A/C Lands on Taxiway

[TheWatcher]

I think those pilots will probably have an extended vacation 🙁🙁🙁

 

[GroundedBoricua]

I figured you must be a expert after saying:

" A duuhhhh no s t sherlock, taxiways aren't where you should land, thats why they made runways. And as for a dumb ass, yep a dumb ass indeed. There is just very few reasons, if any, for them to put the bird down on the taxiway. "

Please tell me what the very few reasons are for them (the dumb ass pilots) to put the bird down on the taxiway?

Well smart ass, a mecanical or engine failure could be one reason, s :censored: t if something went wrong on the plane and I beleived for a fact that I would not be able to make the go around, or would of crashed trying to, I would of put her down on the taxiway too! Remember there was high crosswinds that day. Thats why I'm asking if anyone knew what happened. I may noy be an expert but I'm not a smart ass like you. :angry:

 

[mistified]

Well smart ass, a mecanical or engine failure could be one reason, s :censored: t if something went wrong on the plane and I beleived for a fact that I would not be able to make the go around, or would of crashed trying to, I would of put her down on the taxiway too! Remember there was high crosswinds that day. Thats why I'm asking if anyone knew what happened. I may noy be an expert but I'm not a smart ass like you. :angry:

Mr GroundedBoricua :down:
I am not sure why you are angry.
Why do you take my comments to be one of a "smartass"?
I agree with you that there may be some legitimant reasons why this happened. I was trying to point out that some are to quick to pass judgment on something they know nothing about before all the facts are in. Follow the thread from the beginning and you will see. I am not the one calling these pilots "dumbass" in one breath while speculating what might have happened in another.

 

[LD3]

I am sure a pilot could answer this better, but a taxiway that is parallel(sp?)to a runway in most cases would be at least 300' off the centerline of the runway, would the flight crew still pick up the localizer and glideslope? And if they could pick them up, would'nt it show them left or right of the centerline?

 

[featheroleather]

According to a pilot buddy of mine, out of the hundreds of airports we land in, EWR,LGA & JFK a handful of other airports are the only ones that dont have the blue lights on the taxi ways, but have embedded reflectors. These 3 airports are run by the Port Authority of NY & NJ, the richest agency in the tri-state area, yet they do this to save money.

 

[BoeingBoy]

I am sure a pilot could answer this better, but a taxiway that is parallel(sp?)to a runway in most cases would be at least 300' off the centerline of the runway, would the flight crew still pick up the localizer and glideslope? And if they could pick them up, would'nt it show them left or right of the centerline?

There's no instrument approach to runway 29 - strictly visual.

Jim

 

[mistified]

There's no instrument approach to runway 29 - strictly visual.

Jim

Mr BoeingBoy
Please don't confuse us with the facts! 😉

 

[Borescope]

There's no instrument approach to runway 29 - strictly visual.

Jim

There is an RNAV 29 in CO's database which could be loaded from the FMC. The PAPI on 29 is on the right side of the runway, whereas most all other airports are on the left. I had heard that the pilots had lost sight of the runway for a second as they maneuvered toward it (sun). This may explain the disorientation. The FO was realatively new (less than a year), and flying the airplane. With a new FO and a short runway, they should have refused 29 IMO. These guys will be back after some sim training. Perhaps some on how to hook up the autopilot with the RNAV app.

 

[BoeingBoy]

There is an RNAV 29 in CO's database which could be loaded from the FMC.

I was mainly responding to the question about why they didn't realize they were off from the localizer indications, but is that the standard visual "RNAV" approach in the database? The FAA doesn't show a RNAV approach to 29.

I've been assuming that they were cleared for the ILS 22L circle to 29 given the winds that day (at least in PHL - the closest to EWR I came). If that's the case, they may have had the ILS for 22L selected in the FMS.

I've never been one to throw stones - the whole "There but for the grace of God go I" thing. But I'd much rather learn from someone else's mistakes than from making the same mistake myself.

Jim

 

[GroundedBoricua]

There is an RNAV 29 in CO's database which could be loaded from the FMC. The PAPI on 29 is on the right side of the runway, whereas most all other airports are on the left. I had heard that the pilots had lost sight of the runway for a second as they maneuvered toward it (sun). This may explain the disorientation. The FO was realatively new (less than a year), and flying the airplane. With a new FO and a short runway, they should have refused 29 IMO. These guys will be back after some sim training. Perhaps some on how to hook up the autopilot with the RNAV app.

That sounds like something that could of happened. Hey mistified, what did jim say wrong??? or perhaps you are a non-pilot expert?

 

[mistified]

Hey mistified, what did jim say wrong??? or perhaps you are a non-pilot expert?

Jim said nothing wrong in my opinion. As a matter of fact I believe he contributes some informative comments. After all he is a pilot.
He did not call these pilots "dumb asses" as you and some other poster did.
Did you not refer to the pilots in question a dumb asses?

Did you not refer to the pilots in question a dumb asses?

should read:
Did you not refer to the pilots in question as dumb asses?

 

[BoeingBoy]

Certainly no offense taken, mistified. I should have been more clear about what my "no instrument approach" comment was meant to address.

Jim

 

[mistified]

Certainly no offense taken, mistified. I should have been more clear about what my "no instrument approach" comment was meant to address.

Jim

What do you mean?

 

[BoeingBoy]

I meant that I should have originally posted this so it would have been clear what my "no instrument approach" comment was addressing.

would the flight crew still pick up the localizer and glideslope? And if they could pick them up, would'nt it show them left or right of the centerline?

There's no instrument approach to runway 29 - strictly visual.

And that I didn't consider your remark about having a RNAV approach in the FMS database a correction, just an additional tidbit of data added to the discussion.

Jim

 

[mistified]

I meant that I should have originally posted this so it would have been clear what my "no instrument approach" comment was addressing.
And that I didn't consider your remark about having a RNAV approach in the FMS database a correction, just an additional tidbit of data added to the discussion.

Jim

Now I see the confusion.
I was not the one commenting about the RNAV. That was someone else. I can only imagine that if you are going into a airport at night visually with a last minute runway change, that you hardly have time to pull up a RNAV approach. If that's in fact what happened. First reports I heard said it was at night. I this true?

Your point about "no instrument approach" was crystal clear to me.
Have you ever seen where the taxiway lights are brighter than the adjacent runway? At dim settings the difference between green versus white is not always that
compelling.??