United MileagePlus (Consolidated) - United Express carrier lands plane at wrong airport!

looks like new United Express carrier Silver Air is still on the learning curve in figuring out where its routes go:

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2012/08/08/us/ap-us-travel-brief-mistaken-landing.html?hp

Flight to Bridgeport, WV landed 5 miles down the road at Fairmont, according to the Associated Press.

Brings to mind this thread:
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/continental-onepass-pre-merger/1257071-continental-express-colgan-lands-wrong-airport.html

Never flying these guys again. Not enough pilot training.

I remember when a mainline CO flight into IAH landed at CRP by accident.

I would typically have some sympathy here - 5 miles is mighty close especially when you're trucking along in a 340, and it can be tough to see short fields from the air, but come on -- how do you not notice that you are landing on a 050 heading when your intended runway is at 030?!?!

Massive failure by the cockpit crew.

I would typically have some sympathy here - 5 miles is mighty close especially when you're trucking along in a 340, and it can be tough to see short fields from the air, but come on -- how do you not notice that you are landing on a 050 heading when your intended runway is at 030?!?!

Massive failure by the cockpit crew.

because they didn't look at the compass in the cockpit. A Delta Express flight from about 6 years made the same mistake. They ended up crashing on take-off and a bunch of people died.

now, now.....the "Bridgeport" airport is officially the "North Central West Virginia" airport.....and with that many different directions in the name, it could be easy to get confused!

This flight does the IAD-MGW-CKB-overnight-CKB-MGW-IAD great cricle route and I-79 can be difficult to follow at night southbound from MGW to CKB......with time moving slowly in the WV mountains, as they say, passing Fairmont on the way it must have seen like they've flown enough time already, so let's land.....

Actually, a great IRROPs recovery for United..... free limo service home for the passengers, just like the high-dollar international carriers do for first-class at JFK......and,the next morning, this plane (and cockpit crew?) left from CKB only 1hr45min late...wish UA would be as good at ORD!

(CKB=Bridgeport/Clarksburg, WV airport.....MGW=Morgantown, WV airport)

I saw on another forum that the plane is too heavy for the runway so they're having to pull all the seats out. They're also waiting for cooler weather to make it off of the short runway.

Great quote from the article OP linked: "Silver Airways said 11 passengers and three crew members were on board at the time of what the company called a diversion. "

More changes/diversions you will like!

"Safety is our top priority, and we have launched an internal review to determine what led to the flight diversion," said David Querio, chief operating officer. "We sincerely apologize for the inconvenience to passengers aboard flight 4049 last evening."


Remove the Bravo Sierra:

"Profit is our top priority, and we have launched an internal review to determine what led to our pilot landing at the wrong airport, on the wrong heading. We sincerely apologize for the inconvenience to passengers aboard flight 4049 last evening, at least the pilot landed the plane safely, that's what we get paid to do."

LOL. slapping forehead.
Silver Airways said 11 passengers and three crew members were on board at the time of what the company called a diversion.

I remember when a mainline CO flight into IAH landed at CRP by accident.

No way.


I would typically have some sympathy here - 5 miles is mighty close especially when you're trucking along in a 340, and it can be tough to see short fields from the air, but come on -- how do you not notice that you are landing on a 050 heading when your intended runway is at 030?!?!

Massive failure by the cockpit crew.


because they didn't look at the compass in the cockpit. A Delta Express flight from about 6 years made the same mistake. They ended up crashing on take-off and a bunch of people died.

Yeah, it's all super easy when you've never flown a plane. Due to magnetic pole drift, the compass headings doesn't actually line up that accurately. Runways are renumbered occasionally to try and make it line up, but rarely. Additionally, on landings, your nose isn't aligned with the runway during the approach due to crosswinds. So, 050 to land on runway 30 is not abnormal.

Obviously, mistakes were made, but it's a lot more complicated than you may believe after reading FlyerTalk and a USA Today Infographic.

I remember when a mainline CO flight into IAH landed at CRP by accident.

No way.

No pilot would ever be that far off!

I believe that flight you're referring to was supposed to land at CRP but landed at Cabbanis Field (NGW) instead - a Naval Outlying Field (NOF) located about 3 miles from CRP. Which is a slightly easier to understand - especially since both airports have two runways (RWY13/31 and RWY17/35) that are oriented in the same direction.

IIRC, CO had to by the Navy a new runway since the 737 exceeded the runway's weight bearing capacity.

-FlyerBeek

I seem to recall a CO flight headed for LAX trying to land at Hawthrone, but was able to correct last minute. Could have been one of the peopleexpressers in the cockpit.

Yeah, it's all super easy when you've never flown a plane. Due to magnetic pole drift, the compass headings doesn't actually line up that accurately. Runways are renumbered occasionally to try and make it line up, but rarely. Additionally, on landings, your nose isn't aligned with the runway during the approach due to crosswinds. So, 050 to land on runway 30 is not abnormal.

Obviously, mistakes were made, but it's a lot more complicated than you may believe after reading FlyerTalk and a USA Today Infographic.

Not really. First runway headings and alignment have to be within 3 deg magnetic or they're redone by the FAA I believe. Secondly, twenty degrees between heading and runway alignment is HUGE, and a big red flag on a visual approach. IF you had a direct 30 knot crosswind, you'd still only be looking at 10 deg of crab with the speed of a jet aircraft.

I remember ExpressJet landing at the wrong airport in Lake Charles, LA last year I think it was. Landing at the wrong airport with today's glass cockpits and overlays seems almost impossible for experienced pilots. Just another head scratching moment for me.

AD

I seem to recall a CO flight headed for LAX trying to land at Hawthrone, but was able to correct last minute. Could have been one of the peopleexpressers in the cockpit.

Yeah, but that's alot closer to LAX than 5 miles. Driving down the 105 it's tough to tell whether small jets are headed for Hawthorne or LAX south complex.

Yeah, it's all super easy when you've never flown a plane.

I am a pilot, albeit of smaller aircraft. And I'll just second AD's comments.. 20 degrees is friggin huge.

*facepalm*!

This flight is just an example of the enhanced route network of the new UA!! ;-)

I remember ExpressJet landing at the wrong airport in Lake Charles, LA last year I think it was. Landing at the wrong airport with today's glass cockpits and overlays seems almost impossible for experienced pilots. Just another head scratching moment for me.

Colgan and expressjet both did it. They landed in Sulphur, which is the next exit over from Lake Charles on I-10.

This is nothing. Doesn't anyone remember when a NW TATL flight landed in BRU instead if FRA......by mistake!!!

because they didn't look at the compass in the cockpit. A Delta Express flight from about 6 years made the same mistake. They ended up crashing on take-off and a bunch of people died.

the comair flight out of LEX i believe was cleared for the wrong runway for takeoff. so i think it was tower error, not pilot.

looks like new United Express carrier Silver Air is still on the learning curve in figuring out where its routes go:

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2012/08/08/us/ap-us-travel-brief-mistaken-landing.html?hp

Flight to Bridgeport, WV landed 5 miles down the road at Fairmont, according to the Associated Press.

Hey. Look at the bright side. At least they landed at an airport.

the comair flight out of LEX i believe was cleared for the wrong runway for takeoff. so i think it was tower error, not pilot.

Nope. The pilots attempted to takeoff from the wrong runway:

http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2007/AAR0705.pdf

because they didn't look at the compass in the cockpit. A Delta Express flight from about 6 years made the same mistake. They ended up crashing on take-off and a bunch of people died.

I think you're referring to either the directional gyro or, on most airplanes these days, the heading indicator which is part of a navigation display. Compasses are emergency instruments.

FAB

Wasn't there an incident a few years back of the NWA flight that landed in an Air Force Base in South Dakota? And the CO '57 that landed on the taxiway? And the NWA 319 that overshot MSP and circled over WI for a while? Oh there was the go! pilots who fell asleep in Hawaii...

I would expected a comment by now stating that silver is second place and United needs to go for the gold. Maybe this thread is on tape delay. :p

Wasn't there an incident a few years back of the NWA flight that landed in an Air Force Base in South Dakota? And the CO '57 that landed on the taxiway? And the NWA 319 that overshot MSP and circled over WI for a while? Oh there was the go! pilots who fell asleep in Hawaii...

Don't forget the Air Force C-17 which accidentally landed at a small municipal airport in Tampa instead of the bloody huge McDill Air Force Base, last month.

This happens a lot. Maybe we need to start labelling airports better. ;) Perhaps color-code the runways.

looks like new United Express carrier Silver Air is still on the learning curve in figuring out where its routes go:

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2012/08/08/us/ap-us-travel-brief-mistaken-landing.html?hp

Flight to Bridgeport, WV landed 5 miles down the road at Fairmont, according to the Associated Press.
At least they still landed in the same country ......
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/dc-10-misses-frankfurt-runway-by-300km-23951/

So, 050 to land on runway 30 is not abnormal.

Obviously, mistakes were made, but it's a lot more complicated than you may believe after reading FlyerTalk and a USA Today Infographic.

Except for the GIANT 5 painted on the threshold of the runway. I can see how that'd be easy to miss by all four eyes that are supposed to be paying attention. :rolleyes:

Don't even try to give the pilots a pass here. It was not a "diversion". It was a major, major blunder.

No pilot would ever be that far off!

I believe that flight you're referring to was supposed to land at CRP but landed at Cabbanis Field (NGW) instead - a Naval Outlying Field (NOF) located about 3 miles from CRP. Which is a slightly easier to understand - especially since both airports have two runways (RWY13/31 and RWY17/35) that are oriented in the same direction.

IIRC, CO had to by the Navy a new runway since the 737 exceeded the runway's weight bearing capacity.

-FlyerBeek

My bad.

looks like new United Express carrier Silver Air is still on the learning curve in figuring out where its routes go:

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2012/08/08/us/ap-us-travel-brief-mistaken-landing.html?hp

Flight to Bridgeport, WV landed 5 miles down the road at Fairmont, according to the Associated Press.

NO WAY<., I am private pilot .. thats unexceptable... PERIOD..........

Thanks guys....and I have fly to BUF tomorrow. Glad I chose to go early on an RJ rather than a Colgan turbo prop.

And yes, about 3 years ago a CO 757 landed safely on an east/west taxiway at EWR by mistake. Normally they use the North/South runways but this was a windy night and they were forced to go east/west and just missed....despite runways and taxiways having different color coded lights.....

Thanks guys....and I have fly to BUF tomorrow. Glad I chose to go early on an RJ rather than a Colgan turbo prop.

And yes, about 3 years ago a CO 757 landed safely on an east/west taxiway at EWR by mistake. Normally they use the North/South runways but this was a windy night and they were forced to go east/west and just missed....despite runways and taxiways having different color coded lights.....

It wasn't a colgan plane that landed wrong. it was a silver airways plane.

The correct airport is towered, the other is not. How did they not get yelled at by ATC when no one could see them on approach?

The correct airport is towered, the other is not. How did they not get yelled at by ATC when no one could see them on approach?

No one was there to yell at'em - tower there is only in operation until 11PM so CKB was actually non-towered (this flight gets in around midnight).

http://www.airnav.com/airport/KCKB/
Airport Operations
Airport use: Open to the public
Activation date: 06/1938
Sectional chart: CINCINNATI
Control tower: yes
ARTCC: CLEVELAND CENTER
FSS: ELKINS FLIGHT SERVICE STATION [703-724-4288]
NOTAMs facility: CKB (NOTAM-D service available)
Attendance: 0500-2300

I remember ExpressJet landing at the wrong airport in Lake Charles, LA last year I think it was.
Colgan and expressjet both did it. They landed in Sulphur, which is the next exit over from Lake Charles on I-10.
The Colgan one generated the thread I linked above.

Didn't a couple of Delta pilots land a 767 on a taxiway not too long ago?

Found it:

http://www.ajc.com/news/delta-flight-lands-on-167519.html

I suspect every airline has some examples of such carelessness.

Sadly, this happens more often than you might think. Some international and domestic carriers experienced "uh oh" landing gaffs below:

2010s

October 30, 2011 - An Azul Linhas Aereas E-195, bound for Teresina, Brazil (THE), mistakenly lands at Domingos Rego Airport in Timon. Link.
September 7, 2011 - A Colgan Air Saab 340, bound for Lakes Charles, Louisiana (LCH), mistakenly lands at Southland Field (L75) in Carlyss. Link.
September 13, 2010 - An Aeromexico MD-83, bound for Tuxtla, Mexico (TGZ), mistakenly lands at Francisco Sarabia/Teran Military Airport. Link.

2000s

April 17, 2009 - A TAAG Angola 737, bound for Lusaka, Zambia (LUN), mistakenly lands at Zambia Air Force City Airport. Link.
April 8, 2009 - A Turkish Airlines 737, bound for Tbilisi, Georgia (TBS), mistakenly lands at Tbilisi Vaziani, a military airfield. Link.
August 16, 2006 - A Turkish Sky Airlines 737, bound for Poznan, Poland (POZ), mistakenly lands at Krzesiny, a military airfield. Link.
March 29, 2006 - A Eirjet A320, bound for Derry, Northern Ireland (LDY), mistakenly lands at Ballykelly, a military airfield. Link.
December 16, 2005 - A Pakistan International Airlines 737, bound for Karachi, Pakistan (KHI), mistakenly lands at Faisal, a military airfield. Link.
September 5, 2005 - A Wings Air MD-80, bound for Minangkabau International Airport in Padang, Indonesia (PDG), mistakenly lands at Tabing Airport, a military airfield. Link.
June 19, 2004 - The above-mentioned incident of a Northwest Airlines A319, bound for Rapid City, South Dakota (RAP), mistakenly landing at Ellsworth Air Force Base.
January 9, 2004 - A Shuttle America Saab 340, bound for University Park Airport in State College, Pennsylvania (SCE), mistakenly lands at Mid-State Regional Airport in Philipsburg (PSB). Link.
January 22, 2003 - A Chatauqua Airlines Embraer 145, chartered by the University of Notre Dame basketball team and bound for South Bend, Indiana (SBN), mistakenly lands at Elkhart Municipal Airport (EKI). See Tom Coyne, "Irish land at wrong airport because of pilot mistake," Associated Press, January 24, 2003.
July 30, 2002 - A LOT Polish Airlines aircraft, bound for Kaliningrad, Russia (KGD), mistakenly lands at Chkalovsk, an abandoned military airfield. Link.
June 27, 2001 - A TAM Fokker 100, bound for Teresina, Brazil (THE), mistakenly lands at Timon. See "Brazilian pilot mistakes private airstrip for urban airport," Deutsche Presse-Agentur, June 27, 2001.
March 14, 2001 - A TWA MD-80, bound for Yampa Valley Airport (HDN), in Steamboat Springs, Colorado mistakenly lands at Craig-Moffat Airport (CIG). Link.
December 8, 2000 - A BAX Global DC-8, bound for Oscoda-Wurtsmith Airport (OSC) in Oscoda, Michigan, mistakenly lands at Iosco County Airport (ECA) in East Tawas. Link.
June 17, 2000 - An Air Nova Dash 8, bound for Mont Joli, Quebec (YYY), mistakenly lands at Rimouski Airport (YXK). See "Pilots land at wrong airport," The Gazette (Montreal, Quebec), June 20, 2000.

Avherald article:

http://avherald.com/h?article=453f2492&opt=0

Since it didn't result in an accident, I would have loved to have been on this flight. The taxi ride would have been worth it to see the flight crew trying to eat crow - while hailing taxis for their customers.

Didn't a couple of Delta pilots land a 767 on a taxiway not too long ago?

Found it:

http://www.ajc.com/news/delta-flight-lands-on-167519.html

I suspect every airline has some examples of such carelessness.

Obviously not exceptable but extreme fatigue makes you do funny things.

Not really. First runway headings and alignment have to be within 3 deg magnetic or they're redone by the FAA I believe.

Impossible. Runway heading granularity is 10 degrees by definition.

Even if you were right (which you're not), re-numbering the runway at 5 degrees would result in no additional accuracy since runway 12, for example, would become runway 13 when the heading was 125.

Impossible. Runway heading granularity is 10 degrees by definition.

Even if you were right (which you're not), re-numbering the runway at 5 degrees would result in no additional accuracy since runway 12, for example, would become runway 13 when the heading was 125.

That's 3 degrees tolerance between the expected runway number and the runway heading. For example, a runway can have a heading of 256 and still be 25 but when it becomes aligned with 259 it will have to be renumbered to 26. Exceptions apply for cases when the runway number is used to distinguish between runways with the same heading (SLC, LAX, DFW, etc.)

That's 3 degrees tolerance between the expected runway number and the runway heading. For example, a runway can have a heading of 256 and still be 25 but when it becomes aligned with 259 it will have to be renumbered to 26. Exceptions apply for cases when the runway number is used to distinguish between runways with the same heading (SLC, LAX, DFW, etc.)

Your theory makes no sense...and here's the example you're talking about, where runway 12R at KHOU is heading 129:

http://flightaware.com/resources/airport/HOU/IAP/ILS+OR+LOC+RWY+12R/pdf

Your theory makes no sense...and here's the example you're talking about, where runway 12R at KHOU is heading 129:

http://flightaware.com/resources/airport/HOU/IAP/ILS+OR+LOC+RWY+12R/pdf

It does make sense, it is a different story if it correct or not. Yes, KHOU is a good example of it being wrong, at least in that case.

Impossible. Runway heading granularity is 10 degrees by definition.

Even if you were right (which you're not), re-numbering the runway at 5 degrees would result in no additional accuracy since runway 12, for example, would become runway 13 when the heading was 125.

What's impossible?

The FAA does checks of runway alignment every yearn after the magnetic variations shift. If the runway heading is 4 deg or less, they keep it as is (124 deg heading would be runway 12). When it crosses to 5 deg off runway heading, it rolls over to the next whole degree (runway 13). It can be somewhat different with multiple runways in the same direction to distinguish the runways (like ATL). But again, you should never have a situation where you're flying more than 5 degrees magnetic off the runway number in still wind. Throw in a crosswind, and you're still not normally flying 20 deg off of the runway, only in a very high crosswind situation and very slow speed could you possibly come close to that.

Also don't confuse runway headings with actual ground track. Experienced pilots don't really look at our heading but more our track across the ground. If I had a 15 deg drift heading on final, I'm not looking out my front window for the runway, but off to the side based on the actual track of the aircraft.

AD

What's impossible?

The FAA does checks of runway alignment every yearn after the magnetic variations shift. If the runway heading is 4 deg or less, they keep it as is (124 deg heading would be runway 12). When it crosses to 5 deg off runway heading, it rolls over to the next whole degree (runway 13).

What's "impossible" is adjusting runway headings by three degrees. But, I noticed you changed your story from 3 degrees to 5. Anyway, I pasted a typical example above where runway 12 has a heading of 129.

The discussion started because you mentioned that the heading and the alignment had to be within 3 degrees. That does not work for a runway at 124, since it cannot be neither 12 nor 13. It does makes sense if the tolerance is 5 degrees.

For what it's worth, here is the official document from FAA: (section 2.3 on page 9)
http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/150_5340_1k_consolidated.pdf

They are supposed to be within 5 degrees. It only talks about how they are supposed to be, not how soon they need to be renumbered.

Impossible. Runway heading granularity is 10 degrees by definition.

Even if you were right (which you're not), re-numbering the runway at 5 degrees would result in no additional accuracy since runway 12, for example, would become runway 13 when the heading was 125.

What are you talking about? I think you're the one who is confused.

You're tone is also kind of obnoxious, especially to a valued senior contributor here. AD is clearly describing the difference between the runway's magnetic heading and the 10-degree increment name. If they are off by more than the sensible rounding quantity, the runway designation should be redone.

Back on topic, I am seeing from some searching that the runway headings are re-evaluated every 5 years, so it's possible that there's some lag. But the case of Runway 12 = 129 is a bit puzzling, since I wouldn't expect magnetic variation to be more than 4deg in 5 years (i.e. it should've been corrected 5 years ago if so?)

And I guess this is the same kind of change that affects VORs over time too.

What are you talking about? I think you're the one who is confused.

You're tone is also kind of obnoxious, especially to a valued senior contributor here. AD is clearly describing the difference between the runway's magnetic heading and the 10-degree increment name. If they are off by more than the sensible rounding quantity, the runway designation should be redone.

Back on topic, I am seeing from some searching that the runway headings are re-evaluated every 5 years, so it's possible that there's some lag. But the case of Runway 12 = 129 is a bit puzzling, since I wouldn't expect magnetic variation to be more than 4deg in 5 years (i.e. it should've been corrected 5 years ago if so?)

And I guess this is the same kind of change that affects VORs over time too.

I think VORs have it even worse, with the possibility of the electronics slowing going out of calibration.

4 deg/5 years is really a lot to be a realistic magnetic drift. The rest of the runways are -1 or +4, so it might be related to which runways HOU uses most of the time, what do they want to spend on maintenance, etc?

What's "impossible" is adjusting runway headings by three degrees. But, I noticed you changed your story from 3 degrees to 5. Anyway, I pasted a typical example above where runway 12 has a heading of 129.

"First runway headings and alignment have to be within 3 deg magnetic or they're redone by the FAA I believe." so if you notice I said "I believe" because I wasn't exactly sure of the changeover point. But I did call a friend of mine that flew for the FAA doing this exact job and that was the information I posted in my last reply.

I'll still say flying 20 deg off runway alignment is not "normal" and would raise my awareness on final.

AD

This happened one time in Rapid City with a Northwest jet...they landed at Ellsworth Air Force base. Now that was a huge security problem and created quite a fuss.

Not only should the 20 degree heading variance from the runway alignment raise some suspicion among the pilots, but doesn't a narrow 3,200 foot runway look a lot different than a 7,000 foot (150 foot wide) runway?

The CVR might reveal how these guys missed all the clues.

What are the odds these two are still employed today?

Not only should the 20 degree heading variance from the runway alignment raise some suspicion among the pilots, but doesn't a narrow 3,200 foot runway look a lot different than a 7,000 foot (150 foot wide) runway?

The CVR might reveal how these guys missed all the clues.

What are the odds these two are still employed today?


At night, in the dark, ascertaining distances can be pretty difficult, though the fact that it was only 3000' had to have been pretty alarming to the flight crew. That's a darn short runway, though.

I don't want to defend these guys (because the 20 degrees off at landing is still ridiculous), but it's probably worth noting that this flight was incredibly short. Cockpit management had to have been challenging for such a short flight.

Not that it makes a lot of difference, but the runways are 15 degrees different, not 20 degrees.

Clarksburg is 31 degrees (Magnetic)
Fairmont is 46 degrees (Magnetic)

Yeah, it's all super easy when you've never flown a plane. Due to magnetic pole drift, the compass headings doesn't actually line up that accurately. Runways are renumbered occasionally to try and make it line up, but rarely. Additionally, on landings, your nose isn't aligned with the runway during the approach due to crosswinds. So, 050 to land on runway 30 is not abnormal.

Obviously, mistakes were made, but it's a lot more complicated than you may believe after reading FlyerTalk and a USA Today Infographic.[/QUOTE]


Way off. Big error and incredibly sloppy airmanship. I, too, am scratching my head on this one (again).

I for one have read enough about runway designators here. Clearly, the cabin crew screwed up. I suspect they may soon be flying crop dusters. Sad that they made such a mistake.

Silver Air did a remarkably smart job at recovery throwing the pax on taxis.

This isn't the first a plane has landed at the wrong airport, and it won't be the last either. But, I certainly suspect that the next time won't be on Silver nor by the crew involved.

Obviously not exceptable but extreme fatigue makes you do funny things.Two CO pilots landed a 757 :eek:n a taxiway at EWR as well. They were landing on rwy 29 and headed right into the setting sun.

This thread has included some talk about airports where the FAA does not man the tower 24/7 and also some talk about Comair 5191, which crashed in Lexington, Ky. on Aug. 27, 2006 after departing on the wrong runway.

Not on point but here's a bit of trivia from the NTSB's report on the Comair crash (which another FTer thoughtfully posted). This comes from the discussion of when/why LEX became a 24/7 manned tower.

"In July 1987, a Delta Air Lines Boeing 737 flight crew was cleared direct to LEX for an approach to the airport. At that time, the LEX tower and radar approach control were closed. After receiving the approach clearance, the flight crew located an airport with runway lights on, entered the traffic pattern, and landed.

"However, that airport was Capital City Airport, Frankfort, Kentucky, with a 5,000-foot runway instead of LEX, the destination airport, with a 7,000-foot runway. (Capital City Airport is located 17 nm from LEX.) The unavailability of ATC services at LEX was included as a contributing factor to the incident. For more information, see ATL87IA201 at the Safety Board’s Web site at <http://www.ntsb.gov>."

Why is anyone surprised? Continental loves turbo-prop operators that pay their aviators and staff the absolute lowest wages and pushing them to the the limits of exhaustion. Or in Colgan's case, right into bankruptcy The feds need to regulate the heck out of express carriers, slave-ship operations. Yes, flying express flights may get more expensive, but their aviators and staff need to be compensated reasonably, trained extensively and well-rested.

Will be interesting once Silver Jet pilots (who have been flying exclusively in FL) start to fly in icing and winter conditions. I anticipate a learning curve there and doubt Silver Jet did any training there...

What are you talking about? I think you're the one who is confused.

You're tone is also kind of obnoxious, especially to a valued senior contributor here. AD is clearly describing the difference between the runway's magnetic heading and the 10-degree increment name. If they are off by more than the sensible rounding quantity, the runway designation should be redone.

Back on topic, I am seeing from some searching that the runway headings are re-evaluated every 5 years, so it's possible that there's some lag. But the case of Runway 12 = 129 is a bit puzzling, since I wouldn't expect magnetic variation to be more than 4deg in 5 years (i.e. it should've been corrected 5 years ago if so?)

Is "valued senior contributor" a new title here? I think it's fair game to call out anyone when they're making claims (3 degrees, etc) that aren't compatible with reality or drifting off topic.

There are tons of runways out there where the markings don't reflect the magnetic heading to the nearest 10 degrees. Any time you have 4 or more parallels one set will always be off by more than 5 degrees: LAX 6s are at 69 and change, ATL 8s are at 94, etc. Rwy 10 at ORD is at 93.7 rather than marking them 9L/9C/9R. Rwy 30 at HOU is currently more than 10 degrees off (310.7 per the diagram).

Rwy 30 at HOU is currently more than 10 degrees off (310.7 per the diagram).

Not really fair to use rwy 30 when rwy 12 has already been pointed out :p

Is "valued senior contributor" a new title here? I think it's fair game to call out anyone when they're making claims (3 degrees, etc) that aren't compatible with reality or drifting off topic.

There are tons of runways out there where the markings don't reflect the magnetic heading to the nearest 10 degrees. Any time you have 4 or more parallels one set will always be off by more than 5 degrees: LAX 6s are at 69 and change, ATL 8s are at 94, etc. Rwy 10 at ORD is at 93.7 rather than marking them 9L/9C/9R. Rwy 30 at HOU is currently more than 10 degrees off (310.7 per the diagram).

HOU runway 30 is 309 magnetic btw, I was just there. You're right about having more degrees off though when you have multiple runways in the same direction such as ATL, but that's really for numbering purposes. For the 9's the heading is 092, and so are the 08's. Not that it would mess anyone up flying a visual into that runway.

AD

Is "valued senior contributor" a new title here? I think it's fair game to call out anyone when they're making claims (3 degrees, etc) that aren't compatible with reality or drifting off topic.
I would submit that being overly obnoxious/aggressive has no place on the board, period (and that it used to be much more civil around here).

Also, when the poster you are addressing is a) a professional on the subject and b) someone who has just shy of 900 posts in a thread (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/united-mileageplus-consolidated/774918-united-pilot-q-thread.html) that is pretty much all about give back to the community (let alone many helpful posts in other threads), then yes, I think it's ok to think extra hard before flaming that person.

Just my opinion.

This sort of thing (landing at the wrong airport) represents a very significant error and also breakdown of crew coordination (or cockpit resource management or whatever today’s buzzword for it is). The dangers are obvious. If they need to remove seats and wait for cool weather to get out, it’s likely that the runway is also too short for safe landings on a regular basis. They got away with it this time but the next crew and pax might not be so lucky.

This sort of thing is like any other accident in that usually there is a chain of events leading to the accident and breaking or interrupting that chain at any point would have prevented the mishap.

While landing at the wrong airport years ago, pre cheap and widespread GPS usage, might possibly be forgivable, today it’s much more difficult to understand. For a couple of hundred bucks, or for the cost of an IPad app, one can have highly accurate aviation GPS information at one’s fingertips. The vast majority of private pilots fly with one dedicated GPS, either panel mounted or handheld, along with a IPad with an aviation GPS app thus 2 different GPSs. I realize the pros have all sorts of other navigational equipment but if that equipment allows in any way for landing at the wrong airport they should (personally) invest in a handheld GPS.

Why is anyone surprised? Continental loves turbo-prop operators that pay their aviators and staff the absolute lowest wages and pushing them to the the limits of exhaustion. Or in Colgan's case, right into bankruptcy The feds need to regulate the heck out of express carriers, slave-ship operations. Yes, flying express flights may get more expensive, but their aviators and staff need to be compensated reasonably, trained extensively and well-rested.

Will be interesting once Silver Jet pilots (who have been flying exclusively in FL) start to fly in icing and winter conditions. I anticipate a learning curve there and doubt Silver Jet did any training there...

Not for nothing but this is an Essential Air Service route sponsored by your pork laden Congress. The DOT determined who would fly this route not United so those are the folks that chose the former Gulfstream. Now I do agree that perhaps UAL should show better judgement in applying the Express/Connection after the BUF accident, but they don't.

Also 'Gulfstream dba as Silver Airways' has operated out of CLE on EAS routes for the last couple years as well as some operations in Montana. That should of given them plenty of winter experience. In the end as you state they are the same scumbag low ball operator that Gulfstream was.

I would demand an extra sector towards MP/AE/M&M qualifying status...for taking the taxi onwards....Kudos on that area even having the requisite number of taxis available at that hour of the night...but to call it a diversion, even Howard Rubenstein the PR man can't get me to believe that load of crapola.

HOU runway 30 is 309 magnetic btw, I was just there.

Do you have a source for that?

NASR/AIP says it's 314 true and variation is only about 3 degrees.

The AeroNav (NACO) plate says 310.7 (https://flightaware.com/resources/airport/HOU/APD/AIRPORT+DIAGRAM/pdf) magnetic but I think that's the Jan 2010 value so it's drifted to about 310.9 now.

Do you have a source for that?

NASR/AIP says it's 314 true and variation is only about 3 degrees.

The AeroNav (NACO) plate says 310.7 (https://flightaware.com/resources/airport/HOU/APD/AIRPORT+DIAGRAM/pdf) magnetic but I think that's the Jan 2010 value so it's drifted to about 310.9 now.

It was on my chart. Here's Airnav.com's info on the runway, not that I want to keep wasting time on this subject. ;)

RUNWAY 30L
Latitude: 29-38.185430N
Longitude: 095-16.097072W
Elevation: 41.5 ft.
Gradient: 0.1%
Traffic pattern: left
Runway heading: 309 magnetic, 314 true

LAX has a pair of 6/24s and a pair of 7/25s. All pointed in the same direction. West, about.

Splain that if you can.

FAB

LAX has a pair of 6/24s and a pair of 7/25s. All pointed in the same direction. West, about.

Splain that if you can.

FAB

Tectonic plates




:p

Its really too bad the aircraft was not equipped with Airshow Lol(: I would have loved to casually go up to the front of the plane or ring the call button and say"Excuse me I think were going to the wrong airport". I was once on a flight where the Airshow system was programmed wrong and it was showing Salt Lake City as the destination when we were really going to San Jose CA from Atlanta. All the data was off. I was in panic thinking something was wrong with the airplane.

On another plane from Oakland-Orly on Corsair as we were descending into Orly the Airshow was showing us descending really quickly those numbers counted down soo quickly.

On yet another flight the Airshow Map showed 0 miles traveled at the end of the flight(:

Before ATC was widely used this happened all the time. Look at the early days of jet pax transports.

While much has improved this can still happen like anything else. I would much rather land at the wrong airport and have somewhat knowledgeable pilots than end up on the Air France flight that went down in the Atlantic despite the multiple stall warnings indicating too high of an angle of attack while the pilots continued to pull up.

One could argue that the avionics in a 4 seater Cesna (Garmin G1000) is more advanced than the avionics in many express jets (if not some bigger planes too). Despite this the airlines are going to use what cost effective and safe enough (which may also be quite dated by today's standards). More advanced avionics would have GPS integrated to provide an additional assurance that you are heading to the correct airport, however, as far as I know the G1000's cost $20,000-$30,000 alone and must be installed when the aircraft is built.

It sucks that it happened but everyone makes mistakes. Just be glad this wasn't a doctor who performed a wrong-site surgery on you...

Tectonic plates




:p

𝄆♬ I feel the earth move....♫ 𝄇

FAB

Wasn't there an incident a few years back of the NWA flight that landed in an Air Force Base in South Dakota? And the CO '57 that landed on the taxiway? And the NWA 319 that overshot MSP and circled over WI for a while? Oh there was the go! pilots who fell asleep in Hawaii...

The NWA plane that landed at the AFB was bound for RAP. Several planes, not necessarily commercial, had made that mistake before. Apparently, the base and airport look rather similar from the air and point in the same direction.

LAX has a pair of 6/24s and a pair of 7/25s. All pointed in the same direction. West, about.

Splain that if you can.

FAB

Solely for avoidance of confusion.

I think the biggest detail being overlooked in this thread is that Silver just started operating this route last week. It was previously handled by Colgan.

I'm kind of amazed that there's coverage to both CKB and MGW given that they're less than 40 miles apart, and a 45-minute drive on an interstate connects them.

I realize it's EAS, but surely one of those airports could cover traffic for the region.

I realize it's EAS, but surely one of those airports could cover traffic for the region....Perhaps the issue is that each of them is represented by a different p:eek:litician...

Do they really use magnetic compasses on these aircraft? Is there a reason not to use gyros?

Do they really use magnetic compasses on these aircraft? Is there a reason not to use gyros?

You do realize large swaths of aeronautical navigation are based on magnetic headings/bearings/etc?

You do realize large swaths of aeronautical navigation are based on magnetic headings/bearings/etc?

I just can't imagine why. Gyrocompasses have been around for a few decades and are widely available, reliable, lightweight, and relatively inexpensive. Why would an industry so dependent on reliable navigation use a method to determine heading that is so susceptible to outside influences?

This is a sincere question. Are there really not gyrocompasses on all commercial aircraft?

I just can't imagine why. Gyrocompasses have been around for a few decades and are widely available, reliable, lightweight, and relatively inexpensive. Why would an industry so dependent on reliable navigation use a method to determine heading that is so susceptible to outside influences?

This is a sincere question. Are there really not gyrocompasses on all commercial aircraft?

Yes, they are using gyros and other types of inertial systems. The reference used for headings is still based on magnetic north with some rare exceptions in the polar region(s).

I just can't imagine why. Gyrocompasses have been around for a few decades and are widely available, reliable, lightweight, and relatively inexpensive. Why would an industry so dependent on reliable navigation use a method to determine heading that is so susceptible to outside influences?

This is a sincere question. Are there really not gyrocompasses on all commercial aircraft?

Got it, sorry, I think it's fair to say that modern commercial aircraft are heavily dependent on GPS and gyro equipment.

That said, magnetic direction remains hugely important because that's what the current infrastructure is based-on, and I think it's highly likely to stay like that. General Aviation aircraft use the same airways and landing systems as the big guys, and most of them at the very least are relying on a magnetic compass as their instrument of last resort (DGs fail, GPS fails, etc)

edit: milski's response is more to the point...

Yes, they are using gyros and other types of inertial systems. The reference used for headings is still based on magnetic north with some rare exceptions in the polar region(s).

I'm not sure what you're saying. Gyrocompasses are not inertial navigtion systems and vice versa. Inertial nav systems are largly obsolete when GPS is available except as a backup (not speaking about aviation specifically but navigation generally). Whether the charts and runways, etc. are designated in true or magnetic shouls be irrelavant. Gyrocompsses are more accurate and precise than magnetc compasses and are preferable when heading is important. Converting from magnetic to true is a trivial exercise; especially if you can ignore deviation which you obviously can in cases like this.

I'm not sure what you're saying. Gyrocompasses are not inertial navigtion systems and vice versa. Inertial nav systems are largly obsolete when GPS is available except as a backup (not speaking about aviation specifically but navigation generally). Whether the charts and runways, etc. are designated in true or magnetic shouls be irrelavant. Gyrocompsses are more accurate and precise than magnetc compasses and are preferable when heading is important. Converting from magnetic to true is a trivial exercise; especially if you can ignore deviation which you obviously can in cases like this.

The answer to your original question if they still use compasses on the aircraft - no, they don't. Not when there are better alternatives like gyros, INS and GPS. Regardless of what the source of navigation info is, the final conversion when displayed is to magnetic, since that's what's on the charts.

I'm not sure what you're saying. Gyrocompasses are not inertial navigtion systems and vice versa. Inertial nav systems are largly obsolete when GPS is available except as a backup (not speaking about aviation specifically but navigation generally). Whether the charts and runways, etc. are designated in true or magnetic shouls be irrelavant. Gyrocompsses are more accurate and precise than magnetc compasses and are preferable when heading is important. Converting from magnetic to true is a trivial exercise; especially if you can ignore deviation which you obviously can in cases like this.

The answer to your original question if they still use compasses on the aircraft - no, they don't. Not when there are better alternatives like gyros, INS and GPS. Regardless of what the source of navigation info is, the final conversion when displayed is to magnetic, since that's what's on the charts.

We don't generally use compasses other than to compare actual magnetic heading on them to our other directional instruments. But we do have a magnetic compass in each and every cockpit.

FAB

We don't generally use compasses other than to compare actual magnetic heading on them to our other directional instruments. But we do have a magnetic compass in each and every cockpit.

FAB
I'd expect that you'd have a mag compass as a backup. What other directional instruments do you have?

Not really. First runway headings and alignment have to be within 3 deg magnetic or they're redone by the FAA I believe. Secondly, twenty degrees between heading and runway alignment is HUGE, and a big red flag on a visual approach. IF you had a direct 30 knot crosswind, you'd still only be looking at 10 deg of crab with the speed of a jet aircraft.

I remember ExpressJet landing at the wrong airport in Lake Charles, LA last year I think it was. Landing at the wrong airport with today's glass cockpits and overlays seems almost impossible for experienced pilots. Just another head scratching moment for me.

AD

That was Colgan, not ExpressJet. As long as XJT has had the jets, the better part of a decade now, they've been a very safe carrier.

This airport that Silver was supposed to go to but in their bonehead inability did not land at had an ILS on one runway and a VOR-A on the runway they were planning on landing on. Maybe the instrument approaches were inop that night, I don't know, but I'm going to bet they were working fine and they just chose not to fly the approach. The whole magnetic variation discussion going on here is interesting but as an airline pilot, once you get past private and instrument training, that stuff isn't used anymore. It's just not something you think about. One thing you do follow however is at least dialing in the instrument approach no matter what the time of day, weather conditions, etc. We all make mistakes. But landing at the wrong airport as an airline pilot when there's an instrument approach to the runway you're supposed to be going to? Come on. That's just inexcusable.

I'd expect that you'd have a mag compass as a backup. What other directional instruments do you have?

On the 757/767, we have two heading indicators that are part of the Nav Display on the lower screen that's on each side of the cockpit. Airbusses and 747/777 have side-by-side instead. Maybe the CO 737s as well. I don't know because we don't fly their planes & vice-versa. These two heading indicators get their stabilizing info from the Inertial Reference Units, which have laser ring gyros in them.

Also, two flux gate compasses which are part of the RMI display, an analog instrument.

Then, we have the regular wet compass, which is used as a reference to compare everything else to when we're doing our cockpit setup. It's about our last backup for heading information if we lose everything else. It has acceleration and turning errors, but is a usable instrument. I don't know if wet compass use is even taught in basic instrument flying anymore, but it was last time I was instructing in the '80's.

FAB

I don't know if wet compass use is even taught in basic instrument flying anymore, but it was last time I was instructing in the '80's.

FAB
I'm sure they still teach it with simulated instrument failures. Plus, there are those FBOs out there that can't afford, or don't want to deal with, the latest electronics (read: the almighty G1000.) Not to mention that gyro compasses tend to wander over time anyway (deviation error.) Frankly, If I were getting my instrument rating today, I'd still prefer to learn with the old six-pack than a G1000 anyway. Call me old skool.





One could argue that the avionics in a 4 seater Cesna (Garmin G1000) is more advanced than the avionics in many express jets (if not some bigger planes too).

Depends on much money the guy with the Cessna has. Of course, the difference between a guy with a Cessna and an airline, is that the airline has tens to hundreds of planes to manage, with constant federal oversight, and every change on an aircraft requires approval, among other things. This adds up to a LOT of money. Even NetJets has this problem thanks to its huge fleet, and FAA oversight.

That said, I consider the G1000 cheating. Real pilots use a map, compass, and watch. ;)

...These two heading indicators get their stabilizing info from the Inertial Reference Units, which have laser ring gyros in them.
...
Also, two flux gate compasses which are part of the RMI display, an analog instrument.



FAB

Thanks.

Better to land at the wrong airport than crash at the right one.

So, how much should the PAX request for compensation?

Dear ALPA: Please use this in your scope negotiations with UA.

This is why we hate flying regional carriers under the UA flag. Service invariably sucks. Sometimes it really sucks - like when your plane intentionally lands at the wrong airport. I avoid regionals like the plague. I hate SkyWest; they are not much better.

I am sure that Smisek is scheming to give more scope to the regionals. That way, he won't have to pay the regional pilots the Delta rate (plus $1.) If we land at the wrong airport, we can walk to the right one, right?

Dear ALPA: Please use this in your scope negotiations with UA.

This is why we hate flying regional carriers under the UA flag. Service invariably sucks. Sometimes it really sucks - like when your plane intentionally lands at the wrong airport. I avoid regionals like the plague. I hate SkyWest; they are not much better.

I am sure that Smisek is scheming to give more scope to the regionals. That way, he won't have to pay the regional pilots the Delta rate (plus $1.) If we land at the wrong airport, we can walk to the right one, right?

Fear not, regaining our scope is at the forefront of our differences with management in these contract negotiations. I certainly sympathize with the passengers' dislike of express, but our differences are along the lines of minimizing the outsourcing of our flying.

While there are pilots on furlough, we see Smisek, et al trying to step up the outsourcing even more.
What's more frustrating still is that there aren't any other employee groups that seem to understand that scope is also an issue with them and their job security.

We don't go into it blindly; we know that it is a business decision, and that's why ALPA is making a case against scope relaxation as a win-win thing. Delta +$1 would not apply to the 70-99 seat planes because Delta doesn't have any. They will soon have the B-717s though, and we would expect that if Smisek is so giddy about matching our contract with Delta's (which he only referenced pay scales, nothing else) he would have to be considering smaller planes than UA flies now. If I had my way, we would fly 100% of the flights that say United on them.

FAB

Sometimes it really sucks - like when your plane intentionally lands at the wrong airport.

To intentionally land at the wrong airport, you have to plan on landing at the wrong airport in the first place. That clearly isn't what happened here.

Also, you will never see mainline non-stop at that particular airport. There's too few passengers to sustain such a flight. I really don't think they could sustain even an A319 even if they stopped at 7 other places along the way.

Sadly, this happens more often than you might think. Some international and domestic carriers experienced "uh oh" landing gaffs below:

December 8, 2000 - A BAX Global DC-8, bound for Oscoda-Wurtsmith Airport (OSC) in Oscoda, Michigan, mistakenly lands at Iosco County Airport (ECA) in East Tawas. Link.

I remember that! (it was pretty big news up here) OSC was doing cargo MX and freighter conversions (a decomissioned AFB, got into heavy aircraft MX).

I found an old link to the story: http://archives.californiaaviation.org/airport/msg12024.html

THE BAY CITY (MI) TIMES


EAST TAWAS - Marv Poland was plowing snow at tiny Iosco County Airport
Friday when he saw what looked like a dark cloud to his side.

Glancing, a DC-8 loomed into focus - bearing down, all 70 tons, wanting to
share Poland's runway.

"I got out of the way," said Poland, airport manager. "We have low
approaches often, but they usually power back up when they see the airport.
This is the first time one of these big birds has landed."

Shoe-horning might better describe the BAX Global jet's 10 a.m. landing. The
DC-8 pilot mistook the East Tawas airport for the Oscoda-Wurtsmith Airport -
the former Wurtsmith Air Force Base - eight miles to the north. He was
heading there for maintenance at Triad International Maintenance Co., an
aircraft repair company on the former base.