Crashing on takeoff... how odd

wrote in message

Fwiw, at 6.15 am, which is when I leave for work, my C240's auto
headlights don't come on. That must translate into adequate enough
daylight at that time of the day here in Dubai!

If your lights don't come on at 0615, then it is surely light enough. But
bear this in mind: Lexington, KY, is near the western edge of Time Zone R,
known as Eastern (Daylight) Time. Being at the western edge, the entire
span of daylight will be skewed a bit later than nominal for that time zone.
Dubai, on the other hand, is at the extreme eastern side of Time Zone C,
Middle East Time. In point of fact, Dubai is geographically located well
into Time Zone D, although it appears the entire UAE uses the UTC +3 of Zone
C. Being at the extreme eastern edge of your zone, your daylight span will
be substantially skewed toward the earlier range of the clock.

Consequently, sunrise on August 27 occurred at 0457 in Dubai, but 0704 in
Lexington, KY.

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 04:23:04 GMT, john smith wrote in
:

In article . com,
wrote:

Alex Pitschmann wrote:
I can see how they got disoriented in the dark (my guess)

Dark at 38N at 7am in Aug??

Yes, LEX is on the western edge of the Eastern Time Zone.
Sunrise is just before 7 AM. The aircraft departed about 6:04 AM.

It would seem that is correct:

http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/RS_OneDay.html
U.S. Naval Observatory
Astronomical Applications Department


Sun and Moon Data for One Day
The following information is provided for Lexington, Fayette
County, Kentucky (longitude W84.5, latitude N38.1):

Sunday
27 August 2006 Eastern Daylight Time

SUN
Begin civil twilight 6:36 a.m.
Sunrise 7:03 a.m.
Sun transit 1:39 p.m.
Sunset 8:15 p.m.
End civil twilight 8:42 p.m.

MOON
Moonset 9:33 p.m. on preceding day
Moonrise 10:34 a.m.
Moon transit 4:19 p.m.
Moonset 9:54 p.m.
Moonrise 11:34 a.m. on following day


Phase of the Moon on 27 August: waxing crescent with 13% of the
Moon's visible disk illuminated.

New Moon on 23 August 2006 at 3:10 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time.

wrote in message
ups.com...
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!

Getting cross-wise with a twin following an engine failure is easy if you're
not "On your game".

I remember back when I was working on my Lear type (first time I had ever
flown a jet). I was given a V1 cut and, while I had the airplane under
control, I was about 30 degrees off runway heading, screaming over the
planes in the tiedown area at 100 feet or so. I got better after that.....

Bob Gardner

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ups.com...
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!

Getting cross-wise with a twin following an engine failure is easy if
you're not "On your game".

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


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!

Ramapriya

After looking at the photo of the runway on google earth, I saw
something that I think is interesting on runway 26 compared to runway
22. The number markings for 22 are at the far end of the runway,
pretty much at the end of the taxiway such that you would have to read
the numbers from the side and as you turn onto the runway the numbers
would be off to the right of the aircraft. On runway 22 the numbers
are in front of the taxiway. After turning on to runway 22, you would
have the numbers clearly laid out in front of you, oriented correctly
with respect to your view down the runway and illuminated by the
landing lights.
I know that with the last night flight I did it was difficult to read
the numbers at night and even harder when you have to read them from
the side and no direct light onthem fromthe aircraft.
Just an observation and I am not saying that this would have helped
but I think it would be a good thing if once you are in position for
takeoff, you can see the numbers clearly in front of the aircraft. Or
at least as you are getting into position to cross over the numbers,
instead of having them off to the side some distance away.

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 21:45:42 -0400,
wrote:

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


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!

Ramapriya

After looking at the photo of the runway on google earth, I saw
something that I think is interesting on runway 26 compared to runway
22. The number markings for 22 are at the far end of the runway,
pretty much at the end of the taxiway such that you would have to read
the numbers from the side and as you turn onto the runway the numbers
would be off to the right of the aircraft. On runway 22 the numbers
are in front of the taxiway. After turning on to runway 22, you would
have the numbers clearly laid out in front of you, oriented correctly
with respect to your view down the runway and illuminated by the
landing lights.
I know that with the last night flight I did it was difficult to read
the numbers at night and even harder when you have to read them from
the side and no direct light onthem fromthe aircraft.
Just an observation and I am not saying that this would have helped
but I think it would be a good thing if once you are in position for
takeoff, you can see the numbers clearly in front of the aircraft. Or
at least as you are getting into position to cross over the numbers,
instead of having them off to the side some distance away.


I need to make a correction.. the second sentence should read
"The number markings for 26..."

After looking at the photo of the runway on google earth, I saw
something that I think is interesting on runway 26 compared to runway
22. The number markings for 22 are at the far end of the runway,
pretty much at the end of the taxiway such that you would have to read
the numbers from the side and as you turn onto the runway the numbers
would be off to the right of the aircraft. On runway 22 the numbers
are in front of the taxiway. After turning on to runway 22, you would
have the numbers clearly laid out in front of you, oriented correctly
with respect to your view down the runway and illuminated by the
landing lights.
I know that with the last night flight I did it was difficult to read
the numbers at night and even harder when you have to read them from
the side and no direct light onthem fromthe aircraft.
Just an observation and I am not saying that this would have helped
but I think it would be a good thing if once you are in position for
takeoff, you can see the numbers clearly in front of the aircraft. Or
at least as you are getting into position to cross over the numbers,
instead of having them off to the side some distance away.

You are correct (with your correction of the second sentence to RWY
26) but shouldn't there be illuminated signage for the runway
numbers?

Ron Lee

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 02:07:56 GMT, (Ron Lee)
wrote:


You are correct (with your correction of the second sentence to RWY
26) but shouldn't there be illuminated signage for the runway
numbers?

Ron Lee


Absolutely. Right there at the hold short line. But crossing over the
the runway numbers might help as a second check.
But the signage and the runway numbers would not have mattered if the
pilot and co-pilot already had it set in their minds that 26 was the
correct runway.

Google earth will also let you notice the thresholds for both runways
are on the same line of sight from the tower.

Aen't all airline pilots required to operate from the field before they
carry passengers from it?

What an awful mistake, and a more awful price to have paid for it.

(Tony" wrote)
Aen't all airline pilots required to operate from the field before they
carry passengers from it?


I've never heard of this before.


Montblack