Harrison Ford landed on Taxiway Charlie at John Wayne Airport last month. Everyone who knows I am a pilot and an aviation safety columnist contacted me as soon as they heard about Ford.
My mother even chimed in, certain the actor should be stripped of his license, as this was his fourth accident. I explained that two were mechanical failures, so they don’t count, particularly when he successfully landed both aircraft without loss of life, or property damage.A week after the event, I subbed in for a class of flight students. They asked about the incident.
“Do you think he landed on Taxiway C intentionally?” They’d all heard the audio, so they all answered “no.” “
Do you think he was engaging in any criminal activity during the incident?” Some joked about Hollywood types, but most considered Ford to be pretty straight-laced, so again, “no.”
Finally, I asked the students if they thought the actor would voluntarily confess to his transgression. They unanimously concluded from the ATC audio that he had already confessed.
That’s when I wrote “NASA report” and “Aviation Safety Reporting System” on the board. Then I asked the 10 students to raise their hands if they’d ever heard of either. Only one had. She works for the FAA, though, so…
A good friend of mine, a pilot living in Southern California, wondered what should be done. I suggested he find out if Harrison Ford has a Twitter account. If so, “follow him” and tweet out to the actor about filing a NASA report.
Does Harrison Ford know about the ASRS program? I don’t know. Our tweets went unanswered. Does the infamous Taxiway Charlie landing make him eligible to submit one?
Let’s look at the facts:
“The FAA considers the filing of a report with NASA concerning an incident or occurrence involving a violation of 49 U.S.C. subtitle VII or the 14 CFR to be indicative of a constructive attitude. Such an attitude will tend to prevent future violations. Accordingly, although a finding of violation may be made, neither a civil penalty nor certificate suspension will be imposed if:
- The violation was inadvertent and not deliberate;
- The violation did not involve a criminal offense, accident or action;
- The person has not been found in any prior FAA enforcement action to have committed a violation of 49 U.S.C. subtitle VII, or any regulation promulgated there for a period of 5 years prior; and
- The person proves that, within 10 days after the violation, or date when the person became aware or should have been aware of the violation, he or she completed and delivered or mailed a written report of the incident or occurrence to NASA.”
I don’t know if Harrison Ford has committed a violation of 49 U.S.C., subtitle VII in the last five years. If he hasn’t, then regardless of his celebrity status and regardless of the extremely high profile nature of the incident, he qualifies, within the 10-day limitation.
Why does this matter? Because you, too, might one day find out after the fact that your little aviation snafu ended up on LiveATC.net or someone’s Facebook Live feed.
If the FAA becomes aware of it that way, they are obligated to take appropriate action. They might even launch an investigation before you’ve finished tying down your airplane.
No matter. Even with an investigation underway, if you meet all the conditions listed above, you can still file a NASA report and possibly gain immunity from an enforcement action.
I hope Ford filed a NASA. His would add to the thin body of knowledge on taxiway landings that currently exists.
I found only 19 NASA reports on the subject. The reports broke down into two broad categories — visibility and situational awareness. Of the 19, 12 were filed by air traffic controllers.
One controller submitted a NASA report after it appeared a Mooney Allegro may have landed on a taxiway. After clearing the Mooney to land, “I observed the aircraft on a 3/4-mile final and checked to see that the gear was down. I looked down to observe my wind instruments and gave the pilot a wind check.”
The controller then looked down at his strip bay before looking back up for the Mooney.
“I couldn’t find the Allegro in the ground clutter that is the visual background for that final from the Tower POV. Then I realized the aircraft was rolling out on Taxiway A.”
It wasn’t clear to the controller whether the pilot had landed on the taxiway or just exited the runway very early. The controller decided to wait for the pilot to say something about the landing instead of querying him. The pilot never did.
In his conclusion, the controller wrote, “I think it would have been better to question the pilot, just in case he had landed on the taxiway. Then we would have had the opportunity to educate him on paying attention to the movement area markings on final.”
Concern over visibility from the newly constructed tower was one reason listed for filing the NASA.
Both a King Air pilot and the local controller filed separate NASAs over the same taxiway landing at dusk.
“Tower told me to continue on the right base for Runway 32 but to plan on passing through final and turn back to re-intercept final again for Runway 32 in order to provide spacing for slower traffic on one mile final,” wrote the pilot.
After the slower traffic conflict resolved, ATC cleared the King Air to land.
“When re-intercepting the final for Runway 32, I asked if I could land long in order to taxi clear at A4, which they approved.”
“As I watched the aircraft,” wrote the controller, “I thought it was strange that it was floating so long over the runway. Then I realized the aircraft landed on Taxiway A. Thankfully no other aircraft were on Taxiway A.”
The pilot wrote: “I approached 400 feet AGL and intercepted the final but did not realize that I had lined up on Taxiway A until deep in the flare. I was shocked to see the yellow centerline, and it delayed my reaction time so that I was unable to perform the go-around before the plane settled.”
The King Air pilot rolled out on Taxiway A and at A4 reported to Ground Control. The controller concluded that he needed to increase vigilance in scanning all runways to prevent a repeat of the incident. The King Air pilot offered no remedy.
This incident occurred at dusk. Before the approach, the King Air had been IFR in IMC. He canceled IFR once identifying the field in VFR conditions.
During ATC vectoring, he was cleared for a visual approach. Subsequently, he was asked to perform a modified S turn (“plan on passing through final and turn back to re-intercept…”). Even though the pilot states that he, in fact, re-intercepted final for Runway 32, it’s probable the pilot referenced landmarks and not his instruments on final.
Had he scanned his panel one last time he might have seen a full-scale deflection of his localizer needle, just as one airline crew saw during their taxiway landing.
“Inbound on the arrival, we were told to expect Runway 16R, which we had briefed at altitude prior to descent. The weather was VFR. Inside the FAF on a visual approach to Runway 16R, Tower asked if we would like to land on Runway 16C. We agreed to land on Runway 16C and the pilot flying lined up on a taxiway, thinking it was Runway 16C. As the pilot monitoring, I also looked out and assumed that we were lined up on Runway 16C.”
As a safety measure, the pilot monitoring put in the ILS frequency for Runway 16C in the flying pilot’s navigation radio as backup. Close in, the localizer disappeared and only the glideslope portion of the flight director remained.
“I tried to figure out why the localizer information was off, since I had not remembered any NOTAMs to that effect. Approaching 500 feet, I focused my attention on monitoring the flare and landing. Upon landing, the Tower informed us that we had landed on a taxiway, which, by that time, was clearly evident to all.”
One reason the FAA gathers data through NASA reports is so it can address deficiencies and fix defects in the National Airspace System and its associated facilities.
Three separate NASA reports relate to one airport, KDVT, Arizona’s Phoenix Deer Valley Airport. Two controllers and one pilot submitted the reports. In all three, one striking conclusion was that the taxiway looked like a runway.
One controller suggested that a higher Tower cab would help controllers maintain situational awareness. Another controller strongly suggested painting a yellow line on the taxiway to demarcate it.
The pilot also strongly suggested that Tower consider turning on the Runway End Identifier Lights when traffic is landing on Runway 25, directly into the sun. These three reports were from the 1990s. A current Google image of KDVT shows yellow lines on the taxiways.
Mr. Ford has been a pilot for many years. I’m sure that he was aware of the NASA Aviation Safety Repoting system. I’m also sure that he had an uncomfortable meeting with the FSDO safety person. I remember back in the early 70’s as a controller at KJFK when a Colombian B-707 executing a Canarsie approach to RWY 13R lined up and landed on the adjacent taxiway “Papa.” It was nighttime and the taxiway he landed on was the primary taxi route to RWY 13R. Luck was with everyone in that the taxiway was vacant at the time of the incident.
“I think he just made a plain and simple mistake. Orange County airport (aka: KSNA) has allot of airliner traffic in addition to GA going in and out. Plus the fact that he was flying a light tail wheel aircraft and probably didn’t want to get blown around makes me think it was a simple mistake.”
Well, which is it?? Was is a simple mistake or, was he trying to create more space from an airliner landing on a parallel runway by sidestepping to a taxiway? You can’t have it both ways. If it was the latter, no matter what you choose to call it, it was careless. He had no right to (deviate) make such a decision.
I have flown out of and done many take-offs and landing on that short parallel runway. It’s a rush! As with all things aviation, there is little room for error and the PIC must be at 100% in order to fly safely and to not make mistakes. Luckily, the outcome of this mistake did not create havoc.
Some airline pilots file a NASA Report for every flight because some FAR can be expected to be violated on almost every flight. From a minor altitude bust, a missed radio call, a piece of inoperative equipment, such as a single position light in a multi-light housing during a daylight flight,
I have been present at airports when an airliner landed without a clearance to land.
Hopefully it wasn’t his death in the last Star Wars movie that was on his mind, hopefully his flight instructors will remind him of the NASA report form. Many pilots carry a form or two in their flight bag.
Personally, over 20 years ago I landed on the wrong runway at Denver Stapleton due to it being my first flight into Denver although I was an ATP flying solo in a Beech Baron and the assigned runway was changed twice at the last minute. The tower and I mutually apologized. But that was a long time ago.
Back during the Reagan era, after the strike, a tower controller read me the current weather as 600 over, 3 miles, then he said “expect the visual.” After a few seconds, when he didn’t correct himself, I said I’d prefer the ILS. Nobody is perfect.
I was flying into a non-tower airport that I had not been into before. It was hazy and I had trouble finding the runway. A crop duster reported on final and I spotted him so just followed him in. He turned off short and I found myself looking at a lot of parked airplanes because he had landed on the taxiway. I found out afterwards that he did this to shorten the time required to re-fill the hopper and get back in the air.
Leaving the big name actor out of the issue. The pilot should be handled just like any pilot with due FAA enforcement action, suspension, ground school, recurrent training etc be imposed as necessary.
How were so many many clues that the intended landing area was not a runway, including an airliner positioned directly below the approach path, adjacent runway etc were all ignored, is something for the authorities to investigate where our human perceptions,and actions are concerned.
Was the action deliberate , or a serious error of judgment ??
FAA Order 8000.373 Federal Aviation Administration Compliance Philosophy was signed into affect 6/2/6/15. It deals with compliance and enforcement programs and activities of all FAA offices that have regulatory responsibilities.
It is a fact anyone reading this is human and thus made a few mistakes in their lifetime. It could be a few of you only made a mistake when you though you had made a mistake. Mr. Ford is however a high profile victim of his mistake but, should be treated as everyone else under FAA order 8000.373.
There is however another issue,what happens if an intentional act of none compliance happens regarding the NAS (National Airspace System). Two articles have been written by GA News regarding KSLE (McNary Field) airspace changes 1) Whiplash In Salem 2) Back To the Drawing Board in Salem.
Both articles are due to my efforts to fight back against the FAA.
Neither article should have happened had the FAA complied with and followed FAA JO 7400.2k Chapter 17. In additional I filed a FOIA request regarding the airspace changes and had 27 pages redacted. An appeal was made to the redacted documents (in a timely manner) January 11, 2016. The appeal has been ignored by the FAA FOIA office with no response in over 14 months. Hardly an open and transparent exchange of data by the FAA.
FAA Order 8000.373 states in part:
c.”To foster this open and transparent exchange of data, the FAA believes that its compliance philosophy, supported by an established safety culture, is instrumental in ensuring both compliance with regulations and the identification of hazards and management of risk.”
f.”The FAA views those intentional or reckless deviations from regulatory standards, as defined in the Agency’s safety oversight guidance, or deviations from regulatory standards that otherwise present an unacceptable risk to safety, as posing the highest risk to safe operation of the NAS, and thus requiring strong enforcement.”
So with all that said whom should be doing the Rug Dance?
A) Mr. Ford who made an unintentional mistake when he landed on a taxiway.
or
B) The FAA ATO organization intentional changed the airspace configuration in and around KSLE. They failed to adhere to their own orders and created an unsafe conditions at KSLE. Plus, the FAA has ignored the Freedom of Information Regulations that require a response within 20 days.
From my view point the correct answer is B.
Why do I suspect on a clear day like that, that perhaps Ford’s actual problem is a need get a new prescription for his eyeglasses?? The airliner should have been an additional clue, again making me wonder about his vision…
Dave, Orange County Airport (KSNA) is unusual in that Taxiway Charlie is very wide, and is parallel to the short runway that is in use for general aviation.
KSNA has a curfew and no commercial departures are permitted before 7 am and 8 am Sundays. The airlines, for marketing purposes, offer departures as early as 6:30 am, and the controllers line them up along Taxiway Charlie and also along the short runway for GA. I’ve seen as many as 18 commercial carrier jets stacked along these, waiting for the clock to touch 7 am. Literally, first in line is moved into position at 6:58. At 6:59 it is given clearance, and at 7am precisely it is wheels up over the houses, and the flights all go one minute apart. It’s amazing to watch, miserable to hear for the houses under the departure end. The taxiway and the short runway are both strengthened and appear to be similarly as wide as each other and they look the same from a distance.
Harrison Ford’s mother lives in Leisure World, maybe five miles from KSNA, so he flies in and goes over there. He’s familiar with KSNA, so he blew it, fair and square. But, let’s consider what he saw.
It was late afternoon with a setting sun ahead. Not blinding since it was a few hours before sunset. The appearance is of a big runway on the right, and two similar runways (middle and left) which are actually the short runway (middle) and taxiway Charlie (left). There’s a lot going on, Class C airspace, get cleared in, separate frequencies for left and right runways, and he is cleared to land. The position of the departing aircraft is no clue since they stack them up, often between the runways, and usually to the left of the short runway (there have been tragic crashes here caused by ATC putting a 757 on hold between the runways while a light aircraft lands on the left and was blown upside down by jet blast from the 757) so I imagine ATC holds commercial aircraft to the left of the short runway and pretty much in front of Charlie. But the position of the jet was not a clue since ATC will randomly hold jets there.
The similarity of Charlie and the short runway was what would have confused him. However, the FAA would be wondering about the age of the pilot and might require that he get a flight check with an FAA inspector? I wouldn’t be surprised.
They publish that they have had good results from “consultation” and in this case consultation would be appropriate.
I am puzzled about the influence of a NASA report and how it helps? I have been told by AOPA that the NASA report will prevent certificate action, but not enforcement action (flight check requirements etc). Ford will be requested to file a report with the FAA and then they will consider what they will do – he is an accomplished pilot so I imagine that consultation will be appropriate.
I think he just made a plain and simple mistake. Orange County airport (aka: KSNA) has allot of airliner traffic in addition to GA going in and out. Plus the fact that he was flying a light tail wheel aircraft and probably didn’t want to get blown around makes me think it was a simple mistake. We’ve all made mistakes. So let this be handled appropriately and forget about it. The only reason why it made the news is because someone recognized him.
Seems like identifying and proceeding to the big white runway numbers that match exactly with what the controller said in the clearance should be adequate. No numbers, no runway. I know it didn’t prevent this event, but I don’t think all of the airports in the country need to be repainted.
The example of KDVT Deer Valley is a good one, the taxiway that more than one plane has landed on is next to 2 parallel runways. The taxiway is longer than the runway.
Clearly the pilots made errors. Glad no one was hurt. But the design of the airport can be a factor. Look at the runway on Bing Maps and you can see (Google maps converts photos in the middle of the airport and is less clear)
Airport paint or different color of surface could help.
So in order to avoid punitive action when flying unsafe one should make a “give me a get out of jail free card?” Likely Ford will be forced to do a special BFR with a DPE. Then be directed to complete an FAA safety course. Or at least that’s how the real world should work…
Much as I admire Harrison Ford as an actor, he is also a pilot and I believe his certificate should have been suspended for a period while he goes through some recurrent training. In 44 years of flying, I have never landed on a taxiway because I always make sure where I am. Situational awareness is vital!
I think that taxiways ends that are aligned with runways should have a yellow “X” painted on their edged giving an ultimate visual clue to the pilot. Simple and cheap solution.
That would cause problems as it is non-standard markings along with the runway hold markings, ILS Hold markings, etc.
I was going to suggest a big yellow “T” on the approach ends of taxiways where confusion or other factors make it necessary. They can make this a “standard” marking.
Worth pointing out that the FAA have allowed liberal interpretation of “or date when the person became aware or should have been aware of the violation”. Meaning if you screwed up but did not become aware of it till a month later (say reading the FAR’s for fun – and you become aware you messed something up a month or so back) so now you are 30 days out – you can still file your report. Your 10 day window started when you re-educated yourself reading the FAR’s.
AND – there is nothing inherently wrong with landing ANYWHERE on the surface of an airport. If appropriate. Back in the day – the field was a flat bit of grass with a windsock and you landed head to wind – wherever the wind may be. There were multiple runways on the surface of the airport – just none defined.
Crosswind too much at a single runway airport but the taxi-way is much better aligned to mitigate wind? Land on the taxiway – it is totally legal as long as no one is on it. At a CTAF field you would announce. At a towered field you would request – and for sure the controller would offer “at your own risk” once he had cleared you. And once you had persuaded them. Not all controllers are up to speed on this point. You would have to declare operational necessity – and as was the case with a KLM crew at JFK a few years back – they finally declared an emergency when the controller kept clearing them for a downwind landing that was outside their operational envelope. They ended up declaring and landing on a runway that was clear and more appropriate to their configuration.
Now I am not suggesting you go out there and get all “anti-authority” – but this is worth bearing in mind and keeping in your tool bag for when needed.
—
Now – with what we know to this point – Harrison Ford landed on a taxiway when he should have landed on the runway he was cleared for – he did not need to land on the taxi-way, was not cleared for it or had negotiated for it. So I suspect there is still a little bit of a rug dance to happen.