Southwest Jet Bound for Branson Lands at Wrong Airport

[Suburban Warrior]

Source: KSPR

BRANSON, Mo.

A Southwest Airlines flight, bound for Branson Airport lands at M. Graham Clark Airport, just eight miles away.

A Southwest Airlines official says there were 124 passengers on the plane.

No one was injured, but passengers tell KSPR News the runway is too short to allow for a safe takeoff. There is a steep drop off at both ends of the runway that is near College of the Ozarks and the 737 came dangerously close to tumbling off.

Passengers report the pilot had to break hard to prevent going over the edge and they could smell burning rubber inside the plane as a result.

Read more: http://www.kspr.com/news/local/southwest-jet-bound-for-branson-lands-at-wrong-airport/-/21051620/23895590/-/n08v03/-/index.html

[KoKo]

1. Yikes! Isn't this the second time airline has landed at wrong airport

in the past few months?

Weather is bad...but, is there a glitch in our Air Traffic System?

[Suburban Warrior]

3. A cargo 747 landed

at the wrong airport in November.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/21/travel/kansas-cargo-plane-wrong-airport/

I don't think weather was an issue in this latest incident but we will have to wait for the NTSB report for factual information.

[dballance]

2. Okay, this is pilot error but not negligence or poor piloting.

Yes they made a mistake. How many times have any of us taken the wrong exit or a wrong turn?

The fact this happens so rarely is a tribute to the professionals who are in the cockpits.

[Gordon Alf Shumway]

7. A pretty serious error ...

I really don't get how this happens. The GPS on my phone generally gets me within 8 meters of where I need to go, much less 8 miles. (Even Apple Maps) is Air Traffic Control operating with technology inferior to my cell phone?

Maybe it's time to let at least the pilots turn on their cell phones during landing.

[Sgent]

16. 8 miles is nothing to a jet

its about 1 minute of flight time.

In addition, most airports still don't have GPS approaches, so you use the GPS until you get to the approach point (could be 50-100 miles away) and the use the old ILS system for the actual approach. In addition, the GPS in a 737 is probably not fully integrated with the instruments as its a relatively new system.

Finally, many pilots, if its a clear day and at an uncontrolled field (Branson probably is one), will cancel the instrument approach and land via visual flight rules once they have the airport in sight.

If its nighttime, they spot a nearby airport and mistake it for the intended one, not realizing that its the wrong one until very late in the landing process or not until they are on the ground.

Its still not excusable, but that's how it happens.

[Gordon Alf Shumway]

38. I get it ...

But really, 8 miles is a lot to a jet, particularly a jet at low altitude and in the vicinity of airports. In less remote air space it could easily cause mid-air collisions.

Bottom line, I still don't get how the pilots of a commercial passenger jet don't have or don't use technology that can tell them where they are closer than 8 miles, while my phone can easily tell me where I am within a few meters.

Weird ...

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

12. It's damn poor piloting.

Modern airplanes have instruments that should make it impossible to land at the wrong airport if the crew is paying attention to what the airplane is telling them.

[Gordon Alf Shumway]

39. Yea, that's what I thought ...

It makes you wonder about pilot fatigue or training or something ...

[CreekDog]

55. you think that's comparable to a wrong turn?

choosing the wrong airport, navigating to the wrong airport, lining up to a runway too short, proceeding with a landing at the wrong airport and a runway too short for the airplane?

you think that's a wrong turn?

oh no. you're way wrong on this, people could have been killed, very conceivably.

wrong turn my butt.

[dballance]

60. Land on the wrong runway? It's easy.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/13/opinion/goyer-airplane-wrong-runway/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

(CNN) -- After a Boeing 747 Dreamlifter landed at a small airport in Wichita a couple of months ago -- the pilot having mistaken the runway for a much longer and wider one in a similar orientation at a nearby military base -- I made the prediction that it wasn't the last time we'd see such a blunder.

But on Sunday, a Southwest 737 crew mistook a runway in Branson, Missouri, for one at the much larger airport nearby, Springfield/Branson National Airport, and landed there instead. To make matters more hair-raising, the 737 touched down on a relatively short runway even for light planes, never mind for airliners. To their credit, the crew members of the Boeing jet got it stopped short of the end of the runway, where an embankment separated it from U.S. Highway 65, without doing any damage to passengers or the plane.


The question arises: "How did a professionally trained crew manage to screw up so badly?" The answer is it's very easy to do. Take the accidental landing of a C-17 at a small Florida airport in 2012, for example. The crew's intended airport was MacDill Air Force Base, but it instead touched down the giant jet on the much, much shorter, 100-foot-wide runway a few miles away. Military personnel had to work for hours after the mix-up to lighten the airplane's load so it could take off from the short strip.

The fact is that any pilot with a lot of experience who claims to have never at least lined up to land at a runway other than the intended one is probably fibbing. I've been flying everything from light propeller planes to big jets for more than 30 years, and I've aimed for the wrong runway three times and a really big taxiway on a different occasion.

More at link.

On Edit: don't be such jerk. You're not a professional pilot and you don't know anything about flying. Read the linked article by a real professional pilot.

[WhiteTara]

4. Shows how small Branson airport is!

Southwest has only been flying out of there for less than a year I think. Funny, but scary.

[Hoyt]

5. Those lucky folks who were spared spending time in Branson should take it as a sign.

Seriously, glad it was not a tragic pilot error.

[Le Taz Hot]

61. LOL! +1

I was visiting relatives last summer in the Bible Belt and the possibility of visiting Branson came up. I wasn't really interested but I thought, "Well, there's lots of opportunities for entertainment, surely I could find something that might be interesting." Wrong! It's like Las Vegas for has-beens and hackneyed "hoe downs," etc. And the ticket prices! $50.00 for something I had absolutely NO interest in seeing. Thankfully, we didn't have time to do the Branson thing.

[jsr]

6. They were lucky:

[Suburban Warrior]

13. Very Lucky

Quite a drop-off at the end of the runway.

[davidpdx]

20. Nice areal shot

[House of Roberts]

8. Soooo....

how do they get the 737 out of there?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

10. No passengers, minimum fuel, maybe take out the galley carts

and anything else that isn't bolted down. Then do a short-field takeoff (hold the brakes while advancing the throttles) and hope for the best.

[Meandyou]

23. Don't forget full flaps! n/t

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

45. Not a 737. You never take off with full flaps

in a commercial jet - you'd get a takeoff warning horn or chime. There is a specific takeoff flap setting (typically about 15 degrees), and if you haven't set flaps properly the airplane will warn you that the setting is unsafe. Full flaps on a 737 would be a landing config only.

[pangaia]

43. Haven't checked specs on the 737-700 but-

the 3500' length of the runway where it is, IS in fact long enough to take off. But of there is an engine failure, or any other problem after using up about 2000' or more, no way will it be possible to stop the aircraft.

Every commercial aircraft over a certain weight has minimum runway requirements - accelerate-stop distance - that include enough distance once the aircraft reaches v1 to come to a stop in case of a problem.
Sort of...

[Suburban Warrior]

11. They'll off load passengers and fuel and fly it out.

[NutmegYankee]

29. With little fuel and no passengers/cargo, a 737 can take off in 1400 feet.

The runway is twice that. My all-time favorite is TACA flight 110, which suffered a dual engine failure and had to land on a levy outside of New Orleans. They fixed the engines and flew it off.

[jakeXT]

47. He landed with one eye

[pinboy3niner]

52. No sweat. They can handle the takeoff easily using...

Otto Pilot!

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

9. D'oh!

[jmowreader]

14. The airport he landed at is far closer to Branson than Branson Airport is

This is gonna be ugly no matter what.

[Major Nikon]

22. The upside is the passengers have a shorter commute to their hotel

[jmowreader]

33. Look at Google Maps and you'll see you're exactly right

I've been past Branson Airport...there is not a damn thing out there.

[Major Nikon]

35. I've flown into PLK

It's within easy walking distance of the main drag.

[YOHABLO]

15. Can't you just see the flight crew and attendants red faces saying .. bu-bye, bu-bye, bu-bye ..ha ha

the scowls on those passengers faces must have been something.

[seattledo]

17. No

> pilot had to break hard

No, the other article I read said nothing was broken. That is incorrect. So what are you claiming that he broke?

[Suburban Warrior]

18. I posted the first four

paragraphs as they appear in the news article (spelling errors included) as is required of a LBN post. The non wise-ass posters all understood that. Why didn't you?

[tomm2thumbs]

34. nice response (high 5)

[TheDebbieDee]

59. I giggled and I appre iate your sense of humor....

[pinto]

19. Local commuter landed at the wrong airport here years ago. Pre-tower days.

Apparently it was a radio "click" approach to light the runway. Seems the two airports were close enough that the signal worked for both. Pilots made a safe landing, passengers were bussed to the intended destination, but the plane had to be stripped down to minimum weight to get back up off the short runway.

[Major Nikon]

30. Quite a few of them are on the same frequency

Around where I am there are so many airports close together you can often see several of them light up when you click the mic to turn the lights on.

[Capt.Rocky300]

21. We need more facts...

The two runways are similarly aligned, a difference of about 20 degrees in orientation. The normal runway to use in calm conditions at Branson is to the Northwest, runway 32 which has an instrument landing system. The winds were from the south however and of sufficient speed to mandate a landing to the Southeast using runway 14. The only guided approach to that runway is a GPS approach utilizing onboard equipment, assuming they have it and it is functional. Otherwise it is strictly a look out the windshield visual approach. The crew may not have taken advantage of all the tools available to them. We'll have to wait and see.

[Major Nikon]

31. I suspect the tower was closed

My guess is they were in a hurry for ATC to give them the frequency change to the CTAF so they could start making their inbound calls, so they called the airport in sight before they were certain it was positively identified.

On one hand I can understand how it happened. PLK has a pretty wide runway and both airports are single runways. However, PLK has a different frequency so they should have suspected something was wrong when they couldn't control the runway lights. BBG also has a MALSF on the 32 end which they should have noticed was missing, and even if they were intending on landing on 14, they could have gotten a back course indication from the localizer. If nothing else the DME would have given them useful information.

[Capt.Rocky300]

48. There is no published back course approach so I suspect.......

Branson Airport may have the highly directional type of localizer which doesn't give a reliable signal for a back course. So, they most likely didn't even have it tuned in. One thing is for sure, the crew is probably in the Chief Pilot's office right now trying to explain themselves.

[Major Nikon]

50. Last I heard they were talking to the FAA and the NTSB

So I'm sure they are having several conversations regarding their future in aviation.

All localizers will generate a back course signal to one degree or another simply due to the nature of the antenna design. With a few exceptions the FAA has standardized to one type of antenna with the biggest difference for most being the number of dipoles in the array. Sometimes they can't be flight checked reliably for back course use due to obstructions, and sometimes there isn't enough of a reason for the FAA to maintain the back course approach which costs money. Given the proliferation of GPS approaches, back course approaches are falling out of favor. It's just as easy for them to commission a GPS approach which provides for vertical guidance and in many cases lower minimums. There's no reason not to dial it up, if for no other reason than to receive the DME, which is omnidirectional. Even though there's no requirement to do so, it could have saved their aviation careers and the airline a lot of money. Personally I like to have all my radios working for me. If nothing else it gives me something to do on the enroute phase.

It will be interesting to see what comes of this. Two of these in two months almost guarantees there will be some type of action taken by both the FAA and the insurance companies.

[Capt.Rocky300]

53. I believe most, if not all, 121 airline company flight operation manuals......

require the crew to use all available navaids for an approach, even when doing a visual in order to avoid this very situation. As you said, the DME would have given them a clue. I don't know the level of automation in this airplane but I would have thought the SWA fleet would be equipped with GPS and a Navigation Display in a Full Glass or Partial Glass Cockpit. You would think the pilot monitoring would have seen the discrepancy on the ND.

[Major Nikon]

54. I've flown with a lot of professional pilots

Most of them have been very big on using all the radios, even when flying part 91. As you said we need more facts to see what was going on. Perhaps they had some sort of distractions going on that prevented them from due diligence. For all we know at this point they could have had an emergency. I hope this isn't a simple matter of just being careless.

[Capt.Rocky300]

57. As has been learned from past incidents, it's almost never..

just one thing, it's a chain of events that leads to mistakes. Break the chain and the outcome is improved. Following prescribed procedures almost always prevents that chain from being linked together in the first place. I will be interested to hear how much rest they had had and how long their duty day was. Being tired can cause bad decisions and complacency.

[Meandyou]

24. This seems to have happened a lot lately. n/t

[awoke_in_2003]

25. The pilot had to brake hard...

not "break" hard. Sorry, shit like that annoys me.

[Th1onein]

26. Let me guess....They departed from Colorado, right?

Just kidding.

[LeftofObama]

27. LOL!

I see what you did there.

[Th1onein]

62. :)

[Sky Masterson]

28. They got lucky.

They could have landed in Branson.
Been there once and got hives. If I want to see toothless yokels, I'll go to a family reunion.

[Skittles]

32. STOP IT SKY MASTERSON

[Sky Masterson]

56. What?

[Major Nikon]

36. They landed even closer to Branson

If nothing else, hearing the banjo music on final approach should have clued them in.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

46. "Paddle faster - I hear banos!"

[greymattermom]

37. Why not paint the airport code on the runway?

It's just 3 letters. I like it when the lanes of a complex intersection are labeled.

[tanyev]

40. That's how you end up in Bronson instead of Branson.

[Blue_Tires]

49. "...This ain't ovah!!"

[truthisfreedom]

41. Sounds like everything turned out alright.

No biggie.

[James48]

42. 3,700 feet of runway-

Not too bad- they were able to stop in time.

http://www.airnav.com/airport/KPLK

[Historic NY]

44. Sounds like they are going to have to truck it out of there.

[KansDem]

51. oops!

Missed it by that much!

[Kaleva]

58. giggity giggity, giggity goo

[olddad56]

63. not exactly the right airport, but in the ballpark.