Comair (Delta) jet crash in KY

[SkyHog]

Maybe so, but the point is still valid.

No valid point. Its being reported (and was at the time I made the post) as being that the pilot chose the wrong runway.

If he did (as its reported), than the loss of life is a shame. I stand by the statement.

And its another reason for me to make my own decisions about flying and why GA is a better option in many cases. Obviously, statistically, 121 is safer by far, but I'd rather be the one making the decisions.

 

[Chache]

No valid point. Its being reported (and was at the time I made the post) as being that the pilot chose the wrong runway.

If he did (as its reported), than the loss of life is a shame. I stand by the statement.

Perhaps Admins ought to remove the "Post Reply" button... or at least disable it.....

People can't tell for sure, (at least I can't be sure) which post one is referring to, without a "quoted" reference...

 

[AdamZ]

Re: Commuter Plane down in KY

Does an RJ really require that much runway?

From the CRJ web page;

CRJ 200 Take-off Field Length = 5800 Feet

KLEX Runways

KLEX RWY 22 = 7003 Feet

KLEX RWY 26 = 3500 Feet

 

[123456]

No one here has proclaimed the cause of the crash. No one here has assigned blame.

Guess you missed this from Post #21.

"a real shame for pilot error to cause such a loss of life."

I am sure that SkyHog did not travel to LEX this morning and have immediate access to all the data to make that conclusion hours after the accident. That is no better than the news media everyone has been bashing.

 

[markb5900]

Couple of points.
Adam that is the "balanced field take off" distance
123456, Skyhog was right 100% from what the news is reporting now. Yes several hours ago it was speculation and I agree we should not speculate, but no reason at this point to push the issue.

Mark B.

 

[gprellwitz]

From flightaware.com:

A Comair-operated Bombardier CRJ100 (d/b/a Delta Connection) departing Lexington, Kentucky crashed less than a mile beyond the runway at 6:07am EDT this morning. 49 people died. The first officer is the sole survivor and he is listed in critical condition at the University of Kentucky hospital.

Background
Blue Grass Airport (Lexington, KY) is equipped with two runways. 04/22 is 7000ft x 150ft and 08/26 is 3500ft x 75ft. The aircraft was cleared for takeoff from runway 22 which was acknowledged only by a "roger" from the pilots. The aircaft proceeded to take off from runway 26, which is half the length of 22 and would have left the aircraft with insufficient room for takeoff.

FlightAware has no flight tracking information for the flight, COM191, besides the flight plan.

The aircraft tail number (confirmed by Comar) is N431CA (aircraft registration information: N431CA). The aircraft was delivered to Comar on January 30, 2001. It has 12,048 cycles and 14,536.2 hours. Last overnight maintenance check was conducted at Lexington on August 26th.

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

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

The pilot's reference to Houston Hobby's disclaimer is available on FlightAware's airport information page for Houston Hobby (KHOU). The remark reads:

"DUE TO COMPLEX RY CONFIGURATION; WHEN TAXIING TO THRS 12L & 12R AND 17 CHECK COMPASS HEADING BEFORE DEPARTING."

No similar information is available for Lexington airport.

Air Traffic Control Terminology
When given a taxi instruction, aircraft are implicitly cleared across any runway between their current position and the taxi destination. Accordingly, an aircraft being instructed to taxi to runway 22 at KLEX from the terminal could be instructed, "taxi to runway two two" without being told, "cross runway two six."

Note that I'm not sure where they got their takeoff runway information from. I also don't know if they're any more accurate than the general media on these issues. In ther words, take this with (more than) a grain of salt!

 

[markb5900]

Grant I am missing the entire point of that post other than that 13 YEARS ago a pilot filed a NASA report.
The runways at that airport don't seem confusing to me!

Mark B.

 

[mikea]

FAA airport diagram: http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0608/00697AD.PDF

It looks like you get to the end of 22 a few hundred feet before 26 on A-7.

 

[SkyHog]

Guess you missed this from Post #21.

"a real shame for pilot error to cause such a loss of life."

I am sure that SkyHog did not travel to LEX this morning and have immediate access to all the data to make that conclusion hours after the accident. That is no better than the news media everyone has been bashing.

I'm guessing that you're just not reading my post with any semblance of logic. Would you not say that a pilot error that caused a loss of life would be a shame?

And at the time, that was what was reported (as it is now), and confirmed by airport officials in an interview that I watched live.

 

[gprellwitz]

Grant I am missing the entire point of that post other than that 13 YEARS ago a pilot filed a NASA report.
The runways at that airport don't seem confusing to me!

Mark B.

Mark, I read under the "Background section

The aircraft proceeded to take off from runway 26, which is half the length of 22 and would have left the aircraft with insufficient room for takeoff.

This appeared to be talking about the current incident, not the 13-year-old ASRS report. Did I misread?

 

[markb5900]

Grant, you didn't misread. But the media and the report you site are talking about a BALANCED field take off. Not the ACTUAL takeoff distance of that aircraft.
Yes in the end it seems that he took off from too short a runway, but he COULD get off in that runway lengh.
My real point in responding was that I just didn't see the relevance of a 13 year old NASA report in what happened in the tragic events of today.

Mark B.

 

[gprellwitz]

My real point in responding was that I just didn't see the relevance of a 13 year old NASA report in what happened in the tragic events of today.

Mark B.

The only relevance I see is if the pilot (I assume it is a "he") mistook 26 for 22. In that case, a previous incident of this almost happening and being reported would be relevant. Not that we shouldn't always check our DG against the departure runway, but it doesn't always happpen. Let's not talk about my go-around at Nassau when I was nicely aligned -- for the taxiway!

 

[wsuffa]

FAA airport diagram: http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0608/00697AD.PDF

It looks like you get to the end of 22 a few hundred feet before 26 on A-7.

You do.

The signage is not the best due to the different angles of taxiway and runway, but it was clear the last time I was there (left in low clouds).

It was dark enough at 6 AM that the runway lights should have been on. I don't know if the lights on 22 are fully restored after construction, but you couldn't miss them in the old days.

 

[SkyHog]

You do.

The signage is not the best due to the different angles of taxiway and runway, but it was clear the last time I was there (left in low clouds).

It was dark enough at 6 AM that the runway lights should have been on. I don't know if the lights on 22 are fully restored after construction, but you couldn't miss them in the old days.

Airport manager, in an interview on CNN this morning, said that the lights were out of service.

 

[wsuffa]

Airport manager, in an interview on CNN this morning, said that the lights were out of service.

INteresting. 26 has no lights normally....

 

[mikea]

INteresting. 26 has no lights normally....

I saw that the REIL on 26 was NOTAMed OTS.

 

[wsuffa]

I saw that the REIL on 26 was NOTAMed OTS.

8/26 is limited to day VFR only.

http://www.airnav.com/airport/KLEX

 

[markb5900]

Well we all see that it is pretty obvious that the pilots made a huge mistake. Instead of arguing between ourselves on just how big a mistake they made.
Why don't we just all say a prayer in our own way for the dead and drop this thread.

Mark B.

 

[tom.]

Re: Commuter Plane down in KY

From the CRJ web page;

CRJ 200 Take-off Field Length = 5800 Feet

KLEX Runways

KLEX RWY 22 = 7003 Feet

KLEX RWY 26 = 3500 Feet

Yikes, that's a long takeoff roll. Anyway, from the footage I saw it looks like they did become airborne but didn't clear obstacles. Frankly I was so confused by what was on the news I just gave up trying to understand. I'll stick to using the media for entertainment only.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Maybe so, but the point is still valid.

According to news outlets the NTSB themselves stated that the plane was on 26. While other causes cannot be ruled out entirely, it's pretty clear that taking off on the wrong runway was a major cause if not the only cause.

Proper radio phraseology would help. ALWAYS read back runway numbers. "Roger" should never be used as a response to a takeoff clearance.

I'm curious why the controller didn't notice, I doubt there's much else to do that early in the morning. I bet the FAA gets to pay out in the lawsuits as well as Comair.

 

[RotaryWingBob]

Well we all see that it is pretty obvious that the pilots made a huge mistake. Instead of arguing between ourselves on just how big a mistake they made.
Why don't we just all say a prayer in our own way for the dead and drop this thread.

Mark B.

Because it's no different than the moron who runs out of gas. There's two pilots because one is supposed to fly the a/c and the other is supposed to navigate and communicate. They both flunked out, and took out 49 souls with them... Sorry, but there's no excuse...

 

[markb5900]

"Because it's no different than the moron who runs out of gas. There's two pilots because one is supposed to fly the a/c and the other is supposed to navigate and communicate. They both flunked out, and took out 49 souls with them... Sorry, but there's no excuse..."

Sorry Bob, but I don't see how your response has anything to do with my post to say a prayer and drop it!
I never said there was any excuse or ANYTHING even like that. Just that the pilots had made a huge mistake.

Mark B.

 

[wesleyj]

This is terrible, my prayers go out to all involved.



*** Speculation Warning ***

Pure Speculation on my part. Did they try to take off on the wrong runway?


They closed 8/26 this morning

08/035 - 8/26 CLSD WIE UNTIL UFN


http://download.aopa.org/ustprocs/20060803/airport_diagrams/00697AD.PDF

26 is only 3500 feet, 22 is 7000 feet.

Can a fully loaded CRJ-100 get off the ground in only 3500 feet?



James Dean

It might, but not for long

 

[Darrell111]

Run the numbers. And pick an abort point. If you're used to flying out of long runways, the ground and trees can look awfully close on the first few times out of a short field.

I absolutely agree with you on this point. Yes you can run numbers and yes you can pick an abort point. ESPECIALLY on a short runway this is a must. The pilot needs to remember that yes the POH is the best reference when determining take off distances, ground roll, over the mystical 50ft obsticle but just because the book says at 10% for grass or yada yada, does not mean that is going to be exact. Airliners have a decision speed that is used to commit to a takeoff why cant we?

On the crash.. THis is horrible. A real rookie mistake made by 2 seasoned pilots. My prayers go out to the familys. Just goes to show anyone can make a mistake. I dont know how this happend, how they got confused, looking at the taxi diagram i can see that the runways are close together at the end but any IFR pilot knows to verify that the DG is lined up with runway heading. At any rate we have to use this to learn from it.

Darrell

 

[infotango]

This ain't "Airliners.net" with a raft of pilot-hopefuls.

Thank God for that.

I usually read through the site for a few mins. every other week and then run away.

Still, everyonce and a while there are a few good posts. I notice you are a member.

 

[Henning]

I guess that the NTSB Go Team can be recalled since you have already reviewed all the data avaialble and reached the conclusion. Will your written report be available for distribution later today? Sheesh. Low time experts.

If his isn't, here's mine I've reposted from Red. Feel free to distribute:

Didn't check heading on runway = incompetence in my book, and when you are PIC with the lives of paying passengers aboard, you are allowed no mistakes. Sorry if I sound like a hard *** holding them to high standards, but I'm not holding them to any standard higher than to which I hold myself in the air or at sea. If I was in that cockpit and did that and someone said "What a dum a** M F" I'd have to agree, I would have died in shame and deserve purgatory at best. If you're gonna take the responsibility, be sure you're up to it. When you are a professional, you are being paid to assure everything is correct. You have a "duty of care". Checking heading on taking the runway is a Day One Flight One flight training item. We do it to check for a multiplicity of probems. When you are being paid to preserve the safety of life of persons who have paid for your services, you have absolutely NO right to make mistakes (remember that since strict liability is applied to airlines, any negligent act is treated as gross negligence in court, and that standard sits well with me as well), much less extremely basic and stupid mistakes of ommission. Any such mistakes are to me rated as incompetence and such a simple and basic item is Gross Negligence since he knew better than to make it and didn't care. Besides, I don't have to know what was going on in the cockpit. Even if there was a situation of quandary and confusion over anything, the competent professional will make the decission to abort proceedure until the situation is clear. You don't take passengers in the air or out to sea until you are SURE you can do so safely. If they didn't KNOW without a doubt including visual confirmation of which runway they were on, they should have never advanced the throttles, especially in a state of reduced vis. If you DON'T KNOW, you DON'T GO. Problem is you need good decision making skills to make these choices and the best and brightest who are capable of these skills are not only being lured away from the airline industry, they are being driven from it. While I rate the pilots as incompetent, grossly stupid and directly responsible, I also hold airline management as as incompetent, grossly stupid and directly responible for allowing the market to get them into a situation where they can't afford to do things safely. The fact that it doesn't happen more often tells me how easy aviation actually is. One of the problems with the system is that hiring is done on a physical skill and route memorization of proceedure basis (although if route proceedure had been followed, this event would not have occurred. If "Check Heading on runway" isn't spelled out in all the 135/121/125 sylabii, it will be after this, and I'll bet there'll be a lot of rightly stated comments "I can't believe we actually have to write this in".) rather than intelligence and decision making ability. If you have managed 1200 hrs with 200 multi, can memorize the FARs and the system basics and fly with any modecum of skill, you can fly for a Regional. With the inherent safety of the system, most pilots never get in the position to test their decision making abilities in adverse conditions, so rather than develope these skills, they atrophe.

If I sound like a relentless highly judgemental hard case on this, it's because I am and I offer no appologies for it.

 

[Henning]

Perhaps Admins ought to remove the "Post Reply" button... or at least disable it.....

People can't tell for sure, (at least I can't be sure) which post one is referring to, without a "quoted" reference...

I second the motion. Admin, can we do something about this? It really gets confusing.

 

[Henning]

Unfortunately, fields like 6Y9 don't offer that ability (for my Cherokee at least). To pick a safe abort point would mean never lifting off.

In those situations you do like I do with a heavy ag plane on small strips which I directly adopted from 747 proceedure. You figure several points along the runway at which you should have accelerated to a certain speed. If you haven't met the accelerational gradiant at any check point, you abort.

 

[Henning]

No one here has proclaimed the cause of the crash. No one here has assigned blame.

I have, primary blame, pilot in comand, gross incompetence. Secondary blame, an industry that thru bad practices drives away the best and brightest. Ancillary blame, a consumer market that rewards fare wars and a government which deregulated the industry which in turn brought about the current operational environment.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

You're comfortable with 6Y9... that's fine... but somewhere in the back of your mind I'd think you'd be saying "good enough for takeoff" or "not making enough power" on the roll. I suggesting a more formal method of doing that. You may choose not to, and that's your perogative as PIC.

Bill, 6Y9 is tight tight tight. I know what you're saying, but we're talking a field short enough that the airspeed indicator barely comes alive before liftoff. 2000 feet if you use the whole runway (and dont forget, surrounded by trees!), and according to my performance data the 50 foot obstacle clearance distance should be 1913 feet. Aborting at the point of rotation would result in an accelerate-stop distance of 2005 feet, so if I somehow make the decision instantaneously and pull power instantaneously, I'm still going off the end of the runway. So, I think "comfortable" is maybe the wrong word. Maybe we're just daredevils, it seems that the average age of those flying in to 6Y9 was pretty low!

That said, the plane felt like it was gonna fly, so I let it fly. I kept it a couple hundred under gross as well. Still some pretty good pucker factor.

I've gotta ask... Am I the only one that didn't look at my performance charts before going to (or departing) 6Y9? I'm glad we're having this conversation, I feel better now, especially after reading the CAS vs. IAS table. It looks like I was about at Vx (61mph at 2800lb) CAS which should be about 48mph IAS, the white arc starts at 63mph. It just felt waaaaay different than my normal home-field takeoffs which are done flaps-up, rotate at 60, climb at 80 and result in a very nice jump off the ground. 6Y9 was more a force-the-plane-to-stagger-into-the-air takeoff.

Now, if you figure that a realistic "oh-****" decision to abort plus the pull on the knob will take a second or so, at 60 knots that's a hair over 100 feet. So, the notion of an abort point at 6Y9 is a little bit sketchy as there is a zone of over 100 feet where I'm just plain going to bend metal. That also assumes that upon breaking ground, nothing else will happen until at least 300 AGL where you might be able to dive into an area that looks like it's being logged if taking off westbound, or eastbound you might be able to make it over the trees and squeeze onto M-28 though that's likely to result in a crash as I doubt the cut through the treetops is as wide as a wingspan.

Enough rambling.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Something occured to me. What was the time span between coming to rest and the fire? It was long enough that a police officer arrived and pulled the FO out of the cockpit. I'm surprised nobody else got out.

 

[gismo]

Can a fully loaded CRJ-100 get off the ground in only 3500 feet?

The one I was on from Bakersfield to Phoenix used way more than half of a 10,857 ft runway on departure.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Proper radio phraseology would help. ALWAYS read back runway numbers. "Roger" should never be used as a response to a takeoff clearance.

I'm curious why the controller didn't notice, I doubt there's much else to do that early in the morning. I bet the FAA gets to pay out in the lawsuits as well as Comair.

On the ATIS at BFI it says to read back RWY assignment (whether VFR or IFR). If you don't read it back, you'll hear about it and you're not cleared to taxi.

 

[SkyHog]

I've gotta ask... Am I the only one that didn't look at my performance charts before going to (or departing) 6Y9?

Of course I did. I always do.....

I actually did not, but I had checked a few weeks prior about what would be considered a no-go for me. The conditions never exceeded that point, so I felt comfortable. I'll admit, I fly in High DA all the time so I may have gotten a bit lazy with low DA takeoffs. I should avoid that, lest I become another statistic.

For real.

 

[jesse]

've gotta ask... Am I the only one that didn't look at my performance charts before going to (or departing) 6Y9? I'm glad we're having this conversation, I feel better now, especially after reading the CAS vs. IAS table. It looks like I was about at Vx (61mph at 2800lb) CAS which should be about 48mph IAS, the white arc starts at 63mph. It just felt waaaaay different than my normal home-field takeoffs which are done flaps-up, rotate at 60, climb at 80 and result in a very nice jump off the ground. 6Y9 was more a force-the-plane-to-stagger-into-the-air takeoff.

Now, if you figure that a realistic "oh-****" decision to abort plus the pull on the knob will take a second or so, at 60 knots that's a hair over 100 feet. So, the notion of an abort point at 6Y9 is a little bit sketchy as there is a zone of over 100 feet where I'm just plain going to bend metal. That also assumes that upon breaking ground, nothing else will happen until at least 300 AGL where you might be able to dive into an area that looks like it's being logged if taking off westbound, or eastbound you might be able to make it over the trees and squeeze onto M-28 though that's likely to result in a crash as I doubt the cut through the treetops is as wide as a wingspan.

There is no way to determine a set abort point at 6Y9. The runway is slightly different each time. Your performance numbers will be different. There way WAY too many varibles to be measuring. The airspeed indicator won't even be alive until near the end. You can't use that as a method of determining your takeoff progress vs. runway length. When you open up the throttle at 6Y9 you are taking off. But that's just my view.

I wonder if I'll be the first Cessna 172 landing at 6Y9 since this guy...
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20030611X00850&ntsbno=CHI03FA149&akey=1

..and he had 20 more HP.. Full of mistakes though if you read it.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

The one I was on from Bakersfield to Phoenix used way more than half of a 10,857 ft runway on departure.

Lance,

Do you think they were at full power? It seems that there are a lot of flights that will use the taxi-into-the-air method of takeoff if they have a long enough runway.

Makes ya wonder if this flight had full power...

 

[flyingcheesehead]

There is no way to determine a set abort point at 6Y9. The runway is slightly different each time. Your performance numbers will be different. There way WAY too many varibles to be measuring. The airspeed indicator won't even be alive until near the end. You can't use that as a method of determining your takeoff progress vs. runway length. When you open up the throttle at 6Y9 you are taking off.

Well, it's maybe not quite that extreme (if the engine coughs when you add power, you can abort) but even Henning's 747 method won't work except for estimated groundspeed, because you are right - Airspeed comes alive just before you pull over the trees.

 

[Henning]

Well, it's maybe not quite that extreme (if the engine coughs when you add power, you can abort) but even Henning's 747 method won't work except for estimated groundspeed, because you are right - Airspeed comes alive just before you pull over the trees.

You don't need airspeed necessarily, tail needs to come up here, gotta be able to bounce it by here... but if I look at the plane and the load and runway and say "uh uh" that's it.

 

[RotaryWingBob]

I never said there was any excuse or ANYTHING even like that. Just that the pilots had made a huge mistake.

Mark B.

Sorry, I reacted to the first part of your post, not the part about saying a prayer for the victims. As far as I am concerned, those pilots killed all the PAX just as surely as if they had put guns to their heads.

 

[RogerT]

The problem is quite often there really is no good abort point. The point in which you lift off from the runway does not have adequate room to abort takeoff and come to a stop without bending metal. You are committed to a takeoff.

I'm not sure I'd agree with that. If I'm not convinced I can get off the
ground at a safe speed I'm not leaving it. I'll abort takeoff and slow it
as much as possible before I hit whatever's in my path. At least it will
be at a slower speed and I won't be falling from the sky.