This is an excerpt from a report made to the Aviation Safety Reporting System. The narrative is written by the pilot, rather than FAA or NTSB officials. To maintain anonymity, many details, such as aircraft model or airport, are often scrubbed from the reports.
Approaching Tupelo Regional Airport (KTUP) in Mississippi via the VOR 18 approach during night VMC. Good comms with ATC and Center. Ceiling and visibility good, clear night with moderately strong headwind.
While approaching KTUP via this approach, the PAPI lights are on the RIGHT side of the runway. I knew this from route study and the appropriate airport charts.
However, this approach has you coming in from the left at an angle. From this angle, there is a set of VERY bright, horizontal white lights that look EXTREMELY similar to the visual indications you would get from the PAPI system. These bright white lights are located on the LEFT side of the runway.
This has the potential to create an EXTREMELY dangerous and possibly deadly situation.
A task-saturated pilot or inexperienced pilot may fixate on these white lights on the LEFT side of the runway, unknowingly mistaking them for the PAPI lights. In this case, the “four white” would indicate being higher than glideslope, causing the pilot to descend. If circumstances aligned and the pilot did not catch this mistake in time, it could easily lead into a Controlled Flight into Terrain situation.
This happened in Night VMC, with good view of the ground. It was very jarring to see, but I recognized the situation before any dangerous circumstances happened.
I am making this report out of concern for others who may not immediately recognize the situation. I can only imagine how the situation may have been worsened by poor weather conditions, lower ceiling/vis, or lack of experience/situational awareness due to pilot fatigue.
Primary Problem: Airport
ACN: 2113730
File a NOTAM, or whatever it’s called these days.
It would be a shame to make a perfectly good landing into bushes, a ditch, or runway equipment, just because the pilot chose to land alongside the wrong row of lights, I full-heartedly agree!
Doing a small fly-in community on an unlighted grass strip here in Florida. Power company wanted to know how many street lights we wanted and where – answer – none. We don’t want anyone confusing streetlights with the (non-existent) runway lights. (Yes, I did say you could taxi to your home, no, I didn’t say you could fly directly into it.)
We’ll be using reflectorized tape on PVC pipe (stubs) until we install actual runway lights – if we decide to at all. Otherwise, we’re a daylight VFR only recreational airstrip, which is just fine.
Lights can be misidentified in some cases. In IFT & LIFR it is less likely
The Black hole effect is one problem.
Being tired and misunderstanding TTRACON lead a 747 to land on 7000 footJabarra Aiirport. McConnell AFB was the destination but the 747 landed at 7000 foot long Jabbara.
.
The pilot had flown a fuselage. Sections from France and belted failed to use the TMI Lot note the radial.
The RMI bearing for McConnell is about 12% 000and j00a0b+area is About 900°
James, please proofread what you wrote before you post it. I cannot understand “The pilot had flown a fuselage. Sections from France and belted failed to use the TMI Lot note the radial.”
Did the pilot call the airport manager? If the lights pose the danger described in this NASA report and the lights are on the airport property I think the airport manager could easily fix the problem.
If the bright lights are NOT on airport property then the airport manager can let the property owner know that the lights could cause a fatal accident leading to a lawsuit against the owner.
Then advise the owner that the aviation community would be happy to provide advice on how to fix the lighting problem.
You would be amazed how fast folks fix things when they learn that they may be found liable for accidents.