Comair Pilot Error

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

"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!

"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.

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.

"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.

"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.

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

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

"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 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.