Federal Aviation Administration to cut more air traffic controllers

Sam Spade wrote:

wrote:

Sam Spade wrote:

On the day of the accident, there was a NOTAM that the centerline
lights on the long runway were OTS. A misinterpretation of the NOTAM
could have led the crew not to question the absence of lights. Just a
thought. It could have been another possible link in the chain.

Runway edge lights, unlike CL lights, are mandatory for a night takeoff
under Part 121.

Plus it is clear that you have to completely cross runway 26 then taxi
more to get to the correct runway 22.

Ron Lee

In article 0wDWg.32302$tO5.12002@fed1read10,
Sam Spade wrote:

Runway edge lights, unlike CL lights, are mandatory for a night takeoff
under Part 121.

Not at my Part 121 airline.

From our FAA-approved manual: "Runway lighting is required by FAR 121.97
for takeoff or landing at night. Centerline lights are considered
adequate in the event that the runway edge lights are inoperative."

Beavis wrote:
In article 0wDWg.32302$tO5.12002@fed1read10,
Sam Spade wrote:


Runway edge lights, unlike CL lights, are mandatory for a night takeoff
under Part 121.


Not at my Part 121 airline.

From our FAA-approved manual: "Runway lighting is required by FAR 121.97
for takeoff or landing at night. Centerline lights are considered
adequate in the event that the runway edge lights are inoperative."

That is an authorized substitution. It doesn't changed 121.97.

"John Mazor" wrote in message
...

No, it was your implication that the controller failed to prevent this
accident that was a not-so-clever attempt to deflect attention away from
the crew.


The controller was otherwise occupied,...


"Otherwise occupied"? What does that mean? He wasn't playing a video game
or reading a comic book, he was counting strips. An administrative task,
but still part of his job.



...and I never stated or implied that
if he had not been otherwise occupied, the controller *would* have
prevented the accident. Furthermore, I have made clear that even if there
had been the two controllers there and the lone controller had not been
responsible for working both positions, he would not have committed any
error if he had failed to notice the pilot error and warn them.

He *might* have, yes, but that goes to redundancy, one of the safety
concepts that I have contributed to these discussions and which you have
ignored in your determined but unneccesary obsession with ensuring that no
one attributes any controller error to this accident.



You didn't? Never? On 9/24/2006, 3:27 PM, John Mazor posted:


Irrelevant. Taking off and landing safely is the pilot's responsibility.
The presence or absence of a tower, a controller, or even a runway
is irrelevant.


"Really? Then why bother having them?"


Jon, those words imply the controller has that responsibility. Did you post
them, or is someone else using your system?


On 9/25/2006, 12:58 AM, John Mazor posted:


Really? Then why bother having them?


Controllers? For separation.


"And the tower? Might they be perching controllers so high up, in windowed
cabs, so they can see what's happening on the ground there? Such as
airplanes deviating from their clearances? If not, you don't need a tower,
any darkened room on the ground will do."

Jon, those words imply a purpose of tower controllers is to see airplanes
deviating from their clearances. Did you post them, or is someone else
using your system?



Jon, do you have any background at all in aviation? What makes you think
you have any understanding of how aviation safety works?


My many explanations here of how the investigation process and safety
system work, none of which you have acknowledged, let alone refuted.


I'll have to assume the answer to the first question is, "No." What makes
you think you understand how the investigation process and safety system
work?

"John Mazor" wrote in message
...

Each airline has its own FAA-approved procedures and lists, and none of
them is exactly the same. (And it's not uncommon for the airline to
change a procedure after an accident.) The fact that it all is approved by
the FAA is a good starting point in a defense against charges of gross
negligence and willful disregard. It's not an absolute defense, but it
can help.


Any idea what was on Comair's FAA-approved procedures and lists at the time
of this accident?



Of course they didn't think they were going to die. They nonetheless
willfully took on an unlighted runway, which is contrary to any modicum
of professional flight crew conduct.


That's not always an absolute rule.


Under what circumstances would choosing to depart from an unlighted runway
at night be considered consistent with professional flight crew conduct in
this type of operation?

"John Mazor" wrote in message
...

And I repeat my request that you show even one example of me accusing the
controller of any error. You haven't, because you can't.


I never said you accused the controller of making an error, I said you
implied that he had.



You have no connection to ALPA?


Irrelevant.


It's completely relevant.



You just blew right past my umpteenth confirmation that the
controller broke no rules - when are you going to admit that and stop
accusing me of something I never said?


I haven't done that, and I think you're intelligent enough to understand
that I haven't. Am I wrong?



Then why are you trying to protect the controller at all costs? I've
admitted numerous times that there is crew error involved.


I'm not trying to protect him at all. Why would you think he needed
protection if you knew he had made no error?



A comparison of the body of information that the two of us have
contributed to the discussion of this accident will show that I have
provided far more information to educate readers than you have.


Jon, these are aviation forums. You're not in a position to educate anyone
here. There's a lot you could learn here, but it's clear you have no
interest in that. If you'd like to educate someone try
alt.society.labor-unions.



So do tell us, what is my "true goal" here?


As I've already said, you're trying to deflect some of the responsibility
for the crash from a couple of dues-paying union members.



I never killfile anyone, but unless you have something new to contribute
beyond your hollow mantras and UseNet dodges, I see no point in responding
to any more of your "nanner, nanner, are so!" whining. Let us know if and
when you want to contribute anything substantive.


What makes you think anyone here gives a damn if you respond to their
messages?

"John Mazor" wrote in message
...

I don't have the airport's flight schedule, but I'm under the
understanding that around 6 a.m. is when the departure activity picks up.

That's not a criticism, just an observation that 6 a.m. may not be as dead
as 2 a.m. there.



That's probably true of weekdays, probably not true of weekends though. I
seem to recall the LEX tower manager staffed a single position only on
weekend nights. The accident happened on a Sunday.



As to what you think I implied, not only did I never intend to imply
controller error, but nothing I said could reasonably be interpreted as
such.


What you wrote could only be interpreted as such.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
link.net...

I'm not trying to protect him at all. Why would you think he needed
protection if you knew he had made no error?


Oops! That should have been, "Why would you think he needed protection if
you knew he hadn't made no error?"

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

"John Mazor" wrote in message
...

Each airline has its own FAA-approved procedures and lists, and none of
them is exactly the same. (And it's not uncommon for the airline to
change a procedure after an accident.) The fact that it all is approved
by
the FAA is a good starting point in a defense against charges of gross
negligence and willful disregard. It's not an absolute defense, but it
can help.

Any idea what was on Comair's FAA-approved procedures and lists at the
time of this accident?

No, but I'm trying to get some of that. It would be in the Flight
Operations Manual.

Of course they didn't think they were going to die. They nonetheless
willfully took on an unlighted runway, which is contrary to any modicum
of professional flight crew conduct.

That's not always an absolute rule.

Under what circumstances would choosing to depart from an unlighted runway
at night be considered consistent with professional flight crew conduct in
this type of operation?

As far as I've been able to determine so far, if it is not in the FOM,
nothing precludes a 121 crew from using an unlighted runway. As I said, I'm
still trying to get information on the Comair FOM.

Another poster cited a reference to FAR 121.97. That reg says *nothing*
about whether a crew can use an unlighted runway. It goes to the operator's
requirements with respect to using airports and distributing necessary
information on airports to flight crews.

http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part121-97-FAR.shtml

So while most pilots might say in the abstract that they wouldn't take off
from an unlighted runway, there is no FAR against it as far as I can tell.
So unless it's in the crew's FOM, not only is not an absolute rule, for
them, it's not a rule at all. Granted, that puts it in the realm of an
after-the-fact judgment call as to how "professional" a crew's discretionary
decisions might have been, but that means that it is debatable, and not the
automatic slam-dunk that some here seem to think.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...

"John Mazor" wrote in message
...

I don't have the airport's flight schedule, but I'm under the
understanding that around 6 a.m. is when the departure activity picks up.

That's not a criticism, just an observation that 6 a.m. may not be as
dead
as 2 a.m. there.

That's probably true of weekdays, probably not true of weekends though. I
seem to recall the LEX tower manager staffed a single position only on
weekend nights. The accident happened on a Sunday.

Okay, I hadn't thought of that.

As to what you think I implied, not only did I never intend to imply
controller error, but nothing I said could reasonably be interpreted as
such.

What you wrote could only be interpreted as such.

I need to construct a keyboard macro so I don't have to keep retyping my
refutation of your ridiculous accusation.