|37000 Feet||Browse and search NASA's
Aviation Safety Reporting System
|Local Time Of Day||1801 To 2400|
|Locale Reference||airport : ric|
|Altitude||agl bound lower : 0|
agl bound upper : 0
|Operator||common carrier : air carrier|
|Make Model Name||Large Transport, Low Wing, 3 Turbojet Eng|
|Flight Phase||descent : approach|
|Route In Use||approach : visual|
|Affiliation||company : air carrier|
|Function||flight crew : first officer|
|Qualification||pilot : atp|
pilot : cfi
pilot : flight engineer
|Experience||flight time last 90 days : 140|
flight time total : 6500
|Function||flight crew : captain|
oversight : pic
|Qualification||pilot : atp|
|Anomaly||incursion : landing without clearance|
non adherence : clearance
|Independent Detector||other flight crewa|
|Resolutory Action||none taken : anomaly accepted|
|Primary Problem||Flight Crew Human Performance|
|Air Traffic Incident||Pilot Deviation|
On a scheduled flight to ric, we were assigned a 020 heading about 18 DME southwest of ric for a right downwind to runway 20. Airport was reported visually, and we were then clrd for a visual approach to runway 20. Runway lights on runway 16 were very bright, that's how we first spotted the airport. As flying pilot I immediately resolved that this was runway 20 and executed a perfect visual approach to runway 16, landing without incident. Only then did the captain say that we had landed on 16, as indeed we had. Tower clrd us to taxi to our gate with no comment or even a hint that there had been a problem. Factors that contributed to the incident. The location of byrd airport provides few if any, visual references, particularly at night. The angle of our approach (heading 020) made 16 seem the right choice in the absence of references. Runway 16 was very brightly illuminated (REIL, TDZ and approach lights). Flying pilot failed to double-check heading on final. Flying pilot decided on which runway he was landing before and without considering all information available to him. Non flying pilot and engineer failed to monitor approach and failed to notice error until after landing. The problems were, simply stated, my assumption that I had the right runway, then turning my attention toward making a good approach, and the complacency of my fellow crew members in not monitoring what we were doing.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: CLEARED TO LAND RWY 20 MADE APCH AND LNDG ON RWY 16.
Narrative: ON A SCHEDULED FLT TO RIC, WE WERE ASSIGNED A 020 HDG ABOUT 18 DME SW OF RIC FOR A RIGHT DOWNWIND TO RWY 20. ARPT WAS RPTED VISUALLY, AND WE WERE THEN CLRD FOR A VISUAL APCH TO RWY 20. RWY LIGHTS ON RWY 16 WERE VERY BRIGHT, THAT'S HOW WE FIRST SPOTTED THE ARPT. AS FLYING PLT I IMMEDIATELY RESOLVED THAT THIS WAS RWY 20 AND EXECUTED A PERFECT VISUAL APCH TO RWY 16, LNDG WITHOUT INCIDENT. ONLY THEN DID THE CAPT SAY THAT WE HAD LANDED ON 16, AS INDEED WE HAD. TWR CLRD US TO TAXI TO OUR GATE WITH NO COMMENT OR EVEN A HINT THAT THERE HAD BEEN A PROBLEM. FACTORS THAT CONTRIBUTED TO THE INCIDENT. THE LOCATION OF BYRD ARPT PROVIDES FEW IF ANY, VISUAL REFERENCES, PARTICULARLY AT NIGHT. THE ANGLE OF OUR APCH (HDG 020) MADE 16 SEEM THE RIGHT CHOICE IN THE ABSENCE OF REFERENCES. RWY 16 WAS VERY BRIGHTLY ILLUMINATED (REIL, TDZ AND APCH LIGHTS). FLYING PLT FAILED TO DOUBLE-CHECK HDG ON FINAL. FLYING PLT DECIDED ON WHICH RWY HE WAS LNDG BEFORE AND WITHOUT CONSIDERING ALL INFO AVAILABLE TO HIM. NON FLYING PLT AND ENGINEER FAILED TO MONITOR APCH AND FAILED TO NOTICE ERROR UNTIL AFTER LNDG. THE PROBLEMS WERE, SIMPLY STATED, MY ASSUMPTION THAT I HAD THE RIGHT RWY, THEN TURNING MY ATTN TOWARD MAKING A GOOD APCH, AND THE COMPLACENCY OF MY FELLOW CREW MEMBERS IN NOT MONITORING WHAT WE WERE DOING.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.