Crashing on takeoff... how odd

In article ,
Emily wrote:

So explain how more crashes happen on landing than takeoff? Landing
is the more hazardous of the two.
[snip]
Actually, from the safety classes I've taken, already having a problem
doesn't have a thing to do with it.

did those safety classes answer your question?

I know the answer.

which is....

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Gene Seibel wrote:
Fatalities Accidents/hull loss
Takeoff 27% 17%
Landing 15% 52%

Thus there is a much lower risk of getting into an accident on takeoff,
but takeoff accidents result in a higher rate of fatalities.

Though my two accidents followed landings, there have been a couple
takeoffs that scared me far more than any landings.

Same here. I can't think offhand of any landings were I thought I might
crash, but I vividly remember almost taking out the localizer antenna on
takeoff once.

Viperdoc wrote:
Since when does heavy iron have anything but a slaved HSI, a non-adjustable
flux gate and/or glass tube EFIS, along with dual instruments? Setting a DG
is for the rest of us spam can drivers who don't have a flux gate or HSI. I
doubt a whiskey compass is even included on most of their panels.

Besides, at that time of the morning, they could have taken the runway on
the roll, the markings could have been worn down, etc? It's all speculation
without the data.

The analysis of the FDR and CVR should prove useful.

Not to mention the memory of the first officer.

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.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?M6AD235AD

Take a look at the Google Maps link - the 75' wide runway is only 75'
between the markings. It appears to be a 150' wide swath of pavement.
In the dark, you could easily miss the runway numbers while turning
onto 26 if following the left-most taxiway centerline from the terminal
area. Not sure what sort of lighted runway signage there is in the
vicinity tho.

The patched up part of that runway appears to be at the 08 end, so it's
certainly possible by the time they got to that end, they did realize
something was wrong, but possibly too late to do anything about it
other than pull up hard.

--
Guy

Emily wrote:




We had a Duchess crash for the same reason...I've never taken off with
full nose up trim, but I'd imagine that if they could have pushed the
nose down, they would have, correct?

No. You can't get a spam can certified if you can't overcome full nose
up or down trim. This is the second one I've seen. A couple years ago
a Skymaster crashed near here for the same reason. Pilot left full nose
up trim after landing, then tried to takeoff. Airplane rotated way too
soon and mushed off the end of the runway. Everybody walked away, plane
totalled. Pilot got alarmed by the out of trim condition and became a
spectator at that point. Dumbass.

Newps wrote:


Emily wrote:




We had a Duchess crash for the same reason...I've never taken off with
full nose up trim, but I'd imagine that if they could have pushed the
nose down, they would have, correct?

No. You can't get a spam can certified if you can't overcome full nose
up or down trim. This is the second one I've seen. A couple years ago
a Skymaster crashed near here for the same reason. Pilot left full nose
up trim after landing, then tried to takeoff. Airplane rotated way too
soon and mushed off the end of the runway. Everybody walked away, plane
totalled. Pilot got alarmed by the out of trim condition and became a
spectator at that point. Dumbass.

I just checked the report, and it appears that trim was at 10 degrees in
the Duchess case. By the time I did my multi training at the same
airport, we were still in a state of paranoia over elevator trim (crash
killed three people), so it was something I always checked. How much
would a typical light twin pitch up on takeoff with the trim set like
that? I know myself, I usually ended up trimming down on climb because
the nose was hard to hold down (although I never flew the 76)

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 18:44:30 GMT, Matt Whiting
wrote in :

Larry Dighera wrote:

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.

I'd say in a 172 that the cause was a pilot who didn't know how to fly
the airplane. It isn't that hard to overcome the trim on a 172. There
are probably airplanes where this isn't the case, but the 172 isn't one
of them.


I'd say you are right. Here's the (poorly formatted) NTSB report:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=44872&key=0
NTSB Identification: LAX75FUD03
14 CFR Part 91 General Aviation
Event occurred Monday, December 30, 1974 in SNTA MONICA, CA
Aircraft: CESSNA 172M, registration: N13723

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FILE DATE LOCATION AIRCRAFT DATA INJURIES
FLIGHT PILOT DATA F S M/N
PURPOSE----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3-4024
74/12/30 SNTA MONICA,CALIF CESSNA 172M CR- 0 0 1
INSTRUCTIONAL STUDENT, AGE 45, 21 TOTAL TIME - 1649
N13723 PX- 0 0 0 SOLO HOURS, ALL
IN TYPE, NOT DAMAGE-SUBSTANTIAL
OT- 0 0 0 INSTRUMENT RATED. NAME
OF AIRPORT - SANTA MONICA DEPARTURE POINT INTENDED
DESTINATION SNTA MONICA,CALIF LOCAL TYPE OF
ACCIDENT PHASE OF OPERATION
STALL TAKEOFF:
INITIAL CLIMB PROBABLE CAUSE(S) PILOT IN COMMAND -
IMPROPER OPERATION OF FLIGHT CONTROLS PILOT IN COMMAND -
FAILED TO OBTAIN/MAINTAIN FLYING SPEED FACTOR(S) PILOT IN
COMMAND - LACK OF FAMILIARITY WITH AIRCRAFT MISCELLANEOUS
ACTS,CONDITIONS - TOUCH AND GO LANDING REMARKS- SECOND SOLO
FLT.

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

According to the media, the long runway is lighted and the short runway is
not; if that is true, they started the takeoff roll with no runway lights.

Bob Gardner

"Alex Pitschmann" wrote in message
. ..
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

Emily wrote:

How much
would a typical light twin pitch up on takeoff with the trim set like
that? I know myself, I usually ended up trimming down on climb because
the nose was hard to hold down (although I never flew the 76)

Then you started with too much nose up trim on takeoff. Every plane is
different. Go out and try it yourself with whatever you fly. Go up to
altitude and slow down as much as possiblein a takeoff configuration,
then roll in full nose up trim and go to full power. It'll get your
attention but you'll have no problem.