halls120 wrote:The pilots screwed up, plain and simple.
I don't disagree with the "screwed up" part, but the "plain and simple" part...
Yes it's a visual approach, but I hear all the time about how professional pilots would dial in the ILS anyway and monitor it. Was this not done, and if not, why not? ILS u/s, just forgot, not SOP at Air Canada?
As I recall, the Delta who actually landed on a taxiway at ATL was faced with a very similar picture of a night-time approach with the far runway out of use, so this isn't a new way to screw up. That means, of course, that pilots should be aware of the possibility, but it also means it's a known trap that shouldn't be set if at all possible.
Zak wrote:The problem of the human mind is that it often makes you believe that you do see something you totally expect to see.
"Confirmation bias", I think they call that. You approach off-centre, see two runway-looking things, and by the time you're close enough to make out that the centreline of your "runway" is green you're too stuck in the belief it's a runway to notice. Even seeing other aircraft on it has you questioning why there's someone on your runway, not whether you're aligned with the wrong strip of tarmac.
Yeah, they screwed up.
How they got into that mess in the first place, and how others can be prevented from doing the same, that's fascinating.
Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast:
For it is the number of a man; and its number is One hundred threescore and twelve.