Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Comair 5191 accident

The crew should have had charts indicating the current taxiway layouts, but if they thought they were already familiar with the plan of the taxiways, they might have not have looked at them. In any case the tower ground controller should have given the crew progressive taxi instructions (meaning, step-by-step) under these conditions, especially if the crew asked for them. This accident could hardly have happened during daylight hours, if only because once the crew lined the airplane up on the centerline, the runway heading on the pavement would be staring them right in the face.
 
RBMaraman said:
2. The lights on the short runway and lights on signs pointing out runways were malfunctioning and not lit, meaning the pilots could not see which runway was which or the length of the runway (because at 6am it was nearly pitch-black).
Click to expand...
The lights on the longer runway (22) were functioning properly, but the lights on the shorter runway (26) were off; meaning, the crew chose the shorter, unlit runway. :confused:
 
It's a mystery alright. If either of the crew members had only looked at the compass before or even during their takeoff roll...
 
EricNau said:
The lights on the longer runway (22) were functioning properly, but the lights on the shorter runway (26) were off; meaning, the crew chose the shorter, unlit runway. :confused:
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know. It doesn't make sense, and now they are reporting that the lights were off because the runway had been officially designated as closed. Apparently, the NTSB just announced that the Air Traffic Controller can be heard on the recordings relaying information about runway location, taxi path, etc.

The First Officer is going to have a lot of gaps to fill in when he is able to.
 
Okay, all you pilots out there. Just how valid is this claim that "hundreds" of wrong runway take offs and landings have been documented since the 1980's? (i.e. it happens all the time?!) Can any of you ladies and gentlemen of the skies help clarify or explain?

How can this kind of error be minimized to ho-humness? Wrong runway mistake?

(On the ground, navigating my car with a map: Earth to driver) "Okay, we take I-75, or is that I-40, East?". Angh, whatever". :confused:
 
xsedrinam said:
Okay, all you pilots out there. Just how valid is this claim that "hundreds" of wrong runway take offs and landings have been documented since the 1980's? (i.e. it happens all the time?!) Can any of you ladies and gentlemen of the skies help clarify or explain?

How can this kind of error be minimized to ho-humness? Wrong runway mistake?

(On the ground, navigating my car with a map: Earth to driver) "Okay, we take I-75, or is that I-40, East?". Angh, whatever". :confused:
Click to expand...
I'm no pilot, but I can do math...

Thousands of planes take off daily, and hundreds of improper landings have taken place in the past 25 years = very, very, very rare occurence.
 
EricNau said:
I'm no pilot, but I can do math...

Thousands of planes take off daily, and hundreds of improper landings have taken place in the past 25 years = very, very, very rare occurence.
Click to expand...
So, we're to take it as a grain of salt because of a quantitative, comparative analysis which arbitrarily renders three "very, very, very"s to the mix? Would another "very" make it even less serious? I don't follow your thinking at all, and if I do, I don't really see your point. Three verys don't make a right.
 
xsedrinam said:
So, we're to take it as a grain of salt because of a quantitative, comparative analysis which arbitrarily renders three "very, very, very"s to the mix? Would another "very" make it even less serious? I don't follow your thinking at all, and if I do, I don't really see your point. Three verys don't make a right.
Click to expand...
I never said, or suggested that it wasn't a serious matter. I was merely stating that these incidents do not "happen all the time."
 
I just flew in a similar plane. It makes me sad that this happened. I feel badly for the one person who did live, think about the pain he'll be in for the rest of his life ebing the "only one."
 
jessica. said:
I just flew in a similar plane. It makes me sad that this happened. I feel badly for the one person who did live, think about the pain he'll be in for the rest of his life ebing the "only one."
Click to expand...

Someone at work today commented that the co-pilot, assuming he recovers, should go out and buy a lottery ticket since he is so lucky. I responded that he already did win the lottery - he's alive. :cool:
 
xsedrinam said:
Okay, all you pilots out there. Just how valid is this claim that "hundreds" of wrong runway take offs and landings have been documented since the 1980's? (i.e. it happens all the time?!) Can any of you ladies and gentlemen of the skies help clarify or explain?

How can this kind of error be minimized to ho-humness? Wrong runway mistake?

(On the ground, navigating my car with a map: Earth to driver) "Okay, we take I-75, or is that I-40, East?". Angh, whatever". :confused:
Click to expand...

This is the NTSB database they presumably queried to get this statistic. I would not be shocked if this was an accurate figure, but keep in mind, the NTSB statistics are for all of aviation and includes a lot of mistakes made by weekend fliers.

It is very easy to become disoriented on the ground, day or night. The configuration of taxiways is hardly standard, and the signage often confusing especially at larger airports. As for wrong-runway landings, I expect a large proportion of them are night VFR.
 
I did not read up on the incident rate at airports for "wrong way" and "wrong airport' rates.
Believe me, mistakes happen all day everyday. The magnitude depends on the consequence. Some airports are so complicated that it is very difficult to read the signage. I know very respected pilots that have landed on the wrong airport. I have not, but no many others that ALMOST did. Lots of planes commonly cross runways that they should not have, you don't hear alot of it cause there was no collision.
This crew violated pilot 101. It is not unheard of, usually works out, and as demonstrated-can be catastrophic.
Nearly 20 years as a professional pilot you see it all, and do almost all of it. This crew seems to have made many victims from their inability to make the mondane details priority.
 
I confess, I came sort of close to landing at the wrong airport once. Two nearby airports, one civilian, one military, with similar runway configurations. Major urban area with air traffic all around. Me unfamiliar with the territory, being run ragged by ATC -- vector here, no over there, change frequencies, traffic alerts... ended up pointed at the wrong pair of runways (the military airport). Still a few miles out and a couple of thousand feet up, ATC let me know I was off course for my destination. Oops. I'm sure they see it all the time from out-of-town pilots, but oops anyway. I'm almost certain I would have noticed before I got much closer...
 
Well, as a FF, I can say I both appreciate and respect the candor, IJ and stubeeef, coming from pilots with experience. I've sat and looked out of the window while taxiing at pretty much most of the major airports in the U.S. and quite a few overseas over time and have wondered "how in the world do they keep the 24Rs, 23Ls, 38Rs, etc. clearly distinguished from one another, especially in heavy, night time traffic? I can't say I feel any less unsettled by it all, but thanks at least for the straight up concessions.

So will this kind of mishap just remain as a tragic "oops", or will there be/can there be something done to ratchet up standards? I honestly don't know the answer if there is one.

Edit: So now the FAA acknowledges there was a violation of policy in the control tower with only one controller on duty.
 
The governer is requesting that the smaller runway be permanently closed and replaced by a 5,000 ft runway. But, this is Central KY. The airport wanted to build a 5,000 ft runway a few years ago, but around here you can't do anything that might disturb a horse or its rich owner. I can't remember if the city council has any say over airport expansions, but I do think it was the council that stopped a bigger runway from being built a few years back. The airport kept citing safety as their reason for wanting the new runway, but the horse crowd said it was solely for business reasons and kept calling the airport board "greedy".
 
Airports operate under a variety of interlocking and overlapping authorities. Most states (I believe) regulate airports, but if the airport is owned by a municipality or county government, then obviously the state's authority is limited to enforcing the state laws. The FAA has absolute jurisdiction over aircraft operations, much to the chagrin of local governments, which routinely attempt (and fail) to regulate when airplanes can take off and land, and what types may use the airport.

The shorter general aviation runway at this airport isn't the problem. This is a very common configuration at middle-sized airports that support both general and commercial aviation. The dimensions of this one are actually quite generous -- almost twice as long and wide as the one at my home airport.

As for the policy of having two controllers in the tower, I don't know how it would have made any difference. This is a pretty quiet airport. They don't do that many operations, and no others were occurring at the time of the accident, so it probably wasn't a matter of distraction so much as inattention.

The FAA has been on a campaign to reinforce ground operations awareness for pilots over the last few years, mainly to reduce the incidence of "runway incursions" -- taxiing onto active runways without authorization.
 
Crew Check-in

I read that the crew of flight 5191 checked in at the gate at 5:15am, received the paperwork (Dispatch Release), and then proceeded to the aircraft to perform their preflight duties but ended up aboard the wrong aircraft. There's a couple of items here that aren't quite right, and I doubt that they were verified.

1) Did anyone actually check with the crew hotel to determine what time the crew van left the hotel to transport them to the airport? Check-in time may have been much closer to 5:30am.

2) If the crew did indeed receive the paperwork when they checked in with the gate it would have been almost certainly impossible for them to have gone on board the wrong aircraft. The aircraft number is printed out on the Dispatch Release which the crew would have clearly seen. It seems to be a common practice for the gate personnel to run the Dispatch Release down to the crew several minutes later, often after the flight has already begun boarding. This would seem to make the most sense as to why the pilots were very busy in the cock pit, even after they had begun taxiing to the runway. Sounds like gate personnel may be trying to cover their backside. I sure hope the NTSB has thought of checking into these actions closer.
 
iGary said:
"Wrong" meaning not updated to the latest NOTAM.

Meh. It was on CNN yesterday, who characterized it as the wrong charts being on board, but this piece from yesterday clarifies.
Click to expand...

By definition, the contents of NOTAMs are not reflected on charts. They're the most recent information not included in other printed materials. Contrary to what the article says, this information is rarely carried over the tower's communications frequencies. They are picked up from Flight Service Centers or other methods of obtaining preflight weather and conditions briefings.
 
IJ Reilly said:
By definition, the contents of NOTAMs are not reflected on charts. They're the most recent information not included in other printed materials. Contrary to what the article says, this information is rarely carried over the tower's communications frequencies. They are picked up from Flight Service Centers or other methods of obtaining preflight weather and conditions briefings.
Click to expand...

Of course they aren't - how would one expect current information to be printed on a non-current chart? :rolleyes:

It's like a nautical chart - it's no good without the current LNTM printed off, or a print on demand chart, right?
 
iGary said:
Of course they aren't - how would one expect current information to be printed on a non-current chart? :rolleyes:

It's like a nautical chart - it's no good without the current LNTM printed off, or a print on demand chart, right?
Click to expand...

I'm not familiar with nautical charts, but the process sounds similar. Airport taxiway plans can be issued more frequently than aeronautical charts but the point I was making is that NOTAMs are by definition items of importance that are not in other official printed materials. Once they're included in the printed materials (or expire), then they are no longer NOTAMs. So to be clear, my point is, to say that a chart is not up-to-date because it doesn't include current NOTAMs is kind of an oxymoron.
 
IJ Reilly said:
I'm not familiar with nautical charts, but the process sounds similar. Airport taxiway plans can be issued more frequently than aeronautical charts but the point I was making is that NOTAMs are by definition items of importance that are not in other official printed materials. Once they're included in the printed materials (or expire), then they are no longer NOTAMs. So to be clear, my point is, to say that a chart is not up-to-date because it doesn't include current NOTAMs is kind of an oxymoron.
Click to expand...

OK, I get your meaning. Nautical charts are about the same, from what I have seen - every week, the Coast Guard issues a LNTM for each distrcit, which has reported condition and changes to charts (navigational marks, etc.) Some people mark up their charts with the changes, most do not, of course.

Alternatively, you can go to a chart store and print off an "On Demand" chart, which is current the second it is printed - all changes are added to the chart instantly as they are made and reported every day.

Too bad the FAA isn't doing the same thing.

Anyway, like yousaid earlier a lot of people were involved ot make one big mistake. Shame, really. Always is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back