CRJ crash at KLEX:

"Jose" wrote in message
...

What reason?


To check the departure routing with their weather radar.



And why does it matter?


You tell me. The submitter gave his reason, you suggested the real reason
might have been something potentially fatal discovered in the interim. Why
do you think that?



You asked a general question. In any case:

Narrative
ACFT WAS CLRED FOR IMMEDIATE TKOF (TFC INSIDE THE MARKER) ON RWY 22. WE
TAXIED ONTO RWY AND TOLD TWR WE NEEDED A MOMENT TO CHK OUR DEP ROUTING
WITH OUR WX RADAR (STORMS IN THE AREA, RAINING AT THE ARPT).

Nothing here precludes discovering something (potentially fatal) which
would warrant the request. Maybe that something =should= have been
discovered prior, but that's besides the point.

"Wait a moment - those storms are to the right of us, not the left. Our
clearance is 'turn right heading 280...' - let me check and make sure
we're still ok."


What do you suppose the controller's response will be?

And why does it matter?
You tell me. The submitter gave his reason, you suggested the real reason
might have been

It matters because you, the stickler for grammatical accuracy, asked a
general question (which was triggered by a specific context).

I don't think that in =this= case, something potentially fatal =was=
discovered (although I don't think this =wasn't= the case either - I
simply don't know). It =might= have been the case. I gave a possible
scenario where it =could= have been the case, even in =this= case. It's
exactly what you asked for (even if it might not be what you intended to
ask for).

What do you suppose the controller's response will be?

That depends on the reason the takeoff clearance was immediate, and (if
it's due to incoming traffic) how close it was. Cancelling the takeoff
clearance and telling the landing traffic to go around (if that's what
the issue is) comes to mind.

You're a controller. What would your response be?

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

Jose wrote:


That depends on the reason the takeoff clearance was immediate, and (if
it's due to incoming traffic) how close it was. Cancelling the takeoff
clearance and telling the landing traffic to go around (if that's what
the issue is) comes to mind.

You're a controller. What would your response be?


The controller said the traffic was inside the marker. Presumably
the outer marker (6.5 miles from the threshold, the middle marker
would have been less than a half a mile, and inside the marker would
have been less than 30 seconds...not some time to be dinking around
on the runway).

"Jose" wrote in message
et...

It matters because you, the stickler for grammatical accuracy, asked a
general question (which was triggered by a specific context).


You're contradicting yourself. It would have been a general question
without the quoted material, but the quoted material was there.



That depends on the reason the takeoff clearance was immediate, and (if
it's due to incoming traffic) how close it was. Cancelling the takeoff
clearance and telling the landing traffic to go around (if that's what the
issue is) comes to mind.


It was due to incoming traffic and the traffic was close enough to require
an immediate takeoff or wait for the traffic to land.



You're a controller. What would your response be?


"Unable. Cleared for immediate takeoff or exit the runway without delay."

You're contradicting yourself. It would have been a general question
without the quoted material, but the quoted material was there.

The question is what it is. It is a general question.

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

"Jose" wrote in message
m...

The question is what it is. It is a general question.


You're wrong.

You're wrong.

No, you're wrong.

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

"Jose" wrote in message
m...

No, you're wrong.


You're wrong again.