Heard it all now!
 

Ottawa Airport, NaV Canada,Transport Canada are being sued by an American Feeder as two of their aircraft ran of the end landing in Ottawa. Now lets look at the facts, they chose to buy aircraft with high residual thrust engines and NO REVERSE! Yes I know certification is done without factoring in reverse, but in our climate this is totally bloody stupid, so Bean Counters, how much did you actually save given the fact that it cost around eleven million to fix your "great bargain" aircraft? If one combines the training standards in most American comuters {remember Coglan?} it should come as no suprise that these two finished in the" Rhubarb!" Lets just kick them out of our airspace as "unsafe!"And yes, I know the runway wasnt groved, but landing on this length one shouldnt go of the end if you just use a wet runway, firm landing method and get it on in the first 500 feet , these two were really moving when the went of the end.

Hmm, I wonder what the claim is? Was the runway not the length stated? Were the wind or runway surface conditions not correctly reported at the time?

Perhaps the Ottawa authorities should only be allowing pilots competent on type to land at the airport....

Ah, there we are! The airline is probably suing YOW for not having a highway beside the runway, so the pax can be picked up by good Samaritans following the over run!

I recall the Air France pax being picked up by motorists resulted in an accountability disaster, as they could not confirm all the pax were out. I attended a TSB presentation on the evacuation of that flight, and it was apparently about as poorly managed by the cabin crew, as the pilot's landing!

Unless this is not the full story, this barrack-room lawyer says the fault is tottaly with the Captain. It's his job to check the airport size and orientation, have calculated the numbers for his aircraft at landing and satisfied himself that the tin would fit on the tarmac.

in this case, PILOT ERROR

I have a different recollection than Step Turn about the handling of the Air France evacuation. I seem to remember the cabin crew being highly commended and that is backed up by the report on Wikipedia. I looked it up because the events are some time ago and I wondered if I was confusing events. In this case I think Step Turn may be doing so.

From a european perspective suing the airport because you run off the end of the runway sounds very strange. The only logic would be to try and persuade people who do not know much about aviation (e.g. most passengers) that they are a safer airline than their accident record suggests.

A bit of thread drift....

My knowledge of this evacuation is limited to the information I gained watching it nearly live on Toronto TV at the time, later attending a TSB seminar on the subject.

Memorable from the TSB seminar for me were the following points:

TSB interviewed every passenger ('cause they all lived!) as to their personal exit path from the cabin, and exist used. These were presented to the audience as several hundred coloured lines overlayed on the cabin diagram, so they could be shown or hidden one by one, and that passenger's personal path shown. It was spaghetti, with many passengers doubling back more than once, so it looked like sewing in the aisle. This was explained by the TSB investigator explaining that the cabin crew had provided very conflicting instruction for exit, depending upon a pax location in the cabin. Great delay was cause with opposing direction pax in the aisle.

The audience was told that a left front slide deployed in a "V" shape and inadequate regard was given for the pax clearing at the bottom (now the middle of the "V") before the next pax landed on top of them, resulting in broken bone injuries.

Also a right front slide deployed into a river, so all those exiting pax ended up in the water, which in this case was not a serious problem, as it was a shallow river, but in principle was not a great way to get out.

But yes, at the end of the day, everyone got out alive, and in the highest order of things, you have to give a thumbs up for that. The point of the seminar I attended was that evacuation disorganization resulted in delays, and unsafe conditions relative to the ideal, intended procedure. Yes, I suppose some armchair quarterback, but that is what the TSB is suppose to do!

Thanks for your prespective it certainly contrasts with my memory. But it is probably another example of airlines putting their best spin on unfortunate events, which brings us back to the original topic.

There's a bunch of lessens to be learned from that AF accident, not the least of which is the example of the KLM crew flying the 747 on the approach preceding the AF flight. They took a look at the radar return, said screw this for a game of darts and went to Buffalo.

That's because the KLM crew wasn't just looking at the radar between themselves and the runway. They were also looking at the missed approach path and could see that any attempt to go around was going to place them directly into a very large and dangerous thunderstorm.

The race to beat such weather is an all too often occurrence. I've done it myself (prior to the Air France accident). The path is clear to the runway and it all looks good so we'll keep going rather than accept the hassle of a diversion, forgetting that the missed approach may not be because of anything we've done (i.e. vehicle on the runway). Many of us have gambled and got away with it; the AF crew weren't so fortunate. When the approach went unstable (very late), they were caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place.

To return to the factors in the Ottawa over run, I am constantley amazed by those who maintain whatever they have as an increment over the normal V App right into the flare, instead of letting it decay as one gets just short of the threshold, {no one ever did any harm if the bottom drops out at ten feet} and then compound the problem by holding of on contaminated runways feeling for the "smooth one", the "T" effect takes care of any nasty things hapening as one gets back to V App one the aircraft is down to about half its wing span above the ground, but some operators seem blisfully unaware of this when teaching , maybe agrevated by the Airbus "Retard" call out which doesnt seem to understand this minor detail in large aircraft aerodynamics. Add all these factors up and throw in high idle forward thrust and no reverse, its a perfect mix for more overuns, lets not even go into the training standards in some of the US comuters.

Let me ask a contaminated runway technique question, just 'cause I do not know the answer: Assuming worst case, where you're knowingly landing your jet into a one inch deep pool of water on the runway, you're better to thump it on, and splash it through the puddle, rather than greasing it on, and hydroplaning a bit?

If you thump it on, you'll momentarily increase the apparent tire pressure, and thereby cut through the pool of water, but the effect of that will stop when the vertical landing forces cease, and you're back to the normal pressure tires tires climbing back up to hydroplane a short time later. There was not much stopping from braking effect happening at the moment of contact anyway (I hope!).

If you grease it on to the top of the pool of water, yes, you will be hydroplaning, but the plane is still flying to some degree too, and the flight controls will all still have their normal effect in controlling the plane as it slows. By the time the brakes will be effective anyway, the plane will be in firm contact with the runway, albeit further down the runway.

I see maintaining an accurate and precise approach speed, and good touchdown point, as being vital to a safe contaminated runway landing, but is the "firmness" of first contact with the runway as important one way of the other?

Dear Step,

In the case of the smooth touchdown…you will almost always hydroplane and all that runway behind you is now useless…and there will be too much of it behind you and not enough in front. Someone used the term "Boink it on" and this is what gets your tires through the standing water…so your brakes and wheels, and any other lift dumping devices can do the job you want them to. A higher than normal Vref speed coupled with an additive above that incorrect speed and standing water makes it a natural that they will have stopping problems. An old friend and TRE always used to say.."Theres' always a reason…"

We can compound the problems with slippery runways by remembering what it was like landing on ice strips just before breakup in the spring when the ice is covered in a thin layer of water.

And we did not have a runway friction report either....hell there was no one to talk to on the radio closer than a thousand miles away. :ok:

Step Turn, yes plant it very firmly {ignore the SLF in the back who tend to judge everything by the landing!} on most heavy aircraft this will compress the oleos which in turn if you plant it firmly enough will spin up the wheels {normally requires two to activate the lift dump, on most aircraft on opposite sides of the aircraft} thus it normally wont re- hydroplane again, combine this with putting the reverse thrust leavers somewher in the first class cabin and it will indeed stop, {ignore the first class bit in an Airbuss product, just bend those two liitle switches back}On some aircraft {B727 was great} dont be afraid to use aerodynamic braking which in turn tends to drive the main gear with a good down force. Im no genius, but started in 1954, have yet to go of the end, mind you our twin doesnt have anti skid/spoilers/reverse thrust and our home base is under 4,000 feet, so maybe I speak too soon!

A while back a lawyer 'friend' - well, we have a few beers now and then - gave me a summary of the standard escalating defense process when you have clearly done something wrong... In this case the scenario was your dog had bitten someone. He recommended:

* The dog was clearly provoked.

And if that doesn't work....

* The other person's dog started it.

And if that doesn't work....

* The dog has never done anything like that before.

And finally......

* You don't have a dog!

Suing the airport for two run-offs smacks of "I don't have a dog!"

:yuk: :yuk: :yuk:

I was on the approach path about 3/4 mile final during the rainstorm that involved that AF aircraft(in a car headed to Aviation World). The reason KLM went around was because they were following the AF aircraft. The aircraft preceding the AF were two RJ's(one was Jazz).

By the way, the storm had strong crosswinds as AF passed overhead. I said out loud...."what an idiot". It appeared to me that he was going around as I saw him appear to climb but he disappeared from view behind a hotel. Saw the smoke a little while later.

When I read the report, I discovered that what made me think he was going around was a sort of levelling off due the effects of the storm. Apparently he pressed on.

Talking to someone in the know(that used to keep me informed of such things) about what was said in the cockpit, a crewmember compared it to Niagara Falls.

Pigboat, I do not agree with your description of KLM's reason to divert to BUF.


I happened to be sitting waiting for a gate and saw the AF cross over the threshold. I said to my f/o that that acft had no right being there at that moment due to the prevailing conditions. As we were facing east we did not see the t/down but then saw KLM approaching the runway, within seconds YYZ tower commanded KLM do a go-around, at which point he declared that he was diverting.

Ok, I sit corrected. I had been under the impression KLM was in front of AF. :O