Crashing on takeoff... how odd

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
. ..

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.

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.

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 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

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

On 27 Aug 2006 08:39:44 -0700, wrote in
. com:

I was mentioning
how illogical a crash-shortly-after-takeoff is, given that beyond V1
takeoff can safely be continued even with just one good engine.

I once witnessed a Cessna C-172 crash on takeoff at Santa Monica
Airport (KSMO) in the early '70s. The aircraft rotated, and rocketed
skyward at a very high angle, stalled, and nosed into the runway. The
pilot escaped with a broken finger. The cause was a result of the
trim being set wrong. Don't forget your check list.

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.

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

Larry Dighera wrote:

I once witnessed a Cessna C-172 crash on takeoff at Santa Monica
Airport (KSMO) in the early '70s. The aircraft rotated, and rocketed
skyward at a very high angle, stalled, and nosed into the runway. The
pilot escaped with a broken finger. The cause was a result of the
trim being set wrong. Don't forget your check list.

Full nose up trim is immediately apparent on the application of power.

Mmmm, that sounds like the voice of experience.

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

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

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

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

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

Larry Dighera wrote:



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.