My believe is that perhaps a bit "short" calculations (thrust for VR) had something to do with the accident being "unavoidable" after other factors (i.e. failure to select proper flaps angle or deploy slats) made it already hair-thin hard to avoid it. The airplane could've easily been a bit heavier than estimated, air density a bit lower, tail wind a bit heavier, taking a bit longer to reach V1-VR and using more airstrip. Once on VR, the plane took longer to leave the ground due to the wing configuration.
Perhaps by the time they realized it and try to correct the situation, it was too late and engines didn't have time to go from slightly "underthrust" to "full thrust" (if at all commanded after stall alarms) at such (lowish) air speed/temperature/conditions.
How "responsive" are those engines? How many seconds would you say they can take on those conditions to, say, increase thrust from 65% to 75% if firewalled at near stall speeds?
If the airplane takes off w/o slats and/or (way off) flaps on ground effect but on correct thrust calculations, is it unavoidable (for a heavy-ish plane) to hit the ground if you react quickly to the stall alarm? (nose down, flaps 15, full thrust at 30º).
Last edited by justme69; 28th Aug 2008 at 01:00.