FMS warning for non-aligned takeoff?

[PapaGiorgio]

Those who have taxied to 22 at LEX at night know how easy it is to want to just turn left and line up on 26.

Just about every time I've been there under similar conditions, I have had to fight that natural tendency, read the signs and go real slow around that whole cocked-up hold line/runway cross/left turn/2nd hold line/2nd runway area. It is so easy to see how this could happen. I haven't been there in a while, but I hear there is contruction and as a result it's currently even MORE confusing than usual. This really could have been any of us.

I completly agree with this. My first few times into LEX we had this excact same senario. It was the first thing that came to mind when I heard heard the news about the shorter runway. If your head is even slightly out of the cockpit, or your in a rush and you recieve an on the roll takeoff clearence from tower this unfortunate event could transpire. Not to mention the fact that LEX runways have a huge hump in them that could most definently obscure your forward vision until its too late.

 

[BigShotXJTdrvr]

... Not to mention the fact that LEX runways have a huge hump in them that could most definently obscure your forward vision until its too late.

Another link in the accident chain. I always wonder why it's so much trouble to make a runway flat (instead of 'more or less' flat). I am not a civil engineer, but I have always hated this about many airports, especially if there are crossing points downfield-- you can't see if they are clear or not.

 

[UALjan15]

Bingo. But what do you think the next FAA mandate will be? More computers or software to have distracting us.

First of all, I don't think the FAA will mandate any computer/software solutions as a result of this accident. The most we will see is more warning notes on airport diagrams with runway layouts that lend themselves to confusion, and perhaps some more signs around the runways in question. I could be wrong, but FAA history would suggest otherwise.

As for your assertion that computers and software distract us--well, that is often, but not always true. The well designed solutions enhance SA rather than distract the pilot. Two examples: TCAS and EGPWS. Both require minimal pilot action in order to work for you, and they both work peacefully in the background until such time as the sh#t is about to hit the fan, and then they make their presence known in an increasingly alarming fashion. As a bonus, even when nothing is going wrong, the pilot can use these systems to build their SA about the traffic and terrain around them.

I have no familiararity with the RAAS system that has been mentioned on this thread. I do know that we all program our departure runway into the FMS before departure (if so equipped), so it does not seem to be such a stretch that the aircraft could warn us if we are advancing takeoff power while lined up on a different heading.

As much as I try to keep good, basic fundamentals a part of my game, we are all prone to mistakes. As long as there is a human at the controls, this will always be the case. Attaining the 99.999999% safety factor that the public expects of us is not easy. It takes a combination of good pilots, trained well, operating under smart SOPs, and flying well engineered aircraft. Part of that engineering is figuring out ways for software and computers to back up the pilots when they inevitably make mistakes.

 

[Poahi]

I'd like to ask a more basic question and I understand the confusion between the two runways: can a controller clear an aircraft for take off without verifying that an intersecting runway is clear?

 

[CatYaaak]

I'd like to ask a more basic question and I understand the confusion between the two runways: can a controller clear an aircraft for take off without verifying that an intersecting runway is clear?

If you mean visually verifying, yes. It's the norm with reduced visibility and/or nightime ops. At many airports even in good conditions a controller can't even see the entirety off all runways from the tower due to terrain or obstructions.

And sometimes, there's not even a controller at the airport at all.

 

[Trash8Mofo]

I have never flown the CRJ, but I doubt that even at the very lightest weight, a 3500ft strip would satisfy any balance field length requirment. So, with almost 11yrs worth of experience among the flight crew, one of them should have said "Darn....I've never seen a runway this short before!" And proceeded to check the EHSI. Yet............

 

[Regul8r]

I'm seeing a lot of the "invincible" hazardous attitude in this thread. If there is a safety system that would make me safer, sign me up.

I'd like to offer up some alternative solutions:

STOL Capable RJs
More Vigilant Tower Controllers
Pilot Safe Runway Layouts
OR Just leave the runway thing out and...
Switch over to helicopters