Aviation Forums Forum Index Aviation Forums
Aviation discussions newsgroups
 
Archives   FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Teamsters send clear message
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Aviation Forums Forum Index -> Aviation safety Enhancement
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Sam Spade
Guest





PostPosted: Tue Oct 10, 2006 6:10 am    Post subject: Re: Federal Aviation Administration to cut more air traffic Reply with quote



jgalban (AT) hotmail (DOT) com wrote:

Quote:
Sam Spade wrote:

On the day of the accident, there was a NOTAM that the centerline
lights on the long runway were OTS. A misinterpretation of the NOTAM
could have led the crew not to question the absence of lights. Just a
thought. It could have been another possible link in the chain.

Runway edge lights, unlike CL lights, are mandatory for a night takeoff
under Part 121.

Back to top
Sam Spade
Guest





PostPosted: Tue Oct 10, 2006 6:10 am    Post subject: Re: Federal Aviation Administration to cut more air traffic Reply with quote



jgalban (AT) hotmail (DOT) com wrote:
Quote:
Sam Spade wrote:

But, I simply cannot and will not accept that,
once lined up on the incorrect runway, a Part 121 flight crew would
disregard the lack of runway lights. Unless some hard evidence sufraces
to explain how that could happen short of willful disregard of
safety/legal operating requirements, the conclusions I have formed in my
mind will remain unchanged.



On the day of the accident, there was a NOTAM that the centerline
lights on the long runway were OTS. A misinterpretation of the NOTAM
could have led the crew not to question the absence of lights. Just a
thought. It could have been another possible link in the chain.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)


If the crew was sharp enough to understand that a runway equipped with
centerline lights will have them on when the runway edge lights are on
would also be sharp enough to not accept lack of CL lights as an
acceptble reason to have no runway edge lights. In fact, if they were
that sharp, the lack of Cl and edge lights should have invoked a
cautious reflection, not, "Oh the CL lights aren't supposed to be on
tonight so let's rock and roll.
Back to top
Ron Lee
Guest





PostPosted: Tue Oct 10, 2006 6:10 am    Post subject: Re: Federal Aviation Administration to cut more air traffic Reply with quote

Sam Spade <Sam (AT) coldmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Quote:
jgalban (AT) hotmail (DOT) com wrote:

Sam Spade wrote:

On the day of the accident, there was a NOTAM that the centerline
lights on the long runway were OTS. A misinterpretation of the NOTAM
could have led the crew not to question the absence of lights. Just a
thought. It could have been another possible link in the chain.

Runway edge lights, unlike CL lights, are mandatory for a night takeoff
under Part 121.

Plus it is clear that you have to completely cross runway 26 then taxi
more to get to the correct runway 22.

Ron Lee
Back to top
Beavis
Guest





PostPosted: Tue Oct 10, 2006 7:42 pm    Post subject: Re: Federal Aviation Administration to cut more air traffic Reply with quote

In article <0wDWg.32302$tO5.12002@fed1read10>,
Sam Spade <Sam (AT) coldmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Quote:
Runway edge lights, unlike CL lights, are mandatory for a night takeoff
under Part 121.

Not at my Part 121 airline.

From our FAA-approved manual: "Runway lighting is required by FAR 121.97
for takeoff or landing at night. Centerline lights are considered
adequate in the event that the runway edge lights are inoperative."
Back to top
Sam Spade
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 12:49 am    Post subject: Re: Federal Aviation Administration to cut more air traffic Reply with quote

Beavis wrote:
Quote:
In article <0wDWg.32302$tO5.12002@fed1read10>,
Sam Spade <Sam (AT) coldmail (DOT) com> wrote:


Runway edge lights, unlike CL lights, are mandatory for a night takeoff
under Part 121.


Not at my Part 121 airline.

From our FAA-approved manual: "Runway lighting is required by FAR 121.97
for takeoff or landing at night. Centerline lights are considered
adequate in the event that the runway edge lights are inoperative."

That is an authorized substitution. It doesn't changed 121.97.
Back to top
Steven P. McNicoll
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 1:12 am    Post subject: Re: Federal Aviation Administration to cut more air traffic Reply with quote

"John Mazor" <mazorj (AT) erols (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:IaudnclGf-Y5ILrYnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d (AT) rcn (DOT) net...
Quote:

No, it was your implication that the controller failed to prevent this
accident that was a not-so-clever attempt to deflect attention away from
the crew.


The controller was otherwise occupied,...


"Otherwise occupied"? What does that mean? He wasn't playing a video game
or reading a comic book, he was counting strips. An administrative task,
but still part of his job.


Quote:

...and I never stated or implied that
if he had not been otherwise occupied, the controller *would* have
prevented the accident. Furthermore, I have made clear that even if there
had been the two controllers there and the lone controller had not been
responsible for working both positions, he would not have committed any
error if he had failed to notice the pilot error and warn them.

He *might* have, yes, but that goes to redundancy, one of the safety
concepts that I have contributed to these discussions and which you have
ignored in your determined but unneccesary obsession with ensuring that no
one attributes any controller error to this accident.



You didn't? Never? On 9/24/2006, 3:27 PM, John Mazor posted:

Quote:

Irrelevant. Taking off and landing safely is the pilot's responsibility.
The presence or absence of a tower, a controller, or even a runway
is irrelevant.


"Really? Then why bother having them?"


Jon, those words imply the controller has that responsibility. Did you post
them, or is someone else using your system?


On 9/25/2006, 12:58 AM, John Mazor posted:

Quote:

Really? Then why bother having them?


Controllers? For separation.


"And the tower? Might they be perching controllers so high up, in windowed
cabs, so they can see what's happening on the ground there? Such as
airplanes deviating from their clearances? If not, you don't need a tower,
any darkened room on the ground will do."

Jon, those words imply a purpose of tower controllers is to see airplanes
deviating from their clearances. Did you post them, or is someone else
using your system?


Quote:

Jon, do you have any background at all in aviation? What makes you think
you have any understanding of how aviation safety works?


My many explanations here of how the investigation process and safety
system work, none of which you have acknowledged, let alone refuted.


I'll have to assume the answer to the first question is, "No." What makes
you think you understand how the investigation process and safety system
work?
Back to top
Steven P. McNicoll
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 1:20 am    Post subject: Re: Federal Aviation Administration to cut more air traffic Reply with quote

"John Mazor" <mazorj (AT) erols (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:_p6dnRbJ_IcqILrYnZ2dnUVZ_r2dnZ2d (AT) rcn (DOT) net...
Quote:

Each airline has its own FAA-approved procedures and lists, and none of
them is exactly the same. (And it's not uncommon for the airline to
change a procedure after an accident.) The fact that it all is approved by
the FAA is a good starting point in a defense against charges of gross
negligence and willful disregard. It's not an absolute defense, but it
can help.


Any idea what was on Comair's FAA-approved procedures and lists at the time
of this accident?


Quote:

Of course they didn't think they were going to die. They nonetheless
willfully took on an unlighted runway, which is contrary to any modicum
of professional flight crew conduct.


That's not always an absolute rule.


Under what circumstances would choosing to depart from an unlighted runway
at night be considered consistent with professional flight crew conduct in
this type of operation?
Back to top
Steven P. McNicoll
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 1:38 am    Post subject: Re: Federal Aviation Administration to cut more air traffic Reply with quote

"John Mazor" <mazorj (AT) erols (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:R56dnXiii5FOILrYnZ2dnUVZ_r2dnZ2d (AT) rcn (DOT) net...
Quote:

And I repeat my request that you show even one example of me accusing the
controller of any error. You haven't, because you can't.


I never said you accused the controller of making an error, I said you
implied that he had.


Quote:

You have no connection to ALPA?


Irrelevant.


It's completely relevant.


Quote:

You just blew right past my umpteenth confirmation that the
controller broke no rules - when are you going to admit that and stop
accusing me of something I never said?


I haven't done that, and I think you're intelligent enough to understand
that I haven't. Am I wrong?


Quote:

Then why are you trying to protect the controller at all costs? I've
admitted numerous times that there is crew error involved.


I'm not trying to protect him at all. Why would you think he needed
protection if you knew he had made no error?


Quote:

A comparison of the body of information that the two of us have
contributed to the discussion of this accident will show that I have
provided far more information to educate readers than you have.


Jon, these are aviation forums. You're not in a position to educate anyone
here. There's a lot you could learn here, but it's clear you have no
interest in that. If you'd like to educate someone try
alt.society.labor-unions.


Quote:

So do tell us, what is my "true goal" here?


As I've already said, you're trying to deflect some of the responsibility
for the crash from a couple of dues-paying union members.


Quote:

I never killfile anyone, but unless you have something new to contribute
beyond your hollow mantras and UseNet dodges, I see no point in responding
to any more of your "nanner, nanner, are so!" whining. Let us know if and
when you want to contribute anything substantive.


What makes you think anyone here gives a damn if you respond to their
messages?
Back to top
Steven P. McNicoll
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 1:52 am    Post subject: Re: Federal Aviation Administration to cut more air traffic Reply with quote

"John Mazor" <mazorj (AT) erols (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:MJednfjI2b-_dbrYnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d (AT) rcn (DOT) net...
Quote:

I don't have the airport's flight schedule, but I'm under the
understanding that around 6 a.m. is when the departure activity picks up.

That's not a criticism, just an observation that 6 a.m. may not be as dead
as 2 a.m. there.



That's probably true of weekdays, probably not true of weekends though. I
seem to recall the LEX tower manager staffed a single position only on
weekend nights. The accident happened on a Sunday.


Quote:

As to what you think I implied, not only did I never intend to imply
controller error, but nothing I said could reasonably be interpreted as
such.


What you wrote could only be interpreted as such.
Back to top
Steven P. McNicoll
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 1:55 am    Post subject: Re: Federal Aviation Administration to cut more air traffic Reply with quote

"Steven P. McNicoll" <roncachamp (AT) nospamearthlink (DOT) net> wrote in message
news:jxTWg.12317$UG4.6737 (AT) newsread2 (DOT) news.pas.earthlink.net...
Quote:

I'm not trying to protect him at all. Why would you think he needed
protection if you knew he had made no error?


Oops! That should have been, "Why would you think he needed protection if
you knew he hadn't made no error?"
Back to top
John Mazor
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 6:10 am    Post subject: Re: Federal Aviation Administration to cut more air traffic Reply with quote

"Sam Spade" <Sam (AT) coldmail (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:UOSWg.32348$tO5.22560@fed1read10...
Quote:
Beavis wrote:
In article <0wDWg.32302$tO5.12002@fed1read10>,
Sam Spade <Sam (AT) coldmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Runway edge lights, unlike CL lights, are mandatory for a night takeoff
under Part 121.

Not at my Part 121 airline.

From our FAA-approved manual: "Runway lighting is required by FAR 121.97
for takeoff or landing at night. Centerline lights are considered
adequate in the event that the runway edge lights are inoperative."

That is an authorized substitution. It doesn't changed 121.97.

That's actually wrong. FAR 121.97 says *nothing* about forbidding runway
ops on an unlighted runway. Nor have I found any FAR that does that.
121.97 goes to operator requirements WRT airports and disseminating
information on them to their flight crews.

An airline's FOM might forbid using unlit runways, but there's no
requirement that such a rule be included in its FOM.
Back to top
John Mazor
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 6:10 am    Post subject: Re: Federal Aviation Administration to cut more air traffic Reply with quote

"Steven P. McNicoll" <roncachamp (AT) nospamearthlink (DOT) net> wrote in message
news:z8TWg.7603$Y24.3545 (AT) newsread4 (DOT) news.pas.earthlink.net...
Quote:

"John Mazor" <mazorj (AT) erols (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:IaudnclGf-Y5ILrYnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d (AT) rcn (DOT) net...

No, it was your implication that the controller failed to prevent this
accident that was a not-so-clever attempt to deflect attention away from
the crew.

The controller was otherwise occupied,...

"Otherwise occupied"? What does that mean? He wasn't playing a video
game or reading a comic book, he was counting strips. An administrative
task, but still part of his job.

Yes, as in he wasn't looking out on the airport runways and taxiways.
"Otherwise occupied."

This is yet another example of you taking a neutral statement and trying to
make it mean that I was implying controller error. How you can leap the
vast chasm necessary to inject terms like "playing a video game" or "reading
a comic book" is beyond me, but then, I'm not paranoid.

Quote:
...and I never stated or implied that
if he had not been otherwise occupied, the controller *would* have
prevented the accident. Furthermore, I have made clear that even if
there
had been the two controllers there and the lone controller had not been
responsible for working both positions, he would not have committed any
error if he had failed to notice the pilot error and warn them.

He *might* have, yes, but that goes to redundancy, one of the safety
concepts that I have contributed to these discussions and which you have
ignored in your determined but unneccesary obsession with ensuring that
no
one attributes any controller error to this accident.

You didn't? Never? On 9/24/2006, 3:27 PM, John Mazor posted:

Irrelevant. Taking off and landing safely is the pilot's responsibility.
The presence or absence of a tower, a controller, or even a runway
is irrelevant.

"Really? Then why bother having them?"

Jon, those words imply the controller has that responsibility. Did you
post them, or is someone else using your system?

You failed to include my subsequent comment:

"This is not to excuse the crew's oversight, but redundancy is an essential
pillar of our safety system. It's prevented far, far more accidents than
have occurred. Redundancy failures often are part of the chain of events
that has to occur before you actually get an accident. The secret to
airline safety's excellent record is identifying the links that can make up
such a chain, and fixing or preventing them."

This, as well as the comment you cited and others in my post, goes to
redundancy, and redundancy includes things that might happen to prevent an
accident even though the failure for them to happen does not necessarily
involve a mistake or rule violation. For example, a jumpseating pilot might
spot an oncoming aircraft and warn the crew. That's redundancy. If the
crew failed to "see and avoid" and there was a collision, they might well be
cited, but no one is going to violate the jumpseater or accuse him of making
a mistake for failing in his role of redundancy because he didn't see the
airplane.

You still are stretching to make my words mean something that they do not.
You also are ignoring the many, many times that I have stated in clear,
unmistakeable language that the controller made no error.

Quote:
On 9/25/2006, 12:58 AM, John Mazor posted:

Really? Then why bother having them?

Controllers? For separation.

"And the tower? Might they be perching controllers so high up, in
windowed
cabs, so they can see what's happening on the ground there? Such as
airplanes deviating from their clearances? If not, you don't need a
tower,
any darkened room on the ground will do."

Jon, those words imply a purpose of tower controllers is to see airplanes
deviating from their clearances. Did you post them, or is someone else
using your system?

Explain why one of the purposes of control towers CANNOT POSSIBLY be to
watch aircraft ground movements, including the possibilty that an aircraft
might deviate from its cleared route.

The operative phrase there was "such as" - of course that's not the only
reason.

Quote:
Jon, do you have any background at all in aviation? What makes you
think
you have any understanding of how aviation safety works?

My many explanations here of how the investigation process and safety
system work, none of which you have acknowledged, let alone refuted.

I'll have to assume the answer to the first question is, "No." What makes
you think you understand how the investigation process and safety system
work?

If I told you that I was a corn farmer from Iowa who never got closer to an
aeroplane than my crop duster's flight patterns, would that alter in the
least the validity of anything I've said here?
Back to top
John Mazor
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 6:10 am    Post subject: Re: Federal Aviation Administration to cut more air traffic Reply with quote

"Steven P. McNicoll" <roncachamp (AT) nospamearthlink (DOT) net> wrote in message
news:jxTWg.12317$UG4.6737 (AT) newsread2 (DOT) news.pas.earthlink.net...
Quote:

"John Mazor" <mazorj (AT) erols (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:R56dnXiii5FOILrYnZ2dnUVZ_r2dnZ2d (AT) rcn (DOT) net...

And I repeat my request that you show even one example of me accusing the
controller of any error. You haven't, because you can't.

I never said you accused the controller of making an error, I said you
implied that he had.

Implication is in the minds of both the source and the beholder. There was
no intent in my mind, nor was there any reasonable basis for it to form in
the mind of the beholder, but apprently it has in yours.

As I said, we're not going to change each other's minds on this, so there's
no point in going around and around on this.

Quote:
You have no connection to ALPA?

Irrelevant.

It's completely relevant.

If I told you that I was a corn farmer from Iowa who never got closer to an
aeroplane than my crop duster's flight patterns, would that alter in the
least the validity of anything I've said here?

Quote:
Then why are you trying to protect the controller at all costs? I've
admitted numerous times that there is crew error involved.

I'm not trying to protect him at all. Why would you think he needed
protection if you knew he had made no error?

Why do you keep insisting on his innocence if he doesn't need any protection
here?

Quote:
A comparison of the body of information that the two of us have
contributed to the discussion of this accident will show that I have
provided far more information to educate readers than you have.

Jon, these are aviation forums. You're not in a position to educate
anyone here.

I suppose the words "newbies" and "lurkers" have no meaning for you. Even
those who are well-informed on GA may not know much about the world of
airline ops.

Quote:
There's a lot you could learn here, but it's clear you have no interest in
that.

Right. I suppose that's why, on 10/7/06, I posted the following in response
to one of the few substantively informative posts you've made here:

"Thank you for the constructive information. I read it with great interest.
(Really.)"

Quote:
So do tell us, what is my "true goal" here?

As I've already said, you're trying to deflect some of the responsibility
for the crash from a couple of dues-paying union members.

There's a difference between "Don't jump on the crew, it's also somebody
else's fault" and "You can't simply hang the crew for their error and let it
go at that." Apparently the difference is too subtle for you to grasp.

Quote:
I never killfile anyone, but unless you have something new to contribute
beyond your hollow mantras and UseNet dodges, I see no point in
responding
to any more of your "nanner, nanner, are so!" whining. Let us know if
and
when you want to contribute anything substantive.

What makes you think anyone here gives a damn if you respond to their
messages?

You, for one, apparently do, and you're the only one I was referring to.
Back to top
John Mazor
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 6:10 am    Post subject: Re: Federal Aviation Administration to cut more air traffic Reply with quote

"Steven P. McNicoll" <roncachamp (AT) nospamearthlink (DOT) net> wrote in message
news:ggTWg.9769$o71.6271 (AT) newsread3 (DOT) news.pas.earthlink.net...
Quote:

"John Mazor" <mazorj (AT) erols (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:_p6dnRbJ_IcqILrYnZ2dnUVZ_r2dnZ2d (AT) rcn (DOT) net...

Each airline has its own FAA-approved procedures and lists, and none of
them is exactly the same. (And it's not uncommon for the airline to
change a procedure after an accident.) The fact that it all is approved
by
the FAA is a good starting point in a defense against charges of gross
negligence and willful disregard. It's not an absolute defense, but it
can help.

Any idea what was on Comair's FAA-approved procedures and lists at the
time of this accident?

No, but I'm trying to get some of that. It would be in the Flight
Operations Manual.

Quote:
Of course they didn't think they were going to die. They nonetheless
willfully took on an unlighted runway, which is contrary to any modicum
of professional flight crew conduct.

That's not always an absolute rule.

Under what circumstances would choosing to depart from an unlighted runway
at night be considered consistent with professional flight crew conduct in
this type of operation?

As far as I've been able to determine so far, if it is not in the FOM,
nothing precludes a 121 crew from using an unlighted runway. As I said, I'm
still trying to get information on the Comair FOM.

Another poster cited a reference to FAR 121.97. That reg says *nothing*
about whether a crew can use an unlighted runway. It goes to the operator's
requirements with respect to using airports and distributing necessary
information on airports to flight crews.

http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part121-97-FAR.shtml

So while most pilots might say in the abstract that they wouldn't take off
from an unlighted runway, there is no FAR against it as far as I can tell.
So unless it's in the crew's FOM, not only is not an absolute rule, for
them, it's not a rule at all. Granted, that puts it in the realm of an
after-the-fact judgment call as to how "professional" a crew's discretionary
decisions might have been, but that means that it is debatable, and not the
automatic slam-dunk that some here seem to think.
Back to top
John Mazor
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 6:10 am    Post subject: Re: Federal Aviation Administration to cut more air traffic Reply with quote

"Steven P. McNicoll" <roncachamp (AT) nospamearthlink (DOT) net> wrote in message
news:9KTWg.9777$o71.594 (AT) newsread3 (DOT) news.pas.earthlink.net...
Quote:

"John Mazor" <mazorj (AT) erols (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:MJednfjI2b-_dbrYnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d (AT) rcn (DOT) net...

I don't have the airport's flight schedule, but I'm under the
understanding that around 6 a.m. is when the departure activity picks up.

That's not a criticism, just an observation that 6 a.m. may not be as
dead
as 2 a.m. there.

That's probably true of weekdays, probably not true of weekends though. I
seem to recall the LEX tower manager staffed a single position only on
weekend nights. The accident happened on a Sunday.

Okay, I hadn't thought of that.

Quote:
As to what you think I implied, not only did I never intend to imply
controller error, but nothing I said could reasonably be interpreted as
such.

What you wrote could only be interpreted as such.

I need to construct a keyboard macro so I don't have to keep retyping my
refutation of your ridiculous accusation.
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Aviation Forums Forum Index -> Aviation safety Enhancement All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16  Next
Page 13 of 16

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB