MIA TWR LCL CTLR ISSUES MD80 FLT CREW A GAR DUE TO NEW CONSTRUCTION; CLOSED RWY APCH. CAPT REVIEWS EVENT WITH FO AND TWR SUPVR.

Date: 2003-08 · Aircraft: MD-80 Series (DC-9-80) Undifferentiated or Other Model · Phase: approach

Anomalies: deviation-track-heading-all-types|deviation-discrepancy-procedural-clearance|inflight-event-encounter-other-unknown|inflight-event-encounter-weather-turbulence

Synopsis

MIA TWR LCL CTLR ISSUES MD80 FLT CREW A GAR DUE TO NEW CONSTRUCTION; CLOSED RWY APCH. CAPT REVIEWS EVENT WITH FO AND TWR SUPVR.

Narrative

ARRIVING FROM THE NW; WE WERE BEING VECTORED FOR A VISUAL APCH FOR RWY 9L MIA. PF WAS THE CAPT. END RESULT WAS THAT I LINED UP ON THE NEW RWY UNDER CONSTRUCTION RWY 8L. ON SHORT FINAL; THE TWR ASKED US IF WE WERE LINED UP ON THE CORRECT RWY. AT THE SAME TIME; THE TWR WAS ASKING THAT; THE FO AND I ALSO REALIZED WE WERE LINED UP FOR THE WRONG RWY. A MISSED APCH WAS EXECUTED; AND WE RETURNED AND LANDED ON RWY 9L WITH NO FURTHER PROBS. AFTER A BRAINSTORMING SESSION; THESE ARE THE ITEMS THAT THE FO AND I THOUGHT MIGHT HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO THE EVENT. THESE ARE NOT INTENDED AS EXCUSES; BUT RATHER AS AN HONEST EVALUATION OF WHAT OUR THOUGHT PROCESS MIGHT HAVE BEEN. APCH WAS INTO THE SUN ON A SLIGHTLY HAZY MORNING. WHEN WE WERE ON A LONG FINAL; APPROX 9-10 MI; I SAW SOMETHING ON THE RWY 8L THAT LOOKED LIKE A SMALL COMMUTER AIRPLANE STARTING A TKOF ROLL; AND I MADE THAT COMMENT VERBALLY. ON FINAL; I WAS A LITTLE FIXATED ON DETERMINING WHAT THAT SPOT WAS AT THE APCH END OF THE RWY. AS WE GOT CLOSER TO THE RWY; I FINALLY DETERMINED IN MY MIND; THAT IT WAS JUST RUBBER DEPOSITS ON THE TOUCHDOWN ZONE. IN FACT; WE WERE LOOKING AT THE VEHICLE HOLDING THE 'X' INDICATING THE CLOSED RWY. I WAS NEVER ABLE TO IDENT IT AS A RWY CLOSING 'X' UNTIL I TAXIED OUT 1 HR LATER FOR OUR TKOF FROM RWY 9L WHEN I WANTED TO TAKE A GOOD LOOK AT HOW IT WAS PRESENTED. ALSO; ON SHORT FINAL; THE TWR ADVISED US TO BE AWARE OF THE JET BLAST OF A HEAVY TAKING OFF OF RWY 12. I DID DIVERT MY ATTN TO THE ACFT TO DETERMINE WHAT LEVEL OF PWR APPLICATION HE MIGHT HAVE. BOTH THE FO AND I WERE TUNED TO THE CORRECT ILS FOR RWY 9L. I BELIEVE MY NAV DISPLAY WAS STILL IN THE MAP MODE. WHY? I DON'T KNOW. I ALWAYS NORMALLY MAKE IT A HABIT TO DISPLAY ILS DATA. I FLEW THE MAJORITY OF THE APCH VISUALLY LOOKING OUTSIDE THE ACFT. FOR SOME REASON; I REALLY HAD TUNNEL VISION ON THE RWY I WAS LINED UP ON. I DO KNOW THAT THE RWY CLOSING INDICATORS ARE INADEQUATE. EVEN ON A SHORT FINAL; I DID NOT SEE ANYTHING THAT WOULD TRIGGER A THOUGHT OF A CLOSED RWY. I TALKED TO THE TWR CHIEF; AND HAD A SHORT BRAINSTORMING SESSION WITH HIM TO TRY TO DETERMINE THE PROBS; AND HOW IT MIGHT BE AVOIDED IN THE FUTURE. I FLEW THE SAME TRIP THE SAT BEFORE; AND WAS AWARE OF THE NEW RWY CONSTRUCTION; SO THAT FACT CAUSED ME EVEN MORE CONSTERNATION ON HOW I COULD HAVE SCREWED UP ON THIS APCH. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 590929: WE NOTICED THE MIS-ALIGNMENT ABOUT THE SAME TIME TWR DID; AND WERE GIVEN INSTRUCTIONS FOR GAR. I HAD TUNED AND IDENTED ILS RWY 9L FREQ. AND; ALSO; VERIFIED RWY AND ARPT IN SIGHT ALONG WITH THE CAPT. MY MISTAKE WAS NOT TO CROSS REF MY ILS WITH THE POS OF OUR ACFT. THE CLOSED RWY LOOKED IDENTICAL TO RWY 9L; AND BOTH THE CAPT AND I DID NOT NOTICE THE 'X' IN THE RWY; WHICH WAS NOT LIGHTED AND POORLY VISIBLE. WE DID REVIEW THE APCH PRIOR TO COMMENCING THE VISUAL APCH. THE LESSON TO BE LEARNED IS TO CROSS REF ALL NAVAIDS AND VISUAL AIDS DURING THE ENTIRE APCH.

Source: NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (public domain). Reports are voluntary submissions and are not verified by NASA.