Thoughts on Boeing's Boo-Boo

"For Sweden" (rallybeetle) 11/21/2013 at 12:25 • Filed to: Planelopnik, Safety, Aviation Safety, Flight Safety

5

21

I missed the posting of the front page article, so I'll give my professional opinion on the matter here, going off news reports and the ATC recording on the !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! .

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

My first question, which will come out but I haven't found the answer for: was the flight operating under Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 91 or Part 135? Part 91 is non-revenue general aviation, such as a personal Cessna or a Boeing test flight. Part 135 is revenue cargo aviation, such as if someone way paying Boeing to transport something. If the flight was Part 135, any instrument flight aids, such as Instrument Landing System (ILS) or Area Navigation Global Positioning System (RNAV GPS), would be used. !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! , but the intended runway, 19L, only has RNAV, which the pilots reported they were using. For refrence, the RNAV approach for 19L and the ILS approach for 19R are below.

RNAV is a much newer system, but it is more precise than ILS and 747 pilots should be familiar with it by now. If the RNAV approach was entered into the flight computer properly, it would be immediately obvious that they were landing at the wrong airport.

Then, after the pilots stop and tell ATC they need a moment, McConnell says the tower is 9 miles southeast of the plane. This announcement comes after the pilots report wheels down. If ATC was closely monitoring the aircraft's position, "wheels down" 9 miles from the tower should have at least made the controllers think, "Huh?"

The pilots then ask for the tower frequency at Beech and later Jabrara. These frequencies would be on the pilots' sectional charts, but with so much going on in the cockpit, it's not unusual for the pilots to ask ATC for this information. What is odd is the pilots asking for the coordinates of the airport. Unless my understanding of Boeing's avionics is completely off-base, the 747's GPS should have a sectional chart overlay option, making their current airport immediately obvious. In reality, the pilots couldn't confirm their location until 6 1/2 minutes after landing.

Obviously both the pilots and the controllers should have caught this incident long before the plane landed, but it seems to be two classic cases of insufficient human resource management by both parties. I'm quite interested in hear what the FAA and most likely the NTSB eventually discover.

PS9 > For Sweden 11/21/2013 at 12:32

1

Someone wanna do a biopsy on that massive tumor enveloping the plane?

DailyTurismo > For Sweden 11/21/2013 at 12:33

5

Leadbull > PS9 11/21/2013 at 12:34

3

There's a baby 747 in there, you ignorant pig.

Dukie - Jalopnik Emergency Management Asshole > For Sweden 11/21/2013 at 12:35

0

My assumption is they were FAR 135 on this flight (There is a company that makes 787 forward fuselages near McConnell AFB that the DL would have been making a pickup at).

I think ATC does have a "Huh?" moment in the recordings. The Tower Supervisor comes on and starts asking questions as well. The also may have been monitoring numerous aircraft (later you hear Turbo 72, a KC-135 come up on TWR).

My guess, pilots got confused (maybe it was their first time into KIAB) and just went for the first runway lights they saw. As others have said, it's happened before (the C-17 landing at the muni airport in Florida was the first thing that came to my mind when I heard about this). Hopefully they'll make it out of there ok.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/GT…

Dukie - Jalopnik Emergency Management Asshole > PS9 11/21/2013 at 12:38

1

But it poops from there!

minardi > Dukie - Jalopnik Emergency Management Asshole 11/21/2013 at 12:40

0

So they were able to get airborne again...

Busslayer > For Sweden 11/21/2013 at 12:41

0

Captain Sum Ting Wong has some explaining to do.

Dukie - Jalopnik Emergency Management Asshole > minardi 11/21/2013 at 12:42

0

Not yet. It's taking off at 12:10pm CST (about 30 minutes from now).

minardi > Dukie - Jalopnik Emergency Management Asshole 11/21/2013 at 12:43

0

OK, am on the East coast...

Dukie - Jalopnik Emergency Management Asshole > Busslayer 11/21/2013 at 12:45

2

You'd think he would have a hard time finding a job after the SFO incident...

For Sweden > Dukie - Jalopnik Emergency Management Asshole 11/21/2013 at 12:46

0

Atlas Air...definitely Part 135. Makes the screw-up even greater.

Chris Clarke > For Sweden 11/21/2013 at 13:13

0

A couple counter points to consider. I'd say its unlikely they were 135. You need special approval to operate a business as a for pay charter company. I'm assuming this flight was for internal transportation and not for hire. Either way, the flight would be using some sort of navigation on an instrument flight plan.

Also, an RNAV approach is not more accurate than an ILS. Its considered a non-precision approach and you'll noticed the minimums are higher than an ILS. Also an RNAV approach does not provide a glideslope for vertical guidance as apposed to an ILS.

They also would most likely not have a sectional chart open since they were operating under instrument flight rules and using an IFR enroute chart. I'm also guessing that their navigation GPS does not have a moving map. They most likely programmed the flight plan into the FMS and it would slave to their HSI for course guidance (which is basically a needle that swings back and forth). So far this is all an assumption.

So, assuming you're buzzing along on course, cleared to land, you look out the window and see runway lights and you put her down. You pull off the runway and realize somethings not right, it might take a few minutes to find some landmarks to figure out where you are. I could see this happening. I've been to many very small airports that have runway lights to rival the biggest and the best.

Considering now laws were broken and there was no damage caused, I don't there will be an investigation, at least not by the NTSB, but the FAA might have a few questions to ask, but I don't think they'll go ball busting Boeing.

desertdog5051 > For Sweden 11/21/2013 at 13:17

0

Hmmm... * scratches head* yeah, I totally agree with whatever you just said.

Vizzini > For Sweden 11/21/2013 at 14:05

1

A witness on the ground working at the airport last night made an interesting point (and because the witness's statement was on the internet, I assume it to be true). A small plane landed a few minutes before the Boeing. At Jabara, apparently, the runway lights are on when an aircraft comes in, but turn off automatically when the field is not in active use. The witness speculated that because an airplane had just landed, the runway lights had not yet switched off, so when the Boeing dropped out of the low clouds on final approach, the pilots headed for the lit runway. Still an inexcusable error, but this is at least a sensible explanation of how the pilots of a jumbo could be lured into landing at a GA field.

For Sweden > Vizzini 11/21/2013 at 14:07

0

Excellent point.

f86sabre > Chris Clarke 11/21/2013 at 17:32

0

The Dreamlifters are owned by Boeing and operated by an Atlas Air crew. They fly under Atlas flight numbers so I assume they were operating under 135 as Atlas has 121 (passenger, not this) and 135 (cargo) operating certificates. I would also image this would be a requirement for insurance reasons.

Chris Clarke > f86sabre 11/21/2013 at 17:44

0

Ah ha. Good info. Makes sense. Either way, 91, 135, 121, shouldn't factor much in this type of flight.

f86sabre > Chris Clarke 11/21/2013 at 18:15

0

Nah. I would to hear the FDR records for this. I would wager that the NTSB will be looking into this a bit simple because of the nature of the event. If nothing else this might be considered a runway incursion.

Cajun Ginger > f86sabre 11/21/2013 at 19:20

0

It won't be an incursion if the GAA airport is untowered. Haven't looked it up yet.

f86sabre > Cajun Ginger 11/21/2013 at 21:24

0

It's an interesting question. If a vehicle ends up on a runway it wasn't planning on being on...

Cajun Ginger > f86sabre 11/21/2013 at 21:34

0

I haven't flown anything that big yet, but who drops their gear before the FAF? They actually landed before the FAF. Should have been at 3000' where they landed. So wtf?