A Suggestion to FAA- painting numbers on runways would be frugal
Don K
There should at least be a huge number painted across each runway so an idiot
pilot doesn't get on the wrong one.
How hard would it be to do that?
Don
webs...@cox.net
I thought a lot of the DID have the numbers on.
Besides, and idiot pilot would have to get pretty close before the
numbers were readable. I know......
Don K
Well I would think they're pretty close when they're taxiing around before takeoff.
Rod Speed
Bit late when the numbers painted on the runway can be seen before takeoff.
webs...@cox.net
Don K wrote:
> Well I would think they're pretty close when they're taxiing around before takeoff.
Oops. I wasn't thinking about the air crash when I responded. I was
thinking of a different situation entirely.
As for the accident, I'll just wait a bit before I start judging it. I
think the metal is still hot....
Logan Shaw
> Come on you FAA people, why aren't runways labeled?
>
> There should at least be a huge number painted across each runway so an idiot
> pilot doesn't get on the wrong one.
You mean like this?
The tinyurl version:
- Logan
webs...@cox.net
I'm not going to comment on the air crash at hand. But on takeoff,
those large runway numbers are not visible until you are rolling over
them. Wehn you are that close, they usually aren't readable anyway.
They are meant for visibility from the air, not the ground.
Pilots do have other standardized signs that identify runways,
taxiways, and intersections. Mistakes still happen sometimes. While
these standard signs aren't everywhere, they are pretty common. It's
almost as standard as traffic signage for cars.
Logan Shaw
> Don K wrote:
>> Come on you FAA people, why aren't runways labeled?
>>
>> There should at least be a huge number painted across each runway so
>> an idiot
>> pilot doesn't get on the wrong one.
>
> You mean like this?
Wait, here's a better one. This is the actual Blue Grass Airport
in Lexington, showing numbers on both the runways:
Zoom out, and you will see that sure enough, there are two runways,
they both start at close to the same spot, and one is much longer
than the other.
- Logan
C. Massey
"Don K" <dk@dont_bother_me.com> wrote in message
news:GbGdnRBikoAlyW_Z...@comcast.com...
Read FAR 139.311(a)(1) and I believe that covers your ignorance in dealing
with aviation.
Speaking of idiot's, if you had half of a brain, maybe you would look at the
satellite images before you talk about something that you have absolutely no
idea about.
Do you even know where the runway numbers come from? Do they just pull them
out of a hat and say, "this runway will be #22"?
Instead of asking silly questions like that, why don't you ask why ATC
didn't notice that the aircraft was on the wrong runway? Why didn't the
pilots (2) notice that the runway was only 75 feet wide instead of 150 like
runway 26 (the runway they were cleared for takeoff) should be.
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0634-2, 08/24/2006
Tested on: 8/27/2006 11:10:26 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2006 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com
C. Massey
<webs...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1156736627.2...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Runways/taxiways have signage that are visible from the ground from a
distance.
I *believe* that this signage is at all airports.
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0634-2, 08/24/2006
Tested on: 8/27/2006 11:23:56 PM
Fake ID
An out of date image. A repaving project last week left a mix of light
and dark segments.
It's easy to imagine that they crew weren't where they thought they were
in unfamiliar surroundings that they'd flown in and out of numerous
times. See this with auto commuters who drive the same route 200-400
times a year then get confused on the day lane markings change.
m
Bart Byers
> "Don K" <dk@dont_bother_me.com> wrote in message
> news:GbGdnRBikoAlyW_Z...@comcast.com...
>> Come on you FAA people, why aren't runways labeled?
>>
>> There should at least be a huge number painted across each runway so an
>> idiot
>> pilot doesn't get on the wrong one.
>>
>> How hard would it be to do that?
>>
>> Don
>>
>
>
> Read FAR 139.311(a)(1) and I believe that covers your ignorance in dealing
> with aviation.
Where would one find that? One would love to cover one's ignorance!
>
> Speaking of idiot's, if you had half of a brain, maybe you would look at the
> satellite images before you talk about something that you have absolutely no
> idea about.
Where would one with half a brain find them?
>
> Do you even know where the runway numbers come from? Do they just pull them
> out of a hat and say, "this runway will be #22"?
The ones on the Navy's floating airports tell which way the runway is
pointed, right?
>
> Instead of asking silly questions like that, why don't you ask why ATC
> didn't notice that the aircraft was on the wrong runway?
He headed away from the tower into the rainy night. Were they supposed
to monitor him visually or with radar? When he was 1600 feet from the
tower, he was supposed to turn approximately 135 degrees left. Instead,
he made a similar turn when he was only 1000 feet from the tower.
> Why didn't the
> pilots (2) notice that the runway was only 75 feet wide instead of 150 like
> runway 26 (the runway they were cleared for takeoff) should be.
>
>
According to my aerial photo from April of 2002, both are 150 feet wide.
The main runway was recently repaved, so we don't know what markings
there were or if he could see them on a rainy night. Tire tracks would
normally lead a pilot to the main runway, but they may not have been
visible on new pavement on a rainy night.
The really big airplanes have gages to show which way they're pointed,
but a pilot wouldn't check his gage if he was sure he was on the old
familiar runway. I wonder how many airports that flight used. Would he
remember exactly how each one was supposed to look on a rainy night?
Rod Speed
>>> Come on you FAA people, why aren't runways labeled?
>>> There should at least be a huge number painted across each runway so an
>>> idiot pilot doesn't get on the wrong one.
>>> How hard would it be to do that?
>> Read FAR 139.311(a)(1) and I believe that covers your ignorance in dealing
>> with aviation.
> Where would one find that?
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=FAR+139.311%28a%29%281%29+&btnG=Google+Search&meta=
Tad radical, I know.
> One would love to cover one's ignorance!
Not even possible with someone as stupid as you.
>> Speaking of idiot's, if you had half of a brain, maybe you would look at the
>> satellite images before you talk about something that you have absolutely no
>> idea about.
> Where would one with half a brain find them?
Sorree, you dont even have half a brain.
>> Do you even know where the runway numbers come from? Do they just pull them
>> out of a hat and say, "this runway will be #22"?
> The ones on the Navy's floating airports tell which way the runway is pointed,
> right?
>> Instead of asking silly questions like that, why don't you ask why
>> ATC didn't notice that the aircraft was on the wrong runway?
> He headed away from the tower into the rainy night. Were they supposed to
> monitor him visually or with radar? When he was 1600 feet from the tower, he
> was supposed to turn approximately 135 degrees left. Instead, he made a
> similar turn when he was only 1000 feet from the tower.
They should have just jerked him back using his chain, stupid.
>> Why didn't the pilots (2) notice that the runway was only 75 feet wide
>> instead of 150 like runway 26 (the runway they were cleared for takeoff)
>> should be.
> According to my aerial photo from April of 2002, both are 150 feet
> wide. The main runway was recently repaved, so we don't know what markings
> there were or if he could see them on a rainy night. Tire tracks would
> normally lead a pilot to the main runway, but they may not have been visible
> on new pavement on a rainy night.
There's more than just those involved. There's also
the tiny matter of the airport taxiway map etc too.
> The really big airplanes have gages to show which way they're pointed,
All planes do.
> but a pilot wouldn't check his gage if he was sure he was on the old familiar
> runway. I wonder how many airports that flight used. Would he remember
> exactly how each one was supposed to look on a rainy night?
Thats why there is more than just memory involved, stupid.
Lucy
makes a mistake, it costs one life. When a pilot does, the cost could be a
couple hundred lives. Yet when a janitor makes a mistake, you're just left
sitting on the can a while. . .
To imagine that the humans with high risk jobs are superhuman, is a very
pretty thought, indeed.
Maybe someday we will create superhumans for the high risk jobs, but for now
we are stuck with run of the mill humans.
lucy :)
Don K
news:X0uIg.12497$1f6....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
>
> "Don K" <dk@dont_bother_me.com> wrote in message
> news:GbGdnRBikoAlyW_Z...@comcast.com...
>> Come on you FAA people, why aren't runways labeled?
>>
>> There should at least be a huge number painted across each runway so an idiot
>> pilot doesn't get on the wrong one.
>>
>> How hard would it be to do that?
>>
>> Don
>>
>
>
> Read FAR 139.311(a)(1) and I believe that covers your ignorance in dealing with aviation.
I must have left my copy at the airport. Could I borrow yours?
>
> Do you even know where the runway numbers come from? Do they just pull them out of a hat and say,
> "this runway will be #22"?
From what I can infer, I suppose it identifies the angle of the runway. For
instance 22 would be 220 degrees?
C. Massey
"Fake ID" <no-...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:44f28874$0$34529$742e...@news.sonic.net...
Have you ever noticed the dates on Google sat images? They are normally over
a year old. I really don't think that they would have updated the image with
a new one that shows the repave. But that's a mute point because the pilots
don't use these images for navigational purposes anyway.
If the crew was unfamiliar with this airport, that would be all the more
reason to use extra caution to make sure everything is right. Here is a
diagram of the airport. (http://avn.faa.gov/d-tpp/0608/00697AD.PDF) It's not
hard to figure out if you pass one really wide piece of pavement, and then
you get to the second, then you are on 26. If they were familiar with this
airport, but were thrown off by the repave, then why didn't they notice that
you have to make a left hand turn while on the taxiway just after 22 on the
way to 26? The repave shouldn't matter anyway because it was on 26 and not
22 so everything should have looked normal until they got to 26.
Have you ever been in an airplane? have you ever noticed the little sign's
that are illuminated that, for example would have a yellow box and say "A-7"
with an arrow and a black box that says "A"? This would be a sign indicating
from the black portion that you are currently on taxiway "A" and if you
follow the arrow, you are headed to taxiway "A-7", which if you will look at
the LEX diagram, that is what they should had seen. Then, they would see a
red sign that says "8-26" with arrows pointing either direction. This would
tell them which runway they are intersecting. They should had continued to
the red sign that says "4-22"
Now, why they didn't do so is the question. Who is at fault? Were the
taxiways and runways properly marked? Why didn't ATC see they were on the
wrong runway? Why didn't the crew check their heading indicator? Why didn't
they notice the width of the runway? Did the crew check to see if there were
any NOTAM's at LEX?
Lot's of questions, but we can't blame anyone until the authorities come to
a conclusion.
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0634-2, 08/24/2006
Tested on: 8/28/2006 7:12:51 AM
George
>
>>Do you even know where the runway numbers come from? Do they just pull them out of a hat and say,
>>"this runway will be #22"?
>
>
> From what I can infer, I suppose it identifies the angle of the runway. For
> instance 22 would be 220 degrees?
>
Its actually the nearest 10 degrees to the magnetic bearing of the runway.
George
requirement that the runway be marked to the nearest 10 degree magnetic
bearing.
But you can't normally read those from the ground so they also are
required to install signage (yellow with black lettering) indicating the
runway numbers.
C. Massey
"Bart Byers" <junkyard_...@mymacmail.com> wrote in message
news:EeudnXGG_YwrDm_Z...@flxtek.net...
> C. Massey wrote:
>> "Don K" <dk@dont_bother_me.com> wrote in message
>> news:GbGdnRBikoAlyW_Z...@comcast.com...
>>> Come on you FAA people, why aren't runways labeled?
>>>
>>> There should at least be a huge number painted across each runway so an
>>> idiot
>>> pilot doesn't get on the wrong one.
>>>
>>> How hard would it be to do that?
>>>
>>> Don
>>>
>>
>>
>> Read FAR 139.311(a)(1) and I believe that covers your ignorance in
>> dealing with aviation.
>
> Where would one find that? One would love to cover one's ignorance!
Ever try google while researching something?
<snip>
>> Do you even know where the runway numbers come from? Do they just pull
>> them out of a hat and say, "this runway will be #22"?
>
> The ones on the Navy's floating airports tell which way the runway is
> pointed, right?
>
What does any of this have to do with "Navy floating airports"?
>>
>> Instead of asking silly questions like that, why don't you ask why ATC
>> didn't notice that the aircraft was on the wrong runway?
>
> He headed away from the tower into the rainy night. Were they supposed to
> monitor him visually or with radar? When he was 1600 feet from the tower,
> he was supposed to turn approximately 135 degrees left. Instead, he made
> a similar turn when he was only 1000 feet from the tower.
>
Preliminary reports do not contribute anything to weather. From what I have
read, there was a light rain Sunday morning. A light rain, if that is indeed
the case, shouldn't have posed a problem. Where are you getting that the
runway is 1600 feet from the tower? The ATC should had been monitering the
aircraft visually. I don't know, given the size of this airport, if they
would have a ground radar that might indicate the aircraft's position on the
ground.
> > Why didn't the
>> pilots (2) notice that the runway was only 75 feet wide instead of 150
>> like runway 26 (the runway they were cleared for takeoff) should be.
>>
>>
> According to my aerial photo from April of 2002, both are 150 feet wide.
> The main runway was recently repaved, so we don't know what markings there
> were or if he could see them on a rainy night. Tire tracks would normally
> lead a pilot to the main runway, but they may not have been visible on new
> pavement on a rainy night.
>
> The really big airplanes have gages to show which way they're pointed,
> but a pilot wouldn't check his gage if he was sure he was on the old
> familiar runway. I wonder how many airports that flight used. Would he
> remember exactly how each one was supposed to look on a rainy night?
Sorry, according to FAA documents the runways are 75 and 150 feet wide. Can
you provide the link that shows the runways are both 150 ft wide?
Right now, I can't remember how to check the image date on Google Earth and
don't have time to look, but if you check out LEX, you will see patches on
new pavement. I have no idea if this would be updated after the repave or
not. I will check the image date later.
Tire marks will be a little ways down the runway and not on the very end.
You need to research before you make a statement like "The really big
airplanes have gages to show which way they're pointed, but a pilot
wouldn't check his gage if he was sure he was on the old familiar runway."
There is a basic requirement for gauges required for *any* aircraft to have
it's airworthiness certificate. The "heading indicator" is one of them. Any
pilot worth a damn should check his gauges. I am sure this would be listed
on the pre-takeoff check list.
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0634-2, 08/24/2006
Tested on: 8/28/2006 7:40:28 AM
Chloe
news:X0uIg.12497$1f6....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
>ATC didn't notice that the aircraft was on the wrong runway? Why didn't the
>pilots (2) notice that the runway was only 75 feet wide instead of 150 like
>runway 26 (the runway they were cleared for takeoff) should be.
According to a retired NTSB official I heard interviewed yesterday, it's not
formally part of the ATC's job to check for that, once s/he has cleared the
aircraft for takeoff. He pointed out that they have a lot of paperwork
responsibilities and that it's entirely possibly the controller simply had
his or her eyes elsewhere.
C. Massey
Try google and yes, it is the heading.
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0634-2, 08/24/2006
Tested on: 8/28/2006 8:04:33 AM
C. Massey
"George" <geo...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:DNadnWS5-9XXf2_Z...@adelphia.com...
Yellow signs are taxiways, red signs are runways.
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0634-2, 08/24/2006
Tested on: 8/28/2006 8:05:25 AM
C. Massey
"Chloe" <just...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:dLBIg.74567$vl5....@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
OK... I might be able to buy that. To be honest, I don't know if it is the
ATC responsibility make sure they are in the right place after clearance or
not.
Now given the size of that airport, I would imagine that even with the loads
of paperwork that the ATC has, they still would have plenty of time to watch
the aircraft. This isn't DFW or ATL.
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0634-2, 08/24/2006
Tested on: 8/28/2006 8:09:00 AM
Chloe
the repaving project on the main runway contributed to the accident. Here's
something interesting I haven't seen before, from a staff article in the
Lexington Herald-Leader.
"Gobb <Mike Gobb, the airport's executive director> said the taxiing
patterns were changed as a result of the new safety areas that Blue Grass
Airport installed at both ends of the main runway.
"One key change involved the closure of a small section of "Taxiway Alpha"
that large planes previously had used to reach the end of the main runway
nearest Versailles Road for takeoff. That taxiway section was closed Aug.
20, Gobb said. With the closure, planes were using a somewhat different
route, executing a left-hand turn from another point on Taxiway Alpha to
reach the main runway."
C. Massey
If this is the case, NOTAM should have had this information. Wonder if the
crew checked the NOTAM's?
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0634-2, 08/24/2006
Tested on: 8/28/2006 8:26:30 AM
Chloe
>
> "Chloe" <just...@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:2cCIg.74568$vl5....@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
>> Like many other people, I immediately wondered whether something related
>> to the repaving project on the main runway contributed to the accident.
>> Here's something interesting I haven't seen before, from a staff article
>> in the Lexington Herald-Leader.
>>
>> "Gobb <Mike Gobb, the airport's executive director> said the taxiing
>> patterns were changed as a result of the new safety areas that Blue Grass
>> Airport installed at both ends of the main runway.
>>
>> "One key change involved the closure of a small section of "Taxiway
>> Alpha" that large planes previously had used to reach the end of the main
>> runway nearest Versailles Road for takeoff. That taxiway section was
>> closed Aug. 20, Gobb said. With the closure, planes were using a somewhat
>> different route, executing a left-hand turn from another point on Taxiway
>> Alpha to reach the main runway."
>
>
>
> If this is the case, NOTAM should have had this information. Wonder if the
> crew checked the NOTAM's?
Pilot and/or controller error looks likely, but I guess it'll be a while
before anybody finds out exactly what the error or errors were. I also just
picked up from other news articles an allegation that the lights on the
short runway were on, and that the pilots were not expecting them to be.
Could be another contributing factor.
I sure am glad when I make mistakes at work nobody dies from hearing a few
wrong musical notes :(
rick++
to confusion. Thats why they supposedly have long check-lists to
verify each time. But occasional errors happen :-(
Bart Byers
> Reply inline
>
>
>
> "Bart Byers" <junkyard_...@mymacmail.com> wrote in message
> news:EeudnXGG_YwrDm_Z...@flxtek.net...
>> C. Massey wrote:
>>> "Don K" <dk@dont_bother_me.com> wrote in message
>>> news:GbGdnRBikoAlyW_Z...@comcast.com...
>>>> Come on you FAA people, why aren't runways labeled?
>>>>
>>>> There should at least be a huge number painted across each runway so an
>>>> idiot
>>>> pilot doesn't get on the wrong one.
>>>>
>>>> How hard would it be to do that?
>>>>
>>>> Don
>>>>
>>>
>>> Read FAR 139.311(a)(1) and I believe that covers your ignorance in
>>> dealing with aviation.
>> Where would one find that? One would love to cover one's ignorance!
>
>
> Ever try google while researching something?
If you would tell us where to find a particular regulation, then we'd be
on the same page, wouldn't we?
>
>
> <snip>
>
>>> Do you even know where the runway numbers come from? Do they just pull
>>> them out of a hat and say, "this runway will be #22"?
>> The ones on the Navy's floating airports tell which way the runway is
>> pointed, right?
>>
>
>
> What does any of this have to do with "Navy floating airports"?
My answer applies to airports on land.
>
>
>>> Instead of asking silly questions like that, why don't you ask why ATC
>>> didn't notice that the aircraft was on the wrong runway?
>> He headed away from the tower into the rainy night. Were they supposed to
>> monitor him visually or with radar? When he was 1600 feet from the tower,
>> he was supposed to turn approximately 135 degrees left. Instead, he made
>> a similar turn when he was only 1000 feet from the tower.
>>
>
>
> Preliminary reports do not contribute anything to weather. From what I have
> read, there was a light rain Sunday morning. A light rain, if that is indeed
> the case, shouldn't have posed a problem. Where are you getting that the
> runway is 1600 feet from the tower? The ATC should had been monitering the
> aircraft visually. I don't know, given the size of this airport, if they
> would have a ground radar that might indicate the aircraft's position on the
> ground.
>
What would a preliminary report contribute to weather?
You think the reports were wrong when they said it was raining? At that
hour, it must have been a dark rain, not a light one.
In a light rain, I would be able to see whether a car turned 1000 or
1600 feet away. That's because there are buildings as landmarks and
they are well lit by streetlights. From a distance on a rainy night, a
wrong turn at an airport could be less obvious.
The ATC is supposed to keep airplanes from bumping each other. Can you
direct us to a regulation that says it's his responsibility to make sure
a veteran pilot doesn't make a wrong turn at a small airport at an hour
when there's no other plane to bump into?
>
>
>>> Why didn't the
>>> pilots (2) notice that the runway was only 75 feet wide instead of 150
>>> like runway 26 (the runway they were cleared for takeoff) should be.
>>>
>>>
>> According to my aerial photo from April of 2002, both are 150 feet wide.
>> The main runway was recently repaved, so we don't know what markings there
>> were or if he could see them on a rainy night. Tire tracks would normally
>> lead a pilot to the main runway, but they may not have been visible on new
>> pavement on a rainy night.
>>
>> The really big airplanes have gages to show which way they're pointed,
>> but a pilot wouldn't check his gage if he was sure he was on the old
>> familiar runway. I wonder how many airports that flight used. Would he
>> remember exactly how each one was supposed to look on a rainy night?
>
>
> Sorry, according to FAA documents the runways are 75 and 150 feet wide.
I accept your apology. In the future you may be able to avoid such
embarrassment by doing your homework before you post.
> Canyou provide the link that shows the runways are both 150 ft wide?
I can provide more than one, but I'll respond as you responded when I
asked where to find the regulation that you said would cover our ignorance.
>
> Right now, I can't remember how to check the image date on Google Earth and
> don't have time to look, but if you check out LEX, you will see patches on
> new pavement. I have no idea if this would be updated after the repave or
> not. I will check the image date later.
>
> Tire marks will be a little ways down the runway and not on the very end.
Airliner tires leave scrub marks when they make 135-degree turns onto
runways. My first photo that showed the 150-foot runways was apparently
a satellite photo. I didn't trust it because it didn't have details
like that.
The aerial photo shows the tire marks were airliners turned onto or off
the main runway. Normally, those marks would have led a pilot to the
main runway.
Michael Gobb told the AP that yesterday may have been the first time
those pilots had visited the airport since the taxi path was changed a
week earlier. That goes a long way toward an explanation.
>
> You need to research before you make a statement like "The really big
> airplanes have gages to show which way they're pointed, but a pilot
> wouldn't check his gage if he was sure he was on the old familiar runway."
>
> There is a basic requirement for gauges required for *any* aircraft to have
> it's airworthiness certificate. The "heading indicator" is one of them. Any
> pilot worth a damn should check his gauges. I am sure this would be listed
> on the pre-takeoff check list.
>
Very funny. Having done his preflight, a pilot is unlikely to check his
compass again after he turns onto the main runway at a familiar airport.
If he hadn't been familiar with the airport, he might have used his
compass to verify the runway.
John Weiss
> Come on you FAA people, why aren't runways labeled?
>
> There should at least be a huge number painted across each runway so an
> idiot
> pilot doesn't get on the wrong one.
>
> How hard would it be to do that?
Virtually every runway in the US has the numbers painted on it in large
white numbers. Also, every instrument-capable runway in the US (and most in
the world) have the numbers on signs at every taxiway entrance to the
runway.
Grappletech
@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com:
> Long, odd hours and "what city am I in today?" syndrome can lead
> to confusion. Thats why they supposedly have long check-lists to
> verify each time. But occasional errors happen :-(
>
>
What's horrible is that they're saying the passengers died from burns
rather than smoke inhalation or impact. That's the preliminary finding.
Can you imagine? Sitting there at 6AM in your seat on a plane, something
you've done a million times. They had their paper (Lexington Herald-
Leader), a laptop computer, maybe looking forward to ordering coffee from
the beautiful and cheerful flight attendents. Then all of a sudden, you're
burning alive. Poor souls. I pray they didn't suffer. Hopefully death
was sudden.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Rod Speed
> What's horrible is that they're saying the passengers died from burns
> rather than smoke inhalation or impact. That's the preliminary finding.
> Can you imagine? Sitting there at 6AM in your seat on a plane, something
> you've done a million times. They had their paper (Lexington Herald-
> Leader), a laptop computer, maybe looking forward to ordering coffee
> from the beautiful and cheerful flight attendents. Then all of a sudden,
> you're burning alive. Poor souls. I pray they didn't suffer.
> Hopefully death was sudden.
Sounds unlikely given that the copilot sort of survived.
Likely that quite a few burnt to death in their seats.
p...@yahoo.com
wrote:
>Have you ever been in an airplane? have you ever noticed the little sign's
>that are illuminated that, for example would have a yellow box and say "A-7"
>with an arrow and a black box that says "A"? This would be a sign indicating
>from the black portion that you are currently on taxiway "A" and if you
>follow the arrow, you are headed to taxiway "A-7", which if you will look at
>the LEX diagram, that is what they should had seen. Then, they would see a
>red sign that says "8-26" with arrows pointing either direction. This would
>tell them which runway they are intersecting. They should had continued to
>the red sign that says "4-22"
Wouldn't it be more intuitive for runway recognition to ID them by
letters instead. A for alpha will always be the main runway. The
control tower will be giving him instructions with the call to Alpha.
If the pilot sees he is on runway B, C, etc. he should be aware that
he is not where he should be unless specifically instructed to do so.
Letter call signs over the radio are harder to confuse than numbers.
C. Massey
<p...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:svm6f25ksmre3so3n...@4ax.com...
The runways are numbered for a reason. If you are on Runway 36, you are
heading north, runway 18, you are headed south. The runway # is the heading.
Some larger airports will have the runway # then a L, C or an R, that would
be left, center and Right.
For example, DFW has 17-35L, 17-35C and 17-35R.
http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0608/06039AD.PDF#search=%22dfw%20runway%20diagram%22
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0635-1, 08/28/2006
Tested on: 8/28/2006 4:53:20 PM
Don K
>
> Logan Shaw wrote:
>> > Come on you FAA people, why aren't runways labeled?
>> >
>> > There should at least be a huge number painted across each runway so an idiot
>> > pilot doesn't get on the wrong one.
>>
>>
>> http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=dallas,+tx&ie=UTF8&om=1&z=19&ll=32.879806,-97.054886&spn=0.002117,0.002599&t=h&iwloc=A
>>
>> The tinyurl version:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/nknlk
>>
>> - Logan
>
> I'm not going to comment on the air crash at hand. But on takeoff,
> those large runway numbers are not visible until you are rolling over
> them. Wehn you are that close, they usually aren't readable anyway.
> They are meant for visibility from the air, not the ground.
Identification numbers near the taxi ramps could be elongated to be
readable from a low angle just as they do with painted street arrows.
>
> Pilots do have other standardized signs that identify runways,
> taxiways, and intersections. Mistakes still happen sometimes. While
> these standard signs aren't everywhere, they are pretty common. It's
> almost as standard as traffic signage for cars.
Yeah I saw the little standardized airport signs. Very unobtrusive, yet tasteful.
I'm talking about putting up some big garish number in the middle of the runway
that you can't help but notice.
Also, why not put an RFID chip and sensors either on the plane or along
the runways to sound an alarm if the plane is not where it's supposed to
be.
Don
C. Massey
> C. Massey wrote:
>> Reply inline
>>
>>
>>
>> "Bart Byers" <junkyard_...@mymacmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:EeudnXGG_YwrDm_Z...@flxtek.net...
>>> C. Massey wrote:
<snip>
>>>>
>>>> Read FAR 139.311(a)(1) and I believe that covers your ignorance in
>>>> dealing with aviation.
>>> Where would one find that? One would love to cover one's ignorance!
>>
>>
>> Ever try google while researching something?
>
> If you would tell us where to find a particular regulation, then we'd be
> on the same page, wouldn't we?
I already did. Google for FAR 139.311 and read.
<snip>
>>> The ones on the Navy's floating airports tell which way the runway is
>>> pointed, right?
>>>
>>
>>
>> What does any of this have to do with "Navy floating airports"?
>
> My answer applies to airports on land.
Then why did you bring up the "Navy's floating airports"?
>>>> Instead of asking silly questions like that, why don't you ask why ATC
>>>> didn't notice that the aircraft was on the wrong runway?
>>> He headed away from the tower into the rainy night. Were they supposed
>>> to monitor him visually or with radar? When he was 1600 feet from the
>>> tower, he was supposed to turn approximately 135 degrees left. Instead,
>>> he made a similar turn when he was only 1000 feet from the tower.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Preliminary reports do not contribute anything to weather. From what I
>> have read, there was a light rain Sunday morning. A light rain, if that
>> is indeed the case, shouldn't have posed a problem. Where are you getting
>> that the runway is 1600 feet from the tower? The ATC should had been
>> monitering the aircraft visually. I don't know, given the size of this
>> airport, if they would have a ground radar that might indicate the
>> aircraft's position on the ground.
>>
> What would a preliminary report contribute to weather?
>
> You think the reports were wrong when they said it was raining? At that
> hour, it must have been a dark rain, not a light one.
I don't know if it was raining or not. I wasn't there. I have read reports
that it wasn't raining and I read reports stating that it was a light rain.
*You* are the one stating "He headed away from the tower into the rainy
night"...
> In a light rain, I would be able to see whether a car turned 1000 or 1600
> feet away. That's because there are buildings as landmarks and they are
> well lit by streetlights. From a distance on a rainy night, a wrong turn
> at an airport could be less obvious.
>
> The ATC is supposed to keep airplanes from bumping each other. Can you
> direct us to a regulation that says it's his responsibility to make sure a
> veteran pilot doesn't make a wrong turn at a small airport at an hour when
> there's no other plane to bump into?
No I can't. Can you?
>>
>>
>>>> Why didn't the
>>>> pilots (2) notice that the runway was only 75 feet wide instead of 150
>>>> like runway 26 (the runway they were cleared for takeoff) should be.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> According to my aerial photo from April of 2002, both are 150 feet wide.
>>> The main runway was recently repaved, so we don't know what markings
>>> there were or if he could see them on a rainy night. Tire tracks would
>>> normally lead a pilot to the main runway, but they may not have been
>>> visible on new pavement on a rainy night.
>>>
>>> The really big airplanes have gages to show which way they're pointed,
>>> but a pilot wouldn't check his gage if he was sure he was on the old
>>> familiar runway. I wonder how many airports that flight used. Would he
>>> remember exactly how each one was supposed to look on a rainy night?
>>
>>
>> Sorry, according to FAA documents the runways are 75 and 150 feet wide.
>
> I accept your apology. In the future you may be able to avoid such
> embarrassment by doing your homework before you post.
>
I hope that you are being sarcastic, because I wasn't apologizing. I was
stating that the FAA document shows the runways at 75 and 150 feet wide
regardless of what "your" aieral photo shows.
>> Canyou provide the link that shows the runways are both 150 ft wide?
>
> I can provide more than one, but I'll respond as you responded when I
> asked where to find the regulation that you said would cover our
> ignorance.
Again, can you provide a link from an FAA document that shows both runways
at 150 feet wide? I didn't think so...
<snip>
>>
>> There is a basic requirement for gauges required for *any* aircraft to
>> have it's airworthiness certificate. The "heading indicator" is one of
>> them. Any pilot worth a damn should check his gauges. I am sure this
>> would be listed on the pre-takeoff check list.
>
> Very funny. Having done his preflight, a pilot is unlikely to check his
> compass again after he turns onto the main runway at a familiar airport.
> If he hadn't been familiar with the airport, he might have used his
> compass to verify the runway.
And why is that?
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0635-1, 08/28/2006
Tested on: 8/28/2006 5:07:27 PM
Rod Speed
Pity about minimum visibility takeoffs.
> Also, why not put an RFID chip and sensors either on the plane or along the
> runways to sound an alarm if the plane is not where it's supposed to be.
No point, there's a compass that tells you if you on the correct runway.
It would make a lot more sense to integrate into the
GPS they all have to cover all the taxiways etc too,
that way they cant even use the wrong taxiway either.
Gary Heston
They are.
>There should at least be a huge number painted across each runway so an idiot
>pilot doesn't get on the wrong one.
>How hard would it be to do that?
The numbers are there, they're just longer than most airplanes. Add to
that the runways being similar numbers (22 and 26), light rain, and
dawn breaking, and it'd be an easy error to make.
The only change I'd make is to paint the distance to the far end of
the runway on the left side in numbers about 5' tall every 200' for the
first 2000' and at 500' intervals between the 2000' sections. They'd be
visible in the wing lights during dark or rainy operations, and would
let the pilot (who sits on the left) know how much runway he or she has
when beginning the takeoff roll, allowing time for an abort.
Gary
--
Gary Heston ghe...@hiwaay.net http://www.thebreastcancersite.com/
Astronomers have developed a definition of "planet" which excludes Pluto.
I'm developing a definition of "scientist" which excludes astronomers.
John Weiss
>
> The only change I'd make is to paint the distance to the far end of
> the runway on the left side in numbers about 5' tall every 200' for the
> first 2000' and at 500' intervals between the 2000' sections. They'd be
> visible in the wing lights during dark or rainy operations, and would
> let the pilot (who sits on the left) know how much runway he or she has
> when beginning the takeoff roll, allowing time for an abort.
Distance-remaining markers are in place already at most major airports.
Besides the signs every 1000' off to the sides, the lights on the runway
centerline and edge are coded to let the pilots know when 3000, 2000, and
1000' remain.
Markers every 500' would not likely do anything useful, since most pilots
are not acutely aware of the distance required to stop at any given point in
the takeoff roll. That's one reason a 'go/no-go' speed (V1) is calculated
for each airline flight for every takeoff for the current runway and weather
conditions.
Don K
news:GIWdnXy0vZErq27Z...@comcast.com...
But the marking is not done in an intelligent manner at this airport.
If you look at the airport using Google Earth (Blue Grass Airport, Lexington, KY)
#26 is painted 20 feet from the end of the short runway, and
#22 is painted 205 feet from the end of the long runway.
This means once the plane had turned left onto #26, all the marking was behind him.
Turning onto #22, the label might still be in front of the pilot to notice as he revs
his engines before takeoff.
What I'm saying is the runway should be clearly labeled so that once a
pilot has entered the runway he can still see what runway he is actually
on. This means painting the number again two or three 3 hundred feet after
the turn.
I consider this to be a systemic failing.
Don
Don K
>
>
> Again, can you provide a link from an FAA document that shows both runways at 150 feet wide? I
> didn't think so...
>
It doesn't matter what some FAA document says. Satellite photos show that both
runways *are* 150 feet wide.
Google Earth has a measuring tool and the photo is from 2006.
Don
C. Massey
As has been stated before, the numbers painted on the runway are more for
visibility from the air, not the ground. There are multiple illuminated
signs for each runway and taxiway. With the airport map in hand as well as
the signage, the *two* pilots should had known where they were.
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0635-1, 08/28/2006
Tested on: 8/28/2006 9:38:42 PM
Don K
> In article <GbGdnRBikoAlyW_Z...@comcast.com>,
> Don K <dk@dont_bother_me.com> wrote:
>>Come on you FAA people, why aren't runways labeled?
>
> They are.
>
>>There should at least be a huge number painted across each runway so an idiot
>>pilot doesn't get on the wrong one.
>
>>How hard would it be to do that?
>
> The numbers are there, they're just longer than most airplanes. Add to
> that the runways being similar numbers (22 and 26), light rain, and
> dawn breaking, and it'd be an easy error to make.
The numbers should be on the runway in front of the pilot, not behind him.
Don
Don K
I'm not arguing that point. They should have. I'm saying the system could
be designed better to help avoid those errors. Put the numbers on the
runway in front of the pilot.
Don
Bart Byers
C. Massey asked if we idiots knew where runway numbers came from without
saying what kind of runways. I used to have a model of the Forrestal,
59. By land rules, the captain would have had to keep it pointed at 590
degrees!
The pilots must have taken it for granted that they were on the right
runway. Otherwise they would have checked their compass.
Maybe they believed a mistaken FAA document that said they were on the
right runway. I see now that some people just won't check for themselves.
Bart Byers
where it crosses the short runway. If they could see the lines on a wet
runway at night, they must have realized that was the main runway.
Also, wouldn't they have seen the lights along the main runway?
Wouldn't they have found it strange to be using an unlighted runway?
I wonder what the voice recorder says.
Rod Speed
> "John Weiss" <jrweiss98155nospamatnospamcomcastdotnospamnet> wrote in
> message news:GIWdnXy0vZErq27Z...@comcast.com...
>> Don K wrote:
>>> Come on you FAA people, why aren't runways labeled?
>>>
>>> There should at least be a huge number painted across each runway
>>> so an idiot pilot doesn't get on the wrong one.
>>>
>>> How hard would it be to do that?
>>
>> Virtually every runway in the US has the numbers painted on it in
>> large white numbers. Also, every instrument-capable runway in the
>> US (and most in the world) have the numbers on signs at every
>> taxiway entrance to the runway.
>
> But the marking is not done in an intelligent manner at this airport.
>
> If you look at the airport using Google Earth (Blue Grass Airport,
> Lexington, KY) #26 is painted 20 feet from the end of the short
> runway, and #22 is painted 205 feet from the end of the long runway.
Thats because its purpose is for those LANDING, not taking off.
> This means once the plane had turned left onto #26, all the marking
> was behind him. Turning onto #22, the label might still be in front
> of the pilot to notice as he revs his engines before takeoff.
They arent that readable from the ground and as you're lighting
the fires you're sposed to be checking that some clown isnt
landing on the runway towards you, or crossing it while taxing etc.
> What I'm saying is the runway should be clearly labeled so that once a
> pilot has entered the runway he can still see what runway he is actually on.
No point, the compass tells you if its the right one.
> This means painting the number again two or three 3 hundred feet after the
> turn.
> I consider this to be a systemic failing.
You clearly dont fly.
Rod Speed
You dont know that it was unlighted.
> I wonder what the voice recorder says.
Likely there is an 'oh shit' when they ran out of runway.
Rod Speed
> Why is the dead pilot being blamed?
Because he is most likely to blame.
> It's the fault of the ATC.
Thats unlikely.
> The plane sits on the runway waiting for permission from the ATC before take
> off.
They cant necessarily check that he is on the runway he's
supposed to be on tho specially at a smaller airport like
that one that may not have ground radar and its at night etc.
It aint ATC's responsibility to check that the pilot lines up on the correct
runway.
C. Massey
There is a sign in front of the aircraft on the side of the runway. Is that
not enough?
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0635-1, 08/28/2006
Tested on: 8/29/2006 6:40:22 AM
C. Massey
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4lhsekF...@individual.net...
<snip>
>
>> I consider this to be a systemic failing.
>
> You clearly dont fly.
>
Oh, what are your ratings?
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0635-1, 08/28/2006
Tested on: 8/29/2006 6:47:12 AM
C. Massey
<am...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1167f29b9b8skb8pu...@4ax.com...
>
>
> Why is the dead pilot being blamed? It's the fault of the ATC. The plane
> on the runway waiting for permission from the ATC before take off.
>
Ya know, we are all a bunch of armchair quarterbacks here trying to come to
a conclusion before the authorites do. The only pro that we have here is Mr.
Byers. He used to have a model of an aircraft carrier and only he knows
where 590 degrees is.
Personally, I *feel* that at this point with the information that I have
seen, the aircraft crew and the ATC are both to blame.
I feel that even if the ATC didn't notice the aircraft in the wrong place,
the crew should have noticed themselves between signage and airport diagrams
along with other aids.
I will quote from another NG that holds much more credibility in dealing
with aviation than this one does.
"I also fly Regional Jets for another carrier. As to "Jees they let
anyone fly them" ...thats an apalling statement and totally uncalled
for.
We are required by company policy to have the airport diagram open and
in view at all times on the ground. Checking taxiway signage and the
red and white runway numbering signs is common practice for both
crewmembers. We are required to read back all taxi and hold short
clearances. I am surprised that such an experienced crew made that
fatal mistake.
We are also required to verify adequate performance from any runway we
are going to use. Do we have enough runway and do we have climb
performance based on our weight, temperature and runway length?"
If this is the case for Comair, looks as though the crew failed.
<snip>
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0635-1, 08/28/2006
Tested on: 8/29/2006 7:20:22 AM
Bart Byers
> a conclusion before the authorites do. The only pro that we have here is Mr.
> Byers. He used to have a model of an aircraft carrier and only he knows
> where 590 degrees is.
It's common knowledge in electrical engineering and mechanical
engineering, both of which are important in aviation.
>
> Personally, I *feel* that at this point with the information that I have
> seen, the aircraft crew and the ATC are both to blame.
>
> I feel that even if the ATC didn't notice the aircraft in the wrong place,
> the crew should have noticed themselves between signage and airport diagrams
> along with other aids.
As the former owner of a model I don't think one should start by
assigning blame. The first question is how it could have happened.
>
> I will quote from another NG that holds much more credibility in dealing
> with aviation than this one does.
> [snip]
>
> We are required by company policy to have the airport diagram open and
> in view at all times on the ground. Checking taxiway signage and the
> red and white runway numbering signs is common practice for both
> crewmembers. We are required to read back all taxi and hold short
> clearances. I am surprised that such an experienced crew made that
> fatal mistake.
>
There's a clue. Their chart may not have reflected the recent change in
the taxi path. If it was an FAA chart it may also have told them
wrongly that the only 150-foot runway was the one they wanted. The
signage may not have been foolproof so soon after the taxi path was changed.
John Weiss
>>
>> Virtually every runway in the US has the numbers painted on it in large
>> white numbers. Also, every instrument-capable runway in the US (and most
>> in the world) have the numbers on signs at every taxiway entrance to the
>> runway.
> But the marking is not done in an intelligent manner at this airport.
>
> If you look at the airport using Google Earth (Blue Grass Airport,
> Lexington, KY)
> #26 is painted 20 feet from the end of the short runway, and
> #22 is painted 205 feet from the end of the long runway.
>
> This means once the plane had turned left onto #26, all the marking was
> behind him.
> Turning onto #22, the label might still be in front of the pilot to notice
> as he revs
> his engines before takeoff.
>
> What I'm saying is the runway should be clearly labeled so that once a
> pilot has entered the runway he can still see what runway he is actually
> on. This means painting the number again two or three 3 hundred feet after
> the turn.
>
> I consider this to be a systemic failing.
I consider it standard, as described in Sec 2-3-2 of the AIM -- the FAA
Aeronautical Information Manual.
RWY 22 has standard Precision Instrument (IFR) runway markings, and RWY 26
has standard VFR runway markings. Any airline pilot should be able to tell
the difference. Further, not only the runway designation, but the specific
runway heading is part of the standard pre-takeoff cockpit briefing between
the Captain and FO. With few exceptions, that heading is set in the Mode
Control Panel of the airplane and should be crosschecked when lined up on
the runway.
Also, Google Earth does NOT show you all the signs at the intersections of
all the runways and taxiways. These would be yet another clear indication
of the runway BEFORE entering or turning onto it.
Finally, a final crosscheck of RWY 22 vs 26 is displayed prominently in
EVERY airplane -- a compass and/or HSI or RMI. If it's not pointing between
255 and 265 when you're lined up on the runway, you're probably not on RWY
26!
C. Massey
> C. Massey wrote:
>> <am...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:1167f29b9b8skb8pu...@4ax.com...
>>
>> Ya know, we are all a bunch of armchair quarterbacks here trying to come
>> to a conclusion before the authorites do. The only pro that we have here
>> is Mr. Byers. He used to have a model of an aircraft carrier and only he
>> knows where 590 degrees is.
>
> It's common knowledge in electrical engineering and mechanical
> engineering, both of which are important in aviation.
I am not an ME or an EE by any means and I have never heard of anything over
360 degrees. But, I work with some EE's and I will sure ask them tonight.
>>
>> Personally, I *feel* that at this point with the information that I have
>> seen, the aircraft crew and the ATC are both to blame.
>>
>> I feel that even if the ATC didn't notice the aircraft in the wrong
>> place, the crew should have noticed themselves between signage and
>> airport diagrams along with other aids.
>
> As the former owner of a model I don't think one should start by assigning
> blame. The first question is how it could have happened.
If I am coming across as trying to lay the blame on someone, that has never
been my intention. I am trying to figure out what went wrong. I am throwing
out senerio's. I am looking at FAR's and trying to see (from media
information and FAA & NTSB documents) what regulations were not followed.
I can say that I *feel* that someone really screwed up, and I don't feel
that all of the blame can be put on one person.
<snip>
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0635-1, 08/28/2006
Tested on: 8/29/2006 4:24:15 PM
Don K
> "Don K" <dk@dont_bother_me.com> wrote...
>>>
>>> Virtually every runway in the US has the numbers painted on it in large white numbers. Also,
>>> every instrument-capable runway in the US (and most in the world) have the numbers on signs at
>>> every taxiway entrance to the runway.
>
>> But the marking is not done in an intelligent manner at this airport.
>>
>> If you look at the airport using Google Earth (Blue Grass Airport, Lexington, KY)
>> #26 is painted 20 feet from the end of the short runway, and
>> #22 is painted 205 feet from the end of the long runway.
>>
>> This means once the plane had turned left onto #26, all the marking was behind him.
>> Turning onto #22, the label might still be in front of the pilot to notice as he revs
>> his engines before takeoff.
>>
>> What I'm saying is the runway should be clearly labeled so that once a
>> pilot has entered the runway he can still see what runway he is actually
>> on. This means painting the number again two or three 3 hundred feet after
>> the turn.
>>
>> I consider this to be a systemic failing.
>
> I consider it standard, as described in Sec 2-3-2 of the AIM -- the FAA Aeronautical Information
> Manual.
Just because something is "standard" doesn't mean it's good enough or there
isn't room for improvement. Historically, a lot of "tombstone engineering"
has been done in aviation. It often takes a crash with major loss of life
before some additional safety measure is deemed to be worth the costs.
> RWY 22 has standard Precision Instrument (IFR) runway markings, and RWY 26 has standard VFR
> runway markings. Any airline pilot should be able to tell the difference. Further, not only the
> runway designation, but the specific runway heading is part of the standard pre-takeoff cockpit
> briefing between the Captain and FO. With few exceptions, that heading is set in the Mode
> Control Panel of the airplane and should be crosschecked when lined up on the runway.
>
> Also, Google Earth does NOT show you all the signs at the intersections of all the runways and
> taxiways. These would be yet another clear indication of the runway BEFORE entering or turning
> onto it.
>
> Finally, a final crosscheck of RWY 22 vs 26 is displayed prominently in EVERY airplane -- a
> compass and/or HSI or RMI. If it's not pointing between 255 and 265 when you're lined up on the
> runway, you're probably not on RWY 26!
All that stuff is peachy, fine. All I'm saying is that it would be good human
engineering to have an additional real, live "heads-up" display of what runway
you are on, before you go barreling down the runway. They could easily do this
by painting the number on the runway ahead of a departing plane.
Maybe then, that voice recorder would have picked up, "Uh, cap'n aren't
we supposed to be on 26?", and no one would have heard of Blue Grass Airport.
I don't understand the knee-jerk resistance to any changes, or defending the
status quo, when clearly the present system failed for whatever reason.
Don
Don K
>>>> pilot has entered the runway he can still see what runway he is actually
>>>> on. This means painting the number again two or three 3 hundred feet after
>>>> the turn.
>>>>
>>>> I consider this to be a systemic failing.
>>>
>>> As has been stated before, the numbers painted on the runway are more for visibility from the
>>> air, not the ground. There are multiple illuminated signs for each runway and taxiway. With the
>>> airport map in hand as well as the signage, the *two* pilots should had known where they were.
>>
>> I'm not arguing that point. They should have. I'm saying the system could
>> be designed better to help avoid those errors. Put the numbers on the
>> runway in front of the pilot.
>>
>
>
> There is a sign in front of the aircraft on the side of the runway. Is that not enough?
Clearly it is not enough.
You could also do other things. For instance:
Every plane has a spec on the length of runway it requires for takeoff.
The FAA could require that commercial planes have a sensor to verify it's on
a runway that is long enough. The runway could have an inductive loop or
something that would couple that information to any plane sitting on it.
If the runway were too short, the plane wouldn't be allowed to take off.
Don
Bart Byers
> "Bart Byers" <junkyard_...@mymacmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2u-dnYmOkoT4wGnZ...@flxtek.net...
>> C. Massey wrote:
>>> <am...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1167f29b9b8skb8pu...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> Ya know, we are all a bunch of armchair quarterbacks here trying to come
>>> to a conclusion before the authorites do. The only pro that we have here
>>> is Mr. Byers. He used to have a model of an aircraft carrier and only he
>>> knows where 590 degrees is.
>> It's common knowledge in electrical engineering and mechanical
>> engineering, both of which are important in aviation.
>
>
> I am not an ME or an EE by any means and I have never heard of anything over
> 360 degrees. But, I work with some EE's and I will sure ask them tonight.
>
>
one cycle speed. For example, in a four-stroke engine it takes 720
degrees on the crankshaft to cycle the valves. One may want to analyze
all 720 degrees to be sure pistons and valves won't collide.
If there's a conflict at 590 degrees, that's position 230 on the
crankshaft and 295 on the camshaft.
>
>>> Personally, I *feel* that at this point with the information that I have
>>> seen, the aircraft crew and the ATC are both to blame.
>>>
>>> I feel that even if the ATC didn't notice the aircraft in the wrong
>>> place, the crew should have noticed themselves between signage and
>>> airport diagrams along with other aids.
>> As the former owner of a model I don't think one should start by assigning
>> blame. The first question is how it could have happened.
>
>
> If I am coming across as trying to lay the blame on someone, that has never
> been my intention. I am trying to figure out what went wrong. I am throwing
> out senerio's. I am looking at FAR's and trying to see (from media
> information and FAA & NTSB documents) what regulations were not followed.
>
> I can say that I *feel* that someone really screwed up, and I don't feel
> that all of the blame can be put on one person.
>
>
I think in terms of how this might have happened to competent
professionals. At that hour there was no second ATC to watch the
airplane taxi. After all, how could a pilot go wrong?
If the short runway was unlighted, there may have been no signs intended
to guide a pilot to it at night. The pilot would have gone that way if
he was using a chart from before the change in taxi paths. Because of
the change, there may have been no signs along that path to tell him
where the main runway was. He may have attributed the lack of signs to
the recent repaving.
Checking his compass could have averted disaster, but the possibility of
error may not have occurred to him if his memory and the chart seemed to
tell him this was the correct runway and he'd seen no sign to the contrary.
Chloe
>> There is a sign in front of the aircraft on the side of the runway. Is
>> that not enough?
>
> Clearly it is not enough.
>
> You could also do other things. For instance:
> Every plane has a spec on the length of runway it requires for takeoff.
> The FAA could require that commercial planes have a sensor to verify it's
> on
> a runway that is long enough. The runway could have an inductive loop or
> something that would couple that information to any plane sitting on it.
> If the runway were too short, the plane wouldn't be allowed to take off.
A retired pilot I saw interviewed on the news said during his career he'd
almost taken off from the wrong runway three times. Once he caught the
mistake, once the copilot caught it, and once the ATC caught it. He had a
simple, common-sense suggestion, that there be a red and green light system
for runways similar to that used on the roadways.
All that said, there's probably no system anyone can construct which will
rule out 100 percent of human error. Don, do you suppose there's a point
where the layers upon layers of backups and safety systems simply become
ridiculous? It seems to me there was a pretty decent system in place
already, matching up the compass reading with the runway number. For
whatever reason, that apparently didn't happen. Much as we would wish it,
you can't make anything in life perfectly safe. Eventually none of us will
get out of it alive anyway <g>.
Rod Speed
> "C. Massey" <ch...@host.invalid> wrote in message
> news:KIVIg.3714$tU....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>> "Don K" <dk@dont_bother_me.com> wrote in message
>> news:S96dnd1lO8ZqNG7Z...@comcast.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> What I'm saying is the runway should be clearly labeled so that
>>>>> once a pilot has entered the runway he can still see what runway
>>>>> he is actually on. This means painting the number again two or
>>>>> three 3 hundred feet after the turn.
>>>>>
>>>>> I consider this to be a systemic failing.
>>>>
>>>> As has been stated before, the numbers painted on the runway are
>>>> more for visibility from the air, not the ground. There are
>>>> multiple illuminated signs for each runway and taxiway. With the
>>>> airport map in hand as well as the signage, the *two* pilots
>>>> should had known where they were.
>>>
>>> I'm not arguing that point. They should have. I'm saying the system
>>> could be designed better to help avoid those errors. Put the
>>> numbers on the runway in front of the pilot.
>>>
>>
>>
>> There is a sign in front of the aircraft on the side of the runway.
>> Is that not enough?
> Clearly it is not enough.
You dont know that. ALL you know is that the crew
didnt bother to do the check they are required to do.
> You could also do other things. For instance:
> Every plane has a spec on the length of runway it requires for takeoff.
You havent got a clue about what's involved with flying.
There is no fixed length, it varys with the current conditions,
particularly temperature, and the load etc, and the headwind.
> The FAA could require that commercial planes have a sensor to verify it's on a
> runway that is long enough.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you dont
actually have a clue about whats involved with commercial aircraft.
> The runway could have an inductive loop or something that would couple that
> information to any plane sitting on it.
Mindlessly silly.
> If the runway were too short, the plane wouldn't be allowed to take off.
Mindlessly silly.
Rod Speed
> "Don K" <dk@dont_bother_me.com> wrote in message
> news:PImdnWn2gtDATGnZ...@comcast.com...
>>> There is a sign in front of the aircraft on the side of the runway.
>>> Is that not enough?
>>
>> Clearly it is not enough.
>>
>> You could also do other things. For instance:
>> Every plane has a spec on the length of runway it requires for
>> takeoff. The FAA could require that commercial planes have a sensor
>> to verify it's on
>> a runway that is long enough. The runway could have an inductive
>> loop or something that would couple that information to any plane
>> sitting on it. If the runway were too short, the plane wouldn't be
>> allowed to take off.
>
> A retired pilot I saw interviewed on the news said during his career
> he'd almost taken off from the wrong runway three times. Once he
> caught the mistake, once the copilot caught it, and once the ATC
> caught it. He had a simple, common-sense suggestion, that there be a
> red and green light system for runways similar to that used on the
> roadways.
> All that said, there's probably no system anyone can construct which will rule
> out 100 percent of human error.
Yep, plenty of train crashes with that red and green light system.
> Don, do you suppose there's a point where the layers upon layers of backups
> and safety systems simply become ridiculous?
His isnt even possible, there is no fixed distance that a particular
plane needs runway wise, it varys with the how its loaded,
and when its marginal with the temperature and wind too.
> It seems to me there was a pretty decent system in place already, matching up
> the compass reading with the runway number.
Yep, tho he appears to want a system which cant have
human error involved, and that will always be possible when
the crew can fail to check the heading before lighting the fires.
> For whatever reason, that apparently didn't happen. Much as we would wish it,
> you can't make anything in life perfectly safe.
You can actually with quite a few things.
You can in this particular case too if it was taken to the extreme
of requiring the taxiway and runway to be electronically specified
by the ATC and the plane monitored the track of the plane and
sounded a fucking great alarm if the plane wasnt on the correct
taxiway or runway etc.
> Eventually none of us will get out of it alive anyway <g>.
Its considered desirable to maximise the alive time for some reason.
Rod Speed
You're wrong, essentially because there is more than that
that they should be doing at that time, basically checking
that some other fool isnt on the runway in front of them
or about to land on it head on to them.
> Maybe then, that voice recorder would have picked up, "Uh, cap'n aren't we
> supposed to be on 26?", and no one would have heard of Blue Grass Airport.
If the crew had done what they are required to do, check the
heading before lighting the fires, it wouldnt have happened either.
> I don't understand the knee-jerk resistance to any changes,
Everyone is rubbing your nose in the fact that
you dont have a clue about the basics of flying.
> or defending the status quo, when clearly the present system failed for
> whatever reason.
Doesnt mean that its practical to eliminate that possibility.
Yes, its possible to have all the aircraft movements electronically
specified before it even leaves the gate, and compliance with that
track checked continuously, but that would cost a lot more than
the current approach and that much higher cost isnt warranted.
Rod Speed
He shouldnt have taken off on an unlighted runway, stupid.
You've clearly never flown a plane.
> there may have been no signs intended to guide a pilot to it at night. The
> pilot would have gone that way if he was using a chart from before the change
> in taxi paths.
He's sposed to be using current charts.
> Because of the change, there may have been no signs along that path to tell
> him where the main runway was. He may have attributed the lack of signs to
> the recent repaving.
He should have confirmed that stuff before pushing
back, in spades when no signs showed up.
> Checking his compass could have averted disaster,
WOULD have averted disaster if he did use the wrong runway.
> but the possibility of error may not have occurred to him if his memory and
> the chart seemed to tell him this was the correct runway and he'd seen no sign
> to the contrary.
He's sposed to check the heading anyway. Standard proceedure.
Its standard proceedure for a reason, stupid.
Don K
I agree that it's not good to simply add additional layers of tedious
checklists. Human nature needs to be taken into account. Computers should
be used as much as possible to verify the situational status redundantly
and in depth.
Let the human pilot still make the decisions, but let the computers help
him. I know when I have to go thru a tedious checklist, going thru the
motions of checking off the items takes on a life of its own, and sometimes
you can't see the forest for the trees.
Don
John Weiss
>
>>> I consider this to be a systemic failing.
>>
>> I consider it standard, as described in Sec 2-3-2 of the AIM -- the FAA
>> Aeronautical Information Manual.
>
> Just because something is "standard" doesn't mean it's good enough or
> there
> isn't room for improvement. Historically, a lot of "tombstone engineering"
> has been done in aviation. It often takes a crash with major loss of life
> before some additional safety measure is deemed to be worth the costs.
Just because a plane crashes doesn't mean the current standards are
deficient. It could mean that someone ignored the current standards...
I don't believe another runway marking is going to be an "additional safety
measure." In fact, I believe it could be an additional distraction and work
at odds with safety. "The system" and the associated standards include a
LOT more than runway markings. An ill-considered band-aid may help nothing,
and may cause more harm.
OTOH, after operating in and out of New Chitose, Japan again the other day,
it reminded me that a study of the 'orange' paint they use for runway
markings there may well have merit. It contrasts with the runway surface
much better than the white used at most airports.
> All that stuff is peachy, fine. All I'm saying is that it would be good
> human
> engineering to have an additional real, live "heads-up" display of what
> runway
> you are on, before you go barreling down the runway. They could easily do
> this
> by painting the number on the runway ahead of a departing plane.
But we already have the "good human engineering" of signs at the entrance to
the runway and markings that can be seen as the airplane is turning onto the
runway. Since there are a plethora of cockpit tasks to accomplish once
lined up, most of them "heads down," how can you affirm that yet another
sign or marking would be "good" engineering?
> I don't understand the knee-jerk resistance to any changes, or defending
> the
> status quo, when clearly the present system failed for whatever reason.
I don't understand the knee-jerk demand for an unstudied change when clearly
the person proposing it has no clue as to the part of the system that
failed, or even of the system itself!
Don K
The subject line says "A Suggestion...".
Sometimes someone outside the system can better point out common sense solutions.
Don
Rod Speed
Never in this area which has been very thoroughly
worked over for a hell of a long time now.
webs...@cox.net
Don K wrote:
> What I'm saying is the runway should be clearly labeled so that once a
> pilot has entered the runway he can still see what runway he is actually
> on. This means painting the number again two or three 3 hundred feet after
> the turn.
>
> I consider this to be a systemic failing.
>
> Don
If the airport is marked according to current standards, there are
lighted, colored signs identifying runways and taxiways. Once an
aircraft is rolling, the pilot is not looking for runway ID. Threshold
markings, runway-remaining signs, airspeed, engines, etc. yes. He's
busy, not enjoying a ride around the countryside. You could paint
Interstate 80 signs on the runway, and it might not register. The
pilot is definitely NOT attempting to read the runway number on the
pavement. There are a few other things painted out there that he's
watching.
I'm not going to point fingers yet. The media is having their shot,
the lawyers are loading up and will shoot within a week. The NTSB will
take months to a year, and consider factors that the netnews members
don't even know about (except those who are pilots or otherwise
aviation-savvy).
I'm paying closer attention to my flying and checklists.
webs...@cox.net
Don K wrote:
>
> The numbers should be on the runway in front of the pilot, not behind him.
>
> Don
They are, if you are landing.
There are other signs indicating taxiways and runways, for those still
on the ground.
If those numbers on the ground were intended for pilots taxiing or
taking-off, they would have entirely different perspectives. Ever
notice the words "STOP" painted on a roadway? How they are very long
and narrow? From the air, they look weird. From a car driver's
perspective, they are very readable.
I'm not going to conjecture about the cause. But the runway numbers
aren't the real issue.
John Weiss
>
> The subject line says "A Suggestion...".
> Sometimes someone outside the system can better point out common sense
> solutions.
The OP's arguments have brought it to a point well beyond a "suggestion."
The OP's arguments have NOT substantiated any claim that his "suggestion"
would be a solution to anything -- "common sense" or otherwise. To the
contrary, the OP has shown a total lack of knowledge or understanding -- or
desire to gain the same -- of the "system" he claims is broken and that he
is trying to fix.
Don K
"John Weiss" <jrweiss98155nospamatnospamcomcastdotnospamnet> wrote in message
I didn't say anything was broken. I said there was a "systemic failing".
The aviation system is supposed to transport people from point A to point B
and get them there alive. The system failed to do that, so there is a systemic
failing.
You can pooh-pooh the various suggestions that might help avoid future failings
by saying there are already signs, markings are for landings, not takeoffs,
imbedded sensors would cost too much, FAA rules are already perfectly adequate,
etc., etc. but it is still outrageous that a plane somehow ended up on the wrong
runway.
Don
JohnH
> John Weiss <jrweiss98155nospamatnospamcomcastdotnospamnet> wrote
>>> The subject line says "A Suggestion...".
>>> Sometimes someone outside the system can better point out common sense
>>> solutions.
>> The OP's arguments have brought it to a point well beyond a "suggestion."
>> The OP's arguments have NOT substantiated any claim that his
>> "suggestion" would be a solution to anything -- "common sense" or
>> otherwise. To the contrary, the OP has shown a total lack of
>> knowledge or understanding -- or desire to gain the same -- of the
>> "system" he claims is broken and that he is trying to fix.
> I didn't say anything was broken. I said there was a "systemic failing".
And you dont have a shred of evidence that that is the case.
ALL you have actually done is flaunt your complete pig
ignorance of everything you have actually 'suggested'
> The aviation system is supposed to transport people from point A to point B
> and get them there alive.
Must be one of those rocket scientist pig ignorant fools.
> The system failed to do that,
Yes, but that is just as true if the pilot had gone mad, shot the
copilot and had attempted to crash into the tower on purpose.
> so there is a systemic failing.
Wrong, as always. No system can ever completely eliminate
all possibility of anyone ending up dead with flying. We have
in fact seen a few examples of commercial pilots choosing
to suicide and take the entire plane with them.
> You can pooh-pooh the various suggestions that might help avoid
> future failings by saying there are already signs, markings are for
> landings, not takeoffs, imbedded sensors would cost too much, FAA rules are
> already perfectly adequate, etc., etc. but it is still
> outrageous that a plane somehow ended up on the wrong runway.
Its outrageous that a tiny number of pilots have chosen to suicide
and take the entire plane and its passengers with them too.
Pity its impossible to completely eliminate all risk
if the pilot chooses to flout the proper proceedures.
Bart Byers
wrote:
>
> Every student pilot is taught from day one that if the tower clears you
> to taxi onto runway 22, you enter the runway environment, line up with
> the centerline and glance at your mag compass, HSI, RMI, DG, or
> whatever direction indicator you have. If it doesn't indicate 220
> degrees, you're on the wrong runway dood. Basic student pilot
> airmanship.
>
> Aviation is unforgiving of any simple error or lapse of judgment; you
> only get to screw up once. It does not make me happy to say it, but
> these guys screwed up and 49 people died. Spinning it this way or that
> won't change a thing nor will it bring them back.
>
> Student Pilot--1966
If aviation is unforgiving of any simple error, how did airlines get
such a good safety record?
It seems there must have been several clues that they weren't on 22...
and neither checked the compass?
I see one place an error might not have been caught: what the ATC told
them. He's doing paperwork. The day before was the 26th. He tells
them Runway 26. They go and check their compass. Their chart says it's
too short, but they know the airport has just undergone construction work.
According to the FAA, there was supposed to be a second controller on
duty. He might have caught the error in what the first controller said.
Anyway, apparently he would have been watching the plane taxi. He
would have been insurance against such an error.
Rod Speed
> John云 wrote
>> Every student pilot is taught from day one that if the tower clears
>> you to taxi onto runway 22, you enter the runway environment, line
>> up with the centerline and glance at your mag compass, HSI, RMI, DG,
>> or whatever direction indicator you have. If it doesn't indicate 220
>> degrees, you're on the wrong runway dood. Basic student pilot airmanship.
>> Aviation is unforgiving of any simple error or lapse of judgment; you
>> only get to screw up once. It does not make me happy to say it, but
>> these guys screwed up and 49 people died. Spinning it this way or
>> that won't change a thing nor will it bring them back.
>> Student Pilot--1966
> If aviation is unforgiving of any simple error,
There is no if about it being very unforgiving of some errors.
> how did airlines get such a good safety record?
By allowing for simple errors quite a bit of the time.
> It seems there must have been several clues that they weren't on 22...
That is unclear yet.
> and neither checked the compass?
Yep, if they had, they'd have realised that they werent on the correct runway.
> I see one place an error might not have been caught: what the ATC told them.
> He's doing paperwork. The day before was the 26th. He tells them Runway 26.
Very unlikely given that 22 is the main runway and ATC would say that so often.
Anyway, that will be clear from the tapes.
> They go and check their compass.
There is more than just the compass involved with the wrong runway.
> Their chart says it's too short, but they know the airport has just undergone
> construction work.
Another one that clearly doesnt fly. There's a hell of a difference
between major work like that and what was actually done and
the NOTAM would make it clear what had been done anyway.
> According to the FAA, there was supposed to be a second controller on duty.
> He might have caught the error in what the first controller said.
Or there was no ATC error and the pilots should have realised
that 26 was too short for them to use even if that had happened.
> Anyway, apparently he would have been watching the plane taxi.
You clearly dont have a clue about ATC either.
> He would have been insurance against such an error.
So would either pilot being aware that the 26 wasnt long enough to be viable.
Its MUCH more likely that they thought it was 22 and were stupid enough
to not check the heading as the proceedures require before using it.
Mary Mathews
The extreme contrasts in topics in this group is amazing, from the
mundane topic of 'one or two ply TP', to sincere, and thought provoking
ideas on the cause/ prevention of the recent plane crash. It is a
symphony of interests gained from the knowledge and diverse experiences
of people on the national/international arena. What a great world! Mary
Vic Smith
wrote:
>
>"John Weiss" <jrweiss98155nospamatnospamcomcastdotnospamnet> wrote in message
>news:mPGdnWMoP4KamWjZ...@comcast.com...
>> The OP's arguments have NOT substantiated any claim that his "suggestion" would be a solution to
>> anything -- "common sense" or otherwise. To the contrary, the OP has shown a total lack of
>> knowledge or understanding -- or desire to gain the same -- of the "system" he claims is broken
>> and that he is trying to fix.
>
>I didn't say anything was broken. I said there was a "systemic failing".
>
And you are absolutely correct.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-08-27-ky-crash-investigation_x.htm
"A USA TODAY review of accidents and incidents in NTSB, FAA and NASA
databases found hundreds of cases of pilots trying to take off or land
on improper runways since the 1980s.
Among the examples:
On Jan. 25, 2002, a China Airlines Airbus A-340 took off from a
taxiway in Anchorage. The pilots averted tragedy by lifting off nearly
1,000 feet sooner than normal. The jet's tires struck a snow bank at
the end of the taxiway, but the plane was not damaged.
On Nov. 22, 1994, two people in a small charter plane were killed when
they struck a TWA Boeing MD-80 on a runway at Lambert-St. Louis
International Airport. The NTSB found that the pilots of the small
plane had attempted to take off on the wrong runway. The crash
prompted changes in the way controllers and pilots communicate about
runways.
On Dec. 23, 1995, a Delta MD-80 took off from the wrong runway at
Cleveland Hopkins Airport. "Investigation has revealed a number of
wrong runway departures" in Cleveland, an FAA report said. Cleveland
has since redesigned that area of the airport.
In January and March 1989, two airline jets took off from the same
closed runway at Houston's William P. Hobby Airport. In both cases the
jets struck construction equipment but did not crash.
>The aviation system is supposed to transport people from point A to point B
>and get them there alive. The system failed to do that, so there is a systemic
>failing.
>
Correct.
>You can pooh-pooh the various suggestions that might help avoid future failings
>by saying there are already signs, markings are for landings, not takeoffs,
>imbedded sensors would cost too much, FAA rules are already perfectly adequate,
>etc., etc. but it is still outrageous that a plane somehow ended up on the wrong
>runway.
>
Yep.
"The pilot must ensure he is pointed at the correct heading."
Didn't work, did it?
Blah. Blah. Blah. Excuses. Excuses. Excuses.
CMMD as discussed in the report below probably would have prevented
this accident. But there were other methods available, the most
obvious being giving ground control the responsibility to verify
correct lineup, visually or electronically. Money and ego are why the
"wrong runway" incident count is in the hundreds. Money and ego are
why these people are dead.
All the excuses in the world won't change that. All the "shit
happens" regarding this issue are loser arguments. It is a "systemic
failure," and the FAA is ultimately responsible.
I don't know what the current FAA requirements are for EFB, or if the
Comair plane had CMMD. But if it didn't have CMMD, the lawyers
representing the families of the dead will want to know why pizza
drivers can deliver cheese and sausage to the right house better than
Comair can deliver passengers to a non-fatal runway.
http://www.faa.gov/runwaysafety/pdf/report5.pdf
"To complement runway safety risk management initiatives directed
toward the airport surface, control tower, and the pilot community,
technologies are being introduced in the airliner cockpit.
Specifically, ALPA safety representatives are facilitating the
incorporation of the Electronic Flight Bag (EFB). The EFB is an
in-cockpit electronic display that may include charts, lists of
worldwide procedures, weather information, and a cockpit moving-map
display (CMMD) much like the global positioning system (GPS) street
map available in cars today that shows pilots the position of their
own airplane with respect to the airport surface. In a comprehensive
risk mitigation study known as the Runway Incursion Joint Safety
Implementation Team report, the Commercial Aviation Safety Team (CAST)
found CMMD with ownship position to be a highly effective safety
enhancement for reducing the risk of runway incursions that are
classified as pilot deviations."
--Vic
Chloe
><snip> You can pooh-pooh the various suggestions that might help avoid
> by saying there are already signs, markings are for landings, not
> takeoffs,
> imbedded sensors would cost too much, FAA rules are already perfectly
> adequate,
> etc., etc. but it is still outrageous that a plane somehow ended up on the
> wrong
> runway.
Don: get a grip. It's a tragic accident, probably due to relatively simple
human error or carelessness, in an industry where the safety record in terms
of the numbers is really pretty darn good.
Save "outrageous" for situations where it actually fits, like:
http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060830/NEWS01/308310004
Rod Speed
Yeah, certainly one of the most interesting newsgroups.
Bart Byers
The New York Times reports expert opinion agreeing with Don.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/29/us/29cnd-crash.html?ref=us
John Weiss
>
> The New York Times reports expert opinion agreeing with Don.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/29/us/29cnd-crash.html?ref=us
Not even close!
"He said the paint of the pavement markings, the signs by the
taxiways and even the prominence of the heading indicator on the controls
were all factors to analyze."
He might want them analyzed, but he doesn't advocate painting more numbers
or adding new signs or changing cockpit displays!
Rod Speed
Pity about this crucial bit
"Responsibility for identifying the correct runway is the crew's"
Bart Byers
there was a systemic failure. The expert said that was probably true.
The FAA has already acknowledged a systemic failure. By a longstanding
policy, a lone controller should not have been responsible for radar and
ground operations. It had fallen into disuse until November, when an
overworked Raleigh controller made a serious mistake. Memos show that
the Lexington manager had tried to correct the situation at Blue Grass.
The message to which I replied said Don shouldn't call it outrageous.
Katie
Again, if such changes were indeed made to the physical layout of the
airport it would be NOTAMed until new charts were published. It is
made clear by the FAA that the PIC is responsibile to be aware of
NOTAMs before flying and it is also made clear by the FAA that pilots
are breaching their responsibility by flying with outdated charts.
Katieisme67 (PP-ASEL)
NOTAM - NOtices To AirMen
FAA - Federal Aviation Administration
PIC - Pilot In Control
Bart Byers
Thank you. Where would they be NOTAMed?
THE NYT says the copilot had arrived 27 hours before check-in and the
pilot had arrived at 3:30 in the afternoon. What time would check-in
be? Is that when they'd get NOTAMed?
It says at 5:15 AM they went aboard the wrong airplane and started the
generator. The copilot did the takeoff but the pilot steered to the
runway because the control for the nose wheel was on his side. The FAA
borrowed a similar airplane in order to see what they saw taxiing at night.
In November a Raleigh controller made a serious mistake because he was
working the radar and the ground traffic at the same time. The ATC at
Blue Grass was in the same situation. What would have happened if he
mistakenly told the crew to use 26?
Rod Speed
Routinely and at the flight plan submission phase.
> THE NYT says the copilot had arrived 27 hours before check-in
Very unlikely to be at the airport, they meant the location.
> and the pilot had arrived at 3:30 in the afternoon.
Ditto.
> What time would check-in be?
There is no fixed requirement.
> Is that when they'd get NOTAMed?
Nope, that should have happened long before
that, before the changes were scheduled.
> It says at 5:15 AM they went aboard the wrong airplane and started the
> generator. The copilot did the takeoff but the pilot steered to the
> runway because the control for the nose wheel was on his side. The FAA
> borrowed a similar airplane in order to see what they saw taxiing at night.
> In November a Raleigh controller made a serious mistake because he was working
> the radar and the ground traffic at the same time. The ATC at Blue Grass was
> in the same situation. What would have happened if he mistakenly told the
> crew to use 26?
They would have known that that runway was
too short for that plane to use with that load etc.
webs...@cox.net
Don K wrote:
>
> You can pooh-pooh the various suggestions that might help avoid future failings
> by saying there are already signs, markings are for landings, not takeoffs,
> imbedded sensors would cost too much, FAA rules are already perfectly adequate,
> etc., etc. but it is still outrageous that a plane somehow ended up on the wrong
> runway.
It is outrageous that so many people are killed on the freeways by
drunk drivers.
More signs will not cure that problem.
(I am NOT indicating any hint of drinking as a problem in the air
crash. There is no such indication. I am simply pointing out the
obvious problem with the statements above.)
Nicik Name
> "C. Massey" <ch...@host.invalid> wrote in message
> news:X0uIg.12497$1f6....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...> > news:GbGdnRBikoAlyW_Z...@comcast.com...
> >> Come on you FAA people, why aren't runways labeled?
> >>
> >> There should at least be a huge number painted across each runway so an
idiot
> >> pilot doesn't get on the wrong one.
> >>
> >> How hard would it be to do that?
> >>
> >> Don
> >>
> >
> >
> > Read FAR 139.311(a)(1) and I believe that covers your ignorance in
dealing with aviation.
>
> I must have left my copy at the airport. Could I borrow yours?
>
> >
> > Do you even know where the runway numbers come from? Do they just pull
them out of a hat and say,
> > "this runway will be #22"?
>
> From what I can infer, I suppose it identifies the angle of the runway.
For
> instance 22 would be 220 degrees?
that is correct..........
RW 35=350
RW17=170 ect
>
>
>
Don K
> Don K wrote:
>> You can pooh-pooh the various suggestions that might help avoid future failings
>> by saying there are already signs, markings are for landings, not takeoffs,
>> imbedded sensors would cost too much, FAA rules are already perfectly adequate,
>> etc., etc. but it is still outrageous that a plane somehow ended up on the wrong
>> runway.
>
> It is outrageous that so many people are killed on the freeways by
> drunk drivers.
> More signs will not cure that problem.
Did you ever notice the "Wrong Way" signs on a highway exit ramp?
They are placed some distance past a "Do Not Enter" sign.
No one should ever get past the "Do Not Enter" sign, but they do.
The "Wrong Way" signs are redundant, but the consequence of going
the wrong way on a highway are so severe that the redundant signs
are worthwhile.
Don
Rod Speed
Pity that pilots have a lot more on their minds once they have lit
the fires and are heading off down the runway, particularly whether
there is any possibility of anyone else entering the runway from a
taxiway, or landing on that runway in the opposite direction, and
whether and engine will die during the takeoff run etc.
The time to decide if its the correct runway is BEFORE you light the fires,
stupid.
Bart Byers
to drink sometimes have spectacular accidents, but it's misleading to
say 40% of deaths are alcohol-related. That includes any fatal accident
where police got a breathalyzer reading from anyone involved.
Researchers say approximately 7% of traffic fatalities are the fault of
a driver who is legally impaired. What about the other 93%?
A few weeks ago a driver was killed when he hit a tree near here. The
big-city paper reported what the police said, that he'd hydroplaned on
standing water after a thunderstorm. Water that's not deep enough to be
obvious can be deep enough to cause hydroplaning.
The local paper skipped the part about the standing water and insinuated
that the driver must have been drunk. There was no evidence of that,
and the water would have been very dangerous to anyone who came along at
the speed limit. Isn't it outrageous that the road wasn't better
maintained? Blaming the driver would mean leaving the situation to
claim another victim.
Professionals probably made mistakes leading to the plane crash, but
officials want to determine if changes could keep it from happening to
somebody else. That's a reason air travel is safer than road travel.
Rod Speed
Yes, but it aint the first time some fool has used the wrong runway.
Katie
<junkyard_...@mymacmail.com> wrote:
You're welcome. They (the pilots) wouldn't "be NOTAMed." They would be
responsible for getting the NOTAMs before taking off.
Generating NOTAMs are the responsibility of the facility affected, so
the airport would have to issue a NOTAM about the changes. The NOTAMs
are then distributed by the FAA. Generally you would be expected (as
the PIC) to call or go online for the necessary information just
before preparing for takeoff. It is made clear (In the FARs) that
knowing all the information about your flight, including the weather
and facilities at both ends, to make it a safe one is fully the
responsibility of the PIC (although I am sure when there is a pilot
and co-pilot, the responsibilities are divided).
This works in much the same way that laws concerning one car
rear-ending another make the car at the back responsible. If you
rear-ended the guy ahead of you, you were following too close. Period.
So if the pilot took off on the wrong runway because there were
physical changes at the facility that were, indeed, NOTAMed and he
failed to get the NOTAMs, then the pilot is at fault. Period.
Of course, if a NOTAM was not filed, then the fault lies with the
facility, I believe.
FARs = Federal Aviation Regulations, like a drivers manual but updated
frequently and about 3 inches thick.
>THE NYT says the copilot had arrived 27 hours before check-in and the
>pilot had arrived at 3:30 in the afternoon. What time would check-in
>be? Is that when they'd get NOTAMed?
I would expect the pilot (or co-pilot, depending on the division of
labor) to get the updated information no more than 3 or so hours
before take-off, but that would be purely a guess on my part. I am
strictly a private pilot from an area with *no* ATC towers. So I
update my info on weather and NOTAMs about an hour or so before
starting my checklists.
>It says at 5:15 AM they went aboard the wrong airplane and started the
>generator. The copilot did the takeoff but the pilot steered to the
>runway because the control for the nose wheel was on his side. The FAA
>borrowed a similar airplane in order to see what they saw taxiing at night.
They boarded (and took off?) in the wrong airplane? I haven't been
following this story so I haven't heard that.
>In November a Raleigh controller made a serious mistake because he was
>working the radar and the ground traffic at the same time. The ATC at
>Blue Grass was in the same situation. What would have happened if he
>mistakenly told the crew to use 26?
If the crew was told to take off on 26, I'd expect them to head for
26. What they did on the way would depend on whether this was the
first time there or they were familiar with the airport. Although,
again, it doesn't matter, it is ultimately the PICs job to insure s/he
*can* take off on the assigned runway before attempting to do so. I'd
expect the pilot, if at a new airport, to have had a look at the specs
for the runways and made at least a mental note that his aircraft
could only use 1 of the 2 (or 2 of the 3, whatever) runways.
Also, the runway assigned isn't arbitrarily chosen. Generally, you
take off into the wind, so the runway chosen is the one most closely
aligned, although with 22 and 26 it is probably most often a tossup.
That said, most airports also have a single runway that is used most
often.
Hope I cleared things up a bit more, rather than muddying the water.
katieisme67
C. Massey
"Katie" <katie...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2qscf2hulmi93pevu...@4ax.com...
<snip>
>>It says at 5:15 AM they went aboard the wrong airplane and started the
>>generator. The copilot did the takeoff but the pilot steered to the
>>runway because the control for the nose wheel was on his side. The FAA
>>borrowed a similar airplane in order to see what they saw taxiing at
>>night.
>
> They boarded (and took off?) in the wrong airplane? I haven't been
> following this story so I haven't heard that.
The report that I read state that the two pilots boarded the wrong aircraft
and started the generator (should this actually be APU?). Shortly after they
started the generator (APU), ramp personell informed them of their mistake.
But, remember, this is coming from the media.
<snip>
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0635-3, 08/31/2006
Tested on: 8/31/2006 7:04:55 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2006 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com
Katie
wrote:
>
>"Katie" <katie...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:2qscf2hulmi93pevu...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 19:43:12 -0400, Bart Byers
>> <junkyard_...@mymacmail.com> wrote:
>>
>
><snip>
>
>>>It says at 5:15 AM they went aboard the wrong airplane and started the
>>>generator. The copilot did the takeoff but the pilot steered to the
>>>runway because the control for the nose wheel was on his side. The FAA
>>>borrowed a similar airplane in order to see what they saw taxiing at
>>>night.
>>
>> They boarded (and took off?) in the wrong airplane? I haven't been
>> following this story so I haven't heard that.
>
>
>The report that I read state that the two pilots boarded the wrong aircraft
>and started the generator (should this actually be APU?). Shortly after they
>started the generator (APU), ramp personell informed them of their mistake.
>But, remember, this is coming from the media.
>
>
><snip>
>
>
I see, thank you for the clarification. Although I don't fly any
airplanes big enough to have their own generators! :)
Katieisme67
Bart Byers
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 19:43:12 -0400, Bart Byers
> <junkyard_...@mymacmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Thank you. Where would they be NOTAMed?
>
> You're welcome. They (the pilots) wouldn't "be NOTAMed." They would be
> responsible for getting the NOTAMs before taking off.
>
> They boarded (and took off?) in the wrong airplane? I haven't been
> following this story so I haven't heard that.
I crammed too much into too few words. A ramp worker corrected them.
>
>> In November a Raleigh controller made a serious mistake because he was
>> working the radar and the ground traffic at the same time. The ATC at
>> Blue Grass was in the same situation. What would have happened if he
>> mistakenly told the crew to use 26?
>
> If the crew was told to take off on 26, I'd expect them to head for
> 26. What they did on the way would depend on whether this was the
> first time there or they were familiar with the airport. Although,
> again, it doesn't matter, it is ultimately the PICs job to insure s/he
> *can* take off on the assigned runway before attempting to do so. I'd
> expect the pilot, if at a new airport, to have had a look at the specs
> for the runways and made at least a mental note that his aircraft
> could only use 1 of the 2 (or 2 of the 3, whatever) runways.
A Canadian newspaper cleared it up. The voice recorder shows they were
looking for 22. Two days before, another pilot had been confused when
he found a barrier by the entrance to 26, blocking the path to 22.
The crew of the doomed plane discussed the absence of runway lights.
They must have neglected to check their compass.
>
> Also, the runway assigned isn't arbitrarily chosen. Generally, you
> take off into the wind, so the runway chosen is the one most closely
> aligned, although with 22 and 26 it is probably most often a tossup.
> That said, most airports also have a single runway that is used most
> often.
It reminds me of the memoirs of the Canadian commander of a Spitfire
squadron. To support the Anzio landing, they were sent to a dirt strip
between Etna and the sea. The strip rose 50 feet going up the mountain,
but they took off toward the mountain because that was into the
prevailing wind. The Nines did okay, but the Fives had trouble clearing
the trees with a short, uphill strip and external tanks. Day after day
pilots would crash and burn.
It appeared to me that it would take a pretty strong wind to cancel the
advantage of taking off downhill, then getting ground effect off the
beach and ocean. In fact, his account said it took forever for dust to
settle because there was no wind. Day after day he stuck with his
stupid command as the pilots of the less powerful airplanes crashed.
When there were only two left, they refused. He had them sent back to
England for cowardice. He couldn't have them infecting his men.
That's a case where the guy running the system failed and blamed the pilots.
John Weiss
>
> Generating NOTAMs are the responsibility of the facility affected, so
> the airport would have to issue a NOTAM about the changes. The NOTAMs
> are then distributed by the FAA. Generally you would be expected (as
> the PIC) to call or go online for the necessary information just
> before preparing for takeoff. It is made clear (In the FARs) that
> knowing all the information about your flight, including the weather
> and facilities at both ends, to make it a safe one is fully the
> responsibility of the PIC (although I am sure when there is a pilot
> and co-pilot, the responsibilities are divided).
In airline operations, the flight plan, weather forecasts, NOTAMs, and other
info are put together into a package called a "dispatch release" and given
to the Captain when he reports for the flight. This is generally 1-2 hours
prior to the flight. It is actually the responsibility of the Dispatcher in
the airline operations center to gather all the information and send it to
the Captain, and the Dispatcher and Captain are "jointly responsible" for
the flight planning. See FAR 121.533 and 121.591ff for more details.
> So if the pilot took off on the wrong runway because there were
> physical changes at the facility that were, indeed, NOTAMed and he
> failed to get the NOTAMs, then the pilot is at fault. Period.
Not quite... If the Dispatcher failed to send all the NOTAMs, there is a
clear responsibility there as well. However if the Captain failed to read a
NOTAM that was in the dispatch release package, he would certainly bear the
responsibility.
However, taking off on the wrong runway clearly goes beyond construction
changes and NOTAMs. Getting clearance to RWY 22 and lining up on RWY 26 is
a gross error regardless of circumstances. Lack of a NOTAM would only be a
contributing factor, and possibly only a minor one at that.
> They boarded (and took off?) in the wrong airplane? I haven't been
> following this story so I haven't heard that.
Nope. They initially went to the wrong airplane. That type of mistake is
more common than you might think, especially if there have been maintenance
or gate changes overnight. There are a LOT of airplanes on an airport ramp,
in close proximity, and many of them look the same. If they are not at
discrete jetways (as is the case with MANY regional operations), the
potential for error is significantly increased.
> Also, the runway assigned isn't arbitrarily chosen. Generally, you
> take off into the wind, so the runway chosen is the one most closely
> aligned, although with 22 and 26 it is probably most often a tossup.
> That said, most airports also have a single runway that is used most
> often.
Again, there is a big difference here between GA and airline operations.
While your C172 can likely take off and land on any runway at virtually any
airport, large airplanes have significant performance limitations. Whether
on paper (in book form) or silicon (laptop-size performance computers),
specific information for EVERY authorized runway is immediately available to
the airline pilot. If a runway is not in the book/computer, it is NOT
authorized for use unless that information is specifically transmitted to
the Captain for that specific flight.
Given the stated performance requirement in the press (>3500' to rotate) for
this incident, the short runway would have clearly been flagged by a
performance computer as Not Authorized for the given conditions, or the max
takeoff weight listed in the book would have been significantly below the
actual takeoff weight. I doubt there was ever any intention to use the
short runway.
C. Massey
"John Weiss" <jrweiss98155nospamatnospamcomcastdotnospamnet> wrote in
John,
I respect your knowledge, so I will ask you this question and know that I am
getting an answer from someone here that actually knows aviation.
As far as rotation, isn't that basically the same as V1? They keep referring
to V1 and rotation in the other NG the we both frequent, but it's been too
long and I don't remember...
BTW, did you go to Oshkosh? Some day I hope to make it. Maybe stop by Jay's
for the pre OSH party! :)
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0635-3, 08/31/2006
Tested on: 8/31/2006 4:19:51 PM
John Weiss
>
> As far as rotation, isn't that basically the same as V1? They keep
> referring to V1 and rotation in the other NG the we both frequent, but
> it's been too long and I don't remember...
No.
VMCG is minimum control speed on the ground with a critical engine failure.
V1 is takeoff decision speed. Given normal acceleration, below V1 you will
be able to stop the airplane in the remaining runway; above V1 you will be
able to take off with a failure of the critical engine.
VR is rotation speed.
V2 is safe climb speed. Normal initial climb speed is V2 + 10-20 KT. With
a failed engine, V2 is used.
VMCG <= V1 <= VR < V2
> BTW, did you go to Oshkosh? Some day I hope to make it. Maybe stop by
> Jay's for the pre OSH party! :)
I've never made it oto Oshkosh. Maybe some day...
C. Massey
"John Weiss" <jrweiss98155nospamatnospamcomcastdotnospamnet> wrote in
OK... Thanks for the info... I remember hitting on the V's in school, but I
don't think that we got to involved with them.
As far as Oshkosh, I would love to make it there one of these years... Maybe
someday...
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0635-3, 08/31/2006
Tested on: 8/31/2006 7:41:10 PM