No evidence exists to suggest that signs/markings were obscured, or any of the other imaginary conditions you've intro'd into the scenario. The runway was repaved, the taxi instructions might have been different than the last time they were there. So what. You can cite only one incident, 13 years ago, when someone else was confused.
Again, the issue is pilot performance. Taxiways and runways are parts of a system that expects actors to perform as trained and accept some level of performance deviation. The system is not designed to be idiot proof. Such thinking drives up costs, decreases crew awareness and responsibility, etc.
I just spoke with another ATP, just to make sure I'm not crazy. He thinks these guys were probably chatting through taxi, or otherwise distracted, but he still can't figure out how two pilots could make this basic error. He finds it indefensible. He said the error was more egregious and less understandable than the AA pilot that snapped the rudder of the Airbus at JFK in 2001. Only thing he could think of was when two pilots repositioning a CRJ were cowboying around at the edge of the flight envelope and crashed the thing. He thought it happened about 5 years ago.
I honestly think you're abusing failure analysis and systems design practice in your suppositions of cause. Systems are designed to comprehend and mitigate reasonably avoidable risks. Systems can even comprehend reasonably predictable mistakes, but not something like this.
"No evidence exists to suggest that signs/markings were obscured, or any of the other imaginary conditions you've intro'd into the scenario."
Please provide an exact quote and post number for my 'alleged' suggestions that the signs/markings pertaining specifically to the runways were obscured and any other imaginary conditions that you allege I introduced into the scenario. I can not recall any such statements. The only imaginary conditions that I suggested were those in your HYPOTHETICAL analogy of going the wrong way on a freeway and crashing head-on into a school bus. That was YOUR analogy, NOT MINE. I merely expanded upon it to make a point.
"The runway was repaved, the taxi instructions might have been different than the last time they were there. So what. You can cite only one incident, 13 years ago, when someone else was confused."
No, I did not cite any incident. I responded to another poster who cited it and said that "If any other pilots have been confused as to the correct runway, then something is not right with the signs or design." This is a logical deduction (which may or may not be correct), but you chose not to provide evidence or arguments to the contrary or provide your own reasoning. In addition, I believe that most readers would recognize that it is an opinion, not a statement of fact.
"Again, the issue is pilot performance. Taxiways and runways are parts of a system that expects actors to perform as trained and accept some level of performance deviation. The system is not designed to be idiot proof. Such thinking drives up costs, decreases crew awareness and responsibility, etc."
I have stated many times in several different ways that the pilots 'failed miserably', etc. However, you seem to fail to grasp that "systems" are not perfect and often need to be adjusted or upgraded. (For example, Operating Systems like Windows. Have you gotten your monthly updates/patches? LOL) As far as your contention that improved systems decrease crew awareness and responsibility, have you forgotten about the learning curve? And what about the increase in the amount of info that crews must retain with changes to current systems? Does that make them lazy and less responsive?
"I just spoke with another ATP, just to make sure I'm not crazy. He thinks these guys were probably chatting through taxi, or otherwise distracted, but he still can't figure out how two pilots could make this basic error. He finds it indefensible. He said the error was more egregious and less understandable than the AA pilot that snapped the rudder of the Airbus at JFK in 2001. Only thing he could think of was when two pilots repositioning a CRJ were cowboying around at the edge of the flight envelope and crashed the thing. He thought it happened about 5 years ago."
So, another ATP, who wasn't in that cockpit and may or may not have detailed knowledge of LEX, past and present configurations, mechanical condition of the plane, weather conditions, or any of a multitude of other factors, gives you an opinion that the pilots were chatting through the taxi, or otherwise distracted (by what, the flight attendant stripping during take-off? or maybe the plane was on auto-pilot while the flight crew played strip poker? ), and that's the ONLY possible cause of the crash that you will consider, WITH NO OTHER CONTRIBUTING FACTORS. hmmm - I guess that's a fine example of single mindedness.
"I honestly think you're abusing failure analysis and systems design practice in your suppositions of cause. Systems are designed to comprehend and mitigate reasonably avoidable risks. Systems can even comprehend reasonably predictable mistakes, but not something like this."
I'm not a 'failure analysis and systems designer', therefore I can not abuse a practice which I don't have. I have not claimed any expertise, experience, or special knowledge in such or in aviation, nor have I stated any 'suppositions of cause' or conclusions. I have stated reported facts and asked logical questions, followed by logical reasons showing how something may have contributed to the accident. We are all well aware of the direct cause of the accident - taking off from the wrong runway. And everyone also knows that the Captain and First Officer are ultimately responsible for that mistake. What most of us have been discussing has been about possible contributing factors. There is a difference.