Talk:Comair Flight 5191/Archive 2

About Runways

 * Both runways are paved 150 feet wide. 22 is usable the full width but 26 has white striped lines at 75 feet width, leaving 37 feet (or so) per side of runway which cannot be used.  This comment does ignore the lighting factor.  The fact is they taxied onto what they thought was 26.  Did either the co-pilot or pilot look around and ask all these questions? -- 1) Why is my compass heading 260 (approx) and not 220 (approx).  2) Why does the runway look narrower?  3) Hmm, this runway does not look freshly paved like it was last week, 4) Hmm, there's no lighting on this runway, etc, etc.  We can speculate all we want but we have to wait until the voice recorder information is released, and any other information that might come from the data recorder that might indicate.  Also, we may be fortunate to understand what happened when / if the co-pilot is able to reconstruct the series of events and his thoughts prior to starting the takeoff roll.  My personal opinion is I have a lot of respect for pilots; nearly all of them know the responsibility they have in their hands when they carry out their daily work.  Even the answer to number 1 could be equipment related - do we know their compass was working?  We have to let the investigators look at everything and even then we could never recreate conditions and sequences exactly as what happend last Sunday morning.  The best we can hope for, is that NTSB will discover a chain of events or individual items, that taken togehter led to this and perhaps be able to eliminate some of the individual circumstances.

As a bit of a side note, the approach plate for LEX states that Rwy 8-26 is "unusable for landing or taxiing of aircraft over 12000 lbs gross weight." This is probably not significant, as there is no question that 26 was not the correct runway. If it does come up, however, we know where to find the info. VxSote 02:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm curious about this too -- I wonder if the airport authority is going to have to perform structural integrity testing on the concrete now to ensure the runway itself wasn't damaged by the takeoff.--chris.lawson 02:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Take-off Field Length
The CRJ-100 is specified to require a field of at least 1605m for take-off at maximum weight - shorter than the CRJ-200ER, which requires 1768m. I found the 1605m figure at http://www.gov.gg/ccm/cms-service/download/asset/?asset_id=1419047 and the official specs for the CRJ-200 at http://www.crj.bombardier.com/CRJ/en/specifications.jsp?langId=en&crjId=200.
 * What page did you find the info on in the first ref? I can't find it, and I don't feel like reading the entirety of a 100+-page PDF file right now ;) --chris.lawson 21:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Takeoff distance probably relies not just on weight but on wind and density altitude. I'm pretty sure that Runway 26 was too short no matter what, but let's wait for the NTSB to tell us what the takeoff distance should have been. David 00:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Engines have special power settings for emergency. If you push the throttle very hard, it will dislodge a limiter and then the engines will go over 100%, usually 104-105% for 1 minute maximum, and then you can do the takeoff or climb with the extra power.


 * Otherwise the crash also shows the validity of my constant grievance, if the plane had a drag chute, like the russian airliners and the Space Shuttle do, the pilots could choose to abort take-off safely at any high speed, as soon as they saw the end of strip coming. Just because braking parachute canisters are bulky and cost a lot to reload, do not mean jetliner manufacturers are free to omit it to increase their profit. 195.70.32.136 07:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

As it stands now, the article reads: "Based upon a takeoff weight of over 49,000 pounds (22,000 kg), the manufacturer estimated a minimum of 3,539 ft (1079 m) would have been needed for takeoff.". The reference for this quote comes from an LA Times report (reference link #7). The runway Flight 5191 took off on was 3500 ft long. I seriously doubt that another 39 ft is what would have caused this plane to crash. I think the LA Times made an erroneous statement, and in place needs the 1605m (5265 ft) figure from from the gov.gg website (assuming that it is a credible reference as well). Most reports I have seen, including the papers here in Lexington, where I live, have said that the CRJ plane needed at least 5000 ft to take off. If someone could please find the correct minimum take-off length and replace the LA Times reported length, that would be great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.191.179.114 (talk • contribs) 05:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The 3539-foot figure comes from the NTSB's conversations with Bombardier, using actual loading and weather data from the time of the crash. While you're welcome to "seriously doubt" these reliable, cited sources all you wish, those of us more grounded in reality will continue to use the calculations by the manufacturer. (The 5000-foot figure widely cited in early reports was a "expert" "estimate" based on "typical conditions". Defining those three terms is left as an exercise for the reader.)--chris.lawson 05:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems like to me, if the plane needed an extra 39 feet or so to take off, it could've done so on the grass at the end of the runway. Assuming the plane needed only 39 more feet to take off, The plane was already very close to take-off speed, and the nose was already probably beginning to rise. At that speed, it would've taken just another fraction of a second with the wheels on the ground at the end of the runway to get off the ground. That is why it is hard for me to believe that the plane only needed another 39 or so feet to get off the ground. I don't fly planes, so maybe I have no clue what I'm talking about, but that is the thought going through my mind when I see the little difference between the 3500-foot runway and the 3539 feet required to get off the ground.
 * I am a pilot myself, and I can tell you that takeoff distance numbers are only estimates. Any number of things can happen at one instant that can change the aerodynamic profile of the airplane.  Even so, the NTSB report says the airplane DID in fact become airborne, but didn't have enough height to clear the fence or the trees at the end of the runway.  What should (and will in the final report) be stated is the necessary distance to clear a 50 foot obstacle in said airplane.  Hope that helps.  -Maverick 00:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Time of the crash
The time is given as 06:01am local time, which is translated as 02:01UT. That is wrong - UT is ahead of local time in Kentucky. However, I don't know which time is incorrect.
 * It would be 10:01 UTC (see ), however I do not think it's useful having this information. Thanks/wangi 11:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The third of that airlines flights, i think of the same route. on that morning, its in the nites on the article.80.57.242.87 22:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

This may be illrevelent, but should we also put the Local time (EST) in as well as the UTC, since it is in Eastern Time? User:N@vi 22:49 (UTC) 30, Auguest 2006

Injuries 1
If only 1 person got injured then how did 49 die? This is the wrong term to use. There were 50 injured, 49 dies as a result of their INJURIES. Secondly it is very likely that passengers suffered multiple injuries each so to say there was only 1 injury is ball bags. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.73.57.105 (talk • contribs) 07:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * How useless is it to write "severely injured and also dead?" I'm pretty sure death is commonly accepted to include "injured until dead."  --Vees 15:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think most people reading this would accept that injuries mean non-fatal injuries. For example when you hear a news report that says 10 people were injured, you know they aren't dead.81.77.202.210 15:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It's pretty standard to simply say "dead" if someone is dead, and "injured" if they were hurt but didn't die. --Kitch 15:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * NTSB says "Injuries: 49 fatal, 1 serious", but I don't have a problem with the wording in the article remaining how it is. At the very least, the suggestion above that "injuries" should include each of the multiple injuries sustained by each passenger seems a bit silly. Geoffrey Spear 12:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow, that's a very bad idea. Have you ever seen any accident report?

Explanation of my cleanup changes
I've pared down the "X reported" stuff considerably, as we now (mostly) have hard facts to deal with rather than simply what the media may have heard.

I've removed reference to terrorism and maintenance. They're red herrings and they're cluttering up the article. The NTSB doesn't think rabid badgers in the cockpit brought the plane down either, but we don't feel the need to mention that. There are an infinite number of things that did not cause the crash. This article should focus on what did cause it.

I removed the airport satellite photo. It's largely redundant with the crash site location. (One thing I liked a lot about the unsourced image that we had to remove was that it labeled the runways and it used a very thin circle around the crash site. Wangi, can you make one fitting that description?)

I'm putting the "ER" back in the plane designation. I know Comair's press release doesn't mention whether it's an ER or LR, but there's no such thing as a plain old CRJ100 according to our CRJ page, and there's never been any claim that it was an LR model.

I've removed the 5,000-foot claim for takeoff. Absent a thorough explanation (which IMO is unnecessary), a number for takeoff distance is meaningless. See above where I questioned the talking heads on this one. Suffice it to say that runway 26 was too short (which it clearly was for a fully loaded CRJ, even with the most skilled test pilots in the front).

I think that about covers it.--chris.lawson 17:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I suggest that certain confirmed/confirmable details about the aircraft's maintenance history be preserved in the article. If you read the full narrative NTSB reports on other accidents, you will see that these facts are usually documented, even in cases where they essentially reduce to no evidence of mechanical malfunction at all.  While is seems obvious what happened here, only the NTSB's investigation will eventually be able to rule out something like maintenance as a contributing factor. 165.236.112.245 18:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It's true that the NTSB usually leaves the phrase "no evidence of mechanical malfunction was found" in their final reports. It is also true that the NTSB does not mention non-causes in the Probable Cause section of the report. As this article is about the crash and its causes/effects, I fail to see the relevance of non-causal routine maintenance. Other air disaster articles don't mention maintenance as an issue (except where it was related to the crash; see American Airlines Flight 191 as an example), and there's no reason this article should. To do so distracts from the lessons that can be learned.--chris.lawson 19:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That's a very charming point of view, but this is an encyclopedia. --Dhartung | Talk 02:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Trivia
I strongly disagree with the inclusion of the following text:
 * "Comair 191 joins American Airlines Flight 191, Delta Air Lines Flight 191, Prinair Flight 191, and the only X-15 crash, also flight 191, on the list of flights numbered 191 that have crashed."

This was originally under the title "notable facts", and now "trivia". Frankly this is nonsense and superstition. Can anyone find a reliable source that also puts 2 and 2 together, comes out with 5... and connects these "flight 191's" (remember too this is really DL5191)? Thanks/wangi 20:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * See also Avoid trivia sections in articles. Thanks/wangi 20:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Likewise with this claim: "The numeric combination of 9-1-1 is the most common among doomed aircraft in the past fifty years..." Says who? What does this even mean? And even if it's true, who cares? -- Captaindan 20:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I was once told that a long time ago, a Contor Jumbo jet was attempting to land in KLEX and was forced to land on Versailes Road near by. Ill have to look it up but I was interested in knowing others input on whether or not this would be relevent to this artical. User:N@vi 20:03 UTC 30, August 2006
 * I don't know any details never hearing about the event, but from your description (a standard road being able to withstand the weight of a jumbo jet?) it almost sounds apocryphal, not to mention irrelevant to this article, the only commonality being location. -- Hawaiian717 22:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Taxi route change
This section keeps being added and removed from the article:
 * The airport's director stated that the taxi route for commercial flights had been changed one week before the crash.

Is there some reason that it should not be in there? As far as we know, it's a possible contributor to the accident, and there's not much else to explain what happened other than a colossal screw-up by the pilots. - DiegoTehMexican 22:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It's irrelevant at this time, until we know more about whether it was related to the mix-up or not. Yes, it's possible that it was. It's also entirely possible that it wasn't. There's not much point in speculating. Let the media speculate all they want.--chris.lawson 22:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Stating that it's irrelevant is original research, unless you're speaking for the National Transportation Safety Board. Wikipedia does not have to state whether it's relevant; we only have to report that it is a fact surrounding the incident, which comes from a reliable source. --Dhartung | Talk 02:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * At what point does original research become fact? I thought it being reported by multiple news agencies made it fact? Surely it should be included, although documenting it as the sole reason for the crash is of course conjecture at this stage, until the NTSB has investigated.   --Oscarthecat[[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|]] 06:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Stating that the taxi route change is irrelevant is no different from stating that the airplane's spotless maintenance history is irrelevant or stating that the NTSB does not believe that terrorism was involved is irrelevant. Until there is some reason to think any of these factors is involved in the crash, there is no need to mention them in the article, because to do so implies that they were involved, which is just as much original research as Dhartung claims my position is. (If you believe that mentioning such facts in the article is not an endorsement of a link between the two, that's all well and good in an ideal world but that's not how the general public perceives it.)--chris.lawson 18:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * So should we expunge all the facts about the crash then? I'm just wondering what facts ought to be in there, and what shouldn't, so that I can avoid getting it wrong in future.  I thought it was relevant because it was unclear whether pilots had used the new layout before, possibly contributing to the navigational error. Thanks.
 * According to the NTSB, the pilots saw that the runway lights were out, but had been advised of this condition due to construction.[8] The sole air traffic controller on duty that morning was responsible for clearing flights and issuing weather forecasts, and was not responsible for assuring that flights were on their appropriate runways. The FAA said that an additional controller would be restored to the overnight weekend shift beginning immediately.[9]
 * --Oscarthecat[[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|]] 18:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The reason runway lights being out is noteworthy is that the lights were one factor that could potentially have differentiated (and, in fact, did differentiate) the proper runway from the wrong runway. I'm not sure I really like that paragraph in general, though, because it seems like a regurgitation of the latest updates from CNN. Even the bit about the FAA adding a second controller isn't necessarily related (the FAA refused comment, but it certainly seems like they're doing this in reaction to the crash). I'll remove that paragraph.
 * Incidentally, whether or not the pilots had used the new layout, the taxi still required them to cross Runway 26 before turning onto Runway 22. Too much is being made of this change, and as far as I can tell at this time, it did not affect the taxi route between the ramp and Runway 26.--chris.lawson 19:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Chris - thanks for setting me right on this, appreciated. --Oscarthecat[[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|]] 20:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No worries. For a graphical depiction of what I just described, please see the image that Dual Freq just posted at the bottom of the talk page.--chris.lawson 20:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Uhh....
Correct me if I'm wrong but shouldn't this article be 5191 and not redirected from 5191 to 191? CrossBlade 22:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Please sign your comments.
 * 2) As decided above in the "Rename?" section, there is no "Comair Flight 5191". It was jointly listed as Delta Flight 5191 and Comair Flight 191.  The media has massively and collectively misidentified the flight. - DiegoTehMexican 22:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks CrossBlade 22:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem! - DiegoTehMexican 22:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Which is what people expect the article to be called however (see WP:NAME)). No tickets were ever sold under the code OH191. Thanks/wangi 22:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No tickets were ever sold under the code OH5191 either. They were all sold under the code DL5191. Either Delta Connection Flight 5191 or Comair Flight 191 would be correct. Comair Flight 5191 never existed. FCYTravis 22:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Who did KLEX tower clear for takeoff: "Delta 5191", "Comair 5191", or "Comair 191"?  David 00:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Google the terms comair transcript site:ntsb.gov 2nd hit is and refers to Comair Flight 3272. In the transcripts, ATC calls the flight "comair thirty-two seventy-two" repeatedly. ATC probabply called this one Comair 5192, but we won't know until the transcript is released. Dual Freq 01:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Naming policy on Wikipedia insists that articles be called by their most common name unless there's a good reason, such as a conflict. With every major media and government source using "Comair Flight 5191", you'd think this simple fact would be discernible, but some people are insisting on injecting original research (their own assumptions) and speculation about the future content of an as-yet-unreleased crash report. This is really unacceptable. --Dhartung | Talk 02:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreeing with Dhartung here: I would have thought that the sites of Comair itself, Delta, and the NTSB - all of which designate it Comair Flight 5191 - would be the most reliable sources on the matter, since they ARE the parent companies of the flight concerned and the official US Federal Agency responsible for investigating "every civil aviation accident in the United States" (their words) 82.153.129.223 05:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Image including taxiway
I liked the other image that was removed because it showed the taxiways and helped explain the confusion that could result with that intersection. Maybe the existing image could be expanded to include that taxiway failing that I think the other image covering the whole airport needs to be re-added to show this important intersection. Comments? Dual Freq 22:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Problem is that they just re-paved that area and (may have) rerouted taxiways. Any satellite images you can find online are going to be too old to reflect this.--chris.lawson 22:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Good point, FAA - NACO diagram is current for the month of August shows only the taxiway going to the full length of the runway but that shorter one isn't on the chart. Maybe with annotation that could be clearer. Still looks like it could be confusing in twilight. Maybe the NACO drawing could be converted to PNG and used. It's PD-USGov-FAA or DOT. Dual Freq 22:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and speaking from personal experience with NACO, changes to runways can sometimes take two full revision cycles (56 days each) to propagate through the charting system. We may not see an updated airport diagram until January 2007 if that's the case. Our company Jepp subscription covers Kentucky, though, so I'll keep an eye out there too.--chris.lawson 22:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * One more thing -- do we have any idea how old the imagery on which the above image by Wangi is based? It looks to me like the perpendicular taxiway (what you referred to as "that shorter one", probably what used to be A7, with A8 having been renamed to A7) is no longer there (which, to my mind, would actually *simplify* that intersection).--chris.lawson 22:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Terraserver says the Urban area / color one is April 1, 2002. The Aerial B/W is March 11, 1997. From the photos below, it looks like an accurate depiction of the current situation, except the threshold has been moved and txwy A8 is now closed. I think we can use the other image covering the whole airport, but maybe show A8 closed. Dual Freq 23:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd agree that the additional image (the original one I produced) does add context, and that both make sense in the article. I'd be a bit wary of altering the image to reflect the updated layout - given I/we have no real source. (edit conflict) - you can try and work out the date based on the source - the USGS 1m / 3ft ortho - don't know off the top of my head. Thanks/wangi 22:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, I wasn't suggesting that the image be altered to reflect the current layout, only that what we really need is a current image. :) Ultimately, if this taxiway re-routing theory turns out to have some merit, we should probably have a second diagram in the article detailing the terminal area and the taxiway routing used.--chris.lawson 22:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If that's data we can eventually get (it'll be a while I'm sure) then I can knock that up no problem. Generally the data shown in NASA World Wind is public domain (both images i've produced are from USGS aerial photography, Landsat 7 sat imagery is also available), and an excellent source for such projects. Thanks/wangi 22:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, and for the record, I know a few pilots down Lexington way and I might be able to get one of them to take an aerial photo or two sometime soon-ish. (Or next time I'm down that way...might be next weekend, we'll see.)--chris.lawson 22:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's a couple images of the existing taxiways. Copyrighted so can't post them in the article.   These might clarify things. The runway numbers are painted in a different spot than the worldwind image shows. Looks like they are not using the full length of the runway anymore. The taxiway farthest from the ramp must be closed. Hard to tel signage, but with construction maybe the signs showing what runway is what were not lighted or not present. Hard to tell if the signs are there from the low res of these images though. Dual Freq 22:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

<--- this OK? Mfields1 01:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The X / + is way too far off the runway end, it should be near the cluster of buildings just off the runway edge. The Blue line is using the taxiway that was closed, the other shorter one was the one used as shown by the photos on yahoo in the above posts. Also, the true color ones from Urban areas USGS look better than the landsat false color. jdmcox.com (I have no affiliation with it) USA photomaps is my personal preference for accessing terraserver images and has the ability to export jpegs of the imagery. Dual Freq 01:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Auto review
Since this article is up for peer review I ran the auto review script. The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question. You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Ravedave (help name my baby) 02:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.
 * The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.
 * Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -  between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18&amp;nbsp;mm.
 * Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.
 * Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.
 * Please alphabetize the.
 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a.

Lead paragraph
As it currently stands it's a confusing mess:

I propose changing it to:

For lead section guidelines see WP:LEAD. Any comments on this proposed change? Thanks/wangi 13:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think your proposal would be an improvement, although I'd move the alternate titles a bit up. Sjakkalle (Check!)  14:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've made the change. The problem with having the alt names higher up in the lead is that it masks the important details. Thanks/wangi 14:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that should make the things clearer. Sjakkalle (Check!)  15:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I changed it back before reading this but it seems that anons tend to not read far enough in before they decide to revert the flight back to Comair 5191, I propose perhaps moving that sentence up. Maybe making the first line separate and then continuing onto a new paragraph containing the different flight numbers?? I'll revert myself for now. --  SmthManly  / ManlyTalk  / ManlyContribs  15:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Like this, perhaps?? -- SmthManly  / ManlyTalk  / ManlyContribs  15:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand the concern, but I feel this places far to much importance on the flight numbers etc. The important detail here is a flight from A to B crashed - the various additional flight codes are not critical information for the first paragraph. In the 2nd paragraph (which is still in the lead, before the TOC) we can expand on this curiousity without overwhelming the 1st paragraph with what is essentially technical trivia. Thanks/wangi 15:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, are regarding anons adding this info back into the first para... If we get agreement ont eh layout of the lead here then it's easy enough to revert those edits and point them to this discussion. Thanks/wangi 15:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Daily cleanup pass
Several sentences in the description of the crash need references. The NTSB preliminary report is wildly short on details, and these new details (since yesterday) didn't come from nowhere. Where did they come from? I've added 'fact' tags where citations should be inserted. In particular, the assertion that


 * Fog was present and a light rain was falling. These factors, along with the pre-dawn darkness, would have required the pilots to use their instruments for takeoff.

needs a citation. If conditions were such that an instrument takeoff was required, it's very clear that such a takeoff would have been illegal under 14 CFR Part 121. As I've heard no mention of this (and indeed, ATC would not have given them a clearance were this the case), I find it hard to believe the person who wrote this knew what he/she was talking about. Without digressing into a discussion of takeoff procedures in less-than-ideal weather conditions, suffice it to say that there are precious few situations in which you would make a takeoff solely by reference to instruments. (Similarly, there are precious few situations, even with perfect weather, in which you would not check your instruments on the takeoff roll. If this is the point that the author was trying to get across, there are better ways to say it.)

I've removed the following sentence:


 * Heyer was a 2003 graduate of the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire.

pending an explanation of what bearing his alma mater has on this article. (The larger point here is "Where does this stop?" We can't put complete personal histories of every victim in this article; if they're notable, they should have their own articles.) I would even go so far as to say that we don't need to list the flight crew's hiring dates, either -- again, it's not really relevant; the airline president's assertion that the crew was "very familiar" with the aircraft is sufficient (but I'm leaving that part alone for now).

Polehinke was "at the controls", true, but this makes it sound like Clay wasn't. Both of them were seated at their crew stations in the cockpit, and therefore both of them were "at" the controls. I've changed it to "flying the plane".--chris.lawson 16:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Several local news stations showed radar maps from the time of the crash, which seemed to indicate that while there was scattered light rain in Lexington, it was not falling at the airport. I was not far from the airport at the time, and did not see fog anywhere. Absent any support for that statement, I have removed it. Cmadler 17:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
After you post an edit make sure that somone didn't insert vandalism prior to it in a different section. An example. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 17:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Runway lights
I suspect the confusion over the runway lighting being operative/inoperative is going to play a part in the probable cause report. I'm not sure how best to mention it at this point in time without implying a connection (which would be original research), so I've removed it for the moment. If someone can come up with a better way, please feel free.--chris.lawson 19:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The reference says it is pilot controlled lighting on that runway. Was the PCL operative?  If it was, their mike keying may have activated it. --Tbeatty 04:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * PCL is typically overridden by the control panel in the tower when the tower is staffed.--chris.lawson 04:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If I may offer some templates, this is an example of original research/speculation: "The runway lighting conditions are expected to play a part in the probable cause report." This is an example of proper citation: "The airport manager said that the lighting may have been inoperative[1]. According to the New York Times, investigators are taking a close look at lighting conditions.[2]" Hope this helps.--Dhartung | Talk 05:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll follow up here with a link to Fatal error: Mistake on runways has experts puzzled which is a Cincy Post article collating speculation from various aviation-experienced people. The overall arc of the article is wrong for Wikipedia writing, but the citation approach is valid, e.g.: Jim Ott, a contributing editor of Aviation Week, a well-respected industry magazine, said from what he has heard of the situation, it seemed that the pilots "must have been distracted pretty seriously." The article even cites an anonymous source; we couldn't do that ourselves, but in a pinch (if it's the only way to cite something) we could even say "The Cincy Post intervieed a pilot who ..." The rule is intended to eliminate editors making their own inferences, not to prevent discussion of potential lines of investigation. Parallel example, in the Karr/Ramsey case, it would not have been speculative to cite sources that said investigators were going to obtain a DNA sample from Karr or to look at his financial records to determine his whereabouts, even though we had no idea what the outcome of those approaches would be. --Dhartung | Talk 05:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Additional image
Here's another image. X marks the closed taxiway based on photo links I posted above, and Yahoo news gallery photos. End of red line is approx area of crash. Dual Freq 20:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Any thoughts on including this image in the article? I guess it could be argued that it is OR, but the images linked above on this page back it up. Construction doesn't seem to have removed the taxiways, just shortened the runway. The numbers for Rwy 22 are now closer to the taxiway they were supposed to use and the taxiway with the X has not been removed, just small barriers placed in front of it as seen in the yahoo image gallery. Lines are a bit thin, but I didn't have a tool for transparent lines, and I didn't want to obscure the runway markings. Of course those markings are quite a bit different now than they were in April 2002 when this image was taken. I guess it could be cropped differently, but I wanted to include the crash site, the taxiways and the control tower (I didn't mark it but it is in the image). Dual Freq 21:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it's a pretty good image. It would be good to show the entire length of 4-22, for contrast to 8-26.  In 2001 Bliegrass airport made a study and considered expanding the length of 8-26.  The cost was going to be $80 million.  Instead they opted for an upgrade to 4-22 to bring it up to FAA minimums.  This included lengthening the runway approaches by 300 feet on both ends.  The repaving on August 19-20 was Phase IV of the upgrade to the airport.  IT would be interesting to see before and after pictures or at least the stages of the upgrades.  I'll go on a limb and say this is probably pilot error, but I have enough respect for pilots to know that whatever happened there had to be something that caused a confusion or give them an idea that they were going down a 7,000 foot runway.  The other contrast is 4-22 is 150 feet wide and 8-26 is 75 feet wide but this does not show like that in the photo.  It makes me wonder, with the aprons and so forth, maybe the width is confusing because of the convergence at this area of the field.  Mfields1 22:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

USA Photomaps measuring tool shows both are 150 feet wide, but 26 has lines painted on it that are 75 feet apart. The edge of 26 must not be included in the official width, only the area between the lines: see also You can also see the runway markings off 22 have changed since the 2002 aerial photo. Dual Freq 22:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, that explains it better now I see what you are saying about the actual paved width vs. usable width. It's interesting that 26 is 150 feet wide as paved but only lined at 75 feet.  I'd sure like to know some history on Bluegrass field, like was 22 built first and 26 added later?  At a news conference yesterday evening on a local TV station, the governor said he was asking the airport manager to close 26 with some significant barrier.  Mfields1 23:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The runway 300 foot over run length increase explains why the numbers are in a different place for 22. They couldn't go any closer to the road north of the field, so they shortened it on the 22 end and that's why they closed the taxiway going the full length (denoted by an X). On the opposite end (where there is more room) they made up for the lost length on the 22 end. I guess I could make a new image to include the full length of 22, but with the project the opposite end will not be remotely accurate on the 2002 image. Also, the 1997 b/w aerial photo doesn't show the 75 ft lines on rwy 26, so somebody must have decided the pavement edges were not safe, or the runway safety area was not clear with the full 150 feet. I'm not sure if General aviation would want 26 closed, there are plenty of airports with short runways, and complex taxiway intersections can't close them all. As far as Airport history, it looks like that other taxiway used to be a runway, aligned about 150 / 330 true. It looks like it was only about 2000 feet long though. Dual Freq 23:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this image looks great. The "X" really helps a lot too. It's amazing to zoom up the photo and see all the details that are there. Anyway, I think it would be a good addition to the article. Someone will probably disagree with it but 1) it shows the path that is normally taken to use 22 (for commercial larger aircraft), 2) the actual path taken by Comair 5191, and 3) the recently closed taxiway (without stating giving an opinion on the effect of the taxiway). Maybe the whole runway thing or airport changes at Bluegrass Field belong in a separate article?  Mfields1 00:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Probably the Blue Grass Airport article.--chris.lawson 01:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Or Runway and taxiway changes at Blue Grass Airport Mfields1 01:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I was going to circle the control tower, but I'm not sure that it matters. I know of at least 1 airport that doesn't open until 6 am local time, but commuter jets depart prior to the tower's opening. They call for clearance and the center (over 100 miles away) clears them without seeing the aircraft via a remote radio site. The pilot is on his/her own as to avoiding other traffic and finding the correct runway. I think it could be added to the article but I was afraid someone might object on grounds of WP:OR, so I'll let someone else add it if they feel like it. I do think the taxiway should be depicted in an image, but my markups to it could be considered OR since the location is based on AP photos not actual text. This image with the markup doesn't pertain to the airport article itself. Dual Freq 01:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Takeoff Weight
I noticed that sources have had conflicting information regarding the takeoff weight of the aircraft. The since-rewritten CNN article listed the weight as 40,987 lbs, but the LA Times article lists it as "just over 49,000". The weight of the aircraft has a direct impact on the takeoff distance, and is likely to be significant to the investigation. Can we look for some additional sources that might clarify what appears to be a significant discrepancy? VxSote 03:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * One of the weights is wrong, because both articles agree on the takeoff distance number. As the CNN article was originally published at 49,000, then revised downward to 40,987 (before the weight and takeoff distance figures disappeared entirely), I suspect the latter is correct.--chris.lawson 03:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This source that was recently added to the crash section http://www.ajc.com/services/content/business/stories/0829comwhy_.html?cxtype=rss&cxsvc=7&cxcat=6 lists the weight as 49,087 lb. The Bombardier site lists max takeoff weight as 51,000 lb, max payload 13,100 lb, max fuel 14,305 lb, and empty weight 30,900 lb.  Looking at that info, and knowing that the flight was nearly full, I'm leaning towards the 49,087 number being correcy, and 40,987 being a simple typo.  I'm satisfied with the current sources for now.  VxSote 04:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Me too.--chris.lawson 04:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Confluence of Factors, Liability and Censorship
The contributing factors enumerated are not derrivative of "original rearch", but have been reported independently by numerous media outlets. Should there not be a section summarizing the state of the on-going NTSB investigation? A reading of the discussion above yields:


 * Envirnonmental Factors
 * Night Operating Conditions
 * Light rain falling
 * Fully loaded aircraft
 * Recently re-aligned taxiway
 * Absence of lighting (on 26) corresponding with bulletin (expired) about this condition on 22


 * Human Error Factors
 * Understaffed control tower
 * Multi(over?)-tasked controller
 * Inattention to heading during Captain/First Officer changeover
 * Attribution by flight crew of atypical commercial runway conditions during take-off to recent maintenance

IMHO the solvency of Delta may hinge on a jury determination of their exposure of liability for this tragedy. One can be sure the corporate counsel of all interested parties are monitoring, and possibly editing, this page. OmarFirestone 17:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Anything the NTSB, or anyone else, says at this point is still speculative, as the investigation hasn't been concluded. There are likely to be a large number of potential factors, but in the end it'll probably turn out that many of them didn't play a role in causing the crash (the lack of a second controller in the tower, for example; that didn't do anything to cause the crash, though the presence of a second controller may have been able to prevent it (if the first controller watched the plane)). It's true that these things are facts, but the point of Wikipedia (or any encyclopedia) is not to present all the facts and to let the reader draw their own conclusions. We should wait until the final NTSB report before we start making statements about what factored into the crash. &mdash;LrdChaos 17:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think using the bulleted list of factors that may have contributed to the crash would make a good section for the article. They can be cited from news articles. It gives a clear picture of the different theories of the crash, as they stand today. Mytwocents 18:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Does anyone else fear the potential for Wikipedia to be used to spin stories likely to result in a lawsuit? What a pity  Ernest K Gann (author of "Fate is the Hunter") did not live to see the internet!  OmarFirestone 18:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Mytwocents. Giving a list of factors which have been identified by "reputable" source as possibly contributing to the crash will help to illustrate the media reaction, which is a key element of any disaster. Cmadler 14:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I, as someone knowledgeable about aeronautics, don't especially care what the media reaction is like, and I can't really disagree more about the media reaction being a key element. When it comes to issues of a technical nature, the mainstream media typically does a poor job, imo, of presenting information appropriately.  There's a reason that the NTSB preliminary report is very short, and as far as "reputable" sources go, the NTSB is probably the one that matters most. I'm not entirely opposed to a section regarding factors that have been identified, but I just don't see a way we can do that, at this point, without introducing inappropriate material.  For all the other reasons that have been discussed elsewhere on this page, those facts that are not clearly factors simply need to stay out of the article, for now.  VxSote 16:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I was a shareholder of American Airlines at the time of the DC-10 crash in Chicago, in 1979. It was explained in the next annual report that insurance would cover the airline's liability.  So, I doubt this accident will affect Delta. MWS 18:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Wrong plane, then wrong runway
CNN reports that the pilots got into the wrong plane and started it up, then were told their mistake, prior to their trying to takeoff on a runway on a heading which differed from the compas bearing it should have been. This belings in the article as does the fact that the FAA required 2 controllers in the tower. In a previous near miss, a controller had spotted the fact that a plane was about to take off on the same wrong runway and informed the crew, so it is reasonable that an extra pair of eyes might have helped this time. There is no regulation forbidding the controller from watching the plane until it is on the runway. Some editors seem to be censoring this article to make it POV so as to exonerate the airport and or airline. Facts are facts. see http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/30/plane.crash/index.html Edison 18:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've just read the CNN article mentioned above; NTSB: Wrong runway wasn't Comair crew's only preflight error. It's chilling.  We need to incorporate it into this wikiarticle. Mytwocents 18:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There isn't any regulation prohibiting the controller from watching the plane until it's at the runway, but there isn't any that requires it either. While it's probably true that the accident could have been avoided had the controller been watching the plane all the way to the runway, it's wrong to put any of the blame on him, because he didn't do anything wrong. Facts are facts, true, and it is a fact that the tower was understaffed, but it is not a fact that having two controllers would have prevented this. &mdash;LrdChaos 19:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed,LrdChaos. As you point out above, we must wait for the NTSB to determine which of the contributing environmental and human error factors is/are the probable cause. Its findings in turn will be used by a jury to decide any civil and criminal liability.  Even at this early stage, an absence of evidence suggesting mechanical failure/metal fatigue etc. is emerging.  While this argues for a speedy resolution (these problems can take months, even years to analyze and diagnose), it does leave the airline, the airport, and the FAA without any "wiggle room" as putative lawsuit defendants.  Sadly there will most likely be a round of embarrassing and shameful finger-pointing in the media. OmarFirestone 20:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Pilot error has always been the default FAA explanation for most air tragedies. Taking off from a runway you are not cleared for, and which is too short for liftoff, is clearly pilot error per se. The prior incident of getting in the wrong plane and starting it up has been mentioned in all the recent news stories as an error much like taking off from the wrong runway. But what section of the article does that info fit in? Ultimately, there should be a section on "Fitness for Duty" looking into whether the pilots were properly rested, and othrwise fit for their duties. and the wrong plane error could go there. Similarly there could be a section on other possible contributory factors such as lighting, communications from the tower, runway markings, familiarity with the airport layout, weather and time of day, and plane systems. Edison 23:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The reason that pilot error is found to be the probable cause behind most air tragedies is because pilots are really really good at killing themselves in airplanes. Some 75 percent of all aviation accidents, and nearly 80 percent of fatal accidents, in 2004 were a result of pilot error. I hope never to be a statistic, but I'm very much aware that pilot error is a tremendous problem in aviation, and it is not, historically, getting any smaller.
 * Whether or not the pilots were fit for duty is not something that has been determined as of yet. If they were not, such a section can be added at an appropriate time. You miss the larger point: Adding sections full of speculation, original research, and POV is not appropriate. Wikipedia is not in the speculation business. The goal of Wikipedia is to make an encyclopedia.--chris.lawson 23:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Can we at least note in the article that preliminary findings reported widely in the media indicate that there was only one controller who had had two hours of sleep, and that the pilots started in the wrong plane, and leave the readers to make their own conclusions? Geoffreynham 13:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No. The point of an encyclopedia is not to present readers with loads of irrelevant facts and then lead them to draw their own conclusions. Just because something is a fact doesn't mean that it's relevant, or that it should be included here. In the case of the wrong plane issue, I think it would irresponsible to consider that a factor in the crash at this point, because noone (as far as I'm aware) has been able to say, with authority, why the pilots got on the wrong plane. It's easy to conclude that they were predisposed to not paying attention, but it's possible that, prior to getting on the plane, they'd been given wrong information (gate number, tail number, etc.). Until the final NTSB report, it's premature to present things like that as probable causes (because it's just speculation, no matter how many news sources feel the need to report it) or as definite causes (because we just don't know that). &mdash;LrdChaos 14:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The FACT that the controller had but 2 hours sleep is not speculation, nor are the facts that the pilots entered the wrong plane initially, then taxied onto the wrong runway, then did not heed the discrepancy between the compass heading and the heading of the correct runway. These are verifiable facts and deserve inclusion. If the article said "This factor caused or contributed to the accident" I agree that would be speculation. Verifiable facts which the FAA have noted and which have been reported by responsible media belong in the article. To do otherwise smacks of spin control and unacceptable censorship. Edison 17:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

airplane painted, Delta or Comair?
--CorvetteZ51 18:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming this is meant to be a question as to whether the aircraft was painted in Delta or Comair colors. Currently, all Comair aircraft are painted in Delta Connection colors. Based on photos at Airliners.net this aircraft was in the current livery, with the Delta "flag" logo on the tail, "Delta Connection" titles above the windows, and "Comair" titles below the pilots' windows. Comair CRJ's have always been painted with the Delta Connection livery, the last Comair aircraft type to be painted Comair's own livery was the EMB-120: -- Hawaiian717 19:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

"Victims" isn't a good section title
The sole survivor of the flight is, arguably, also a victim. You can extend the label "victims" to include friends and family of the people killed in the flight. So "victims" is POV, and that's not acceptable. I suggest "Passengers and crew" or "Deaths" or something more factual as a section heading. --Ds13 20:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Jet crash victims gets 2.4 million Google hits. The term is very commonly used and seems appropriate in this case. Friends and relatives are not generally referred to as victims. Edison 20:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * In the vast majority of cases, the term victims could theoretically include people not directly involved in the incident. However in most cases, it's understood that it only refers to people directly involved in the incident. For example, the victim of a hit and run would be the person hit, even though that person's family and friends would also be victims in a way. Similarly, terrorism can affect many people however when victims of a terrorist incident is mentioned, it's generally understood to only include those directly affected by that incident and it is understood family, friends and others who are affected aren't being included even if they are also victims. Nil Einne 13:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if this has been covered yet, but at risk of being insensitive to Canada and Japan, why are Canadian and Japanese passenger names in this paragraph. Is citizenship noteworthy in death, if so than what about the citizenship of the rest of the dead? How many were dual citizens, why does any of it matter? No other names listed, at a minimum I propose removing their names, otherwise there is no real reason not to list all of the dead. Dual Freq 00:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There's a weak argument for it being noteworthy because this was a domestic US crash (and therefore non-US citizens are not generally expected to be on such flights), although I agree with you that their names aren't really all that important. Of course, other US air disaster articles here on Wikipedia don't generally go into great detail about how many people of X nationality were on the flight. I don't have a strong opinion either way.--chris.lawson 00:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I support removal of names of the Canadian citizens and well as the Japanese citizens. If mentioning them because of citizenship is barely noteworthy, then we certainly don't need their names here. If the names remain, I see no reason not to list the names of all the dead. Does anyone else have any comments? The section sticks out, when I read it and I wonder how it is noteworthy that the Japanese citizens wanted to go to Yosemite. What of the hopes and dreams of the rest of the dead? Why are they notable, but others are not? I'd like to see that section trimmed to only note that 3 Canadian citizens and 2 Japanese citizens were on the flight, but nothing beyond that. Any other opinions? Dual Freq 01:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Fine by me.--chris.lawson 01:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * There are 50 separate crashes in the category "Airliner crashes caused by pilot error", and only one has a Victims section, and it is called "Famous victims". The section has always seemed inappropriate to me.  I have kept the victims and their families in my thoughts and prayers.  There are websites already devoted to a list of the names.  Also - I am not suggesting this should be added to the pilot error category.  I support removing the entire section.  Mfields1 01:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a reason to list any of the victims unless they are notable enough to have an article already. Dying in a plane crash with 50 other people isn't enough to make you notable on your own. But if you're Buddy Holly, then listing your name on the page about the crash of your plane probably makes sense. Peyna 01:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

No indication the pilots tried to stop the plane
the phrase in the second paragraph starting "There is no indication either pilot tried to stop the plane...". is a point of view. That might be true, but we don't know it yet. The full report has not been issued. How do we know they did not try to stop the plane? Besides, everything that happened after the pilot lined up on the wrong runway would have been a corrective measure that might have prevented a catastrophic accident. If they had tried to stop the plane 1 second before leaving the end of the runway would the crash results been different? What about 2 seconds? 5 seconds? Mfields1 01:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it's a fact based on NTSB examination of the flight data recorder, which records (among other things) when the brake pedals are pressed, and when the throttles are moved. If either pilot had attempted to stop the plane, braking action and/or throttle reduction should have taken place. This was not indicated by preliminary examination of the FDR. There is a citation for this in the article. --chris.lawson 02:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There *was* a citation for this in the article, until CNN re-wrote their crash story yesterday. It currently needs a fresh citation (but I can assure you it was in the CNN article at one time).--chris.lawson 02:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The AJC link just provided makes the same statement. I'll add the ref.--chris.lawson 04:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If CNN used to say it and then changed their story that is significant. DJ Clayworth 04:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What CNN did was re-write the entire story. They have a really bad habit of "updating" stories with completely different text than the version from three hours previous. They didn't so much "change" their story as stop talking about takeoff weight, preliminary FDR/CVR data, etc. entirely and start talking about how tower staffing violated FAA policies. That's one reason I hate using CNN as a ref for anything "breaking". They don't append updates -- they replace everything!--chris.lawson 05:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Moved Deadlink of Lexington Herald-Leader in regards to Patrick Smith
The page is no longer accessible, so I have moved the link here and replaced it with the official press release from Habitat for Humanity:

""

61.222.161.30 02:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that.--chris.lawson 02:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

1993 similar incident
In case anyone wants to integrate the following ASRS info into the third similar incident note:


 * Date: November 1993, Saturday monrning
 * Aircraft: Twin engine medium sized low wing jet (two ATP in cockpit)
 * Conditions: marginal = storms in area, raining, daylight

I've been reverted when I tried to integrate it for a more comprehensive and less vague note. Xxxxxxxxxxx 03:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * As I noted on your Talk page, that's because the above data points -- with the possible exception of weather conditions -- are utterly irrelevant. We don't go into that sort of detail on the other similar accidents/incidents, so why should we do it for this one?--chris.lawson 03:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The relevancy of facts is not your sole decision, unless you were somehow appointed the managing editor of the article. We work by consensus, not by fiat. Edison 17:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please explain, then, what possible significance November, Saturday, morning, twin-engine, medium size, low-wing, jet power, ATP-rated flight crew, and daylight have on this article. Not the incident itself. This article. Oh, that's right, they don't matter, because it's talking about an entirely different incident, and none of these conditions has any bearing on its mention here. What is significant is that the crew of a commercial aircraft taxied onto Runway 26, with the intention of taking off, before both the crew and ATC realised the error. And that's exactly what the article says.--chris.lawson 17:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I concur with Clawson regarding the relevancy of those facts. VxSote 17:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)