CRJ crash at KLEX:

James Robinson wrote:

(Ron Lee) wrote:

"Aluckyguess" wrote:

Looking at that diagram I see how easy it would of been to do what
they did. WOW


Here's a diagram dated 08/03/2006:

http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0608/00697AD.PDF

Don't agree with you Barry. They should have seen that you taxi
rightish from the terminal past Rwy 26 then either one (apparently
from pics) of two taxiways to Rwy 22. Even I can do that.

The diagram doesn't show the additional taxiway that is apparent in the
photographs

News reports quote another pilot as saying that old right-hand taxiway had
a recently-erected barrier across it. He said it was a complete surprise
when he came across it the first time.

Regardless of the taxiway issue (which BTW seems BETTER) is that you
must cross Rwy 26 before you get to the correct Rwy 22. That is
apparent in the outdated airport diagram and recent aerial pics.

Ron Lee

"Tony" wrote in message

And isn't it true that both would have had to operate from that airport
before they could carry passengers?

No.

Not exactly untrue. FAR 121 requires pilots to be familiar
with all the airports they operate to/from. They are
required to be specially trained for certain airports. And
they are required to consider all taxi operations as
hazardous and run a sterile cockpit.


"John Gaquin" wrote in message
. ..
|
| "Tony" wrote in message
|
| And isn't it true that both would have had to operate
from that airport
| before they could carry passengers?
|
| No.
|
|

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message

Not exactly untrue. FAR 121 requires pilots to be familiar
with all the airports they operate to/from. They are
required to be specially trained for certain airports. And
they are required to consider all taxi operations as
hazardous and run a sterile cockpit.

What you state is accurate in certain circumstances, but irrelevant in the
present instance. The answer to Tony's question remains a straightforward,
unequivocal "no".

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
. ..

"Tony" wrote in message

And isn't it true that both would have had to operate from that airport
before they could carry passengers?

No.

On a similar note, It is my understanding that in many airlines SOP, the
first time that a pilot flies a new aircraft (type?) it is full of
passengers as all training is done in a simulator.

YMMV

"Private" wrote in message news:OJGIg.476607

On a similar note, It is my understanding that in many airlines SOP, the
first time that a pilot flies a new aircraft (type?) it is full of
passengers as all training is done in a simulator.

As far as I recall (individual carriers may have stricter policies) the
only time the FAA requires you to conduct your first few flights (20 hours,
I think) under supervision in the cockpit is when you are transitioning
position. An existing FO or Capt can transition aircraft type to the same
seat and complete all requirements in the sim, as long as the prior in-seat
experience was with the same carrier and in a transport cat aircraft. When
you upgrade seat, even in the same type, you must go through IOE (Initial
Operating Experience) in your new capacity, under supervision of a check
airman.

These memories are quite old, so I may have some detail wrong.

"Tony" wrote in message
ups.com...
In fact, I'd appreciate someone offering a
reasonable theory that does not implicate the pilots.

This OP states
"Accelerate-stop for this A/C at this weight should be some 5356 feet."

OK, but what is the ground roll for this A/C at this weight. If
Accellerate-Stop distance is 5356 ft, couldn't it get off the ground in 3500
ft?

I doubt the *CAUSE* of the crash was use of a short runway. I suspect it was
a contributing factor.

"Tony" wrote in message
ups.com...

If you pull up a sat image of the airport it appears the thresholds for
22 and 26 are along the same line of sight from the tower. It wouldn't
have been obvious the airplane was at the wrong runway from the tower..


Many pilots call ready for takeoff while still rolling on the taxiway.
Calling ready to go while still south of runway 22 wouldn't suggest to the
tower that they were about to turn on to that runway.

On 27 Aug 2006 20:14:18 -0700, "Tony" wrote:
There will have to be some really odd circumstances if this isn't
called pilot error. In fact, I'd appreciate someone offering a
reasonable theory that does not implicate the pilots.

Space aliens?

Elvis was on the plane?

Left wing conspiracy?

Right wing conspiracy?

Left wing, right wing, and fuselage conspiracy?

Or maybe just "**** Happens"...