Comair Pilot Error

On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 13:12:57 -0400, John Gaquin wrote:

[snip]

This sort of thing has happened several times in the past. (Ask Bob Moore
about the PanAm 707 at Pago Pago.) There is no upside to rapid conclusions,
and an almost infinite downside.

Is the above not an accurate account?


http://aviation-safety.net/database/...?id=19740130-0

Greg

On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 10:50:23 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:
Define "looking good". I think it goes without saying that pilots who take
off from the wrong runway made a mistake. It's certainly pilot error.
There's no question about that. But was their error a blatantly
irresponsible act? There's absolutely no evidence that it was.

Which brings up a good question... If the NTSB report does finally
confirm that it was in fact pilot error and if the pilot who is
current in the hospital survives, what are his likely career
consequences? Is it completely down the tubes or is there a chance
that he might still remain working as an ATP? I suspect that up until
he saw the fence, he was *positive* that he was on the right runway...
Of course, soon after seeing the fence, he comment was probably
something like, "Oh ****..."...

On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 10:52:43 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:
But we're not talking about skills here. We're talking about human error.
There is no human in the world immune to error. Do you get angry at every
error a human makes? If not, what's your threshold and why do you think
that you are justified in getting angry at these particular humans for this
particular error in this particular case?

Personally, I get angry when the error affect myself of my family...
As such, I don't get angry about this accident... On the other hand,
if Grace or Kaitlyn had been on the plane and had not survived, I
would probably be at that hospital ensuring that the pilot also did
not survive...

We don't know what mistake was made here.
Sure we do. They took off from a runway that was too short for their
aircraft.

A more useful statement is that that was a result of a mistake (or
series of mistakes). This is why we look further.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Peter

I think you are taking the phrase "angry" to an extreme. It is not that
I am sitting here pounding my fist on the table and crying for revenge.
I am angry that the pilots were so careless and took so many innocent
lives with them. No, it was not a deliberate attempt, that would be
murder or terrorism. This was a mistake due to carelessness and
negligence. If no one had died, we can call it a simple careless
mistake and leave it at that. When 50 people die, I call it gross
negligence. I am not a lawyer, so may be there is a deeper meaning to
"gross" than what I am aware of.

Yes, most aircraft accidents are due to human error. Aircraft is a
machine built by humans. When it fails how could it not be human error?
The difference is, some errors are simple and clear and be traced to
one or two individuals, while other errors are more complex,
intertwined and involves many thousands of people. We often equate the
former as human error and the latter as policy failures. But
ultimately humans are responsbile for all our errors.

Perhaps I am being naiive, but I have experienced fatigue due to lack
of sleep and long flights in IMC. When that happens, I make a
deliberate attempt to check, double check and triple check everything.
When I know I am vulnerable, I take the obvious steps to prevent a
mishap. That is why I sometimes take a commercial flight if I am unfit
to fly myself. I would never expect the person sitting in the cockpit
to me more unfit than I am.

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.

That is a pretty cheap shot. Night flying is harsher than day, but not
because you can't see the end of the runway. Certain things are easier
to see at night than day, and runway lights is one of them, especially
when you are lined with it. Other things are harder to see at night,
like clouds, emergency landing sites and small print on charts. But
those are not what we are talking about here.

On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 13:25:02 +0000, John Theune wrote:

Also, for
a 3500 foot runway 75 is more then enough.

I've never considered the ratio between runway length and width before.
What is it that defines possible values for this ratio? The given width
and length required for specific aircraft? Something else?

- Andrew

On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 17:22:50 -0400, Andrew Gideon
wrote:

On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 13:25:02 +0000, John Theune wrote:

Also, for
a 3500 foot runway 75 is more then enough.

I've never considered the ratio between runway length and width before.
What is it that defines possible values for this ratio? The given width
and length required for specific aircraft? Something else?

- Andrew


I could be way out in left field, but could wheelbase possibly have
something to do with it?

"Peter Duniho" wrote:

"Ron Lee" wrote in message
...
John, I agree with Andrew based upon the facts already known.

You agree that you already have enough facts to call this "gross
negligence"? Do you (or Andrew, for that matter) even understand the
specific legal definition of "gross negligence"? You agree that there is
already enough information on the accident to warrant being ANGRY with the
pilots?


I agree that there is enough info known to establish that the pilots
screwed up and many people died. Anger or specific legal definitions
are not worth quibbling over.


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.

If there is the possibility that information you don't yet have would change
your mind, then by definition your current opinion is premature.

I don't think so. I just leave open the possibility (rare that it is)
that I am wrong.

I doubt that it will turn out this way.

Why? What possible justification do you have for claiming this is gross
negligence?

I am not a lawyer but what would you call it when someone screws up
and 49 people die?

Some want to know about how much sleep they got, whether they had
coffee, etc but those points are irrelevant. You have two
professional pilots who screwed up. 49 people died.

Ron Lee


Pete

Grumman-581 wrote:

On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 10:50:23 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:
Define "looking good". I think it goes without saying that pilots who take
off from the wrong runway made a mistake. It's certainly pilot error.
There's no question about that. But was their error a blatantly
irresponsible act? There's absolutely no evidence that it was.

Which brings up a good question... If the NTSB report does finally
confirm that it was in fact pilot error and if the pilot who is
current in the hospital survives, what are his likely career
consequences? Is it completely down the tubes or is there a chance
that he might still remain working as an ATP? I suspect that up until
he saw the fence, he was *positive* that he was on the right runway...
Of course, soon after seeing the fence, he comment was probably
something like, "Oh ****..."...

If he still flies let me know so I can avoid that airline. Or at
least any plane he is piloting.

Ron Lee

"Peter Duniho" wrote

I'm simply offering my opinion that anger seems
more reasonably reserved for people who *intentionally* do something
wrong.

Too many people in the world do things wrong unintentionally, on too
regular
a basis. Using that as one's standard for anger would result in one being
angry most of the time. Granted, many people go through life like that.
But it doesn't have to be that way, and this is a classic example of a
situation where anger is out of place.

If your family was on that plane, would you be angry? Damn straight, you
would be.

Intentional does not have anything to do whether anger is justified. These
were two professional pilots that made a mistake that is without reason, a
kind of mistake not in any way permitted for professional pilot. If they
had survived, I would expect that they would never be allowed to again hold
an ATP.

For what ever reason, they did not have the right stuff, that day. The
right stuff is absolutely essential, every time, for an ATP to do his thing,
and if the mistake were survived this time, you can not know if they would
make a critical mistake in the future. We, the "riding public," have a
right to expect better than that.
--
Jim in NC