A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Crashing on takeoff... how odd



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 27th 06, 07:00 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Ronald Gardner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7
Default Crashing on takeoff... how odd

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.


  #2  
Old August 27th 06, 07:21 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Ronald Gardner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7
Default Crashing on takeoff... how odd

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.


  #3  
Old August 27th 06, 08:00 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
John[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 101
Default Crashing on takeoff... how odd


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

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
UAV's and TFR's along the Mexico boarder John Doe Piloting 145 March 31st 06 06:58 PM
Approaches and takeoff mins. jamin3508 Instrument Flight Rules 22 September 14th 05 02:51 AM
Landing and T/O distances (Was Cold War ALternate Basing) Guy Alcala Military Aviation 3 August 13th 04 12:18 PM
Overweight takeoff / flight Koopas Ly Piloting 50 December 3rd 03 11:53 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.