FMS warning for non-aligned takeoff?

[VABB]

I find it humorous that many pilots think safety systems are unimportant. If we don't want a runway alignment system, what else would you take off your airplane? No T/O warning horn? GPWS? EGPWS? RADAR? Gear Horn? Overspeed Clacker? How about the minimums bug?

How about just get rid of the master caution light. A REAL pilot should be always monitoring his systems.

Get real guys, and stop pretending that we don't make mistakes.

I prefer to read books without bookmarks, because real readers should be able to remember the page they were on. I mean, come on.

I don't think anyone here is implying that safety systems are unimportant. However, I think it is very important that we, as pilots, do not become too complacent and totally rely on the warning systems. The warning systems are there to supplement us and warn us if we miss something.

August 16, 1987. Northwest Airlines 255, an MD-82. The flaps and slats were not set for takeoff, but the crew was able to advance the throttles anyway. But, there is supposed to be a horn to warn you that something is wrong. Why did it not sound? Because the circuit breaker was pulled.

The warning systems are only as good as they are designed to be.

 

[bvt1151]

I wonder how many times an aircraft has taken off the wrong runway in OMA or BWI. The reason we never heard about it is because all intersecting runways are long enough.

 

[Charty]

That is true but if the news people were correct (big if, I know), 8/26 had a "wide shoulder" that actually gives the appearance that is 150' wide....and I hope you're perfect in all your flights.

.Ok, if that wasn't noticeable, what is your explanation about the heading difference. You always verify that before you start the takeoff roll. You learn that from day one of flight school. We are talking about taking off from the wrong runway.This does not require perfection. I still have trouble beleiving that is what they did.

 

[cjdriver]

CatYaack, Good Stuff.
I too have some simple checks I do that my father taught me (20k+ hours and still flying professionally in his 70's). On runway line up for takeoff, or before crossing the threshold on landing, for example. Make them simple and make them habits. It works.
By the way, for those young guys who think it can't happen to them, one of my Dad's favorite sayings is "There's those who have, and those who will, and I'm trying to put mine off as long as possible". He's done a good job so far, I hope I can do the same.

 

[bvt1151]

"There's those who have, and those who will, and I'm trying to put mine off as long as possible".

Your father is a wise man.

 

[ReverseSensing]

Almost comical!

You know, you're really a fick suck. This kind of crassness may play big in Europe, but it is really uncalled for.

 

[CatYaaak]

CatYaack, Good Stuff.
I too have some simple checks I do that my father taught me (20k+ hours and still flying professionally in his 70's). On runway line up for takeoff, or before crossing the threshold on landing, for example. Make them simple and make them habits. It works.
By the way, for those young guys who think it can't happen to them, one of my Dad's favorite sayings is "There's those who have, and those who will, and I'm trying to put mine off as long as possible". He's done a good job so far, I hope I can do the same.

Like BVT says, your father's a wise man. I guess we all want to be like that..."putting it off" until we hang it up by doing whatever it takes to cheat the Fate.

 

[DrewBlows]

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.

 

[Hugh Jorgan]

Just wondering if any FMS geeks have any flame-free thoughts.

I knew I was asking too much.

 

[pilotnbr1]

I like to enable the "lrn position" (think it stands for long range position although I'm probably wrong) display when I set up the FMS. It displays an "x" on the selected MFD where the gps derived position is. Ideally the gps position and the fms derived position (indicated by the little airplane graphic) should be one and the same and an "x" seems to always mark the airplane. On takeoff in the RJ when you press the toga buttons the FMS derived position is updated to the lat long of the runway that your programmed into the FMS. If there is a mismatch between your freshly updated FMS position and your GPS position you should see on your MFD a displacement between the "little airplane" and the "x". This is a handy trick that works well in ATL with the runway specific RNAV procedures and could save you some explaining later. Don't know how well this would work at an airport like LEX where the ends of the two runways are located so close together. Learned this on IOE at ASA. Fortunately have never seen this in action but the idea seems sound. Do any of you guys do this?

 

[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.