Air India Plane Skids off Runway
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt Ranganathan, in his article in The Hindu, should be more careful in what he writes. The Air France A340 that overran the runway in Toronto earlier this month touched down nearly halfway along a 9000 ft runway - not recommended practice even under dry conditions.
Rockhound
Rockhound
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Madras,India
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rockhound
The reference to AF A340 is only about wet runway overrun. If you bothered to read the rest of the article, you will find that it explains what happens on a wet runway, in lay man's language.
AF might have landed half way down the runway, but is the enquiry complete? don't become an armchair critic!!
The reference to AF A340 is only about wet runway overrun. If you bothered to read the rest of the article, you will find that it explains what happens on a wet runway, in lay man's language.
AF might have landed half way down the runway, but is the enquiry complete? don't become an armchair critic!!
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tripper,
The article clearly implies that the AF 340 overran the runway because it was wet. Agreed, the investigation of the accident is not yet complete but the investigation board has already concluded that touchdown was so late (far down the runway) that the aircraft could not have stopped before reaching the end, i.e. landing long, not water on the runway, was the main reason for the overrun.
Rockhound
The article clearly implies that the AF 340 overran the runway because it was wet. Agreed, the investigation of the accident is not yet complete but the investigation board has already concluded that touchdown was so late (far down the runway) that the aircraft could not have stopped before reaching the end, i.e. landing long, not water on the runway, was the main reason for the overrun.
Rockhound
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Madras,India
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rockhound
The touch down was late. Agreed. But the investigators are also wondering why there was no decelleration. the aircraft lost only around 64 kts in 5000 feet!!?
Don't crucify the pilots , yet. They had 25000 hrs of flying between them.
Rockhound
read "alf5071h" posting in the AF 340 thread
The touch down was late. Agreed. But the investigators are also wondering why there was no decelleration. the aircraft lost only around 64 kts in 5000 feet!!?
Don't crucify the pilots , yet. They had 25000 hrs of flying between them.
Rockhound
read "alf5071h" posting in the AF 340 thread
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tripper,
I was merely suggesting that Capt Ranganathan should not have cited the AF358 crash in his article on wet-runway overruns because we have no proof that this incident is relevant due to the fact that, as you rightly observed, the accident investigation has not been completed. However, preliminary findings indicate the principal reason for the overrun was insufficient runway for a safe landing being available following touchdown even had it been dry.
I read alf's post on the other thread with great interest. It is the sort of post which educates me, a non-professional pilot, and forms one of the reasons I participate in PPRuNe.
I have no desire to "crucify" the two AF pilots. However, I'm sure you'll admit that, in the vast majority of cases, accidents such as this are due to human (usually pilot) error. The crucial question (for me) is, why was the error made? In this case, two highly experienced pilots flying a heavy jet with over 300 sobs apparently touched down and decided to complete the landing with only 1500 m of runway remaining? Did they recognize their situation? Did they believe attempting to complete the landing was preferable to entering a thunderstorm on a GA? There may be several reasons for them committing the error but error it surely was. In this case, we'll probably find out why the error occurred. In no way do I (a non-professional) crucify the pilots. I thank God that they and their passengers survived.
Best wishes.
Rockhound
I was merely suggesting that Capt Ranganathan should not have cited the AF358 crash in his article on wet-runway overruns because we have no proof that this incident is relevant due to the fact that, as you rightly observed, the accident investigation has not been completed. However, preliminary findings indicate the principal reason for the overrun was insufficient runway for a safe landing being available following touchdown even had it been dry.
I read alf's post on the other thread with great interest. It is the sort of post which educates me, a non-professional pilot, and forms one of the reasons I participate in PPRuNe.
I have no desire to "crucify" the two AF pilots. However, I'm sure you'll admit that, in the vast majority of cases, accidents such as this are due to human (usually pilot) error. The crucial question (for me) is, why was the error made? In this case, two highly experienced pilots flying a heavy jet with over 300 sobs apparently touched down and decided to complete the landing with only 1500 m of runway remaining? Did they recognize their situation? Did they believe attempting to complete the landing was preferable to entering a thunderstorm on a GA? There may be several reasons for them committing the error but error it surely was. In this case, we'll probably find out why the error occurred. In no way do I (a non-professional) crucify the pilots. I thank God that they and their passengers survived.
Best wishes.
Rockhound
