Another low cost carrier does it again

Just off the news:

Federal officials are investigating why a Southwest Airlines flight that was supposed to land at Branson Airport in southwest Missouri, instead landed at another airport 11 kilometres away that only had about half as much runway.

Southwest Airlines Flight 4013, carrying 124 passengers and five crew members, was scheduled to go from Chicago's Midway International Airport to Branson Airport, airline spokesman Brad Hawkins said Sunday in a statement. But the Boeing 737-700 landed at Taney County Airport, which is also known as M. Graham Clark Downtown Airport.

Fined 7.5 million for poor maintenance in 2009 and another 1.1 million for the same thing in 2011.

Northwest just over flew their destination by 150 miles because the pilots were distracted

Enjoy your low cost carriers folks.

I think your post is a little bit dramatic, if I am being honest. Pilots at "full cost" (I just made that up, copyright it to my name please!) airlines make mistakes as well. And it is still too early to have all the details here. BUT, when this kind of thing happens (as it has a few times over the past couple of months, both in the US and abroad), it's usually some sort of pilot mistake. I mean, there really is no excuse, with the avionics aboard these new planes, to make a mistake like this. That being said, it HAS happened on legacy carriers as well.

Also, the parts about being fined for maintenance issues are just media tactics and most likely have absolutely nothing to do with this. And Northwest Airlines wasn't a low cost carrier...

Southwest pilots have made some questionable decisions over the years that have resulted in both loss of life and very close calls. But so have other airlines, both domestic and foreign. While I'm not the biggest fan of Southwest from a customer perspective, I will say that I have never come close to fearing for my safety whilst aboard a WN flight.

(Also, it's not just off the news - it was all over the news last night ;))

At least they didn't try to fly them to Branson-the last 7 miles. The news reports about midnight were showing buses loading luggage and passengers. I'll bet some people missed the

Shoji Tabuchi Show or maybe even Tony Orlando.

I am not a pilot but I too am very curious how a pilot could land at the wrong airport with all the technology at their disposal. Even my truck driver's newest GPS systems beep loudly if they are going off route and those systems certainly aren't the level of sophistication that are in airplanes. Wasn't it a US Military plane that just landed at the wrong airport in Wichita a few weeks ago when it was headed to Wrightman or someplace else and they were worried how they were even going to turn the plane around? JMHO but the level of schooling and training seems to be lacking someplace along the way.

It was an Atlas Air cargo plane that hauled on behalf of Boeing. Was going to the AFB in Wichita, but landed at a municipal field instead.

As Zach commented, landing at the wrong airport happens every few years and it doesn't seem to be limited to "discount" airlines. Between instruments in the cockpit and all sorts of landing checks, it shouldn't happen of course.

The weather was a mid-level cloud deck and about 10 mile visibility. They would have descended into the area on instruments. Presumably when they broke out of the clouds into clear weather, they would be shifting focus from instruments to flying a "visual" approach. The transition from one to the other is when a lot of mistakes and accidents have happened over the years, so there's a lot of emphasis on "situational awareness". My pure speculation but they may have spotted the wrong airport and not cross-checked their instruments which would have shown them straying off the intended approach. An unrelated, out of the ordinary event at the same time would have made a mistake more likely. Lastly, the flight was over an hour late so there was at least subconscious pressure to get on the ground and try to make up schedule. All possible reasons, but it shouldn't have happened and the investigation findings will be interesting. This may be the exact opposite of the Asiana and Air France crashes...under-reliance on automation and too much focus on visual "hand flying" of the aircraft.

Greatam- The plane couldn't be flown with passengers to the correct airport for performance and regulatory reasons. The runway is too short (3700 feet) for takeoff with a passenger load. It's perfectly do-able for a "light" takeoff without passengers or cargo. They may remove fuel, too. Since the landing no doubt included a max performance stop, a brake and tire inspection will probably be required. They will have to bring in mechanics and equipment to do all that since the airport probably doesn't have capability to handle jet fuel.

On the regulatory side, the airport isn't approved for airline ops (no fire equipment ). Airlines have to have approved procedures for every airport they use. A one-time dispensation may be required from the FAA to operate a non-airline "ferry flight"...the flight plan will probably be the plane's tail number and not SWAxxxx.

Bet SWA wished they hadn't waited til this coming June to stop service to Branson :)

The airport it landed at was a step above a cow pasture airport. It's a local municipal airport. It was closed when they landed, the employees had gone home for the evening according to local newspaper.

Plane just took off without incident.

Southwest is pulling out of this market in June. It was serviced by Airtran before they were taken over by Southwest.

Enjoy your low cost carriers folks.

Whatever:rolleyes:

Let's correct a few things here:

@Zach; this was an SWA 737-700 that was destined for KBBG/Branson,MO (7140' runway aligned 14/32) and instead landed at KPLK/M. Graham Clark Downtown Airport instead (3740' runway aligned 12/30). You're getting it confused with the Atlas Air Dreamlifter that landed at Col. James Jabara Airport in Northeast Wichita instead of McConnell Air Force Base

@Gunner; SWA/WN are not a low-cost carrier, their prices are typical with all of the other carriers and in fact have some of the highest paid commercial pilots on 737s at $200/hr

Let's correct a few things here:

 

@Gunner; SWA/WN are not a low-cost carrier, their prices are typical with all of the other carriers and in fact have some of the highest paid commercial pilots on 737s at $200/hr

Interesting figures- not doubting you a bit, but where are those available?

Are these numbers hourly pay rate or total compensation? There's other factors like pensions, seniority, duty hours, wage agreements, etc. which are part of a bigger (and probably unknowable) picture....but I do understand your general point.

Let's correct a few things here:

 

@Zach; this was an SWA 737-700 that was destined for KBBG/Branson,MO (7140' runway aligned 14/32) and instead landed at KPLK/M. Graham Clark Downtown Airport instead (3740' runway aligned 12/30). You're getting it confused with the Atlas Air Dreamlifter that landed at Col. James Jabara Airport in Northeast Wichita instead of McConnell Air Force Base

 

@Gunner; SWA/WN are not a low-cost carrier, their prices are typical with all of the other carriers and in fact have some of the highest paid commercial pilots on 737s at $200/hr

Year 5 Captain per flown hour (IATA code - 737 or equiv rate)

FX: $206 (727)

WN: $200

DL: $194

AC: C$183 (A320)

UA: $179 (A320)

AS: $176

B6: $173 (A320)

AA: $171

US: $171 (A320)

WS: C$150

VX: $136

G4: $138 (MD80)

NK: $133

 

I didn't confused anything. My second post was in reponse to Greatam, who said (and I quote) - "Wasn't it a US Military plane that just landed at the wrong airport in Wichita a few weeks ago when it was headed to Wrightman or someplace else and they were worried how they were even going to turn the plane around? JMHO but the level of schooling and training seems to be lacking someplace along the way."

Also, in the airline business, "low cost carrier" is somewhat of a misnomer. It's more relate to the costs of the airline itself, rather than the cost of the tickets on the airline. Southwest is considered a low-cost carrier, though perhaps they shouldn't be since their expenses have increased considerably over the past several years with (a) losing their fantastic fuel hedges, and (b) opening long and longer routes, amongst other reasons.

A municipal airport, not designed to handle a plane of that size. The pilot was able to stop the plane before it went off the runway and over a bluff (it was able to take off for Branson, with weight lessened by passengers being bused). A Southwest plane did go off the runway at Burbank Airport in California a few years ago, and slid onto an adjoining street.

Most importantly: isn't the airport they landed at further from MDW than is Branson? If so, do the passengers receive extra frequent flyer miles?

A municipal airport, not designed to handle a plane of that size. The pilot was able to stop the plane before it went off the runway and over a bluff (it was able to take off for Branson, with weight lessened by passengers being bused). A Southwest plane did go off the runway at Burbank Airport in California a few years ago, and slid onto an adjoining street.

 

Most importantly: isn't the airport they landed at further from MDW than is Branson? If so, do the passengers receive extra frequent flyer miles?

More than a few years - that was March 2000. It feels a lot more recent, though. There was also the Southwest plane that overran and went through the wall at MDW in 2005 and hit a few cars, killing a child. Southwest is definitely able to stick to its claim that it has never killed one of its own passengers, but they've come very close several times, including this one. Had it gone down that bluff, it would have made a lot more news, and not in the good way. I hope it would have turned out more like the Air France plane in Toronto that was evacuated and everyone survived after it overran and went down a bluff...but there also wasn't a highway right after the runway like in this case. Thank gosh we didn't have to find out.

A municipal airport, not designed to handle a plane of that size. The pilot was able to stop the plane before it went off the runway and over a bluff (it was able to take off for Branson, with weight lessened by passengers being bused). A Southwest plane did go off the runway at Burbank Airport in California a few years ago, and slid onto an adjoining street.

 

Most importantly: isn't the airport they landed at further from MDW than is Branson? If so, do the passengers receive extra frequent flyer miles?

The wrong airport is about 6 miles NNE of the intended airport, and closer to MDW.

My local airport SNA has a 5700 foot runway, one of the shortest with commercial jet operations. Years ago a 757 landed long and came to a stop about 100 feet from going over a dropoff with a freeway at the bottom. The nose gear was 30 feet from the perimeter fence and on the service road around the end of the runway.

Occasionally airliners will make a "hot dog" landing and use the midfield exit which is only 2800 feet down the main runway!

 

@Gunner; SWA/WN are not a low-cost carrier, their prices are typical with all of the other carriers

Also, in the airline business, "low cost carrier" is somewhat of a misnomer. It's more relate to the costs of the airline itself, rather than the cost of the tickets on the airline.

WN has had a reputation among pax for being a "low cost carrier." While the true definition may be based on expenses, in the eyes of pax they consider low cost to mean ticket prices, which WN may have had more of yesteryear. Not so much today necessarily.

The wrong airport is about 6 miles NNE of the intended airport, and closer to MDW.

 

My local airport SNA has a 5700 foot runway, one of the shortest with commercial jet operations. Years ago a 757 landed long and came to a stop about 100 feet from going over a dropoff with a freeway at the bottom. The nose gear was 30 feet from the perimeter fence and on the service road around the end of the runway.

 

Occasionally airliners will make a "hot dog" landing and use the midfield exit which is only 2800 feet down the main runway!

How to get a 737 off a very short runway:

Aircraft:

Airport Info for Departure

looking at the performance data for a 737-700 w/ winglets

http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commercial/airports/acaps/737sec3.pdf (p134)

for 1000' pressure altitude you can see that at 95,000 lb takeoff weight (ie lowish fuel, no passengers, no luggage), you need just a hair over 3000'

Given the headwind of 13-18kts pretty much right down the runway, I suspect it used less than 3000' ground roll and the videos showed the aircraft climbing like a homesick angel after takeoff.

The shortest runway I can think of that was used for scheduled 737 service was Dutch Harbour (PADU/DUT) at 4100'.

The shortest runway I can think of that was used for scheduled 737 service was Dutch Harbour (PADU/DUT) at 4100'.

Was at Dutch for a cruise stop (TPAC in the early 2000s) and was next to the airport when an AS 737 was preparing for takeoff. All that was different from a carrier launch was the catapult. Engines at power, brakes straining (you could see the airframe bucking) and then off. Wonder if they restricted bidding for those flights to ex-Navy guys.

Now it's a SAAB 340 for the over 3 hour flight to ANC. Would be torture - flew those with NW and they weren't fun for an hour. Guess it makes the crab guys want to go back to sea.

Given the headwind of 13-18kts pretty much right down the runway, I suspect it used less than 3000' ground roll and the videos showed the aircraft climbing like a homesick angel after takeoff.

Don't forget a headwind against the bluff provides a little "ridge lift" at the end of the runway, and the valley beyond the bluff gives them more distance beyond the runway to get a positive rate of climb :)