DozyWannabe post 507
I'm curious to know just what on earth the point of your post was. You seemed be doing almost exactly what you were pontificating posters should not do. i.e. wast bandwidth.
Since my post, which I confess was somewhat lateral in its logic, the captain that I was alluding to has been kind enough to PM me, and furthermore, other posters have mentioned what is obviously a reference to his decision making. Getting back on the ground can sometimes be the best action. V1 is not cast in stone.
No, we haven't got all the facts. If we had, there would be only about 30% of this discussion that would be of any point.
There have been some astonishing statements above. Tire marks indicating a flat-ish 'landing'. Astonishing if they are indeed belonging to this aircraft, especially since the failure sounded big enough to detach the tail.
Witnessed un-contained engine failure. There's another. The years that I spent on high tail 2 and 3 engine aircraft, the one thing nagging in the back of my minds was a chaotic disassembly of those close proximity parts. Hydraulic motors to Whipple Trees. They all spell disaster when a bit of hot engine schrapnel goes through their space.
Was there any prior warning of a pending
engine failure? An exact relationship between the return to the pan and the ensuing failure. The link seems so vague.
After 45 years around aircraft, I accept the occasional horror story. What I'm primarily concerned with is the reduction of future accidents. Nothing more than swinging the statistics. They have never been better, let's keep improving the odds.
I would suggest that every professional on the forum has the same goal. Please, please let the Wannabees STOP telling us to wait until the official reports are out. This has been covered sooooooooo many times.