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

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wiglaf


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

That is from the TSB's official report in the PDF. I'm reading that, not Wikipedia.

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 accident was caused by pilot error. It was too dangerous and a very intense storm. Most planes in the region had diverted because the crews were competent. This flight's crew continued anyway. Specifically, from the official report:

Having made their decision to land, the crew members used all their energy to concentrate on this task and missed cues that should have warranted a review of that decision. The cues included the following: the runway looked like a lake; the aircraft deviated above the glide path; the landing was going to be farther down the runway than usual; the wind speed was reportedly increasing and the wind direction was changing; braking action was reported as poor; and the visibility became close to nil near the threshold.

This accident clearly shows the need for pilots to know the landing distance required by their aircraft for the conditions to be encountered at the expected time of landing, and to compare this figure to the length of the runway assigned for the landing. It is essential that both figures be known to enable crews to calculate the margin of error available so that they are better prepared to make the correct decision when they encounter deteriorating conditions. In this occurrence, the crew members realized at some time during the landing sequence that the landing was going to be long. Had they known that the margin for error was slim, or indeed non-existent, the crew would likely have executed a go-around.

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

Is this a joke?

It improves visibility when landing in rainy conditions, specifically moderate to heavy rain...

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by 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.

I though Montreal was in Quebec

[Wiglaf]

The accident was caused by pilot error.

This is a better argument. AF's revisions of the pilot book have nothing to do with this though. Also, even though you miss cues does not mean you are completely responsible. Clearly the airport missed the big cue, the ravine.

That is from the TSB's official report in the PDF. I'm reading that, not Wikipedia.

You're very studious then. Though you may be lying since no one reads those reports unless they are paid to or on drugs.

Is this a joke?

It improves visibility when landing in rainy conditions, specifically moderate to heavy rain...

You're reading too much into it. Taken literally, it is a system that repels rain. A rain repellent system. But there is no way of knowing what it really does. Does it make the plane less likely to get rain in the engine. Does it repel other things, like birds or insects, by using rain. Does it make big dirty wipers appear that make it hard to see. No one knows. I feel this system may be poorly named.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wiglaf

You're reading too much into it. Taken literally, it is a system that repels rain. A rain repellent system. But there is no way of knowing what it really does. Does it make the plane less likely to get rain in the engine. Does it repel other things, like birds or insects, by using rain. Does it make big dirty wipers appear that make it hard to see. No one knows. I feel this system may be poorly named.

The report indicates it improves visibility in landing.
The updated AF procedures also say to use it when landing in moderate to heavy rain.

I even googled the manufacturer's product information for you:

http://www.le-bozec.com/esy_rr.html

Statement:
Visibility through the windshield is reduced during taxiing, take off and landing
Wipers are useless under medium and heavy rain conditions
Coatings on windshields are difficult to maintain as operators don’t know how much time they will work (last between one week and one year depending on flight conditions)
A large number of accident are due to lack of visibility (NTSB Statistics).
Le Bozec has developed this safety device to improve visibility for pilots under rainy conditions.

History:
In the 60’s, the first rain repellent fluid was introduced in the aerospace industry. This product was outfitted on the entire Boeing Family but also on a lot of other aircraft such as Airbus, Fokker or Short. Due to the ban of the CFCs in 1996 during the Montreal convention, it was decided to stop the production of the fluid. To propose to airlines an alternate solution, Airbus and Le Bozec have decided to work on a replacement product compliant with the Montreal convention while improving pilot visibility compared to previous technologies. This is how the Le Bozec Rain Repellent was introduced in 1998 and outfitted on every new delivered Airbus aircraft.

How is it working ?
As soon as the visibility trough the windshield becomes affected due to rainy conditions, the pilot presses on the Rain Repellent switch as to activate the system: a calibrated quantity of fluid is sprayed on the windshield which will give perfect visibility within only 5 seconds. This fluid is compatible with the use of wipers.

Why use the Rain Repellent:
Better visibility during taxiing, landing and take off under rainy conditions
Safer Flight
Greater efficiency of the wipers
Easier cleaning of the windshield
No Maintenance
Dew removal

Some of our Customers using the Rain Repellent
Air France, Us Airways, Singapor Airlines, British Airways, British Midland, Iberia, Swissair, Tap, Sas, Korean Air, Ansett, Qantas, America West, Egyptair, Tam, Mexicana, Olympic Airways, Qatar Airways, Gulfair, Emirates, Thai, Cathay, Indian Airlines, South African Airways, Aerolloyd, Condor, Air New Zealand, …

This is a better argument. AF's revisions of the pilot book have nothing to do with this though.

Yes, they do. Because they put in written procedures tasks that would've prevented this accident from happening. Before the procedures were not documented and the pilots had to use judgement. These pilots used poor judgement. They also did not calculate the landing distance needed for the conditions (if they did they'd see they didn't have enough space to land, would've aborted). They also did not use the rain repellent to improve visibility.

[Wiglaf]

That sounds like someone trying to make a sale. How can liquid give perfect visibility? If anything you want LESS liquid during a rainstorm. It is clear that there is something you might not understand about the Rain repellent system.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
That sounds like someone trying to make a sale. How can liquid give perfect visibility? If anything you want LESS liquid during a rainstorm. It is clear that there is something you might not understand about the Rain repellent system.

I don't think you understand the concept of a repellent. It doesn't remove the density of the rain's obstruction of vision, but it prevents the rain from clumping up on the windshield which distorts vision. I don't know why this is hard to understand. Is science still mystical to you? If I didn't know better I'd say you were a useless liberal arts scum.

[Wiglaf]

Do not be such a goon. Adding procedures is not an admission of guilt. If I am walking down a narrow sidewalk and am hit by a careening car, I may sue the person. I should also implement a new rule to not walk down that narrow sidewalk.

It's logic, You can't code that. I think that is clever: You can't code that! I think I will use it dismissively when posting in your threads in the future.

I don't think you understand the concept of a repellent. It doesn't remove the density of the rain's obstruction of vision, but it prevents the rain from clumping up on the windshield which distorts vision. I don't know why this is hard to understand. Is science still mystical to you? If I didn't know better I'd say you were a useless liberal arts scum.

If it provides perfect visibility, then why not always have it on? The rain repellant system may not be completely honest about its limitations. Perhaps, the rain repellent system only works when there are no clouds or fog.

All you have proven is that The Rain repellent system throws more liquid on the windshield and magically planes can land. The cockpit is not a place for undocumented.magic tricks.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Do not be such a goon. Adding procedures is not an admission of guilt. If I am walking down a narrow sidewalk and am hit by a careening car, I may sue the person. I should also implement a new rule to not walk down that narrow sidewalk.

Bad example.

Let's say I work as a bus driver for the city of Washington DC. I drive to one of your nastiest neighborhoods with a KKK cone on my head. I get assaulted and almost killed.

Then my company writes regulations saying "Do not wear KKK cones while driving a bus for us".

Meanwhile France sues the NAACP because I was assaulted.

If it provides perfect visibility, then why not always have it on?

Same reason you can't leave your windshield washer fluid on on your car. Limited supply.

And yes, the new AF guidelines SAY to leave the repellent on whenever it is raining and the wipers can't keep up.

[Wiglaf]

In your example, clearly the people who beat you share some blame. Having a ravine at the end of a runway is like having landmines lacing curbs on city roads. One mistake and boom. People can be expected anticipate such obvious potential for disaster.

I am pretty clearly saying that AF shares some blame, and even they admit this. Though I could not be more suspicious of this so-called Rain repellent elixir.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
In your example, clearly the people who beat you share some blame. Having a ravine at the end of a runway is like having landmines lacing curbs on city roads.

That's a terrific idea -- I'm patenting it before NASCAR does it.

One mistake and boom.

It's not a simple mistake, it's a massive one. If you had your way there'd be no spectators anywhere near a race track either.

Why do you hate sports fans?

I am pretty clearly saying that AF shares some blame, and even they admit this.

They do? Because this is what they said in their official, legal complaint:

"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.

[Asher]

Look, it's like this. Yes, if the ravine wasn't there the plane would've been less damaged, provided it didn't go onto the 401 at which point it'd have killed many people.

Problem is not all runways have this, a distinct minority actually do. O'Hare just recently got theirs for instance.

Toronto will get one, it's just in the planning stages. There's no way you can possibly, criminally or civilly say the Toronto airport is at fault here because Canada has local laws and regulations which overrule any UN-backed standard, and Pearson more than met those. Even then, Pearson met the earlier version of the UN standard, it was later that it was changed.

[Wiglaf]

Toronto will get one, it's just in the planning stages.

This lawsuit will speed them up

Airport should not direct a plane in bad conditions to land at a runway with a death trap on the end of it. Admittedly AF made far more serious errors. But don't act like airport shares no blame at all. Or maybe ATC, not airport. I don't know how Canada does it.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wiglaf


This lawsuit will speed them up

No, it will get tossed out pretty quickly on technical grounds.

Airport should not direct a plane in bad conditions to land at a runway with a death trap on the end of it.

As already discussed, the airport is very different from the ATC.

Secondly, ATC does not direct planes to land. The planes REQUEST to land, the airport provides all of the relevant data about the weather and which runway they can use should they choose to land. It is ENTIRELY 100% up to the pilots whether they would like to land on the chosen runway given the conditions. As I said, MOST planes at the time diverted because they deemed it too risky.

[Wiglaf]

Well you got me. Game set match point.

[Wezil]

Good game Wiglaf.