Crashing on takeoff... how odd

Bob Gardner wrote:
What Dave said. Controllers are no longer liable for failure to catch
erroneous readbacks.

Sure we are, matter of fact we got a memo to that effect last week.
Miss a readback that results in a loss of separation and you buy it.

You and I both know that the final decision is the pilot's...but we live in
a world where the media wants sensation and the legal system wants to assign
blame. When the lawsuits finally hit the courts (and there will be lawsuits,
count on it), the prosecutors will look in every nook and cranny for someone
to pin it on...and the tower will be in their sights along with others.

Bob gardner

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Bob Gardner wrote:

Airplanes are heavier on takeoff than at any other time, and the margin
between their climb speeds and the stall is at its smallest. Ask anyone
who has done a V1 cut in training or on a checkride (jets only). I'm
willing to venture that the pilots of the accident plane did all of the
appropriate calculations for the longer runway. Seems to me that if a
plane is cleared for takeoff on a long runway but lines up on a shorter
runway, there is a lot of blame to be shared between the cockpit and the
tower.

If the tower cleared the airplane to the correct runway and the pilots
taxied to a different one, how does the tower share in this blame?

Matt

Bob Gardner wrote:

You and I both know that the final decision is the pilot's...but we live in
a world where the media wants sensation and the legal system wants to assign
blame. When the lawsuits finally hit the courts (and there will be lawsuits,
count on it), the prosecutors will look in every nook and cranny for someone
to pin it on...and the tower will be in their sights along with others.

Yes, Bob, I'm all too aware of the likely legal outcome, but that
doesn't make it right.

Matt

Bob Gardner wrote:

You and I both know that the final decision is the pilot's...but we live in
a world where the media wants sensation and the legal system wants to assign
blame. When the lawsuits finally hit the courts (and there will be lawsuits,
count on it), the prosecutors will look in every nook and cranny for someone
to pin it on...and the tower will be in their sights along with others.


They won't be prosecuters, they will be the scum sucking trial lawyers
and they will be looking for money.

I can see how they got disoriented in the dark (my guess) and I can see how
the tower wouldn't necessarily pick up that they were on the wrong runway,
but I can't understand why the 'WTF is going on here' alarm didn't go off in
the Pilot or Co-pilots head as they were starting a takeoff roll down a 75'
wide runway in poor shape, as opposed to the newer 150' wide runway they
were supposed to be on.
That is, if this is what really happened.
I believe it would be obvious to me if I had my little 172 on a 75' runway
when I expected 150' wide.
We're all armchair quarterbacks at this point.
My heart goes out to the families that lost loved ones.
--
My 2¢ YMMV
Alex
wrote in message
ups.com...
I remember a recent discussion with a pilot mate where 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'd
even told him that if I saw an aircraft airborne following takeoff, I'd
presume it safe.

Days after that tete-a-tete, a Fokker went down in Pakistan shortly
after taking off. And today the Bombardier at Kentucky.

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

Alex Pitschmann wrote:

I can see how they got disoriented in the dark (my guess) and I can see how
the tower wouldn't necessarily pick up that they were on the wrong runway,
but I can't understand why the 'WTF is going on here' alarm didn't go off in
the Pilot or Co-pilots head as they were starting a takeoff roll down a 75'
wide runway in poor shape, as opposed to the newer 150' wide runway they
were supposed to be on.
That is, if this is what really happened.
I believe it would be obvious to me if I had my little 172 on a 75' runway
when I expected 150' wide.
We're all armchair quarterbacks at this point.
My heart goes out to the families that lost loved ones.

I can certainly see how one could taxi to the wrong runway and even line
up on it. But taking off on it is inexcusable. One of the last checks
I was taught to make before firewalling the throttle is to check that
the heading of the airplane matches the runway to which I was cleared
for takeoff. It takes less than two seconds to make this check and it
will catch this error every time.


Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

I can certainly see how one could taxi to the wrong runway and even line
up on it. But taking off on it is inexcusable. One of the last checks I
was taught to make before firewalling the throttle is to check that the
heading of the airplane matches the runway to which I was cleared for
takeoff. It takes less than two seconds to make this check and it will
catch this error every time.


Perhaps they did, and when they found the 40 degree error they reset the
gyro to correct the discrepancy.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

I can certainly see how one could taxi to the wrong runway and even line
up on it. But taking off on it is inexcusable. One of the last checks I
was taught to make before firewalling the throttle is to check that the
heading of the airplane matches the runway to which I was cleared for
takeoff. It takes less than two seconds to make this check and it will
catch this error every time.



Perhaps they did, and when they found the 40 degree error they reset the
gyro to correct the discrepancy.

Well, that would also be a mistake as that isn't the proper reference
for the DG.

Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message news:UunIg.769

I can certainly see how one could taxi to the wrong runway and even line
up on it. But taking off on it is inexcusable.


Well, that would also be a mistake ......

A few things I learned in the past 35 years are A) there are at least 2,
and sometimes 3+ sides to every story; B) any mistake that can possibly be
made, will eventually be made; and C) anyone who's ever flown
professionally will never make absolute statements about a recent accident.

Under the principle of res ipsa loquitur, its clear that 1 or more mistakes
were made in this event. We now have a very rare opportunity to evaluate,
in that the FO has survived, hopefully to shed light on the crew's thought
process and decision making immediately pre-takeoff.

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

Well, that would also be a mistake as that isn't the proper reference for
the DG.


Perhaps, but it's one that many use and it works quite well if you know the
magnetic azimuth of the runway.