Printable View
Mike I don't think we can squarely blame the crew on this. Blue Grass isn't a very busy airport why wasn't the controller in visual contact with the plane? Did he assume the pilot knew where he was going? Perhaps its just my opinion but without much going on he should have been watching his aircraft.Quote:
Originally Posted by Midnight Mike
The news is saying that the controller became busy with "administrative duties".
As I said earlier, I think blame can be placed in a couple of places, but mostly on that of the pilots who should have seen a couple telltale signs (numbers on rwy, rwy lights, heading, etc.).
[quote=T-Bird76]Mike I don't think we can squarely blame the crew on this. Blue Grass isn't a very busy airport why wasn't the controller in visual contact with the plane? Did he assume the pilot knew where he was going? Perhaps its just my opinion but without much going on he should have been watching his aircraft.[/quote:0894e]Quote:
Originally Posted by "Midnight Mike":0894e
Tommy
Well, it was quite simply pilot error, but, until the NTSB issues it findings, we will not know the complete story.
If you are saying that if there were two people in the Tower, that they may have caught the pilots error? That is certainly as possibility.
Now, let's see what the Professionals have to say about this accident....
Controlers Union Rep:
FAA Rep:Quote:
Andrew Cantwell, regional vice president of the controller's union, had a mixed reaction to the announcement.....Cantwell said controllers are not required to watch planes depart, and he does not think controller error contributed to the crash.
Quote:
In a written statement released Tuesday evening, the FAA suggested that a second controller would not have prevented the accident.
"Had there been a second controller present on Sunday, that controller would have been responsible for separating airborne traffic with radar, not aircraft on the airport's runways," the statement said.
Wouldn't someone have been controlling ground to see where the planes were rolling to?
That would be a good question to ask somebody from the Tower, I know somebody that works in the LAX Tower, maybe I can ask some questions.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil D.
Phil, don't you know somebody from the Tower as well?
Not LAX, but a couple guys. We even have a few tower guys here on the boards.
Talking out my butt...you do not need ground controllers at an airport
when there is no traffic....at KFRG... the tower completely closes at night,
that does not mean that the airport is closed...it just becomes an
Uncontrolled airport. If you do not have traffic, why would you need a
traffic cop or ground controller? An airport like LAX or JFK I would
assume always have ground controllers on duty but many smaller airports
do not have a ground controller and in airports like Brookhaven...there
are no controllers at all and the airport is an uncontrolled airport 24/7.
At that time of the morning...there would never be a need to be a
controller at that airport because that CRJ was the only thing moving....
Like I said....No facts here, just my beliefs
So thats what they call her :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil D.
(sorry, bad taste)
BRAVO!!!!! :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingColors
This {JT-8D-219's} is a derivative of this{JT-8D-217} They are still JT8D's
And you made it seem like in your post that you flew the 727.Oh yea I'm a multi engine, private pilot with about 83 hours, and i have taken my instrument written already.And I'm only 18.
83 hours and you have a multi-engine rating? That's pretty good, I didn't know anyone would check you out with such little time.Quote:
Originally Posted by KLM777
Oh, and by the way, we never talk trash about Fred on these boards, or Johnnie the Moose will come over and whack your dog!
Well, If we want to go there, I did fly the 727, but do not have anyQuote:
Originally Posted by KLM777
license's and do not wish to discuss this with you any further....I also flew
in the sim a bit but never imply ed that I am a pilot.
I know the correct info and it seems you were not correct...two different
engines were used on the 727 and are different in size and are the same
engines that are used on the MD-80....
Outboard Engines: New P&W JT8D-217C or JT8D-219 engines (as fitted to
more than 1,200 MD- 80s); new composite nacelles; new strut and engine
mounts; new hydraulic reverser's
The engine will not physically fit into the #2 section of any 727....
There was the 727 QF for re-engine UPS's B727-100 freighter fleet with
68.5kN (15,400lbt) Tay 651-54 engines and that did include the redesign
of the #2 inlet and all engines are the same type.
I would appreciate it if you can do your research before calling my
credibility into account....I will always say..."I believe" or "I think" if I do
not have the facts.
Does that surprise you? And what does this mean?Quote:
83 hours and you have a multi-engine rating?
I got my private with about 67 hours even though the mins are 40, got my multi after that at about 73.5 hours. what are you a spotter that moonlights as a pilot too?Quote:
That's pretty good, I didn't know anyone would check you out with such little time.
I got my private with about 67 hours even though the mins are 40, got my multi after that at about 73.5 hours. what are you a spotter that moonlights as a pilot too?[/quote:e3d99]Quote:
Originally Posted by KLM777
Dude I think you need to bring it down a few notches. Moose was KC135 pilot who served our country so I think some respect is in order. Fred was pointing out you were accusing him of not being creditable without posting your own facts.
This topic is intended to be about the plane crash the other day. Although side conversations happen, we're way off-topic and I think you guys should take it to PM at this point, or start a new thread about the Super 727. Up to you guys.
All off-topic posts from here on in this thread will be deleted...unless anybody feels the need to apologize to anyone else.