Back to Squawk list
  • 16

Controllers Not a Contributing Factor to Southwest Landing

提交時間:
 
U.S. Senator says FAA controllers did what they were supposed to. (www.cnn.com) 更多...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


RRKen
I think the Senator should have left commenting about the incident to the NTSB, since they are the agency of record.

[This poster has been suspended.]

preacher1
preacher1 4
If I'm reading this whole thing right, I'm in agreement with you. According to everything I have seen, the flight plan was not closed, hence to the field. It looks like the tower or somebody would have said something about the deviation. Strange
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 -2
I think we gave our GPS satellites to China as an interest payment. They're messing with us. Lol
mizzouman2000
I was wondering the same thing.
preacher1
preacher1 1
There is a post at the top from nofossil70 that explains
justindpilot
ATC will send an aircraft to Advisory frequency about 10-15 miles from the airport so the pilots can be free to communicate with any possible traffic departing/arriving the uncontrolled airport. That being the case they probably were not in contact with ATC when it would have been obvious that they were landing at the wrong airport. After a professional pilot tells you he has the airport in sight you believe them especially when they are flying an aircraft with GPS, moving map, FMS etc..

In short, as a controller you can't babysit everyone or else a more critical situation may develop. Professional pilots are going to be watched less closely then a student on a cross country because they don''t need more supervision.

Lastly, MSAW alerts are inhibited when within a certain distance from an airport/centerline of the runway, Since they were on the final to a runway it probably didn't go off. The computer doesn't recognize if they are on final to the wrong runway,

Hopefully this clears up a bit.
nofossil70
nofossil70 2
KBBG is a non radar tower and no low alt alert system. Approach control who had handed off the flight was expecting SW to descend bellow MVA. Flight crew was only one checking position and Ail.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
It is the crew's responsibility to fly the plane and take it to the correct destination. They are ultimately responsible for checking the plane's position prior to landing.

sparkie624
sparkie624 1
Next think that we are going to have to install in the planes is an Electronic Airport Identifier. When the captain lines up with the wrong airport you will hear an Audible Alarm.... "Wrong Airport... Wrong Airport"... They use everything else on the plane to get it write... Why not a wrong airport alarm.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
Ha!!

Easy enough. If you file a IFR flight and load it into the plane's system, it can easily detect if you're on approach to the correct airport or not.

The problem cones when you have an emergency diversion. You will already have your hands full dealing with whatever is causing your emergency. Then you line up for a runway to save your own and every life onboard, and the plane keeps yelling 'wrong airport, wrong airport'. It's like having a second back-seat driver wife at work.

In the other hand, each tine you line up with ANY AIRPORT's runway on approach, the plane could read off the airport, the runway, and the available landing distance for all known airports (if those without towers or without radar.)
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
Taking a used line from TV... "We have the technology, we can make him better". Set it up at 500AGL, if you are on final to an airport that is not a defined destination, you would get the audible alert... Every alerting system in the plane is there because someone goofed up... GPWS, TCAS, all were products to make things safer due to crew errors... Now we take them for granite and it is even hard to defer. Next time around for EGPWS may be a wrong runway detector... Depends on how many people continue to land at the wrong airport... 2 in 2 months is a pretty high number and the FAA and NTSB will demand a fix if it continues... That is the way history has presented itself.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
Rather than a "wrong" warning at non IFR-plan airports at 500 AGL (which is too late, Asiana didn't recover from a change in descent at 600ft); I would suggest an audible ID of Airport & Runway any time the plane lines up with any runway below 3,000 AGL for commercial passenger aircraft (maybe lower for GA).
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
Maybe 1500AGL would be better.. Just using an arbitrary number. That would be a good idea to... Set it up similar to a marker beacon, but instead of going straight up, have it to shoot at an approach angle. All airports on the same frequency. Have the signal setup to come on within 5 miles on final... The airport would start verbal ID until muted by the crew... If you are desiring to land at XYZ airport and all of a sudden you hear "Landing ABC Runway 33" you may want to rethink your approach....

LOL, if anyone at the FAA or NTSB is watching us.... It would be interesting if they used a few of our ideas :)
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
I hope they are reading. It would be part of their research, seeking new ideas and solutions.

I would suggest sonehubg higher than 1500 AGL. At least 2,000 and/or up to 3,000.

Taking a look at approach plates for major airports (even in busy airspace) shows that the planes' path lines up with runway centerline at the last point at about 2,500 to 3,000 AGL.

My idea is that as soon as the plane hits this last point and is vectored onto final approach, their airport and runway should be ID'd by the pilots, by the controllers, and potentially by the plane itself with both audible and visual feedback on the display.

Those straight shot approaches are the easiest ones, not only to fly, but also to provide logic for creating audible/ visual feedback.

As easy as these straight shit approaches are, these highly-publicized wring airport landings were exactly these 'easy' straight-in approaches that lull the pilots into complacency.

Trickier are the approaches with last minute turns onto one or worse two or more runways. Eg. The Canarsie approach to JFK's 13R and 13L, (which was the scene of a go-around that almost led to an Aerogal to crash into a JetBlue plane taking off, when the Aerogal turned toward the wrong runway). Planes travel along the same corridor until the last point when planes turn right to one or the other of two parallel runways.

The best solution would have the runway clearance sent to plane from tower. Any deviation from the cleared approach would ve alarmed.
tlewis95630
tlewis95630 1
Since the aircraft was not on a published approach and maneuvering for a landing on a visual approach the target may go into what is a coast status and drops out of the system as an active target, and moves to a suspense list in the event it reacquires as an active target. The MSAW probably only applies in certain charted areas which may not apply to BBG. Imagine the hundreds of MSAW for the many aircraft the ATC people may be working. This is not gospel butt maybe an explanation.
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
Never thought the controllers were at fault... The pilots had an issue with Identity Crisis... The Crisis was identifying the proper airport.
radeon
radeon 1
How much more runways would have been required had there been moisture on the runway ?
preacher1
preacher1 1
Could have been a little more; it would really have depended on how much, but the 64$ question is that they had the approach for KBBG loaded in the FMS; why did they not use it. It is one thing to disregard it and go visual at a familiar field, but one totally foreign as this one; it just don't make any sense.
abowin
Alan Bowin 1
I agree!

登入

還沒有帳戶嗎? 現在就註冊(免費),設置諸多客制化功能、航班提醒等等!
本網站使用cookie。您使用並繼續瀏覽本網站,即表示您接受這一點。
退出
您知道FlightAware航班跟蹤是由廣告支持嗎?
通過允許展示來自FlightAware.com的廣告,您可以幫助我們使FlightAware保持免費。我們努力使我們的廣告保持相關性,同時不顯突兀,以創造一流的體驗。在FlightAware上將廣告加入白名單快速而簡單,或者請您考慮選擇我們的高級帳戶.
退出