Basil and twisted,
Please see the previous threads before telling us all how impeccably the crew behaved, and how the weight was of no consequence.
Whether or not the excessive weight (way more than a tonne once they were dealing with the tailwind) may have been a factor is a question that's been hotly disputed by those with greater expertise than I, but most agree that the crew's failure to ensure that they met the legalities of MTOW and RTOW represented a fairly major breach of good practise, and marked a significant failure to exercise their professional responsibilities. They knowingly taxied out and took off above the maximum structural weight (let alone RTOW) and then failed to recalculate RTOW in the event of the wind changing from a headwind to an eight knot tailwind. This is much worse than the misapplication of formulae used to calculate baggage weights. Moreover, the FE's independent decision to shut down an engine is also worthy of comment and question, if not outright condemnation.
I would be the first to decry the regrettable (and unfortunately common) practise of blaming dead aircrew for an accident - but would be equally vociferous if mistakes or poor practise were to be covered up in the name of 'maintaining reputations' or not upsetting grieving families.
NO-ONE IS CONDEMNING CAPTAIN MARTY OR HIS CREW - though some of us are asking questions about some of their actions. Mistakes and poor decision making may be inevitable in extreme circumstances, and are not a matter for gloating or condemnation, but may be a matter for consideration and deliberation, and certainly for questions and analysis. And do you think a man with the obvious character of Marty (see some moving posts on previous threads by people who knew him) would not want others to benefeit from an analysis of all the factors in this terrible tragedy?
And while it's legitimate to accuse anyone who asks about Marty's handling of the emergency after take off (speed, height control, turn rate, timing of the turn) of speculation, it is also speculation to suggest that "the plane just became unflyable as the flames burned away the control surfaces." There is no hard evidence to support this hypothesis, I'm afraid. And I thought that a plane was a carpentry tool?
BTW, Basil, mate, before you start condemning ATPL's as being "just not qualified to make such comments, their only technical knowledge coming from ATPL textbooks" may I point out that you leave yourself open to provoking equally infantile and over-generalistic comments about 'illiterate' engineers. Is libel really such a hard one to spell?
