http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/27/plane.crash/index.html

terrorism

8/27/2006 11:59:34 AM

Ugh great I'm terrified of flying as it is (I'm a pussy).

I have a flight in October and even though it's the "safest way to travel" I'm still going to think about this, more than likely.

8/27/2006 12:46:34 PM

the plane flew fine for over 10 minutes before crashing so how could the wrong runway have anything to do with it?

[Edited on August 27, 2006 at 12:54 PM. Reason : no communication during flight at all]

8/27/2006 12:54:15 PM

Quote :

"I have a flight in October and even though it's the "safest way to travel" I'm still going to think about this, more than likely."

you know in the time it took you to type that sentence there were probably 500 fatal car crashes that happened in the US

8/27/2006 2:36:18 PM

^wrong

8/27/2006 2:45:44 PM

Quote :

"hcnguyen: the plane flew fine for over 10 minutes before crashing so how could the wrong runway have anything to do with it?"

1. Are you a pilot? What do you know about the importance of proper runways?
2. "The cause of the crash is unknown and is under investigation."
3. You've missed the most interesting parts of all this: How did all those people die? If they took off on the wrong runway, why? Are they in the habit of making mistakes like that?

8/27/2006 2:53:17 PM

praise allah

8/27/2006 2:59:15 PM

damn, one survivor... when he wakes up, he is gonna have the shock of his life, and also feel invincible, like in that movie, unbreakable.

8/27/2006 3:16:16 PM

The plane was not in the air for 10 minutes. The plane apparently took off of a runway that was only 3500 ft. The CRJ-200 FAR take-off airfield length at full capacity is 5000 ft. That means she would have not been off the ground when the runway ran out. They would have probably had the nose up trying to get off the ground, but the back woulda struck a fence, trees, whatever and that probably caused the fire which pretty much killed everybody but the lone survivor in critical. Watch it be the damn captain that made it.

Sounds like no cover up. Sounds like a captain and first-officer fucked up and killed a bunch of people by mistake.

[Edited on August 27, 2006 at 3:18 PM. Reason : ^If it was one of the pilots, he mighta wished he died. He's gonna get the shit sued outta him.]

8/27/2006 3:16:30 PM

^

Quote :

"First responders extricated the crew's first officer -- the crash's lone survivor -- according to Blue Grass Airport's Chief of Public Safety Scott Lanter."

What's a first officer? Like, a flight attendant?

8/27/2006 3:25:30 PM

No he's the co-pilot.

8/27/2006 4:01:19 PM

^^^ Or they got off the ground, but pulled up too hard trying to get airborne and ultimately stalled shortly after take off

8/27/2006 6:22:13 PM

well why did the plane crash at 619 14 minutes after being cleared for takeoff (605)? it takes planes that long to take off now?

8/27/2006 7:44:26 PM

traffic?

8/27/2006 7:48:13 PM

I don't think there will be a cover up. They will want to get to the true cause of the crash, and then get that word out to any parties that could fall victim to the same thing in the future. that's the way crash investigations work.

the crew could've taken the wrong runway, or tower could've cleared them to the wrong runway (a smart crew should figure that out, but i can see how that mistake could be made). That's more likely to happen when you have parallel runways (which LEX does not). Still, it's tough for that to happen. Tower will call you and say something like "[callsign], winds 240 at 10, cleared for takeoff, runway 22." You immediately have to call back and say "[callsign], cleared for takeoff, 22." it's a required readback that is 2nd nature to ANY pilot. That way, if you misunderstood, the controller can correct you or clarify.

Quote :

"the plane flew fine for over 10 minutes before crashing"

Quote :

"well why did the plane crash at 619 14 minutes after being cleared for takeoff (605)?"

where are you getting that time of the crash? i didn't see it in the article.

it says the jet went in about a half mile from the departure end of the rwy, which would take 15 seconds even if they were nursing the jet along at 120 kts

Quote :

"The CRJ-200 FAR take-off airfield length at full capacity is 5000 ft."

that number is probably necessary to maintain a standard minimum climb gradient/obstacle clearance with a safe buffer over stall speed. I'm sure it's physically possible to get off the ground in a shorter distance.

Quote :

" no communication during flight at all]"

yeah, the flight probably lasted 15 seconds, and they were dealing with an emergency the entire time. no doubt they made no radio transmissions.

Quote :

"Sounds like no cover up. Sounds like a captain and first-officer fucked up and killed a bunch of people by mistake."

Yep, and possibly an ATC mistake, too.

[Edited on August 27, 2006 at 8:09 PM. Reason : ^no, you aren't cleared for takeoff until just before you push the throttles and start rolling.]

8/27/2006 8:09:07 PM

I smell a bookdeal for the one survivor

8/27/2006 8:19:01 PM

i smell survivors guilt

8/27/2006 9:02:06 PM

^ and ^^i smell final destnation for the survivor

but ya i know for a fact it said the plane crashed at 619 when i posted it. now it is gone from the article. i am not tripping or lying, 100% sure thats what it said.

now i'm really starting to think this is a coverup. if the truth got out that the terrorists or whoever or whatever undetected problem brought down this plane nobody would want to fly again. a simple "o they used the wrong runway" makes everyone feel much better about the whole thing because that would be a silly silly mistake that no other pilot would make (and flight control, copilot allow him to get away with). also there wouldnt be 14 minutes of traffic that early. this was a commuter flight. regular domestic flights don't start till around 7. also, this is kentucky's airport we're talking about.

8/27/2006 9:24:38 PM

Quote :

"also there wouldnt be 14 minutes of traffic that early."

there damn well could be 25 minutes of traffic that early. it's not just commercial flights that happen at 6am, it's also private. 6am is when traffic starts to pick back up from the midnight-6am clearing.

Quote :

"Yep, and possibly an ATC mistake, too."

It's the pilot in command that has to look out for it all. It is the PIC's responsibility to know all runway information prior to flight and know that the runway they took off on, EVEN IF CLEARED BY ATC, was too short to do so.

also, The first officer (co-pilot) assumes NO responsibility for anything here b/c it's the PIC that is in charge 100%.



From what I heard they were CLEARED for the correct runway, but took off on the wrong one, so doesn't sound like ATC error to me. Either way, it's still PIC's responsibility to know.

[Edited on August 27, 2006 at 9:36 PM. Reason : ]

8/27/2006 9:33:52 PM

Dukes got more flight experience than me, so he is better at filling you in on the details than me.

And your right Duke, I was just trying to illustrate the point that a 3500' runway is far too short for a CRJ-200 with a full complement of passengers and probably a full payload of fuel to make it off the ground or at least enough to clear the treeline. The pictures show some damage to the trees between the crashsite and the runway, meaning likely the plane was getting airborne, but not enough to clear it, the tail or engine struck the tree and then she came down. The cockpit was obviously not destroyed if the police officer was able to pull the first officer from the cabin, so it wasn't a nose strike. If it were a wing striking a tree, the plane would have very likely cartwheeled into the ground, but she landed almost parallel to the centerline, indicating it never changed course.

8/27/2006 9:37:57 PM

8/27/2006 9:40:38 PM

Great illustration Bous and makes it pretty easy to see, they didn't have to go to the other end of the airport to fuck this up, they just had to not pay attention, and instead of taxiing across this runway, to the next one, they stopped at the first one and flew into the trees.

8/27/2006 9:45:47 PM

I'd love to find out if this was their first time at KLEX or not.

Because if it wasn't, they are fucking retarded.

Otherwise, I can at least see how it's possible to fuck it up.... but I mean looking down the runway it'd seem short. 3500 feet is not that long.

8/27/2006 9:47:40 PM

http://www.pauljensen.org/KLEX.pdf



OMFG THE RUNWAY WAS ONLY 75' WIDE... 22 is 150' wide.

HOW THE FUCK DID THEY DO THIS?

[Edited on August 27, 2006 at 9:49 PM. Reason : ]

8/27/2006 9:48:37 PM

Yea but it was fucking early. Probably their first flight of the day, probably not fully light yet. Maybe the runway illumination fucked with them and they thought it was farther.

8/27/2006 9:49:48 PM

ya i can understand the distance thing and not thinking about that.


BUT YOU CAN TELL A NARROW RUNWAY... and ALWAYS narrower runways are SHORTER... well almost always.

8/27/2006 9:50:40 PM

Just reading, apparently the shorter runway had just been repaved and no lights were operating on it at the time. Of course the sun would have been beginning to come up, so they may have just thought it had been turned off, but it was the third of a dozen flights, so you'd have thought they mighta seen the other planes go off the right runway or somebody in line behind them might have seen them lining up to the wrong one and radio'd it in.

8/27/2006 9:56:32 PM

Quote :

"Still, it's tough for that to happen. Tower will call you and say something like "[callsign], winds 240 at 10, cleared for takeoff, runway 22." You immediately have to call back and say "[callsign], cleared for takeoff, 22." it's a required readback that is 2nd nature to ANY pilot. That way, if you misunderstood, the controller can correct you or clarify."

sadly, though, most people from what i've heard (and well, i have much less experience flying than you)... most say "callsign cleared for takeoff" and don't say the runway, only when landing will they say the runway more often (since it's not as important if you're already on the ground)



they would have had to say cleared to cross runway 26, taxi alpha seven to runway hold short 22 or some variation.

these motherfuckers must have not been thinking and that pisses me off. I want to know their BAC from autopsy.



[Edited on August 27, 2006 at 9:59 PM. Reason : ]

8/27/2006 9:56:32 PM

i blame the wind, this wouldn't have happened if it was in a different direction!

8/27/2006 10:10:28 PM

Is it not very uncommon for this to happen, I mean, at a busy airport being on the wrong runway could fuck you (and another plane) over pretty good right?

As I understand it runways are labelled relatively clearly how many thousands of feet there is left (ive seen such signs myself when flying), how could the pilots not notice they were coming up short.

8/27/2006 10:55:39 PM

I'd be interested to see the transcripts that come out of this one. If the pilots noticed the runway length indicators too late, they may have been better off to proceed with a takeoff than try to abort. If the pilots saw the runway signs early on and said "to heck with it," that's just tempting Darwin.

My first thought was that they most likely fell victim to a departure stall after a slow takeoff run. It's just a shame that TWO pilots, after hearing THREE clearances from 1) clearance delivery (IFR flight), 2)Ground, and 3)Tower, STILL didn't understand what they were getting themselves into.

8/27/2006 11:37:29 PM

they had to be fucking high for this to happen.

and they noticed it probably with 1500 feet of runway left, but couldn't stop in time so they had to try and pull up.



they thought they were on the right runway, so they wouldn't have thought anything about it when calling in and hearing runway 22 (they were on 26)

[Edited on August 27, 2006 at 11:39 PM. Reason : ]

8/27/2006 11:38:23 PM

They also could have looked down at their DG and noticed the 40 degrees of difference in heading. Or the painted runway sign. Or the nice red taxi signs the FAA mandates.

And something else that bugs me is that the tower cleared them, likely without even looking out their window to visually confirm.

[Edited on August 27, 2006 at 11:46 PM. Reason : math]

8/27/2006 11:46:09 PM

Seriously, the airline industry doesn't want us to know about the number of mistakes that are made, but they are.

8/28/2006 12:37:29 AM

ATC is slack

I was cleared behind a jet #2 for a landing and was vectored in, on course to run into another plane who was also #2 for landing. i kept my cool but felt like making a scene. he confused me with another plane.

all in all IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PIC not to fuck up (i guess that changes for IFR, dunno )

8/28/2006 1:23:33 AM

I guess this raises an interesting question about ATC operations. Are some controllers more slack with VMC IFR than with IMC IFR? And also are pilots more slack during VMC? IFR, VFR--whatever the situation, the pilots needed to be on their toes. Instead, as it may seem, they were on their drugs.

My flight instructor always told me to fly the plane from when I sat down to when I tied it down. Not even during taxi can you afford to abandon good judgement and headwork.

When I'm up in my Cherokee, I would hate to think that I get worse, less attentive ATC 'service' in perfect weather simply because of lower risk. Personally, I love to correct controllers (politely, of course)--especially when my safety is even slightly at risk! Good pilots have to make a habit of doing so, because ATC errors (no matter how small) do occasionally happen. But, like bous and I point out, the PIC also has to know what he's doing for times when nobody else does.

8/28/2006 2:02:26 AM

you know what I smell

8/28/2006 6:43:58 AM

Quote :

"also there wouldnt be 14 minutes of traffic that early. this was a commuter flight. regular domestic flights don't start till around 7."

doesn't matter. you don't call for clearance to take off until you're ready to go, and they don't clear you to take off until they're ready for you to go right then, and then you're expected to be on the roll right after you call back to acknowledge your clearance.

Quote :

"It's the pilot in command that has to look out for it all. It is the PIC's responsibility to know all runway information prior to flight and know that the runway they took off on, EVEN IF CLEARED BY ATC, was too short to do so. also, The first officer (co-pilot) assumes NO responsibility for anything here b/c it's the PIC that is in charge 100%."

yeah, it's ultimately the PIC's responsibility, but ATC makes mistakes that contribute to mishaps.

Quote :

"sadly, though, most people from what i've heard (and well, i have much less experience flying than you)... most say "callsign cleared for takeoff" and don't say the runway"

yeah, i've heard that a few times. most people are pretty good from what i've heard, though.

Quote :

" It's just a shame that TWO pilots, after hearing THREE clearances from 1) clearance delivery (IFR flight), 2)Ground, and 3)Tower, STILL didn't understand what they were getting themselves into."

clearance delivery won't tell you what runway to use. ground usually will. tower definitely will.

my guess is that ATC told them correctly, they understood and responded correctly, and then the got confused as to which rwy they were turning on to and took the wrong one.

Quote :

"They also could have looked down at their DG and noticed the 40 degrees of difference in heading. Or the painted runway sign. Or the nice red taxi signs the FAA mandates. And something else that bugs me is that the tower cleared them, likely without even looking out their window to visually confirm."

Yep. Right on all counts.

8/28/2006 8:30:26 AM

Quote :

"Seriously, the airline industry doesn't want us to know about the number of mistakes that are made, but they are."

Please do some searching before you start making accusations of airline coverups.

NTSB Aviation Accident Database:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp

FAA Accident/Incident Database System (AIDS)
http://www.nasdac.faa.gov/portal/page?_pageid=33,36440&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL

8/28/2006 12:17:50 PM

I got bored one day last week and went through the list of cases of pilot error on wikipedia.

It really blew my mind how often not thinking killed people.

I also found out that Stephen Colbert's father and two older brothers died in a plane crash in Charlotte in the early 80s.

8/28/2006 2:10:57 PM

oh, human error is the big killer, for sure.

especially on an airliner or regional jet...there are so many redundant systems that it's pretty unlikely that the jet will kill you. furthermore, a fatal mishap (not due to terrorist action, etc) would almost have to occur during takeoff/climbout or approach/landing. cruising around in the flight levels is pretty much idiot proof.

8/28/2006 2:19:53 PM

Quote :

"Initial analysis of the flight data recorder and the cockpit voice recorder indicates the plane took off from the wrong runway, using Runway 26 instead of Runway 22 due to pilot error.[4] Runway 04/22, the main runway, is 7003 ft (2134.5 m) long. The secondary runway, 08/26, is just 3500 ft (1066.8 m) long.[5] Runway 26 was too short for a safe takeoff, causing the aircraft to clip the boundary fence as it rolled off the end of the runway. It subsequently impacted trees and crashed in a field less than half a mile (0.8 km) from the end of the runway. The plane came to rest largely intact, with most victims killed by the impact or by the intense post-crash fire."

Quote :

"Comair 191 joins American Airlines Flight 191, Delta Air Lines Flight 191, Prinair Flight 191, and the only X-15 crash, also flight 191, on the list of flights numbered 191 that have crashed."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comair_Flight_191

8/28/2006 3:29:56 PM

they were saying that most of the people probably died from the ensuing fire and not the actual impact of the crash...thats pretty fucked up...wonder what they could do to minimalize the casualties in a situation like that

8/28/2006 3:31:58 PM

i can't think of anything to counteract burning jet fuel

8/28/2006 3:37:10 PM

sure but i mean like better reinforced cabins, barriers between fuel tanks and fuselage, etc

8/28/2006 3:38:36 PM

aren't there water sprinklers inside commerical jets?

and looking at that pic that joshua posted, it creeps the hell out of me. imagine sitting inside the plane as a passenger, looking out the window, and the end of the eunway approaches and the plane breaks through the fence, and you are like "what the hell". your heart starts beating as the plane is driving across a grass/dirt covered field, but you probably think to yourself, "it will come to rest soon". soon, you hit trees, and yoy blank out for a second from the jerk. when you open your eyes, you are surrounded by flames

seriously though, how come they weren't able to bring the plane to a rest when the saw the end of the runway approaching, or at least when they were on unpaved ground? half a mile isn't enough? it couldn't have been going that fast.

8/28/2006 6:03:02 PM

^^ it'd be too expensive.

cheaper to handle a few deaths now and then.




^ didn't make the right decision in trying to pull up. if they knew the length of that runway they would have known to stop the damn plane. then again, maybe they knew THEY'D die first in that situation.

won't ever know what they were thinking i guess.

[Edited on August 28, 2006 at 6:05 PM. Reason : ]

8/28/2006 6:04:28 PM

^ but i am under the impression it never took off the ground, not even a foot. it just rolled off the runway on its wheels and carried on rolling in the field and then crashed into the trees.

8/28/2006 6:21:19 PM

Maybe you've never noticed that airplanes are big, heavy, and go really fast.

They're not easy to stop.

8/28/2006 6:25:00 PM

they chose to attempt take off (possible crash) rather than roll off the runway at high speed (definite crash)

if it hadn't taken off at all it wouldn't have ended up on the far side of the trees

8/28/2006 6:31:23 PM