Comair CRJ crash in Kentucky
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Wet Coast
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
christianj
runway 26 was closed AT NIGHT...it is a day VMC only runway. While I don't have the airport regs (part 139?) handy, just saying a runway is closed during certain hours is not as good as having a BIG FREAKING ''X'' on it.
It was technically NIGHT when those people died.
I was out driving around at 6:07 am today...if that flight had been 15 minutes late, the pilots might have seen the world differently.
runway 26 was closed AT NIGHT...it is a day VMC only runway. While I don't have the airport regs (part 139?) handy, just saying a runway is closed during certain hours is not as good as having a BIG FREAKING ''X'' on it.
It was technically NIGHT when those people died.
I was out driving around at 6:07 am today...if that flight had been 15 minutes late, the pilots might have seen the world differently.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: North of the border
Age: 61
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WTF? Somebody lines up on the wrong runway, takes off and its ATC's fault? As I stated earlier, in a diplomatic manner, the responsibility to be doing what you are supposed to be doing, when you are supposed to be doing it and where you are supposed to be doing it lies with the person who is supposed to be doing it.
ATC is real nice to have, but if you actually believe that you can abdicate your responsibility to maneuver an aircraft in a safe manner to an outside source you have no business leaving the ground.
Read that carefully.
Before anyone starts freaking out, operating under radar control does actually apply to that statement as at the moment a controller states that he has you on radar and gives you instructions accordingly, he becomes a "team member". It does not mean that you can switch off all of your instruments and let him tell you where to go. YOU are STILL the decision maker.
If the airport was uncontrolled and the pilot picked a wrong runway, what would anyone have to say about that?
The big X idea, while nice would have solved this problem had the pilot actualy seen the X's painted on the runway. You have to realize that there are numerous airports with crossing runways that are not the same length. What about all the GA guys who use the runway all the time (OK, during the day)? "Sorry guys, had to close your runway because it may confuse a REAL Aviator".
Wether a controlled or uncontrolled airport, the responsibility to take the proper runway rests with the Aviator.
Sorry Gents and Ladies, but there is just too dang much "Let's build a system to protect ourselves from ourselves" going on.
We already know how to do what we do. Lets just do it.
PB
ATC is real nice to have, but if you actually believe that you can abdicate your responsibility to maneuver an aircraft in a safe manner to an outside source you have no business leaving the ground.
Read that carefully.
Before anyone starts freaking out, operating under radar control does actually apply to that statement as at the moment a controller states that he has you on radar and gives you instructions accordingly, he becomes a "team member". It does not mean that you can switch off all of your instruments and let him tell you where to go. YOU are STILL the decision maker.
If the airport was uncontrolled and the pilot picked a wrong runway, what would anyone have to say about that?
The big X idea, while nice would have solved this problem had the pilot actualy seen the X's painted on the runway. You have to realize that there are numerous airports with crossing runways that are not the same length. What about all the GA guys who use the runway all the time (OK, during the day)? "Sorry guys, had to close your runway because it may confuse a REAL Aviator".
Wether a controlled or uncontrolled airport, the responsibility to take the proper runway rests with the Aviator.
Sorry Gents and Ladies, but there is just too dang much "Let's build a system to protect ourselves from ourselves" going on.
We already know how to do what we do. Lets just do it.
PB
Join Date: May 2002
Location: MA
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with the Bug... ATC's job was to clear the aircraft to taxi to the active without running into another plane or vehicle on the ground. Then to clear the aircraft to take off on the active, confident that there was no other traffic to be concerned with. Since Comair 5191 was the ONLY thing moving (as far as we know) at that moment, he really did not need to hold their hand to the active.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
holding hand to the active!!!
if you and I had houses next to each other and I saw YOUR roof on fire, I could just sit on my porch and watch, or go inside and watch TV or I could call the fire department(brigade) and yell for you to get out of your house.
what kind of neighbor do you want?
We should be watching out for each other.
And I don't place blame on the particular controller, but the FAA has a lot of explaining to do.
j
if you and I had houses next to each other and I saw YOUR roof on fire, I could just sit on my porch and watch, or go inside and watch TV or I could call the fire department(brigade) and yell for you to get out of your house.
what kind of neighbor do you want?
We should be watching out for each other.
And I don't place blame on the particular controller, but the FAA has a lot of explaining to do.
j
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: North of the border
Age: 61
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jon, I still owe you a beer, but you HAVE to get over the "hand holding" thing.
I may as well let you know now that the Friendly Aviation Association will, of course, ban single controller towers in our lifetime. Uncontrolled airports will naturally remain to annoy those that would control us.
In the mean time, it would behoove you to make sure that you did everything right the first time and when in doubt, double check.
I was trained to not believe everything I heard and only half of what I saw. Cynic? Yeah, but I haven't gotten run over by a tug yet.
DANG! Hope I haven't jinxed myself.....
Maybe sometimes a screwup is just a screw up? But then again, the ancient wisdom of checking runway heading against the compass appears to be a surprise to some here.
I guess I am now:
the Bug
I may as well let you know now that the Friendly Aviation Association will, of course, ban single controller towers in our lifetime. Uncontrolled airports will naturally remain to annoy those that would control us.
In the mean time, it would behoove you to make sure that you did everything right the first time and when in doubt, double check.
I was trained to not believe everything I heard and only half of what I saw. Cynic? Yeah, but I haven't gotten run over by a tug yet.
DANG! Hope I haven't jinxed myself.....
Maybe sometimes a screwup is just a screw up? But then again, the ancient wisdom of checking runway heading against the compass appears to be a surprise to some here.
I guess I am now:
the Bug
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bug
believe me, I got over the idea of ATC handholding me in the late 70's. A series of VECTORS by ATC into the sides of mountains out here in California left me thinking...hmmmmm.
but, we must look out for each other or at least try.
every one of my pilot pals knows the answer here and they expressed it to me...its: $
thanks for the beer mate!
jon
believe me, I got over the idea of ATC handholding me in the late 70's. A series of VECTORS by ATC into the sides of mountains out here in California left me thinking...hmmmmm.
but, we must look out for each other or at least try.
every one of my pilot pals knows the answer here and they expressed it to me...its: $
thanks for the beer mate!
jon
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: NY
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Final 3 Greens 
Thanks I'll correct that.
I'm glad you understood that I was not slinging mud from the comfort of my home but rather insisting that if RWY confirmation is not part of SOP then it should be.
The choice between hitting the ground with the nose up...or hitting the ground with the nose down D.P.D [taken way outta context]
rhov
Thanks I'll correct that.I'm glad you understood that I was not slinging mud from the comfort of my home but rather insisting that if RWY confirmation is not part of SOP then it should be.
The choice between hitting the ground with the nose up...or hitting the ground with the nose down D.P.D [taken way outta context]
rhov
PPRuNe supporter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
f you and I had houses next to each other and I saw YOUR roof on fire, I could just sit on my porch and watch, or go inside and watch TV or I could call the fire department(brigade) and yell for you to get out of your house by jondc9
As far as taxiing on a runway (not crossing it, but taxiing down it) to get another runway should be a big no no, this was a potential accident waiting to happen, after seeing the previous posts, why not put in some type of RED flashing lights in the closed runway, like the ones on taxiways in the EU.
D.L.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: North of the border
Age: 61
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh for crying out loud!
The runways were so freaking close that in he dark one would be hard pressed to tell if the airplane was on 26 or 22. The poor b* in the tower wouldn't be able to see if the airplane was rolling in the wrong direction until it was too late.
Stop it already.
the Bug
The runways were so freaking close that in he dark one would be hard pressed to tell if the airplane was on 26 or 22. The poor b* in the tower wouldn't be able to see if the airplane was rolling in the wrong direction until it was too late.
Stop it already.
the Bug
Autorise a L'atterrissage
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: London
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eurocan, whilst I agree with much of what you say, the reality is that it HAS to be right EVERY time - innocent SLF trust the 2/3/4 people up front to get it right each and every time they board an aircraft.
I do not mean to sound censorious, but I think you'll apreciate where I am coming from
I do not mean to sound censorious, but I think you'll apreciate where I am coming from
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chester, Cheshire, UK
Age: 68
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, I'm just freight ... wet and self loading ... so I can't possibly fully empathise with the pressures imposed on either the ATC or the pilots but I can see that regardless of training, pay rates, pressures of work etc etc accidents will happen. Hey, some humans have trouble driving their car to the local shop, so adding another dimension and significant number of knots to the equation is bound to add the possibility of something going wrong. Contrary to probable expectation, a thread like this does increase my confidence in the industry in that it has caused a lot of you from both sides of the tarmac to look at solutions to the problem or problems that allowed this to happen. Blaming people really solves nothing ... and it seems that virtually everyone has been blamed now, with the possible exception of the guy who originally designed the airport and put two runways so close together thereby setting the scene for this terrible accident to occur.
Is there a solution? Who knows, but a couple of people have suggested using lights to indicate a closed runway with mixed reception, arguments being that the runway may not actually be closed rather than "not to be used at this time". So ... how about something more simple and easily recognized internationally (with appropriate modifications to suit the aviation industry): "traffic" lights (you'd only need red and green), set either horizontally beside or embedded in the runway/taxiway intersection to indicate to an approaching taxiing aircraft that a runway was or was not to be used. Alternatively, or perhaps in conjunction with a system of moving taxiway light showing the taxi route to the appropiate runway. I appreciate that taxiway lights could be difficult to implement at a busy airport, but given the mandatory separation between aircraft on the ground there should be enough space to switch the appropriate set of "traffic" lights on or off ... shouldn't there?
Or am I talking total rot?
Is there a solution? Who knows, but a couple of people have suggested using lights to indicate a closed runway with mixed reception, arguments being that the runway may not actually be closed rather than "not to be used at this time". So ... how about something more simple and easily recognized internationally (with appropriate modifications to suit the aviation industry): "traffic" lights (you'd only need red and green), set either horizontally beside or embedded in the runway/taxiway intersection to indicate to an approaching taxiing aircraft that a runway was or was not to be used. Alternatively, or perhaps in conjunction with a system of moving taxiway light showing the taxi route to the appropiate runway. I appreciate that taxiway lights could be difficult to implement at a busy airport, but given the mandatory separation between aircraft on the ground there should be enough space to switch the appropriate set of "traffic" lights on or off ... shouldn't there?
Or am I talking total rot?
Alternatively, or perhaps in conjunction with a system of moving taxiway light showing the taxi route to the appropiate runway. I appreciate that taxiway lights could be difficult to implement at a busy airport, but given the mandatory separation between aircraft on the ground there should be enough space to switch the appropriate set of "traffic" lights on or off
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ETOPS - and very good it is too (not forgetting, of course, Gatwick and Stansted too!). I'm not sure, lookng at Post#6, that it would necessarly have stopped this, though, if the 'mind-set' is wrong?
Follow the Greens
justawanab
ref the center line lights at UK airports. They are simply wonderful.
"Follow the greens to 28r" How simple is that? You follow the greens, you stop at the red stop bars and eventually ..28r hold short line.
Why not over here? The facitious arguement is that they weren't invented west of the pond . Ergo they're no good. There can be no rational argument other than money as to why they haven't been installed over here. Mind you we do have SMIGS!!
Back to the real world. Why did it happen. I'm shot at on every thread when I say it's training..so I won't say it here. I shall sit and wonder why we ask our pilots to spend countless hours at 45degrees bank, plus or minus a gnats whisker , (FAA mandated I know) and then gloss over things like getting airborne without a lateral mode engaged. Or worse still with the heading bug on the commanded after take off heading instead of runway heading.
ref the center line lights at UK airports. They are simply wonderful.
"Follow the greens to 28r" How simple is that? You follow the greens, you stop at the red stop bars and eventually ..28r hold short line.
Why not over here? The facitious arguement is that they weren't invented west of the pond . Ergo they're no good. There can be no rational argument other than money as to why they haven't been installed over here. Mind you we do have SMIGS!!
Back to the real world. Why did it happen. I'm shot at on every thread when I say it's training..so I won't say it here. I shall sit and wonder why we ask our pilots to spend countless hours at 45degrees bank, plus or minus a gnats whisker , (FAA mandated I know) and then gloss over things like getting airborne without a lateral mode engaged. Or worse still with the heading bug on the commanded after take off heading instead of runway heading.
I'm in one of those moods
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: SFC to A085
Posts: 759
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A7700 .. cheers!
.
Bug … agree again with your recent contributions
.
jon .. equally in the FAA Doc it further clarifies those roles and responsibilities, they are lengthy and complex … I come back to the reasonableness of the tower controller ‘expecting’ or even ‘suspecting’ that in this case an un-notified, unlit, unsuitable runway was to be used (by a two crew RPT) at night! ….. I further ask this ….
.
… if there were no other notified vehicles or aircraft moving (at night) … what exactly is the ATC ‘reasonably’ looking for apart from lights (aircraft, taxiways and runways)?? .. as any ‘unlit’ obstacles (horses, cows dogs, etc) that might have wandered onto the runway are not visible in any case??
.
….. it follows then that if ATC could not know of or predict unlit obstacles …. do we then mandate runway inspections with a vehicle prior to each movement at night??? …… by the same logic …do we now mandate ‘continuous’ ATC watch (no other duties) over ‘single’ aircraft to ensure they do not enter ‘unlit’ taxiways and runways at night??
.
….. before deciding that 2 ATC’s will fix …… perhaps we might ask …. are there other examples of RPT aircraft attempting/using unlit runways at night??? …. is this particular set of fault tree components properly extinguished by simplistically suggesting an increase in ATC’s?? … is it cost effective when applied across the like type towers … or do you only up the anti after a completely unforeseeable accident at each individual airport?
.
If you are going to invest in extra ATC eyes .. you might also ask …. does this solve the issues in all situations that may precipitate the unapproved use of 26 vice 22 at Kentucky??
.
.. one of the questions in that risk/ hazard reduction assessment might be:-
.
… is it more/as likely this type of error might occur in daylight in fog?? ….
.
…. does the extra set of eyes help when ATC cannot see the aircraft attempting to use an incorrect runway …. hmmm ….
.
The questions go to the effective mitigations that might be employed to provide better fault resistance at a reasonable cost in all weather and light conditions…. ?
….. SMR, Flight deck taxiing displays (as discussed), and as important as these IMHO is visual stimulus for the pilots (markings, systems etc) …..lets face it …. where are you (pilots) looking whilst taxiing?! ....... out the front of course!
.
Back to the Issues:-
.
- Runways both had a ‘2’ in the identifier
- Taxi turns might have felt similar
- Taxi turns might have looked similar
- Could the pilots have caught a glimpse of a '2' out the right hand side (in the landing lights) as they turned left onto centreline?
- Notam/ATIS re: 22 centreline lights U/S may have influenced what they expected to see
- Was the pilots (Capt taxied to the Line-up .. FO took over for the roll) field of visual concentration ‘straight ahead’
- Could a strongly lit runway surface/centreline from landing/taxiing lights on the aircraft preclude (at a glance) noticing the edge lights not operative??
.
I am very interested in this particular subject as I am aware of at least two other ‘uneventful’ departures (B737) on our side of the pond where the runway lights ‘might’ not have been on and not noticed by the crew (outside tower hours and no crossing runway to confuse mind!)
.
- Does the runway edge lighting 26 (when turned off) provide enough reflection back to the pilots (inadvertently lined up on 26) that they might think the lights were on (set to a low stage)
- Would the absence of edge and end lights only become apparent to the crews once they were fast and committed?
- From the 26 threshold.. could they (the pilots) see the runway edge lighting on 22 (no one has answered whether 22 has ‘omni’ or ‘all around’ visible runway edge lights)
- Is the MAG signage at the taxiway/runway 26 intersection clear and unambiguous
- Could the resurfacing provide confusion based on familiarity and therefore expected pavement colour (black/grey)
.
.. this accident is no piece of cake from an investigation point of view!!
.
.. regarding the ATC and visual monitoring..
.
.. let’s assume for arguments sake, the controller had scanned 22 when they cleared the aircraft for takeoff ..... before the taxiing aircraft had taxied/reached the threshold of 26 (which they were expected to taxi across)
.
.. if the controller was very experienced at Blue Grass, he/she would have automatic timing triggers in the melon! ….. i.e.
.
- CRJ taxiing to 22 for takeoff …. might be 4-5 mins until you might expect to hear (if the tower is close enough to the thresholds for the sound to be audible in the tower cab) the Kero being applied for takeoff …. If not audible;
- He/she would almost certainly subconsciously have an ‘expected’ timer going in their head to know when to have a squiz out the window (if it is visual) to watch the takeoff was proceeding … so;
.
… what is the time lapse difference between:-
.
.. taxing to 22, line-up and go (lets say for argument that normally would take around 4-5mins)
.
… and the time elapsed of taxing to 26, line-up and go (taking account of the reduced taxiing distance)
.
…… where would/could the accident aircraft have been (in equivalent time elapsed) at around the time the ATC might have expected to look for acceleration/departure/positive rate of climb off 22?
.
…… in the trees off the end of 26!!! (the ATC heard the impact!)
.
…. the ATC could not in their wildest dreams, have imagined they might need to watch for this type of error at night with an unlit runway!! …. and IMHO they were being completely reasonable in assuming they could perform other tasks in the interim!
.
… is it a good idea to have ADC’s doing other stuff …. probably not …is it plausible in all cases to have ATC’s able to look out the window every second of every day … probably not ……. was it relevant or casual in this case ….. I guess the NTSB will determine that, but for what it is worth ….
.
…… ATC’s problem solve in 8 (or less) second chunks/windows …. when tasks are outstanding (no matter what they are) .. we will check … satisfy ourselves the ‘ducks are in a row’ … and then look to other tasks (otherwise you can get busy and way behind which might further impact primary duties) …. then, as the head timer tells us .. time! .. we re-evaluate …. No different in this case IMHO
.
… tower controllers (no matter how many there are) cannot physically look out the window all of the time … practical fact!
.
… the real mitigations for avoiding a repeat of a bazaar accident such as this one are IMHO to be found elsewhere!
.
Bug … agree again with your recent contributions
.
jon .. equally in the FAA Doc it further clarifies those roles and responsibilities, they are lengthy and complex … I come back to the reasonableness of the tower controller ‘expecting’ or even ‘suspecting’ that in this case an un-notified, unlit, unsuitable runway was to be used (by a two crew RPT) at night! ….. I further ask this ….
.
… if there were no other notified vehicles or aircraft moving (at night) … what exactly is the ATC ‘reasonably’ looking for apart from lights (aircraft, taxiways and runways)?? .. as any ‘unlit’ obstacles (horses, cows dogs, etc) that might have wandered onto the runway are not visible in any case??
.
….. it follows then that if ATC could not know of or predict unlit obstacles …. do we then mandate runway inspections with a vehicle prior to each movement at night??? …… by the same logic …do we now mandate ‘continuous’ ATC watch (no other duties) over ‘single’ aircraft to ensure they do not enter ‘unlit’ taxiways and runways at night??
.
….. before deciding that 2 ATC’s will fix …… perhaps we might ask …. are there other examples of RPT aircraft attempting/using unlit runways at night??? …. is this particular set of fault tree components properly extinguished by simplistically suggesting an increase in ATC’s?? … is it cost effective when applied across the like type towers … or do you only up the anti after a completely unforeseeable accident at each individual airport?
.
If you are going to invest in extra ATC eyes .. you might also ask …. does this solve the issues in all situations that may precipitate the unapproved use of 26 vice 22 at Kentucky??
.
.. one of the questions in that risk/ hazard reduction assessment might be:-
.
… is it more/as likely this type of error might occur in daylight in fog?? ….
.
…. does the extra set of eyes help when ATC cannot see the aircraft attempting to use an incorrect runway …. hmmm ….
.
The questions go to the effective mitigations that might be employed to provide better fault resistance at a reasonable cost in all weather and light conditions…. ?
….. SMR, Flight deck taxiing displays (as discussed), and as important as these IMHO is visual stimulus for the pilots (markings, systems etc) …..lets face it …. where are you (pilots) looking whilst taxiing?! ....... out the front of course!
.
Back to the Issues:-
.
- Runways both had a ‘2’ in the identifier
- Taxi turns might have felt similar
- Taxi turns might have looked similar
- Could the pilots have caught a glimpse of a '2' out the right hand side (in the landing lights) as they turned left onto centreline?
- Notam/ATIS re: 22 centreline lights U/S may have influenced what they expected to see
- Was the pilots (Capt taxied to the Line-up .. FO took over for the roll) field of visual concentration ‘straight ahead’
- Could a strongly lit runway surface/centreline from landing/taxiing lights on the aircraft preclude (at a glance) noticing the edge lights not operative??
.
I am very interested in this particular subject as I am aware of at least two other ‘uneventful’ departures (B737) on our side of the pond where the runway lights ‘might’ not have been on and not noticed by the crew (outside tower hours and no crossing runway to confuse mind!)
.
- Does the runway edge lighting 26 (when turned off) provide enough reflection back to the pilots (inadvertently lined up on 26) that they might think the lights were on (set to a low stage)
- Would the absence of edge and end lights only become apparent to the crews once they were fast and committed?
- From the 26 threshold.. could they (the pilots) see the runway edge lighting on 22 (no one has answered whether 22 has ‘omni’ or ‘all around’ visible runway edge lights)
- Is the MAG signage at the taxiway/runway 26 intersection clear and unambiguous
- Could the resurfacing provide confusion based on familiarity and therefore expected pavement colour (black/grey)
.
.. this accident is no piece of cake from an investigation point of view!!
.
.. regarding the ATC and visual monitoring..
.
.. let’s assume for arguments sake, the controller had scanned 22 when they cleared the aircraft for takeoff ..... before the taxiing aircraft had taxied/reached the threshold of 26 (which they were expected to taxi across)
.
.. if the controller was very experienced at Blue Grass, he/she would have automatic timing triggers in the melon! ….. i.e.
.
- CRJ taxiing to 22 for takeoff …. might be 4-5 mins until you might expect to hear (if the tower is close enough to the thresholds for the sound to be audible in the tower cab) the Kero being applied for takeoff …. If not audible;
- He/she would almost certainly subconsciously have an ‘expected’ timer going in their head to know when to have a squiz out the window (if it is visual) to watch the takeoff was proceeding … so;
.
… what is the time lapse difference between:-
.
.. taxing to 22, line-up and go (lets say for argument that normally would take around 4-5mins)
.
… and the time elapsed of taxing to 26, line-up and go (taking account of the reduced taxiing distance)
.
…… where would/could the accident aircraft have been (in equivalent time elapsed) at around the time the ATC might have expected to look for acceleration/departure/positive rate of climb off 22?
.
…… in the trees off the end of 26!!! (the ATC heard the impact!)
.
…. the ATC could not in their wildest dreams, have imagined they might need to watch for this type of error at night with an unlit runway!! …. and IMHO they were being completely reasonable in assuming they could perform other tasks in the interim!
.
… is it a good idea to have ADC’s doing other stuff …. probably not …is it plausible in all cases to have ATC’s able to look out the window every second of every day … probably not ……. was it relevant or casual in this case ….. I guess the NTSB will determine that, but for what it is worth ….
.
…… ATC’s problem solve in 8 (or less) second chunks/windows …. when tasks are outstanding (no matter what they are) .. we will check … satisfy ourselves the ‘ducks are in a row’ … and then look to other tasks (otherwise you can get busy and way behind which might further impact primary duties) …. then, as the head timer tells us .. time! .. we re-evaluate …. No different in this case IMHO
.
… tower controllers (no matter how many there are) cannot physically look out the window all of the time … practical fact!
.
… the real mitigations for avoiding a repeat of a bazaar accident such as this one are IMHO to be found elsewhere!
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flown-IT
I am hugely disapointed that the FAA has not mandated a similiar lighting system to Heathrow's and yes sometimes NOT INVENTED HERE is the by word...of course we use radar and that wasn't invented here either...too bad most airports here don't have ground radar either.
And as to training. I agree with you there and no one should flame you about it here, I will rally to your aid if they do. (though people flame me all the time here).
COMAIR has not released to the media training records of pilots or comair's training techniques. I suspect that checking compass on lineup is not part of the program, nor is it tested in the sim. how easy to do that, just have the compass disagree with the runway and have someone say..."what the f^&*?" you pass!
Great controversy over heading bug on runway heading or heading on first turn assigned. Sometimes flight director has to do with choice...
For Scurvy dog, I've read an NTSB briefing which says that the CVR tape indicates someone raising the subject of no runway lights.
I will also add the following, captain was 35 years olds, copilot was 44...room for CRM? let's watch this one. I can imagine, cp: hey the runway lights are out, the capt: its notamed that way and we have ''sufficient visual ref to go"
but
let's go
you fill in who says what? ;-)
Also, takeoff was 31 minutes prior to the first LEGAL time of taking off on an unlit runway, watch this one too...ref FAR 121.590 and definition of ''night''.
Let me get this straight, I do not indict the controller, I do indict the system.
j
I am hugely disapointed that the FAA has not mandated a similiar lighting system to Heathrow's and yes sometimes NOT INVENTED HERE is the by word...of course we use radar and that wasn't invented here either...too bad most airports here don't have ground radar either.
And as to training. I agree with you there and no one should flame you about it here, I will rally to your aid if they do. (though people flame me all the time here).
COMAIR has not released to the media training records of pilots or comair's training techniques. I suspect that checking compass on lineup is not part of the program, nor is it tested in the sim. how easy to do that, just have the compass disagree with the runway and have someone say..."what the f^&*?" you pass!
Great controversy over heading bug on runway heading or heading on first turn assigned. Sometimes flight director has to do with choice...
For Scurvy dog, I've read an NTSB briefing which says that the CVR tape indicates someone raising the subject of no runway lights.
I will also add the following, captain was 35 years olds, copilot was 44...room for CRM? let's watch this one. I can imagine, cp: hey the runway lights are out, the capt: its notamed that way and we have ''sufficient visual ref to go"
but
let's go
you fill in who says what? ;-)
Also, takeoff was 31 minutes prior to the first LEGAL time of taking off on an unlit runway, watch this one too...ref FAR 121.590 and definition of ''night''.
Let me get this straight, I do not indict the controller, I do indict the system.
j
I'm in one of those moods
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: SFC to A085
Posts: 759
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
..thanks jon
.
.. I also wonder about the pre-roll bug check ... does anyone have the plate for Rwy22 SID/Radar Departure or whatever they have .... wonder if the heading after takeoff might be in the 260ish area
.... that would be potentially misleading to the crew 
... wouldn't it? 
.... hope it wasn't!! 
.
.. I also wonder about the pre-roll bug check ... does anyone have the plate for Rwy22 SID/Radar Departure or whatever they have .... wonder if the heading after takeoff might be in the 260ish area
.... that would be potentially misleading to the crew ... wouldn't it? .... hope it wasn't!!