Crashing on takeoff... how odd

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/...0603-0&lang=en

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/...0603-0&lang=en


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

Matt

"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

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/...0603-0&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.

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" 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

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
. 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.

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.

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

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

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.