Unbelievable. How could this possibly occur?

British Airways flight departs London for Dusseldorf, ends up in Edinburgh:

https://www.foxnews.com/travel/brit...rection-lands-525-miles-away-from-destination

You know, once in a while I go the "wrong way" in my car or boat. But I'm not a professional.

Don't you think these "pros" might look out the window? "I say Bernard, the English Channel is quite dry today?" I hope these jokers are demoted to pushing baby strollers.

One aw **** outweighs 1000 atta boys...

JustBob said:

British Airways flight departs London for Dusseldorf, ends up in Edinburgh:

https://www.foxnews.com/travel/brit...rection-lands-525-miles-away-from-destination

You know, once in a while I go the "wrong way" in my car or boat. But I'm not a professional.

Don't you think these "pros" might look out the window? "I say Bernard, the English Channel is quite dry today?" I hope these jokers are demoted to pushing baby strollers.

Click to expand...

THe way I read it was that they went where they thought they were supposed to go.. IOW, their landing there was intentional....it just wasn't where they were supposed to go. Basically all planning and paperwork was to go to Edinburgh....but the people in the back were going to Dusseldorf....or something like that.

Baker said:

THe way I read it was that they went where they thought they were supposed to go.. IOW, their landing there was intentional....it just wasn't where they were supposed to go. Basically all planning and paperwork was to go to Edinburgh....but the people in the back were going to Dusseldorf....or something like that.

Click to expand...

But have you ever been on a flight that didn't have this announcement:

"Good morning from the flight deck. This is captain Smith, along with first officer Williams. Today we are bound for Edinburgh, the computer shows a quick 91 minute flight. Weather is clear so we are not expecting any turbulence. Please let us know if there's anything we can do to make your flight more comfortable and thank you for flying British Airways."

No passenger rang the button and said "ummm, we don't seem to be crossing the English channel?"

Greetings,
Mr. JB. Not an unheard of circumstance...Just sayin'



https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/wrong-way-corrigan-crosses-the-atlantic

Well, 'E' comes right after 'D'. Fat fingers when selecting a canned flight plan?

But an embarrassing and expensive error for BA and their contractor. At least no-one was injured, so as airline stuff-ups go I guess its benign.

What's the big deal? Wrong Way Corrigan flew from New York to LA and "somehow" ended up in Ireland.


It's an interesting story to read.

Greetings,
Mr. GFC. In addition to my post #5?

I think i would prefer to visit Edinburgh more than Dusseldorf, would be a nice surprise

L

I heard that they accidentally followed the flight plan from the previous day when the plane did, intentionally, go to Edinburgh.
And that although it was a BA flight it was operated by a German aircraft/airline. Not sure that makes sense, maybe a "shortage" of available 737s is having an affect.

Some years ago there was a plane going from the US to Europe (destination somewhere in Germany I think). Seems that the passengers could tell they weren't going to the right place because of the Airshow map system. Pilots didn't seem to notice though.

The whole thing points out that pilots just seem to become robots and follow the computer blindly. When things go wrong (e.g. 737 Max) they don't have the ability to think things through and figure the problem out anymore.

In this case, you'd think that one of the pilots would have noticed that they were heading in the opposite direction of what they should have and might have said " Hey, wait a minute....".

Normally, the flight plan in the computer gets dumped when the plane decelerates below 20 knots after landing. So someone entered the incorrect flight plan before the flight, or there was a stored flight plan that one of the pilots activated. Still a manual action was required by one of the pilots to activate the flight plan to the wrong destination during preparations for the incident flight. There are no flight plans just leftover in the computer. Unless there is a malfunction, which would cause a bunch of other effects that someone should have noticed.

I'll note again that I'm not a pilot so out of my depth here, but....


It seems that it would take pilots, and ground control, and basically everyone involved in flight operations to be on the same page about where a plane is heading. The pilots have to have thought they were supposed to go to E.



The only sensible explanation is that somehow the plane picked by flight ops to go the Edinborough was the plane that ground ops picked to go Dusseldorf.


So essentially, the plane got flown to where flight ops wanted it, but they took the wrong plane. It's like a bus driver running the Boston the NY run who gets on the wrong bus and takes a bunch of people to NY who thought they were going to Albany. That I could see happening.


Regardless, still a major shuck-up, but I doubt it's dazed and confused pilots lost in the sky.

There's probably more the story, but there's a number of ways this could happen.

And, true, it's not hard to get "brain dead" flying 5 or 6 legs a day, 15 days a month. There's lots of reroutes, changes, etc., and perhaps someone told the dispatcher to send this plane to Edinburgh and the pilots could have thought this is appropriate. Who knows.

And there's PLENTY of screw ups in the flight planning and also in the final phase of the flight.

And there's a ton if times planes have landed at the wrong airport, but close by and "seems" correct.

Miami area has several airports with the same runway configuration, two east west and one diagonal southeast/north runways. I personally almost fell victim to that one.

Ellsworth AFB looks like Rapid City, SD and a few commercial planes have landed there.

There was a plane bound for Omaha and landed at Council Bluffs, a significantly shorter runway.

However, most of the time these diversions are only an embarrassment and some time or and retraining, rarely dangerous.

Gives one a chance to see new areas......

Seevee said:

There's probably more the story, but there's a number of ways this could happen.

And, true, it's not hard to get "brain dead" flying 5 or 6 legs a day, 15 days a month. There's lots of reroutes, changes, etc., and perhaps someone told the dispatcher to send this plane to Edinburgh and the pilots could have thought this is appropriate. Who knows.

And there's PLENTY of screw ups in the flight planning and also in the final phase of the flight.

And there's a ton if times planes have landed at the wrong airport, but close by and "seems" correct.

Miami area has several airports with the same runway configuration, two east west and one diagonal southeast/north runways. I personally almost fell victim to that one.

Ellsworth AFB looks like Rapid City, SD and a few commercial planes have landed there.

There was a plane bound for Omaha and landed at Council Bluffs, a significantly shorter runway.

However, most of the time these diversions are only an embarrassment and some time or and retraining, rarely dangerous.

Gives one a chance to see new areas......

Click to expand...

Isn't there GPS on the plane showing where they are, and presumably a mark for the destination airport, kind of like what we have on our boats?


And doesn't ground control track the plane's position via transponder and radar, and provide flight vectors?


And doesn't a flight talk to the airport for final approach?


And doesn't the airport monitor the incoming flight's position etc via transponder and radar?


I just don't see how this could happen for anything other than an purely VFR flight. And I would thing everyone involved would have to figure out what's happening well before a landing, but I could see them deciding to land anyway with heads down in shame because they are beyond the point of no return, or whatever other reason.


No?



Again, I'm asking, because this is all foreign to me.

twistedtree said:

Isn't there GPS on the plane showing where they are, and presumably a mark for the destination airport, kind of like what we have on our boats?

Usually, or at least a similar device that gives position.

And doesn't ground control track the plane's position via transponder and radar, and provide flight vectors?

Usually


And doesn't a flight talk to the airport for final approach?

Yes, talks to tower, departure control, center control, arrival control, tower


And doesn't the airport monitor the incoming flight's position etc via transponder and radar?

No, Air Traffic control does that.... tower, approach control, etc.


I just don't see how this could happen for anything other than an purely VFR flight. And I would thing everyone involved would have to figure out what's happening well before a landing, but I could see them deciding to land anyway with heads down in shame because they are beyond the point of no return, or whatever other reason.

Well, if the flight plan was filed accordingly, Air Traffic Control would not question it, and if the pilots thought that this was the plan, why would they question it? (dispatcher screwed up). Perhaps management told the dispatcher that this flight goes to Dusseldorf and then on to Edinburgh, and the dispatched missed the Dusseldorf part. Perhaps management screwed up. Perhaps there were significant delays in Dusseldorf and the pilots diverted before getting low on fuel (and dispatch would certainly be in the loop on that one). I've done that a few times, even where I couldn't get dispatch on the line before we were on final approach to the alternate airport. Was there any weather in the area? Who knows.


No?

Yes, but I'd bet my bottom dollar that the flight plan filed said Edinburgh, or a number of people would have caught it.



Again, I'm asking, because this is all foreign to me.

Click to expand...

Now, here's another thing.... we just don't know how the news reports this stuff. They could be WAY off and this was a normal operation. Still waiting for "the rest of the story...."

Some time ago a commercial flight had to make an emergency landing in Manitoba I think it was. Ran out of fuel.
Just didn't put enough in the plane. Human error.
Now, that could have had a different ending.
How do you leave the ground in this day and age without enough fuel?

leeman said:

Some time ago a commercial flight had to make an emergency landing in Manitoba I think it was. Ran out of fuel.
Just didn't put enough in the plane. Human error.
Now, that could have had a different ending.
How do you leave the ground in this day and age without enough fuel?

Click to expand...

That one I just don't understand. Even in my small Beechcraft I have 3 independent fuel measuring devices, in addition to time/distance/power.... plus warnings. Hard to believe one would run out. Even in a boat, I find that really hard to believe.

Seevee said:

Now, here's another thing.... we just don't know how the news reports this stuff. They could be WAY off and this was a normal operation. Still waiting for "the rest of the story...."

Click to expand...

OK, your confirming my suspicion that it's not pilots and airplanes lost in the sky with no idea where they are going. And of course lost in the sky the impression the stories leave you with, because that's much more of an attention getter.


There is no news. Just current-events-inspired story telling. This is why I so seldom look at news of any kind. It's not only free of useful content, it's downright misleading.

Greetings,
Mr. l. Post #17. "Just didn't put enough in the plane." I'm pretty sure you're referring to the Gimli Glider...


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider

leeman said:

Some time ago a commercial flight had to make an emergency landing in Manitoba I think it was. Ran out of fuel.
Just didn't put enough in the plane. Human error.
Now, that could have had a different ending.
How do you leave the ground in this day and age without enough fuel?

Click to expand...

The "Gimli Glider" event arose from a fuel order written in gallons and being executed in liters (could have been pounds vice kilos, I'm too lazy to look it up.)...or was it hectopascals...

Greetings,
Mr. AP. The link explains it all (post #21). I remember the incident. I think it was about the time Canada was switching from Imperial to Metric measurements. Some dipstick mixed up the dipsticks...

Whoa! Sounds like the aircraft went where it was supposed to - maybe the ground guys loaded the pax on the wrong plane through "system" errors.

Seevee said:

That one I just don't understand. Even in my small Beechcraft I have 3 independent fuel measuring devices, in addition to time/distance/power.... plus warnings. Hard to believe one would run out. Even in a boat, I find that really hard to believe.

Click to expand...

Wasn't this one the case of mistaking pounds of fuel for kilograms of fuel?

Oops Edit - three of us have (close to) good recall!

sunchaser said:

Wasn't this one the case of mistaking pounds of fuel for kilograms of fuel?

Oops Edit - three of us have (close to) good recall!

Click to expand...

Yes. The fuel gauges were "deferred" which is allowed since there are dipsticks that one can measure fuel manually. The only problem is they reported in pounds and the Canadians thought it was on kilos. So they only had about half of the fuel they thought they had.

And as I said on my previous comment, everything and everyone thought they were going to Edinburgh....except the passengers. Everything was correct....except passengers on wrong plane. There is a chance the pilots got busy and did not make that welcome announcement. I am an airline captain...and there have been times I did not make that announcement. Things get busy right before the door closes.

sunchaser said:

Wasn't this one the case of mistaking pounds of fuel for kilograms of fuel?

Oops Edit - three of us have (close to) good recall!

Click to expand...

True, but I can't imagine the Captain didn't get a "fuel loaded sheet" and could look at the quantity gauges on his panel and figure out that there could be a mistake. This much of a discrepancy should be obvious.

Seevee said:

True, but I can't imagine the Captain didn't get a "fuel loaded sheet" and could look at the quantity gauges on his panel and figure out that there could be a mistake. This much of a discrepancy should be obvious.

Click to expand...

You can fly with the fuel gauges inop!...yep. Now, I cannot remember if you can have multiple gauges inop or just one out of the three. But when they are inop, it is the maintenance guys that do the dipsticks. I think they departed DCA headed for somewhere in Canada. Anyway, somewhere along the MTX got pounds mixed up with kilos and then gave the erroneous fuel slip to the pilots. They never knew....

Baker said:

You can fly with the fuel gauges inop!...yep. Now, I cannot remember if you can have multiple gauges inop or just one out of the three. But when they are inop, it is the maintenance guys that do the dipsticks. I think they departed DCA headed for somewhere in Canada. Anyway, somewhere along the MTX got pounds mixed up with kilos and then gave the erroneous fuel slip to the pilots. They never knew....

Click to expand...

Baker,

Did the Gimly have an inop fuel gauge? However, the dip sticks should be calibrated in gallons. (don't think Boeing made special dipsticks in liters). But nonetheless, I'd bet there was a procedure that called for comparing the fuel on the plane prior to fueling, the amount of fuel lifted into the tanks and the final amount. Hard to understand why it wasn't caught... but shxx happens. They did a phenomenal job of landing.

Seevee said:

Baker,

Did the Gimly have an inop fuel gauge? However, the dip sticks should be calibrated in gallons. (don't think Boeing made special dipsticks in liters). But nonetheless, I'd bet there was a procedure that called for comparing the fuel on the plane prior to fueling, the amount of fuel lifted into the tanks and the final amount. Hard to understand why it wasn't caught... but shxx happens. They did a phenomenal job of landing.

Click to expand...

Yes they did....the mistakes were made before they got to the cockpit. I have flown with inop gauges many times. It is maintenance that does the dipstick readings. You have to allow delegation and trust your trained personel to do what they are supposed to do. I cannot micromanage every single thing maintenance does nor am I trained to do so. I dipstick reading is an absolute. Sadly they made a mistake. And as you said the sticks likely read in volume and not in weight. Then another calculation has to be made to get it in weight. Anyway, I don't remember all of the details.

THe funny things is, the made for TV movie was at 8pm central and was the usual 8-10 time slot. The ran out of fuel at about 8:20....and landed at the very end....anyway, it was humorous as they flew around for 1.5 hours with no engine power....