Air France sues airport because they can't land their planes

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Wezil


I suggest the history sub-forum. It might as well be used for something.

I think I'll see to get it more busy. A threadi a day keeps the Asher away

[*End Is Forever*]

Toronto Airport are certainly negligent - they had 25 years to fill in the ravine after the 1978 Air Canada crash... but the ravine did not cause the crash, it exacerbated it.

Here are the Canadian TSB findings for the accident. Now, which are the responsibility of the airport and which are the responsibility of Air France and/or their flight crew...

Air France had no procedures related to distance required from thunderstorms during approaches and landings

After the autopilot had been disengaged, the pilot flying increased the thrust in reaction to a decrease in airspeed and a perception that the aircraft was sinking.

The power increase contributed to an increase in aircraft energy and the aircraft deviated above the flight path.

At 300 feet above ground level, the wind changed from a headwind to a tailwind

While approaching the threshold, the aircraft entered an intense downpour and the forward visibility became severely reduced.

When the aircraft was near the threshold, the crew members committed to the landing and believed their go-around option no longer existed.

The pilot not flying did not make the standard callouts concerning the spoilers and thrust reversers during the landing roll. This contributed to the delay in the pilot flying selecting the thrust reversers.

There were no landing distances indicated on the operational flight plan for a contaminated runway condition at the Toronto / Lester B. Pearson International Airport.

The crew did not calculate the landing distance required for runway 24L despite aviation routine weather reports (METARs) calling for thunderstorms. The crew were not aware of the margin of error.

The topography at the end of the runway beyond the area and the end of Runway 24L contributed to aircraft damage and injuries to crew and passengers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_358

[Asher]

Originally posted by *End Is Forever*
Toronto Airport are certainly negligent - they had 25 years to fill in the ravine after the 1978 Air Canada crash... but the ravine did not cause the crash, it exacerbated it.

Watch your words boy.

Half of the airports in the world don't meet the so-called "standards" requiring extra space at the end of the runway. Including most of the biggest airports like JFK. Space is an issue.

The problem lies solely in the hands of the pilot who landed a heavy plane WAY too far down the runway, not leaving enough space as indicated by the plane's manufacturer in DRY situations let alone in POURING RAIN.

He not only overran the runway, he wasn't even close to stopping on the runway.

You know what exacerbated the injuries caused on the flight? The malfunctioning escape slide was the #1 cause of injury -- is Air France suing Airbus?

It's bull****. Air France has used that runway since it's opened, they can't blame the fact that hundreds of meters after the runway ends there's a ravine. That's laughable. It's both illegal and at Air France's expense to fix any damage if they even leave the paved surfaces by a millimeter.

Here are the Canadian TSB findings for the accident. Now, which are the responsibility of the airport and which are the responsibility of Air France and/or their flight crew...

Air France had no procedures related to distance required from thunderstorms during approaches and landings AIR FRANCE

After the autopilot had been disengaged, the pilot flying increased the thrust in reaction to a decrease in airspeed and a perception that the aircraft was sinking. AIR FRANCE

The power increase contributed to an increase in aircraft energy and the aircraft deviated above the flight path. AIR FRANCE

At 300 feet above ground level, the wind changed from a headwind to a tailwind AIR FRANCE

While approaching the threshold, the aircraft entered an intense downpour and the forward visibility became severely reduced. AIR FRANCE

When the aircraft was near the threshold, the crew members committed to the landing and believed their go-around option no longer existed. AIR FRANCE

The pilot not flying did not make the standard callouts concerning the spoilers and thrust reversers during the landing roll. This contributed to the delay in the pilot flying selecting the thrust reversers. AIR FRANCE

There were no landing distances indicated on the operational flight plan for a contaminated runway condition at the Toronto / Lester B. Pearson International Airport. AIR FRANCE

The crew did not calculate the landing distance required for runway 24L despite aviation routine weather reports (METARs) calling for thunderstorms. The crew were not aware of the margin of error. AIR FRANCE

The topography at the end of the runway beyond the area and the end of Runway 24L contributed to aircraft damage and injuries to crew and passengers Neither, it's just the condition of a field well away from the runway. The ravine is not intended for landing.

[snoopy369]

I think the point is that, although the ravine did not cause the crash and is not intended for landing, nonetheless mistakes should be expected and planned for, and having a runway end in a ravine is one of the things that should obviously be noticed and corrected.

It's not dissimilar to Midway airport in Chicago, which had an airplane actually drive onto a busy city street as as result of overshooting the landing strip. They corrected that by adding a significant amound of insulation between the strip and the wall just before the road; sounds like the same thing would be a good solution here (something soft and thick to stop the plane just prior to the ravine).

I certainly wouldn't consider the airport authority to be significantly at fault (as you did certainly have plenty of crew error to blame), but you don't have to be at fault to correct potential hazards.

[Asher]

BTW, the Wikipedia entry has some creative editing around the last point. I'm not saying Air France did this, but

The actual report says:

Although the area up to 150 m beyond the end of Runway 24L was compliant with
Aerodrome Standards and Recommended Practices (TP 312E), the topography of the
terrain beyond this point, along the extended runway centreline, contributed to
aircraft damage and to the injuries to crew and passengers.

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/reports/air/...2/a05h0002.pdf pg 115

Which paints a very different picture than Wikipedia's with regards to compliance:

The topography at the end of the runway beyond the area and the end of Runway 24L contributed to aircraft damage and injuries to crew and passengers

[Asher]

Originally posted by snoopy369
I think the point is that, although the ravine did not cause the crash and is not intended for landing, nonetheless mistakes should be expected and planned for, and having a runway end in a ravine is one of the things that should obviously be noticed and corrected.

It's not dissimilar to Midway airport in Chicago, which had an airplane actually drive onto a busy city street as as result of overshooting the landing strip. They corrected that by adding a significant amound of insulation between the strip and the wall just before the road; sounds like the same thing would be a good solution here (something soft and thick to stop the plane just prior to the ravine).

I certainly wouldn't consider the airport authority to be significantly at fault (as you did certainly have plenty of crew error to blame), but you don't have to be at fault to correct potential hazards.

Transport Canada had, even before this report came out, required that all major Canadian airports add "safety areas" in excess of 150m past the end of the runway. The point is, when this accident occurred, the runway was not out of compliance and the fault of the accident is entirely on Air France.

[Zkribbler]

Airplanes are not meant to go offroading...

[Wezil]

The ravine is not intended for landing.

Someone should tell the French.

[Krill]

Asher deserves to be banned for ignoring the threadiquette on bolding words.

[Wiglaf]

I am sick and tired of planes landing in ravines. Asher, when will you realize planes are more complicated to land than you think. AIR PORT RUNWAYS DANGEROUS WHEN THERE LACKS THE NECESSARY SPACING AND RAIN-DIFFUSION TECHNIQUES TO SUSTAIN PROPER ASSURANCE OF LANDING. It is pretty obvious if you have ever read a book or even some sort of Airplane novel. Pilots have expectation of not skidding in rainwater and being directed to safe air lines. In conclusion, you and Oerdin should stop making out in front of everyone.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Asher
I am emotionally distressed.

Have you spoken to a lawyer about this?

[Wezil]

Wrong profession. A lawyer will only make him more emotionally distressed.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
I am sick and tired of planes landing in ravines. Asher, when will you realize planes are more complicated to land than you think. AIR PORT RUNWAYS DANGEROUS WHEN THERE LACKS THE NECESSARY SPACING AND RAIN-DIFFUSION TECHNIQUES TO SUSTAIN PROPER ASSURANCE OF LANDING.

It's more than long enough to land an A340, even if it was icey.

The problem was this:
1) The pilot put the plane down HALFWAY down the runway
2) The pilot was SLOW to put on the thrust reversers
3) The plane went WELL beyond the end of the runway. If the ravine was not there, it'd have gone onto the busiest highway in North America so I'm not sure that'd have been a better option.

It is pretty obvious if you have ever read a book or even some sort of Airplane novel. Pilots have expectation of not skidding in rainwater and being directed to safe air lines.

The problem wasn't skidding really. Pilots know to expect longer stopping distances in wet conditions, it's just physics. The French pilots on this plane were likely too busy grooming their mustaches or adjusting their berets, they didn't notice they FLEW OVER half of the runway and then they were very slow to throw the thrust reversers on.

At what point should we draw the line? The runway they landed on had more than enough extra space after the end of the runway to meet guidelines and laws. Do we have 10 miles of extra space at the end of the runway just so the descendants of these French pilots can land starting at the very end of the runway?

Why not have 100 square miles of tarmac, just for idiots like this.

I think the best solution for everyone is to ban Air France from Canadian airspace. That'll teach them to sue us.

[Lord Avalon]

Wow, a silly lawsuit that has nothing to do with America!

[Wiglaf]

Asher Good post but there is a gaping hole in it. Time to insert some truth:

The runway they landed on had more than enough extra space after the end of the runway to meet guidelines and laws

One of the recommendations in the report is that Transport Canada require that 300-metre safety areas be added to the end of all Canadian runways, a measure that is already an international standard, Tadros said. Where a safety area can't be added, airports must be asked to create a backup method of stopping aircraft, she said.

Now just admit this is one more incident of Canada falling behind international standards