A little duct tape and she'll be able to be ferried right back to Oscoda.
A little duct tape and she'll be able to be ferried right back to Oscoda.
As usual, something must come out wrong with the news.The aircraft cracked in two after it crashed at the end of runway 220, which lies very close to a rail line and houses.
Steve,
I guess its just my background as a military/civil aircraft accident investigator. You should NEVER speculate on the cause of an aircraft accident without SOME evidential justification.
Because early speculation usually proves false and some guys tend to get married to their theory, ignoring other evidence
Whenever I see someone speculate on the cause of an aircraft accident based on the evidence you had at the time, it only reinforces their lack of credibility.
Nothing personal, mind you, but professional aviators know better than to go down that road.
Steve,
I guess its just my background as a military/civil aircraft accident investigator. You should NEVER speculate on the cause of an aircraft accident without SOME evidential justification.
Because early speculation usually proves false and some guys tend to get married to their theory, ignoring other evidence
Whenever I see someone speculate on the cause of an aircraft accident based on the evidence you had at the time, it only reinforces their lack of credibility.
Nothing personal, mind you, but professional aviators know better than to go down that road.
You think you can stop <.....> for a second <...>? He did nothing wrong. This is a FORUM of pilots and the like. Maybe his "speculation" will spark some valuable conversation about the dangers of high speed aborts. He is not an accident investigator nor is he a talking head on a network show. He is an anonymous avatar on one tube of the internets. Lighten up.I can't believe you're speculating on a cause from the info presented.
Don't do that.
Why not? I haven't made any judgements, just some idle speculating about what may have happened. I could see the validity of your complaint if I were second guessing pilots' actions, but I'm not sure I see the problem with what I've said so far.
Just looking for clarification, not an argument.![]()
This wreck spurred my curiousity with something. Please forgive if it is a stupid question. I am NOT speculation regarding this accident, just a question.
What happens, in a three or four engined airplane, of you lose more than one engine after V1? Is V1 calculated to just the loss of one? If V1 is calculated for the loss of one, what happens between V1 and Vr in a Whale of MD-11 if you lose more than one?
This wreck spurred my curiousity with something. Please forgive if it is a stupid question. I am NOT speculation regarding this accident, just a question.
What happens, in a three or four engined airplane, of you lose more than one engine after V1? Is V1 calculated to just the loss of one? If V1 is calculated for the loss of one, what happens between V1 and Vr in a Whale of MD-11 if you lose more than one?
Depends on...for us (the C-5) if it is a fairly light airplane, it will still be flyable, albeit barely. Now if you are loaded up heading across the pond, then you are probably screwed. The C-5 that crashed in Dover (basically heavy and on 2 engines) they could have made the runway if they had the correct flap setting on the approach. Now, they didn't lose the engine(s) on take off, but you can google the crash and read all about it. It is still considered "privileged" information so although the information is readily available, I *personally* can't discuss the mishap.