United Boeing 737 max Lands On The Wrong Runway after FMC Distraction

June 21, 2022 — United Airlines Flight 2627, Boeing 737-9 MAX N37513 — Pittsburgh

The United crew was cleared for a visual approach to runway 28C at Pittsburgh. On final, both flight-management-computer displays blanked. The pilots continued visually, but the aircraft lined up with parallel runway 28L instead. The tower noticed the misalignment and allowed the landing to continue because no conflicting traffic was present. The NTSB ultimately attributed the event to runway misidentification, with the FMC reset contributing to the distraction.

The FMC reset became a distraction during the approach

The NTSB's final investigation identifies the primary error as runway misidentification. United 2627 was cleared to land on Runway 28C but aligned with and landed on parallel Runway 28L. All 174 occupants were uninjured and the airplane was not damaged.

Before the final approach, the crew had received several runway changes. The first officer programmed the flight-management computer for an earlier approach, and during the descent the displays experienced a dual reset. The displays returned, but the interruption occurred while the crew was managing the changing approach plan.

The NTSB did not identify the FMC reset as the primary cause. It found that the crew misidentified the intended runway and that the distraction caused by the dual reset contributed. The controller saw the aircraft approaching the wrong runway but did not intervene because the runway was clear and no immediate hazardous consequence was expected.

The final finding is therefore more precise than describing the event as an equipment failure. The reset changed cockpit workload; the crew's runway-identification error produced the wrong-runway landing.

The final investigation also examined the sequence of runway changes that preceded the landing. The crew had initially expected one runway, then received another expectation and later vectors for the visual approach to 28C. The FMC display reset occurred during that period of changing information. Although the systems recovered, the interruption added workload during a phase in which the crew needed to confirm runway identity independently. The NTSB's final conclusion therefore separates the initiating cockpit distraction from the actual runway-identification error.

The investigation also distinguishes the crew's runway clearance from the runway they actually selected. The crew had a valid landing clearance for 28C. The wrong-runway event happened after the approach plan had changed and the FMC displays had reset. The NTSB therefore treated the equipment interruption as a contributing distraction rather than as the direct reason the airplane landed on 28L.

“The flightcrews misidentification of the intended landing runway, which resulted in approach to and landing on the wrong runway.”

Accident Facts

Timeline

Sources