PDA

View Full Version : AF A340 off rwy @ Douala


readywhenreaching
22nd Feb 2006, 09:21
came to rest off rwy in bad wx
happened on AF 943. (must have occured sunday or monday)

link in french:
http://www.lemessager.net/details_articles.php?code=110&code_art=10562
any further information is greatly appreciated

BOAC
22nd Feb 2006, 09:37
I got very little ('non-journalisitic' ie relevant:{ ) out of a 'Babelfish' translation of the article except that there would appear to have been a lot of rain in the area. I think it implied there were no injuries and no-one from Air France would talk to them.

OzExpat
22nd Feb 2006, 12:11
Yet another AF A340 incident? :uhoh: :eek:

RoyHudd
22nd Feb 2006, 12:24
Can these AF boys please try and stay on the runway in future?

Not serious. Glad no injuries ensued.

answer=42
22nd Feb 2006, 15:09
Translation of link:
the aircraft came off the runway. the return flight was cancelled. there has been no official information as to the cause. there was heavy rainfall at the time of the landing. the aircraft might have been damaged. 'it could have cost the lives of several dozen passengers' (no reason adduced to support this statement).

A lot of words to say very little.

Arkroyal
22nd Feb 2006, 15:44
A lot of words to say very little.THe most succinct definition of journalism I've seen to date

Kalium Chloride
22nd Feb 2006, 15:51
THe most succinct definition of journalism I've seen to date


And, it seems, of most PPRuNe contributions :rolleyes:

mermoz92
23rd Feb 2006, 05:31
Can these AF boys please try and stay on the runway in future?
Not serious. Glad no injuries ensued.
:ok: Hard stuff with :mad: AF management pilots....:ouch:

Aksai Oiler
23rd Feb 2006, 06:04
Didn't they also kill some cows in Port Harcourt some time ago ?

mermoz92
23rd Feb 2006, 07:06
:) Yes they did it but I think they had not seen them !
Two other old incidents are also reported with A340 instructors: a tail strike (don't remember where) during a go-around and a runway excursion when landing at Libreville...That makes a lot with Cayenne landing before runway threshold (Instructor PNF) !:bored:

CATIIIBnoDH
23rd Feb 2006, 15:09
According the IFALPA Daily News Service (23-2) the aircraft made an approach in bad wx conditions (heavy rain). During landing the crew decided to make a wave off (G/A in close proximity of the rwy). During this procedure the runway was touched and the aircraft went round for a second uneventful landing. It is not uncommon to touch the runway during a wave off and the spoilers will disarm automatically. Maybe this is the source that the aircraft "left" the runway.

mermoz92
23rd Feb 2006, 15:28
I have got another version:
The plane went through heavy rain during flare and flight crew lost visual references and then decided to interrupt landing by pulling up, but plane touched down ground partly besides runway.
It is said that pilots asked themselves if they had made a tail strike and made a long holding pattern to analyze the situation before landing again safely.
The plane seems to be damaged in the tale zone and will be flyed back to CDG to-morrow with no passengers.

arc-en-ciel
23rd Feb 2006, 22:07
came to rest off rwy in bad wx
happened on AF 943. (must have occured sunday or monday)
link in french:
http://www.lemessager.net/details_articles.php?code=110&code_art=10562
any further information is greatly appreciated
this article is just an absurdity, it's not even in french, it's in a kind of cameroonese translated into french. I had to read it at least three times to try to get something out of it !! :confused: (I am french)
It basically says that the flight to paris is cancelled, because aircraft status seems under investigation.
so they realised that the day before, the flight has run-off the runway !!!!:sad:
there is not a single passenger of the previous day, that remember having such an experience on that flight:eek: :eek:
it even saying that af 340 might be old, an AF could be searched on this issues and could be placed on a camerronese "black-list".
for information, it became a state affair when france placed cameroon airlines in it's "black-list" a few months ago:hmm:
so please before posting such absurd news links, read it twice and think about it twice, the whole airline industry will benefit of it

Very_Low_and_Fast
24th Feb 2006, 04:44
approach in microburst, a/c landed on rw30, skidded off the runway into the gravel, tailstrike while going around, holding for 1 hour, landed normally.
parked on cargo ramp already for four days as cameroun caa has declared "accident" and a/c is evidence.

mermoz92
24th Feb 2006, 05:53
:bored: Another embarassing incident for AF, the Captain PF woud have been qualified 6 weeks ago ?

readywhenreaching
24th Feb 2006, 08:30
so please before posting such absurd news links, read it twice and think about it twice, the whole airline industry will benefit of it
@ arc-en-ciel:
be sure that i ve read it as thoroughly as possible, found it confusing as well (blamed it on babelfish first) but at that time it was the only piece of information. now, as more "hard" information are coming through, it sure remains a noteworthy incident.
just for the records, can someone ID the A340 ?
other french links:
http://www.crash-aerien.com/www/news/article.php?id=2197&check=0
http://fr.allafrica.com/stories/200602220600.html
http://fr.allafrica.com/stories/200602220678.html

mermoz92
24th Feb 2006, 08:44
They say F-GLZM here:
http://www.ledauphine.com/info/france/art_61981.php

Rwy in Sight
24th Feb 2006, 10:56
Maybe AF has had a series of "events" because they fly to many "difficult" or defective or in-need of improvements airports.

Rwy in Sight

OzExpat
24th Feb 2006, 11:10
In that case, Rwy in Sight, what on earth is the French CAA doing about it? Surely they've seen more than enough evidence to react?:eek:

Calling Inspector Clouseau!:}

captjns
24th Feb 2006, 14:21
Maybe AF has had a series of "events" because they fly to many "difficult" or defective or in-need of improvements airports.

Rwy in Sight

Come on get real... please.

FLEXPWR
24th Feb 2006, 18:13
Quote: Originally Posted by Rwy in Sight
"Maybe AF has had a series of "events" because they fly to many "difficult" or defective or in-need of improvements airports.

Rwy in Sight"

Hey, Douala has very good facilities and the runway is nice and flat, clean surface and no obstacle in the area. It has full HIALS and is equiped with ILS and RNAV GPS approaches.

Not blaming one side or another, but I have been operating many times over the years in and out of Douala, and it is far from being bad runway or approach conditions. I think the cause lies somewhere else:suspect:

haughtney1
24th Feb 2006, 18:24
Agree with you Flex...Douala has some of the best facilities in that part of Equatorial Africa (operated in there a month or so back..and I go down that way 2 -3 times a month), RWY 30 also has a VOR/DME Arc as well as the ILS..I wonder who screwed the pooch this time? AF are making a bit of a habit of this it would seem.:uhoh:

fade to grey
24th Feb 2006, 22:05
Flew over Doula on tues,notams saying ILS U/S - did AF harvest it with the A340 ?

Tree
25th Feb 2006, 02:46
[QUOTE=FLEXPWR]Quote: Originally Posted by Rwy in Sight
"Maybe AF has had a series of "events" because they fly to many "difficult" or defective or in-need of improvements airports.

Yep, that may include our wonderful CYYZ. But we have a nice terminal building eh!

Gretchenfrage
25th Feb 2006, 04:51
"Maybe AF has had a series of "events" because they fly to many "difficult" or defective or in-need of improvements airports." By Rwy in Sight
Do you think AF is exclusive in doing that? Others operate in the same environement.
Such excuses were quite common with incidents of a central european regional carrier (CRX), saying more daliy landings, apparently difficult airports, difficult aircraft etc. are reason for more incidents.
Well, I stated then and state now: Thats no excuse. You have to deal with it.
It might be the airport, ATC, your aircraft or new collegues. Either you deem beeing capable of doing it, and consequently take responsability, or you dont operate. If the environement is difficult, there are remedies. Like not flying there, or flying there with adequate equippment and finally doing that with adequately selected and trained pro's!
In this particular case:
The A340(300) might be economical, but it's performance on T/O an LDG is edgy. If once and for all the operators (and especially the manufactorer) would acknowledge this and train pilots adequately (especially in the questionable CCQ/MFF environement) then these incidents might be reduced.
Gretchenfrage

mermoz92
25th Feb 2006, 05:12
"Maybe AF has had a series of "events" because they fly to many "difficult" or defective or in-need of improvements airports." By Rwy in Sight
Do you think AF is exclusive in doing that? Others operate in the same environement.
Such excuses were quite common with incidents of a central european regional carrier (CRX), saying more daliy landings, apparently difficult airports, difficult aircraft etc. are reason for more incidents.
Well, I stated then and state now: Thats no excuse. You have to deal with it.
It might be the airport, ATC, your aircraft or new collegues. Either you deem beeing capable of doing it, and consequently take responsability, or you dont operate. If the environement is difficult, there are remedies. Like not flying there, or flying there with adequate equippment and finally doing that with adequately selected and trained pro's!
In this particular case:
The A340(300) might be economical, but it's performance on T/O an LDG is edgy. If once and for all the operators (and especially the manufactorer) would acknowledge this and train pilots adequately (especially in the questionable CCQ/MFF environement) then these incidents might be reduced.
Gretchenfrage

:ok: I can't make a better statement ! BRAVO.
One has to know and deal with three major A340 characteristics: "hands off" stick handling philosophy, big ground effect, roll rate law.
But with such management pilots final approaches, AF must change many people !
http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=0998826&size=L&width=1200&height=812&sok=&photo_nr=&prev_id=&next_id=

F4F
25th Feb 2006, 09:43
Gretchenfrage, finally doing that with adequately selected and trained pro's! I entirely agree with you...
By the way, would you now care to explain how even the holly gods of SWR landed aside the bitumen twice in Yaounde and once in Lagos, and there was also the story with the A32 in MUC, and...

Humbleness doesn't seem to be your first value. Funny, the best pilots I observed during the last 25 years were also the quietest...
You value the quality of your flying and your peers as perfect. So does AF!

As for the T/O performance (or lack of it, what a slouch, even worse than your Jumbolinos) of your 340s, well history has it, SWR always bought or got the lowest performers off the line :rolleyes:

mermoz92
25th Feb 2006, 11:34
He was probably trained by the one that took the fence off twice at the same airport with a B747.
:)
Oh, you remenber that !
But Jacques, the B747 Captain concerned, was not an instructor but a sympathetic pilots elected representative:O
Many ones do not understand that flying below 3° path in short final will not shorten landing distance but, at the contrary, will increase it because of ground effect...and that 7708 feet of dry runway are quite enough to land without overrunning it, even at MLW.
And on the San Marteen shot of last juanuary 24th, we have the chief of the "Service Prévention et Sécurité des Vols" as commander of the Air France flight !:yuk:

haughtney1
25th Feb 2006, 16:53
Flew over Doula on tues,notams saying ILS U/S - did AF harvest it with the A340 ?

You actually did some work for a change? (ive been hearin stories about you Mr Digler :} :p )

captjns
25th Feb 2006, 18:29
[quote=GretchenfrageIf once and for all the operators (and especially the manufactorer) would acknowledge this and train pilots adequately (especially in the questionable CCQ/MFF environement) then these incidents might be reduced.
Gretchenfrage[/quote]

I agree with you. However could be tantamount to an admission by Airbus that their product is defective. This may result in Aviation Agencies around the world, except France or course, in reviewing training and operating procedures concerning the A-340 during all performance critical phases of flight.

vapilot2004
26th Feb 2006, 02:57
However could be tantamount to an admission by Airbus that their product is defective.

We all know what should be a rather obvious answer to that would be.



But of course ,Airbus is certainly not alone in that regard, are they ? :suspect: (< edit for grammar)


I don't believe that the aircraft is defective. A bit underpowered ? maybe.
However not having flown one, I am not a very enlightened source on this.

Gretchenfrage
26th Feb 2006, 03:36
F4F
you quote me on:
"finally doing that with adequately selected and trained pro's! "

First you agree and just after that you state selfrighteously: "Humbleness doesn't seem to be your first value. Funny, the best pilots I observed during the last 25 years were also the quietest."
Hear, hear......
I truly hope your agreement on this statement is genuine and therefore don't quite understand your sarcastic attachement, if it was not for the old saying that throwing a stone into a sheepherd, the yelling comes from the one that got hit.
Your kin is fast to criticise any comment on reg carriers as "arrogance from the mainliners" and the moment this criticism is evenly applied to the big shots aswell, it's suddenly "unhumble" and only the quiet ones are qualified "good".
I don't go by that, nothing improves by shutting up. Safety and professionalism applies to everyone in the skies, even to holy SWR (you watch too much Hollywood stuff).
(By the way: I don't fly their A340'ies)

GF

Robert Vesco
26th Feb 2006, 09:59
Gretchenfrage, I entirely agree with you...
By the way, would you now care to explain how even the holly gods of SWR landed aside the bitumen twice in Yaounde and once in Lagos, and there was also the story with the A32 in MUC, and...
Humbleness doesn't seem to be your first value. Funny, the best pilots I observed during the last 25 years were also the quietest...
You value the quality of your flying and your peers as perfect. So does AF!
Spot on F4F!
Safety and professionalism applies to everyone in the skies, even to holy SWR (you watch too much Hollywood stuff).
(By the way: I don't fly their A340'ies)
GF Hollywood stuff? Hmm, maybe you´ve watched this (http://www.groundingfilm.ch/trailer/index.php) too many times! :D

FlyingCroc
26th Feb 2006, 17:25
The picture is a bad fake.

F4F
26th Feb 2006, 22:22
Gretchenfrage, as you were quick to recognise, I only partly agree with your point of view. Though I concur with you regarding the technical aspect of the problem, I surely disagree with your constant bashing of CRX (by the way, where is "Aeropers", or are you guys one and only entity?) and in this case AF. This is looking more and more like racial hatred iso sound judgment.

Let's have a look at AF:
All its pilots have passed their selection criteria, and believe me the standard is high. The majority of them come from the ENAC. The studies at ENAC make the ex SLS just look like an amateur lot. Then, their TRs and checking system is by any means as serious and severe as it is in any other major.

Now ex CRX:
Their pilots were also, as far as I know, selected seriously (though the shape of the frame must have been different than it was for the bankrupt SWR guys). Following 2 accidents that should never have happened, the company as a whole was assessed and its pilots screened a number of times. In the process some were quicked out, some downgraded, well, call 'em virtual casualties. Now you are telling us that the boys and girls left still don't have the same level as you golden boys of ex SWR. Now I just thought you guys were now sharing a common safety and training culture for a number of years, working for the same airline. Is there another subtle fundamental difference, too difficult for me to grasp :suspect:

Majors as well as commuters (and yes, making 4 or 1 T/O and LD a day makes a hell of a difference in the risks taken, just about 4 times greater in this case) are at the same merci of some wrong action by a crew. Most of these incidents or accidents don't happen due to lack of training or the safety culture of the company. They happen due to an individual's most important characteristic, the so called attitude.
Considering the tone of your writing, superiority is most probably the attitude attribute that suits you most.

Just prey not to be the next one making the headlines...


P.S.
Please don't "kin" me, I have nothing to do with any of the operators listed above :E

Magplug
27th Feb 2006, 15:15
Maybe AF has had a series of "events" because they fly to many "difficult" or defective or in-need of improvements airports.


Wot.... Like Toronto!

Two hull losses and a tail-scrape that was almost a third... can we expect press releases from AF and the Pilot's Union shortly crowing about what a good job they did?

Perhaps the French Government ought to look a little closer to home before it starts black-listing others.

Gretchenfrage
27th Feb 2006, 15:30
F4F, you made your point. Try to let my “hated entity” out of your brain cell for a moment, you might get mine aswell.
1. “Now you are telling us that the boys and girls left still don't have the same level as you golden boys of ex SWR.”
Cite me where I ever supposedly said that, or take it back like a pro.
2. The logic about multiple landings and increased risk just can’t withstand. Otherwise the highest risk would be on the poor cadet doing his first 20 daily circuits solo and the least would be on the sometimes single monthly landing long-haul pilots do, eventually coming to the joking conclusion that a student should begin with the latter on a oh-so-easy 744 and a grey-haired skipper with 20’000h should finish his career with circuits on a 150. - Every landing has it’s threats and you have to deal with them. There is no such thing as increased leniency that can be applied to any specific operation for any reason (except maybe test-flights and similar), because the ultimate and only goal to it, is to land safely.
Once you understand this logic, we can go one step further.
I criticise ANY operation/operator who assumes for itself having a more “difficult or risky” environement, just to cover for more incidents. If it is genuinely so, then they have to mitigate the additional threats as to bring them down to average and comparable levels. This has to be done by bringing in adequate equipment, personnel, training, sop etc.
Once you understand this, you will realise that I am not bashing any group of pilots, even less hieving others on a podium. It’s the operators who create the environement I am criticising. They apply inadequte selection and training, they apply unhealthy pressure, create fatigue and they bring in these feeble excuses just to cover their cynical strive for cheaper employees and material to bring increased profit to their shareholders, leaving professionalism as one of the main victims. So called “management pilots” increasingly help them and it’s ironical that they are apparently (see comments of ie. AF pilots) involved in proportionally more and more incidents….
We as professionals are also among those victims, even more so as we finally take responsibility and blame for the evil game of our managements. That is why I hate to see fellow pro’s singing their song and that are the guys I criticise! If our standard is not up to the task, if our equipment is not adequate, then we should stand up rather than help cover up and succumb to the all too transparent habit of rule and divide. By that I mean management successfully heating up pilot bodies against each other, or having some painting others with attitudes.
GF

FlyingCroc
27th Feb 2006, 17:53
They are indeed proportionally more management pilots involved in accidents/ incidents etc, just think about the crash of AA in Little Rock. Many examples, the CEO of Edelweiss Air for example still flies around once in a blue moon in a A330 :eek: Ex CEO Swiss and Crossair pilot A.Dose decided to take out the cargo fire extinguishing system in the MD80's to increase profit. He also employed the CRX deadly pilots despite protests. The selection and training was not up to standard and it cost many innocent lives.
The management provides the environment, I think every pilot here agrees that Air France, Swiss, American Airlines, Lufthansa etc is a much better, safer place to work at than any dubious start-up, charter or any other out of money company.

Globaliser
27th Feb 2006, 18:18
The picture is a bad fake.As bad a fake as any of the following?

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0999820/M/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0994291/M/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0989957/M/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0988350/M/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0988348/M/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0985519/M/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0983091/M/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0981714/M/

FlyingCroc
27th Feb 2006, 19:37
I still think the AF A340 is a bad fake.

If you compare it to the pictures of the AA, Delta, US Air:

1) The aircraft looks artificially put into an existing picture, maybe one of the kind you posted.
2) The aircraft ist too large compared to the rest.
3) The aircraft is crystal sharp, and so are the people, a lens cannot focus on the moving object and on the background.
4) The people are not looking in the direction of the aircraft.
5) There is no shadow of the aircraft but from the people.

Someone tried to dramatize the approach, it is low but not that low.

Bad fake, prove otherwise

Globaliser
27th Feb 2006, 23:49
Bad fake, prove otherwiseI hold no brief for anyone here, but I'm prepared to take airliners.net photos at face value when they come from regular contributors to the site.

Here are more photos by the same photographer on the same spotting trip. Just about all the aircraft registrations are both noted in the captions and visible on the aircraft, so anyone faking this many pictures would have had to go to a lot of trouble to get the correct aircraft.

And in any case, it would beg the question: Why would anyone bother to fake so many? You might fake one, perhaps, but the best part of a dozen? Scattered amongst other shots taken on the same trip that are plainly not faked?

Or are only some of the shots taken from this angle faked? And if so, which ones? Why? On what basis would the photographer have chosen to fake some photos while also submitting some equally good photos that were not faked?

The "faking" hypothesis just doesn't seem to make any sense to me.

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1003359/M/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1004009/M/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1003281/M/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1003280/M/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1003279/M/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1003278/M/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1003277/M/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0999492/M/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0999193/M/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0998828/M/

mermoz92
28th Feb 2006, 04:37
;) You have missed the best one: http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0998826/M/
If the date is good, this plane was under AF flight safety chief command ! :E

vapilot2004
28th Feb 2006, 06:59
Being a bit of a photog buff, I decided to invest some time into the question:
Are these AF photos fakes or are they real ?

1) The aircraft looks artificially put into an existing picture, maybe one of the kind you posted.
2) The aircraft ist too large compared to the rest.
3) The aircraft is crystal sharp, and so are the people, a lens cannot focus on the moving object and on the background.
4) The people are not looking in the direction of the aircraft.
5) There is no shadow of the aircraft but from the people.


This relates to 0998826 and 1003279 as compared to other photos listed:

2. The aircraft is lower and closer, thus larger.

3. New digital SLR's are capable of amazing things shutter/light-wise allowing for some quite large F-stop settings (small aperture) - giving a greater depth of field than your average camera.

4. I see people waving , looking up and covering their heads. :eek:

5. Look at both of them again - there is a faint shadow just below and forward. Notice that the sun is not fully out on these two photos.

Now let's go back to number 1.

A retired analyst I know - don't ask :} - gave me a few more pointers:

I was shown shadow details, correct interference patterns where dark meets light, the accuracy of the reflections and matching color temps (K).

A bonus lesson given involved judging height differences by comparing foreground objects with others further back. Check the sock relative to the stripe on the utility building or balconies of buildings against their respective backgrounds.

Most of the photos appear to be taken from nearly the same vertical viewpoint - ruling out a higher POV being used exaggerate the aircraft's height (or in this case lack thereof).

In the end it was decided that they are most likely indeed genuine un-retouched photos. Without seeing a high resolution original - 95% sure.

I must say that despite the fact they are further along on the approach, the US 757 (1003278) gives the AF guys a good go at how low you can err go.

But the gold goes to AF :ok:

Interesting stuff really !

FlyingCroc
28th Feb 2006, 07:40
I think that all the other photos are genuine, except the AF340 one. True there is less sun, but there are shadows of the people but none from the aircraft. Also the people look in a different direction where the aircraft is. I think the aircraft was made slightly bigger and put lower in the photoshop. Maybe some photopro can prove here ifit is fake or real.

vapilot2004
28th Feb 2006, 07:50
Not an expert myself, FlyingCroc , but I do know that objects closer to the shadow produce darker shadows than ones that are farther away. Also, really have a good look under that 4-engined beauty - there is definately a shadow.

30+ years work for an agency known for its' .. erm . . photo work should count for something, shouldnt' it ? (ie photopro) I did mention that since hi-res originals were not available to my gentleman analyst that there is a 5% chance you are right.

Also, surely we can agree that the AF flights pictured here were not the first (nor likely the last) big-iron flights to be caught in such a great (albeit interesting) photo at this lovely locale.

regards,
vap

mermoz92
28th Feb 2006, 08:16
:) You are talking of fake ?
What about this video: http://www.flightlevel350.com/viewer.php?id=2929

FlyingCroc
28th Feb 2006, 09:12
I looked at it again and again. Maybe you are right about the lens, hard to see a shadow. I also think that the spotter was there in vacation and probably would not have a motive to fake it. If this picture is genuine, man that is one scary approach:eek: And if really an AF management pilot was in it that would of course explain a lot :}
But what about the vortex, wouldnt there be sand flying around?

mermoz92
28th Feb 2006, 18:20
If this picture is genuine, man that is one scary approach:eek: And if really an AF management pilot was in it that would of course explain a lot :}
But what about the vortex, wouldnt there be sand flying around?
:} A colleague has just met yesterday the AF flight safety chief who has answered his questions about this flight: he has confirmed the low short final approach made by his copilot and said that he had asked for the datas which are "inside the enveloppe" !!!!!
It means that this enveloppe is a good one for the :mad: AF flight safety chief !

Streamline
28th Feb 2006, 18:34
African ATC is unreliable.

Weather info is unreliable.

It’s only when you are very close to the ground that you can make a real runway condition assessment yourself.

Get real, the problems in this continent are known.......it will happen again!

Jid
2nd Mar 2006, 08:16
:eek: As someone who has visited the island (SXM) and had one of his photos questioned http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0983091/M/ I can say for sure that they are NOT faked.

Jid

Globaliser
2nd Mar 2006, 19:48
As someone who has visited the island (SXM) and had one of his photos questioned http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0983091/M/ I can say for sure that they are NOT faked.Sorry, it was my post (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?p=2418829&postcount=40) that I now see could have been read as questioning your photo. That wasn't my intention. A query having been raised as to whether http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0998826/M/ was a fake, I was pointing to its similarity to a number of other photos (including yours) that couldn't all be fakes, therefore suggesting that none of them were.

My language was opaque, so my apologies for the impression that I gave.

captjns
2nd Mar 2006, 19:55
The photos are legit. St. Maarten's ruway sits just meters from the beach. The runway is short too. Very few aircraft especially the heavies cross the threshold at 50'... thus that's why the aircraft are lower than they should be.

mermoz92
2nd Mar 2006, 20:46
The photos are legit. St. Maarten's ruway sits just meters from the beach. The runway is short too. Very few aircraft especially the heavies cross the threshold at 50'... thus that's why the aircraft are lower than they should be.

:hmm: Sorry but I have landed there as B747 FO and A340 Captain many times and am not afraid of a dry 2358 meters runway's length for a safe landing without flying 50 feet under standard path at runway's threshold.

captjns
2nd Mar 2006, 21:00
:hmm: Sorry but I have landed there as B747 FO and A340 Captain many times and am not afraid of a dry 2358 meters runway's length for a safe landing without flying 50 feet under standard path at runway's threshold.

So have I... as a captain... in a B727 on a wet runway cross wind 30 to 35 knot X-wind rescuing tourist from a hurricane as a captain on a B727. I was responding to a someone questioning the validity of some of the pictures.

mermoz92
2nd Mar 2006, 21:11
So have I... as a captain... in a B727 on a wet runway cross wind 30 to 35 knot X-wind rescuing tourist from a hurricane as a captain on a B727. I was responding to a someone questioning the validity of some of the pictures.

:) Thank you, so there is no question on the validity of the pictures and we should go back to Douala "off runway" incident and see what can explain it in this flight safety chief context....after Toronto :yuk:

captjns
2nd Mar 2006, 23:47
Beat the issue enough and it may reverse itself.

finessemax
3rd Mar 2006, 11:31
Mermoz92, I reckon you are the A340 Air France Captain currently suspended from duty for allegedly using free style operating procedures. Is it a good guess ?

mermoz92
3rd Mar 2006, 18:35
:rolleyes: Isn'it a moronic question ?

Yaka
4th Mar 2006, 02:02
.../ the A340 Air France Captain currently suspended from duty for allegedly using free style operating procedures. /...
As far as i know this chap never destroyed any piece of equipment he was entrusted with, while one must agree that AF procedures for 340 operation are giving some pretty strange results, these days. Instead of suspending him, they should have made him write a new manual ...
The way he got suspended tastes as bad as it smells, and his understanding of the Toronto farce certainly has a lot to do with it.

mermoz92
4th Mar 2006, 04:36
As far as i know this chap never destroyed any piece of equipment he was entrusted with, while one must agree that AF procedures for 340 operation are giving some pretty strange results, these days. Instead of suspending him, they should have made him write a new manual ...
The way he got suspended tastes as bad as it smells, and his understanding of the Toronto farce certainly has a lot to do with it.

:ok: Yaka, that's smart. One should think of stopping these "long-haul Air Inter" operations and fire quite a lot of responsible management pilots blacking out so many farces. But I have just learned another promotion of one of them who recently rolled out aside Libreville runway, morover a TRI one of this copilot who made the worst calomnious allegations against this brilliant Captain !

finessemax
4th Mar 2006, 07:56
:rolleyes: Isn'it a moronic question ?

This I leave to your appreciation. But it is undoubtedly one you are embarrassed to answer...:D

mermoz92
4th Mar 2006, 08:02
Your appreciation too Mr finessemax. We know who you are....:mad:

finessemax
4th Mar 2006, 08:17
...one must agree that AF procedures for 340 operation are giving some pretty strange results, these days. Instead of suspending him, they should have made him write a new manual ...
The way he got suspended tastes as bad as it smells, and his understanding of the Toronto farce certainly has a lot to do with it.

Don't get me wrong : I'm not saying he doesn't have a point.
But as you would put it, the way he expresses his feeling tastes as bad as it smells. Sounding bitter as he does is not going to give much credit to otherwise real issues he might raise. And for his sake, I hope he bears no responsability in the infamous "jonathan.blog"...

finessemax
4th Mar 2006, 08:42
We know who you are....:mad:

Is that relevant ?

flyblue
7th Mar 2006, 16:33
From: Flight International

Air France A340 held after Cameroon go-around incident
Cameroon authorities held an Air France Airbus A340 for several days last week after a landing incident at Douala during a rainstorm prompted an inspection of the aircraft. The airline suggests the delay in clearance was influenced by a French ban on Cameroon Airlines during the European political debate about blacklisting last year.
The incident happened on 19 February in heavy rain with thunderstorms in the vicinity of the airport. Air France says the A340-300 (F-GLZO) was “just about to land” at Douala in “very bad weather conditions” when the captain decided to go around, but the main wheels touched down before the aircraft climbed away, prompting the captain to seek a technical inspection. The aircraft landed safely on its second attempt.
Although Air France’s technical crew cleared the aircraft for service, the airline awaited a similar approval from the Cameroon civil aviation authority, but this was delayed despite the fact that the aircraft had sustained no serious damage and should have returned to service “immediately”, says the airline. No reason for the hold-up has been given and the Cameroon CAA could not be reached for comment. Tensions have been high between Cameroon and France since French authorities, during moves last year to draw up a European air transport “blacklist”, banned flag-carrier Cameroon Airlines from French airspace for nearly two months.
The incident comes as the Transportation Safety Board of Canada continues to investigate last August’s Air France A340 overun in rainstorms at Toronto.
DAVID LEARMOUNT / LONDON

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/02/28/205121/Air+France+A340+held+after+Cameroon+go-around+incident.html

Very_Low_and_Fast
12th Mar 2006, 13:45
Tracks in the grass on the right side of RW30 still visible...
:}

mermoz92
12th Mar 2006, 17:18
:confused: How long are these tracks ?

max payload
13th Mar 2006, 09:07
VLaF is right- skids on the RW30 and next to it are still visible.
I talked to a guy who was on board that night- the event scared him a bit.
LX/KC had a look at the aircraft while it was parked on the cargo ramp pending the now-infamous CCAA inspection/holdup :}

:ok: Max.

mermoz92
14th Mar 2006, 17:26
From: Flight International
Air France says the A340-300 (F-GLZO) was “just about to land” at Douala in “very bad weather conditions” when the captain decided to go around, but the main wheels touched down before the aircraft climbed away, prompting the captain to seek a technical inspection. The aircraft landed safely on its second attempt.

:rolleyes: Big true lie ! The new A340 Captain lost sufficient visual references at 100 feet because of heavy rain, but continued his approach till landing partly besides the runway due to his confusion between center line and runway right border lights, while his copilot was announcing "runway to the left". The plane has been rolling for 500 to 800 meters before he could get again in the air after he decided to go around because of the seven seconds needed to get G/A Thrust from Idle Thrust he had when touching down main landing gears. And the plane lost one gear door in this serious incident.....