How can we "fix" LEX to prevent wrong runway selection everywhere?

"Jim Carter" wrote in message
news:001d01c6e833$26b414f0$4001a8c0@omnibook6100.. .

Another good point - The alarm would have to be in both tower cab and
the cockpit and have to be audible to be effective.


Any "fix" that has to be in the tower cab won't work everywhere.

Jim Carter wrote:



50 years ago the LEX accident would have been declared pilot error and
the media would not have sensationalized the issue like they do today.
I'm worried this sensationalism will end up forcing a new set of
regulations on us that do very little to address the problem.



The TWA/United mid-air over the Grand Canyon was 50 years ago this past
June. I recently saw some of the original newspaper reports. They
didn't seem much different than what the print media reports these days.

Jim Carter wrote:

government or any of its agencies).

The fixes are already in place for what happened at LEX.



Other than the lighting, numbering, signage, and instruments in the
cockpit I'm not sure what "fixes" you might be thinking about. Sam, if
you meant those items I mentioned here, then we have to agree that they
still require passive human interpretation and are still being
overlooked or ignored. My solution isn't 100% complete, but I think it
might be closer than we already are.

I am not certain about the specifics of the FMS installed in the
accident aircraft. Lots of the modern systems show only the selected
runway. Thus, had the crew selected 22 they would have been leaving the
pavement, so to speak, as they begin their roll on 26. Also, had they
set runway heading on their heading "bug" it would have been pointing
some 49 degrees to the left. It has been common practice in air carrier
operations for many years to set the heading bug to runway heading. The
FAA issued a safety alert on September 1st reminding pilots of this
basic aspect of air carrier departure safety check (not to mention the
flight has to fly runway heading for some period of time after takeoff,
being IFR.

But, the fact they elected to roll on a runway without operating runway
edge lights rises to the level where no procedure could protect against
that.

The concerns of the industry are (correctly) about runway intrusions,
such as happen at places like LAX far too often.


I wonder if this solution could also be used to address runway
incursions by predicting movement of aircraft on the ground. Wouldn't it
be nice to be able to solve 2 problems with 1 relatively inexpensive
solution? That factor alone probably dooms the suggestion to oblivion.


Moving map airport diagrams go a long ways to preventing runway
incursions at airports like LAX. I suppose the flight plan/ATC
clearance system could be enhanced to highlight the authorized runway
and to show in red the prohibitd runways. For example handing on 25L at
LAX the runway could be green and 25R could be red. After landing
Runway 25R would turn green only after clearance to cross had been
obstained, But this would require repitious manual controller
intervention, and would almosr certainly fail like the runway traffic
lights tried at various times at various locations.

If the hold-short and crossing instructions were issued by datalink,
then perhaps it woould work reliably. Datalink should have replaced
routine voice communications many years ago. It was promised by the FAA
to be operational in the 1970s.

TheNPC wrote:

SNIP

The FAA issued a safety alert on September 1st reminding pilots of this
basic aspect of air carrier departure safety check (not to mention the
flight has to fly runway heading for some period of time after takeoff,
being IFR.


Oh boy! The Lesbian Bull Dike controlled FAA reacts "AFTER" a terrible
crash as if they have a handle on anything in America relating to Air
Safety.

What a joke

"The Tombstone" Agency really gives me a warm fuzzy

Knee-Jerk after the fact ass covering Government Bull**** Fodder

The FAA is famous for that

Stupid people love it

It was a reminder, numb nuts.

TheNPC wrote:

It was a reminder, numb nuts.

Did some one "remind" the FAA to not violate their AT
staffing orders and leave an ATCT understaffed with just one
over worked tired controller alone on duty in violation of
their own ATCT staffing orders?

No one has provided compelling facts to indicate that this was
anything other than a collosal pilot(s) blunder. Look at the airport
diagram. REGARDLESS of taxiway changes or lights or moon phase, the
pilots should have known that they had to completely cross Runway 26
to get to Runway 22. That is not rocket science.

Snip rant

Or does the American Public need to "Remind" the FAA by
firing all of them and starting over that Air Safety is
their primary business rather than politically correct
social gatherings on the American tax dime while ATCT's are
understaffed?

I would rather that the NTSB be given regulatory (?) relative to
flight safety.

Ron Lee

"TheNPC" wrote in message
.. .

Did some one "remind" the FAA to not violate their AT staffing orders and
leave an ATCT understaffed with just one over worked tired controller
alone on duty in violation of their own ATCT staffing orders?


The ATCT was not understaffed.

Ron Lee wrote:


I would rather that the NTSB be given regulatory (?) relative to
flight safety.

Why do you think they would regulate any differently than the FAA?

I find myself wondering what the cost of a low-power ground radar

I don't see anything being necessary.
Accidents will happen in the future and they will always happen if
humans are involved. There is nothing that assures perfect safety.

Maybe a moving map display might prevent an accident like this. However,
there will be another accident that is caused (also) by a malfunctioning
moving map because it was not aligned correctly or an old version or a
bad scan...

Living is always life endangering.

As long as far more people die because of cars and guns we better should
take care of that!

"TheNPC" wrote in message
news

Cars and Guns kill more people because stupid and/or drunk and/or
unqualified or poorly trained people get a hold of them every day

Air Travel should be perfectly safe because it supposedly involves
professionally trained people who follow strict guidelines.

But when "Negligence" comes into play, there are mechanisms to insure
accountability and compensation and problem resolution so it will not
happen again.

In the case of KLEX, the FAA was "Negligent" with their Air Traffic
controller workforce staffing that Sunday morning
at Bluegrass Airport.

You can spin all day like a washing machine and throw out hypothesis after
hypothesis but the bottom line at LEX the FAA was "Negligent" because they
violated their Air Traffic staffing orders.

If found the crew was 100 percent at fault it still does not negate the
fact the FAA was negligent.


The LEX tower was not understaffed. The fact that FAA directives required
two people to perform a one-person job had nothing to do with the accident
at LEX.

I guess that's why this country is a lawyers paradise. Nobody has any
personal accountability anymore, just sue whoever has the largest coffers.

TheNPC wrote:
Stefan Lörchner wrote:

I find myself wondering what the cost of a low-power ground radar



I don't see anything being necessary.
Accidents will happen in the future and they will always happen if
humans are involved. There is nothing that assures perfect safety.

Maybe a moving map display might prevent an accident like this. However,
there will be another accident that is caused (also) by a malfunctioning
moving map because it was not aligned correctly or an old version or a
bad scan...

Living is always life endangering.

As long as far more people die because of cars and guns we better should
take care of that!


Cars and Guns kill more people because stupid and/or drunk and/or
unqualified or poorly trained people get a hold of them every day

Air Travel should be perfectly safe because it supposedly involves
professionally trained people who follow strict guidelines.

But when "Negligence" comes into play, there are mechanisms to insure
accountability and compensation and problem resolution so it will not
happen again.

In the case of KLEX, the FAA was "Negligent" with their Air Traffic
controller workforce staffing that Sunday morning
at Bluegrass Airport.

You can spin all day like a washing machine and throw out hypothesis
after hypothesis but the bottom line at LEX the FAA was "Negligent"
because they violated their Air Traffic staffing orders.

If found the crew was 100 percent at fault it still does not negate the
fact the FAA was negligent.