Hmm, yes, Rockhound.
The berm looks to be some four or five metres high and the light posts perhaps another 1.5m. In many other airports from which cargo aircraft operate there are houses 300m from the threshold.
Been thinking about recent posts re whether the aircraft was airborne or not. One, that from the tyre tracks up the berm it was quite obviously not airborne enough and that the efforts to lift off by raising the nose, scraping the tail, may have, through the resulting loss of speed, contributed to her finally not being able to clear the berm.
As to the possible gear tracks beyond the berm, I just can't see any trace from the photo Hobie posted. Either before or after the berm. And I'd expect that the impact of that centre gear, then the rear fuselage, hitting the berm, would be sufficient to punch the gear up into the fuselage and send the aircraft on a huge bounce that only ended where the woods begin or shortly before; that darker area 4/5ths of the way from the berm to the woods may be scorched grass where the first impact after the bounce from the berm occurred. Or it may be just an area where the grass wasn't growing before, cindered perhaps. I really don't think it's worth much speculation.
I think we have to draw back from all this discussion of the berm (remembering it is quite a distance from the end of the runway) and, considering that the aircraft wasn't overloaded, that it used the full runway length, that Halifax is not an unfamiliar stop for cargo crews, let the investigation team come up with its detailed findings. Those findings will include the crew's duty hours prior to Halifax and then, if there's justification, people can start using this accident as a means to draw attention to and, if necessary, correct the system.
Last edited by broadreach; 1st Dec 2004 at 09:39.