If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Ozarks First)   "This is your captain speaking; we've landed safely at the Branson airport...oh, shiat, we were supposed to land in Dallas, weren't we? F*ck"   (ozarksfirst.com) divider line 62
    More: Fail, Branson Airport, Shia Islam, speeches  
•       •       •

10013 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Jan 2014 at 3:49 AM (36 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



62 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-12 09:16:48 PM
He picked the wrong day to stop sniffing glue.
 
2014-01-12 10:29:54 PM
Well, they were supposed to land in Branson, then go to Dallas.

Apparently the Branson airport is fairly new (opened in 2009) and the one they landed at was the old county airport, which is only 8 miles away.

That makes it a little bit more understandable, though I imagine the pilot is in for an uncomfortable conversation with his boss.
 
2014-01-13 12:42:59 AM

TuteTibiImperes: Well, they were supposed to land in Branson, then go to Dallas.

Apparently the Branson airport is fairly new (opened in 2009) and the one they landed at was the old county airport, which is only 8 miles away.

That makes it a little bit more understandable, though I imagine the pilot is in for an uncomfortable conversation with his boss.


What I don't understand is that you're communicating with the tower before approach.  No one at the main airport noticed that the plane was lining up for the wrong farking airport?
 
2014-01-13 12:55:14 AM
Oopsie doopsie.
 
2014-01-13 01:01:51 AM
Dude had comp tickets to the Yakov Smirnoff show. I totally understand.
 
2014-01-13 01:13:59 AM

Lsherm: No one at the main airport noticed that the plane was lining up for the wrong farking airport?


I dunno, if I was stuck doing air traffic control for Branson, I'd be doing whatever I could to help people avoid the place. Even if it's having a pilot think he's landing at the right airport when he's actually not.
 
2014-01-13 01:58:39 AM
Wanna get away?
 
2014-01-13 03:58:19 AM
You are now free to muck about the country
 
2014-01-13 04:07:24 AM
A few thoughts.

A) People were taken by bus to the right airport, but WHAT ABOUT THEIR LUGGAGE?

B) don't you think Chicago to Dallas makes more sense for a non stop instead of a non stop to Branson?

C) having flight experience, but not commercial, I was under the assumption that the tower or approach knew where you were and told you when to turn, and to what heading etc, basically making sure planes line up in an orderly fashion for landing. Is this not common in Branson?
 
2014-01-13 04:07:28 AM

Lsherm: TuteTibiImperes: Well, they were supposed to land in Branson, then go to Dallas.

Apparently the Branson airport is fairly new (opened in 2009) and the one they landed at was the old county airport, which is only 8 miles away.

That makes it a little bit more understandable, though I imagine the pilot is in for an uncomfortable conversation with his boss.

What I don't understand is that you're communicating with the tower before approach.  No one at the main airport noticed that the plane was lining up for the wrong farking airport?


It's a lesson in ATC to give a "not in sight" before clearing an airplane to land if you don't have eyes on it. When two airports have similar orientation in a region there's a risk of mis-id'ing a runway.

The shiat hits the fan when the runway is too short to take off again. This can lead to having to strip a plane of it's interior so it cam get back out.
 
2014-01-13 04:10:25 AM

bangmaid: A few thoughts.

A) People were taken by bus to the right airport, but WHAT ABOUT THEIR LUGGAGE?

B) don't you think Chicago to Dallas makes more sense for a non stop instead of a non stop to Branson?

C) having flight experience, but not commercial, I was under the assumption that the tower or approach knew where you were and told you when to turn, and to what heading etc, basically making sure planes line up in an orderly fashion for landing. Is this not common in Branson?


The Wright amenment (expires in October) forbids aircraft from going more than one state to or from Love Field. Which is why I don't understand the Branson stop.
 
2014-01-13 04:21:01 AM
wildcardjack:  The Wright amenment (expires in October) forbids aircraft from going more than one state to or from Love Field. Which is why I don't understand the Branson stop.


From the Wiki entry: "In 2005, Senator Kit Bond of Missouri attached an amendment to a transportation spending bill to exempt his state from the Wright restrictions. After the bill's passage, Southwest began nonstop flights from Love Field to St. Louis and Kansas City."
 
2014-01-13 04:22:15 AM

bangmaid: B) don't you think Chicago to Dallas makes more sense for a non stop instead of a non stop to Branson?


Somewhere has to be a non-stop departure location if Branson is going to receive any flights.  Why not Chicago?
 
2014-01-13 04:27:31 AM

wildcardjack: bangmaid: A few thoughts.

A) People were taken by bus to the right airport, but WHAT ABOUT THEIR LUGGAGE?

B) don't you think Chicago to Dallas makes more sense for a non stop instead of a non stop to Branson?

C) having flight experience, but not commercial, I was under the assumption that the tower or approach knew where you were and told you when to turn, and to what heading etc, basically making sure planes line up in an orderly fashion for landing. Is this not common in Branson?

The Wright amenment (expires in October) forbids aircraft from going more than one state to or from Love Field. Which is why I don't understand the Branson stop.


Missouri's been allowed since 2005.

The Wright Amendment is such an ugly naked example of industry-bought protectionism. Ugh. Good riddance, even if they still got their gate cap.
 
2014-01-13 04:31:28 AM

Hai guyz!

www.midmanhattan.com

LOL

 
2014-01-13 04:32:48 AM

foxyshadis: wildcardjack: bangmaid: A few thoughts.

A) People were taken by bus to the right airport, but WHAT ABOUT THEIR LUGGAGE?

B) don't you think Chicago to Dallas makes more sense for a non stop instead of a non stop to Branson?

C) having flight experience, but not commercial, I was under the assumption that the tower or approach knew where you were and told you when to turn, and to what heading etc, basically making sure planes line up in an orderly fashion for landing. Is this not common in Branson?

The Wright amenment (expires in October) forbids aircraft from going more than one state to or from Love Field. Which is why I don't understand the Branson stop.

Missouri's been allowed since 2005.

The Wright Amendment is such an ugly naked example of industry-bought protectionism. Ugh. Good riddance, even if they still got their gate cap.


Oh, you don't know the half of it. The ranchers who owned the property DFW is on had their wells poisoned. Although I still think Love Field should be retired, it's a billion dollars of real estate development impeded by a puny airport.
 
2014-01-13 04:45:28 AM
Why is the article written like that?

I do not understand

It seems weird

I understand if it were an ongoing event

Or an emergency

Nonetheless they should fix it

I believe
 
2014-01-13 04:47:40 AM

maq0r: Why is the article written like that?

I do not understand

It seems weird

I understand if it were an ongoing event

Or an emergency

Nonetheless they should fix it

I believe


Sometimes, when there is little information.

In a pigeon-fart town.

People need to expand the story.

...just like using triple-spacing and large font in junior high.

...for term papers.
 
2014-01-13 05:02:54 AM
The Wright amenment (expires in October) forbids aircraft from going more than one state to or from Love Field. Which is why I don't understand the Branson stop.

From the Wiki entry: "In 2005, Senator Kit Bond of Missouri attached an amendment to a transportation spending bill to exempt his state from the Wright restrictions. After the bill's passage, Southwest began nonstop flights from Love Field to St. Louis and Kansas City."

I've just read that Wiki entry and I must say: you 'muricans are sometimes so pro-business, that you attain a whole new level of communist.
 
2014-01-13 05:09:33 AM
I don't know about this one. The runway orientations are 20 degrees apart. Seems like that ought to have raised a red flag at some point, especially considering these guys are most likely flying with GPS. Kinda funny, Wiki already has an entry on this in the Clark Airport (formerly known as the College of the Ozarks Airport) page.

i.imgur.com
 
2014-01-13 05:41:12 AM

Lsherm: What I don't understand is that you're communicating with the tower before approach.  No one at the main airport noticed that the plane was lining up for the wrong farking airport?


If I trust a comment on another article about this incident, neither of these airports has a tower, but it still boggles the mind that this kind of mistake could be made with a big jet.  Wouldn't a pilot notice on approach that the runway is half the length he's expecting?

Also, these articles fail to mention the interesting aspect that the runway where they landed is shorter than the minimum takeoff distance for a 737-700, by quite a bit.  I don't know if they can reduce the takeoff distance enough simply by flying with no cargo and as little as fuel as needed to safely get to the right airport.  Any Fark pilots have any comments on this?
 
2014-01-13 05:52:33 AM

Radak: Lsherm: What I don't understand is that you're communicating with the tower before approach.  No one at the main airport noticed that the plane was lining up for the wrong farking airport?

If I trust a comment on another article about this incident, neither of these airports has a tower, but it still boggles the mind that this kind of mistake could be made with a big jet.  Wouldn't a pilot notice on approach that the runway is half the length he's expecting?

Also, these articles fail to mention the interesting aspect that the runway where they landed is shorter than the minimum takeoff distance for a 737-700, by quite a bit.  I don't know if they can reduce the takeoff distance enough simply by flying with no cargo and as little as fuel as needed to safely get to the right airport.  Any Fark pilots have any comments on this?


They temporarily mount rockets on the fuselage to boost the speed and lower the required takeoff distance

cdn-www.airliners.net

Much like this
 
2014-01-13 05:56:50 AM

ransack.: Radak: Lsherm: What I don't understand is that you're communicating with the tower before approach.  No one at the main airport noticed that the plane was lining up for the wrong farking airport?

If I trust a comment on another article about this incident, neither of these airports has a tower, but it still boggles the mind that this kind of mistake could be made with a big jet.  Wouldn't a pilot notice on approach that the runway is half the length he's expecting?

Also, these articles fail to mention the interesting aspect that the runway where they landed is shorter than the minimum takeoff distance for a 737-700, by quite a bit.  I don't know if they can reduce the takeoff distance enough simply by flying with no cargo and as little as fuel as needed to safely get to the right airport.  Any Fark pilots have any comments on this?

They temporarily mount rockets on the fuselage to boost the speed and lower the required takeoff distance

[cdn-www.airliners.net image 300x205]

Much like this



Came here to say this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JATO
 
2014-01-13 06:09:11 AM

Radak: Lsherm: What I don't understand is that you're communicating with the tower before approach.  No one at the main airport noticed that the plane was lining up for the wrong farking airport?

If I trust a comment on another article about this incident, neither of these airports has a tower, but it still boggles the mind that this kind of mistake could be made with a big jet.  Wouldn't a pilot notice on approach that the runway is half the length he's expecting?

Also, these articles fail to mention the interesting aspect that the runway where they landed is shorter than the minimum takeoff distance for a 737-700, by quite a bit.  I don't know if they can reduce the takeoff distance enough simply by flying with no cargo and as little as fuel as needed to safely get to the right airport.  Any Fark pilots have any comments on this?


Didn't a cargo hauler just do this 1-2 months ago?
 
2014-01-13 06:18:23 AM
www.dvdizzy.com
 
2014-01-13 06:29:24 AM
i'll betcha one of two things happened.

one is they pulled the wrong approach plate out for the airport, they failed to properly identify that they were flying into the correct airport.

or they were cleared to fly a visual approach--looked out the window, and said--oh, there's the airport, let's land.
 
2014-01-13 06:34:49 AM
wildcardjack:

Oh, you don't know the half of it. The ranchers who owned the property DFW is on had their wells poisoned...

Where could I find more information about this? Google turns up nothing.
 
2014-01-13 06:37:37 AM

Radak: Lsherm: What I don't understand is that you're communicating with the tower before approach.  No one at the main airport noticed that the plane was lining up for the wrong farking airport?

If I trust a comment on another article about this incident, neither of these airports has a tower, but it still boggles the mind that this kind of mistake could be made with a big jet.  Wouldn't a pilot notice on approach that the runway is half the length he's expecting?


Branson is towered (operating until 9 pm if my google search was correct). The glide slope angle distorts runway lengths so that is not the best visual cue to determine which airport is which.

The thing for me is the runway orientations. Assuming they were lined up to land on Branson runway 14 (140 degrees heading on the approach), and then if they saw the Clark runway lights they would have had to bank left 20 degrees to line up the approach to Clark. That is not a small course correction while on final. Unless they were lined up on the wrong heading to go into Clark from the beginning.
 
2014-01-13 07:00:00 AM
Lives under LAX/Burbank coastal flight zone
 
2014-01-13 07:02:19 AM

powhound: Radak: Lsherm: 

Branson is towered (operating until 9 pm if my google search was correct). The glide slope angle distorts runway lengths so that is not the best visual cue to determine which airport is which.

The thing for me is the runway orientations. Assuming they were lined up to land on Branson runway 14 (140 degrees heading on the approach), and then if they saw the Clark runway lights they would have had to bank left 20 degrees to line up the approach to Clark. That is not a small course correction while on final. Unless they were lined up on the wrong heading to go into Clark from the beginning.


Yeah, I didn't get that either.  I never flew anything as big as a 737, but really, I think that even in that you would notice a 20 degree difference, or that you were headed to runway with no tower vs. a towered one.  Plus the fact that the crappy GPS in a little Cessna will tell you what airport you're headed into.  I would think that in a big plane like that, where you pretty much tell the computer where you want to go, and it flies the plane for you, that it would be damn near impossible to line up with the wrong airport.  My GPS could give me the codes for tiny dirt strips in the ass end of Alaska.  You would think the one in a plane for a major airline could inform the pilot that "hey dumbass, you're headed for PLK not BBG".
 
2014-01-13 07:26:56 AM
Years ago a small plane overshot the runway they landed on & almost ended up on Hwy 65. The end of the runway stops right by the edge of the road. That would've been awkward.
 
2014-01-13 07:34:30 AM
This will be interesting.  Boeing says that the minimum takeoff distance at max takeoff weight is 5,500 or so feet.  I found a couple references to 3,400 being the absolute minimum with no interior, but nothing I'd consider a reliable source...the runway at PLK is 3,738 feet.  I'm guessing if there's any chance of this working they will be stripping the interior and taking off with a minimum fuel load to get to BBG to reassemble the plane.
 
2014-01-13 07:43:10 AM
25.media.tumblr.com
 
2014-01-13 07:48:25 AM

morgen_benner: This will be interesting.  Boeing says that the minimum takeoff distance at max takeoff weight is 5,500 or so feet.  I found a couple references to 3,400 being the absolute minimum with no interior, but nothing I'd consider a reliable source...the runway at PLK is 3,738 feet.  I'm guessing if there's any chance of this working they will be stripping the interior and taking off with a minimum fuel load to get to BBG to reassemble the plane.


Probably simpler just to put it on a flatbed and tow it down the road.
 
2014-01-13 07:55:12 AM

morgen_benner: This will be interesting.  Boeing says that the minimum takeoff distance at max takeoff weight is 5,500 or so feet.  I found a couple references to 3,400 being the absolute minimum with no interior, but nothing I'd consider a reliable source...the runway at PLK is 3,738 feet.  I'm guessing if there's any chance of this working they will be stripping the interior and taking off with a minimum fuel load to get to BBG to reassemble the plane.


Didn't they have Boeing do simulations and provide special certification and instruction for the short takeoff of the cargo jet a few weeks back? If empty with a low fuel load it might be close enough that they could do that with this plane?
 
2014-01-13 07:57:05 AM

ransack.: Radak: Lsherm: What I don't understand is that you're communicating with the tower before approach.  No one at the main airport noticed that the plane was lining up for the wrong farking airport?

If I trust a comment on another article about this incident, neither of these airports has a tower, but it still boggles the mind that this kind of mistake could be made with a big jet.  Wouldn't a pilot notice on approach that the runway is half the length he's expecting?

Also, these articles fail to mention the interesting aspect that the runway where they landed is shorter than the minimum takeoff distance for a 737-700, by quite a bit.  I don't know if they can reduce the takeoff distance enough simply by flying with no cargo and as little as fuel as needed to safely get to the right airport.  Any Fark pilots have any comments on this?

They temporarily mount rockets on the fuselage to boost the speed and lower the required takeoff distance



Much like this


Just like Kerbal Space Program.
 
2014-01-13 07:59:09 AM

Coming on a Bicycle: The Wright amenment (expires in October) forbids aircraft from going more than one state to or from Love Field. Which is why I don't understand the Branson stop.

From the Wiki entry: "In 2005, Senator Kit Bond of Missouri attached an amendment to a transportation spending bill to exempt his state from the Wright restrictions. After the bill's passage, Southwest began nonstop flights from Love Field to St. Louis and Kansas City."

I've just read that Wiki entry and I must say: you 'muricans are sometimes so pro-business, that you attain a whole new level of communist.


I just did as well, and frankly it makes me sick. I can't talk directly as I'm not a resident of that area. But this is not the job of elected leaders. from the sounds of it there is no legit reason today for the restrictions. There was a tenuous justification when the bill was passed, but not anymore. The continued terminal restrictions seems counter to pubic interest as well.
 
2014-01-13 07:59:39 AM

Lsherm: TuteTibiImperes: Well, they were supposed to land in Branson, then go to Dallas.

Apparently the Branson airport is fairly new (opened in 2009) and the one they landed at was the old county airport, which is only 8 miles away.

That makes it a little bit more understandable, though I imagine the pilot is in for an uncomfortable conversation with his boss.

What I don't understand is that you're communicating with the tower before approach.  No one at the main airport noticed that the plane was lining up for the wrong farking airport?


It's a class D airport, which means it doesn't have a radar facility. Some do have a dope showing a feed from a nearby "big" airport's radar, but many don't.

Approach controller probably handed them off to tower when they called field in sight. At that point they called the tower and probably said something like "Southwest XYZ 10 miles, visual." With no other traffic in the area (it's a class D airport), Tower cleared them to land and then waited....
 
2014-01-13 07:59:50 AM

ThatGuyFromTheInternet: Radak: Lsherm: What I don't understand is that you're communicating with the tower before approach.  No one at the main airport noticed that the plane was lining up for the wrong farking airport?

If I trust a comment on another article about this incident, neither of these airports has a tower, but it still boggles the mind that this kind of mistake could be made with a big jet.  Wouldn't a pilot notice on approach that the runway is half the length he's expecting?

Also, these articles fail to mention the interesting aspect that the runway where they landed is shorter than the minimum takeoff distance for a 737-700, by quite a bit.  I don't know if they can reduce the takeoff distance enough simply by flying with no cargo and as little as fuel as needed to safely get to the right airport.  Any Fark pilots have any comments on this?

Didn't a cargo hauler just do this 1-2 months ago?


Yep. Missouri was trying to one up Kansas.
 
2014-01-13 08:35:44 AM
As silly as it sounds, for a plane traveling at those speeds, 8 miles is a small area.  It is discerning to realize a pilot could be confused like that, but at least he didn't crash and can get his head in the game for the next flight.

/At least it wasn't an enemy airport.
//I'm sure there has been worse delays even with landing at the right airport
 
2014-01-13 09:01:04 AM

Loki009: I just did as well, and frankly it makes me sick. I can't talk directly as I'm not a resident of that area. But this is not the job of elected leaders. from the sounds of it there is no legit reason today for the restrictions. There was a tenuous justification when the bill was passed, but not anymore. The continued terminal restrictions seems counter to pubic interest as well.


I grew up in Dallas, and there is simply no good reason for that law.
 
2014-01-13 09:12:23 AM
bangmaid:
B) don't you think Chicago to Dallas makes more sense for a non stop instead of a non stop to Branson?

You expect a flight from Chicago to have a stop in between? Where? Peoria? Springfield?
 
2014-01-13 09:42:33 AM

johndalek: they failed to properly identify that they were flying into the correct airport.


ya think?
 
2014-01-13 10:00:15 AM

lack of warmth: As silly as it sounds, for a plane traveling at those speeds, 8 miles is a small area.  It is discerning to realize a pilot could be confused like that, but at least he didn't crash and can get his head in the game for the next flight.

/At least it wasn't an enemy airport.
//I'm sure there has been worse delays even with landing at the right airport


8 miles is a distance, not an area.

With all the NAVAIDs available, and confirmation from the tower, it's hard to imagine how a pilot could do this.  This is easy to avoid.  The consequences could be serious.  Send this guy (or both) back to flight school, or to Greyhound school.
 
2014-01-13 10:31:02 AM

Lost Thought 00: morgen_benner: This will be interesting.  Boeing says that the minimum takeoff distance at max takeoff weight is 5,500 or so feet.  I found a couple references to 3,400 being the absolute minimum with no interior, but nothing I'd consider a reliable source...the runway at PLK is 3,738 feet.  I'm guessing if there's any chance of this working they will be stripping the interior and taking off with a minimum fuel load to get to BBG to reassemble the plane.

Probably simpler just to put it on a flatbed and tow it down the road.


Flat bedding it isn't simple.  That requires taking the plane apart.

The 5500ft minimum take off distance is at MGTOW and a balanced field (aka accelerate/stop) distance.  At lighter weights, the distance goes down significantly, and 3400ft is in the range of a reasonable number without checking.

They'll offload fuel to minimum needed, back the plane up to the very end of the runway and take off with out issue.  With a one time ferry permit, they'll be allowed to ignore balanced field distances.
 
2014-01-13 10:38:59 AM

clear_prop: Lost Thought 00: morgen_benner: This will be interesting.  Boeing says that the minimum takeoff distance at max takeoff weight is 5,500 or so feet.  I found a couple references to 3,400 being the absolute minimum with no interior, but nothing I'd consider a reliable source...the runway at PLK is 3,738 feet.  I'm guessing if there's any chance of this working they will be stripping the interior and taking off with a minimum fuel load to get to BBG to reassemble the plane.

Probably simpler just to put it on a flatbed and tow it down the road.

Flat bedding it isn't simple.  That requires taking the plane apart.

The 5500ft minimum take off distance is at MGTOW and a balanced field (aka accelerate/stop) distance.  At lighter weights, the distance goes down significantly, and 3400ft is in the range of a reasonable number without checking.

They'll offload fuel to minimum needed, back the plane up to the very end of the runway and take off with out issue.  With a one time ferry permit, they'll be allowed to ignore balanced field distances.


Seconded. Max gross takeoff weight is the /maximum/ in the book. Lose some fuel and they'll use much less runway.
 
2014-01-13 11:01:09 AM

clear_prop: Lost Thought 00: morgen_benner: This will be interesting.  Boeing says that the minimum takeoff distance at max takeoff weight is 5,500 or so feet.  I found a couple references to 3,400 being the absolute minimum with no interior, but nothing I'd consider a reliable source...the runway at PLK is 3,738 feet.  I'm guessing if there's any chance of this working they will be stripping the interior and taking off with a minimum fuel load to get to BBG to reassemble the plane.

Probably simpler just to put it on a flatbed and tow it down the road.

Flat bedding it isn't simple.  That requires taking the plane apart.

The 5500ft minimum take off distance is at MGTOW and a balanced field (aka accelerate/stop) distance.  At lighter weights, the distance goes down significantly, and 3400ft is in the range of a reasonable number without checking.

They'll offload fuel to minimum needed, back the plane up to the very end of the runway and take off with out issue.  With a one time ferry permit, they'll be allowed to ignore balanced field distances.


I imagine they'll stand on the brakes while the engines spool up to near max before starting to roll. Hopefully somebody streams it when they do take off. I'm keeping an eye on KPLK on Flight Aware waiting for a flight plan to be filed.
 
2014-01-13 11:23:09 AM
Well, I can understand.  Anywhere is preferable to Dallas.  (Except maybe Detroit?)
 
2014-01-13 11:30:52 AM
As a former Taney County resident, all I can say is: "Wow!"

The former College of the Ozarks airport was built for small, private jets and a few charter airplanes. It obviously was not built for Southwest jets. Surprised there wasn't a blood bath.
 
2014-01-13 11:54:29 AM
Here is what the runway looks like, with google earth.

img.fark.net
 
Displayed 50 of 62 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report