Crashing on takeoff... how odd

[[email protected]]

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

[Bob Noel]

In article om>,
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!

which is why it doesn't happen often.

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

[Emily[_1_]]

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!
>
> Ramapriya
>
Engines aren't the only things that cause a plane to crash on
takeoff...that is, there are other things but engines that keep a plane
in the air.

[BillJ]

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!
>
> Ramapriya
>
Think about the Concorde!

[James Robinson]

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.

I can think of lots of things that can go wrong, but still allow an
aircraft to get a mile from a runway. Some aren't very likely, but have
happened in the past:

- Bird strike
- Control surface failure
- Loss of control
- Ice on the wings (not this time of year, of course)
- Overloading
- Structural failure

[Bob Moore]

Ramapriya 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.

Considering all factors, the takeoff is far more hazardous than the
approach and landing.

Bob Moore

[Emily[_1_]]

Bob Moore wrote:
> Ramapriya 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.
>
> Considering all factors, the takeoff is far more hazardous than the
> approach and landing.
>
> Bob Moore

So explain how more crashes happen on landing than takeoff? Landing is
the more hazardous of the two.

[Michelle P]

Emily wrote:
> Bob Moore wrote:
>
>> Ramapriya 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.
>>
>>
>> Considering all factors, the takeoff is far more hazardous than the
>> approach and landing.
>>
>> Bob Moore
>
>
> So explain how more crashes happen on landing than takeoff? Landing is
> the more hazardous of the two.

Taking off You are trying to put energy into the airplane instead of
take it out. If something goes wrong while putting the energy into the
aircraft you have less to work with with there is a problem. Altitude is
energy from a strictly physics perspective.


Why do more crashes happen on landing.... You usually already have a
problem and are trying to get on the ground.

Michelle P

[Emily[_1_]]

Michelle P wrote:
> Emily wrote:
>> Bob Moore wrote:
>>
>>> Ramapriya 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.
>>>
>>>
>>> Considering all factors, the takeoff is far more hazardous than the
>>> approach and landing.
>>>
>>> Bob Moore
>>
>>
>> So explain how more crashes happen on landing than takeoff? Landing
>> is the more hazardous of the two.
>
> Taking off You are trying to put energy into the airplane instead of
> take it out. If something goes wrong while putting the energy into the
> aircraft you have less to work with with there is a problem. Altitude is
> energy from a strictly physics perspective.
>
>
> Why do more crashes happen on landing.... You usually already have a
> problem and are trying to get on the ground.
>
> Michelle P

Actually, from the safety classes I've taken, already having a problem
doesn't have a thing to do with it.

[James Robinson]

Bob Moore > wrote:

> Ramapriya 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.
>
> Considering all factors, the takeoff is far more hazardous than the
> approach and landing.

There's a chart on the Boeing web site that shows the relative hazard in
various phases of commercial flight. It is based on the worldwide
accident statistics over the last 10 years or so:

http://www.boeing.com/news/techissues/pdf/statsum.pdf

The chart is on numbered page 16, which is the 18th page in the
document.

In comparing takeoff and initial climb with final approach and landing,
these are the resulting percentages of all occurances:

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.

[[email protected]]

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.

Paul

[john smith]

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.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> So explain how more crashes happen on landing than takeoff?
>

Perhaps because a crash on landing is often preceded by some inflight
failure or mishap. Every inflight failure is followed by a landing of some
kind but a pre-takeoff failure is often followed by a cancelled takeoff.

[John Gaquin]

> wrote in message

> 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.

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.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> Only a fools and idiots speculate on the cause of an airplane crash
> before the facts are known.
>

That's the only time one can speculate.

[[email protected]]

Bob Moore wrote:
>
> Considering all factors, the takeoff is far more hazardous than the
> approach and landing.


Hey Bob, speaking of approach, since I hear that evacuation orders for
some parts of southern Florida have already been issued, here's wishing
that Ernesto behaves itself and that you wouldn't need to spend too
much time away from home in your S-class :)

Ramapriya

PS: My baggage is making its presence felt here, btw :)

[Emily[_1_]]

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.

And the media.

Or is that redundant?

[[email protected]]

John Gaquin wrote:
>
> Is there anyone here who actually knows? Is 3500 ft adequate for a fairly
> well loaded 202? It sounds short to me


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 know the Airbus A330 and 340 have a software called LTS to estimate
and do all this, given the loading configuration, and even suggest the
pitch trim setting.

Ramapriya

[Ronald Gardner]

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.

[Larry Dighera]

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

>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.

[Ronald Gardner]

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.

[Newps]

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.

[John Gaquin]

> 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

[Newps]

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.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"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.

[Greg Farris]

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

[Matt Whiting]

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

[Greg Farris]

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

[Larry Dighera]

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?

[Matt Whiting]

Larry Dighera wrote:

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

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Greg Farris" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>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.
>

He got it backward. Only a fool would speculate on the cause of an airplane
crash AFTER the facts are known.

[Bob Gardner]

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.

Bob Gardner

> 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
>

[John[_1_]]

Ronald Gardner wrote:
> 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
>
I strongly suspect that 6,290 figure is the length of runway for the
plane to accelerate to V1, take a engine cut, and stop on the runway
using only brakes, with no credit for reverse thrust. The distance for
a nominal takeoff roll is much shorter.

So sad . . . my prayers for the families of the folks on board,
passengers and crew.

John

[[email protected]]

Newps wrote:
>
> 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.


One more non-aviator question here - is upset recovery training not
normally part of the licensing procedure? What Larry described seems a
good example of upset.

Ramapriya

[Matt Whiting]

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

[Newps]

Larry Dighera wrote:


>>
>>Full nose up trim is immediately apparent on the application of power.
>
>
> Mmmm, that sounds like the voice of experience. :)

Any of your basic singles like most Cessna's, Cherokees, my Bonanza,
when you add power with full nose up trim the yoke comes right back to
you. This in no way makes the plane unflyable.


>
> 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?

Nope, you notice it right away. The yoke is not where it's supposed 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?

Not sure of the exact amount but that is a certification requirement.
My 182 got pretty sporting if you had to do a go around. Since I mostly
flew alone it was a nose heavy airplane and I always landed with full
nose up trim. Not sure how to characterize how much force was required.
Let's say significant.

[Bob Gardner]

Part 23 establishes maximum stick force requirements. It does not take
superhuman strength to overcome full nose-up trim on takeoff.

Bob Gardner

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> 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.

[Matt Whiting]

Newps wrote:

> Not sure of the exact amount but that is a certification requirement. My
> 182 got pretty sporting if you had to do a go around. Since I mostly
> flew alone it was a nose heavy airplane and I always landed with full
> nose up trim. Not sure how to characterize how much force was required.
> Let's say significant.

I don't know the exact force either, but I could easily hold down the
nose of my 182 with full nose-up trim and full throttle. I'd guess
30-40 lbs of force, but that is just a guess. I can bench press
probably 160 lbs (I haven't lifted in 20 years so I'm getting wimpy),
which is 80 lbs per arm. I'm sure I wasn't using even half of my arm
strength to hold the nose at climb attitude hence my guess of it being
no more than 40 lbs and likely less than that.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Bob Gardner wrote:

> Part 23 establishes maximum stick force requirements. It does not take
> superhuman strength to overcome full nose-up trim on takeoff.

But part 23 was written before we all became overweight and out of shape
couch potatoes! :-)

Matt

[Roy Smith]

Matt Whiting > wrote:
> 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.

In theory, it should be possible on any plane. 14 CFR 23.677 (d) says:

"It must be demonstrated that the airplane is safely controllable and that
the pilot can perform all maneuvers and operations necessary to effect a
safe landing following any probable powered trim system runaway that
reasonably might be expected in service, allowing for appropriate time
delay after pilot recognition of the trim system runaway. The demonstration
must be conducted at critical airplane weights and center of gravity
positions."

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> 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?
>

ATC will no doubt be assigned a share of the blame. But if the pilot
reports ready to go at the assigned runway when he's actually at a different
one, and there is a Comair at the assigned runway, it's easy for the local
controller to miss the error.

[Bob Noel]

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?

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

[Alex Pitschmann]

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
>

[Greg Farris]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>Matt Whiting > wrote:
>> 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.
>
>In theory, it should be possible on any plane. 14 CFR 23.677 (d) says:
>


Say that to the 130 souls who perished in the B-707 accident on takeoff from
Paris' Orly airport, due to an out-of-trim condition.

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19620603-0&lang=en

[Matt Whiting]

Roy Smith wrote:
> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>
> In theory, it should be possible on any plane. 14 CFR 23.677 (d) says:
>
> "It must be demonstrated that the airplane is safely controllable and that
> the pilot can perform all maneuvers and operations necessary to effect a
> safe landing following any probable powered trim system runaway that
> reasonably might be expected in service, allowing for appropriate time
> delay after pilot recognition of the trim system runaway. The demonstration
> must be conducted at critical airplane weights and center of gravity
> positions."

Like they say, in theory there is no difference between theory and
practice, in practice there is. :-)

I've never flown an airplane where this wasn't the case, but then I've
flown fewer than a dozen different airplanes so I was hesitant to say all.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Greg Farris wrote:

> In article >,
> says...
>
>>
>>Matt Whiting > wrote:
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>In theory, it should be possible on any plane. 14 CFR 23.677 (d) says:
>>
>
>
>
> Say that to the 130 souls who perished in the B-707 accident on takeoff from
> Paris' Orly airport, due to an out-of-trim condition.
>
> http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19620603-0&lang=en
>

The fact that the pilot didn't fly the airplane to its capability
doesn't mean the capability isn't there.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>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?
>>
>
>
> ATC will no doubt be assigned a share of the blame. But if the pilot
> reports ready to go at the assigned runway when he's actually at a different
> one, and there is a Comair at the assigned runway, it's easy for the local
> controller to miss the error.

I certainly always appreciate when ATC catches a mistake that I make or
am about to make, but as PIC the bottom line is that it is still my
responsibility for any errors, not ATC's.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

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

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"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.

[Matt Whiting]

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

[Newps]

Matt Whiting wrote:


>
> I certainly always appreciate when ATC catches a mistake that I make or
> am about to make, but as PIC the bottom line is that it is still my
> responsibility for any errors, not ATC's.

Jets take a long time to take off so if he used the wrong runway the
question will certainly arise as to what the tower controller was
looking at. My guess is the coffee pot. The controller would have had
about 1 minute after issuing the clearance to notice that he was using
the wrong runway. And looking at the airport diagram this would be an
area well known to controllers for aircraft using the wrong runway. We
have one here at BIL. Ask for a certain intersection and don't turn all
the way onto the runway and you are using the last 700 feet of another
runway. We've had one crash, one near crash and a bunch of aborts from
pilots who weren't paying attention.

[skym]

Newps wrote:
.... And looking at the airport diagram this would be an
> area well known to controllers for aircraft using the wrong runway. We
> have one here at BIL. Ask for a certain intersection and don't turn all
> the way onto the runway and you are using the last 700 feet of another
> runway. We've had one crash, one near crash and a bunch of aborts from
> pilots who weren't paying attention.

Foxtrot onto 7 instead of 10? Ouch!!

[skym]

B A R R Y wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 20:44:36 GMT, Matt Whiting >
> wrote:
>
> >Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> >>
> >> 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.
>
>
> I agree with you, Matt, but I'll bet what Steven posted happens more
> than we'd all like to admit.

Shouldn't we really check the compass instead of the DG? But, I must
admit, I check the DG against the runway heading. I think I'm going to
straighten up and fly right from now on.

[Morgans[_4_]]

"Greg Farris" > wrote
>
> Say that to the 130 souls who perished in the B-707 accident on takeoff
from
> Paris' Orly airport, due to an out-of-trim condition.

It is really easy to sit back and say that the accident was easily
preventable, but in truth, it probably was easily preventable.

Problem number one, in the chain of the accident events, was the failure of
the trim motor.

Number two, was the failure of the flight crew to recognize that the trim
was not in the correct place.

Number three, and the final link in the chain, was the failure of the flight
crew to continue with the takeoff, when there was insufficient distance in
which to stop the aircraft.

If the takeoff had continued, the certification standards say that a
successful takeoff was still possible. In a fraction of a second, the
flight crew made the wrong choice, because there was not enough distance
remaining to successfully abort the takeoff.

They, and their charges, paid for the mistake with their lives. The final
link in the chain was not broken. Sad, but mistakes (pilot error) still
happen.
--
Jim in NC

[John Gaquin]

"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.

[Newps]

skym wrote:

> Newps wrote:
> ... And looking at the airport diagram this would be an
>
>>area well known to controllers for aircraft using the wrong runway. We
>>have one here at BIL. Ask for a certain intersection and don't turn all
>>the way onto the runway and you are using the last 700 feet of another
>>runway. We've had one crash, one near crash and a bunch of aborts from
>>pilots who weren't paying attention.
>
>
> Foxtrot onto 7 instead of 10? Ouch!!
>

Yep, a Cessna or Bonanza will make it, yer ground loving Mooney's are
**** out of luck.

[Matt Whiting]

B A R R Y wrote:

> On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 20:44:36 GMT, Matt Whiting >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>
>>>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.
>
>
>
> I agree with you, Matt, but I'll bet what Steven posted happens more
> than we'd all like to admit.

No doubt. Lots of mistakes happen more than we'd like to admit! That
is why we still have as many preventable accidents as we do.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

skym wrote:

> B A R R Y wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 20:44:36 GMT, Matt Whiting >
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>>
>>>>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.
>>
>>
>>I agree with you, Matt, but I'll bet what Steven posted happens more
>>than we'd all like to admit.
>
>
> Shouldn't we really check the compass instead of the DG? But, I must
> admit, I check the DG against the runway heading. I think I'm going to
> straighten up and fly right from now on.

I was taught to look from top to bottom. Compass, DG, runway number I
wrote on my lapboard when I received my taxi clearance. If they all
aren't the same, then time to stop and sort things out.

Matt

[Gene Seibel]

> 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.
--
Gene Seibel
Tales of Flight - http://pad39a.com/gene/tales.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"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.

[Matt Barrow]

> 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".

[Judah]

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...

[Judah]

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?

[Viperdoc[_3_]]

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.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"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.

[Viperdoc[_3_]]

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.

[Judah]

"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.

[Emily[_1_]]

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?

[Emily[_1_]]

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.

[Emily[_1_]]

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.

[Bob Noel]

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

[Emily[_1_]]

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.

[Emily[_1_]]

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.

[Guy Elden Jr]

> 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

[Newps]

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.

[Emily[_1_]]

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)

[Larry Dighera]

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
>> om>:
>>
>>
>>>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.

[Bob Gardner]

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]

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
>>
>
>

[Newps]

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.

[Bob Gardner]

I remember back when I was working on my Lear type (first time I had ever
flown a jet). I was given a V1 cut and, while I had the airplane under
control, I was about 30 degrees off runway heading, screaming over the
planes in the tiedown area at 100 feet or so. I got better after that.....

Bob Gardner

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> > 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".
>

[Emily[_1_]]

Newps wrote:
>
>
> 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.

I think I'm just wimpy, actually. I trim up in the flare, because it's
the only way I can land one-handed.


>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.

Unless an engine goes out...but I'll probably try it next time I'm up.

[Matt Whiting]

Emily wrote:

> 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.

You pull the yoke back to take-off. :-)

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Emily wrote:

> Newps wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>
>
> I think I'm just wimpy, actually. I trim up in the flare, because it's
> the only way I can land one-handed.

What do you fly? The largest airplane I've landed outside of a
simulator is a 182. It was easy to flare with one hand. Might want to
hit the weight room a little more often. :-)

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Judah wrote:

> 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?

Doesn't matter. It is up to us as pilots to be familiar with all
available information prior to our flight. That includes the length of
runway required for takeoff and the lengths of the runways at the
airports we are using.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Judah wrote:

> "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.

I was speculating that the clearance was correct, but even if it wasn't,
I make the same assertion - it is the pilots' fault if they took off on
a runway too short for their operating conditions. What part of PIC
don't you understand?

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

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

[Matt Whiting]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "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.

It works well if you know what runway you are on. However, a runway can
be quite a ways off the magnetic azimuth before it gets renumbered so
you could easily be 5 degrees off on your DG setting.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Emily wrote:

> 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.

I landed on the wrong runway at Reading, PA early in my flying career.
I was cleared for a right downwind to R36 and hadn't made many right
traffic patterns before. I wasn't paying sufficient attention and ended
up lining up on 31 and didn't cross-check the DG as I should have. I
noticed the error at almost the same time the controller did, but
traffic wasn't a factor so he just came on quickly and said something
like "it appears you are lined up for 31 rather than 36, cleared to land
31."

I definitely understand how this can happen which is one reason I'm much
more careful now about cross-checking with the compass and DG,
especially when flying IFR.

Matt

[Newps]

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.

[Newps]

Emily wrote:

> Newps wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>
>
> I think I'm just wimpy, actually. I trim up in the flare, because it's
> the only way I can land one-handed.

No, just set the trim for takeoff a little more nose down.



>
>
>> 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.
>
>
> Unless an engine goes out...but I'll probably try it next time I'm up.

If you lose an engine bring both to idle and get the nose down even faster.

[nospam]

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.

[nospam]

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..."

[Ron Lee]

>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
>

[Emily[_1_]]

Newps wrote:
>
>
> Emily wrote:
>
>> Newps wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>> I think I'm just wimpy, actually. I trim up in the flare, because
>> it's the only way I can land one-handed.
>
> No, just set the trim for takeoff a little more nose down.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>> Unless an engine goes out...but I'll probably try it next time I'm up.
>
> If you lose an engine bring both to idle and get the nose down even faster.

Thanks, I've practiced all that. Just try to avoid situation where it
could actually happen.

[nospam]

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.

[[email protected]]

Accorind to airnav both runways have lights...

http://www.airnav.com/airport/KLEX


The 22 has better lights, but both 22 and 26 have lights.

Paul

[Owen[_3_]]

Greg Farris wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>
>>
>>Matt Whiting > wrote:
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>In theory, it should be possible on any plane. 14 CFR 23.677 (d) says:
>>
>
>
>
> Say that to the 130 souls who perished in the B-707 accident on takeoff from
> Paris' Orly airport, due to an out-of-trim condition.
>
> http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19620603-0&lang=en

The B707 was not certified per 14 CFR 23. (It was most likely certified
under 14 CFR 25 or its predecessor).

I assume the earlier poster's "any plane" before he mentioned meant 14
CFR 23.677 (d) "any plane certified under 14 CFR 23. YMMV.

[Peter R.]

Emily > wrote:

> Not to mention the memory of the first officer.

Assuming the shock of the accident hasn't pushed the moments right up to
the crash out of his conscience mind.

--
Peter

[Tony]

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.

[[email protected]]

Matt Whiting wrote:
>
> 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.


Well, why then do you guys dread an engine failure more than anything
else? :) The reason is because other factors are pretty much within
your control - pitch trim, aircraft loading, choice of runway,
condition of the tires and whatever else. Engines too I'm sure aren't
altogether iffy but there's an element of risk of a failure because of
their enormous complexity - and nobody can deny that there isn't
anything simple about a turbine!

Someone on this thread mentioned 'loss of control surfaces' as one of
the many possible reasons - what does that mean? A hydraulic failure
that altogether prevents aileron, elevator and rudder control?

Ramapriya

[Jose[_1_]]

> Well, why then do you guys dread an engine failure more than anything
> else? :)

Because most of the time, if we have an engine failure it's because we
put too much air in the tanks, and that's a pretty embarassing mistake. :)

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Emily[_1_]]

wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>> 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.
>
>
> Well, why then do you guys dread an engine failure more than anything
> else? :)

I wasn't aware that we did. I fear the tail or a wing falling off MUCH
more than an engine failure. If the engines quit, at least the plane
will still fly, most of the time.

[[email protected]]

Matt Whiting wrote:
>
> I certainly always appreciate when ATC catches a mistake that I make or am about to
> make, but as PIC the bottom line is that it is still my responsibility for any errors, not
> ATC's.


And since in the instant case he's the only survivor, what he'll have
to say will make for interesting reading, although the loss of lives is
irreversible :(

Ramapriya

[[email protected]]

Judah wrote:
>
> 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?


Do airport charts that pilots carry along not contain runway lengths?
If yes, there'd be another oversight.

Ramapriya

[[email protected]]

Alex Pitschmann wrote:
> I can see how they got disoriented in the dark (my guess)


Dark at 38N at 7am in Aug??

Ramapriya

[Dave Stadt]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> John Gaquin wrote:
>>
>> Is there anyone here who actually knows? Is 3500 ft adequate for a
>> fairly
>> well loaded 202? It sounds short to me
>
>
> 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 know the Airbus A330 and 340 have a software called LTS to estimate
> and do all this, given the loading configuration, and even suggest the
> pitch trim setting.
>
> Ramapriya


None of that does any good if you taxi to and attempt to takeoff from a
runway that is about half the length of of the runway you intended to use.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> It works well if you know what runway you are on. However, a runway can
> be quite a ways off the magnetic azimuth before it gets renumbered so you
> could easily be 5 degrees off on your DG setting.
>

As I said, it works quite well if you know the magnetic azimuth of the
runway.

[Dave Stadt]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
...
> 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.


Not anymore.

[John Gaquin]

> wrote in message >
>
> Well, why then do you guys dread an engine failure more than anything
> else? :)

Most transport pilots don't, I think. There are a number of things I would
rate higher on the crucial scale than an engine failure. .

[john smith]

In article om>,
wrote:

> Alex Pitschmann wrote:
> > I can see how they got disoriented in the dark (my guess)

> Dark at 38N at 7am in Aug??

Yes, LEX is on the western edge of the Eastern Time Zone.
Sunrise is just before 7 AM. The aircraft departed about 6:04 AM.

[[email protected]]

Dave Stadt wrote:
>
>
> None of that does any good if you taxi to and attempt to takeoff from a
> runway that is about half the length of of the runway you intended to use.


Yep, I'd misunderstood Gaquin's post - or didn't comprehend, as Mr.
Farris pointed out :)

Ramapriya

[Montblack[_1_]]

(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

[[email protected]]

john smith wrote:
>
> > Dark at 38N at 7am in Aug??
>
> Yes, LEX is on the western edge of the Eastern Time Zone.
> Sunrise is just before 7 AM. The aircraft departed about 6:04 AM.


I checked out a couple of news sites and they do mention the time that
you do, but I bet I saw Fox and Sky News last evening and they both
mentioned 7 am!

Fwiw, at 6.15 am, which is when I leave for work, my C240's auto
headlights don't come on. That must translate into adequate enough
daylight at that time of the day here in Dubai!

Ramapriya

[Jay Beckman]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Newps wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
>
> One more non-aviator question here - is upset recovery training not
> normally part of the licensing procedure? What Larry described seems a
> good example of upset.
>
> Ramapriya
>

In the United States the emphasis is on Angle of Attack Awareness and Stall
Avoidance.

You do fly both power on (take off / departure) stalls and power off
(landing) stalls as well as turning stalls but full on unusual attitude
recovery (in the sense in which I think you are referring) is not a part of
the private pilot sylabus, no.

Experiencing the pitch authority of full up trim at high power settings and
how abrupt can be a Trim Stall should, IMO, be emphasized more stridently
than it is (at least in the King Cessna course.)

Jay B

[Jim Macklin]

Perhaps more than the short runway, rising terrain off the
end of runway 26 looks to be in the take-off path. It will
be weeks before the calculations are verified, the ATC and
CVR tapes checked and the FDR completely investigated.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

> wrote in message
oups.com...
| Matt Whiting wrote:
| >
| > 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.
|
|
| Well, why then do you guys dread an engine failure more
than anything
| else? :) The reason is because other factors are pretty
much within
| your control - pitch trim, aircraft loading, choice of
runway,
| condition of the tires and whatever else. Engines too I'm
sure aren't
| altogether iffy but there's an element of risk of a
failure because of
| their enormous complexity - and nobody can deny that there
isn't
| anything simple about a turbine!
|
| Someone on this thread mentioned 'loss of control
surfaces' as one of
| the many possible reasons - what does that mean? A
hydraulic failure
| that altogether prevents aileron, elevator and rudder
control?
|
| Ramapriya
|

[Jay Beckman]

Another piece of the "How'd They Manage To Do That" puzzle:

If you are sitting at the departure end of a 7000' runway, only 1000' ahead
of you is a big white 6 on a black background.
If you are sitting at the departure end of a 3500' runway, presumeably ony
500' ahead of you is a big white 3.

Really a strange situation.

Jay B

[[email protected]]

Jay Beckman wrote:
> Another piece of the "How'd They Manage To Do That" puzzle:
>
> If you are sitting at the departure end of a 7000' runway, only 1000' ahead
> of you is a big white 6 on a black background.


If the board you mention is backlit, this is a very, very valid point,
which was obviously lost in the high-workload atmosphere.

Ramapriya

[Jim Macklin]

That may not be the case, downloaded the IAP charts and
looked at a topo map of the airport area, it appears that
the terrain slopes downward off the end of rwy 26, but that
does not include trees and buildings.
http://www.topozone.com/map.asp?lat=38.03835&lon=-84.61684&size=l&u=4&datum=nad27&layer=DRG

Reports are that they hit the airport fence, that would have
seriously impacted climb.

BTW, for those who suggested that the crew may have set the
HI to the wrong heading, transport jets have dual slaved
compass systems.



"Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message news:O8vIg.6171$SZ3.5038@dukeread04...
| Perhaps more than the short runway, rising terrain off the
| end of runway 26 looks to be in the take-off path. It
will
| be weeks before the calculations are verified, the ATC and
| CVR tapes checked and the FDR completely investigated.
|
|
| --
| James H. Macklin
| ATP,CFI,A&P
|
| > wrote in message
|
oups.com...
|| Matt Whiting wrote:
|| >
|| > 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.
||
||
|| Well, why then do you guys dread an engine failure more
| than anything
|| else? :) The reason is because other factors are pretty
| much within
|| your control - pitch trim, aircraft loading, choice of
| runway,
|| condition of the tires and whatever else. Engines too I'm
| sure aren't
|| altogether iffy but there's an element of risk of a
| failure because of
|| their enormous complexity - and nobody can deny that
there
| isn't
|| anything simple about a turbine!
||
|| Someone on this thread mentioned 'loss of control
| surfaces' as one of
|| the many possible reasons - what does that mean? A
| hydraulic failure
|| that altogether prevents aileron, elevator and rudder
| control?
||
|| Ramapriya
||
|
|

[John Gaquin]

> wrote in message
>
> Fwiw, at 6.15 am, which is when I leave for work, my C240's auto
> headlights don't come on. That must translate into adequate enough
> daylight at that time of the day here in Dubai!

If your lights don't come on at 0615, then it is surely light enough. But
bear this in mind: Lexington, KY, is near the western edge of Time Zone R,
known as Eastern (Daylight) Time. Being at the western edge, the entire
span of daylight will be skewed a bit later than nominal for that time zone.
Dubai, on the other hand, is at the extreme eastern side of Time Zone C,
Middle East Time. In point of fact, Dubai is geographically located well
into Time Zone D, although it appears the entire UAE uses the UTC +3 of Zone
C. Being at the extreme eastern edge of your zone, your daylight span will
be substantially skewed toward the earlier range of the clock.

Consequently, sunrise on August 27 occurred at 0457 in Dubai, but 0704 in
Lexington, KY.

[Alex Pitschmann]

Well, if it apears a lot wider than 75', I can see them not picking up on it
till it was too late.
That explains a lot if thats the way that runway is paved.
A sad situation.

--
My 2¢ YMMV
"Guy Elden Jr" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> 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
>

[Alex Pitschmann]

Taxi ways and signage aren't lit worth a damn at some of the GA airports
I've been to at night. The lighting off the main runway leaves a lot to be
desired in most cases. It would be easy to get turned around and disoriented
at a lot of GA airports if you're not careful. They don't seem to be lit at
all like the larger airports.
Alex
My 2¢ YMMV

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
>
>>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
>>
>

[B A R R Y[_1_]]

Jay Beckman wrote:
>
> If you are sitting at the departure end of a 3500' runway, presumeably ony
> 500' ahead of you is a big white 3.
>
> Really a strange situation.
>


None of the 3500 footers that I fly from have distance markers. The
4600 footer at my home base has 1000 foot marker stripes, but no
distance remaining signs.

[john smith]

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?

[Judah]

Matt Whiting > wrote in
:

> Judah wrote:
>
>> "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.
>
> I was speculating that the clearance was correct, but even if it wasn't,
> I make the same assertion - it is the pilots' fault if they took off on
> a runway too short for their operating conditions. What part of PIC
> don't you understand?

When did I claim that it wasn't the pilots' fault? I was simply asking why
you assumed that they were cleared for the correct runway?

[Judah]

Matt Whiting > wrote in news:OurIg.777$Db4.98462
@news1.epix.net:

> Judah wrote:
>
>> 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?
>
> Doesn't matter. It is up to us as pilots to be familiar with all
> available information prior to our flight. That includes the length of
> runway required for takeoff and the lengths of the runways at the
> airports we are using.

I agree with you. I was simply asking why you assumed that he was cleared for
the correct runway.

[john smith]

> Taxi ways and signage aren't lit worth a damn at some of the GA airports
> I've been to at night. The lighting off the main runway leaves a lot to be
> desired in most cases. It would be easy to get turned around and disoriented
> at a lot of GA airports if you're not careful. They don't seem to be lit at
> all like the larger airports.

I landed at LEX at 9 PM last April during a return flight from Florida.
R22 has excellent lighting. Unless something wasn't turned on or was our
of service as a result of the recent runway paving, lighting should not
have been an issue.

Prior to the repaving, R22 was so rough my landing light connection got
knocked loose. :-))

[Judah]

wrote in
ps.com:

> Judah wrote:
>>
>> 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?
>
>
> Do airport charts that pilots carry along not contain runway lengths?
> If yes, there'd be another oversight.


The Sectional shows the length of the longest runway at an airfield. The A/FD
shows all runway lengths. The IFR-approved GPS systems in the planes that I
fly have runway lengths in their database that can be popped up on the screen
with a button. I don't think it was a question of not having the runway
length info available to them.

Someone posted a link to a Sattelite view of the field. In looking at it, if
the signage for runway 22 was not clear, I could see how it would be possible
for a pilot to line up on 22 without seeing the numbers, and confuse it for
26. That's not meant to excuse the mistake, because there are other checks
that should have been done, and clearly there is an element of carelessness
when one take off from a wrong runway under any circumstance. But seeing that
image did change my perspective on at least how it could even be possible for
a professional pilot to take off on a runway that was supposedly very
different than the intended runway...

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 04:23:04 GMT, john smith > wrote in
>:

>In article om>,
> wrote:
>
>> Alex Pitschmann wrote:
>> > I can see how they got disoriented in the dark (my guess)
>
>> Dark at 38N at 7am in Aug??
>
>Yes, LEX is on the western edge of the Eastern Time Zone.
>Sunrise is just before 7 AM. The aircraft departed about 6:04 AM.

It would seem that is correct:

http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/RS_OneDay.html
U.S. Naval Observatory
Astronomical Applications Department


Sun and Moon Data for One Day
The following information is provided for Lexington, Fayette
County, Kentucky (longitude W84.5, latitude N38.1):

Sunday
27 August 2006 Eastern Daylight Time

SUN
Begin civil twilight 6:36 a.m.
Sunrise 7:03 a.m.
Sun transit 1:39 p.m.
Sunset 8:15 p.m.
End civil twilight 8:42 p.m.

MOON
Moonset 9:33 p.m. on preceding day
Moonrise 10:34 a.m.
Moon transit 4:19 p.m.
Moonset 9:54 p.m.
Moonrise 11:34 a.m. on following day


Phase of the Moon on 27 August: waxing crescent with 13% of the
Moon's visible disk illuminated.

New Moon on 23 August 2006 at 3:10 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time.

[B A R R Y[_1_]]

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?

[Matt Whiting]

Emily wrote:
> wrote:
>
>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>> Well, why then do you guys dread an engine failure more than anything
>> else? :)
>
>
> I wasn't aware that we did. I fear the tail or a wing falling off MUCH
> more than an engine failure. If the engines quit, at least the plane
> will still fly, most of the time.

That and aft CG. With an engine failure, I still have a lot to do and
much is still in my control. With an out of limit aft CG, there is
little that can be done and you have too much time to contemplate your fate.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Judah wrote:

> Matt Whiting > wrote in news:OurIg.777$Db4.98462
> @news1.epix.net:
>
>
>>Judah wrote:
>>
>>
>>>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?
>>
>>Doesn't matter. It is up to us as pilots to be familiar with all
>>available information prior to our flight. That includes the length of
>>runway required for takeoff and the lengths of the runways at the
>>airports we are using.
>
>
> I agree with you. I was simply asking why you assumed that he was cleared for
> the correct runway.

I didn't. I said if he was. I think the likelihood is that he was as
I've rarely been cleared to an incorrect runway so I think the odds of
that are small, but not zero hence the "if" in my statement.

Matt

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"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.

[Bob Moore]

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)

[Bob Moore]

B A R R Y wrote

> 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?

Notice that John said "aircarriers" not pilots. Pilots are not
required to have previous entries into an airport.

Bob Moore
PanAm (retired)

[Andrew Sarangan[_1_]]

Regardless of compass/DG, aren't there other indicators, such as:

- runway lights turning from white to amber
- runway distance countdown markers
- runway end lights (red bars), especially since the viz was 8SM.

This is definitely one that should be discussed and analyzed to prevent
future occurence.

[Montblack[_1_]]

("Richard Riley" wrote)
> And I know of 2 airplanes that have crashed on takeoff due to cross-rigged
> controls.


I have not been this upset about something in a long, long time.

http://www.airportjournals.com/display.cfm/Dallas/0608015
Story about the Spectrum 33 crash.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20060731X01059&key=1
NTSB preliminary report


Montblack
http://www.uiowa.edu/~ucs/griefloss.html
I'm stuck in the "Anger" phase!

[Bob Gardner]

What Dave said. Controllers are no longer liable for failure to catch
erroneous readbacks.

Bob Gardner

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
...
> 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.
>
>
>

[Bob Gardner]

Lots of media indications that the lighting systems were not operating at
full capability, and that pilots had been informed of that (by NOTAM, I
would assume).

Bob Gardner

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> Regardless of compass/DG, aren't there other indicators, such as:
>
> - runway lights turning from white to amber
> - runway distance countdown markers
> - runway end lights (red bars), especially since the viz was 8SM.
>
> This is definitely one that should be discussed and analyzed to prevent
> future occurence.
>

[Bob Gardner]

But does airnav.com know what effect the recent construction activity had on
the lights?

Bob Gardner

> wrote in message
...
> Accorind to airnav both runways have lights...
>
> http://www.airnav.com/airport/KLEX
>
>
> The 22 has better lights, but both 22 and 26 have lights.
>
> Paul
>

[Bob Gardner]

I can't find anything in Part 121 to support this assertion...but maybe I'm
not using the correct search arguments. Do you have a regulation citation?

Bob Gardner

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> 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?

[Wizard of Draws[_1_]]

On 8/27/06 10:29 PM, in article ,
"B A R R Y" > wrote:

> On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 21:45:42 -0400,
> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Airports with scheduled jet service usually have lighted signs with
> white letters on a red background identifying the runway. These signs
> are usually located at every entrance to each runway.
>
> I'm not super experienced, but I can't ever remember identifying a
> runway while taxiing using the painted numbers. Even the little
> podunk airports with one runway have identifying signs on paved
> strips.

The GPS in the 172's I rent show runways and their designations when you
zoom in. It sounds like this ought to be another cross-check we can add to
our lists.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino

Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.wizardofdraws.com

More Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.cartoonclipart.com

[john smith]

In article >,
"Bob Gardner" > wrote:

> I can't find anything in Part 121 to support this assertion...but maybe I'm
> not using the correct search arguments. Do you have a regulation citation?

I don't have a cite reference.
It is something I remember being told 30+ years ago.

[Bob Moore]

Bob Gardner wrote
> I can't find anything in Part 121 to support this assertion...but
> maybe I'm not using the correct search arguments. Do you have a
> regulation citation?

I think that this is what John is talking about:

http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/examiners_inspectors/8300/volume2/media/
2_076_00.pdf

D. Airport Operations. An operator/program manager must conduct a
representative number of proving tests into airports that the
operator/program manager plans to serve in approved OpSpecs
scheduled/unscheduled or approved MSpecs operations. If an operator/program
manager plans to provide service to airports in more than one area
(domestic and overseas), the operator/program manager must conduct proving
tests into a representative number of those areas. The Administrator will
determine what constitutes a representative airport or area of en route
operation.

We used to call them 'Proving Flights'. I have flown them for 3-4 newly
certificated airlines.

Bob Moore

[[email protected]]

Bob Moore wrote:
>
> Pilots are not required to have previous entries into an airport.


Brings me around to asking what I wanted to for a while now... what on
earth is it that 'airport familiarity' provides that an approach plate
doesn't?

If we can navigate in cars using street maps on the roads, it must be a
breeze from the air, what? :)

Ramapriya

[Jose[_1_]]

> Brings me around to asking what I wanted to for a while now... what on
> earth is it that 'airport familiarity' provides that an approach plate
> doesn't?
>
> If we can navigate in cars using street maps on the roads, it must be a
> breeze from the air, what? :)

In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In
practice, there is.

Sure, we can navigate in cars using street maps on the roads, but it's a
lot easier going somewhere when you're familiar with the area. You
recognize stuff in real life that isn't even on the maps. Sometimes the
squiggles on the maps make things look important that aren't, and look
unimportant that are. You can probably make your way home blindfolded,
but haven't you ever been creeping along at night in the rain looking
for 35th Avenue (it's between 34th Avenue and Sedona Place, but 34th
Avenue is off at some cockeyed angle and the street sign is missing,
there's traffic behind you and you think you just missed Sedona, or was
that Sequoia... and yes, the windshield wiper blade should have been
changed the last time it rained.

As for navigating the roads by air, ever tried it? You can't see the
street signs, you often can't see the streets for the trees (unless you
live in the desert); everything looks different. It can be done; I've
done it, and it's kind of fun, but it's not the cinch you make it out to be.

When you are familiar with an airport, you know where to go by many many
cues (shapes of buildings, light patterns, the pond on the left, the
runup area that's white concrete instead of black tarmac...) these
things are not shown on approach plates.

A real look counts for a lot.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
...
>
> What Dave said. Controllers are no longer liable for failure to catch
> erroneous readbacks.
>

How so?

[[email protected]]

Jose wrote:
>
> In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In
> practice, there is.


:) :)


> As for navigating the roads by air, ever tried it? You can't see the
> street signs, you often can't see the streets for the trees (unless you
> live in the desert); everything looks different. It can be done; I've
> done it, and it's kind of fun, but it's not the cinch you make it out to be.
>
> When you are familiar with an airport, you know where to go by many many
> cues (shapes of buildings, light patterns, the pond on the left, the
> runup area that's white concrete instead of black tarmac...) these
> things are not shown on approach plates.
>
> A real look counts for a lot.


Very nicely written. Makes me feel that flying into a familiar airport
just adds an extra layer to the pilot's situational awareness, when not
in IFR or VMC. Didn't know that you guys verify your position visually
with cues from lakes, buildings, light patterns... no kidding?

Not trying to be derogatory here, but won't flying into an unfamiliar
airport ensure that you check and double-check everything? ;))

Thanks again Jose,

Ramapriya

[Jose[_1_]]

> Didn't know that you guys verify your position visually
> with cues from lakes, buildings, light patterns... no kidding?

If we know the airport, that's the way we do it. You do too. When
you're driving in a familiar area, how do you navigate? You remember
the red building on the corner, the curve in the road, the place where
they did some construction not quite right... A lot of us (private
pilots) fly =completely= visually, using cues from lakes and light
patterns (and correlating them with the charts), and not using GPS or
gizmos at all.

> but won't flying into an unfamiliar
> airport ensure that you check and double-check everything?

Well, yes, sort of. At any airport, familiar or not, we check
everything (even familiar ones can change radio frequencies or close
runways). It's just that with the familiar airports, we get more
chances to do that, from more sources (like having been there just
yesterday). Personally I have a form I fill out with pertinent airport
information (frequencies, runway orientations, FBOs) and at the bigger
ones, I pull out a taxi chart too. It's a bit embarrasing to key the
mike and say "N3423 Juliet on the forty five for runway... um.. er, sort
of the northbound one". I just look down and see that the choices are
8/26 and 17/35, so the "sort of northbound one" would be 35. After
landing, I'll need to know where to taxi to, and one FBO can be MUCH
more expensive than the other one. Ask me how I found out! Much better
to know which one you want, and where it is. (and if you think I'll
remember after a five hour flight, well, my choir director would say
"elephants have memories, people have pencils". He was right.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose[_1_]]

> Didn't know that you guys verify your position visually
> with cues from lakes, buildings, light patterns... no kidding?

Just one little addendum; coming back from Block Island there was this
bright line of lights which I couldn't identify. It looked like the top
of a skyscraper, if that skyscraper were a mile wide. It could have
been a road, but it was lit up far too brightly and would be a very
short road. It was visible for half a hundred miles.

I figured it was probably the mercury lighting from a large industrial
building. But as we got closer, I realized it was Oxford Airport (OXC).
The lights in question were probably the lights for the parking area
in front of the FBO. Now I've filed that little tidbit away. It makes
OXC much easier to find at night! (assuming those lights are on, which
one can't count on).

The guy coming in for the first time won't know this. He'll be looking
for the green and white airport beacon. He'll find it, but not from
fifty miles away. :)

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[[email protected]]

Jose wrote:
>
> I figured it was probably the mercury lighting from a large industrial
> building. But as we got closer, I realized it was Oxford Airport (OXC).


And here I was, thinking that airports are generally the darker spots
in town, when viewed from above :)

Ramapriya

[Jay Beckman]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Jose wrote:
>>
>> I figured it was probably the mercury lighting from a large industrial
>> building. But as we got closer, I realized it was Oxford Airport (OXC).
>
>
> And here I was, thinking that airports are generally the darker spots
> in town, when viewed from above :)
>
> Ramapriya
>

Generally, they are.

In urban areas, they tend to be black-ish holes in the lighting landscape.

Out here in Arizona, they tend to stand out a little bit better because the
urban lighting isn't very dense and because we CAN see airport beacons from
fifty miles away.

Jay B

[Cubdriver]

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 20:34:05 +0200, Greg Farris >
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.

Thank you. I'd actually done a reply to it, then thought, why bother,
the poster's a fool or an idiot. You have phrased it much more
delicately.

[B A R R Y[_1_]]

Bob Moore wrote:
>
> Notice that John said "aircarriers" not pilots. Pilots are not
> required to have previous entries into an airport.
>
> Bob Moore
> PanAm (retired)


That makes sense.

PanAm? A friend of mine's dad retired from PanAm in the early 80's. He
was a NY based 747 pilot.

[B A R R Y[_1_]]

Jose wrote:
>
> I figured it was probably the mercury lighting from a large industrial
> building. But as we got closer, I realized it was Oxford Airport (OXC).
> The lights in question were probably the lights for the parking area in
> front of the FBO. Now I've filed that little tidbit away. It makes OXC
> much easier to find at night!

That straight line of lights in the middle of a dark area makes a great
visual marker all over Central CT. <G>

[Peter R.]

> wrote:

> And here I was, thinking that airports are generally the darker spots
> in town, when viewed from above :)

While they tend to be, there are exceptions. The Buffalo, NY, airport's
beacon is almost impossible to see at night, at least when coming in from
the east. Instead, I look for the large passenger terminal parking
structure that has more white lights on it than a Christmas tree.

--
Peter

[John Gaquin]

> wrote in message
>
> ... what on
> earth is it that 'airport familiarity' provides that an approach plate
> doesn't?

topography, color, visual angles and cues.

[Newps]

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.

[John Gaquin]

> wrote in message
>
>
> And here I was, thinking that airports are generally the darker spots
> in town, when viewed from above :)

When viewed from above, they usually are. But you almost never view the
airport from above, particularly when you're first looking for it. The
angle of view is often 10 degrees or less, and if the airport is near any
sort of built-up area, the rotating beacon can easily get lost in the
ambient lights.

[John Gaquin]

"Jose" > wrote in message news:jcPIg.12150$%
>
> Just one little addendum; coming back from Block Island there was this
> bright line of lights which I couldn't identify.

Back when I was instructing, I would teach students to look for and key on
such features. Major highway intersections usually have several very bright
merc lamps on very tall standards spaced throughout the area, visible, as
you mentioned, from 50+ miles at altitude. For example, the intersection
in Canton MA where I95 branches south from Rt 128 allowed you to head
direct to OWD from 40-50 miles away, if you knew what you were looking at.

[B A R R Y[_1_]]

Peter R. wrote:
>
> While they tend to be, there are exceptions. The Buffalo, NY, airport's
> beacon is almost impossible to see at night, at least when coming in from
> the east.

HFD is similar from certain directions and altitudes. The beacon gets
totally lost in Hartford's city lights, and the nearby interstate
highways and bridges make it hard to make out shapes of runways.

[Al[_1_]]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Roy Smith wrote:
>> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>
>> In theory, it should be possible on any plane. 14 CFR 23.677 (d) says:
>>
>> "It must be demonstrated that the airplane is safely controllable and
>> that the pilot can perform all maneuvers and operations necessary to
>> effect a safe landing following any probable powered trim system runaway
>> that reasonably might be expected in service, allowing for appropriate
>> time delay after pilot recognition of the trim system runaway. The
>> demonstration must be conducted at critical airplane weights and center
>> of gravity positions."
>
> Like they say, in theory there is no difference between theory and
> practice, in practice there is. :-)
>
> I've never flown an airplane where this wasn't the case, but then I've
> flown fewer than a dozen different airplanes so I was hesitant to say all.
>

In the Lear 24B, this would be a very close thing. In a normal landing,
the trim is run almost completely nose up. An attempted departure at this
setting will get an extreme pitch up starting at about 80 knots, with little
warning in advance. It is possible to control the aircraft, but you will be
pushing with more than 50lbs. Depending on the airspeed you let build, it
may take both pilots. Obviously retrimming is your first option, but if you
departed with the electric trim inop or shut off(there is a switch),
retarding the throttles or a very steep bank are your only options to
maintain control. There is no manual trim wheel. The requirement for trim is
massive as speed builds, which it does very quickly.

Al G

[Darrell S[_1_]]

With us familiarization flights were only required into special fields that
presented real problems if the pilot was not fully aware of them. If they
could be programmed into the flight simulator it was done there.

--
Darrell R. Schmidt
B-58 Hustler History: (see below)
http://members.cox.net/dschmidt1/

"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
. 122...
> 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)

[Al[_1_]]

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> 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.)

Route check.

Al G

[Jose[_1_]]

> There is no manual trim wheel [on the Lear 24B].

Wow. I thought all planes had manual trim wheels. Personally I turn
electric trim off on my spam can when I fly - I much prefer the control
I get from manual trim, though I see that the speed of electric trim can
come in handy on a takeoff if you're not trimmed right.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Emily[_1_]]

Jose wrote:
>> There is no manual trim wheel [on the Lear 24B].
>
> Wow. I thought all planes had manual trim wheels. Personally I turn
> electric trim off on my spam can when I fly - I much prefer the control
> I get from manual trim, though I see that the speed of electric trim can
> come in handy on a takeoff if you're not trimmed right.
>
> Jose

Glad I'm not the only one. I always feel like I can't control it as
well as with manual.