Comair Pilot Error

In article ,
says...
"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
oups.com...
[...] I sincerely feel for those who lost loved ones. They have the
right be very angry. I am angry, and I did not lose anything.

You have never made a single mistake, ever, while flying an airplane?

Have you (now lets get the context right) ever taken off on the wrong
runway?

I haven't, I bet the poster hasn't either.

But you have huh?

No - you've provided a different question - thereby completely changing
the original point - that taking off on the wrong runway is not a simple
mistake, it's a very very serious one. It's on par with without the
gear down.


IMHO, your anger is misplaced. It's not like the pilots made the mistake on
purpose. And so far, there's not any indication that they did something
blatantly irresponsible that led to their mistake. For someone who has
absolutely ZERO first-hand knowledge of the accident, nor any reliable
second-hand knowledge for that matter, you sure are throwing some pretty
strong accusations around.

With all due respect, the mistake made is *very* serious...
* throwing a divider at school when you were 15 and getting someone in
the leg is a stupid thing to do.
* driving drunk at high speed and killing someone (by accident) - well.

*Maybe* if you've never made a mistake in your life, anger *might* be a
valid response. Otherwise, "there but for the grace of God go I" seems more
appropriate to me (whether or not you believe in God, the meaning of the
sentiment is clear and valid).

By the way, while the weather was VFR, it was an hour before sunrise. That
is, basically still pitch dark. The poorer quality of runway may not have
been apparent lit only by the airplane's lights, and there may have been
some fluke with the signage that led the pilots to think they were at the
correct runway. Your assertion that fatigue or the early hour could not
have been an issue is simply absurd. There are at least a dozen other
factors that have already been reported that could have been contributory,
and there are dozens, if not hundreds more that no one has even thought of
or identified yet.

You're making your own unvalidated assertions now.

I'll say one thing though...you're probably a blast at the Lynch Mobs of
America convention. I hope the rest of us can at least wait until the
investigation is complete before we start talking crucifiction.

I'll agree with you on that point.. however, it's not looking good for
the pilots. Is it?

--
Duncan

On 2006-08-29, Dave Doe wrote:
No - you've provided a different question - thereby completely changing
the original point - that taking off on the wrong runway is not a simple
mistake, it's a very very serious one. It's on par with without the
gear down.

The PIC was certainly to blame here, being the final authority and
responsible person.

However, it's still necessary instead of being rashly angry to analyse
WHY an experienced crew made this mistake and how the rest of us can
avoid it. Highly experienced pilots have also forgotten the gear, landed
at the wrong airport, switched to the wrong fuel tank, feathered the
wrong engine etc. I'd rather be analytical rather than angry at finding
what made the accident chain.

Throwing a divider while 15 or driving while drunk is a deliberate
decision to do those things. I strongly suspect the pilots didn't
deliberately choose to take off on the wrong runway - instead it was an
error and I'm interested to find the root causes of the error regardless
of who's responsible for what.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

"Dave Doe" wrote in message
. nz...
Have you (now lets get the context right) ever taken off on the wrong
runway?

How is that relevant?

[...]
No - you've provided a different question - thereby completely changing
the original point - that taking off on the wrong runway is not a simple
mistake, it's a very very serious one. It's on par with without the
gear down.

I don't know what you mean by that. My point is simply that I don't see the
point in getting angry at someone for making a mistake. I realize this is
Usenet, and I realize it's quite common for people who use Usenet to get
angry at the drop of a hat. 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.

[...]
With all due respect, the mistake made is *very* serious...

I never said that the mistake wasn't serious. I never said it wasn't pilot
error. I don't know where you get that, but you need to go back and reread
my post if that's what you think you read.

What I said is that there's no evidence that the pilots were BLATANTLY
IRRESPONSIBLE. As far as we know, they weren't drunk. As far as we know,
they didn't toss the checklist out of the window. As far as we know, they
didn't have a flight attendant sitting in their lap. For all we know, they
DID cross-check the runway number with their magnetic heading, and simply
failed to see the discrepancy. Fatigue is a powerful skills reducer and it
can make you see things or not see things that aren't or are there.

* throwing a divider at school when you were 15 and getting someone in
the leg is a stupid thing to do.
* driving drunk at high speed and killing someone (by accident) - well.

Again, I have no idea what these two things are supposed to mean. Drunk
driving is a conscious decision to do something blatantly irresponsible.
There's absolutely no evidence that these pilots did anything of the sort.

[...]
By the way, while the weather was VFR, it was an hour before sunrise.
That
is, basically still pitch dark. The poorer quality of runway may not
have
been apparent lit only by the airplane's lights, and there may have been
some fluke with the signage that led the pilots to think they were at the
correct runway. Your assertion that fatigue or the early hour could not
have been an issue is simply absurd. There are at least a dozen other
factors that have already been reported that could have been
contributory,
and there are dozens, if not hundreds more that no one has even thought
of
or identified yet.

You're making your own unvalidated assertions now.

Such as? Name one unvalidated assertion I made.

[...]
I'll agree with you on that point.. however, it's not looking good for
the pilots. Is it?

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.

Pete

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 ****..."...

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

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 ****..."...

Interesting question. I suspect he'll have a tough time finding a seat
again, but, personally, I don't think this should be the case assuming
it was purely a mistake and there wasn't any irresponsbile actions taken
prior. It reminds me of an anecdote about Tom Watson (I have no idea of
this is fact or fiction, but I've read it several times) and one of the
early IBM employees. Apparently the employee really screwed up
something that cost IBM several million dollars and was called into
Tom's office expecting to be fired. When Tom didn't fire him the
employee inquired as to why he wasn't fired. Supposedly, Tom's response
was that he couldn't afford to fire the guy as he's just invested
several million dollars into his education!

I suspect this pilot, assuming he recovers sufficiently to maintain his
medical, would be one of the most careful pilots on the line in the
future. For that reason, I'd vote to give him another chance.

Matt

"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

"Morgans" wrote in message
...
If your family was on that plane, would you be angry? Damn straight, you
would be.

I don't know. Maybe I would, maybe I wouldn't. I've experienced what I
consider to be tragic loss in the past without feeling anger at anyone.

But that's not the question here. Andrew's family wasn't on the plane, and
his anger is misplaced, even if it could be understandable (albeit
irrational) on the part of people who had relationships with the people who
died.

Intentional does not have anything to do whether anger is justified.

If you are talking about anger directed at the pilots, then of course it
does. Anger may be understandable, but justified implies that there is some
rational basis for the anger.

It may turn out that there is indeed some rational basis for the anger, but
for the moment there is absolutely no information that would support that
conclusion.

These
were two professional pilots that made a mistake that is without reason

How do you know that the mistake was made without reason?

, a kind of mistake not in any way permitted for professional pilot.

Are there mistakes that are permitted for professional pilots? What
mistakes would those be?

If they
had survived, I would expect that they would never be allowed to again
hold
an ATP.

Unless there's new news I haven't heard, one did survive. I guess we'll see
if he loses his pilot certificate or not. How that's relevant to the
question of justified anger, I don't know. Maybe you could explain it.

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.

I'd agree you have a right to expect to not be killed on an airline flight,
or on any flight for that matter. As a society, we tend to value our
expectation that we won't be killed.

But in what way does that justify anger against at least one person who
suffered the same dire consequences that all the passengers did, and who for
all we know was doing the very best they were capable of in their situation
to perform their duties?

I know...I'm just spitting in the wind here. Perhaps on Usenet more than
anywhere else, but certainly in society as a whole, people LOVE to judge.
They LOVE to make accusations and pretend they know EXACTLY what the score
is, long before they really do. Still, that doesn't make it right, and when
you and others insist on going around doing so, I'm going to speak up if I'm
around to see it.

Pete

In article ,
"Morgans" wrote:

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

An interesting question to ask someone who flies.
I would say the answer one would get would depend on what type of flier
your asked.
I put fliers in two catagories. There are pilots and there are aviators.
A pilot is a flier who just performs the mechanics of the flight.
An aviator is a flier who is a student of the theory and studiously
plans and contemplates the processes involved in flying.
As an example, consider a flight in a single engine piston airplane.
The pilot leans until roughness, then enriches a couple quarter turns.
The aviator calculates density altitude and uses the CHT/EGT to
accurately adjust the mixture.
Possibly the same result, but different processes to attain the goal.
What is the difference between the two?
What are the commonalities?
Both can make the same mistake, one may figure it out sooner than the
other.

On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 22:44:32 +1200, Dave Doe wrote:

In article ,
says...
"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
oups.com...
[...] I sincerely feel for those who lost loved ones. They have the
right be very angry. I am angry, and I did not lose anything.

You have never made a single mistake, ever, while flying an airplane?

Have you (now lets get the context right) ever taken off on the wrong
runway?

I haven't, I bet the poster hasn't either.

But you have huh?

No - you've provided a different question - thereby completely changing
the original point - that taking off on the wrong runway is not a simple
mistake, it's a very very serious one. It's on par with without the
gear down.


IMHO, your anger is misplaced. It's not like the pilots made the mistake on
purpose. And so far, there's not any indication that they did something
blatantly irresponsible that led to their mistake. For someone who has
absolutely ZERO first-hand knowledge of the accident, nor any reliable
second-hand knowledge for that matter, you sure are throwing some pretty
strong accusations around.

With all due respect, the mistake made is *very* serious...
* throwing a divider at school when you were 15 and getting someone in
the leg is a stupid thing to do.
* driving drunk at high speed and killing someone (by accident) - well.

*Maybe* if you've never made a mistake in your life, anger *might* be a
valid response. Otherwise, "there but for the grace of God go I" seems more
appropriate to me (whether or not you believe in God, the meaning of the
sentiment is clear and valid).

By the way, while the weather was VFR, it was an hour before sunrise. That
is, basically still pitch dark. The poorer quality of runway may not have
been apparent lit only by the airplane's lights, and there may have been
some fluke with the signage that led the pilots to think they were at the
correct runway. Your assertion that fatigue or the early hour could not
have been an issue is simply absurd. There are at least a dozen other
factors that have already been reported that could have been contributory,
and there are dozens, if not hundreds more that no one has even thought of
or identified yet.

You're making your own unvalidated assertions now.

I'll say one thing though...you're probably a blast at the Lynch Mobs of
America convention. I hope the rest of us can at least wait until the
investigation is complete before we start talking crucifiction.

I'll agree with you on that point.. however, it's not looking good for
the pilots. Is it?

--
Duncan


People land at the wrong airport, not often but happens.

Regards
Daveb