Air Traffic Controller Falls Asleep - Thank You Ronald Reagan

if you would just answer the question ive repeatedly asked in this thread, including just previously, things may become clearer for you.

Bullshit.

Tower should have been aware that pilot taxied to wrong runway.

THAT IS HIS FUCKING JOB.

I'll say this.

Having THREE pilots would have been far more likely to have prevented the Lexington tradegy, than having TWO air traffic controllers.

Do you disagree?

Wrong.

Taken from Wikipedia.

Analysis of the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) indicated the aircraft was cleared to take off from Runway 22, a 7,003 feet (2,135 m) strip used by most airline traffic at Lexington.^[5] Instead, after confirming "Runway two-two", Captain Jeffrey Clay taxied onto Runway 26, an unlit secondary runway only 3,500 feet (1,100 m) long,^[6] and turned the controls over to First Officer James Polehinke for takeoff.^[7] The air traffic controller was not required to maintain visual contact with the aircraft; after clearing the aircraft for takeoff, he turned to perform administrative duties and did not see the aircraft taxi to the runway.

steve:
I am DONE with you. 
You have a female brain, there is NO help for you.

Renton:
Very nice how you cherry pick sentences from the Wikipedia report.

Here is the ENTIRE ARTICLE

Including the following quotes...

"During the course of its investigation, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) discovered that tower staffing levels at Blue Grass Airport violated an internal policy as reflected in a November 16, 2005, memorandum requiring two controllers during the overnight shift: one in the tower working clearance, ground, and tower frequencies, and another, either in the tower or remotely at Indianapolis Center, working TRACON (radar).^[19] At the time of the accident, the single controller in the tower was performing both tower and radar duties. On August 30, 2006, the FAA announced that Lexington, as well as other airports with similar traffic levels, would be staffed with two controllers in the tower around the clock effective immediately.^[20]"

"Captain Clay's wife strongly disputes laying primary blame on the pilots, stating that other factors contributed, "including an under-staffed control tower and an inaccurate runway map".^[37]"

To be continued...
I have an important wager to watch on the Mavericks/Suns game.

As you are probably aware, the wife's opinion has no greater merit than your own. 

goose, its obvious to me why you refuse to answer why a 2nd air traffic controller would have prevented the incident at reagan.  you want a 2nd person there to make sure the 1st doesnt fall asleep.  it has nothing to do with job capacity or efficiency, and everything to do with personal responsibility. thats a pretty lame argument and one that 1 will completely destroy in this post.

1) you dont need to pay tens of millions of dollars a year for something that can be done by a $5 alarm.  if staying awake is such an important issue, surely they can set an alarm to go off every 10 minutes

2) countless other professions, where falling asleep is a much higher issue, dont need a 2nd worker to make sure the 1st doesnt fall asleep.

there are 3.5 million truck drivers in the us, if making sure someone doesnt fall asleep is so important to you, why arent you for having a 2nd person in the cab?  and many drive hazmat cargo, surely the risk of a driver with a tanker of gas, or some noxious chemical needs to be kept awake at all costs right?

have you ever seen the deadliest catch, those fishing boat captains work days on end with no sleep, do you think they should be required to have a co captain?

3) do you know the math behind recalls?  a company doesnt always recall its products when they know they are defective.  the calculate the cost of the recall vs the cost of litigation, if the cost of recall is > the the cost of litigation, then they do it.  lets say worst case scenario, everyone died at reagan.  now you have to ask yourself, is spending tens of millions of dollars each year worth the potential to increase the odds of someone living from 99.99 to 99.999.  since you havent shown any evidence of this being a common occurrence, lets saw this hasnt happened in 10 years (even though i would imagine it happens a lot less frequently).  now we are talking about 100s of millions of dollars spent and 165 lives.  im no actuary, but that doesnt sound like a good deal.

on a side note, are sexist comments allowed on this board, mods?