As a student pilot, one of my first exchanges with an air traffic controller after the initial check-in went something like this:

Mansfield Tower: “Cessna 1-5-Quebec enter a left base Runway 13.”

Me: “Uh, Cessna 1-5-Quebec, entering a left base to Runway 13” (Overwhelmed or just confused, I then flew the aircraft to enter a right base to Runway 31.)

Mansfield Tower: “Cessna 1-5-Quebec, you are NOW cleared to land any runway,” insert pause, then sarcasm, “13 or 31, what’s the difference?”

Me: “Cleared to land Runway 31, Cessna 1-5-Quebec.”

For a student on his first solo cross-country flight (34 years ago), an error like this is completely understandable; however, it’s a bit harder to understand why professional flight crews are routinely making similar mistakes.

Mining aviation safety reports will reveal a number of different classifications for these events, such as wrong-runway departures, incorrect airport surface approaches and landings, or even wrong-airport landings. The common thread in each case is the pilot or crew unintentionally attempted to takeoff or land on the wrong runway or taxiway–the FAA uses the term “runway confusion” and classifies these events as a subset of runway incursions.

Attempting to take off or land on the wrong surface has significant risks. One of the most critical is that your performance calculations for takeoff or landing might not match the available runway length; that’s not good. You might recall the wrong-runway departure accident in Lexington, Kentucky, in 2006, where a Comair CRJ attempted to take off from a runway that was half the length of the assigned departure runway. Unfortunately, the aircraft barely got airborne and crashed off the departure end of the runway, killing 49 and severely injuring another.

Remarkably, these events continue to occur, earlier this month, a Boeing 737-800 attempted a takeoff from a taxiway (parallel to the assigned runway) at Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The aircraft reached full takeoff thrust, began to accelerate and then at a high-speed, rejected the takeoff coming to a stop beyond the end of the taxiway on an unpaved surface. Fortunately, there were no injuries during the subsequent evacuation.

Last month, an N-numbered Learjet 55 departing Toronto Lester B. Pearson International Airport was instructed to depart Runway 05 at the intersection of Runway 15R, but instead departed Runway 15R. Once airborne, ATC amended its departure instructions to avoid collision. This highlights a less obvious risk: that of traffic separation.

One year ago, an Airbus A320 crew attempted to fly a visual approach to Runway 28R at San Francisco but instead lined up on the parallel taxiway. The aircraft descended to within 60 feet of four airliners on the taxiway before going around. A collision where one airliner squashed four others would have been catastrophic. According to FAA, this was an “extreme” example of an incorrect surface approach and landing.

Equally dangerous and a lot more embarrassing, occasionally, a large aircraft will land at the wrong airport. In a span of two months between November 2013 and January 2014, a Boeing 747-400LCF Dreamlifter in Wichita and a Boeing 737-700 in Branson, Missouri, landed at small general aviation airports–each with about half the expected available runway length.

There were some similarities: both airliners were conducting nighttime visual approaches (using a published RNAV approach for reference) and landed at an airport near the intended destination with similar runway orientations. Recognizing the significant risk of these events, the NTSB issued a Safety Alert highlighting the need for flight crew’s adherence to SOPs, the use of all available resources, and increased vigilance.

For pilots, the best defense to counter these events, according to FAA, is to adopt the “Golden Rule”—use all available resources, old and new, to ensure your airplane is positioned correctly for the desired takeoff or landing runway. The best SOPs might be a blend of proven old practices and new ones.

For takeoff, on EFIS equipped aircraft, the crew must reference the horizontal situation indicator, look for not only the corresponding runway heading, but also the FMS generated runway (if available), before takeoff. Another great tool is the own-ship position on the electronic flight bag (EFB)—most apps now have an airport moving map feature that allows the crew to track their exact location. These electronic aids backed up with “old school” paint and signage should help eliminate wrong runway takeoffs. If there is ever any doubt of your position, key up the mic and ask ATC for help.

For approach and landing, a stabilized approach is a must so that pilots can maintain situational awareness of the external environment. During an unstable approach, both the pilot flying (PF) and pilot monitoring (PM) get sucked into the cockpit concentrating on salvaging an approach rather than processing external information. Pilots must also use the most precise approach available—even during visual approaches.

Again, technology is providing additional tools to improve situational awareness—the EFB’s own-ship position can be used during the approach phase as well. It’s great for the PM to include the EFB in their scan to back up the PF. Little details, such as knowing the type of approach lighting associated with the runway and where the PAPI/VASI are located, are great cues that you're heading to the correct runway. Lastly, remember the old adage: “When in doubt, go around.” Be prepared to go around from any altitude.

Studies also suggest that one of the most successful mitigation strategies for wrong-surface operations is effective CRM. This begins with a thorough takeoff or approach briefing. But, most important, if something doesn’t look right, it’s the observing crewmembers responsibility to say something!

Pilot and aviation safety expert, consultant, and journalist Kipp Lau writes about flight safety and airmanship for AIN. He can be reached by email.