johnso29

You should note that when the FAA re-enacted the DAL 767 ATL taxiway incident, they too lined up with the taxiway and not the unlit runway.

Timbo

There's always that 5% who slip through the interview cracks, no doubt. There were two guys in my new hire class who didn't make it past their first year.

xjtguy

True.

But did the FAA continue all the way down to short final, NOT see any runway markings or ANYTHING else that would be seen with all the landing lights on?

Sniper

It wasn't all luck that prevented an accident in this case. Had there been any aircraft on the taxiway, the crew almost certainly wouldn't have landed on it. It was the very appearance of the taxiway (lit, unoccupied) vs. the runway (unlit, also unoccupied) that was a causal factor.

If you're waiting for the landing lights to illuminate the surface, you're gonna' be putting the mains on the runway, minimum, before you realize that's a solid yellow line, not a striped white one. If you're doing that, depending on the aircraft and landing technique, you've now got the reversers unlocked, instinctively, as soon as you touch down. Now you're committed to the landing, too late to go around. In this case, landing on an unoccupied taxiway is probably the safer course of action (both options are bad at this point, but trying to do a go around as a line pilot, starting from a point with the reversers unlocked, on a taxiway . . . that debate could go on forever, and you don't have time to debate the issue as pavement of an unknown length is being eaten up rapidly).

Have you ever landed on an unlit runway in low light or at night? I have (reflectors on the sides of the runway), and there's a good reason its not done in a 767. You don't see the distinguishing features of a runway when they're not lit, even with your landing lights, until your on the ground).

All that said, they lined up and landed on the wrong piece of pavement - that was a mistake that should have been caught (the lighting of a taxiway isn't the same as a runway), and it was unsafe, plain and simple.

xjtguy

AGAIN, subjective/relative on your part. If they weren't able to distinguish be the colors of a lit taxiway, you couldn't be certain they'd be able to tell if there was an aircraft on the taxiway. Or, an aircraft tuning onto the taxiway. The one on EWR, they were EXTREMELY lucky that Kalitta 747, or other aircraft wasn't pushing or taxiing out on to Z.

Saying they would have gone around is like assuming a crew would NEVER try to climb away from terrain with the speed brake out, a crew would NEVER try to land with the conditions that existed on the field at LIT, etc.....

See the above. What if an aircraft was turning onto the taxiway?

Yep, the lights aircraft's did a good job of lighting up the piano keys, numbers, CLMs

Indeed, a mistake. And mistakes happen. They can happen at ALL levels. But if it was a regional crew that landed on a taxi way, a regional crew that almost smeared a plane on a mountain, a regional that flamed out the engines (UAL 767), would you give then them the SAME benefit? Would you completely deny that it was luck and NOT experience being the reason they lived to tell about it, or "saved the day?"

Judging by your posts, I'd say you'd be one of the first to string them up.

johnso29

Or barely missing mountains because the CA was high on cocaine? Or maybe ignoring the EGPWS & missing a mountain in Mexico by less then 200ft? Or running off the end in CLE? Or landing in EWR with the parking brake set and blowing all 4 main tires? Or buzzing a beach in Mexico below 500ft AGL at 300+ kts with passengers on board?

Let's not play the "mainline vs regional pilot" game. We all screw up at every level because we are human. Pointing fingers is not what's important. Learning from our mistakes and preventing things from happening again is what counts.

xjtguy

WHICH IS EXACTLY MY POINT!!!!!!!!!!

But read some of the other posts by certain people.

One set of pilots makes mistakes, and it's "oh well, at least they didn't kill anybody and they saved the day"

Whereas another set pilots makes a mistake and it's "Jesus, mainline pilots would NEVER do that!!!!!!!!!!"

johnso29

Well then you and I agree.

KC10 FATboy

No that isn't your point. You are baiting mainline guys who are having a discussion about a mainline accident while insinuating that they'd trash the regional guys if they made a similar mistake.

You really should just stop unless you have proof of said mainline pilots throwing regional pilots under the bus while giving a pass to mainline pilots. In doing so, you keep the "us versus them" argument alive while hiding under the veil of being the guy that's just trying to keep it real.

xjtguy

You really should read some of the other posts by the same people in other threads. As far as "us versus them', YOU used to do a pretty healthy amount of regional pilot bashing yourself. So I'm not sure you'd be one to be lecturing on that.

You get hired at FX or what?