AF A340 off rwy @ Douala
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Vega Constellation
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
"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
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
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.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[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!
"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!
Join Date: May 2005
Location: middle of nowhere
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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
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
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: FRANCE
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Gretchenfrage
"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
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
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?i...v_id=&next_id=
Last edited by mermoz92; 25th Feb 2006 at 06:25.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: on the Blue Planet
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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
finally doing that with adequately selected and trained pro's!
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
Last edited by F4F; 25th Feb 2006 at 10:43.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: FRANCE
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by I-FORD
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
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 !
Last edited by mermoz92; 25th Feb 2006 at 14:14.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
Flew over Doula on tues,notams saying ILS U/S - did AF harvest it with the A340 ?
)
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In a far better place
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 55
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However could be tantamount to an admission by Airbus that their product is defective.
But of course ,Airbus is certainly not alone in that regard, are they ?
(< 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.
Last edited by vapilot2004; 26th Feb 2006 at 04:48.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: middle of nowhere
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Last edited by Gretchenfrage; 26th Feb 2006 at 03:25.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Embedded in a pocket of resistance
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by F4F
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!
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!
Originally Posted by Gretchenfrage
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
(By the way: I don't fly their A340'ies)
GF
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: on the Blue Planet
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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
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
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: LHR
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe AF has had a series of "events" because they fly to many "difficult" or defective or in-need of improvements airports.
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.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: middle of nowhere
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Last edited by Gretchenfrage; 27th Feb 2006 at 15:10.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Sandpit
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Management pilots
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 
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.
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.
Too mean to buy a long personal title
Originally Posted by FlyingCroc
The picture is a bad fake.
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/
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Sandpit
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Globaliser
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
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