Comair Flight Crashes After Departing Lexington, Kentucky

[greggerm 312]

Getting ready for work this morning, my g/f had the Today show on - I didn't hear the entire story, nor was I totally paying attention, but they seemed to be slamming the FAA for A.) Only one controller, and B.) The Controller's "Inattentiveness" to the airfield. As we now know, ATC was shortstaffed and the controller does have responsibility to determine an airplane's position prior to clearances, but it seemed as though the story was completely disregarding any pilot culpability - as if it was totally ATC's responsibility.(sigh)... aah, the media... :) -Greg

[Guest CRJ700FO]

1) they are right to slam the faa. they have been understaffing for awhile. they are just as cheap as the airlines when it comes to employees.2) clearing an a/c for takeoff while taxiing, imho, is no big deal. i am sure that as part of their checklist comair requires the heading to be checked as EFIS COMP MON is a major nuisance on the CRJ. did they FAA mandate a flaps check when NW and Delta took off with no flaps killing most on board? no, a/c manufacturers responded with a takeoff config message or announcement, i'm sure we will see runways incorporated now (some products are already out and my understaning is FedEx and Alaska already use them).3) i was wrong earlier. i checked as i flew yesterday and walla no runway on departure, even with a departure loaded. it was correctly pointed out that this shows on arrival if an approach is loaded. wow 2000hours in an airplane and till yesterday i could have swore a runway appeared everytime (that tells me a lot about "eyewitness" testimony).4) as far as "bravado" btacon, it is not that. it is simply human nature. you can add all the zones of protection and still stuff like this will happen. clearing an a/c for takeoff while taxiing is a standard atc procedure and i'm sure it will remain. one accident shouldn't cancel out millions of other safe takeoffs, it is this failed logic that the TSA operates under.for those of you who have a "problem" with clearing for takeoff while still taxiing and crossing other runways: what about the hundreds of airports with no control tower and multiple runways that commercial carriers fly into every day? should we ban service into these airports?

[KevinAu 441]

>>for those of you who have a "problem" with clearing for>takeoff while still taxiing and crossing other runways: what>about the hundreds of airports with no control tower and>multiple runways that commercial carriers fly into every day?>should we ban service into these airports?I find it puzzling why the issue I have with that "problem" bothers you so much. What is so onerous on you as a pilot to put one more blood written rule in the ATC handbook to help ensure that you don't have to suffer severe consequences from a mental mistake? It costs you nothing as a pilot and relieves you of one more burden. What is so bad about that? In fact, it probably wouldn't even have to be a new rule since they already have 3-1-7 in their handbook already...

[Guest CRJ700FO]

>I find it puzzling why the issue I have with that "problem">bothers you so much. What is so onerous on you as a pilot to>put one more blood written rule in the ATC handbook to help>ensure that you don't have to suffer severe consequences from>a mental mistake? It costs you nothing as a pilot and>relieves you of one more burden. What is so bad about that? >In fact, it probably wouldn't even have to be a new rule since>they already have 3-1-7 in their handbook already...if i follow the PROPER procedures already out there in the FAR's and my airlines operating manual there will be no "mental mistake". there in lies the problem. let's just add one more "common sense" FAR. this is how we get thousands of rules and regulations to begin with.again what about airports with no control tower that commercial airlines operate into with intersecting runways? how could anyone not operate safely without ATC?!?! John Nance was right, they are not there to baby sit us.the good thing to come out of this is to have a hard look at the ANTIQUATED FAA "rest" requirements they impose on pilots and controllers. 8 hours as a minimum is a complete farce and they know it. the ATA has forced this piece of dung upon us and strive to keep it their. this sole controller was operating on 9 hours of "rest" of which he admitted he only had two hours of sleep. truck drivers are legally required to get more rest than an airline pilot. does that make sense?

[KevinAu 441]

>>if i follow the PROPER procedures already out there in the>FAR's and my airlines operating manual there will be no>"mental mistake". there in lies the problem. let's just add>one more "common sense" FAR. this is how we get thousands of>rules and regulations to begin with.>That's pretty scary to see you, a paid airline pilot, to feel like that. Obviously, you feel like you are the perfect pilot who makes no mistakes. That is the most dangerous kind of pilot. Everybody makes mistakes.This is is not about you. This is about the passengers. The safety of the air transportation system does not depend upon a safety person. It depends upon a safety system. You are nothing but a cog in that system. Each cog in that system can, and will, fail at some point. But the system is supposed to build in enough margin that a number of failures of the cogs will still result in a safe passage for the passengers. I hate to break this to you, but the PIC is not the most important cog in the system, it may be the last cog, but it is certainly not the strongest one, in fact the PIC is probably the weakest link in the whole system if history is any guide.This crash revealed to the public a failure of the system. Every cog in this machine failed that morning. From the airport authority and Jeppeson for not providing accurate information, to the controller for not minding the store, to the pilots for getting the wrong idea at the worst moment. The safety system was revealed to be inadequate. From the regulations of plane design, to the construction of airports, to the charting authorities, to the controllers, to the pilots, all of these are cogs that function together, and to catch each other's shortcomings to ensure a safe flight. It is our responsibility to make sure that the system is adequate. You owe that to the unsuspecting people who get into the back of that aluminum can of yours.Anybody who sarcastically speaks of the rules and procedures that we are supposed to operate under should not be sitting in the cockpit of a commercial passenger plane. Yes, we need a new rule or a clarification of an existing one, and yes we need to add to the thousands out there already. Each is written with blood and we will keep adding to it until the day there are no more human hands in air transportation.>again what about airports with no control tower that>commercial airlines operate into with intersecting runways?>how could anyone not operate safely without ATC?!?! John Nance>was right, they are not there to baby sit us.>Yes, we do operate to non-towered airports, don't we? And many of those even have intersecting runways to boot. Yes, we manage to do that safely most of the time in spite of those conditions, right?Unfortunately, we operate there safely in spite. No flight should operate safely in spite of something. Planes crash in spite of the safety system. But to have a flight go safely in spite of anything, is against the safety system's principals.So what about these airports? What about them? They are a place where the safety margins are reduced. The accident at Quincy, IL.,can and will probably happen again. You are not helping your argument by pointing out these airports. All it shows is that you an accepter of status quo. Your passengers deserve better than to be brought safely to their destination "despite."

[Guest CRJ700FO]

>That's pretty scary to see you, a paid airline pilot, to feel>like that. Obviously, you feel like you are the perfect pilot>who makes no mistakes. That is the most dangerous kind of>pilot. Everybody makes mistakes.>>This is is not about you. This is about the passengers. The>safety of the air transportation system does not depend upon a>safety person. It depends upon a safety system. You are>nothing but a cog in that system. Each cog in that system>can, and will, fail at some point. But the system is>supposed to build in enough margin that a number of failures>of the cogs will still result in a safe passage for the>passengers. I hate to break this to you, but the PIC is not>the most important cog in the system, it may be the last cog,>but it is certainly not the strongest one, in fact the PIC is>probably the weakest link in the whole system if history is>any guide.it is not about me, i am as square as it can be in an airplane. i am simply telling you that there are thousands upon thousands of sentences within our airline operating manuals that cover 99% of the situations, including this one. adding one more rule is NOT going to fix the problem. in general if you follow the rules you will be fine.>This crash revealed to the public a failure of the system. >Every cog in this machine failed that morning. From the>airport authority and Jeppeson for not providing accurate>information, to the controller for not minding the store, to>the pilots for getting the wrong idea at the worst moment. >The safety system was revealed to be inadequate. From the>regulations of plane design, to the construction of airports,>to the charting authorities, to the controllers, to the>pilots, all of these are cogs that function together, and to>catch each other's shortcomings to ensure a safe flight. It>is our responsibility to make sure that the system is>adequate. You owe that to the unsuspecting people who get>into the back of that aluminum can of yours.are you hearing yourself? do you know more people die tripping on sidewalks each year than plane crashes? where is your concern for the sidewalk industry? in your world a plane would never leave the gate. god forbid you look inside and see all those stickers dealing with things LEGALLY allowed to break, you'd have a field day.>Anybody who sarcastically speaks of the rules and procedures>that we are supposed to operate under should not be sitting in>the cockpit of a commercial passenger plane. Yes, we need a>new rule or a clarification of an existing one, and yes we>need to add to the thousands out there already. Each is>written with blood and we will keep adding to it until the day>there are no more human hands in air transportation.sarcastically? i just said we have 99% of the contingencies covered. it's ALREADY there. you simply want to make a grand statement again and double it up, which is stupid.>Yes, we do operate to non-towered airports, don't we? And>many of those even have intersecting runways to boot. Yes, we>manage to do that safely most of the time in spite of those>conditions, right?most of the time? try 100% for a long time. it's not most, but ALL of the time their safely operated.>Unfortunately, we operate there safely in spite. No flight>should operate safely in spite of something. Planes crash in>spite of the safety system. But to have a flight go safely in>spite of anything, is against the safety system's principals.hey i got an idea. cancel all air travel until we do not "operate there safely in spite". is that what you want?>So what about these airports? What about them? They are a>place where the safety margins are reduced. The accident at>Quincy, IL.,can and will probably happen again. You are not>helping your argument by pointing out these airports. All it>shows is that you an accepter of status quo. Your passengers>deserve better than to be brought safely to their destination>"despite."what you want is completely unrealistic. you do not operate an aircraft and have no idea of the system form our side. BOTH controllers and pilots are OVERWORKED and UNDERPAID simply so joe schmoe can fly from a to b for a little $$$ as possible. your government (FAA) wants this, backed by the ATA (who lobbies for it).kevinau, i applaud your sincere desire for 100% reliability and safety. be assured every time i am in a cockpit i do the same thing. i catch myself every now and then (i have made plenty of mistakes with pax on board, but every pilot has believe it or not), but i take those and learn from them. our air travel industry, despite what the latest articles state, is the safest form of transportation out there despite all the problems you and i have laid out.

[KevinAu 441]

>>>Yes, we do operate to non-towered airports, don't we? And>>many of those even have intersecting runways to boot. Yes,>we>>manage to do that safely most of the time in spite of those>>conditions, right?>>most of the time? try 100% for a long time. it's not most, but>ALL of the time their safely operated.>This does not qualify as "100% for a long time".http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=2...208X07015&key=1http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=2...919X05176&key=2The Quincy one is famous, you should know about it. The one at Rock Springs involved somebody I knew.>it is not about me, i am as square as it can be in an airplane. i am >simply telling you that there are thousands upon thousands of >sentences within our airline operating manuals that cover 99% of the >situations, including this one. adding one more rule is NOT going to >fix the problem. in general if you follow the rules you will be fine.Even if those pilots followed every single rule, it would not have saved them, when the guy makes the brain fqrt that he did. The only hope is an adequate set of checks and balances.Even if they did have the current 10-9 for Lexington out, it would not have showed any of the changes. There is still no 10-8 for the construction either. So that would not have helped. None of the relevant changes were on the published NOTAMs and according to some people, neither were the relevant changes advertised on the ATIS either. None of the preflight information available to them would have alerted them. The only thing that would have saved them was astuteness as they approached the runways. And even you admit now, that you are capable of not being completely astute. So if they missed reading the signs or doing a heading check after lineup, there was nothing left anywhere to save them from themselves. When all it would have taken was a slight delay until seeing them closer to 22 before the controller issues a takeoff clearance, those people would be alive. That last layer of protection that could have been afforded those passenger by the controller was not there.>>what you want is completely unrealistic. you do not operate an>aircraft and have no idea of the system form our side. BOTH>controllers and pilots are OVERWORKED and UNDERPAID simply so>joe schmoe can fly from a to b for a little $$$ as possible.>your government (FAA) wants this, backed by the ATA (who>lobbies for it).>You're kidding me. The two pilots had very long layovers. Underpaid? #####? What does their pay rate actually have anything to do with taxiing an aircraft? Seriously, you actually think this has anything to do with concessions? Whatever baggage you have with your employer, your wife, your dog, or your pet rock, I certainly hope you check those at the door before you climb into the cockpit. Your "overworked and underpaid" rings very hollow.>kevinau, i applaud your sincere desire for 100% reliability>and safety. be assured every time i am in a cockpit i do the>same thing. i catch myself every now and then (i have made>plenty of mistakes with pax on board, but every pilot has>believe it or not), but i take those and learn from them. our>air travel industry, despite what the latest articles state,>is the safest form of transportation out there despite all the>problems you and i have laid out.100% though, is what the FAA, NTSB, strive for, and hopefully you as well. If there is anything we can learn or change out of this that can make it 1% safer, then it is worth it.Thanks for your assurance of your safe conduct. Hopefully, if I ever have to ask you for a jumpseat ride, you can get me there without killing me.Anyways, I have to start a three day now, I'll see you out there. Be safe.

[btacon 1,772]

Kevin/CRJ700FO my last comment in this thread.In my opinion, if the controller had done his/her job, to the letter, (a very simple task) this would never have happened. Period. Simple. End of story. Tower would have looked down at that itty-bitty airport in the 6:00am dawn, and said, "...er Comair 7XX, say again position?"This thread would not be. Ridicule this simple concept all you want. But in the end, it's just like seatbelts. You should buckle up because statistically it saves lives. Controllers/pilots should add this simple little crosscheck (meaning outlaw clearance while taxi) too their bag of tricks. How many lives will be lost the next time this 100% preventable incident occurs? There is no reason to issue a clearance to an aircraft while it is in taxi. None. It saves NO TIME.Watch a change to policy come from this.bt

[Geofa 108]

I just have to wonder (have landed at Lexington twice)...I know second guessing is very easy ...However, though not a "professional" pilot (I don't make a living form it)- I hold a commercial rating...The part that still hypers me out about flying is taxiing at unfamiliar airports-and if unsure I always immediately ask for progressives..free and does the job.I also have a $300 piece of software that shows my position via gps right on the approach plate runway diagram on my tablet pc...between the progressives and software a pretty good chance I'll get where I need to when not sure...Why didn't the pilot ask for progressives if unsure and why don't the airlines use a technology that is available to a "weekend pilot" for very little cost that adds a lot to safety? (I know the answer to the second question)....http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

[Guest CRJ700FO]

>This does not qualify as "100% for a long time".>>http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=2...208X07015&key=1>http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=2...919X05176&key=2>>The Quincy one is famous, you should know about it. The one>at Rock Springs involved somebody I knew.the quincy one was 10 YEARS ago......>Even if those pilots followed every single rule, it would not>have saved them, when the guy makes the brain fqrt that he>did. The only hope is an adequate set of checks and>balances.not true. i am sure in their GOM or whatever comair calls it that there is a sentence regarding verifying runway heading with what your PFD is showing (especially in the CRJ as EFIS COMP MON happens all the time).>Even if they did have the current 10-9 for Lexington out, it>would not have showed any of the changes. There is still no>10-8 for the construction either. So that would not have>helped. None of the relevant changes were on the published>NOTAMs and according to some people, neither were the relevant>changes advertised on the ATIS either. None of the preflight>information available to them would have alerted them. The>only thing that would have saved them was astuteness as they>approached the runways. And even you admit now, that you are>capable of not being completely astute. So if they missed>reading the signs or doing a heading check after lineup, there>was nothing left anywhere to save them from themselves. When>all it would have taken was a slight delay until seeing them>closer to 22 before the controller issues a takeoff clearance,>those people would be alive. That last layer of protection>that could have been afforded those passenger by the>controller was not there.in a perfect world you are right. unfortunately this isn't perfect. controllers make mistakes too. they landed airplanes on top of each other (LAX).>You're kidding me. The two pilots had very long layovers. >Underpaid? #####? What does their pay rate actually have>anything to do with taxiing an aircraft? Seriously, you>actually think this has anything to do with concessions? >Whatever baggage you have with your employer, your wife, your>dog, or your pet rock, I certainly hope you check those at the>door before you climb into the cockpit. Your "overworked and>underpaid" rings very hollow.the pay rate is simply a fact. right seat in a CRJ you are underpaid period. i was more talking about the controller and his 9hr "rest" from a morning shift to an evening shift. definitely underworked and overpaid. underpaying has everything to do with taxiing as that is when the complaining occurs about how this cheap airline has me doing this or that (esp considering the ca of said flight was a reserve captain).>100% though, is what the FAA, NTSB, strive for, and hopefully>you as well. If there is anything we can learn or change out>of this that can make it 1% safer, then it is worth it.i laugh at a 100% is what the FAA wants. complete horseshiite. their own work rules and lacksadaisical attitude directly contributed to this. their own policy of allowing a takeoff clearance to be made in this manner that you do not like shows you this as well.>Thanks for your assurance of your safe conduct. Hopefully, if>I ever have to ask you for a jumpseat ride, you can get me>there without killing me.if you have a smart attitude like that you will be left at the gate....>Anyways, I have to start a three day now, I'll see you out>there. Be safe.always. keep the blue side up.

[Guest CRJ700FO]

>Watch a change to policy come from this.yes cause in the faa's eyes this is more important than changing their staffing models to have 2 controllers or allowing some poor guy to have 9 hours of rest (of which 2 were sleeping) sandwiched between a morning and graveyard shift.

[btacon 1,772]

The process must insure the fix is applied to the most A/C possible.I think changing the behaviour of one controller per day, is much easier than altering the behaviour of 980 traffic countbt

[Guest fosters81]

>>fyi i always have an approach in departure. we're trained to>guesss well.....:)I think you misuderstood. The only way a "runway" is displayed is if you load an approach for that specific runway. Are you saying you load in an approach for the runway you are using at the departure airport? Seriously? Do you brief the approach before you take off too??? I will have to call my eagle buds to see if that is how it is done there...

[Guest Tekneek]

Granted, I am not a pilot, but I don't understand why so much heat/attention is being put on air traffic control when the crew should have been able to tell their heading was off by 40 degrees. Is it not standard procedure to check your heading even once before starting the takeoff roll? I could partially begin to understand the mistake if the runways were parallel, but I cannot help thinking that a 40 degree deviation should have come to their attention well before hitting the point of no return. I wonder if they ever realized their error.

[michal 44]

>Why didn't the pilot ask for progressives if unsure That's the key, they were NOT unsure, they were quite familiar with the airport. Michael J.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/for...argo_hauler.gifhttp://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-beta.jpg