737 lands at wrong airport ! On a 3,700 ft runway ?

[jerry allen 3]

If Branson Tower was open, then they were aware of the arriving traffic.  KSGF would have given them the inbound notice and even told them the last position before losing them on radar.  They would also have given that position to the pilots.  The Tower does not have radar, but they should have been aware of what was going on and from where the aircraft was approaching.

My guess is, they just landed at the rwy with the first set of lights they saw.  Wrong!  Since this rwy was 7 miles prior to reaching Branson, the Tower may not have had a visual with them yet and thus cleared them to land based on known traffic, not on seeing the aircraft.  At a normal approach speed, Branson would not be expecting them to arrive until 3 minutes after they had already landed at the wrong airport.  Automation makes for lazy flight crews.  This, I believe, is one more example of that.

 

Jerry

[magentaline 1]

I would like to have heard the Captains announcement on arrival....."ladies and gentlemen, welcome to er er.... oh dear"

[scott967 62]

The writer did not check his facts.  If approaching Branson from the south, the first airport the pilot would see would clearly be the major "Branson Airport" (KBBG).  The M Graham Clark muni airport (KPLK) that the Southwest plane landed at is some 7 nm NW of Branson Airport.  For his scenario to occur the pilot would have to have been cleared to land to the south, not approach from the south.  So one statement or the other is false.  The pilot was either cleared to land toward the south, or, if cleared from the south he would have reached KBBG first.

 

Article does not say aircraft was on a course of 014, it says it was turned to approach on 014.  So I assume sort of an extended left downwind.  As pilots go by KPLK they think, this must be it, so turn base for KPLK rwy 12.

 

scott s.

.

[Patco Lch 1,482]

Southwest, if I'm not mistaken, has SOPs that involve more manual flying, especially the avoidance of auto-throttle.  I'm sure this is strictly human error.

Airways Classics no. 3 pg48 it states that SW declined to use several automated features on their -700 . "We dont want pilots to be button pushers ; we want them to fly airplanes. And in turn that is the kind of pilots we attract." This is a 2006 edition. I wish I knew where to find the flight deck SOP of different carriers. it would be neat if FS2CREW had more versatility along those lines.  

[IUBrian 151]

"Since this rwy was 7 miles prior to reaching Branson, the Tower may not have had a visual with them yet and thus cleared them to land based on known traffic, not on seeing the aircraft. At a normal approach speed, Branson would not be expecting them to arrive until 3 minutes after they had already landed at the wrong airport."

Which perfectly puts to rest, imo, the attempt to assign shared blame on the Branson tower. You're the first one I've read who has so clearly made what in hindsight seems to be an obvious point. I'm now facepalming myself for missing this.

This discussion has been fascinating, in the context of the knowledge one gains being actively involved in flight simming. In years past, the actions of pilots would be as abstract to non-pilots as the incantations of a Druid priest, mysterious, unknowable, beyond comprehension. Now, while I would NEVER claim that my experience simming or reading a 737 FCOM qualifies me to fly a plane, I do think it does enable non-pilots to look at an incident like this and piece together what likely happened with a high degree of accuracy that can no longer be dismissed as "you're not a pilot, so you can't understand." Not to demean pilots in any way, but for someone with an interest in the subject, it's not beyond the average person's comprehension - it's not like developing a new quantum physics theory. Of course we don't have all of the facts, but much like the Air France disaster, peons such as myself can look at this and say, "WT BLEEP were they doing!" even as I understand how it can happen.

[IUBrian 151]

This is from Flightaware - I'm assuming it is accurate

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/SWA4013/history/20140112/2145Z/KMDW/KBBG

[Dave_YVR 997]

 

 

Since this rwy was 7 miles prior to reaching Branson

 

 5.44nm actually from threshold of 12 to the threshold of 14.

[Luis_KMIA 242]

Airways Classics no. 3 pg48 it states that SW declined to use several automated features on their -700 . "We dont want pilots to be button pushers ; we want them to fly airplanes. And in turn that is the kind of pilots we attract." This is a 2006 edition. I wish I knew where to find the flight deck SOP of different carriers. it would be neat if FS2CREW had more versatility along those lines.  

I own every Airways issue, and pulled that one this evening.  It's a very good report on how Southwest flies.  I tried doing a no A/T flight on my PMDG Southwest -700WL, and it definitely keeps you on your toes.  I'm sure the other operators like A/T because it will guarantee optimal use of fuel.  I did find the Gol SOPs online in Portuguese.  I was really interested in how they handle Santos Dumont Airport.

[LAdamson 240]

Automation makes for lazy flight crews. This, I believe, is one more example of that.

 

It can make for a lazy flight crew, yet automation and advanced electronic navigation systems go hand in hand. At the least, these newer systems allow a crew to be much more informed, than was previously possible. It's a fact, that many of our GA aircraft including certified and homebuilts, have better electronic navigation equipment than a lot of airliners presently in use. I know this, because I've been involved with "experimental" classification airplanes for the last 20 years. Many of the builder/pilots I know, are also airline pilots for their day job.

 

We just get a lot of the latest and greatest, that you still won't find in many commercial aircraft, including military. My panel was equipped with a Garmin moving map GPS, in which it would been nearly impossible for me to do this airport screw up. It's just too easy to see, even if I didn't enter any specific identifiers. I would have had both airports shown on the screen. There would be no mistake.

 

 

As one who has had a side hobby of flying over various "crash" sites throughout the years to document the positive aspects of GPS........I truely believe in the future of high tech, versus the old methods. Of course, in the case of GPS, the plane needs one, and the pilots have to pay attention as part of the scan.

 

 

We can just happily assume, that the statistics of airplanes flying blindly into mountains with perfectly good engines, will keep dropping, thanks to modern navigation systems. We use to average three CFITs a year around this area of the mountain west. That count has gone way down in the last few years.

[fppilot 4,398]

Article does not say aircraft was on a course of 014, it says it was turned to approach on 014.  So I assume sort of an extended left downwind.  As pilots go by KPLK they think, this must be it, so turn base for KPLK rwy 12.

 

Scott,

Here is the direct quote from the article, cut-and-pasted.  Compass heading and course are the same concept.

 

" The pilot had been turned to approach Branson from the south on a compass heading of 014 degrees. M. Graham Clark Downtown Airport, a smaller airport in Hollister, Mo., that handles small private planes, was on a heading of 012 degrees. The Southwest plane would have had to almost fly over it to reach Branson.  "

[Patco Lch 1,482]

I own every Airways issue, and pulled that one this evening.  It's a very good report on how Southwest flies.  I tried doing a no A/T flight on my PMDG Southwest -700WL, and it definitely keeps you on your toes.  I'm sure the other operators like A/T because it will guarantee optimal use of fuel.  I did find the Gol SOPs online in Portuguese.  I was really interested in how they handle Santos Dumont Airport.

Thats interesting. Does SW not have autothrottles? Considering several mishaps of late I wonder if their too relaxed in crew resource management.( Fatal over run at KMDW, the hot mike incident, crushed nose gear at KLGA). I have seen utubes of flight attendents making their cabin announcments into a clown act so silly I think I would have wanted off. I prefer safty to LUV. They are the money makers as far as US carriers go though.

[CrewF16 26]

 

Below is a complete info sheet of the Branson Airport. It may or may not have radar. But the approach was handled the same way as many are here in Columbus. Columbus Approach & Departure control about seven other airports in the area. They range in size from a 4,000' GA to a 11,000' Freighter & military base which regularly fly's in 747's and KC-135's. Cols Approach sets them up on the ILS, runs them down the chute, then turns them over to the appropriate tower at about five miles out.

 

 

Branson is controlled by Springfield Approach and has ILS and GPS approach aids. They may not have their own radar but the 737 should still have been on Springfield's screen and by the time she was handed over should have been in site of the Branson Tower which was manned at the time of the incident.

 

http://airnav.com/airport/KBBG

[G550flyer 1,041]

Being a prior military guy, we were constantly beaten about the head to not blindly trust automation. All those years of calculating a fix to fix even though the jet was capable. As a instructor, I constanty told my students to trust but confirm. As a Airforce evaluater , I made sure guys could do things the old school way as well as use automation. I made them talk me through manual procedures by giving them equipment failure scenarios. From my Airforce days, its now in my blood to progressively tune navaids along my route. Listen to nav ident even though its displayed on the ND. Back up all approaches with an alternate approach. Back up all visual approaches with a instrument approach if available. It just makes sense to dail up the ILS for reference even though you are flying a visual. I now use those same techniques in corperate aviation. When the C-17 landed at the wrong airport in Tampa, I was in shock. Everyone had excuses like long duty day, closeness of airports, and the normal use of short runways but theres no excuse. If the C17 crew had simply dailed up the ILS, they would have caught the mistake. I've heard that airline guys usually opt for the visual, but backing it up with an instrument/FMS approach will save you everytime. With a compass on the PFD, theres no need to switch the ND from map. The map is essential for SA. It seems these guys went with the visual but threw all caution to the wind. Neverless, there are 2 more slots available at SWA.

[fppilot 4,398]

If the C17 crew had simply dailed up the ILS, they would have caught the mistake.

 

 

You are so correct on all of the points in your entire message above.  I selectively chose this excerpt because most of what you said regards a pilot.  When it comes to a crew there is redundancy, which makes these incidents even more surprising, and shameful.  Is there too much tendency to defer to the PIC?

[Dave_YVR 997]

 It may or may not have radar. But the approach was handled the same way as many are here in Columbus. Cols Approach sets them up on the ILS, runs them down the chute, then turns them over to the appropriate tower at about five miles out. Branson is controlled by Springfield Approach and has ILS and GPS approach aids. They may not have their own radar but the 737 should still have been on Springfield's screen and by the time she was handed over should have been in site of the Branson Tower which was manned at the time of the incident.

 

 Sorry, I'm really not trying to be nitpicky. Again, these are a few assumptions.

- Columbus App can set them up on the ILS but probably more often a visual unless weather requires an ILS.

- "should still have been on Springfield's screen" possible but not for sure. Again, radar coverage in the hilly terrain. Looking at        the flightaware data (which is the FAA radar data just time delayed) the radar target drops off a few miles northeast of Hollister.

- Would it be at all uncommon for the a/c to be switched over to the tower 10-20nm out on a base leg? Probably not.

 

 The rest I cant even comment on as it's all unknown to us at this point. There are just too many variables to speculate with, I'm not even going to try and start. Just wait and see what the actual facts are when the FAA releases a report on it.