In the aftermath of the tragic crash of Comair Flight 5191, many issues have been raised concerning operations and safety at Blue Grass Airport. In the interest of providing a forum for response, Business Lexington Editor in Chief Tom Martin interviewed Airport Board Chairman Bernie Lovely. The following is an edited version of that discussion. The entire interview can be heard online at www.bizlex.com.
"
TM: Bernie, we appreciate you taking time to talk with us today about these difficult issues. Thank you very much for coming in.
TM: What has been your opinion of the community's response and reaction to the airport and its safety since the crash of Comair Flight 5191?
BL: Well, I've been very impressed by our community. It has proven itself to be a real home to all of us who have been involved or closely related to the tragic events of Flight 5191. The business community reached out immediately, Keeneland made its facilities available, Campbell House made its facilities available for the families, banks and other businesses were sending food to the airport to help us, and it's been very impressive the way the community came together; its government and its regular citizens. Of course, you always have some bitter with the sweet. Lots of questions have been raised about the events and the causes of the events and in part, that's why we're here today. I truly appreciate Tom, you providing the opportunity for us at Blue Grass Airport to deal with some of the issues and the misunderstandings and misconceptions that have occurred.
TM: Has the continuing media scrutiny that's been going on since the crash affected the airport's operations and were you anticipating the kind of scrutiny that came to bear?
BL: Well, I think it's certainly fair to say that we anticipated the scrutiny that's come to bear, and you know, in fact, we welcome the scrutiny that's come to bear. That's not to say that it doesn't cause you to flinch a little bit every once in a while. That's the duty, the job, that the media (has), I think, is to educate the public. Sometimes we have some concerns and regrets that comments are made or articles written, commentaries stated that aren't as well researched as they could have been or didn't have all the answers and the facts, and all of that sometimes is just when the time's due. You've got to write the story, and if you can't get hold of the people who can provide you that information, you do the story based on the facts you have. But we at Blue Grass Airport have never regretted or been concerned about media scrutiny. Sometimes it's tiring, but that's their job, and that's our job now to be responsive to that. The community needs to be educated and understand what has happened, and the community desires to do that and so the media, with our cooperation, can provide that.
TM: Some of the attorneys for plaintiffs and others involved in the case reportedly have made requests for documents under the Open Records Act and are complaining that the airport board is not cooperating with them. Is that a correct assessment, and if so, why?
BL: It's not a correct assessment when they suggest that we haven't cooperated with them. We have received hundreds of open records requests, have copied and provided thousands and thousands of pages to the plaintiff's attorneys and to ordinary citizens. In providing this, we and our attorneys have had a difficult time, because we've had to deal with security issues. For example, they would request films and so on that we had available, but those belonged to TSA. You had to get clearance to produce those, you have some confidentiality or family things of what you could do, and we had to deal with these issues. The event to which I think you were referring was a request from an attorney for lots of information that we did not have in our possession or control. All the information related to the control tower is controlled by the FAA and the control tower, and we made a preliminary response that we don't have that, we're not in control of that, that is theirs and perhaps you should write there. Instead of then clarifying his information, he went to the press about it. It was sort of unfortunate, and I guess it refers back to what we were talking about a bit earlier. (The media) have a deadline and the issue comes out, you can't get the full stories so you print and play what you have, and it just wasn't the full story and it was regrettable. The airport staff's 10-hour days have gone into 18-hour days providing the services that we provide, and then now having to respond to these various legal requests and so on.
TM: How's the staff holding up?
BL: Well, we have an extraordinary staff. We have Mike Gobb, John Slone, John Coon, and John Rhodes, and they are leaders in the aviation industry. Each of them has won national awards, and it's been very tough on them, but they're holding up well. Their spirits are holding up, and they are continuing to do, much to our pleasure as a board and more particularly our pride as a citizen of Lexington, they're doing an extraordinary job providing top-rate, first-class air service to our community.
TM: We received numerous reports in the days following the crash from sources I would regard to be highly reliable to the effect that outgoing mayor Teresa Isaac was promoting the removal of Michael Gobb as the airport's executive director. Mayor Isaac ultimately denied this. Is the board satisfied with the current airport management?
BL: There certainly was never any consideration or discussion of that on the board, although I heard the same rumors that you heard, Tom. The mayor has repeatedly and unequivocally denied that she has ever said anything like that. To me, on repeated occasions, she has been very complimentary and praising of Mike and his job and the staff. We work very closely with the mayor, although she seldom attends any of our board meetings. She always has a liaison there, so she's kept abreast of what's going on at the airport, and as far as I know, she and Mike have always had a very good working relationship, and she has never related anything but that to me.
TM: Knowing what you know now, is there anything that you would have done differently with the repaving project that preceded the crash, any changes in signage?
BL: The answer to that is no. The plans from the beginning in the most preliminary of stages were submitted to the Federal Aviation Association, have been reviewed by them repeatedly, the time tables are there where the signs should be and everything. Despite the extreme scrutiny after all of this, there has been, to our knowledge, no finding of anything but absolute compliance with the preliminary plans, and as they were in place, and so in that respect, we wouldn't change anything. The reconstruction of the runway was something that was needed to increase the safety areas at the end of each runway. It was a product of serious and long community discussion and ultimately consensus, and then we proceeded to carry out the wishes of this community, and that's what we did, in absolute and full compliance with the oversight of the FAA.
TM: In recent weeks, there have been a couple of glitches that have caught the attention of local media. One of them involved a piece of equipment called the glide scope, and in that little controversy, some flights were delayed, some even diverted. Why was it not possible to get certain equipment such as the glide scope back up and running sooner?
BL: Well, it's my understanding that the glide scopes going down or being taken off line was a normal and planned part of the reconstruction. I believe I am correct in that there was an inspection due a couple of weeks earlier that had to be cancelled, because of travel arrangements with the FAA or something, and so that was the only delay. The equipment was there, process was ready, and frankly had been available for the two or three weeks, but the FAA had to come in and make the final inspection and give its final okay, and all of that was done.
TM: So, it was scheduled anyway? We probably would not even have thought twice about it had it not been underscored by the situation?
BL: That's absolutely right. It wouldn't have been news at all It isn't a rarity in the airline industry at all, and certainly where there's reconstruction going on, and it's just a natural process of having to have the inspections and the final approvals given. I'll never forget when we wanted to open the restaurant (Lovely is a co-owner of Lexington's Azur Restaurant) and wanted to open on this day, but we couldn't get the inspections done, and that's what happened to us. It was frustrating for us as an airport. The glide scopes, as I understand, the process has nothing to do with the safety of the runway or the airport but for bad weather, and then they have to do instrument landings and that's controlled, so the visibility then controls when you can land and not land. It's too bad, but they had been down for several weeks and for a time before the accident, and we didn't have any problems, or it certainly wasn't newsworthy at that time; it was only subsequent to the horrible tragedy that it becomes newsworthy.
TM: On November the ninth, there was a report of a plane taxiing onto the wrong runway at Blue Grass Airport and almost taking off. Does that indicate any kind of a problem with the layout of the runways, perhaps confusing pilots, and also did the FAA inform you, inform the board, that this had happened?
BL: First let me say that the airport layout is not confusing; it's not complicated in the least. We have two runways. We have a 7,000-foot, fully lit runway, the compass heading of 22, that can be used at anytime. Then we have the 3,500-foot, unlit runway, a compass heading 26, that can only be used in daylight hours. These two runways have been at Blue Grass Airport for years and years, and we also have clear signage leading in directions to these runways, and in full compliance and with the full approval of the FAA, so that's clear. What is unclear is what happened on November ninth, and we don't really know. The FAA and its control tower are responsible for the safe movement of aircraft at our airport. We even have to get permission from the tower before we can drive out in the gated areas onto the runways and so on, and they even control the movement of our cars and vehicles. Just as TSA controls the security system and people will call me up and say somebody was rude to them or whatever. Well, we don't have any control over those things. I mean, we can give voice to our citizens' or our passengers' concerns or questions, and that's what happened here. We weren't even advised of this incident. I believe I'm correct in saying that we first learned of it from questions posed by the news media. The FAA are the ones who report these incidents, the control tower and significant incidents are supposed to be recorded in the FAA tower logs. It's our understanding that this incident was not recorded in the tower logs, the implication being that it wasn't deemed by the tower people there at that time to be a significant incident. There is a provision - I'll call it a provision - a process that the FAA has provided for pilots to make reports anonymously about events that occur. Typically that is done by commercial pilots who want to avoid punishment for doing the wrong thing or doing something bad or misreading a sign, and then allowing the FAA to be alerted to problems or something that might have happened there. That, apparently, is how this went, despite that anonymous thing. We were not advised by the FAA of an issue or these events until after the fact, ...seemingly leading to the conclusion that it was not a significant event. Now it is significant if someone takes off the wrong runway, but the control tower clears you to a runway, "cleared 22." And then you check your compass heading, and that's the heading "22," and so it's there. Twenty-six is forty degrees difference in these headings, and so the control tower can only do its job, we can only do our job, and then users of the runways and airport facilities have to do their jobs.
TM: Any possibility of any union politics involved here?
BL: I hate to use the term "union politics," but I think there is a possibility of politics or public relations-type things, spins going on. Some comes apparently to protect the pilots in these situations or to protect the air control towers, air controllers; some just to protect the airlines. I mean, everyone is trying to put his, her, its best face on their involvement in these events, and of course, that's what we do. That's probably what you do for a living, actually. So, is it politics? I don't know. Is it just trying to take care of your own business or take care of yours and that's just how things are and we have to all deal with that? It becomes very difficult for us as an airport and for people who live here to have shots taken at us that we don't know anything about until after the fact. To have our hands tied is probably too strong a term, but to have certain restrictions placed on us as a result of the investigations that are going on by the FAA and the NTSB and so on, and not being able to respond as fully as we would like to on some of these things.
TM: As a board, would you like to see a more open line of communications, with the FAA in particular, in cases such as the one that was reported that happened on November the ninth, with the small plane on the wrong runway?
BL: Actually my belief is - unless something turns out differently - but my belief is that we have adequate communication with the FAA. That is at least in respect to what it deems a significant occurrence. There's no question in my mind that the FAA or the air control tower, if this had been deemed significant and there was a reason that that happened, they would have told us. So I don't think there is any shortage in communication that way. Now, the question becomes more a philosophical question on one hand, or maybe more a practical question, that the director at the airport or those with more experience should know - should we know every little thing that happens there? I don't know. I mean, maybe they should tell us that, but there is no doubt in my mind that if there was a significant event that we would be told immediately. Just as there's no doubt in my mind that, although we have restrictions and we know very little about what's going on with the NTSB investigation, if they believed that there was a significant or a potential danger at this airport, they wouldn't wait til January or April to tell us about it, since we have flights taking off every day. So I think there is communication; the necessary communication is there.
TM: As you say, you have flights taking off every day, and that was a question I had planned to ask a little bit later in the interview. I'll bring it up now just to carry that thought a little bit further. How are things going with regard to passenger attendance at the airport? Have you noticed any kind of decline, an increase, what's happening?
BL: Well, frankly we've been surprised, but pleasantly surprised, in that usage of our airport has remained strong. Again, I think the public recognizes the quality of our airport and the services that we provide. There's been a slight decline in plane passengers and passengers there, but that's reflective. I mean, what we can't tell is much difference in that decline and in the decline that is happening in air travel across the country because of the higher prices from the gasoline and those kinds of things. So, no, we haven't seen any great decline in service and use of our airport.
TM: In its own lawsuit, Comair claims that the airport is at least partially responsible for the crash of Flight 5191. What is the airport's response to this?
BL: ...Comair...denied any liability or responsibility, and then they file a suit asserting that they are facing claims and damages and unliquidated damages and we contributed to it. Well, you know, if they haven't done anything, then how did we contribute to it? So, they sort of take two sides. We will ask for that suit to be dismissed as not having a sound, legal basis in it, and so we certainly deny and feel confident that we played no role in those events. Actually my first response in some respects maybe I shouldn't say this. My first response to that was that it was something that Comair had to do to deflect some of the attention from itself. I mean, they were taking the brunt of all this, and so they needed to deflect attention elsewhere. They are still in business, still providing airline service and good service across the country. As nearly as I can tell, it's good service. So they had to address the public attacks and these things, and so if you can, deflect attention elsewhere. So I think that it was a great part of this, but that's for the courts to take care of. I mean, we'll find out what the results of the suit will be.
TM: Well, fortunately, incidents such as the Comair crash don't happen frequently. In fact, have happened very, very infrequently at our airport, and our community has been through something like this very infrequently. But, inevitably, when something like this happens, as it goes on, as the aftermath unfolds, lessons are learned along the way, and I'm sure those lessons are still being learned and are yet to be learned. But I'm just wondering so far, does anything strike you coming out of all this that might change the way the airport functions or the way the board functions, or even your own personal thoughts about the functions of Blue Grass Airport?
BL: Whenever something like this happens, I think the first thing you do is move into a reflective, investigative mode. You go back through things. You think things over. Could this have been differently? Should this have been done differently? And we as individual board members, we as individual administrators at the airport and we as individual citizens, I think, who have been touched by this tragic event, have done that very thing. At this time, I can say that frankly we haven't found anything, and in some respects, you wish you could find something to give catharsis to this, but we haven't found anything that we could do, should have done, differently. It's a horrible tragedy and that, in many respects, makes it more difficult to deal with. But we are pleased with the close scrutiny that we've given the events. We believe we'll be pleased with the reports of the NTSB, the FAA's internal investigations and so on. The lawsuits - we believe we will be pleased with those results, too, because we just haven't found anything that suggests that the airport was remiss.
TM: In the aftermath of the tragic aspect of this, you personally were out on the front lines of this quite a bit in the days and the weeks after it happened, not only fielding questions but also dealing with families, and it had to impact you personally pretty heavily. I'm just wondering how Bernie Lovely has gotten through this.
BL: Well, sometimes I wonder if I have gotten through it. I don't think I'll ever forget the phone call that morning. I don't think that I'll ever forget the last two or three months in dealing with this. It's been very difficult. It's been difficult because of friends that I had on the airplane, because of colleagues who were on the airplane, children of friends. It's an event that impacted our entire community, because I've yet to talk to anyone that didn't know someone who knew someone who had a friend or was impacted by this, and so I think it's touched the entire fabric of our community. You sort of ask why - why me, Lord, I guess? But it's happened, and with the help of the community, with the strength of the community, with the strength of everyone involved, I think we, as an airport, and I, as an individual, Bernie Lovely, have been able to continue doing the job that has to be done in order to provide safe air transportation for our community. It's one of those things that you just have to say a prayer about and just live through.
TM: Bernie Lovely, thank you so much for spending time with us.
BL: Thank you.
"