Comair Pilot Error

"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
oups.com...
I am getting tired of comments like "controller should have warned the
pilots", or "taxiway was confusing", or "runway lights were off" etc..
One could not find a better example of a pure and simple pilot error.
The runway was clear, the weather was VFR, and the airplane was working
fine. It is highly likely that this was the only airplane maneuvering
at the airport. Even if the controller had cleared him to takeoff on
runway 26, the responsibility would have been on the pilot to decline
that clearance. Yet, a perfectly good airplane was run off the runway
and ploughed into the woods.

NTSB is investigating whether the pilots had coffee that morning, and
how much sleep they got. This is a futile exercise. Taxiing and
departing from a relatively quiet airport under VFR conditions is an
extremely low workload situation. We are not talking about shooting a
non-precision approach to minimums in a thunderstorm after a full day
of flying. A pilot should be able to do this even if he had partied all
night at the bar. What happened was gross negligence.

I shudder to think that my wife and baby flew the Comair CRJ only a few
days prior to this accident. Fortunately they are flying back with me
in our trusty GA airplane. I feel a lot better about it than trusting
my family to stupid mistakes that even my students pilots know how to
avoid. I sincerely feel for those who lost loved ones. They have the
right be very angry. I am angry, and I did not lose anything.



I have a question. I will say right off of the bat that I do not have any
pilot ratings, but I do have A&P ratings, so I am somewhat familiar with
FAR's. I am unfamiliar with any SOP's.

1. Is the ATC responsible for making sure the aircraft is on the correct
runway?

2. Aren't there check's that are made from inside the cockpit to assure they
are on the correct runway?

3. Looking at the two runways using google earth, it looks as though the
actual pavement is the same width on both runways in question, but all of
the documents that I have seen show a 75 ft and a 150 ft runway. Why is
this? Someone mentioned the 75 ft runway is actually 150 ft wide, but the
markings make it 75 ft usable. Why would that be?


Thanks for your answers...




---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0635-1, 08/28/2006
Tested on: 8/29/2006 7:34:06 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2006 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

No matter how you cut this one, pilot error is seriously indicated by the
simple fact that the takeoff roll was started on the runway not assigned to
them.

And the wrong runway for their aircraft regardless of what they were
assigned.

Ron Lee

3. Looking at the two runways using google earth, it looks as though the
actual pavement is the same width on both runways in question, but all of
the documents that I have seen show a 75 ft and a 150 ft runway. Why is
this? Someone mentioned the 75 ft runway is actually 150 ft wide, but the
markings make it 75 ft usable. Why would that be?

Look closely at a picture of Rwy 26 and you will see solid (white?)
lines either side of the centerline that are probably 75 feet apart.

Ron Lee

"Ron Lee" wrote in message
...
3. Looking at the two runways using google earth, it looks as though the
actual pavement is the same width on both runways in question, but all of
the documents that I have seen show a 75 ft and a 150 ft runway. Why is
this? Someone mentioned the 75 ft runway is actually 150 ft wide, but the
markings make it 75 ft usable. Why would that be?

Look closely at a picture of Rwy 26 and you will see solid (white?)
lines either side of the centerline that are probably 75 feet apart.



OK... But what I don't understand is why would they have two runways that
are the same surface width, but it is listed as a 75 ft runway they way it
is marked? It seems to me that if they are the same surface width, they
would mark both of them the same usable width.




---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0635-1, 08/28/2006
Tested on: 8/29/2006 8:02:18 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2006 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote:

If you do make that mistake, you will most likely either be dead or out of a job.


Thanks, mate.

Reports suggest that the plane hit a perimeter fence. Since that could
only have happened if the plane whacked into it on its takeoff roll not
having begun rotation, it's obvious that the pilots didn't sight it.
Makes me want to ask how effective landing lights are, normally? Are
they as good to pilots as car headlights are to drivers? My hunch is
they're not... since you don't expect traffic in your way in airplanes


Ramapriya

SOmeone else already addressed the rotation and I have no turbine
experience, but as for landing lights, They look really bright from
outside the plane at night, but they don't (at least on the small GA
planes I fly) light up much from in the cockpit. I would think that
CRJs would have better lighting, but I don't know.

My first night landing tempted me to ask for a good, bright, candle to
light the runway.

John Stevens
PP-ASEL

Peter Duniho wrote:

You have never made a single mistake, ever, while flying an airplane?

Apples and oranges, IMO. One cannot compare the skills of GA pilots to
those of professional pilots, given the level of training, recurring
certification, and proficiency professional pilots maintain. Therefore,
one cannot compare the mistakes of GA pilots to those of professional
pilots.


--
Peter

C. Massey schrieb:

OK... But what I don't understand is why would they have two runways that
are the same surface width, but it is listed as a 75 ft runway they way it
is marked? It seems to me that if they are the same surface width, they
would mark both of them the same usable width.

Look again at the Google image. The surface of rwy 26 is in a poor
state. Maybe it's even poorer outside the markings. And before you ask
why it is not better maintained: It costs money.

Stefan

"C. Massey" wrote:

1. Is the ATC responsible for making sure the aircraft is on the correct
runway?

No, the pilot in command is the final authority for the safety of the
flight. A pilot has the authority to disregard an ATC instruction if the
pilot believes that this instruction will put the aircraft in harm's way.

Among the many other responsibilities, ATC does serve as a "check and
balance" of sorts, but for some reason this check did not occur on that
morning.

2. Aren't there check's that are made from inside the cockpit to assure they
are on the correct runway?

Yes there are. However, I am not a professional pilot so I am unaware if
airlines have written procedures dealing with this. I suspect they do.

In the GA world we would compare the directional gyro, compass, or HSI to
the known runway heading before departing.

3. Looking at the two runways using google earth, it looks as though the
actual pavement is the same width on both runways in question, but all of
the documents that I have seen show a 75 ft and a 150 ft runway. Why is
this? Someone mentioned the 75 ft runway is actually 150 ft wide, but the
markings make it 75 ft usable. Why would that be?

Unknown by me, but perhaps the airport purposely did this to assure a
distinction between the smaller runway and the larger one.

--
Peter

I don't "know", so pure speculation on my part, but maybe they were trying
to create another visual clue to help prevent this exact type of accident.

"C. Massey" wrote in message
...
OK... But what I don't understand is why would they have two runways that
are the same surface width, but it is listed as a 75 ft runway they way it
is marked? It seems to me that if they are the same surface width, they
would mark both of them the same usable width.

C. Massey wrote:
"Ron Lee" wrote in message
...
3. Looking at the two runways using google earth, it looks as though the
actual pavement is the same width on both runways in question, but all of
the documents that I have seen show a 75 ft and a 150 ft runway. Why is
this? Someone mentioned the 75 ft runway is actually 150 ft wide, but the
markings make it 75 ft usable. Why would that be?
Look closely at a picture of Rwy 26 and you will see solid (white?)
lines either side of the centerline that are probably 75 feet apart.



OK... But what I don't understand is why would they have two runways that
are the same surface width, but it is listed as a 75 ft runway they way it
is marked? It seems to me that if they are the same surface width, they
would mark both of them the same usable width.




---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0635-1, 08/28/2006
Tested on: 8/29/2006 8:02:18 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2006 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com



It's probable a money issue. Marking the GA runway as 75 feet wide
means you only plow & maintain the inside 75 feet. I've seen other
reports that say the runway was cracked and in poor condition. I
guessing that they just did not have enough money for the full width
maintenance. Also, for a 3500 foot runway 75 is more then enough.
Looking at a aerial shot it appears there is also a unused runway at 33
( or so ) Both of these runways appear to be ~3500 long and 150 wide.
The width vs length does not appear to work out. Was this a former
military base? Maybe for helicopters? I would not be surprise to see
that the military would build a short wide runway for helos.