Crashing on takeoff... how odd

Well looks like a terrible mistake if he took off on 26 instead of 22:
CRJ200 ER
FAR take-off field length (SL, ISA) at MTOW 5,800 ft 1,768 m
FAR 121 landing field length (SL) at MLW 4,850 ft 1,479 m

CRJ200 LR
FAR take-off field length (SL, ISA) at MTOW 6,290 ft 1,918 m
FAR landing field length (SL) at MLW 4,850 ft 1,479 m


These came from the factory website, looks like he needed allot more runway.

Ronald Gardner wrote:

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.

John Gaquin wrote:


Is there anyone here who actually knows? Is 3500 ft adequate for a fairly
well loaded 202?

No, not in a million years.

wrote in message

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

The answer to your question is yes, in a simple sense. Whether done by
computer in the dispatch office, or by hand in the cockpit, the calculation
has to be done. With transport aircraft, data is usually available to the
crew to come at the problem from 2 different directions.

1) we know the aircraft weight and the ancillary conditions. How much
runway is required to take off? This is the usual method, since large
aircraft usually operate at airports with multiple, long runways. Thus, it
is just a matter of selecting which runways are acceptable.

2) We know how much runway is available, so how much weight can we carry
under the existing conditions? In large transports, this method would
apply at airports with only one available runway, or perhaps several runways
that are all rather short, such as LGA, MDW, OR DCA.

So, my question addresses method 1, asking if 3500 ft is adequate runway
length for a fairly heavy RJ under normal conditions.

JG

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.

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
. ..

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.


I can't say whether 3500' is sufficient or not but I suspect it is not. But
even if the book said it could be done, if the crew believed the runway they
were using was considerably longer than 3500' they'd probably be in the
weeds at the far end.

In article
,
says...


In article ,
wrote:


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

Your self-assured tone notwithstanding, I question the veracity, as well
as the usefulness of this statement.

Idiots probably spend very little of their time speculating on the causes
of air crashes, while those who do so all day every day are professional
air accident investigators, who did not get their jobs by being fools.

Speculation is a normal and necessary activity in such situations, in no
way degrading to the memory of the victims, and indispensable to our
undersatnding of the accident process.

Wild or lurid scenari, accusation, diffamation and psychotic, paranoid
conspiracy theories do not qualify, as any reasoning person readily
understands.

GF

wrote:

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!

You are assuming that all such crashes are due to partial power loss.
Isn't so. One airplane crash on takeoff a few years ago was due to a
problem with the elevator trim, if I recall correctly. Also, a weight
and balance issue can cause a crash right after takeoff as can myriad
other problems not related to power.


Matt

In article .com,
says...


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 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

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 12:26:00 -0600, Newps wrote
in :

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.

Mmmm, that sounds like the voice of experience.

Wouldn't the aircraft have to reach some speed on the takeoff roll
subsequent to the application of power before the control force would
be apparent on the yoke? Or are you referring to another indication?

The fact that he let it get away from him says it all.

That and the apparent lack of use of a checklist. I have no idea of
the pilot's qualifications nor experience.

It doesn't take a lot of forward stick after takeoff to put the nose
where it needs to be.

I would think it is possible with some effort. What would be your
estimate of the required effort in pounds of push on the yoke to
overcome full up trim in a C-172?

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.

Matt