Comair Pilot Error

"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

"Peter R." wrote in message
...
Peter Duniho wrote:

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

Apples and oranges, IMO. One cannot compare the skills of GA pilots to
those of professional pilots

But we're not talking about skills here. We're talking about human error.
There is no human in the world immune to error. Do you get angry at every
error a human makes? If not, what's your threshold and why do you think
that you are justified in getting angry at these particular humans for this
particular error in this particular case?

"C. Massey" wrote in message
...
1. Is the ATC responsible for making sure the aircraft is on the correct
runway?

No, they are not.

2. Aren't there check's that are made from inside the cockpit to assure
they are on the correct runway?

Yes, there are. There is currently no indication that these pilots failed
to make those checks. The most we can assume is that they either had the
wrong runway number for their desired takeoff runway, or they failed to
*correctly* make the check. It's possible that they actually thought runway
26 was the correct runway, and it's also possible that they knew runway 22
was the correct runway, performed the necessary cross-check to verify the
runway, but failed to notice the discrepancy in that cross-check.

3. Looking at the two runways using google earth, it looks as though the
actual pavement is the same width on both runways in question, but all of
the documents that I have seen show a 75 ft and a 150 ft runway. Why is
this? Someone mentioned the 75 ft runway is actually 150 ft wide, but the
markings make it 75 ft usable. Why would that be?

You've gotten plenty of answers on that one.

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:
"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?

Sure, I have made plenty of mistakes while flying. Most of them were
fairly harmless, and would only have resulted in fender benders and
bruised egos.

Almost all aircraft accidents are due to human error, unless it was hit
by a meteor or an alien spaceship. However, some accidents have more
legitimacy than others. The tail failures on the American Airlines in
Queens, and the the Alaska Airlines, fire on Valuejet, the top falling
off Aloha airlines, and many others. Sure they are all human errors,
but the variables are more complex and were beyond the control of any
one individual. But some other accidents do not have any complicated
sequence of events. Everything was working out just fine until the
pilot decides to do something totally dumb.

I don't buy the argument that it was dark so it was hard to see. If
that were true, we should not be allowed to fly VFR in the dark. I
frequently fly from a 3500' runway, and even on a crummy day I can see
the terminating red bars from the moment I apply power. If I can't see
the red bars, something is not right and I take a second look. And this
is in a spam can with no other lives at risk except my own and perhaps
one passenger. Surely a part 121 operation with paying passengers, two
pilots, flight attendant and a dispatch team ought to be held to a
higher standard.

Fatigue surely has a enormous effect on human performance. But almost
all incidents due to fatigue comes from high-demand situations - bad
weather, strong winds, icing, etc.. I just don't see how fatigue could
play a role on a calm VFR morning departure with little or no traffic.
If fatigue did have something to do with it, how do you think they
would have handled the subsequent landing at Atlanta, which is a far
more busier airspace than sleepy Lexington?

True, I do not have any first hand knowledge of this accident. No one
does. But that doesn't mean the facts are unclear. What else do you
suppose happened here? Did a demon appear in the cockpit and steer the
airplane to the wrong runway? Even an NTSB official was quoted as
saying he was angry at this accident. I think anger is a normal
reaction to this type of accident. It doesn't mean you have to go sue
someone and collect damages. We just need to take steps to better
educate pilots.That doesn't have to wait until NTSB comes back with an
answer. And I seriously doubt that the NTSB will come back with
something very different from what we know so far.





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.

*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.

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.

Pete

"Ron Lee" wrote in message
...
John, I agree with Andrew based upon the facts already known.

You agree that you already have enough facts to call this "gross
negligence"? Do you (or Andrew, for that matter) even understand the
specific legal definition of "gross negligence"? You agree that there is
already enough information on the accident to warrant being ANGRY with the
pilots?

If
further information shows that something happened that would have made
almost all other pilots do the same thing then I will admit that my
opinion was incorrect and premature.

If there is the possibility that information you don't yet have would change
your mind, then by definition your current opinion is premature.

I doubt that it will turn out this way.

Why? What possible justification do you have for claiming this is gross
negligence?

Pete

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:

Many runways have a hump somewhere along its length that precludes seeing the
entire thing until you're airborne. For example, 23L at RDU... you can only see
half of it from the end.... the rest disappears out of sight until you cross the
high spot.

This is hardly unique.



2-20 @ BAF is similar, with a 10' hump in the middle.

http://download.aopa.org/ustprocs/20060803/airport_diagrams/00446AD.PDF

FWIW, those places are GREAT for goofing on front seat passengers. G

"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
oups.com...
Sure, I have made plenty of mistakes while flying. Most of them were
fairly harmless, and would only have resulted in fender benders and
bruised egos.

We don't know what mistake was made here. We don't know that whatever
mistake was made, it wouldn't normally have resulted in fender benders and
bruised egos (or perhaps no negative outcome at all). All we know is that
in this case, a serious accident happened.

Almost all aircraft accidents are due to human error, unless it was hit
by a meteor or an alien spaceship.

I've never heard of an airplane being hit by a meteor or alien spaceship.
According to you then, *all* aircraft accidents are due to human error.
Well, that's not true either.

[...]
I don't buy the argument that it was dark so it was hard to see.

Perhaps you should avoid flying when it's dark then. You don't seem to have
the proper respect for the reality of the situation.

If
that were true, we should not be allowed to fly VFR in the dark.

That's your opinion. However, the FAA clearly disagrees. It IS hard to see
in the dark, and yet we ARE allowed to fly VFR in the dark.

At takeoff speeds, airplane lighting (especially that found on small
airplanes) does not illuminate far enough ahead of the airplane for the
pilot to stop the airplane before hitting a seen obstruction. Immediately
after takeoff at many airports, there are NO outside references. The pilot
cannot see a single thing outside the airplane, and yet this is allowed
under the VFR rules. Cloud are often completely invisible at dark,
especially when there's no moon and they are not directly over a major
populated area. A VFR pilot can easily stumble right into one, without ever
having seen it.

All of these are examples of how it IS hard to see in the dark.

I frequently fly from a 3500' runway, and even on a crummy day I can see
the terminating red bars from the moment I apply power. If I can't see
the red bars, something is not right and I take a second look.

But what if you CAN see the terminating red bars? What does that tell you?
Nothing. Nothing useful at all. You can't tell how far they are from you.
You can't tell whether you are on the correct runway, and you can't even
tell whether there's something on the runway between you and the terminating
red bars.

And this
is in a spam can with no other lives at risk except my own and perhaps
one passenger. Surely a part 121 operation with paying passengers, two
pilots, flight attendant and a dispatch team ought to be held to a
higher standard.

Personally, I'd like every pilot to be held to the same standard: don't do
anything that would get anyone killed.

But so what if we do hold Part 121 operators and pilots to a higher
standard? Does that mean that any time an accident happens, we should get
angry? Does that mean that any time an accident happens, it's a foregone
conclusion that the pilots were grossly negligent?

I don't think so, and that's exactly what I said in reply to your post.

Fatigue surely has a enormous effect on human performance. But almost
all incidents due to fatigue comes from high-demand situations - bad
weather, strong winds, icing, etc..

And you base that statement on what evidence?

My own personal experience with fatigue is that it *rarely* affects my
performance in high-demand situations. Adrenaline is a powerful drug, and
when it's clear that I need to focus, my body steps up and provides that.

It's when things are calm, when I'm feeling comfortable and complacent, that
fatigue is most dangerous. It causes me to overlook things, it causes me to
think I'm doing something when I'm actually not, it causes me to see things
that aren't there, or to fail to see things that are there. It causes me to
think I've done something I haven't, or to think that I haven't done
something that I have.

I just don't see how fatigue could
play a role on a calm VFR morning departure with little or no traffic.

Frankly, your lack of understanding suggests to me that you have never truly
been fatigued. And while the worst fatigue occurs when one has gone days
without sleep, you can wake up from an eight-hour sleep and still be
suffering the effects of fatigue. It depends on how well you slept, how
well you had been sleeping the previous nights, whether your body's schedule
is aligned with the local time, and a variety of other factors.

If fatigue did have something to do with it, how do you think they
would have handled the subsequent landing at Atlanta, which is a far
more busier airspace than sleepy Lexington?

Likely quite well. As I said, when one is presented with an obviously
stressful situation, the body can often compensate, especially as long as
things remain routine. Furthermore, if fatigue was a factor (and we don't
know that it was...I'm just saying you don't know it wasn't), it's not
necessarily the case that the pilots would still be suffering from the
fatigue by the end of the flight.

Beyond that, what does how they would have handled the subsequent landing at
Atlanta have anything to do with it? Are you saying that if one assumes
they would have crashed in Atlanta even if they'd successfully departed
Lexington, then your anger is justified?

That seems like a pretty random connection, even for Usenet.

True, I do not have any first hand knowledge of this accident. No one
does. But that doesn't mean the facts are unclear.

Of course it does. That's *exactly* what it means.

What else do you suppose happened here?

I already proposed a variety of explanations that don't invoke gross
negligence.

Did a demon appear in the cockpit and steer the
airplane to the wrong runway?

Uh, no. Why is that the only alternative to gross negligence that you can
think of? Lots of mistakes are made by humans without demonic intervention.
Most of those mistakes are NOT gross negligence.

Even an NTSB official was quoted as
saying he was angry at this accident.

So, he did it so it's okay for you to do it? That's your defense?

I think anger is a normal reaction to this type of accident.

It probably is. People get angry at all sorts of stupid things. That
doesn't make it right though.

It doesn't mean you have to go sue someone and collect damages.

I don't doubt that that will occur. I don't think you need to be angry to
collect damages, nor do I think that being angry ensures that one collects
damages. I fail to see the connection.

We just need to take steps to better educate pilots.

Better educated pilots are a good thing. It would be great if we do learn
something from this accident that improves safety for everyone else.

But I don't think one needs to be angry in order to better educate pilots.
Why do you think one does?

That doesn't have to wait until NTSB comes back with an
answer.

Actually, it does. If you want this accident to directly contribute to the
cause of safety, you need to wait until you know WHY this accident occurred.
You can immediately start remphasizing training areas that appear to be
relevant, but you cannot use this accident as a direct training aid until
you actually understand what caused the accident.

And I seriously doubt that the NTSB will come back with
something very different from what we know so far.

Why would they come back with something different from what we KNOW so far?
Do you think the facts might change over time?

No, what they might do is come back with something IN ADDITION TO what we
know so far. And given that we know almost nothing about WHY the accident
occurs, it's safe to say they will have a LOT of new information if and when
they release it.

My point is that "what we know so far" is precious little, and hardly enough
to justify any anger.

Pete

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

"Peter Duniho" wrote:

"Peter R." wrote in message
...
Peter Duniho wrote:

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

Apples and oranges, IMO. One cannot compare the skills of GA pilots to
those of professional pilots

But we're not talking about skills here. We're talking about human error.
There is no human in the world immune to error. Do you get angry at every
error a human makes? If not, what's your threshold and why do you think
that you are justified in getting angry at these particular humans for this
particular error in this particular case?

49 deaths?

Ron Lee

We don't know what mistake was made here.

Sure we do. They took off from a runway that was too short for their
aircraft.

Ron Lee