CO Express "on-time" but lands at WRONG airport

[Jet_Dreamer]

No, it was Northwest Airlines A319.

Gues I heard the story wrong, my bad.

 

[SpauldingSmails]

Yeah it was an NWA Airbus in RAP. I always think of that when flying into RAP. I also try and imagine what was going through the minds of the crew after they landed.

"Wow there's a lot of B1's here, there must be an airshow this weekend."
"Uh, where's the terminal here again."
"Ah, F."

 

[SLUF4]

I'm glad when the company puts notes in the company pages of the Jepps that there is a similar airport nearby so watch out. They definitely should do something like that if there's been that many landings at this airport by accident.

 

[RJLoser]

I'm glad when the company puts notes in the company pages of the Jepps that there is a similar airport nearby so watch out. They definitely should do something like that if there's been that many landings at this airport by accident.

LIDO does

 

[mesaba13]

Ah DELTA did it too before the A319

 

[wms]

It is an FAR that you have to be at or above the glideslope for the landing runway if available,.. Which therefore means localizer must be tuned/identified.

You have to be above the 3 degree glidepath. I doesn't necessarily have to be electronic. The three-to-one rule is acceptable as well as the vasi/papi. But many companies require use of the ils if available.

 

[asayankee]

You have to be above the 3 degree glidepath. I doesn't necessarily have to be electronic. The three-to-one rule is acceptable as well as the vasi/papi. But many companies require use of the ils if available.

Alright....I'm tired of arguing about this. Here is the FAR reference 91.129. There is no 121 Reg that modifies this either. It states (also in 91.130 Class C, and 91.131 Class B) that if operating a turbine a/c to a runway served by an instrument approach with vertical guidance the operator MUST operate at or above it....that means it must be tuned in and used. If no instrument approach then at or above a visual indicator. Doesn't get much clearer.

Sec. 91.129 — Operations in Class D airspace.

(a) General. Unless otherwise authorized or required by the ATC facility having jurisdiction over the Class D airspace area, each person operating an aircraft in Class D airspace must comply with the applicable provisions of this section. In addition, each person must comply with §§91.126 and 91.127. For the purpose of this section, the primary airport is the airport for which the Class D airspace area is designated. A satellite airport is any other airport within the Class D airspace area.

(b) Deviations. An operator may deviate from any provision of this section under the provisions of an ATC authorization issued by the ATC facility having jurisdiction over the airspace concerned. ATC may authorize a deviation on a continuing basis or for an individual flight, as appropriate.
(c) Communications. Each person operating an aircraft in Class D airspace must meet the following two-way radio communications requirements:
(1) Arrival or through flight. Each person must establish two-way radio communications with the ATC facility (including foreign ATC in the case of foreign airspace designated in the United States) providing air traffic services prior to entering that airspace and thereafter maintain those communications while within that airspace.
(2) Departing flight. Each person—
(i) From the primary airport or satellite airport with an operating control tower must establish and maintain two-way radio communications with the control tower, and thereafter as instructed by ATC while operating in the Class D airspace area; or
(ii) From a satellite airport without an operating control tower, must establish and maintain two-way radio communications with the ATC facility having jurisdiction over the Class D airspace area as soon as practicable after departing.
(d) Communications failure. Each person who operates an aircraft in a Class D airspace area must maintain two-way radio communications with the ATC facility having jurisdiction over that area.
(1) If the aircraft radio fails in flight under IFR, the pilot must comply with §91.185 of the part.
(2) If the aircraft radio fails in flight under VFR, the pilot in command may operate that aircraft and land if—
(i) Weather conditions are at or above basic VFR weather minimums;
(ii) Visual contact with the tower is maintained; and
(iii) A clearance to land is received.
(e) Minimum altitudes when operating to an airport in Class D airspace. (1) Unless required by the applicable distance-from-cloud criteria, each pilot operating a large or turbine-powered airplane must enter the traffic pattern at an altitude of at least 1,500 feet above the elevation of the airport and maintain at least 1,500 feet until further descent is required for a safe landing.
(2) Each pilot operating a large or turbine-powered airplane approaching to land on a runway served by an instrument approach procedure with vertical guidance, if the airplane is so equipped, must:
(i) Operate that airplane at an altitude at or above the glide path between the published final approach fix and the decision altitude (DA), or decision height (DH), as applicable; or
(ii) If compliance with the applicable distance-from-cloud criteria requires glide path interception closer in, operate that airplane at or above the glide path, between the point of interception of glide path and the DA or the DH.
(3) Each pilot operating an airplane approaching to land on a runway served by a visual approach slope indicator must maintain an altitude at or above the glide path until a lower altitude is necessary for a safe landing.
(4) Paragraphs (e)(2) and (e)(3) of this section do not prohibit normal bracketing maneuvers above or below the glide path that are conducted for the purpose of remaining on the glide path.
(f) Approaches. Except when conducting a circling approach under part 97 of this chapter or unless otherwise required by ATC, each pilot must—
(1) Circle the airport to the left, if operating an airplane; or
(2) Avoid the flow of fixed-wing aircraft, if operating a helicopter.
(g) Departures. No person may operate an aircraft departing from an airport except in compliance with the following:
(1) Each pilot must comply with any departure procedures established for that airport by the FAA.
(2) Unless otherwise required by the prescribed departure procedure for that airport or the applicable distance from clouds criteria, each pilot of a turbine-powered airplane and each pilot of a large airplane must climb to an altitude of 1,500 feet above the surface as rapidly as practicable.
(h) Noise abatement. Where a formal runway use program has been established by the FAA, each pilot of a large or turbine-powered airplane assigned a noise abatement runway by ATC must use that runway. However, consistent with the final authority of the pilot in command concerning the safe operation of the aircraft as prescribed in §91.3(a), ATC may assign a different runway if requested by the pilot in the interest of safety.
(i) Takeoff, landing, taxi clearance. No person may, at any airport with an operating control tower, operate an aircraft on a runway or taxiway, or take off or land an aircraft, unless an appropriate clearance is received from ATC. A clearance to “taxi to” the takeoff runway assigned to the aircraft is not a clearance to cross that assigned takeoff runway, or to taxi on that runway at any point, but is a clearance to cross other runways that intersect the taxi route to that assigned takeoff runway. A clearance to “taxi to” any point other than an assigned takeoff runway is clearance to cross all runways that intersect the taxi route to that point.

 

[BoilerUP]

Alright....I'm tired of arguing about this. Here is the FAR reference 91.129. There is no 121 Reg that modifies this either. It states (also in 91.130 Class C, and 91.131 Class B) that if operating a turbine a/c to a runway served by an instrument approach with vertical guidance the operator MUST operate at or above it....that means it must be tuned in and used.

Not necessarily.

You will note the FAR does not explicitly state you must use the IAP with vertical guidance, just that you must operate at or above the glideslope from FAF to decision altitude.

While it may seem like semantics to a pilot, don't think such an omission would go unnoticed by lawyers or unrecognized by an administrative law judge.

There are ways to comply with the requirement of flying at or above the procedure glide path without actually using the IAP; most obvious one I can think of us using an FMS-based visual approach with electronic glide path of equal or greater angle.

Of course, usual caveats of follow your applicable company procedures...

 

[asayankee]

I would love to see somebody try and explain their way out of that...

Fed: "Did you follow the Glide path?"

Pilot: "Yes"

Fed: "The actual Glide path?"

Pilot: "Well....no. The virtual Glide path"

Fed: "Huh? How did you do that?"

Pilot" Well, I used the FMS VNAV"

Fed: "The advisory VNAV?"

Pilot: "Ummm yeah I guess"

Fed: "So instead of using the published, surveyed, and certified glide path you used a make believe one that is advisory only??? Let's just throw another 91.13 violation on there while we're at it"

 

[BoilerUP]

I would love to see somebody try and explain their way out of that...

Given the way the regulation is written, and what it says you must do (without specifically stipulating how you must do it), it wouldn't be as hard as you might think.

 

[say again]

Wow, just use the damn ILS if it's available!!

 

[asayankee]

Wow, just use the damn ILS if it's available!!

My point exactly....much easier than trying to explain yourself to your CP, Fed Inspector, Judge, etc....

Some people just like to be difficult I guess

 

[e=mc2]

Sounds like the story line for a Bud Commerical "Mr. Bought Your Job Captain Guy"

 

[Seahawker01]

Looking at the flightaware page it looks like that they landed on runway 15. Sad, the ILS should have saved them. Rumor has it that it was a stand-up crew; maybe we can use this to get rid of 4 CDOs in a row.

 

[Seahawker01]

I would love to see somebody try and explain their way out of that...

Fed: "Did you follow the Glide path?"

Pilot: "Yes"

Fed: "The actual Glide path?"

Pilot: "Well....no. The virtual Glide path"

Fed: "Huh? How did you do that?"

Pilot" Well, I used the FMS VNAV"

Fed: "The advisory VNAV?"

Pilot: "Ummm yeah I guess"

Fed: "So instead of using the published, surveyed, and certified glide path you used a make believe one that is advisory only??? Let's just throw another 91.13 violation on there while we're at it"

Not for nothing- but just because you CRJ FMS VNAV is "advisory only" does not mean all VNAVs are advisory.

 

[Microclimates]

Also, it stands to reason that if they had an FMS flight plan in the box, it was probably to the correct airport. They wouldn't have had a snowflake to an airport not on the flight plan...

Bad visuals on visuals are probably one of the highest risk scenarios we can face. A number of heavies in the past have tried to land at Hawthorne airport instead of 25L at LAX, as they popped out from the marine layer and saw a shiny bright ALS and HIRLS... Just 6000 ft too short. Luckily nobody actually took the approach all the way to the threshold!

 

[Seahawker01]

vaild point but in this case there is no GPS or FMS in the SAAB

 

[Flyer1015]

vaild point but in this case there is no GPS or FMS in the SAAB

You mean pilots can still navigate without GPS or FMS these days?

 

[kmox29]

Given the way the regulation is written, and what it says you must do (without specifically stipulating how you must do it), it wouldn't be as hard as you might think.

BoilerUP is correct.

You would not be able to use this regulation as a basis for violation if crew didn't utilize an ILS during a visual approach. As stated in another post, most companies require this in their FOM, but it is not required by regulation.

Any halfway decent lawyer could get their client out of this. I've been into court and have seen aviation lawyers get their clients out of much worse.

For that matter, the FOM is not enforceable by the FAA either (unless a reg is tied to a procedure). For example, most companies prohibit consuming alcohol within 12 hours of duty. As you know, the FAA's number is 8. If a crewmember is drinking 10 hours before a flight, there is nothing the FAA can do.

 

[asayankee]

I still don't understand why everybody is arguing against something that will HELP YOU??? It's another backup....another way to make sure you're in the right place. Instead folks want to argue how a good lawyer could possibly get them out of a screw up. Instead of us non-lawyer types trying to figure out intent of a reg and legaleeze why not just tune in the ILS. It's much easier than a court battle