Crashing on takeoff... how odd

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

In article . com,
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

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.

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!

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.