Air France crash landing

[Asher]

Originally posted by Bereta_Eder
they're gonna start an invesigation about the canucks. seems they screwed up big time by allowing the plane to land in such horrible conditions. thank god noone had to pay for their notorious idiocy airbus

From what I heard it's up to the pilot's discretion. They didn't ban landing at the time, but the pilot could've gone to Montreal or Ottawa instead as he had enough fuel. Other planes (including Air Canada planes) had done this. Others remained in a holding pattern until the weather cleared up.

The Air France plane was in a holding pattern for 15 minutes and then thought the weather was fine to land.

[Asher]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0508040223aug04,1,3166363.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true

Jetliner pilot could have flown elsewhere
Lightning had Toronto airport on `red alert'

By Rob Gillies
Associated Press
Published August 4, 2005

TORONTO -- Toronto's airport was under "red alert" because of the threat of lightning when an Air France jetliner landed in a fierce rainstorm despite having enough fuel to reach another airport -- a decision that was made by the pilot, airport authorities said Wednesday.

Investigators searching the wreckage of the Airbus A340 found the flight data and voice recorders, the so-called black boxes, said Steve Shaw, spokesman for the Greater Toronto Airports Authority.

Officials hope the recorders will provide clues to what caused the aircraft to skid off a runway Tuesday at Pearson International Airport and burst into flames.

All 309 passengers and crew escaped alive in an evacuation that took less than two minutes. Air France said 22 people were injured; airport officials said 43 were hurt.

The wreckage of the jetliner -- torn into three pieces -- still smoldered Wednesday.

Brian Lackey, vice president of operations for the Greater Toronto Airports Authority, said Wednesday that the jetliner had enough fuel to divert to Montreal or another airport where the weather was better but "that's the pilot's decision."

The airport was under a "red alert," which indicates potential for lightning but does not prevent planes from landing or taking off, officials said.

Lackey said airport workers were struck by the severity of the storm.

"As we were looking out the window we were commenting that [the] storm was extremely severe," Lackey said. "Normally if there are thunderstorms in the area, a pilot may decide to circle until it's safe to land."

Airport Fire Chief Mike Figliola said three-quarters of the passengers and crew managed to escape in the 52 seconds it took for emergency crews to arrive.

"The crew did a great job, they're trained to get the people off," Figliola said.

At Air France headquarters in Roissy, France, airline Chairman Jean-Cyril Spinetta also praised the flight crew.

"I don't know if we should speak of a miracle ... but above all the professionalism of the crew," Spinetta said.

He said the co-pilot, who was in charge of the landing, had 10,700 hours of flying time and the pilot had 15,000 hours.

Spinetta said Air France bought the aircraft new in September 1999. It was last serviced July 15 and had logged 28,418 flight-hours and 3,711 takeoffs and landings.

Spinetta said it was too early to determine the cause of the crash, the first of an Airbus A340 in its 13 years of commercial service.

[Winston]

How does a plane 'log 3,711 takeoffs and landings' - unless it's in mid-air at the time of the logging?

And why does anyone still take the time and effort to reply seriously to anyting paiktis posts?

[chequita guevara]

The last time it came down, it crashed. I don't think they count that as a successful landing.

[Asher]

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/08/05/plane-runway050805.html

Jet landed farther than usual along runway: board
Last Updated Fri, 05 Aug 2005 10:02:44 EDT
CBC News

Air France Flight 358 landed farther down its runway at Pearson International Airport than is usual for that type of airplane before it shot into a ravine and burst into flames, the Transportation Safety Board said Friday.

"We have indications that he did land perhaps a bit long on the runway," lead investigator Réal Levasseur told reporters at a briefing on Tuesday's crash in Toronto.

Levasseur said tire marks from the Airbus 340-300 are visible on "at least the last 1,600 feet" of Runway 24L, which is 9,000 feet long.

That doesn't mean the plane did not touch down earlier on the rain-wet runway, though. The investigator said tire marks from other aircraft using the runway earlier make it difficult to confirm which wheel patterns belong to the Air France jet past the 1,600-foot mark.

Some witnesses have said Flight 358 touched down halfway down the runway, leaving it with not enough space to come to a stop. It ended up 200 metres off the runway, nose down in a wooded ravine.

Levasseur said an aircraft the size of the Airbus 340-300 would not have needed the full 9,000-foot length of the runway to come to a safe stop.

"Aircraft can land well short of that distance," he said, depending on their weight and mechanical condition, as well as the state of the runway and the weather conditions.

Air safety expert Jim Stewart has told CBC News that the investigation should look at the possibility that the torrential rain left a dangerous slick of water on the runway that the plane's pilot didn't expect.

"If you're going off the end of a long runway at that speed, certainly I would be looking into the possibility of hydroplaning," he said. "Basically what that means is there's a film of water between the wheels and the surface of the runway and your wheels aren't making contact."

The plane touched down at a speed of about 140 knots, or 260 km/h. When it sped off the runway into the ravine seconds later, it was travelling at a speed of about 80 knots or 150 km/h.

At Friday's briefing, Levasseur also said the board does not believe the plane was hit by lightning as it landed, as some witnesses have suggested. There are no pit marks on the wings or wing tips that would suggest that kind of damage, he said.

"That doesn't mean that there wasn't a lightning strike, but we don't have any evidence at this time," he said.

The dramatic crash landing Tuesday injured 43 of the 309 people on board the flight from Paris, but nobody died in the accident. Less than a dozen of the injured passengers and crew members were still in hospital as of Thursday.

[rah]

He said the co-pilot, who was in charge of the landing, had 10,700 hours of flying time and the pilot had 15,000 hours.

Hmmm, the pilot makes the decision to land under questionable circumstances and then let's the less experienced co-pilot handle it. Delegation at its best.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher
From what I heard it's up to the pilot's discretion.

Yup, its always up to the pilot to decide whether to land or not, except when there's an obstacle on the runway.

Second guessing at this point is stupid because we don't have all the facts. It might be that there was an equipment malfunction, or maybe the pilot was given the wrong information or maybe the pilot didn't have enough information.

One area that will have to be examined is the lack of doppler radar, which can detect microbursts, at the airport. Apparently, the only doppler radar is about 30 km away from Lester Pearson airport.

From the IHT:

The Canadian government decided years ago not to require a special radar system that can warn immediately of sudden wind shifts and dangerous blasts at the Toronto airport where an Air France jet crash-landed Tuesday, according to Canadian officials and U.S. weather scientists who developed the system.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/08/04/news/radar.php

[Ecthy]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The last time it came down, it crashed. I don't think they count that as a successful landing.

Either that or it's each not combined.

[Winston]

It's now being reported here, quoting Radio-Canada, that a woman from Toronto who was on the plane is suing - on behalf of all 297 passengers - Air France, the airport authorities and the flight navigators for negligence, in the amount of 75 million Canadian dollars.

That's incredible, even though I suppose it was what one would expect. Hey moron, you got away from this alive, shouldn't that be the thing to focus on. And where exactly is the damage done to you that would justify such an outrageous claim.

How about the pilots and other crew who likely facilitated the 100% survival rate, shouldn't someone sue them as well for depriving Toronto undertakers of their livelihood, or whatever pathetic grounds can be thought up.

Jeez.

[:) Smiley]

I didnt know you guys were so lawsuit happy outside of the United States...