Controller on duty during crash had 2 hours of sleep before work

Controller on duty during crash had 2 hours of sleep before work

"LEXINGTON, Ky. - The lone air traffic controller on duty during the crash of Comair Flight 5191 had only two hours of sleep during a nine-hour break between his Saturday morning shift and his overnight Sunday shift, according to the chief federal investigator into the crash."

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/nation/15401916.htm

I heard that this evening on the news. Also reported is understaffing which is illegal according to the FAA. . .That is really sad to hear, especially when lives are at stake and in this tragic instance, lost. . .

...at a loss for words, such a tragedy!

yes, I heard there were suposed to be two contrllers on duty..and that at the time of the wrong turn the lone controller 'had his back to' the scene..

Heard two solutions so far; one is an item on the checklist that requires copilot to read the direction in degrees that the runway was built in from some information sheet, while the pilot actually reads the direction the plane is heading from the compass, the other is to install red/green 'traffic lights'..

but what was the point of continuing to accelerate down the too-short runway instead of braking? did the pilot think he'd be better off trying to clear the fence and trees rather than rolling into them on the ground?

TedTheLed said:

but what was the point of continuing to accelerate down the too-short runway instead of braking? did the pilot think he'd be better off trying to clear the fence and trees rather than rolling into them on the ground?

Click to expand...

V1.....V2.....

Why so much news about the controller? The FAA has already said it is not the controllers responsibility once the plane has been given take-off clearance. It seems the pilot and co-pilot (plus possibly signage) share all the blame.

Greg

TedTheLed said:

but what was the point of continuing to accelerate down the too-short runway instead of braking? did the pilot think he'd be better off trying to clear the fence and trees rather than rolling into them on the ground?

Click to expand...

I don't know the specific situation and obviously I wasn't in the cockpit of that airplane, but when a pilot experiences a problem on the ground, he is suppose to STAY ON THE GROUND!

for me it's not a matter of assigning blame, but rather correcting and avoiding the problem.

TedTheLed said:

yes, I heard there were suposed to be two contrllers on duty..and that at the time of the wrong turn the lone controller 'had his back to' the scene..

Heard two solutions so far; one is an item on the checklist that requires copilot to read the direction in degrees that the runway was built in from some information sheet, while the pilot actually reads the direction the plane is heading from the compass, the other is to install red/green 'traffic lights'..

but what was the point of continuing to accelerate down the too-short runway instead of braking? did the pilot think he'd be better off trying to clear the fence and trees rather than rolling into them on the ground?

Click to expand...

Checking the runway heading against the compass will work at smaller airports. But what about airports like Atlanta with 4 parallel runways?

On the other hand, if they just looked at the #'s painted on the end of the runway, that might be a solution to add that part onto the checklist.

Also in response to your question about simply braking. AdvilUK explained it best when he mentioned V1. There's a distance that's always calculated based on the speed of the aircraft and the runway length. The hypothetical speed of V1 means that at that speed, if there was a problem, the pilot would have enough room to stop the aircraft. IF you reach that speed and there's something that happens, you MUST continue the takeoff otherwise there's not enough room to stop. Also, with a runway that's too short, the pilot may not have even had enough airspeed to lift off of the ground. The reason why he was able to get off of the ground was becuase he had ground effect from being close to the runway. That will produce the illusion of having enough lift to takeoff. But once you leave the ground, if you dont have enough airspeed and the ground effect goes away, you'll plunge right back into the ground. So trying to clear the fence and the trees isn't always easy either in that situation.

Especially since the runway was unlit, it was wet outside, they couldn't see all the way down the runway becuase it was dark and there was no lighting, so it was hard for them to see the end coming and try to stop the aircraft.

HOWEVER, it is the pilots responsibility to make sure he's ont he right runway, NOT air traffic control. The ultimate responsibility always comes down to the pilot. So even though the controller had his back turned, or even if he fell asleep after giving the clearance, the responsibility still falls on the pilots when it comes to the FAA making a ruling.

Chris201W said:

I don't know the specific situation and obviously I wasn't in the cockpit of that airplane, but when a pilot experiences a problem on the ground, he is suppose to STAY ON THE GROUND!

Click to expand...

Easier said than done. That particular model of commuter Jet is the CRJ500 i believe. If i remember correctly, it doesn't have any spoilers to help slow it down. So it's stopping distance is usually longer than most of the aircraft in it's class. You'd be surprised how much room it takes to stop a heavy aircraft like that from speeds of 160 kts. Once you get rolling on a short runway like that, it isn't very long until there isn't any room left to stop. When it's dark and wet outside without any runway lights on, it's hard to see where the runway ends. Thus, the remaining runway would've been too short for them to stop when they've realized there wasn't enough runway left.

No doubt there will be discussion and arguments about shoulda, woulda, coulda's, but it's the real world, and the reality of it all is that things aren't always the way they're supposed to be.

I think what we're seeing here is fingerpointing to find some deep pockets to sue, journalists playing up various angles to add a little hype to their stories, and a lot of supposition based on armchair judgements based on Monday-morning quarterbacking.

"Also reported is understaffing which is illegal according to the FAA. . ."
The controllers are employees of the FAA, aren't they? I think anything regarding the staffing will probably come from NTSB. I wonder how many instances are on record of an airport being closed because they didn't have enough controllers on hand (and it sounded like this guy was already working his second shift that day.)

"Especially since the runway was unlit, "
My thought was whether or not that should have been a clue to the captain and first officer. If the runway were lit well enough of if they had been able to read the runway marker, would things have turned out differently. We'll really never know.

"but when a pilot experiences a problem on the ground, he is suppose to STAY ON THE GROUND!"
Yeah, he kinda did that, hence the problems ... [sorry folks, that was kind of in bad taste]

"But what about airports like Atlanta with 4 parallel runways?"
All 4 of them aren't exactly parallel, and each runway does have a unique identifier; 9R-27L, 9L-27R, 8R-26L, 8L-26R, and the new runway 10-28. 27L, 26R, and 10-28 are the shorter 9000 ft runways, 26L is 10,000, and I think 27R is something close to 12,000.

"for me it's not a matter of assigning blame, but rather correcting and avoiding the problem."
AMEN!

Double checking the compass heading against the runway was pretty standard in the military so probably the airlines as well. Not seeing the runway number to double check is not unusual. They are easy to see from the air but not always from the ground. Taking off from a runway with no lights without asking the question, I just don't know about that, never happened to me. Trying to stop a jet fully loaded with people and fuel without several thousand feet of runway left to go, forget it. I've done a high-speed abort and after 4,000 feet of rollout we turned off at the end standing on the brakes, not fun. When they realized the end of the runway approaching they probably didn't have more than about 500' 1,000 left to go and were probably at about 100-120 Knots +. That means they had 5-6 seconds to evaluate, decide and execute. Using what little info. we have I don't see any other choice other than to try and get airborne. I would be hoping for a long over run area and smooth-hard ground beyond. With all that being said I don't think anyone could make the decision quick enough for several reasons and everything I said is pure speculation. My heart goes out to all the families.

anyone who can't tell the difference between a 75' wide runway and a 150' wide runway probably should not be sitting upfront

Brighteyez said:

"But what about airports like Atlanta with 4 parallel runways?"

Click to expand...

My reasoning behind that was simply saying that just because you check the magnetic heading against the runway #'s doesnt' mean it's foolproof. Your compass isn't accurate down to the degree and the tiny little variation between the 4 almost parallel runways is going to be hard to differentiate by just looking at that. Although, in this situation it would have helped. I still think the best way to avoid something like this is situational awareness. It is tough to achieve given the environment that they were in though with the construction, wet ground, nighttime, etc... Again, not an excuse, just an explanation.