BENNETT123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7078 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3315 times:
I know that there were suggestions on this forum that the aircraft did not use the full runway length. Was this possibility confirmed or refuted, or is it still open. The possibility of the load shifting was also suggested.
Okie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2822 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3225 times:
Thanks for the heads up Yukimizake.
The TSB of Canada is very meticulate the best I can tell. Even if the "holy grail" of the cause of the accident is immediately evident on the FDR the TSB is not going to announce the cause until all facts are in and examined related or not to the accident.
As in the case of the weight of the cargo, the load sheet would be immediately available and I am sure that the TSB went to great lengths to be sure the actual weight matched that of the reported on the load sheet therefore the delay in announcing the results. Sort of surprised me that they announced that as soon as they did.
The possibility of the of the load shift or cargo being loaded incorrectly in relation to CoG can be determined from the FDR (as in 3 degree input to the elevator and the plane pivots 10 degrees as an example) The full runway length can be extrapolated as well. Since we do not have the information available we will just have to go with arm chair speculation. Maybe they can get some information off the CVR that was damaged, it is always interesting to see what flight deck dynamics, for lack of a better phrase, are taking place in the cockpit before an accident.