There's a joke in here somewhere.
Something about soaring with eagles and working with Turkish.
Back during the 80's when TWA flight attendants went on strike and the pilots wouldn't cross the picket lines, a supervisor was recruited to pilot a flight. Not only did he land at McDill AFB instead of Tampa International, he landed on a taxiway instead of the runway.
Women drivers.....sheesh. :-)
In good weather, a pilot might be told "the airport is 5 miles on a heading of 360 degrees" or something similar, and is expected to visually find the airport. Surprisingly, airports are not that easy to see unless you are within a couple of miles.
So if you are not familiar with the area and you fly the given heading and see an airport ahead, it's reasonable to assume it is your destination. If there is another airport nearby, as was the case here, well ...
I almost made this mistake a couple of times flying into new airports.
This may have as much to do with poor piloting skills as a poor command of English.
I listen to LAX approach all the time....most of the int'l pilots barely speak English.
"The Avianca Flight 52 B-707 accident near Kennedy Airport was a highly publicized accident that clearly demonstrated a lack of understanding of the English language on the part of the flight crew. English is the ICAO recommended language for use within the air traffic system, but it’s only a recommendation. The Cali accident referenced above is another example where the controller did not speak English well enough to be understood by the crew. In the USAir-Los Angeles runway accident that involved a Sky West commuter airplane, the controller was distracted while helping with a foreign pilot who was having difficulty understanding clearances issued by air traffic control. These were all fatal accidents in which the inability to understand the language played a significant part in the causal factors of the accident. On March 24, of this year, Barbara Walters hosted a report on Runway Incursions in which during one segment of the program, a frustrated controller responded to a pilot by saying, "Oh boy, does anyone in the cockpit speak English?" I’m sure you have all been following with interest, the current dispute in France and Canada over the use of English in two predominantly French speaking areas. The French Government said last week that it would continue to support pilots and air traffic controllers speaking French despite a decision by Air France to switch to English at Charles de Gaulle airport in Paris. Quebec Premier Lucien Bouchard, on an official visit to France, said French-speakers worldwide must be vigilant and realize that their language is threatened. The French-speaking Canadian province last week dubbed Air France's decision as ``scandalous'' and said it would contact the airline and France's culture ministry on the issue. A French foreign ministry spokesman said the government had noted the decision by Air France last month for pilots to speak English, the language of international aviation, when communicating with the Charles de Gaulle airport control tower. Quebec’s Bouchard, a fierce promoter of the French language, said that national languages were submitted to very strong pressures from English. ``There is obviously a danger of standardization,'' he said. ATA believes that in order for the air traffic system to function efficiently and safely pilot and controller use and standards of the English language must be improved. These anecdotes and issues outlined above are focused on one narrow element of air to ground communications. For voice communications to provide the level required for safe operations, we must emphasize the use of standard phraseology. At the present time, there are many differences on file with ICAO over the use of air traffic phraseology: official government positions that do not support ICAO recommendations. Some differences may be appropriate, but others may need to be revised. Pilots flying throughout the world must be aware of these differences or run the risk of placing their flight in danger. Consider an airplane on an instrument approach in low visibility at a large international airport anywhere in the world. For whatever reason the captain elects to initiate a go-around while still in the clouds. It is a regulatory requirement that air traffic control be notified as soon as practical that the airplane is executing a go-around. But this critical radio transmission to the tower may be phrased in any number of ways. Depending on the airline, the state of registry of the airplane, or a myriad of other reasons the pilot could report a "go-around," "missed approach," "balked approach" or "abandon approach." Sometimes phrases are clipped or military jargon is inserted such as "we’re on the go" or "wave off." The actions of the flight crew within the cockpit may be clear and the crew will perform the maneuver as a team, but their intentions may not be clearly understood by those on the radio frequency. That would include airplanes in the immediate vicinity of the go-around airplane as well as the controller responsible for providing separation. As similar situation exists during a takeoff roll if a pilot rejects the takeoff because there are just as many ways to announce that an airplane is "aborting" the takeoff as there are ways to announce a rejected landing. ATA supports a comprehensive review of all ICAO differences along with a U.S.-led effort to enhance global communications standards. Our member airlines will join with our code-sharing partners, with government and labor and with other interested parties to do our part in this initiative."
~April 11, 2000; Statement of Robert H. Frenzel ~ Senior Vice President for Aviation Safety and Operations ~ On Egypt Air accident
http://www.house.gov/transportation/aviation/hearing/04-11-00/frenzel.html