Southwest flight lands at wrong Missouri airport

Talk about your "Oh $h!t!" moment!

__________________

1980 300TD-China Blue/Blue MBTex-2nd Owner, 107K (Alt Blau) OBK #15
'06 Chevy Tahoe Z71 (for the wife & 4 kids, current mule) '03 Honda Odyssey (son #1's ride, reluctantly) '99 GMC Suburban (255K+ miles, semi-retired mule) 21' SeaRay Seville (summer escape pod)

It seems these wrong airport landings are happening with more frequency.

I had read that Southwest Airlines went to autopilot approach, versus by pilot many months ago. Maybe Branson's location wasn't in the system?

It also makes me wonder why an ATC / Air Traffic Control tech wasn't assigned to, and watching the flight's approach on a radar screen, before handing the flight off to the localizer, if there is a localizer for ground traffic @ Branson.

Weird stuff, especially in the darkness of night to be that far off.

I have heard nothing of their autopilot approaches, but in the past, many ATP's still do a lot of hand flying in order to maintain their skill level. Flying, MOST PARTICULARLY LANDING an airplane involves feel and practice. So much so that it is illegal to haul passengers without at least three landings in the last ninety days. That's the FAA rule, but it might not be enough.

The way that instrument approaches work, you have to select the destination and set it as the next point. I'm sure that they would not have consciously set KPLK (Branson downtown) as their next point. I fully expect they were hand flying the aircraft.

KBBG (the correct destination airport) is in class D airspace, which means that there is no radar surveillence. Many class D towers have nothing more than a radio, a telephone and a pair of binoculars. From what I read, KBBG tower had given permission to land. Problem was, the fella's landed elsewhere.

I expect someone from the KBBG tower has been in a meeting today as well as the pilot crew.

I've read that there are some ATP's that do so many autopilot approaches, that they really are not that good at hand flying any more. If my butt is going to be on a plane, I would prefer to have someone that has done and continues to do LOTS of hand flying. Sully putting it in the Hudson is a great example of why. If one of those autopilot dependent jocks had been in the left seat that day, that landing might not have had such a great outcome.

I saw an interview with Sullies first officer a year or so ago. He said they were discussing the effects of the ditch right down to the water and the plane settled in and the water splashed up over the windscreen and then drained off and the plane settled and seemed to be floating well. The first officer said Sully looked over at him and said "that wasn't so bad."

I really don't believe an autopilot jock would have been able to say the same thing.

Somebody's going to get a CFR violation.....

Actually, that would be more like Korean Air Flight 801...

That was more like a Ho Lee Fuk moment.

__________________

1980 300TD-China Blue/Blue MBTex-2nd Owner, 107K (Alt Blau) OBK #15
'06 Chevy Tahoe Z71 (for the wife & 4 kids, current mule) '03 Honda Odyssey (son #1's ride, reluctantly) '99 GMC Suburban (255K+ miles, semi-retired mule) 21' SeaRay Seville (summer escape pod)

Victor didn't check his vector

Just waiting for the day when the runway is long enough to allow the landing, but not the takeoff...

No Gee Pee Ess on the aircraft?

Classic stuff.
Airplane - Roger Over Victor... huh? - YouTube
Huh? What? Roger/ Over.

Also, flying at night doesn't present the crew with as many visual cues. I've only flown in the cockpit of a big airplane one time (C-130) and that was waaay before GPS. We landed in Colon (Panama), Santa Rosario (Bolivia) and Mendoza, Argentina. The co-pilot had an aeronautical chart in his lap before we entered approach and he busied himself looking for landmarks out of the window as the pilot flew the airplane. When they were both satisfied they cooperated on landing the C-130.

I fly right seat an awful lot in a Cessna 185C amphib. Even with GPS I have the aeronautical chart in my lap, mostly because we fly low altitude and antennas (including cellphone) are a huge threat. I have become so familiar with the local landscape that I don't need the chart or the GPS. Same with my pilot. Even so, the pilot dials in the VORs and I read the chart. We have never come close to getting lost, even at night. (as Bot knocks on wood).

Yeah I have that thought whenever this happens. The thing of it is, these jets are heavy, but they have so much power, I think they can get 'em out of about anywhere they can put 'em in. Small planes like my putt-putt are very easy to get into places that you can't get them out of.

I expect they'll back that sucker up as far as they can on a day with some headwind. Power it up, release the brakes and then after it builds initial speed pull full flaps, stand it on its tail and rocket outta there.

The runway is listed as 3,738 feet, but that's with a 300 feet displaced threshold at each end. Displaced threshold is an area that can not be landed on, but can be used for takeoff. That works out to 4,338 feet of runway for getting out of there. Also at least one end is elevated with no obstructions.

I don't think it'll take Chuck Yeager or Bob Hoover to get it out. I think about anyone with a 737 type rating could get it out.

He was asleep . Just wait, some local news outlet will pick up on that soon...

__________________
"Senior Luna, your sense of humor is still loco... but we love it, anyway." -rickymay ____ "Your sense of humor is still loco... " -MBeige ____ "Señor Luna, your sense of humor is quite järjetön" -Delibes

1982 300SD -- 211k, Texas car, tranny issues ____ 1979 240D 4-speed 234k -- turbo and tuned IP, third world taxi hot rod

2 Samuel 12:13: "David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.” And Nathan said to David, “The Lord also has put away your sin; you shall not die."

As a fuel-savings measure SWA went to autopilot approach well over a year ago. What airports that includes, I do not know. All systems functioning, the autopilot will do a better (superior) job of getting the aircraft to the runway. Old technology was GPS capability to within 15' accuracy. Today, I believe it is even more refined to under 2'. Under a normal approach, the PIC cancels the autopilot @ 50' above runway touch down. Autopilot engaging is a good option to engage from 1,000' on climbout/departure all the way to 50' above runway touch down.

The linked to article references another wrong airport landing where the PIC CANCELLED the autopilot because he thought he saw the place (airport) where the airliner was supposed to land - all because of the bright lights. He was dead wrong. Unless there is an extenuating circumstance or reason to override the autopilot, that instance was faulty, and clearly pilot-error. I'd sure like to listen to the voice recording of the SWA's flight deck the last several minutes of flight. Be interesting to learn if this was yet another boneheaded move to cancel the autopilot in this case, as clearly the autopilot would not have landed at the wrong airport. That is, if the autopilot had been engaged to bring them from MDW to the Branson, MO. vicinity.

It still remains unclear as to why the ATC or tower in this case cleared them to land, then ignored their location in air. Big mess-up. I'm sure we'll learn more about how the ground and or the tower controller scr#wed up this wrong airfield incident.