CRJ crash at KLEX:

I noticed from a CNN internet video that the modified Runway 22 may not have
been displaced, but actually shortened by designating a small OVERRUN area
as the end of runway 04. This would explain why the pictured RJ was on that
taxiway. The other is probably now designated as a Taxilane to an unusable
overrun area. Can anyone confirm?


"Peter R." wrote in message
...
John Gaquin wrote:

This pic shows what appears to be another RJ doing just
that.

What is also interesting in that picture is the noticeable difference
between the runway markings.

--
Peter

"Bob Gardner" wrote:

My knee-jerk (emphasis on the jerk) reaction was that 22 had a full panoply
of runway lights and 26 was a dark hole, and several posters favored us with
links and advice about how the lighting was supposed to be. But there had
been recent construction, and no one in this group has first-hand knowledge
of the runway lighting status as of the time of the accident. Airport
directories and on-line databases are great, if everything is working as
designed, but are meaningless if the situation at the time of the accident
does not meet design standards due to construction or a similar problem.

Is/aws there a NOTAM that the lights on RWY 26 were inop at the time
of the accident?

Ron Lee

"Ron Lee" wrote in message
...
"Bob Gardner" wrote:

My knee-jerk (emphasis on the jerk) reaction was that 22 had a full
panoply
of runway lights and 26 was a dark hole, and several posters favored us
with
links and advice about how the lighting was supposed to be. But there had
been recent construction, and no one in this group has first-hand
knowledge
of the runway lighting status as of the time of the accident. Airport
directories and on-line databases are great, if everything is working as
designed, but are meaningless if the situation at the time of the accident
does not meet design standards due to construction or a similar problem.

Is/aws there a NOTAM that the lights on RWY 26 were inop at the time
of the accident?

Ron Lee

Just heard an NTSB "spokesperson" on the hourly ABC Radio News state that
there had been a NOTAM regarding the lighting but it had been lifted as of
last Friday.

Jay B

wrote:

On 28 Aug 2006 08:07:58 -0700, "Tony" wrote:


If it's not on your checklist, add "verify the DG matches the runway
heading before advancing power for takeoff." My experience is, that
will catch a failed vacuum pump, not a wrong runway. I also like to
have one of the navs tuned to the ILS frequency and it's NOT because I
never see the localizer needle centered when I fly an approach!



I'd appreciate an explanation for tuning to the ILS.

I can't speak for Tony, but I tend to do this also in case I need to
make a hasty return to the airport I just departed.

Matt

"Jonathan Goodish" wrote:

"Dan Luke" wrote:

One sign that probably should have been at the departure end of 26 and
wasn't: "Caution, short runway, no jets"


It wouldn't be surprising to see this accident produce some such
regulation.

If they missed the runway sign, why should it be assumed that they
wouldn't miss a warning sign?

I didn't say the new regulation would be sensible.

This airport isn't that complex. If you have the airport diagram opened
and are paying attention, you shouldn't end up at the wrong runway.
Mistakes do happen, but there should have been several clues (heading,
runway width, missing runway markings, poor condition of runway, etc.)
that should

Yeah. There are always plenty of "shoulds" in an accident post mortem.


--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Peter R. wrote:
Ron Lee wrote:

snip
If the final report reveals something that was not in the control of
the pilots that caused this accident then my current opinion will be
proven wrong. I don't expect that to happen.

It is only natural to expect that professional pilots are held to a higher
standard and therefore to get angry when these pilots make what appears at
this point to be an amateur mistake that killed many innocent passengers
and destroyed aircraft and property.

This "there but for the grace of God..." attitude argued here by one young,
perhaps RL professional pilot is truly a cop-out behind which the
professional pilots flying my family hopefully are not hiding.


I'm not a professional pilot. I just have extensive training and
experience in analyzing situations where something goes wrong and
mistakes are made.

And who says I'm young? Because you don't like what I have to say?

Mxsmanic wrote:
Emily writes:

Have you ever been in a two person crew, on an early morning flight, in
the weather conditions at LEX?

People are in those conditions all the time, and this is apparently
the first time they've chosen the wrong runway.

You're wrong there. It's happened before.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Emily writes:

You know, I'm not even going to dignify this with another post after
this. Fine, blame two people, one of whom is dead.

And the other, hopefully, will now be changing to a desk job, possibly
after being a guest of the government for a time.

So you've found him guilty already? Better tell the NTSB to go home,
you've already solved it.

Emily wrote:

And who says I'm young?

You admitted you were in your twenties in the "I hate kids" sub-thread from
a few weeks ago.

Because you don't like what I have to say?

Nothing so personal. Disagreement is one of the pillars of Usenet.

--
Peter

In article ,
Emily wrote:

Blaming doesn't keep it from happening again.

Reducing the risk of it happening again isn't the only objective.
Somtimes people need to take responsibility.

It's not a criminal act.

Never said it was. I haven't entered into any speculation
one way or the other.

Get over yourself.

indeed.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate