 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Landing in IMC due to blowing dust in a high cross winds; the flight crew of a high tech corporate jet lined up with 26R versus 26L as cleared. The combination of poor visibility; high winds; disparate runway alignment versus approach track and the resulting large apparent crab angles contributed to the mis-identification.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 881382 |
| Time | |
| Date | 201003 |
| Local Time Of Day | 1801-2400 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | ELP.Airport |
| State Reference | TX |
| Environment | |
| Flight Conditions | Marginal |
| Light | Dusk |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Make Model Name | Medium Transport Low Wing 2 Turbojet Eng |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 91 |
| Flight Phase | Final Approach |
| Route In Use | Other VOR App |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Person 1 | |
| Function | Pilot Not Flying First Officer |
| Qualification | Flight Crew Multiengine Flight Crew Instrument Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP) |
| Experience | Flight Crew Last 90 Days 160 Flight Crew Total 13000 Flight Crew Type 1300 |
| Person 2 | |
| Function | Captain Pilot Flying |
| Qualification | Flight Crew Multiengine Flight Crew Instrument Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP) Flight Crew Flight Instructor |
| Experience | Flight Crew Last 90 Days 140 Flight Crew Total 13000 Flight Crew Type 4000 |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | Deviation - Procedural Clearance Deviation - Track / Heading All Types Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence |
Narrative:
The captain and I did all the necessary preflight planning and noted before our departure that the arrival into elp would have gusty winds. Upon arrival we accepted the advertised approach in use (VOR runway 26L). The weather upon arrival was reported on the ATIS as winds of 260 degrees at 29 gusting to 47; and 2 miles visibility in blowing dust/sand with low level windshear advisories. While briefing the arrival we discussed the possibility of the straight-in RNAV GPS approach to runway 26L; however elected not to attempt that approach as the visibility minimums were higher than the VOR approach (3/4 versus 1 1/4 miles).as we neared the airport I called the runway in sight; and consequently due to cross winds aloft we were lined up perfectly with that runway. Moments later the tower controller stated that we looked like we were lined up with 26R. We immediately asked if we were cleared to land on this runway because 26L was not in sight. The tower controller issued the landing clearance and I verified that we had enough runway to make a safe landing.while taxiing in there was a discussion between an air carrier jet that arrived in front of us and the tower about the 'gotcha' aspect of this approach. The tower indicated that he recently had 3 or 4 other aircraft lined up on 26R. The captain and I fully debriefed the approach and agreed that with the technology of our aircraft a mistake like this should not happen. Having said that; the design of the approach causes many of flight crews to make the same mistake regardless of the technology in the cockpit. For us; our situational awareness was degraded because of an unfamiliar airport in poor weather conditions without a complete understanding of the approach we accepted.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: Landing in IMC due to blowing dust in a high cross winds; the flight crew of a high tech corporate jet lined up with 26R versus 26L as cleared. The combination of poor visibility; high winds; disparate runway alignment versus approach track and the resulting large apparent crab angles contributed to the mis-identification.
Narrative: The Captain and I did all the necessary preflight planning and noted before our departure that the arrival into ELP would have gusty winds. Upon arrival we accepted the advertised approach in use (VOR Runway 26L). The weather upon arrival was reported on the ATIS as winds of 260 degrees at 29 gusting to 47; and 2 miles visibility in blowing dust/sand with low level windshear advisories. While briefing the arrival we discussed the possibility of the straight-in RNAV GPS approach to Runway 26L; however elected not to attempt that approach as the visibility minimums were higher than the VOR approach (3/4 versus 1 1/4 miles).As we neared the airport I called the runway in sight; and consequently due to cross winds aloft we were lined up perfectly with that runway. Moments later the Tower Controller stated that we looked like we were lined up with 26R. We immediately asked if we were cleared to land on this runway because 26L was not in sight. The Tower Controller issued the landing clearance and I verified that we had enough runway to make a safe landing.While taxiing in there was a discussion between an air carrier jet that arrived in front of us and the Tower about the 'gotcha' aspect of this approach. The Tower indicated that he recently had 3 or 4 other aircraft lined up on 26R. The Captain and I fully debriefed the approach and agreed that with the technology of our aircraft a mistake like this should not happen. Having said that; the design of the approach causes many of flight crews to make the same mistake regardless of the technology in the cockpit. For us; our situational awareness was degraded because of an unfamiliar airport in poor weather conditions without a complete understanding of the approach we accepted.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.