Crashing on takeoff... how odd

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.

Well looks like a terrible mistake if he took off on 26 instead of 22:
CRJ200 ER
FAR take-off field length (SL, ISA) at MTOW 5,800 ft 1,768 m
FAR 121 landing field length (SL) at MLW 4,850 ft 1,479 m

CRJ200 LR
FAR take-off field length (SL, ISA) at MTOW 6,290 ft 1,918 m
FAR landing field length (SL) at MLW 4,850 ft 1,479 m


These came from the factory website, looks like he needed allot more runway.

Ronald Gardner wrote:

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.

Ronald Gardner wrote:
Well looks like a terrible mistake if he took off on 26 instead of 22:
CRJ200 ER
FAR take-off field length (SL, ISA) at MTOW 5,800 ft 1,768 m
FAR 121 landing field length (SL) at MLW 4,850 ft 1,479 m

CRJ200 LR
FAR take-off field length (SL, ISA) at MTOW 6,290 ft 1,918 m
FAR landing field length (SL) at MLW 4,850 ft 1,479 m

I strongly suspect that 6,290 figure is the length of runway for the
plane to accelerate to V1, take a engine cut, and stop on the runway
using only brakes, with no credit for reverse thrust. The distance for
a nominal takeoff roll is much shorter.

So sad . . . my prayers for the families of the folks on board,
passengers and crew.

John

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

"Greg Farris" wrote in message
...

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.


He got it backward. Only a fool would speculate on the cause of an airplane
crash AFTER the facts are known.