NTSB Aircraft Accident Investigation: Analysis of Comair Flight 5191 Accident

Analysis of the Comair Flight 5191 Accident
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Course
Instructor
Date
Analysis of Comair Flight 5191 Accident
The world records an alarming number of deaths resulting from aviation industry accidents. The National Transport and Safety Board has been at the forefront of ensuring that accidents in the aviation industry and other transportation modes are investigated, and recommendations to contain future incidents are generated and adhered to. The board plays a pivotal role in the aviation industry, ultimately limiting the prevalence of physical impacts of aircraft accidents, which includes disability, injuries, or worse, death, psychological impacts, and financial, drawn from loss of resources, including compensation of victims. An example of aviation industry accidents investigated by the NTSB is the Comair Flight 5191 Bombardier CL-600-2B19, N431CA, which occurred on 27th August 2006. The accident occurred in Lexington, Kentucky, at the Blue Grass Airport, claiming the lives of 49 people. This paper discusses the primary cause of the accident as reported by the NTSB and the underlying factors that the board did not credit, even though they may have played a role in the accident.
The National Transport and Safety Board investigations revealed that pilot error was the primary cause of the Comair Flight 5191 accident. The report reveals that the passenger plane crashed during takeoff. The findings indicate that the pilot and the first officer met Federal regulations, including qualifications and certification. Additionally, the ill-fated plane was efficiently maintained and certified. In fact, the board reveals that the accident barely occurred as a result of failures in the aircraft’s systems and engine. Another notable finding by the board includes the fact that weather did not affect visibility as the pilot attempted takeoff from the runway. One notable finding that justifies pilot error is the assumption that the passenger plane was taxied on runway 22 when it was on runway 26 (NTSB, 2006). The possibility of identifying the error as the plane took off was high; however, it was recognized late, and the aircraft could not be stopped, resulting in a crash from the short runway.
The investigations established that the runway incursion was the cause of the accident. This conforms with the claim that pilot error contributed to the accident. In this regard, it is important to remember that runway clearances are important, and pilots and their first officers cannot make assumptions; instead, they need clarification or clearance. A runway clearance would have indicated that the airplane was not on runway 22, as the pilot and first officer believed in the case of Comair Flight 5191. Another justification for pilot error is the fact that the airport supported navigation to the recommended runway 22; however, from investigations, NTSB (2006) concluded that the flight crew embraced futile conversations resulting in incomprehension of positional awareness. It is worth noting that the airline policy and Federal regulations do not encourage conversations considered irrelevant during the taxi (Sumwalt, 1993). As such, their interaction facilitated the presence of confirmation bias, affecting the ability to recognize or cross-check to establish whether the aircraft was on the right runway.
I agree with the findings and conclusions reached by the NTSB. In this case, had the flight crew embraced standard operating procedures, they would have sorted runway clearance, which would have indicated they were on the wrong runway and, as such, needed to shift before takeoff. According to NASA, the flight crew should embrace the sterile cockpit rule, which compels them to disregard any non-essential activities such as non-pertinent conversations during flight operations, including landing, takeoff, and taxi (Sumwalt, 1993). The rule restricts the pilot and first officers’ activities to operationally essential ones, which would limit the case of poor positional awareness, resulting in runway incursion (Broom et al., 2011). In other words, the cockpit was distracted by irrelevant conversations affecting their ability to confirm or seek runway clearance. They assumed they were on the right runway, indicating pilot error that claimed nearly 50 lives. Since the airplane accident occurred during takeoff, it is evident that the flight crew violated the sterile cockpit rule that applies especially below 10 000 feet.
According to Khalilov et al. (2021), runway incursion is a key factor that impedes the successful containment of accidents in the aviation industry. The authors further establish that accidents were likely to occur during approach, landing, en route, and take off. Comair Flight 5191 is an example of passenger planes that crashed during take...