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

Bob Gardner

"raduray" wrote in message
oups.com...

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

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

- Rick

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

Radu