The Lexington ATC was NOT doing traffic count after he cleared Comair 5191 for takeoff

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
...

ATC provides separation when working IFR aircraft. The local controllers'
duties are different. They provide sequencing and safe use of runways and
takiways. "Separation" in the context of IFR separation is not part of
the local job when the Class D area is VFR.


ATC provides runway separation to IFR and VFR aircraft.

Steven P. McNicoll writes:

ATC provides runway separation to IFR and VFR aircraft.

What other aircraft were on the closed runway?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Matt Barrow" wrote in
:

A safety net exists to catch mistakes.

Under your scenario, you're relying on ATC as a backup. I'd say that's
a bad idea to have that notion in that back of ones head. This,
though, in no way takes away from asking for specific assistance as a
situation warrants.

Actually, I disagree as your definition of safety net must be different
then mine.

I am hoping ATC saves my skin should I bungle something up, no different
than a trapeze artist using the safety net to save their bacon. A safety
net is there as a "last resort".

I'd have a better chance of NOT doing something stupid with ATC as a safety
net (like flying into P40), then flying willy nilly without the extra
"insurance / safety net / professional eyes" of ATC.

I do not rely on ATC as a backup to make decisions.

Allen

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Sam Spade" wrote in message
...

ATC provides separation when working IFR aircraft. The local controllers'
duties are different. They provide sequencing and safe use of runways and
takiways. "Separation" in the context of IFR separation is not part of
the local job when the Class D area is VFR.



ATC provides runway separation to IFR and VFR aircraft.


I think I state that by saying "safe use of runways."

Dave S wrote:

Very interesting reading... and while there may be plenty of blame to
pass around, when push comes to shove, the aircraft was cleared to
depart from the proper runway, but the Pilot In Command effectively
failed to ensure that they were in fact lined up on that runway. It was
his responsibility. Regardless of any and all other contributing
factors, the FAA and the air traffic controllers weren't flying the
plane, the Pilot (and his crew) was.

Is this really about making things safer, or is this about exploiting
tragedy to advance an agenda?

It was obvious very soon after the crash (several days) that the
pilots (two) screwed up. Try as you want to blame others there were
two people responsible for taking off the ONLY viable runway for their
aircraft and they blew it.

Ron Lee

Ron Lee wrote:


It was obvious very soon after the crash (several days) that the
pilots (two) screwed up. Try as you want to blame others there were
two people responsible for taking off the ONLY viable runway for their
aircraft and they blew it.

Ron Lee


Knowing the heading bugs were set on 227 helps me. I didn't know that
until the last couple of days.

chickenlittle92071 wrote:

To Whom It May Concern:

The FAA has told us that the lone controller at Lexington tower turned
his back on Comair 191 and was busy with "administrative duties,
traffic count" after he cleared Comair191 for takeoff while it was on
the wrong runway. Initially, he admitted seeing Comair on the wrong
runway and later changed his testimony..

Rather than take your word for it, please refer us to his recanted and
present testimony.

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
...

I think I state that by saying "safe use of runways."


You stated that ATC provides separation when working IFR aircraft and that
the local controllers duties are different. Your statement was incorrect,
the local controller does provide separation.

Sam Spade wrote:


ATC provides separation when working IFR aircraft. The local
controllers' duties are different.

No they are not.



They provide sequencing and safe use
of runways and takiways. "Separation" in the context of IFR separation
is not part of the local job when the Class D area is VFR.


It most certainly is and the weather is irrelevant.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Sam Spade" wrote in message
...

I think I state that by saying "safe use of runways."



You stated that ATC provides separation when working IFR aircraft and that
the local controllers duties are different. Your statement was incorrect,
the local controller does provide separation.


You would rather argue than quote me accurately. I said,

"Separation" in the context of IFR separation
is not part of the local job when the Class D area is VFR.

What part of "in the context of IFR separation" do you not understand?