The LEX crash - A CRM view

"Peter Clark" wrote in message
...

And even if there were 2, in the case of that airport doesn't the
sight line from the tower mean it would still be unlikely a second
controller would have been able to visually determine which runway it
was lined up on?


I don't know, it's hard to say for certain just by looking at the airport
diagram. But if the controller is held responsible for this accident
because he failed to advise the crew they were departing on a runway other
than the one they were cleared to takeoff from then the remedial action must
be a transfer of authority from the cockpit to the tower cab.
Responsibility and authority go hand in hand.

"Peter Clark" wrote in message
...
And even if there were 2, in the case of that airport doesn't the
sight line from the tower mean it would still be unlikely a second
controller would have been able to visually determine which runway it
was lined up on?

Using the tower view in MS Flight Simulator, you can see the difference
clearly (be sure to position the control tower properly). A plane lined up
on 22 points partly toward the tower; on 26 it does not. That difference
should be especially conspicuous if the plane's landing lights are on in the
dark.

The plane's orientation when holding short is even more dramatically
different for the two runways (assuming that the plane is perpendicular to
the hold-short line, which seems to be what airliners do). From the tower's
point of view, a plane holding short for 26 points about 45 degrees to the
right; a plane holding short for 22 points about 45 degrees to the left.
(Can a plane be cleared for takeoff before it has even taxied to the runway?
I've never received such a clearance, but I don't know whether it would be
against the rules.)

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
. ..

Using the tower view in MS Flight Simulator, you can see the difference
clearly (be sure to position the control tower properly). A plane lined up
on 22 points partly toward the tower; on 26 it does not. That difference
should be especially conspicuous if the plane's landing lights are on in
the dark.


Perhaps the plane didn't have any lights turned on.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:


"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...

Using the tower view in MS Flight Simulator, you can see the difference
clearly (be sure to position the control tower properly). A plane lined up
on 22 points partly toward the tower; on 26 it does not. That difference
should be especially conspicuous if the plane's landing lights are on in
the dark.


Perhaps the plane didn't have any lights turned on.

Regardless, the pilots were responsible. Trying to shift or allocate
blame to the tower/FAA is idiotic.

Ron Lee

Regardless, the pilots were responsible. Trying to shift or allocate
blame to the tower/FAA is idiotic.

Maybe part of the problem is that we call them "controllers". The FAA
is trying to go to "non-towered" rather than "uncontrolled" airports,
due to public perception. Maybe the title "air traffic controller"
should be changed to "air traffic coordinator". This may have an effect
on public perception which would lower the value of the political
currency garnered by shifting blame to the "controllers" who were
"obviously out of control"...

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in
ink.net:

Many assume that had the required second controller been on duty he may
have caught the flight crew's error. Had the two controller policy been
followed the second controller wouldn't have been in the tower cab, he'd
have been working in the TRACON. TRACON's don't have windows.

A second pilot aboard the aircraft surely would have caught the error as
well.

Oh wait, there was a second pilot aboard the aircraft...

"Ron Lee" wrote in message
...

Regardless, the pilots were responsible. Trying to shift or allocate
blame to the tower/FAA is idiotic.


You're absolutely correct on both points.

"Judah" wrote in message
. ..

A second pilot aboard the aircraft surely would have caught the error as
well.

Oh wait, there was a second pilot aboard the aircraft...


Apparently neither of them was looking out the window.

Are you kidding....I would never open my mouth if someone was about to do
something that was going to kill me...I would just it there quietly and
die.....


wrote in message
ups.com...
If as PNF you notice that the PF has just turned on to the wrong runway
to commence the takeoff roll, are you permitted to alert him (can't see
why not, actually, if lives are likely to be on the line) to it or are
you expected to just shut up and let him make the call? Presume for the
moment that the Capn is PF, which I hear wasn't the case in the LEX
incident...

Ramapriya

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in
ink.net:


"Judah" wrote in message
. ..

A second pilot aboard the aircraft surely would have caught the error as
well.

Oh wait, there was a second pilot aboard the aircraft...


Apparently neither of them was looking out the window.

Nor at the proper instruments on their panel.

The point is that all this conjecture about a second controller being able to
save the day is a bunch of hogwash. Even if it were relevant, which it isn't,
there's no reason to think that anything would have been different had a
second controller been working at that moment.

Mistakes happen, and it's unfortunate. But 3 professionals were too busy with
other things to catch the mistake. Why is there any reason to think that a
4th would have been any less so?