Crashing on takeoff... how odd

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!

Getting cross-wise with a twin following an engine failure is easy if you're
not "On your game".

Greg Farris wrote in
:

I believe "incomprehension" would better qualify your error than
"ignorance". All of the methodology you mention is moot if the crew did
not realize they were on the wrong runway.

"Is 3500 adequate" is a perfectly valid question, as it helps to
understand whether there is any realistic probability that the crew
would knowingly and deliberately attempt taleoff from such a short
runway.

I am not a CRJ pilot, and have not bothered to look it up, but I would
be astounded to learn that this is a plausible runway length for this
aircraft. Should this belief be upheld, as well as the fact that the
plane did indeed attempt takeoff from such a runway, it brings us very
close to proving that the crew made a mistake in taxying to the runway,
and unwittingly found themselves on a runway far too short. Thus the
question you challenge actually brings us a long way toward an
understanding (to be confirmed and proven) of the accident.

GF



If the answer is that they took off from the wrong runway, then the question
becomes what caused them to be unable to identify the runway as the wrong
runway?

Even if they misheard their taxi/takeoff clearances, or the clearances were
indeed to the wrong ruway, they surely had done a bunch of paperwork and/or
computerwork identifying the need to be on Rwy 22. And even at 6:30am, I must
believe that the runway markings are clear enough that it would be unusual
for two pilots to see a 26 instead of a 22...

Strange...

Matt Whiting wrote in
:

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?

On what basis are you assuming that he was cleared to the correct runway?

The PIC is not the only party responsible- for example, if given a heading
or other instruction and the pilot reads it back incorrectly, the ATC
controller will also held responsible for not catching the error on the read
back.

"Judah" wrote in message
. ..
Matt Whiting wrote in
:

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?

On what basis are you assuming that he was cleared to the correct runway?


He's not. He said IF the tower cleared the airplane to the correct runway.

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.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in
nk.net:


"Judah" wrote in message
. ..
Matt Whiting wrote in
:

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?

On what basis are you assuming that he was cleared to the correct
runway?


He's not. He said IF the tower cleared the airplane to the correct
runway.


I read the inflection of the "If" as a statement of presumption, not as the
subject of the query. But you're right - I could have misread the intent.

Newps wrote:


Larry Dighera wrote:



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.



Full nose up trim is immediately apparent on the application of power.
The fact that he let it get away from him says it all. It doesn't take
a lot of forward stick after takeoff to put the nose where it needs to be.


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?

Bob Noel wrote:
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.

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.


Speaking for myself, if I get on a runway and see an error that large, I
check to see if something else has been wrong. Especially if I'm IFR, I
don't want a 40 degree error on my DG.

That being said, I almost took off on the wrong runway once, and figured
it out before I did. It does happen, probably more than the public
realizes.