Kalitta Air 747 Crash..

[Velocipede]

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.

[SteveC]

Originally Posted by Velocipede

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.

I can see your point...for an investigator. Preconceptions are bad for someone actually involved in the investigation.

Me, I'm just a pilot (with no real credibility anyway) so I'm thinking a little idle speculation just might get some brain cells firing, exercising some little used cognitive abilities (if actually existent), and maybe get some other people thinking about the possibilities of what could/did/might go wrong. Who knows, it might even spark a discussion about aviation.

As long as my speculation is not casting aspersions on the actions or skills of the pilots involved, where's the harm? The worst thing that I can see happening is that I'm wrong.

Wouldn't be the first time.

[Flyin_bryan]

I agree speculation is a bad thing.

However, when its purpose is to get a student pilot (all pilots) thinking what could have caused such an accident, and how to avoid what happened, then it has some merrit.

Also, letting joe public know that airplanes do not just fall out of the sky has its merrits as well.

I cannot tell you how many times passengers ask me about accidents and crashes.

I assure them aviation is not inheriently dangerous, but with the proper combination of circumstances and/or mechanical failures accidents can occur, just like an automobile. If they prompt me more I will give them tid bits of "what might have occured".

Full investigations take a long time to come to a conclusion, but for the mean time we can all be investigators trying to avoid anyting that may have caused an accident and keeping ourselves aware. Just don't take it too far "oh this and this happened and I know for a fact".

the article quotes authorities stating a situation where the aircraft was trying to takeoff, so at some point in time this was indeed an aborted takeoff.

[WacoFan]

Originally Posted by Velocipede

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.

Velo - Accident investigation has always been something I have been interested in. My Grandfather investigated a TWA mid-air in Ohio in the 60's and it was fascinating to look through the box of stuff he had regarding that. What kinds of accidents have you investigated? Have you gotten some satisfaction from the work? What prepared you to be an investigator? Thanks in advance!

[Mike734]

Originally Posted by Velocipede

I can't believe you're speculating on a cause from the info presented.

Don't do that.

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.

[Maurus]

Originally Posted by SteveC

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.

I think people are looking for an argument from the get go lately.

[germb747]

Thank God no one was seriously hurt. The investigators will get to the bottom of this relatively soon; in the meantime, speculation helps no one and the best policy is to say nothing, especially to the news media, since they will twist what you say and spread more mis-information. And quite frankly, unless you were there, you don't have a clue what happened other than what you see on these forums and what you hear on TV or through the rumor mill (which is mostly B.S.)

[Boris Badenov]

The only thing more certain than "what goes up must come down" is "when something comes back down and metal gets bent, there will be a flamewar regarding speculation on the cause". I tend to agree with those who say "wait for the experts to decide", so I don't do it. But really, people are going to talk. Not participating is a lot better than getting bent out of shape about it.

[Velocipede]

Germ has got the point exactly right. This is a public forum. It is populated by pilots with differing levels of experience. You take an accident and publicly speculate what caused it.

Next thing you know the press has it. "Informed sources say the accident was caused by an aborted takeoff."

Turns out it was something completely different. Unfortunately, 8 weeks later, the press isn't interested anymore and the correction never sees the light of day.

All people remember is that initial report based on an "informed source" who was completely wrong...and the crew's reputation is tarnished even if they did everything by the book.

Sorry, I just don't like speculation about aircraft accidents. Call it a personal hangup, I guess.

[Kingairer]

I hear there were Navy Ships doing exercises just off final approach.

[CirrusMonkey]

Steve, for what it is worth, I think you have a valid point......

[WacoFan]

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?

[germb747]

Originally Posted by WacoFan

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?

You're screwed!

[GalaxyIFE]

Originally Posted by WacoFan

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.

[germb747]

Originally Posted by GalaxyIFE

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.

I seriously doubt it, GalaxyIFE, unless maybe you're talking about symmetrical engines and a 400K jet in cold weather at sea level. But even then nothing is guaranteed by your data and you're just a test pilot at that point. Besides, the C-5 is an underpowered airplane as it is. If you're talking about two engines on the same side of the airplane failing after V1, you may as well kiss your a$$ goodbye. Why do I say that? What is "go" speed in the example I gave--maybe 104 KCAS? What's two engine Vmca? There you go

[TallFlyer]

Sad... I was on that exact aircraft many times as a load here in ANC. Sad to see it in such sorry shape. Also glad the crew is OK; whatever your opinions on their company the guys (and ocassional gal) I met were always top notch......

Now, their ride-on mechanics could certainly shower more often, but that's a whole other issue!