Sign in to follow this  
YukonPete

Air Aisa A330 lands at wrong airport!

Recommended Posts

Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Oh my, how embarrassing... not to mention expensive!

Share this post


Link to post

Full report is available here:; https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2015/aair/ao-2015-029/

 

Quote posted under Creative Commons license:

 

On departure from runway 16R the aircraft was observed by air traffic control to enter the departure flight path of the parallel runway 16L. Following advice from air traffic control,

the flight crew identified a problem with the onboard navigation systems. Attempts to troubleshoot and rectify the problem resulted in further degradation of the navigation system,

as well as to the aircraft’s flight guidance and flight control systems. The crew elected to discontinue the flight but were unable to return to Sydney as the weather had deteriorated

in the Sydney area and the available systems limited the flight to approaches in visual conditions. The aircraft was instead radar vectored to Melbourne, Victoria and the flight completed

in visual conditions.

 

The ATSB found that when setting up the aircraft’s flight management and guidance system, the captain inadvertently entered the wrong longitudinal position of the aircraft. This adversely

affected the onboard navigation systems however, despite a number of opportunities to identify and correct the error, it was not noticed until after the aircraft became airborne and started

tracking in the wrong direction. The ATSB also found that the aircraft was not fitted with an upgraded flight management system that would have prevented the data entry error via either

automated initialisation or automatic correction of manual errors.

The flight crew attempted to troubleshoot and rectify the situation while under heavy workload. Combined with limited guidance from the available checklists, this resulted in further

errors by the flight crew in the diagnosis and actioning of flight deck switches. Finally, the ATSB identified that effective monitoring and assistance by air traffic control reduced the

risk to the occurrence aircraft and other aircraft in the area

Share this post


Link to post

I thought airbus is soooo much smarter than boeing...  :Tounge:  :Tounge:

Share this post


Link to post

The thread title is a bit misleading. The aircraft was directed to YMML. Of course this brings out all of the Airbus jokes but a common theme seems to be that certain pilots are not trained well enough on Airbus systems, or despite their training, are not smart enough to understand.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

They (or the PIC) made a data entry error, an honest mistake.  What will get them fired is not the mistake but ignoring the warning systems that tried to draw their attention to it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

to be that certain pilots are not trained well enough on Airbus systems, or despite their training, are not smart enough to understand.

Really has nothing to do with Airbus systems or Boeing systems or some other 'systems'. This is a mistake that can happen when pilot decides to use a shortcut and land on runway he can all of a sudden see without double-checking it is the right runway. Since 99.9% of time there is no such conflicting airport nearby - it is easy o see why pilot may skip verification. Flying purely using visual cues is as old as aviation and it will always be important part of situational awareness in the cockpit - regardless of 'systems'. 

Share this post


Link to post

Really has nothing to do with Airbus systems or Boeing systems or some other 'systems'. This is a mistake that can happen when pilot decides to use a shortcut and land on runway he can all of a sudden see without double-checking it is the right runway. Since 99.9% of time there is no such conflicting airport nearby - it is easy o see why pilot may skip verification. Flying purely using visual cues is as old as aviation and it will always be important part of situational awareness in the cockpit - regardless of 'systems'. 

 

i 100% agree that's not really an airbus or boeing thing.  but just to clarify, they didn't land at the wrong runway. they entered the wrong gps coordinates during initialization and then somehow ignored all of the warnings and inconsistencies that were going on with that and decided to takeoff anyway. when they were unable to rectify this issue while flying, they were diverted to a different airport due to weather conditions deteriorating from where they had started. so they did technically end up at a different spot than they were intending, but it's not quite the same thing as landing at the wrong place. 

 

cheers

-andy crosby

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Any flight that has the same number of takeoffs and landings is, in my book, a success.

Share this post


Link to post

The events were triggered by incorrect data entry, as happened with the title of this topic.

The airline concerned was Air Asia, not Air Aisa. 

Share this post


Link to post

Really has nothing to do with Airbus systems or Boeing systems or some other 'systems'. This is a mistake that can happen when pilot decides to use a shortcut and land on runway he can all of a sudden see without double-checking it is the right runway. Since 99.9% of time there is no such conflicting airport nearby - it is easy o see why pilot may skip verification. Flying purely using visual cues is as old as aviation and it will always be important part of situational awareness in the cockpit - regardless of 'systems'.

 

You need to read the report a little closer.

Share this post


Link to post

The title is very wrong indeed and was started by an Australian media outlet and never corrected. Let's face it, makes people want to click on the link far more than if the title said "Pilots enter wrong coordinates and have to return to land".

How the pilot missed the cues is bewildering. The aircraft was supposed to turn right after takeoff but turned left, across the path of the parallel runway. This is when ATC and the crew took control and unfortunately for the crew they could not return to Sydney to land due to severe weather so they went to YMML. There was no mistake there, once at ML they performed maintenance and continued on.

Share this post


Link to post

 

 


You need to read the report a little closer.

I was talking in general, not in reference to this particular incident.

Share this post


Link to post

They (or the PIC) made a data entry error, an honest mistake.  What will get them fired is not the mistake but ignoring the warning systems that tried to draw their attention to it.

The "honest" mistake also resulted in the aircraft turning left off runway 16R across the take offpath of runway 16L. Lucky that there was not a parallel take off taking place as the risk of a mid air was enormous. Especially when there are cautions on departure plates "DO NOT TURN LEFT". There could have been catastrophic consequences.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Another question from a layman. How soon did the aircrew stop hand flying the plane after takeoff and activate the autopilot and FMC? Surely not +ve rate, gear up...Click..

 

If you're hand flying and following the appropriate SID chart, you would not turn towards the other parallel runway. As David says, the plates have warnings on them...

Share this post


Link to post

Well, according to the article, the autopilot was turned on at 410 feet (I presume that means AGL). So that would be very close to +ve rate, gear up,  click

The SID must have been programmed in, which is why the AP was turned on, so it wasn;t going to be hand flown.

 

                                              - Roger Neves

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this