 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
A C150 lands on the wrong runway during a training flight. Instructor pilot misunderstands the clearance on a runway change.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 422665 |
| Time | |
| Date | 199812 |
| Day | Tue |
| Local Time Of Day | 1201 To 1800 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | airport : lft |
| State Reference | LA |
| Altitude | agl bound lower : 0 agl bound upper : 0 |
| Environment | |
| Flight Conditions | VMC |
| Light | Daylight |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Controlling Facilities | tower : owd |
| Operator | general aviation : instructional |
| Make Model Name | Cessna 152 |
| Flight Phase | landing other |
| Flight Plan | None |
| Aircraft 2 | |
| Make Model Name | Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer |
| Flight Phase | descent : approach other |
| Flight Plan | VFR |
| Person 1 | |
| Affiliation | Other |
| Function | instruction : instructor oversight : pic |
| Qualification | pilot : cfi |
| Experience | flight time last 90 days : 200 flight time total : 9400 flight time type : 250 |
| ASRS Report | 422665 |
| Person 2 | |
| Affiliation | Other |
| Function | flight crew : single pilot instruction : trainee |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | incursion : landing without clearance non adherence : far non adherence : clearance other anomaly other |
| Independent Detector | other controllera |
| Resolutory Action | none taken : detected after the fact |
| Consequence | Other |
| Supplementary | |
| Air Traffic Incident | Pilot Deviation Operational Deviation |
Narrative:
On a student instructional flight we were north of lft airport. Called approach to advise them we were inbound to airport for touch-and-go lndgs. Controller advised us to 'enter left downwind, runway 4L.' approximately 8 mi out the approach controller stated, 'enter left downwind, runway 4L and contact the tower.' student contacted tower and advised inbound. Tower advised, 'clear to land runway 4R.' (this is not clear.) the student read back instruction, 'cleared to land runway 4R.' I then asked the student if we were landing runway 4R or runway 4L. He replied, 'yes, I mean runway 4L.' I am certain we were cleared to land on runway 4L and we should have requested clarification, but did not. The controller did not challenge the runway 4R readback. During approach, tower issued TA to another aircraft and advised 'there is a C152 on final to runway 4L.' tower controller never questioned our intentions until rollout and takeoff then said, 'aircraft X, you just did a major no-no, landing on runway 4L.' I feel runway confusion can be reduced if the tower would reissue (issue) 'cleared to land runway xx' instruction when aircraft is on final. I also feel the incident could have been avoided had the controller asked our intentions when he realized there was a discrepancy in his and our expectations. I would also like to see greater emphasis when the tower revised our landing runway (if in fact he did). There was no conflict with other traffic, but in a busy environment, incident could have had disastrous consequences.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: A C150 LANDS ON THE WRONG RWY DURING A TRAINING FLT. INSTRUCTOR PLT MISUNDERSTANDS THE CLRNC ON A RWY CHANGE.
Narrative: ON A STUDENT INSTRUCTIONAL FLT WE WERE N OF LFT ARPT. CALLED APCH TO ADVISE THEM WE WERE INBOUND TO ARPT FOR TOUCH-AND-GO LNDGS. CTLR ADVISED US TO 'ENTER L DOWNWIND, RWY 4L.' APPROX 8 MI OUT THE APCH CTLR STATED, 'ENTER L DOWNWIND, RWY 4L AND CONTACT THE TWR.' STUDENT CONTACTED TWR AND ADVISED INBOUND. TWR ADVISED, 'CLR TO LAND RWY 4R.' (THIS IS NOT CLR.) THE STUDENT READ BACK INSTRUCTION, 'CLRED TO LAND RWY 4R.' I THEN ASKED THE STUDENT IF WE WERE LNDG RWY 4R OR RWY 4L. HE REPLIED, 'YES, I MEAN RWY 4L.' I AM CERTAIN WE WERE CLRED TO LAND ON RWY 4L AND WE SHOULD HAVE REQUESTED CLARIFICATION, BUT DID NOT. THE CTLR DID NOT CHALLENGE THE RWY 4R READBACK. DURING APCH, TWR ISSUED TA TO ANOTHER ACFT AND ADVISED 'THERE IS A C152 ON FINAL TO RWY 4L.' TWR CTLR NEVER QUESTIONED OUR INTENTIONS UNTIL ROLLOUT AND TKOF THEN SAID, 'ACFT X, YOU JUST DID A MAJOR NO-NO, LNDG ON RWY 4L.' I FEEL RWY CONFUSION CAN BE REDUCED IF THE TWR WOULD REISSUE (ISSUE) 'CLRED TO LAND RWY XX' INSTRUCTION WHEN ACFT IS ON FINAL. I ALSO FEEL THE INCIDENT COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED HAD THE CTLR ASKED OUR INTENTIONS WHEN HE REALIZED THERE WAS A DISCREPANCY IN HIS AND OUR EXPECTATIONS. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO SEE GREATER EMPHASIS WHEN THE TWR REVISED OUR LNDG RWY (IF IN FACT HE DID). THERE WAS NO CONFLICT WITH OTHER TFC, BUT IN A BUSY ENVIRONMENT, INCIDENT COULD HAVE HAD DISASTROUS CONSEQUENCES.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 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.