Crashing on takeoff... how odd

Jose wrote:

I figured it was probably the mercury lighting from a large industrial
building. But as we got closer, I realized it was Oxford Airport (OXC).


And here I was, thinking that airports are generally the darker spots
in town, when viewed from above

Ramapriya

wrote in message
oups.com...
Jose wrote:

I figured it was probably the mercury lighting from a large industrial
building. But as we got closer, I realized it was Oxford Airport (OXC).


And here I was, thinking that airports are generally the darker spots
in town, when viewed from above

Ramapriya


Generally, they are.

In urban areas, they tend to be black-ish holes in the lighting landscape.

Out here in Arizona, they tend to stand out a little bit better because the
urban lighting isn't very dense and because we CAN see airport beacons from
fifty miles away.

Jay B

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 20:34:05 +0200, Greg Farris
wrote:

Only a fools and idiots speculate on the cause of an airplane crash
before the facts are known.

Your self-assured tone notwithstanding, I question the veracity, as well
as the usefulness of this statement.

Thank you. I'd actually done a reply to it, then thought, why bother,
the poster's a fool or an idiot. You have phrased it much more
delicately.

Bob Moore wrote:

Notice that John said "aircarriers" not pilots. Pilots are not
required to have previous entries into an airport.

Bob Moore
PanAm (retired)


That makes sense.

PanAm? A friend of mine's dad retired from PanAm in the early 80's. He
was a NY based 747 pilot.

Jose wrote:

I figured it was probably the mercury lighting from a large industrial
building. But as we got closer, I realized it was Oxford Airport (OXC).
The lights in question were probably the lights for the parking area in
front of the FBO. Now I've filed that little tidbit away. It makes OXC
much easier to find at night!

That straight line of lights in the middle of a dark area makes a great
visual marker all over Central CT. G

wrote:

And here I was, thinking that airports are generally the darker spots
in town, when viewed from above

While they tend to be, there are exceptions. The Buffalo, NY, airport's
beacon is almost impossible to see at night, at least when coming in from
the east. Instead, I look for the large passenger terminal parking
structure that has more white lights on it than a Christmas tree.

--
Peter

wrote in message

... what on
earth is it that 'airport familiarity' provides that an approach plate
doesn't?

topography, color, visual angles and cues.

Bob Gardner wrote:
What Dave said. Controllers are no longer liable for failure to catch
erroneous readbacks.

Sure we are, matter of fact we got a memo to that effect last week.
Miss a readback that results in a loss of separation and you buy it.

wrote in message


And here I was, thinking that airports are generally the darker spots
in town, when viewed from above

When viewed from above, they usually are. But you almost never view the
airport from above, particularly when you're first looking for it. The
angle of view is often 10 degrees or less, and if the airport is near any
sort of built-up area, the rotating beacon can easily get lost in the
ambient lights.

"Jose" wrote in message news:jcPIg.12150$%

Just one little addendum; coming back from Block Island there was this
bright line of lights which I couldn't identify.

Back when I was instructing, I would teach students to look for and key on
such features. Major highway intersections usually have several very bright
merc lamps on very tall standards spaced throughout the area, visible, as
you mentioned, from 50+ miles at altitude. For example, the intersection
in Canton MA where I95 branches south from Rt 128 allowed you to head
direct to OWD from 40-50 miles away, if you knew what you were looking at.