It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Plane crash in Kentucky

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 09:31 AM
link   
I'm watching the COMAIR spokesman on CNN and he's stating that something happened at the end of the runway upon takeoff, and the plane came down approx. 1/2 mile from the end of the runway.




posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 09:35 AM
link   
If Zaphod and Wildcat are correct, that seems to be a plausible situation.

The 3500 ft. runway has a 25 foot tall tree 400 feet beyond the runway.
That does not give the full 5800 feet needed.


RUNWAY 8
Obstructions: 25 ft. tree, 400 ft. from runway, 150 ft. right of centerline, 8:1 slope to clear

www.airnav.com...


[edit on 8/27/06 by makeitso]



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 09:43 AM
link   
The tree was also 150 ft to thr right of the centerline... He would have had to have drifted a bit in order to clip it.



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 09:45 AM
link   
This is pure specualtion on my part but this is what I conclude based on the information furnished to this point.

The Aircraft did take off to the West making runway 26 the most likely that was used.

The Media site as shown on TV was near the intersection of Versailles Rd and Rice Rd which puts the crash site directly in line with runway 26.

Image from Google earth showing M (Medias Location as seen on TV)
Flag (assumed crash site) and then the dot at the end of runway 26 (assumed take off start point.




Now what I want to know is why would "they" (meaning the controller and pilots)put an aircraft in a situation where there are (No Lights on Runway) and why would they take off from a runway that is known to have concrete damage?

The bottom line always lays with the pilot but in this case one would think the airport could also be held responsible.




[edit on 8/27/2006 by shots]



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 10:16 AM
link   
I did a little digging to see if Bluegrass Airport does have a control tower.
Many airports do not and they operate on a Common Traffic Frequency and pilots self-announce location, intentions etc.

Other airports do have a control tower, but they may only be attended 8-12 hours per day.
When the control tower is shut down, pilots revert to the self-announce bit.

Bluegrass does have a continuously attended control tower.

Airport information here: www.airnav.com...

I'm inclined to go along with DG Tempe's comment about improper weight and balance.

I'll not argue the point about the airplane requiring 5800' to take off when fully loaded.
It does seem overly long though.

I used to fly out of a Central California airport with a 6500' runway and there were quite a few twin turbo aircraft that flew out of there and they took off in about the same distance many lightplanes did.

Twin engine passenger jets, swept wing etc. that probably held 100+ passengers were able to get off the ground at the half way point - 3250'.


(Edited for spelling.)



[edit on 27-8-2006 by Desert Dawg]



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 10:26 AM
link   
This isn't a twin turbo. It's a twin jet capable of taking off at over 41,000 pounds. At its max takeoff weight it requires 1700+ meters which comes out to roughly 5800 feet.




This is for the CRJ-100/200. The difference between the two is only the engines.

Model: BombardierCRJ200
Engines: CF34-3A1(4,186kg)
Width: 21.21m
Length: 26.77m
height: 6.22m
Wing Area: 48.35m2
Maximum Take Off Weight: 23,134kg
Weight: 13,835kg
Maximum Cruising Speed: 851km/h
Maximum Range: 3,045km
Required Take Off Distance: 1,768m
Required Landing Distance: 1,479m

www.narita-airport.or.jp...

[edit on 8/27/2006 by Zaphod58]



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 11:05 AM
link   
all respects go to the victims of the crash... but you people need to get your heads on straight... you hear a bang and suddenly you all flock to it expecting the end of the world... maybe... just maybe... its an accident and there was NO terrorists involved... things like that do happen you know... its not always the government planning to control you... and as for not allowing reporters near by who the hell cares... so u dont get to see graphic images of blood and gore as dozens of people are chared on the ground... dont be idiots please... I totally agree the government is probably planning something like 9/11 and all... but you people tend to cry wolf long before theres ever a wolf... thus why nobody takes any of you seriously



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by newage2012
.... but you people tend to cry wolf long before theres ever a wolf... thus why nobody takes any of you seriously


True that. However, I'm curious to know why all the hoopla in the first place. I don't recall ever seeing so many posts so fast over a small plane going down. I'd really like to know what motive started this thread to begin with.

I live about 80 miles from the airport and have had a family member who flew out of there to Atlanta recently so am thinking of that flight and its passengers just now.



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by curiousity

I'd really like to know what motive started this thread to begin with.



I am sure it was started because of the concern for passengers on the flight. It is not unusual to see 30 or 40 posts immediately after an incident like this. Memebers of ATS like to stay on top of things



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by newage2012
all respects go to the victims of the crash... but you people need to get your heads on straight... you hear a bang and suddenly you all flock to it expecting the end of the world... maybe... just maybe... its an accident and there was NO terrorists involved... things like that do happen you know... its not always the government planning to control you... and as for not allowing reporters near by who the hell cares... so u dont get to see graphic images of blood and gore as dozens of people are chared on the ground... dont be idiots please... I totally agree the government is probably planning something like 9/11 and all... but you people tend to cry wolf long before theres ever a wolf... thus why nobody takes any of you seriously


...I have seen maybe one or two people even suggest that the accidenct was even terror related, let alone anyone suggest the government was involved.

Read the whole thread before you say something like that.

Anyway, like everyone else, I feek for these people and their families.

CNN is reporting right now that the plane probably took off from the wrong runway (2 sources)

Edited for spelling

[edit on 27-8-2006 by Mezzanine]



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 12:10 PM
link   
I don't know how intact the plane is... Here is a photo from the crash.



There still isn't a lot of information. There is however one survivor being treated at the UK Hospital.



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 12:58 PM
link   
www.cnn.com...

Damn man they died of fire related injuries not smoke inhalation... Thos poor peole. As for the fact that one of the aircrew survived, well its a small mercy that if he pulls through they will be able to have an actual factua account of what happend and why.

The pictures on cnn show a very scorched area of grass and not any actual wreakage at all - But then theres no wonder if their still extracting bodies at the scene.



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 01:25 PM
link   
after looking at all the data out there right now, i'd have to say the pilot definitely tried to depart from the wrong runway. having seen an accident very similar to this one in which an aircraft tried to depart across a runway i can say that nighttime operations are very disorienting. the transcripts will be very interesting, but i'd bet it will come down to pilot error, with the tower controller sharing part of the blame for not realizing that they were attempting to depart the wrong runway.

if you look at the sattelite photo provided by shots, you will note that from the terminal buildings on the right side of the picture, the path the aircraft would take to runway 22 crosses over the departure end of runway 26. i think the pilots were in a hurry, saw runway 26, assumed it was the right one and departed on it. however, this is just MHO based on the facts we have right now.

on a side note, if they publish the passenger and crew list, would someone please link to it? i've got friends that fly for comair.

edit to give shots credit for the photo.

[edit on 27-8-2006 by snafu7700]



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 01:33 PM
link   
I live in Lexington, Kentucky and fly Comair all the time for business. If anybody could find a passenger list for me that would be great. My boss just left and I'm not too sure if he was on that flight. I think that I might drive down Versailles Rd. and see if I can find anything out from the news crews.


[edit on 27-8-2006 by CalmStateOfMind]



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid

Originally posted by shots
There is also some speculation where they are thinking it might have taken off from the wrong runway (unconfirmed). They are also stating that runway would have been too short and was unlighted and had some concrete problems reported recently.


If they took off from the wrong runway, then ATC is to blame as well. They should have seen the plane at the wrong location. Of course, this is provided the airport has ATC. As for the runway being too short, that is entirely possible. Or the plane could have just been overloaded. While unlighted runways can be a pain, the aircraft would have had high-intensity landing lights allowing them to see thier path on the ground.

Does anyone know the name of the airport? I haven't been able to find that and I would much appreciate somebody mentioning it. Thanks.


Posts like this one make me wonder about the validity of many threads. An expert opinion was rendered above that is completely wrong. On another unrelated thread I read another 'expert' say that only metal showed up on radar. when in fact flocks of non metal geese show up on radar all the time. We require sources for other factoids in these threads and yet many of us spout out an expert opinon on subjects we know very little about.

The comment earlier about tape around the imapact area being unusual is another opinion rendered that is completely wrong. As was the post about all land under flight paths being owned by the airport or FAA.

To the point. Without knowing the conditions at Lexington (visibility, etc) or even the visibility of the runway threshold from the tower) there is no way to determine if ATC had a visual view of the aircraft. It is the pilot's responsibility to adhere to ATC instructions. The tower did not have ground radar, and the pilots accepted and from what I've heard "read back" the ATC instructions for the correct runway. It's not uncommon, but luckily most pilot errors do not end up in an accident.

Although it would appear that the short runway takeoff was a prime cause oof this accident, we will not know for sure until the NTSB Go Team completes it's initial investigation. It could be something as simple as the crew not setting the flaps for take-off (read Delta 1141 NTSB report sometime). Who knows?

My sincere condolences to those of you with loved ones on the flight.

A subject matter expert with over 36 years of ATC and Flying Experience.



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700
if you look at the sattelite photo provided by shots, you will note that from the terminal buildings on the right side of the picture, the path the aircraft would take to runway 22 crosses over the departure end of runway 26.
[edit on 27-8-2006 by snafu7700]


It's a possibility, however, I'd imagine the pilot would check his heading once he was lined up on the runway. Runway 26, meaning the heading would be facing 26x.

It could be that runway is perfectly fine for them to take off usually, with the tree being 150ft off the centreline. Maybe there was wind and he didnt notice he was drifting, or possibly a malfunction with the aircraft, engines not powering up properly, rudder problems etc.



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 02:40 PM
link   
I heard they took off on the wrong runway which could explain the fact they needed the longer one. The flight took off before dawn.
I think the "experts" at the airport know more than any of us do, so for now...this is the latest.



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alpha1 man
To the point. Without knowing the conditions at Lexington (visibility, etc) or even the visibility of the runway threshold from the tower) there is no way to determine if ATC had a visual view of the aircraft. It is the pilot's responsibility to adhere to ATC instructions. The tower did not have ground radar, and the pilots accepted and from what I've heard "read back" the ATC instructions for the correct runway. It's not uncommon, but luckily most pilot errors do not end up in an accident.

Although it would appear that the short runway takeoff was a prime cause oof this accident, we will not know for sure until the NTSB Go Team completes it's initial investigation. It could be something as simple as the crew not setting the flaps for take-off (read Delta 1141 NTSB report sometime). Who knows?


Thanks, Alpha1 man, for chiming in with the above and other info in your post.
Gotta separate out the uninformed speculation from the informed speculation, in any thread. Could be an opinion leads to something, but information should always be welcomed.



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alpha1 man
On another unrelated thread I read another 'expert' say that only metal showed up on radar. when in fact flocks of non metal geese show up on radar all the time.


actually, modern air traffic radars filter out things like flocks of geese. even weather is filtered out.....you have to select the weather mosaic to display it, and even then it only shows precip.



To the point. Without knowing the conditions at Lexington (visibility, etc) or even the visibility of the runway threshold from the tower) there is no way to determine if ATC had a visual view of the aircraft


the official weather has already been reported as VFR by cnn, although i havent had time to verify their report....just got off work.



It is the pilot's responsibility to adhere to ATC instructions. The tower did not have ground radar, and the pilots accepted and from what I've heard "read back" the ATC instructions for the correct runway. It's not uncommon, but luckily most pilot errors do not end up in an accident.


i'll bet even money that this one did.



Although it would appear that the short runway takeoff was a prime cause oof this accident, we will not know for sure until the NTSB Go Team completes it's initial investigation. It could be something as simple as the crew not setting the flaps for take-off (read Delta 1141 NTSB report sometime). Who knows?


if you are the expert you claim to be, you will realize that takeoff in a CRJ from a 3500 ft runway is a bad thing in both legal and specifications aspects. wait for the tapes......you will hear "cleared for takeoff runway 22" with a readback of "cleared for takeoff runway 22".


My sincere condolences to those of you with loved ones on the flight.


agreed.



A subject matter expert with over 36 years of ATC and Flying Experience.


and i'm an faa air traffic controller with both tower and enroute experience, as well as a private pilot.


Originally posted by dawa

It's a possibility, however, I'd imagine the pilot would check his heading once he was lined up on the runway. Runway 26, meaning the heading would be facing 26x.


which is exactly what they are supposed to do....which is why i'm betting this will be a clear cut case of pilot error.



It could be that runway is perfectly fine for them to take off usually, with the tree being 150ft off the centreline. Maybe there was wind and he didnt notice he was drifting, or possibly a malfunction with the aircraft, engines not powering up properly, rudder problems etc.


as i mentioned above, a CRJ is not designed to takeoff from a 3500 ft runway fully loaded. they just plain screwed up.



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 05:46 PM
link   
As Snafu speculated, CNN and the NTSB are stating that the aircraft did attempt to take off on the wrong runway. one that was 3500 ft vs the correct one which was 7000 ft long.
Some type of human error, what a sad happening.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join