Air France crash at YYZ (Merged)

[piperg]

Just posted on canadian news wire

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/08/02/pearson-plane050802.html

[View From The Ground]

Live pictures just shown on CNN...plane is well ablaze...lets hope there was a delay before the fire to allow the pax to escape...Wish all on board well...Weather looks pretty poor...very wet and overcast there....No details on airline....reports say about 200 pax on board

[jimbo canuck]

CBC and CTV both currently showing live pictures. Aircraft is substantially on fire, very bad scene. Being referred to as "737" of "Lufthansa" with "200 on board" - obviously not all correct. Let's hope not too many casualties.

Jimbo

[akerosid]

Air France A340, CDG-YYZ.

Now live report on BBC News 24.

[acm]

Canadian newspapers report an Air France flight on fire.

www.cyberpresse.ca

[rotornut]

August 2, 2005

Jet accident at Pearson airport

TORONTO (CP) — A passenger jet burst into flames after skidding off the runway at Toronto’s Pearson International Airport.

The type of plane and number of passengers was not immediately available.

Smoke billowed from a wooded area near Highway 401, Canada’s busiest highway.

Peel police say the craft was an Air France passenger jet that was attempting to land when it ran into trouble.

Sgt. Glyn Griffiths said passengers saw flames from the window but couldn’t say whether they had been removed from the plane.

Emergency crews were enroute to the scene.

[Wedge]

Clearly a very major incident. The a/c is still on fire.

Overshot runway on landing - wet runway, but weather not looking particularly bad.

[Airbubba]

Doesn't look good from the live TV...

[rotornut]

Further from CBC Newsworld...

Went off the end of 24L into a ravine just short of Highway 401, no reports of injuries yet at 4:47 PM local. Heavy downpour at time of accident.

[armada]

Live video feed at www.pulse24.com

[akerosid]

CNN now interviewing former US Airways A330 pilot. Some very intelligent comments, discouraging immediate finger pointing at crew. Weather clearly bad; heavy rains reported, etc, thunderstorms and more expected.

Sadly, initial reports don't look good for survivors.

AF 358/A340-300.

[Permafrost_ATPL]

I don't see ambulances moving back and forth, which is either very good news or very bad news...

Reuters just said "the plane is an A350 and that lightning was present at the airport and may have contributed to the crash". So, as usual, journalists doing their very best to check their facts... Sigh.

[kiwi1]

METAR: CYYZ 021800Z 12002KT 8SM -TSRA SCT035TCU BKN090 23/22 A3003 RERA RMK TCU3AC3 CB ASOCTD SLP167
TAF: CYYZ 022039Z 022118 30015G25KT P6SM BKN040 TEMPO 2122 1SM TSRA BKN020CB
FM2200Z 32010KT P6SM BKN040 TEMPO 2224 5SM -SHRA BR PROB30 2224 2SM TSRA BKN020CB
FM0000Z VRB03KT P6SM BKN030 PROB30 0812 1SM BR RMK NXT FCST BY 00Z

Anyone care to comment on the "SLP167" appended to the end of the METAR, its been a while since I flew in North America/Canada.

Thoughts going out to the Passengers and Crew.

[PPRuNe Towers]

The 'talking head' for CNN is John Wiley. Very good background explanation from him and refuses to pander to the sensational. He's a very long term member of forums such as AvSig and is no stranger to PPRuNe.

Tragic circumstances but at least someone is at last offering calm, rational information.

Rob

[Permafrost_ATPL]

Anyone care to comment on the "SLP167" appended to the end of the METAR, its been a while since I flew in North America/Canada.

Sea Level Pressure 1016.7

[VFE]

Well the aircraft has come to rest upright just left of the runway which is initially encouraging. Just hope they managed to get everyone off in the vital first 90 seconds because the aircraft was, and still is, very much ablaze.

Fingers crossed.

VFE.

[Ontariotech]

Bad CB in the Area at the time.........News reporting 20 years to the day, Delta L-1011 crashed at KDFW due to Microburst from CB.

In listening to the ATC Archive for CYYZ from 1530 to 1600 hours, Weather was of concern, but ATC was reporting weather 7 to 12 miles north of the field.

http://www.liveatc.ne

click on archive,

click on CYYZ,

select 1530 to 1600,

click submit.

Of interest, a comair RJ is asking about weather they have on their Radar right over the field, not once, but twice. She is questioning the weather over the field several times as looking very heavy. Time frame around 1540 hrs.

[dgutte]

Sky News reporting 291 on board but both pilots are safe.

[PaperTiger]

Same gulley that claimed a DC-9 in 1978.

I've been watching for some time and it appeared the initial fire started in the tail - is there a fuel tank there ?
Looks completely engulfed now but there ought to have been time for an evacuation, let's hope so. I don't think ambulances would be able to get down there and the survivors would be led away on the other side from what the feed is showing. Fingers crossed.

[Complex_Type]

Air France flight AF358 Paris-Toronto.

[armada]

from pulse24.com, someone who heard from a pax on that plane.

Pax survived and called her friend: pax reported bumpy landing, think tires expoded, evacuated saw fire, some injuries (broken legs etc.)

Pax flys often, was of opinion that approach was too high, then lost alltitude suddenly and bounced on runway

Was sitting near rear of plane. Thinks most got off, but not sure.

[JamesT73J]

'Very hard landing' according to a passenger's friend that is talking to Pulse24.

Yahoo, once again, outdo themselves..."Plane Misses Runway".

[Konkordski]

What do you know...two pages on PPRuNe and no-one slagging off the media for doing their job. I do believe this forum is actually becoming civilised. Be nice if it stays that way, especially as everyone seems to be relying on journalists in order to know anything.

[cjd_a320]

Anyone Know the Runway surface condition?

[Kyprianos Biris]

Just for the record, last 12 hrs METARs

Source: http://euro.wx.propilots.net/

CYYZ 022100Z 18013KT 8SM -TSRA BKN055 BKN140 22/19 A3004 RERA RMK SC5AC2 CB ASOCTD FU ALF SLP171 =
CYYZ 022020Z 34024G33KT 3SM +TSRA FEW015 OVC040TCU 23/ RMK SF2TCU6 CB ASOCTD =
CYYZ 022000Z 29011KT 4SM +TSRA BKN051TCU BKN140 23/22 A3002 RMK TCU6AC1 CB ASOCTD LTGCC VIS LWR SW-NW 2 SLP164 =
CYYZ 022004Z CCA 34024G33KT 1 1/4SM +TSRA SCT015 OVC045TCU 23/ RMK RA2SF2TCU5 CB ASOCTD =
CYYZ 022004Z 34024G33KT 1 1/4SM +TSRA SCT015 OVC045TCU RMK RA2SF2TCU5 CB ASOCTD =
CYYZ 022000Z 29011KT 4SM +TSRA BKN051TCU BKN140 23/22 A3002 RMK TCU6AC1 CB ASOCTD LTGCC VIS LWR SW-NW 2 SLP164 =
CYYZ 021900Z 22007KT 4SM +TSRA BKN050TCU BKN080 24/23 A3003 RMK TCU6AC1 CB ASOCTD SLP168 =
CYYZ 021800Z 12002KT 8SM -TSRA SCT035TCU BKN090 23/22 A3003 RERA RMK TCU3AC3 CB ASOCTD SLP167 =
CYYZ 021728Z CCA 13003KT 10SM TS SCT040TCU BKN090 23/ RERA RMK TCU4AC2 CB ASOCTD =
CYYZ 021728Z 13003KT 10SM TS SCT040TCU BKN090 23/ RMK TCU4AC2CB ASOCTD =
CYYZ 021700Z 08008G16KT 10SM -TSRA BKN040TCU BKN080 24/21 A3005 RMK TCU6AC2 CB ASOCTD LTGCG VIS LWR E / NW SLP174 =
CYYZ 021715Z 29003KT 2SM +TSRA OVC040TCU 23/ RMK RA1TCU7 CBASOCTD LTGCG =
CYYZ 021700Z 08008G16KT 10SM -TSRA BKN040TCU BKN080 24/21 A3005 RMK TCU6AC2 CB ASOCTD LTGCG VIS LWR E / NW SLP174 =
CYYZ 021621Z 33003KT 12SM -TSRA BKN047 30/ RMK CU6 CB ASOCTD N =
CYYZ 021613Z 31007KT 12SM TS BKN046 BKN260 31/ RMK CU6CI0 CBASOCTD N =
CYYZ 021600Z 33003KT 15SM SCT045 SCT120 SCT260 30/20 A3005 RMK CU3AC1CI0 AC TR SLP173 =
CYYZ 021500Z 34004KT 15SM FEW040 FEW120 FEW260 29/18 A3006 RMK CU1AC1CI0 SLP177 =
CYYZ 021400Z 36004KT 15SM FEW035 FEW260 28/19 A3007 RMK CU1CI0 SLP179 =
CYYZ 021300Z 32004KT 10SM FEW100 FEW230 26/20 A3008 RMK AC1CI1 SLP183 =
CYYZ 021200Z 32004KT 10SM FEW100 FEW230 24/20 A3007 RMK AC1CI1 SLP180 =
CYYZ 021100Z 00000KT 12SM FEW100 FEW230 22/20 A3006 RMK AC1CI1 SLP176 =
CYYZ 021000Z 00000KT 12SM FEW100 FEW260 22/20 A3005 RMK AC1CI1 SLP172 =
CYYZ 020900Z 34002KT 15SM SKC 22/19 A3004 RMK SLP168 =

[CosmosSchwartz]

I hope all are safe, and whilst I'm not having the usual media rant I thought mistaking an A340 for a 737 was pretty poor but not unexpected. Mistaking it for an A350 however is absolutely brilliant!:p :p :}

[Ralph Cramden]

Eye witness on CTV News states A/C was on roll-out when struck by lightning.

[supercruise593]

Air France A340 (252 seat configuration).
Flight AF358 (as quoted by a ticket agent in Montreal).

Reports from witnesses on the freeway of aircraft skidding off end of runway into a gully, splitting in half and being engulfed in flames.

Poor weather. Reports of thunderstorm and saturated runway. Looks like a major incident.

I don't know time of landing however, watching BBC News 24 and witnessed explosions only about 10 mins ago (22:00h GMT). Obviously my best hopes for the passengers, crew and emergency workers.

[Complex_Type]

Watching BBC News 24 Live pictures, I can see foam being laid on by fire crews right now.

[rampman]

they are taking a very long time to put the fire out have been watching cnn for 30 mins looks like its gone nose first into the gully.

not looking good my thoughts are with all soles on board

:( rampman

[er340790]

THE GTAA WEBSITE ADVISES THAT RUNWAY 23 IS CLOSED FROM 1 TO 5 AUGUST - HOPEFULLY NOT A CASE OF AN A/C LANDING ON A RUNWAY UNDER REPAIR.

[catchup]

Two busses for the pax.

[McGinty]

The Toronto Globe and Mail is reporting that there are survivors. See below. This contradicts a CNN witness who was parked next to the crash site when the crash happened, who did not report anyone coming on to the highway from the crash site.

Air France jet crashes at Pearson Airport
By UNNATI GANDHI
Tuesday, August 2, 2005 Updated at 5:19 PM EDT
Globe and Mail Update

An Air France passenger plane has crashed and burned near Toronto's Highway 401 after skidding off the runway while trying to land at Pearson International Airport.

The pilot and an unknown number of passengers have been taken to hospital, Peel Region police say.

"The A340 Airbus plane was landing when it ran off the runway about 4 p.m.," said Sgt. Glyn Griffiths.

"A pilot has gone to hospital; they were picked up on the 401 and a number of other passengers were wandering around the area so we're trying to head them off. I haven't got any information on casualties at all."

The plane was attempting to land on runway 2-4-left on Tuesday when it ran into trouble. While a number of sources say there were about 200 passengers on board, an A340 Airbus can hold up to 303 passengers.

The Air France flight AF358 left Charles de Gaulle airport in Paris at 1:32 local time and was to land at 4:12 p.m. Toronto time.

Black smoke could be seen billowing into the stormy sky Tuesday afternoon, as commuters slowed down to look at the wreckage during rush hour traffic on Canada's busiest highway.

Sgt. Griffiths said emergency and fire crews from several divisions as well as at the airport responded to the crash.

[windsock]

MSNBC reporting passengers are already loaded on buses, some injuries going down emergency shutes, plane probably evacuated.

[Rollingthunder]

Very serious accident. After more than an hour naked flames from the fuselage still visible after tons of foam and water applied. Hope for pax safety - as many as possible. Surprised the cops have not dealt with the looky-loos. My old hunting ground.

[MadsDad]

Toronto local radio reporting most pax evacuated ok (not confirmed but quoted from rescue workers).

[Flexable]

News coverage from Canada

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/home/

http://www.canada.com/national/index.html

CBC with pictures

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/08/02/pearson-plane050802.html

[Konkordski]

Hope to hell all are okay... fingers crossed, despite the self professed gloom and doom merchants!!... step up Learmont, make the most of it... (again)

If you're going to be an insulting know-it-all, you ought at least check your own facts and spell his name correctly. The media probably uses the "experts" on this website to get their information - more fool them :rolleyes:

[Complex_Type]

Picture appears to show two seats of fire, reports are that the airframe broke in two:
http://images.theglobeandmail.com/archives/RTGAM/images/20050802/wcrash0801/screenmto2.jpg

[paulthornton]

BBC News24 is carrying Canadian TV interviewing live someone who was on the plane - he said that power was lost before landing "all the lights out".

Hoping that reports that everyone evacuated safely are correct.

[Propellerhead]

To get a better idea of where a/c is go to
www.maps.google.co.uk/maps
and search for "toronto pearson airport".
Zoom in on 24L / Highway 401 and switch to sattelite view (button in top right hand corner of map).

Also, from Toronto airports authority:

Press Release
Date of Release: Aug 02, 2005
At 16:03 est., and Air France Airbus A340 overran Runway 23L by some 100 metres.
A press conference is scheduled to be held by the Greater Toronto Airports Authority (GTAA) at 18:00 hrs. at the GTAA"s Administration building located at 3111 Convair Drive (Renforth & 401).

Toronto Pearson International Airport remains operational. Prior to the overrun, the airport was under a ground stop program due to extreme weather conditions which resulted in the postponement of departing aircraft.

At this time, flights are still arriving.

The Transportation Safety Board has been alerted and is investigating.

The GTAA advises passengers to check with their airlines prior to coming to the airport.

The Airport Authority also advises travellers to check www.gtaa.com frequently for updates.

[dfish]

CBC reports that pilot and pax taken to hospital. I just heard an interview of pax who says the aircraft made a hard landing and skidded down the runway. Sounds like most pax were evacuated.

Dave F.

[Loony_Pilot]

I am watching it on CNN and a few other news channels, initial reports are that everyone has been evacuated successfuly from the aircraft.

If that is the case and I dearly hope so, it has to be a case of sincere congratulations to the crew for getting everyone out!!!

[Jordan D]

Most major channels now streaming including BBC News .... some good analysis ... report is now that the aircraft was configured for 291 pax. How valid or not that is, I can't confirm ...

Praying that everyone has got out safe and sound.

Jordan

[Azure]

Second passenger off the plane feels quite confident that most if not all got off the aircraft, admits he won't hang around for his luggage though.

[europilot]

What does "A3003 RERA RMK TCU3AC3 " stand for... I fly in the Southern Hemisphere...

According to BBC "pax said that weather was really bad, lights went out...apparently everyone got out BEFORE the fire started"

EP

[FLYboh]

Now being reported on Sky, CNN & BBC that there are no fatalities. Everyone appears to have survived.

Thankfully, good news. It looked so bad when the story first broke.

My best wishes to all involved.

[Salzinger_FOO]

Press confernece live on BBC streaming reporting that all survived with 14 minor injuries.

Congrats to the crew

Salz

[Bmused55]

Some reports claiming thrust reversers did not deploy.

[Kalium Chloride]

If that is the case and I dearly hope so, it has to be a case of sincere congratulations to the crew for getting everyone out!!!


I suspect it's equally a case of sincere congratulations to the passengers for conducting an orderly and efficient evacuation.

[aardvark2zz]

Live cameras

http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/traveller/compass/camera/camhome.htm

http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/traveller/compass/camera/loc36.htm
http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/traveller/compass/camera/loc38.htm

[Salzinger_FOO]

europilot,

What does "A3003 RERA RMK TCU3AC3 " stand for...

A3003 is the QNH 30.03 mmHg
RERA -> REcent RAin
RMK TCU3AC3 -> will pass this one, but seems to be some info regarding cloud type and coverage.

Salz

[egbt]

Newswire link has been updated - good news

No fatalities in Toronto airplane fire

Last Updated Tue, 02 Aug 2005 18:06:48 EDT

CBC News

All 309 people aboard a jet that skidded off a runway and burst into flames at Pearson International Airport Tuesday survived the ordeal, according to fire officials on the scene.

There were 14 minor injuries, however.


The Air France jet burst into flames after skidding off a runway at Toronto's Pearson Airport Tuesday.
One passenger aboard the Air France Airbus A340, Roel Bramar, told CBC News that he saw lightning just as the plane landed in a torrential downpour at about 3:50 p.m.

"I'm sure that the bad weather was responsible," said Bramar, who was not injured and managed to scramble off the plane by means of an emergency chute. He was the second person off the plane, he said.

Flight 358 from Paris had been scheduled to arrive at Toronto at 3:35 p.m. EDT. Some reports said it landed safely, but then something went badly wrong.

The plane skidded off Runway 24 Left, an east-west runway laid out parallel to one of Toronto's busiest roads, Highway 401. It ended up in the Etobicoke Creek ravine, a small valley at the far west end of the airport, the aircraft's fuselage tipped down and its tail in the air.

"We had a hell of a roller-coaster going down the ravine," Bramar said. "All I could think of was 'Get off!'"

Rescue crews are still on the scene.

[dgutte]

http://www.liveatc.net/.archive/cyyz/CYYZ-Toronto-Aug-02-05-1600.mp3

3 mins in the controller realises what has happened and you here him telling other pilots. 5 mins in an aircraft declares a fuel emergency.

[aardvark2zz]

I have posted some links and pics at http://www.airdisaster.com/forums

From www.fboweb.com

Ground Spd: 152 kts

Map shows heavy rain near Toronto

Information as of 2137Z
FlightID: AFR358 (Commercial, Jet)
Status: ARRIVED 2007Z (on the 02nd at 2006Z).
Company: AIR FRANCE
Country: FRANCE
Radio Call: AIRFRANS
Ground Spd: 152 kts (Assigned: 005)
Altitude: 005(hundreds of feet) (Assigned: 350)
Type: H/A343/W ((Unknown Type))
Origin Apt: LFPG CHARLES DE GAULLE
Dest Apt: CYYZ LESTER B PEARSON INTL
Departed: 1115Z ETA As Filed: (unspecified)

[rotorcraig]

BBC and CNN both now quoting 297 pax and 12 crew members.

Press conference stated aircraft overshot 24L by 200m.

From azworldairports.com (http://www.azworldairports.com/airports/p1290yyz.htm):Airfield Data: 5 Runways, Fire Category 9
Emergency Services: AFF9
Navigational Aids: VOR/DME, NDB
Noise Restrictions: Night flight restriction program
Runway 1: Heading 06R/24L, 2,897m (9,504ft), 79/R/B/W/T, ICAO Cat. 3, Aircraft size max: B747-400, ILS, Lighting: Centreline
Runway 2: Heading 06L/24R, 2,743m (8,999ft), ICAO Cat. 1, No ILS, Lighting: Edge lighting only
Runway 3: Heading 15L/33R, 3,368m (11,049ft), 79/R/B/W/T/, ICAO Cat. 1, Aircraft size max: Code E (B747-400), No ILS, Lighting: Edge Lighting
Runway 4: Heading 15R/33L, 2,591m (8,500ft), 79/R/B/W/T, ICAO Cat. 1, Aircraft size max: B747-400, No ILS, Lighting: Edge Lighting
Runway 5: Heading 05/23, 3,389m (11,118ft), 79/R/B/W/T, Aircraft size max: Code E (B747-400), No ILSRC

[assymetric]

Just confirmed from airport authority spokesman. No fatalities, 14 injuries.
Well done to all involved in evacuation.


Can someone confirm thisis the first major accident involving a A340.

Assymetric

[Toxteth O'Grady]

Toronto rainfall radar. (http://www.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/radar/index_e.html?id=WKR)

:cool:

TOG

[avistudent]

ALL PAX and Crews are fine and taken to local hospital as stated from our local City TV news. Eveyone evacuated before the fire broke out at the tail section of the plane.

[RatherBeFlying]

Some survivors have been interviewed on CBC Radio -- people got out and ran as fast as fast as they could.

The satellite picture and radar showed fast moving CBs originating at Tobermory at tip of Bruce Peninsula and ending up as a line from Tobermory to Buffalo as of 1600 local. Amazingly very thin line at beginning 15 miles now broadened to 60 miles and INTENSE rainfall.

Extreme heavy rainfall driving home from a few miles South of YYZ on QEW. Pax on other flights kept in planes after landing because lightning strikes in vicinity require evacuation of ramp personnel.

Pax second to leave reports poor braking on runway followed by bumps and abrupt impact. Pilot came on PA to advise pax to remain in seats, but fire began in tail and he got out and ran as fast as he could.

Anoraks observing approach from East end saw nothing abnormal.

Press conference by Steve Shaw of GTAA: Overshot by 200m at 16:03 local time.

No fatalities -- 14 minor injuries:ok:

[74tweaker]

GTAA reported 297 pass on board, 14 minor injuries. Aparently all pass got out before the fire broke out.

Not wanting to speculate - but many news people are saying it was hit by lightning and then went off runway.

Now I don't believe that but - IF an A340 was hit by lighting - I would imagine that you would still be able to operate all major systems. Could a 340 driver tell me what a worst case lightning strike would do? (What systems would you lose)

[5milesbaby]

with regard to the weather code TCU is Towering Cumulus but don't know about 3AC3

[ELAC]

RMK TCU3AC3 = ReMarK Towering CUmulus 3/10, Alto Cumulus 3/10

[aardvark2zz]

Salzinger_FOO

europilot,

What does "A3003 RERA RMK TCU3AC3 " stand for...

A3003 is the QNH 30.03 mmHg
RERA -> REcent RAin
RMK TCU3AC3 -> will pass this one, but seems to be some info regarding cloud type and coverage.

Salz


RMK TCU3AC3 -->> Remark Towering Cumuluc 3/8, Alto Cumulus 3/8

aardvark2zz

[Idle Thrust]

RMK TCU3AC3 - will pass this one, but seems to be some info regarding cloud type and coverage.

Quite correct, translates as:

Remarks, towering cumulus 3/8, altocumulus 3/8

Might stand to be corrected on the denominator, used to be in tenths but I think Canada went to octas some years ago.

[Wombat35]

Looks nasty, Glad every seems okay.

Quick question re smoke.. I heard that smoke from carbon fibre/ burning carbon fibre is extremely toxic and carcinogenic.

Is this the case? (not sure of the carbon fibre content of an A340) and if so, would you expect them to shut the major road next to the accident?

[Trentino]

Excellent job to the flight attendents for getting all the pax out alive. As bad as all this is, it was just a beautiful aircraft,no one died.
This crash is a wakeup call and because no one died I fully believe that it is beneficial occurance.
Safety is written in blood, am I wrong?

Please do not pervert what I wrote above.
What do you guys think?

Godspeed to AirFrance,Airbus,the pax and the crew.

[Jordan D]

Quote from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4740381.stm

The A340 has an excellent safety record - with no crashes reported before Tuesday, aircraft expert David Learmount told the BBC.

Seems the lovely (!) Mr Learmount has already been pressed into action....

Jordan

[FakePilot]

CNN just interviewed a PAX on the flight. He said the evac was very fast, although he can't say if it was 90 secs. He did say that the lights went out 1 minute before they touched down. There's also a rumor about a lightening strike, however the pax says he didn't see it.

[assymetric]

Here we go speculating again.

This for the A340 drivers.

In the event of a electrical failure would anti-skid work.

Assymetric

[aardvark2zz]

www.airdisaster.com server is overloaded and says "There seems to have been a slight problem with the database.
Please try again by pressing the refresh button in your browser.

An E-Mail has been dispatched to our Technical Staff, who you can also contact if the problem persists.

We apologise for any inconvenience."

Hope this works

http://www.airdisaster.com/user-uploads/000.02.20.10.gif

[eagledriver]

:O CBC & CNN ARE REPORTING THAT THE ENTIRE FLIGHT CREW AND ALL OF THE PASSENGERS SURVIVED, DESPITE NUMEROUS INJURIES, IE, BROKEN LIMBS, ETC. IT WOULD APPEAR AIRBUS'S NEW SAFETY FEATURES WORK!!!

HIP HIP HOORAY! HIP HIP HOORAY! HIP HIP HOORAY!!!!!

[Pax-man]

What on earth is there in the rear section of the fuselage that could burn for over two hours??

I guess baggage is obvious, but surely there's nothing that flamable used in the construction of a modern aircraft?

[74tweaker]

From watching the live news reports - it looks like they were simply containing the fire and letting it burn itself out. Probably due to the rough terrain and the fact all the people escaped.

I'm only guessing though - but seems right as they are not putting a full stream of retardent on it - just some small squirts here and there.

[Ontariotech]

http://www.liveatc.net/archive.php

Listen to the CYYZ Archive for 1530 to 1600 hrs, last 10 minutes of the download, ATC and AF358 exchanging normal chit chat regarding last phases of flight.

All appeared noramal.....except.....for the weather. Lots of CB as the above Radar indicates. Possibly a factor.

KLM 691 also declared a Pan Pan Pan just after the go-around, fuel emergency, had enough go-juice to make Syracuse plus 30 minutes.

[Squawk7777]

I am wondering ...

if the landing runway is grooved like most rwys in the US. Is there a different wet runway penalty if the runway is grooved/ not grooved?

Does the modern Airbus fleet have some kind of lightning strike detector? I guess it would be easy to find out provided it has such a detector and it has been recorded. The regional airline I fly for had a J-32 that got struck seven times during it's life. It was known as "sparky" ;)

7 7 7 7

[boofta]

Firstly, thank God all are relatively okay.
Yes, the Airbus has a lightning strike detector!
It goes black and skids off the end of the runway
due to degradation of systems. Then it breaks
up and burns to destruction, if thats not enough
indication of a lightning strike, perhaps another
computer should be fitted.
It could warn that the above is about to occur!

[Squawk7777]

Wow! Interesting! So you already know that a lightning strike caused the accident. Tell us more about things we don't know ...

7 7 7 7

[Flying Bagel]

I must say that the pax and crew are very lucky, even considering the fact that they just been in an accident of no minor magnitude.

If it was any other runway at YYZ, especially 23 that is normally used for arrivals such as AF, the aircraft would have ended up skidding past a major road or highway, pissibly crushing a few cars and a gas station, then into some industrial buildings.

Perhaps this is a miracle that everyone survived, after seeing the pictures of the burning wreckage.

[Trentino]

Stupid Stupid reporters...Paula Zahn said 'This is the first crash of an A340'
Wrong Paula!
This plane didnt crash...
It was simply a runway excursion gone awry...
The word CrAsH has a better impact to it I guess.
I know the above is a moot point but just that simple
word can severly affect AirFrance,Airbus and temporarily, aviation as a whole.
why cant these stupid reporters just leave us alone.

[Frosty Hoar]

Who cares what they say, the images and passenger accounts speak for themselves-try telling them they werent in a crash...

Whats important here is that we recognize that we have been very lucky and try to learn from what happened.

[Jetavia]

According to Air France's website this is their current "Flight operations news".

No particular event to be reported at this time on our whole network.
For information about our flights, please refer to the "Schedule - Flight status" section of the site.

Maybe they should watch TV.

[ZQA297/30]

Maybe lightning was a factor, then again maybe not.
Eyewitness:

http://www.caribbeanalpa.com/cgi-bin/anyboard.cgi/discussion/?cmd=get&cG=1363034303&zu=3136303333&v=2&gV=

[tudeski2004]

Just been watching CNN, They are reporting it as a Plane Crash, although as stated before, it seems to be an overshoot of the runway. Reports on CNN are stating the all on board survived. Reports also suggest that plane was evacuated within 50 Seconds. Well done cabin Crew. I am just thankful that all on board have survived.

[armada]

Slide show:
http://news.yahoo.com/photos/ss/events/wl/080205torontoplane

[rjmore]

One thing that is standard practice at most airlines is turning the lights off for takeoff and landing. With that in mind at this time I would consider that they simply turned off the lights per SOP. I can't imagine that even a lightning strike would cause a complete electrical failure.

[Tom Sawyer]

Having dealt with the 340 for 8yrs and quite a few lightning strikes, I would be very surprised if this was the cause. You usually end up with a splatter of entry marks and a burn area on the exit. I did see a photo from somewhere of a fixed nose u/c door with a hole in it, but on a 340 that is the worst I have seen. Certainly never heard of loss of electrics in a ny shape or form.
Also if complete electrics were lost the alternate braking (no antiskid) should have been available as it is a fully hydraulic backup, and all the static inverters and other backups should have come online, however this incident may have happened so quickly that there was little time for an considered reaction and the pilots reacted to what they saw. Well done on doing what they did. So whatever the cause it is all speculation at this stage.
Also this is not the first A340 crash, Virgin Atlantic had one in '97 with an main gear leg stuck up. Certainly looked like a crash from where I was stood, but again saved by good flying skills. So with 2 accidents in 14 years I guess that safety record will not look as good to the press now, look what they did to Concorde over 1 accident!!!

[Farrell]

Oooh

LiveATC is offline......conspiracy alert! :suspect:

[WindSheer]

Why were they trying to land in this weather??
Company pressure over diversions is getting ridiculous (trying not to be too speculative here!!).
But, from initial reports the weather was obviously absolutely appauling!!

[broadreach]

Interesting contrast between this accident and the Mumbai 747 overshoot in what seem to have been similar conditions. Just wonder, will roasting of the AF crew and Toronto airport be as quick off the mark as it was with Mumbai?

[MarkD]

Farrell

liveatc is being "slashdotted" (although it has not actually being posted to slashdot), I imagine the same kind of hammering is being meted out to its servers. The 1600 ATC mp3 is currently downloading on my cable connection at a leisurely 0.6kbps!

[armada]

Air France again the news today

http://www.canada.com/travel/story.html?id=d75c8963-c104-43e1-a2aa-da4b0ec9df8c

Body found in landing gear of Air France plane arriving from Montreal


Canadian Press


Tuesday, August 02, 2005


ADVERTISEMENT




PARIS (CP) - The body of a stowaway was found Tuesday in the landing gear of an Air France plane arriving at the Roissy airport in Paris from Montreal.

"The body was found during a check of the landing gear of an Airbus A330 that came on the Montreal-Paris route," said the airline.

Air France didn't identify the victim or his nationality. The airline wasn't sure when the person boarded the aircraft:confused:

[RatherBeFlying]

CBC Web Article (http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/08/02/plane-passenger050802.html)

I was leaving my office 8 miles south of the accident site a few minutes after it happened. The rainfall was like driving through a carwash and could have been the same cell as they had been moving south on the radar pictures for the last few hours.

The satellite pictures initially showed two bubbles coming South from Tobermory that blossomed into CBs. The CB line eventually stretched along the Niagara Escarpment from Tobermory to Port Credit and eventually to Buffalo. The satellite images are considerably wider than the radar images which showed a tight band of rainfall.

The satellite images will be available for some 24 hours: Canadian Satellite Images (http://weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/satellite/animateweb_e.html?imagetype=satellite&imagename=goes_ecan_1070_m_..................jpg&nbimages=1&clf=1)

I don't know how to retrieve archived radar images. If anybody can, look at Buffalo, King and Britt -- it was quite a show.

[Squawk7777]

here's a quote from AP (updated):

Gwen Dunlop, a Toronto resident who was on the flight returning from vacation in France, said when the plane first touched down the passengers believed they had landed safely and clapped with relief.

"Only seconds later, it started really moving and obviously it wasn't OK," said Dunlop. "At some point the wing was off. The oxygen masks never came down; the plane was filling up with smoke."

She said one of the flight attendants tried to calm passengers and tell them that everything was fine.

"One of the hostesses said, `You can calm down, it's OK,' and yet the plane was on fire and smoke was pouring in," Dunlop told The AP. "I don't like to criticize, but the staff did not seem helpful or prepared."

I am so glad that there are so many experts out there ... :rolleyes:

7 7 7 7

[Heavy Metal]

Not the first time this ravine has claimed an aircraft.


26 June, 1978 Toronto, Canada. An Air Canada DC9-32 rejected the takeoff after a tire burst and debris was ingested into an engine, causing compressor stall. Two of the 102 passengers were killed after the aircraft over ran the runway.

Heres wishing that all our overruns be long, flat and dry.

[Rollingthunder]

The aircraft is a burnt out hull.

Often wondered if it would be beneficial to pave over that ravine - on the runway heading - runway width - and install a culvert - and carrier type barrier nets. No nets and highway 401 would be the end result.

[4SPOOLED]

FROM AIR FRANCE WEBSITE

Air France flight AF 358, inbound to Toronto from Paris, had an accident while landing at Toronto Pearson Airport. The aircraft, an Airbus A340, carried 297 passengers and 12 crew members. Everyone on board the jet was able to get off the plane. There are no victims. 22 passengers suffering minor injuries are treated at area hospitals.

Air France is doing everything to give assistance to passengers who where on board flight AF 358.

Air France has established a passenger information centre, and a toll-free number is available for family and friends of those who may have been on board flight AF 358 The toll-free number is :
For those calling from France : 0 800 800 812
For those calling from outside : + 33 1 56 93 10 00

[lead zeppelin]

Often wondered if it would be beneficial to pave over that ravine - on the runway heading - runway width - and install a culvert - and carrier type barrier nets. No nets and highway 401 would be the end result.

The environmentalists would be all over that plan - it's Canada, eh?

[kiwiman]

I think some of our members are getting a little sensitive.

If a complete loss of airframe occurred with passengers on board and with the aircraft being in rapid motion immediately after touch down is not a crash, what is?

[Ignition Override]

Armada-thanks for the excellent news website.

It will be interesting to later read whether most emergency exits were useable, depending on how steep an angle going down any evacuation slides in uneven terrain and with any collapsed landing gear. This could cause broken bones or worse.

Also, whether the passengers went to the nearest useable exits, especially behind them.

Historically, it has been said that many passengers instinctively try to go forward to the main cabin door. The flightcrew and cabin crewmembers must have done a superb job with no time to plan and coordinate on the interphone etc. :ok:

Let's learn as much as we can from this.:ugh:

[Dark Knight]

Let us hope some do learn from this.

Commandment 6

Thou shalt take-off nor shall thou attempt a landing during a thunderstorm.

DK

[McGinty]

It was interesting to listen to the various passengers interviewed for the main national evening news bulletins of both CBC and CTV News here in Canada.

They all had the same story. A relatively uneventful landing, given the weather conditions, with the passengers even applauding the landing, but then the plane keeps on cruising down the runway. All interviewed then described a serious of bumps ("a roller coaster ride" said one) and flames roaring past the windows prior to the aircraft coming to rest.

The flames prior to the plane stopping its progress was common across all the descriptions (all from passengers from the rear of the plane), suggesting that the landing gear and or the engines had collapsed or detached sufficiently early for the flames to have arisen and be observed.

One other phenomenon, noticable particularly in the CBC's footage of police getting out of their vehicles on the taxiway adjacent to the tail of the AF plane, was the fact that the ground around the police cars seemed to be tinged with white, even though they were not actually near the flaming plane and the foam produced by the fire engines.

Was it possible that there was a very localised hailstorm just as the plane landed, causing the plane to skid down the runway on ice from the hail?

[aardvark2zz]

WOW, what a change is wind direction, and speed and quite localized (i.e. a difference between nearby airports)

Toronto Intl
CYYZ 022100Z 18013KT 8SM -TSRA BKN055 BKN140 22/19 A3004 RERA RMK SC5AC2 CB ASOCTD FU ALF SLP171
CYYZ 022020Z 34024G33KT 3SM +TSRA FEW015 OVC040TCU 23/ RMK SF2TCU6 CB ASOCTD
CYYZ 022004Z CCA 34024G33KT 1 1/4SM +TSRA SCT015 OVC045TCU 23/ RMK RA2SF2TCU5 CB ASOCTD
CYYZ 022000Z 29011KT 4SM +TSRA BKN051TCU BKN140 23/22 A3002 RMK TCU6AC1 CB ASOCTD LTGCC VIS LWR SW-NW 2 SLP164

Toronto Island nearby
CYTZ 022100Z AUTO 31008KT 9SM -RA BKN026 BKN084 BKN094 23/20 A3002 RMK PCPN 1.0MM PAST HR SLP165
CYTZ 022010Z AUTO 31003KT 9SM -RA FEW084 23/20 A2999
CYTZ 022000Z AUTO 27006KT 9SM FEW084 23/20 A2999 RMK SLP156

They had winds from the side at 24 knots gusting 33 knots (38 mph !!) and therefore had a slight tailwind and therefore, importantly, had no headwind !

I haven't seen too many comments in this thread about the strong crosswinds ??

I've experienced 40 mph winds while sailing and it is very impresssive.

Can someone comment on the max crosswind that a A340 can legally take when the runway is dry or especially when wet.

It was raining moderately and heavily for the past hour or more. I have the several radar images stored on my HDisk.

Pics that I couldn\'t upload while the AD.com server was down (overloaded)

Information as of 2139Z from fboweb.com

http://www.airdisaster.com/user-uploads/000suntitled.gif

http://www.airdisaster.com/user-uploads/000loc37.jpg

http://www.airdisaster.com/user-uploads/000loc36.jpg

[RevMan2]

Spot on, kiwiman

Qte
If a complete loss of airframe occurred with passengers on board and with the aircraft being in rapid motion immediately after touch down is not a crash, what is?
Qte

Analogy:
Car brakes at high speed, leaves the road, catches fire.

Crash or "It was simply a roadway excursion gone awry..."?

The former, methinks

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Got up this morning expecting the worst when I checked the news.... but apparently everyone survived. Judging from the pics, those people definitely had someone on their side. Thank God.

Aircraft expert David Learmount is reported by the BBC to have said: ""Modern airliners are like that. They don't have accidents. "

So, now we can all rest easier in our beds..

[Farmer 1]

Europilot.

A minor correction: I doubt the QNH was 30.03 mm Hg. It should be inches, of course.

Mind you, Canada went metric a while back, so they're probably metric inches.

[Kaptin M]

:ok: :ok: Two Thumbs Up to Aaron Brown of CNN, for giving the crew of the Air France Airbus the praise he did, and that they rightly deserve.
He said something along the lines of, "Usually they hand out drinks and headsets, but today the crew of the AF aircraft proved their worth when it was demanded of them, by successfully evacuating all passengers......"

Good one Aaron - well done those Air France F/A's :ok:

[Few Cloudy]

- X wind limits are dependent upon runway condition. If the runway is flooded, usually around 5 knots.

Trouble is, unless it is winter, runway reports are not usually given.

- Lightning - is usually no problem in an airliner. You get an impressive bang and a flash but little more - sometimes compass systems play up.

- Lights out before landing is standard procedure in European airlines. Lights out before evacuation is a result of switching during the evacuation drill - the emergency lights however should come on.

- Crash doesn't mean falling out of the sky but impact and damage. See Tenerife.

- Crew - evacuation seems to be good work. Decision making and APP / Ldg - let us wait and see.

[jon01]

This is the second A340 destroyed, first was an AF A340-200 in 1994:

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/884231/L/

J01

[Evanelpus]

Many congratulations to the crew of this flight for getting the pax out so quickly, just goes to show that all their training paid off.

Now I'm not a pilot but when I looked at the weather map at the time of the crash the storm seemed to be centred around the Toronto area. Can any pilots out there say whether they would have landed given the weather scenario, hung around a bit to see if it moved away or diverted somewhere else?

[Sootikin]

Just noticed a revealing quote from a press conference :

"The plane burned ..... but every passenger could get off the plane prior to the burning," Air France spokesman Jerome Guyen said. "That's very good news for Air France."

Hmm. Company man through and through. I guess it might be good news for passengers as well...

Globe-and-mail (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050803.wcrash0803/BNStory/National)

[spannerless]

It might be a bit harsh but why take the risk????

How many times do we have to see this?

There have been numerous incidents of this type in the last 18 months particularly in Asia (Admittedly during the rainy season).

You only have to look at the ACA posting about crew running out of hours and burning precious fuel by diverting! But at least they had the sense to do rather than destroy the aircraft, put passengers lives at risk!

Aren't the regulatory bodies putting pressure on to the individual operators to prevent them pressurising crew's to meet their schedules for the sake of a drop of fuel etc.

Bit like flying on for a couple of hours on one engine over a big pond from a remote island rather than dumping fuel and turning back or worse flying on in the same situation after a bird strike with unknown damage to airframe and adjacent engines!

And that captain knows who he is! After 35 yrs in the industry of looking at and assessing the damage from these sorts of incidents I wouldn't like to fly with him if he prepared to take un-necessary risks like that or anyone else for that matter.

It’s about time the industry woke up to all the short cutting/Cost cutting going on.

Yes we know the industry is hurting but in most cases the operators are not helping there selves.

This is why passengers along with the high cost of travelling on some routes lack of flights, over crowding, poor service, poor seat space, luggage allowances, safety issues, security etc....

Passengers are just staying at home!!!!

I know the family home abroad has been suffering in terms of rental because of some of these issues..... Customers have told us!!!!!

WAKE UP!!!!!!!!

:(

[TheOddOne]

Trouble is, unless it is winter, runway reports are not usually given.

Not the case in the UK.

We promulgate changes in runway state e.g. DAMP, DAMP, DRY, or WET, WET, DAMP, etc as conditions change. This is verfied by actual full-length inspection, even when we're busy. This information is then broadcast on the Gatwick ATIS. If there is no information on runway state, then it's because it's DRY, DRY, DRY.

Cheers,
The Odd One

[Cejkovice]

I think someone earlier stated that initial reports said reverse thrust wasn't used.

I've just seen some new pictures on BBC and engine 4 clearly has the thrust reverse doors open.

Cejk

[yggorf]

Call me paranoid, but when any A/C lands with a flat tyre or something, there are pages of "congratulations to the crew for a job well done" on pprune.

But when an AF crew manages to evacuate a burning AC after a major mishap without any significant casualties, the congratulations are much more scarce... Do I sense a slight anti-AF bias on this thread?

As far as I'm concerned, the way this particular crew acted confirms the trust I've always had not only in the AF crews but in all the crews of the major airlines I regularly fly with.
Thank you all ladies and gentlemen:ok:

[SIDSTAR]

Obviously an accident with a good outcome. Looks like a very good evacuation. No doubt the broken fuselage helped - every hole is an exit etc. My thoughts are with the two pilots who are going to be subjected to the most intense scrutiny of their decision-making for months on end.

Much more important, in my opinion, is what was a 'ravine' doing anywhere near a runway. This is not a third-world airport. Investigators should be looking at this appalling design, especially if a DC9 went off there in the past. What might have been a simple runoff incident becomes a major accident for no good reason. Remember the DC8 in the old Athens years ago?

[BigHitDH]

With quite some space to spare at the end of the runway before the ravine/wooded area, could the airport not install a sand filled arrestor bed? Manchester (EGCC) has one at the end of 26R/06L to avoid that small valley with the service road.

[Pegasus77]

As a 340-pilot myself I was completely shocked by the images I saw yesterday on television.

On CNN within 10 minutes they had already decided it must have been a windshear accident, which to my opinion was near the impossible (they overran, and did not crash short of the runway).

Then they got hold of an actual passenger who had evacuated the burning aircraft only minutes ago... That meant that at least some of the pax had come out alive!

After it was clear that at least most of the people got out unharmed, I was able to go to sleep.

I don't even want to speculate on what caused this crash. I only want to congratulate the crew on doing a fantastic job evacuating the aircraft and saving all the lives on board before the aircraft was completely on fire. I love professionals on board of an aircraft!

P77

[The Greaser]

Pegasus - surely a windshear event is just as likely to result in an overrun as it is an undershoot.

[Pegasus77]

Hi Greaser,

Could be... I always learnt that the classical windshear situation is where you have an increase in headwind, then a sudden decrease, which goes over in a blasting tailwind, and even full power cannot help you out as you are hurled to the ground... (I am exaggerating a bit), which makes you land short of the runway. It is a situation where you are short of energy, if you overrun you clearly have too much energy?

But I can be wrong offcourse, maybe you can think of some scenarios where windshear does cause you to overrun?

P77

[gen3]

:cool: :ok: Thank God for the safety of all on board. I can only agree with an earlier post that the 2 chaps upfront are going to face a grilling for some months to come. Let's hope that all the procedures in the book were followed. that should save their hides a bit.

I also hope that the now famous ravine will be filled up....

gen3 :ok:

[Gordon Fraser]

On 26 June 1978 I was working at Toronto International Airport when an Air Canada DC-9 suffered a tire blow-out followed by engine injestion and failure, resulting in an aborted take-off. The aircraft ran off the end on the runway and landed in the same ravine as the Air France A340. The impact broke the aircraft fuselage into three pieces and although there was no fire, there were 2 fatalities and 105 injured, some very seriously. This ravine in nearly 80 feet deep and I thnk that it is ridiculous that such a hazard still exists at the end of such a major internationak airport runway. Why have Transport Canada taken no steps in over 25 years to remove this hazard?

[jabird]

This was a very surreal event to read about before nodding off last night - it looked so serious, but also amazing that everyone survived.

I suppose it is easy to want to ask why, and to question if proceedures were followed, but I know that I don't envy the staff who had to deal with this event, and that I admire their ability to have got everyone out. It is so easy to point the fingers from the other side of a modem cable thousands of miles away, but as a strict "desk" jockey, I'm glad I am unlikely to ever have to face the sort of split second decisions the crew had to last night.

On a factual point, the A340 loss at CDG was mentioned earlier - was the VS event (A340 at LHR, 1997) also a hull loss, or did they manage to repair the aircraft? Nothing on the usual sources about this.

[ScienceDoc]

I read on another site, that flights over 4 hours are required to perform a safety demonstration before landing in Canada.

Is this true? If it is, it was probably very helpful. In any case: Well done to all involved!

[Doors to Automatic]

I'm amazed that major airports do not have arrestor beds at the end of the runways.

24R at Manchester has (or at least had) one which is 90m long but designed to stop a 747 travelling at 40kts within 60m from memory. The result - no fire and no air frame loss and definately no casualties. Not rocket science surely?

[readywhenreaching]

FYI, it was the 3rd hull loss of an A340 aircraft.

24.07.2001 Sri Lankan A340-300 4R-ADD
destroyed by tamil rebels
20.01.1994 Air France A340-200 F-GNIA
burned out whilst under tow (overheated fuelpump caused fire)

check all recent AF losses

http://www.jacdec.de/news.htm

[Globaliser]

MarkD: liveatc is being "slashdotted" (although it has not actually being posted to slashdot), I imagine the same kind of hammering is being meted out to its servers. The 1600 ATC mp3 is currently downloading on my cable connection at a leisurely 0.6kbps!Although I can't get the archive search function to provide anything, tinkering with the URL

http://www.liveatc.net/.archive/cyyz/CYYZ-Toronto-Aug-02-05-1600.mp3

still seems to reach the necessary files.

[catchup]

(overheated fuelpump caused fire)


To be beancounting, it was a hyd-pump;)
regards

[jammydonut]

Presume its there to prevent any overshoots from going onto the ajacent freeway and compounding fatalities.

[assymetric]

Just to confirm.

I guess this was the only A340 involved in a serious accident.

[rotornut]

If it had gone onto 401, with 16 lanes of traffic in rush hour...

[Gordon Fraser]

It is a natural feature and I agree that it certainly prevents an aircraft going on to Highway 401. My point, however is whether a major runway should present these alternatives.

[Kestrel_909]

Regarding the wind changing, did anyone notice how the smoke changed direction in a short space of time?

Glad everyone got out, the clouds of black smoke were worrying but if all escape in 50-90 seconds, in the position it is sitting and with only 14 minor injuries, then bravo.


All we need to do now is sit back and let David Learmount explain the whole cause and events of the accident.:hmm:

[ou Trek dronkie]

Probably the reasons for getting into the crash situation will be debated for a long time, but I would like to add my congratulations to all the crew and the rescue people for saving so many lives. Perhaps it’s a good augury for the safe survival of an A380, should it get into a similar situation.

As for lightning strikes, from my two experiences of this phenomenon, I would say that anything can happen after you have been zapped. You cannot predict accurately, IMHO.

I agree totally with SIDStar, ravines have no right to be close neighbours to runways. Old memories of 15L at LGAT spring to mind, as SID the Star says. I recall three in the ditch there, saw two of them. Ugly. . When will they learn ?

Again, a fantastic story with a magnificent ending. Well done everybody !!! :ok: :ok: :ok:

oTd

[Lou Scannon]

The only known fact at the moment seems to be that the Air France cabin crew did a superb job on the evac.

I have some concerns about the apparent inability of the fire service to supress the fires. They still seemed to be burning hours later. If the terrain is blamed for the lack of close in fire trucks this will be surprising. I was there just after the DC9 finished up in the ravine so surely tracks were laid in there to give access in case another aircraft finished up in the same position.

[Few Cloudy]

The Odd One,

Yep - "wet" is the worst I´ve heard in the UK. Never heard "flooded". I have even approached in a teeming downpour to a field near London and asked for the runway state. "It's wet", they said.

Well I could see that! What I wanted to know is whether there was standing water and how much - exactly because of the X Wind factor.

I had to hold off while they went to look.

I guess we pilots are to blame because we don´t ask that question much and too many just land anyway.

Greetings,

FC.

[MorningGlory]

Was in the jumpseat on a BA 747-200 in '99 for landing in YYZ. Was just before Xmas, and there was quite heavy snow drifting across the runway.
Capt floated it quite a way before touchdown and must admit didn't stop too far from the end.. FO and engineer looked a wee bit concerned, probably knowing what was just off the end..

[GOLF-INDIA BRAVO]

I have heard them at Manchester say wet, wet, wet but then expand on that by say either very wet or standing water or details of breaking info from either previous aircraft or estimated from ops vehicles ( which I presume is covering their back)

G-I-B

[Old Pilot]

Jabird, the Virgin A340 was back in the air after a couple of months.

An awful lot of blather about lightning strikes, hail on the runway, windshear and cross winds... it looks like a nasty but straightforward over run into a bad bit of terrain after aquaplaning. Not the first one in an A340 as Luftie had one a few years ago but with less dire consequences. A340 has a bit of a history of anti skid problems in the wet but all supposed to be modded out now.

[Centaurus]

I have only flown 737's but if you float a long way into the runway due excess speed and at the same time losing forward vision through the windscreen in blinding rain, there is no problem with simply opening up and going around. Is there any technical reason why this cannot be done safely in an A340?

[Bmused55]

Is there any technical reason why this cannot be done safely in an A340?

How about only having 4 hamster wheels for engines :E

[admiral ackbar]

I read on another site, that flights over 4 hours are required to perform a safety demonstration before landing in Canada.

Not the whole demonstration but they are required to remind people of the emergency exit locations. As you said, this was probably helpful in this case.

Good job on the AF crew, I fly a lot on them for business and in the air, they are some of the best crews around, very professional. The ground staff at CDG is another story! :E

My girlfriend is flying in from New York friday on...Air France. She didn't seem worried at all, good girl!

[What_does_this_button_do?]

I have just got the London Evening Standard and it shows a picture of the port side (just in front of the wing) emergency exit opened and people jumping.

Question: Where the fudge was the escape slide?

:mad:

[OhForSure]

OK. Don't wanna start any undue speculation here BUT, I will just say this one thing:

From ALL the pictures that I have seen so far... the spoilers have NOT appeared to have been deployed.

I'm not on a 'Bus so I'm not up to scratch on spoiler operations... but would be interested to know:

1) If you can land without spoilers armed? IE. will the systems allow it, or will there be warnings of any kind?

2) Is there any sort of auto-stow feature built-in... IE, automatically lowers spoilers below, say 20kts? (I doubt it, but I wouldn't put it passed Airbus).

Regardless, at this point the AF crew (both sides of the door) should be congratulated on handling a very difficult situation extremely well.

[What_does_this_button_do?]

in fact other port side pictures don't show any escape slides either...

[barit1]

A bit of YYZ history, please:

Did the 401 right-of-way exist before the rwy 24 was extended out to (almost) meet it?

Or - was the end of 24 in place at the time the 401 was built?

In other words - what were they thinking?

[TheOddOne]

assymetric,

I'm afraid we're playing with symantics again here, but I count the one-leg-up Virgin A340 at Heathrow as an accident.

I'm reliably informed that the Virgin a/c flew again, a few weeks afterwards, but has since been sold on to make room for the A340-600's that Virgin are buying.

Cheers,
The Odd One

[trainer too 2]

Just saw some photos on the BBc and as told in training: when running for your life people will take with them: their hand luggage.... :(

It always amases me how stupid we humans are. :hmm:

The fortunate thing was that the fire was in the back as it is human nature to exit through the same door we entered... which were available now..

Congrats to the AF CC's :ok:

[What_does_this_button_do?]

someome managed to snap the exit!?!?

http://www.thestar.com/images/thestar/img/050803_interior_plane_250.jpg
(c) www.thestar.com

[michael_to]

Air France officials, including chairman Jean-Cyril Spinetta, a medical team and a psychologist, were scheduled to arrive Wednesday in Toronto to investigate the crash and help ensure the continuing health of its passengers.

"I want to pay homage to the crew," Spinetta told a news conference Wednesday at the airline's headquarters in France. "I don't know if we should speak of a miracle . . . but above all the professionalism of the crew."

Toronto radio station CFRB reported Wednesday that the pilot of the ill-fated Airbus may have been the last person off the burning plane.

Before leaving the burning wreckage, the pilot - a 57-year-old Air France veteran who was injured in the crash - sent a radio message to report he had made a complete row-by-row sweep of the aircraft to ensure all passengers had escaped.


Source:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1845&ncid=1845&e=1&u=/cpress/20050803/ca_pr_on_na/plane_crash

[PAXboy]

With regards to the proximity of the 401 highway. Irrespective of whether it was there before the runway was extended or not, building a bridge over the ravine, containing a sand trap would not have been difficult. Then the enviros would have their ravine and a/c would have a saftey feature worth having.

One 'expert' I heard on BBC 24 News said how the modern a/c are so much safer as they are built much more strongly than previous generations. If memory serves (pax memory :rolleyes: ) the VC10 and 707 were heavier and stronger for withstanding a crash than a 777 or 340. Or would the extra mass have made decleration more difficult??

[admiral ackbar]

Raised before hand but WHERE ARE THE SLIDES?

http://www.thestar.com/images/thestar/img/050803_pearson_crash_gal.jpg

[PAXboy]

It seems that many slides malfunctioned and here is aquote from one pax, from the Toronto Star (thanks for link above).Abedrabblo said it took less than five minutes from the time the plane landed until he made it out the door Forget the 90 seconds. They were VERY lucky. Not a miracle, just luck.

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

Lou S, I ony have very limited fire fighting experience, but at bush fire school we were taught that if lives are not in danger then sometimes it is better to adopt the defensive rather than offensive action, contain the fire and let it run its course, rather than risk putting firefighters' lives in danger.

Thank god they all got out OK.

[wideman]

One story in today's Globe and Mail tells about a passing motorist who picked up four pax who had found their way to the adjacent highway. The motorist said, "They were dripping wet, and kept apologizing about my car [getting wet]. . . . Their brief cases and their bags were covered in mud."

Several other places reference people who were carrying their on-board baggage with them after leaving the a/c.

However quickly the evacuation took place, it is almost certain that it could have been quicker had all baggage been left behind. I hope that the investigative report will discuss this aspect of the evac.

While it is not difficult to understand why some/many people took their on-board luggage (seriousness of the situation may not have been immediately apparent to everyone, general mindset that an extra 5 seconds to take the bag won't make a difference, cabin crew having many other other things to do than insisting that everyone leave all bags, etc.), it would be useful indeed if better procedures were in place to reduce the likelihood of pax taking baggage during an evac.

[trainer too 2]

Before leaving the burning wreckage, the pilot - a 57-year-old Air France veteran who was injured in the crash - sent a radio message to report he had made a complete row-by-row sweep of the aircraft to ensure all passengers had escaped.

That is my definition of a hero.... what ever caused the accident, crew involvement or not. To go against the flow into a burning aircraft to leave the ship last once you know it is empty defines you as a true Skipper!

[jewitts]

From BBC's "have your say"

I didn't witness it, but I had friends of the family calling the home. My mother works for Air Canada and her colleagues on duty were calling her from the airport telling her they witnessed the landing from the terminal. The plane touched down and was hit by lightning at that moment on the top centre of the plane...the tyres burst on impact...and the plane swayed side to side before coming to rest in the ravine and cracking in half. Next that could be seen was flames after about 3 mins. Emergency services were on the scene immediately, but no rescue was viewable from the terminals, so everyone was unaware of the status of the passengers.
Anthony Zanfini, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada

Gospel according to Air Canada?

[rotornut]

Just heard a news conference with the airport fire chief on CFTR radio. It took 52 seconds for the emergency crews to get to the plane after it went off the runway. He said when they got there 3/4 of the passengers had been evacuated. He also confirmed that the captain was the last to leave.
Nice going Air France!

[What_does_this_button_do?]

er...whilst I DO NOT know if this is the case, a picture in the Evening Standard has the Captains escape window wide open, however, can't see the rope.

[Kaptin M]

While it is not difficult to understand why some/many people took their on-board luggage....... ( it would be useful indeed if better procedures were in place to reduce the likelihood of pax taking baggage during an evac.
As a sympathetic crew member, I agree.
As a sympathetic pax, I would also agree - if the re-issue of PASSPORTS were a non-issue!!

[Roguedent]

Paxboy,

As a VC10 pilot, and as some on this site will know, the VC10 is basically a submarine with wings. Decel is not a problem with the extra weight (even with only two of the orginal 4 reversers that BOAC had). Not sure about the ability to withstand a crash better than modern day aircraft, because I can't remember a incident invoving one.

As for the crash, Well done to the Emerg services for getting every one off, where are the slides?? Are they automatic on an airbus? Forgive the question, but we have to put ours out manually. Also, and I will speculate, like most of you want to do, but this seems like a massive 'press-on-itus' incident. Why on earth would you land in that weather. Do they do 7root P stuff in france. Let me see, Thunderstorm = HEAVY RAIN, WINDSHEAR and generally not nice for the punters down the back. Yes well done to the crew for getting every one out alive, but this was avoidable. Don't for a minute think I am blaming a very Professional and experienced crew, but it seems that companies are asking a lot of crews.:sad:

On the fire fighting side, why risk a fireman, when you stand back and watch the piece of scrap burn out

[ozplane]

On the subject of VC-10 crashworthiness, East African Airways had a similar accident at Addis (?) in the 70s. It went off the end after the nosewheel punctured on a jacking pad left on the runway. It too went in to a "donga" but a lot of the survivors were burnt to death when they got entangled in the barbed wire surrounding the airfield perimeter.

[lexxity]

Sky news show an interwiew with a pax and he says he had no issues with the way the crew carried out their roles (in contrast to others) and how he will definitely be flying AF again.:ok: I can't find a copy of the transcript I'm afraid.

Good man.

Well done to the crew, you guys did an amazing job to get everybody off so quickly and if reports of the captain checking the a/c and leaving last are true, then, sir I take my hat off to you. Chapeau!

[mr Q]

Apologies if this URL has already been posted...
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050803.wcrash0803/BNStory/National/
It reads as a balanced and objective narrative...

[RatherBeFlying]

Bill Hepburn, a meteorologist with Environment Canada, said the leading edge of a heavy thunderstorm hit the airport just minutes before the crash. Yesterday's accident bears at least a superficial resemblance to the 1993 crash of a smaller A320 Airbus in Warsaw. Because the pilots had been warned of microbursts, they landed at higher than usual speed, as recommended in the flight manual. However, the slippery conditions and gentle touchdown fooled the complex computer systems on the Airbus, with the result that it delayed deployment of the thrust reversers and spoilers. Paul Koring -- Globe and Mail

A passenger interviewed on radio this morning said that the rain was so thick they could hardly breathe.

Rain that heavy indicates a downburst and I wonder what a sudden extra 20 or so knots of airspeed in ground effect would do, especially to something a slick as an A340. To begin with, it would delay touchdown although I don't have the math to determine just how much.

Lets just be very grateful that a go-around was not attempted as I don't see how anything would be able to fly out the other side of this downburst.

[Dozza2k]

OhForSure,
Don't crews, once the a/c is slowed or stopped, stow the spoilers so in the event of evacuation pax going thru the overwings aren't presented with another obstacle? Thats probably why you say they aren't up.
D2K

top marks for the crew with the evacuation

[qsyenroute]

'Press-on-itus' is an operating method practised by pilots for generations and well known to Air Traffic Controllers. A classic case of 'press-on-itus', very similar to this accident, occurred in Doha, Qatar in the 70’s. A Royal Jordanian B727 made several attempts to land in a violent thunderstorm finally being caught in a micro burst on short final and literally hitting the runway at a descent rate of 4000 fpm (measured from the black box). After colliding with the Fire Section (yes) the crew did not hesitate to evacuate the aircraft. Forty passengers were killed and 14 crew survived. Vive la France!

[norodnik]

I, like everyone else, was hugely relieved to hear everyone got out safely.

However, I wish everyone would stop with the plaudits for the crew and captain.

Fact is, we have no idea yet why the captain opted for the ravine rather than the gate. It could have been completely unavoidable, or it could have been complete incompetence.

Everyone got out because the aircraft did not burn immediately and it remained upright and relatively in one piece.

Will we ever find out the truth on this accident, or will it be another classic Air Chance cover up like the last one.

[In The North]

:eek:

I'll add my "plaudits" for the crew and captain. I was in the area of the accident and saw the wreckage first hand. It is incredible that there were no casualties and regardless of WHY it happened, it was no doubt the crew of that aircraft that managed to get everyone out and to safety! Congratulations and well done!

[Rollingthunder]

Well AF is not investigating this accident. They are granted observer status. The TSB is investigating and they are a very professional group of experts.

[norodnik]

In the North

you wrote:

"I'll add my "plaudits" for the crew and captain. I was in the area of the accident and saw the wreckage first hand. It is incredible that there were no casualties and regardless of WHY it happened, it was no doubt the crew of that aircraft that managed to get everyone out and to safety! Congratulations and well done!"

How do you know ? How do you know the crew didn't run for it.

And being in the area qualifies you as an expert witness ??

If you were in a plane that had just crashed, would you just wait to get off, or would you do what we all would do and try and get out.

Ummm, tricky one that.

Do you want to address the points I made or just be a lemming and jump on the plaudits bandwagon ?

[admiral ackbar]

How do you know ? How do you know the crew didn't run for it.

Because all passenger reports state that the crew did a great job getting everyone off the plane.

Because the CEO of AF says that the copilot was the last one of the plane and he radioed a message before getting off the plane that he had checked the aircraft and that everyone was off.

I think the crew did a great job to get every one off safely. I do agree with you that we should hold back on how they got there, that is a job for the CTSB, Air France will have nothing to do with this investigation (please no semantics, you know what I mean). They don't have the same pull on the Canadian government than on the French one. And from the accounts of the pros in this forum, I think the general concensus is that the CTSB usually does a pretty good investigative job.

BTW, I'm not French, just living over here.

[PaperTiger]

If it had gone onto 401, with 16 lanes of traffic in rush hour...It is a natural feature and I agree that it certainly prevents an aircraft going on to Highway 401.
If you look at a diagram of CYYZ, you will see that the extended centreline of 24L does not intersect the 401 freeway for over 1km from the end of the runway/ravine. To 'go on to' the 401 would have required a 90-degree slew. IOW, media hype.

This ravine in nearly 80 feet deep and I thnk that it is ridiculous that such a hazard still exists at the end of such a major international airport runway.
Why have Transport Canada taken no steps in over 25 years to remove this hazard?Think you've answered it yourself - cost effectiveness - 1 (well 2 now) in 25+ years does not constitute a significant hazard to the beancounters :hmm: I would think that since 24L is the new runway, some crush zone at the end could have been included. Ah yes, there's that cost thing again. :uhoh:

[MrNosy]

One of the conclusions to the Dept. of Transport report on the 1978 Air Canada DC-9 accident was - 'The overrun area of Runway 23L (24L) at Toronto was within accepted international standards. A ravine beyond the overrun left no additional margin for error and contributed to the high casualty rate.'

[gaunty]

It seems despite the pax, win lose or draw the crew did a heroic job.

While it is not difficult to understand why some/many people took their on-board luggage (seriousness of the situation may not have been immediately apparent to everyone, general mindset that an extra 5 seconds to take the bag won't make a difference, cabin crew having many other other things to do than insisting that everyone leave all bags, etc.), it would be useful indeed if better procedures were in place to reduce the likelihood of pax taking baggage during an evac.

Reminds me of a decades old study, and I test my memory, revealing that "over 80% of the fatalities on aircraft in this situtation were alive, fit and well when the aircraft came to rest" .... they sucumbed in the subsequent smoke and fire trying to get at their hand luggage etc .

In general terms their immediate behaviour post, was observed to be disconnected, as if the aircraft had arrived normally at the gate and it was time to collect the on board baggage out of the bins, find the magazines/books/duty free, put on apparel, call home on the mobile phone :rolleyes: and attempt to disembark normally.

Survivors noted that it took a very great deal of motivation by the crew to break the mindset.

Perhaps this acccident might motivate airlines to add an explicit announcement to the before TO and Landing briefs to the effect that in the event of a mishap, even if it appears that they are safe, they are nonetheless, to follow the explicit instructions of the crew until such time as they have evacuated the aircraft, as over 80% of those who do not, will perish.

How much in this case was good luck rather than good management in regard to the post impact fire.

Hats off to the Captain for his responsible actions and to the crew notwithstanding.

[In The North]

Norodnik,

Admiral Ackbar has responded to most of your post as well as I could have, so I will simply state that I agree and leave it at that.

In regards to the remainder of your post:

"And being in the area qualifies you as an expert witness ??'

I actually never said that I considered myself an expert witness. I was speaking from the point of view of someone who witnessed first hand the distressing sight of that plane, as well as from an experienced cabin crew member with 15+ years of expertise. IF I were involved in a plane crash, I certainly would not simply 'wait to get off'. I would be doing what I believe the Air France crew were doing, which is using my training to clear the aircraft of passengers as quickly as possible in an effort to save as many as possible. The numbers don't lie. Everyone survived. I will go out on a limb here and say that a large part of that was due to the instructions and direction of the crew.

I don't argue with you that the facts will surface in time as to the WHY. However, I beg to differ with your statement of 'Everyone got out because the aircraft did not burn immediately and it remained upright and relatively in one piece.' It may well be that the plane was upright and relatively in one piece due to the actions of the pilots, I stand by my statement that everyone got out because of a crew doing the job they are trained for.

I will assume that having now addressed your comments, I am welcome to jump back on the plaudits bandwagon.

[Rockhound]

I don't believe anyone has mentioned that the federal Canadian transport minister, Jean Lapierre, told reporters last night that he had been advised the pilot of AF358 landed long. (Personally, I think that, even if this was true, Lapierre should have kept his trap shut).
At the risk of being accused of fostering premature speculation, I have a question for A343 drivers. Rwy 24L at YYZ is 9000 ft long. Given the WX conditions and if one assumes that all systems (brakes, thrust reversers, spoilers, etc.) were in working order and no go-around was being attempted, could you say that it is at least highly likely that the pilot landed long or is it entirely possible that he ran out of room even if touchdown was at the beginning of the runway?
Rockhound

[Squawk7777]

Here's some good reporting from Yahoo! (http://news.yahoo.com/s/cpress/20050803/ca_pr_on_na/plane_crash_25)

The Airbus A-340's twin tail-mounted engines had just started to burn when Figiola arrived on the scene less than a minute after the crash.

sigh! :ugh:

[slingsby]

Looking at the picture of the pax exiting the aircraft som slide, it does appear that the slide skirt/door bar is hanging from the bottom of the door, either it has not engaged properly or has failed on activation. Only an educated guess.

I must admit when I first saw the pictures emerge on the TV last night I thought the worst, but gradually the info came through that there were no casualties. Well done cabin crew for a timely and safe evacuation.

[rjmore]

We humans are strange creatures. In an extremely stressful situation like that, we tend to go into a state of shock. In that state, people do exactly what they planned to do when the aircraft came to a stop at the gate. Their subconcious takes over and does what it was prepared to do as the concious brain tends to shut down in such situations. That's part of the reason F/A's must scream their commands, not only for noise but to get the pax to "snap out of it".

[mcdhu]

Having arrived where they did, it's a serious ''well done'' to all the crew and passengers for the timely evac.

As to why they ended up there, let's wait; the Cvr and Fdr (provided they are recoverable) will give it all away very quickly.

Cheers all,
mcdhu

[aardvark2zz]

Yesterday it rained 36.2 mm total

or 1.43 inches which is quite a lot for Toronto :ooh:

From the METARs they had a 8 knot headwind component and then had a 4 knot (gusting 5.5) tailwind.

Or a loss of 11 knots (gusting 14)

People clapped on touchdown; which should eliminate wind-shear.

Note: METARs are not every minute, and rounding errors.

It is interesting that no indication of water level on the runway, or JBI (James Braking Index) is ever emitted (as is done in the winter).

I believe that when there is heavy rain they should force the airport to do a runway check for water level and JBI !! :ok:

I\'ve experienced a full hydro-planing event once with my car on a congested hwy at only 30 mph and had NO braking left (0.00%; lost 100.00% braking !!! ) and was about to rear end a car stopped ahead of me. It\'s a very scary erie event !!!! of having lost complete control of your car as if sliding on wet-ice (but this was summer); it felt like forever !!! :uhoh: :sad:

Luckily the hydro-planing ended and I stopped inches from the guy ahead of me. He probably had no idea of the hell I went through. :uhoh:

[ou Trek dronkie]

Well now, I just saw a professor from Cranfield University on the box (Helen Muir, I think it was), telling us viewers about the safety measures on the AF A3430 which enabled everyone to escape. She told us about floor lighting etc and then mentioned “smoke detectors in the toilets”. At least, I think she said that and I had only supped my first beer (it was 1815 LST).

Has my feeble memory gone finally given up or did something new happen since my last emergency evac ? Can someone enlighten me please ?

On the other hand, if this is rubbish, as I expect, then why don't the "experts" blah blah blah, you know what I mean. Get on the bandwagon.

Regarding the VC10 overrun, it was at Addis. The other fatal VC10 crash occurred after the pilot was shot, I disremember by whom, but it was on board.
oTd

[rotornut]

If you look at a diagram of CYYZ, you will see that the extended centreline of 24L does not intersect the 401 freeway for over 1km from the end of the runway/ravine. To 'go on to' the 401 would have required a 90-degree slew. IOW, media hype.

Hold on... The photo on page A11 of to-day's Globe & Mail shows the AC DC-9 that went off what was then 23L on June 28, 1978 (the runway has been presumably re-aligned since then). If you look at the picture you can see the skid marks of the aircraft at about a 40 degree angle to the centreline of the runway.

Now take a look at the scale diagram on page A8. If the 340 had gone off the runway at 40 degrees it would have gone into the middle of 401 in rush hour.

[davethelimey]

It may or may not be, but regarding the question of the last crash there in 1979, my favourite quote of the day so far is from the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4742669.stm)

In June 1978, an Air Canada DC-9 leaving the airport had barely left the ground when the pilot aborted take-off.

[PaperTiger]

If the 340 had gone off the runway at 40 degrees it would have gone into the middle of 401 in rush hour.

Unlikely IMO. The DC-9 was going much faster (RTO, remember), I'm guessing the A340 was doing no more than 20-30kts as evidenced by there being no discernible damage to the nose, despite the 'off-roading'. Would have stopped of its own accord within the boundary had the gully not been there..

And yes, I have seen the TC spokesperson's quote to the effect that the ravine stopped a 401 incursion. And the graphic on the same BBC page showing the A340 slewing away from the highway.

The ravine should not be there, lurking unseen, and no amount of CYA-ing by the authorities is going to change my opinion.

[yyzbuff]

Using Google Earth, I measured about 230 m from the 24L centerline to the edge of the 401 (at 90 degrees). It's up to 300 m measured at a 45 degree angle.

Depending on where the aircraft swerved from the centerline, it would be crossing that much unpaved ground (plus an airport road), two perimeter fences, drainage ditches, and in some areas, buildings or trees before it reached the highway. I would be surprised if a heavy jet could cross that distance on residual momentum, keeping in mind that much of that momentum would still be along the original vector.

There are some stories (National Post, Ottawa Citizen) noting that pilots have been lobbying since 1978 (when that DC-9 went into the creek after losing power on takeoff) to have the Etobicoke Creek ravine bridged or filled in. One story cites a pilot stating that there should be 'at least 1000 feet' of pavement BEYOND THE END OF THE RUNWAY (coincidentally, just enough to cross the Creek). The Airbus A340 Airplane Characteristics for Airport Planning Manual shows a maximum landing weight of about 423,000 lb (192,000 kg). At that weight, under ISA conditions, the same manual indicates a required landing field length of between 6,000 and 7,000 feet (about 1900 m) depending on engine type. This means that the pilots are asking for 10,000 feet (actual runway length plus 1000 feet) or 30+% of wiggle room. Anybody know what the effect of 'flooding' (or ice?) would be on actual stopping distance? Would it be that much, or are pilots asking for room to make BIG mistakes?

[frostbite]

Surely, if that ravine was bridged or filled in, it would/could assist any aircraft onto the highway instead of stopping it short?

[PaperTiger]

The ravine is perpendicular (mol) to the highway. The extended centreline of the runway comes nowhere near the highway for a long way (the Dixie interchange). An airplane going off the end of 24R or 24L in a straight line has zero chance of impacting the 401, with or without the ravine.

[philip2004uk]

the bbc link has a picture showing that the plane went off to runwat to the right hand side like diagonal before the end of the runway wheras the real picture from airliners.net shows the plane going straight down the runway as you can see the tracks on the grass. i cant beleive how professional the reports sound on the bbc yet are wrong.

[McGinty]

Two comments:

First, no one has directly responded to my suggestion that there may have been hail on the runway. Is there anyone reading this thread who was near Pearson Airport that afternoon who can indicate if those thunder-cells produced hail?

Second, the CBC has just shown helicopter shots of the crash site. I only saw part of the broadcast, but there was sufficient to indicate that the starboard inner engine was missing, presumably torn off as the plane went over the brink.

[Frankie_B]

Seeing how the airport had no major accident since the mentioned 1979 crash, i'd say up until tuesday it was severely "overdue" for one.

My opinion is that the AF guys were just unlucky yesterday, got into poor wx and were assigned the shortest runway there is, and apparently experienced a serious wind shift.

Good thing thought it didn't overrun rwy 05, or esle it'd crush to pieces my favorite Wendy's restaurant. :}

[Rollingthunder]

I was wondering where No. 3 went to as well. Currently thinking it's under the wing - helicopter shot did not get into a position to verify this.

DFDR and CVR have been recovered.

[beemer]

My office is about 8 miles west of the threshold of 24 L and R... Yesterday afternoon we experienced the most violent thunderstorm I can remember in quite a long time. Marble sized hail, torrential rain, shifting winds... the works. However it was also very localized. A couple of miles either way and you may have just received rain. Obviously ATC and the pilots felt that at the time, conditions did not preclude a landing. The TSB will determine whether that was the right call to make.

My hat is also off to the crew, the passengers, and emergency services for turning what could have been a real tragedy into just an insurance headache.

[Jerricho]

Now this annoys me. Events like this bring the armchair experts out from far and wide, making all sorts of claims. But if the path of the excursion was transposed to other airports, where would the airframe have ended up? 09R at Heathrow, you're in a carpark or the tube station. 16R at Sydney, you're in the water. 26 at Luton, it's quite a drop. I'm sure others could be added. And like Frankie says, 05 at Pearson and he has to find a new Wendy's.

IMHO it sounds like sensationalist kneejerk bullsh*t to me.

[Steve Michell]

Are we all missing the BIG picture here? Anyone really listened to thE YYZ ATC tape?
Well?
Let me spell it out:
Number 2 behind this AF A340 was KLM691. Coincindence.
BUT what happened after this KLM's missed approach when airport closed down? Right! It declared a low fuel emergency!
What on earth were those fellows doing there around an airport with the most awful weather on fumes?
An perfectly good airport with 2 runways and CAVU wx is OK with fuel of 45-60 minutes. But approaching some airprort with this kind of weather without go-go juice is plain stupid. It should've diverted much earlier.
Picture yourself as a passenger in an aircraft approaching YYZ with severe Thunderstorms OVER the field and in the approach area. Would you, as a passenger, rather wish the captain has AT LEAST plenty of gas to go anywhere else he pleases when the option to land is far from the best option indeed?
Food for thought? Anyone's any clue about AF fuel state?
SM

[16 blades]

In worst case contamination cases (dry snow on ice) we factor LDA by 0.65 - ie 10,000ft becomes 6500ft for planning purposes and max landing weight considerations.

And that's for a C-130 - we have sh1t-hot reversers and brakes that can make your eyeballs bleed. Afraid I've no idea what factors an A340 operator may use, but imagine it's something similar, since the calculations are based on loss of braking action. As a comparison, a factor of 0.9 applies for water.

16B

[Turn It Off]

Runway 30 at Cardiff - you got Lucky and landed on 26 at St Athan!!!

[Avman]

Steve , declaring a "low fuel emergency" doesn't mean he's not legal. It's just letting ATC know that although still legal, they don't want to be vectored around Canada for their next approach be it YYZ or their ALT. Having said that, today's beancounters do expect crews to keep the "extra fuel for the wife & kids" to an absolute minimum and I have to say that this trend worries me too. It's only a matter of time before fate will set up a monstrous scenario which will catch someone short. Fate is the hunter

[Capt.KAOS]

Maybe the plane landed too far and came short on braking distance?

[mocoman]

Agreed Jerricho,

one can apply factors to any airfield and find that disaster results......:E

They were lucky that the 'incident' was at a relatively slow speed and the on-board staff were fully clued-up and able; kudos and applause to them!!!

Well done to the AF Cabin Crew; lives would've been lost if it were not for your actions!!

Respect!

[FunkyMunky]

Are we all missing the BIG picture here? Anyone really listened to thE YYZ ATC tape?

What on earth were those fellows doing there around an airport with the most awful weather on fumes?


I'd imagine they were attempting to land ;) But "fumes"? They had enough for the 160nm trip to Syracuse. I don't know what the regulations regarding contingency/delay fuel are, but that sounds like enough to me?

[G-SP0T]

they should have enough to divert at any point, leaving them plenty of fuel for the divert (regardless of distance be it 10nm, or 1000nm), plus a 45 min hold, plus one go around - school boy stuff! - most people I have flown with also like to throw in an extra 10% of the total just for good measures too!

hats off too the FA's, but would love too know what happened too the chutes...

[Rollingthunder]

Comment from the Fire Chief at Pearson at a news coference this morning was that one reason the fire took so long to extinguish (reports of from 4 to 12 hours) was that there was a substantial amount of fuel onboard. Globe and Mail today quoted someone as saying the A340 has enough fuel capacity to do CDG- YYZ - CDG if they wish to. (currently taking a grain of salt)

[Jordan D]

Regarding diversion - its an interesting question ... I know BA's two flights to YYZ ended up in YOW & YUL, but I don't know if that was pre- or post-incident.

Regarding BBC ... reporting was ok, diagram was poor, "have your say" was shocking and they shouldn't have put that page up ... some utter BS on there!

As I said earlier, maybe all this pontificating isn't the best idea?

Jordan

[MarkD]

The KLM said 30 minutes at Syracuse which let's face it is not next door to YYZ - so as pointed out he wanted as direct a routing as possible as he probably anticipated other fellow diverts. Less of the hysterics please.

The first BA of the day diverted just before the AF landing according to info I have but that's not official, presumably to YOW with the trailing second service diving into YUL a couple of hours flight time behind.

[Two's in]

I thought the BBC diagram was very poor - no indication of the nearby nuclear power station, the orphanage, or the nunnery that were clearly "seconds from disaster".

Top marks to the cabin crew for getting everyone out so quickly.

[rotornut]

An airplane going off the end of 24R or 24L in a straight line has zero chance of impacting the 401, with or without the ravine
Well, let's not worry about 24R. By the way, do you know where 24R is?

[hart744]

Source: [email protected]

Revised at 2230hrs, Aug 04

YHM SSV675 (757-C-FFAN), SSV863 (757-CFTDV), ACA907 (320), ACA1156 (320), ELY106 (763), SSV16, SSV46
YXU FIN2417 (757 OH-LBV), ACA1074 (CRJ), ACA758 (320), ACA542 (319), ACA903 (319), ACA1052, ACA142 (A333)
YQG ACA983 (319 from MBJ), ACA1236 (321), ACA877 (763), ACA110 (321), ACA989 (319)
YUL BAW099 (772 G-YMMF), KLM691(744-PH-BFN-from SYR), RZO371 (310), TSC117 (TLS-YYZ 310), TSC113 (LYS-YYZ 310), AFL303 (763-VP-BAZ), MAH94 (762),ACA894 (762), ACA891 (763), ACA817(763), ACA849 (333)
YOW ACA087 (763), ACA1152 (320), CJA108 YYC-YYZ (735), CJA198 (YVR-YYZ 735), TSC123 (LGW-YYZ 310), BAW093 (744), AEW141 (763 UR-VVG), ACA157 (320)
YYB ACA116 (320), ACA164 (321), ACA126 (320),ACA272 (319), ACA786 (319), ACA130 (320)
YWG ACA180 (763), ACA1162, ACA1236, AC002 (343), ACA016 (345), ACA128 (321),
YQT ACA1172 (320), ACA120 (320)
IAG LTU1580 (332 D-ALPA)
SYR KLM691 (744 -PH-BFN)
NYC AAL1562
ORD MXA886 (319)
CLE COA2145, AAL1562
BKL AWE262 (320) PHX-YYZ diversion
DTW AAL1586

[armada]

Thrust reverser:

http://www.airdisaster.com/user-uploads/af4.jpg


About says it all...

http://www.airdisaster.com/user-uploads/AF358-02a.jpg


Correct path is red line:


http://www.airdisaster.com/user-uploads/upd.jpg


Ahead by a dome... :uhoh:

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/interactive/world/0508/gallery.toronto.crash/images/05.nose.ap.jpg

[4potflyer]

Glad everyone got off OK - that is amazing.

Hold on... The photo on page A11 of to-day's Globe & Mail shows the AC DC-9 that went off what was then 23L on June 28, 1978 (the runway has been presumably re-aligned since then). If you look at the picture you can see the skid marks of the aircraft at about a 40 degree angle to the centreline of the runway.

In the US runways are numbered by magnetic bearing - I assume they are in Canada too? Therefore occasionaly they change number as mag North moves around. I suspect that is why 23L in 1978 is 24L now...

It will be interesting to see exactly what led to the first go around. In hindsight looks like another go around was probably in order.

Can some A340 Pilots give some idea of the sophistication of the Autoland, which I assume must have been flying the plane in that kind of weather?

Clearly from the photos and witnesses the reverse thrusters were working, so you would assume the aircraft systems and therefore the ABS was working too.

Is it possible severe windshear on landing could make the autoland land really long, or is 24L a pretty tight space to stop an A340 with that much water coming down? It does not look like the tyres popped either from the photos, so it can't have landed 'that' hard...

[Aeronautic]

I too would like to know more about the A340's autoland.

I'd also like to know if any of you with A340 operational experience know of any reason why the passenger quoted on CBC tv described a complete power failure in the cabin (which I assume meant the lights went out - see below), one minute before his sense of the "crash" starting.

Any idea?

Here is the quote (I've heard this audio re-broadcast on the BBC):

"The power shut down completely. That was because of the rain or the very heavy winds or whatever," said the unidentified passenger. "One minute before we crashed completely, there was no more light in the plane. It was really really scary," he added.

Thanks!

[Frankie_B]

As for the runways at YYZ,

they were renamed due to contruction of the third parallel (which is what is now 24L-06R). They kept the 24's on the south side, and the northern one became 23-05 although its magnetic heading i believe is 237 deg. Why they didn't use 24L, 24C, 24R - je ne sais pas...

[HotDog]

Armada,Correct path is red line: The red line AirDisaster shows is on the taxy way. Is that where the AirDisaster "experts" reckon they should have landed?

[armada]

Not overly familar with YYZ myself.


Edited, added: http://www.airdisaster.com/user-uploads/ataxi.JPG

Outdated chart.

[innuendo]

FrankieB,

"They kept the 24's on the south side, and the northern one became 23-05 although its magnetic heading i believe is 237 deg. Why they didn't use 24L, 24C, 24R - je ne sais pas..."

At the risk of diverting the thread, I have always wondered why airports designate parallel runways with the same number with L and R as the only difference. The numbers are to the nearest ten so why at a two parallel runway air port could they not be designated 23, 24 and 05, 06 reducing the possibility of confusion of "did he say Left or Right?". Easier in FMS selections and so on.
I realise that there are airports with multiple parallels but keeping runway designators as different as feasable seems to me a way of reducing the potential confusion factor.
I'm assuming that there must be reasons, maybe someone can enlighten me.

[lead zeppelin]

Why they didn't use 24L, 24C, 24R - je ne sais pas...

There are plans to build a parallel to 05-23, thus the "C" wouldn't work. They'll have 05L-23R and 05R-23L as well as the 06-24's

[Ontariotech]

If anybody is interested in listening to the ATC archive for the 20 minutes prior to AF358 entering the pattern, the 10 minutes AF358 is in the pattern, and then the following 10 minutes of go-arounds, including KLM 691 Low fuel emergency, PM me. I can email you the ATC winamp files.

And every know and then, someone gets on these boards and says pilots are paid too much..........

Whatever.....

[catchup]

In my company autoland isn't SOP for gusty winds on A340, but Flaps 3 instead of FULL (considering RWY length) is.......

regards

[RiverCity]

Aeronautic...

I'd also like to know if any of you with A340 operational experience know of any reason why the passenger quoted on CBC tv described a complete power failure in the cabin (which I assume meant the lights went out - see below), one minute before his sense of the "crash" starting.

Someone spoke to this earlier in the thread. His answer was in the form of a question and, paraphrasing, was: "Isn't it the custom in European countries to turn the cabin lights off before landing?" If that were the case, pax might have confused that with a power failure.

[wiggy]

Also of interest (?) is the fact that this AMs (Thursdays) news on this side of the pond is carrying pictures passengers took, inside the cabin during the evacuation......................perhaps in future safety briefings will have to be amended to contain the phrase: "in the event of an emergency do not stop to take pictures in the hope that CNN/Sky wil pay you a fortune...."
some SLF really really are .................................

[Aeronautic]

RiverCity -

Thanks for that. I did read through the thread but there was 15 pages worth and I admit I got to skimming after a bit!

:rolleyes:

Wiggy -

Considering how most self loading cargo dresses, how little they pay attention to the safety brief, or the lack of interest in the safety cards in the seatbacks, I'm amazed they find the loo, let alone their way off the plane after a normal arrival.

Perhaps the flight attendants should be issued cattle prods?

;)

[yamaha]

Swiss press carrying the following statement:

Pilot trägt "volle Verantwortung"
Pilot carries "full responsibility"

made by the Canadian transport minister, Jean Lapierre.

Looks like another colleague "guilty" until proven innocent.

[eal401]

I just saw a professor from Cranfield University on the box (Helen Muir, I think it was), telling us viewers about the safety measures on the AF A3430 which enabled everyone to escape.
Well, I watched the same clip sober and she was merely talking about the safety features on the aircraft. Nothing to do with evacuation.

Funny how it's only the journos who get knocked for not getting the facts straight.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[NigelOnDraft]

Can some A340 Pilots give some idea of the sophistication of the Autoland, which I assume must have been flying the plane in that kind of weather? Errr..... why do you make that assumption ?!*! Autoland systems are for FOG... they have stricter wind limits than do manual landings, and are therefore singularly unsuitable for turbulent type weather. From my A340(-300) days it had quite a strict X-Wind limit (10K? 15K?).

Even ATHR, which tends to be used for most landings in modern Airbus / 777 types, often gets maxed out in turbulence, and Man THR required / advised, depending on pilot's choice / Company SOPs and how well this ATHR is performing on the day. Not flown the 777, so not sure if this applies, but A320 series certainly is.

SM BUT what happened after this KLM\'s missed approach when airport closed down? Right! It declared a low fuel emergency!What on earth were those fellows doing there around an airport with the most awful weather on fumes?
Errr.. "fumes" and "low fuel emergency" - how do you equate those 2 ?!*! All he was probably doing was making the accepted statement equivalent to a "Pan" over here, stating he required assistance from ATC in order to land (somewhere) with more than the required reserves.

I presume you would rather he had not issued the "low fuel emergency", and just "hoped" all would work out... somewhat like the Columbian 707 at JFK some years ago...

Might I suggest you remove your somewhat slanderous comment unless you can add some facts to back up your assertion he "was on fumes".

[Dumbledore]

Did these guys have any business landing a plane full of people in such bad weather?

[Bleedvalve]

Looking at the pictures posted, looks like the pax were very lucky. I can't see too many escape slides deployed, or do I miss them completely. Can only see one on right hand side of aircraft.

[Dave Martin]

From the Mirror today

The Airbus A340's twin tail-mounted engines had started to burn when fire chief Figliola arrived on the scene less than a minute after the crash.

:D

Perhaps the shift in CoG caused the crash?

[jewitts]

Looking at some of these pictures (Mirikalet i Toronto) http://www.bt.dk/billedgalleri/ particularly the ariel picture, it appears like the paved area was only a few tens of meters too short? Also looks like steering was possible to miss the water?

[trainer too 2]

@EAL401 you better get your facts straight!

Helen Muir is THE expert on evacuation so it is rather more likely that the wrong questions were asked or that the right answers were edited out.

:rolleyes:

[172driver]

jewitts

Looked at the pics. I think what you are referring to is the perimeter road - not much use to an A340. In some of the highway camera images, the runway appears quite close behind the stricken a/c, but that's due to the 'visual shortening' effect any telephoto lens produces.

What's more amazing is, how close to this little river (or other body of water) they came. Plunging in there......

[fireflybob]

Clearly the investigators will have to establish all the facts before coming to any conclusions and all accidents are caused by a combination of circumstances rather like the proverbial block of cheese with holes in it - when they all line up a major event like this occurs.

As a pilot myself I feel for the flightcrew in this accident and cannot imagine what they are going through. The popular media like to portray the idea that everything is "black and white" but those that are experienced know that there are many shades of grey! Flying is "risky", we are all striving to minimise the risk but if we constantly divereted whenever the weather was "marginal" we would never get anywhere!

I seem to recall on the A320 series (different type I know but many similarities to the A340) that one went off the end at Ibiza circra 5 years ago which was associated with a failure of the BSCU (Brake Steering Computer..I think!) and also there was a near miss somewhere in Germany not long after the type had been in service where the logic of the speedbrake operation was a partial cause of a very close overrun - anyone got any details on these for comparison?

No doubt there will are lessons to be learned from this accident but we must be thankful that all got away unscathed. It is also a timely reminder that fire is one of aviator's major hazards.

Finally, well done to the cabin crew for doing an excellent job in getting them all out.

[Charlie32]

The Times (London) reports this morning that the AF Chairman has said he cannot understand why the aircraft was allowed to land.

Perhaps he should ask his own captain (who as commander of the A/C would be obliged to do whatever he felt to be in the interests of the safe conduct of the flight), rather than imply that some external agency (like ATC) is responsible.

[The Southend King]

There is little doubt that the absene of fatalities in this incident means the cabin crew did a good job.

However, having read through all the reporting, there appears to be some serious inconsistencies in the stories.

Why has there been no mention of the Captain? An early news report stated that on of the flight crew had been found by the fire services away from the aircraft. Another report stated thet the First Officer made a radio call to state that he had checked that all passengers were out of the aircraft. putting those two together would suggest that the Captain might have been one of the first out of the aircraft. Is this AF procedure?

I've listened to the ATC link posted earlier. It would appear that the weather problems were creating major disruption, as many aircraft were in a serious low fuel state ( KLM declaring a " Low Fuel Emergency having gone around immediately after the AF crash). Were the AF crew force themselves into a " must land" situation due to low fuel?

Food for thought.

TSK

[BOAC]

TSK -as many aircraft were in a serious low fuel state ( KLM declaring a " Low Fuel Emergency having gone around immediately after the AF crash - it has been pointed out many times - and on this thread - that is not necessarily a 'serious low fuel state' but NORMAL operating procedure when a diversion MAY land the a/c with less than RESERVE fuel (30 minutes flying time in JAROps)- not 'fumes' or 'short'.

Refer to 'NigelOnDraft' above? All the fuel facts (and more) will be 'found' by the investigating team and then you will know - and can feed.:*

[Pegasus77]

Even if the AF would have been on the legal minimum fuel for landing in YYZ, they would still have the fuel on board for a diversion.
The KLM rightly advised ATC of their situation, as they apparently wanted to divert without delay, and that has absolutely NOTHING to do with "fumes" in the fuel tanks.
Before you make such a wild statement, do you know how the fuelcalculation is done? Please read the JAR or FAR first and then come back to this forum!

You don't switch "the autoland" on for landing, there is no such switch. In low visiblity ops, you leave the autopilot on untill after landing. This is done in FOG, that means hardly any wind and low visiblity.
Bad weather connected to thunderstorms has nothing to do with autoland, as you will probably be out of limits (1) and the autothrust of the A340 will in my experience do a really bad job as it is not designed for the huge windgusts which I guess you will encounter in such weather on final (2).

P77

[twenty eight]

Looking at This picture (http://www.airliners.net/open.file/892593/M/ ) the aircraft went straight off the end of the runway.

[dwshimoda]

Did these guys have any business landing a plane full of people in such bad weather?

Perhaps they should have just stayed up with their obviously unlimited fuel supply?

[rotornut]

CFTO-TV news reported last night that the captain was the last to leave after checking that everyone was off the plane. He then gave the go ahead for emergency services to take action.

CFTO also said that passengers assisted each other in evacuating the aircraft.

Also, a number of motorists stopped on 401 to help the people through the fence. Some drivers took pax to the airport.

[FixedRotaryWing]

If you cannot land your airplane savely on a certain runway in actual weather, go elsewhere.

[Right Way Up]

Unfortunately this website is going the direction of Airliners.net. i.e. the % of amateurs making "expert" comments is ruining what should be an interesting and informative discussion. As has been said before the KLM aircraft was not running on fumes, they made a sensible decision to communicate their fuel state early. I would suggest that at the time of their go-around that they had approx 1 hrs fuel left. Hardly running on fumes. I think some of the posters on this forum might be running on fumes though!:hmm:

[The Southend King]

Rotornut,

thats my concern about inconsistency. A previous report openly stated that the FO was last off the aircraft.

There has also been a big deal about the fact tht it was the First Officers landing, and that he was very experienced.

Something not adding up.

Strange

[rotornut]

Yes, I heard that too. But the statement about the captain being the last one off came from the fire chief during an interview. He said that he was in contact with the captain by radio and he was definitely the last one off.

[ou Trek dronkie]

"Well, I watched the same clip sober and she was merely talking about the safety features on the aircraft. Nothing to do with evacuation."

Thanks for that EAL, but I must say I got the distinct impression that she was talking about the successful evacuation of the AF aircraft ? If that was the case, then what was her point ? Why not mention the many other safety features also ?

It looks like trainer too 2 might well be correct, I know some TV people do mutilate interviews for their own purposes. In that case, if I were the lady, I would be a bit upset. Not that you can do anything about it afterwards.

Not that the point is of great weight anyway.

old TV doubter

[sdac]

YYZ is a 'reverse idle only' airport, to keep the local noise lobby happy. I hope AF came off the runway quietly.

[rigpiggy]

Disaster Averted as EMAS Once Again Saves Lives
& Equipment at JFK

At approximately 3:25 pm on the afternoon of January 22, 2005, a Boeing 747 cargo plane overran runway 04R at JFK International Airport, NY and was safely stopped by the Engineered Material Arresting System (EMAS). There were no reported injuries to the crew or damage to the aircraft. A thorough check on the aircraft was conducted and it was scheduled to return to service on January 27.

The aircraft had an estimated weight of just over 600,000 lbs. Details are still limited at the moment, as no official announcement has been made by the FAA or NTSB regarding the incident. However, early indications show that the combination of adverse weather and reduced thrust reverser capability may have played a role in the incident.

Fortunately, the plane was stopped by the EMAS 300 feet into the arrestor bed and about 200 feet from Thurston Bay. This marks the 3rd instance in which an EMAS has saved an aircraft in an overrun emergency.

There are now 15 EMAS installations throughout the U.S with several more in the planning and design stage. With the FAA’s recent full acceptance of EMAS as an equivalent to a standard safety area, more airports can now further enhance airport safety with the technology.

Just to stir the pot (-:

[Pegasus77]

EMAS link (http://4jda.aero/mall/emas.asp)

you can see it here

[DanielP]

I must admit to being one of the "great uninformed": however perhaps the other non-experts around should go and read about this accident to put low fuel related emergencies in perspective:

http://www.airdisaster.com/cgi-bin/view_details.cgi?date=01251990&reg=HK-2016&airline=Avianca

This gives a clear indication as to why it's important to stand up and declare a fuel emergency, especially when the ATC is under (more) pressure (than ususal) and the weather is stinking.

These poor folks failed to convey the urgency of their situation by not declaring an emergency: as a result they were left to circle around in the dark (getting increasingly panic stricken) until they eventually ran out of fuel and crashed (as I understand it-correct me if I'm wrong?). This makes the practice of declaring an emergency (like the KLM) look quite sensible, I think?

As for the Airbus, what a miracle! It is rare to see such a serious accident turn out well for the people on board. It will be interested to see what the air crash investigators come up with.

Daniel

[eal401]

@EAL401 you better get your facts straight!
I think you need to learn to read.

I was NOT critisicing Dr Muir in anyway as I am well aware of her credentials.

[Aeronautic]

From Yahoo....

"David Learmount, an aviation safety expert with British-based Flight International magazine, said the crash appears similar to others in which planes have overshot runways before hitting obstacles or uneven ground "


Such genius!

I know Learmount and he is actually very bright.

Do not mistake a stupid quote choice by a lay "journalist" member of the mass hysteria (nee media) for the actual thought or opinion of David Learmount.

Indeed, perhaps I mistake your comment. Maybe it was not directed at Learmount, but at the reporter who quoted him? :D