Comair CRJ crash in Kentucky
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Found in Toronto
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many people have questioned why they took off from an unlit runway.
I think it is quite possible they were cleared for take off prior to entering the runway. With all the landing lights on, in the early pre-dawn, it would been very difficult to notice whether or not the runway lights were on. (or even if runway lights were even present)
I think it is quite possible they were cleared for take off prior to entering the runway. With all the landing lights on, in the early pre-dawn, it would been very difficult to notice whether or not the runway lights were on. (or even if runway lights were even present)
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: newark
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chuks
I'm glad you enjoyed the reference to SLF noticing if there was something wrong. I am SLF and in this case at this airport would have noticed something wrong, namely the lack of a terminal while rolling down the runway !
I've read all about the lighitng, the markings and taxiway signage, lack of current maps but I said this earlier and I'll say it again, how in God's name did neither pilot make a comment regarding the absence of the terminal while on take-off roll? At 6:00am the terminal would be well lit and extremely difficult to miss.
As airports go, this isn't a difficult place to navigate. There are no obstacles on approach. It's literally situated in the middle of the Kentucy horse farms. Up until the accident, I would imagine the biggest problem facing this airport would be coralling the odd horse now and again. That's how rural this place is.
Newarksmells
I've read all about the lighitng, the markings and taxiway signage, lack of current maps but I said this earlier and I'll say it again, how in God's name did neither pilot make a comment regarding the absence of the terminal while on take-off roll? At 6:00am the terminal would be well lit and extremely difficult to miss.
As airports go, this isn't a difficult place to navigate. There are no obstacles on approach. It's literally situated in the middle of the Kentucy horse farms. Up until the accident, I would imagine the biggest problem facing this airport would be coralling the odd horse now and again. That's how rural this place is.
Newarksmells
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Denmark
Age: 56
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AHRS could have played a part
If it was equipped with AHRS, there is a possibility that it played a part in the chain of errors in the accident. Because the low positioning of the flux valves makes them very susceptible to any kind of magnetic disturbances in the ground or around the aircraft.
Being a CRJ captain in a company that operates a mixed fleet of AHRS and IRS CRJ's - I can not over emphasize the importance of an accuracy check of the AHRS HDG before any takeoff is attempted, on the ground we can often see an error in excess of 40 degrees, and what is most worrying is that occationally AHRS1 and AHRS2 are in agreement about this – so you get no EFIS COMP MON.
Even with a HDG error of less than 40 degrees, say only 20 degrees, somewhere along the lines of a heading of 240, it is possible that the crew just slewed the heading to what they expected to see, rather than actually verifying the heading by other means.
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
.. the position of the terminal might have felt odd in the periphery of the crews sight ….. if they operated from there only!
.
.. in other words .. the amount of different airports and airport layouts the average commuter pilot/s would see … I personally doubt that would have triggered a response with any non-local crew!
.
It is obvious where the visual attention of a pilot (particularly at night) is during line-up and the take-off roll!!
.
.. in other words .. the amount of different airports and airport layouts the average commuter pilot/s would see … I personally doubt that would have triggered a response with any non-local crew!
.
It is obvious where the visual attention of a pilot (particularly at night) is during line-up and the take-off roll!!
The Captain was probably glancing around and double checking his flap setting, various trim indicators, that the spoiler handle was down and engine gauges looked normal, in addition to other things.
Also mentally reviewing that there was plenty of fuel and that all checklists had been read and completed.
Who knows? One quick radio call about the switched off runway lights and the tragedy might never have happened.
Captains with a serious lack of rest and have 'get-home itis' or are very "mission-oriented" have less time to double check various items (allow the FO time to question things) and sense that something is not right. I don't know if they were in a big hurry, other than to make a 'wheels up' time.
As a side note, airlines also keep internal safety reports on crews which missed either the flap setting or forgot to do part of a critical checklist. We rarely hear about these because there is no accident.
Also mentally reviewing that there was plenty of fuel and that all checklists had been read and completed.
Who knows? One quick radio call about the switched off runway lights and the tragedy might never have happened.
Captains with a serious lack of rest and have 'get-home itis' or are very "mission-oriented" have less time to double check various items (allow the FO time to question things) and sense that something is not right. I don't know if they were in a big hurry, other than to make a 'wheels up' time.
As a side note, airlines also keep internal safety reports on crews which missed either the flap setting or forgot to do part of a critical checklist. We rarely hear about these because there is no accident.
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This crew had adequate and legal rest.
One quick glance at his compass heading and the tragedy might never have happened.
Who knows? One quick radio call about the switched off runway lights and the tragedy might never have happened.
Anyone who has flown both sides of the clock within a short period of time knows that "legal rest" is meaningless where physical and mental fitness for flight is concerned. The complete duty logs for both flight crewmembers have not yet been disclosed to the public. How do you know that any rest prior to the accident was "adequate"? Perhaps you'd care to elaborate on just what you percieve to be "adequate". Just because they may have been "legal" in terms of regulatory rest requirements prior to duty does not necessarily imply that they were fit for duty in terms of their cognitive functionality at the time of the accident. The US rules are full of holes, require revision and we all know it. I'll be interested in reading of the crew's activities in the days leading up to that fateful day, in addition to the CVR transcript and many other facts not yet disclosed. A clearer picture of the dynamics involved in enabling this accident to occur will begin to form as more information is made available. Informed speculation relies on credible information, a resource which is presently in extremely short supply for the purposes of this discussion. Patience.
Perhaps so. Wouldn't we all be interested in gaining some insight into why this last chance to avert the accident wasn't taken? Was there some extranious stimulus or other distraction involved? Were these guys just knackered from schedule disruption, confused by contradictory cues such as the recent changes to the taxiway, charts and NOTAMs? Something else perhaps? I would like to know the answers to these and several other questions, but realize that this is not possible until many more facts are made available for review. If the crew were just careless, that will become apparent. It's still a bit early to be satisfied with that as an answer at this time.
In all likelyhood, by the time the final report is released, it will become apparent that several factors enabled the sequence of failures that led to this accident. Speculating now about the possible roles the factors presently known may have played is understandable and serves some purpose. Reaching any conclusions without further evidence than is presently available is shortsighted and illogical at best, and at worst, is likely to create insurmountable and incorrect biases of opinion which will be difficult to overcome later when more facts are known.
Please understand that even though I have quoted the above statements in my little rant, it is not my intent to single any one person out for criticism. Instead, I simply wish to illustrate the point that too many posters here are either promoting their own agenda by supporting unsustantiated conclusions which happen to support their agenda, or simply lack the patience to wait for more facts before reaching conclusions. In this world of instant gratification and yellow journalism, it may be understandable, but not really excusable in my view.
It's important that we keep an open mind at least until such time as the factual reports of the field investigation findings are released to us. The soonest this usually happens is if and when the NTSB chooses to hold a public hearing. If this occurs, it will likely not be for some time yet.
Thanks to the many regular posters who have attempted to act as the voice of reason on this thread. Your professionalism and calm logic is recognized and appreciated.
Best regards,
In all likelyhood, by the time the final report is released, it will become apparent that several factors enabled the sequence of failures that led to this accident. Speculating now about the possible roles the factors presently known may have played is understandable and serves some purpose. Reaching any conclusions without further evidence than is presently available is shortsighted and illogical at best, and at worst, is likely to create insurmountable and incorrect biases of opinion which will be difficult to overcome later when more facts are known.
Please understand that even though I have quoted the above statements in my little rant, it is not my intent to single any one person out for criticism. Instead, I simply wish to illustrate the point that too many posters here are either promoting their own agenda by supporting unsustantiated conclusions which happen to support their agenda, or simply lack the patience to wait for more facts before reaching conclusions. In this world of instant gratification and yellow journalism, it may be understandable, but not really excusable in my view.
It's important that we keep an open mind at least until such time as the factual reports of the field investigation findings are released to us. The soonest this usually happens is if and when the NTSB chooses to hold a public hearing. If this occurs, it will likely not be for some time yet.
Thanks to the many regular posters who have attempted to act as the voice of reason on this thread. Your professionalism and calm logic is recognized and appreciated.
Best regards,
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Michigan, USA
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Viral factors?
According to some press accounts, the Captain had dinner with his family the prior night, and his daughter, 3 months old, had her very first "cold" and was up fussing all night. Possibly he had seen his family on Friday as well.
The reason that may be relevant is that he could have had a viral infection that wasn't yet full-blown, but was interfering with his performance. (Or, he took an antihistamine - a class of drugs banned in Sweden for drivers as doing more damage to driving than alcohol, but legal in the USA.)
In either case, one unresolved issue for all pilots is pre-flighting the pilot. It is very hard to tell, without an objective external test, how badly one is impaired or fatigued. I saw a video of a patient with half his brain shut down chemically, and he reported that he "just felt a little bit sleepy."
So, question to the esteemed list members. If there was a 1 minute test you could take, totally private from big-brother, that would tell you how fit or impaired you were before that first flight of the day, would you take it?
This isn't just a question for pilots. It's relevant for bus-drivers, industrial equipment operators, ATC staff, the first-responders, the military, and managers as well. It's maybe more relevant 4 hours into a flight or emergency-response as it is at the start.
Anyone can get hit with a virus, and before it becomes clinical it can still be dragging you down. Should there be some way to test fitness versus impairment? Would it work if it were secret, or would big-brother destroy it? What do people think?
The reason that may be relevant is that he could have had a viral infection that wasn't yet full-blown, but was interfering with his performance. (Or, he took an antihistamine - a class of drugs banned in Sweden for drivers as doing more damage to driving than alcohol, but legal in the USA.)
In either case, one unresolved issue for all pilots is pre-flighting the pilot. It is very hard to tell, without an objective external test, how badly one is impaired or fatigued. I saw a video of a patient with half his brain shut down chemically, and he reported that he "just felt a little bit sleepy."
So, question to the esteemed list members. If there was a 1 minute test you could take, totally private from big-brother, that would tell you how fit or impaired you were before that first flight of the day, would you take it?
This isn't just a question for pilots. It's relevant for bus-drivers, industrial equipment operators, ATC staff, the first-responders, the military, and managers as well. It's maybe more relevant 4 hours into a flight or emergency-response as it is at the start.
Anyone can get hit with a virus, and before it becomes clinical it can still be dragging you down. Should there be some way to test fitness versus impairment? Would it work if it were secret, or would big-brother destroy it? What do people think?
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DK FCI
thanks for the interesting stuff on the details of this type of aircraft. having flown at KLGA many times, there are magnetic anomalies which bother all aircraft.
does the CRJ have an old fashioned alcohol damped compass in plain view at all times to the pilots? (whiskey compass as it is called).
And to the VIRUS poster...illness is often under reported by pilots...even recognizing it in one's self is very hard.
if your ideas were used, flying would be safer and I applaud you for it...sadly, the bean counters, treat pilots as numbers and not as human beings
safe flying for all
jon
thanks for the interesting stuff on the details of this type of aircraft. having flown at KLGA many times, there are magnetic anomalies which bother all aircraft.
does the CRJ have an old fashioned alcohol damped compass in plain view at all times to the pilots? (whiskey compass as it is called).
And to the VIRUS poster...illness is often under reported by pilots...even recognizing it in one's self is very hard.
if your ideas were used, flying would be safer and I applaud you for it...sadly, the bean counters, treat pilots as numbers and not as human beings
safe flying for all
jon
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Denmark
Age: 56
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jondc9
The CRJ has a stby compass on the center window post, its easy to see from both sides - but it has a seperate light switch, and is allmost impossible to read in the dark if the light is turned off.
The CRJ has a stby compass on the center window post, its easy to see from both sides - but it has a seperate light switch, and is allmost impossible to read in the dark if the light is turned off.
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Westhawk, my assumption that crew had adequate rest is based on the following.
I am well aware of flight time and duty limitations having operated 33 years of long haul.
Originally Posted by Check 6
The crew landed at LEX Friday night, had Saturday off, and went back on duty Sunday morning.
Crew rest is not likely an issue.
The crew landed at LEX Friday night, had Saturday off, and went back on duty Sunday morning.
Crew rest is not likely an issue.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DK FCI
thanks for the stuff on the compass and light. a hurried line up on runway and the whiskey compass might not have settled down, the flux valve compass/dg etc may have been wrong or right, we won't know unless the FDR's show heading and even if a FRACTION of a second showed somewhere near 220 degrees, we can throw that fact into the equation.
what is annoying to me is that if the cockpit and instrument lights were set for a night takeoff, the seperate light switch for the compass really shouldn't exist, if the other gauges can be seen, so should the compass.
another part of the equation.
however, still the biggest factor will be: WHICH PILOT REMARKED about the runway lights being OFF. As I said in previous post, CRM, a tone in the cockpit allowing for questions and ANSWERS is vital.
Add in that the copilot was 9 years older...you can all see where I am going with this one.
there has been enough time that the NTSB could release FDR data and a prelim cockpit voice recorder transcript.
I believe that the copilot lived to tell us what happened and that HE was the one who asked about the runway lights(no proof, just a "gut" feeling). Sadly, the response was to take off.
j
thanks for the stuff on the compass and light. a hurried line up on runway and the whiskey compass might not have settled down, the flux valve compass/dg etc may have been wrong or right, we won't know unless the FDR's show heading and even if a FRACTION of a second showed somewhere near 220 degrees, we can throw that fact into the equation.
what is annoying to me is that if the cockpit and instrument lights were set for a night takeoff, the seperate light switch for the compass really shouldn't exist, if the other gauges can be seen, so should the compass.
another part of the equation.
however, still the biggest factor will be: WHICH PILOT REMARKED about the runway lights being OFF. As I said in previous post, CRM, a tone in the cockpit allowing for questions and ANSWERS is vital.
Add in that the copilot was 9 years older...you can all see where I am going with this one.
there has been enough time that the NTSB could release FDR data and a prelim cockpit voice recorder transcript.
I believe that the copilot lived to tell us what happened and that HE was the one who asked about the runway lights(no proof, just a "gut" feeling). Sadly, the response was to take off.
j
Westhawk: Those are valid questions about adequate versus legal crew rest. It 'allegedly' makes no difference at all to some of our 'friends' with the FAA (check the accident at LIT which 'motivated' the FAA to give standby crews a daily period of rest...), or to many of our management personnel. How little do many of the "suits" realize that an accident might seriously affect the stock price...and are lawsuits getting much cheaper for corporations?
Different Vector: That is a common scenario. And when we also are tired from a lack of sleep, it is much more difficult to be sure that we are run down by a common cold etc.
Also: you definitely don't want to report to a briefing room for a check ride if this could be the case.
It can really relax your decision making abilities, a bit like a little hypoxia. They can find a seat-warmer pilot somewhere in the building, such as the superb, good-looking lady from reindeer country.
If you are flying a real trip, call Crew Sched. before you takeoff and let them replace you at the hub after this leg, or if need be, at a spoke airport. Even if you are fortunate enough to fly in a 3-person c0ckp1t.
Different Vector: That is a common scenario. And when we also are tired from a lack of sleep, it is much more difficult to be sure that we are run down by a common cold etc.
Also: you definitely don't want to report to a briefing room for a check ride if this could be the case.
It can really relax your decision making abilities, a bit like a little hypoxia. They can find a seat-warmer pilot somewhere in the building, such as the superb, good-looking lady from reindeer country.If you are flying a real trip, call Crew Sched. before you takeoff and let them replace you at the hub after this leg, or if need be, at a spoke airport. Even if you are fortunate enough to fly in a 3-person c0ckp1t.
Last edited by Ignition Override; 25th Sep 2006 at 06:08.
Originally Posted by Check 6
The crew landed at LEX Friday night, had Saturday off, and went back on duty Sunday morning.
Crew rest is not likely an issue.
I am well aware of flight time and duty limitations having operated 33 years of long haul.
The crew landed at LEX Friday night, had Saturday off, and went back on duty Sunday morning.
Crew rest is not likely an issue.
I am well aware of flight time and duty limitations having operated 33 years of long haul.
At least consider the effect that altering your work/sleep cycle by about 12 hours in just one day. I've had to live with and adjust to this nonsense as I'm sure you and most other working pilots have. Operating at some reduced percentage of your normal cognitive abilities due to sleep disruption is par for the course for many in aviation. Most pilots adjust to this over time and compensate for their degraded state by the practice of structured SOP and well established habit patterns.
Sometimes this is not sufficient to prevent an accident under just the wrong set of circumstances. Fatigue induced degradation of cognitive capability is not prevented by the duty rules as they currently exist and you know this very well from your own personal experience. With that being the case, why not consider that, in spite of duty reg compliance, fatigue may still have been a factor which contributed to the accident? That's all I'm saying. Just one more link in the chain, hole in the cheese, or whatever other illustrative analogy you might happen to favor.
Along with many of the other considerations previously mentioned, it may be possible, perhaps even likely IMHO, that fatigue could have played a part in this chain of events. I don't believe there is ample evidence to suggest that the idea can be dicarded just yet. Of course, there are still too few facts known to us to reach any solid conclusions. I will happily dismiss this, or any other possibility as the facts come to warrant it. That's why I say keep an open mind and don't be too quick to dismiss any reasonable possibilities until the known facts have eliminated them from consideration. I do not believe that compliance with the regulations alone is enough to dismiss fatigue as a factor at this time. I further believe there are at least a dozen or so of the possibilities posed on this thread so far which are still worthy of consideration. I feel it is safe to predict now that several of them will end up being cited as contributing factors and in analysis section of the final report. The effects of seemingly separate events often act in concert with each other to create outcomes.
We probably won't hear much more in the way of substantiated fact until such time as a NTSB public hearing is convened. Meanwhile, the press will occasionally prattle on as the public relations campaigns of the lawsuit originators proceeds. Don't count on any unbiased content there. That part is about $money$! Sorry, but for the lawyers and the press, it is a business.
Best,
Westhawk
Last edited by westhawk; 25th Sep 2006 at 08:30.
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Westhawk, you are right. They could have well been fatigued. In spite of legal requirements and the best efforts of crew scheduling, it is up to the individual as to what he does with his assigned rest period. However I do hope it was something more tangible than that, as you can not legislate against the lack of rest within a rest period. Looking forward to the NTSB findings. Cheers, HD.
DifferentVector:
You bring up a very interesting question. One I have given thought to in the past. What if your test was the standard for all safety sensitive activities? Would attempting to operate motor vehicles or airplanes while found cognitively impaired by the test leave you subject to criminal charges in the same way as alcohol impairment currently does? It could never be kept out of government's arsenal. Look at traffic cameras and smog testing. I'm very surprised that DNA testing for genetic disease markers has not become the standard for medical insurance acceptance yet.
I don't believe people really want an objective test if there is any possibility that the results may be used against them in any way. But a trustworthy test which could be correlated with actual performance would be a handy research tool indeed.
Best regards,
Westhawk
You bring up a very interesting question. One I have given thought to in the past. What if your test was the standard for all safety sensitive activities? Would attempting to operate motor vehicles or airplanes while found cognitively impaired by the test leave you subject to criminal charges in the same way as alcohol impairment currently does? It could never be kept out of government's arsenal. Look at traffic cameras and smog testing. I'm very surprised that DNA testing for genetic disease markers has not become the standard for medical insurance acceptance yet.
I don't believe people really want an objective test if there is any possibility that the results may be used against them in any way. But a trustworthy test which could be correlated with actual performance would be a handy research tool indeed.
Best regards,
Westhawk
HotDog:
That's a good point about what one does during their rest period. We are responsible for that, and it is our duty to show up for duty in decent shape to fly, or call in sick. Unfortunately, pilots are human too, and have an historical propensity for "toughing it out", perhaps because we tend to believe that is what is expected of us. Ego, peer pressure or just a desire to go with the flow, I don't know. That CVR would tell us quite a bit if we could hear the raw recording I believe. Thank you for your responses.
Best,
Westhawk
That's a good point about what one does during their rest period. We are responsible for that, and it is our duty to show up for duty in decent shape to fly, or call in sick. Unfortunately, pilots are human too, and have an historical propensity for "toughing it out", perhaps because we tend to believe that is what is expected of us. Ego, peer pressure or just a desire to go with the flow, I don't know. That CVR would tell us quite a bit if we could hear the raw recording I believe. Thank you for your responses.
Best,
Westhawk
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: FL 410
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was on annual leave when this incident happened, but regularly followed the reports and PPrune. I was determined to be extra vigilant...
So on my first day back, (after 35 days off), I'm teamed with a new-hire FO. Good chap, but only 50-odd hours in the seat, 1st post-line indoc pairing. He flew the first leg, whilst I got caught up on brekkie and some housekeeping details.
Leg 2. My takeoff brief was routine (however, omitted reference to permanently displaced threshold on planned departure runway), and we requested the longer runway (circuit traffic was on the shorter one, due to light favourable winds).
Cleared to backtrack to position, we carried out the Before Takeoff C/L. Here's my SNAFU: Passing the displaced threshold (Big numbers, big white lines, arrows pointing to it), I turned to line up there. Force of habit, distraction, aircraft on approach 10 miles back, complacency? Pick one...
Tower advises: "Lucky flight 764, you realize you're not at the end of the runway?"
Shock. There's still 1600 feet to go...(8400 disp thrsh vs 10000 full length).
New F/O guy thought about saying something, then didn't based on suppposing I knew what I was doing.
We turned around. Our thrust setting, flap, and speeds all based on 10000 feet. Not 8400. Obviously very long runway in either case...throw in contaminants, an engine failure, whatever, I would have still been fine. I think. However, with ACARS generated (I mean "optimized") calculations, whatever gravy that was there in the good ole days, isn't there in our modern era. (minimal thrust=minimal engine overhaul cost)
Let the same thing happen with shorter runway...you get the picture...
So I put in a company safety report. Then I beat myself up for a few days, and then realized it could happen to us all, and went back to work the next day, a better, professional pilot.
Fly safe fellow colleagues.
Note: in this example the full 10000 ft is available for t/o, but only 8400 for landing...
So on my first day back, (after 35 days off), I'm teamed with a new-hire FO. Good chap, but only 50-odd hours in the seat, 1st post-line indoc pairing. He flew the first leg, whilst I got caught up on brekkie and some housekeeping details.
Leg 2. My takeoff brief was routine (however, omitted reference to permanently displaced threshold on planned departure runway), and we requested the longer runway (circuit traffic was on the shorter one, due to light favourable winds).
Cleared to backtrack to position, we carried out the Before Takeoff C/L. Here's my SNAFU: Passing the displaced threshold (Big numbers, big white lines, arrows pointing to it), I turned to line up there. Force of habit, distraction, aircraft on approach 10 miles back, complacency? Pick one...
Tower advises: "Lucky flight 764, you realize you're not at the end of the runway?"
Shock. There's still 1600 feet to go...(8400 disp thrsh vs 10000 full length).
New F/O guy thought about saying something, then didn't based on suppposing I knew what I was doing.
We turned around. Our thrust setting, flap, and speeds all based on 10000 feet. Not 8400. Obviously very long runway in either case...throw in contaminants, an engine failure, whatever, I would have still been fine. I think. However, with ACARS generated (I mean "optimized") calculations, whatever gravy that was there in the good ole days, isn't there in our modern era. (minimal thrust=minimal engine overhaul cost)
Let the same thing happen with shorter runway...you get the picture...
So I put in a company safety report. Then I beat myself up for a few days, and then realized it could happen to us all, and went back to work the next day, a better, professional pilot.
Fly safe fellow colleagues.
Note: in this example the full 10000 ft is available for t/o, but only 8400 for landing...
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
.... the human condition .. 
.
.. a timely example of exactly the sorts of things that can 'trick' us ... in this case, thankfully some of the system defences working also!
.
.. sight, sound (or lack of), smell, feel .... they can all individually make the unbelievable seem absolutely believable!
.
... much appreciate your candour jonny!
.
... cheers!
.
.. a timely example of exactly the sorts of things that can 'trick' us ... in this case, thankfully some of the system defences working also!
.
.. sight, sound (or lack of), smell, feel .... they can all individually make the unbelievable seem absolutely believable!
.
... much appreciate your candour jonny!
.
... cheers!
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An NTSB "update of factual information3 has just been published. I assume nearly everybody here has subscribed to that, so no need to reproduce it here.
Nothing new or surprising at first sight, but clearly all isuues are being pursued.
Nothing new or surprising at first sight, but clearly all isuues are being pursued.