Most airports are like that. Performance numbers are supposed to guarantee terrain clearance in the event of an engine failure, but in this case, it's clear that there was more damage and the crew was doomed.
It was obviously a mechanical issue, but it could be a manufacture's defect, a poorly written or documented maintenance procedure, human error, etc. Can't really assign blame at this point, that is what the NTSB will ultimately do.
Yes, but some runways have an extended area (I forget what it's called) that slows down the plane if they overshoot the runway. It looks like a dirt/cement mix that the tires get bogged up within. This runway had no such area. Once you get to V1 you're committed.
That's called EMAS. At V1, you're going flying unless you know for sure the airplane can't fly.
not a new plane so your claim of manufacturer defect does not hold water
It doesn't matter. Airworthiness directives and service bulletins are released all the time for things that are discovered decades later. In fact, an AD was just issued in January for the MD-11 Fleet for an uncommanded thrust reverser deployment issue.
I won't pretend to know how the engines are fastened to the wing, but there have been issues with faulty parts, faulty procedures, etc, that go undiscovered for years. Alaska 261 crashed because of a combination of these factors. That was on an 8 year old airplane that had logged over 20,000 hours before.
I say this respectfully, but you don't really have a clue what you are talking about. It could, in fact, be incompetents or carelessness, or a number of other things. This why there are investigations from the NTSB.
I know. I was just asking in regard to this specific situation. Past V1 they had no choice whether or not they thought they could fly. Too many buildings nearby. I was just wondering what if....
I saw an X/Twitter post where someone mentioned it reminded them of the AA crash in late 1970s which I think was the deadliest crash in American aviation history? Engine fell off too on takeoff, and they showed the comparison photo of the rogue engine just sitting by itself on runway. I had to Wiki it to see what happened, but in that case, American Airlines had invented some new repair procedure that bypassed the usual safety procedures on connecting engines. Got it from 100 cables to 30 cables to save time.
6 weeks of maintenance sounds serious
It's just such a red flag. What did they do in these 6 weeks? Were engines part of it? Wouldn't you check everything in 6 weeks? I have no idea.
low quality or counterfeit parts or a screwup by maintenance
Well of course they are. I'm an X heavy gambler. If I came out of retirement I'd put a boatload on that time it was in San Antonio as the reason for the crash. I could be wrong.
It's pretty routine. They're called heavy checks. Every large transport plane has routine maintenance like this, based on flight time/cycles/months,years, etc. I believe this was a C check.
It could be a number of things, as I have said before: bad procedure, bad parts, careless maintenance, etc. The NTSB will figure it out.
