Comair Pilot Error

[Andrew Sarangan[_1_]]

I am getting tired of comments like "controller should have warned the
pilots", or "taxiway was confusing", or "runway lights were off" etc..
One could not find a better example of a pure and simple pilot error.
The runway was clear, the weather was VFR, and the airplane was working
fine. It is highly likely that this was the only airplane maneuvering
at the airport. Even if the controller had cleared him to takeoff on
runway 26, the responsibility would have been on the pilot to decline
that clearance. Yet, a perfectly good airplane was run off the runway
and ploughed into the woods.

NTSB is investigating whether the pilots had coffee that morning, and
how much sleep they got. This is a futile exercise. Taxiing and
departing from a relatively quiet airport under VFR conditions is an
extremely low workload situation. We are not talking about shooting a
non-precision approach to minimums in a thunderstorm after a full day
of flying. A pilot should be able to do this even if he had partied all
night at the bar. What happened was gross negligence.

I shudder to think that my wife and baby flew the Comair CRJ only a few
days prior to this accident. Fortunately they are flying back with me
in our trusty GA airplane. I feel a lot better about it than trusting
my family to stupid mistakes that even my students pilots know how to
avoid. I sincerely feel for those who lost loved ones. They have the
right be very angry. I am angry, and I did not lose anything.

[Peter Duniho]

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> [...] I sincerely feel for those who lost loved ones. They have the
> right be very angry. I am angry, and I did not lose anything.

You have never made a single mistake, ever, while flying an airplane?

IMHO, your anger is misplaced. It's not like the pilots made the mistake on
purpose. And so far, there's not any indication that they did something
blatantly irresponsible that led to their mistake. For someone who has
absolutely ZERO first-hand knowledge of the accident, nor any reliable
second-hand knowledge for that matter, you sure are throwing some pretty
strong accusations around.

*Maybe* if you've never made a mistake in your life, anger *might* be a
valid response. Otherwise, "there but for the grace of God go I" seems more
appropriate to me (whether or not you believe in God, the meaning of the
sentiment is clear and valid).

By the way, while the weather was VFR, it was an hour before sunrise. That
is, basically still pitch dark. The poorer quality of runway may not have
been apparent lit only by the airplane's lights, and there may have been
some fluke with the signage that led the pilots to think they were at the
correct runway. Your assertion that fatigue or the early hour could not
have been an issue is simply absurd. There are at least a dozen other
factors that have already been reported that could have been contributory,
and there are dozens, if not hundreds more that no one has even thought of
or identified yet.

I'll say one thing though...you're probably a blast at the Lynch Mobs of
America convention. I hope the rest of us can at least wait until the
investigation is complete before we start talking crucifiction.

Pete

[Dudley Henriques[_1_]]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> [...] I sincerely feel for those who lost loved ones. They have the
>> right be very angry. I am angry, and I did not lose anything.
>
> You have never made a single mistake, ever, while flying an airplane?
>
> IMHO, your anger is misplaced. It's not like the pilots made the mistake
> on purpose. And so far, there's not any indication that they did
> something blatantly irresponsible that led to their mistake.

Yes there most certainly is, and its more than an indication. Its a fact
that they either accepted a line up check on their HSI's telling them they
were on the wrong runway or they didn't make a correct runway lineup check.
Either way, it was a fatal error not to have made the lineup check or making
the check incorrectly. There is no way around the fact that they made the
takeoff on the wrong runway. This indicates an incorrect reading on the HSI
for the right runway or starting the run without a verifying check on the
means in the aircraft to verify the right runway.
Even if it can be argued that both HSI's were out, the mag compass would
also have had to be non operational. Last but not least, if ALL means of
verifying the correct runway were non functioning, that would mean they
accepted the runway they were on as the right runway without a verifying
lineup check.
No matter how you cut this one, pilot error is seriously indicated by the
simple fact that the takeoff roll was started on the runway not assigned to
them.
Dudley Henriques

[[email protected]]

Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
> No matter how you cut this one, pilot error is seriously indicated by the simple
> fact that the takeoff roll was started on the runway not assigned to them.


Just for curiosity - had the takeoff been pulled off and the airplane
carried on, would the FAA have warned the pilots nonetheless or would
nobody have heard of it at all?

Ramapriya

[Peter Duniho]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Just for curiosity - had the takeoff been pulled off and the airplane
> carried on, would the FAA have warned the pilots nonetheless or would
> nobody have heard of it at all?

I guess that depends on who knew the takeoff occurred on the wrong runway,
and whether they would say anything. It seems likely that the controller
wasn't paying attention, so he probably wouldn't have even known. That
leaves the pilots, and they probably wouldn't say anything. Though, one
hopes they would at least file an ASRS report describing the situation (and
perhaps the surviving pilot still will).

Pete

[Dudley Henriques[_1_]]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>
>> No matter how you cut this one, pilot error is seriously indicated by the
>> simple
>> fact that the takeoff roll was started on the runway not assigned to
>> them.
>
>
> Just for curiosity - had the takeoff been pulled off and the airplane
> carried on, would the FAA have warned the pilots nonetheless or would
> nobody have heard of it at all?
>
> Ramapriya

Difficult to say really. Things like that can get very arbitrary and
selective.
Had they the runway to actually make the takeoff, and the tower noticed it
after the fact, it would probably have been a crap shoot as to whether or
not the controller would have keyed the mike and told them. Once that had
been done, a report would have to be filed as the incident would be on the
tower tape.
I'm just guessing, but I would think they would have nailed him, as the
responsibility for the commit to takeoff on the wrong runway would lie with
the PIC rather than the tower, and noticing something as serious as this
would most likely be a reflex action for a controller.
For the pilots; another crap shoot. If they declare, its a trip to the front
office as a minimum and a possible loss of the job in the balance. On the
other hand, had they made it unnoticed by the tower, and picked up the error
by themselves, it would have been another crap shoot as to which one of them
would hit the mike and spill the beans. My understanding is that the first
officer made the takeoff. That leaves the Captain to answer how he LET the
first officer make the takeoff. The Captain gets nailed either way.
These things are never easy to answer. The plain simple truth is that
professional aviation is an endeavor where people make mistakes. The problem
is that in professional aviation, mistakes like this one are not allowed.
I noticed one poster addressing the issue by attempting to deal with the
"anybody can make a mistake" scenario. In the world of professional
aviation, this simply won't wash.
The trick to survival in this business is not to make the mistake in the
first place. If you do make that mistake, you will most likely either be
dead or out of a job.
In the ideal world, two pilots would make a mistake, catch it after they did
it, then report it and take part in a process that would help prevent the
next two pilots from making the same mistake. In the real world, you report
doing something like this and the outcome can be career ending.
In a white paper I wrote once on low altitude demonstration flying I began
with a simple comment in the preface. That comment read as follows and hung
framed over my desk for over 30 years;
" I once had a friend. Jim was one horrific flying son-of-a-bitch. He was
the best natural born pilot I've ever known. In his entire career, he only
made one mistake.
Jim's dead."
Dudley Henriques

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
> "Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > [...] I sincerely feel for those who lost loved ones. They have the
> > right be very angry. I am angry, and I did not lose anything.
>
> You have never made a single mistake, ever, while flying an airplane?

Have you (now lets get the context right) ever taken off on the wrong
runway?

I haven't, I bet the poster hasn't either.

But you have huh?

No - you've provided a different question - thereby completely changing
the original point - that taking off on the wrong runway is not a simple
mistake, it's a very very serious one. It's on par with without the
gear down.


> IMHO, your anger is misplaced. It's not like the pilots made the mistake on
> purpose. And so far, there's not any indication that they did something
> blatantly irresponsible that led to their mistake. For someone who has
> absolutely ZERO first-hand knowledge of the accident, nor any reliable
> second-hand knowledge for that matter, you sure are throwing some pretty
> strong accusations around.

With all due respect, the mistake made is *very* serious...
* throwing a divider at school when you were 15 and getting someone in
the leg is a stupid thing to do.
* driving drunk at high speed and killing someone (by accident) - well.

> *Maybe* if you've never made a mistake in your life, anger *might* be a
> valid response. Otherwise, "there but for the grace of God go I" seems more
> appropriate to me (whether or not you believe in God, the meaning of the
> sentiment is clear and valid).
>
> By the way, while the weather was VFR, it was an hour before sunrise. That
> is, basically still pitch dark. The poorer quality of runway may not have
> been apparent lit only by the airplane's lights, and there may have been
> some fluke with the signage that led the pilots to think they were at the
> correct runway. Your assertion that fatigue or the early hour could not
> have been an issue is simply absurd. There are at least a dozen other
> factors that have already been reported that could have been contributory,
> and there are dozens, if not hundreds more that no one has even thought of
> or identified yet.

You're making your own unvalidated assertions now.

> I'll say one thing though...you're probably a blast at the Lynch Mobs of
> America convention. I hope the rest of us can at least wait until the
> investigation is complete before we start talking crucifiction.

I'll agree with you on that point.. however, it's not looking good for
the pilots. Is it?

--
Duncan

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
> NTSB is investigating whether the pilots had coffee that morning, and
> how much sleep they got. This is a futile exercise. Taxiing and
> departing from a relatively quiet airport under VFR conditions is an
> extremely low workload situation. We are not talking about shooting a
> non-precision approach to minimums in a thunderstorm after a full day
> of flying. A pilot should be able to do this even if he had partied all
> night at the bar. What happened was gross negligence.



How's the view from in there?



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[[email protected]]

Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
> If you do make that mistake, you will most likely either be dead or out of a job.


Thanks, mate.

Reports suggest that the plane hit a perimeter fence. Since that could
only have happened if the plane whacked into it on its takeoff roll not
having begun rotation, it's obvious that the pilots didn't sight it.
Makes me want to ask how effective landing lights are, normally? Are
they as good to pilots as car headlights are to drivers? My hunch is
they're not... since you don't expect traffic in your way in airplanes
:D

Ramapriya

[Dave S]

wrote:
Since that could
> only have happened if the plane whacked into it on its takeoff roll not
> having begun rotation, it's obvious that the pilots didn't sight it.

Hitting a fence and rotating are not mutually exclusive. There has been
an allegation somewhere that there was actually a drag mark that may
have been caused by over-rotating... in a desperate attempt to make it
into the air..

Sounds like the choice was - try and abort and go off the end.. or try
and muscle it into the air. Snap decisions suck when both choices mean
you lose.

Dave

[C. Massey]

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>I am getting tired of comments like "controller should have warned the
> pilots", or "taxiway was confusing", or "runway lights were off" etc..
> One could not find a better example of a pure and simple pilot error.
> The runway was clear, the weather was VFR, and the airplane was working
> fine. It is highly likely that this was the only airplane maneuvering
> at the airport. Even if the controller had cleared him to takeoff on
> runway 26, the responsibility would have been on the pilot to decline
> that clearance. Yet, a perfectly good airplane was run off the runway
> and ploughed into the woods.
>
> NTSB is investigating whether the pilots had coffee that morning, and
> how much sleep they got. This is a futile exercise. Taxiing and
> departing from a relatively quiet airport under VFR conditions is an
> extremely low workload situation. We are not talking about shooting a
> non-precision approach to minimums in a thunderstorm after a full day
> of flying. A pilot should be able to do this even if he had partied all
> night at the bar. What happened was gross negligence.
>
> I shudder to think that my wife and baby flew the Comair CRJ only a few
> days prior to this accident. Fortunately they are flying back with me
> in our trusty GA airplane. I feel a lot better about it than trusting
> my family to stupid mistakes that even my students pilots know how to
> avoid. I sincerely feel for those who lost loved ones. They have the
> right be very angry. I am angry, and I did not lose anything.
>


I have a question. I will say right off of the bat that I do not have any
pilot ratings, but I do have A&P ratings, so I am somewhat familiar with
FAR's. I am unfamiliar with any SOP's.

1. Is the ATC responsible for making sure the aircraft is on the correct
runway?

2. Aren't there check's that are made from inside the cockpit to assure they
are on the correct runway?

3. Looking at the two runways using google earth, it looks as though the
actual pavement is the same width on both runways in question, but all of
the documents that I have seen show a 75 ft and a 150 ft runway. Why is
this? Someone mentioned the 75 ft runway is actually 150 ft wide, but the
markings make it 75 ft usable. Why would that be?


Thanks for your answers...




---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0635-1, 08/28/2006
Tested on: 8/29/2006 7:34:06 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2006 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

[Ron Lee]

>No matter how you cut this one, pilot error is seriously indicated by the
>simple fact that the takeoff roll was started on the runway not assigned to
>them.

And the wrong runway for their aircraft regardless of what they were
assigned.

Ron Lee

[Ron Lee]

>3. Looking at the two runways using google earth, it looks as though the
>actual pavement is the same width on both runways in question, but all of
>the documents that I have seen show a 75 ft and a 150 ft runway. Why is
>this? Someone mentioned the 75 ft runway is actually 150 ft wide, but the
>markings make it 75 ft usable. Why would that be?

Look closely at a picture of Rwy 26 and you will see solid (white?)
lines either side of the centerline that are probably 75 feet apart.

Ron Lee

[C. Massey]

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
> >3. Looking at the two runways using google earth, it looks as though the
>>actual pavement is the same width on both runways in question, but all of
>>the documents that I have seen show a 75 ft and a 150 ft runway. Why is
>>this? Someone mentioned the 75 ft runway is actually 150 ft wide, but the
>>markings make it 75 ft usable. Why would that be?
>
> Look closely at a picture of Rwy 26 and you will see solid (white?)
> lines either side of the centerline that are probably 75 feet apart.
>


OK... But what I don't understand is why would they have two runways that
are the same surface width, but it is listed as a 75 ft runway they way it
is marked? It seems to me that if they are the same surface width, they
would mark both of them the same usable width.




---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0635-1, 08/28/2006
Tested on: 8/29/2006 8:02:18 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2006 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
> >
> > If you do make that mistake, you will most likely either be dead or out of a job.
>
>
> Thanks, mate.
>
> Reports suggest that the plane hit a perimeter fence. Since that could
> only have happened if the plane whacked into it on its takeoff roll not
> having begun rotation, it's obvious that the pilots didn't sight it.
> Makes me want to ask how effective landing lights are, normally? Are
> they as good to pilots as car headlights are to drivers? My hunch is
> they're not... since you don't expect traffic in your way in airplanes
> :D
>
> Ramapriya

SOmeone else already addressed the rotation and I have no turbine
experience, but as for landing lights, They look really bright from
outside the plane at night, but they don't (at least on the small GA
planes I fly) light up much from in the cockpit. I would think that
CRJs would have better lighting, but I don't know.

My first night landing tempted me to ask for a good, bright, candle to
light the runway.

John Stevens
PP-ASEL

[Peter R.]

Peter Duniho > wrote:

> You have never made a single mistake, ever, while flying an airplane?

Apples and oranges, IMO. One cannot compare the skills of GA pilots to
those of professional pilots, given the level of training, recurring
certification, and proficiency professional pilots maintain. Therefore,
one cannot compare the mistakes of GA pilots to those of professional
pilots.


--
Peter

[Stefan]

C. Massey schrieb:

> OK... But what I don't understand is why would they have two runways that
> are the same surface width, but it is listed as a 75 ft runway they way it
> is marked? It seems to me that if they are the same surface width, they
> would mark both of them the same usable width.

Look again at the Google image. The surface of rwy 26 is in a poor
state. Maybe it's even poorer outside the markings. And before you ask
why it is not better maintained: It costs money.

Stefan

[Peter R.]

"C. Massey" > wrote:

> 1. Is the ATC responsible for making sure the aircraft is on the correct
> runway?

No, the pilot in command is the final authority for the safety of the
flight. A pilot has the authority to disregard an ATC instruction if the
pilot believes that this instruction will put the aircraft in harm's way.

Among the many other responsibilities, ATC does serve as a "check and
balance" of sorts, but for some reason this check did not occur on that
morning.

> 2. Aren't there check's that are made from inside the cockpit to assure they
> are on the correct runway?

Yes there are. However, I am not a professional pilot so I am unaware if
airlines have written procedures dealing with this. I suspect they do.

In the GA world we would compare the directional gyro, compass, or HSI to
the known runway heading before departing.

> 3. Looking at the two runways using google earth, it looks as though the
> actual pavement is the same width on both runways in question, but all of
> the documents that I have seen show a 75 ft and a 150 ft runway. Why is
> this? Someone mentioned the 75 ft runway is actually 150 ft wide, but the
> markings make it 75 ft usable. Why would that be?

Unknown by me, but perhaps the airport purposely did this to assure a
distinction between the smaller runway and the larger one.

--
Peter

[newsgroups.comcast.net]

I don't "know", so pure speculation on my part, but maybe they were trying
to create another visual clue to help prevent this exact type of accident.

"C. Massey" > wrote in message
...
> OK... But what I don't understand is why would they have two runways that
> are the same surface width, but it is listed as a 75 ft runway they way it
> is marked? It seems to me that if they are the same surface width, they
> would mark both of them the same usable width.
>

[John Theune]

C. Massey wrote:
> "Ron Lee" > wrote in message
> ...
>>> 3. Looking at the two runways using google earth, it looks as though the
>>> actual pavement is the same width on both runways in question, but all of
>>> the documents that I have seen show a 75 ft and a 150 ft runway. Why is
>>> this? Someone mentioned the 75 ft runway is actually 150 ft wide, but the
>>> markings make it 75 ft usable. Why would that be?
>> Look closely at a picture of Rwy 26 and you will see solid (white?)
>> lines either side of the centerline that are probably 75 feet apart.
>>
>
>
> OK... But what I don't understand is why would they have two runways that
> are the same surface width, but it is listed as a 75 ft runway they way it
> is marked? It seems to me that if they are the same surface width, they
> would mark both of them the same usable width.
>
>
>
>
> ---
> avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
> Virus Database (VPS): 0635-1, 08/28/2006
> Tested on: 8/29/2006 8:02:18 AM
> avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2006 ALWIL Software.
> http://www.avast.com
>
>
>
It's probable a money issue. Marking the GA runway as 75 feet wide
means you only plow & maintain the inside 75 feet. I've seen other
reports that say the runway was cracked and in poor condition. I
guessing that they just did not have enough money for the full width
maintenance. Also, for a 3500 foot runway 75 is more then enough.
Looking at a aerial shot it appears there is also a unused runway at 33
( or so ) Both of these runways appear to be ~3500 long and 150 wide.
The width vs length does not appear to work out. Was this a former
military base? Maybe for helicopters? I would not be surprise to see
that the military would build a short wide runway for helos.

[John Gaquin]

"C. Massey" > wrote in message news:tVWIg.3722>
>
> OK... But what I don't understand is why would they have two runways that
> are the same surface width, but it is listed as a 75 ft runway they way it
> is marked? It seems to me that if they are the same surface width, they
> would mark both of them the same usable width.

Probably something as simple as their ongoing maintenance budget. Most
planes that can operate in 3500 ft don't need a 150 ft width, and most
planes that need this width probably couldn't function on a 3500 ft runway.
Couple that with weight bearing capacity limitations, and the Lexington folk
probably figured there was no point in continuing to require maintenance and
upkeep on the outer areas of the pavement. In fact, I gather from some
reports that there hasn't been a great deal of recent maintenance performed
on that entire runway.

[Jim Macklin]

AS I gather from reading the news as the NTSB and news media
release data, runway 26 had been operating in the day time
and the runway light had been NOTAM'd OTS.. But the lights
were ON again. Perhaps the crew did not expect to have
runway 26 lighted and when they saw it, assumed it was 22.

As has been said, they should have checked the compass and
perhaps even the LOC , but they did not perhaps because VFR
taxiing is so easy and requires minimal crew attention.

It was reported that the First Officer [the survivor] was
flying so that means the Caption was taxiing, since the nose
wheel steering is probably only on the left side. This also
means that the co-pilot did not have a good view of the taxi
route and left turn on the runway.

I do hope the co-pilot is able to talk, to fill in the
details that are not spoken on the CVR.



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

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
|I am getting tired of comments like "controller should have
warned the
| pilots", or "taxiway was confusing", or "runway lights
were off" etc..
| One could not find a better example of a pure and simple
pilot error.
| The runway was clear, the weather was VFR, and the
airplane was working
| fine. It is highly likely that this was the only airplane
maneuvering
| at the airport. Even if the controller had cleared him to
takeoff on
| runway 26, the responsibility would have been on the pilot
to decline
| that clearance. Yet, a perfectly good airplane was run off
the runway
| and ploughed into the woods.
|
| NTSB is investigating whether the pilots had coffee that
morning, and
| how much sleep they got. This is a futile exercise.
Taxiing and
| departing from a relatively quiet airport under VFR
conditions is an
| extremely low workload situation. We are not talking about
shooting a
| non-precision approach to minimums in a thunderstorm after
a full day
| of flying. A pilot should be able to do this even if he
had partied all
| night at the bar. What happened was gross negligence.
|
| I shudder to think that my wife and baby flew the Comair
CRJ only a few
| days prior to this accident. Fortunately they are flying
back with me
| in our trusty GA airplane. I feel a lot better about it
than trusting
| my family to stupid mistakes that even my students pilots
know how to
| avoid. I sincerely feel for those who lost loved ones.
They have the
| right be very angry. I am angry, and I did not lose
anything.
|

[John Gaquin]

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message

> One could not find a better example of a pure and simple pilot error.
>
> NTSB is investigating whether the pilots had coffee that morning, and
> how much sleep they got. This is a futile exercise.

Well. So much for amateur opinions.

Tell me, Andrew, in whatever field it is in which you call yourself
professional, are you also in the habit of reaching conclusions without
gathering pertinent facts? Do you approve or disapprove projects without
considering relevant factors?

Time was, I used to make absolute statements like yours when researching
aircraft accidents. It was a long time ago. I was 20, still in school.

[Jim Macklin]

As for doing a compass cross-check on line up, windshield
heat was probably ON and that can cause errors in the
compass of 30-45 degrees, but the slaved systems are
independent of each other and I doubt that the crew would
take-off with either system flagged and a cross-check of the
pilot and co-pilot HSI is on the check list.

Back in the late 60's when I was a new PP, I flew from
Illinois to Wyoming, taking two friends on a hunting trip.
Departing Joe Foss airport just after dark, I asked ground
for progressive taxi since I had never been their before.
They did a nice job. The controller said, "You can do your
run-up there" and when I called ready the controller cleared
me without delay. I turned onto the "runway" and began a
take-off roll, aligned with the row of white lights. But
within a few seconds I realized something was wrong and
aborted. We then bounced around in some tall grass [enough
bouncing that the landing lights failed]. The controller
asked "55Q, are you having trouble?" to which I replied a
little latter as we got back to the pavement after a 180 in
the grass, "Not anymore."
I taxied back and had the FBO inspect the airplane for
damage, there was none and replace the landing light bulbs.
A look at the airport diagram showed the problem, they had
been working on the taxiway lights and the blue covers were
not installed and the taxiway and runways came together in a
V with bit of taxiway at the bottom. My takeoff was into
the open V. Thankfully, the grass was smooth, no drainage
ditches [rapid prayers for no ditches, rocks or fences
worked].

That is when I learned and added a compass check before
take-off. Been there, done that and survived.



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

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
ink.net...
|
| "Peter Duniho" > wrote in
message
| ...
| > "Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
| >
oups.com...
| >> [...] I sincerely feel for those who lost loved ones.
They have the
| >> right be very angry. I am angry, and I did not lose
anything.
| >
| > You have never made a single mistake, ever, while flying
an airplane?
| >
| > IMHO, your anger is misplaced. It's not like the pilots
made the mistake
| > on purpose. And so far, there's not any indication that
they did
| > something blatantly irresponsible that led to their
mistake.
|
| Yes there most certainly is, and its more than an
indication. Its a fact
| that they either accepted a line up check on their HSI's
telling them they
| were on the wrong runway or they didn't make a correct
runway lineup check.
| Either way, it was a fatal error not to have made the
lineup check or making
| the check incorrectly. There is no way around the fact
that they made the
| takeoff on the wrong runway. This indicates an incorrect
reading on the HSI
| for the right runway or starting the run without a
verifying check on the
| means in the aircraft to verify the right runway.
| Even if it can be argued that both HSI's were out, the mag
compass would
| also have had to be non operational. Last but not least,
if ALL means of
| verifying the correct runway were non functioning, that
would mean they
| accepted the runway they were on as the right runway
without a verifying
| lineup check.
| No matter how you cut this one, pilot error is seriously
indicated by the
| simple fact that the takeoff roll was started on the
runway not assigned to
| them.
| Dudley Henriques
|
|

[John Gaquin]

> wrote in message
>
> ...... Since that could
> only have happened if the plane whacked into it on its takeoff roll not
> having begun rotation,

Not necessarily true, ramapriya. Even in normal operation, a loaded
airplane will continue on the runway some distance after rotation. If
rotated before full flying speed, as appears to have happened in this case,
the craft could continue on the mains for quite a substantial distance.

[Jim Macklin]

Transport landing lights are much more powerful that car
headlights. They can light the landing area like daylight
from 500 feet up and a 1/2 mile away. But on take-off, the
nose is raised and the lights are probably not aligned with
the ground after rotation.
If you look at the photographs of the airport, the fence was
500 feet or more from the end of the paved runway, sighting
the fence may have been the clue that first alerted the crew
to the problem and made then begin rotation. [guess].

They did not abort due to the rough runway, the different
lights, the compass, but they did get some weight on the
wings and they dragged the tail skid, Vmu is not a normal
planned TO procedure, so they knew at the end.


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



> wrote in message
ups.com...
| Dudley Henriques wrote:
| >
| > If you do make that mistake, you will most likely either
be dead or out of a job.
|
|
| Thanks, mate.
|
| Reports suggest that the plane hit a perimeter fence.
Since that could
| only have happened if the plane whacked into it on its
takeoff roll not
| having begun rotation, it's obvious that the pilots didn't
sight it.
| Makes me want to ask how effective landing lights are,
normally? Are
| they as good to pilots as car headlights are to drivers?
My hunch is
| they're not... since you don't expect traffic in your way
in airplanes
| :D
|
| Ramapriya
|

[Jim Macklin]

It is cheaper to only pave and maintain a 75 foot wide
surface, often the original runways in this country were
laid down during WWII as military training bases. Wide
runways allowed formation take-offs and landings. After the
war, the cities were given control of the airport and the
city would just pave the center with asphalt over the
crumbling concrete.



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

"C. Massey" > wrote in message
...
|
| "Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
|
oups.com...
| >I am getting tired of comments like "controller should
have warned the
| > pilots", or "taxiway was confusing", or "runway lights
were off" etc..
| > One could not find a better example of a pure and simple
pilot error.
| > The runway was clear, the weather was VFR, and the
airplane was working
| > fine. It is highly likely that this was the only
airplane maneuvering
| > at the airport. Even if the controller had cleared him
to takeoff on
| > runway 26, the responsibility would have been on the
pilot to decline
| > that clearance. Yet, a perfectly good airplane was run
off the runway
| > and ploughed into the woods.
| >
| > NTSB is investigating whether the pilots had coffee that
morning, and
| > how much sleep they got. This is a futile exercise.
Taxiing and
| > departing from a relatively quiet airport under VFR
conditions is an
| > extremely low workload situation. We are not talking
about shooting a
| > non-precision approach to minimums in a thunderstorm
after a full day
| > of flying. A pilot should be able to do this even if he
had partied all
| > night at the bar. What happened was gross negligence.
| >
| > I shudder to think that my wife and baby flew the Comair
CRJ only a few
| > days prior to this accident. Fortunately they are flying
back with me
| > in our trusty GA airplane. I feel a lot better about it
than trusting
| > my family to stupid mistakes that even my students
pilots know how to
| > avoid. I sincerely feel for those who lost loved ones.
They have the
| > right be very angry. I am angry, and I did not lose
anything.
| >
|
|
| I have a question. I will say right off of the bat that I
do not have any
| pilot ratings, but I do have A&P ratings, so I am somewhat
familiar with
| FAR's. I am unfamiliar with any SOP's.
|
| 1. Is the ATC responsible for making sure the aircraft is
on the correct
| runway?
|
| 2. Aren't there check's that are made from inside the
cockpit to assure they
| are on the correct runway?
|
| 3. Looking at the two runways using google earth, it looks
as though the
| actual pavement is the same width on both runways in
question, but all of
| the documents that I have seen show a 75 ft and a 150 ft
runway. Why is
| this? Someone mentioned the 75 ft runway is actually 150
ft wide, but the
| markings make it 75 ft usable. Why would that be?
|
|
| Thanks for your answers...
|
|
|
|
| ---
| avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
| Virus Database (VPS): 0635-1, 08/28/2006
| Tested on: 8/29/2006 7:34:06 AM
| avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2006 ALWIL Software.
| http://www.avast.com
|
|
|

[Jim Macklin]

Only the area between the with lines is "usable."



"C. Massey" > wrote in message
...
|
| "Ron Lee" > wrote in message
| ...
| > >3. Looking at the two runways using google earth, it
looks as though the
| >>actual pavement is the same width on both runways in
question, but all of
| >>the documents that I have seen show a 75 ft and a 150 ft
runway. Why is
| >>this? Someone mentioned the 75 ft runway is actually 150
ft wide, but the
| >>markings make it 75 ft usable. Why would that be?
| >
| > Look closely at a picture of Rwy 26 and you will see
solid (white?)
| > lines either side of the centerline that are probably 75
feet apart.
| >
|
|
| OK... But what I don't understand is why would they have
two runways that
| are the same surface width, but it is listed as a 75 ft
runway they way it
| is marked? It seems to me that if they are the same
surface width, they
| would mark both of them the same usable width.
|
|
|
|
| ---
| avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
| Virus Database (VPS): 0635-1, 08/28/2006
| Tested on: 8/29/2006 8:02:18 AM
| avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2006 ALWIL Software.
| http://www.avast.com
|
|
|

[Ron Natalie]

Jim Macklin wrote:

>
> It was reported that the First Officer [the survivor] was
> flying so that means the Caption was taxiing, since the nose
> wheel steering is probably only on the left side. This also
> means that the co-pilot did not have a good view of the taxi
> route and left turn on the runway.

There is only a tiller on the captain's side. There's a limitted
amount of nose wheel steering through the rudder pedals, but
insufficient for the hard right turn onto the runway here.

>

[Ron Lee]

"John Gaquin" > wrote:
>"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
>
>> One could not find a better example of a pure and simple pilot error.
>>
>> NTSB is investigating whether the pilots had coffee that morning, and
>> how much sleep they got. This is a futile exercise.
>
>Well. So much for amateur opinions.
>
>Tell me, Andrew, in whatever field it is in which you call yourself
>professional, are you also in the habit of reaching conclusions without
>gathering pertinent facts? Do you approve or disapprove projects without
>considering relevant factors?
>
>Time was, I used to make absolute statements like yours when researching
>aircraft accidents. It was a long time ago. I was 20, still in school.

John, I agree with Andrew based upon the facts already known. If
further information shows that something happened that would have made
almost all other pilots do the same thing then I will admit that my
opinion was incorrect and premature.

I doubt that it will turn out this way.

Ron Lee

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-08-29, Peter Duniho > wrote:
> "Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> [...] I sincerely feel for those who lost loved ones. They have the
>> right be very angry. I am angry, and I did not lose anything.
>
> You have never made a single mistake, ever, while flying an airplane?
>
> IMHO, your anger is misplaced. It's not like the pilots made the mistake on
> purpose.

And the pilots weren't out looking to get killed or kill anyone else.
Hopefully the surviving FO can shed light on what went wrong.

Although I've never come close to crashing in more than 1000 hours of GA
flying, I realise I'm not immune to stupid pilot tricks. Whenever I read
of an incident like this (done, by the way, by a two man crew, trained
in CRM and highly trained on the aircraft) I wonder how *I* could make
the same mistake. I want to know:

how they didn't notice that the runway *looked* damned short.
how they didn't notice the numbers painted on the end
how they didn't notice that their glass cockpit was showing they were on
a heading that they didn't expect to be on when lined up.

It has already taught me NOT to even think of relying on a controller to
catch an error I have made.

Every time I read these sorts of incidents, I feel a "dark cloud" of if
they can make that mistake - then so can I. Especially since there are
two people here trained to work as a crew of two - not just one with
much less equipment.
--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Darrell S[_1_]]

It has become standard practice for most airlines when lined up for takeoff
to call out and confirm the runway heading and any pertinent immediate
profile data. If that aircraft has a setable heading bug on the HSI most
operators set the runway heading during preflight. If so, it wouldn't have
been lined up correctly when they began their takeoff.

--
Darrell R. Schmidt
B-58 Hustler History: (see below)
http://members.cox.net/dschmidt1/

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>I am getting tired of comments like "controller should have warned the
> pilots", or "taxiway was confusing", or "runway lights were off" etc..
> One could not find a better example of a pure and simple pilot error.
> The runway was clear, the weather was VFR, and the airplane was working
> fine. It is highly likely that this was the only airplane maneuvering
> at the airport. Even if the controller had cleared him to takeoff on
> runway 26, the responsibility would have been on the pilot to decline
> that clearance. Yet, a perfectly good airplane was run off the runway
> and ploughed into the woods.
>
> NTSB is investigating whether the pilots had coffee that morning, and
> how much sleep they got. This is a futile exercise. Taxiing and
> departing from a relatively quiet airport under VFR conditions is an
> extremely low workload situation. We are not talking about shooting a
> non-precision approach to minimums in a thunderstorm after a full day
> of flying. A pilot should be able to do this even if he had partied all
> night at the bar. What happened was gross negligence.
>
> I shudder to think that my wife and baby flew the Comair CRJ only a few
> days prior to this accident. Fortunately they are flying back with me
> in our trusty GA airplane. I feel a lot better about it than trusting
> my family to stupid mistakes that even my students pilots know how to
> avoid. I sincerely feel for those who lost loved ones. They have the
> right be very angry. I am angry, and I did not lose anything.
>

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-08-29, > wrote:
> Makes me want to ask how effective landing lights are, normally? Are

They are VERY bright on transport aircraft. As a kid, I lived almost
right underneath the approach to Manchester airport. Airliners lit up
my bedroom wall from well over a mile out.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-08-29, Dave Doe > wrote:
> No - you've provided a different question - thereby completely changing
> the original point - that taking off on the wrong runway is not a simple
> mistake, it's a very very serious one. It's on par with without the
> gear down.

The PIC was certainly to blame here, being the final authority and
responsible person.

However, it's still necessary instead of being rashly angry to analyse
WHY an experienced crew made this mistake and how the rest of us can
avoid it. Highly experienced pilots have also forgotten the gear, landed
at the wrong airport, switched to the wrong fuel tank, feathered the
wrong engine etc. I'd rather be analytical rather than angry at finding
what made the accident chain.

Throwing a divider while 15 or driving while drunk is a deliberate
decision to do those things. I strongly suspect the pilots didn't
deliberately choose to take off on the wrong runway - instead it was an
error and I'm interested to find the root causes of the error regardless
of who's responsible for what.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Jose[_1_]]

> If further information shows that
> something happened that would have made
> almost all other pilots do the same thing...

....then there would be lots of these kinds of accidents, and rules or
procedures to prevent them. But there aren't. Therefore, it's a
relatively rare error manifestation. Nonetheless, as one is too many,
it is worth tracking down the cause so we don't get a second one.

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

[Jose[_1_]]

> Every time I read these sorts of incidents, I feel a "dark cloud" of if
> they can make that mistake - then so can I.

Bingo.

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

[Bucky]

> Look closely at a picture of Rwy 26 and you will see solid (white?)
> lines either side of the centerline that are probably 75 feet apart.

That's a good observation by C Massey though. Some of the news reports
mentioned that runway 26 was only half as wide as 22, so they
questioned how could the pilots not have noticed something that
obvious? Well, being that the pavement is actually 150 ft wide, runway
26 was unlit, they probably didn't notice the lines that marked it was
only 75 ft usable width.

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

C. Massey wrote:
> OK... But what I don't understand is why would they have two runways that
> are the same surface width, but it is listed as a 75 ft runway they way it
> is marked? It seems to me that if they are the same surface width, they
> would mark both of them the same usable width.



They've stopped maintaining the surface along the perimeters as a cost saving
measure, so they then demark the interior 75 feet as useable. They are
obligated to maintain the useable portion but not the unusable portion. I would
imagine at some point in the future Lexington will end up closing the shorter
runway entirely just to be free of the expense.


--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Dylan Smith wrote:
> how they didn't notice that the runway *looked* damned short.


Many runways have a hump somewhere along its length that precludes seeing the
entire thing until you're airborne. For example, 23L at RDU... you can only see
half of it from the end.... the rest disappears out of sight until you cross the
high spot.

This is hardly unique.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[John Gaquin]

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message .
>
> John, I agree with Andrew based upon the facts already known. If
> further information shows that something happened that would have made

Ron, that is *precisely* why the NTSB does not get into the business of even
discussing probable cause before the investigation is complete and all the
facts are in. In recent years they have started releasing certain
individual facts fairly early on, but not even a hint of a conclusion.

The NTSB is all too aware that the great bulk of the public audience
understands nothing about aviation, so whatever they say is subject to rash
misinterpretation. If they were to publicise preliminary conclusions
quickly, the news cycles and public awareness would cry Hallelujah!!! and
move on the the next titillating story, and the accident and its
investigation would sink into archival memory. If, then, 9 months from now
some research concluded that a bizarre string of coincidences led to this
accident through no fault of the crew, it wouldn't matter. The crew has
already been convicted in public.

This sort of thing has happened several times in the past. (Ask Bob Moore
about the PanAm 707 at Pago Pago.) There is no upside to rapid conclusions,
and an almost infinite downside.

[Peter Duniho]

"Dave Doe" > wrote in message
. nz...
> Have you (now lets get the context right) ever taken off on the wrong
> runway?

How is that relevant?

> [...]
> No - you've provided a different question - thereby completely changing
> the original point - that taking off on the wrong runway is not a simple
> mistake, it's a very very serious one. It's on par with without the
> gear down.

I don't know what you mean by that. My point is simply that I don't see the
point in getting angry at someone for making a mistake. I realize this is
Usenet, and I realize it's quite common for people who use Usenet to get
angry at the drop of a hat. I'm simply offering my opinion that anger seems
more reasonably reserved for people who *intentionally* do something wrong.

Too many people in the world do things wrong unintentionally, on too regular
a basis. Using that as one's standard for anger would result in one being
angry most of the time. Granted, many people go through life like that.
But it doesn't have to be that way, and this is a classic example of a
situation where anger is out of place.

> [...]
> With all due respect, the mistake made is *very* serious...

I never said that the mistake wasn't serious. I never said it wasn't pilot
error. I don't know where you get that, but you need to go back and reread
my post if that's what you think you read.

What I said is that there's no evidence that the pilots were BLATANTLY
IRRESPONSIBLE. As far as we know, they weren't drunk. As far as we know,
they didn't toss the checklist out of the window. As far as we know, they
didn't have a flight attendant sitting in their lap. For all we know, they
DID cross-check the runway number with their magnetic heading, and simply
failed to see the discrepancy. Fatigue is a powerful skills reducer and it
can make you see things or not see things that aren't or are there.

> * throwing a divider at school when you were 15 and getting someone in
> the leg is a stupid thing to do.
> * driving drunk at high speed and killing someone (by accident) - well.

Again, I have no idea what these two things are supposed to mean. Drunk
driving is a conscious decision to do something blatantly irresponsible.
There's absolutely no evidence that these pilots did anything of the sort.

> [...]
>> By the way, while the weather was VFR, it was an hour before sunrise.
>> That
>> is, basically still pitch dark. The poorer quality of runway may not
>> have
>> been apparent lit only by the airplane's lights, and there may have been
>> some fluke with the signage that led the pilots to think they were at the
>> correct runway. Your assertion that fatigue or the early hour could not
>> have been an issue is simply absurd. There are at least a dozen other
>> factors that have already been reported that could have been
>> contributory,
>> and there are dozens, if not hundreds more that no one has even thought
>> of
>> or identified yet.
>
> You're making your own unvalidated assertions now.

Such as? Name one unvalidated assertion I made.

> [...]
> I'll agree with you on that point.. however, it's not looking good for
> the pilots. Is it?

Define "looking good". I think it goes without saying that pilots who take
off from the wrong runway made a mistake. It's certainly pilot error.
There's no question about that. But was their error a blatantly
irresponsible act? There's absolutely no evidence that it was.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Peter Duniho > wrote:
>
>> You have never made a single mistake, ever, while flying an airplane?
>
> Apples and oranges, IMO. One cannot compare the skills of GA pilots to
> those of professional pilots

But we're not talking about skills here. We're talking about human error.
There is no human in the world immune to error. Do you get angry at every
error a human makes? If not, what's your threshold and why do you think
that you are justified in getting angry at these particular humans for this
particular error in this particular case?

[Peter Duniho]

"C. Massey" > wrote in message
...
> 1. Is the ATC responsible for making sure the aircraft is on the correct
> runway?

No, they are not.

> 2. Aren't there check's that are made from inside the cockpit to assure
> they are on the correct runway?

Yes, there are. There is currently no indication that these pilots failed
to make those checks. The most we can assume is that they either had the
wrong runway number for their desired takeoff runway, or they failed to
*correctly* make the check. It's possible that they actually thought runway
26 was the correct runway, and it's also possible that they knew runway 22
was the correct runway, performed the necessary cross-check to verify the
runway, but failed to notice the discrepancy in that cross-check.

> 3. Looking at the two runways using google earth, it looks as though the
> actual pavement is the same width on both runways in question, but all of
> the documents that I have seen show a 75 ft and a 150 ft runway. Why is
> this? Someone mentioned the 75 ft runway is actually 150 ft wide, but the
> markings make it 75 ft usable. Why would that be?

You've gotten plenty of answers on that one. :)

Pete

[Andrew Sarangan[_1_]]

Peter Duniho wrote:
> "Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > [...] I sincerely feel for those who lost loved ones. They have the
> > right be very angry. I am angry, and I did not lose anything.
>
> You have never made a single mistake, ever, while flying an airplane?

Sure, I have made plenty of mistakes while flying. Most of them were
fairly harmless, and would only have resulted in fender benders and
bruised egos.

Almost all aircraft accidents are due to human error, unless it was hit
by a meteor or an alien spaceship. However, some accidents have more
legitimacy than others. The tail failures on the American Airlines in
Queens, and the the Alaska Airlines, fire on Valuejet, the top falling
off Aloha airlines, and many others. Sure they are all human errors,
but the variables are more complex and were beyond the control of any
one individual. But some other accidents do not have any complicated
sequence of events. Everything was working out just fine until the
pilot decides to do something totally dumb.

I don't buy the argument that it was dark so it was hard to see. If
that were true, we should not be allowed to fly VFR in the dark. I
frequently fly from a 3500' runway, and even on a crummy day I can see
the terminating red bars from the moment I apply power. If I can't see
the red bars, something is not right and I take a second look. And this
is in a spam can with no other lives at risk except my own and perhaps
one passenger. Surely a part 121 operation with paying passengers, two
pilots, flight attendant and a dispatch team ought to be held to a
higher standard.

Fatigue surely has a enormous effect on human performance. But almost
all incidents due to fatigue comes from high-demand situations - bad
weather, strong winds, icing, etc.. I just don't see how fatigue could
play a role on a calm VFR morning departure with little or no traffic.
If fatigue did have something to do with it, how do you think they
would have handled the subsequent landing at Atlanta, which is a far
more busier airspace than sleepy Lexington?

True, I do not have any first hand knowledge of this accident. No one
does. But that doesn't mean the facts are unclear. What else do you
suppose happened here? Did a demon appear in the cockpit and steer the
airplane to the wrong runway? Even an NTSB official was quoted as
saying he was angry at this accident. I think anger is a normal
reaction to this type of accident. It doesn't mean you have to go sue
someone and collect damages. We just need to take steps to better
educate pilots.That doesn't have to wait until NTSB comes back with an
answer. And I seriously doubt that the NTSB will come back with
something very different from what we know so far.




>
> IMHO, your anger is misplaced. It's not like the pilots made the mistake on
> purpose. And so far, there's not any indication that they did something
> blatantly irresponsible that led to their mistake. For someone who has
> absolutely ZERO first-hand knowledge of the accident, nor any reliable
> second-hand knowledge for that matter, you sure are throwing some pretty
> strong accusations around.
>
> *Maybe* if you've never made a mistake in your life, anger *might* be a
> valid response. Otherwise, "there but for the grace of God go I" seems more
> appropriate to me (whether or not you believe in God, the meaning of the
> sentiment is clear and valid).
>
> By the way, while the weather was VFR, it was an hour before sunrise. That
> is, basically still pitch dark. The poorer quality of runway may not have
> been apparent lit only by the airplane's lights, and there may have been
> some fluke with the signage that led the pilots to think they were at the
> correct runway. Your assertion that fatigue or the early hour could not
> have been an issue is simply absurd. There are at least a dozen other
> factors that have already been reported that could have been contributory,
> and there are dozens, if not hundreds more that no one has even thought of
> or identified yet.
>
> I'll say one thing though...you're probably a blast at the Lynch Mobs of
> America convention. I hope the rest of us can at least wait until the
> investigation is complete before we start talking crucifiction.
>
> Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
> John, I agree with Andrew based upon the facts already known.

You agree that you already have enough facts to call this "gross
negligence"? Do you (or Andrew, for that matter) even understand the
specific legal definition of "gross negligence"? You agree that there is
already enough information on the accident to warrant being ANGRY with the
pilots?

> If
> further information shows that something happened that would have made
> almost all other pilots do the same thing then I will admit that my
> opinion was incorrect and premature.

If there is the possibility that information you don't yet have would change
your mind, then by definition your current opinion is premature.

> I doubt that it will turn out this way.

Why? What possible justification do you have for claiming this is gross
negligence?

Pete

[B A R R Y[_1_]]

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
>
> Many runways have a hump somewhere along its length that precludes seeing the
> entire thing until you're airborne. For example, 23L at RDU... you can only see
> half of it from the end.... the rest disappears out of sight until you cross the
> high spot.
>
> This is hardly unique.
>


2-20 @ BAF is similar, with a 10' hump in the middle.

<http://download.aopa.org/ustprocs/20060803/airport_diagrams/00446AD.PDF>

FWIW, those places are GREAT for goofing on front seat passengers. <G>

[Peter Duniho]

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Sure, I have made plenty of mistakes while flying. Most of them were
> fairly harmless, and would only have resulted in fender benders and
> bruised egos.

We don't know what mistake was made here. We don't know that whatever
mistake was made, it wouldn't normally have resulted in fender benders and
bruised egos (or perhaps no negative outcome at all). All we know is that
in this case, a serious accident happened.

> Almost all aircraft accidents are due to human error, unless it was hit
> by a meteor or an alien spaceship.

I've never heard of an airplane being hit by a meteor or alien spaceship.
According to you then, *all* aircraft accidents are due to human error.
Well, that's not true either.

> [...]
> I don't buy the argument that it was dark so it was hard to see.

Perhaps you should avoid flying when it's dark then. You don't seem to have
the proper respect for the reality of the situation.

> If
> that were true, we should not be allowed to fly VFR in the dark.

That's your opinion. However, the FAA clearly disagrees. It IS hard to see
in the dark, and yet we ARE allowed to fly VFR in the dark.

At takeoff speeds, airplane lighting (especially that found on small
airplanes) does not illuminate far enough ahead of the airplane for the
pilot to stop the airplane before hitting a seen obstruction. Immediately
after takeoff at many airports, there are NO outside references. The pilot
cannot see a single thing outside the airplane, and yet this is allowed
under the VFR rules. Cloud are often completely invisible at dark,
especially when there's no moon and they are not directly over a major
populated area. A VFR pilot can easily stumble right into one, without ever
having seen it.

All of these are examples of how it IS hard to see in the dark.

> I frequently fly from a 3500' runway, and even on a crummy day I can see
> the terminating red bars from the moment I apply power. If I can't see
> the red bars, something is not right and I take a second look.

But what if you CAN see the terminating red bars? What does that tell you?
Nothing. Nothing useful at all. You can't tell how far they are from you.
You can't tell whether you are on the correct runway, and you can't even
tell whether there's something on the runway between you and the terminating
red bars.

> And this
> is in a spam can with no other lives at risk except my own and perhaps
> one passenger. Surely a part 121 operation with paying passengers, two
> pilots, flight attendant and a dispatch team ought to be held to a
> higher standard.

Personally, I'd like every pilot to be held to the same standard: don't do
anything that would get anyone killed.

But so what if we do hold Part 121 operators and pilots to a higher
standard? Does that mean that any time an accident happens, we should get
angry? Does that mean that any time an accident happens, it's a foregone
conclusion that the pilots were grossly negligent?

I don't think so, and that's exactly what I said in reply to your post.

> Fatigue surely has a enormous effect on human performance. But almost
> all incidents due to fatigue comes from high-demand situations - bad
> weather, strong winds, icing, etc..

And you base that statement on what evidence?

My own personal experience with fatigue is that it *rarely* affects my
performance in high-demand situations. Adrenaline is a powerful drug, and
when it's clear that I need to focus, my body steps up and provides that.

It's when things are calm, when I'm feeling comfortable and complacent, that
fatigue is most dangerous. It causes me to overlook things, it causes me to
think I'm doing something when I'm actually not, it causes me to see things
that aren't there, or to fail to see things that are there. It causes me to
think I've done something I haven't, or to think that I haven't done
something that I have.

> I just don't see how fatigue could
> play a role on a calm VFR morning departure with little or no traffic.

Frankly, your lack of understanding suggests to me that you have never truly
been fatigued. And while the worst fatigue occurs when one has gone days
without sleep, you can wake up from an eight-hour sleep and still be
suffering the effects of fatigue. It depends on how well you slept, how
well you had been sleeping the previous nights, whether your body's schedule
is aligned with the local time, and a variety of other factors.

> If fatigue did have something to do with it, how do you think they
> would have handled the subsequent landing at Atlanta, which is a far
> more busier airspace than sleepy Lexington?

Likely quite well. As I said, when one is presented with an obviously
stressful situation, the body can often compensate, especially as long as
things remain routine. Furthermore, if fatigue was a factor (and we don't
know that it was...I'm just saying you don't know it wasn't), it's not
necessarily the case that the pilots would still be suffering from the
fatigue by the end of the flight.

Beyond that, what does how they would have handled the subsequent landing at
Atlanta have anything to do with it? Are you saying that if one assumes
they would have crashed in Atlanta even if they'd successfully departed
Lexington, then your anger is justified?

That seems like a pretty random connection, even for Usenet.

> True, I do not have any first hand knowledge of this accident. No one
> does. But that doesn't mean the facts are unclear.

Of course it does. That's *exactly* what it means.

> What else do you suppose happened here?

I already proposed a variety of explanations that don't invoke gross
negligence.

> Did a demon appear in the cockpit and steer the
> airplane to the wrong runway?

Uh, no. Why is that the only alternative to gross negligence that you can
think of? Lots of mistakes are made by humans without demonic intervention.
Most of those mistakes are NOT gross negligence.

> Even an NTSB official was quoted as
> saying he was angry at this accident.

So, he did it so it's okay for you to do it? That's your defense?

> I think anger is a normal reaction to this type of accident.

It probably is. People get angry at all sorts of stupid things. That
doesn't make it right though.

> It doesn't mean you have to go sue someone and collect damages.

I don't doubt that that will occur. I don't think you need to be angry to
collect damages, nor do I think that being angry ensures that one collects
damages. I fail to see the connection.

> We just need to take steps to better educate pilots.

Better educated pilots are a good thing. It would be great if we do learn
something from this accident that improves safety for everyone else.

But I don't think one needs to be angry in order to better educate pilots.
Why do you think one does?

> That doesn't have to wait until NTSB comes back with an
> answer.

Actually, it does. If you want this accident to directly contribute to the
cause of safety, you need to wait until you know WHY this accident occurred.
You can immediately start remphasizing training areas that appear to be
relevant, but you cannot use this accident as a direct training aid until
you actually understand what caused the accident.

> And I seriously doubt that the NTSB will come back with
> something very different from what we know so far.

Why would they come back with something different from what we KNOW so far?
Do you think the facts might change over time?

No, what they might do is come back with something IN ADDITION TO what we
know so far. And given that we know almost nothing about WHY the accident
occurs, it's safe to say they will have a LOT of new information if and when
they release it.

My point is that "what we know so far" is precious little, and hardly enough
to justify any anger.

Pete

[DaveB]

On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 22:44:32 +1200, Dave Doe > wrote:

>In article >,
says...
>> "Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> > [...] I sincerely feel for those who lost loved ones. They have the
>> > right be very angry. I am angry, and I did not lose anything.
>>
>> You have never made a single mistake, ever, while flying an airplane?
>
>Have you (now lets get the context right) ever taken off on the wrong
>runway?
>
>I haven't, I bet the poster hasn't either.
>
>But you have huh?
>
>No - you've provided a different question - thereby completely changing
>the original point - that taking off on the wrong runway is not a simple
>mistake, it's a very very serious one. It's on par with without the
>gear down.
>
>
>> IMHO, your anger is misplaced. It's not like the pilots made the mistake on
>> purpose. And so far, there's not any indication that they did something
>> blatantly irresponsible that led to their mistake. For someone who has
>> absolutely ZERO first-hand knowledge of the accident, nor any reliable
>> second-hand knowledge for that matter, you sure are throwing some pretty
>> strong accusations around.
>
>With all due respect, the mistake made is *very* serious...
>* throwing a divider at school when you were 15 and getting someone in
>the leg is a stupid thing to do.
>* driving drunk at high speed and killing someone (by accident) - well.
>
>> *Maybe* if you've never made a mistake in your life, anger *might* be a
>> valid response. Otherwise, "there but for the grace of God go I" seems more
>> appropriate to me (whether or not you believe in God, the meaning of the
>> sentiment is clear and valid).
>>
>> By the way, while the weather was VFR, it was an hour before sunrise. That
>> is, basically still pitch dark. The poorer quality of runway may not have
>> been apparent lit only by the airplane's lights, and there may have been
>> some fluke with the signage that led the pilots to think they were at the
>> correct runway. Your assertion that fatigue or the early hour could not
>> have been an issue is simply absurd. There are at least a dozen other
>> factors that have already been reported that could have been contributory,
>> and there are dozens, if not hundreds more that no one has even thought of
>> or identified yet.
>
>You're making your own unvalidated assertions now.
>
>> I'll say one thing though...you're probably a blast at the Lynch Mobs of
>> America convention. I hope the rest of us can at least wait until the
>> investigation is complete before we start talking crucifiction.
>
>I'll agree with you on that point.. however, it's not looking good for
>the pilots. Is it?
>
>--
>Duncan


People land at the wrong airport, not often but happens.

Regards
Daveb

[Ron Lee]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote:

>"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
>> Peter Duniho > wrote:
>>
>>> You have never made a single mistake, ever, while flying an airplane?
>>
>> Apples and oranges, IMO. One cannot compare the skills of GA pilots to
>> those of professional pilots
>
>But we're not talking about skills here. We're talking about human error.
>There is no human in the world immune to error. Do you get angry at every
>error a human makes? If not, what's your threshold and why do you think
>that you are justified in getting angry at these particular humans for this
>particular error in this particular case?

49 deaths?

Ron Lee
>
>

[Ron Lee]

>We don't know what mistake was made here.

Sure we do. They took off from a runway that was too short for their
aircraft.

Ron Lee

[Greg Copeland[_1_]]

On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 13:12:57 -0400, John Gaquin wrote:

[snip]
>
> This sort of thing has happened several times in the past. (Ask Bob Moore
> about the PanAm 707 at Pago Pago.) There is no upside to rapid conclusions,
> and an almost infinite downside.

Is the above not an accurate account?


http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19740130-0

Greg

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 10:50:23 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:
> Define "looking good". I think it goes without saying that pilots who take
> off from the wrong runway made a mistake. It's certainly pilot error.
> There's no question about that. But was their error a blatantly
> irresponsible act? There's absolutely no evidence that it was.

Which brings up a good question... If the NTSB report does finally
confirm that it was in fact pilot error and if the pilot who is
current in the hospital survives, what are his likely career
consequences? Is it completely down the tubes or is there a chance
that he might still remain working as an ATP? I suspect that up until
he saw the fence, he was *positive* that he was on the right runway...
Of course, soon after seeing the fence, he comment was probably
something like, "Oh ****..."...

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 10:52:43 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:
> But we're not talking about skills here. We're talking about human error.
> There is no human in the world immune to error. Do you get angry at every
> error a human makes? If not, what's your threshold and why do you think
> that you are justified in getting angry at these particular humans for this
> particular error in this particular case?

Personally, I get angry when the error affect myself of my family...
As such, I don't get angry about this accident... On the other hand,
if Grace or Kaitlyn had been on the plane and had not survived, I
would probably be at that hospital ensuring that the pilot also did
not survive...

[Jose[_1_]]

>>We don't know what mistake was made here.
> Sure we do. They took off from a runway that was too short for their
> aircraft.

A more useful statement is that that was a result of a mistake (or
series of mistakes). This is why we look further.

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

[Andrew Sarangan[_1_]]

Peter

I think you are taking the phrase "angry" to an extreme. It is not that
I am sitting here pounding my fist on the table and crying for revenge.
I am angry that the pilots were so careless and took so many innocent
lives with them. No, it was not a deliberate attempt, that would be
murder or terrorism. This was a mistake due to carelessness and
negligence. If no one had died, we can call it a simple careless
mistake and leave it at that. When 50 people die, I call it gross
negligence. I am not a lawyer, so may be there is a deeper meaning to
"gross" than what I am aware of.

Yes, most aircraft accidents are due to human error. Aircraft is a
machine built by humans. When it fails how could it not be human error?
The difference is, some errors are simple and clear and be traced to
one or two individuals, while other errors are more complex,
intertwined and involves many thousands of people. We often equate the
former as human error and the latter as policy failures. But
ultimately humans are responsbile for all our errors.

Perhaps I am being naiive, but I have experienced fatigue due to lack
of sleep and long flights in IMC. When that happens, I make a
deliberate attempt to check, double check and triple check everything.
When I know I am vulnerable, I take the obvious steps to prevent a
mishap. That is why I sometimes take a commercial flight if I am unfit
to fly myself. I would never expect the person sitting in the cockpit
to me more unfit than I am.

> > I don't buy the argument that it was dark so it was hard to see.
>
> Perhaps you should avoid flying when it's dark then. You don't seem to have
> the proper respect for the reality of the situation.

That is a pretty cheap shot. Night flying is harsher than day, but not
because you can't see the end of the runway. Certain things are easier
to see at night than day, and runway lights is one of them, especially
when you are lined with it. Other things are harder to see at night,
like clouds, emergency landing sites and small print on charts. But
those are not what we are talking about here.

[Andrew Gideon]

On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 13:25:02 +0000, John Theune wrote:

> Also, for
> a 3500 foot runway 75 is more then enough.

I've never considered the ratio between runway length and width before.
What is it that defines possible values for this ratio? The given width
and length required for specific aircraft? Something else?

- Andrew

[Bill Zaleski]

On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 17:22:50 -0400, Andrew Gideon >
wrote:

>On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 13:25:02 +0000, John Theune wrote:
>
>> Also, for
>> a 3500 foot runway 75 is more then enough.
>
>I've never considered the ratio between runway length and width before.
>What is it that defines possible values for this ratio? The given width
>and length required for specific aircraft? Something else?
>
> - Andrew


I could be way out in left field, but could wheelbase possibly have
something to do with it?

[Ron Lee]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote:

>"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
>> John, I agree with Andrew based upon the facts already known.
>
>You agree that you already have enough facts to call this "gross
>negligence"? Do you (or Andrew, for that matter) even understand the
>specific legal definition of "gross negligence"? You agree that there is
>already enough information on the accident to warrant being ANGRY with the
>pilots?
>

I agree that there is enough info known to establish that the pilots
screwed up and many people died. Anger or specific legal definitions
are not worth quibbling over.


>> If
>> further information shows that something happened that would have made
>> almost all other pilots do the same thing then I will admit that my
>> opinion was incorrect and premature.
>
>If there is the possibility that information you don't yet have would change
>your mind, then by definition your current opinion is premature.

I don't think so. I just leave open the possibility (rare that it is)
that I am wrong.

>> I doubt that it will turn out this way.
>
>Why? What possible justification do you have for claiming this is gross
>negligence?

I am not a lawyer but what would you call it when someone screws up
and 49 people die?

Some want to know about how much sleep they got, whether they had
coffee, etc but those points are irrelevant. You have two
professional pilots who screwed up. 49 people died.

Ron Lee


>Pete
>
>

[Ron Lee]

Grumman-581 > wrote:

>On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 10:50:23 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:
>> Define "looking good". I think it goes without saying that pilots who take
>> off from the wrong runway made a mistake. It's certainly pilot error.
>> There's no question about that. But was their error a blatantly
>> irresponsible act? There's absolutely no evidence that it was.
>
>Which brings up a good question... If the NTSB report does finally
>confirm that it was in fact pilot error and if the pilot who is
>current in the hospital survives, what are his likely career
>consequences? Is it completely down the tubes or is there a chance
>that he might still remain working as an ATP? I suspect that up until
>he saw the fence, he was *positive* that he was on the right runway...
>Of course, soon after seeing the fence, he comment was probably
>something like, "Oh ****..."...

If he still flies let me know so I can avoid that airline. Or at
least any plane he is piloting.

Ron Lee

[Morgans[_4_]]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote

> I'm simply offering my opinion that anger seems
> more reasonably reserved for people who *intentionally* do something
wrong.
>
> Too many people in the world do things wrong unintentionally, on too
regular
> a basis. Using that as one's standard for anger would result in one being
> angry most of the time. Granted, many people go through life like that.
> But it doesn't have to be that way, and this is a classic example of a
> situation where anger is out of place.

If your family was on that plane, would you be angry? Damn straight, you
would be.

Intentional does not have anything to do whether anger is justified. These
were two professional pilots that made a mistake that is without reason, a
kind of mistake not in any way permitted for professional pilot. If they
had survived, I would expect that they would never be allowed to again hold
an ATP.

For what ever reason, they did not have the right stuff, that day. The
right stuff is absolutely essential, every time, for an ATP to do his thing,
and if the mistake were survived this time, you can not know if they would
make a critical mistake in the future. We, the "riding public," have a
right to expect better than that.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_4_]]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote
>
> My point is that "what we know so far" is precious little, and hardly
enough
> to justify any anger.

Anger, and a person's reasons for becoming angry, is a very personal,
experience driven reaction.

I would suggest that you accept and respect other's anger, produced in
reaction to the incident, and that others respect your need to withhold
feelings of anger in reaction to the incident.

Nobody is going to change the other's mind in this case. Best to respect,
accept, and move along.
--
Jim in NC

[William Snow]

Andrew Andrew Andrew...surely you jest. Fatigue is a really big factor in
many accidents. The work loads on t/o VFR or not is high necessitating "a
sterile cockpit" in the ops manual. That is there for a reason...that's
right to prevent mistakes. If you have ever ridden jump seat, you would know
that the atmosphere in the cockpit is different with a jump seater...those
that have, know what I mean...I am not speculating what went wrong but my
bet would be fatigue, and maybe even distraction.


"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>I am getting tired of comments like "controller should have warned the
> pilots", or "taxiway was confusing", or "runway lights were off" etc..
> One could not find a better example of a pure and simple pilot error.
> The runway was clear, the weather was VFR, and the airplane was working
> fine. It is highly likely that this was the only airplane maneuvering
> at the airport. Even if the controller had cleared him to takeoff on
> runway 26, the responsibility would have been on the pilot to decline
> that clearance. Yet, a perfectly good airplane was run off the runway
> and ploughed into the woods.
>
> NTSB is investigating whether the pilots had coffee that morning, and
> how much sleep they got. This is a futile exercise. Taxiing and
> departing from a relatively quiet airport under VFR conditions is an
> extremely low workload situation. We are not talking about shooting a
> non-precision approach to minimums in a thunderstorm after a full day
> of flying. A pilot should be able to do this even if he had partied all
> night at the bar. What happened was gross negligence.
>
> I shudder to think that my wife and baby flew the Comair CRJ only a few
> days prior to this accident. Fortunately they are flying back with me
> in our trusty GA airplane. I feel a lot better about it than trusting
> my family to stupid mistakes that even my students pilots know how to
> avoid. I sincerely feel for those who lost loved ones. They have the
> right be very angry. I am angry, and I did not lose anything.
>

[Morgans[_4_]]

> > We are not talking about shooting a
> > non-precision approach to minimums in a thunderstorm after a full day
> > of flying. A pilot should be able to do this even if he had partied all
> > night at the bar. What happened was gross negligence.
>
>
>
> How's the view from in there?

HuH ???

[Peter Duniho]

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
>> [...] Do you get angry at every
>>error a human makes? If not, what's your threshold and why do you think
>>that you are justified in getting angry at these particular humans for
>>this
>>particular error in this particular case?
>
> 49 deaths?

We have nearly 50,000 deaths on our highways every year. Shouldn't you be
angry about that first? Shouldn't you be 1000 times more angry about that?

Personally, I don't see deaths in and of itself justification for anger.
Disappointment, yes. Dismay even, sure. But anger? What a waste of a
perfectly useful emotion. The number of deaths isn't relevant...what's
relevant is why those deaths occurred, and that information isn't available
yet.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
> >We don't know what mistake was made here.
>
> Sure we do. They took off from a runway that was too short for their
> aircraft.

That is only the "final" and most obvious mistake. It doesn't answer the
question of WHY that mistake was made.

And I put "final" in quotes because if you want to get technical about it,
the actual final mistake was crashing the airplane. In a lot of aircraft
accidents, the final mistake is crashing the airplane. But thankfully, the
NTSB goes a little farther in their investigations than saying "probable
cause: the airplane struck the ground in a manner inconsistent with a
survivable landing".

Pete

[Jim Macklin]

Visual perspective determines whether the pilot "sees" that
they are high, low, short or long.

Very long runways appear narrow, very wide runways appear
shorter.



"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
...
| On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 13:25:02 +0000, John Theune wrote:
|
| > Also, for
| > a 3500 foot runway 75 is more then enough.
|
| I've never considered the ratio between runway length and
width before.
| What is it that defines possible values for this ratio?
The given width
| and length required for specific aircraft? Something
else?
|
| - Andrew
|

[Peter Duniho]

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> I think you are taking the phrase "angry" to an extreme. It is not that
> I am sitting here pounding my fist on the table and crying for revenge.
> I am angry that the pilots were so careless and took so many innocent
> lives with them.

Equivocate all you want...your post expresses more than just a general
feeling of angry resentment, and the use of term "gross negligence" goes way
beyond anything anyone has learned yet.

> [...] When 50 people die, I call it gross negligence.

Then you are ignorant of the correct use of the term.

> I am not a lawyer, so may be there is a deeper meaning to
> "gross" than what I am aware of.

"Gross negligence" has a very specific meaning. If you use it for other
than that meaning, you are in error. Here is one example of the dictionary
definiton for "gross negligence" (from Webster's):

an extremely careless action or an omission that is willful
or reckless disregard for the consequences to the safety or
property of another; also called very great negligence,
culpa lata

If that is not what you mean, then you should not be using the term.

> Yes, most aircraft accidents are due to human error. Aircraft is a
> machine built by humans. When it fails how could it not be human error?

Lots of mechanical failures are due simply to normal wear. And there's a
wide variety of normal wear that is either simply impossible to detect
during any normal inspection of the airplane, or which occurs after a proper
inspection was done and was not detectable at that inspection.

It is just as ignorant to claim that ALL mechanical failures are due to
human error as it is to claim that there is enough information in this
accident to judge the pilots grossly negligent.

> The difference is, some errors are simple and clear and be traced to
> one or two individuals, while other errors are more complex,
> intertwined and involves many thousands of people. We often equate the
> former as human error and the latter as policy failures. But
> ultimately humans are responsbile for all our errors.

But not all accidents are caused by human error.

> Perhaps I am being naiive, but I have experienced fatigue due to lack
> of sleep and long flights in IMC. When that happens, I make a
> deliberate attempt to check, double check and triple check everything.
> When I know I am vulnerable, I take the obvious steps to prevent a
> mishap.

You have no reason to claim that these pilots did not do exactly that. Even
as a person may recognize their reduced performance and may take steps to
attempt to mitigate that reduced performance, fatigue may prevent them from
recognizing that the steps they have taken did not prevent a mistake.

Beyond that, you seem to *really* be too focused on the individual
possibilities. The very fact that you see a need to argue against each
hypothetical is proof positive that you are jumping to conclusions. If you
had enough information to fairly judge the pilots, you could explain to all
of us exactly what happened.

You don't have that information, so you're left trying to fight off each
possible explanation one at a time. Even if you successfully argue against
a possibility (and you haven't so far), the fact remains that you have NO
IDEA what happened, and are not in a position to fairly judge whether the
pilots acted in a grossly negligent (or even plainly negligent) manner.

The most you can say is that they made a mistake. You have no idea why they
made that mistake, and you cannot even claim that you would not have made
the exact same mistake in the exact same situation.

> [...]
>> Perhaps you should avoid flying when it's dark then. You don't seem to
>> have
>> the proper respect for the reality of the situation.
>
> That is a pretty cheap shot.

Why? You're the one saying that it's not harder to see when it's dark. I
think most of us recognize the reality that it's harder to see when it's
dark. Your claim is exactly opposite from how most of us understand
darkness. I simply pointed that out.

> Night flying is harsher than day, but not
> because you can't see the end of the runway.

No one (except perhaps you) is saying that seeing the end of the runway
would have prevented this accident. So what's your point?

> Certain things are easier
> to see at night than day, and runway lights is one of them, especially
> when you are lined with it.

So the pilots saw the runway lights? How would that have helped them avoid
the accident? Are you claiming that they DID see the runway lights, and
that the runway lights DID provide unmistakable evidence that they were on
the wrong runway, and that they DID ignore that unmistakable evidence? And
if you aren't saying that, then why do you bring up the question of seeing
the runway lights?

> Other things are harder to see at night,
> like clouds, emergency landing sites and small print on charts. But
> those are not what we are talking about here.

What we're talking about here is the fact that when it's dark, it's harder
to see things, especially those things that would have made it easier for
the pilots to recognize that they were in the wrong place.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
> I agree that there is enough info known to establish that the pilots
> screwed up and many people died. Anger or specific legal definitions
> are not worth quibbling over.

And yet you do quibble. Odd.

>>If there is the possibility that information you don't yet have would
>>change
>>your mind, then by definition your current opinion is premature.
>
> I don't think so. I just leave open the possibility (rare that it is)
> that I am wrong.

You have an odd way of looking at things (though that was already
apparent...see above). You specifically say that you don't have enough
information to know for sure that you aren't wrong, and yet you feel your
current judgment of the situation isn't premature?

>>Why? What possible justification do you have for claiming this is gross
>>negligence?
>
> I am not a lawyer but what would you call it when someone screws up
> and 49 people die?

An accident. Get a dictionary and look up "gross negligence". It has a
very specific meaning, and the simple act of causing ANY number of people to
die is not part of the definition.

> Some want to know about how much sleep they got, whether they had
> coffee, etc but those points are irrelevant. You have two
> professional pilots who screwed up. 49 people died.

Yup, those are pretty much the facts we know. So which of those facts
justify your judgment of "gross negligence"?

Pete

[Matt Whiting]

Grumman-581 wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 10:50:23 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> > wrote:
>
>>Define "looking good". I think it goes without saying that pilots who take
>>off from the wrong runway made a mistake. It's certainly pilot error.
>>There's no question about that. But was their error a blatantly
>>irresponsible act? There's absolutely no evidence that it was.
>
>
> Which brings up a good question... If the NTSB report does finally
> confirm that it was in fact pilot error and if the pilot who is
> current in the hospital survives, what are his likely career
> consequences? Is it completely down the tubes or is there a chance
> that he might still remain working as an ATP? I suspect that up until
> he saw the fence, he was *positive* that he was on the right runway...
> Of course, soon after seeing the fence, he comment was probably
> something like, "Oh ****..."...

Interesting question. I suspect he'll have a tough time finding a seat
again, but, personally, I don't think this should be the case assuming
it was purely a mistake and there wasn't any irresponsbile actions taken
prior. It reminds me of an anecdote about Tom Watson (I have no idea of
this is fact or fiction, but I've read it several times) and one of the
early IBM employees. Apparently the employee really screwed up
something that cost IBM several million dollars and was called into
Tom's office expecting to be fired. When Tom didn't fire him the
employee inquired as to why he wasn't fired. Supposedly, Tom's response
was that he couldn't afford to fire the guy as he's just invested
several million dollars into his education!

I suspect this pilot, assuming he recovers sufficiently to maintain his
medical, would be one of the most careful pilots on the line in the
future. For that reason, I'd vote to give him another chance.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Ron Lee wrote:

> Grumman-581 > wrote:
>
>
>>On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 10:50:23 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:
>>
>>>Define "looking good". I think it goes without saying that pilots who take
>>>off from the wrong runway made a mistake. It's certainly pilot error.
>>>There's no question about that. But was their error a blatantly
>>>irresponsible act? There's absolutely no evidence that it was.
>>
>>Which brings up a good question... If the NTSB report does finally
>>confirm that it was in fact pilot error and if the pilot who is
>>current in the hospital survives, what are his likely career
>>consequences? Is it completely down the tubes or is there a chance
>>that he might still remain working as an ATP? I suspect that up until
>>he saw the fence, he was *positive* that he was on the right runway...
>>Of course, soon after seeing the fence, he comment was probably
>>something like, "Oh ****..."...
>
>
> If he still flies let me know so I can avoid that airline. Or at
> least any plane he is piloting.

Why do you say that not yet knowing all of the details? If you decide
you won't fly with any pilot who has made a mistake, then you won't be
flying.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Ron Lee wrote:

> "Peter Duniho" > wrote:
>
>
>>"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>Peter Duniho > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>You have never made a single mistake, ever, while flying an airplane?
>>>
>>>Apples and oranges, IMO. One cannot compare the skills of GA pilots to
>>>those of professional pilots
>>
>>But we're not talking about skills here. We're talking about human error.
>>There is no human in the world immune to error. Do you get angry at every
>>error a human makes? If not, what's your threshold and why do you think
>>that you are justified in getting angry at these particular humans for this
>>particular error in this particular case?
>
>
> 49 deaths?

Will your anger bring them back?

Matt

[Andrew Sarangan[_1_]]

Matt Whiting wrote:
> >
> >
> > 49 deaths?
>
> Will your anger bring them back?
>
> Matt

Nothing will bring them back. So we should do nothing?

[Peter Duniho]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
> If your family was on that plane, would you be angry? Damn straight, you
> would be.

I don't know. Maybe I would, maybe I wouldn't. I've experienced what I
consider to be tragic loss in the past without feeling anger at anyone.

But that's not the question here. Andrew's family wasn't on the plane, and
his anger is misplaced, even if it could be understandable (albeit
irrational) on the part of people who had relationships with the people who
died.

> Intentional does not have anything to do whether anger is justified.

If you are talking about anger directed at the pilots, then of course it
does. Anger may be understandable, but justified implies that there is some
rational basis for the anger.

It may turn out that there is indeed some rational basis for the anger, but
for the moment there is absolutely no information that would support that
conclusion.

> These
> were two professional pilots that made a mistake that is without reason

How do you know that the mistake was made without reason?

> , a kind of mistake not in any way permitted for professional pilot.

Are there mistakes that are permitted for professional pilots? What
mistakes would those be?

> If they
> had survived, I would expect that they would never be allowed to again
> hold
> an ATP.

Unless there's new news I haven't heard, one did survive. I guess we'll see
if he loses his pilot certificate or not. How that's relevant to the
question of justified anger, I don't know. Maybe you could explain it.

> For what ever reason, they did not have the right stuff, that day. The
> right stuff is absolutely essential, every time, for an ATP to do his
> thing,
> and if the mistake were survived this time, you can not know if they would
> make a critical mistake in the future. We, the "riding public," have a
> right to expect better than that.

I'd agree you have a right to expect to not be killed on an airline flight,
or on any flight for that matter. As a society, we tend to value our
expectation that we won't be killed.

But in what way does that justify anger against at least one person who
suffered the same dire consequences that all the passengers did, and who for
all we know was doing the very best they were capable of in their situation
to perform their duties?

I know...I'm just spitting in the wind here. Perhaps on Usenet more than
anywhere else, but certainly in society as a whole, people LOVE to judge.
They LOVE to make accusations and pretend they know EXACTLY what the score
is, long before they really do. Still, that doesn't make it right, and when
you and others insist on going around doing so, I'm going to speak up if I'm
around to see it.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
> Anger, and a person's reasons for becoming angry, is a very personal,
> experience driven reaction.

Frankly, if all Andrew has said was that he was angry, that would've been
fine. But he took it further. He made unfounded accusations of the pilots.
Angry or not, that's not reasonable.

> I would suggest that you accept and respect other's anger, produced in
> reaction to the incident, and that others respect your need to withhold
> feelings of anger in reaction to the incident.

Then why can't you accept and respect my anger, produced in reaction to a
person throwing around unfounded accusations?

Okay, I admit...I'm not exactly angry. Extremely annoyed is probably more
accurate. But still...your "live and let live" advice cuts both ways. Want
to practice what you preach? Then stay out of it.

> Nobody is going to change the other's mind in this case. Best to respect,
> accept, and move along.

See above.

[Matt Whiting]

Andrew Sarangan wrote:

> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>>>
>>>49 deaths?
>>
>>Will your anger bring them back?
>>
>>Matt
>
>
> Nothing will bring them back. So we should do nothing?

No, we should do useful things that might prevent a similar accident
from happening again. Anger doesn't do that.

Matt

[Andrew Sarangan[_1_]]

Matt Whiting wrote:

>
> No, we should do useful things that might prevent a similar accident
> from happening again. Anger doesn't do that.
>
> Matt

I am puzzled why you find anger due to loss of life, which is a normal
human emotion, to be so objectionable.
We are not talking about taking rash decision like invading a country.

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Ron Lee wrote:
> If he still flies let me know so I can avoid that airline. Or at
> least any plane he is piloting.



You think he will repeat the mistake, assuming there was one? It must be nice
to be so perfect.




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Morgans wrote:
>>> We are not talking about shooting a
>>> non-precision approach to minimums in a thunderstorm after a full day
>>> of flying. A pilot should be able to do this even if he had partied all
>>> night at the bar. What happened was gross negligence.
>>
>>
>>
>> How's the view from in there?
>
> HuH ???



With his head buried in his ass, I would think the view was limiting.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Morgans[_4_]]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote

> Okay, I admit...I'm not exactly angry. Extremely annoyed is probably more
> accurate. But still...your "live and let live" advice cuts both ways.
Want
> to practice what you preach? Then stay out of it.
>

Once again pete, You prove what an ass you are capable of being.
--
Jim in NC

[Tony]

I suspect this pilot's professional future, assuming he survives, is
bleak. His resume is going to be compared to others, isn't it? If you
were the decision maker, would you be interested in hiring a man who
will most likely have a serious FAA citation on his record if there are
others with about the same qualifications who do not? That would be the
arm's length decision process based on a factual record, but the hiring
authority has still another consideration -- will the public be
willing to buy tickets on the carrier who hires a pilot involved in
this incident?

Those are the criteria I'd be interested in as a hiring authority. One
might claim in an abstract world it ain't 'fair', but boys and girls
this isn't an abstract world we're living in.

It was very likely an unforced error that led to the accident, but the
key word is 'error'.

It's awful stuff, the whole damned thing.

-- CLEAR!--



Peter Duniho wrote:
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
> > If your family was on that plane, would you be angry? Damn straight, you
> > would be.
>
> I don't know. Maybe I would, maybe I wouldn't. I've experienced what I
> consider to be tragic loss in the past without feeling anger at anyone.
>
> But that's not the question here. Andrew's family wasn't on the plane, and
> his anger is misplaced, even if it could be understandable (albeit
> irrational) on the part of people who had relationships with the people who
> died.
>
> > Intentional does not have anything to do whether anger is justified.
>
> If you are talking about anger directed at the pilots, then of course it
> does. Anger may be understandable, but justified implies that there is some
> rational basis for the anger.
>
> It may turn out that there is indeed some rational basis for the anger, but
> for the moment there is absolutely no information that would support that
> conclusion.
>
> > These
> > were two professional pilots that made a mistake that is without reason
>
> How do you know that the mistake was made without reason?
>
> > , a kind of mistake not in any way permitted for professional pilot.
>
> Are there mistakes that are permitted for professional pilots? What
> mistakes would those be?
>
> > If they
> > had survived, I would expect that they would never be allowed to again
> > hold
> > an ATP.
>
> Unless there's new news I haven't heard, one did survive. I guess we'll see
> if he loses his pilot certificate or not. How that's relevant to the
> question of justified anger, I don't know. Maybe you could explain it.
>
> > For what ever reason, they did not have the right stuff, that day. The
> > right stuff is absolutely essential, every time, for an ATP to do his
> > thing,
> > and if the mistake were survived this time, you can not know if they would
> > make a critical mistake in the future. We, the "riding public," have a
> > right to expect better than that.
>
> I'd agree you have a right to expect to not be killed on an airline flight,
> or on any flight for that matter. As a society, we tend to value our
> expectation that we won't be killed.
>
> But in what way does that justify anger against at least one person who
> suffered the same dire consequences that all the passengers did, and who for
> all we know was doing the very best they were capable of in their situation
> to perform their duties?
>
> I know...I'm just spitting in the wind here. Perhaps on Usenet more than
> anywhere else, but certainly in society as a whole, people LOVE to judge.
> They LOVE to make accusations and pretend they know EXACTLY what the score
> is, long before they really do. Still, that doesn't make it right, and when
> you and others insist on going around doing so, I'm going to speak up if I'm
> around to see it.
>
> Pete

[Matt Whiting]

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>
>>No, we should do useful things that might prevent a similar accident
>>from happening again. Anger doesn't do that.
>>
>>Matt
>
>
> I am puzzled why you find anger due to loss of life, which is a normal
> human emotion, to be so objectionable.
> We are not talking about taking rash decision like invading a country.

I find sadness more appropriate at this point. If it is determined that
the crew was drunk or such, then I think anger is appropriate. The
problem is that many people DO make rash decisions when angry and they
are seldom helpful decisions.

Matt

[john smith]

In article >,
"Morgans" > wrote:

> If your family was on that plane, would you be angry? Damn straight, you
> would be.

An interesting question to ask someone who flies.
I would say the answer one would get would depend on what type of flier
your asked.
I put fliers in two catagories. There are pilots and there are aviators.
A pilot is a flier who just performs the mechanics of the flight.
An aviator is a flier who is a student of the theory and studiously
plans and contemplates the processes involved in flying.
As an example, consider a flight in a single engine piston airplane.
The pilot leans until roughness, then enriches a couple quarter turns.
The aviator calculates density altitude and uses the CHT/EGT to
accurately adjust the mixture.
Possibly the same result, but different processes to attain the goal.
What is the difference between the two?
What are the commonalities?
Both can make the same mistake, one may figure it out sooner than the
other.

[john smith]

In article . com>,
"Tony" > wrote:

> If you
> were the decision maker, would you be interested in hiring a man who
> will most likely have a serious FAA citation on his record if there are
> others with about the same qualifications who do not?

Only for three years, then it goes away.
This boy is most likely going to have some serious psychological issues
to deal with for at least a year.
This mornings paper reported that they are considering amputating part
of one leg. That will be a permanent reminder.

[Andrew Sarangan[_1_]]

Peter Duniho wrote:
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
> > If your family was on that plane, would you be angry? Damn straight, you
> > would be.
>
> I don't know. Maybe I would, maybe I wouldn't. I've experienced what I
> consider to be tragic loss in the past without feeling anger at anyone.
>
> But that's not the question here. Andrew's family wasn't on the plane, and
> his anger is misplaced, even if it could be understandable (albeit
> irrational) on the part of people who had relationships with the people who
> died.

No, my family was not on the airplane. But my wife and baby did fly
Comair CRJ only a few days prior to this accident, departed from CVG
which is not too far from LEX. Who knows, may be the same accident
pilot was at the controls. I don't know. That is perhaps why I feel
closer to this accident than many others. I can feel in a fleeting
moment the pain of the deceased family members. Unfortunately (or
fortunately), the average person does not know enough about aviation to
comprehend the different levels of pilot error and mechanial problems.
For them this is just an unfortunate accident that happens once in a
while. But as pilot we know better. We understand the different
elements in aviation, what's in our control and what's not in our
control. This was completely and 100% within the pilot's control. It
doesn't matter how much coffee he drank, what the ATC controller was
doing, what lights were on and what was off. This is like running a red
light in clear weather, killing a bunch of pedestrians and telling the
neighborhood to take it easy. No, my anger is not misplaced. It may be
unnecessary and useless, but it is not an unsual reaction for this type
of tragedy.

[Ron Lee]

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

>Ron Lee wrote:
>> If he still flies let me know so I can avoid that airline. Or at
>> least any plane he is piloting.
>
>
>You think he will repeat the mistake, assuming there was one? It must be nice
>to be so perfect.

Thank you. We shall see what the FAA does with his license. I choose
not to fly with someone who makes such a deadly mistake. Whether he
repeats that one again or not is irrelevant.

Ron Lee

[john smith]

In article om>,
"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote:

> No, my anger is not misplaced. It may be
> unnecessary and useless, but it is not an unsual reaction for this type
> of tragedy.

Andrew, if this is your first child, you are about to receive many years
of continuing education in distrations. Let us hope you and yours do not
suffer any harm as a result.

[City Dweller[_1_]]

Here's a lovely fact I just found about the crash's lone survivor and, most
probably, the responsible party for 49 deaths:

In 1999, his wife, Ida, shot Polehinke in the stomach with a Smith & Wesson
9mm semiautomatic handgun.
<...>
Polehinke said the shooting was an accident. His wife told police she shot
Polehinke because she was in ''fear'' for her life after her husband
threatened to kill her during an argument, according to the police report.

Source:
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/local/states/florida/counties/broward_county/15384875.htm

This criminaly negligent travesty of a pilot is also a spousal abuser. Emily
et al, still going to defend this guy?

-- CD


"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>I am getting tired of comments like "controller should have warned the
> pilots", or "taxiway was confusing", or "runway lights were off" etc..
> One could not find a better example of a pure and simple pilot error.
> The runway was clear, the weather was VFR, and the airplane was working
> fine. It is highly likely that this was the only airplane maneuvering
> at the airport. Even if the controller had cleared him to takeoff on
> runway 26, the responsibility would have been on the pilot to decline
> that clearance. Yet, a perfectly good airplane was run off the runway
> and ploughed into the woods.
>
> NTSB is investigating whether the pilots had coffee that morning, and
> how much sleep they got. This is a futile exercise. Taxiing and
> departing from a relatively quiet airport under VFR conditions is an
> extremely low workload situation. We are not talking about shooting a
> non-precision approach to minimums in a thunderstorm after a full day
> of flying. A pilot should be able to do this even if he had partied all
> night at the bar. What happened was gross negligence.
>
> I shudder to think that my wife and baby flew the Comair CRJ only a few
> days prior to this accident. Fortunately they are flying back with me
> in our trusty GA airplane. I feel a lot better about it than trusting
> my family to stupid mistakes that even my students pilots know how to
> avoid. I sincerely feel for those who lost loved ones. They have the
> right be very angry. I am angry, and I did not lose anything.
>

[Dave S]

Ron Lee wrote:

> If he still flies let me know so I can avoid that airline. Or at
> least any plane he is piloting.
>
> Ron Lee
>

How about we at least wait until we know he will survive his injuries
before we start trying to get him fired or take his license away?

Not too much to ask is it?

My educated guess tells me that he's prolly got massive burns. If he
survives the next 2 weeks then maybe he will be out of the woods.

Dave

[Emily[_1_]]

Dave S wrote:
> Ron Lee wrote:
>
>> If he still flies let me know so I can avoid that airline. Or at
>> least any plane he is piloting.
>>
>> Ron Lee
>>
>
> How about we at least wait until we know he will survive his injuries
> before we start trying to get him fired or take his license away?
>
> Not too much to ask is it?
>
> My educated guess tells me that he's prolly got massive burns. If he
> survives the next 2 weeks then maybe he will be out of the woods.
>
> Dave

Yep, too much to ask. Apparently some forget that those are human
beings in the front of the plane, and they deserve some respect.

[Dave S]

They legally narrowed the runway using a paintbrush. They only have to
maintain and keep up/repave/resurface (if they do it at all) the actual
runway (which is listed at 75 feet wide, but is in the middle of the 150
ft wide paved area.

Dave

C. Massey wrote:

>
>
> OK... But what I don't understand is why would they have two runways that
> are the same surface width, but it is listed as a 75 ft runway they way it
> is marked? It seems to me that if they are the same surface width, they
> would mark both of them the same usable width.
>
>
>
>
> ---
> avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
> Virus Database (VPS): 0635-1, 08/28/2006
> Tested on: 8/29/2006 8:02:18 AM
> avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2006 ALWIL Software.
> http://www.avast.com
>
>
>

[[email protected]]

Greg Copeland wrote:
>
> Is the above not an accurate account?
>
> http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19740130-0


In respect of the above, see below, you meant ;)

[John Gaquin]

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message

>>> If he still flies let me know so I can avoid that airline. Or at
>>> least any plane he is piloting.
>>
>... I choose
> not to fly with someone who makes such a deadly mistake.

Oh, God! Can the self-righteous blather, please!! What are you going to
do? Every time you book a flight, ask to see the crew's flight record? Get
names and socials so you can do your own internet research? Crap! You're
not going to do jack! Its all talk. Fact is, you aren't going to choose or
not choose. When you plan a trip you get on the plane like everyone else,
and you don't have any freakin' idea who's flying the plane. You think
they're all firm-jawed, steely-eyed war heroes? Guess again, Kemosabe!
Ever heard the advice about never visiting the kitchen at your favorite
restaurant? Well, the same applies to your favorite airline, too. They're
humans, just like us all, with all the warts and bumps that go with it.
Remember a few years ago when there was all the talk about arming cockpit
crews? Why do you think so many pilots were opposed to the idea? Because
they know their friends! That's why! "Let me know so I can avoid that
airline" -- what a crock!

[John Gaquin]

"Tony" > wrote in message

>.. -- will the public be
> willing to buy tickets on the carrier who hires a pilot involved in
> this incident?

The public doesn't know who's flying the plane, and beyond superficial lip
service, the public doesn't care. They make a lot of noise about safety,
but when it comes time to book the trip to Disney, or Aunt Myrtle's 90th
birthday, whoever sells the cheapest seat is the winner.

[Tony]

OK, John, assume for the moment you're the hiring authority, and let's
further assume you don't privately own the carrier, that you have a
boss.

Here's the conversation at your performance review. "Yeah, boss, I know
he was at the controls when that airplane crashed, but I hired him
anyway. I think he's the best choice from the 150 who applied and I
don't care if that that decision becomes publicly known and we lose 10%
market share for a year."

If I was the boss, I'd be thinking you made an avoidable error unless
you could convenience me the universe of qualified ATRs was very
limited. That old rule about the two kinds of mistakes in hiring comes
into play. The first kind of mistake is rejecting a qualified
applicant, the second is hiring an unqualified one. You can make many
mistakes of the first kind to avoid making one of the second kind.

It's an intresting topic and really a diversion from thinking about the
awful circumstances that started the thread.

CLEAR!


ohn Gaquin wrote:
> "Tony" > wrote in message
>
> >.. -- will the public be
> > willing to buy tickets on the carrier who hires a pilot involved in
> > this incident?
>
> The public doesn't know who's flying the plane, and beyond superficial lip
> service, the public doesn't care. They make a lot of noise about safety,
> but when it comes time to book the trip to Disney, or Aunt Myrtle's 90th
> birthday, whoever sells the cheapest seat is the winner.

[John Gaquin]

"Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
>
> Is the above not an accurate account?

The report is accurate for its time. Remember, you're reading a 1977
revision of a 1974 report, said revision due to additional knowledge and
experience gained in the interim. At the time of the accident, great hubbub
was raised about pilot error, when in fact, at the time, there was little
known about windshear (the term, iirc, was even new in those days). There
wasn't a great deal of science (by today's standards) on the optical
illusions associated with rain or black-hole approaches, mostly anecdotal
advice. The insidious synergistic nature of the two when combined was
unanticipated. The conclusion was pilot error because that's all that was
left, but the CVR shows that in the cockpit the perception was that nothing
was wrong. It wasn't that they missed cues. They didn't even know the cues
were there, or that they might need to be looking for them.

My point is not to rehash this accident, but merely to point out that there
have been many accidents over the years ascribed to pilot error that led to
acquired knowledge and understanding which later allowed us to realize that
certain pilots may not have been "at fault", but merely flew into
circumstances they could not be aware of.

I don't know if, nor am I claiming that, the Lexington accident might fall
into this category, but when a professional crew makes what appears to be a
series of inexplicable choices, you must look for reasons.

[John Gaquin]

"City Dweller" > wrote in message news:Gk7Jg.48303

> Here's a lovely fact I just found

Your single confirmed fact is that she shot him, and on this basis you
conclude that he is an abuser. Your logic is beyond all ken.

You must be a very small person.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-08-29, Ron Lee > wrote:
>>error a human makes? If not, what's your threshold and why do you think
>>that you are justified in getting angry at these particular humans for this
>>particular error in this particular case?
>
> 49 deaths?

Any aviator with significant flight time has made mistakes that could
have been deadly, given the wrong set of circumstances. Fortunately, the
other links in the accident chain weren't there. If this crew had made
the same mistake at another airfield where the wrong runway was 7000
feet long, the accident wouldn't have happened. But the mistake would
have been the same. I'm not interested in getting angry about this
particular accident, what I want to know is HOW an experienced two man
crew managed to make this mistake -- because if they can, well, so can
I.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-08-29, Andrew Sarangan > wrote:
> I think you are taking the phrase "angry" to an extreme. It is not that
> I am sitting here pounding my fist on the table and crying for revenge.
> I am angry that the pilots were so careless and took so many innocent
> lives with them. No, it was not a deliberate attempt, that would be
> murder or terrorism. This was a mistake due to carelessness and
> negligence.

With all due respect, we don't know that yet! It may well have been due
to carelessness and negligence (hopefully, the FO and CVR tapes can shed
light on that). But it may not have. I'll reserve my judgement on
whether it was an unfortunate mistake or gross negligence until the NTSB
sheds more light on the issue.

I have experience of making a mistake that could have been just as
catastrophic given the wrong set of circumstances.

It was a nice sunny day in Houston, but a rather wet low IFR day in
Austin as I departed in the club's (perfectly functional) Beech Bonanza
to go see a friend who was in Austin for the weekend. I wasn't tired, I
wasn't rushed, maybe a bit sweaty because it was an incredibly humid
morning in Houston - but once I was cruising IFR at 6000' in clear air,
that had all gone. The flight was going smoothly, the plane was trimmed,
the workload was low.

Approaching Austin, I started going into the clouds. There was only a
little light chop, and the Bonanza trimmed for hands off flight was just
running along nicely. I had the approach plates ready, and had the
frequencies all tuned by the time Austin approach had cleared me for the
approach into 35R at Bergstrom Intl. That's the runway GA uses there.

But after I passed the outer marker, it was quite clear that the
glideslope was as dead as a stone. The cloud bases were too low to make
it into a loc only approach, so I kept my altitude and told tower my
problem. I asked for an approach into 35L instead because I was certain
that the glideslope was fully functional in that plane, I'd only used it
the previous week. Tower turned me back to approach, and I got vectors
to fly. While I was doing that, I was double checking I had the radios
tuned in properly the last time, and then tuned the new frequencies for
the ILS to 35L, the runway used by the airliners. Talking to ATC and
twiddling knobs on the radio at the same time is pretty routine - I had
done it on real flights and training countless times without an issue.

More vectors.

"Bonanza 45U, maintain 2000' until established, cleared ILS 35R," said
the approach controller.
"45U, 2000 'til established, cleared ILS 35R", I replied.

A bit more flying and extra checking to make sure that the glideslope
was going to come alive as I flew towards the approach path. Sure
enough, the glideslope needle had gone to the top of the instrument and
was unflagged. Everything looked good.

"Bonanza 45U, it looks like you're trying to line up on 35R", came
approach's voice.
Huh?

Yep, I'd told tower I wanted 35R, but the message had got lost. I had
retuned for 35R. However, when the controller cleared me for 35L I
actually read back the clearance he gave me correctly, and failed to
spot that I was cleared for the wrong runway. Not the controller's
fault, entirely my fault for failing to notice the word "right" when I
wanted "left". In the eventuality, I replied to the controller that I'd
asked for 35L, and the controller immediately cleared me for 35L
instead, and I flew an uneventful approach and landing.

Gross negligence or a simple human error that could happen to any IFR
pilot? If it was gross negligence, then surely any mistake that could
result in an accident is gross negligence?

I did a lot of soul searching after that (and wrote an ASRS report).
With different circumstances - an approach controller that was possibly
distracted, lots of traffic coming into 35L, it could have resulted in a
collision with an airliner stuffed full of people and we'd have all been
dead.

Could the crew we're talking about been distracted by an equipment
problem? We don't know yet. I'm VERY interested why they selected the
wrong runway because I want to recognise the symptoms before they result
in a possibly catastrophic error. It may have been simple gross
negligence - they may have been joking around in the flight deck and not
paying attention. On the other hand a bit of comms intereference may
have made them both hear "26" instead of "22". We don't know. We won't
know until the NTSB have reviewed all the data. I'll reserve anger until
I know more about their mistake, because through first hand experience I
know that they CAN be made even when making your best efforts to be
careful and thorough. So until the NTSB offers more data, I'm reserving
my judgement.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Allen[_1_]]

"John Gaquin" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Ron Lee" > wrote in message
>
> >>> If he still flies let me know so I can avoid that airline. Or at
> >>> least any plane he is piloting.
> >>
> >... I choose
> > not to fly with someone who makes such a deadly mistake.
>
> Oh, God! Can the self-righteous blather, please!! What are you going to
> do? Every time you book a flight, ask to see the crew's flight record?
Get
> names and socials so you can do your own internet research? Crap! You're
> not going to do jack! Its all talk. Fact is, you aren't going to choose
or
> not choose.

A little of the co-pilot's background:


Survivor in coma; called 'a fighter'
DOCTORS AT UK ARE CONSIDERING AMPUTATION
By Steve Lannen
HERALD-LEADER STAFF WRITER
The lone survivor of Sunday's Comair crash clung to life last night.

James M. Polehinke, the co-pilot pulled from the burning jet's cockpit and
last night confirmed by officials to be at the controls, was in a coma and
on life support yesterday. Doctors were considering amputating one of his
legs, family friends said.

Officials at the University of Kentucky's Chandler Medical Center said
Polehinke remained in critical condition last night.

Friends and neighbors in southern Florida described Polehinke, 44, as a
strong man with a faith in God and a fighting spirit to match.

"Jimmy is in bad shape up there. He's in a coma," said longtime friend
Antonio Cruz of Miami. "But he's a religious person and a very good man. We
are all praying he will come through this."

Lexington police officer Bryan Jared pulled Polehinke from the burning plane
minutes after it crashed in a field off Versailles Road. At a news
conference yesterday afternoon, Jared said he hoped Polehinke "will be
returned back to his family."

Polehinke also suffered a broken rib and pelvis as well as internal
bleeding, friends said.

This is not the first time Polehinke has had a near-death experience.

His wife, Ida, shot him in the abdomen with a 9mm semi-automatic handgun in
1999. When police arrived at the home in Margate, Fla., they found Polehinke
lying in his blood on the kitchen floor.

Polehinke said the shooting was an accident. His wife told police she shot
Polehinke because she was in "fear" for her life after her husband
threatened to kill her during an argument, according to a police report.
Polehinke recovered from the shooting and declined to speak about it or
press charges.

The couple have no children, but four dogs.

Polehinke graduated from high school in Long Island, N.Y., and always wanted
to fly, Cruz said.

"He could play the saxophone so beautifully," Cruz said. "But he always
wanted to be a pilot. That was his lifetime dream."

Hospital spokesmen said Polehinke's family members who'd flown in declined
interview requests yesterday.

Several months ago, Polehinke suffered another setback.

"He had some type of injury to his knees," said David Norris, a neighbor.
"And he had to do physical therapy and brought himself back from that ...
and he could fly again. And now this has happened. ... So who knows, but
definitely he's a fighter."

[Ron Natalie]

Ron Lee wrote:
> "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> Ron Lee wrote:
>>> If he still flies let me know so I can avoid that airline. Or at
>>> least any plane he is piloting.
>>
>> You think he will repeat the mistake, assuming there was one? It must be nice
>> to be so perfect.
>
> Thank you. We shall see what the FAA does with his license. I choose
> not to fly with someone who makes such a deadly mistake. Whether he
> repeats that one again or not is irrelevant.
>
> Ron Lee

709 ride and ok to fly again.

[Ron Natalie]

john smith wrote:

> The pilot leans until roughness, then enriches a couple quarter turns.

If he doesn't have an EGT gauge, using roughness or RPM peaking is
not a bad system.

> The aviator calculates density altitude and uses the CHT/EGT to
> accurately adjust the mixture.

Tell me what possible use a calculated density altitude or CHT is
for setting the mixture. A EGT with reasonable response time is
preferable, other than that using the RPM peaks/roughness is as
as good as can be obtained. I can tell you on my plane, that
even using my multipoint EGT I get mixture settings not substantially
different (save a little better fuel economy) than the "lean to
roughness" technique.

[Anno v. Heimburg]

Andrew Gideon wrote:
> I've never considered the ratio between runway length and width before.
> What is it that defines possible values for this ratio?

The reasoning is probably that aircraft which only need 3500ft of runway are
smaller and thus don't need a 150ft wide runway, while bigger aircraft
which need longer runways would also need wider ones. Building a
short-and-wide runway would be a waste of money because it wouldn't be any
more useful than a short-and-narrow runway - the additional width alone
does nothing to significantly increase the number of types of aircraft it
can handle.

That said and as has been said elsewhere in this thread, a short-and-wide
runway may make sense for military applications, for formation take-offs,
for example.

Anno

[john smith]

In article >,
Ron Natalie > wrote:

> john smith wrote:
>
> > The pilot leans until roughness, then enriches a couple quarter turns.
>
> If he doesn't have an EGT gauge, using roughness or RPM peaking is
> not a bad system.
>
> > The aviator calculates density altitude and uses the CHT/EGT to
> > accurately adjust the mixture.
>
> Tell me what possible use a calculated density altitude or CHT is
> for setting the mixture. A EGT with reasonable response time is
> preferable, other than that using the RPM peaks/roughness is as
> as good as can be obtained. I can tell you on my plane, that
> even using my multipoint EGT I get mixture settings not substantially
> different (save a little better fuel economy) than the "lean to
> roughness" technique.

Consider the fact that many pilots do not even look at the tables in the
POH/AOH.

Additionally, they have no clue what the manufacturer recommended
degrees rich/lean of peak to operate at max power or max range.
How much do you adjust the mixture after attaining roughness? A little?
A lot? Just enough to smooth it out? That kind of adjustment can kill an
engine quickly.

Consider the fact that many do not even care!

[John Gaquin]

"Allen" > wrote in message news:ZPeJg.18555
>
> A little of the co-pilot's background:
>

Someone else posted this article, too, apparently concluding that because
his wife shot him, he is a wife-beater. I'm not sure how this article
relates to the accident.

[John Gaquin]

"Tony" > wrote in message

> ....and I
> don't care if that that decision becomes publicly known and we lose 10%
> market share for a year."

Right there is where your premise falls apart. Not even close to reality.

[Montblack[_1_]]

("City Dweller" wrote)
<http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/local/states/florida/counties/broward_county/15384875.htm>
>
> This criminaly negligent travesty of a pilot is also a spousal abuser.
> Emily et al, still going to defend this guy?


How does SHE SHOT HIM (and left him to die, in a heap, on the kitchen floor)
make him a spousal abuser?

Wonder if SHE (who SHOT HIM) got any jail time? Apparently not. And yet, if
he had slapped her (with more than words) he would have been hauled away.


Montblack

[Allen[_1_]]

"John Gaquin" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Allen" > wrote in message news:ZPeJg.18555
>>
>> A little of the co-pilot's background:
>>
>
> Someone else posted this article, too, apparently concluding that because
> his wife shot him, he is a wife-beater. I'm not sure how this article
> relates to the accident.

I was just showing the rest of the article where he is well thought of by
his friends and neighbors despite the domestic altercation.

[Ron Natalie]

john smith wrote:

>
> Consider the fact that many pilots do not even look at the tables in the
> POH/AOH.

What tables apply to leaning?

>
> Additionally, they have no clue what the manufacturer recommended
> degrees rich/lean of peak to operate at max power or max range.
> How much do you adjust the mixture after attaining roughness? A little?
> A lot? Just enough to smooth it out? That kind of adjustment can kill an
> engine quickly.

As long as they are below 75% power it doesn't really matter that much.
You haven't demosntrated any better knowledge of how to set the mixture
than the "leaning it until it roughens and then push it in a notch."

[john smith]

In article >,
Ron Natalie > wrote:

> john smith wrote:
>
> >
> > Consider the fact that many pilots do not even look at the tables in the
> > POH/AOH.
>
> What tables apply to leaning?
>
> >
> > Additionally, they have no clue what the manufacturer recommended
> > degrees rich/lean of peak to operate at max power or max range.
> > How much do you adjust the mixture after attaining roughness? A little?
> > A lot? Just enough to smooth it out? That kind of adjustment can kill an
> > engine quickly.
>
> As long as they are below 75% power it doesn't really matter that much.
> You haven't demosntrated any better knowledge of how to set the mixture
> than the "leaning it until it roughens and then push it in a notch."

They don't even know that fact.

You know this stuff, many do not. Especially low time renters.
I deal with flight instructors during my BFR's who don't know it.

[James Robinson]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>
> My understanding is that the first officer made the takeoff. That
> leaves the Captain to answer how he LET the first officer make the
> takeoff. The Captain gets nailed either way.

While both are responsible for the decision, I understand that only the
captain on a CRJ has access to the tiller, so he would have lined up the
aircraft before handing it over to the FO.

[Emily[_1_]]

Montblack wrote:
> ("City Dweller" wrote)
> <http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/local/states/florida/counties/broward_county/15384875.htm>
>
>>
>> This criminaly negligent travesty of a pilot is also a spousal abuser.
>> Emily et al, still going to defend this guy?
>
>
> How does SHE SHOT HIM (and left him to die, in a heap, on the kitchen
> floor) make him a spousal abuser?
>
> Wonder if SHE (who SHOT HIM) got any jail time? Apparently not. And yet,
> if he had slapped her (with more than words) he would have been hauled
> away.

Since my name was mentioned...

I don't think I'd like to live in a world where when a man is shot by
his wife, he's considered an abuser. Once again, you've (not you,
Montblack) crucified this poor man without knowing ANYTHING about the
situation.

First, it has zero to do with the accident and second, don't you have
ANY respect for a guy who might not survive his injuries?

[City Dweller[_1_]]

That gunshot incident does have one thing to do with the plane crash. If
that brave women had aimed a little higher back in 1999, maybe those poor 49
souls would still have been alive.


"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
> Montblack wrote:
>> ("City Dweller" wrote)
>> <http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/local/states/florida/counties/broward_county/15384875.htm>
>>>
>>> This criminaly negligent travesty of a pilot is also a spousal abuser.
>>> Emily et al, still going to defend this guy?
>>
>>
>> How does SHE SHOT HIM (and left him to die, in a heap, on the kitchen
>> floor) make him a spousal abuser?
>>
>> Wonder if SHE (who SHOT HIM) got any jail time? Apparently not. And yet,
>> if he had slapped her (with more than words) he would have been hauled
>> away.
>
> Since my name was mentioned...
>
> I don't think I'd like to live in a world where when a man is shot by his
> wife, he's considered an abuser. Once again, you've (not you, Montblack)
> crucified this poor man without knowing ANYTHING about the situation.
>
> First, it has zero to do with the accident and second, don't you have ANY
> respect for a guy who might not survive his injuries?

[Emily[_1_]]

City Dweller wrote:
> That gunshot incident does have one thing to do with the plane crash. If
> that brave women had aimed a little higher back in 1999, maybe those poor 49
> souls would still have been alive.

Plonk.

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Emily wrote:
> City Dweller wrote:
>> That gunshot incident does have one thing to do with the plane crash. If
>> that brave women had aimed a little higher back in 1999, maybe those poor 49
>> souls would still have been alive.
>
> Plonk.

Me too. What a dickhead.

[Peter Duniho]

"City Dweller" > wrote in message
...
> That gunshot incident does have one thing to do with the plane crash. If
> that brave women had aimed a little higher back in 1999, maybe those poor
> 49 souls would still have been alive.

What brave women?

I only saw mention of a single woman with a gun, and all we know is that the
media said she SAID she was abused. That was after she shot the guy, which
certainly calls into question her credibility (and that assumes the media
got the story right as well).

You also have made the assumption that the surviving pilot is the one to
blame for the accident. That assumption is just as unfounded as the one you
made about his domestic habits.

Haven't you ever heard what you do when you make assumptions? If not,
perhaps someone ought to tell you.

[Emily[_1_]]

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
> Emily wrote:
>> City Dweller wrote:
>>> That gunshot incident does have one thing to do with the plane crash. If
>>> that brave women had aimed a little higher back in 1999, maybe those poor 49
>>> souls would still have been alive.
>> Plonk.
>
> Me too. What a dickhead.
>
Personally, if the f/o survives, I'd like to see all these people say
what they've been saying about him to his face. I thought I was a
heartless bitch, but come on, these are real people.

[RST Engineering]

I rarely use this kind of language on the newsgroups.

What a miserable cocksucking mother****ing ******* you are.

Jim


"City Dweller" > wrote in message
...
> That gunshot incident does have one thing to do with the plane crash. If
> that brave women had aimed a little higher back in 1999, maybe those poor
> 49 souls would still have been alive.

[Bill Zaleski]

On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 19:25:28 -0700, "RST Engineering"
> wrote:

>I rarely use this kind of language on the newsgroups.
>
>What a miserable cocksucking mother****ing ******* you are.
>
>Jim

Right on point, Jim! You got my attaboy!
>
>
>"City Dweller" > wrote in message
...
>> That gunshot incident does have one thing to do with the plane crash. If
>> that brave women had aimed a little higher back in 1999, maybe those poor
>> 49 souls would still have been alive.
>

[[email protected]]

RST Engineering wrote:
> I rarely use this kind of language on the newsgroups.

And nothing should make you either. Why dip that low - just because
someone else chooses to?

Ramapriya

[Montblack[_1_]]

("Emily" wrote)
> I thought I was a heartless bitch, but come on, these are real people.


As opposed to, say, ...children. :-)


Montblack

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Emily wrote:
> Personally, if the f/o survives, I'd like to see all these people say
> what they've been saying about him to his face.


That'll never happen. The OP is a very brave man. <snicker>




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Emily[_1_]]

Montblack wrote:
> ("Emily" wrote)
>> I thought I was a heartless bitch, but come on, these are real people.
>
>
> As opposed to, say, ...children. :-)
>
>
> Montblack
Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[Emily[_1_]]

Nomen Nescio wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: Emily >
>
>> Personally, if the f/o survives, I'd like to see all these people say
>> what they've been saying about him to his face. I thought I was a
>> heartless bitch, but come on, these are real people.
>
>
> Here's a few other real people........

Your point? I was including everyone and their families. The fact is,
people are crucifying someone and don't even know what happened. The
guy's in the hospital, have a little respect.

[Stefan]

Emily schrieb:

> The guy's in the hospital, have a little respect.

If someone drove at 120 mph through a city and killed your family in the
process, would you also have a little respect because he was in the
hospital afterwards?

That said, I agree that we don't know the whole story yet.

Stefan

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 07:31:27 -0500, Emily >
wrote:
> Your point? I was including everyone and their families. The fact is,
> people are crucifying someone and don't even know what happened. The
> guy's in the hospital, have a little respect.

Respect is *earned*, not just given because a person holds a certain
position or just happens to be injured... The fact that someone just
so happens to be an ATP, cop, pilot, or even the President does not
automatically make him deserving of respect...

[Peter R.]

Grumman-581 > wrote:

> Respect is *earned*, not just given because a person holds a certain
> position or just happens to be injured... The fact that someone just
> so happens to be an ATP, cop, pilot, or even the President does not
> automatically make him deserving of respect...

As was pointed out by someone else in this group a few months ago (I
believe in the "He died doing something he loved" thread), modern society
seems to discourage speaking ill of the dead or severely injured.


--
Peter

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 13:09:47 -0400, "Peter R." >
wrote:
> As was pointed out by someone else in this group a few months ago (I
> believe in the "He died doing something he loved" thread), modern society
> seems to discourage speaking ill of the dead or severely injured.

Yeah, I suspect political correctness will be the death of
civilization...

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 13:09:47 -0400, "Peter R." >
> wrote:
>> As was pointed out by someone else in this group a few months ago (I
>> believe in the "He died doing something he loved" thread), modern society
>> seems to discourage speaking ill of the dead or severely injured.
>
> Yeah, I suspect political correctness will be the death of
> civilization...

That isn't political correctness, which I hate, it is common human decency.

[Emily[_1_]]

Stefan wrote:
> Emily schrieb:
>
>> The guy's in the hospital, have a little respect.
>
> If someone drove at 120 mph through a city and killed your family in the
> process, would you also have a little respect because he was in the
> hospital afterwards?
Yes, I would.

Besides, that comparison is stupid, because we don't know he did
anything wrong.

[Emily[_1_]]

Grumman-581 wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 07:31:27 -0500, Emily >
> wrote:
>> Your point? I was including everyone and their families. The fact is,
>> people are crucifying someone and don't even know what happened. The
>> guy's in the hospital, have a little respect.
>
> Respect is *earned*, not just given because a person holds a certain
> position or just happens to be injured... The fact that someone just
> so happens to be an ATP, cop, pilot, or even the President does not
> automatically make him deserving of respect...

No, he deserves respect for being a human being.

[Stefan]

Emily schrieb:

>> If someone drove at 120 mph through a city and killed your family in
>> the process, would you also have a little respect because he was in
>> the hospital afterwards?

> Yes, I would.

I don't believe you.

> Besides, that comparison is stupid, because we don't know he did
> anything wrong.

Yes, we know. He tried to take of from a runway which was too short. An
undeniable fact, IMNSHO.

Stefan

[Gary Drescher]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
...
>
> "Grumman-581" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 13:09:47 -0400, "Peter R." >
>> wrote:
>>> As was pointed out by someone else in this group a few months ago (I
>>> believe in the "He died doing something he loved" thread), modern
>>> society
>>> seems to discourage speaking ill of the dead or severely injured.
>>
>> Yeah, I suspect political correctness will be the death of
>> civilization...
>
> That isn't political correctness, which I hate, it is common human
> decency.

It's both. "Political correctness" is what people call common decency when
they don't want to be bothered with it.

--Gary

[Dave Stadt]

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
> Stefan wrote:
>> Emily schrieb:
>>
>>> The guy's in the hospital, have a little respect.
>>
>> If someone drove at 120 mph through a city and killed your family in the
>> process, would you also have a little respect because he was in the
>> hospital afterwards?
> Yes, I would.

You have got to be kidding.

[Dave Stadt]

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
> Grumman-581 wrote:
>> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 07:31:27 -0500, Emily >
>> wrote:
>>> Your point? I was including everyone and their families. The fact is,
>>> people are crucifying someone and don't even know what happened. The
>>> guy's in the hospital, have a little respect.
>>
>> Respect is *earned*, not just given because a person holds a certain
>> position or just happens to be injured... The fact that someone just
>> so happens to be an ATP, cop, pilot, or even the President does not
>> automatically make him deserving of respect...
>
> No, he deserves respect for being a human being.

I can think of thousands if not millions of human beings that deserve no
respect.

[john smith]

In article >,
Stefan > wrote:

> > Besides, that comparison is stupid, because we don't know he did
> > anything wrong.
>
> Yes, we know. He tried to take of from a runway which was too short. An
> undeniable fact, IMNSHO.

"String 'im up. It'll teach'm a lesson"
"Naw... hangins too good fur 'im!"

Interesting how the imagination makes the world so perfect.

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 17:19:56 -0500, Emily >
wrote:
> No, he deserves respect for being a human being.

LMAO !! So, Ted Bundy and bin Laden also deserve respect for being a
human being? Not that I'm comparing the pilot with these two, but I'm
just pointing out that you need to be careful when making blanket
statements like that...

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 00:19:31 GMT, "Dave Stadt" >
wrote:
> I can think of thousands if not millions of human beings that deserve no
> respect.

And I can think of BILLIONS...

[Emily[_1_]]

Grumman-581 wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 17:19:56 -0500, Emily >
> wrote:
>> No, he deserves respect for being a human being.
>
> LMAO !! So, Ted Bundy and bin Laden also deserve respect for being a
> human being? Not that I'm comparing the pilot with these two, but I'm
> just pointing out that you need to be careful when making blanket
> statements like that...

They killed people on purpose.

The point is, you've got a lot of people with absolutely no clue what
happened wishing this guy was dead or in jail. How about we save the
judgment for when we actually know what happened...or until the NTSB
gives us their best guess?

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 14:04:16 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:
> That isn't political correctness, which I hate, it is common human decency.

**** "common human decency"... The only reason the pilot is alive
right now is that *my* family wasn't on that flight and killed by
him...

[Ron Lee]

Emily > wrote:

>Grumman-581 wrote:
>> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 17:19:56 -0500, Emily >
>> wrote:
>>> No, he deserves respect for being a human being.
>>
>> LMAO !! So, Ted Bundy and bin Laden also deserve respect for being a
>> human being? Not that I'm comparing the pilot with these two, but I'm
>> just pointing out that you need to be careful when making blanket
>> statements like that...
>
>They killed people on purpose.
>
>The point is, you've got a lot of people with absolutely no clue what
>happened wishing this guy was dead or in jail. How about we save the
>judgment for when we actually know what happened...or until the NTSB
>gives us their best guess?

Actually Emily we know for a fact what happened. They attempted a
take-off on a runway that was too short for their aircraft. You are
wanting something to tell you WHY they made such a deadly mistake.

Ron Lee

[Emily[_1_]]

Ron Lee wrote:
> Emily > wrote:
>
>> Grumman-581 wrote:
>>> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 17:19:56 -0500, Emily >
>>> wrote:
>>>> No, he deserves respect for being a human being.
>>> LMAO !! So, Ted Bundy and bin Laden also deserve respect for being a
>>> human being? Not that I'm comparing the pilot with these two, but I'm
>>> just pointing out that you need to be careful when making blanket
>>> statements like that...
>> They killed people on purpose.
>>
>> The point is, you've got a lot of people with absolutely no clue what
>> happened wishing this guy was dead or in jail. How about we save the
>> judgment for when we actually know what happened...or until the NTSB
>> gives us their best guess?
>
> Actually Emily we know for a fact what happened. They attempted a
> take-off on a runway that was too short for their aircraft. You are
> wanting something to tell you WHY they made such a deadly mistake.

And what's wrong with that? I figure out WHY things went wrong for a
living and don't judge until I know all the facts.

[Dave Doe]

In article >, rachelp2037
@yahoo.com says...
> Ron Lee wrote:
> > Emily > wrote:
> >
> >> Grumman-581 wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 17:19:56 -0500, Emily >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> No, he deserves respect for being a human being.
> >>> LMAO !! So, Ted Bundy and bin Laden also deserve respect for being a
> >>> human being? Not that I'm comparing the pilot with these two, but I'm
> >>> just pointing out that you need to be careful when making blanket
> >>> statements like that...
> >> They killed people on purpose.
> >>
> >> The point is, you've got a lot of people with absolutely no clue what
> >> happened wishing this guy was dead or in jail. How about we save the
> >> judgment for when we actually know what happened...or until the NTSB
> >> gives us their best guess?
> >
> > Actually Emily we know for a fact what happened. They attempted a
> > take-off on a runway that was too short for their aircraft. You are
> > wanting something to tell you WHY they made such a deadly mistake.
>
> And what's wrong with that? I figure out WHY things went wrong for a
> living and don't judge until I know all the facts.

What would a good excuse be then ??? What would be acceptable?

--
Duncan

[Emily[_1_]]

Dave Doe wrote:
> In article >, rachelp2037
> @yahoo.com says...
>> Ron Lee wrote:
>>> Emily > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Grumman-581 wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 17:19:56 -0500, Emily >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> No, he deserves respect for being a human being.
>>>>> LMAO !! So, Ted Bundy and bin Laden also deserve respect for being a
>>>>> human being? Not that I'm comparing the pilot with these two, but I'm
>>>>> just pointing out that you need to be careful when making blanket
>>>>> statements like that...
>>>> They killed people on purpose.
>>>>
>>>> The point is, you've got a lot of people with absolutely no clue what
>>>> happened wishing this guy was dead or in jail. How about we save the
>>>> judgment for when we actually know what happened...or until the NTSB
>>>> gives us their best guess?
>>> Actually Emily we know for a fact what happened. They attempted a
>>> take-off on a runway that was too short for their aircraft. You are
>>> wanting something to tell you WHY they made such a deadly mistake.
>> And what's wrong with that? I figure out WHY things went wrong for a
>> living and don't judge until I know all the facts.
>
> What would a good excuse be then ??? What would be acceptable?
>
It's not about excuses. I'm sorry if you don't understand that.

[Matt Barrow]

"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 17:19:56 -0500, Emily >
> wrote:
>> No, he deserves respect for being a human being.
>
> LMAO !! So, Ted Bundy and bin Laden also deserve respect for being a
> human being? Not that I'm comparing the pilot with these two, but I'm
> just pointing out that you need to be careful when making blanket
> statements like that...

And one should have a better grasp of what it is to be "human" (Aristotle's
definition comes to mind).

[Matt Barrow]

> > Actually Emily we know for a fact what happened. They attempted a
> > take-off on a runway that was too short for their aircraft. You are
> > wanting something to tell you WHY they made such a deadly mistake.
>
> And what's wrong with that? I figure out WHY things went wrong for a
> living and don't judge until I know all the facts.

We already know WHAT the facts are (clue: they took off from the wrong
runway, which was wayyyyy to short for their purposes). You're hung up on
WHY they did it.

I hope you have a better grasp of the English language (not to mention
logic) in your work-a-day world.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO (MTJ)

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>> > Actually Emily we know for a fact what happened. They attempted a
>> > take-off on a runway that was too short for their aircraft. You are
>> > wanting something to tell you WHY they made such a deadly mistake.
>>
>> And what's wrong with that? I figure out WHY things went wrong for a
>> living and don't judge until I know all the facts.
>
> We already know WHAT the facts are (clue: they took off from the wrong
> runway, which was wayyyyy to short for their purposes). You're hung up on
> WHY they did it.
>
> I hope you have a better grasp of the English language (not to mention
> logic) in your work-a-day world.
>
>

Strangely enough I'm going to take up for Emily here. Sure we all know they
took off from way too short a runway and we all know that we shouldn't do
that. The only place we can hope to learn anything here is to find out WHY
they did it.

[john smith]

In article >,
"Matt Barrow" > wrote:

> We already know WHAT the facts are (clue: they took off from the wrong
> runway, which was wayyyyy to short for their purposes). You're hung up on
> WHY they did it.

Why is more important to preventing a repeat incident that what.

[Jose[_1_]]

>>And what's wrong with that? I figure out WHY things went wrong for a
>>> living and don't judge until I know all the facts.
>
>
> What would a good excuse be then ??? What would be acceptable?

"reason" and "excuse" are not the same.

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

[Matt Barrow]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
>>> > Actually Emily we know for a fact what happened. They attempted a
>>> > take-off on a runway that was too short for their aircraft. You are
>>> > wanting something to tell you WHY they made such a deadly mistake.
>>>
>>> And what's wrong with that? I figure out WHY things went wrong for a
>>> living and don't judge until I know all the facts.
>>
>> We already know WHAT the facts are (clue: they took off from the wrong
>> runway, which was wayyyyy to short for their purposes). You're hung up on
>> WHY they did it.
>>
>> I hope you have a better grasp of the English language (not to mention
>> logic) in your work-a-day world.
>>
>>
>
> Strangely enough I'm going to take up for Emily here. Sure we all know
> they took off from way too short a runway and we all know that we
> shouldn't do that. The only place we can hope to learn anything here is to
> find out WHY they did it.

Okay...I'll buy that. Thing is, Emily doesn't seem to even be getting at WHY
(as if it was a deliberate thing).

Let's get down to cases:

* Obviously, it was not deliberate.
* Obviously, it was not that they tried to take off from a runway far
removed from the one they INTENDED to.
....

All too often, we never do get to talk to the participants, so all we can do
is make a GAG.

(Has anyone mentioned a CVR being recovered???)

[Matt Barrow]

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote:
>
>> We already know WHAT the facts are (clue: they took off from the wrong
>> runway, which was wayyyyy to short for their purposes). You're hung up on
>> WHY they did it.
>
> Why is more important to preventing a repeat incident that what.

True; I was thinking of WHAT did they interpret incorrectly. _Why_ implies
intent, but it's doubtful we'll ever know. ITC, we have to infer from the
WHAT's, the WHY, but all we ever get is inferences.

YMMV

[Ron Lee]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote:
>
>(Has anyone mentioned a CVR being recovered???)

Pictures were on the internet by Monday I believe.

Ron Lee

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>> > Actually Emily we know for a fact what happened. They attempted a
>>>> > take-off on a runway that was too short for their aircraft. You are
>>>> > wanting something to tell you WHY they made such a deadly mistake.
>>>>
>>>> And what's wrong with that? I figure out WHY things went wrong for a
>>>> living and don't judge until I know all the facts.
>>>
>>> We already know WHAT the facts are (clue: they took off from the wrong
>>> runway, which was wayyyyy to short for their purposes). You're hung up
>>> on WHY they did it.
>>>
>>> I hope you have a better grasp of the English language (not to mention
>>> logic) in your work-a-day world.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Strangely enough I'm going to take up for Emily here. Sure we all know
>> they took off from way too short a runway and we all know that we
>> shouldn't do that. The only place we can hope to learn anything here is
>> to find out WHY they did it.
>
> Okay...I'll buy that. Thing is, Emily doesn't seem to even be getting at
> WHY (as if it was a deliberate thing).
>
> Let's get down to cases:
>
> * Obviously, it was not deliberate.
> * Obviously, it was not that they tried to take off from a runway far
> removed from the one they INTENDED to.
> ...
>
> All too often, we never do get to talk to the participants, so all we can
> do is make a GAG.
>
> (Has anyone mentioned a CVR being recovered???)
>

First, I know what a WAG is but not a GAG. At least not in this context.

Second, yes they got the CVR.

Third, "far removed" is a bit of an over statement.

[john smith]

In article >,
"Matt Barrow" > wrote:

> "john smith" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Matt Barrow" > wrote:
> >
> >> We already know WHAT the facts are (clue: they took off from the wrong
> >> runway, which was wayyyyy to short for their purposes). You're hung up on
> >> WHY they did it.
> >
> > Why is more important to preventing a repeat incident that what.
>
> True; I was thinking of WHAT did they interpret incorrectly. _Why_ implies
> intent, but it's doubtful we'll ever know. ITC, we have to infer from the
> WHAT's, the WHY, but all we ever get is inferences.

One of the things I am looking forward to after the final report is
issued, will be the followon analysis/critique in the trade publications.

[I always thought someone with a sense of humor when they came up with
the FLYING magazine column "I Learned About Flying From That" because
the abbreviation is ILAFFT (I laughted).]

[Matt Barrow]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
>> * Obviously, it was not that they tried to take off from a runway far
>> removed from the one they INTENDED to.
>
> Third, "far removed" is a bit of an over statement.
Do you actually read this stuff, or just blow right past it all?

Well, don't! That's my job.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
>>> * Obviously, it was not that they tried to take off from a runway far
>>> removed from the one they INTENDED to.
>>
>> Third, "far removed" is a bit of an over statement.
> Do you actually read this stuff, or just blow right past it all?
>
> Well, don't! That's my job.
>

It is obviously time for either new contacts or a bigger font.

[Emily[_1_]]

Matt Barrow wrote:
>>> Actually Emily we know for a fact what happened. They attempted a
>>> take-off on a runway that was too short for their aircraft. You are
>>> wanting something to tell you WHY they made such a deadly mistake.
>> And what's wrong with that? I figure out WHY things went wrong for a
>> living and don't judge until I know all the facts.
>
> We already know WHAT the facts are (clue: they took off from the wrong
> runway, which was wayyyyy to short for their purposes). You're hung up on
> WHY they did it.
>
> I hope you have a better grasp of the English language (not to mention
> logic) in your work-a-day world.
>
>
Without knowing the why, you can't prevent it from happening again.
That's obvious to anyone with half an education in QA.

[Emily[_1_]]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "john smith" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >,
>> "Matt Barrow" > wrote:
>>
>>> We already know WHAT the facts are (clue: they took off from the wrong
>>> runway, which was wayyyyy to short for their purposes). You're hung up on
>>> WHY they did it.
>> Why is more important to preventing a repeat incident that what.
>
> True; I was thinking of WHAT did they interpret incorrectly. _Why_ implies
> intent, but it's doubtful we'll ever know.

Why does not imply intent. There is a reason that people make
mistakes...have you ever heard of something called human factors?

[Jim Logajan]

Grumman-581 > wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 00:19:31 GMT, "Dave Stadt" >
> wrote:
>> I can think of thousands if not millions of human beings that deserve
>> no respect.
>
> And I can think of BILLIONS...

And their names are...?

;-)

[Stefan]

Emily schrieb:

> And what's wrong with that? I figure out WHY things went wrong for a
> living and don't judge until I know all the facts.

Wrong is that you are mixing up two entirely different questions.


Question 1: What was the _immediate_ reason for the accident?

Answer 1: The _immediate_ reason was that the pilots chose to took off
from a runway which was way too short for their airplane. It's the
pilots and only the pilots duty to choose the right runway. Even if they
had a clearance for a wrong one, it had been their duty to decline the
clearence. So yes, the pilots are to blame. This is a textbook example
of what "negligence" means. The question which cannot be answered at
this point is wheter it was a "gross" negligence or only a "normal" one.
So we do know that the pilots are to blame, we just don't know yet how much.


Question 2: How was it possible that this ultimate mistake was made and
how can it be prevented for the future?

Answer 2: No idea. Let's wait, hopefully, the NTSB report will provide
answers. Everybody can and does make mistakes, and therefore procedures
must be developed to catch those errors. (E.g. standard phraseology is
such a prcedure, required readbacks is such a procedure etc.) Obviously,
in this case, the safety system broke down. Hopefully, the NTSB will
clear up why the system broke down. If the pilots just had a good time
chattering with a friend, then it was gross negligence and the system is
intact. Nothing protects from gross negligence. If however the pilots
were acting responsibly and were doing a mistake which could have
occured to everyone, then the system needs repair.

Stefan

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 22:52:25 -0000, Jim Logajan >
wrote:
> And their names are...?

Muslims, Communists, Socialists, Democrats, Yankees... Need I go on?

[Jim Logajan]

Grumman-581 > wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 22:52:25 -0000, Jim Logajan >
> wrote:
>> And their names are...?
>
> Muslims, Communists, Socialists, Democrats, Yankees... Need I go on?

You may as well. So far I'm still not in any of the groups of people you
disrespect, but if you provide a more complete list I feel I may yet get
lucky....

[Peter R.]

Grumman-581 > wrote:

> Yankees...

The team or the north?

--
Peter

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Fri, 1 Sep 2006 22:09:19 -0400, "Peter R." >
wrote:
> The team or the north?

The north... Of course, one person that I know down in southern
Florida says that anyone from north of I-10 is a Yankee...

[cjcampbell]

Emily wrote:
> Grumman-581 wrote:
> > On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 17:19:56 -0500, Emily >
> > wrote:
> >> No, he deserves respect for being a human being.
> >
> > LMAO !! So, Ted Bundy and bin Laden also deserve respect for being a
> > human being?

I, for one, think that they do.

[Dave Doe]

In article >, rachelp2037
@yahoo.com says...
> Dave Doe wrote:
> > In article >, rachelp2037
> > @yahoo.com says...
> >> Ron Lee wrote:
> >>> Emily > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Grumman-581 wrote:
> >>>>> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 17:19:56 -0500, Emily >
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> No, he deserves respect for being a human being.
> >>>>> LMAO !! So, Ted Bundy and bin Laden also deserve respect for being a
> >>>>> human being? Not that I'm comparing the pilot with these two, but I'm
> >>>>> just pointing out that you need to be careful when making blanket
> >>>>> statements like that...
> >>>> They killed people on purpose.
> >>>>
> >>>> The point is, you've got a lot of people with absolutely no clue what
> >>>> happened wishing this guy was dead or in jail. How about we save the
> >>>> judgment for when we actually know what happened...or until the NTSB
> >>>> gives us their best guess?
> >>> Actually Emily we know for a fact what happened. They attempted a
> >>> take-off on a runway that was too short for their aircraft. You are
> >>> wanting something to tell you WHY they made such a deadly mistake.
> >> And what's wrong with that? I figure out WHY things went wrong for a
> >> living and don't judge until I know all the facts.
> >
> > What would a good excuse be then ??? What would be acceptable?
> >
> It's not about excuses. I'm sorry if you don't understand that.

Use another word of your choice then. What is an acceptable reason (you
choose the word if you like)?

Sheesh!

--
Duncan

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
> >>And what's wrong with that? I figure out WHY things went wrong for a
> >>> living and don't judge until I know all the facts.
> >
> >
> > What would a good excuse be then ??? What would be acceptable?
>
> "reason" and "excuse" are not the same.

What is an acceptable reason then?

--
Duncan

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On 1 Sep 2006 19:47:31 -0700, "cjcampbell"
> wrote:
> I, for one, think that they do.

Before I spew Coke all over my keyboard laughing uncontrollably at
that statement, perhaps I should understand exactly *where* you are
coming from...

How old are you and does your mother know that you are up this late?

Or are you some hippy from the '60s stuck in Makati because the drugs
were cheap?

[cjcampbell]

Grumman-581 wrote:
> On 1 Sep 2006 19:47:31 -0700, "cjcampbell"
> > wrote:
> > I, for one, think that they do.
>
> Before I spew Coke all over my keyboard laughing uncontrollably at
> that statement, perhaps I should understand exactly *where* you are
> coming from...
>

Laoag City, Ilocos Norte, Philippines.

> How old are you and does your mother know that you are up this late?
>

Old enough -- retired, in fact. It is the middle of the day here, by
the way.

> Or are you some hippy from the '60s stuck in Makati because the drugs
> were cheap?

No, just an elderly American missionary who thinks that all people
should be treated with respect. :-)

[cjcampbell]

Grumman-581 wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 14:04:16 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
> <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:
> > That isn't political correctness, which I hate, it is common human decency.
>
> **** "common human decency"... The only reason the pilot is alive
> right now is that *my* family wasn't on that flight and killed by
> him...

Revenge killing is one of the worst aspects Filipino culture. It is
endemic. Here we have mayors who shoot police officers over some
argument at a funeral. Then the feud starts. The body count climbs,
business flees, and the survivors are living in cardboard boxes.

So, if your family had been on that plane, and you would have gone to
the hospital and killed the pilot as he lay in his hospital bed, and
then his family would have come after you, and yours would go after
his, and the next thing you know you have the end of civilization. But
at least you would have had the satisfaction of revenge. All your
relatives would be dead or in prison. Their houses would be burned to
the ground. The same for all of the pilot's relatives. But at least you
would have had your revenge. You would have Israel and Palestine. The
IRA and UVF in Ireland. The Shiites and the Sunnis. The Campbells and
the Montroses. The Hatfields and the McCoys. Everybody grab guns and
have at it. Yes, sir. Never mind that it ends with a few ruined widows
and orphans struggling to survive in a blasted wasteland. You'll have
taught those guys a real lesson.

The one thing that separates us from primitive headhunters is that we
do not live like that. We have the rule of law. We have civilization.
We do not go out and take somebody's head simply because one of his
relatives took the head of one of ours. If you have that attitude then
all social and economic progress becomes impossible. This is what kept
Scotland and Ireland poor for centuries. It keeps Palestine and the
Philippines poor today. It is why we have Somalia and Sudan and East
Timor. It encourages corruption, depresses the economy, and makes it
dangerous to even deliver the mail.

[cjcampbell]

Grumman-581 wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 13:09:47 -0400, "Peter R." >
> wrote:
> > As was pointed out by someone else in this group a few months ago (I
> > believe in the "He died doing something he loved" thread), modern society
> > seems to discourage speaking ill of the dead or severely injured.
>
> Yeah, I suspect political correctness will be the death of
> civilization...

Actually, human decency is the defining quality of civilization. It is
the lack of decency that gives rise to tribal conflict, corruption,
decadence, and war.

Viciousness does not encourage civilization.

[cjcampbell]

Dave Stadt wrote:
> >
> > No, he deserves respect for being a human being.
>
> I can think of thousands if not millions of human beings that deserve no
> respect.

I can think of no one who deserves no respect. They may also deserve
justice. They may not deserve mercy. But everyone deserves respect.

Who are you to decide who deserves respect and who does not? No one
appointed you the final arbiter of respect.

We treat each other respectfully because that is the essence of
civilization. Refusal to respect one another leads to corruption,
crime, and conflict. Lack of respect means an end to the sanctity of
human life and property. There is a time to take human life, but one
should respect even one's enemies. Failure to do that will make you the
slave of your appetites, passions, and enemies.

[cjcampbell]

wrote:
> RST Engineering wrote:
> > I rarely use this kind of language on the newsgroups.
>
> And nothing should make you either. Why dip that low - just because
> someone else chooses to?

I believe what he meant to say is that individual is a vicious,
heartless, cad of low breeding and even lower intelligence.

I suspect that people who think others are not deserving of respect
feel that way because they are incapable of respect even for
themselves. Therefore they attempt to build up their pathetic,
shriveled egos by tearing down others. Comparing themselves to decent
human beings, they see the serious defects in their own character, so
they attempt to justify their inadequacies by abusing others. They say
to themselves, "I may have faults, but the faults of others are even
worse, so I am not so bad." And so they think to avoid having to
confront their own faults and weaknesses.

[john smith]

Nicely handled CJ!

[Matt Whiting]

cjcampbell wrote:
> Dave Stadt wrote:
>
>>>No, he deserves respect for being a human being.
>>
>>I can think of thousands if not millions of human beings that deserve no
>>respect.
>
>
> I can think of no one who deserves no respect. They may also deserve
> justice. They may not deserve mercy. But everyone deserves respect.

I don't think anyone deserves respect other that children under the age
of accountability. Beyond that you either earn respect or you don't.
Justice and mercy are different in my opinion. Everyone deserves
justice and most deserve mercy.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

cjcampbell wrote:

> Emily wrote:
>
>>Grumman-581 wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 17:19:56 -0500, Emily >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>No, he deserves respect for being a human being.
>>>
>>>LMAO !! So, Ted Bundy and bin Laden also deserve respect for being a
>>>human being?
>
>
> I, for one, think that they do.
>

I don't consider them human.

Matt

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On 1 Sep 2006 23:11:56 -0700, "cjcampbell"
> wrote:
> No, just an elderly American missionary who thinks that all people
> should be treated with respect. :-)

Hmmm... Missionary, huh? Oh well, that explains it... You're afraid
that my solution would seriously reduce your customer base...

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On 2 Sep 2006 00:33:54 -0700, "cjcampbell"
> wrote:
> So, if your family had been on that plane, and you would have gone to
> the hospital and killed the pilot as he lay in his hospital bed, and
> then his family would have come after you, and yours would go after
> his, and the next thing you know you have the end of civilization.

As I sit here this morning, staring at the monitor, typing on my
keyboard, trying to get enough caffeine in me to feel semi-human while
coming down with a cold that my daughter probably brought home from
school, I have to think that civilization is entirely overrated...

[cjcampbell]

Grumman-581 wrote:
> On 2 Sep 2006 00:33:54 -0700, "cjcampbell"
> > wrote:
> > So, if your family had been on that plane, and you would have gone to
> > the hospital and killed the pilot as he lay in his hospital bed, and
> > then his family would have come after you, and yours would go after
> > his, and the next thing you know you have the end of civilization.
>
> As I sit here this morning, staring at the monitor, typing on my
> keyboard, trying to get enough caffeine in me to feel semi-human while
> coming down with a cold that my daughter probably brought home from
> school, I have to think that civilization is entirely overrated...

And as I sit here this morning, waiting to catch a plane to Manila
where I will have surgery for a hernia, I am almost inclined to agree.

Still, civilization has its advantages. Hernia surgery, I suppose, is
better than having some guy dressed in mask and feathers waving a stick
with a monkey's skull mounted on it over me.

[cjcampbell]

Grumman-581 wrote:
> On 1 Sep 2006 23:11:56 -0700, "cjcampbell"
> > wrote:
> > No, just an elderly American missionary who thinks that all people
> > should be treated with respect. :-)
>
> Hmmm... Missionary, huh? Oh well, that explains it... You're afraid
> that my solution would seriously reduce your customer base...

Nah. I'm a Mormon, so killing them does not affect our customer base at
all. :-)

[cjcampbell]

Matt Whiting wrote:
> cjcampbell wrote:
>
> > Emily wrote:
> >
> >>Grumman-581 wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 17:19:56 -0500, Emily >
> >>>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>No, he deserves respect for being a human being.
> >>>
> >>>LMAO !! So, Ted Bundy and bin Laden also deserve respect for being a
> >>>human being?
> >
> >
> > I, for one, think that they do.
> >
>
> I don't consider them human.

To the contrary, I have never even heard of any animals that will act
like that. Mark Twain may have been right about the human race.

I respect people like Ted Bundy and bin Laden enough that I think they
deserve justice. I would not treat them unjustly, but I might not be
all that merciful, either.

[cjcampbell]

Matt Whiting wrote:
> cjcampbell wrote:
> > Dave Stadt wrote:
> >
> >>>No, he deserves respect for being a human being.
> >>
> >>I can think of thousands if not millions of human beings that deserve no
> >>respect.
> >
> >
> > I can think of no one who deserves no respect. They may also deserve
> > justice. They may not deserve mercy. But everyone deserves respect.
>
> I don't think anyone deserves respect other that children under the age
> of accountability. Beyond that you either earn respect or you don't.
> Justice and mercy are different in my opinion. Everyone deserves
> justice and most deserve mercy.

And being willing to balance justice and mercy are the essence of
respect, as I see it. A bin Laden may deserve execution. It may even be
merciful to execute him. It would therefore be disrespectful not to
execute him. It would also be disrespectful to his victims.

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On 2 Sep 2006 19:44:59 -0700, "cjcampbell"
> wrote:
> Still, civilization has its advantages. Hernia surgery, I suppose, is
> better than having some guy dressed in mask and feathers waving a stick
> with a monkey's skull mounted on it over me.

Don't knock it until you've tried it... <grin>

[John Gaquin]

"cjcampbell" > wrote in message
>
> And as I sit here this morning, waiting to catch a plane to Manila
> where I will have surgery for a hernia,

Just out of curiosity, why are you travelling to Manila for the surgery?

[cjcampbell]

John Gaquin wrote:
> "cjcampbell" > wrote in message
> >
> > And as I sit here this morning, waiting to catch a plane to Manila
> > where I will have surgery for a hernia,
>
> Just out of curiosity, why are you travelling to Manila for the surgery?

The local hospitals are substandard, to say the least. Also, doctors
here have a way of prescribing whatever procedures are most profitable,
whether they are necessary or not. A number of our missionaries have
been threatened with unnecessary appendectomies when all they had was
gastroenteritis. The best Filipino doctors and nurses have a habit of
leaving the country. Actually, I am not all that excited about Manila,
either, but at least we have an American doctor there who will review
everything.

[cjcampbell]

Grumman-581 wrote:
> On 2 Sep 2006 19:44:59 -0700, "cjcampbell"
> > wrote:
> > Still, civilization has its advantages. Hernia surgery, I suppose, is
> > better than having some guy dressed in mask and feathers waving a stick
> > with a monkey's skull mounted on it over me.
>
> Don't knock it until you've tried it... <grin>

It probably works as well as strapping magnets to your bod, which was
all the rage in America a few years back. :-)

[Montblack[_1_]]

("Emily" wrote some, after quoting much)


Trim please :-)


Montblack
"What? I said NOT the Asian kid. Would somebody tell me the rules?"
[Marty]

Frasier
Episode #208 (Spelling Bee)
'War of the Words'

[John Gaquin]

"cjcampbell" > wrote in message
>>
>> Just out of curiosity, why are you travelling to Manila for the surgery?
>
> The local hospitals are substandard, to say the least. Also, doctors
> here have a way of prescribing whatever procedures are most profitable,
> whether they are necessary or not. A number of our missionaries have
> been threatened with unnecessary appendectomies when all they had was
> gastroenteritis. The best Filipino doctors and nurses have a habit of
> leaving the country. Actually, I am not all that excited about Manila,
> either, but at least we have an American doctor there who will review
> everything.


ok.....ummm....... I guess ?

[Jules]

C. Massey wrote:

> 1. Is the ATC responsible for making sure the aircraft is on the correct
> runway?


No. But in Canada they do make sure the runway is clean before issuing a
take off clearance. They catch many things this way. They are supposed
to use the window.

[Morgans[_4_]]

"John Gaquin" > wrote

> ok.....ummm....... I guess ?

You do know where CJ is living, right now, right?
--
Jim in NC

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Jules" > wrote in message
...
>
> No. But in Canada they do make sure the runway is clean before issuing a
> take off clearance. They catch many things this way. They are supposed to
> use the window.
>

They do that in the US as well, and there's no reason to believe the
controller at LEX didn't do it before clearing Comair.

[John Gaquin]

"Morgans" > wrote in message news:dkMKg.240
>
> You do know where CJ is living, right now, right?

I know he's been in the PI for some time on missionary work, but something
in an earlier post led me to believe he was back in the US. Am I mistaken?
If so, never mind, it all gels. Sorry.

[Morgans[_4_]]

"John Gaquin" > wrote

> I know he's been in the PI for some time on missionary work, but something
> in an earlier post led me to believe he was back in the US. Am I
mistaken?
> If so, never mind, it all gels. Sorry.

He isn't home, yet! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Montblack[_1_]]

("cjcampbell" wrote)
> Still, civilization has its advantages. Hernia surgery, I suppose, is
> better than having some guy dressed in mask and feathers waving a stick
> with a monkey's skull mounted on it over me.


What's the co-pay with that monkey skull plan?

Good luck with the hernia repair.


Montblack
BTDT ...in about 5 weeks, myself.

[LWG]

Huh, that and having a dog lick it are the only things that are covered by
my health plan.

"> Still, civilization has its advantages. Hernia surgery, I suppose, is
> better than having some guy dressed in mask and feathers waving a stick
> with a monkey's skull mounted on it over me.
>

[Montblack[_1_]]

("LWG" wrote)
>> Still, civilization has its advantages. Hernia surgery, I suppose, is
>> better than having some guy dressed in mask and feathers waving a stick
>> with a monkey's skull mounted on it over me.

> Huh, that and having a dog lick it are the only things that are covered by
> my health plan.


Can you choose the dog with your plan?


Montblack

[Jim Macklin]

Is that a female or male dog?




"Montblack" > wrote in
message ...
| ("LWG" wrote)
| >> Still, civilization has its advantages. Hernia surgery,
I suppose, is
| >> better than having some guy dressed in mask and
feathers waving a stick
| >> with a monkey's skull mounted on it over me.
|
| > Huh, that and having a dog lick it are the only things
that are covered by
| > my health plan.
|
|
| Can you choose the dog with your plan?
|
|
| Montblack
|

[LWG]

No, gotta go to a gatekeeper dog first.

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> ("LWG" wrote)
>>> Still, civilization has its advantages. Hernia surgery, I suppose, is
>>> better than having some guy dressed in mask and feathers waving a stick
>>> with a monkey's skull mounted on it over me.
>
>> Huh, that and having a dog lick it are the only things that are covered
>> by my health plan.
>
>
> Can you choose the dog with your plan?
>
>
> Montblack

[LWG]

Depends on where it hurts.

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:zzhLg.6998$SZ3.1625@dukeread04...
> Is that a female or male dog?
>
>
>
>
> "Montblack" > wrote in
> message ...
> | ("LWG" wrote)
> | >> Still, civilization has its advantages. Hernia surgery,
> I suppose, is
> | >> better than having some guy dressed in mask and
> feathers waving a stick
> | >> with a monkey's skull mounted on it over me.
> |
> | > Huh, that and having a dog lick it are the only things
> that are covered by
> | > my health plan.
> |
> |
> | Can you choose the dog with your plan?
> |
> |
> | Montblack
> |
>
>

[cjcampbell]

Montblack wrote:
> ("cjcampbell" wrote)
> > Still, civilization has its advantages. Hernia surgery, I suppose, is
> > better than having some guy dressed in mask and feathers waving a stick
> > with a monkey's skull mounted on it over me.
>
>
> What's the co-pay with that monkey skull plan?
>
> Good luck with the hernia repair.

As it turned out, they were out of anesthetic and they weren't sure it
needed surgery anyway. So we will give it about three weeks to see if
it goes away by itself. They offered to do it without anesthetic, but I
declined, even though I am sure they could have found several
volunteers here would have paid for the privilege of performing the
procedure.