"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
oups.com...
Sure, I have made plenty of mistakes while flying. Most of them were
fairly harmless, and would only have resulted in fender benders and
bruised egos.

We don't know what mistake was made here. We don't know that whatever
mistake was made, it wouldn't normally have resulted in fender benders and
bruised egos (or perhaps no negative outcome at all). All we know is that
in this case, a serious accident happened.

Almost all aircraft accidents are due to human error, unless it was hit
by a meteor or an alien spaceship.

I've never heard of an airplane being hit by a meteor or alien spaceship.
According to you then, *all* aircraft accidents are due to human error.
Well, that's not true either.

[...]
I don't buy the argument that it was dark so it was hard to see.

Perhaps you should avoid flying when it's dark then. You don't seem to have
the proper respect for the reality of the situation.

If
that were true, we should not be allowed to fly VFR in the dark.

That's your opinion. However, the FAA clearly disagrees. It IS hard to see
in the dark, and yet we ARE allowed to fly VFR in the dark.

At takeoff speeds, airplane lighting (especially that found on small
airplanes) does not illuminate far enough ahead of the airplane for the
pilot to stop the airplane before hitting a seen obstruction. Immediately
after takeoff at many airports, there are NO outside references. The pilot
cannot see a single thing outside the airplane, and yet this is allowed
under the VFR rules. Cloud are often completely invisible at dark,
especially when there's no moon and they are not directly over a major
populated area. A VFR pilot can easily stumble right into one, without ever
having seen it.

All of these are examples of how it IS hard to see in the dark.

I frequently fly from a 3500' runway, and even on a crummy day I can see
the terminating red bars from the moment I apply power. If I can't see
the red bars, something is not right and I take a second look.

But what if you CAN see the terminating red bars? What does that tell you?
Nothing. Nothing useful at all. You can't tell how far they are from you.
You can't tell whether you are on the correct runway, and you can't even
tell whether there's something on the runway between you and the terminating
red bars.

And this
is in a spam can with no other lives at risk except my own and perhaps
one passenger. Surely a part 121 operation with paying passengers, two
pilots, flight attendant and a dispatch team ought to be held to a
higher standard.

Personally, I'd like every pilot to be held to the same standard: don't do
anything that would get anyone killed.

But so what if we do hold Part 121 operators and pilots to a higher
standard? Does that mean that any time an accident happens, we should get
angry? Does that mean that any time an accident happens, it's a foregone
conclusion that the pilots were grossly negligent?

I don't think so, and that's exactly what I said in reply to your post.

Fatigue surely has a enormous effect on human performance. But almost
all incidents due to fatigue comes from high-demand situations - bad
weather, strong winds, icing, etc..

And you base that statement on what evidence?

My own personal experience with fatigue is that it *rarely* affects my
performance in high-demand situations. Adrenaline is a powerful drug, and
when it's clear that I need to focus, my body steps up and provides that.

It's when things are calm, when I'm feeling comfortable and complacent, that
fatigue is most dangerous. It causes me to overlook things, it causes me to
think I'm doing something when I'm actually not, it causes me to see things
that aren't there, or to fail to see things that are there. It causes me to
think I've done something I haven't, or to think that I haven't done
something that I have.

I just don't see how fatigue could
play a role on a calm VFR morning departure with little or no traffic.

Frankly, your lack of understanding suggests to me that you have never truly
been fatigued. And while the worst fatigue occurs when one has gone days
without sleep, you can wake up from an eight-hour sleep and still be
suffering the effects of fatigue. It depends on how well you slept, how
well you had been sleeping the previous nights, whether your body's schedule
is aligned with the local time, and a variety of other factors.

If fatigue did have something to do with it, how do you think they
would have handled the subsequent landing at Atlanta, which is a far
more busier airspace than sleepy Lexington?

Likely quite well. As I said, when one is presented with an obviously
stressful situation, the body can often compensate, especially as long as
things remain routine. Furthermore, if fatigue was a factor (and we don't
know that it was...I'm just saying you don't know it wasn't), it's not
necessarily the case that the pilots would still be suffering from the
fatigue by the end of the flight.

Beyond that, what does how they would have handled the subsequent landing at
Atlanta have anything to do with it? Are you saying that if one assumes
they would have crashed in Atlanta even if they'd successfully departed
Lexington, then your anger is justified?

That seems like a pretty random connection, even for Usenet.

True, I do not have any first hand knowledge of this accident. No one
does. But that doesn't mean the facts are unclear.

Of course it does. That's *exactly* what it means.

What else do you suppose happened here?

I already proposed a variety of explanations that don't invoke gross
negligence.

Did a demon appear in the cockpit and steer the
airplane to the wrong runway?

Uh, no. Why is that the only alternative to gross negligence that you can
think of? Lots of mistakes are made by humans without demonic intervention.
Most of those mistakes are NOT gross negligence.

Even an NTSB official was quoted as
saying he was angry at this accident.

So, he did it so it's okay for you to do it? That's your defense?

I think anger is a normal reaction to this type of accident.

It probably is. People get angry at all sorts of stupid things. That
doesn't make it right though.

It doesn't mean you have to go sue someone and collect damages.

I don't doubt that that will occur. I don't think you need to be angry to
collect damages, nor do I think that being angry ensures that one collects
damages. I fail to see the connection.

We just need to take steps to better educate pilots.

Better educated pilots are a good thing. It would be great if we do learn
something from this accident that improves safety for everyone else.

But I don't think one needs to be angry in order to better educate pilots.
Why do you think one does?

That doesn't have to wait until NTSB comes back with an
answer.

Actually, it does. If you want this accident to directly contribute to the
cause of safety, you need to wait until you know WHY this accident occurred.
You can immediately start remphasizing training areas that appear to be
relevant, but you cannot use this accident as a direct training aid until
you actually understand what caused the accident.

And I seriously doubt that the NTSB will come back with
something very different from what we know so far.

Why would they come back with something different from what we KNOW so far?
Do you think the facts might change over time?

No, what they might do is come back with something IN ADDITION TO what we
know so far. And given that we know almost nothing about WHY the accident
occurs, it's safe to say they will have a LOT of new information if and when
they release it.

My point is that "what we know so far" is precious little, and hardly enough
to justify any anger.

Pete