Apology

[acaTerry]

We were fighting?

 

[atrdriver]

One other thing that I haven't seen discussed is the clearance. Isn't LEX usually a RH/6000 on departure? I've only been there twice this year. Somebody mentioned the heading bug. This is a really strange accident.

Most times I get a takeoff clearance at LEX it is heading 200 to 6000 feet. That is always going to ATL, departing from 22. Departing 4 is it 060 heading to 6000.

I don't think that you need to come to a stop before starting your takeoff roll. I do however, think that the heading bug should be on runway heading until the initial turn point. At ASA we put the heading bug on the initial heading, NOT runway heading. I would imagine that is how CMR does it too. If the heading bug is on runway heading a rolling takoff is fine, you will just be a little embarrased if you have to abort when the bug isn't where it is supposed to be.

 

[asmn]

I don't know if I quite agree with saying anyone coud make this mistake. To say a professional would make a mistake sure we all do, but this case is slightly different. This falls under the careless and wreckless operation of an aircraft category. (this is not meant to be flame bait merely stating an opinion) Not only did they recognize the signs that they were possibly on the wrong runway, they chose to ignore them according to the CVR. Lack of proper interpretation of airport signs, impropery identifing runway markings, omission or misinterpretation of flight instruments, not having the chart out for taxi or not reading it correctly, believing in gut feeling over that of the flight instruments....the list goes on and on. I'm not a perfect pilot and I make mistakes all the time, and I think 100% of you out there could have made the mistake of taking the wrong runway. However, to not recognize that mistake immediately I don't know.....

They could not check the airport diagram because it didn't show the new location of the threshold of runway 22. Taxiway A closure not notamed and we won't know if it was on the ATIS for months. The notam regarding over a 400 foot displacement south of the 22 threshold was:

LEX 4/22 ASDA 7003 TORA 7003 TODA 7003 LDA 6603 WEF 0608202200

Not the standard LEX 22 New threshold relocated ___ feet SW ___ feet remaining. No temporary construction diagrams were provided or have been yet. The general public has more information about LEX's new layout then pilots. New diagram: (Scroll down)

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-08-28-ntsb-kentucky-crash_x.htm

Lights for 4/22 TDZE REIL CL ots, and runway distance remaining signs, vasi missing, so lack of edge lights as well might not seem inconsistent. New taxiway centerline brings you past numbers on runway for 26. All of above decreased their normal situational awareness and made a different picture than what they'd seen many times before.

Wrong heading? Should have been checked. I'd like to think that I look everytime but can't honestly be sure. Stopping and asking about something that looked odd is an option too. The list of irregularities in LEX construction and notification of pilots goes on and on and that is only what we know so far. Careless and wreckless operation? We'll determine this when the investigation is over.

 

[EdAtTheAirport]

Hey ATR you said the magic word -- abort. I remember all three of the aborts that I've ever called (plus one single pilot in a King Air). I think another human factors issue in this accident needs to focus on aborted takeoffs. (NTSB are you listening?)

At some point on that takeoff, either the PNF Captain or the PF FO realized that there was a problem. I gotta think when they crossed the actual Rwy 22 they knew what was up. Facing the choice of ending up in the grass by aborting, or attempting to fly and maybe getting away with the mistake, they chose to fly. I think we ALL understand that scenario, don't we?

There needs to be a whole new discussion about this if future safety can be served. We feel ok if we abort for engine failure, birds on the runway, blown tire, etc. But we gotta reach deep and ask how many of us would have aborted that takeoff as a result of us using the wrong runway, and ending up in the grass. I hope the NTSB goes into this.

 

[CatYaaak]

Whether it stands up or not, the pay is definitely an issue that affects safety. Pilots who have to live on below-poverty level pay, and work till they are zombies will be of deteriorated mental states. Even in ideal circumstances there are things going on in a regional pilots head that are not flight related. Don't pull out the "a professional will block it out" argument. There is simply no excuse that they have to live like they do...all for some tightwads desire to save $3 on a ticket.
The airline passengers haven't the mental ability to grasp all the issues and consequences of a situation like this. And it is a grisly reminder to all you kids out there who brag about how "easy" the job is. Pull your heads out of your rear end and THINK about your job's consequences more seriously.

From the soapbox,

Terry

You know what Terry?....that stuff you're talking about?....a professional pilot will block it out. While they're flying.

The "businessman/lawyer/doctor" pilot living FAR above the average income level yet takes off in their Trinidad or Baron stressing-out about their worldly problems drill holes with great frequency, and their insurance rates reflect this.

Plenty of highly-paid Legacy pilots also splashed even during the Gravy Train days. Their ability to buy 3 houses and 2 boats while paying alimony didn't make a difference.

Airline passengers have NO moral obligation to try and grasp your "issues"...their obligation is to follow the crew's instructions once they board the aircraft. That's it. YOU are the one who's going to be held to the higher standard because you....to them....are part of the Company they're trusting will do what you say you'll do; operate to the highest level of safety regardless. The contract your pilot group negotiated with the Company is YOUR contract, not theirs, and they didn't sit around the negotiating table.

And why would you hold the pax in such low regard? You sound bitter. I commute and repo on the airlines literally around the world, and for the life of me I've never heard any passengers discussing the pilots' salaries, lives, how easy it is to fly, etc. etc. This may be hard for you to believe, but they talk about us as much as you talk about the shuttle bus driver on the way to the hotel.

Emergency room doctors work long hectic nights for little $$ while deep in debt after paying years of dues under less-than-perfect conditions and equipment. If one mistakedly cuts out the liver of your loved one with fatal results instead of just removing the spleen that ruptured in the car crash, will you say "Doctor, that's ok I didnt understand your personal issues"?

There are bigger issues in the world than money that will most likely bring stress into anyone's career. Burned out to the point safety is affected?....quit. That's your moral obligation to the pax.

 

[acaTerry]

You know what Terry?....that stuff you're talking about?....a professional pilot will block it out. While they're flying.

The "businessman/lawyer/doctor" pilot living FAR above the average income level yet takes off in their Trinidad or Baron stressing-out about their worldly problems drill holes with great frequency, and their insurance rates reflect this.

More often caused by lack of skills for the aircraft and conditions they fly in (100 hr pilots in the Bonanza, then the Malibu...see the trend?).

Plenty of highly-paid Legacy pilots also splashed even during the Gravy Train days. Their ability to buy 3 houses and 2 boats while paying alimony didn't make a difference.

Please define "plenty".

Airline passengers have NO moral obligation to try and grasp your "issues"...their obligation is to follow the crew's instructions once they board the aircraft. That's it.

And they don't. Unfastening seatbelts as soon as landed, getting up with the seatbelt sign on...so on

YOU are the one who's going to be held to the higher standard because you....to them....are part of the Company they're trusting will do what you say you'll do; operate to the highest level of safety regardless.

Agreed.

The contract your pilot group negotiated with the Company is YOUR contract, not theirs, and they didn't sit around the negotiating table.

BUT they are very vocal, and many write letters....

And why would you hold the pax in such low regard? You sound bitter.

I am not bitter. In fact I love my passengers...at the fracs. They are responsible people, not the Wal-Mart grade public who expect jet aircraft tickets at Greyhound bus prices.


I commute and repo on the airlines literally around the world, and for the life of me I've never heard any passengers discussing the pilots' salaries, lives, how easy it is to fly, etc. etc.

You must be deaf.

This may be hard for you to believe, but they talk about us as much as you talk about the shuttle bus driver on the way to the hotel.

Repeat...you must be deaf.

Emergency room doctors work long hectic nights for little $$ while deep in debt after paying years of dues under less-than-perfect conditions and equipment. If one mistakedly cuts out the liver of your loved one with fatal results instead of just removing the spleen that ruptured in the car crash, will you say "Doctor, that's ok I didnt understand your personal issues"?

I see no connection between this point and what I said...


There are bigger issues in the world than money that will most likely bring stress into anyone's career. Burned out to the point safety is affected?....quit. That's your moral obligation to the pax.

Why should a guy have to quit after having invested EVERYTHING into a one-way career? I say make the pax pay what it costs to travel. Every other industry does it...charge what things cost to produce. Why should airline employees have to fund this fare war with their wallets and their bodies?

?????

 

[Nindiri]

It amazes me how some people here casually suggest that the crew should have just aborted and gone into the grass just like a highspeed abort is nothing more than a minor nuisance. The fact is, once they realized their error they had about a nanosecond to decide whether to abort with the definite result of multiple deaths, or try to get it airborne and clear the obstacles. Given their situation, the captain made what he thought was the best decision at the time.

 

[acaTerry]

There are always the "experts" who voice their "I'm too good to have done that". They have the luxury of seeing things AFTER they happen.

 

[Tram]

Yep, and this board is where they all seem to congregate..

 

[Patriot328]

It amazes me how some people here casually suggest that the crew should have just aborted and gone into the grass just like a highspeed abort is nothing more than a minor nuisance. The fact is, once they realized their error they had about a nanosecond to decide whether to abort with the definite result of multiple deaths, or try to get it airborne and clear the obstacles. Given their situation, the captain made what he thought was the best decision at the time.

Very true, and not that they would have known this, but I imagine hitting that berm (the one the gear grazed) at 120kts would have resulted in the smae effect as continuing the take off and hitting the trees.

 

[CatYaaak]

?????

acaTerry...

.....the businessman pilot who buys too much airplane to handle does it so he can get there wherever he's going faster. They push into conditions they shouldn't because they are more concerned with what's happening/missing at point B and a schedule than with using good judgement for the task at hand. Worldy concerns are driving them past their limitations. Safety of flight should be driving you..the pro pilot.. despite your wordly concerns.

.....All the accidents attributed to pilot error despite having great salaries are the ones I mean. Or perhaps it's just that you don't believe "pilot error" exists?

...You avoid the point about pax having a moral obligation to grasp your "issues", and deflect it in a response about seatbelts instead. Given your original distainful comments, I guess you truly believe that they DO have the obligation to make your profession their life's study. That sounds pretty egomaniacal to me.

...well I don't know about your fractional gig, but those "tightwad pax" at the regionals writing letters about pilot salaries because they are held in rapt attention during your negotiations? Please. Are saying they take valuable time off from watching Springer reruns to sit down and write "don't pay the pilots because I'm going to disneyland next year!". Sorry, I'm more inclined to believe they write letters regarding either crappy or sometimes good service.

... I don't know about the fracs but in my experience flying charter, private VIP owners, corporate, airlines, VIP, and corporate again, I figured passengers were passengers cuz I was a pilot. It sounds like you're still at the "impressed" stage of flying people with a fair amount of disposable income. Well, respecting anyone doesn't automatically mean you disrespect the rest. Hey, I just remembered I ride in the back of airliners..does that make me s$$tscum in your book too?

...My hearing's fine, so perhaps the many passenger conversations you supposedly overhear that feature you and pilots as the stars are really just the voices in your head switched to "Wishful Thinking" mode.

..I'm sorry you didn't get the connection and similarities between your rant about pilot salaries equating to stress and reduced safety with another profession where likewise lives are at stake yet stressful "issues" present for the professional, and the expectation you'd have for them to do their job and not kill you or your loved one. But if he did in some really flagrant way, how you'd not want to hear about their personal "issues" regarding blanket-stress issues like salary. You'd figure if he DID have them, knew about them, and couldnt function to a degree he mistook a liver for a spleen, he should've taken the day off.

...I said if you can't block it out while you're flying, quit. Especially if you're so emotional and can't block out something as general as an entire industry. As if this industry's changed so much...a big suprise. Like guys flying for regionals 15 years ago weren't grossing $900/month flying 19 seat crap and paying for training.

What if your fellow crewmember was also so stressed out about some pet peeve...say....CO2 emissions and the ice caps melting...that he couldn't put aside his personal worries until at least the time you shut down at the gate? We end up with a planeload of unwitting passengers flying along while one pilot is thinking about the indignity and unfairness he suffers because airlines are businesses instead of a Jobs Program for pilots like he believes they should be, while the other one who's helping to burn and blow all that jet fuel into the atmosphere can't even get concerned about his captain's money-rant because he's too busy thinking of how the world is doomed anyway. Yeah, that's pretty safe.

You may be right...if the passengers knew the state of those pilots' heads, they WOULD have to be morons to get onboard.

It doesnt matter what your stress-producer is. Just because it's stress produced by one's own industry doesn't make it "righteous" enough to carry with you on a flight. Like any other, if you can't find a way to block it for at least as long as a flight lasts, hang it up.

 

[BSkin]

As a retired USAF controller, the tower controller should have been watching that plane. He should have checked the runway to insure it was clear, clear the aircraft for TO, and watch the plane's takeoff, day or night. The tower controller can determine whether the plane is on either runway too, day or night. Perhaps the tower controller had other duties, but I believe they could have waited while he watched this plane takeoff. No excuse. Along with the crew, the controller is another set of eyes that possibly could have caught this. At least that's the way it's supposed to be done. My opinion.

Hoser
ASA CRJ Capt

Though I agree with much of what you said, I don't think you can say "no excuse" to the controller not watching the plane takeoff.

As a former military controller you should know that there is much less margin for error in the military. And, as a former military pilot, I know civil aviation is much more challenging (regular ops I mean -- no war, no carrier, no formation, etc. -- all that is for another discussion).

As a current CRJ Capt., can you really put much blame on what was probably the sole communications guy at the airport. I've never been there, and yes I think things were screwed up with construction, up-to-date pubs, etc, etc. But, how many times have you been in the smaller airports and there is one controller, using only tower freq.? How many times have you been to them when you're the controller (CTAF). How many times have you been told asking for clearance, "I'll get to you in a minute, updating the ATIS". The blame needs to be held off for the investigation, the pilots are part of it, but there is obviously many, many links to the chain of errors in this one.

Now, will this change the way the FAA man's towers at the small airports, one can only hope. They probably need at least two people up there, just as in the cockpit so that there is always at least one person heads-up.

 

[CatYaaak]

Unless he issued erroneous (unlikely) or confusing instructions to the crew with regards to which runway they were cleared to T/O from, I wouldn't blame this controller even partially.

Yes, a good "heads-up" by the controller at the right time could have turned this tragedy into a non-event. But that's not the same as contributing, unless this in itself is a failure of some job-described responsibility to do so if wx permits.

On any given day the weather could have been down, but above T/O mins, and 10 sets of "heads up" controller eyes in the cab wouldn't have made a difference. If low-vis conditions had existed on the accident morning, nobody would be leaning towards placing blame on the controller.

It still would have happened.

 

[atrdriver]

Unless he issued erroneous (unlikely) or confusing instructions to the crew with regards to which runway they were cleared to T/O from, I wouldn't blame this controller even partially.

The controller could have very easily stated "CMR 5191, taxi to runway 22, are you familiar with the new taxi routing?" Considering that the routing was less than a week old, and visibility conditions were apparantly less than ideal, I don't think that would have been too much to ask.

 

[aussiefly]

Yeah I think the problem here is that quite a few of these people posting are not pilots. I think there is a bit of the airliners type people floating around here.

I think faced with a RTO decision in a nanosecond with fences and trees at the end that I probably would have tried to fly it out too. I wish some of you people would stop talking like you have never made a mistake. We ALL make them.

Due tot he chain of events this one unfortunately ended in tragedy.

It amazes me how some people here casually suggest that the crew should have just aborted and gone into the grass just like a highspeed abort is nothing more than a minor nuisance. The fact is, once they realized their error they had about a nanosecond to decide whether to abort with the definite result of multiple deaths, or try to get it airborne and clear the obstacles. Given their situation, the captain made what he thought was the best decision at the time.

 

[acaTerry]

Hey CatYaak,

I got pretty darn sick here. I have responses for you but you'll have to wait a few days to get them OK?

I'm not a good thread searcher so if this thread is a few pages back I'll just PM you if that works.

 

[climbhappy]

Terry,

The public doesn't care about pay scales and work rules. They have their own bucket full of worries ,everyone of them

To corellate safety with paying a premium, which can be compromised without causing death, is in error. to ask the public to pay more for what they already get is off base too.

That CRJ was a good airplane until someone drove it off into the cornfield. most people expext to die once they're up in the air not hurtling down the runway.

i've been an FO in a jetstream. Flew out of LEX all day long at CC Air. I was much more challenged flying out of EWR or ATL while taxiing than i ever was at LEX.

what happened to situational awareness. is being busy an excuse?

bottom line, i don't think i am convinced i should pay more in order to get there in one piece. what i do expect is for the crew up front to be on their toes and alert. i do admit that the chain of events as usual in arplane fatalities reared its ulgy head. if there is more than one of these or if something happens again then maybe at congressional hearings, everything you've mentioned will be on the table.

 

[ohplease!]

I don't know if I quite agree with saying anyone coud make this mistake. To say a professional would make a mistake sure we all do, but this case is slightly different. This falls under the careless and wreckless operation of an aircraft category. (this is not meant to be flame bait merely stating an opinion) Not only did they recognize the signs that they were possibly on the wrong runway, they chose to ignore them according to the CVR. Lack of proper interpretation of airport signs, impropery identifing runway markings, omission or misinterpretation of flight instruments, not having the chart out for taxi or not reading it correctly, believing in gut feeling over that of the flight instruments....the list goes on and on. I'm not a perfect pilot and I make mistakes all the time, and I think 100% of you out there could have made the mistake of taking the wrong runway. However, to not recognize that mistake immediately I don't know.....

there are MANY instances of "careless and wreckless"...410dude, American LIT, America west drunks, airtran drunks, asa drunks, delta drunks, blah, blah....but this was NOT careless or wreckless. This was a "chain" of mistakes that ANY ONE OF US COULD MAKE. Lets let this be a wakeup call to the rest of us and be a little more vigilant.

 

[HoserASA]

Though I agree with much of what you said, I don't think you can say "no excuse" to the controller not watching the plane takeoff.

Now, will this change the way the FAA man's towers at the small airports, one can only hope. They probably need at least two people up there, just as in the cockpit so that there is always at least one person heads-up.

There is a reason that control towers have large windows that provide a 360 degree view. There are many links in this incident that contributed to the crash, and the tower controller not watching the CRJ, at least to insure the CRJ was on the correct runway, will be mentioned by the NTSB. They may not fault him, but they will fault the FAA for not having two controllers on duty. There will be many parties cited in this incident.

Hoser
ASA CRJ Capt
Retired USAF ATC

 

[2wheelz]

CatYaaak is right

Originally Posted by CatYaaak
You know what Terry?....that stuff you're talking about?....a professional pilot will block it out. While they're flying.



CatYaaak is 100% right. Being a professional means you do your job to the best of your ability and worry about your other problems later. Being a professional means you take pride in your work no matter what you're getting paid. If you don't like what they are offering, then don't agree to do the duty. The marketplace dictates what a pilot (or any other professional) gets paid. That is capitalism, like it or not.

I've been through contract negotiations, a strike, and years of reserve. I've flown for lousy pay and worked for hostile management. I never once let that be an excuse to cut corners, make poor decisions or generally give less of $#!+ than I would if I were making "the big money".

If you are not happy with your lot in life, do something to change it. If you bring this stuff with you into the flight deck, you are not a professional and probably ought to reevaluate your priorities.