Interesting article and I hope we find out why the FAA is being so withholding. I had no idea this even took place, but I’m glad nobody was injured. I flew into PUW a number of times during my time at QX and there isn’t much room at all from the taxiway to the GA ramp. I feel for the pilots and hope everything turns out okay for them.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/01/26/ ... -says/amp/

Very odd and a little disturbing that such incidents are not being properly investigated.

As the NTSB is a Federal body, could obstructing the investigation be a criminal matter.

CVR's can only be used by the NTSB for crash/serious incident investigation. The NTSB decided it didn't meet that criteria. The FAA is punitive - and CVR's can't be used for that.

The only reason why the circuit breaker for the CVR isn't pulled on every flight out there is because there is a required element of trust for CVRs to be used.

Part of this element of trust is that, generally, they will not be listened to. There is a line in the sand of when they can and when they can't. If you dip below that line, even a millimeter, you can very quickly lose trust. And once you lose trust, agreements fall apart and you potentially lose the CVR, industry-wide, completely. And then you don't have it for when you really need it.

Though arguably close to the line, this event doesn't fall on the right side of it to use the CVR and the authorities are wisely maintaining the integrity of CVRs. Nothing got damaged and no one got hurt... this one isn't worth it.

Surely best to figure out why this happened BEFORE someone gets killed.

Acey559 wrote:

Interesting article and I hope we find out why the FAA is being so withholding. I had no idea this even took place, but I’m glad nobody was injured. I flew into PUW a number of times during my time at QX and there isn’t much room at all from the taxiway to the GA ramp. I feel for the pilots and hope everything turns out okay for them.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/01/26/ ... -says/amp/

Wait .... you "feel for the pilots and hope everything turns out OK for them" ??

Shouldn't you be feeling a bit more concern for what could have happened as a result of two careless pilots landing in the wrong spot?

These pilots don't deserve sympathy or hugs ...

Delete - dupe

A couple of images of PUW from 2016... they've been working on a major runway and taxiway realignment project for the last year or so, but I don't know how far along they are.

The NTSB reported they have been informed about the occurrence, and while investigating a number of other similiar occurrences they are going to look into this occurrence, too, but would not open a separate investigation.

If I'm reading this right, they're not declining to investigate the incident, they're just incorporating it into an existing investigation of similar incidents rather than opening a separate, dedicated investigation.

From the article, it sounds like:

1. Driving rain storm
2. Runway lights shorted out so they apparently mistook the taxiway as the runway
3. The CVR was pulled and retained
4. The pilots were suspended
5. The FAA has chosen not to cross a line with listening to the CVR
6. The NTSB doesn’t seem to seem it a serious incident (possibly because a prelim look into it didn’t seem it that serious)

It doesn’t sound like a dramatic coverup to me. It sounds like an unfortunate error based on some contributing factors. Doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be punished if the airline finds them in error, but perhaps it just isn’t worthy of a federal investigation?

barney captain wrote:

CVR's can only be used by the NTSB for crash/serious incident investigation. The NTSB decided it didn't meet that criteria. The FAA is punitive - and CVR's can't be used for that.

Well said. Thank you, Barney Captain.

If I recall my aviation law class correctly, many years ago a FL flight did a scenic tour and the FAA tried to use the CVR recording as evidence. But it was ruled that they are for accident investigations only and the FAA was not allowed to access the recording.

If a CVR recording could be used for any flight, then I suspect you'd find a lot of pulled CVR circuit breakers.

F27500 wrote:

Acey559 wrote:

Interesting article and I hope we find out why the FAA is being so withholding. I had no idea this even took place, but I’m glad nobody was injured. I flew into PUW a number of times during my time at QX and there isn’t much room at all from the taxiway to the GA ramp. I feel for the pilots and hope everything turns out okay for them.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/01/26/ ... -says/amp/

Wait .... you "feel for the pilots and hope everything turns out OK for them" ??

Shouldn't you be feeling a bit more concern for what could have happened as a result of two careless pilots landing in the wrong spot?

These pilots don't deserve sympathy or hugs ...

Yeah, I do feel for them and hope it turns out okay. As a pilot myself, I know that the same thing could happen to me. It seems like you’ve never made a mistake in your life so I guess you wouldn’t understand, but I know my fallibility and potential consequences of screwing up and hope I never have to go through it.

Barney and Jepp, thanks for the insight. Makes sense why the FAA wouldn’t want to set a bad precedent, which is good.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

From the article, it sounds like:

1. Driving rain storm
2. Runway lights shorted out so they apparently mistook the taxiway as the runway
3. The CVR was pulled and retained
4. The pilots were suspended
5. The FAA has chosen not to cross a line with listening to the CVR
6. The NTSB doesn’t seem to seem it a serious incident (possibly because a prelim look into it didn’t seem it that serious)

It doesn’t sound like a dramatic coverup to me. It sounds like an unfortunate error based on some contributing factors. Doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be punished if the airline finds them in error, but perhaps it just isn’t worthy of a federal investigation?

From someone that has flown into PUW at least 20 times, its not all that surprising. More than once while waiting to finish deplaning and continue on to LWS in the old days, the lights would shut off and they would be unable to get them to turn back on for at least 20-30 minutes.

Is it conceivable for an aircraft like the A380 making a similar mistake landing on a taxiway that it could overload the taxiway on touchdown and break/crack the surface causing damage to the MLG or even a crash?

The article states a "commercial jet" landed on the taxiway - pretty sure it was a turboprop. Calling it a "jet" stretches the definition......

There are quite few happened CO B757 landed EWR taxiway, DL 767 landed taxiway ATL, SFO twice almost landed once took off on taxiway somewhere I forgot not sure name airline A340. I don't know why pilots were thinking of visual on scene surface of concrete without looking marking big white or number of runway heading. They were not thinking to look at marking lines. I can't understand why. Lights are white runway and taxiway are blue lights. What's wrong with them?

Q

barney captain wrote:

CVR's can only be used by the NTSB for crash/serious incident investigation. The NTSB decided it didn't meet that criteria. The FAA is punitive - and CVR's can't be used for that.

The NTSB had decided not pursue this incident any further. The FAA has investigated it completely. Along comes a politician with an agenda who apparently was unaware for some reason and it has predictably become political. And yes if the FAA or NTSB gets their hands on the CVR you will see pulled breakers and a total compromise of all related safety programs. ASAP, FOQA etc.

Yay Horizon!

Well...not really. What the article doesn't mention - and should be far more worrisome is this happened during QX's operational meltdown where pilots were being asked to worked for 2x, even more I believe, because of lack of new pilots. Training too? All sorts of matters at play here. Doesn't look good.

Oh...and the John Duncan FAA guy worked for FAA for 7+ years in Alaska where he would've had oversight of Alaska, Horizon's parent. Does that mean anything? It better not.

Q wrote:

There are quite few happened CO B757 landed EWR taxiway, DL 767 landed taxiway ATL, SFO twice almost landed once took off on taxiway somewhere I forgot not sure name airline A340. I don't know why pilots were thinking of visual on scene surface of concrete without looking marking big white or number of runway heading. They were not thinking to look at marking lines. I can't understand why. Lights are white runway and taxiway are blue lights. What's wrong with them?

Q

It was a CI A340 at ANC, IIRC. In the DL at ATL case, they were distracted and possibly stressed by an ill crew member and were landing on a runway with no ILS and not normally uses for landings, so they could get to the terminal quicker for medical help.

Kaphias wrote:

A couple of images of PUW from 2016... they've been working on a major runway and taxiway realignment project for the last year or so, but I don't know how far along they are.

Nice pictures! Like them. Doesn't do justice to the realities of PUW at night, reduced vis, low ceilings, rain or snow

barney captain wrote:

CVR's can only be used by the NTSB for crash/serious incident investigation. The NTSB decided it didn't meet that criteria. The FAA is punitive - and CVR's can't be used for that.

The FAA is not punitive. Especially when compared with other governmental agencies, but even independent of such a comparison, its mission is to ensure safety; it has little interest in and only a weak mechanism for punishment.

747-600X wrote:

barney captain wrote:

CVR's can only be used by the NTSB for crash/serious incident investigation. The NTSB decided it didn't meet that criteria. The FAA is punitive - and CVR's can't be used for that.

The FAA is not punitive. Especially when compared with other governmental agencies, but even independent of such a comparison, its mission is to ensure safety; it has little interest in and only a weak mechanism for punishment.

FAA is not punitive in the context of ASAP with airlines because they are not permitted to. Otherwise they have the ability to revoke, suspend licenses. They often do. The FAA is far too political to be an effective organization responsible for safety.

dashdrvr wrote:

747-600X wrote:

barney captain wrote:

CVR's can only be used by the NTSB for crash/serious incident investigation. The NTSB decided it didn't meet that criteria. The FAA is punitive - and CVR's can't be used for that.

The FAA is not punitive. Especially when compared with other governmental agencies, but even independent of such a comparison, its mission is to ensure safety; it has little interest in and only a weak mechanism for punishment.

FAA is not punitive in the context of ASAP with airlines because they are not permitted to. Otherwise they have the ability to revoke, suspend licenses. They often do. The FAA is far too political to be an effective organization responsible for safety.

Correctamundo!

"FAA not punitive" - written like someone who clearly has never been on the receiving end of their "help".

Just thinking... If someone thinks CVR data is so important for preventing future accidents - would it make sense to offer immunity to those involved in exchange for signing off CVR access? Just protect pilots and company - and possibly ATC, if that end up part of an issue - and look at that record. After all, Rep. Mark DeSaulnier said it is about safety, not punitive action?

Based off past investigations. CVR usually shows a breakdown in CRM/TEM.

ER757 wrote:

The article states a "commercial jet" landed on the taxiway - pretty sure it was a turboprop. Calling it a "jet" stretches the definition......

A turboprop is literally a jet.

n7371f wrote:

Yay Horizon!

Well...not really. What the article doesn't mention - and should be far more worrisome is this happened during QX's operational meltdown where pilots were being asked to worked for 2x, even more I believe, because of lack of new pilots. Training too? All sorts of matters at play here. Doesn't look good.

Oh...and the John Duncan FAA guy worked for FAA for 7+ years in Alaska where he would've had oversight of Alaska, Horizon's parent. Does that mean anything? It better not.

Without knowing any specifics, I was thinking the same thing. In recent memory, the taxiway landings seemed to all stem from some sort of fatigue issue. The DL landing in ATL was partly caused by not having a third crewmember (one of the pilots was sick so the two remaining pilots flew the flight up from South America) and the AS landing in SEA was after a very early departure out of ORD, so fatigue seemingly could have played a role.

The captain appears to be a 17 year employee at QX so he/she certainly knows the hazards involved with PUW. As is almost always the case, I’m sure it was a chain of events leading up to landing. Possibly fatigue, presumably multiple flight legs into poor Pacific NW weather, failure of the approach lights, etc. There could have been some stress too in dealing with an operation that was running far less than perfect. Many seemingly innocuous things can all put significant stress on flight crews and unfortunately, in this instance, the chain broke.

As a disclaimer, I of course have no idea what actually happened. Other that what I read in the article and my personal experience with the QX operation and the PUW airport itself, I’m just offering possible scenarios and don’t at and am not passing any judgement on those involved.

If Im not mistaken, didn't this happen back in the 80's or early 90's with a J31 that was being operated by United Express NPA?