On a related point;
We've all been puzzled about why the pilots tried to takeoff from an unlit runway. I found this Reuters article dated from August 28th, the day after the crash (meaning it could have incorrect information):
http://www.topix.net/content/reuters...58380536564416
It says in part:
Instead, the Comair jet, bound for Atlanta before dawn on Sunday in a light rain, took runway 26. That runway is half as wide and half as long as runway 22 and was unlit, Hersman said in a media briefing.
One possible explanation involved a temporary advisory to pilots warning of lighting outages on the longer runway that expired the day before the crash, aviation sources said.
However, the co-pilot of the ill-fated Comair flight flew into the airport on Friday night when the top half of the runway, where planes begin their takeoffs, had been dark. Aviation experts said he might have been unaware the advisory had been lifted and mistook the dark runway for the correct one.
Today I read again a post by a Delta pilot in the original thread from the crash, that runway 22 has a hump in the middle, making it impossible to see the lower (southern) 2/3rds of the runway until you get near the top of the hump. I assume the "top half" of the runway discussed above would be the northern takeoff end of 22. If the facts above are true, then the takeoff on 26 would have looked the same to the FO, as he thought runway 22 should have looked, if the lights on the "top half" were out. He may also have known he would not be ble to see the lights on the southern end before reaching the hump. Others have pointed out that 26 is in fact 150 ft wide, the same as 22, but only 75 ft are marked and used, so in the dark the width would easily look the same. All of this could explain the comments on the CVR transcript regarding the runway lights.
Question, is anyone aware of a notam or temporary advisory indicating lights were out on the top half of 22, on the Friday preceeding the Sunday accident?
The facts from the article may be wrong, but could come close to explaining the fateful decisions made that morning. Holes in the cheese lining up (i.e. additional confusion), as some have said.
(edited to add the following comment)
Due to the taxiway arrangment on that Sunday, the runway numbers for 26 would have been behind the aircraft when it turned onto 26, as shown in photos in the original accident thread. The runway numbers would have been behind the aircraft on either runway on that day. If the above information about runways lights for 22 is true, then it seems to me that 26 would have looked almost the same as 22, except for the compass heading.