ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN) — The Federal Aviation Administration is investigating how an international flight into Atlanta’s major airport landed on a taxiway instead of a runway early Monday.
The pilots of the plane that landed at the Atlanta airport have been relieved from flying duties pending probes.
FAA spokeswoman Kathleen Bergen said Delta Flight 60, from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, to Atlanta’s Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport, was cleared to land about 6:05 a.m. Monday on Runway 27R but landed instead on Taxiway M, which runs parallel to the runway. The flight had 194 passengers and crew aboard, according to CNN affiliate WXIA.
No other aircraft were on the taxiway, and there was no damage to either the taxiway or the plane, a Boeing 767, Bergen said.
A runway or taxiway collision, particularly with one plane preparing to take off and carrying a full fuel load, would be catastrophic.
Bergen said she isn’t sure whether or when other aircraft have ever landed on the taxiway at Hartsfield.
Both Runway 27R and Taxiway M are 11,890 feet long, Bergen said, but the runway is marked with white lights while the taxiway is marked with blue lights.
Delta spokesman Anthony Black said the airline is cooperating with the FAA and the National Transportation Safety Board in their investigation, as well as conducting an internal investigation. The pilots of the flight have been relieved from active flying pending the completion of these investigations, Black said.
Source:CNN
By: Whiskey Delta - 27th October 2009 at 14:52
Since lighting intensity is variable anyway it doesn’t sound like much of a fix, more of a “we’ll turn them up next time”.
By: Distiller - 27th October 2009 at 12:39
It was a CO 757 that landed on Taxiway Z. Not aware that they changed anything as a result.
http://wcbstv.com/local/newark.taxiway.landing.2.689698.html
“As a result of the incident, the Port Authority increased the intensity of the runway lights and decreased the taxiway lights.”
By: T5 - 27th October 2009 at 01:31
A satellite image of the airport if you look at it I think will reveal how easy it might be to do this if the pilots were distracted or not paying attention or maybe in poor visibility.
A situation like this should not be easily achievable for a pilot due to him or her being distracted. A quick search of the internet has revealed that 51% of all air crashes occur during the final approach and landing phases of the flight. At this critical phase of the flight, every pilot should be focused in order to avoid turning their flight into a statistic.
Whilst I agree that the taxiway could have been mistaken for a runway, I struggle to see how such a mistake could have been made in this situation. Last Monday, the sun rose at 07:46hrs in Atlanta. Taking into consideration the aircraft’s 06:05hrs arrival time, I think it is safe to assume that it would have been very dark at the time of the incident. As mentioned in the article originally posted, taxiway lights are blue and runway lights are white. I am sure it will have been easy enough to have distinguished between the two.
And as for the weather, that too appears not have been a problem. The METAR (KATL 191052Z 00000KT 10SM CLR 03/00 A3029) shows that the flying conditions were surprisingly good; no wind and 10 miles+ visibility.
By: Ship 741 - 27th October 2009 at 01:07
Even in an emergency the taxiway is prime to make a bad situation a lot worse. First, the pavement isn’t built to withstand landing aircraft and could fail under such an impact blowing tires, etc. Second, there is no guarantee that a taxiway is clear of aircraft or vehicles. In fact at such a busy airport there’s a very high probability that such a taxiway would be occupied.
The emergency onboard has been referred to as a medical emergency so nothing critical to the aircraft. Landing 100′ closer to the terminal wouldn’t expedite medical attention for the passenger anymore than landing on the runway. Actually it could delay it if they hit something as a result of the landing.
Actually, one of the taxiways at ATL was upgraded to be a runway and was used as a runway for a significant period of time while the adjacent runway was rebuilt. This taxiway was not the one that the airplane landed on though.
By: Ship 741 - 27th October 2009 at 01:05
Found an image. If you include the satelite runway to the south, there are more than a dozen runways and taxiways running east-west at Atlanta. Why they need so many ? No idea
And there’s folks in the UK moaning about a third runway at Heathrow :eek:;):rolleyes:
Uh, they need so many because it is the busiest airport in the world, as in: More annual flights than Frankfurt and Heathrow COMBINED.
It does seem ridiculous that even among aviation enthusiasts the third runway at LHR is even a discussion item. In order to maintain it’s status as a true major world airport, LHR needs 2 or 3 more runways not one. If enthusiasts like the posters on this board don’t agree that more are needed, how can the skeptics ever be won over?
By: Whiskey Delta - 26th October 2009 at 23:02
A satellite image of the airport if you look at it I think will reveal how easy it might be to do this if the pilots were distracted or not paying attention or maybe in poor visibility. From what I remember from the one occasion I visted, there are multiple straight strips of tarmac aligned east-west
Even in an emergency the taxiway is prime to make a bad situation a lot worse. First, the pavement isn’t built to withstand landing aircraft and could fail under such an impact blowing tires, etc. Second, there is no guarantee that a taxiway is clear of aircraft or vehicles. In fact at such a busy airport there’s a very high probability that such a taxiway would be occupied.
The emergency onboard has been referred to as a medical emergency so nothing critical to the aircraft. Landing 100′ closer to the terminal wouldn’t expedite medical attention for the passenger anymore than landing on the runway. Actually it could delay it if they hit something as a result of the landing.
By: Super Nimrod - 26th October 2009 at 21:18
Found an image. If you include the satelite runway to the south, there are more than a dozen runways and taxiways running east-west at Atlanta. Why they need so many ? No idea
And there’s folks in the UK moaning about a third runway at Heathrow :eek:;):rolleyes:
By: Super Nimrod - 26th October 2009 at 20:10
A satellite image of the airport if you look at it I think will reveal how easy it might be to do this if the pilots were distracted or not paying attention or maybe in poor visibility. From what I remember from the one occasion I visted, there are multiple straight strips of tarmac aligned east-west
By: Whiskey Delta - 26th October 2009 at 19:49
When back in 2006 a similar incident happened at Newark they changed the lighting there afterwards.
It was a CO 757 that landed on Taxiway Z. Not aware that they changed anything as a result.
By: Distiller - 26th October 2009 at 15:20
When back in 2006 a similar incident happened at Newark they changed the lighting there afterwards.
By: T5 - 25th October 2009 at 19:29
No, the Ryanair incident I think your thinking of in fact managed to land at the wrong airport altogether; it was suppose to land at City of Derry airport, but landed at Ballykelly Army Base some six miles away…:D!
I knew of the incident where a flight landed at the wrong airport but I was sure that a Ryanair flight landed on a taxiway. After a few minutes of searching, I found the story below. It happened in April this year at Cagliari in Italy.
By: cthornburg - 25th October 2009 at 16:01
D = Don’t
E = Ever
L = Land
T = There
A = Again
By: cloud_9 - 25th October 2009 at 13:10
It must be an easy mistake to make. Didn’t a Ryanair 737 do a similar thing not too long ago?
No, the Ryanair incident I think your thinking of in fact managed to land at the wrong airport altogether; it was suppose to land at City of Derry airport, but landed at Ballykelly Army Base some six miles away…:D!
By: Bmused55 - 23rd October 2009 at 10:07
A runway or taxiway collision, particularly with one plane preparing to take off and carrying a full fuel load, would be catastrophic.
No $**t sherlock :rolleyes:
By: Newforest - 23rd October 2009 at 09:39
I understand that the crew were also dealing with a medical emergency at the time.
By: zoot horn rollo - 23rd October 2009 at 09:36
Better landing on the taxiway rather than on the hotels along the A30 near Heathrow as nearly happened some years ago
By: T5 - 23rd October 2009 at 03:47
It must be an easy mistake to make. Didn’t a Ryanair 737 do a similar thing not too long ago?
Sign In
October 23, 2009 at 3:09 am