Comair Plane Carshes At Lexington

John wrote:

The NTSB should take another Comair plane and re-create the flight at
the same time and just prior to takeoff.

Was the runway labeled 22?

Did the compass show 220 degrees north?

The answers a They already did; Yes; Yes.

THANK YOU for your ideas et cetera.

I'll comment on one aspect, because it's what interests me most:

The Lexington airport knowledgable
poster says that the snafu or ambiguity
of the two-runway confusion is the informal
common/normative reality, apparently even PRIOR to the re-surfacing and
non-lighted handicap.

Okay, that's my theme.

IT WAS AN ACCIDENT WAITING TO HAPPEN, as the anecdote I described at my
daughter's high school of which I sensed eventual consequence/wreck.

Here is what I would do if I were coaching the team/calling the shots:

I'd solicit and computerize every tip by every e-mailer/letter-writer
of perceived potential accidents waiting to happen.

That's an obvious very low cost thing to do, and therefore our
government and/or airplane passenger-freight industry shan't do it.

Yes, I'm a very cynical 62 year old schnook; but I paranoiacally tend
to believe what I just posted as reality enough/true enuff.

I have actually
run for the Georgia legislature three+ times, and this was/is my agenda
of obvious stuff.

http://hometown.aol.com/robtcohen/myhomepage/

Tell me how expensive these fairly obvious things would be.

Perhaps there is nobody pushing the slamdunk obvious
stuff, because the usual suspects
can't make a ****en-buck out-of-such.

Sorry to so
inflict myself on the reader, but I actually perceive the stuff I've
just put forth about getting the inputs of further snafus that lead to
"accidents."

It should start happening now; but our bureaucracies are too
....bureaucratic to do the simple, cheap, and obvious asap, please.















wrote:
Robert Cohen wrote:
My own observation/speculation/perception that is based on from what
I've heard on tv so far:

At six o'clock this morning it was seemingly dark outside in my area
near Atlanta.

I presume it was seemingly slightly darker at the Lexington airport,
where there are two runways.

The airport's 7,000 feet runway should have been utilized for the
takeoff.

But the 3,500 feet runway was apparently mistakenly utilized.

It was apparently dark, perhaps the number "22" runway was mistakened
for the number "26" runway, and thus apparently the cause was the
take-off from the shorter runway.

Robert Cohen wrote:
with approx 50 passengers headed for Atlanta, apparently many
casualties

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/A...cky-Crash.html

Got this from friend of mine:
+~+~+~+~+

Subject:An Insider's View of LEX Crash
From:removed
Date:Wed, 30 Aug 2006 09:13:02 -0500
To:Undisclosed-Recipient:;

I live in Lexington and have thirty years of airline experience flying
in and out of LEX. I was also the station liaison for Lexington for ten
years

Here is what I think happened:

The two runways in question share the same common run-up area. The
extended taxiway to the correct runway, runway 26 was closed due to
construction. It has always been difficult to tell between the two
runways when you are taxiing out.

The natural thing to do is to take the wrong one. It is just there and
you are always tempted to take it. When I flew out of LEX we always
checked each other at least three times to make sure we were taking the
correct runway. We checked the chart, we checked to make sure the
correct runway number was at the end and we always double checked the
FMS generated moving map.

Most FMS systems will have a warning called "runway dissimilarity" pop
up in magenta when your position at takeoff doesn't match the runway
you programmed into the computer. This would not happen at LEX since
you are virtually in the same spot when you take either runway.

It was also raining at the time of takeoff and dark. The control tower
opens at

6am (because we are, after all, all about saving money) and only has
one controller on duty at that time. He or she has to: run ground
control, clearance delivery, approach control and departure control.
The one controller also has to program the ATIS and make the coffee. He
or she probably cleared comair to take off and then put their head back
down to do a chore or work another airplane.

Taking the runway, the Comair guy would put the power up and wouldn't
realize they were on the wrone runway until they were about 70% down
the pike. Too late to safely abort so he probably decided to try and
continue the takeoff.

This is when the eye witnesses heard a series of explosions and though
the plane blew up in the air. Didn't happen -- what they heard and saw
were compressor stalls of probably both engines. The pilot no doubt
pushed the throttles all the way up and that demand to the engines
combined with the steep pitch attitude cut off enough air to the
intakes to cause the compressor stalls

-- which, by the way, made them even more doomed. Less power.

They stalled or simply hit one of the large hills to the west of the
airport and came to a stop. Everybody on board was probably injured but
alive. Then, a second or two later the post-crash fire began. With the
darkness and the fact that most of them had broken legs, pelvises and
backs they literally burned alive. Not smoke inhalation. They really
actually burned to death.

In my role as station liaison I wrote most of the post crash safety
procedure for Delta at that field. Too bad there weren't enough
survivors to use them.

BTW, comair and the press will tell you what a great plane the RJ is.
This is a total lie. The Canadair RJ was designed to be an executive
barge, not an airliner. They were designed to fly about ten times a
month, not ten times a day. They have a long history of mechanical
design shortfalls. I've flown on it and have piloted it. It is a
steaming, underpowered piece of ****. It never had enough power to get
out of its own way and this situation is exactly what everybody who
flies it was afraid of.

The senior member of the crew had about five and a half years of total
jet experience. The copilot less. They had minimum training (to save
money --enjoy that discount ticket!) and were flying a minimally
equipped pos on very short rest. The layover gets in about 10pm the
night before. They report for pick-up at 4:30am.

I'm sorry if I sound bitter but this is exactly the direction the
entire airline industry is going. Expect to see bigger more colorful
crashes in the future.

(I'm an) off-the-record so-called expert. I have 20,000 of heavy jet
flying time and am type rated in the 727, 757, 767, 777, DC-8, DC-9 and
L-1011.

Robert Cohen wrote:

THANK YOU for your ideas et cetera.

I'll comment on one aspect, because it's what interests me most:

The Lexington airport knowledgable
poster says that the snafu or ambiguity
of the two-runway confusion is the informal
common/normative reality, apparently even PRIOR to the re-surfacing and
non-lighted handicap.

The CORRECT runway had lights.

BTW, comair and the press will tell you what a great plane the RJ is.
This is a total lie. The Canadair RJ was designed to be an executive
barge, not an airliner. They were designed to fly about ten times a
month, not ten times a day. They have a long history of mechanical
design shortfalls. I've flown on it and have piloted it. It is a
steaming, underpowered piece of ****. It never had enough power to get
out of its own way and this situation is exactly what everybody who
flies it was afraid of.

Funny, the pilots who fly the things for a living have reported on other
newsgroups that the aircraft is perfectly adequate for the role. They say
the only time the power is an issue is in climbing above 30,000 feet,
which wouldn't apply in the case of this accident.

The aircraft might have been originally based on a business jet, but it
was redesigned with different engines when it was introduced as an
airliner. There is no comparison.

Given that there are something like 1,500 of the various CRJ models
flying, and they have not had many incidents, the author of the post
seems to be critical of the aircraft for no reason. It's accident rate
is much lower than many other common airliner types, and on a par with
the most recent models of 737, which are considered to be quite
successful. In short, the statistics don't indicate that there are any
major concerns about the aircraft after millions of takeoffs and
landings.

The senior member of the crew had about five and a half years of total
jet experience. The copilot less. They had minimum training (to save
money --enjoy that discount ticket!) and were flying a minimally
equipped pos on very short rest. The layover gets in about 10pm the
night before. They report for pick-up at 4:30am.

That is plain wrong, based on information from the NTSB:

"The captain arrived in Lexington on Saturday at 3:30 p.m. and the first
officer arrived at 2 a.m. Saturday, giving both time to rest before the
flight departed just after 6 a.m. Sunday, federal investigators said."

Further, there is an implication that somehow the crew wasn't experienced
enough, yet where does he suppose the airlines are supposed to instantly
get crews with lots of experience flying commercial jets? People have to
learn at some point.

I'm sorry if I sound bitter but this is exactly the direction the
entire airline industry is going. Expect to see bigger more colorful
crashes in the future.

Yep, sounds bitter. Airlines have been getting leaner every year, but at
the same time the accident records have been getting better and better.
Remember that this has been the longest stretch of accident free air
travel, and it all happened at a time with "poorly paid, inexperienced"
pilots flying thousands of flights every day on regional airlines.

(I'm an) off-the-record so-called expert. I have 20,000 of heavy jet
flying time and am type rated in the 727, 757, 767, 777, DC-8, DC-9
and L-1011.

I wonder how any of those aircraft would have fared trying to take off
from a 3,500 foot runway?

James Robinson wrote:

Further, there is an implication that somehow the crew wasn't experienced
enough, yet where does he suppose the airlines are supposed to instantly
get crews with lots of experience flying commercial jets? People have to
learn at some point.


It doesn't take much experience to know the difference between runway 22
and 26, and 5 years or more should be plenty.

The point is there is (apparently) some ambiguity with the two runways,
and the re-paving & darkness are (apparent) factors which seem to have
contributed/caused the fatal disorientation.

Perhaps the correct runway's lights were consciously/unconsciously
discounted because of the re-paving project.

I've also read/heard a rumor that initially that the crew supposedly
first got on (and actually started up?) a different airplane than the
correct one in the early morning at Blue Grass.

Another ugly rumor: The tower guy had only two hours of sleep, or I may
be confusing this rumor with another situation/airport.

Nobody has yet accused me of being unfair; but in regard to my
spreading of rumors along with my conjectures, while so long as I
explain & qualify this gabbbing as "rumor," I don't feel that I am
being unethical/immoral in my hear-say/gossiping.

The pilots and other professionals whom are commenting here and
elsewhere would know what they're posting about:

I'm a gadfly, news junquey, and sometime passenger plus a politico
wannabe.


mrtravel wrote:
Robert Cohen wrote:

THANK YOU for your ideas et cetera.

I'll comment on one aspect, because it's what interests me most:

The Lexington airport knowledgable
poster says that the snafu or ambiguity
of the two-runway confusion is the informal
common/normative reality, apparently even PRIOR to the re-surfacing and
non-lighted handicap.

The CORRECT runway had lights.

"Robert Cohen" wrote:

The point is there is (apparently) some ambiguity with the two
runways, and the re-paving & darkness are (apparent) factors which
seem to have contributed/caused the fatal disorientation.

Perhaps the correct runway's lights were consciously/unconsciously
discounted because of the re-paving project.

There's no more ambiguity than at many other airports that have parallel
runways, or runways where the ends of separate runways are close
together. Airliners have mistakenly taken off from taxiways parallel to
the main runway, which would be more ambiguous that the Lexington
situation.

Just before the runway, there is a big sign that tells them they are
approaching a runway, and what number it is. You can't ask for a clearer
indication of where they are.

The actions of the crew are simply inexplicable, given that normal
airline procedure requires them to have the airport plan in front of them
when they taxi, and they are supposed to double-check the runway number
before they take off. The direction of the two runways is sufficiently
different that it would be hard to make a mistake if the crew was paying
attention.

I've also read/heard a rumor that initially that the crew supposedly
first got on (and actually started up?) a different airplane than the
correct one in the early morning at Blue Grass.

Another ugly rumor: The tower guy had only two hours of sleep, or I
may be confusing this rumor with another situation/airport.

Those are two facts that have been confirmed by the NTSB.

Yes, the crew got on the wrong aircraft. Whether that was any indication
of their state of mind would be purely innuendo. From what I can see on
the schedules, there would have been three CRJs parked on the ramp when
they arrived for duty. If you have ridden connector flights, you would
recognize that they tend to park aircraft on an open apron, so it isn't
as though they are tied to a particular gate. I suppose it is an easy
mistake to make.

Whether the controller didn't choose to sleep while he was off duty
doesn't really add much, since he gave the correct instructions to the
Comair crew for departure.

The controller is not required to ensure that the aircraft uses the
designated runway. It is up to the aircraft's crew to follow through
with the instructions they are given. The controller is supposed to
monitor aircraft movement, other duties permitting, but total tracking of
every aircraft is not required. The controller might get a reprimand out
of this.

As I said previously, the fact that they took off from the wrong runway
is really inexplicable.