Crashing on takeoff... how odd

Early reports indicate that the plane tookoff (or failed to takeoff as
the case may be) on the wrong runway,a runway that was too short.

Paul

In article ,
wrote:

Early reports indicate that the plane tookoff (or failed to takeoff as
the case may be) on the wrong runway,a runway that was too short.

Only a fools and idiots speculate on the cause of an airplane crash
before the facts are known.

"Emily" wrote in message
. ..

So explain how more crashes happen on landing than takeoff?


Perhaps because a crash on landing is often preceded by some inflight
failure or mishap. Every inflight failure is followed by a landing of some
kind but a pre-takeoff failure is often followed by a cancelled takeoff.

wrote in message

Early reports indicate that the plane tookoff (or failed to takeoff as
the case may be) on the wrong runway,a runway that was too short.

It is apparently clear the plane was cleared to use one runway but used the
other. The early reports speculated thaat the runway used MAY have been too
short, but did not state so unequivocally.

Is there anyone here who actually knows? Is 3500 ft adequate for a fairly
well loaded 202? It sounds short to me, but I have no data available, no
facts upon which to base a conclusion.

"john smith" wrote in message
...

Only a fools and idiots speculate on the cause of an airplane crash
before the facts are known.


That's the only time one can speculate.

Bob Moore wrote:

Considering all factors, the takeoff is far more hazardous than the
approach and landing.


Hey Bob, speaking of approach, since I hear that evacuation orders for
some parts of southern Florida have already been issued, here's wishing
that Ernesto behaves itself and that you wouldn't need to spend too
much time away from home in your S-class

Ramapriya

PS: My baggage is making its presence felt here, btw

john smith wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

Early reports indicate that the plane tookoff (or failed to takeoff as
the case may be) on the wrong runway,a runway that was too short.

Only a fools and idiots speculate on the cause of an airplane crash
before the facts are known.

And the media.

Or is that redundant?

John Gaquin wrote:

Is there anyone here who actually knows? Is 3500 ft adequate for a fairly
well loaded 202? It sounds short to me


Pardon my ignorance but what do you mean "Is 3500' adequate"? Doesn't
the PIC, as part of the pre-flight routine, estimate the maximum load
of the airplane given the runway length and other factors (water on the
tarmac, obstruction just beyond the runway, etc.), with assistance from
the flight dispatcher?

I know the Airbus A330 and 340 have a software called LTS to estimate
and do all this, given the loading configuration, and even suggest the
pitch trim setting.

Ramapriya

Correct, but the video's show the skid starts about 1/2 mile off a 3500 ft
runway. I suspect a full loaded CRJ needs a bit more than that for a safe
take off. They also have now stated he was cleared for 22 a 7500 ft
runway. But as you state this is all speculation at this point.


john smith wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

Early reports indicate that the plane tookoff (or failed to takeoff as
the case may be) on the wrong runway,a runway that was too short.

Only a fools and idiots speculate on the cause of an airplane crash
before the facts are known.

On 27 Aug 2006 08:39:44 -0700, wrote in
. com:

I was mentioning
how illogical a crash-shortly-after-takeoff is, given that beyond V1
takeoff can safely be continued even with just one good engine.

I once witnessed a Cessna C-172 crash on takeoff at Santa Monica
Airport (KSMO) in the early '70s. The aircraft rotated, and rocketed
skyward at a very high angle, stalled, and nosed into the runway. The
pilot escaped with a broken finger. The cause was a result of the
trim being set wrong. Don't forget your check list.