The Comair crash reminds me...

[Kyler Laird]

Years ago I was leaving Purdue
http://www.airnav.com/airport/LAF
before the tower opened. (I think I was headed to Hamfest with some
friends. I don't usually get airborne that early.)

As I taxied to runway 5 I heard the local turboprop commuter (Mesaba, I
think) call a taxi to runway 10. I was headed away from him so I didn't
see him until I turned to do my runup. When I finished my runup I
realized that he had followed me. I thought about saying something but
just then a controller jumped in and vectored the plane to runway 10.

I always wondered what would have happened if that controller hadn't
gotten there early and said something (and I'd kept my mouth shut).
Would they have made it off the 4226' runway (5/23)? They regularly
fly in and out of 10/28 (6600') so I suspect that they could perform a
standard takeoff on 5 even though they might not handle an engine loss
as gracefully.

I wonder how often this (almost) happens.

--kyler

[Dudley Henriques[_1_]]

"Kyler Laird" > wrote in message
...
> Years ago I was leaving Purdue
> http://www.airnav.com/airport/LAF
> before the tower opened. (I think I was headed to Hamfest with some
> friends. I don't usually get airborne that early.)
>
> As I taxied to runway 5 I heard the local turboprop commuter (Mesaba, I
> think) call a taxi to runway 10. I was headed away from him so I didn't
> see him until I turned to do my runup. When I finished my runup I
> realized that he had followed me. I thought about saying something but
> just then a controller jumped in and vectored the plane to runway 10.
>
> I always wondered what would have happened if that controller hadn't
> gotten there early and said something (and I'd kept my mouth shut).
> Would they have made it off the 4226' runway (5/23)? They regularly
> fly in and out of 10/28 (6600') so I suspect that they could perform a
> standard takeoff on 5 even though they might not handle an engine loss
> as gracefully.
>
> I wonder how often this (almost) happens.
>
> --kyler

It can happen and has happened and will happen again as long as pilots don't
remember to physically check the runway heading by glancing at the DG or
HSI, or even the magnetic compass EVERY time they line up for takeoff. This
should be an automatic reflex action for a pilot, especially at busy
airports where runways are 30 degrees or less apart in direction.
Dudley Henriques

[James Robinson]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote:

>
> It can happen and has happened and will happen again as long as pilots
> don't remember to physically check the runway heading by glancing at
> the DG or HSI, or even the magnetic compass EVERY time they line up
> for takeoff. This should be an automatic reflex action for a pilot,
> especially at busy airports where runways are 30 degrees or less apart
> in direction. Dudley Henriques

It really makes you wonder about the procedures on that China Airlines 747
that not only took of from a taxiway in 2002, but the taxiway was not even
beside the assigned runway.

[Dudley Henriques[_1_]]

Many times it's something very small or something omitted in a sequence that
can cause these accidents. Something as basic as a heading check for the
right runway can be lost in a last minute conversation between two pilots as
the airplane makes the turn from the taxiway to the takeoff position; a
sudden distraction; a last second joke; anything that breaks a normal habit
pattern.
Its SO easy!!!!!!!
DH

"James Robinson" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>
>>
>> It can happen and has happened and will happen again as long as pilots
>> don't remember to physically check the runway heading by glancing at
>> the DG or HSI, or even the magnetic compass EVERY time they line up
>> for takeoff. This should be an automatic reflex action for a pilot,
>> especially at busy airports where runways are 30 degrees or less apart
>> in direction. Dudley Henriques
>
> It really makes you wonder about the procedures on that China Airlines 747
> that not only took of from a taxiway in 2002, but the taxiway was not even
> beside the assigned runway.

[Guy Elden Jr]

> Many times it's something very small or something omitted in a sequence that
> can cause these accidents. Something as basic as a heading check for the
> right runway can be lost in a last minute conversation between two pilots as
> the airplane makes the turn from the taxiway to the takeoff position; a
> sudden distraction; a last second joke; anything that breaks a normal habit
> pattern.
> Its SO easy!!!!!!!

It is... and my understanding is that's the reason for the sterile
cockpit rule. Incidentally, there was an off-duty pilot sitting in the
jumpseat in the cockpit along for the ride on the Comair flight.
Wouldn't surprise me if things got a little too relaxed that early in
the morning for just a brief moment.

--
Guy

[Christopher Brian Colohan]

"Dudley Henriques" > writes:
> It can happen and has happened and will happen again as long as pilots don't
> remember to physically check the runway heading by glancing at the DG or
> HSI, or even the magnetic compass EVERY time they line up for takeoff. This
> should be an automatic reflex action for a pilot, especially at busy
> airports where runways are 30 degrees or less apart in direction.

All of my training so far has been at an airport with only one runway
(KPAO). Thank you for pointing this out -- checking the runway
direction has not been on my checklist before now...

Chris

[Dudley Henriques[_1_]]

This is just one of those "little extras" that every pilot should include in
that last second look around the pit before opening the throttle. With me; I
always made it a point to hestiate for a few seconds for a line up re-check.
Dudley Henriques

"Christopher Brian Colohan" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Dudley Henriques" > writes:
>> It can happen and has happened and will happen again as long as pilots
>> don't
>> remember to physically check the runway heading by glancing at the DG or
>> HSI, or even the magnetic compass EVERY time they line up for takeoff.
>> This
>> should be an automatic reflex action for a pilot, especially at busy
>> airports where runways are 30 degrees or less apart in direction.
>
> All of my training so far has been at an airport with only one runway
> (KPAO). Thank you for pointing this out -- checking the runway
> direction has not been on my checklist before now...
>
> Chris

[[email protected]]

Guy Elden Jr wrote:
> > Many times it's something very small or something omitted in a sequence that
> > can cause these accidents. Something as basic as a heading check for the
> > right runway can be lost in a last minute conversation between two pilots as
> > the airplane makes the turn from the taxiway to the takeoff position; a
> > sudden distraction; a last second joke; anything that breaks a normal habit
> > pattern.
> > Its SO easy!!!!!!!
>
> It is... and my understanding is that's the reason for the sterile
> cockpit rule. Incidentally, there was an off-duty pilot sitting in the
> jumpseat in the cockpit along for the ride on the Comair flight.
> Wouldn't surprise me if things got a little too relaxed that early in
> the morning for just a brief moment.

Plus it was a 0600 flight, which meant awakening at around 0430.
With a muggy motel room listening to countless AC units hum, I
wonder what their sleep situation was ??

JG

>
> --
> Guy

[James Robinson]

"Guy Elden Jr" > wrote:

> Incidentally, there was an off-duty pilot sitting in the
> jumpseat in the cockpit along for the ride on the Comair flight.
> Wouldn't surprise me if things got a little too relaxed that early in
> the morning for just a brief moment.

The media reports have stated there was an off-duty pilot in the jumpseat,
but later reports say it was an AirTran pilot. I don't believe the
security rules, post 911, would allow him in the cockpit, so I suspect that
he was likely in the passenger compartment, and not in the jumpseat.

[john smith]

In article . com>,
wrote:

> Plus it was a 0600 flight, which meant awakening at around 0430.
> With a muggy motel room listening to countless AC units hum, I
> wonder what their sleep situation was ??

Probably earlier. With a 45-minute "show" time", 15-minute shuttle ride,
arise/shower/shave/dress/pack/eat (30-minutes?) puts it closer to 4:00
AM.

Couple that with "what time did they get to sleep"?/"how much did they
get"? and the quality of sleep.
Check cell phone records.

[Guy Elden Jr]

> This is just one of those "little extras" that every pilot should include in
> that last second look around the pit before opening the throttle. With me; I
> always made it a point to hestiate for a few seconds for a line up re-check.

Yep... lights, camera, action, where the action -> check dg / line it
up with runway numbers. Before now, I'll admit, all I did was reset the
dg to the runway heading, but from now on, I'll be paying much closer
attention to the variance. Too much means something ain't right.

--
Guy

[John Gaquin]

> wrote in message
>
> Plus it was a 0600 flight, which meant awakening at around 0430.
> With a muggy motel room listening to countless AC units hum, I
> wonder what their sleep situation was ??

It was clearly reported shortly after the crash that their rest period had
been "well in excess of" the required amount. An 0430 wake up should not
be problematic for a flight crew - its normal. You just hit the rack by 8
or 9 PM. Same deal for 0200, or 2300 for that matter.

As to the picture you paint of shabby, low-grade accommodations, all I can
say is that its highly unlikely. Even 25-30 years ago flying regional, we
stayed in reasonable places such as Ramada, Hampton, or HI. A simple
search showed that within 5 miles or so of the field there are about 11
national name hotels that offer good reasonable quality, and very often free
stuff for flight crews, iirc. It would be very easy to ascertain exactly
where they stayed.

[Ross Richardson[_2_]]

Dudley Henriques wrote:

>This is just one of those "little extras" that every pilot should include in
>that last second look around the pit before opening the throttle. With me; I
>always made it a point to hestiate for a few seconds for a line up re-check.
>Dudley Henriques
>
>"Christopher Brian Colohan" > wrote in message
.. .
>
>
>>"Dudley Henriques" > writes:
>>
>>
>>>It can happen and has happened and will happen again as long as pilots
>>>don't
>>>remember to physically check the runway heading by glancing at the DG or
>>>HSI, or even the magnetic compass EVERY time they line up for takeoff.
>>>This
>>>should be an automatic reflex action for a pilot, especially at busy
>>>airports where runways are 30 degrees or less apart in direction.
>>>
>>>
>>All of my training so far has been at an airport with only one runway
>>(KPAO). Thank you for pointing this out -- checking the runway
>>direction has not been on my checklist before now...
>>
>>Chris
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Be sure you set the DG to the magnetic compass before you turn onto the
runway and not do like some pilots I have seen. Line up on the runway
and set the compass.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

[Peter R.]

Guy Elden Jr > wrote:

> all I did was reset the dg to the runway heading,

Guy, I am curious about this. I have flown with other pilots who reset the
DG to the runway heading, but when I question them about this, they admit
to setting the DG to the runway number (with the trailing zero, of course).
As you most likely know, the runway number (with trailing zero) can be off
from the actual heading by as much as 10 degrees.

This leads me to my question: How do you easily discover the actual runway
heading at an unfamiliar airport? Do you, after deciding on the runway you
would use once you start the aircraft, pull out instrument charts or
airport diagrams and write down the runway heading?

I am curious how others integrate this into their post-start, pre-taxi or
pre-takeoff checklists.



--
Peter

[[email protected]]

John Gaquin wrote:
> > wrote in message
> >
> > Plus it was a 0600 flight, which meant awakening at around 0430.
> > With a muggy motel room listening to countless AC units hum, I
> > wonder what their sleep situation was ??
>
> It was clearly reported shortly after the crash that their rest period had
> been "well in excess of" the required amount. An 0430 wake up should not
> be problematic for a flight crew - its normal. You just hit the rack by 8
> or 9 PM. Same deal for 0200, or 2300 for that matter.

They were all out of town based according to news reports:

"Bornhorst would not say whether the crew had experience flying into
and out of the Blue Grass Airport. The first officer and flight
attendant had been based out of New York, the pilot out of
Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport, according to the
airline.
Bornhorst did say that the crew was well rested and had spent the night
in Lexington in preparation for the early-morning takeoff."

You can hit the hay at 9pm, but falling asleep with motel noises is
another matter...JG

>
> As to the picture you paint of shabby, low-grade accommodations, all I can
> say is that its highly unlikely. Even 25-30 years ago flying regional, we
> stayed in reasonable places such as Ramada, Hampton, or HI. A simple
> search showed that within 5 miles or so of the field there are about 11
> national name hotels that offer good reasonable quality, and very often free
> stuff for flight crews, iirc. It would be very easy to ascertain exactly
> where they stayed.

[Matt Whiting]

Dudley Henriques wrote:

> This is just one of those "little extras" that every pilot should include in
> that last second look around the pit before opening the throttle. With me; I
> always made it a point to hestiate for a few seconds for a line up re-check.

Same here. I wait just long enough to let the compass settle, check it
against the DG and against the runway I was cleared to, record the
takeoff time and turn the transponder from standby to ALT. Only takes a
few seconds once you get the procedure down.

I also hope everyone is checking their power indications, vacuum,
alternator, etc. as they commence the takeoff roll, especially if
launching into IMC.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Peter R. wrote:

> Guy Elden Jr > wrote:
>
>
>>all I did was reset the dg to the runway heading,
>
>
> Guy, I am curious about this. I have flown with other pilots who reset the
> DG to the runway heading, but when I question them about this, they admit
> to setting the DG to the runway number (with the trailing zero, of course).
> As you most likely know, the runway number (with trailing zero) can be off
> from the actual heading by as much as 10 degrees.
>
> This leads me to my question: How do you easily discover the actual runway
> heading at an unfamiliar airport? Do you, after deciding on the runway you
> would use once you start the aircraft, pull out instrument charts or
> airport diagrams and write down the runway heading?
>
> I am curious how others integrate this into their post-start, pre-taxi or
> pre-takeoff checklists.

I don't care what the actual runway azimuth is. I care that my DG is
set to my compass and that both agree within reason to the runway I'm
on. I'm curious: why do you care what it is?

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Ross Richardson wrote:

> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>>This is just one of those "little extras" that every pilot should include in
>>that last second look around the pit before opening the throttle. With me; I
>>always made it a point to hestiate for a few seconds for a line up re-check.
>>Dudley Henriques
>>
>>"Christopher Brian Colohan" > wrote in message
.. .
>>
>>
>>>"Dudley Henriques" > writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>It can happen and has happened and will happen again as long as pilots
>>>>don't
>>>>remember to physically check the runway heading by glancing at the DG or
>>>>HSI, or even the magnetic compass EVERY time they line up for takeoff.
>>>>This
>>>>should be an automatic reflex action for a pilot, especially at busy
>>>>airports where runways are 30 degrees or less apart in direction.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>All of my training so far has been at an airport with only one runway
>>>(KPAO). Thank you for pointing this out -- checking the runway
>>>direction has not been on my checklist before now...
>>>
>>>Chris
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> Be sure you set the DG to the magnetic compass before you turn onto the
> runway and not do like some pilots I have seen. Line up on the runway
> and set the compass.

I set mine before I begin taxiing and then check it on the runway right
before launch. It is very helpful to have a correctly set DG when
taxiing, especially at unfamiliar airports.

Matt

[John Gaquin]

> wrote in message
>
> You can hit the hay at 9pm, but falling asleep with motel noises is
> another matter...JG


Well, I guess for 22 years of flying I was the beneficiary of incredibly
coincidental good luck.

The only time time I stayed in noisy hotels was long, long ago when I was
travelling on the cheap, and it had less to do with the hotel than the
surrounding neighborhood..

[Peter R.]

John Gaquin > wrote:

> The only time time I stayed in noisy hotels was long, long ago when I was
> travelling on the cheap, and it had less to do with the hotel than the
> surrounding neighborhood..

For the last 13 years I have traveled just about every business week.
Early on I learned to carry with me a Sharper Image travel-sized white
noise radio. This device, which omits white noise similar to a waterfall
when switched on, has been responsible for many a restful night's sleep,
including one week at a very loud Brooklyn, NY, hotel.

I would suspect that most experienced travelers, including airline pilots,
do something similar.

--
Peter

[Jim Macklin]

Actual runway details are on the instrument approach charts,
including direction to the degree and elevation and slope.

Set the HI to the compass as per the correction card if you
don't have a slaved compass system. In any case, set the
heading bug to the straight ahead position when aligned with
the runway, that way the FD or just a plain HI will fly
runway heading.


"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
| Guy Elden Jr > wrote:
|
| > all I did was reset the dg to the runway heading,
|
| Guy, I am curious about this. I have flown with other
pilots who reset the
| DG to the runway heading, but when I question them about
this, they admit
| to setting the DG to the runway number (with the trailing
zero, of course).
| As you most likely know, the runway number (with trailing
zero) can be off
| from the actual heading by as much as 10 degrees.
|
| This leads me to my question: How do you easily discover
the actual runway
| heading at an unfamiliar airport? Do you, after deciding
on the runway you
| would use once you start the aircraft, pull out instrument
charts or
| airport diagrams and write down the runway heading?
|
| I am curious how others integrate this into their
post-start, pre-taxi or
| pre-takeoff checklists.
|
|
|
| --
| Peter

[Morgans[_4_]]

"Ross Richardson" > wrote

Ross, check your settings. Is it possible that you are not posting with
plain text?
--
Jim in NC

[Emily[_1_]]

Peter R. wrote:
> John Gaquin > wrote:

>
> For the last 13 years I have traveled just about every business week.
> Early on I learned to carry with me a Sharper Image travel-sized white
> noise radio.

How big is it (I don't check luggage, so I'm very limited on space).
And more importantly, will it drown out interstate traffic just outside
the hotel window?

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Emily > wrote:

> > For the last 13 years I have traveled just about every business week.
> > Early on I learned to carry with me a Sharper Image travel-sized white
> > noise radio.
>
> How big is it (I don't check luggage, so I'm very limited on space).

mine is about twice the volume of my PDA. Plus the AC adapter (or
use batteries)

> And more importantly, will it drown out interstate traffic just outside
> the hotel window?

Maybe, especially if the volume is cranked.

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

[Peter R.]

Emily > wrote:

> How big is it (I don't check luggage, so I'm very limited on space).

My device is similar to this one at about 5 inches long by 2.5 inches high:

http://tinyurl.com/rra65

I did note that this new model does not appear to offer white noise as one
of its twenty sounds, however, unless they renamed the sound.

> And more importantly, will it drown out interstate traffic just outside
> the hotel window?

Interstate traffic is tough, depending on how close it is to your window
and whether the roads are wet. I will say that the device would make it
much more tolerable, as the white noise will drown out most of the variable
sounds outside your window. It probably won't do anything with the noise
of trucks as they downshift right outside your window, though.

If it is that bad, you have no choice but to demand of the hotel management
to put you in a room away from the highway if they desire your recurring
business. I had to do that once in a hotel in Buffalo, NY, that was
literally right along the highway in the city.

After tossing and turning all night to the din of trucks and cars hitting
the pavement cracks, I demanded a room that week and every week thereafter
on the "quiet" side of the hotel or else my weekly room revenue would be
given to another hotel.

--
Peter

[Peter R.]

Jim Macklin > wrote:

> Actual runway details are on the instrument approach charts,
> including direction to the degree and elevation and slope.

Yep, I am aware of that. I was curious whether it is common for pilots to
pull out their instrument charts after learning of or deciding upon what
runway is in use/to use at an unfamiliar airport. It seems to me that with
the workload of pre-taxi, taxi, and pre-takeoff checklists, this item is
probably not a task many pilots perform. Or do they?

In my case I have a slaved HSI in my Bonanza, so I had been quickly
comparing the HSI heading to the runway number to see if it is within ten
or so degrees of the runway number as part of the "lights, camera, action"
taking-the-runway mnemonic.

--
Peter

[Jim Macklin]

The slaved compass is corrected so as many errors
(deviation) are corrected and variation is also corrected as
much as possible too, so the slaved compass may be reading
different from the whiskey compass unless you apply the
compass correction card FOR-Steer to get a more accurate
setting for the HI. But the whiskey compass is not supposed
to have any error greater than 10 on any heading. Often the
compass is swung with the electrical and radios running. It
seems that swinging the compass should be done with the
electrical system dead and the radios off, that is when I'd
want the most accurate magnetic compass.


"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin > wrote:
|
| > Actual runway details are on the instrument approach
charts,
| > including direction to the degree and elevation and
slope.
|
| Yep, I am aware of that. I was curious whether it is
common for pilots to
| pull out their instrument charts after learning of or
deciding upon what
| runway is in use/to use at an unfamiliar airport. It
seems to me that with
| the workload of pre-taxi, taxi, and pre-takeoff
checklists, this item is
| probably not a task many pilots perform. Or do they?
|
| In my case I have a slaved HSI in my Bonanza, so I had
been quickly
| comparing the HSI heading to the runway number to see if
it is within ten
| or so degrees of the runway number as part of the "lights,
camera, action"
| taking-the-runway mnemonic.
|
| --
| Peter

[john smith]

In article >,
"Peter R." > wrote:

> I was curious whether it is common for pilots to
> pull out their instrument charts after learning of or deciding upon what
> runway is in use/to use at an unfamiliar airport. It seems to me that with
> the workload of pre-taxi, taxi, and pre-takeoff checklists, this item is
> probably not a task many pilots perform. Or do they?

As part of my pre-departure IFR procedures, I was taught to set up the
panel and cockpit for an immediate instrument approach to return to the
departure airport.
That means have the approach plate out for approach to be used and
configure the second nav for the frequency of the navaid. Listen to
assure the identifier is audible and check that the indicator display is
appropriate.

[Bob Moore]

Jim Macklin wrote
> The slaved compass is corrected so as many errors
> (deviation) are corrected and variation is also corrected as
> much as possible too,

SAY WHAT!!!! How does one fly an ATC assigned heading if VAR
has been 'corrected' out?

Bob Moore

[Aluckyguess[_1_]]

I took a freind up today and he asked how something like that can happen. My
answer was simple, their human.

>> Its SO easy!!!!!!!
>
> It is... and my understanding is that's the reason for the sterile
> cockpit rule. Incidentally, there was an off-duty pilot sitting in the
> jumpseat in the cockpit along for the ride on the Comair flight.
> Wouldn't surprise me if things got a little too relaxed that early in
> the morning for just a brief moment.
>
> --
> Guy
>

[Emily[_1_]]

Peter R. wrote:
> Emily > wrote:
<snip>
>
> Interstate traffic is tough, depending on how close it is to your window
> and whether the roads are wet. I will say that the device would make it
> much more tolerable, as the white noise will drown out most of the variable
> sounds outside your window. It probably won't do anything with the noise
> of trucks as they downshift right outside your window, though.
>
> If it is that bad, you have no choice but to demand of the hotel management
> to put you in a room away from the highway if they desire your recurring
> business.

Hahaha...I tried that last month in a certain hotel that must have been
100 feet from the interstate. Unfortunately, it appears that when your
company forces you on the road with less than 12 hours notice, you're
kind of stuck with the room the hotel gives you.

It didn't help that I was so tired when I got there that I didn't even
notice the trucks until the next morning or that I'm used to sleeping
with an air filter on. Might have to keep looking for something with a
white noise feature.

[John Gaquin]

"Emily" > wrote in message news:E-
>
> Hahaha...I tried that last month in a certain hotel that must have been
> 100 feet from the interstate.

Why don't you stay elsewhere?

[Peter Duniho]

"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
. 122...
> Jim Macklin wrote
>> The slaved compass is corrected so as many errors
>> (deviation) are corrected and variation is also corrected as
>> much as possible too,
>
> SAY WHAT!!!! How does one fly an ATC assigned heading if VAR
> has been 'corrected' out?

Probably the same way you do it when there's a wind. ATC assigns you a
heading. If that doesn't provide the track they want, they assign a new
one, adjusting for the error in the track.

They don't care what your heading indicator is telling you. They care that
you follow it consistently.

(Note: I don't actually know anything about how a slaved compass is
corrected...seems to me that variation and local deviation (that is, not due
to the aircraft installation itself) are not things one could usefully build
into a slaved compass. But assuming the slaved compass IS correcting for
all manner of things, there's no reason to believe it would cause a problem
with ATC).

Pete

[Jim Macklin]

Sorry didn't mean to say it like that, compass deviation
correction. I was thinking about the swinging process,
flying a heading on a cardinal course (government surveyed
roads on sections lines are true N-S-E and W. Variation is
applied when setting the HI to get the local magnetic, then
turns are made with the HI and the compass read to determine
the deviation.

Sorry for being tired when I misspoke.


"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
. 122...
| Jim Macklin wrote
| > The slaved compass is corrected so as many errors
| > (deviation) are corrected and variation is also
corrected as
| > much as possible too,
|
| SAY WHAT!!!! How does one fly an ATC assigned heading if
VAR
| has been 'corrected' out?
|
| Bob Moore

[Jim Macklin]

The flux valve is usually located well away from steel and
electrical components, so it avoids many deviation errors.
It also is designed to be more accurate and reduce turning
errors sent to the indicator.


"Peter Duniho" > wrote in
message ...
| "Bob Moore" > wrote in message
| . 122...
| > Jim Macklin wrote
| >> The slaved compass is corrected so as many errors
| >> (deviation) are corrected and variation is also
corrected as
| >> much as possible too,
| >
| > SAY WHAT!!!! How does one fly an ATC assigned heading
if VAR
| > has been 'corrected' out?
|
| Probably the same way you do it when there's a wind. ATC
assigns you a
| heading. If that doesn't provide the track they want,
they assign a new
| one, adjusting for the error in the track.
|
| They don't care what your heading indicator is telling
you. They care that
| you follow it consistently.
|
| (Note: I don't actually know anything about how a slaved
compass is
| corrected...seems to me that variation and local deviation
(that is, not due
| to the aircraft installation itself) are not things one
could usefully build
| into a slaved compass. But assuming the slaved compass IS
correcting for
| all manner of things, there's no reason to believe it
would cause a problem
| with ATC).
|
| Pete
|
|

[Christopher Brian Colohan]

Ross Richardson > writes:
> Be sure you set the DG to the magnetic compass before you turn onto the
> runway and not do like some pilots I have seen. Line up on the runway
> and set the compass.

DG? Oh yeah, directional gyro. Don't have one of those in any of the
Citabrias I have been learning to fly in... Just a compass. :-)

Chris

[Dudley Henriques[_1_]]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...

> I also hope everyone is checking their power indications, vacuum,
> alternator, etc. as they commence the takeoff roll, especially if
> launching into IMC.
>
> Matt

First 10 feet into the takeoff roll as power comes up....always!!

Dudley

[Jay Beckman]

"John Gaquin" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Emily" > wrote in message news:E-
>>
>> Hahaha...I tried that last month in a certain hotel that must have been
>> 100 feet from the interstate.
>
> Why don't you stay elsewhere?
>

The key to waht Emily said was in the fact that her employer sent her on
business...the golden rule.

Them with the gold, makes the rules.

If your employer is buying, you stay where you're put.

Jay B

[Peter Duniho]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:_lOIg.6238$SZ3.83@dukeread04...
> The flux valve is usually located well away from steel and
> electrical components, so it avoids many deviation errors.
> It also is designed to be more accurate and reduce turning
> errors sent to the indicator.

But there's no way, absent some sort of absolute position information (eg
GPS) and a detailed database, to ascertain deviation due to local geology or
other external magnetic interference, nor due to magnetic variation (which
was Bob's point).

Of course, my point is that correcting those errors isn't relevant to ATC.
They don't care if your compass is actually right or not. They just care
that you can hold it to a specific heading. But I think it's fair to
comment on the statement that "the slaved compass is corrected so
as...variation is also corrected". That's clearly just not true, at least
in most installations (I suppose there's at least one GPS-based slaved
compass setup in which it is corrected...never say never...but generally,
this isn't used)

Pete

[Tony]

Dudley Henriques wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > I also hope everyone is checking their power indications, vacuum,
> > alternator, etc. as they commence the takeoff roll, especially if
> > launching into IMC.
> >
> > Matt
>
> First 10 feet into the takeoff roll as power comes up....always!!
>
> Dudley

And a final look around just before rotation. Somehow a long time ago
my checklist had an item added: "Is this airplane OK to fly?" to be
answered just before applying backpressure. For what it's worth, I keep
one ear free of the headset until aloft, I want to hear that the engine
and wind noises sound normal while still on the ground. 3000 feet of
runway gives my Mooney enough space to get to lift off speed, then down
to taxi speed, without breaking anything, and twice in my 2500 tt hours
found a reason well into the takeoff roll to abort the flight. Taking
off should NOT be automatic, it should be a concious decision made as
late in the process as is safe.

[Matt Whiting]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> The slaved compass is corrected so as many errors
> (deviation) are corrected and variation is also corrected as
> much as possible too, so the slaved compass may be reading
> different from the whiskey compass unless you apply the
> compass correction card FOR-Steer to get a more accurate
> setting for the HI. But the whiskey compass is not supposed
> to have any error greater than 10 on any heading. Often the
> compass is swung with the electrical and radios running. It
> seems that swinging the compass should be done with the
> electrical system dead and the radios off, that is when I'd
> want the most accurate magnetic compass.

Why do you want your compass to be most accurate when your airplane
isn't being used?

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Tony wrote:

> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>>"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>
>>>I also hope everyone is checking their power indications, vacuum,
>>>alternator, etc. as they commence the takeoff roll, especially if
>>>launching into IMC.
>>>
>>>Matt
>>
>>First 10 feet into the takeoff roll as power comes up....always!!
>>
>>Dudley
>
>
> And a final look around just before rotation. Somehow a long time ago
> my checklist had an item added: "Is this airplane OK to fly?" to be
> answered just before applying backpressure. For what it's worth, I keep
> one ear free of the headset until aloft, I want to hear that the engine
> and wind noises sound normal while still on the ground. 3000 feet of
> runway gives my Mooney enough space to get to lift off speed, then down
> to taxi speed, without breaking anything, and twice in my 2500 tt hours
> found a reason well into the takeoff roll to abort the flight. Taking
> off should NOT be automatic, it should be a concious decision made as
> late in the process as is safe.

I actually do my final vacuum check just before I enter the clouds. And
one time several years ago, I caught that my vacuum was low. I started
an immediate descent to stay out of the layer and returned to the
airport. Turns out that a hose had come loose on the standby vacuum
system! The irony in that...

Matt

[Peter R.]

Jay Beckman > wrote:

> The key to waht Emily said was in the fact that her employer sent her on
> business...the golden rule.
>
> Them with the gold, makes the rules.
>
> If your employer is buying, you stay where you're put.

With regards to a quiet(er) room, who is paying or who made the
arrangements shouldn't matter. You (rhetorical) are the one staying at the
hotel. At a minimum, you have power when you check in so assert yourself
at that point.

If you notice the hotel is next to the highway when you are being dropped
off/driving up in a rental car, request a room away from the highway at
check-in. If you didn't notice and suffer a lousy night's sleep, complain
the next morning and demand a new room.

If the hotel is surrounded by a highway and there are no quiet rooms or the
place is sold out, complain to your company travel agent or employee who
handles the travel arrangements so that next time they might look
elsewhere.

As part of a very large group of travelers all going to a location where
hundreds of thousands of spectators are also visiting, you are somewhat of
a unique case of business traveler, Jay. :) You probably exemplify the
phrase, "you get what you get."

--
Peter

[Ross Richardson[_2_]]

Morgans wrote:
> "Ross Richardson" > wrote
>
> Ross, check your settings. Is it possible that you are not posting with
> plain text?

Did I do something wrong? I unclicked "send in HTML". My computer forgot
who I was a week ago Monday and I have been resetting everything back.
Some net etiquette that I was unaware of?

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

[Kyler Laird]

"Dudley Henriques" > writes:

>It can happen and has happened and will happen again as long as pilots don't
>remember to physically check the runway heading by glancing at the DG or
>HSI, or even the magnetic compass EVERY time they line up for takeoff. This
>should be an automatic reflex action for a pilot, especially at busy
>airports where runways are 30 degrees or less apart in direction.

That was my first thought too, especially after the news kept reporting
that the flight data was consistent with taking off from the short
runway.

I usually check my compass and reset my DG when I line up on the runway.
("usually" == "not when rolling onto a short soft strip") It'd be hard
to miss a 30 degree difference then.

I wonder if we'll see calls for scheduled service to require active
tower controllers.

--kyler

[Jose[_1_]]

> Them with the gold, makes the rules.
> If your employer is buying, you stay where you're put.

OTOH your employer's gold is good leverage against the hotel, since it
represents repeat business. Your own gold ain't.

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

[Jose[_1_]]

>> It seems that swinging the compass should be done with the electrical system dead and the radios off, that is when I'd want the most accurate magnetic compass.
> Why do you want your compass to be most accurate when your airplane isn't being used?

I think he means that when all the electrical systems (& DG) go south
but you're still "up there, wishing you were down here", is when you
want the mag compass to be dead on.

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

[Jose[_1_]]

> Some net etiquette that I was unaware of?

If your computer is messing with your settings, you get a pass while you
figure it out and put the OS in its place. Posting should be in plain
text. HTML foists too much crap on users. But you are already aware of
this, as you unclicked "send in HTML". Maybe the OS overruled you again?

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

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Kyler Laird" > wrote in message
...
>
> I wonder if we'll see calls for scheduled service to require active
> tower controllers.
>

Active tower controllers?

[Jim Macklin]

Because it is in flight and has had a total electrical
failure, all I have to navigate with is my wrist watch and
the magnetic compass. In that case, I want the compass to
be the most accurate as possible. When the radios work, I
can use the VOR/GPS and even radar vectors, when all that is
dead, the compass will get you there IF it is accurate. A
10 degree error will but you off course 10 miles every 60
[57.3] miles you fly. If visibility is 5 miles an
inaccurate compass will leave you lost at sea. Maybe you
will find the coastline of the continent, but if you're hope
is land fall on an island, you need an accurate compass.



"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > The slaved compass is corrected so as many errors
| > (deviation) are corrected and variation is also
corrected as
| > much as possible too, so the slaved compass may be
reading
| > different from the whiskey compass unless you apply the
| > compass correction card FOR-Steer to get a more accurate
| > setting for the HI. But the whiskey compass is not
supposed
| > to have any error greater than 10 on any heading. Often
the
| > compass is swung with the electrical and radios running.
It
| > seems that swinging the compass should be done with the
| > electrical system dead and the radios off, that is when
I'd
| > want the most accurate magnetic compass.
|
| Why do you want your compass to be most accurate when your
airplane
| isn't being used?
|
| Matt

[John Gaquin]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message >>
>> I wonder if we'll see calls for scheduled service to require active
>> tower controllers.
>>
>
> Active tower controllers?

As opposed to sedentary tower controllers?

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"John Gaquin" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> As opposed to sedentary tower controllers?

Beats me. I'm hoping for clarification from Kyler Laird.

[Matt Barrow]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Guy Elden Jr > wrote:
>
>> all I did was reset the dg to the runway heading,
>
> Guy, I am curious about this. I have flown with other pilots who reset
> the
> DG to the runway heading, but when I question them about this, they admit
> to setting the DG to the runway number (with the trailing zero, of
> course).
> As you most likely know, the runway number (with trailing zero) can be off
> from the actual heading by as much as 10 degrees.
>
> This leads me to my question: How do you easily discover the actual
> runway
> heading at an unfamiliar airport?

Airport diagram. Usually give the MH to the 0.1 degree. If no AD is
available, get the number from an ILS chart.


> Do you, after deciding on the runway you
> would use once you start the aircraft, pull out instrument charts or
> airport diagrams and write down the runway heading?

Why would you NOT taxi with the AD in front of you?

>
> I am curious how others integrate this into their post-start, pre-taxi or
> pre-takeoff checklists.

Other than my home airport, which I could (and have) taxi around in near
total darkness, I ALWAYS have the AD, if there is one, on the yoke.

YMMV!

[Matt Barrow]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Jim Macklin > wrote:
>
>> Actual runway details are on the instrument approach charts,
>> including direction to the degree and elevation and slope.
>
> Yep, I am aware of that. I was curious whether it is common for pilots to
> pull out their instrument charts after learning of or deciding upon what
> runway is in use/to use at an unfamiliar airport. It seems to me that
> with
> the workload of pre-taxi, taxi, and pre-takeoff checklists, this item is
> probably not a task many pilots perform. Or do they?

They do if they're smart.

>
> In my case I have a slaved HSI in my Bonanza, so I had been quickly
> comparing the HSI heading to the runway number to see if it is within ten
> or so degrees of the runway number as part of the "lights, camera, action"
> taking-the-runway mnemonic.

Likewise. It's the first task when rolling onto the RW.

[Matt Barrow]

"John Gaquin" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message >>
>>> I wonder if we'll see calls for scheduled service to require active
>>> tower controllers.
>>>
>>
>> Active tower controllers?
>
> As opposed to sedentary tower controllers?
Couch potatoes?

[Emily[_1_]]

John Gaquin wrote:
> "Emily" > wrote in message news:E-
>> Hahaha...I tried that last month in a certain hotel that must have been
>> 100 feet from the interstate.
>
> Why don't you stay elsewhere?
>
>
I'd never stayed there before, so how would I know?

Unfortunately, my company, who shall remain nameless, gave me 12 hours
notice that I was going there. There was a convention in town, and
nowhere else to stay.

[Emily[_1_]]

Jay Beckman wrote:
> "John Gaquin" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> "Emily" > wrote in message news:E-
>>> Hahaha...I tried that last month in a certain hotel that must have been
>>> 100 feet from the interstate.
>> Why don't you stay elsewhere?
>>
>
> The key to waht Emily said was in the fact that her employer sent her on
> business...the golden rule.
>
> Them with the gold, makes the rules.
>
> If your employer is buying, you stay where you're put.

LOL! They didn't make any rules in this case....they had to pay $280 a
night for this place, because it was the only hotel in 100 miles with rooms!

[John Gaquin]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
>
> would use once you start the aircraft, pull out instrument charts or
> airport diagrams and write down the runway heading?

Most carriers require a taxi chart out whenever the aircraft is moved under
power.

[Jay Beckman]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Jay Beckman > wrote:
>
>> The key to waht Emily said was in the fact that her employer sent her on
>> business...the golden rule.
>>
>> Them with the gold, makes the rules.
>>
>> If your employer is buying, you stay where you're put.
>
> With regards to a quiet(er) room, who is paying or who made the
> arrangements shouldn't matter. You (rhetorical) are the one staying at
> the
> hotel. At a minimum, you have power when you check in so assert yourself
> at that point.
>
> If you notice the hotel is next to the highway when you are being dropped
> off/driving up in a rental car, request a room away from the highway at
> check-in. If you didn't notice and suffer a lousy night's sleep, complain
> the next morning and demand a new room.
>
> If the hotel is surrounded by a highway and there are no quiet rooms or
> the
> place is sold out, complain to your company travel agent or employee who
> handles the travel arrangements so that next time they might look
> elsewhere.
>
> As part of a very large group of travelers all going to a location where
> hundreds of thousands of spectators are also visiting, you are somewhat of
> a unique case of business traveler, Jay. :) You probably exemplify the
> phrase, "you get what you get."
>
> --
> Peter

Yeah, I guess I oughta stay out of this one...

We do have quite the traveling circus and we aren't your usual business
types...

LOL...

Jay B

[Kyler Laird]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > writes:

>> I wonder if we'll see calls for scheduled service to require active
>> tower controllers.

>Active tower controllers?

As I said, a tower controller who was not (quite yet) on duty ("active")
turned around the commuter plane following me to the wrong (for him)
runway. (Yes, I could have just said "active tower" but the real help
comes from the controller.)

The Today Show this morning had a spot where an NTSB spokesperson said
"during the takeoff roll the flight crew noted that the lights were out
on the runway" then the voice over breaks in with "but the crew never
applied the brakes or radioed the tower. Instead the captain called out
'rotate' telling the first officer to pull up at the appropriate speed."

Was the tower active or was that comment from out of nowhere? If it was
active...well, was the plane really cleared for takeoff onto the wrong
runway?

Also, it sure sounds like they (theoretically) could have made the
takeoff on that runway. Anyone have the performance tables handy?

--kyler

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Kyler Laird" > wrote in message
...
>
> The Today Show this morning had a spot where an NTSB spokesperson said
> "during the takeoff roll the flight crew noted that the lights were out
> on the runway" then the voice over breaks in with "but the crew never
> applied the brakes or radioed the tower. Instead the captain called out
> 'rotate' telling the first officer to pull up at the appropriate speed."
>
> Was the tower active or was that comment from out of nowhere?
>

It's a full-time tower.


>
> If it was active...well, was the plane really cleared for takeoff onto the
> wrong
> runway?
>

No, it was cleared for takeoff on the right runway, the flight crew
attempted takeoff on the wrong runway.

[Morgans[_4_]]

"Ross Richardson" > wrote in message
...
> Morgans wrote:
> > "Ross Richardson" > wrote
> >
> > Ross, check your settings. Is it possible that you are not posting with
> > plain text?
>
> Did I do something wrong? I unclicked "send in HTML". My computer forgot
> who I was a week ago Monday and I have been resetting everything back.
> Some net etiquette that I was unaware of?

Dunno. It was in plain text, this time.

Carry on! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Kyler Laird]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > writes:

>> If it was active...well, was the plane really cleared for takeoff onto the
>> wrong
>> runway?

>No, it was cleared for takeoff on the right runway, the flight crew
>attempted takeoff on the wrong runway.

So...how'd it go? Ground cleared the plane to taxi to the correct
runway, observed the plane go to the wrong runway, then tower cleared
the plane to depart the right runway, and observed it pull onto the
wrong runway. Anything like that?

I hope I'm missing something obvious. Was there dense fog involved?
Lots of other traffic?

--kyler

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Kyler Laird" > wrote in message
...
>
> So...how'd it go? Ground cleared the plane to taxi to the correct
> runway, observed the plane go to the wrong runway, then tower cleared
> the plane to depart the right runway, and observed it pull onto the
> wrong runway. Anything like that?
>

Probably not. The runways are not far apart. You have to taxi past the
departure end of runway 26, the wrong runway, to reach the departure end of
runway 22, the right runway. I believe there was just one controller in the
tower.


>
> I hope I'm missing something obvious. Was there dense fog involved?
> Lots of other traffic?
>

The weather observation taken about 13 minutes prior showed six miles
visibility. I don't know if there was other traffic, but probably not a lot
on an early weekend morning.

[Jim Macklin]

Depending on the tower location, the angle might not allow
seeing the error, it is even possible the end of the runway
could be hidden behind a building. The controller has many
duties, watching an airplane taxi is not the highest
priority, getting the hand-off to Center, possible radio
contact with other airplanes, many things could be required.

Just looked at the airport diagram, the tower is located
with a clear view of runway 22 and 26 , if there are no
uncharted builds or trees. Still in the dark, lights alone
do not necessarily allow determination of enough details to
over come the expectation that they were on 22.


"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote
in message
k.net...
|
| "Kyler Laird" > wrote in message
| ...
| >
| > So...how'd it go? Ground cleared the plane to taxi to
the correct
| > runway, observed the plane go to the wrong runway, then
tower cleared
| > the plane to depart the right runway, and observed it
pull onto the
| > wrong runway. Anything like that?
| >
|
| Probably not. The runways are not far apart. You have to
taxi past the
| departure end of runway 26, the wrong runway, to reach the
departure end of
| runway 22, the right runway. I believe there was just one
controller in the
| tower.
|
|
| >
| > I hope I'm missing something obvious. Was there dense
fog involved?
| > Lots of other traffic?
| >
|
| The weather observation taken about 13 minutes prior
showed six miles
| visibility. I don't know if there was other traffic, but
probably not a lot
| on an early weekend morning.
|
|

[Newps]

Kyler Laird wrote:

>
>
> So...how'd it go? Ground cleared the plane to taxi to the correct
> runway, observed the plane go to the wrong runway, then tower cleared
> the plane to depart the right runway, and observed it pull onto the
> wrong runway. Anything like that?

Nope. One guy in the tower. The FAA has already admitted that they
broke their own rules by having only one controller staffed when the
policy requires a minimum of two at all times, at all facilities. They
will probably hang the tower manager as a scapegoat.

[Peter Duniho]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
> Nope. One guy in the tower. The FAA has already admitted that they broke
> their own rules by having only one controller staffed when the policy
> requires a minimum of two at all times, at all facilities. They will
> probably hang the tower manager as a scapegoat.

Yeah, I saw that. It wasn't clear to me the policy violation had anything
to do with the accident though. As the news explained it, the policy was to
have a radar controller in addition to the tower controller. They also say
that the tower controller was distracted doing a "traffic count". AFAIK,
having a radar controller on duty wouldn't have affected that.

Or is a traffic count something that the radar controller would have done?

Pete

[John Gaquin]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
>
> Just looked at the airport diagram, the tower is located
> with a clear view of runway 22 and 26 , if there are no
> uncharted builds or trees.

The tower, end of 22, and end of 26 are pretty much in line. I think a
misposition might not be immediately obvious to the tower without a second,
closer look. Also, my sense is that even when the takeoff roll had started,
the angles are such that the roll might have to progress a certain distance
before a discrepency would become obvious to the tower, if they were
looking.

[Jim Macklin]

Yep, that is what I said, just because you can see, doesn't
mean you know what it is.
"John Gaquin" > wrote in message
. ..
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| >
| > Just looked at the airport diagram, the tower is located
| > with a clear view of runway 22 and 26 , if there are no
| > uncharted builds or trees.
|
| The tower, end of 22, and end of 26 are pretty much in
line. I think a
| misposition might not be immediately obvious to the tower
without a second,
| closer look. Also, my sense is that even when the takeoff
roll had started,
| the angles are such that the roll might have to progress a
certain distance
| before a discrepency would become obvious to the tower, if
they were
| looking.
|
|

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 20:56:10 -0600, Newps > wrote:
> Nope. One guy in the tower. The FAA has already admitted that they
> broke their own rules by having only one controller staffed when the
> policy requires a minimum of two at all times, at all facilities. They
> will probably hang the tower manager as a scapegoat.

Nawh, it'll be the PIC as always... Maybe a couple of other
contributing factors, but in the end, the PIC will take the hit... As
far as the FAA is concerned, it all boils down to something like,
"Well, you didn't *have* to fly that day"... <sick-grin>

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 16:25:35 -0500, Ross Richardson
> wrote:
> Be sure you set the DG to the magnetic compass before you turn onto the
> runway and not do like some pilots I have seen. Line up on the runway
> and set the compass.

Hmmm... Your compass must be a different model than mine... I don't
think that there is any mechanism to readily adjust mine prior to
takeoff...

[Newps]

"Traffic count" is a euphemism for not paying attention.




Peter Duniho wrote:

> "Newps" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Nope. One guy in the tower. The FAA has already admitted that they broke
>>their own rules by having only one controller staffed when the policy
>>requires a minimum of two at all times, at all facilities. They will
>>probably hang the tower manager as a scapegoat.
>
>
> Yeah, I saw that. It wasn't clear to me the policy violation had anything
> to do with the accident though. As the news explained it, the policy was to
> have a radar controller in addition to the tower controller. They also say
> that the tower controller was distracted doing a "traffic count". AFAIK,
> having a radar controller on duty wouldn't have affected that.
>
> Or is a traffic count something that the radar controller would have done?
>
> Pete
>
>

[Newps]

Grumman-581 wrote:

> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 20:56:10 -0600, Newps > wrote:
>
>>Nope. One guy in the tower. The FAA has already admitted that they
>>broke their own rules by having only one controller staffed when the
>>policy requires a minimum of two at all times, at all facilities. They
>>will probably hang the tower manager as a scapegoat.
>
>
> Nawh, it'll be the PIC as always... Maybe a couple of other
> contributing factors, but in the end, the PIC will take the hit... As
> far as the FAA is concerned, it all boils down to something like,
> "Well, you didn't *have* to fly that day"... <sick-grin>

Yes the FAA will come down on the crew. The lawyers will drag the FAA
into court however.

[Ron Lee]

Newps > wrote:

>"Traffic count" is a euphemism for not paying attention.

Traffic count at 6 AM on Sunday? yea right.

Ron Lee



>
>Peter Duniho wrote:
>
>> "Newps" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Nope. One guy in the tower. The FAA has already admitted that they broke
>>>their own rules by having only one controller staffed when the policy
>>>requires a minimum of two at all times, at all facilities. They will
>>>probably hang the tower manager as a scapegoat.
>>
>>
>> Yeah, I saw that. It wasn't clear to me the policy violation had anything
>> to do with the accident though. As the news explained it, the policy was to
>> have a radar controller in addition to the tower controller. They also say
>> that the tower controller was distracted doing a "traffic count". AFAIK,
>> having a radar controller on duty wouldn't have affected that.
>>
>> Or is a traffic count something that the radar controller would have done?
>>
>> Pete
>>
>>

[Al[_1_]]

"Guy Elden Jr" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> This is just one of those "little extras" that every pilot should include
>> in
>> that last second look around the pit before opening the throttle. With
>> me; I
>> always made it a point to hestiate for a few seconds for a line up
>> re-check.
>
> Yep... lights, camera, action, where the action -> check dg / line it
> up with runway numbers. Before now, I'll admit, all I did was reset the
> dg to the runway heading, but from now on, I'll be paying much closer
> attention to the variance. Too much means something ain't right.
>
> --
> Guy
>
From Lr24 training.
Remember: Aim, then Fire...

Al G

[Newps]

Ron Lee wrote:
> Newps > wrote:
>
>
>>"Traffic count" is a euphemism for not paying attention.
>
>
> Traffic count at 6 AM on Sunday? yea right.


Traffic is normally counted at the top of every hour, for those
facilities where it is not automated, and entered into the computer.
Between 12 and 2 am the days traffic count has to be entered into a
separate program and then sent to Wahington.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Newps > wrote:

> "Traffic count" is a euphemism for not paying attention.

as is "I was on the landline"

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

[.Blueskies.]

"Aluckyguess" > wrote in message ...
:I took a freind up today and he asked how something like that can happen. My
: answer was simple, their human.
:



they're human...

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
>
> Traffic count at 6 AM on Sunday? yea right.
>

Disbelief? Traffic is counted at hourly intervals. The accident occurred
just after the hour.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
>
> as is "I was on the landline"
>

It can be. But landline calls are made, and traffic is counted.

[Ron Lee]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

>
>"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Traffic count at 6 AM on Sunday? yea right.
>>
>
>Disbelief? Traffic is counted at hourly intervals. The accident occurred
>just after the hour.
>

Disbelief that there is a significant amount of traffic at that time
to result in a major workload.

Ron Lee

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
>
> Disbelief that there is a significant amount of traffic at that time
> to result in a major workload.
>

Well, there must have been some or there would have been nothing to count.
Nobody said it was a major workload.

[Emily[_1_]]

Bob Noel wrote:
> In article >,
> Newps > wrote:
>
>> "Traffic count" is a euphemism for not paying attention.
>
> as is "I was on the landline"

A friend and I in college bet on how many times tower would tell us that
in one flight.

[James]

Peter R. wrote:
> John Gaquin > wrote:
>
>
>>The only time time I stayed in noisy hotels was long, long ago when I was
>>travelling on the cheap, and it had less to do with the hotel than the
>>surrounding neighborhood..
>
>
> For the last 13 years I have traveled just about every business week.
> Early on I learned to carry with me a Sharper Image travel-sized white
> noise radio. This device, which omits white noise similar to a waterfall
> when switched on, has been responsible for many a restful night's sleep,
> including one week at a very loud Brooklyn, NY, hotel.
>
> I would suspect that most experienced travelers, including airline pilots,
> do something similar.
>
I find earplugs are useful for getting sleep in noisy environments. I
worked this out when I was a college student, and hence would avoid
getting out of bed before 10am if at all possible, and there was a baby
staying in the house. Earplugs worked well. Ever since when working
nights during vintage they have been the go, and I always travel with
them. Infact people have commented that I sleep like I am dead!!

[Peter R.]

James > wrote:

> I find earplugs are useful for getting sleep in noisy environments.

I have tried earplugs and, as strange as this is going to read, I found
that my internal noises, like breathing and swallowing, were actually loud
enough to be distracting with them in. You don't realize how loud our
normal functions are until you block out all external noises.


--
Peter

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Peter R. wrote:

> I have tried earplugs and, as strange as this is going to read, I found
> that my internal noises, like breathing and swallowing, were actually loud
> enough to be distracting with them in. You don't realize how loud our
> normal functions are until you block out all external noises.


Are you absolutely certain you're keeping all those "internal noises" internal?




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Peter R.]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote:

> Are you absolutely certain you're keeping all those "internal noises"
> internal?

Not all of them, no. :)

--
Peter

[Matt Barrow]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> James > wrote:
>
>> I find earplugs are useful for getting sleep in noisy environments.
>
> I have tried earplugs and, as strange as this is going to read, I found
> that my internal noises, like breathing and swallowing, were actually loud
> enough to be distracting with them in. You don't realize how loud our
> normal functions are until you block out all external noises.
>

Like a fart in church?

[Morgans[_4_]]

"Peter R." > wrote

> I have tried earplugs and, as strange as this is going to read, I found
> that my internal noises, like breathing and swallowing, were actually loud
> enough to be distracting with them in. You don't realize how loud our
> normal functions are until you block out all external noises.

You should fly for a while without hearing protection. You get the benefit
two ways

One, you will be half deaf, and will not hear most noises, and second, you
might get tinnitus (high pitched ringing in the ears) and the high pitches
screaming in your ear will drown out the other body noises !

Just kidding, everyone. Don't go out there and do this. There is nothing
good to what I described. I know, I live it! :-(
--
Jim in NC

[Emily[_1_]]

Morgans wrote:
> "Peter R." > wrote
>
>> I have tried earplugs and, as strange as this is going to read, I found
>> that my internal noises, like breathing and swallowing, were actually loud
>> enough to be distracting with them in. You don't realize how loud our
>> normal functions are until you block out all external noises.
>
> You should fly for a while without hearing protection. You get the benefit
> two ways
>
> One, you will be half deaf, and will not hear most noises, and second, you
> might get tinnitus (high pitched ringing in the ears) and the high pitches
> screaming in your ear will drown out the other body noises !
>
> Just kidding, everyone. Don't go out there and do this. There is nothing
> good to what I described. I know, I live it! :-(

I have very slightly hearing loss due to multiple ear infections as a
child. It's only noticeable during testing, but according to my doctor,
my brain makes up for the the hearing loss in the high frequencies by
being overly effective in the lower frequencies. Makes the noise of my
neighbor's air conditioning unbearable.

[Peter R.]

Morgans > wrote:

> You should fly for a while without hearing protection. You get the benefit
> two ways

I damaged the hearing in my right ear when I was 8, and then again when I
was in high school. At 8 I mistakenly discharged a pistol indoors. After
that incident I had recurring tinnitus that will still occasionally surface
these days.

In high school I ran a DJ dance company and was the DJ. Week after week I
worked the turntables next to a very loud speaker that acted as a monitor
of what was going over the main speakers. It wasn't until I applied to the
US Air Force a few years later that I discovered a 40% loss of hearing in
the right ear.

--
Peter

[john smith]

In article >,
"Peter R." > wrote:

> At 8 I mistakenly discharged a pistol indoors.

"Mistakenly"?
Do you mean you were acting like an 8-year old? :-))

[Matt Barrow]

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Peter R." > wrote:
>
>> At 8 I mistakenly discharged a pistol indoors.
>
> "Mistakenly"?
> Do you mean you were acting like an 8-year old? :-))

Jeff Foxworthy's bit about his uncle that shot his cousin because he thought
he was a deer, because he was driving a brown car, comes to mind.

[Peter R.]

john smith > wrote:

> "Mistakenly"?
> Do you mean you were acting like an 8-year old? :-))

The curiosity of an 8 year old combined with the typical late 60's/early
70's student/hippy pacifist beliefs of parents made for a near-deadly
combination when an authentic WWII German Lugar appeared in the house.

--
Peter

[LWG]

I may sound like an idiot, but I have often wondered why there isn't a
system of red and green lights at taxiway and runway intersections. Driving
around unfamiliar airports at night is one of the hardest things I've done
in an airplane. It's hard to see the signage, there are no lights to speak
of, and trying to read taxiway diagrams with that feeble red cockpit light
is useless. Progressive isn't a lot better, at bigger airports it's like
getting directions from a New York taxicab driver.

How simple it would be see a line of green lights until until to get to red
one at the runway, which is turned green when you're cleared on the runway.
I understand there will be some thinking to do at bigger airports will
multiple simultaneous taxi operations, but I can't believe with a little
thought those problems couldn't be solved. If we limited it to just
intersections of runways with taxiways, it would be downright simple.

"John Gaquin" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
>>
>> Just looked at the airport diagram, the tower is located
>> with a clear view of runway 22 and 26 , if there are no
>> uncharted builds or trees.
>
> The tower, end of 22, and end of 26 are pretty much in line. I think a
> misposition might not be immediately obvious to the tower without a
> second, closer look. Also, my sense is that even when the takeoff roll
> had started, the angles are such that the roll might have to progress a
> certain distance before a discrepency would become obvious to the tower,
> if they were looking.
>

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Fri, 1 Sep 2006 17:39:56 -0400, "LWG" >
wrote:
> How simple it would be see a line of green lights until until to get to red
> one at the runway, which is turned green when you're cleared on the runway.
> I understand there will be some thinking to do at bigger airports will
> multiple simultaneous taxi operations, but I can't believe with a little
> thought those problems couldn't be solved. If we limited it to just
> intersections of runways with taxiways, it would be downright simple.

And you've never had a problem with traffic lights in the city where
you are located?

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
B A R R Y > wrote:

> I worked as a house and monitor sound mixer for 15 years and got my
> balls broken for wearing plugs when I wasn't mixing. Day after day, I
> working high volume environments. I still have perfect hearing and
> would love to track down the more aggregious ball breakers and see how
> they hear today.

and the beauty of it is, they won't be able to hear you coming... :-/

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

[Peter R.]

B A R R Y > wrote:

> Sorry to hear that.

Pun intended?

> I worked as a house and monitor sound mixer for 15 years and got my
> balls broken for wearing plugs when I wasn't mixing. Day after day, I
> working high volume environments. I still have perfect hearing and
> would love to track down the more aggregious ball breakers and see how
> they hear today.

If it is any consolation, I never busted anyone's balls for using ear plugs
or not. In my case I was just stupid.

--
Peter

[John Gaquin]

"LWG" > wrote in message news:9-

>.... It's hard to see the signage, there are no lights to speak of, and
>trying to read taxiway diagrams with that feeble red cockpit light is
>useless.

So turn up the lights so you can see the diagram.

[Jim Macklin]

Modern aircraft don't have only red lights in the cockpit,
lots of lighting and pilots carry flashlights, pen lights
and can study the diagrams in the office too.



"John Gaquin" > wrote in message
. ..
|
| "LWG" > wrote in message news:9-
|
| >.... It's hard to see the signage, there are no lights to
speak of, and
| >trying to read taxiway diagrams with that feeble red
cockpit light is
| >useless.
|
| So turn up the lights so you can see the diagram.
|
|

[john smith]

> | >.... It's hard to see the signage, there are no lights to
> speak of, and trying to read taxiway diagrams with that feeble red
> cockpit light is useless.

> | So turn up the lights so you can see the diagram.

> Modern aircraft don't have only red lights in the cockpit,
> lots of lighting and pilots carry flashlights, pen lights
> and can study the diagrams in the office too.

Try a green or blue LED light.
It won't destroy your night vision and provides a brighter light.

[John Gaquin]

"john smith" > wrote in message news:jsmith-
>
>> | So turn up the lights so you can see the diagram.
>
> Try a green or blue LED light.
> It won't destroy your night vision and provides a brighter light.

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
>
> .....any _single color_ red, blue, or
> green light source will protect your night vision.

I've come to the conclusion that perfect night vision, per se, is not the
crucial thing to be protected that many think it is. (I'm talking about
normal operations here, not any kind of military or special ops thing) Just
what is it you're looking for that isn't already lit up? Panel light
reflections off the windshield and side windows are much more intrusive,
imo, and more negatively impactful on traffic scan and the ability to see
outside the airplane than a temporary degradation of night vision. I always
kept cockpit lights very, very low, [sometimes off :-)] but if someone
needs to see a chart or something, turn up the lights for moment or a
half-minute, get your info clearly and without squinting, then turn the
lights back low.

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 15:06:01 GMT, B A R R Y
> wrote:
> A while back, I read somewhere that any _single color_ red, blue, or
> green light source will protect your night vision. So far, I'll
> agree with that.

Let's go retro... Use a blacklight on your map... The whites will
stand out *very* well... <grin>