The NW overflight, what REALLY happened

On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 20:02:58 GMT, Mark wrote:

On 22 Dec 2009 17:38:20 -0000, Tsu Dho Nym wrote:

Mark wrote:

On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 12:05:27 +0800, Mike Ash wrote:

In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote:

A nice story, but these pilots still need to find a new line
of work. If any one of a great many possible factors had been
different, those pilots and everyone on board their aircraft
would be dead. Sorry, but they don't deserve any slack at
all. It's time for a change of career--something in which
flipping to the wrong frequency or chatting over laptops for
an hour won't put lives at risk.

Please elaborate. Offhand, I can't think of any change which
would have killed people here. Resulted in an emergency landing
somewhere other than their intended destination, perhaps, but
no deaths. According to this story, the pilots were awake and
aware, and would have eventually started wondering where they
were and why ATC hadn't talked to them yet. They would have
been able to quickly figure out their actual location, and
start talking to the appropriate people once they did. They
would have then been directed to an airport in that area that
could handle their plane. A worse outcome, certainly, but I
don't see any risk to life here.

Mike, you're responding to the Mx-Bloss troll,
it makes you look like an ass. Stop.

Nice try, forger.

Trying to get Mark into a spin?

**** off.

Nothing here for me either.
Further posts bearing my name are Jeffrey Bloss forgeries.
He's also Gieselle.
And a loser for life.
==
Mark


He is a lost loser. Neat and tidy

On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 20:39:00 +0100, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Jim Logajan writes:

Actually the posting explicitly claims they didn't actually overfly their
destination - they at first thought they had. Radar records would indicate
whether this was true.

Here you go:

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N...135Z/KSAN/KMSP

Which makes the whole posting suspect; while a nice tale that attempts
to minimize the pilot's errors, I suspect it's just some creative
fiction; I doubt it was actually by someone "in the know"

Josh

On Dec 23, 9:35*am, "Morgans" wrote:
remember, one way or another you are talking to a village idiot, and that is
part of the problem.
--
Jim in NC

Hey Jim..... Merry Christmas sir......


Ben
www.haaspowerair.com

wrote

Hey Jim..... Merry Christmas sir......

And to you, Ben.

It so happens that this Christmas I get to spend most of my time in bed.
Seems as though I decided to get a case of Pneumonia, a couple days ago. I
get out of breath, just standing up long enough to take a shower to blow the
stink off. That's tough for me to get used to, but I'll adapt until I get
better, I guess.

You do what you can to get some air time for me, and keep that pretty blue
and orange bird in the sky, OK?

So until we meet again, Merry Christmas from North Carolina!
--
Jim in NC

Mxsmanic wrote:
Jim Logajan writes:

Actually the posting explicitly claims they didn't actually overfly
their destination - they at first thought they had. Radar records
would indicate whether this was true.

Here you go:

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N...135Z/KSAN/KMSP

Thanks. According to the detailed tracklog,

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N.../KMSP/tracklog

they were almost directly overhead MSP at 9:04 PM traveling ~604 MPH. The
tracklog shows a turnaround begin at 9:14 PM. If they did start checking their
location at around 9:04 to 9:06, then it seems likely they would have spent a
couple minutes first verifying their wayward location and then a few more
realizing and then correcting the frequency setting problem. Though
8 to 10 minutes to resolve those problem seems a tad on the long side,
though not improbable. So the e-mail's claim about when they became aware of
their lax navigation could indeed be true, just not verifiable or exculpatory
even if true.

Looks like the FAA has placed time-stamped transcripts and audio files here
that indicate they made contact with Minneapolis center at about 9:14:

http://www.faa.gov/data_research/acc...nt/2009-10-23/

On Dec 20, 5:07*pm, wrote:
Subject: NWA overflight

So there were so many factors which helped to cause this episode.
Anyone would have likely prevented it.....properly checking in on the
new frequency would have been the first one.....


Missing radio calls or even multiple radio calls is one thing. Missing
Minneapolis is another. Pilots MUST remain aware of where they are.
--
Gene Seibel
Tales of flight - http://pad39a.com/gene/tales.html
Because we fly, we envy no one.

In article
,
Gene Seibel wrote:

On Dec 20, 5:07Â*pm, wrote:
Subject: NWA overflight

So there were so many factors which helped to cause this episode.
Anyone would have likely prevented it.....properly checking in on the
new frequency would have been the first one.....


Missing radio calls or even multiple radio calls is one thing. Missing
Minneapolis is another. Pilots MUST remain aware of where they are.

Yes, that is the only thing that matters here. They lost situational
awareness under completely benign conditions. That this did not result
in a catastrophe was pure luck. That other people screwed up as well is
irrelevant -- they were the pilots. If a pilot can't keep track of
where his plane is he has no business flying, let alone carrying
passengers for hire.

rg

Mxsmanic writes:

I'm just wondering if those pilots who landed on a taxiway had their licenses
revoked, too, since they also deserved to be grounded.

Not sure that merely landing on a taxiway is cause for license
revocation. That would be a single momentary mistake; the NW pilots made
a series of careless mistakes over an hour or more.

BTW, what about landing at the wrong airport? Some airliner did that
many years ago, confusing then-Moffet Naval Airstation in the south Bay
Area for the intended San Jose Municipal (back then it was Muni, not
Intl.) Don't know what happened to them.

I saw a bizjet land at the wrong airport a few years ago. A 3-engined
FalconJet landed at my home airport (KEDU) by mistake instead of its
intended KDWA (No. Calif). Runways: KEDU 3176 x 50 ft; KDWA 6000 x 100
ft. This was mid-morning, full sunshine. It was kinda funny for us on
the ground, we all heard the roar of the approaching jet, couldn't
believe it was going to land, and as soon as the mains touched the PIC
kicked in reverse thrust, full power. Somehow he made the turn onto the
end taxiway and parked, found out he was at the wrong place. Even
stranger to watch him take off, we don't get many jets here . We joked
he wasn't going to log that airport.

Bug Dout writes:

Not sure that merely landing on a taxiway is cause for license
revocation.

It was an active taxiway. Had there been an aircraft on that taxiway, it would
have been Tenerife all over again, with hundreds dead. That's excellent cause
for revocation of a license.

BTW, what about landing at the wrong airport? Some airliner did that
many years ago, confusing then-Moffet Naval Airstation in the south Bay
Area for the intended San Jose Municipal (back then it was Muni, not
Intl.) Don't know what happened to them.

I haven't heard of that case, but in a case where Northwest landed in the
wrong country (as I recall), the navigator was fired, and I'm not sure about
the others or about their licenses. Landing at the wrong airport isn't as
dangerous as missing the airport by 150 nm or landing on a taxiway, though.
Still, it's a serious mistake for an airline pilot and could easily justify
certificate action.

I saw a bizjet land at the wrong airport a few years ago. A 3-engined
FalconJet landed at my home airport (KEDU) by mistake instead of its
intended KDWA (No. Calif). Runways: KEDU 3176 x 50 ft; KDWA 6000 x 100
ft. This was mid-morning, full sunshine. It was kinda funny for us on
the ground, we all heard the roar of the approaching jet, couldn't
believe it was going to land, and as soon as the mains touched the PIC
kicked in reverse thrust, full power. Somehow he made the turn onto the
end taxiway and parked, found out he was at the wrong place. Even
stranger to watch him take off, we don't get many jets here . We joked
he wasn't going to log that airport.

Was he IFR or VFR?

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 20:08:54 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:

Bug Dout writes:

Not sure that merely landing on a taxiway is cause for license
revocation.

It was an active taxiway. Had there been an aircraft on that taxiway, it would
have been Tenerife all over again, with hundreds dead. That's excellent cause
for revocation of a license.

STFU
--
tiger