Crashing on takeoff... how odd

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

If the tower cleared the airplane to the correct runway and the pilots
taxied to a different one, how does the tower share in this blame?


ATC will no doubt be assigned a share of the blame. But if the pilot
reports ready to go at the assigned runway when he's actually at a different
one, and there is a Comair at the assigned runway, it's easy for the local
controller to miss the error.

In article ,
Emily wrote:

So explain how more crashes happen on landing than takeoff? Landing
is the more hazardous of the two.
[snip]

Actually, from the safety classes I've taken, already having a problem
doesn't have a thing to do with it.

did those safety classes answer your question?

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

I can see how they got disoriented in the dark (my guess) and I can see how
the tower wouldn't necessarily pick up that they were on the wrong runway,
but I can't understand why the 'WTF is going on here' alarm didn't go off in
the Pilot or Co-pilots head as they were starting a takeoff roll down a 75'
wide runway in poor shape, as opposed to the newer 150' wide runway they
were supposed to be on.
That is, if this is what really happened.
I believe it would be obvious to me if I had my little 172 on a 75' runway
when I expected 150' wide.
We're all armchair quarterbacks at this point.
My heart goes out to the families that lost loved ones.
--
My 2¢ YMMV
Alex
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!

Ramapriya

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

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

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

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

If the tower cleared the airplane to the correct runway and the pilots
taxied to a different one, how does the tower share in this blame?



ATC will no doubt be assigned a share of the blame. But if the pilot
reports ready to go at the assigned runway when he's actually at a different
one, and there is a Comair at the assigned runway, it's easy for the local
controller to miss the error.

I certainly always appreciate when ATC catches a mistake that I make or
am about to make, but as PIC the bottom line is that it is still my
responsibility for any errors, not ATC's.

Matt

Alex Pitschmann wrote:

I can see how they got disoriented in the dark (my guess) and I can see how
the tower wouldn't necessarily pick up that they were on the wrong runway,
but I can't understand why the 'WTF is going on here' alarm didn't go off in
the Pilot or Co-pilots head as they were starting a takeoff roll down a 75'
wide runway in poor shape, as opposed to the newer 150' wide runway they
were supposed to be on.
That is, if this is what really happened.
I believe it would be obvious to me if I had my little 172 on a 75' runway
when I expected 150' wide.
We're all armchair quarterbacks at this point.
My heart goes out to the families that lost loved ones.

I can certainly see how one could taxi to the wrong runway and even line
up on it. But taking off on it is inexcusable. One of the last checks
I was taught to make before firewalling the throttle is to check that
the heading of the airplane matches the runway to which I was cleared
for takeoff. It takes less than two seconds to make this check and it
will catch this error every time.


Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

I can certainly see how one could taxi to the wrong runway and even line
up on it. But taking off on it is inexcusable. One of the last checks I
was taught to make before firewalling the throttle is to check that the
heading of the airplane matches the runway to which I was cleared for
takeoff. It takes less than two seconds to make this check and it will
catch this error every time.


Perhaps they did, and when they found the 40 degree error they reset the
gyro to correct the discrepancy.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

I can certainly see how one could taxi to the wrong runway and even line
up on it. But taking off on it is inexcusable. One of the last checks I
was taught to make before firewalling the throttle is to check that the
heading of the airplane matches the runway to which I was cleared for
takeoff. It takes less than two seconds to make this check and it will
catch this error every time.



Perhaps they did, and when they found the 40 degree error they reset the
gyro to correct the discrepancy.

Well, that would also be a mistake as that isn't the proper reference
for the DG.

Matt