Comair Crash today (fatal)

[Malko]

I got that part, but it still doesn't answer my question. What's the worst that can happen?

"Ah ha! The CRJ took the wrong runway, didn't have enough distance and crashed"

Later... (JUST AN EXAMPLE) "You know what? I was wrong, the reason the CRJ crashed was...."


That's the end of it, no harm done. So what's the problem w/assuming the causes of an airplane accident?

You could be wrong! That should be plenty enough.

How about I assumed that everyone that asked about drug tests and the results, smoked the spleef and did massive amounts of blow. I could be wrong. I mean someone else might make a decision on my assumption and cause problems for the original person that asked the questions, but hey no biggy. right. I mean you can go back and say, "But I was only assuming. I was wrong, He didn't do that".

 

[SpiraMirabilis]

Mostly because people did not phrase things as assumptions, but as fact.
"The airplane crashed because of take-off on a short run way."
compared to
"I believe the airplane crashed because of take-of on a short run way."

 

[Malko]

figuring out why a plane crashed is kind of like medicine. You go into the room with a differential diagnosis (many reasons why they have this problem) and then you narrow it down based on signs and symptoms and tests. Is it wrong for a doc to have a few guesses initially with out all the tests. No! I work in medicine, I do it every day. There is no difference.

Did you miss this part:

Step out of the thread for about six hours before this becomes "Crash Investigation 101 for Buffalo Pilot" and less about the issue at hand.

Take a break from it or it'll be done for you.

 

[derg]

I got that part, but it still doesn't answer my question. What's the worst that can happen?

"Ah ha! The CRJ took the wrong runway, didn't have enough distance and crashed"

Later... (JUST AN EXAMPLE) "You know what? I was wrong, the reason the CRJ crashed was...."


That's the end of it, no harm done. So what's the problem w/assuming the causes of an airplane accident?

(Because people are listening)

Plus, it's all about the causal factors. If we just say, "Oh, he got on the wrong runway" without respecting the causal elements behind it, you could go out this afternoon and do the same thing.

Being on the wrong runway is the end of a decision trail. it's the most obvioius, yes, but what decisions took place up to that point where two seasoned pilots attempted to depart a runway inconsistent with the performance of the aircraft?

That's the important part.

Tenerife. Two planes collided and killed almost 600 people. Don't take off when you there's another plane crossing the runway, right?

Nah, much, much deeper.

Understanding the 'much deeper' is critical to safety.

Planes don't crash because of a single, isolated circumstance. It's generally the chain of decisions.

It can happen to you, it can happen to me. Remember, those pilots probably never thought it could happen to them either. We need to investigate to figure out what put the aircraft on that runway. That's the important part.

The "What" isn't important, the "how" and the "why" are.

Yet again, not related to the Comair accident; Take some time and look at the "preliminary report" on an air carrier accident, then look at the "final report". I'd suggest the American Eagle Jetstream crash.

 

[GreenDayPilot]

You could be wrong! That should be plenty enough.

How about I assumed that everyone that asked about drug tests and the results, smoked the spleef and did massive amounts of blow. I could be wrong. I mean someone else might make a decision on my assumption and cause problems for the original person that asked the questions, but hey no biggy. right. I mean you can go back and say, "But I was only assuming. I was wrong, He didn't do that".

Oh c'mon! Don't blow it up in exagerration. IF BufalloPilot is/was wrong about it, what's the worst thing that can come out of that? Can't handle that question w/o exagerration?

I'll give you another example if you wanna give it a whirl...

A cessna I flew a while back crashed a couple years later in LGB. The pilot was in the pattern and report a rough engine. He could only get the airplane to 500' AGL. As he was turning to downwind, he went down and crasshed. The instructor (yes, insctructor) and his student died. They (witnesses) said the airplane went straight down. The C152 blew up and the pilots died. I assumed they didn't follow procedure and stalled the airplane... what's so wrong about assuming that?

Mostly because people did not phrase things as assumptions, but as fact.
"The airplane crashed because of take-off on a short run way."
compared to
"I believe the airplane crashed because of take-of on a short run way."

Ok, I'm with you on that one.... but we're not the news reporting assumptions as fact. We're just members of an aviation forum throwing out speculations w/the assumption that everyone knows its just that, a speculation...... hah, does that make sense???

 

[GreenDayPilot]

(Because people are listening)

Plus, it's all about the causal factors. If we just say, "Oh, he got on the wrong runway" without respecting the causal elements behind it, you could go out this afternoon and do the same thing.

Being on the wrong runway is the end of a decision trail. it's the most obvioius, yes, but what decisions took place up to that point where two seasoned pilots attempted to depart a runway inconsistent with the performance of the aircraft?

That's the important part.

Tenerife. Two planes collided and killed almost 600 people. Don't take off when you there's another plane crossing the runway, right?

Nah, much, much deeper.

Understanding the 'much deeper' is critical to safety.

Planes don't crash because of a single, isolated circumstance. It's generally the chain of decisions.

It can happen to you, it can happen to me. Remember, those pilots probably never thought it could happen to them either. We need to investigate to figure out what put the aircraft on that runway. That's the important part.

The "What" isn't important, the "how" and the "why" are.

Yet again, not related to the Comair accident; Take some time and look at the "preliminary report" on an air carrier accident, then look at the "final report". I'd suggest the American Eagle Jetstream crash.

I'm not even sure if that's a rebuttal, but I completely agree.... that is all

 

[Malko]

#1 Oh c'mon! Don't blow it up in exagerration. IF BufalloPilot is/was wrong about it, what's the worst thing that can come out of that? #2 Can't handle that question w/o exagerration?

#3 I'll give you another example if you wanna give it a whirl...

A cessna I flew a while back crashed a couple years later in LGB. The pilot was in the pattern and report a rough engine. He could only get the airplane to 500' AGL. As he was turning to downwind, he went down and crasshed. The instructor (yes, insctructor) and his student died. They (witnesses) said the airplane went straight down. The C152 blew up and the pilots died. I assumed they didn't follow procedure and stalled the airplane... what's so wrong about assuming that?

#1 You don't seem to be getting it. I figured I'd blow it up to try and help you out. Did you not see the irony in my post......? I'm too tired to go back and post my reference, but you should know what I am getting at.

#2 See first sentence of reply #1.

#3 You can't even figure out your own example. If Mr BP was sitting at the edge of the RW, or in the tower, or anywhere at the field and SAW the plane takeoff from the wrong RW then fine, I would take his statement as fact. He wasn't there. And neither were you. Were you a witness to your example? If not, then yes, assuming would be wrong.

Again, he was making assumptions and you weren't when you witnessed the accident.

 

[GreenDayPilot]

#1 You don't seem to be getting it. I figured I'd blow it up to try and help you out. Did you not see the irony in my post......? I'm too tired to go back and post my reference, but you should know what I am getting at.

#2 See first sentence of reply #1.

#3 You can't even figure out your own example. If Mr BP was sitting at the edge of the RW, or in the tower, or anywhere at the field and SAW the plane takeoff from the wrong RW then fine, I would take his statement as fact. He wasn't there. And neither were you. Were you a witness to your example? If not, then yes, assuming would be wrong.

Again, he was making assumptions and you weren't when you witnessed the accident.

K, well, I really don't think we're on the same page here and I don't think we'll get there either. But from what I'm getting from you, it seems that assuming in general is just wrong, which is the part I don't get. Is assuming wrong in this case cause people died? Is assuming anything always wrong? Assuming you're kids or friends are doing drugs or whatever is wrong because its assuming??? assuming assuming assuming, hah... whatever

 

[BobDDuck]

A cessna I flew a while back crashed a couple years later in LGB. The pilot was in the pattern and report a rough engine. He could only get the airplane to 500' AGL. As he was turning to downwind, he went down and crasshed. The instructor (yes, insctructor) and his student died. They (witnesses) said the airplane went straight down. The C152 blew up and the pilots died. I assumed they didn't follow procedure and stalled the airplane... what's so wrong about assuming that?

Because by saying, they didn't follow procedure and stalled the plane and it crashed you have in your head (and maybe other people you talk to head's) closed the book on the accident. Sure, there is a possibility that the plane did stall and go "straight down" but you are relying on an eye witness (which is always a bad thing to do). If you went and interviewed everybody who saw it and they ALL said it went "straight down" then ok, you've got a bit of theory going. But if you stop right there you haven't don't yourself or any other pilot justice by educating your self as to what happened. Sure, if you were to lose an engine now at 500 feet you may be more cognicent about not stalling the plane, but more importantly you've got to go back and look at the other factors. As multiple people have said already the stall (if that's what happened) and the actual crash were just the events at the end of a long chain. If you go step by step backwards you start looking at some other things
-What was the terrian under the plane? Where they trying to make the runway or an off site landing spot?
-Where there other factors in the cockpit (smoke, oil on the windshield)?
-Why did they turn downwind? Was there no place to land straight out?
-When did the engine start to lose power? Could they have aborted on the runway?
-Was there a history of problems in this plane/engine?
-Who was flying the plane? How experienced was the student?
-Was the instructor the sort to let his students work through actual emergencies?
-Was there a control tower and did ATC tell them to remain in the pattern and return to land?

There are hundreds of more things that a accident investigator will look at. Sure, the end result may have been the fact that they stalled the aircraft but that isn't what caused the accident per se.

Remember we as pilots are always trying to learn from other's mistakes and simply saying "it stalled" when we really don't know if it was that simple doesn't teach us everything it could about how to deal with a similar problem in the future.

Edit: As to your assuming question...
Well, it really doesn't help at all. If you are the sort of person that HAS to have an answer to something right away then fine, assume away. But you aren't really benefiting anybody by doing it. Also, assuming tends to get one in trouble in the cockpit. personal experience here

 

[Screaming_Emu]

I know a lot of posts have happened since this, but I would like to say how much I enjoyed what little of the Japanese media I was able to see when I lived there. Most of their news (at least the few channels we got translated to English) simply tells you what happened. They dont usually bring in an "expert" to speculate what happened.

Dear Mr. Taylor,

Thank you for the quick reply!!
Of course I realize there is a ton of speculation going on regarding the crash, and I don't intend to sensationalize it any more on my own news show. FYI, the script of the story we intend to broadcast is as follows (word for word). If you or anyone out there sees something in this script that is downright wrong or even a bit iffy, please let me know. Again, I would appreciate replies from folks who actually have first hand knowledge, otherwise we are unable to use your input.

A commuter plane has crashed inthe east-central US state of Kentucky, killing 49 people on board. The flight, operated by Delta Air Line's regional carrier, COMAIR, crashed shortly after taking off from Lexington, Kentucky, for Atlanta, Geordia on Sunday morning.

An airport official confirmed that 49 of the 50 people on board, including the pilot, were killed and the surviving co-pilot is in critical condition. Local media said the plane might have taken off from the wrong runway, which was too short.

In Tokyo, Foreign Ministry officials say there were two apparently Japanese names on the passenger list.

-----------------------------------------
Specifically, any comments about the runway might be helpful. I don't like the term "too short"-- ie, too short for what? Again, I did not write this script, I only produce the story (ie, edit pictures and cue the announcer, etc.)

Lauren Cooper

 

[GreenDayPilot]

BobDDuck,

Well... yeah, that's what I got from Doug as well. I'm just assuming from what I gathered (low power, turning downwind, slow speed, low alt, went straight down, etc.). I know there are a lot of other factors that are in play in every accident, but being ignorant about them, I cannot ASSUME anything about them. By just assuming that it stalled, I'm in NO WAY closing the book and ending the story right then in there. I'm just simply placing an assumption of the situation from the lil' stuff I DO know about.

I know NTSB knows a lot more than I do, but even they can't be 100% certain on every single detail that took place in the cockpit. Aren't their conclusions (final reports) assumptions/theories as well?... I think they are... just ones that are a hell of a lot better and detailed than mine...

 

[flyover]

That is true, but they'd be opinions based on ignorance of the situation. The fact that they were borne out in this situation doesn't change that.

I just wonder how ridiculous it would have to get. If they had hit a truck half way down Runway 22 would we have to wait for the NTSB to tell us "they hit a truck"? I just find find this slavish devotion to the NTSB humorous. We're on an internet forum where news gets posted almost instantly and pilots comment on that news. But if it's an accident: FOR GOD"S SAKE DON'T SPECULATE!!! YOU COULD BE (GASP) WRONG! If you're wrong, so exactly what?

One of the things we may find out in this investigation is exactly what the NTSB's current agenda is. They sometimes have agendas they want to push and try to make the accident serve that agenda. That can steer the final report. We'll see.

 

[derg]

Ok, so what's your answer?

Short runway, hit a tree, close the book, remind the industry to use the right runway?

Even our very own active military crash investigator suggested caution before jumping to judgement but I'd like to know how you'd handle this different.

 

[Dugie8]

Ok, so what's your answer?

Short runway, hit a tree, close the book, remind the industry to use the right runway?

Dammit, I knew I was missing something in my training


dugie makes a mental note to not hit trees.

Seriousely guys, there is nothing wrong with being wrong, it is how we all learn, or at least part of the process. I think what is trying to be said here, is show some humility, show some compassion and let the NTSB lay out ALL of the facts so we can understand why this happened.

On the same note of being wrong, so what if you are right, it doesn't change the facts of what happened, it doesn't make you the next director of the NTSB, it means you are really really really good at guessing.

 

[GreenDayPilot]

Ok, so what's your answer?

Short runway, hit a tree, close the book, remind the industry to use the right runway?

Even our very own active military crash investigator suggested caution before jumping to judgement but I'd like to know how you'd handle this different.

NO!! You're assuming that is my/his assumption (whoever you're referring to), hah. I'm assuming they got on the wrong runway, twr was either busy or didn't pay attention, airplane went off, hit trees and blew up....

I AM IN NO WAY CLOSING THE BOOK! THAT IS JUST MY ASSUMPTION!!!! IF I WANT TO LEARN MORE ABOUT IT, I'LL WAIT TO SEE WHAT THE NTSB SAYS... IF I'M WRONG, I'M WRONG... NO BIGGIE, IMO

 

[derg]

That was in response to Flyover.

 

[flyover]

Ok, so what's your answer?

Short runway, hit a tree, close the book, remind the industry to use the right runway?

Even our very own active military crash investigator suggested caution before jumping to judgement but I'd like to know how you'd handle this different.

I wouldn't get so shook when people speculate and comment. Especially in a case like this where the observable evidence is so clear. An internet forum is not an NTSB investigation. It's no investigation at all.

The NTSB will do their thing. ALPA, hopefully, will stand guard against any attempt to just crucify the crew. And with any luck, and if the NTSB doesn't have any unfulfilled agendas to get sidetracked on, we'll get some safety improvements out of this.

And I, obviously, wouldn't wear any kneepads out genuflecting before the NTSB. They sent a spokesman out yesterday to say the FDR showed they "took-off on a heading of two six". If a reporter had said that everyone here would be hooting.

 

[derg]

If you've got a beef with the NTSB, take it to the NTSB, Dave.

Write a letter.

But if you're going to interject in a discussion where I'm asking people to use patience to determine what the causal factors of this accident are for the sake of safety, I don't think it's constructive.

"Hey folks, look both ways crossing the road"

"Aww, shucks, what if you live in the country?"

 

[flyover]

If you've got a beef with the NTSB, take it to the NTSB, Dave.

Write a letter.

But if you're going to interject in a discussion where I'm asking people to use patience to determine what the causal factors of this accident are for the sake of safety, I don't think it's constructive.

"Hey folks, look both ways crossing the road"

"Aww, shucks, what if you live in the country?"

What I was commenting on was the idea that the NTSB is the only authority pilots should give their attention to. It seemed to suggest some objectivity or infallibility that set them apart from any other source of information.

Remember, NTSB conclusions are formed by committee. There are many parties to the investigation, each with their own point of view.

Most of the guys on this forum have not seen many accidents due to the unprecedented safety in the industry right now. But way back when, Boeing was famous for steering accident investigations toward pilot error and away from their aircraft. And they had the engineers and political clout to make it happen. ALPA fought some losing battles in those investigations. If it can happen then it can happen now. The NTSB reports their findings, which we can only hope is the truth.

It was a well-known joke back back then that if you were in a crash in a Boeing airplane, it would be pilot error.

 

[derg]

And sir, what would be your suggestion on how you feel I should handle this better as a moderator?