Comair Pilot Error

"C. Massey" wrote in message news:tVWIg.3722

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.

Probably something as simple as their ongoing maintenance budget. Most
planes that can operate in 3500 ft don't need a 150 ft width, and most
planes that need this width probably couldn't function on a 3500 ft runway.
Couple that with weight bearing capacity limitations, and the Lexington folk
probably figured there was no point in continuing to require maintenance and
upkeep on the outer areas of the pavement. In fact, I gather from some
reports that there hasn't been a great deal of recent maintenance performed
on that entire runway.

AS I gather from reading the news as the NTSB and news media
release data, runway 26 had been operating in the day time
and the runway light had been NOTAM'd OTS.. But the lights
were ON again. Perhaps the crew did not expect to have
runway 26 lighted and when they saw it, assumed it was 22.

As has been said, they should have checked the compass and
perhaps even the LOC , but they did not perhaps because VFR
taxiing is so easy and requires minimal crew attention.

It was reported that the First Officer [the survivor] was
flying so that means the Caption was taxiing, since the nose
wheel steering is probably only on the left side. This also
means that the co-pilot did not have a good view of the taxi
route and left turn on the runway.

I do hope the co-pilot is able to talk, to fill in the
details that are not spoken on the CVR.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"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.
|

"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.

As for doing a compass cross-check on line up, windshield
heat was probably ON and that can cause errors in the
compass of 30-45 degrees, but the slaved systems are
independent of each other and I doubt that the crew would
take-off with either system flagged and a cross-check of the
pilot and co-pilot HSI is on the check list.

Back in the late 60's when I was a new PP, I flew from
Illinois to Wyoming, taking two friends on a hunting trip.
Departing Joe Foss airport just after dark, I asked ground
for progressive taxi since I had never been their before.
They did a nice job. The controller said, "You can do your
run-up there" and when I called ready the controller cleared
me without delay. I turned onto the "runway" and began a
take-off roll, aligned with the row of white lights. But
within a few seconds I realized something was wrong and
aborted. We then bounced around in some tall grass [enough
bouncing that the landing lights failed]. The controller
asked "55Q, are you having trouble?" to which I replied a
little latter as we got back to the pavement after a 180 in
the grass, "Not anymore."
I taxied back and had the FBO inspect the airplane for
damage, there was none and replace the landing light bulbs.
A look at the airport diagram showed the problem, they had
been working on the taxiway lights and the blue covers were
not installed and the taxiway and runways came together in a
V with bit of taxiway at the bottom. My takeoff was into
the open V. Thankfully, the grass was smooth, no drainage
ditches [rapid prayers for no ditches, rocks or fences
worked].

That is when I learned and added a compass check before
take-off. Been there, done that and survived.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
ink.net...
|
| "Peter Duniho" wrote in
message
| ...
| "Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
|
oups.com...
| [...] 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.
|
| You have never made a single mistake, ever, while flying
an airplane?
|
| IMHO, your anger is misplaced. It's not like the pilots
made the mistake
| on purpose. And so far, there's not any indication that
they did
| something blatantly irresponsible that led to their
mistake.
|
| Yes there most certainly is, and its more than an
indication. Its a fact
| that they either accepted a line up check on their HSI's
telling them they
| were on the wrong runway or they didn't make a correct
runway lineup check.
| Either way, it was a fatal error not to have made the
lineup check or making
| the check incorrectly. There is no way around the fact
that they made the
| takeoff on the wrong runway. This indicates an incorrect
reading on the HSI
| for the right runway or starting the run without a
verifying check on the
| means in the aircraft to verify the right runway.
| Even if it can be argued that both HSI's were out, the mag
compass would
| also have had to be non operational. Last but not least,
if ALL means of
| verifying the correct runway were non functioning, that
would mean they
| accepted the runway they were on as the right runway
without a verifying
| lineup check.
| 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.
| Dudley Henriques
|
|

wrote in message

...... Since that could
only have happened if the plane whacked into it on its takeoff roll not
having begun rotation,

Not necessarily true, ramapriya. Even in normal operation, a loaded
airplane will continue on the runway some distance after rotation. If
rotated before full flying speed, as appears to have happened in this case,
the craft could continue on the mains for quite a substantial distance.

Transport landing lights are much more powerful that car
headlights. They can light the landing area like daylight
from 500 feet up and a 1/2 mile away. But on take-off, the
nose is raised and the lights are probably not aligned with
the ground after rotation.
If you look at the photographs of the airport, the fence was
500 feet or more from the end of the paved runway, sighting
the fence may have been the clue that first alerted the crew
to the problem and made then begin rotation. [guess].

They did not abort due to the rough runway, the different
lights, the compass, but they did get some weight on the
wings and they dragged the tail skid, Vmu is not a normal
planned TO procedure, so they knew at the end.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P



wrote in message
ups.com...
| 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
|

It is cheaper to only pave and maintain a 75 foot wide
surface, often the original runways in this country were
laid down during WWII as military training bases. Wide
runways allowed formation take-offs and landings. After the
war, the cities were given control of the airport and the
city would just pave the center with asphalt over the
crumbling concrete.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"C. Massey" wrote in message
...
|
| "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
|
|
|

Only the area between the with lines is "usable."



"C. Massey" wrote in message
...
|
| "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
|
|
|

Jim Macklin wrote:


It was reported that the First Officer [the survivor] was
flying so that means the Caption was taxiing, since the nose
wheel steering is probably only on the left side. This also
means that the co-pilot did not have a good view of the taxi
route and left turn on the runway.

There is only a tiller on the captain's side. There's a limitted
amount of nose wheel steering through the rudder pedals, but
insufficient for the hard right turn onto the runway here.

"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