Comair Lexington Crash CVR
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: btw SAMAR and TOSPA
Posts: 566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2 comments
1. "Line-up check's complete" was before line-up, heading was 040 at that time
2.
Taxi clearance to 22 would have required a "crossing 26 approved" imo
1. "Line-up check's complete" was before line-up, heading was 040 at that time
2.
Comair one ninety one, taxi to runway two two. altimeter three
zero zero zero and the winds are two zero zero at eight.
zero zero zero and the winds are two zero zero at eight.
PPRuNe supporter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3mile, no need for that in the states, a clearance to a runway is just that.
Tenpilot, after reading the responsibilities of the controller that morning, I now realize that no one can adquately man both approach control and tower positions safely, I think most of that type of post came from ex atco's like myself with previous local control experience, I stand corrected.
Tenpilot, after reading the responsibilities of the controller that morning, I now realize that no one can adquately man both approach control and tower positions safely, I think most of that type of post came from ex atco's like myself with previous local control experience, I stand corrected.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dallas, TX USA
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree with RobertS975. Another visual clue missed was the crossing runway crossed the wrong way, from right to left, instead of left to right. If 22 was lit, then this would have been more obvious. There would have been time to abort if this was noticed. Again, the diagram shows that the runway numbers would have been behind the aircraft on either runway.
Trash du Blanc
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: KBHM
Posts: 1,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3mile, no need for that in the states, a clearance to a runway is just that.
I ALWAYS request clearance to cross ANY enroute runway, regardless if it is active or not. The consequences are just too severe....
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dallas, TX USA
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At this point, the lessons I'm taking away from this accident are these:
- Always check heading prior to advancing throttles for TO.
- For airports under construction, verify available runways your AC can safely use, then make certain you are using one of them.
- For larger airports under construction with parallel runways, checking heading prior to advancing throttles is not good enough (I recall not long ago the SA 744 destroyed on TO using a parallel runway under construction). Therefor use additional means to verify correct runway.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: washington,dc
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
flight safety
I listed the surest way to know the runway, tune up the localizer...especially at airports with multiple parallel runways.
huck, you are right...even though a clearance to a runway is a clearance to cross...always say as you approach the other runways, VERIFY XXX CLEARED TO CROSS RUNWAY XXX
I listed the surest way to know the runway, tune up the localizer...especially at airports with multiple parallel runways.
huck, you are right...even though a clearance to a runway is a clearance to cross...always say as you approach the other runways, VERIFY XXX CLEARED TO CROSS RUNWAY XXX
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 unique U.S system of ‘implied’ crossing clearance enroute to departure runway has always bemused me. I guess the main driver has been unloading the SMC frequency (seems brave given the possible implications) .. another one that gets me all goosed up and tingly is the practice of ‘clear to land’ when in a sequence queue (in the same league as conditional line-up clearances IMHO) … I mean if ****e turns to trumps (freq fail, runway occupied by preceding departure abort or landing debacle) and the subsequent aircraft has already been cleared to land .. well .. who knows what might result? … empirical data and experience might suggest the problem does not exist .. YET … in any event, it seems counter intuitive to me! … that said, the question remains, one of risk management and resources I guess!
.
.. there is no doubt we all learn from tragedies like LEX … I will say though, (irrespective of the conversation on the flight deck) … IMHO, this crew were led into this accident sequence by a number of other unrelated factors i.e.
.
- outside visual reference confusing (similarity of expectation), without sufficient error triggers (markings, signs etc)
- normalised deviation (expected lighting outages)
- pre-departure flight deck workload, including CRM difficulties from ground steering necessitating the captain taxiing to line-up (FO head down until on centreline, Captain head-out the front during the whole exercise …which is just asking for an instrument cross check error IMHO)
- Lack of automated aural error queues to the crew on the flight deck (avionics) and the ATC (SMD + position alarms)
.. in this day and age, there is no excuse for the presence of any of these holes in the cheese !
.
… the old maxim comes to mind ..
.
' …. you think safety is expensive ... try having an accident!'
.
.. there is no doubt we all learn from tragedies like LEX … I will say though, (irrespective of the conversation on the flight deck) … IMHO, this crew were led into this accident sequence by a number of other unrelated factors i.e.
.
- outside visual reference confusing (similarity of expectation), without sufficient error triggers (markings, signs etc)
- normalised deviation (expected lighting outages)
- pre-departure flight deck workload, including CRM difficulties from ground steering necessitating the captain taxiing to line-up (FO head down until on centreline, Captain head-out the front during the whole exercise …which is just asking for an instrument cross check error IMHO)
- Lack of automated aural error queues to the crew on the flight deck (avionics) and the ATC (SMD + position alarms)
.. in this day and age, there is no excuse for the presence of any of these holes in the cheese !
.
… the old maxim comes to mind ..
.
' …. you think safety is expensive ... try having an accident!'
Person Of Interest
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Keystone Heights, Florida
Age: 68
Posts: 842
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Several points:
I am one of those dinosaurs who happen to agree with 411A on this one.
The controller is not at fault. His responsibility is to scan the rwy prior to or at the same time as issuing the take-off clearance.
All runways that are open are "active". Any one or more of them may or may not be "in use".
Any pilot who insists on "verifying" his clearance to cross any and all runways along his assigned taxi route to his assigned runway may find his flight headed to the "penalty box" at ATL, ORD, or LAX, etc.
With the FAA and FBI redacting the controller's name from the public access reports, Mr. Chicken ***t must feel like a real man revealing his identity.
When the FAA made the rest regs, and Comair applied them to their schedules, I'm sure no one counted on the Captain having his family coming to visit on a 10 hour (legal) layover, especially with 2 small children who are suffering from colds.
Learn from this crew's mistake...don't try to excuse it.
I am one of those dinosaurs who happen to agree with 411A on this one.
The controller is not at fault. His responsibility is to scan the rwy prior to or at the same time as issuing the take-off clearance.
All runways that are open are "active". Any one or more of them may or may not be "in use".
Any pilot who insists on "verifying" his clearance to cross any and all runways along his assigned taxi route to his assigned runway may find his flight headed to the "penalty box" at ATL, ORD, or LAX, etc.
With the FAA and FBI redacting the controller's name from the public access reports, Mr. Chicken ***t must feel like a real man revealing his identity.
When the FAA made the rest regs, and Comair applied them to their schedules, I'm sure no one counted on the Captain having his family coming to visit on a 10 hour (legal) layover, especially with 2 small children who are suffering from colds.
Learn from this crew's mistake...don't try to excuse it.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: MA
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Person Of Interest
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Keystone Heights, Florida
Age: 68
Posts: 842
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the risk of being "politically incorrect", why don't we bring all of our troops home from overseas, close our borders, and boost our domestic budget????
Oops!!!...That won't work because then the US Gov't would have more money to squander on OUR Gov't Workers, whom if the truth be told, would all but one be sleeping in a low-level ATC Facility during an overnight (mid) shift such as LEX...
Of course the facility would be properly "staffed", but what would the point be???
The lawsuit may or may not prevail, but it's still a smoke screen...
The crew "screwed the pooch" and there's no escaping that....
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: South Africa
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm all for blaming controllers 
, but in this case the controller did not clear them to take off on the wrong runway and neither did he physically take control of the aircraft and set them up to fail.
True, he could have been the one to break the chain of events, but the pilots are the last barrier, and they failed.
, but in this case the controller did not clear them to take off on the wrong runway and neither did he physically take control of the aircraft and set them up to fail.True, he could have been the one to break the chain of events, but the pilots are the last barrier, and they failed.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: washington,dc
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
many of the safety nets that were normally expected in aviation are now gone. blame ronald reagan and firing atc'ers...blame the FAA for shortening the course in becoming a controller.
blame the fact that in 1980, the majority of atc'ers had a private pilot license or better and had a feeling for the situation.
and yes, blame the pilots, who probably were never tested on runway line up and identification.
so many short cuts these days...save fuel, save money...but so rarely do we hear SAVE LIVES!
blame the fact that in 1980, the majority of atc'ers had a private pilot license or better and had a feeling for the situation.
and yes, blame the pilots, who probably were never tested on runway line up and identification.
so many short cuts these days...save fuel, save money...but so rarely do we hear SAVE LIVES!
Bomarc: Save lives?
You must be kidding. That might affect operating costs.
Most airlines are so well-insured for an aircraft hull loss that they and the FAA understand the cost/benefit ratios used in the present outsourcing madness.
The only goal right now is to save money, no matter what the effect on flight operations safety. Any Pprune readers who do not believe this should read about what tragedies (and near-tragedies this winter) happened since 1978 in the US which can be directly linked to US airline deregulation. One of our jets almost took off this winter with only ONE wing de-iced.
The de-icing crew apparently missed it, but luckily the passengers noticed and spoke up.
You must be kidding. That might affect operating costs.
Most airlines are so well-insured for an aircraft hull loss that they and the FAA understand the cost/benefit ratios used in the present outsourcing madness.
The only goal right now is to save money, no matter what the effect on flight operations safety. Any Pprune readers who do not believe this should read about what tragedies (and near-tragedies this winter) happened since 1978 in the US which can be directly linked to US airline deregulation. One of our jets almost took off this winter with only ONE wing de-iced.
The de-icing crew apparently missed it, but luckily the passengers noticed and spoke up.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, folks: the airlines' objective is not to SAVE money - it's to MAKE money. Anyone who doesn't understand this pre-econ-101 principle needs to go back to class.
The cold fact of the matter is that whatever advantage airlines enjoyed in a regulated (pre-80s) environment, only the top few % of the population flew with any frequency. Deregulation has employed MANY more pilots & other staff, the result of a LOT more pax who can afford the competitive prices.
Safety is a non-issue in the big picture. Does anyone remember the high rates flight crew had to pay for life insurance 40 years ago? Higher air fares will simply force more pax out of the relatively safe aluminium tube into private cars. How safe is that?
The cold fact of the matter is that whatever advantage airlines enjoyed in a regulated (pre-80s) environment, only the top few % of the population flew with any frequency. Deregulation has employed MANY more pilots & other staff, the result of a LOT more pax who can afford the competitive prices.
Safety is a non-issue in the big picture. Does anyone remember the high rates flight crew had to pay for life insurance 40 years ago? Higher air fares will simply force more pax out of the relatively safe aluminium tube into private cars. How safe is that?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: washington,dc
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ignition overide
is that information (post dereg) available in one source? I agree with you
to baritone(barit1)...if their job is to make money, they have failed .
I sincerely believe that a re-regulated industry that adds to the cost of the ticket an amount needed to increase safety/security would be a good thing. Enforcing minimum standards for all airlines would be a good thing.
is that information (post dereg) available in one source? I agree with you
to baritone(barit1)...if their job is to make money, they have failed .
I sincerely believe that a re-regulated industry that adds to the cost of the ticket an amount needed to increase safety/security would be a good thing. Enforcing minimum standards for all airlines would be a good thing.
BOMARC:
You are probably already aware of this book, by career pilot (C-141, B-727...) and aviation attorney John J. Nance: "Blind Trust-How Deregulation Has Jeopardized Airline Safety and What You Can Do About It".
We moved out of "King Willy's" realm this winter and I can not find certain books, or I would gladly provide a long quote about the direct links between US deregulation and the accidents at new airlines which enjoyed rapid growth, by way of the lack of traditional levels of corporate and federal supervision, i.e, Air Florida, Valuejet and many others.
Don't forget just who appoints certain cabinet and sub-cabinet level officials...
It is highly likely that one of the next Pprune responses will be to define the
phrase 'traditional supervision' etc, i.e. as when former Pres. Clinton said to the federal investigators "Define the word IS".
P.S: Unknown to the public, Mr. Nance's first edition of "Splash of Colors", about the growth and demise of Braniff Airlines, was never released.
It allegedly had something to do with problems in (built into?) the American (AMR) computer reservations system, Sabre, and certain "irregularities", whereby a Braniff flight might still have seats available, but somehow the AMR computer system allegedly indicated 'otherwise'. That is all that can be discussed in public about that topic.
Y'all have a nice Shiner Bock evening!
You are probably already aware of this book, by career pilot (C-141, B-727...) and aviation attorney John J. Nance: "Blind Trust-How Deregulation Has Jeopardized Airline Safety and What You Can Do About It".
We moved out of "King Willy's" realm this winter and I can not find certain books, or I would gladly provide a long quote about the direct links between US deregulation and the accidents at new airlines which enjoyed rapid growth, by way of the lack of traditional levels of corporate and federal supervision, i.e, Air Florida, Valuejet and many others.
Don't forget just who appoints certain cabinet and sub-cabinet level officials...
It is highly likely that one of the next Pprune responses will be to define the
phrase 'traditional supervision' etc, i.e. as when former Pres. Clinton said to the federal investigators "Define the word IS".
P.S: Unknown to the public, Mr. Nance's first edition of "Splash of Colors", about the growth and demise of Braniff Airlines, was never released.
It allegedly had something to do with problems in (built into?) the American (AMR) computer reservations system, Sabre, and certain "irregularities", whereby a Braniff flight might still have seats available, but somehow the AMR computer system allegedly indicated 'otherwise'. That is all that can be discussed in public about that topic.
Y'all have a nice Shiner Bock evening!
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: n ireland
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IANAP (I am not a Pilot)
Could someone explain where the aeroplane id is located, and why it is not #1 on pilots' checklist?
Also why (for purposes other than maintenance) there is any need for an aeroplane identifier apart from the registration number?
Could someone explain where the aeroplane id is located, and why it is not #1 on pilots' checklist?
Also why (for purposes other than maintenance) there is any need for an aeroplane identifier apart from the registration number?