Crashing on takeoff... how odd

"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.

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.

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

In article ,
wrote:

Early reports indicate that the plane tookoff (or failed to takeoff as
the case may be) on the wrong runway,a runway that was too short.

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

"john 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.

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?

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.

In article
,
says...


In article ,
wrote:


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

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

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

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

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

GF

wrote 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.

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