Comair Pilot Error

"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.

"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 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

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.

"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.

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/...?id=19740130-0

Greg

Greg Copeland wrote:

Is the above not an accurate account?

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


In respect of the above, see below, you meant

"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.

"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

"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