Comair sues FAA, Lexington airport

[DrewBlows]

I did find this one little regulation that might help you out though. It's kinda' like a law. (kinda' like means similar)

Well, Johnny Cochran, since you are helping me out, let me help you out. A regulation (in this case an aviation regulation) is not law. The last time I checked, the constitution has not been changed to allow the FAA to write laws. This should go unsaid, but since you have already demonstrated your expansive knowledge (lack of) of law, I think it needs to be covered. I'll even capitalize it so you don't skip over it. CONGRESS IS THE ONLY BODY THAT CAN ENACT LAWS. So your clever citation of § 91.3 (case closed, right), has proven that the captain is open for certificate action, which, given his current condition, is moot. But if you think the FAA should pursue certificate action on a dead man, I suggest you call Oklahoma City and voice your concern.

Why do you view this as some personal attack when it isn't?

I was merely pointing out your ignorance of law, but now that you mention it...

The crew was completely to blame for the outcome.

...you even bold-faced it to make your point.

 

[TheBaron]

I am incredibly surprised by the reaction of this thread.

As mentioned earlier, of course the captain is responsible. Everyone knows that. On the other hand, it generally takes more than one factor to have an accident.

I agree 100% with the lawsuit against the FAA and the airport. Sometimes a lawsuit is one of the only tools we can use to change a beauracratic outfit like the FAA. Once again the captain was in command and responsible, but you better believe that airport management and the FAA shared responsibility in this.

It doesn't take a genius to know that you don't need a final report to determine this. Common sense will tell us that there should have been two controllers. Even the FAA has already admitted this. The same goes for airport signage and advisories, among many other factors.

That is the same argument that every psycho my-mommy-didn't-love-me-enough loser in this country makes.
Foley..."Sure I sent inappropriate homoerotic e-mails to interns but I was molested as a young man"
Fey..."Sure I took bribes from Abrhamoff, but I have a drinking problem"
Kennedy..."Sure I was driving under the influence but I have a problem with prescription pills and I was dyslexic as a child"
Good old Rush..."Sure I'm a drug addict, but I have chronic pain"

Explain how the FAA is responsible. A second controller would not have necessarily caught the error made by the crew. It might have prevented the accident. It certainly didn't cause the accident.

Hell, lets just sue the Wright brothers for inventing the airplane!

 

[TheBaron]

Well, Johnny Cochran, since you are helping me out, let me help you out. A regulation (in this case an aviation regulation) is not law. The last time I checked, the constitution has not been changed to allow the FAA to write laws. This should go unsaid, but since you have already demonstrated your expansive knowledge (lack of) of law, I think it needs to be covered. I'll even capitalize it so you don't skip over it. CONGRESS IS THE ONLY BODY THAT CAN ENACT LAWS. So your clever citation of § 91.3 (case closed, right), has proven that the captain is open for certificate action, which, given his current condition, is moot. But if you think the FAA should pursue certificate action on a dead man, I suggest you call Oklahoma City and voice your concern.




I was merely pointing out your ignorance of law, but now that you mention it...



...you even bold-faced it to make your point.

Gee, you quoted me and still didn't get it right. That's hard to do. Go back and re-read my post. I said it was a regulation not a law. I said... "It's kinda' like a law. (kinda' like means similar)"

 

[DrewBlows]

Gee, you quoted me and still didn't get it right. That's hard to do. Go back and re-read my post. I said it was a regulation not a law. I said... "It's kinda' like a law. (kinda' like means similar)"

It's not even "kinda' like a law"! It's not anything like a law, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the lawsuit.

 

[TheBaron]

It's not even "kinda' like a law"! It's not anything like a law, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the lawsuit.

I didn't realize you were privy to the defense the FAA and the airport authority would come up with. You must move in powerful circles and have all the inside info. I just assumed that when this goes to trial, someone, maybe even the FAA, might just mention the responsibility and authority of the PIC.
And maybe, just maybe, you aren't the lawyer you think you are. Go sit in Federal Court at an NTSB hearing and you will see just how similar a regulation is to a law.

 

[DrewBlows]

I didn't realize you were privy to the defense the FAA and the airport authority would come up with. You must move in powerful circles and have all the inside info. I just assumed that when this goes to trial, someone, maybe even the FAA, might just mention the responsibility and authority of the PIC.
And maybe, just maybe, you aren't the lawyer you think you are. Go sit in Federal Court at an NTSB hearing and you will see just how similar a regulation is to a law.

Why does it need to go to court? You have already proven that the airport and the FAA share none of the responsiblilty in the accident. If I were a government lawyer, I would call you on the stand to explain how since § 91.3 says that the PIC is the ultimate authority, he alone is at fault. After all, regulations are "similar" to law.

 

[TheBaron]

Why does it need to go to court? You have already proven that the airport and the FAA share none of the responsiblilty in the accident. If I were a government lawyer, I would call you on the stand to explain how since § 91.3 says that the PIC is the ultimate authority, he alone is at fault. After all, regulations are "similar" to law.

Who knows. Maybe they will. They've called me twice before. And I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

 

[400pilot]

Yes, perhaps there are issues with signage, or markings or whatever,

There wasn't. This was all after crossing 26, not before. They never made it that far.....

 

[DrewBlows]

There wasn't. This was all after crossing 26, not before. They never made it that far.....

What about the taxiway closing that made it look like the taxiway ended whey you got to RW26 (in other words, made it look like it was supposed to look at RW22)?

Come on guys, it's not as simple as some would make it out to be. I don't think there is much doubt who will shoulder the majority of the blame (cause) of this accident, but to simply say "pilot error" and move on does no one any good. I hope that the NTSB doesn't do this, and we are able to see some safety improvements as a result (taxiway markings, lighting, english Notams, minimum tower staffing levels, et cetera).

 

[SKYMASTER]

That is the same argument that every psycho my-mommy-didn't-love-me-enough loser in this country makes.
Foley..."Sure I sent inappropriate homoerotic e-mails to interns but I was molested as a young man"
Fey..."Sure I took bribes from Abrhamoff, but I have a drinking problem"
Kennedy..."Sure I was driving under the influence but I have a problem with prescription pills and I was dyslexic as a child"
Good old Rush..."Sure I'm a drug addict, but I have chronic pain"

Explain how the FAA is responsible. A second controller would not have necessarily caught the error made by the crew. It might have prevented the accident. It certainly didn't cause the accident.

Hell, lets just sue the Wright brothers for inventing the airplane!

That's not a good comparison. It is the FAA's policy to have two controllers. Not having one there is most likely a contributing factor. Catching and preventing the error is pretty much the same thing in this case. You are admitting that had there been two controllers, 49 people may not be dead. This among other factors are hard evidence this should not have happened. Yes, it happened because of the flight crew, but there are other major contributing factors.

Sure airline pilots take off from uncontrolled fields. However, usually they are single runway, or at least no general aviation runways at airline airports. These are more contributing factors that if different, could have prevented an accident. Pilots make errors. There are ways to make flying safer that are sometimes ignored. I'm very sorry 49 people are dead.

Fly safe.

 

[400pilot]

What about the taxiway closing that made it look like the taxiway ended whey you got to RW26 (in other words, made it look like it was supposed to look at RW22)?

It didn't look like the taxiway ended. The taxiway was still there. It just had big baracades with reflectors on it. From the RW26 hold short line, you could clearly see them on the other side of rw26. After crossing 26, you needed to make a 30 degree left on to taxiway A5, which was renamed A.

 

[FN FAL]

That's not a good comparison. It is the FAA's policy to have two controllers. Not having one there is most likely a contributing factor. Catching and preventing the error is pretty much the same thing in this case. You are admitting that had there been two controllers, 49 people may not be dead. This among other factors are hard evidence this should not have happened. Yes, it happened because of the flight crew, but there are other major contributing factors.

Sure airline pilots take off from uncontrolled fields. However, usually they are single runway, or at least no general aviation runways at airline airports. These are more contributing factors that if different, could have prevented an accident. Pilots make errors. There are ways to make flying safer that are sometimes ignored. I'm very sorry 49 people are dead.

Fly safe.

More police mens prevent crime and your second paragraph is a baseless generalization as well.

 

[DrewBlows]

It didn't look like the taxiway ended. The taxiway was still there. It just had big baracades with reflectors on it. From the RW26 hold short line, you could clearly see them on the other side of rw26. After crossing 26, you needed to make a 30 degree left on to taxiway A5, which was renamed A.

This is true, but it would be difficult to see the proper taxiway to runway 22 across a 150' runway at night. Throw in some poor lighting* and it would be an easy mistake to make.

*The night before the accident another Comair aircraft ellected to land on runway 4, rather than 22, because of poor lighting. I don't know the details, other than it happened.

 

[400pilot]

This is true, but it would be difficult to see the proper taxiway to runway 22 across a 150' runway at night.

No, it wasn't difficult. I left out of there at 0530 the morning before. Also, RW26 is 75' wide.

The controller cleared us for takeoff before we even reached rw26. More than likely the same thing happened and the Captain just lined up on the 1st runway he got to. Even though the runway itself was unlited, the RW26 sign was lit at the hold short line. Based on that, maybe they did not look at the airport diagram before they taxied. Who knows, I guess we'll see when the cvr transcript is released.

 

[C-141/C-5]

and another thing that mural on 22 final approach needs to be painted over.

 

[TheBaron]

That's not a good comparison. It is the FAA's policy to have two controllers. Not having one there is most likely a contributing factor. Catching and preventing the error is pretty much the same thing in this case. You are admitting that had there been two controllers, 49 people may not be dead. This among other factors are hard evidence this should not have happened. Yes, it happened because of the flight crew, but there are other major contributing factors.

Sure airline pilots take off from uncontrolled fields. However, usually they are single runway, or at least no general aviation runways at airline airports. These are more contributing factors that if different, could have prevented an accident. Pilots make errors. There are ways to make flying safer that are sometimes ignored. I'm very sorry 49 people are dead.

Fly safe.

Maybe this will work better.

Mr. Smith is driving down a major street and has a continuous right-of-way (no stop lights or signs.) As he approaches an intersection he glances down at the dash to see how much fuel he has. As he crosses through the intersection, He is T-boned by Mr. Jones (a drunk driver who has just run through a stop sign.) Had Mr.Smith not glanced down, he might have seen the car driven By Mr. Jones and avoided the accident. Mr. Jones however, by running the stop sign, was the cause of the accident. Cause and prevention are two different things.
Certainly there were contributing factors to this accident, but who taxied the plane onto the wrong runway? Was it the confusing airport signage? Was it the missing second controller? Maybe it was that big skeleton in the closet of the airport authority that the stewardess (Indy319FA) keeps talking about. Maybe it was someone on the grassy knoll. No. It was the flight crew.
IMHO people don't want to accept that something as simple as checking the heading bug would have prevented this. It has to be more complex than that, especially since it ended so tragically. Well it isn't. One very simple before takeoff item that most people do unconsciously was missed by both crewmembers.

 

[SKYMASTER]

More police mens prevent crime and your second paragraph is a baseless generalization as well.

No, it's not baseless. I'm driving a point of short runways, airport layout, and signage at airline airports. You are right that it is a generalization because I'm not going to write a 50 page report on this thread.

Fly safe.

 

[SKYMASTER]

Maybe this will work better.

Mr. Smith is driving down a major street and has a continuous right-of-way (no stop lights or signs.) As he approaches an intersection he glances down at the dash to see how much fuel he has. As he crosses through the intersection, He is T-boned by Mr. Jones (a drunk driver who has just run through a stop sign.) Had Mr.Smith not glanced down, he might have seen the car driven By Mr. Jones and avoided the accident. Mr. Jones however, by running the stop sign, was the cause of the accident. Cause and prevention are two different things.
Certainly there were contributing factors to this accident, but who taxied the plane onto the wrong runway? Was it the confusing airport signage? Was it the missing second controller? Maybe it was that big skeleton in the closet of the airport authority that the stewardess (Indy319FA) keeps talking about. Maybe it was someone on the grassy knoll. No. It was the flight crew.
IMHO people don't want to accept that something as simple as checking the heading bug would have prevented this. It has to be more complex than that, especially since it ended so tragically. Well it isn't. One very simple before takeoff item that most people do unconsciously was missed by both crewmembers.

Still not a good example. Forty-nine people may have lived had things outside of the flight crew been different. Air rules can not even begin to be compared to road rules. There have been other incidents, even recently, where flight crews took off from the wrong runway and just happened to get lucky. Try again. I just know how terrible some airline pilots are. Outside factors can influence factors of survival. You would be a fool to believe otherwise.

Fly safe.

 

[FN FAL]

No, it's not baseless. I'm driving a point of short runways, airport layout, and signage at airline airports. You are right that it is a generalization because I'm not going to write a 50 page report on this thread.

Fly safe.

Why would it take 50 pages...I can think of several airports with two runways that are served by 121 traffic where the 121 airplane doesn't dare take off from the shortest of the two runways. Should we hire a local to man unicom to ensure the 121 pilots don't base jump off the short one?

 

[Guitar rocker]

Why would it take 50 pages...I can think of several airports with two runways that are served by 121 traffic where the 121 airplane doesn't dare take off from the shortest of the two runways. Should we hire a local to man unicom to ensure the 121 pilots don't base jump off the short one?

Wow, I didnt know that a "121 airplane" wouldnt dare takeoff from some runway. The day that happens when an "airplane" can make a decision for the pilots will be somethin else!

The unicom point is laughable.

 

[FN FAL]

The unicom point is laughable.

No it isn't, Comair should sue Unicom. Someone on Unicom could had intervened.

As far as 121 airplanes making decisions? Who cares, jump in your pickup truck and lay rubber for all I care.

 

[Guitar rocker]

No it isn't, Comair should sue Unicom. Someone on Unicom could had intervened.

As far as 121 airplanes making decisions? Who cares, jump in your pickup truck and lay rubber for all I care.

And maybe they should sue multicom while they are at it. I think that yore 121 airplane making decision for pilot thing is clever. You should run with that......you might make a few bucks. Great concept if yah ask me....your a pretty smart dude.

 

[FN FAL]

And maybe they should sue multicom while they are at it. I think that yore 121 airplane making decision for pilot thing is clever.

I think that the county airport dudes should take their monster cab pick up trucks and lay rubber and do doughnuts, then head for city hall and pee on a statue. That'll be the ultimate act of defiance, for sure.

 

[TheBaron]

Still not a good example. Forty-nine people may have lived had things outside of the flight crew been different. Air rules can not even begin to be compared to road rules. There have been other incidents, even recently, where flight crews took off from the wrong runway and just happened to get lucky. Try again. I just know how terrible some airline pilots are. Outside factors can influence factors of survival. You would be a fool to believe otherwise.

Fly safe.

And 49 people would have lived had the crew done the job they were paid to do.
I'm not arguing that there weren't outside factors that could have changed the outcome of this accident. What would you suggest? Should we assign a "follow-me" vehicle to each airplane to ensure they get to the proper runway. Maybe we should run our numbers past the tower before each takeoff and see if they agree with our performance calculations. A chase car could run along beside us as we speed down the runway to remind us to rotate. Thanks but no thanks. I don't need my hand held.
I'm a pilot. I have made mistakes. I take responsibility for those mistakes.
You were apparently raised a little differently than I was.

 

[TheBaron]

Wow, I didnt know that a "121 airplane" wouldnt dare takeoff from some runway. The day that happens when an "airplane" can make a decision for the pilots will be somethin else!

The unicom point is laughable.

Doesn't the fly-by-wire on the Airbus basically make some pilot decisions? It won't (normally) allow the pilot to get the plane outside a programmed flight envelope.

 

[Guitar rocker]

Doesn't the fly-by-wire on the Airbus basically make some pilot decisions? It won't (normally) allow the pilot to get the plane outside a programmed flight envelope.

Ofcourse I am being sarcastic with FNFAL's wording, but the bus wont let you not takeoff on 33R in BOS if you were lined up and throw the power to it. Much as it wouldnt make a decision for you to not fly a 0/0 approach.