Comair Pilot Error

"Matt Barrow" wrote:

(Has anyone mentioned a CVR being recovered???)

Pictures were on the internet by Monday I believe.

Ron Lee

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote in message
...

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...
Actually Emily we know for a fact what happened. They attempted a
take-off on a runway that was too short for their aircraft. You are
wanting something to tell you WHY they made such a deadly mistake.

And what's wrong with that? I figure out WHY things went wrong for a
living and don't judge until I know all the facts.

We already know WHAT the facts are (clue: they took off from the wrong
runway, which was wayyyyy to short for their purposes). You're hung up
on WHY they did it.

I hope you have a better grasp of the English language (not to mention
logic) in your work-a-day world.



Strangely enough I'm going to take up for Emily here. Sure we all know
they took off from way too short a runway and we all know that we
shouldn't do that. The only place we can hope to learn anything here is
to find out WHY they did it.

Okay...I'll buy that. Thing is, Emily doesn't seem to even be getting at
WHY (as if it was a deliberate thing).

Let's get down to cases:

* Obviously, it was not deliberate.
* Obviously, it was not that they tried to take off from a runway far
removed from the one they INTENDED to.
...

All too often, we never do get to talk to the participants, so all we can
do is make a GAG.

(Has anyone mentioned a CVR being recovered???)


First, I know what a WAG is but not a GAG. At least not in this context.

Second, yes they got the CVR.

Third, "far removed" is a bit of an over statement.

In article ,
"Matt Barrow" wrote:

"john smith" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Matt Barrow" wrote:

We already know WHAT the facts are (clue: they took off from the wrong
runway, which was wayyyyy to short for their purposes). You're hung up on
WHY they did it.

Why is more important to preventing a repeat incident that what.

True; I was thinking of WHAT did they interpret incorrectly. _Why_ implies
intent, but it's doubtful we'll ever know. ITC, we have to infer from the
WHAT's, the WHY, but all we ever get is inferences.

One of the things I am looking forward to after the final report is
issued, will be the followon analysis/critique in the trade publications.

[I always thought someone with a sense of humor when they came up with
the FLYING magazine column "I Learned About Flying From That" because
the abbreviation is ILAFFT (I laughted).]

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote in message
...

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
* Obviously, it was not that they tried to take off from a runway far
removed from the one they INTENDED to.

Third, "far removed" is a bit of an over statement.
Do you actually read this stuff, or just blow right past it all?

Well, don't! That's my job.

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote in message
...

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
* Obviously, it was not that they tried to take off from a runway far
removed from the one they INTENDED to.

Third, "far removed" is a bit of an over statement.
Do you actually read this stuff, or just blow right past it all?

Well, don't! That's my job.


It is obviously time for either new contacts or a bigger font.

Matt Barrow wrote:
Actually Emily we know for a fact what happened. They attempted a
take-off on a runway that was too short for their aircraft. You are
wanting something to tell you WHY they made such a deadly mistake.
And what's wrong with that? I figure out WHY things went wrong for a
living and don't judge until I know all the facts.

We already know WHAT the facts are (clue: they took off from the wrong
runway, which was wayyyyy to short for their purposes). You're hung up on
WHY they did it.

I hope you have a better grasp of the English language (not to mention
logic) in your work-a-day world.


Without knowing the why, you can't prevent it from happening again.
That's obvious to anyone with half an education in QA.

Matt Barrow wrote:
"john smith" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Matt Barrow" wrote:

We already know WHAT the facts are (clue: they took off from the wrong
runway, which was wayyyyy to short for their purposes). You're hung up on
WHY they did it.
Why is more important to preventing a repeat incident that what.

True; I was thinking of WHAT did they interpret incorrectly. _Why_ implies
intent, but it's doubtful we'll ever know.

Why does not imply intent. There is a reason that people make
mistakes...have you ever heard of something called human factors?

Grumman-581 wrote:
On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 00:19:31 GMT, "Dave Stadt"
wrote:
I can think of thousands if not millions of human beings that deserve
no respect.

And I can think of BILLIONS...

And their names are...?

;-)

Emily schrieb:

And what's wrong with that? I figure out WHY things went wrong for a
living and don't judge until I know all the facts.

Wrong is that you are mixing up two entirely different questions.


Question 1: What was the _immediate_ reason for the accident?

Answer 1: The _immediate_ reason was that the pilots chose to took off
from a runway which was way too short for their airplane. It's the
pilots and only the pilots duty to choose the right runway. Even if they
had a clearance for a wrong one, it had been their duty to decline the
clearence. So yes, the pilots are to blame. This is a textbook example
of what "negligence" means. The question which cannot be answered at
this point is wheter it was a "gross" negligence or only a "normal" one.
So we do know that the pilots are to blame, we just don't know yet how much.


Question 2: How was it possible that this ultimate mistake was made and
how can it be prevented for the future?

Answer 2: No idea. Let's wait, hopefully, the NTSB report will provide
answers. Everybody can and does make mistakes, and therefore procedures
must be developed to catch those errors. (E.g. standard phraseology is
such a prcedure, required readbacks is such a procedure etc.) Obviously,
in this case, the safety system broke down. Hopefully, the NTSB will
clear up why the system broke down. If the pilots just had a good time
chattering with a friend, then it was gross negligence and the system is
intact. Nothing protects from gross negligence. If however the pilots
were acting responsibly and were doing a mistake which could have
occured to everyone, then the system needs repair.

Stefan

On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 22:52:25 -0000, Jim Logajan
wrote:
And their names are...?

Muslims, Communists, Socialists, Democrats, Yankees... Need I go on?