did one heck of a job in getting it stopped and not hurting anybody.
tonyh2008
Tony H 1
That airplane did a great job stopping... I guess any one of us would've been standing on the breaks with spoilers deployed and reverse thrust. Anti-skid system stopped them from going off the end. Sure the crew recognized the runway was shorter than they thought and reacted quickly enough to deploy everything and stand on the toebrakes but that plane deserves most of the credit. Heck, they shouldn't have even been there.
sparkie624
sparkie624 2
He got lucky... And BTW, he was not standing on the "BREAKS", I doubt the last thing he thought of was taking a break... But it sounds like he has plenty of time for a "BREAK" now... However, it is documented that he used MAX BRAKING and I an certainly glad the Anti Skid was working as advertised.
moose061970
PAUL PETERSON 1
Henry, I'm not even close to be a real pilot. I fly on Flight Sim X. On this program the ATC and your Garmin Avionics shows and tells you where to go. I only use visual approaches. I just don't understand how they could do something like this. My Garmin shows other airports but my destination airport and runway is well shown up on your screen. Then ATC will tell what direction to turn for final and where you'll find the airport, by hour numbers on a watch ( Runway will be at your 10 o clock). I do agree, everyone on that C17 are very fortunate that all were OK. That took special pilots to land the way they did. (Sorry I'm not the best writer)
tarbaby
phil gibson 1
Henry, bottom line.......it was a terrible mistake...it's certainly not the first......and it won't be the last...unfortunately...
Steve1822
Steve1822 0
Well said Phil. Very true.
chalet
chalet 1
Henry, Henry their mistake was horrible, or are you employed by the pilot union trying to sabe them from the inevitable firing
tssmith2
Trevor Smith 6
"Please exercise caution when opening overhead compartments as items definitely shifted after that landing!"
justindpilot
justindpilot 4
Id use the "..because shift happens." Version
preacher1
preacher1 6
Did you watch that takeoff roll; that thing was like a rocket
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 2
I was surprised I didn't hear the spool up a lot louder while still on the brakes. I was quite certain they'd make it with no issue. I'm always counting a rotation just beyond the 3,000 foot marks with a full load and they were empty with minimal fuel.

He did seem aggressive on the takeoff roll but it was hard to be sure how much distortion there was with the video feed I was getting.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Aggressive was an understatement. LOL
Wayne47
Michael Townsley 2
It looked like the pilot lifted up the front wheel fairly early in the takeoff roll.
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 1
I saw the same thing. He held it a bit, perhaps to gain speed with less parasite drag on the nose.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Don't really matter. He's on final for TUL
mschacht44
Mike Schacht 1
I was surprised how fast it took off! Brakes off and... BYE!
tarbaby
phil gibson 1
Boeing of course!
DerekCooks
Derek Thomas 2
Or, in this case, Boing!
preacher1
preacher1 1
Check out the FA website, SWA 8506, he's over half way to TUL
DerekCooks
Derek Thomas 1
Dang - Live ATC for KTUL is down... looks like they should be on the ground there now...
preacher1
preacher1 1
700' final, probably down by now
Wayne47
Michael Townsley 6
Has anyone been able to obtain the tower conversation with the SWA cockpit? You would think the Branson tower would have alerted them or questioned their rate of decent or altitude on approach. Perhaps the guys in the tower were not at the top of their game either.
105068232
105068232 0
I would think Branson tower responsability is to look at the field, see no conflicts and cleared to land the SWA flight only. I would not expect them to monitor anything else. Same with center control who could have cleared the SWA for the visual approach and instructed him to contact the tower. no further responsability
mfbutzin
mfbutzin 5
Ex NAVY Pilots! You see it land on it!
bishops90
Brian Bishop 5
I bet the Flightaware KPLK info page has had more hits in the last 18 hrs than in all of recorded history......
preacher1
preacher1 2
bishops90
Brian Bishop 2
They might need you to come fly it outta there ol buddy! Ain't too far from you is it?
ETex
Pco Pco 4
any one remeber the 737 glider near New Orleans. Landed and departed from a levee.
TACA flight 110, 1988, What a Great plane
stardog01
stardog01 1
Interestingly, that same airframe is now owned by Southwest (N697SW).
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
Interesting info... did not know that. I remember the incident well.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Well, they did an on site engine change and towed it to an adjacent paved road and then short hopped to a maintenance facility in the New Orleans area. Currently operated by Southwest, but one hell of a piece of flying.
Moviela
Ric Wernicke 3
Guess they took off without an E6-B flight computer and sectional chart.
CaptainFreedom
CaptainFreedom 2
I'm sure that they remembered their protractor, though. They were only off by 7 miles.
mcrawford6121
mcrawford6121 3
eh, close enough. ATP standards are +/- 5 miles right????
tarbaby
phil gibson 2
Pucker Factor.......Pucker Factor! ;)
preacher1
preacher1 2
Got to be a big Oh S*** when you see that end coming up so quick. Reckon they can claim tired and fatigued since they were headed to DAL. Of course they may have been an MDW based crew and just started. Either way, it ain't good.
Rusted69
Tim Lamborn 3
I can bet there were more skid marks besides the ones left on the runway.
hviswanathan
Hari Viswanathan 3
Wonder what the ATC communications went like.
ATC: SWA4013 where are thou?
SWA4013: We are on the ground. Where art thou?
SWA4013: Oh no, did we just do the same thing as the 747 Dreamlifter that we joked about last month.
SAW4013: #%$$$^%$^$% We are so $%$#%#$%. We will be the butt of all jokes from now on.
AABABY
AABABY 2
ATC: Oh brother! Where art thou 4013?
preacher1
preacher1 1
I really expect that "butt of all jokes" will be the least of their problems for the immediate future. They were probably on that other plane that came in last night and took the rest of the folks on to KDAL, with a msg to come see chief pilot this morning.
preacher1
preacher1 1
and probably ought to bring your union rep
tarbaby
phil gibson 1
The union won't touch this one.....sad state of affairs.....unreal...they're toast. End of wonderful careers. I wonder who's landing it was...and at touchdown realized.......oh no......max braking!
preacher1
preacher1 0
I really doubt it will matter whose landing it was. The other was supposed to be monitoring. There is enough here to go around. You got to admit though, the landing was good to be that short. I lost situational awareness once in a 767 due to real bad wx that should have made me divert. Me and FO both. Landed on 8 grand, about 2grand in at flaps 10 and hit the deck about 250k. Full reverse and hard brakes, looking at the last turnout. 1st time in about 40 years and hopefully the last.
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 2
I just had lunch with one of my suppliers who is a 73 captain with AA. I asked him, "Does American hire dismissed Southwest pilots?" He cracked up.

He doesn't think they'll lose their jobs. But that doesn't mean there won't be some suffering along the way.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Personally, I hope he is right. BUT, even if SWA doesn't terminate them, I wonder if the FAA will yank their certs like they did on the NWA guys.
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 1
I mentioned that to this guy but then later on the way home I had realized the NWA guys pulled a huge "No No" with the FBI's investigation... they lied about their actions. I imagine the alternative to losing their ticket was a criminal charge for lying to the feds.

I did ask him isn't there a line in SOP to load an approach. He said it's in their OpSpecs but probably not in SWA's. He said they do a lot more visual approaches. This guy won't even do a night landing without the ILS loaded. He mentioned that to him it's even critical when coming into Austin last night on a clear night but with parallel runways; he wants to make sure he's on the right course and not depend on approach to warn him.
tisom2
Terry Isom 1
Glad you are still with us to share that experience. I'm agreeing with the other guy that this is an informative and polite discussion of the subject. Thanks!
preacher1
preacher1 1
Well, me and the FO sat in the plane for about 15 minutes after we parked and shut down. That was a Tuesday nite. It took us all week to get any semblance of nerve back. We went back up Sunday in the CRJ and played about 2-3 hours. Better after that but that is something you never forget.
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 3
Another source:
http://www.ky3.com/news/local/southwest-flight-lands-at-wrong-airport-in-branson/-/21048998/23895418/-/mrx15ez/-/index.html

I don't know how sitting on brakes so hard the tires are smoking and the smoke entering the cabin is "uneventful".

For the non-pilots, that captain and first officer are gonna face a serious review under 49 USC §44709. That particular model is seriously equipped with multiple navigation sources. There is no excuse to not be set up properly and have the best possible situational awareness.

This is gonna hurt!
Falconus
Falconus 5
" the passengers didn't realize until they were on the ground that they had landed at the wrong airport."

So, to sum up, the flight crew didn't announce "Hey y'all, we're on final approach to land at Taney County by accident". I'm so glad that KY3 clarified this for us.
preacher1
preacher1 2
Depending on the speed, FAR's may require a brake inspection before the bird goes anywhere
SWEATINTHSWAMP
SWEATINTHSWAMP 1
Nah. Nothing unusual about sitting on the brakes so hard the tires are smoking with SWA lol. I still love 'em.
skylloyd
skylloyd 1
Thats right, check the brake wear pins, check the number of plies left on the tires and away we go...
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
I know that passengers imagine things, but from an updated article (posted up in the thread) states:

"The pilot who landed the jet had to brake hard. Some passengers say they smelled burning rubber from the tires. The jet stopped 300 to 500 feet from the end of the runway, which is 3,738 feet long. The Branson Airport runway is 7,140 feet long."

With that in mind assuming accurate and I believe it probably is, at very least will be 4 new tires and probably brakes as well.. It is good to see the plane sitting on concrete... Hope it doesn't sink :)
skylloyd
skylloyd 1
Forgot about the blowout plugs...hell,were good to go.
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
A lot more detailed than that... The biggest issue is how hot did the brakes get. If they over temped, and depending on how high then that could lead up to a gear change in a worst case scenario, or if barely out of limits a brake and tire change... The FDR will make that decision with the AMM
GringoZX
Robert Cheeseman 1
Most modern jets have brake temp sensors that will give a message indicating the brakes have exceeded their safe operation limits. And most wheel assemblies also have blowout plugs that will rupture when their air pressure or wheel temp is exceeded. Pretty simple checks really. I was onboard an Airbus at KRSW that aborted takeoff and went into "max braking" mode. We returned to the gate and waited for a technician to come perform the checks that were required after the action. We were cleared to depart shortly after.
CloudSurfer89
CloudSurfer89 1
Tweet from Scott Schieffer, a passenger, "The landing was absolutely not uneventful. The Southwest statement saying so is incorrect; we braked very, very hard.
onceastudentpilot
tim mitchell 1
And everyone lived and the plane flew again.....that was uneventful
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 1
I see you're a student according to your profile.

I'd expect such an action from you. I would not expect such from one who has flown several thousand hours over a dozen years or more.

This crew failed to use available GPS and/or ILS tools to verify situational awareness.

They were lucky to brake in the space available. There was a very steep drop off only another 300 feet ahead. This was anything but a non-event.
HGreen
Herb Green 3
Air Tran pilots would have known where to land!
preacher1
preacher1 3
Airborne/gear up/TUL on his mind/ Good Job SWA and Boeing
onceastudentpilot
tim mitchell 2
great job
preacher1
preacher1 1
no pax but no other lightening that is known and at least enough fuel for TUL
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 3
If I were a local controller at Tulsa I'd have to resist asking advising only 9,999 feet available. "Is that sufficient?"
preacher1
preacher1 2
You're plumb rotten. LOL
benaggus
ben Aggus 3
Live Video Stream: http://abclocal.go.com/wls/live
sparkie624
sparkie624 2
Knowing the culture here.. in trying to save time and getting into a Hurry I would guess they forgot to verify their airport before landing... couldn't happen to a better bunch... At least they still have a nose gear :)
sparkie624
sparkie624 2
There appears to be an error in station code... KBKG does not seem to exist, but KBBG is 5.8NM away. Just read the article... Landed on a 3700 foot runway... that is only 100 feet wide vs a 7100 foot runway 6 miles away.. How could these pilots do this. They landed on runway 12 or 30 and were supposed to land on runway 14 or 32. These runways are not even parallel or even close to description.

It looks like a 737-500 which empty weight is between 69,000 and 74,000 lbs where the runway is only certified for a/c up to 70,000 lbs. Going to be an interesting departure...

I am sure maintenance has to look at this one... You know it was a High Energy stop and that means maintenance inspections will be required...

In the past pilot goofs at SWA have been rewarded with being fired... So get your resumes ready if you like carrying cattle and being pushed to the limits in the name of maintaining a schedule.
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 1
Many news outlets have been reporting BKG... must be tough to verify facts. That goes for Flight Aware or whoever inputted the data. It's also showing "BKG" for SWA4013. Could SWA need to hire a new dispatcher?

The first data I had is it was a 737-700. I've not looked up weights.
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
It is pretty easy to prove that BKG is incorrect... BKG does not exist anywhere in the world.... Go to http://flightaware.com/live/airport/KBKG and see what is there.
BenKFIT
Ben Lillie 1
Yeah, I think the code is PLK.
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 1
It was the other airport that was messed up. The intended, KBBG was reported as KBKG.
tisom2
Terry Isom 1
I agree, Ken. It took me some research to figure out it was PLK.
sparkie624
sparkie624 0
He landed in KPKW, but was supposed to land in KBBG.
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 1
I looked there as well which is what led me to consider the original source. The interesting part is...

I'd think FlightAware would take its data from flight plans entered into the national system overseen by the FAA. So, how did a bad code get accepted by the FAA's system?
preacher1
preacher1 1
I think it takes them from multiple sources but a bad code is a bad code regardless of where it comes from.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Empty Weight is above Airport certification. Winter weather may have helped for now. They may have to do like the dreamlifter and agree to take the weight claims after the spring thaw. I was told that the airport could be a real horses butt if they wanted to and make them take it out on a truck, idk. At the very least it will require a full blown brake inspection, depending on temp and you know they had to have gotten warm. Probably a good road trip for SWA maintenance.
DerekCooks
Derek Thomas 1
Wonder if that bird is blocking the runway, as the Dreamlifter did in Wichita, or if they have a place to park it?
arunhn
Arun Nair 1
It looks like they have towed the aircraft to some parking area on the ramp from the latest news update photo:
http://www.ky3.com/news/local/southwest-airlines-expects-jet-to-leave-wrong-airport-in-afternoon/-/21048998/23901904/-/q8e47t/-/index.html
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 1
"We continue to look into the circumstances which led the Pilot in command of flight 4013 from Chicago Midway to land at the airport, several miles from the Branson Airport we serve."

It's gonna take a federal inquiry to figure that out? I'm a lowly flight instructor whose never flown larger than a 206. I can answer that question!
sparkie624
sparkie624 0
LOL, I love it.. stating a new crew will continue the flight...
sparkie624
sparkie624 -1
It is more than a Brake inspection... The gear, and Gear Attach points... Depending on external findings.. But I seriously doubt they find anything... A good set of blinders for the person doing the inspection that is a real company man will sign it off with no problems... After all that is why they had to make an emergency landing in KCRW a few years ago due to loss of pressurization and not to mention the incident in YUMA, AZ... Both due to missed inspections which lead to heavy fines that they never had to pay.

SWA has had plenty of issues that were never reported... One landing in KMDW with parking brake set, blew all the mains (I was there for that one and saw the tires). Flt 1248 that runs off the runway (anti skid not turn one) and killed people when he not only ran off the runway, through airport security fence and into traffic. The list goes on... these are not good people. Only thing that means anything to them is their precious schedule and if they have trouble making it they do what they can to make up the time... Even if it cost them an airplane or people.
tduggan2010
Tim Duggan 2
sparkie, the story about SWA at KMDW with the parking brake set??? I'm having a bit of trouble swallowing that one...unless it was years ago, and a B737-200?

Because the NG cannot set the brake with the gear up.
sparkie624
sparkie624 0
it was a 737-500, never made the news. SWA covered it up. The guy taxied to the ramp... with 4 flats... The key is here that weight off wheels parking brake off, but the handle was set... Just soon as he went weight on wheels, they all locked. I am not sure I still have it, but I did have a picture of it setting on the gate at MDW.
tduggan2010
Tim Duggan 2
A -500? Well, systems are only slightly different from the -200, but still...I can't fathom this. To set the PB is a concerted effort, as you probably know. AND whenever the PB is set, and the thrust levers are advanced beyond a few degrees from Flight Idle stop, there is the T/O Warning Horn.

Ya know, the person flying could have had his/her toes on both brakes at touchdown? That would seem more plausible. (I'm thinking a short person with their seat incorrectly adjusted).
DashTrash
DashTrash 1
I've landed an aircraft with frozen brakes, blew three out of four main tires and ground the wheels down a few inches. Takeoff thrust would no move the airplane with that much flat surface on the ground.
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
That sure makes for a tough taxi :) LOL... I have spent my fair share of time swinging wrenches and Maint Control on Dashes... I wonder if we have chated on the phone or in person? Are you flying Old Blue Planes that are now white or soon will be?
preacher1
preacher1 1
That must have been one heck of a ride. LOL
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
They captain told us in confidence they were on... But everyone still covered it up. It was not ice... It was a parking brake. The captain came clean when he saw the lead mechanic pulling the memory card from the QAR!
THRUSTT
THRUSTT 1
Uh oh, the short people are coming after you now...
snowboss
Sandy Sandmire 1
sparkie624, it was a 737-700NG and they have great brakes!
preacher1
preacher1 1
Brakes were obviously good but depending on temperature, they may still require an inspection per the FAA
sparkie624
sparkie624 2
Actually Boeing manuals will determine what inspections will be required, and what other inspections based on findings.
preacher1
preacher1 1
All mfg manual make that determination but they are part of the initial certification process on the planes and there is a document between airlines and FAA requiring that they will abide by them; otherwise they would have no recourse from the FAA if they didn't. Most of those items are included in an FAA mx audit.
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
Thanks for the correction... But that is actually even worse... that plane dry fuel empty at its very lightest weight is over 80,000 lbs meaning they are 10,000 over airport weight before they consider anything. It does not matter how good the brakes are.... It was a high energy stop.... High Energy Stop Inspections are required... If he had over 100 people on board, hard to tell how much fuel, he was using every bit of braking that he had and then some.... Still will require the same inspections.
snowboss
Sandy Sandmire 1
They also have thrust reversers, and I am sure they were used. If they landed with Flaps-30 their App Vref was around 133 kias.I doubt the rwy was damaged.We don't know how much braking they were using and they have anti-skid would control the braking.
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
I am sure the FDR will be pulled... That will be the main instrument to determine what inspections will be required... I would just about put money on the fact that he was MAX on BOTH.
preacher1
preacher1 2
I doubt we will see this takeoff on National TV unless it don't make it.
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
That is highly possible out come! Don't want to wish anyone bad luck... But I certainly would not want to be standing on the end of the runway when that thing comes down the runway... The 737 has always been my favorite plane... But this is going to be an interesting departure...
Wayne47
Michael Townsley 2
I would expect they probably will close the Interstate expressway to traffic below the cliff for the 737 takeoff as a precaution depending on the active runway direction at takeoff...in fact they may postpone takeoff until the winds favor a takeoff in the opposite direction.

It is not clear as to whether or not the plane's final position on the runway was the result of a maximum full stop or whether they taxied a bit after landing to see if they could find a taxiway sufficient to clear the runway. If the plane's runway position was at the maximum full stop...they were very lucky as change in a number of factors could have extended the landing distance.
AABABY
AABABY 1
Don't forget the cliff at the end of the strip. They could take off Grand Canyon Airways style.
BTDT from passenger seating.
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
In 3700 Feet.... If he didn't he is a bigger idiot that anyone would believe...
preacher1
preacher1 1
Well, as you said a few ago, it looked like somewhere around 1000 lbs. fuel; I wouldn't be crazy about taxi with that either. Best tow to the runway, put on fuel, lite em up and go, and one big prayer., not only to get off but to be able to get over to the other airport and more gas.
MikeMohle
Mike Mohle 1
They need to wait for a 5 degree day with winds out of the NW at 30.
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
That may solve their takeoff roll issues, but that does nothing about them being over airport weight limits in access of 10 percent. The Runway is only certified for 70,000 lbs.. The plane empty is over 84,000 lbs.
zcolescott
Certified refers more to repeated loads for the runway. We used to handle C-130s quite often at KLXV and the runway wasn't "certified" for its weight. Big difference between certified and what it will actually handle once or twice.
snowboss
Sandy Sandmire 1
Zachary, your point is correct.I am retired from a major airline and on charters we went into airports with certified weight less than our gross weight. Normally the rwy pavement is thicker in the touchdown zone.
tduggan2010
Tim Duggan 1
Yeah well, published surface weight-bearing certifications are based on the type of pavement, but in this case it's already a "done deal". Lucky it's winter time, the pavement isn't likely to soften as it could on a very hot summer day.
MikeMohle
Mike Mohle 1
Well, they did land and not go through the pavement, yet. Thawing or rain will not help.
treehouse4rent
Carlos Bea 2
Good comments Steve. Applying strict instrument approach protocols in visual conditions is the the best way to mitigate such errors from occurring.
RetAF
RetAF 2
Food for thought. There is no such thing as landing on the "wrong runway". It's "wrong" when you land and you are not on any runway.

If you land on a runway other than the intended one, well....at least it's a runway.

When I finished my aviation career I could say "my takeoffs and landings were equal".
ivjmci
Ivan McIntosh 2
This happens quite often (relatively speaking), since we had a similar experience in Northern Ireland with a Ryanair flight (operated on their behalf by Eirjet). The A320, flight no. FR9884, with 39 passengers Liverpool to Derry, landed on Ballykelly airfield, 6 miles short of the real destination, Derry Airport. Ballykelly is a disused military airfield, populated by army helicopters and light aircraft. The pilot had earlier requested the charts for Derry, but had to fly without them! They clearly show the warnings about the close proximity of the fields. By the way - Irish humour took the day. The passengers all burst out laughing and some had their pictures taken with the British Army personnel on the field before being ground transported to Derry.

[This poster has been suspended.]

preacher1
preacher1 1
I hate to bring it up but that takeoff was well outside the flight envelope. Reckon an Airbus would have let them do it.
tonyh2008
Tony H 2
Also, how about we give those guys some new nicknames?...
That Korean crew got some good ones!..
Maybe Capt wrongway and Mr Dolittle???...
pierreguillemot
pierre guillemot 2
25 years ago, I was on vacation at Eilat, Israel. I heard a story about a plane landing at Akaba Jordan airport instead of Eilat airport. The pilot followed instructions from Eilat tower and landed on very near (less than 5 miles) Akaba runway, Fearing diplomatic complications, Akaba airport authority gave immediately clearance for take off and the plane landed at Eilat, one hour late. I did not believe the story. But after reading your Branson story, I checked it and, indeed, it is real, November 2, 1986. http://www.jta.org/1986/11/05/archive/happy-ending-for-a-plane-mistake . See the map http://goo.gl/maps/JFcVF Eilat airport is inside the city.
bennettgaryw
Gary Bennett 2
You would think there would be questions in the cockpit, looking at a 3700 ft. runway.
tarbaby
phil gibson 2
Check out the CNN App..........live coverage right now(streaming)
arunhn
Arun Nair 1
Also available online:
http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/cvplive/cvpstream3.html
hviswanathan
Hari Viswanathan 1
The boarding bridge is being removed. This is it.
mschacht44
Mike Schacht 1
Well that was a quick takeoff. http://flightaware.com/live/flight/SWA8506/history/20140113/1900Z/KPLK/KTUL
kea001
Tom Kearney 2
The article missed the part about being 40 ft. short of a cliff. http://www.forbes.com/sites/grantmartin/2014/01/12/southwest-airlines-plane-lands-at-wrong-airport-almost-careens-off-cliff/
vanstaalduinenj
Pco, that my favourite mayday episode next to the one at YYZ with the A340 that overran runway
jimquinndallas
Jim Quinn 2
Sounds like the guys up front were quite good at short field landings...
MikeMohle
Mike Mohle 1
They fly in and out of Midway!
jmilazzo
joe milazzo 3
GOD......WHEN WILL THESES STUPID AIRLINES PILOTS LEARN? YOU ALWAYS BACK UP A VISUAL APPROACH WITH AN ILS OR GPS APPROACH!!!!! This is something I learned early in my career!
RRKen
Kenneth Schmidt 1
Joe, I was just going to ask, when making an approach to a runway, do you not verify you are in the glidepath or verify your position before cancelling IFR? Just seems the prudent thing to do.
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 2
When teaching instrument students I insisted they always have an approach loaded in the GPS and arm it on final if VTF is out far enough. If GPS is separate from the nav receiver, set up for the ILS as well.

I even taught primary students the basics for an ILS so they can use the guidance, especially when approaching a new airport. I don't know why more instructors don't do that. Or perhaps they've never taught how to intercept a VOR radial from a given heading?
vettdvr
James Corkern 2
Land at the wrong runway is dangerous and can result in loss of life. In Europe in the 70's when I flew there one event of this type would ground you for life. If there are two incidents there will be another and someone will run off the runway. I have been flying since 1970 and I hold the pilot in command responsible and have him accept the accountability for putting peoples lives at risk. NO sympathy from me on this issue. It won't make me popular but that is just sloppy airmanship. sorry now I can stand alone and everyone else can disagree but until freedom of speech is totally taken away that where I stand on wrong runway landings.
Doobs
Dee Lowry 1
I totally agree with you James. I'm feeling that there was a breach of "Sterile Cockpit". There was a "Dispatcher" riding the jumpseat and might have had contributed to the focus...or lack of the Flight Crews focus to their position.
Conversation within the cockpit can be distracting. The only conversation is to be between the crew when you are in a critical point in the flight. There is no excuse for this foul-up and to put these passengers in harms way.
tarbaby
phil gibson 1
They will have to offload fuel and the entire interior to reduce the weight to make it work. It can be done. It will just take time.
tduggan2010
Tim Duggan 1
I don't think so. Not the interior, just minimum fuel, and two pilots. Flaps 15.

There will be two management or instructor pilots sent to do this, and if they do it legally, they will get all the appropriate FAA ferry permits and waivers and paperwork that goes with it.
tarbaby
phil gibson 1
They will remove the seats and offload fuel. The "numbers" will work.
CaptainFreedom
CaptainFreedom 1
I'm sure that the PIC is currently hard at work removing all unnecessary equipment.....cabin seats, galley supplies, TP, GPS, glidescope equipment.....
THRUSTT
THRUSTT 1
What's TP???
CaptainFreedom
CaptainFreedom 1
something found in the head.
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
That interior is heavy... SWA may ship a crew from KLUV (their main heavy mtc base). Getting that interior out for a good crew is only a days work... Coming out is easy... Going back in... Well that is another story...
jshhmr
josh homer 1
Oops! Didn't respond directly to thread. Nevermind me good people.
jshhmr
josh homer 1
Preach it preacher! Makes me miss the AA 757 out of SNA. Kinda related, but I flew on an AA MD-11 ORD-DFW. Had 50 people on it. The captain had us off the ground in no time, with a high ascent rate. Leveled off around 8000, which gave us some awesome negative g's. Went to thank the pilots after landing.
jmilazzo
joe milazzo 1
Hey at least the passengers bags' flew for free!!!
preacher1
preacher1 1
You reckon there was a pucker up front until they rotated or were they just saying a piece of cake. LOL
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 1
I'd say it was a piece of cake unless V1 was changed to V-Oh Sh... for this event.
preacher1
preacher1 2
LOL. That's may be one of them where you call it and say "FLY B****". LOL. Been there and done that and sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do and pray your machine does what you need it to. In most of those cases, it does what the book says it won't. That could have gone out on a flatbed truck.
Joolde
Joolde 1
It took off like a fighter! Awesome job done by the pilots :)
onceastudentpilot
tim mitchell 1
GREAT JOB Y'ALL !!!!!!!!!!!!
preacher1
preacher1 1
Tug has him and shoving
djsnider99
Dave Snider 1
Airborne and gone
MANBOI
MANBOI 1
According to pictures posted by a passenger the plane came to a stop on rwy 12 at the rwy 30 displaced threshold arrows. The airstair is sitting on the runway 30 threshold bar.

https://twitter.com/ScottDallasTX

I don't see how these two ATP's can keep their jobs after landing at the wrong airport with a plane full of passengers. I would never fly SWA again if they keep these idiots.
DerekCooks
Derek Thomas 2
Loved ScottDallasTX's comment, "we had a different pilot crew BKG-DAL".
preacher1
preacher1 2
Yeah, and they did the right airport too
flyboy97222
Jason Rhew 1
They won't keep their certificates- you can bet the FAA will pull them. Just ask the guys that missed Minneapolis.
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 1
Huh oh! Repost your comments from Dreamlifter.
onjuku20
onjuku20 1
"Wow" he really sounded calm for someone making the last passenger announcement of his career!
RichardHarkness
Richard Harkness 1
Yes obviously three's some pilot error here, but I also question what the Air Traffic Controlers were doing at the time ? Wasn't this flight under ATC radar control, giving it headings and altitude information on it's approach before handing it off to Branson approach and the Control Tower ?
How long will it take the FAA and NTSB too post their findings ?
carlsonj
James Carlson 1
"Control" implies too much. They don't (yet!) control the aircraft from the ground. Normally, once an aircraft is cleared for an approach, ATC does monitor the approach and provide alerts, but it's the pilot's responsibility to fly the approach correctly or inform ATC if that's no longer possible and obtain an amended clearance.

An example of the latter would be having accepted a visual or contact approach, and then losing sight of the airport or the preceding aircraft you were instructed to follow. Visuals don't have a missed approach segment, so you'll need an amended clearance pretty quickly.

Yes, it's entirely possible that if the pilot makes an unknowing mistake and if ATC is busy with some other task (identifying another target, taking a hand-off, coordinating with another controller, or something else), neither will see it. It's not unusual that ATC takes some of the flak when the report eventually comes out, but it's not the case that they have primary responsibility.

[This poster has been suspended.]

preacher1
preacher1 1
Lightened up, they should. 737 will fly on about nothing. I doubt they'll go far though.
MikeMohle
Mike Mohle 1
They only have to go about 7 miles......
omrigaron
Ryan Hodges 1
Ive landed at both of these airports many times. They are fairly close to each other but even a VFR pilot would know the runways are as different as they can possible be (heading and length). The Branson airport is sitting on a mountain top with cliffs on both sides as well, but the Taney country airport has a lake (Table Rock) at the end of one side. I cant imagine landing a large plane on that runway, gotta at least hand that to them. Taney Country is also non-towered, im just blown how they missed this.
volvodadfast
Ichiro Sugioka 1
Just wondering.. Did SWA just commenced their Chicago-Branson service?
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/SWA4013
volvodadfast
Ichiro Sugioka 1
Wow, somebody already made a Wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._Graham_Clark_Downtown_Airport#Incidents
This confirms that the airport code is KPLK
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 1
I got a chance to talk with an SWA captain. He told me the FAA is pushing to pull their tickets. SWA is trying to save them but it's a long shot.

Senior pilots and the CEO flew the same profile a couple weeks ago and saw some issues with both the pilots and ATC. There should have been some warning by the tower if the local controller was alert to an approach.

The more interesting thing is there was an SWA dispatcher sitting in the jump seat. He was also suspended.
THRUSTT
THRUSTT 1
SWA has to have some inside pull with the FAA, or at least be deep in someone's pockets.
All the BS from parking in the gas station at Burbank to this, you think they would be under some really serious review!!!
preacher1
preacher1 1
Well, didn't they hire that FAA director that got fired for DUI, can't remember his name, and I remember the hiring being very low key.
phataj2008
phataj2008 1
How does this happen??
tarbaby
phil gibson 1
Again??? With all the technology in the cockpit provided to Flight Crews......what in the world were they thinking?? CRM was out the window! They did not backup anything. Who cleared them to land?
preacher1
preacher1 2
what can you say that hasn't been said or asked here. They are down, pax ok and transferred. If bird gets out OK, the only real harm will be wounded pride and/or 2 jobs.
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 1
My understanding is SWA has some pretty high standards to get considered and once hired dang few leave before retirement. The same is true for FAs.

So, are their jobs in question? I'd bet on it.
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
I used to work there.... I think you may be understanding wrong.... One lands on the nose wheel, and the other at a wrong airport... I bet all of this will come down to pilots running close on schedule and trying to make up time.... SWA is not top down safety oriented.... they are schedule oriented and safety comes 2nd... That is why I left the company because they do not meet my schedule. they have proven this time after time. Great money, but money is not everything.
jimquinndallas
Jim Quinn 1
Where is the iPad when you need it?
preacher1
preacher1 1
Apparently, the same place that all these other things are that didn't get used either
khaiduk
Kevin Haiduk 1
According to the Taney County Airport website: "Your customers are closer to everything in town from here".
CloudSurfer89
CloudSurfer89 1
At least this wasn't a 747...it would have been a touch and go or a touch and go over the cliff.
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 1
Based on the weather data, the intended airport runway at KBBG Runway 14 at 143º, 7140' long by 150' wide. What they landed on at KPLK is Runway 120 at 117º, 3738' long by 100' wide.

That's a slightly noticeable difference. Don't these guys brief their approaches and verify headings?!?!
bennettgaryw
Gary Bennett 2
Called flying with you head up your ass.
tonyh2008
Tony H 1
My mistake. Sorry, you're right. But I can definitely see a couple of vacancies coming up at SWA
In the near future. The FAA has been cracking down and they probably told SWA the crew was grounded.
tonyh2008
Tony H 1
I flew an EMB into Branson recently and it's easy to lose sight of that airport and that small is pretty near. I guess they were cleared for the visual and stopped paying attention to the instruments. That's why one guy needs to keep his eyes on the inside until short final. It's a mistake they would've avoided if the would've just gone ahead and shot the ils even in severe clear. I always, always set up for an approach even if I know we will get a visual approach. And yes, SWA was justified and probably saw no alternative when they canned those guys. I still hate it for them but that's a mistake that had a clear potential to be deadly. Hope they can get another job because I'm sure they'll never forget this.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
Has there been a report that these guys were canned? Either the the grape vine from other SW pilots, or through official channels?
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 1
I've only heard of a suspension. There have been no news reports of termination.
Doobs
Dee Lowry 1
Prior preperation prevents piss poor performance. Should have done their homework a gotten turn by turn driving directions on MapQwest.
JKMSEM
John Middaugh 1
Thousands of hours don't equate to infallability! From what I've read, the co-pilot had only been in Branson once during the day, and neither one had landed there at night. Seems to me, that their should be a requirement for multiple night landings before letting a crew land at an airport at night?
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 1
The number of times into the typical airport day or night is irrelevant. We're not talking about a difficult mountain approach. I've gone into a number of airports the first time around, sometimes in solid IMC. And even if VMC, I'll still make sure the available tools are used. These guys had them and still failed. I don't care if it was a visual. The fact there was lack of familiarity with the area should have been their first clue to use the tools.

If you use the tools and resources it won't be an issue. Rumor has it they had the approach loaded. I find that hard to believe. And if they did, they failed to make even the most basic scan to verify situational awareness. It appears they didn't even have a clue what the runway heading should be versus what they were flying. They were 26º off!

Good grief. If some of the people on here were the FAA safety inspectors investigating this those pilots would have a cake walk and back in the air already.
snookcapt
Bob Sudderth 1
I would blame it on fatigue.
Great job landing and stopping, I would be looking for a protective witness ID>
Keep'em working, they will never do it again.
vulcancruiser
Branson is surrounded by more than a dozen fields if you look at the charts. I think a contributing factor on both of these incidents may be the pilot controlled lighting. A small GA aircraft came in and landed, but turned up the lights before they did by remote. Nothing wrong with that but its a few minutes before the lights go off, and in these cases a commercial jet with pilots not fully tuned into the operation pop up and get sucked into the field by the bright lighting...........should not happen........but we will see how it shakes out later.......the 747 guys in Wichita were said to be having an instrument problem and didn't have full confidence in the co-pilots side nav, but they also saw very bright lighting and thought it was their field and landed much to their later dismay. A twin had touched down shortly before them. With GPS accuracy down to a few feet we all thought this was over, but I guess not.
gnensec
Brad Kentopp 1
What happened to always having a Nav. frequency in the radio tuned, an RNAV approach set up or a pseudo vor approach made to the runway of intended landing? These situations are definately unavoidable.

I also find it amazing that airlines have not installed a small moving map display, yeah yeah cost, no airlines makes money now days, it's all about the tax right off for daddy warbucks on on who owns the airline.

2 3 dimentional displays are available now days for cheap. Though I guess if you have the automation now days, maybe all they do is watch movies up front on the iPad, haha!
preacher1
preacher1 1
You can put anything you want in there and in actuality it was. The had the approach loaded but you can't stop a human being from ignoring it for whatever reason, if they so choose.
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 1
Short of an INS, the glass Skyhawk I teach in has all the navigational tools the 737-700 has.

Given my resources I'd have to be pretty damn dumb to have landed at the wrong airport. If I jump over to a friend's Skylane I have approach plates on the MFD with an airplane "flying the plate". The NGs have this!

Just a looksee at the HSI and knowing what their approach course should have been would be a clue. But then, if you don't make use of the tools and resources available...
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
These guys have been around a while. They may not make use of all the new tools in the newer planes, because they won't have the tools available on all the older planes in the fleet they might fly. SW still has a lot of pre-NG planes (nearly 150).
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 1
Even the 733 still has GPS and obviously ILS capability.

Ya can't sell me on the model of the plane even remotely being the issue when I could find BBG using a GPS if so equipped or a simple nav receiver even on the RWY 32 LOC back course in a 150.

Well, that is if they had instructors who taught them how to use the back course of a localizer?

Come to think of it, I hear so much discussion of GPS I can't recall the last time I heard an instructor discuss a localizer. It's as if the only non-precision approach available these days is a LNAV.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
You're entirely correct.

I'm just reaching down to the bottom of the barrel trying to find a reason they wouldn't use the fancy nav gear on their new plane.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
Maybe I could've made use of sarcasm font, or better yet, tongue planted firmly in cheek font.
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 1
LOL It's gonna take some inspectors drinking some of that southern Missouri moonshine while in the barrel with 'em!
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
Why should we bother to argue what might be the reasonable and sensible action to take given all the safety mechanisms built into the system, when we can just post comments to justify mediocrity. The font comment above may still be pertinent.
Wayne47
Michael Townsley 1
Reuters is reporting that the SW pilots were confused by the brighter lights of the PLK airport. Reportedly it was the Captain's first flight to Branson and the First Officers 2nd as his 1st was a daytime landing. Also reported is that the correct information for the Branson airport was programmed into the plane's flight management system.

http://www.courant.com/news/nation-world/sns-rt-us-usa-airport-southwest-20140113,0,554253.story
preacher1
preacher1 1
They are just picking up word for word what came out in the NTSB preliminary report yesterday. As lights are showing to be pilot activated and medium intensity, it's kinda hard to see that but that was their story.
Brian1000
Brian Gough 1
I would rather land at the wrong airport safe , then getting behind the yoke drunk . and get caught ,later.
Outpostone
Outpostone 1
I don't have the SWA FOM but I believe it would say something like "A visual approach is conducted on an IFR flight plan and authorizes a pilot to proceed visually to the airport. Use all available means to positively identify the airport of intended landing prior to beginning a visual approach. If a suitable instrument approach is available, use it to back up the visual approach. As an alternative, extend the runway centerline in the FMS, if it exists in the database." These two pilots obviously hadn't crosschecked their navaids. It goes to show that our visual cues can override all of our training and standard procedures and can be easily convinced that we are right. This is an insidious problem considering how many "experienced' pilots have done this in such a short period of time. It seems that discipline had broken down in this case due to human factors that should be explored further to understand why and to attempt to prevent others from doing it in the future.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Landed 6 minutes ago according to FA. I'm outa here
cfiifr
George Grall 1
Come on! Are you tell me these guys closed their IFR flight plane...turn to 1200..tune CTAF and mayed a visual!
Outpostone
Outpostone 1
They did not close their flight plan. They were on a IFR flight plan and were doing a visual approach.
preacher1
preacher1 1
10-4, but they overrode everything else as you said above and did the visual. Sad part is, and it hasn't come out yet, but as at Jabarra a couple of moths ago, there had to be another plane in the area in order for that field to be lit. Had there not been any lights, we probably would not be having this conversation.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Well, that is basically what they told the NTSB
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 1
About the only time an IFR flight plan gets closed prior to landing is if on a visual approach to a non-towered field. You can close with the controlling agency whether it be a nearby tower, TRACON or Center as long as you are VMC from that point on. If it's IMC, ya gotta call on the ground and close it. That field is closed until they hear from you... or find you.

If going into a towered field, let the controllers close it. They will do so automatically.
flying54
Randall Grier 1
Congratulations on such an excellent landing and stop with a very large aircraft on such a small runway. That in itself demonstrates great piloting skills. Makes me think money is be wasted building these gigantic runways. Give those pilots a trophy!
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 3
I don't think so. Nor will the FAA.

If I make such an error as an instructor, I WILL get a phone call and a likely visit from the FSDO. It does not take a lot to get your ticket pulled if you give much of an indication you're incompetent. Those who teach and those who fly live bodies for a living must be held to a higher standard.

And, I'm glad those standards are there. My rear's survival may depend on another pilot knowing what they're supposed to be doing.
tweeter33
tweeter33 1
Beware of tunnel vision.
frtraining
Felix Rodriguez 1
If you have fly for more tan 10,000 hours, you know it is something possible to happen
smoki
smoki 1
The Senator along with all the other fed jerks are putting on this big show of concern like this is so incredulous. BFD, it happens and will continue to happen. Get over it. He was obviously visual and didn't do basic nav checking to confirm position despite GPS et. al. plus he and the FO had to have heads in the "up and locked position" not to take it around when they saw the "numbers" as in wrong numbers. Duh, Hello!
preacher1
preacher1 2
You are exactly right and it has been confirmed by the BTSB in a preliminary report yesterday, listed at several links below. Both were multi thousand hour pilots with plenty of time in the 737. Just a flat out mistake for whatever reason, and it shows that humans are not infallible. We can all sit back and be pious, but privately, we are glad it didn't happen to us.
preacher1
preacher1 1
volvo945
D Mo 1
Actual SWA billboard @ MDW on 14 Jan 2014:
http://sdrv.ms/LvwOhG
flygirl620se
Sharon Stewart 1
This just makes me more the merrier that I can fly my ass and my family about anywhere we want to go in our Saratoga and I don't have to depend on someone else's judgement or skill to get me there. As a single pilot PIC I check twice on ALL navigation inputs. Amazing that 2 in the cockpit couldn't see trouble coming. Absolutely unbelievable and totally unacceptable. Not exactly a confidence builder for the general public.
Tjrinomato
Tj Rinomato 1
I guess they needed their fix a little earlier
preacher1
preacher1 1
NTSB just released a preliminary report after pilot interviews. Pilots acknowledged that they got tower clearance and dropped the ILS and went visual to the lights, as runway heading was similar. Captain had not been in there before and FO had only been to Branson once in the daylight. Only after touchdown did they realize mistake. Both were multi thousand hours and long term with SWA.
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 1
"...the runway was oriented in a similar direction."

Let's see... 117º versus 143º... Yeah, I guess 26º off is "similar"...

...to a sport pilot certificate holder who got stuck in the air after dark.

Am I the only one who still scans the HSI along with ASI, VSI and altimeter on a final, especially a couple miles or more out on a visual... and at night?

NTSB Press Release:
http://www.ntsb.gov/news/2014/140117.html
preacher1
preacher1 1
Sad part is, just like at Jabarra, there must have been a previous arriving aircraft or the lights would not have been on. LOL. Makes a good case not to call a visual, especially on an unfamiliar airport
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 1
At Jabarra, there was an aircraft that went around after the 74 landed. It might have been the bird that activated the lights prior to arrival. But the 74 beat it to the ground... which could either be good or bad. I don't know that I'd want to have just landed only to have a bird that heavy come up behind me.
preacher1
preacher1 1
CBS National news just said that Branson tower told them they were off course but the NTSB didn't say anything about it that I saw.
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 2
If you want to believe what CBS and other mainstream media outlets tell you, you may do so.

They always report the facts. Period.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Too bad we ain't got a sarcasm font to go with stuff like this. LOL
pilot62
Scott Campbell 1
Uh yea ... a lot of arm chair coaching goin on here, If these guys can do it, most anyone could. 'It does take a while to travel 7 miles even at 150 knots but, but who can say, if you've flown for any length of time, you're guilty of something !
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 1
In this particular case, the additional seven miles would be on a left base or at least a dog leg.

They looked, saw an airport and planted it. No apparent effort to verify their position nor even look at the HSI or compass to see if it jived with the runway they were cleared for.
grinch59
Gene Nowak 1
It's gone! No longer at College of the Ozarks.
lyonstom2003
Tom Lyons 1
I'm sure many remember the NWA A319 landing at Ellsworth AFB instead of KRAP. Oops.
sparkie624
sparkie624 2
Hmm.... How many of you have landing in "KRAP" while flying along?... Yeah... I know old joke but couldn't resist... When NWA landing at the AFB, they were in CRAP not KRAP. :)
preacher1
preacher1 1
Seems like that was back in the middle of 04. No short runway but definitely the wrong one.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
Landing on the wrong runway becomes more intereting when it involves a big plane landing on a short runway.

Both at the moment when the pilot realizes they just landed on a much shorter than anticipated runway and has to stop the plane, and afterward as everyone wonders how they'll get that plane out of there.

As long as no lives nor planes are lost, no big deal. But if these incidents continue, eventually there will be one with a bad outcome. For example, in this case, any of a number of factors could've caused the plane to advance a few hundred more yards, and over the cliff. With 124 passengers and 5 crew, that would've ended well.

This is no time for pilots to get complacent in their landing. Either they have to visualize an airport with an approach with which the pilots are completely familiar, or they must load an automatic approach for navigational guidance in all circumstances.

Especially at night, pilots should be more careful. They should load the approach on all flights after dark, even for familair airports. In non-urban environments, in darkness, there often aren't enough landmarks to know for sure that you're in the right location without instruments.
mew09
mew09 1
Flight plan: KMDW ACITO ADELL AKMIE ARLYN STL MAP DGD KBBBG. Is it possible that after passing MAP ATC said airport 12 o'clock and xx miles?
preacher1
preacher1 1
We never really heard anything official on the dreamlifter at Jabarra. I really doubt we'll hear anything official on this. They landed, nobody hurt, pilots suspended, and plane is gone. I figure that other than supposition, we have heard all that we will hear unless the NTSB puts out something way down the line or somebody files a lawsuit for whatever reason.
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 1
Well, a Dallas lawyer who was on board seems to have his eyes set for a prize.

http://www.kansascity.com/2014/01/13/4749914/pilot-mistake-is-suspected.html
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
Kind of reminds me of the old lawyer joke: "Why has a Lawyer never been shark bit?"

Answer: "Professional Courtesy"

I have even less respect for lawyers than I do SWA, and ask my friends... THAT IS A LOT.
G4tim
Tim Denver 1
The problem is not bringing up the airport identifier on there PFD. They could also
extend the centerline on the intended runway they are suppose to land on. They would then
intercept the final approach just like a ILS.
onceastudentpilot
tim mitchell 1
With there being three mistakes of this nature; is there any chance that these incidents weren't the pilots faults but were caused triangulation errors of the GPS signals from the satellites due to solar flares?????....just a question.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Well, there has not been anything said about this one so far, and the C17 was hushed by the military. The dreamlifter seemed to be caused by cutting off the Instrument approach and going visual on final, into a field that was normally dark but was lighted due to a previous landing. There is a similarity here to the dreamlifter but the 17 was in broad daylight so idk.
SootBox
SootBox 1
Doing the perp walk...er taxi walk in Branson...

http://media.kansascity.com/smedia/2014/01/14/00/09/79zq9.St.81.jpeg
DIRECTFLT
DIRECTFLT 1
NY Daily News has some colorful coverage of the incident:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/southwest-airlines-jet-lands-wrong-missouri-airport-article-1.1577668
DIRECTFLT
DIRECTFLT 1
This AP You Tube Video of the Takeoff from Taney is smooth:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohWB_09Rrks
patrickheining
Patrick Heining 1
I have a question. How is this possible? Doesnt US flights also need to have a flightplan which the ATC is looking up on and doesn't the ATC asks the pilot where he is going when he is turning into the heading of a different final of a runway. And why does the tower controller of this small airport doesn't wonder himself why a commercial SWA jet is landing now on his airport without any case of emergency or whatever?? I mean, planes are hundred times more controlled by a third person than cars so how is It possible to fly the wrong route? Can someone explain ;)
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
There is no tower where he landed... he landed at an uncontrolled airport... Guess the pilot failed to call unicom to state that he was landing at the wrong airport.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 2
I haven't analyzed the geography in this incident. But if it was anything like the Dreanlifter incident in Wichita, the plane was vectored into the correct heading for the correct airport, but happen to cross paths with the offending runway along their path, at nearly the right time and in the sand general vicinity, and in a similar orientation. After dark, a runway that isn't normally lit up, can call out like the correct runway will all lit up from an earlier operation.

A mistake that is easily discovered by consulting navigational aids for confirmation of correct location.

However if the offending runway in on final approach to the intended runway, by the time the pilot misidentifies the incorrect runway and puts her down, the controller might not get a chance to notice that the airplane is landing early. Itall happens so quickly.

Now if the pilot sets up for the incorrect runway, it would be easier for the controller to identify the pilot's mistake. The cobtroller could advise pilot of mistake and give them the correct heading for the turn to the turn fir the runway, or the controller can advise pilot that they "can now make their left turn to line up for 22R".

In either case, the pilot's first thought when looking up to see the correct runway and realize they're lined up fit the wrong one is 'oh shit'. And if the controller was kind and chose option 2, to not make it obvious that the pilot was making a mistake, the pilot's next thought is 'thank you'.

Since the runways and their relative orientation to each other don't easily change, the controllers already know which other nearby runways on or near a particular approach can be and are on occasion mistaken for the intended runway. So they can be on the ready to notice when a pilot is about to make a mistake. But they have to notice the mistake in real time, to be able to intervene prior to the plane landing at the wrong field. But if the controller(s) don't notice the early descent, they can't help the pilots realize they're putting the plane down at the wrong airport.
mustangjosh350
mustangjosh350 1
Didn't know boeing 737-700s could land on small runways. Is the minimum landing distance for 737-700s about 6200 to 6500ft? With short runways of 5000ft?
HGreen
Herb Green 2
737-700s routinely land and takeoff from Santos Dumont Airport in Rio de Janeiro Brazil. Runway length 4300+ feet.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Obviously, he did less
preacher1
preacher1 1
NTSB just announced that they are investigating this. FDR and CVR have been secured. They will interview the crew later this week. That is all they have said for now.
tssmith2
Trevor Smith 1
I know this was a bad mistake by the pilots and all, however, I bet the manufacturer of those brakes though are like, "See, they work!"
BlueBaron
Bruce Thompson 1
I remember that landing very well, while it does speak well for the craft much credit is deserved by the pilot, who in fact had performed another "miracle" a couple years before by foiling an attempted hijacking during boarding in So American, he took a bullet graze across the face as he slammed the door on a would-be hy jacket then started the engines and took off, what guts
saso792
saso792 1
Back in the mid 1970's, while in college at this location, I remember my first solo flight on this runway and I thought the 3700 ft. runway looked good from the Cessna 150 I was flying. Good thing it was night time so they couldn't see the big drop off on both ends of the runway. This was a great airport for training with crosswind landings being the norm but I suppose they didn't have to deal with that last night or they might have been in for bigger trouble than just being on the wrong airport.
tarbaby
phil gibson 1
Gotta hand it to Boeing as well! What an Airplane! It was probably a landing that had never been done before successfully. Under the circumstances, the "Crew" pulled it off. And folks, we are all human. It's not the first time, and certainly will not be the last. Give the crew a break. It certainly was not intentional.......just poor planning and vigilance.
Remember the 6 p's........Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance!........
preacher1
preacher1 1
Well, that's just like the dreamlifter. Specs were way over what it actually did. Hopefully this one will come out that easy.
benaggus
ben Aggus 1
Branson news says it's supposed to depart today, but there's not a departure listed for KPLK on flight aware. When there is, I'm screen-capturing it for prosperity.
preacher1
preacher1 1
It's on there-hit the link above SWA8506
tarbaby
phil gibson 1
I'm sure there will be a video......check out utube tonight.....maybe?
benaggus
ben Aggus 1
Apparently some news crew is there live, so there will be something. Supposed to leave by 1 pm CT according to Branson TV station.
benaggus
ben Aggus 1
Hey, it's there now and they're flying to Tulsa where I live.
benaggus
ben Aggus 1
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/SWA8506
preacher1
preacher1 1
Maybe they are hoping that nobody will watch.
boehm742
Brad Be 1
To late, CNN has a live feed of the aircraft.
boehm742
Brad Be 1
http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/cvplive/cvpstream3.html
tarbaby
phil gibson 0
May have to watch from one of the hillsides........I'll bet Law Enforcement will close the airport and surrounding area.....
vanstaalduinenj
I like the check confirmation of proper airport, takes what? 5 seconds to do
ExCalbr
Victor Engel 1
I missed the live takeoff. Anyone have a link to archive footage?
ETex
Pco Pco 1
Meaning kinda like Firefighters running a business on the days off
JarrodMichel
Jarrod Michel 1
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/SWA8506/history/20140113/1900Z/KPLK/KTUL
tarbaby
phil gibson 1
It's going to happen......Boeing does it again! What an airplane!
bbixler
Bryan Bixler 1
cnn is showing the video http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/cvplive/cvpstream3.html
ReneGS
Rene Salazar 1
There is a live streaming of the plane getting ready for takeoff from KOLR. Here is the link:

http://www.news-leader.com/article/20140113/NEWS01/301130056/NTSB-investigating-Southwest-airport-mix-up-near-Branson?nclick_check=1
Steve1822
Steve1822 1
Can't think of a more embarrassing event for professional pilots (or any pilot for that matter)in clear weather. (Fortunately) the pilots brought the aircraft to a stop on the runway and it was dry. My only fear (as we have experienced before)is that the FAA will pass a bunch of new regulations, vs. recognizing that this was one crew that made an error and nobody got hurt. Hopefully all operators will review their operating SOP's for backing up a visual approach by dialing in either a precision, non-precision or RNAV/GPS approach to the destination landing runway for (monitoring) situational/positional awareness. At the very least, have the destination airport loaded into the FMS or GPS and hitting DIRECT TO after receiving a "cleared for the visual or cleared to land instruction. Then the pilot monitoring would realize that the runway you are about to land on is actually 7 miles away from the geographical reference point of your destination airport. Situational/Positional awareness.
daryl
Daryl Bridwell 1
I can sympathize with the flight crew. There used to be 2 airports near downtown Kansas City. Approaching from the East late at night in a Cessna 310 I was headed for the wrong airport til I was about 2 miles away and tuned in the ILS only to realize I needed to go further South. The high terrain had blocked my view of MKC.
preacher1
preacher1 2
There so many places now with multiple fields, nighttime visual can be a problem, which makes a good case for staying on your plan until touchdown. You can't count on field light as most are on a 15 minute timer and if something lands ahead of you they may still be on, per Jabarra and now here
preacher1
preacher1 1
Hard to really say what happened yet. CBS just said both pilots were veterans with SWA, having about 12 years with the company, so who knows.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
It was also reported that both pilots were removed from active duty, pending an investigation (SW, at least).

FAA and NTSB have also indicate that thy planned to conduct investigations of this incident.

There should be a rule that commercial airline pilots should load an automation landing (of any kind, precision or non-precision, etc.) for navigational guidance, even on manual landings.
DerekCooks
Derek Thomas 1
At the risk of starting something here, I just have to say that THIS Squawk has been one of the most informative, educational, interesting, discussive (freedom to create own word there, LOL) - and polite, friendly and pleasant to read that I've seen on FA in a while - especially with 203 comments and growing. THANK YOU!! I've enjoyed the heck out of this!
preacher1
preacher1 1
It was kinda nice. These guys actually got a break. LOL. Normally it would be just sort of crucifixion. LOL
bill54494
Bill Menzel 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajGGvNjAn4c
bill54494
Bill Menzel 1
Sorry. I should have noted that this is a video of the takeoff.
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 1
Does anyone know if there's a weight on wheels indicator in the 73?

Today, the AA CA was telling me all Boeings have an AoA probe that records on the FDR but no cockpit indication. AA demanded Boeing provide a configuration to give an AoA indicator on the panel.
horlosky
Henry Orlosky 1
The good news is... nobody was injured except the pilot's pride and stature was tarnished a bit. In any case, let's all try to be better, safer, pilots and turn this negative into a positive helpful exercise.
We know that the procedure to verify the airport that they used did not work. Can anyone tell me the best solution that we should implement so that it cannot occur again? This is the third wrong airport incident in 6 months and it could happen to most any of us? What say you?
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 1
It can happen ONLY if a PIC fails to exercise the most basic common sense act... back up a visual with situational awareness tools such as GPS or ILS/Nav loads.

I cannot think of an excuse not to do so, especially at night. I fly into Austin a LOT. I know the area quite well. I know where the beacon is on the airport relative to all other points on the airport (It's at the far south end). But every time, especially at night, I use GPS and especially the ILS on the respective runway.

The only time that didn't work out for me was when they closed 35R at the last minute and I was forced to land on the left side... and taxi for almost three miles.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Well, I knew this was the 2nd, the other being the dreamlifter at Jabarra in November. Where was the other?
onceastudentpilot
tim mitchell 1
the C-17
preacher1
preacher1 1
I forgot about that one.
titleistnavigator
(Duplicate Squawk Submitted)

SWA Flight 4013 lands at Wrong Branson Airport

This airport is 8.6 miles from intended airstrip. My cousin on board this flight tweeted the mood was somber when the deboarded 40 ft from cliff. They are on busses to correct airport now.

http://www.ozarksfirst.com/story/airplane-branson/d/story/SeZv9HxJmE-W09kUQHxoBw
vincentvan
vincentvan 1
Southwest is actually discontinuing service to Branson and 2 other destinations later this year..
jct1967
Chris Thompson 1
It almost got discontinued tonight
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 0
And, she's off! Just like a normal departure.
MikeMohle
Mike Mohle 1
I wonder what the ground roll was. Any info on that?
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 1
Less than 3700 feet! ;-)
ETex
Pco Pco 0
I love the pilot fatique excuse, Most pilots don't just fly they do a lot on the days off and it's not rest
airco436
airco436 0
(Duplicate Squawk Submitted)

Southwest 737 Lands At Wrong Airport, No Injuries

On Sunday night, a Southwest Boeing 737 destined for Branson, Missouri landed at the wrong airport.

http://airchive.com/blog/2014/01/12/southwest-737-lands-wrong-airport-injuries/
chalet
chalet 0
Lousy, shameful. In the old days pilots/navigators used a "computer" which was nothing but a glorified roundish slide rule, the ubiquitous E6B and that was it. With the various extremely accurate electronic gizmos now on board, to make this kind of mistake is inexcusable. For the sake of safety so that nothing of this happens again in the future with posible horrendous consequences this crew has to be fired publicly, after all there were two pairs of brains, eyes and ears and realized the error only after landing.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Well, not saying it is not a hellacious blunder, but humans do make mistakes. These were both Senior pilots with SWA, having over 12 years each. Remember that it was only about 2 months ago in December that the dreamlifter crew did much the same thing at Wichita. Smaller airplane but pax on board. To say a public firing would insure that it don't happen again; In a perfect world, it probably would, but we don't live in a perfect world.
tarbaby
phil gibson 1
A terrible mistake by a professional crew. We as humans have made a few mistakes......as for me, plenty. This crew will dwell on this incident for the rest of their lives......never to forget. That's punishment enough....give them a break by supporting them. They will never do that again.......somebody else will.
THRUSTT
THRUSTT 1
Monsieur, there were 2 brains, not 2 pairs of brains. But I agree with you, they should be flogged, then fired publicly...
chalet
chalet 1
Left brain plus right brain = 2 brains per head, thence two pilots means 4 brains, actually (LOL!!!)
Musketeer1
Musketeer1 0
I would excuse regional pilots of doing this every once in a while, they aren't paid enough to battle complacency. The Atlas guys though? Northwest? Now Southwest? These guys are paid massive amounts of money for zero mistakes, zero complacency. Do your job and get your money.
tarbaby
phil gibson 0
Flightaware will probably be blocked.
falcon2000driver
falcon2000driver 0
Damn!!!Can u say smoking brakes n tires and TRs???
0244
franco fiorillo 0
I have no tollerance with professional crews. I own a 135 - on demand charter company and if any of my pilots make that mistake both captain and co-pilot would be fired immediately and then I would sue both of them for careless and reckless operations.
devsfan
ken young 0
(Duplicate Squawk Submitted)

SWA Flight lands at incorrect airport

A Southwest flight from KMDW to KFWB did not land in Branson, MO..Rather the 732 touched down at an airport 7 miles away( Clark Downtown KPLK)

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/13/travel/southwest-plane-wrong-airport/
Pilot009
robert bierman 0
As a long time pilot I agree with the need for discipline of the 2 pilots, but I have learned that I have become a better pilot after every mistake I have made. I would suggest that after discipline and more training, these pilots might be more useful back in cockpit sharing their experience with other pilots. you can bet they will be better pilots and not make this mistake again.
ETex
Pco Pco 2
Make your mistakes alone, please
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
Please make your mistakes very small ones and on the ground...
jeffjgross
Jeff Gross 0
The following iPad screen capture (Dropbox link) shows the flight appeaed to set up for the KBBG RNAV (GPS) Rwy 16 (FAF) VUCUG ~60 miles from the airport, which would also put you on a TIGHT left base for runway 12 into KPLK. GPS coordinates were gathered from FlightAware data.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/k9p0tnqwfoqif3c/2014-01-18%2009.48.55.png
ssjan
Jan F 0
(Duplicate Squawk Submitted)

Southwest 737 lands at wrong Missouri airport

A Southwest Airlines aircraft bound for Branson, Missouri didn't reach its exact destination on Sunday, after flying in from Chicago. The aircraft did land at Branson, but not at the correct airport.
In a way similar to the Dreamlifter that landed at the wrong airport in Wichita, Southwest 4013 landed at the wrong Branson airport. It didn't land at Branson Airport, the private airport with the IATA code BKG. Instead, it landed at M. Graham Clark Downtown Airport, also known as Taney County Airport.

http://jansaviation.com/news.php?art=southwest-737-lands-at-wrong-missouri-airport

Entrar

Não tem uma conta? Registre-se agora (gratuito) para funcionalidades personalizáveis, alertas de vôo e mais!