Accident at Halifax

This forum has been developed to discuss aviation related topics.

Moderators: lilfssister, North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, I WAS Birddog

Rebel
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1552
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:43 pm

Post by Rebel »

Fowler has said the jet used all but the first 60 metres of its runway during takeoff. But he has also said that under ideal circumstances, the shortened run would have given the aircraft more than enough room to take off.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
gelbisch
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1095
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 5:49 am
Location: Guelph, ON

Post by gelbisch »

complexintentions wrote:Sure, but if that speed can't be reached because (for example) you tried to take off 1000 feet down a runway that may have been too short, it really won't matter in the slightest how accurately you measured the weight of your payload...
i understand what you're saying... but my point was that the numbers they were using must have been based on how heavy they thought they were. the latest i've heard is that they did in fact use the whole runway... if that's the case and they were too heavy, it'd obviously be a huge factor.

however... it'd have to be a pretty significant overweight condition, given all the built-in margins and whatnot. the stuff we've heard about engine difficulties seems more likely.

anyway... starting to venture into blatant speculation, so my comments are bordering on irrelevant! nothing we can do but wait to see what the experts deduce...
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “General Comments”