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