Comair 5191: Sole Survivor tonight 1/8 on CNN
- Thread starter mikecweb
- Start date
Pilot Fighter
Well-Known Member
Before and after. I think they decreased the runway confusion risk but now you have to worry about GA traffic crossing 22 to get to 27.
(Actually, the first fix was closing 26.)
BobDDuck
Island Bus Driver
zmiller4
Well-Known Member
I'm interested to know why it's so critical to have that second runway. What benefit outweighs the risk of having a confusing layout (old) or a bunch of runway crossings (new)? I haven't been there since 2011, but is G before or after the "hump" (could you see a light aircraft crossing from the approach end of 22)?
Between that damn mural, the hump, and the layout, it seems like they're trying to make things difficult.
NickH
Uber Driver
It looks to me like taxiway C from the older chart used to be a runway. It's a fairly typical construction process. When an airport required a larger runway to allow for larger aircraft, they have historically often added an additional, larger runway at a crossing angle rather than upgrading the existing runway(s). It minimises runway closures to add another runway, and adding crossing runways keeps the footprint of the airport small. If the surfaces are good, the existing runways are usually kept, because having more than one allows the airport to stay open during routine maintenance.
In recent years there has been a tendency for airports to add non-crossing runways, or in extreme cases runways that aren't connected to the rest of the airport. It again allows the airport to remain open during routine maintenance, and to separate small traffic and flight training from other airport users.
In recent years there has been a tendency for airports to add non-crossing runways, or in extreme cases runways that aren't connected to the rest of the airport. It again allows the airport to remain open during routine maintenance, and to separate small traffic and flight training from other airport users.
ChasenSFO
hen teaser
I've flown into LEX several times in 172s, all after the crash when 26 was being torn up and before 27 was built. The first few times were in daylight, and I remember looking down the closed 26 on my way to 22 trying to get an idea of how the Comair crew got confused. Then my first time taxiing out at night, I almost turned onto the closed 26 while reading back a revised clearance but realized my mistake before I even tapped the pedals. Given their circumstances, I can totally see how easy of a mistake it would have been all factors considered.
Autothrust Blue
Welcome aboard the Washington State Ferries
Yes, indeed - there's a 27-APCH holding point where the 26 holding point used to be. I don't like APCH holding points, for the same reason it's a hot spot, no doubt.
I can't seem to embed the (very recent) Google Maps overhead pass, but see here. I had a few early-morning departures out of LEX in a previous lifetime, and despite the fact that both of us briefed the hotspot, the taxi route, etc., and we stopped at the hold bars at the hot spot because it still looked like we were crossing a runway. (The fact that I can cross those bars without a clearance is completely inconsistent with the meaning of those bars 99.95% of the time too - that's another story.) I guess my point is, it was fixed, but still might befuddle a minimally-rested brain.
BobDDuck
Island Bus Driver
He used to bring a second one in (an SP I think) just for his horses.
ChasenSFO
hen teaser
Last time I was there, his 744 was parked at the FBO and @JordanD took a pic of me standing infront of it. Some guy came rushing over and told me not to dare upload that photo since the Sheikh doesn't want people to know where he is. As he was talking, I very blatantly uploaded it to Facebook, paused until it finished, then said, "You got it". You know, they try to keep it discreet when they park a 747-400 next to the bizjets at LEX...
It's an airport. You know as well as I do that there are a ton of more complex layed-out airports than LEX. Just because we had an accident where a crew lost SA and went to the wrong runway, I personally don't believe that it calls for (as I've heard from some people in person; not saying you are) some major revamping of that airport or other airports. To me, thats knee-jerk reaction to something that's not an epidemic or trend at this airport.
inigo88
Composite-lover
Agreed absolutely! Some California examples:
It's interesting that LEX had such a knee jerk reaction to changing the airport layout, while ops at places like these continue normally. Seems like the mistakes made in the Comair accident can happen anywhere.
Agree. By the logic of some in the aviation world, we ought to shut down or completely revamp ORD, SFO, JFK, etc, etc. Complex or not, if the signage was correct and properly marked, then there shouldn't have been a problem getting to the correct runway that was the right heading and was lighted. Clues were missed, but that isn't the fault of the airport or ATC. And unlike the NWA 299/1482 crash, this wasn't a situation of low visiblility or anything. It was dark, sure, but that should've helped in terms of knowing you're aligned up on a runway with lighting on, as well as confirming the heading.
All lessons learned.....tragic ones. Because this accident wasn't some previously unknown way to crash a plane; this was a case of loss of SA to the "back to basics".
inigo88
Composite-lover
We have to fly into STS together sometime.
Similar situation to LEX, except both runways 14 and 19 start at the same taxiway (Yankee). (No taxiway on the other side you keep following.) So unlike LEX, when you pull onto the runway you have to decide which direction to turn and line up. 14 is the calm wind runway but when I took my checkride there we got a "no delay cross runway 14 cleared for takeoff runway 19, traffic for 14 on short final." And that was the first time I had ever used that runway.
J Cole
Well-Known Member
Interesting. The definition used is a little different, and, though I am by no means a legal expert, I assume it was an attempt to broaden the definition to cover those that might claim ignorance to the risk they took on. However, I still think it would be difficult to tag the crew as "reckless" even with this definition because of the second part of the definition: "The risk must be of such nature and degree that failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation." They missed taking off on the wrong runway - something that in 99.9 times out of 100 would have been caught before the point of no return or not have resulted in an accident. Their mistake was a runway incursion. To label that as "reckless" would imply you need to apply that label to most runway incursions.
We have to fly into STS together sometime.
Similar situation to LEX, except both runways 14 and 19 are served by the same taxiway (Yankee). So unlike LEX, when you pull onto the runway you have to decide which direction to turn and line up. 14 is the calm wind runway but when I took my checkride there we got a "no delay cross runway 14 cleared for takeoff runway 19, traffic for 14 on short final." And that was the first time I had ever used that runway.
Here's an even better one. When I was flying out of ORKK in the A-10 when we first went into there, their runway layout was the same as STS with the "V" shape, however their runways were 14/32 and 13/31! 10 damn degrees apart, with the runways coming together at one end with one taxiway serving them. Talk about checking the HSI closely, as we took off with no runway lights and under NVGs. It was actually easier on landing in this direction, as you either aimed for the asphalt on the left side of the "V" or the right side of the "V" when landing in that direction.
Why the Iraqis designed it that way, I've never known.....
And to add, in my 6 months there, we never had any transient aircraft, or even ours, depart from the wrong runway other than what was cleared. In fact, we would do simultaneous launches to expedite the alert A-10s launching, joining up when airborne and turning on course, as the runways weren't wide enough for individual formation takeoffs, and simo takeoffs negated the need for a time-delayed takeoff of 20 seconds or so.
Only once did one of our A-10s get told to takeoff from a different runway than what was cleared: One guy in my squadron was on the ground-alert A-10s. As they were starting up to launch on a scramble, he starts taxiing to 13, which he was cleared by ground/tower. Just as he swings into position/lineup and begins running up his engines, the airfield comes under mortar attack from enemy outside the perimeter. Tower tells him (he's in position and hold) "Gunhog 31 flight, change to runway 14, cleared for immediate takeoff. Caution, artillery impacting next to runway 13 at midfield; change to advisory, tower is going off the air!" He and his wingman.....lined up for 13, throttle up, release brakes, quickly steer 10 degrees right, and launch down 14 for takeoff.
I'd forgotten all about that until now......10 years ago.
Pilot Fighter
Well-Known Member
It wasn't purely a knee-jerk reaction. Before the accident, they had plans to add a runway parallel to 22 and extend 26. If I recall correctly, 26 was in bad shape, it had weight restrictions and was limited to daytime VFR traffic. Due to its poor condition, they were going to have to tear out the whole thing. The parallel runway ran into funding and land-use issues and was shelved. Then, the accident happened and they decided to spend the money to build 27. I think they wanted some distance from the Comair tragedy and the new layout was a result. They probably could have torn out 26 and not built 27, but there was money on the table. I don't think it was really needed and I don't think it is heavily used.
zmiller4
Well-Known Member
I think you both missed the point a little. I'm not advocating tearing apart complex airports for no reason. However, they decided to tear up LEX and then spent millions of dollars putting a runway in that increased complexity....and for what? I've never seen any evidence that the field needs a GA runway. My suspicion is that they had some money allocated and wanted to spend it, which would be fine if it didn't increase the complexity of the field. I don't care about airports that have rational parallel runways where GA is concentrated on one side. I *do* care about fields with substantial air carrier operations that add a new surface requiring multiple crossing points for GA aircraft for no apparent reason. It's ludicrous.
I figured someone would bring up Concord. I don't advocate "tearing it up", but if they decide to spend a ton of money resurfacing one of their small runways, it would be ridiculous.
As for ORD--I spent 4 years based there, so I'm very familiar with the pros and cons of the layout there. There's a world of difference between a very skilled, experienced group of crews and controllers making a complex layout like ORD work and a small airport like LEX that combines a skeleton crew of controllers and frequent GA operations. ORD's layout is suboptimal, but it would be hard to find a layout that would make it much easier to operate an airport like that given the weather and traffic density.
I'm just in favor of trying to make an airport as safe as possible given its economics. I've never seen 26/27 at LEX used, yet it's been reincarnated and is a hazard.