Was the ILS working on 27R in ATL?
10-23-2009, 06:01 PM
#31
A moment please...
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: Just passin' thru
Posts: 769
Anyone know what the visibility was? Was it hazy or any ground fog or patchy fog around? If the side step was issued by the tower, then they probably couldn't get the LOC up in time, but I think the approach lights can be brought up fairly quickly. I understand it was a visual approach, but in the dark those approach lights might have made the difference, especially on a close in base leg. I'm not faulting ATC, or trying to exnonorate the crew, just trying to understand what happened and what actions might help out the next time one of us is out there looking for a runway.
10-24-2009, 09:18 AM
#33
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: 757 Capt
Posts: 2,419
My bad, shouldn't be judemental. Need to get all the mitigating circumstances because it's not their fault.
It's not their fault they elected to land visually on a runway without a localizer or approach lights.
It's not their fault that the visibility was only 10 miles and the field was VFR.
It's not their fault that they couldn't tell the difference between the blue taxiway lights and the white high intensity runway lights, that the runway centerline lights were confusing.
It's totally not their fault, the PAPI was on the non-standard right side of the runway. Only natural to line up between the blue lights with the PAPI on the left.
It's not their fault, they never look for the green threshhold lights.
It's not their fault, Atlanta was a totally unfamiliar airport to them. And the language out of the controllers at 6 am just made a bad situation worse.
It's not their fault, the PF is always right and the PM is only there to make radio calls. Not like the PM is required to actually do anything flight related or make sure the PM is lining up on the correct runway.
Funny thing is I thought professional pilots were paid for their judgement
Press Advisory
It's not their fault they elected to land visually on a runway without a localizer or approach lights.
It's not their fault that the visibility was only 10 miles and the field was VFR.
It's not their fault that they couldn't tell the difference between the blue taxiway lights and the white high intensity runway lights, that the runway centerline lights were confusing.
It's totally not their fault, the PAPI was on the non-standard right side of the runway. Only natural to line up between the blue lights with the PAPI on the left.
It's not their fault, they never look for the green threshhold lights.
It's not their fault, Atlanta was a totally unfamiliar airport to them. And the language out of the controllers at 6 am just made a bad situation worse.
It's not their fault, the PF is always right and the PM is only there to make radio calls. Not like the PM is required to actually do anything flight related or make sure the PM is lining up on the correct runway.
Funny thing is I thought professional pilots were paid for their judgement
Press Advisory
10-24-2009, 07:07 PM
#34
Feeling blessed.
Joined APC: Feb 2005
Position: Happily coasting in the left seat until it ends.
Posts: 541
The press reports only stated that the 27R lights were not illuminated and that the ILS/LOC was not on. It did NOT say whether they were available or whether the captain asked for them.
10-24-2009, 07:53 PM
#35
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Posts: 348
Anyone know what the visibility was? Was it hazy or any ground fog or patchy fog around? If the side step was issued by the tower, then they probably couldn't get the LOC up in time, but I think the approach lights can be brought up fairly quickly. I understand it was a visual approach, but in the dark those approach lights might have made the difference, especially on a close in base leg. I'm not faulting ATC, or trying to exnonorate the crew, just trying to understand what happened and what actions might help out the next time one of us is out there looking for a runway.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
