Tweet
Air France sues over crash
Says Pearson runway lacks safety margins
Jun 04, 2008 04:30 AM
Bruce Campion-Smith
Ottawa Bureau Chief
OTTAWA–Pearson International Airport's newest runway lacks proper safety margins and falls short of international standards, Air France alleges in a lawsuit following the dramatic 2005 crash of one of its jets at the site.
The French airline and its insurers are suing the Greater Toronto Airports Authority, which runs Pearson, the federal government and the country's air-traffic control agency for some $180 million, charging they all cut corners that contributed to the crash of its Airbus A340 jet.
The airline takes aim at the airport operator, saying the design of Runway 24 Left – which ends at a steep ravine – failed to ensure there was an "adequate margin of safety for aircraft in the event of an overrun event."
It also says in a statement of claim filed with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice that "GTAA failed to provide a safe environment for the conduct of civil air operations."
Flight 358 arriving from Paris was battered by a violent thunderstorm just as it touched down on Aug. 2, 2005. Going too fast, it ran off the rain-slicked runway and into the ravine, where it broke apart and burst into flames.
All 297 passengers and 12 crew survived the accident but 33 people were taken to hospital – two crew members and 10 passengers were admitted to hospital with serious injuries. Many more have struggled with memories of the incident.
In its lawsuit, Air France pins the blame on the Greater Toronto Airports Authority, Nav Canada and the individual air-traffic controllers who guided the big jet to the airport in the fateful minutes before the crash.
"The overrun and the consequent injuries to persons and damage to property were caused solely by the negligence of the defendants," the statement of claim says.
While Runway 24 Left was only opened in 2002, an adjacent runway was the site of a fatal accident in 1978 when an Air Canada jet ran into the steep ravine leading down to Etobicoke Creek, killing two people and seriously injuring 47 others.
An investigation into that accident found the "ravine beyond the overrun area left no additional margin for error and contributed to a high casualty rate."
Air France says Transport Canada was "negligent" by not implementing the recommendations of a coroner's inquest into the 1978 crash that urged the creation of a 300-metre safety area to give aircraft more room to stop after landing.
It also charges that the airport failed to install an apron of special concrete designed to quickly slow aircraft unable to stop on the runway. And it notes that the runway lacks grooves to help carry away rainwater and improve braking.
Transport Canada estimates the potential penalties in the lawsuit at $180 million, plus any damages awarded passengers in an ongoing class-action suit, according to a department briefing note obtained by an Ottawa researcher under Access to Information.
But in its defence, the federal government says Air France knew that runway runoff areas "are not standard in Canada" and noted the airline operated from Pearson for "many years" before the crash.
"Air France has continued to operate flights including those by A340 aircraft on Runway 24L since the said incident," the government says in its statement of defence.
Federal officials point the finger at the pilots, saying the crew failed to calculate a safe landing distance, despite reports thunderstorms were expected at the time of landing.
An investigation by the Transportation Safety Board of Canada concluded last December that the jet touched down almost halfway down the 2,740-metre runway and was still travelling at almost 150 km/h when it went off the runway.
Officials with both the GTAA and Nav Canada refused to comment yesterday on the lawsuit. However, both insisted that their respective agencies are running a safe operation at Pearson.
Says Pearson runway lacks safety margins
Jun 04, 2008 04:30 AM
Bruce Campion-Smith
Ottawa Bureau Chief
OTTAWA–Pearson International Airport's newest runway lacks proper safety margins and falls short of international standards, Air France alleges in a lawsuit following the dramatic 2005 crash of one of its jets at the site.
The French airline and its insurers are suing the Greater Toronto Airports Authority, which runs Pearson, the federal government and the country's air-traffic control agency for some $180 million, charging they all cut corners that contributed to the crash of its Airbus A340 jet.
The airline takes aim at the airport operator, saying the design of Runway 24 Left – which ends at a steep ravine – failed to ensure there was an "adequate margin of safety for aircraft in the event of an overrun event."
It also says in a statement of claim filed with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice that "GTAA failed to provide a safe environment for the conduct of civil air operations."
Flight 358 arriving from Paris was battered by a violent thunderstorm just as it touched down on Aug. 2, 2005. Going too fast, it ran off the rain-slicked runway and into the ravine, where it broke apart and burst into flames.
All 297 passengers and 12 crew survived the accident but 33 people were taken to hospital – two crew members and 10 passengers were admitted to hospital with serious injuries. Many more have struggled with memories of the incident.
In its lawsuit, Air France pins the blame on the Greater Toronto Airports Authority, Nav Canada and the individual air-traffic controllers who guided the big jet to the airport in the fateful minutes before the crash.
"The overrun and the consequent injuries to persons and damage to property were caused solely by the negligence of the defendants," the statement of claim says.
While Runway 24 Left was only opened in 2002, an adjacent runway was the site of a fatal accident in 1978 when an Air Canada jet ran into the steep ravine leading down to Etobicoke Creek, killing two people and seriously injuring 47 others.
An investigation into that accident found the "ravine beyond the overrun area left no additional margin for error and contributed to a high casualty rate."
Air France says Transport Canada was "negligent" by not implementing the recommendations of a coroner's inquest into the 1978 crash that urged the creation of a 300-metre safety area to give aircraft more room to stop after landing.
It also charges that the airport failed to install an apron of special concrete designed to quickly slow aircraft unable to stop on the runway. And it notes that the runway lacks grooves to help carry away rainwater and improve braking.
Transport Canada estimates the potential penalties in the lawsuit at $180 million, plus any damages awarded passengers in an ongoing class-action suit, according to a department briefing note obtained by an Ottawa researcher under Access to Information.
But in its defence, the federal government says Air France knew that runway runoff areas "are not standard in Canada" and noted the airline operated from Pearson for "many years" before the crash.
"Air France has continued to operate flights including those by A340 aircraft on Runway 24L since the said incident," the government says in its statement of defence.
Federal officials point the finger at the pilots, saying the crew failed to calculate a safe landing distance, despite reports thunderstorms were expected at the time of landing.
An investigation by the Transportation Safety Board of Canada concluded last December that the jet touched down almost halfway down the 2,740-metre runway and was still travelling at almost 150 km/h when it went off the runway.
Officials with both the GTAA and Nav Canada refused to comment yesterday on the lawsuit. However, both insisted that their respective agencies are running a safe operation at Pearson.
"The overrun and the consequent injuries to persons and damage to property were caused solely by the negligence of the defendants," the statement of claim says.
It seems to me like it might have more to do with the fact that the pilot who landed a very heavy, very large plane more than halfway down a very wet runway than the fact that the runway -- when not on the runway -- isn't perfectly flat.
Airplanes are not meant to go offroading...
Dotted line is how you are supposed to land, red is how Air France decided to land on a wet runway:
Comment