The Lexington ATC was NOT doing traffic count after he cleared Comair 5191 for takeoff

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
...

My knowledge of how ATC operates is limited, as I am not a controller. I
am a professional pilot and work with TERPs criteria.



Based on the knowledge of flying and TERPS you've displayed in these forums
I find that very hard to believe.



Those two areas are your areas of limited knowledge.



Ya think? What do you base that on?


Your many past comments on those subject areas.

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
...
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:


How is 3-1-4 pertinent in this case? Nothing in the transcript suggests
the controller failed to comply with anything you pasted above.


a. Local controllers shall visually scan runways to the maximum extent
possible.


I can't seem to find that sentence anywhere in paragraph 3-1-4. Do you
think you could direct me to it?

Paragraph 3-1-4 is COORDINATION BETWEEN LOCAL AND GROUND CONTROLLERS. The
lone controller was performing both of those functions at the time of the
accident, please explain how para 3-1-4 is pertinent in this case.

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
...

Your many past comments on those subject areas.


How many of my past comments on those subject areas do you think you can
demonstrate to be incorrect?

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Sam Spade" wrote in message
...

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:


How is 3-1-4 pertinent in this case? Nothing in the transcript suggests
the controller failed to comply with anything you pasted above.


a. Local controllers shall visually scan runways to the maximum extent
possible.



I can't seem to find that sentence anywhere in paragraph 3-1-4. Do you
think you could direct me to it?

Paragraph 3-1-4 is COORDINATION BETWEEN LOCAL AND GROUND CONTROLLERS. The
lone controller was performing both of those functions at the time of the
accident, please explain how para 3-1-4 is pertinent in this case.


Try 3-1-12. My secretary made a topo. I suspect you knew where it was,
though.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
...

Your many past comments on those subject areas.



How many of my past comments on those subject areas do you think you can
demonstrate to be incorrect?




I just threw them all out yesterday.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
...

I guess that was the case. The local controller was using the ASR and did
approve a heading change for weather for one aircraft but he let the
Center know about that.

It sounds confusing. A G/A pilot could show up VFR 25 miles out and call
LEX Approach for an ILS. Would the local controller ship him off to Indy
Center or would he call Indy for permission to vector the guy onto the
ILS?



He would do neither, ZID had not assumed the LEX approach airspace.


As Newps already told me.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
...

I have been reviewing the transcript and actual tape of the Lexingon tower
during the period pertinent to the crash of Comair 5191. The tower
controller called the center for a release for each IFR departure on the
tape.



You performed a rather poor review. The tower controller did not call the
center for any IFR releases.


It would, of course, be a poor review to you. The point from an
accident review standpoint is that he had those activities.

If it were an ATC procedures review, as I have participated in during
some NTSB investigations, there is always a facility controller
participating who actually helps us understand those nuances.

They were some kind of handoff contact and, in the context of his
workload, that is all that is pertinent.

This guy did not do anything wrong except *perhaps* look away from the
last flight he had to work too soon. There will be a lot of discussion
and arguments about that in the coming months. Had a second controller
been there as the Administrator required, that second set of eyes might
have made a difference.

Regardless, the flight crew is virtually entirely to blame to the point
of gross negligence.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
...

That sounds like an IFR tower.



What's an IFR tower? What's a VFR tower? What type of tower is LEX?


If you don't know, I am not going to help you.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
...

When I am cleared for a visual I am told to maintain my own separation. I
guess you are referring to the tower applying visual separation without
telling me?

I still fail to understand where a VFR tower does other than release
aircraft and accept them as the IFR controlling facility tells them.

I understand that local controller at an IFR tower does some limited
separation duties, again in accordance with the IFR controlling agency,
whether it be a TRACON downstairs or a center.

Those duties are quite limited compared to runway and ground movement
activities.



You're a pilot? You hold an instrument rating? Where did you get your
misconceptions about ATC? Many nonpilots have better knowledge of ATC than
you do.


Now you are just being your usual ass self.

Sam Spade wrote:

It would, of course, be a poor review to you. The point from an
accident review standpoint is that he had those activities.

No, it's not. I never listened to the tape, I just don't care. But,
did the controller call prior to takeoff for a release from the center
or not? This is completely different than a manual handoff.




They were some kind of handoff contact and, in the context of his
workload, that is all that is pertinent.

Handoff is completely different than getting a release. He may have had
to make a manual handoff because the automation was down. This happens
every night. The center basically does a control-alt-delete and
restarts their computers each night. For us Salt Lake does it after the
last of our cargo planes leaves at 1:30-2:00 am.



This guy did not do anything wrong except *perhaps* look away from the
last flight he had to work too soon. There will be a lot of discussion
and arguments about that in the coming months. Had a second controller
been there as the Administrator required, that second set of eyes might
have made a difference.

No doubt about it, it probably would have.




Regardless, the flight crew is virtually entirely to blame to the point
of gross negligence.

Yep.