Plane crash in Kentucky???

[Air 1]

hmmmmm......according to the news, the "short runway is intended for single nose cone airplanes such as cessnas"

and Cessna 182's. Thats what he said anyway.

 

[OneBadLT123]

i dont understand what they are saying on Fox news, so were they cleared to go on the wrong runway? or did the crew go on the wrong runway?

I just caught the last part of the story on Fox news...

 

[seethru]

Interesting little tidbit from FlightAware.com. Apparently, at least one other pilot has had trouble with this runway configuration. Not sure if that was the problem in today's crash, but...

For what it's worth.

Airline Pilot Warned Of Confusing Runway Layout
FlightAware has discovered that in 1993, the pilot of an air carrier filed a report with the NASA ASRS (aviation safety reporting system) after nearly departing from runway 26 when instructed to depart from runway 22 at Lexington.

The report reads, "Aircraft was cleared for immediate takeoff (traffic was inside the marker) on runway 22 at KLEX. We taxied onto the runway and told tower we needed a moment to check our departure routing with our weather radar (storms were in the area, raining at the airport). We realized our heading was not currect for our assigned runway and at that moment, tower called us to cancel the takeoff clearance because we were lined up on runway 26. We taxied clear and then held short of runway 22 for landing traffic. We took off on runway 22 and proceeded without incident. Possible contributing factors were poor visibbility and weather (rain. Confusing runway intersection and tower's request for an immediate takeoff. Suggest possible warning page (similar to Houston Hobby) to clarify multiple runway ends."

 

[ksu_aviator]

http://66.226.83.248/aptdiag/w240/03974.gif

Well, if I typed that in right, you should see the runway layout at KLEX. The lay out isn't too confusing, but if you are not paying attention you would depart the wrong runway.

 

[Fugawe]

i dont understand what they are saying on Fox news, so were they cleared to go on the wrong runway? or did the crew go on the wrong runway?

I just caught the last part of the story on Fox news...

Be very careful with info coming out right now -- it's all speculation and hearsay at this pt.

What appears to be obvious may be repeated ad nauseum by the info-hungry media, and parroted by the talking heads and aviation 'experts'.

Actual recordings and/or transcripts won't be released by the NTSB for some time. Any involved controller or pilot should not be talking to the media or public at this pt.

The theories and ideas floating around now may turn out to be proven accurate, but rest assured that the whole story isn't yet known (crew rest, crew tng, distractions, controller input, aircraft performance, field lighting and conditions, etc ,etc). There are always a host of mitigating factors contributing to any incident.

Fugawe

 

[mtrv]

According to the most latest reports, it was the wrong runway in pre-dawn darkness.

If this, IS the case, then it's time for the charts first, and GPS second crowd to get off their butts, and realize that a moving map GPS showing the aircrafts actual position relative to taxiways and runways can be very beneficial, and life saving!

All of this technology is available now for panel mount and handhelds. The airport diagram can even automatically load on the MFD during taxi operations on arrival or before departure.

When it's in front of your face, with actual position; something that a paper chart won't do, then it's easy to see where technology counts!

Yes, I'm quite pissed at everyone who believes that GPS techology should come in second place to old school. I see it all the time here.

 

[jdlilfan]

I was in LEX on Monday and there were quite a few NOTAMS about runway lighting and markers INOP due to construction although most of the construction looked like it was related to rwy 4 when I was landing. Feels kinda wierd knowing that I was just there the other day. Condolences to the families of the PAX and Crew.

 

[Say Again Over]

With an AirTran jumpseater, RIP

 

[rubicon789]

RIP.... However, I think the newest news confirmed the wrong RNWY t/o by indicating that there are score marks in the grass at the end of RNWY 8/26. Which would indicate that the crew departed from that RNWY. Maybe they rushed, maybe nobody ever questioned why the heading was off... we will probably never no. Be careful out there.

Fly safe. Condolences go out to the families of the PAX and crew.

 

[TOOL CRIB]

Sure was. In another (now locked) thread you can see the marks. Go to: http://www.heraldleaderphoto.com/featuredgalleries/featuredgalleriesindex.html

I think it's the top gallery, and it's now the sixth picture in the series. You can see dual bogey main marks at the end of a small berm at the end of runway 26, the perimeter fence has been taken out and treetops are gone. Looks like they went off the end of the runway on or within a foot or two of the ground, hit the berm and got pushed up about 20 feet, through the treetops and came back down a few thousand feet later.

 

[A Squared]

According to the most latest reports, it was the wrong runway in pre-dawn darkness.

If this, IS the case, then it's time for the charts first, and GPS second crowd to get off their butts, and realize that a moving map GPS showing the aircrafts actual position relative to taxiways and runways can be very beneficial, and life saving!

All of this technology is available now for panel mount and handhelds. The airport diagram can even automatically load on the MFD during taxi operations on arrival or before departure.

When it's in front of your face, with actual position; something that a paper chart won't do, then it's easy to see where technology counts!

Yes, I'm quite pissed at everyone who believes that GPS techology should come in second place to old school. I see it all the time here.

Sigh.... You really just don't get it do you? Nobody says that GPS should be discarded as it does not offer any benefits. Obviously, it is a very powerful tool. What people are saying, is that it may not be the smartest thing to train students from the beginning on glass, using all the latest nav technology. The reason being is that if you do, they may not develop fundamental skills which are basic to *all* aviation, skills that they may need in an emergency, or more likely, will probably need at thier first jobs, because thier first jobs likely will not be in glass cockpits.

It's like autopilots. Autopilots are a great invention. Nobody says that Autopilots should be discarded. However, you'd have to be stupid in the extreme to believe that primary iunstruction should be done exclusively with autopilots. The reason being that someone who has relied on an autopilot for everything except takeoff and landing since thier first flight will not have the skills to fly an airplane by heand in VFR conditions, let alone on instruments.

Someone who had learned to fly under all conditions by hand, can learn to use an autopilot very easily, whereas someone who has depended on an autopilot since thier first flight will not be able to fly by hand.

Likewise, someone who had learned to basic navigation will be able to adapt to more advanced nav systems quite easily, whereas someone who has depended on a GPS moving map display from the very begining will never develop the necessary skills to navigate without.

This seems such a simple and obvious concept, why do you find it so elusive?

To bring things back to the topic at hand. Yeah, sure if they'd had some spiffy airport diagram pulled up on thier tv screen, and they had cross checked it as they lined up, they could have noticed thier mistake before it was too late.

By the same token, if they had checked thier compass against the runway heading, they also would have prevented this accident. Now, I'm not placing blame, or speculating on causes, but apparently they did not do this. A compass/heading indicator check against runway heading is one of those basic, day one things you learn, and it appears, from what we know at this point, it would have prevented this accident. Again, I want to emphasize I'm not criticizing or assigning blame, I'm just making the point that yeah, gee-whiz technology could prevent this if you use it but so too could almost century old technolgy and procedures prevent this if you use it

 

[CrimsonEclipse]

According to the most latest reports, it was the wrong runway in pre-dawn darkness.

If this, IS the case, then it's time for the charts first, and GPS second crowd to get off their butts, and realize that a moving map GPS showing the aircrafts actual position relative to taxiways and runways can be very beneficial, and life saving!

All of this technology is available now for panel mount and handhelds. The airport diagram can even automatically load on the MFD during taxi operations on arrival or before departure.

When it's in front of your face, with actual position; something that a paper chart won't do, then it's easy to see where technology counts!

Yes, I'm quite pissed at everyone who believes that GPS techology should come in second place to old school. I see it all the time here.

He will hit a mountain sooner or later using his GPS.

CE

 

[epic!]

im sure it wont be too long before people start thinking this crash was a conspiracy

 

[mtrv]

To bring things back to the topic at hand. Yeah, sure if they'd had some spiffy airport diagram pulled up on thier tv screen, and they had cross checked it as they lined up, they could have noticed thier mistake before it was too late.

Getting back to the point. Should an airport diagram showing extremely obvious differences in runway lengths appeared on 2/3rds of a 15" center MFD, such as it will in the new Cessna Mustang, then the odds are much higher, that the mistake would have been caught; regardless of the basics of not catching the runway heading.

Why call it spiffy, or fancy as some here would,if it could have made the difference? It most likely would have made all the difference, as it would have been so dang hard too miss!

Yes, it's good to see high resolution big picture screens evolve through GA on up to business jets, and finally something such as the Boeing Dreamliner. But why not; I remember when a standard moving map handheld contained more vital navigation information than many commercial and military cockpits. There are a lot of accident cases out there, where even a handheld could have been all the difference. It's been reviewed and documented numerous times.

Besides, I don't know what's worse; glass panel pilots not being proficient at old school navigation; or the old school boys and girls not having a clue how to operate glass, and won't dare admit it. I think we're somewhere in the middle of all this, right now.

edit: just hate it when **** is changed to dang. Takes all the emphasis out of it, and makes me feel religious or something.

 

[mtrv]

He will hit a mountain sooner or later using his GPS.
CE

And, why would you say that? Perhaps if it's one of those old school low resolution, narrow field of view GPS's that draw a line on an empty background, then it's possible.

However, with today's terrain depicting, visual terrain warning, and audio terrain warning GPS's in high resolution color, the chances are most likely a lot less. And with 3D virtual terrain presentations, the chances will drop even farther.

Just think, someday, even the modern airliner cockpit might have uplinked XM Satellite type weather, dipicting weather for hundreds of miles, instead of the limitations imposed by radar.

I know of several airline pilots who are jealous right now; and I know many retired commercial and military pilots who would no longer care to fly long cross country flights without XM weather. We're all in that older age, high performance experimental/homebuilt crowd.

Yep, once they've seen it, and used it, they certainly know the value. This is fact! I'm also surprised by how many high tech glass panels go into these kitbuilt airplanes. But if you have money, and the interest to learn how to use them, then why not?