In article >,
Bush > wrote:

> 6:10 PM the National Transportation Safety Board confirmed that
> the Comair flight was assigned departure from runway 22, however
> departed runway 26 (3500 ft.) since it was closer to the terminal.

That's a ridiculous assertion.


> Jees they'll let anyone fly them.

Ah, so you're just a troll, then. Carry on.

Bush wrote:
> 6:10 PM the National Transportation Safety Board confirmed that
> the Comair flight was assigned departure from runway 22, however
> departed runway 26 (3500 ft.) since it was closer to the terminal.
> Accelerate-stop for this A/C at this weight should be some 5356 feet.
> Jees they'll let anyone fly them.
>
> "It is that large chain of events, with no intervening variable, that
> produces the accident"
>
> Bush

Must be nice to have all the answers...because I'm sure YOU'VE never
made a mistake.

6:10 PM the National Transportation Safety Board confirmed that
the Comair flight was assigned departure from runway 22, however
departed runway 26 (3500 ft.) since it was closer to the terminal.
Accelerate-stop for this A/C at this weight should be some 5356 feet.
Jees they'll let anyone fly them.

"It is that large chain of events, with no intervening variable, that
produces the accident"

Bush

In article >,
Emily > wrote:
> > 6:10 PM the National Transportation Safety Board confirmed that
> > the Comair flight was assigned departure from runway 22, however
> > departed runway 26 (3500 ft.) since it was closer to the terminal.
> > Accelerate-stop for this A/C at this weight should be some 5356 feet.
> > Jees they'll let anyone fly them.
> >
> > "It is that large chain of events, with no intervening variable, that
> > produces the accident"
> >
> > Bush
>
> Must be nice to have all the answers...because I'm sure YOU'VE never
> made a mistake.

The guy may be a troll, but it does appear that the flight crew used the
wrong runway. When you make such a critical error and kill 49 people,
it's a bit more serious than an average "mistake."



JKG

Jonathan Goodish wrote:
> In article >,
>
> The guy may be a troll, but it does appear that the flight crew used the
> wrong runway. When you make such a critical error and kill 49 people,
> it's a bit more serious than an average "mistake."

And it does seem to be a "chain of events" in that there were multiple
ways that they may have been able to spot the mistake:
- runway sign
- runway numbers
- DG heading
- 75 ft wide rwy versus 150 ft

Tragic indeed. Prayers for all.

Marco

Jonathan Goodish > wrote:

>In article >,
> Emily > wrote:
>> > 6:10 PM the National Transportation Safety Board confirmed that
>> > the Comair flight was assigned departure from runway 22, however
>> > departed runway 26 (3500 ft.) since it was closer to the terminal.
>> > Accelerate-stop for this A/C at this weight should be some 5356 feet.
>> > Jees they'll let anyone fly them.
>> >
>> > "It is that large chain of events, with no intervening variable, that
>> > produces the accident"
>> >
>> > Bush
>>
>> Must be nice to have all the answers...because I'm sure YOU'VE never
>> made a mistake.
>
>The guy may be a troll, but it does appear that the flight crew used the
>wrong runway. When you make such a critical error and kill 49 people,
>it's a bit more serious than an average "mistake."

Does not sound like a troll. If factual it was a horrific mistake. I
suspect that the reason for the crash will be known soon.

Ron Lee

Jonathan Goodish wrote:
> In article >,
> Emily > wrote:
>>> 6:10 PM the National Transportation Safety Board confirmed that
>>> the Comair flight was assigned departure from runway 22, however
>>> departed runway 26 (3500 ft.) since it was closer to the terminal.
>>> Accelerate-stop for this A/C at this weight should be some 5356 feet.
>>> Jees they'll let anyone fly them.
>>>
>>> "It is that large chain of events, with no intervening variable, that
>>> produces the accident"
>>>
>>> Bush
>> Must be nice to have all the answers...because I'm sure YOU'VE never
>> made a mistake.
>
> The guy may be a troll, but it does appear that the flight crew used the
> wrong runway. When you make such a critical error and kill 49 people,
> it's a bit more serious than an average "mistake."

Of course, but how many times have you made a mistake that but for blind
luck DIDN'T kill you? Having known pilots that have killed more than 49
people, I guess I can just stop blaming and be grateful that it's never
happened to me. It only takes one small mistake and that's you all over
the news.

>> The guy may be a troll, but it does appear that the flight crew used the
>> wrong runway. When you make such a critical error and kill 49 people,
>> it's a bit more serious than an average "mistake."
>
>Of course, but how many times have you made a mistake that but for blind
>luck DIDN'T kill you? Having known pilots that have killed more than 49
>people, I guess I can just stop blaming and be grateful that it's never
>happened to me. It only takes one small mistake and that's you all over
>the news.

There are TWO pilots.

Ron Lee

In article >,
Emily > wrote:
> Of course, but how many times have you made a mistake that but for blind
> luck DIDN'T kill you? Having known pilots that have killed more than 49
> people, I guess I can just stop blaming and be grateful that it's never
> happened to me. It only takes one small mistake and that's you all over
> the news.

Actually, the flight crew would have had to ignore or overlook several
opportunities to identify their location and runway in order to make
this mistake--it was no small mistake. Small mistakes don't kill you,
unless you allow enough of them to compound over a short period of time.

As for your question about my judgment, thankfully, so far, it's been
good, and that's why I'm still alive. If I had to depend on "luck" to
keep me safe in an airplane, I wouldn't fly. However, accidents such as
this one demonstrate why careful consideration and good judgment are so
important in aviation.




JKG

Jonathan Goodish wrote:
> In article >,
> Emily > wrote:
>> Of course, but how many times have you made a mistake that but for blind
>> luck DIDN'T kill you? Having known pilots that have killed more than 49
>> people, I guess I can just stop blaming and be grateful that it's never
>> happened to me. It only takes one small mistake and that's you all over
>> the news.
>
> Actually, the flight crew would have had to ignore or overlook several
> opportunities to identify their location and runway in order to make
> this mistake--it was no small mistake. Small mistakes don't kill you,
> unless you allow enough of them to compound over a short period of time.
>
> As for your question about my judgment, thankfully, so far, it's been
> good, and that's why I'm still alive. If I had to depend on "luck" to
> keep me safe in an airplane, I wouldn't fly. However, accidents such as
> this one demonstrate why careful consideration and good judgment are so
> important in aviation.

Sorry, I'm standing by my thought that you can't criticize their
mistakes until you've been in that situation. Blame has no place in
something like this....but I'm coming at this as someone who analyzes
mistakes for a living.

In article >,
Emily > wrote:
> > As for your question about my judgment, thankfully, so far, it's been
> > good, and that's why I'm still alive. If I had to depend on "luck" to
> > keep me safe in an airplane, I wouldn't fly. However, accidents such as
> > this one demonstrate why careful consideration and good judgment are so
> > important in aviation.
>
> Sorry, I'm standing by my thought that you can't criticize their
> mistakes until you've been in that situation. Blame has no place in
> something like this....but I'm coming at this as someone who analyzes
> mistakes for a living.

Well, I'm a pilot, so I've been in that situation. I've never used the
wrong runway.

When I first heard about the possibility of the crew selecting the wrong
runway, I thought that perhaps the runways intersected at or very near
the threshold (see HUF for an example), where a single intersection
services two runways. In that case, it is certainly easier to make the
turn onto the wrong runway, but that is not the case at LEX.

Blame does have a place, because that's how the rest of us learn. If
there's no blame, and no fault, then there's nothing to learn.



JKG

Jonathan Goodish wrote:
> In article >,
> Emily > wrote:
>>> As for your question about my judgment, thankfully, so far, it's been
>>> good, and that's why I'm still alive. If I had to depend on "luck" to
>>> keep me safe in an airplane, I wouldn't fly. However, accidents such as
>>> this one demonstrate why careful consideration and good judgment are so
>>> important in aviation.
>> Sorry, I'm standing by my thought that you can't criticize their
>> mistakes until you've been in that situation. Blame has no place in
>> something like this....but I'm coming at this as someone who analyzes
>> mistakes for a living.
>
> Well, I'm a pilot, so I've been in that situation. I've never used the
> wrong runway.

Have you ever been in a two person crew, on an early morning flight, in
the weather conditions at LEX?

> Blame does have a place, because that's how the rest of us learn. If
> there's no blame, and no fault, then there's nothing to learn.

I believe cause is the better word. Instead of blaming the crew for
choosing the wrong runway, we need to find out WHY they did. Without
the why, the same mistake can be repeated. When I get word that someone
at work screwed up, I don't "blame" them, I work through the situation
to find out what happened and how to keep it from happening again. The
key is learning what happened so it can't be repeated, not finding out
who's to blame.

> Well, I'm a pilot, so I've been in that situation. I've never used the
> wrong runway.

What "situation" have you been in? Not having made a mistake doesn't
make you immune. You =will= make a mistake one day, and it will be
unexpected.

> Blame does have a place, because that's how the rest of us learn. If
> there's no blame, and no fault, then there's nothing to learn.

Blame has no place, reason (as in reason for the error) does. The
difference is one of attitude, which can cause one to stop analyzing
prematurely.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

>
>> As for your question about my judgment, thankfully, so far, it's been
>> good, and that's why I'm still alive. If I had to depend on "luck" to
>> keep me safe in an airplane, I wouldn't fly. However, accidents such as
>> this one demonstrate why careful consideration and good judgment are so
>> important in aviation.
>
>Sorry, I'm standing by my thought that you can't criticize their
>mistakes until you've been in that situation. Blame has no place in
>something like this....but I'm coming at this as someone who analyzes
>mistakes for a living.

Can't agree with you Emily. If the pilots took off on too short a
runway they screwed up royally and they alone are to blame.

Ron Lee

Emily wrote:


>
> Have you ever been in a two person crew, on an early morning flight, in
> the weather conditions at LEX?

Weather not a factor, it was VFR.

If you pull up a sat image of the airport it appears the thresholds for
22 and 26 are along the same line of sight from the tower. It wouldn't
have been obvious the airplane was at the wrong runway from the tower..

Most of us who are instrument rated use the runway centerline as a
final verification the DG is aligned, and I'd sure declare an equiment
about if the damned thing was saying something like 260 when it should
say 220.

There will have to be some really odd circumstances if this isn't
called pilot error. In fact, I'd appreciate someone offering a
reasonable theory that does not implicate the pilots.

And isn't it true that both would have had to operate from that airport
before they could carry passengers?

Awful error, and and even more awful punishment for having made it.
Ron Lee wrote:
> >
> >> As for your question about my judgment, thankfully, so far, it's been
> >> good, and that's why I'm still alive. If I had to depend on "luck" to
> >> keep me safe in an airplane, I wouldn't fly. However, accidents such as
> >> this one demonstrate why careful consideration and good judgment are so
> >> important in aviation.
> >
> >Sorry, I'm standing by my thought that you can't criticize their
> >mistakes until you've been in that situation. Blame has no place in
> >something like this....but I'm coming at this as someone who analyzes
> >mistakes for a living.
>
> Can't agree with you Emily. If the pilots took off on too short a
> runway they screwed up royally and they alone are to blame.
>
> Ron Lee

"Tony" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> If you pull up a sat image of the airport it appears the thresholds for
> 22 and 26 are along the same line of sight from the tower. It wouldn't
> have been obvious the airplane was at the wrong runway from the tower..
>
> Most of us who are instrument rated use the runway centerline as a
> final verification the DG is aligned, and I'd sure declare an equiment
> about if the damned thing was saying something like 260 when it should
> say 220.
>
> There will have to be some really odd circumstances if this isn't
> called pilot error. In fact, I'd appreciate someone offering a
> reasonable theory that does not implicate the pilots.
>
> And isn't it true that both would have had to operate from that airport
> before they could carry passengers?
>
> Awful error, and and even more awful punishment for having made it.
>

Well, even if they received the wrong runway from ATC, they're the final
authority and it's their responsibility to know the airport and its runways'
lengths, but Emily is right when she says that we can't criticize until we
know what happened exactly. We should not blame anyone but we should know
what happened so we can learn from that. (I haven't heard a reasonable
theory yet either)

Here is LEX Airport diagram (http://avn.faa.gov/d-tpp/0608/00697AD.PDF) and
the runways aren't that close, so it's weird they took the wrong one.

Javier Omella.

Ron Lee wrote:
>>> As for your question about my judgment, thankfully, so far, it's been
>>> good, and that's why I'm still alive. If I had to depend on "luck" to
>>> keep me safe in an airplane, I wouldn't fly. However, accidents such as
>>> this one demonstrate why careful consideration and good judgment are so
>>> important in aviation.
>> Sorry, I'm standing by my thought that you can't criticize their
>> mistakes until you've been in that situation. Blame has no place in
>> something like this....but I'm coming at this as someone who analyzes
>> mistakes for a living.
>
> Can't agree with you Emily. If the pilots took off on too short a
> runway they screwed up royally and they alone are to blame.
>
> Ron Lee
>
>
>
Blaming doesn't keep it from happening again.

Newps wrote:
>
>
> Emily wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Have you ever been in a two person crew, on an early morning flight,
>> in the weather conditions at LEX?
>
> Weather not a factor, it was VFR.

I heard it was raining....granted, I'm pretty much ignoring the news,
since they're wrong on most things anyway.

>> Can't agree with you Emily. If the pilots took off on too short a
>> runway they screwed up royally and they alone are to blame.
>>
>> Ron Lee
>>
>>
>>
>Blaming doesn't keep it from happening again.

And what kept it from happening this time?

Ron Lee

Ron Lee wrote:
>>> Can't agree with you Emily. If the pilots took off on too short a
>>> runway they screwed up royally and they alone are to blame.
>>>
>>> Ron Lee
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Blaming doesn't keep it from happening again.
>
> And what kept it from happening this time?
>
> Ron Lee

You know, I'm not even going to dignify this with another post after
this. Fine, blame two people, one of whom is dead. I'm not going to
join you. I'm glad that you've never made such a mistake, and I hope
you never do, but keep in mind that it does happen, and it COULD happen
to you.

Emily wrote:
>
> I believe cause is the better word. Instead of blaming the crew for
> choosing the wrong runway, we need to find out WHY they did. Without
> the why, the same mistake can be repeated. When I get word that someone
> at work screwed up, I don't "blame" them, I work through the situation
> to find out what happened and how to keep it from happening again. The
> key is learning what happened so it can't be repeated, not finding out
> who's to blame.

Well put.
I hope pilots look for the cause.
Looking for blame? Leave that to the lawyers; I'm sure they've already
started.

In article >,
"Javier Omella" > wrote:

> Here is LEX Airport diagram (http://avn.faa.gov/d-tpp/0608/00697AD.PDF) and
> the runways aren't that close, so it's weird they took the wrong one.

Quite the contrary, the approach ends of the two runways are very close
and served by the same taxiway.
Port Columbus International Airport/KCMH had a similar arrangement at
the junction of the approach ends of R28L/R23. Some airlines actually
used the first several hundred feet of R23 to taxi onto R28 instead of
taxiing all the way to the R28 thrreshhold via the taxiway.
Approximately 10-years ago, the airport dug up the concrete and
completely reconfigured the layout to avoid confusion.
There are other airport with similar arrangements. Look for the FAA to
implement a construction program to correct these situations as a result
of todays crash.
And there had been confusion, but no consequences as happened today in
LEX.

Before you start blaming the crew, look at how the plane would taxi from
the terminal building on taxiway alpha to the departure end of either 22 or
26.
http://avn.faa.gov/d-tpp/0608/00697AD.PDF

Looking at the diagram, can you imagine the confusing array of signage that
you'd have to negotiate to figure out taxiing from the terminal whether
you'd be at the departure end of 22 or 26? One sign that probably should
have been at the departure end of 26 and wasn't: "Caution, short runway, no
jets"

"Bush" > wrote in message
...
> 6:10 PM the National Transportation Safety Board confirmed that
> the Comair flight was assigned departure from runway 22, however
> departed runway 26 (3500 ft.) since it was closer to the terminal.
> Accelerate-stop for this A/C at this weight should be some 5356 feet.
> Jees they'll let anyone fly them.
>
> "It is that large chain of events, with no intervening variable, that
> produces the accident"
>
> Bush

Emily wrote:

> You know, I'm not even going to dignify this with another post after
> this. Fine, blame two people, one of whom is dead. I'm not going to
> join you. I'm glad that you've never made such a mistake, and I hope
> you never do, but keep in mind that it does happen, and it COULD happen
> to you.

I agree with you. There is clearly human factors considerations that
investigators will certainly address. Duh, it's quite apparent that an
error was made, what will take time is to find out what factors
contributed to that error.

Keep in mind you're dealing crotchety monday-morning-quarterback
"experts" who can say they always do everything perfectly for the eight
times a year they fly their 152 rental around the pattern on a Sunday
afternoon. Unlike folks like yourself and other professional pilots,
they have no ideas of the realities that the job places on decision
making, such as schedules, fatigue, time of day, weather, airfield
familiarity, inop equipment, miscommunication, etc.

Brad

Emily wrote:

> Sorry, I'm standing by my thought that you can't criticize
> their mistakes until you've been in that situation.

So you'd never criticized Bush (or Clinton, depending on your tastes)
because you've never been POTUS??? Certain people are paid to do
certain jobs, and if they don't do them properly, they are open to
ciriticism. End of story.

In article >,
Emily > wrote:

> >> Sorry, I'm standing by my thought that you can't criticize their
> >> mistakes until you've been in that situation. Blame has no place in
> >> something like this....but I'm coming at this as someone who analyzes
> >> mistakes for a living.
> >
> > Well, I'm a pilot, so I've been in that situation. I've never used the
> > wrong runway.
>
> Have you ever been in a two person crew, on an early morning flight, in
> the weather conditions at LEX?

Are you saying that only those people can criticize or blame crew mistakes?

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

In article >,
Emily > wrote:

> Blaming doesn't keep it from happening again.

Reducing the risk of it happening again isn't the only objective.
Somtimes people need to take responsibility.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

"Dice" wrote:

> Before you start blaming the crew, look at how the plane would taxi from
> the terminal building on taxiway alpha to the departure end of either 22
> or 26.
> http://avn.faa.gov/d-tpp/0608/00697AD.PDF

A simple heading check before throttle up would have caught the error. I
wonder if that is on the checklist.

> Looking at the diagram, can you imagine the confusing array of signage
> that you'd have to negotiate to figure out taxiing from the terminal
> whether you'd be at the departure end of 22 or 26?

Yes, I can. It would probably prompt me to extra caution. Were these
pilots regulars at this airport, or newbies?

> One sign that probably should have been at the departure end of 26 and
> wasn't: "Caution, short runway, no jets"
>

It wouldn't be surprising to see this accident produce some such regulation.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Tony wrote:
> If you pull up a sat image of the airport it appears the thresholds for
> 22 and 26 are along the same line of sight from the tower. It wouldn't
> have been obvious the airplane was at the wrong runway from the tower..

I haven't looked yet, but probably the sat images are way out of date.
Didn't they mention in the news that they just extended that runway 26
by 600' on both ends?

Best, Kev

§ 121.443 Pilot in command qualification: Route and
airports.
(a) Each certificate holder shall provide a system
acceptable to the Administrator for disseminating the
information required by paragraph (b) of this section to the
pilot in command and appropriate flight operation personnel.
The system must also provide an acceptable means for showing
compliance with §121.445.

(b) No certificate holder may use any person, nor may any
person serve, as pilot in command unless the certificate
holder has provided that person current information
concerning the following subjects pertinent to the areas
over which that person is to serve, and to each airport and
terminal area into which that person is to operate, and
ensures that that person has adequate knowledge of, and the
ability to use, the information:

(1) Weather characteristics appropriate to the season.

(2) Navigation facilities.

(3) Communication procedures, including airport visual aids.

(4) Kinds of terrain and obstructions.

(5) Minimum safe flight levels.

(6) En route and terminal area arrival and departure
procedures, holding procedures and authorized instrument
approach procedures for the airports involved.

(7) Congested areas and physical layout of each airport in
the terminal area in which the pilot will operate.

(8) Notices to Airmen.

[Doc. No. 17897, 45 FR 41594, June 19, 1980; Amdt. 121-159,
45 FR 43154, June 26, 1980]



Note paragraph b and b7.

§ 121.542 Flight crewmember duties.
(a) No certificate holder shall require, nor may any flight
crewmember perform, any duties during a critical phase of
flight except those duties required for the safe operation
of the aircraft. Duties such as company required calls made
for such nonsafety related purposes as ordering galley
supplies and confirming passenger connections, announcements
made to passengers promoting the air carrier or pointing out
sights of interest, and filling out company payroll and
related records are not required for the safe operation of
the aircraft.

(b) No flight crewmember may engage in, nor may any pilot in
command permit, any activity during a critical phase of
flight which could distract any flight crewmember from the
performance of his or her duties or which could interfere in
any way with the proper conduct of those duties. Activities
such as eating meals, engaging in nonessential conversations
within the cockpit and nonessential communications between
the cabin and cockpit crews, and reading publications not
related to the proper conduct of the flight are not required
for the safe operation of the aircraft.

(c) For the purposes of this section, critical phases of
flight includes all ground operations involving taxi,
takeoff and landing, and all other flight operations
conducted below 10,000 feet, except cruise flight.

Note: Taxi is defined as "movement of an airplane under its
own power on the surface of an airport."

[Doc. No. 20661, 46 FR 5502, Jan. 19, 1981]





"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
|
| "Dice" wrote:
|
| > Before you start blaming the crew, look at how the
plane would taxi from
| > the terminal building on taxiway alpha to the departure
end of either 22
| > or 26.
| > http://avn.faa.gov/d-tpp/0608/00697AD.PDF
|
| A simple heading check before throttle up would have
caught the error. I
| wonder if that is on the checklist.
|
| > Looking at the diagram, can you imagine the confusing
array of signage
| > that you'd have to negotiate to figure out taxiing from
the terminal
| > whether you'd be at the departure end of 22 or 26?
|
| Yes, I can. It would probably prompt me to extra caution.
Were these
| pilots regulars at this airport, or newbies?
|
| > One sign that probably should have been at the departure
end of 26 and
| > wasn't: "Caution, short runway, no jets"
| >
|
| It wouldn't be surprising to see this accident produce
some such regulation.
|
| --
| Dan
| C172RG at BFM
|
|

Kev wrote:

>
> I haven't looked yet, but probably the sat images are way out of date.
> Didn't they mention in the news that they just extended that runway 26
> by 600' on both ends?
>


Here's a diagram dated 08/03/2006:

<http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0608/00697AD.PDF>

I also fly Regional Jets for another carrier. As to "Jees they let
anyone fly them" ...thats an apalling statement and totally uncalled
for.

We are required by company policy to have the airport diagram open and
in view at all times on the ground. Checking taxiway signage and the
red and white runway numbering signs is common practice for both
crewmembers. We are required to read back all taxi and hold short
clearances. I am surprised that such an experienced crew made that
fatal mistake.

We are also required to verify adequate performance from any runway we
are going to use. Do we have enough runway and do we have climb
performance based on our weight, temperature and runway length?

I have made my share of mistakes as a pilot but thanks to some great
Captains and very comprehensive training it always turned out well.

There but for the grace of God go I.

Hank


Bush wrote:
> 6:10 PM the National Transportation Safety Board confirmed that
> the Comair flight was assigned departure from runway 22, however
> departed runway 26 (3500 ft.) since it was closer to the terminal.
> Accelerate-stop for this A/C at this weight should be some 5356 feet.
> Jees they'll let anyone fly them.
>
> "It is that large chain of events, with no intervening variable, that
> produces the accident"
>
> Bush

Dice wrote:

> Before you start blaming the crew, look at how the plane would taxi from
> the terminal building on taxiway alpha to the departure end of either 22 or
> 26.

Or, better yet, take a direct look with Google earth. The picture
quality is very detailed for this area. When I looked at the picture and
imagined the situation of the pilots, I *have* understood how such an
error can occur. Note: I say understand, I don't say excuse.

Now my speculation, how such a confusion could happen. (I don't say it
happened this way, I just think of possibilities. Hopefully the CVR will
put more light on it.)

- The airport is pretty small, the runway is next to the apron, no "taxi
via...". So the pilots are tempted not to bother with the airport chart.
Lazyness, yes. But have *you* never done this?

- As there is only one runway large enough for jets, they maybe even
forgot that there was a second runway at all.

- The "narrow" runway is not narrower than the "wide" one, they are both
the same. There are just painted markings. And remember, as far as I
know, it was night and it rained.

- So they taxied by heart und lined up when they reached "the" runway.
The first one, that is, which happened to be rwy 26, unfortunately.

- When lined up, the pilots can't see the runway numbers. Certainly not
at rwy 26, because the numbers are *behind* them.

- Sure, they would have caught the error at this moment if they had
checked the compass. Again, lazyness. Again, have you never done this?
And maybe, they didn't even stop between taxi and take off but just
continued accelerating after the turn.

As it seems to me, this is just another example why we should strictly
and always adhere to the procedures, as annoying and superfluous as they
sometimes may seem. Because most of them are written with blood.

Hmmm... Thinking of it, this somehow reminds me of those discussions
about the benefit of using standard phraseology...

Stefan

Bob Noel wrote:
> In article >,
> Emily > wrote:
>
>> Blaming doesn't keep it from happening again.
>
> Reducing the risk of it happening again isn't the only objective.
> Somtimes people need to take responsibility.

It's not a criminal act. It was a horrible mistake. Get over yourself.

Stefan wrote:
> Dice wrote:
>
>> Before you start blaming the crew, look at how the plane would taxi
>> from the terminal building on taxiway alpha to the departure end of
>> either 22 or 26.
>
> Or, better yet, take a direct look with Google earth. The picture
> quality is very detailed for this area. When I looked at the picture and
> imagined the situation of the pilots, I *have* understood how such an
> error can occur. Note: I say understand, I don't say excuse.
>

Here's where a well equipped GA aircraft trumps the airlines (possibly).
When I'm on the ground at an airport with an approach, I get my position
superimposed over the aircraft diagram. I'm surprised though. Close
to 20 years ago I was in the cockpit of one of UPS's 767's. Their
inertial nav system displayed the position we were on the cargo ramp
to the programmed departure runway as well.

Emily wrote:

> It's not a criminal act. It was a horrible mistake.

Negligence may be a criminal act. Omissions in staff training may also
be accounted as criminal. (I'm not saying it was in this case, I only
say it might be.)

In article >,
"Dan Luke" > wrote:

> > One sign that probably should have been at the departure end of 26 and
> > wasn't: "Caution, short runway, no jets"
> >
>
> It wouldn't be surprising to see this accident produce some such regulation.

If they missed the runway sign, why should it be assumed that they
wouldn't miss a warning sign?

This airport isn't that complex. If you have the airport diagram opened
and are paying attention, you shouldn't end up at the wrong runway.
Mistakes do happen, but there should have been several clues (heading,
runway width, missing runway markings, poor condition of runway, etc.)
that should have tipped them off.

Finally, it's possible that they realized they were on the wrong runway
into the takeoff roll, and chose to continue rather than stop and roll
off the end (which would probably have resulted in a better outcome).
Only time and the full NTSB report will answer some of the many
outstanding questions.



JKG

Ron Natalie wrote:
>
> Here's where a well equipped GA aircraft trumps the airlines (possibly).
> When I'm on the ground at an airport with an approach, I get my position
> superimposed over the aircraft diagram.

A guy I know who flies CRJ's for Pinnacle tells me they all have glass
cockpits. The accident plane was delivered in 2001 (according to CNN),
so I don't think it would have steam guages.

I would imagine they'd have the same or better capabilities as you.

Emily > wrote:

>Ron Lee wrote:
>>>> Can't agree with you Emily. If the pilots took off on too short a
>>>> runway they screwed up royally and they alone are to blame.
>>>>
>>>> Ron Lee
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Blaming doesn't keep it from happening again.
>>
>> And what kept it from happening this time?
>>
>> Ron Lee
>
>You know, I'm not even going to dignify this with another post after
>this. Fine, blame two people, one of whom is dead. I'm not going to
>join you. I'm glad that you've never made such a mistake, and I hope
>you never do, but keep in mind that it does happen, and it COULD happen
>to you.

You are right Emily. I never made a mistake that resulted in 49
deaths. FACT is that a significant percentage of aircraft accidents
are due to pilot error. That a person is dead does not mean that they
can't be blamed IF they caused the accident.

Ron Lee

The talking heads are are making an issue of only one tower controller
being on duty.
Has the controllers union started a behind the scenes whisper campaign?

> Reducing the risk of it happening again isn't the only objective.
> Somtimes people need to take responsibility.

They did. By dying.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Emily" > wrote in message
>
> It's not a criminal act. It was a horrible mistake.

While I generally support your outlook, Emly, it is worth pointing out that
courts in the past have established the precedent of holding air carrier
pilots to the "highest degree of care", the same professional standard to
which physicians, attornies, and other highly trained professionals are held
in questions of liability, rather than the broader "reasonable degree of
care" standard, usually applied to the general population.

JG

"Tony" > wrote in message
>
> And isn't it true that both would have had to operate from that airport
> before they could carry passengers?

No.

Ron Natalie wrote:
> Stefan wrote:
> > Dice wrote:
> >
> >> Before you start blaming the crew, look at how the plane would taxi
> >> from the terminal building on taxiway alpha to the departure end of
> >> either 22 or 26.
> >
> > Or, better yet, take a direct look with Google earth. The picture
> > quality is very detailed for this area. When I looked at the picture and
> > imagined the situation of the pilots, I *have* understood how such an
> > error can occur. Note: I say understand, I don't say excuse.
> >
>
> Here's where a well equipped GA aircraft trumps the airlines (possibly).
> When I'm on the ground at an airport with an approach, I get my position
> superimposed over the aircraft diagram. I'm surprised though. Close
> to 20 years ago I was in the cockpit of one of UPS's 767's. Their
> inertial nav system displayed the position we were on the cargo ramp
> to the programmed departure runway as well.

Even when I am a passenger on an airline, I often watch the black &
white numbers on the side of the runway that tells you how much runway
is left.

wrote:

> Emily wrote:
>
>>I believe cause is the better word. Instead of blaming the crew for
>>choosing the wrong runway, we need to find out WHY they did. Without
>>the why, the same mistake can be repeated. When I get word that someone
>>at work screwed up, I don't "blame" them, I work through the situation
>>to find out what happened and how to keep it from happening again. The
>>key is learning what happened so it can't be repeated, not finding out
>>who's to blame.
>
>
> Well put.
> I hope pilots look for the cause.
> Looking for blame? Leave that to the lawyers; I'm sure they've already
> started.

Personally, I think it better if pilots and people skilled in the
"trade" are involved in both cause determination and blame assessment.
Both are too important to leave to lawyers.

Matt

Emily wrote:

> Bob Noel wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> Emily > wrote:
>>
>>> Blaming doesn't keep it from happening again.
>>
>>
>> Reducing the risk of it happening again isn't the only objective.
>> Somtimes people need to take responsibility.
>
>
> It's not a criminal act. It was a horrible mistake. Get over yourself.

Assigning blame has nothing to do with being a crime or not. It is
simply a matter of determining who is responsible for the accident.

Matt

"Tony" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> In fact, I'd appreciate someone offering a
> reasonable theory that does not implicate the pilots.

This OP states
"Accelerate-stop for this A/C at this weight should be some 5356 feet."

OK, but what is the ground roll for this A/C at this weight. If
Accellerate-Stop distance is 5356 ft, couldn't it get off the ground in 3500
ft?

I doubt the *CAUSE* of the crash was use of a short runway. I suspect it was
a contributing factor.

"The grace of God", and training, and checklists as well as attentive
crew in the cockpit.

Think about the sequence of errors that had to cascade for this
accident to happen. The guy in the tower's line of sight didn't allow
him to see the airplane was at the wrong threshold: in fact, I wouldn't
be surprised if whoever was manning the radios in the airplane didn't
switch to tower well before the threshold so they could roll on and
start their takeoff right away. If it was standard language, it might
have gone like "Delta (or whoever) flight NNNN is ready for takeoff on
Runway 22" and was cleared to go. Just thinking about it, that's a
pretty safe bet.

I hate when the price for an error is death but that price is paid
every day but usually though, it takes a goodly number of accidents to
that many innocent deaths.

If it's not on your checklist, add "verify the DG matches the runway
heading before advancing power for takeoff." My experience is, that
will catch a failed vacuum pump, not a wrong runway. I also like to
have one of the navs tuned to the ILS frequency and it's NOT because I
never see the localizer needle centered when I fly an approach!




HankPilot2002 wrote:
> I also fly Regional Jets for another carrier. As to "Jees they let
> anyone fly them" ...thats an apalling statement and totally uncalled
> for.
>
> We are required by company policy to have the airport diagram open and
> in view at all times on the ground. Checking taxiway signage and the
> red and white runway numbering signs is common practice for both
> crewmembers. We are required to read back all taxi and hold short
> clearances. I am surprised that such an experienced crew made that
> fatal mistake.
>
> We are also required to verify adequate performance from any runway we
> are going to use. Do we have enough runway and do we have climb
> performance based on our weight, temperature and runway length?
>
> I have made my share of mistakes as a pilot but thanks to some great
> Captains and very comprehensive training it always turned out well.
>
> There but for the grace of God go I.
>
> Hank
>
>
> Bush wrote:
> > 6:10 PM the National Transportation Safety Board confirmed that
> > the Comair flight was assigned departure from runway 22, however
> > departed runway 26 (3500 ft.) since it was closer to the terminal.
> > Accelerate-stop for this A/C at this weight should be some 5356 feet.
> > Jees they'll let anyone fly them.
> >
> > "It is that large chain of events, with no intervening variable, that
> > produces the accident"
> >
> > Bush

Tony schrieb:

> If it was standard language, it might
> have gone like "Delta (or whoever) flight NNNN is ready for takeoff

No. "Ready for departure" would be standard phraseology. Written with
blood in Teneriffa.

Stefan

"Stefan" > wrote in message news:36439
>
> Or, better yet, take a direct look with Google earth.

If you look at Google earth, you see a scenario where, if you're turning
onto Rwy 26 the numbers will be slightly off to your right, but if entering
Rwy 22 the numbers will be to your front left as you make the turn into
position.

If you check current aerial shots from recent news coverage, you see that
there is now actually a substantially displaced threshold on Rwy 22, and
traffic seems to use that short taxiway from the end of 26 to the displaced
numbers of 22. This pic shows what appears to be another RJ doing just
that.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/28/plane.crash/index.html

In this airport configuration, the sight picture while taxiing onto either
22 or 26 in the dark would be quite similar.

I've also noted that neither Airnav nor the FAA airport diagram seem to
mention the displaced threshold, and the taxiway diagram itself doesn't seem
to portray what is actually paved on the ground. Does anyone have a current
Jepp airport diagram to check? Is the taxiway leading from Rwy 26 numbers
to the absolute end of Rwy 22 pavement still open? Iirc, when a threshold
is displaced for reasons relating only to the approach, that displaced
pavement area is still usable for taxi and take-off. Is that not the case?

John Gaquin > wrote:

> This pic shows what appears to be another RJ doing just
> that.

What is also interesting in that picture is the noticeable difference
between the runway markings.

--
Peter

Another thing I notice is the angle of turn from the taxiway to the
runway is about the same for the the two runways. There really isn't a
visual cue that the turn onto the runway might provide.

Ron Lee wrote:
> Emily > wrote:
>
>> Ron Lee wrote:
>>>>> Can't agree with you Emily. If the pilots took off on too short a
>>>>> runway they screwed up royally and they alone are to blame.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ron Lee
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Blaming doesn't keep it from happening again.
>>> And what kept it from happening this time?
>>>
>>> Ron Lee
>> You know, I'm not even going to dignify this with another post after
>> this. Fine, blame two people, one of whom is dead. I'm not going to
>> join you. I'm glad that you've never made such a mistake, and I hope
>> you never do, but keep in mind that it does happen, and it COULD happen
>> to you.
>
> You are right Emily. I never made a mistake that resulted in 49
> deaths. FACT is that a significant percentage of aircraft accidents
> are due to pilot error. That a person is dead does not mean that they
> can't be blamed IF they caused the accident.
>
> Ron Lee

Someone else said it best. There but for the grace of God go I.
Invulnerability, anyone? I don't know about you, but I'm seeing a lot
of it here.

John Gaquin wrote:
> "Stefan" > wrote in message news:36439
>> Or, better yet, take a direct look with Google earth.
>
> If you look at Google earth, you see a scenario where, if you're turning
> onto Rwy 26 the numbers will be slightly off to your right, but if entering
> Rwy 22 the numbers will be to your front left as you make the turn into
> position.
>
> If you check current aerial shots from recent news coverage, you see that
> there is now actually a substantially displaced threshold on Rwy 22, and
> traffic seems to use that short taxiway from the end of 26 to the displaced
> numbers of 22. This pic shows what appears to be another RJ doing just
> that.
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/28/plane.crash/index.html
>
> In this airport configuration, the sight picture while taxiing onto either
> 22 or 26 in the dark would be quite similar.
>
> I've also noted that neither Airnav nor the FAA airport diagram seem to
> mention the displaced threshold, and the taxiway diagram itself doesn't seem
> to portray what is actually paved on the ground. Does anyone have a current
> Jepp airport diagram to check? Is the taxiway leading from Rwy 26 numbers
> to the absolute end of Rwy 22 pavement still open? Iirc, when a threshold
> is displaced for reasons relating only to the approach, that displaced
> pavement area is still usable for taxi and take-off. Is that not the case?
>
>
I was just looking at a shot that is on CNN.com and while the shorter
runway is supposed to be half the width, looking at the picture it
appears to be the same 150 foot width with just lines painted on it to
make it 75 foot wide.

Not exactly untrue. FAR 121 requires pilots to be familiar
with all the airports they operate to/from. They are
required to be specially trained for certain airports. And
they are required to consider all taxi operations as
hazardous and run a sterile cockpit.


"John Gaquin" > wrote in message
. ..
|
| "Tony" > wrote in message
| >
| > And isn't it true that both would have had to operate
from that airport
| > before they could carry passengers?
|
| No.
|
|

Emily > wrote:

>Ron Lee wrote:
>> Emily > wrote:
>>
>>> Ron Lee wrote:
>>>>>> Can't agree with you Emily. If the pilots took off on too short a
>>>>>> runway they screwed up royally and they alone are to blame.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ron Lee
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Blaming doesn't keep it from happening again.
>>>> And what kept it from happening this time?
>>>>
>>>> Ron Lee
>>> You know, I'm not even going to dignify this with another post after
>>> this. Fine, blame two people, one of whom is dead. I'm not going to
>>> join you. I'm glad that you've never made such a mistake, and I hope
>>> you never do, but keep in mind that it does happen, and it COULD happen
>>> to you.
>>
>> You are right Emily. I never made a mistake that resulted in 49
>> deaths. FACT is that a significant percentage of aircraft accidents
>> are due to pilot error. That a person is dead does not mean that they
>> can't be blamed IF they caused the accident.
>>
>> Ron Lee
>
>Someone else said it best. There but for the grace of God go I.
>Invulnerability, anyone? I don't know about you, but I'm seeing a lot
>of it here.

That is hardly relevant Emily. I do not have the extensive training
that those pilots should have had. I do not fly with 50+ people lives
dependent upon me. You had TWO pilots who both screwed up. That is
factual since the NTSB is confirming that they took off on Rwy 22 and
that runway was way too short for their aircraft.

Now if you want to find that there was a bunny rabbit on the runway
that messed up their pre-flight planning and caused the accident so be
it. But you cannot show me where you did anything to prevent this
accident. Show me that then you will have some credibility.
Otherwise,just admit that people make msiakes and in this case it
killed many people.

If the final report reveals something that was not in the control of
the pilots that caused this accident then my current opinion will be
proven wrong. I don't expect that to happen.

Ron Lee

John Theune > wrote:

>I was just looking at a shot that is on CNN.com and while the shorter
>runway is supposed to be half the width, looking at the picture it
>appears to be the same 150 foot width with just lines painted on it to
>make it 75 foot wide.

Correct John. The Google Earth pictures shows the same thing.

Ron Lee

Ron Lee > wrote:

<snip>
> If the final report reveals something that was not in the control of
> the pilots that caused this accident then my current opinion will be
> proven wrong. I don't expect that to happen.

It is only natural to expect that professional pilots are held to a higher
standard and therefore to get angry when these pilots make what appears at
this point to be an amateur mistake that killed many innocent passengers
and destroyed aircraft and property.

This "there but for the grace of God..." attitude argued here by one young,
perhaps RL professional pilot is truly a cop-out behind which the
professional pilots flying my family hopefully are not hiding.

--
Peter

Emily wrote:

> Someone else said it best. There but for the grace of God go I.

If I sit in the back of an airliner, then I sure am not willing to fly
for the grace of God, but for the responsibility of two professionally
behaving pilots.

Stefan

> Now if you want to find that there was a bunny rabbit on the runway
> that messed up their pre-flight planning and caused the accident so be
> it. But you cannot show me where you did anything to prevent this
> accident.

If a bunny rabbit can mess up the pre-flight planning of a professional
crew, then that is something I'd like to see investigated further. I
wouldn't think it would be that easy, but I've made many mistakes that I
didn't think were that easy to make. Having made them, I learned from
them and modified my procedure. I am less likely to make that same
mistake again.

That's the difference between blame and cause.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On 28 Aug 2006 08:07:58 -0700, "Tony" > wrote:

>If it's not on your checklist, add "verify the DG matches the runway
>heading before advancing power for takeoff." My experience is, that
>will catch a failed vacuum pump, not a wrong runway. I also like to
>have one of the navs tuned to the ILS frequency and it's NOT because I
>never see the localizer needle centered when I fly an approach!
>

I'd appreciate an explanation for tuning to the ILS.

David

"John Gaquin" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Tony" > wrote in message
>>
>> And isn't it true that both would have had to operate from that airport
>> before they could carry passengers?
>
> No.

On a similar note, It is my understanding that in many airlines SOP, the
first time that a pilot flies a new aircraft (type?) it is full of
passengers as all training is done in a simulator.

YMMV

Emily writes:

> Have you ever been in a two person crew, on an early morning flight, in
> the weather conditions at LEX?

People are in those conditions all the time, and this is apparently
the first time they've chosen the wrong runway.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
> That a person is dead does not mean that they
> can't be blamed IF they caused the accident.

It is always easiest to just blame the dead guy.

Condolences to all.

Emily writes:

> You know, I'm not even going to dignify this with another post after
> this. Fine, blame two people, one of whom is dead.

And the other, hopefully, will now be changing to a desk job, possibly
after being a guest of the government for a time.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Brad writes:

> Keep in mind you're dealing crotchety monday-morning-quarterback
> "experts" who can say they always do everything perfectly for the eight
> times a year they fly their 152 rental around the pattern on a Sunday
> afternoon. Unlike folks like yourself and other professional pilots,
> they have no ideas of the realities that the job places on decision
> making, such as schedules, fatigue, time of day, weather, airfield
> familiarity, inop equipment, miscommunication, etc.

No matter what the realities, you have to draw a line somewhere, and
this was clearly over the line.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Emily writes:

> It's not a criminal act. It was a horrible mistake.

A sufficiently horrible mistake can be held to be a criminal act.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Dice writes:

> Before you start blaming the crew, look at how the plane would taxi from
> the terminal building on taxiway alpha to the departure end of either 22 or
> 26.
> http://avn.faa.gov/d-tpp/0608/00697AD.PDF
>
> Looking at the diagram, can you imagine the confusing array of signage that
> you'd have to negotiate to figure out taxiing from the terminal whether
> you'd be at the departure end of 22 or 26? One sign that probably should
> have been at the departure end of 26 and wasn't: "Caution, short runway, no
> jets"

I think seeing a heading of 260 instead of 220 while sitting on the
runway would clue me in, no matter what the signs looked like.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

john smith wrote in message ...
>Another thing I notice is the angle of turn from the taxiway to the
>runway is about the same for the the two runways. There really isn't a
>visual cue that the turn onto the runway might provide.

But there's one very obvious cue...there's no more taxiway once you've
arrived at 22. at the end of 26 you've got 2 taxiways to choose from. Then
there's runway 22 itself. Those visual cues should be obvious day or night.

- Rick

It's another check one of the gizmos is working well. As it happens,
the KBED localizer pretty much aims right at the the most common navaid
for departures to the west as well.

wrote:
> On 28 Aug 2006 08:07:58 -0700, "Tony" > wrote:
>
> >If it's not on your checklist, add "verify the DG matches the runway
> >heading before advancing power for takeoff." My experience is, that
> >will catch a failed vacuum pump, not a wrong runway. I also like to
> >have one of the navs tuned to the ILS frequency and it's NOT because I
> >never see the localizer needle centered when I fly an approach!
> >
>
> I'd appreciate an explanation for tuning to the ILS.
>
> David

Rick wrote:
> john smith wrote in message ...
> >Another thing I notice is the angle of turn from the taxiway to the
> >runway is about the same for the the two runways. There really isn't a
> >visual cue that the turn onto the runway might provide.
>
> But there's one very obvious cue...there's no more taxiway once you've
> arrived at 22. at the end of 26 you've got 2 taxiways to choose from. Then
> there's runway 22 itself. Those visual cues should be obvious day or night.
>
> - Rick

What no one has mentioned in this thread is the report that the lights
for 26 were not on. That visual cue screams that you're on the wrong
runway, particularly pre-dawn. If that's indeed the case, it would
speak to negligence. I wonder what they were doing/thinking.

Radu

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message

> Not exactly untrue. FAR 121 requires pilots to be familiar
> with all the airports they operate to/from. They are
> required to be specially trained for certain airports. And
> they are required to consider all taxi operations as
> hazardous and run a sterile cockpit.

What you state is accurate in certain circumstances, but irrelevant in the
present instance. The answer to Tony's question remains a straightforward,
unequivocal "no".

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> I think seeing a heading of 260 instead of 220 while sitting on the
> runway would clue me in, no matter what the signs looked like.

Not necessarily. Think of all the "read back, hear back" mishaps.
One hears what one expects to hear.
The same can be said for vision. One expects to see certain visual cues
so disregards the discrepancies.

"Rick" > wrote in message
...
> john smith wrote in message ...
>>Another thing I notice is the angle of turn from the taxiway to the
>>runway is about the same for the the two runways. There really isn't a
>>visual cue that the turn onto the runway might provide.
>
> But there's one very obvious cue...there's no more taxiway once you've
> arrived at 22. at the end of 26 you've got 2 taxiways to choose from. Then
> there's runway 22 itself. Those visual cues should be obvious day or
> night.
>
> - Rick
>
>

I was wondering about this point myself.

If their taxi instructions (and I said "If") were RWY 22 via A A7 ... then
they maybe could have realized something was up if they never got to A7?

Jay B

On 28 Aug 2006 12:20:15 -0700, "Tony" > wrote:

>
>It's another check one of the gizmos is working well. As it happens,
>the KBED localizer pretty much aims right at the the most common navaid
>for departures to the west as well.
>
wrote:
>> On 28 Aug 2006 08:07:58 -0700, "Tony" > wrote:
>>
>> >If it's not on your checklist, add "verify the DG matches the runway
>> >heading before advancing power for takeoff." My experience is, that
>> >will catch a failed vacuum pump, not a wrong runway. I also like to
>> >have one of the navs tuned to the ILS frequency and it's NOT because I
>> >never see the localizer needle centered when I fly an approach!
>> >
>>
>> I'd appreciate an explanation for tuning to the ILS.
>>
>> David

Thanks, I thought it was more subtle than that :-)

David

"Private" > wrote in message news:OJGIg.476607
>
> On a similar note, It is my understanding that in many airlines SOP, the
> first time that a pilot flies a new aircraft (type?) it is full of
> passengers as all training is done in a simulator.

As far as I recall (individual carriers may have stricter policies) the
only time the FAA requires you to conduct your first few flights (20 hours,
I think) under supervision in the cockpit is when you are transitioning
position. An existing FO or Capt can transition aircraft type to the same
seat and complete all requirements in the sim, as long as the prior in-seat
experience was with the same carrier and in a transport cat aircraft. When
you upgrade seat, even in the same type, you must go through IOE (Initial
Operating Experience) in your new capacity, under supervision of a check
airman.

These memories are quite old, so I may have some detail wrong.

If you are on the correct runway when you line up on the centerline for
departure, the localizer needle will be centered. If it is pegged to one
side or the other, you are probably on the wrong runway, or at least have
time to doublecheck what you are doing.

Jim



> wrote in message
...
> On 28 Aug 2006 08:07:58 -0700, "Tony" > wrote:
>
>>If it's not on your checklist, add "verify the DG matches the runway
>>heading before advancing power for takeoff." My experience is, that
>>will catch a failed vacuum pump, not a wrong runway. I also like to
>>have one of the navs tuned to the ILS frequency and it's NOT because I
>>never see the localizer needle centered when I fly an approach!
>>
>
> I'd appreciate an explanation for tuning to the ILS.
>
> David

"Tony" > wrote in message

> It's another check one of the gizmos is working well.

I think its a good policy, Tony. It is one more anomaly to catch your eye
if you should happen to be on the wrong strip of asphalt. It also sets you
up for a return, if required, as most times landings and departures are on
the same runway. I always used to setup the approach on every departure so
if we had to return, the PNF could just flip a knob and we'd be set up for
the approach.

My knee-jerk (emphasis on the jerk) reaction was that 22 had a full panoply
of runway lights and 26 was a dark hole, and several posters favored us with
links and advice about how the lighting was supposed to be. But there had
been recent construction, and no one in this group has first-hand knowledge
of the runway lighting status as of the time of the accident. Airport
directories and on-line databases are great, if everything is working as
designed, but are meaningless if the situation at the time of the accident
does not meet design standards due to construction or a similar problem.

Bob Gardner

"raduray" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Rick wrote:
>> john smith wrote in message ...
>> >Another thing I notice is the angle of turn from the taxiway to the
>> >runway is about the same for the the two runways. There really isn't a
>> >visual cue that the turn onto the runway might provide.
>>
>> But there's one very obvious cue...there's no more taxiway once you've
>> arrived at 22. at the end of 26 you've got 2 taxiways to choose from.
>> Then
>> there's runway 22 itself. Those visual cues should be obvious day or
>> night.
>>
>> - Rick
>
> What no one has mentioned in this thread is the report that the lights
> for 26 were not on. That visual cue screams that you're on the wrong
> runway, particularly pre-dawn. If that's indeed the case, it would
> speak to negligence. I wonder what they were doing/thinking.
>
> Radu
>

I noticed from a CNN internet video that the modified Runway 22 may not have
been displaced, but actually shortened by designating a small OVERRUN area
as the end of runway 04. This would explain why the pictured RJ was on that
taxiway. The other is probably now designated as a Taxilane to an unusable
overrun area. Can anyone confirm?


"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> John Gaquin > wrote:
>
>> This pic shows what appears to be another RJ doing just
>> that.
>
> What is also interesting in that picture is the noticeable difference
> between the runway markings.
>
> --
> Peter

"Bob Gardner" > wrote:

>My knee-jerk (emphasis on the jerk) reaction was that 22 had a full panoply
>of runway lights and 26 was a dark hole, and several posters favored us with
>links and advice about how the lighting was supposed to be. But there had
>been recent construction, and no one in this group has first-hand knowledge
>of the runway lighting status as of the time of the accident. Airport
>directories and on-line databases are great, if everything is working as
>designed, but are meaningless if the situation at the time of the accident
>does not meet design standards due to construction or a similar problem.
>
Is/aws there a NOTAM that the lights on RWY 26 were inop at the time
of the accident?

Ron Lee

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
> "Bob Gardner" > wrote:
>
>>My knee-jerk (emphasis on the jerk) reaction was that 22 had a full
>>panoply
>>of runway lights and 26 was a dark hole, and several posters favored us
>>with
>>links and advice about how the lighting was supposed to be. But there had
>>been recent construction, and no one in this group has first-hand
>>knowledge
>>of the runway lighting status as of the time of the accident. Airport
>>directories and on-line databases are great, if everything is working as
>>designed, but are meaningless if the situation at the time of the accident
>>does not meet design standards due to construction or a similar problem.
>>
> Is/aws there a NOTAM that the lights on RWY 26 were inop at the time
> of the accident?
>
> Ron Lee

Just heard an NTSB "spokesperson" on the hourly ABC Radio News state that
there had been a NOTAM regarding the lighting but it had been lifted as of
last Friday.

Jay B

wrote:

> On 28 Aug 2006 08:07:58 -0700, "Tony" > wrote:
>
>
>>If it's not on your checklist, add "verify the DG matches the runway
>>heading before advancing power for takeoff." My experience is, that
>>will catch a failed vacuum pump, not a wrong runway. I also like to
>>have one of the navs tuned to the ILS frequency and it's NOT because I
>>never see the localizer needle centered when I fly an approach!
>>
>
>
> I'd appreciate an explanation for tuning to the ILS.

I can't speak for Tony, but I tend to do this also in case I need to
make a hasty return to the airport I just departed.

Matt

"Jonathan Goodish" wrote:

> "Dan Luke" > wrote:
>
>> > One sign that probably should have been at the departure end of 26 and
>> > wasn't: "Caution, short runway, no jets"
>> >
>>
>> It wouldn't be surprising to see this accident produce some such
>> regulation.
>
> If they missed the runway sign, why should it be assumed that they
> wouldn't miss a warning sign?

I didn't say the new regulation would be sensible. ;)

> This airport isn't that complex. If you have the airport diagram opened
> and are paying attention, you shouldn't end up at the wrong runway.
> Mistakes do happen, but there should have been several clues (heading,
> runway width, missing runway markings, poor condition of runway, etc.)
> that should

Yeah. There are always plenty of "shoulds" in an accident post mortem.


--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Peter R. wrote:
> Ron Lee > wrote:
>
> <snip>
>> If the final report reveals something that was not in the control of
>> the pilots that caused this accident then my current opinion will be
>> proven wrong. I don't expect that to happen.
>
> It is only natural to expect that professional pilots are held to a higher
> standard and therefore to get angry when these pilots make what appears at
> this point to be an amateur mistake that killed many innocent passengers
> and destroyed aircraft and property.
>
> This "there but for the grace of God..." attitude argued here by one young,
> perhaps RL professional pilot is truly a cop-out behind which the
> professional pilots flying my family hopefully are not hiding.
>

I'm not a professional pilot. I just have extensive training and
experience in analyzing situations where something goes wrong and
mistakes are made.

And who says I'm young? Because you don't like what I have to say?

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Emily writes:
>
>> Have you ever been in a two person crew, on an early morning flight, in
>> the weather conditions at LEX?
>
> People are in those conditions all the time, and this is apparently
> the first time they've chosen the wrong runway.
>
You're wrong there. It's happened before.

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Emily writes:
>
>> You know, I'm not even going to dignify this with another post after
>> this. Fine, blame two people, one of whom is dead.
>
> And the other, hopefully, will now be changing to a desk job, possibly
> after being a guest of the government for a time.
>
So you've found him guilty already? Better tell the NTSB to go home,
you've already solved it.

Emily > wrote:

> And who says I'm young?

You admitted you were in your twenties in the "I hate kids" sub-thread from
a few weeks ago.

> Because you don't like what I have to say?

Nothing so personal. Disagreement is one of the pillars of Usenet.

--
Peter

In article >,
Emily > wrote:

> >> Blaming doesn't keep it from happening again.
> >
> > Reducing the risk of it happening again isn't the only objective.
> > Somtimes people need to take responsibility.
>
> It's not a criminal act.

Never said it was. I haven't entered into any speculation
one way or the other.

> Get over yourself.

indeed.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

You just proved her point. You placed blame and stopped, having learned
nothing.
Sure the pilots are probably at fault, but what lead them to that fault and
what can be done to prevent other pilots from making the same mistake?

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>> As for your question about my judgment, thankfully, so far, it's been
>>> good, and that's why I'm still alive. If I had to depend on "luck" to
>>> keep me safe in an airplane, I wouldn't fly. However, accidents such as
>>> this one demonstrate why careful consideration and good judgment are so
>>> important in aviation.
>>
>>Sorry, I'm standing by my thought that you can't criticize their
>>mistakes until you've been in that situation. Blame has no place in
>>something like this....but I'm coming at this as someone who analyzes
>>mistakes for a living.
>
> Can't agree with you Emily. If the pilots took off on too short a
> runway they screwed up royally and they alone are to blame.
>
> Ron Lee
>
>
>

First Officer WAS the pilot ... and lived! There was another pilot
aboard, an AirTran pilot who was catching a ride to Atlanta to pilot a
flight.

Plane weighed 49,087 pounds and would have required 3,539 feet to
rotate.

The runway was 3,500 feet.

Three tire marks are in the grass at the end of runway.

Plane hit a "burm" and became airborne.

390 feet past the runway the plane struck a fence.

Cleared a barbed wire fence at 920 feet.

Hit a stand of trees and continued 900 feet beyond trees.

No skid marks on runway. Reverse thrusters not deployed. Breaking
spoilers not deployed.

Total elapsed time from when acceleration began to the end of the
cockpit voice recording: 29 seconds.

NTSB collecting and examining NOTAMS.

Same thing happened at the same airport 13 years ago ... but an alert
control tower operator stopped them in their tracks!

ACN: 256788

Time / Day
Date : 199311
Local Time Of Day : 0601 To 1200
Day : Sat

Place
Locale Reference.Airport : LEX
State Reference : KY
Altitude.AGL.Bound Upper : 0
Altitude.AGL.Bound Lower : 0

Environment
Flight Conditions : Marginal
Light : Daylight

Aircraft : 1
Controlling Facilities.Tower : LEX
Operator.Common Carrier : Air Carrier
Make Model Name : Medium Large Transport, Low Wing, 2 Turbojet Eng
Flight Phase.Ground : Holding
Flight Plan : IFR

Person : 1
Affiliation.Company : Air Carrier
Function.Flight Crew : First Officer
Qualification.Pilot : ATP
Experience.Flight Time.Last 90 Days : 100
Experience.Flight Time.Total : 3500
Experience.Flight Time.Type : 50
ASRS Report : 256788

Person : 2
Affiliation.Company : Air Carrier
Function.Flight Crew : Captain
Function.Oversight : PIC
Qualification.Pilot : ATP

Events
Anomaly.Incursion : Runway
Anomaly.Other Anomaly.Other
Anomaly.Non Adherence : Clearance
Independent Detector.Other.ControllerA
Resolutory Action.Other
Resolutory Action.Flight Crew : Returned to Intended Course or Assigned
Course

Assessments
Primary Problem : Flight Crew Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident : Pilot Deviation

Narrative
ACFT WAS CLRED FOR IMMEDIATE TKOF (TFC INSIDE THE MARKER) ON RWY 22. WE
TAXIED ONTO RWY AND TOLD TWR WE NEEDED A MOMENT TO CHK OUR DEP ROUTING
WITH OUR WX RADAR (STORMS IN THE AREA, RAINING AT THE ARPT). WE
REALIZED OUR HDG WAS NOT CORRECT FOR ASSIGNED RWY AND AT THAT MOMENT
TWR CALLED US TO CANCEL TKOF CLRNC BECAUSE WE WERE LINED UP ON RWY 26.
WE TAXIED CLR AND HELD SHORT OF RWY 22 FOR LNDG TFC. WE TOOK OFF ON RWY
22 AND PROCEEDED WITHOUT INCIDENT. POSSIBLE CONTRIBUTING FACTORS WERE
POOR VISIBILITY AND WX (RAIN), CONFUSING RWY INTXN AND TWR'S REQUEST
FOR AN IMMEDIATE TKOF. SUGGEST POSSIBLE WARNING PAGE (SIMILAR TO
HOUSTON HOBBY) TO CLARIFY MULTIPLE RWY ENDS.

Synopsis
FLC OF AN MLG ACR ACFT INADVERTENTLY TAXIED INTO POS FOR TKOF ON THE
WRONG RWY.

> SUGGEST POSSIBLE WARNING PAGE (SIMILAR TO
> HOUSTON HOBBY) TO CLARIFY MULTIPLE RWY ENDS.

What does this mean? Where would the page go? What would it say?

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" > wrote in message
et...
>> SUGGEST POSSIBLE WARNING PAGE (SIMILAR TO
>> HOUSTON HOBBY) TO CLARIFY MULTIPLE RWY ENDS.
>
> What does this mean? Where would the page go? What would it say?
>
> Jose

The first page of their Jep binders? In bold letters on any/all SIDs for
KLEX?

"NOTICE TO CREW OPERATING OUT OF KLEX, Lexington, Kentucky"

CLOSE PROXIMITY OF RWY 22 and RWY 26

As the departure ends of RWY 22 and RWY 26 are in very close proximity to
each other, exercise extreme caution and confirm visually and by reference
to flight instruments that you are on RWY 22. RWY 26 UNUSABLE for turbine
aircraft use.

Jay B

Emily writes:

> You're wrong there. It's happened before.

How many died?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Emily writes:

> So you've found him guilty already?

Everything points to pilot error thus far. If the evidence ultimately
points to something else, I'll accept it.

I have a zero-tolerance policy for stupid mistakes by commercial
pilots, so these pilots had better have a really, really good
explanation for using the wrong runway.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Go to the following link and scroll through "The Photos" until you get
to one that shows the taxiways to both runways 22 and 26. There is a
taxiway not shown on my airport layout that is even better for runway
22. Instead of heading directly towards the numbers (that taxiway is
still there), it goes more to the right and onto an "underrun" area
with chevrons pointing towards the threshold.

http://www.wcpo.com/specials/2006/5191/

If this is the taxiway change that some are reporting it seems to be
even better than before and in either case they must cross Rwy 26 to
get to Rwy 22.

Ron Lee

Looking at that diagram I see how easy it would of been to do what they did.
WOW
"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
. com...
> Kev wrote:
>
>>
>> I haven't looked yet, but probably the sat images are way out of date.
>> Didn't they mention in the news that they just extended that runway 26
>> by 600' on both ends?
>>
>
>
> Here's a diagram dated 08/03/2006:
>
> <http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0608/00697AD.PDF>
>

"Jay Beckman" > wrote in message
news:%wQIg.18211$RD.8675@fed1read08...
> "Jose" > wrote in message
> et...
>>> SUGGEST POSSIBLE WARNING PAGE (SIMILAR TO
>>> HOUSTON HOBBY) TO CLARIFY MULTIPLE RWY ENDS.
>>
>> What does this mean? Where would the page go? What would it say?
>>
>> Jose
>
> The first page of their Jep binders? In bold letters on any/all SIDs for
> KLEX?
>
> "NOTICE TO CREW OPERATING OUT OF KLEX, Lexington, Kentucky"
>
> CLOSE PROXIMITY OF RWY 22 and RWY 26
>
> As the departure ends of RWY 22 and RWY 26 are in very close proximity to
> each other, exercise extreme caution and confirm visually and by reference
> to flight instruments that you are on RWY 22. RWY 26 UNUSABLE for turbine
> aircraft use.
>
> Jay B
>

"Jay Beckman" > wrote in message
news:%wQIg.18211$RD.8675@fed1read08...
> KLEX?
>
> "NOTICE TO CREW OPERATING OUT OF KLEX, Lexington, Kentucky"
>
> CLOSE PROXIMITY OF RWY 22 and RWY 26
>
> As the departure ends of RWY 22 and RWY 26 are in very close proximity to
> each other, exercise extreme caution and confirm visually and by reference
> to flight instruments that you are on RWY 22.

Like this close? Rwy 2 and 7 at Williamsburg/Newport News (PHF)
http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0608/00957AD.PDF

Seems like you smack the guy on the other runway with your wingtip.

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Narrative
> ACFT WAS CLRED FOR IMMEDIATE TKOF (TFC INSIDE THE MARKER) ON RWY 22. WE
> TAXIED ONTO RWY AND TOLD TWR WE NEEDED A MOMENT TO CHK OUR DEP ROUTING
> WITH OUR WX RADAR (STORMS IN THE AREA, RAINING AT THE ARPT).
>

Why would anyone accept a clearance for immediate takeoff, taxi onto the
runway, and then tell the tower a moment on the runway was needed?

"Jay Beckman" > wrote in message
news:%wQIg.18211$RD.8675@fed1read08...
>
> The first page of their Jep binders? In bold letters on any/all SIDs for
> KLEX?
>
> "NOTICE TO CREW OPERATING OUT OF KLEX, Lexington, Kentucky"
>
> CLOSE PROXIMITY OF RWY 22 and RWY 26
>
> As the departure ends of RWY 22 and RWY 26 are in very close proximity to
> each other, exercise extreme caution and confirm visually and by reference
> to flight instruments that you are on RWY 22. RWY 26 UNUSABLE for turbine
> aircraft use.
>

The airport diagram conveys all of that information.

"Jonathan Goodish" > wrote in message
...
>
> The guy may be a troll, but it does appear that the flight crew used the
> wrong runway. When you make such a critical error and kill 49 people,
> it's a bit more serious than an average "mistake."
>

Yes, but I'm pretty sure they didn't choose runway 26 because "it was closer
to the terminal."

"Marco Leon" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> And it does seem to be a "chain of events" in that there were multiple
> ways that they may have been able to spot the mistake:
> - runway sign
> - runway numbers
> - DG heading
> - 75 ft wide rwy versus 150 ft
>

The "75 ft wide rwy versus 150 ft" is just a couple of white paint stripes,
the pavement is 150 feet wide on both runways.

"Emily" > wrote in message
...
>
> Have you ever been in a two person crew, on an early morning flight, in
> the weather conditions at LEX?
>

What were the weather conditions at LEX at the time?

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
>>
>> Weather not a factor, it was VFR.
>>
>
> I heard it was raining....granted, I'm pretty much ignoring the news,
> since they're wrong on most things anyway.
>

Who said it was raining?

"Tony" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> If you pull up a sat image of the airport it appears the thresholds for
> 22 and 26 are along the same line of sight from the tower. It wouldn't
> have been obvious the airplane was at the wrong runway from the tower..
>

Many pilots call ready for takeoff while still rolling on the taxiway.
Calling ready to go while still south of runway 22 wouldn't suggest to the
tower that they were about to turn on to that runway.

"soxinbox" > wrote in message
...
>
> You just proved her point. You placed blame and stopped, having learned
> nothing.
> Sure the pilots are probably at fault, but what lead them to that fault
> and what can be done to prevent other pilots from making the same mistake?
>

THE same mistake? Singular? How many clues that they were on the wrong
runway did two professional pilots have to ignore in order for this accident
to happen?

> Why would anyone accept a clearance for immediate takeoff, taxi onto the
> runway, and then tell the tower a moment on the runway was needed?

Perhaps they discovered something (potentially fatal) in the interim?

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" > wrote in message
et...
>> Why would anyone accept a clearance for immediate takeoff, taxi onto the
>> runway, and then tell the tower a moment on the runway was needed?
>
> Perhaps they discovered something (potentially fatal) in the interim?
>

You don't believe the reason given by the submitter?

Emily > wrote:
>
>Of course, but how many times have you made a mistake that but for blind
>luck DIDN'T kill you? Having known pilots that have killed more than 49
>people, I guess I can just stop blaming and be grateful that it's never
>happened to me. It only takes one small mistake and that's you all over
>the news.

Emily, knowing what you know today (29 Aug 2006) and if both of those
Comair pilots were alive, would you rather fly with them on a CRJ or
me in my RV-6A?

Ron Lee

Steven P. McNicoll wrote in message
t>...
>
>"Emily" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Have you ever been in a two person crew, on an early morning flight, in
>> the weather conditions at LEX?
>>
>
>What were the weather conditions at LEX at the time?

Mostly dark (for George Carlin fans). Per the weather service:

http://www.crh.noaa.gov/data/obhistory/KLEX.html

This will be available until wed. am.

- Rick

"raduray" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> What no one has mentioned in this thread is the report that the lights
> for 26 were not on. That visual cue screams that you're on the wrong
> runway, particularly pre-dawn. If that's indeed the case, it would
> speak to negligence. I wonder what they were doing/thinking.
>

It wasn't pre-dawn. The preliminary NTSB data online gives the time of the
incident as 6:07 EDT. An online calculator gives the time of sunrise at
KLEX on that date as 6:04:37 AM.

>>>Why would anyone accept a clearance for immediate takeoff, taxi onto the
>>> runway, and then tell the tower a moment on the runway was needed?
>> Perhaps they discovered something (potentially fatal) in the interim?
> You don't believe the reason given by the submitter?

What reason? And why does it matter? You asked a general question. In
any case:

>> Narrative
>> ACFT WAS CLRED FOR IMMEDIATE TKOF (TFC INSIDE THE MARKER) ON RWY 22. WE
>> TAXIED ONTO RWY AND TOLD TWR WE NEEDED A MOMENT TO CHK OUR DEP ROUTING
>> WITH OUR WX RADAR (STORMS IN THE AREA, RAINING AT THE ARPT).

Nothing here precludes discovering something (potentially fatal) which
would warrant the request. Maybe that something =should= have been
discovered prior, but that's besides the point.

"Wait a moment - those storms are to the right of us, not the left. Our
clearance is 'turn right heading 280...' - let me check and make sure
we're still ok."

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Rick" > wrote in message
...
>
> Mostly dark (for George Carlin fans).
>

Did it not happen moments after sunrise?


>
> Per the weather service:
>
> http://www.crh.noaa.gov/data/obhistory/KLEX.html
>
> This will be available until wed. am.
>

Thanks. The observation taken 13 minutes prior shows six miles visibility,
markings and signage should have been quite readable.

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>
> What reason?
>

To check the departure routing with their weather radar.


>
> And why does it matter?
>

You tell me. The submitter gave his reason, you suggested the real reason
might have been something potentially fatal discovered in the interim. Why
do you think that?


>
> You asked a general question. In any case:
>
>>> Narrative
>>> ACFT WAS CLRED FOR IMMEDIATE TKOF (TFC INSIDE THE MARKER) ON RWY 22. WE
>>> TAXIED ONTO RWY AND TOLD TWR WE NEEDED A MOMENT TO CHK OUR DEP ROUTING
>>> WITH OUR WX RADAR (STORMS IN THE AREA, RAINING AT THE ARPT).
>
> Nothing here precludes discovering something (potentially fatal) which
> would warrant the request. Maybe that something =should= have been
> discovered prior, but that's besides the point.
>
> "Wait a moment - those storms are to the right of us, not the left. Our
> clearance is 'turn right heading 280...' - let me check and make sure
> we're still ok."
>

What do you suppose the controller's response will be?

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>>
>> Mostly dark (for George Carlin fans).
>>
>
>Did it not happen moments after sunrise?
>

About one hour prior to sunrise.

Ron Lee

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "raduray" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> What no one has mentioned in this thread is the report that the lights
>> for 26 were not on. That visual cue screams that you're on the wrong
>> runway, particularly pre-dawn. If that's indeed the case, it would
>> speak to negligence. I wonder what they were doing/thinking.
>>
>
> It wasn't pre-dawn. The preliminary NTSB data online gives the time of the
> incident as 6:07 EDT. An online calculator gives the time of sunrise at
> KLEX on that date as 6:04:37 AM.
>
>
I just checked with web site for the Weather Channel and it shows
sunrise at being at 7:06 today. Was your on line calculator using GMT?

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

>
>"raduray" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>>
>> What no one has mentioned in this thread is the report that the lights
>> for 26 were not on. That visual cue screams that you're on the wrong
>> runway, particularly pre-dawn. If that's indeed the case, it would
>> speak to negligence. I wonder what they were doing/thinking.
>>
>
>It wasn't pre-dawn. The preliminary NTSB data online gives the time of the
>incident as 6:07 EDT. An online calculator gives the time of sunrise at
>KLEX on that date as 6:04:37 AM.

My sunrise program fives 706 AM for today and Airnav.com gives 7:07
AM. Verify time zone. (UTC-4)

Ron Lee
>
>

>>And why does it matter?
> You tell me. The submitter gave his reason, you suggested the real reason
> might have been

It matters because you, the stickler for grammatical accuracy, asked a
general question (which was triggered by a specific context).

I don't think that in =this= case, something potentially fatal =was=
discovered (although I don't think this =wasn't= the case either - I
simply don't know). It =might= have been the case. I gave a possible
scenario where it =could= have been the case, even in =this= case. It's
exactly what you asked for (even if it might not be what you intended to
ask for).

> What do you suppose the controller's response will be?

That depends on the reason the takeoff clearance was immediate, and (if
it's due to incoming traffic) how close it was. Cancelling the takeoff
clearance and telling the landing traffic to go around (if that's what
the issue is) comes to mind.

You're a controller. What would your response be?

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:

>
> That depends on the reason the takeoff clearance was immediate, and (if
> it's due to incoming traffic) how close it was. Cancelling the takeoff
> clearance and telling the landing traffic to go around (if that's what
> the issue is) comes to mind.
>
> You're a controller. What would your response be?
>

The controller said the traffic was inside the marker. Presumably
the outer marker (6.5 miles from the threshold, the middle marker
would have been less than a half a mile, and inside the marker would
have been less than 30 seconds...not some time to be dinking around
on the runway).

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
>
> About one hour prior to sunrise.
>

Are you sure? The preliminary NTSB report gives the time as 6:07 EDT. An
online calculator gives the time of sunrise at KLEX on that date as 6:04:37
AM.

"John Theune" > wrote in message
news:9y0Jg.38536$NF3.7763@trnddc05...
>
> I just checked with web site for the Weather Channel and it shows sunrise
> at being at 7:06 today. Was your on line calculator using GMT?
>

It gave the time as "6:04:37 AM".

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
>
> My sunrise program fives 706 AM for today and Airnav.com gives 7:07
> AM. Verify time zone. (UTC-4)
>

It doesn't request the time zone as input or provide it in the output. I
believe the only input was the date and the location. I used KLEX as the
location and it provided a time of 6:04:37 AM as the time of sunrise.

Steven P. McNicoll schrieb:

> I used KLEX as the
> location and it provided a time of 6:04:37 AM as the time of sunrise.

The program probably doesn't honour daylight saving time.
http://www.gaisma.com/en/location/lexington-kentucky.html

"Jose" > wrote in message
et...
>
> It matters because you, the stickler for grammatical accuracy, asked a
> general question (which was triggered by a specific context).
>

You're contradicting yourself. It would have been a general question
without the quoted material, but the quoted material was there.


>
> That depends on the reason the takeoff clearance was immediate, and (if
> it's due to incoming traffic) how close it was. Cancelling the takeoff
> clearance and telling the landing traffic to go around (if that's what the
> issue is) comes to mind.
>

It was due to incoming traffic and the traffic was close enough to require
an immediate takeoff or wait for the traffic to land.


>
> You're a controller. What would your response be?
>

"Unable. Cleared for immediate takeoff or exit the runway without delay."

In article et>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> An online calculator gives the time of sunrise at
> KLEX on that date as 6:04:37 AM.

Which online calculator did you use?

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

"Stefan" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> The program probably doesn't honour daylight saving time.
>

Apparently, and thus not particularly useful.

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
>
> Which online calculator did you use?
>

I entered "sunrise calculator" on Google and it spat this:

http://www.exptech.com/sunrise.htm

I selected LEX and the date from the drop down menus, the "Daylight Time"
box is checked. It gives sunrise as 06:04:37 AM.

It seems odd that there is a "Daylight Time" box at all.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> ...
> Are you sure? The preliminary NTSB report gives the time as 6:07 EDT. An
> online calculator gives the time of sunrise at KLEX on that date as 6:04:37
> AM.
>

I’m in the same time zone, and Lexington is SSW of me. At 6 AM,
it is rather dark outside where I live (6:48 sunrise per Weather
Channel), and it gets darker going west. 7:06 per Weather
Channel for KLEX works for me.

Fred F.

Not sure of anything, Steve, but follow my logic along here, willya?

I'm roughly in the middle of the Western time zone. Lexington is right on
the western border of the Eastern time zone.

Therefore, sunrise is going to happen "later" for Lexington (with respect to
their time zone) than it is for me.

My local newspaper gives today's sunrise as 6:31. Since each time zone is
pretty nearly one hour in width, Lexington's sunrise is going to be about
half an hour "later" (in their time zone) than mine.

Adding half an hour to my time zone gives roughly 7 am as sunrise in
Lexington, just about what the rest of the gang is saying. My best guess is
that they began their departure about an hour before sunrise.

And, after sunrise, I doubt that the taped comment about the runway lights
being inop would have been made. Runway lights after sunrise don't
generally generate comments.

And, the paint stripes down the sides of the (according to Airnav) cracked
concrete runway in poor condition would have given them pause for thought,
as would the absence of ILS painting on the runway, as would the end of the
runway rushing up to meet them might have been a clue.

My best guess is that the poor *******s made it a "normal" departure with a
rotation at V1 as opposed to horsing that sucker off when it became apparent
that they had made a pretty bad error. The tape might bear me out on what I
think, is that they didn't know they had a minor problem until they took out
the boundary fence and a major problem until they hit the trees.

Jim



"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Ron Lee" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> About one hour prior to sunrise.
>>
>
> Are you sure? The preliminary NTSB report gives the time as 6:07 EDT. An
> online calculator gives the time of sunrise at KLEX on that date as
> 6:04:37 AM.
>
>

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> Not sure of anything, Steve, but follow my logic along here, willya?
>
> I'm roughly in the middle of the Western time zone. Lexington is right on
> the western border of the Eastern time zone.
>
> Therefore, sunrise is going to happen "later" for Lexington (with respect
> to their time zone) than it is for me.
>
> My local newspaper gives today's sunrise as 6:31. Since each time zone is
> pretty nearly one hour in width, Lexington's sunrise is going to be about
> half an hour "later" (in their time zone) than mine.
>
> Adding half an hour to my time zone gives roughly 7 am as sunrise in
> Lexington, just about what the rest of the gang is saying. My best guess
> is that they began their departure about an hour before sunrise.
>
> And, after sunrise, I doubt that the taped comment about the runway lights
> being inop would have been made. Runway lights after sunrise don't
> generally generate comments.
>

It appears the online sunrise calculator I used is off by one hour.

"Aluckyguess" > wrote:

>Looking at that diagram I see how easy it would of been to do what they did.
>WOW
>> Here's a diagram dated 08/03/2006:
>>
>> <http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0608/00697AD.PDF>

Don't agree with you Barry. They should have seen that you taxi
rightish from the terminal past Rwy 26 then either one (apparently
from pics) of two taxiways to Rwy 22. Even I can do that.

Ron Lee

> You're contradicting yourself. It would have been a general question
> without the quoted material, but the quoted material was there.

The question is what it is. It is a general question.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

No prob. We had a crash in the dark, not even twilight an hour before
sunrise.

Jim

>
> It appears the online sunrise calculator I used is off by one hour.
>

http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/RS_OneDay.html



U.S. Naval Observatory
Astronomical Applications Department


Sun and Moon Data for One Day
The following information is provided for Lexington, Fayette
County, Kentucky (longitude W84.5, latitude N38.1):

Sunday
27 August 2006 Eastern Daylight Time

SUN
Begin civil twilight 6:36 a.m.
Sunrise 7:03 a.m.
Sun transit 1:39 p.m.
Sunset 8:15 p.m.
End civil twilight 8:42 p.m.

MOON
Moonset 9:33 p.m. on preceding
day
Moonrise 10:34 a.m.
Moon transit 4:19 p.m.
Moonset 9:54 p.m.
Moonrise 11:34 a.m. on following
day

Phase of the Moon on 27 August: waxing crescent with 13%
of the Moon's visible disk illuminated.

New Moon on 23 August 2006 at 3:10 p.m. Eastern Daylight
Time.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Census Bureau map of Lexington area





--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote
in message
nk.net...
|
| "Ron Lee" > wrote in message
| ...
| >
| > My sunrise program fives 706 AM for today and Airnav.com
gives 7:07
| > AM. Verify time zone. (UTC-4)
| >
|
| It doesn't request the time zone as input or provide it in
the output. I
| believe the only input was the date and the location. I
used KLEX as the
| location and it provided a time of 6:04:37 AM as the time
of sunrise.
|
|

"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
>
> The question is what it is. It is a general question.
>

You're wrong.

U.S. Naval Observatory
Astronomical Applications Department


Sun and Moon Data for One Day
The following information is provided for Lexington, Fayette
County, Kentucky (longitude W84.5, latitude N38.1):

Sunday
27 August 2006 Eastern Daylight Time

SUN
Begin civil twilight 6:36 a.m.
Sunrise 7:03 a.m.
Sun transit 1:39 p.m.
Sunset 8:15 p.m.
End civil twilight 8:42 p.m.

MOON
Moonset 9:33 p.m. on preceding
day
Moonrise 10:34 a.m.
Moon transit 4:19 p.m.
Moonset 9:54 p.m.
Moonrise 11:34 a.m. on following
day

Phase of the Moon on 27 August: waxing crescent with 13%
of the Moon's visible disk illuminated.

New Moon on 23 August 2006 at 3:10 p.m. Eastern Daylight
Time.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Census Bureau map of Lexington area





"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote
in message
nk.net...
|
| "Ron Lee" > wrote in message
| ...
| >
| > About one hour prior to sunrise.
| >
|
| Are you sure? The preliminary NTSB report gives the time
as 6:07 EDT. An
| online calculator gives the time of sunrise at KLEX on
that date as 6:04:37
| AM.
|
|

> You're wrong.

No, you're wrong.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

U.S. Naval Observatory
Astronomical Applications Department


Sun and Moon Data for One Day
The following information is provided for Lexington, Fayette
County, Kentucky (longitude W84.5, latitude N38.1):

Sunday
27 August 2006 Eastern Daylight Time

SUN
Begin civil twilight 6:36 a.m.
Sunrise 7:03 a.m.
Sun transit 1:39 p.m.
Sunset 8:15 p.m.
End civil twilight 8:42 p.m.

MOON
Moonset 9:33 p.m. on preceding
day
Moonrise 10:34 a.m.
Moon transit 4:19 p.m.
Moonset 9:54 p.m.
Moonrise 11:34 a.m. on following
day

Phase of the Moon on 27 August: waxing crescent with 13%
of the Moon's visible disk illuminated.

New Moon on 23 August 2006 at 3:10 p.m. Eastern Daylight
Time.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Census Bureau map of Lexington area





"Bob Noel" > wrote in
message
...
| In article
et>,
| "Steven P. McNicoll" >
wrote:
|
| > An online calculator gives the time of sunrise at
| > KLEX on that date as 6:04:37 AM.
|
| Which online calculator did you use?
|
| --
| Bob Noel
| Looking for a sig the
| lawyers will hate
|

This the best http://aa.usno.navy.mil/cgi-bin/aa_pap.pl



"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote
in message
ink.net...
|
| "Stefan" > wrote in message
| . ..
| >
| > The program probably doesn't honour daylight saving
time.
| >
|
| Apparently, and thus not particularly useful.
|
|

This will work better, http://aa.usno.navy.mil/ the link
below was to a results page and needs an input.



"Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message news:h44Jg.6317$SZ3.1033@dukeread04...
| This the best http://aa.usno.navy.mil/cgi-bin/aa_pap.pl
|
|
|
| "Steven P. McNicoll" >
wrote
| in message
|
ink.net...
||
|| "Stefan" > wrote in message
|| . ..
|| >
|| > The program probably doesn't honour daylight saving
| time.
|| >
||
|| Apparently, and thus not particularly useful.
||
||
|
|

"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
>
> No, you're wrong.
>

You're wrong again.

That would make 2 other pilots on board, you forgot the captain!

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> First Officer WAS the pilot ... and lived! There was another pilot
> aboard, an AirTran pilot who was catching a ride to Atlanta to pilot a
> flight.
>
> Plane weighed 49,087 pounds and would have required 3,539 feet to
> rotate.
>
> The runway was 3,500 feet.
>
> Three tire marks are in the grass at the end of runway.
>
> Plane hit a "burm" and became airborne.
>
> 390 feet past the runway the plane struck a fence.
>
> Cleared a barbed wire fence at 920 feet.
>
> Hit a stand of trees and continued 900 feet beyond trees.
>
> No skid marks on runway. Reverse thrusters not deployed. Breaking
> spoilers not deployed.
>
> Total elapsed time from when acceleration began to the end of the
> cockpit voice recording: 29 seconds.
>
> NTSB collecting and examining NOTAMS.
>

In article et>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> > Which online calculator did you use?
> >
>
> I entered "sunrise calculator" on Google and it spat this:
>
> http://www.exptech.com/sunrise.htm
>
> I selected LEX and the date from the drop down menus, the "Daylight Time"
> box is checked. It gives sunrise as 06:04:37 AM.
>
> It seems odd that there is a "Daylight Time" box at all.

It is also odd that it doesn't agree with:

http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/RS_OneDay.html

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Jay Beckman wrote:

> "Jose" > wrote in message
> et...
> >> SUGGEST POSSIBLE WARNING PAGE (SIMILAR TO
> >> HOUSTON HOBBY) TO CLARIFY MULTIPLE RWY ENDS.
> >
> > What does this mean? Where would the page go? What would it say?
> >
> > Jose
>
> The first page of their Jep binders? In bold letters on any/all SIDs for
> KLEX?
>
> "NOTICE TO CREW OPERATING OUT OF KLEX, Lexington, Kentucky"
>
> CLOSE PROXIMITY OF RWY 22 and RWY 26
>
> As the departure ends of RWY 22 and RWY 26 are in very close proximity to
> each other, exercise extreme caution and confirm visually and by reference
> to flight instruments that you are on RWY 22. RWY 26 UNUSABLE for turbine
> aircraft use.

Why should Rwy 26 be unusable for turbine aircraft? It is 3,500 feet long and
plenty long. Geez if you're going to ban turbines from 3,500 ft runways, the
Citations using my home airport would have to go elsewhere because 3,500 is
the longest runway. How about just banning aircraft from using the runway if
they need a longer one? Wait, I think that's already covered somewhere.....

> You're wrong again.

This is just contradiction, and I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> This is just contradiction, and I'm not allowed to argue unless you've
> paid.
>

You're not capable of argument.

In article t>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> "Ron Lee" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > About one hour prior to sunrise.
> >
>
> Are you sure? The preliminary NTSB report gives the time as 6:07 EDT. An
> online calculator gives the time of sunrise at KLEX on that date as 6:04:37
> AM.

Eastern Standard Time. LEX is now on Eastern Daylight Savings Time.

In article >, Owen >
wrote:

> Jay Beckman wrote:
>
> > "Jose" > wrote in message
> > et...
> > >> SUGGEST POSSIBLE WARNING PAGE (SIMILAR TO
> > >> HOUSTON HOBBY) TO CLARIFY MULTIPLE RWY ENDS.
> > >
> > > What does this mean? Where would the page go? What would it say?
> > >
> > > Jose
> >
> > The first page of their Jep binders? In bold letters on any/all SIDs for
> > KLEX?
> >
> > "NOTICE TO CREW OPERATING OUT OF KLEX, Lexington, Kentucky"
> >
> > CLOSE PROXIMITY OF RWY 22 and RWY 26
> >
> > As the departure ends of RWY 22 and RWY 26 are in very close proximity to
> > each other, exercise extreme caution and confirm visually and by reference
> > to flight instruments that you are on RWY 22. RWY 26 UNUSABLE for turbine
> > aircraft use.
>
> Why should Rwy 26 be unusable for turbine aircraft? It is 3,500 feet long and
> plenty long. Geez if you're going to ban turbines from 3,500 ft runways, the
> Citations using my home airport would have to go elsewhere because 3,500 is
> the longest runway. How about just banning aircraft from using the runway if
> they need a longer one? Wait, I think that's already covered somewhere.....

Pavement weight restrictions.

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Are you sure? The preliminary NTSB report gives the time as 6:07 EDT.
>> An
>> online calculator gives the time of sunrise at KLEX on that date as
>> 6:04:37
>> AM.
>>
>
> Eastern Standard Time. LEX is now on Eastern Daylight Savings Time.
>

I'd expect the program to handle that.

Ron Lee wrote:
> "Aluckyguess" > wrote:
>
>> Looking at that diagram I see how easy it would of been to do what they did.
>> WOW
>>> Here's a diagram dated 08/03/2006:
>>>
>>> <http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0608/00697AD.PDF>
>
> Don't agree with you Barry.

I never said that. A top poster did, and I was misquoted.

(Ron Lee) wrote:

> "Aluckyguess" > wrote:
>
>> Looking at that diagram I see how easy it would of been to do what
>> they did. WOW
>>>
>>>
>>> Here's a diagram dated 08/03/2006:
>>>
>>> <http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0608/00697AD.PDF>
>
> Don't agree with you Barry. They should have seen that you taxi
> rightish from the terminal past Rwy 26 then either one (apparently
> from pics) of two taxiways to Rwy 22. Even I can do that.

The diagram doesn't show the additional taxiway that is apparent in the
photographs

News reports quote another pilot as saying that old right-hand taxiway had
a recently-erected barrier across it. He said it was a complete surprise
when he came across it the first time.

Some guy > wrote:
>
> Isn't checking the heading indicator to to make sure you're on the
> right runway was a standard checkoff list type of a thing?

Have you never been on a commercial aircraft where the engines are spooling
up as the aircraft turns onto the runway? Do you really think they have
cross-checked with the compass at that point?

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 19:30:51 GMT, john smith > wrote:

>In article >,
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
>> I think seeing a heading of 260 instead of 220 while sitting on the
>> runway would clue me in, no matter what the signs looked like.
>
>Not necessarily. Think of all the "read back, hear back" mishaps.
>One hears what one expects to hear.
>The same can be said for vision. One expects to see certain visual cues
>so disregards the discrepancies.

Exactly.

A friend asked me about the Comair accident yesterday morning. I told
him that I was mystified why two experienced pilots didn't read their
heading info as they lined up with the runway.

I explained to him that, in my flying days years ago, I'd preset my DG
to the magnetic compass during preflight. Since it was hard to read
those little compasses with any precision, I'd wait until I was lined
up for takeoff to set the DG to the runway heading. Aligning the DG
automatically confirmed that I was using the intended runway.

It wasn't until later that morning that something, possibly relevant,
occurred to me.

In my case, I'd do something explicit - aligning my DG - that would
hammer the heading into my mind. I'd not only look at the heading,
I'd have to think about it.

In the case of the Comair pilots, they probably had a glass cockpit.
And, of course, they had no requirement for a heading adjustment, nor
any way to perform said adjustment even if they wanted to. Further,
they probably made 1000 takeoffs a year, 4 or 5 a day, day in, day
out. Sure, they'd look at their heading readouts every time, as I'm
sure they did on Sunday. But the heading had been right all those
years, every time they looked. They had every expectation that it
would be right, every time they looked, far into the future. Looking
at the heading had become a habit for them. But, perhaps, they'd
grown out of the habit of thinking about the heading they were seeing.

I don't know how transport pilots operate. If there's nothing
explicit in their takeoff procedures that have them call out or
crosscheck the heading before they apply takeoff power, I could see
how they could look at their heading, but not *see* it, and how this
accident might take place.

This might be a 'human factors' situation.

Can any transport pilots expound on your takeoff procedures? Is it
SOP to do something explict when you're checking your takeoff heading?

Thanks.

Tom

In article >,
James Robinson > wrote:

> (Ron Lee) wrote:
>
> > "Aluckyguess" > wrote:
> >
> >> Looking at that diagram I see how easy it would of been to do what
> >> they did. WOW
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Here's a diagram dated 08/03/2006:
> >>>
> >>> <http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0608/00697AD.PDF>
> >
> > Don't agree with you Barry. They should have seen that you taxi
> > rightish from the terminal past Rwy 26 then either one (apparently
> > from pics) of two taxiways to Rwy 22. Even I can do that.
>
> The diagram doesn't show the additional taxiway that is apparent in the
> photographs
>
> News reports quote another pilot as saying that old right-hand taxiway had
> a recently-erected barrier across it. He said it was a complete surprise
> when he came across it the first time.

The diagram has not been updated to show the newly added 600 foot
extension and connecting taxiway.

James Robinson > wrote:

(Ron Lee) wrote:
>
>> "Aluckyguess" > wrote:
>>
>>> Looking at that diagram I see how easy it would of been to do what
>>> they did. WOW
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Here's a diagram dated 08/03/2006:
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0608/00697AD.PDF>
>>
>> Don't agree with you Barry. They should have seen that you taxi
>> rightish from the terminal past Rwy 26 then either one (apparently
>> from pics) of two taxiways to Rwy 22. Even I can do that.
>
>The diagram doesn't show the additional taxiway that is apparent in the
>photographs
>
>News reports quote another pilot as saying that old right-hand taxiway had
>a recently-erected barrier across it. He said it was a complete surprise
>when he came across it the first time.

Regardless of the taxiway issue (which BTW seems BETTER) is that you
must cross Rwy 26 before you get to the correct Rwy 22. That is
apparent in the outdated airport diagram and recent aerial pics.

Ron Lee

"john smith" > wrote in message news:jsmith-
>
> The diagram has not been updated to show the newly added 600 foot
> extension and connecting taxiway.

Quite the opposite, I think.

It's a simple line up check that works with any aircraft, similar to
your 'Gump' check.. squak, strobe, lights, and ice,
A/C & pressurization, controls free heading, altimeter.

Bush

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 19:56:15 -0500, Bush >
wrote:

>6:10 PM the National Transportation Safety Board confirmed that
>the Comair flight was assigned departure from runway 22, however
>departed runway 26 (3500 ft.) since it was closer to the terminal.
>Accelerate-stop for this A/C at this weight should be some 5356 feet.
>Jees they'll let anyone fly them.
>
>"It is that large chain of events, with no intervening variable, that
>produces the accident"
>
>Bush

"John Gaquin" > wrote:

>
>"john smith" > wrote in message news:jsmith-
>>
>> The diagram has not been updated to show the newly added 600 foot
>> extension and connecting taxiway.
>
>Quite the opposite, I think.

James is correct. FAA diagram here:

http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0608/00697AD.PDF

Current aerial shot showing the new extension and taxiway is here:

http://www.wcpo.com/specials/2006/5191/

Scroll through "The photos"

Ron Lee

James Robinson wrote:
> Some guy > wrote:
>> Isn't checking the heading indicator to to make sure you're on the
>> right runway was a standard checkoff list type of a thing?
>
> Have you never been on a commercial aircraft where the engines are spooling
> up as the aircraft turns onto the runway? Do you really think they have
> cross-checked with the compass at that point?

The heading indicator responds faster than the compass (and if it's not
already slaved, one would hope it was set before they even thought about
taking the runway).

In article >,
(Ron Lee) wrote:

> James is correct. FAA diagram here:
>
> http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0608/00697AD.PDF

This diagram does not show the extension.
Look at Google Earth and the angle that the taxiway makes with the
runway 22 approach end. The 90-degree intersection is south of the
threshhold.

john smith > wrote:

>In article >,
> (Ron Lee) wrote:
>
>> James is correct. FAA diagram here:
>>
>> http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0608/00697AD.PDF
>
>This diagram does not show the extension.
>Look at Google Earth and the angle that the taxiway makes with the
>runway 22 approach end. The 90-degree intersection is south of the
>threshhold.

John, James wrote "The diagram doesn't show the additional taxiway
that is apparent in the photographs."

My post confirmed his statement. Please look at the info that has
been provided.

Ron Lee

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> (Ron Lee) wrote:
>
>> James is correct. FAA diagram here:
>>
>> http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0608/00697AD.PDF
>
> This diagram does not show the extension.
> Look at Google Earth and the angle that the taxiway makes with the
> runway 22 approach end. The 90-degree intersection is south of the
> threshhold.

Google Earth photos of KLEX date from 2003...

Jay B

john smith > wrote:

> In article >,
> James Robinson > wrote:
>
>> (Ron Lee) wrote:
>>
>> > "Aluckyguess" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Looking at that diagram I see how easy it would of been to do what
>> >> they did. WOW
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Here's a diagram dated 08/03/2006:
>> >>>
>> >>> >
>> >
>> > Don't agree with you Barry. They should have seen that you taxi
>> > rightish from the terminal past Rwy 26 then either one (apparently
>> > from pics) of two taxiways to Rwy 22. Even I can do that.
>>
>> The diagram doesn't show the additional taxiway that is apparent in
>> the photographs
>>
>> News reports quote another pilot as saying that old right-hand
>> taxiway had a recently-erected barrier across it. He said it was a
>> complete surprise when he came across it the first time.
>
> The diagram has not been updated to show the newly added 600 foot
> extension and connecting taxiway.

Here is a link to a diagram of the changes that were made:

http://tinyurl.com/zybuf

Here is a link to a photo of the old arrangement from Yahoo maps:

http://tinyurl.com/qknmg

As you can see, A-8 would take you to the end of runway 26, and A-7 would
take you 500 feet from the end of the runway.

Looking at the diagram in the above link, plus recent news pictures, the
changes have not extended the runway at the north end, but have in fact
diplaced the threshold by 400 feet or so. With the displaced threshold,
the old taxiway A-8 has been closed, and therefore doesn't show on the
diagram referenced in the earlier post.

These aren't super clear, but you can see how the runway has been
repainted to reflect the displaced threshold:

http://www.wcpo.com/news/2006/local/08/27/plane/ntsb2.jpg
http://tinyurl.com/h99og

Thanks James. Your diagram makes it clear, but the photos show that A-8
still exists. Is it blocked off with barracades as other posters have
noted?

john smith > wrote:

> Thanks James. Your diagram makes it clear, but the photos show that A-8
> still exists. Is it blocked off with barracades as other posters have
> noted?

I don't know from personal experience, but the news reports on the day of
the accident included the following quote:

" The construction changes momentarily confused veteran pilot Lowell Wiley
two days before the Comair crash. He nosed his plane down the same taxiway
that he had taken for years until hitting a barricade.

"It was a total surprise," said Wiley, who adjusted course and got onto the
correct runway. He now understands why the Comair pilot might have headed
down a runway 1,500 feet (450 meters) too short to make a proper takeoff. "

James Robinson > wrote:

>john smith > wrote:
>
>> Thanks James. Your diagram makes it clear, but the photos show that A-8
>> still exists. Is it blocked off with barracades as other posters have
>> noted?
>
>I don't know from personal experience, but the news reports on the day of
>the accident included the following quote:
>
>" The construction changes momentarily confused veteran pilot Lowell Wiley
>two days before the Comair crash. He nosed his plane down the same taxiway
>that he had taken for years until hitting a barricade.
>
>"It was a total surprise," said Wiley, who adjusted course and got onto the
>correct runway. He now understands why the Comair pilot might have headed
>down a runway 1,500 feet (450 meters) too short to make a proper takeoff. "

That comment does not make sense. To get to Rwy 22 you must cross Rwy
26 totally. Whether you take Taxiway A7 or A8 seems irrelevant. If
you are stopped after crossing Rwy 26 by a barricade on A8, why would
you think, "OK, let's forget Rwy 26 and just use this one"?

Ron Lee

Tom2000 wrote
> Can any transport pilots expound on your takeoff procedures? Is it
> SOP to do something explict when you're checking your takeoff heading?

This Expanded Checklist from my 'old' 1970s PanAm B-707 Operations
Manual. This configuration check is the final portion of the
takeoff checklist and challenged when lined-up on the runway.

TAKEOFF
Configuration Check The First Officer passes the checklist to the
flight engineer at this point.The flight engineer
will announce "Configuration Check" and will
challenge the pilots on items that follow.
The Captain will respond to all items and
additionally the first officer will respond to
the stabilizer trim and compass items.

Antiskid.......ON The captain will check that the ANTI-SKID switch
is ON, guard down. The flight engineer will
visually check that no releases are showing in the
antiskid BRAKES window.

Speedbrake..FORWARD Check that the speedbrake is in the foreward zero
detent.

Stabilizer Trim.... Both pilots will declare stabilizer settings and
cross check.

Wing Flaps......... Declare handle setting and gage indications, and
( ),INDICATE ( ), check both LE FLAP lights green.
GREEN LIGHTS

Compasses...CHECKED Both pilots will cross check compasses against
takeoff-runway heading.

TAKEOFF CHECKLIST IS The flight engineer verifies that all Takeoff
COMPLETE checklist items have been completed.


Bob Moore
ATP B-707 B-727 L-188
PanAm (retired)

In article >,
(Ron Lee) wrote:

> >"It was a total surprise," said Wiley, who adjusted course and got onto the
> >correct runway. He now understands why the Comair pilot might have headed
> >down a runway 1,500 feet (450 meters) too short to make a proper takeoff. "
>
> That comment does not make sense. To get to Rwy 22 you must cross Rwy
> 26 totally. Whether you take Taxiway A7 or A8 seems irrelevant. If
> you are stopped after crossing Rwy 26 by a barricade on A8, why would
> you think, "OK, let's forget Rwy 26 and just use this one"?

Remember a few of the previous postings.
Had they not been there recently, they would have remembered the taxiway
ending at the runway with the appropriate greater than 90 degree turn to
the runway. Exactly the situation they found themselves in Sunday
morning.

Bob Moore wrote:

>
> TAKEOFF
> Configuration Check The First Officer passes the checklist to the
> flight engineer at this point.The flight engineer
> will announce "Configuration Check" and will
> challenge the pilots on items that follow.

I guess we better put a guy riding sideways in the back of the CRJ
cockpits :-). Make more sense than requiring a redundant controller.


>
> Compasses...CHECKED Both pilots will cross check compasses against
> takeoff-runway heading.
>
Are these whiskey compasses or gyros?

On 27 Aug 2006 20:14:18 -0700, "Tony" > wrote:
> There will have to be some really odd circumstances if this isn't
> called pilot error. In fact, I'd appreciate someone offering a
> reasonable theory that does not implicate the pilots.

Space aliens?

Elvis was on the plane?

Left wing conspiracy?

Right wing conspiracy?

Left wing, right wing, and fuselage conspiracy?

Or maybe just "**** Happens"...

James Robinson wrote in message ...
>john smith > wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> James Robinson > wrote:
>>
>>> (Ron Lee) wrote:
>>>
>>> > "Aluckyguess" > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Looking at that diagram I see how easy it would of been to do what
>>> >> they did. WOW
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Here's a diagram dated 08/03/2006:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> >
>>> >
>>> > Don't agree with you Barry. They should have seen that you taxi
>>> > rightish from the terminal past Rwy 26 then either one (apparently
>>> > from pics) of two taxiways to Rwy 22. Even I can do that.
>>>
>>> The diagram doesn't show the additional taxiway that is apparent in
>>> the photographs
>>>
>>> News reports quote another pilot as saying that old right-hand
>>> taxiway had a recently-erected barrier across it. He said it was a
>>> complete surprise when he came across it the first time.
>>
>> The diagram has not been updated to show the newly added 600 foot
>> extension and connecting taxiway.
>
>Here is a link to a diagram of the changes that were made:
>
>http://tinyurl.com/zybuf
>
>Here is a link to a photo of the old arrangement from Yahoo maps:
>
>http://tinyurl.com/qknmg
>
>As you can see, A-8 would take you to the end of runway 26,

ITYM "runway 22."

>and A-7 would
>take you 500 feet from the end of the runway.
>
>Looking at the diagram in the above link, plus recent news pictures, the
>changes have not extended the runway at the north end,

I think many have missed that point.

>but have in fact
>diplaced the threshold by 400 feet or so. With the displaced threshold,
>the old taxiway A-8 has been closed, and therefore doesn't show on the
>diagram referenced in the earlier post.
>
>These aren't super clear, but you can see how the runway has been
>repainted to reflect the displaced threshold:
>
>http://www.wcpo.com/news/2006/local/08/27/plane/ntsb2.jpg
>http://tinyurl.com/h99og

- Rick

john smith wrote in message ...
>Thanks James. Your diagram makes it clear, but the photos show that A-8
>still exists. Is it blocked off with barracades as other posters have
>noted?

One article had a very tiny picture that described the orange and white
barricades, but you really couldn't see them, and there was not a larger
picture available.

- Rick

Ron Natalie wrote

> Bob Moore wrote:
>> Compasses...CHECKED Both pilots will cross check compasses against
>> takeoff-runway heading.
>>
> Are these whiskey compasses or gyros?

Horizontal Situation Indicators (HSI), gyro stabilized and
slaved from Flux Gate Compasses.

Bob Moore

Ron Lee wrote in message >...
>James Robinson > wrote:
>
>>john smith > wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks James. Your diagram makes it clear, but the photos show that A-8
>>> still exists. Is it blocked off with barracades as other posters have
>>> noted?
>>
>>I don't know from personal experience, but the news reports on the day of
>>the accident included the following quote:
>>
>>" The construction changes momentarily confused veteran pilot Lowell Wiley
>>two days before the Comair crash. He nosed his plane down the same taxiway
>>that he had taken for years until hitting a barricade.
>>
>>"It was a total surprise," said Wiley, who adjusted course and got onto
the
>>correct runway. He now understands why the Comair pilot might have headed
>>down a runway 1,500 feet (450 meters) too short to make a proper takeoff.
"
>
>That comment does not make sense. To get to Rwy 22 you must cross Rwy
>26 totally. Whether you take Taxiway A7 or A8 seems irrelevant. If
>you are stopped after crossing Rwy 26 by a barricade on A8, why would
>you think, "OK, let's forget Rwy 26

ITYM "Rwy 22"

>and just use this one"?

- Rick

john smith wrote in message ...
>In article >,
> (Ron Lee) wrote:
>
>> >"It was a total surprise," said Wiley, who adjusted course and got onto
the
>> >correct runway. He now understands why the Comair pilot might have
headed
>> >down a runway 1,500 feet (450 meters) too short to make a proper
takeoff. "
>>
>> That comment does not make sense. To get to Rwy 22 you must cross Rwy
>> 26 totally. Whether you take Taxiway A7 or A8 seems irrelevant. If
>> you are stopped after crossing Rwy 26 by a barricade on A8, why would
>> you think, "OK, let's forget Rwy 26 and just use this one"?
>
>Remember a few of the previous postings.
>Had they not been there recently, they would have remembered the taxiway
>ending at the runway with the appropriate greater than 90 degree turn to
>the runway. Exactly the situation they found themselves in Sunday
>morning.

Exactly...except for missing one 45 degree turn, and not noticing the
taxiway and runway lights off to starboard, which you would not see on
arriving at Rwy 22.

- Rick

"Rick" > wrote:

> James Robinson wrote in message ...
>>
>> As you can see, A-8 would take you to the end of runway 26,
>
> ITYM "runway 22."

Yes, thanks for the correction. (And keep me away from Lexington if I can't
figure out which runway is which.)

Bush wrote:
> It's a simple line up check that works with any aircraft, similar to
> your 'Gump' check.. squak, strobe, lights, and ice,
> A/C & pressurization, controls free heading, altimeter.
>
> Bush
>
> On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 19:56:15 -0500, Bush >
> wrote:
>
>
>>6:10 PM the National Transportation Safety Board confirmed that
>>the Comair flight was assigned departure from runway 22, however
>>departed runway 26 (3500 ft.) since it was closer to the terminal.
>>Accelerate-stop for this A/C at this weight should be some 5356 feet.
>>Jees they'll let anyone fly them.
>>
>>"It is that large chain of events, with no intervening variable, that
>>produces the accident"
>>
>>Bush
>
>
I like the Rabbit Theory Blame it on the Rabbit

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
>
> James is correct. FAA diagram here:

I think not. The google aerial photos are the older reference, taken some
3-4 years ago. My interpretation is this: Since that time, the threshold
of Rwy 22 has been displaced some 600 ft SW, leaving what appears to be
designated as an overrun for Rwy 04. It appears the taxiway leading to it
from the end of Rwy 22 has been closed. The fed taxi chart appears to only
sow those areas of pavement open for use. I can't vouch for the
administrative points, but the photos and diagrams bear out my theory.

On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 23:33:25 GMT, Bob Moore >
wrote:

>Ron Natalie wrote
>
>> Bob Moore wrote:
>>> Compasses...CHECKED Both pilots will cross check compasses against
>>> takeoff-runway heading.
>>>
>> Are these whiskey compasses or gyros?
>
>Horizontal Situation Indicators (HSI), gyro stabilized and
>slaved from Flux Gate Compasses.
>
>Bob Moore

Thanks very much, Bob. I hope the NTSB releases the transcript of the
CVR tape soon so we can see what procedures the Comair crew followed.

Best,

Tom

"John Gaquin" > wrote:

>
> "Ron Lee" > wrote in message
>>
>> James is correct. FAA diagram here:
>
> I think not. The google aerial photos are the older reference, taken
> some 3-4 years ago. My interpretation is this: Since that time, the
> threshold of Rwy 22 has been displaced some 600 ft SW, leaving what
> appears to be designated as an overrun for Rwy 04. It appears the
> taxiway leading to it from the end of Rwy 22 has been closed. The
> fed taxi chart appears to only sow those areas of pavement open for
> use. I can't vouch for the administrative points, but the photos and
> diagrams bear out my theory.

Which is what I said. You perhaps have mixed up who said what in this
thread.

In article >,
"John Gaquin" > wrote:

> "Ron Lee" > wrote in message
> >
> > James is correct. FAA diagram here:
>
> I think not. The google aerial photos are the older reference, taken some
> 3-4 years ago. My interpretation is this: Since that time, the threshold
> of Rwy 22 has been displaced some 600 ft SW, leaving what appears to be
> designated as an overrun for Rwy 04. It appears the taxiway leading to it
> from the end of Rwy 22 has been closed. The fed taxi chart appears to only
> sow those areas of pavement open for use. I can't vouch for the
> administrative points, but the photos and diagrams bear out my theory.

Remember that while the threshhold is displaced, the pavement behind the
displacement (original runway threshhold) is still available for takeoff.

B A R R Y wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 11:49:21 GMT, john smith > wrote:
>
>> Remember that while the threshhold is displaced, the pavement behind the
>> displacement (original runway threshhold) is still available for takeoff.
>
> It can also be easier to see the numbers from the cockpit when the
> threshold is displaced. Instead of sitting on the runway numbers at
> the start of a takeoff roll, they're now ahead of you, at the
> displaced threshold line.

Even without the displaced threshold, they runway numbers are not
at the very end of the runway on an ILS runway. There's the
piano keys first.

"James Robinson" > wrote in message
>
> Which is what I said. You perhaps have mixed up who said what in this
> thread.

Neither of my posts was a response to anything you said. Check the thread
sequence.

"john smith" > wrote in message news:jsmith-

>
> Remember that while the threshhold is displaced, the pavement behind the
> displacement (original runway threshhold) is still available for takeoff.

Only if so designated by the airport authority or FAA iaw applicable
policies. Recent aerial video of the airport shot since the crash show that
the displaced paved area of the approach end of Rwy 22 is painted with
yellow chevron striping. Iirc, this indicates that the area is NOT usable
for taxi, takeoff, or landing.

"John Gaquin" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "john smith" > wrote in message news:jsmith-
>
>>
>> Remember that while the threshhold is displaced, the pavement behind the
>> displacement (original runway threshhold) is still available for takeoff.
>
> Only if so designated by the airport authority or FAA iaw applicable
> policies. Recent aerial video of the airport shot since the crash show
> that the displaced paved area of the approach end of Rwy 22 is painted
> with yellow chevron striping. Iirc, this indicates that the area is NOT
> usable for taxi, takeoff, or landing.
>

>>>>>>> Not Suitable For Taxi, Takeoff Or Landing
--> --> --> Suitable for Taxi and Takeoff but NOT Landing

Sorry for the bad graphics...

Jay B

"John Gaquin" > wrote:

>
> "James Robinson" > wrote in message
>>
>> Which is what I said. You perhaps have mixed up who said what in
>> this thread.
>
> Neither of my posts was a response to anything you said. Check the
> thread sequence.

Here is a quote from your previous response:

>> James is correct. FAA diagram here:
>
> I think not. ...

Sure looks like you were responding to something I said.

"James Robinson" > wrote in message
>
> Here is a quote from your previous response:
>
>>> James is correct. FAA diagram here:
>>
>> I think not. ...
>
> Sure looks like you were responding to something I said.

<sigh> try to follow, now....

What you said was accurate in itself -- the diagram doesn't show the other
taxiway.

To which john smith added... "The diagram has not been updated to show the
newly added 600 foot ....."

To which I replied "...Quite the opposite, I think...." [because there
was no newly added, etc etc]

At which point Ron Bell said "...James is correct. FAA diagram here:"
which clearly means, for those for whom interpretation is needed, "James is
correct for the reasons shown in the FAA diagram here", which, of course,
was inaccurate on Ron's part.

And I said "I think not..." You were correct because what you said was
accurate, but the diagram and photo don't demonstrate any new area at all.
Its the diagram and the photos and the notion of a newly added piece of
pavement that were being discussed.

>> .... Recent aerial video of the airport shot since the crash show
>> that the displaced paved area of the approach end of Rwy 22 is painted
>> with yellow chevron striping. Iirc, this indicates that the area is NOT
>> usable for taxi, takeoff, or landing.
>>
>
> >>>>>>> Not Suitable For Taxi, Takeoff Or Landing
> --> --> --> Suitable for Taxi and Takeoff but NOT Landing

Right. That's the thing some posters are missing; The recent runway
improvements were to SHORTEN the runway 22, creating a long overrun/blast
pad area on the approach end (not usable for normal ops). The airport then
placed some barracade obstructions across the old taxiway A-8 to prevent
access. And the NOS charts do not even show that section anymore.

http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/AIM/Chap2/aim0203.html#NX732ROBE

But the old google earth and airnav page mini picture still show the old
runway 22.
Sorry to beat a dead horse.

john smith wrote:

> In article >, Owen >
> wrote:
>
> > Jay Beckman wrote:
> >
> > > "Jose" > wrote in message
> > > et...
> > > >> SUGGEST POSSIBLE WARNING PAGE (SIMILAR TO
> > > >> HOUSTON HOBBY) TO CLARIFY MULTIPLE RWY ENDS.
> > > >
> > > > What does this mean? Where would the page go? What would it say?
> > > >
> > > > Jose
> > >
> > > The first page of their Jep binders? In bold letters on any/all SIDs for
> > > KLEX?
> > >
> > > "NOTICE TO CREW OPERATING OUT OF KLEX, Lexington, Kentucky"
> > >
> > > CLOSE PROXIMITY OF RWY 22 and RWY 26
> > >
> > > As the departure ends of RWY 22 and RWY 26 are in very close proximity to
> > > each other, exercise extreme caution and confirm visually and by reference
> > > to flight instruments that you are on RWY 22. RWY 26 UNUSABLE for turbine
> > > aircraft use.
> >
> > Why should Rwy 26 be unusable for turbine aircraft? It is 3,500 feet long and
> > plenty long. Geez if you're going to ban turbines from 3,500 ft runways, the
> > Citations using my home airport would have to go elsewhere because 3,500 is
> > the longest runway. How about just banning aircraft from using the runway if
> > they need a longer one? Wait, I think that's already covered somewhere.....
>
> Pavement weight restrictions.

Huh? What about pavement weight restrictions? What is the restriction that you
speak of?

Are you saying that a DC-3 woudn't be too heavy for a runway that an Eclipse would
be weight restricted from?