Go Back   CruiseMates Cruise Community and Forums > People > Chit - Chat for Cruisers
Register Forgot Password?

Chit - Chat for Cruisers Open Forum for non-cruise posts. Please refrain from inflammatory rhetoric that could be considered offensive. We reserve the right to edit or delete for any reason.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old August 27th, 2006, 10:43 AM
Senior Member
Cruise Maniac
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 102
Default Comair plane crashes

plane flying from Lexington, Ky.'s Blue Grass Airport to Atlanta, Ga., crashed shortly after takeoff early Sunday morning. At least one person survived.

Comair Flight 5191, a CRJ-100 regional jet with 47 passengers and three crew members, crashed at 6:07 a.m. shortly after taking off for Atlanta, said Kathleen Bergen, a FAA spokeswoman.

There are a "significant number of fatalities," she said. There was no immediate word on what caused the crash. It crashed a mile west of the airport in a wooded area, according to Bergen.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2 (permalink)  
Old August 27th, 2006, 11:48 AM
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 11,518
Send a message via Yahoo to Luanne Russo
Default

Prayers to those who have lost love ones today. Also for the one survivor.

Luanne
__________________
Ecstasy 2005
Conquest 2005
Elation 2005
Conquest 2006
Conquest 2007
Ecstasy 2008
Valor B2B 2008

Conquest Virtual Cruise Topic Link
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old August 27th, 2006, 06:09 PM
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,771
Default

ousoonerfaninbatonrouge,

plane flying from Lexington, Ky.'s Blue Grass Airport to Atlanta, Ga., crashed shortly after takeoff early Sunday morning. At least one person survived.

Comair Flight 5191, a CRJ-100 regional jet with 47 passengers and three crew members, crashed at 6:07 a.m. shortly after taking off for Atlanta, said Kathleen Bergen, a FAA spokeswoman.

There are a "significant number of fatalities," she said. There was no immediate word on what caused the crash. It crashed a mile west of the airport in a wooded area, according to Bergen.


The map of the airfield shows that a plane taxiing from the terminal to Runway 22 would pass the start of Runway 26 en route. It appears that the pilot inadvertently turned onto Runway 26(3500 feet) rather than Runway 22(7003 feet) and realized the mistake when he ran out of runway while trying to take off, then pulled the nose up too much in a desparate effort to get the plane off the ground.

The only survivor is the copilot, who is hospitalized and apparently is in serious condition.

A few other details have emerged that might point the way to improvements in aviation safety.

>> Runway 26 is restricted to small civil aircraft (no commercial traffic), but nonetheless has standard runway markings. A difference in markings (different color of signs, for example) would have provided a visual cue that might have prevented the pilot from turning onto the wrong runway.

>> According to some reports, there was only one person on duty in the control tower so nobody was able to watch the airfield. An observer would have noticed that the plane was on the wrong runway before it started its takeoff roll. We may well see a requirement for a full time observer to monitor movement of aircraft on the ground and to verify that they are where they should be.

Human beings are fallible, so the system really does need checks of this sort.

The CRJ-200, first introduced in 1993, now manufactured by Bombardier Aerospace, has an impressive safety record. There is no indication so far of any defect or malfunction of the aircraft that might have contributed to this accident.

The operator, Comair, also has a very impressive safety record.

Norm.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old August 27th, 2006, 07:00 PM
blueliner's Avatar
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Northern Illinois
Posts: 1,176
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rev22:17
a plane taxiing from the terminal to Runway 26 would pass the start of Runway 22 en route. It appears that the pilot inadvertently turned onto Runway 26(3500 feet) rather than Runway 22(7003 feet)
First, any plane taxing from the terminal would cross Runway 26 first, not Runway 22.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rev22:17
>> Runway 26 is restricted to small civil aircraft (no commercial traffic), but nonetheless has standard runway markings. A difference in markings (different color of signs, for example) would have provided a visual cue that might have prevented the pilot from turning onto the wrong runway.
Many years ago the FAA determined that one of the root causes of runway incursions at airports were due to non-standard runway markings. The FAA has mandated all US airports have standard runway and taxiway markings for all airplane movement areas. To change back would be dangerous. Runways and taxiways are marked the way they are so pilots have only one standard nationwide for safely moving their aircraft and keeping runway incursions down. Runway incursions are far more serious and used to happen much more often then a single airplane taking off from the wrong runway. This change by the FAA to standardize runway and taxiway markings along with their 20+ years of additional pilot training to prevent runway incursions has done much more for airplane and passenger safety then to change runway markings due to a single incident. By the way, both Canada and US about the same time adopted these standard markings and they are followed around the world pretty much.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rev22:17
>> According to some reports, there was only one person on duty in the control tower so nobody was able to watch the airfield. An observer would have noticed that the plane was on the wrong runway before it started its takeoff roll.
I can say with certainty there was more than 1 person on duty in the control tower. This is a Class C airport, and the FAA already mandates more than one controller in a Class C tower. However, even in a Class C tower, when operations are slow, a tower will combine their tower and ground controller positions into one position and one controller. Even if that is the case, the single controller will still have to maintain visual contact with all airplanes moving on the airfield. All controllers in a tower, regardless of their position, will watch the airfield. Let's wait to see what the FAA and NTSB have to say before passing judgement and proposing changes which the media LOVES to do in cases like this.
__________________
Scott

Majesty of the Seas - 10/03 & 02/07 & 11/08
Enchantment of the Seas - 10/04 & 10/11
Mariner of the Seas - 10/05
Vision of the Seas - 10/06 & 09/07
Carnival Liberty - 10/07
Adventure of the Seas - 9/08
Ruby Princess - 12/09
Voyager of the Seas - 9/10
Carnival Spirit - 11/10
Oasis of the Seas - 9/13
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old August 27th, 2006, 11:00 PM
Ron Ron is offline
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,295
Default

I live in Lexington and approx. 4-5 miles from the airport. I have flown in and out of that airport many times and am familiar with it.

The plane did try to take off from the wrong runway which is approx. 3500 feet in length. The main runway is a little over 7,000 feet long.

The airport here is not like Atlanta, Cincinnati, O'hare, etc. but is much
smaller. The plane was to take off from north to south. As the planes leave the main terminal bldg., they normally taxi north a few hundred feet , make a left turn, taxi a very short distance, making another left onto the main runway.
The secondary, or smaller runway crosses the main runway at an angle, heading basically southwest. As the plane makes it's turn to the left onto the main runway, for a few seconds it would be looking directly down the smaller runway.
Sometimes when the planes leave the terminal bldg. and taxi to the take
off position, they will taxi up, make the turn to the left and immediately begin takeoff because they don't have to wait for anyother airtraffic in the area.

We don't know exactly what happened that the pilot was on the wrong runway but he was for a fact. He very well may have realized his mistake after he got started and had to make a split second decision to try to stop or get the plane up. It did get airborne but was not able to maintain flight and came down approx. 1/4 mile from the end of the runway. The plane burst into flames and dental records, etc. are being used to identify the remains opf the passengers.

The sole survivor ws the co-pilot and is in the U.K. med center here in Lexington. His Dr. issued a very brief statement a short time ago saying his condidtion was very critical and that the next 48 hours would be crucial . I surely hope he makes it and can shed some light on the accident.
My heart goes out to all these people and their families. There was one couple that had gotten married just yesterday and are now together forever somewhere.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old August 27th, 2006, 11:04 PM
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 11,518
Send a message via Yahoo to Luanne Russo
Default

Ron, Thank you for all the info.

Luanne
__________________
Ecstasy 2005
Conquest 2005
Elation 2005
Conquest 2006
Conquest 2007
Ecstasy 2008
Valor B2B 2008

Conquest Virtual Cruise Topic Link
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old August 27th, 2006, 11:28 PM
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,260
Send a message via MSN to belgique
Default

A very sad day, indeed. A beautiful summer Sunday morning ends in such tragedy. Prayers to the victims and their loved ones.

The CRJ-100 is one of my favorite aircraft. I fly out of a very small airport in northern Michigan and until a few years ago the only planes we had were turbo-props - reliable but very noisy and very small.

About 5 years ago, N.W.A. introduced the CRJ-100 into their Mesaba fleet and it's like flying on your own private jet. Leather seats, lots of leg room, all quite new, very quiet and I always feel so much safer than on the old turbo-prop Saab's we had.

Still, there are risks in everything we do in life and you're right - we cannot make sound decisions or opinions until all the facts are in.

In the meantime, my prayers and thoughts are with the victims and survivors of this tragedy.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old August 28th, 2006, 12:45 AM
AR AR is offline
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,475
Default

Ron, your speculation is interesting. I'd be curious to know, when you say you've "flown in and out of that airport many times," do you mean as a pilot or a passenger? I ask because I believe most pilots would call the longer runway (22) a southwest runway, and the shorter one (26) a west runway. But I won't split hairs.

As I said in the "cruisemates pilots" string, speculation is not helpful at this stage. The dead are dead, the FO is being cared for, and the voice and data recorders are being analyzed. That is all we really need to know for the present.

Let's just think about the families and their losses, and leave the backseat piloting to the NTSB. The details will be made very clear, probably sooner rather than later.

And Belgique, I agree that the CRJ is a wonderful airplane, as is its competitor the ERJ from Brazil. Both have done yeoman service in their decade-plus on the line. Of course the Saab turboprops are also pretty reliable workhorses, but you're right, not as comfy as the RJ's.

But I do worry about your Mesaba outfit. Things don't look promising on that front. Hope for the best.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old August 28th, 2006, 03:30 PM
Ron Ron is offline
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,295
Default

My Dear A.R.
I'm truly sorry if my post upset you . I stated facts. The plane was on the wrong runway. That was confirmed early on. The plane burst into flames after impact. That was confirmed. 49 people died. That was confirmed. One survived. Confirmed. The plane taxied north from the terminal bldg. to get into takeoff position. It made a left turn. Instead of turning left again onto the main runway, it went straight down the secondary runway.

I'm not stating anything other than facts. Thank you for not wanting to " split hairs ".
No, I'm not a pilot. I have lived here almost 40 years and seen that airport grow and expand several times. It is not a big airport and one doesn't have to be a pilot, engineer or a walking brain to be able to look at it and see two runways, one being shorter than the other , etc. I have flown in an out of that airport in daylight, after dark, fair weather and foul
and am probably more familiar with it than you are.

I think you post was out of line and have to say that I really could care less about your advice.

To all the other people on the board, please disregard anything I have posted regarding the tragedy and I am asking Kuki to delete the first post I made about the crash.
Good luck to you all.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old August 28th, 2006, 07:08 PM
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,771
Default

blueliner,

Many years ago the FAA determined that one of the root causes of runway incursions at airports were due to non-standard runway markings. The FAA has mandated all US airports have standard runway and taxiway markings for all airplane movement areas. To change back would be dangerous. Runways and taxiways are marked the way they are so pilots have only one standard nationwide for safely moving their aircraft and keeping runway incursions down. Runway incursions are far more serious and used to happen much more often then a single airplane taking off from the wrong runway. This change by the FAA to standardize runway and taxiway markings along with their 20+ years of additional pilot training to prevent runway incursions has done much more for airplane and passenger safety then to change runway markings due to a single incident. By the way, both Canada and US about the same time adopted these standard markings and they are followed around the world pretty much.

By way of clarification, I'm NOT proposing use of "non-standard" markings under any circumstances. Rather, I'm proposing a change to the standard that would provide a visual cue that a runway is too short. One option might be to use the present white on red for runways under 5,000 feet, but change the markings to white on blue for runways from 5,000 to 8,000 feet and to white on green for runways over 8,000 feet, so that the color of the background would provide an obvious visual cur. Another option might be to add a color bar that correlates with length (for example, red under 4,000 feet, orange 4000 to 6000 feet, yellow 6000 to 8000 feet, green over 8000 feet) under the number of the runway at the entrance to the take-off area. Perhaps there are other possibilities as well. In any case, such markings conform completely to an approved standard..

BTW, I learned one additional nuance today. Apparently the airport's maintenance team reconfigured the taxiway from the terminal to Runway 22 last weekend, so it's possible that the change in configuration may have played a role in the crash. According to one article released today, the FAA's investigators are examining the markings on the reconfigured taxiway so see if they might have confused the pilots.

Norm.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old August 28th, 2006, 09:33 PM
blueliner's Avatar
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Northern Illinois
Posts: 1,176
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rev22:17
One option might be to use the present white on red for runways under 5,000 feet, but change the markings to white on blue for runways from 5,000 to 8,000 feet and to white on green for runways over 8,000 feet, so that the color of the background would provide an obvious visual cur. Another option might be to add a color bar that correlates with length (for example, red under 4,000 feet, orange 4000 to 6000 feet, yellow 6000 to 8000 feet, green over 8000 feet) under the number of the runway at the entrance to the take-off area. Perhaps there are other possibilities as well. In any case, such markings conform completely to an approved standard..
While I understand what you're saying, as a pilot I believe that would be completely unnecessary. I know that when a tragedy happens, we and the media are always quick to propose some kind of change to prevent it from happening again, but we need to wait and see what the Federal Agencies investigating the crash determine here. Airport diagrams with taxiway and runway layouts are readily available, and pilots are required by the FARs (Federal Aviation Regulations) to have that information about the departure and destination airports before each flight. At the entrance to each and every runway is a red and white sign with the runway numbers on it, and if that isn't enough, the big white numbers painted on the pavement as you taxi onto the runway should be a second clue to a pilot. And if that weren't enough, runways are numbered according to their magnetic heading with the last number dropped off (i.e. runway 22 has a magnetic heading of 220, runway 26 would have a magnetic heading of 260 and so on) so when a pilot taxis on to a runway the pilot has been cleared for takeoff on, if the plane's compass and directional gyro don't match the runway they were cleared for, that is even another check for the pilot to ensure the proper runway. If a pilot has taxied on to the wrong runway and he/she hasn't figured it out based on those three checks (runway sign, pavement marking, compass heading) yet, adding another sign or marking with color coding to the runway environment isn't going to do it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rev22:17
BTW, I learned one additional nuance today. Apparently the airport's maintenance team reconfigured the taxiway from the terminal to Runway 22 last weekend, so it's possible that the change in configuration may have played a role in the crash. According to one article released today, the FAA's investigators are examining the markings on the reconfigured taxiway so see if they might have confused the pilots.
That is true and that may very well turn out to be a factor in this tragedy, we will have to wait for the NTSB to finish their investigation before we find that out.
__________________
Scott

Majesty of the Seas - 10/03 & 02/07 & 11/08
Enchantment of the Seas - 10/04 & 10/11
Mariner of the Seas - 10/05
Vision of the Seas - 10/06 & 09/07
Carnival Liberty - 10/07
Adventure of the Seas - 9/08
Ruby Princess - 12/09
Voyager of the Seas - 9/10
Carnival Spirit - 11/10
Oasis of the Seas - 9/13
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old August 28th, 2006, 11:49 PM
Ron Ron is offline
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,295
Default

Luanne and soonerfan, thanks. It's good to see that at least some people can read a post without trying to nitpick it apart. I didn't say anything that wasn't fact. I never said why the plane went down the wrong runway, just that it did and that's as factual as you can get.
I shouldn't have let the response irritate me.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old August 29th, 2006, 09:35 AM
Senior Member
Captain
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 566
Default

I don't see anything "out of line" in AR's post.

He said Ron's speculation is interesting, although not helpful. I agree. It might be fun to guess whether or not the pilot "made a split second decision" to act in some way or another, but it is not helpful.

He said we should think about the victims and let the authorities complete the investigation. I agree with that too.

He said the CRJ is a fine airplane, in his opinion.

And he closed by wishing Belgique well.

I don't see anything even remotely out of line.

Cheers, Aidan
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old August 29th, 2006, 10:33 AM
DougR.'s Avatar
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Erial, New Jersey
Posts: 3,310
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aidan
I don't see anything "out of line" in AR's post.

He said Ron's speculation is interesting, although not helpful. I agree. It might be fun to guess whether or not the pilot "made a split second decision" to act in some way or another, but it is not helpful.

He said we should think about the victims and let the authorities complete the investigation. I agree with that too.

He said the CRJ is a fine airplane, in his opinion.

And he closed by wishing Belgique well.

I don't see anything even remotely out of line.

Cheers, Aidan
I agree, some people seem to interpret disagreement as a personal attack rather than a mere difference in opinion. If you are thin skinned and hypersensitive it might be best not to post at all. Why open yourself to upset?
__________________
Doug




Explorer of the Seas October 2013
Caribbean Princess July 2006, May 2010 & November 2012
Monarch of the Seas November 2008
Crown Princess November 2007
Celebrity Zenith November 2005
Enchantment of the Seas August 2004
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old August 29th, 2006, 07:52 PM
blueliner's Avatar
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Northern Illinois
Posts: 1,176
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blueliner
I can say with certainty there was more than 1 person on duty in the control tower. This is a Class C airport, and the FAA already mandates more than one controller in a Class C tower.
I must stand corrected on this one. Appearently, there was only 1 controller in the tower at the time of the accident. 2 1/2 years ago, the FAA mandated minimum staffing at this airport was to be a minimum of 2 controllers on the overnight shift. The FAA tower manager has been relieved of her duties.

Silly me, I thought that when the FAA mandated certain minimum staffing at their control towers, the tower managers would actually staff them that way!
__________________
Scott

Majesty of the Seas - 10/03 & 02/07 & 11/08
Enchantment of the Seas - 10/04 & 10/11
Mariner of the Seas - 10/05
Vision of the Seas - 10/06 & 09/07
Carnival Liberty - 10/07
Adventure of the Seas - 9/08
Ruby Princess - 12/09
Voyager of the Seas - 9/10
Carnival Spirit - 11/10
Oasis of the Seas - 9/13
Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old August 29th, 2006, 08:48 PM
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,771
Default

Scott,

While I understand what you're saying, as a pilot I believe that would be completely unnecessary.

In an ideal world, it would be completely unnecessary. Unfortunately, the world is not exactly ideal.

Airport diagrams with taxiway and runway layouts are readily available, and pilots are required by the FARs (Federal Aviation Regulations) to have that information about the departure and destination airports before each flight.

Yes, I'm well aware of that. In fact, one can download the FAA diagrams of every airport in the United States from AirNav and several other web sites.

That said, JTOL, the fact that (1) Comair operates this flight only on Sunday (Freedom Airlines, another "Delta Connection" carrier, operates a flight with a similar schedule, but a different flight number and a different model of airplane, on the other days of the week) and (2) the taxiway configuration changed last weekend does beg the question of whether or not the crew actually had the current diagram. Unfortunately, we may never know since the fire may have consumed the papers in the cockpit....

At the entrance to each and every runway is a red and white sign with the runway numbers on it, and if that isn't enough, the big white numbers painted on the pavement as you taxi onto the runway should be a second clue to a pilot. And if that weren't enough, runways are numbered according to their magnetic heading with the last number dropped off (i.e. runway 22 has a magnetic heading of 220, runway 26 would have a magnetic heading of 260 and so on) so when a pilot taxis on to a runway the pilot has been cleared for takeoff on, if the plane's compass and directional gyro don't match the runway they were cleared for, that is even another check for the pilot to ensure the proper runway.

Yes, I have enough experience observing airfields from the windows of commercial airliners to be aware of all of that. There are also signs along each runway indicating the remaining length in thousands of feet, so the "3" on the sign nearest the take-off start point should have been alerted the pilot in time to stop.

That said, I have had enough experience with Human Factors Engineering to know that a different style of markings for a strip of asphalt or concrete that is not a viable runway for everybody may have averted this accident.

I also have had enough experience in dealing with humans in the loop to know that there have to be checks on everything, like an observer in the tower verifying that the plane really is on the right runway.

That is true and that may very well turn out to be a factor in this tragedy, we will have to wait for the NTSB to finish their investigation before we find that out. (Regarding the change in airport configuration)

Yes, I agree. The FAA was dispatching investigators in a high truck, which would replicate the pilot's view, to examine the markings at 06:00 this morning, when lighting conditions would be similar to that which the pilots actually encountered. I'm eager to see their findings.

I must stand corrected on this one. Appearently, there was only 1 controller in the tower at the time of the accident. 2 1/2 years ago, the FAA mandated minimum staffing at this airport was to be a minimum of 2 controllers on the overnight shift. The FAA tower manager has been relieved of her duties.

Silly me, I thought that when the FAA mandated certain minimum staffing at their control towers, the tower managers would actually staff them that way!


You know what happens when you ass-u-me???

Seriouisly, though, is there any chance that the FAA might have issued subsequent modifications to those regulations to allow reduced manning at slow times to cut costs? Or was a violation the reason for the manager being relieved fo duties?

Norm.
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old August 29th, 2006, 09:54 PM
blueliner's Avatar
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Northern Illinois
Posts: 1,176
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rev22:17
In an ideal world, it would be completely unnecessary. Unfortunately, the world is not exactly ideal.
I didn't say in an ideal world it would be unnecessary, I said it would be unnecessary period. I don't know if your proposed changes would have stopped this tragedy, I'm just saying, I don't believe it would've. I'm telling you this as a guy with over 1,700 hours as PIC (that's "pilot in command" and not "passenger in cabin") and I've flown on and off hundreds of runways all over the US and few in Canada, the view is different from the pilot seat, and I just don't think changing the runway signage or pavement markings are necessary. That's just my opinion, the only one that really counts is that of the FAA when this is all done.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rev22:17
Seriouisly, though, is there any chance that the FAA might have issued subsequent modifications to those regulations to allow reduced manning at slow times to cut costs? Or was a violation the reason for the manager being relieved fo duties?
The FAA has not modified it's minimum staffing requirements, that is why the tower manager was relieved.
__________________
Scott

Majesty of the Seas - 10/03 & 02/07 & 11/08
Enchantment of the Seas - 10/04 & 10/11
Mariner of the Seas - 10/05
Vision of the Seas - 10/06 & 09/07
Carnival Liberty - 10/07
Adventure of the Seas - 9/08
Ruby Princess - 12/09
Voyager of the Seas - 9/10
Carnival Spirit - 11/10
Oasis of the Seas - 9/13
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old January 21st, 2007, 03:34 AM
Senior Member
Captain
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 566
Default

For those interested, I'm posting a link to the complete cockpit voice recorder transcript below. There is nothing earth shattering in it. It is obvious the pilots never knew they were on the wrong runway.

God bless all on that plane.

http://www.kentucky.com/multimedia/k...ase/361245.pdf

Aidan
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
comair, record, safety

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
On The Plane Dona March Styles At Sea 27 July 22nd, 2011 06:33 PM
MSC gangway crashes Trip All Things Cruising 2 July 26th, 2010 09:36 AM
Maasdam bus crashes; 2 still critical jleq Holland America 0 January 6th, 2008 12:30 PM
Sightseeing plane carrying four Sun Princess pax crashes jleq Princess Cruise Lines 3 July 25th, 2007 05:05 PM
Plane explodes and crashes in Black Sea Carole Chit - Chat for Cruisers 1 October 4th, 2001 09:34 AM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


 

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:20 AM.
design by: Themes by Design

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.1