Crashing on takeoff... how odd

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


Doesn't add up, does it? After all, if the engines are good and there's
no bomb going off, it should be pretty hard to crash an aircraft!

Ramapriya

After looking at the photo of the runway on google earth, I saw
something that I think is interesting on runway 26 compared to runway
22. The number markings for 22 are at the far end of the runway,
pretty much at the end of the taxiway such that you would have to read
the numbers from the side and as you turn onto the runway the numbers
would be off to the right of the aircraft. On runway 22 the numbers
are in front of the taxiway. After turning on to runway 22, you would
have the numbers clearly laid out in front of you, oriented correctly
with respect to your view down the runway and illuminated by the
landing lights.
I know that with the last night flight I did it was difficult to read
the numbers at night and even harder when you have to read them from
the side and no direct light onthem fromthe aircraft.
Just an observation and I am not saying that this would have helped
but I think it would be a good thing if once you are in position for
takeoff, you can see the numbers clearly in front of the aircraft. Or
at least as you are getting into position to cross over the numbers,
instead of having them off to the side some distance away.

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 21:45:42 -0400,
wrote:

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


Doesn't add up, does it? After all, if the engines are good and there's
no bomb going off, it should be pretty hard to crash an aircraft!

Ramapriya

After looking at the photo of the runway on google earth, I saw
something that I think is interesting on runway 26 compared to runway
22. The number markings for 22 are at the far end of the runway,
pretty much at the end of the taxiway such that you would have to read
the numbers from the side and as you turn onto the runway the numbers
would be off to the right of the aircraft. On runway 22 the numbers
are in front of the taxiway. After turning on to runway 22, you would
have the numbers clearly laid out in front of you, oriented correctly
with respect to your view down the runway and illuminated by the
landing lights.
I know that with the last night flight I did it was difficult to read
the numbers at night and even harder when you have to read them from
the side and no direct light onthem fromthe aircraft.
Just an observation and I am not saying that this would have helped
but I think it would be a good thing if once you are in position for
takeoff, you can see the numbers clearly in front of the aircraft. Or
at least as you are getting into position to cross over the numbers,
instead of having them off to the side some distance away.


I need to make a correction.. the second sentence should read
"The number markings for 26..."

After looking at the photo of the runway on google earth, I saw
something that I think is interesting on runway 26 compared to runway
22. The number markings for 22 are at the far end of the runway,
pretty much at the end of the taxiway such that you would have to read
the numbers from the side and as you turn onto the runway the numbers
would be off to the right of the aircraft. On runway 22 the numbers
are in front of the taxiway. After turning on to runway 22, you would
have the numbers clearly laid out in front of you, oriented correctly
with respect to your view down the runway and illuminated by the
landing lights.
I know that with the last night flight I did it was difficult to read
the numbers at night and even harder when you have to read them from
the side and no direct light onthem fromthe aircraft.
Just an observation and I am not saying that this would have helped
but I think it would be a good thing if once you are in position for
takeoff, you can see the numbers clearly in front of the aircraft. Or
at least as you are getting into position to cross over the numbers,
instead of having them off to the side some distance away.

You are correct (with your correction of the second sentence to RWY
26) but shouldn't there be illuminated signage for the runway
numbers?

Ron Lee

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 02:07:56 GMT, (Ron Lee)
wrote:


You are correct (with your correction of the second sentence to RWY
26) but shouldn't there be illuminated signage for the runway
numbers?

Ron Lee


Absolutely. Right there at the hold short line. But crossing over the
the runway numbers might help as a second check.
But the signage and the runway numbers would not have mattered if the
pilot and co-pilot already had it set in their minds that 26 was the
correct runway.

Google earth will also let you notice the thresholds for both runways
are on the same line of sight from the tower.

Aen't all airline pilots required to operate from the field before they
carry passengers from it?

What an awful mistake, and a more awful price to have paid for it.

(Tony" wrote)
Aen't all airline pilots required to operate from the field before they
carry passengers from it?


I've never heard of this before.


Montblack

In article ,
"Montblack" wrote:

Aren't all airline pilots required to operate from the field before they
carry passengers from it?

I've never heard of this before.

All aircarriers are required to fly prescribed familiarization flights
into and out of any airport they intend to serve several times without
passengers before they begin passenger service. (There is a term for it,
but old age prevents me from recalling what it is.)

Having said that, I wonder if they are given credit for using the sim to
fullfil this requirement in these days of high level simulators?

john smith wrote:

All aircarriers are required to fly prescribed familiarization flights
into and out of any airport they intend to serve several times without
passengers before they begin passenger service. (There is a term for it,
but old age prevents me from recalling what it is.)

Does it count if the one of the two flight deck crewmembers has been
there, or do both require familiarization?

"john smith" wrote in message
...


All aircarriers are required to fly prescribed familiarization flights
into and out of any airport they intend to serve several times without
passengers before they begin passenger service. (There is a term for it,
but old age prevents me from recalling what it is.)

Having said that, I wonder if they are given credit for using the sim to
fullfil this requirement in these days of high level simulators?

When was this regulation put into effect? It wasn't there in ~1980 I was a
gate agent here at ELD when Skyways started flying in to the airport. For
the first month with few exceptions when those Metroliners came in it was
the first time the crew had ever been to that airport.

john smith wrote
All aircarriers are required to fly prescribed familiarization flights
into and out of any airport they intend to serve several times without
passengers before they begin passenger service. (There is a term for
it, but old age prevents me from recalling what it is.)

PROVING FLIGHTS....but that does not include ALL Pilots.

Bob Moore
PanAm (retired)