Crashing on takeoff... how odd

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
I can certainly see how one could taxi to the wrong runway and even line
up on it. But taking off on it is inexcusable. One of the last checks I
was taught to make before firewalling the throttle is to check that the
heading of the airplane matches the runway to which I was cleared for
takeoff. It takes less than two seconds to make this check and it will
catch this error every time.


Perhaps they did, and when they found the 40 degree error they reset the
gyro to correct the discrepancy.


Speaking for myself, if I get on a runway and see an error that large, I
check to see if something else has been wrong. Especially if I'm IFR, I
don't want a 40 degree error on my DG.

That being said, I almost took off on the wrong runway once, and figured
it out before I did. It does happen, probably more than the public
realizes.

Emily wrote:

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

I can certainly see how one could taxi to the wrong runway and even
line up on it. But taking off on it is inexcusable. One of the last
checks I was taught to make before firewalling the throttle is to
check that the heading of the airplane matches the runway to which I
was cleared for takeoff. It takes less than two seconds to make this
check and it will catch this error every time.


Perhaps they did, and when they found the 40 degree error they reset
the gyro to correct the discrepancy.

Speaking for myself, if I get on a runway and see an error that large, I
check to see if something else has been wrong. Especially if I'm IFR, I
don't want a 40 degree error on my DG.

That being said, I almost took off on the wrong runway once, and figured
it out before I did. It does happen, probably more than the public
realizes.

I landed on the wrong runway at Reading, PA early in my flying career.
I was cleared for a right downwind to R36 and hadn't made many right
traffic patterns before. I wasn't paying sufficient attention and ended
up lining up on 31 and didn't cross-check the DG as I should have. I
noticed the error at almost the same time the controller did, but
traffic wasn't a factor so he just came on quickly and said something
like "it appears you are lined up for 31 rather than 36, cleared to land
31."

I definitely understand how this can happen which is one reason I'm much
more careful now about cross-checking with the compass and DG,
especially when flying IFR.

Matt

I can see how they got disoriented in the dark (my guess) and I can see how
the tower wouldn't necessarily pick up that they were on the wrong runway,
but I can't understand why the 'WTF is going on here' alarm didn't go off in
the Pilot or Co-pilots head as they were starting a takeoff roll down a 75'
wide runway in poor shape, as opposed to the newer 150' wide runway they
were supposed to be on.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?M6AD235AD

Take a look at the Google Maps link - the 75' wide runway is only 75'
between the markings. It appears to be a 150' wide swath of pavement.
In the dark, you could easily miss the runway numbers while turning
onto 26 if following the left-most taxiway centerline from the terminal
area. Not sure what sort of lighted runway signage there is in the
vicinity tho.

The patched up part of that runway appears to be at the 08 end, so it's
certainly possible by the time they got to that end, they did realize
something was wrong, but possibly too late to do anything about it
other than pull up hard.

--
Guy

Well, if it apears a lot wider than 75', I can see them not picking up on it
till it was too late.
That explains a lot if thats the way that runway is paved.
A sad situation.

--
My 2¢ YMMV
"Guy Elden Jr" wrote in message
oups.com...
I can see how they got disoriented in the dark (my guess) and I can see
how
the tower wouldn't necessarily pick up that they were on the wrong
runway,
but I can't understand why the 'WTF is going on here' alarm didn't go off
in
the Pilot or Co-pilots head as they were starting a takeoff roll down a
75'
wide runway in poor shape, as opposed to the newer 150' wide runway they
were supposed to be on.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?M6AD235AD

Take a look at the Google Maps link - the 75' wide runway is only 75'
between the markings. It appears to be a 150' wide swath of pavement.
In the dark, you could easily miss the runway numbers while turning
onto 26 if following the left-most taxiway centerline from the terminal
area. Not sure what sort of lighted runway signage there is in the
vicinity tho.

The patched up part of that runway appears to be at the 08 end, so it's
certainly possible by the time they got to that end, they did realize
something was wrong, but possibly too late to do anything about it
other than pull up hard.

--
Guy

According to the media, the long runway is lighted and the short runway is
not; if that is true, they started the takeoff roll with no runway lights.

Bob Gardner

"Alex Pitschmann" wrote in message
. ..
I can see how they got disoriented in the dark (my guess) and I can see how
the tower wouldn't necessarily pick up that they were on the wrong runway,
but I can't understand why the 'WTF is going on here' alarm didn't go off
in the Pilot or Co-pilots head as they were starting a takeoff roll down a
75' wide runway in poor shape, as opposed to the newer 150' wide runway
they were supposed to be on.
That is, if this is what really happened.
I believe it would be obvious to me if I had my little 172 on a 75'
runway when I expected 150' wide.
We're all armchair quarterbacks at this point.
My heart goes out to the families that lost loved ones.
--
My 2¢ YMMV
Alex
wrote in message
ups.com...
I remember a recent discussion with a pilot mate where I was mentioning
how illogical a crash-shortly-after-takeoff is, given that beyond V1
takeoff can safely be continued even with just one good engine. I'd
even told him that if I saw an aircraft airborne following takeoff, I'd
presume it safe.

Days after that tete-a-tete, a Fokker went down in Pakistan shortly
after taking off. And today the Bombardier at Kentucky.

Doesn't add up, does it? After all, if the engines are good and there's
no bomb going off, it should be pretty hard to crash an aircraft!

Ramapriya

Accorind to airnav both runways have lights...

http://www.airnav.com/airport/KLEX


The 22 has better lights, but both 22 and 26 have lights.

Paul

But does airnav.com know what effect the recent construction activity had on
the lights?

Bob Gardner

wrote in message
...
Accorind to airnav both runways have lights...

http://www.airnav.com/airport/KLEX


The 22 has better lights, but both 22 and 26 have lights.

Paul

Alex Pitschmann wrote:
I can see how they got disoriented in the dark (my guess)


Dark at 38N at 7am in Aug??

Ramapriya

In article . com,
wrote:

Alex Pitschmann wrote:
I can see how they got disoriented in the dark (my guess)

Dark at 38N at 7am in Aug??

Yes, LEX is on the western edge of the Eastern Time Zone.
Sunrise is just before 7 AM. The aircraft departed about 6:04 AM.

john smith wrote:

Dark at 38N at 7am in Aug??

Yes, LEX is on the western edge of the Eastern Time Zone.
Sunrise is just before 7 AM. The aircraft departed about 6:04 AM.


I checked out a couple of news sites and they do mention the time that
you do, but I bet I saw Fox and Sky News last evening and they both
mentioned 7 am!

Fwiw, at 6.15 am, which is when I leave for work, my C240's auto
headlights don't come on. That must translate into adequate enough
daylight at that time of the day here in Dubai!

Ramapriya