ORKK.
Looks like sometime in the last 10 years, that 14/32 was changed to 15/33 and also repaved and widened; so now they're 20 degrees off instead of 10 degrees, lol.
Comair 5191: Sole Survivor tonight 1/8 on CNN
- Thread starter mikecweb
- Start date
ORKK.
Looks like sometime in the last 10 years, that 14/32 was changed to 15/33 and also repaved and widened; so now they're 20 degrees off instead of 10 degrees, lol.
amorris311
Well-Known Member
Why? Where were you thinking/trying to go?
Last edited:
amorris311
Well-Known Member
We're talking middle of nowhere upstate New York. Believe me I wouldn't wish my worst enemy anywhere near there. It's isolated.
SFLAX
Well-Known Member
So, if the information you are given leads to deaths and that not having 2 controllers , which was required by law is a labor issue, which actually is a safety issue . And you do something wrong, based on the fact that the safety net failed, you included, you should go to jail. Then, let's see who else needs to go to jail... The CEO of Jepperson, the Head of the Controllers, the CEO of the construction company doing the work, the airport manager, and crew scheduling. Did I miss anyone. I will admit, and have always had a few questions that have not been answered, did SOPs allow them to take off without runway lights? And why did they not verify RW heading?
Pilot Fighter
Well-Known Member
The law didn't require two controllers.
If I recall correctly, the union was pushing for two controllers when there wasn't a need or a legal requirement. Instead of agreeing to two controllers, management said that under certain circumstances with one controller, certain tasks should be handed off to Indy.
With light traffic, solo controllers weren't dividing responsibilities with Indy because that wasn't really a good idea. It was the discretion of the controller to hand off or not, so the controller broke the labor agreement, not the law.
Even if there had been a dozen controllers present, there would not have been a requirement for any to watch the taxi or take-off in this situation.
USMCmech
Well-Known Member
That is exactly what the law said. The point of a controller is to "sequence the flow of traffic", that is it.
He sequenced the only traffic moving on the field at that time, and that is where his legal responsibility stops.
It's called PILOT in comand for a reason.
sweeps
Undercarriage Actuator
Ah thanks, I think I put ORRK in when I googled lol. I think I made a fuel stop in there on a ground convoy once.
Pilot Fighter
Well-Known Member
You seem to be confused about the roles and responsibilities of PIC's and controllers. FAR 91.3 says that the pilot in command is directly responsible for and is the final authority for the safe operation of an aircraft. A pilot is never NOT responsible for the safe operation of his aircraft, never.
Are you under the impression that pilots are compelled to blindly follow controller instructions without weighing their merit in the face of other information? Sometimes, the guidance provided by controllers presents a pilot with the best information and guidance available. Sometimes, a pilot has ample information to question and challenge a controller's instruction.
Pilot Fighter
Well-Known Member
Yes, and the FAA agreed.
SFLAX
Well-Known Member
Final authority, yes. But if all the information given to a PIC is flawed, or not interrupted correctly or conflicting, I can go on. Final authority does not mean, you are 100% at fault. If anyone needs to see more insight as to fault, become part of an ASAP review team. Your understanding of 91.3 is flawed, especially in a 121/135 operation with an ASAP program.
PhilosopherPilot
Well-Known Member
Don't fly in South America or the Caribbean if you want controllers who won't vector you into terrain.
You can ask Santo Domingo for direct into the side of a mountain and their response will be, "Approved."
Apples/oranges. A situation in IMC where ATC has a responsibility for terrain separation with an aircraft, is a far cry different from a single taxiing aircraft on an airport which should be able to get to the runway on it's own without the crew having their hand held along the way. The signage was correct, the crew simply missed clues to as to where they were. If the crew were confused at all, THEY should've queried ATC; but they never did because there wasn't any apparent confusion as to where they were taxiing to, they just didn't know it.
Remember, this crew took a perfectly good airplane, taxied it to the wrong place, and attempted a departure off the wrong runway than assigned, that wasn't even lit. This is on them as the primary causal factor. ATC's role in this is a tertiary factor at best, and even a distant one at that.
Last edited:
Final authority does mean in this particular case that this crew was at fault.
If they were confused, did they at any time query ground as to their correct position or where they should be going? Or ask for a progressive taxi? If not, then that argument is moot in this particular accident.
Again.......to repeat......this crew flew a perfectly good airplane into the ground, by taxiing it to the wrong runway and either ignoring or missing key clues to their having taxiied to the wrong place. The airport signage was working properly.
How much hand holding by ATC should pilots/crews need when in visual conditions, and responsible for everything from taxiing to the correct place, to not hitting the ground or anything attached to it, to seeing and avoiding other aircraft? Because by all accounts, had the tower been closed, the crew would likely still have done the exact same thing when attempting to go to the same runway, as there was no ATC intervention or direction at any time past the initial taxi clearance. Therefore, ATC wasn't a causal factor.
Last edited:
Pilot Fighter
Well-Known Member
How is my understanding flawed? You on the other hand suggested that there are situations where a pilot has no responsibility. Yes, controllers can contribute to an accident, they can be the primary cause if they fail in their primary responsibilities and a pilot doesn't have information suggesting the instruction should be questioned or challenged.
Pilot Fighter
Well-Known Member
The NTSB did not find any fault by the controller. The report was widely criticized by controllers for describing what the controller was doing during the crash in a manner that suggested fault, but it found no fault.
I should have said both NTSB and FAA, individually and collectively.
Last edited: