Originally Posted by
NMuir
Regarding the deer incident, it was after V1 I am assuming?
There was obviously damage to the wing as it was leaking fuel on the landing.
My question is this (and I currently fly a 172)....
Obviously after V1 if you abort you're going to end up in the dirt or the trees. However, if something damages your wing on the roll, would getting airborne also be hazardous due to the potential of catastrophic damage to the airframe from the strike?
In other words, is it better to knowingly put it into the dirt or trees instead of risk getting airborne and having no control?
In this situation they did the right thing because the damage was not catastrophic and they were able to make a go-around. But what if the wing had been damaged to the point of not being flyable?
I am curious and would like to learn more.
I don't know the details, but consider this...did they see the deer? Did they even know they hit a deer (I'm sure they felt something)? Did they think it was possibly something else, like a blown tire?
In the split second that it happened, it would be impossible recognize what happened, assess the damage (damage that was not visible to them), and determine if it warranted rejecting the takeoff after V1 (something they are trained not to do except in the extremest of circumstances).
It's very easy to play Monday morning quarterback. Leave that to the media and their "experts".
Edit: I just re-read this and it sounded a little harsh at the end. My disdain is for the media.