Comair Pilot Error

I don't "know", so pure speculation on my part, but maybe they were trying
to create another visual clue to help prevent this exact type of accident.

"C. Massey" wrote in message
...
OK... But what I don't understand is why would they have two runways that
are the same surface width, but it is listed as a 75 ft runway they way it
is marked? It seems to me that if they are the same surface width, they
would mark both of them the same usable width.

"C. Massey" wrote in message news:tVWIg.3722

OK... But what I don't understand is why would they have two runways that
are the same surface width, but it is listed as a 75 ft runway they way it
is marked? It seems to me that if they are the same surface width, they
would mark both of them the same usable width.

Probably something as simple as their ongoing maintenance budget. Most
planes that can operate in 3500 ft don't need a 150 ft width, and most
planes that need this width probably couldn't function on a 3500 ft runway.
Couple that with weight bearing capacity limitations, and the Lexington folk
probably figured there was no point in continuing to require maintenance and
upkeep on the outer areas of the pavement. In fact, I gather from some
reports that there hasn't been a great deal of recent maintenance performed
on that entire runway.

Only the area between the with lines is "usable."



"C. Massey" wrote in message
...
|
| "Ron Lee" wrote in message
| ...
| 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?
|
| Look closely at a picture of Rwy 26 and you will see
solid (white?)
| lines either side of the centerline that are probably 75
feet apart.
|
|
|
| OK... But what I don't understand is why would they have
two runways that
| are the same surface width, but it is listed as a 75 ft
runway they way it
| is marked? It seems to me that if they are the same
surface width, they
| would mark both of them the same usable width.
|
|
|
|
| ---
| avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
| Virus Database (VPS): 0635-1, 08/28/2006
| Tested on: 8/29/2006 8:02:18 AM
| avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2006 ALWIL Software.
| http://www.avast.com
|
|
|

C. Massey wrote:
OK... But what I don't understand is why would they have two runways that
are the same surface width, but it is listed as a 75 ft runway they way it
is marked? It seems to me that if they are the same surface width, they
would mark both of them the same usable width.



They've stopped maintaining the surface along the perimeters as a cost saving
measure, so they then demark the interior 75 feet as useable. They are
obligated to maintain the useable portion but not the unusable portion. I would
imagine at some point in the future Lexington will end up closing the shorter
runway entirely just to be free of the expense.


--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

They legally narrowed the runway using a paintbrush. They only have to
maintain and keep up/repave/resurface (if they do it at all) the actual
runway (which is listed at 75 feet wide, but is in the middle of the 150
ft wide paved area.

Dave

C. Massey wrote:



OK... But what I don't understand is why would they have two runways that
are the same surface width, but it is listed as a 75 ft runway they way it
is marked? It seems to me that if they are the same surface width, they
would mark both of them the same usable width.




---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0635-1, 08/28/2006
Tested on: 8/29/2006 8:02:18 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2006 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

Look closely at a picture of Rwy 26 and you will see solid (white?)
lines either side of the centerline that are probably 75 feet apart.

That's a good observation by C Massey though. Some of the news reports
mentioned that runway 26 was only half as wide as 22, so they
questioned how could the pilots not have noticed something that
obvious? Well, being that the pavement is actually 150 ft wide, runway
26 was unlit, they probably didn't notice the lines that marked it was
only 75 ft usable width.

"C. Massey" wrote:

1. Is the ATC responsible for making sure the aircraft is on the correct
runway?

No, the pilot in command is the final authority for the safety of the
flight. A pilot has the authority to disregard an ATC instruction if the
pilot believes that this instruction will put the aircraft in harm's way.

Among the many other responsibilities, ATC does serve as a "check and
balance" of sorts, but for some reason this check did not occur on that
morning.

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

Yes there are. However, I am not a professional pilot so I am unaware if
airlines have written procedures dealing with this. I suspect they do.

In the GA world we would compare the directional gyro, compass, or HSI to
the known runway heading before departing.

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?

Unknown by me, but perhaps the airport purposely did this to assure a
distinction between the smaller runway and the larger one.

--
Peter

It is cheaper to only pave and maintain a 75 foot wide
surface, often the original runways in this country were
laid down during WWII as military training bases. Wide
runways allowed formation take-offs and landings. After the
war, the cities were given control of the airport and the
city would just pave the center with asphalt over the
crumbling concrete.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"C. Massey" wrote in message
...
|
| "Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
|
oups.com...
| I am getting tired of comments like "controller should
have warned the
| pilots", or "taxiway was confusing", or "runway lights
were off" etc..
| One could not find a better example of a pure and simple
pilot error.
| The runway was clear, the weather was VFR, and the
airplane was working
| fine. It is highly likely that this was the only
airplane maneuvering
| at the airport. Even if the controller had cleared him
to takeoff on
| runway 26, the responsibility would have been on the
pilot to decline
| that clearance. Yet, a perfectly good airplane was run
off the runway
| and ploughed into the woods.
|
| NTSB is investigating whether the pilots had coffee that
morning, and
| how much sleep they got. This is a futile exercise.
Taxiing and
| departing from a relatively quiet airport under VFR
conditions is an
| extremely low workload situation. We are not talking
about shooting a
| non-precision approach to minimums in a thunderstorm
after a full day
| of flying. A pilot should be able to do this even if he
had partied all
| night at the bar. What happened was gross negligence.
|
| I shudder to think that my wife and baby flew the Comair
CRJ only a few
| days prior to this accident. Fortunately they are flying
back with me
| in our trusty GA airplane. I feel a lot better about it
than trusting
| my family to stupid mistakes that even my students
pilots know how to
| avoid. 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.
|
|
|
| I have a question. I will say right off of the bat that I
do not have any
| pilot ratings, but I do have A&P ratings, so I am somewhat
familiar with
| FAR's. I am unfamiliar with any SOP's.
|
| 1. Is the ATC responsible for making sure the aircraft is
on the correct
| runway?
|
| 2. Aren't there check's that are made from inside the
cockpit to assure they
| are on the correct runway?
|
| 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?
|
|
| Thanks for your answers...
|
|
|
|
| ---
| avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
| Virus Database (VPS): 0635-1, 08/28/2006
| Tested on: 8/29/2006 7:34:06 AM
| avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2006 ALWIL Software.
| http://www.avast.com
|
|
|

"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

C. Massey wrote:

1. Is the ATC responsible for making sure the aircraft is on the correct
runway?


No. But in Canada they do make sure the runway is clean before issuing a
take off clearance. They catch many things this way. They are supposed
to use the window.