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

[Asher]

A minority of airports adhere to the supposed "international standard". I ask you what the definition of a standard is and how useful that is if no one adheres to it.

Canada has its own guidelines, which Pearson airport in Toronto more than meets. So I'm not sure what the hell Air France thinks it's doing here. If you take it to the Canadian courts they're going to look at Canadian law.

If they want to take it to some "de facto" international standard, then they should be doing this in The Hague...because the Canadian courts will only look at Canadian laws and regulations.

[Wiglaf]

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

Now you're starting to act like one of those children who loses all his teeth and his parents don't have the heart to tell him it's because he sucks at soccer.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wiglaf

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

Now you're starting to act like one of those children who loses all his teeth and his parents don't have the heart to tell him it's because he sucks at soccer.

Oh, so you're going to the UN now?

Pay up on your UN dues before you cite them.

they leave off the end at such a high speed that they would overrun any safety area (like the AF358 A340 incident in Toronto)

The AF plane was at such a high velocity that even this enhanced safety area would not have stopped it.

And let me know when the US major airports like JFK actually adopt this...

[Wiglaf]

Perhaps you should stick to hockey. Runways at JFK use the EMAS, the arresting system that is used in the absence of a dedicated safety area.

This airport was more interested in selling croissants than doing anything remotely similar. They are to blame for this accident. And do not you dare mention the UN. FAA has more to do with it than they do

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Perhaps you should stick to hockey. Runways at JFK use the EMAS, the arresting system that is used in the absence of a dedicated safety area.

This airport was more interested in selling croissants than doing anything remotely similar. They are to blame for this accident. And do not you dare mention the UN. FAA has more to do with it than they do

The Runway Safety Area **** is based on UN standards, which the US has recently bent over for.

[Wiglaf]

Yes. But clearly the French beret croissant mustache surrender language of love airport was negligent for having absolutely no EMAS or safety area. Even you can see this.

[Asher]

Toronto is not a French airport?

And it did have a safety area. Look at the map. Problem was it'd need to probably have a 500-600m "safety area" to stop the A340 which was going 120 km/h by the time it ran out of runway.

Even the 300m safety area demanded by the international standard would not have been enough. 300m of some kind of arrester **** might have stopped it, sure. But it's not criminal to not have that, nor is it even negligence. It's a "nice to have".

This could've happened at any airport in the world. I can't think of many other runway overruns at such a high speed. Feel free to find another for me.

[Asher]

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

The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), an agency of the United Nations, codifies the principles and techniques of international air navigation and fosters the planning and development of international air transport to ensure safe and orderly growth. Its headquarters are located in the Quartier International of Montreal, Canada.

The international standard came from Canada.

[Wiglaf]

300m of some kind of arrester **** might have stopped it, sure. But it's not criminal to not have that, nor is it even negligence. It's a "nice to have".

Runway operators do not have a hard job. They just need to make the runway safe. When international standards call for hundreds of meters of separation and/or EMAS, and they supply a ravine, clearly they are in violation of something. $100 million seems about right.

The international standard came from Canada.

Makes sense. They can't even follow their own rules.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wiglaf


Runway operators do not have a hard job. They just need to make the runway safe. When international standards call for hundreds of meters of separation and/or EMAS, and they supply a ravine, clearly they are in violation of something. $100 million seems about right.

The ravine was clearly an effective EMAS. It prevented the aircraft from going on the 401, thus making it possible for me to go get laid that night. Priorities, Wiglaf.

[Asher]

Another interesting thing is Air France has also named the Air Traffic Controllers in the lawsuit. Which is particularly amusing, given the TSB findings:

# During approaches in convective weather, crews may falsely rely on air traffic control (ATC) to provide them with suggestions and directions as to whether to land or not.

# Some pilots have the impression that ATC will close the airport if weather conditions make landings unsafe; ATC has no such mandate.

I'd say Air France still hasn't figured this out.

The whole report is pretty damning to Air France. Apparently the pilots didn't even know the A340 has a "Rain repellent system", which is why they were so blinded in the heavy rain...it's like driving without your windshield wipers on.

Air France did a significant update to their guidelines, handbooks, and procedures in 2005 as a result of the accident...so quite clearly they have admitted that errors on their end resulted in the crash. I'm no lawyer, but doesn't this contradict their claim that only the airport and ATC are to blame?

[Wiglaf]

No one cares what gigolo or man ho or transvestite or alien you hooked up with because of that ravine. That is like saying the Holocaust led to the popularity of ovens. Talking about missing the forest for the trees and being offensive while doing so

[Asher]

And WTF does this mean?

As a result of this accident, Airbus flight crew operations manual (FCOM) procedures have been modified and the word "landing" has been replaced by "continue."

[Wiglaf]

[SIZE=1] Air France did a significant update to their guidelines, handbooks, and procedures in 2005 as a result of the accident...so quite clearly they have admitted that errors on their end resulted in the crash. I'm no lawyer, but doesn't this contradict their claim that only the airport and ATC are to blame?

Admitting you could have prevented the accident doesn't excuse others for causing it. Stick to hockey and consulting and leave logic to the rest of us

The whole report is pretty damning to Air France. Apparently the pilots didn't even know the A340 has a "Rain repellent system", which is why they were so blinded in the heavy rain...it's like driving without your windshield wipers on.

You seem to not know what the rain repellent system does.

[Wiglaf]

Originally posted by Asher
And WTF does this mean?

As a result of this accident, Airbus flight crew operations manual (FCOM) procedures have been modified and the word "landing" has been replaced by "continue."

It means Wikipedia sucks and you rely on it too much when you're out of your league.