Air France crash at YYZ (Merged)
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Sunrise Senior Living
Posts: 1,338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Beverly Hills 90210
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yesterday it rained 36.2 mm total
or 1.43 inches which is quite a lot for Toronto
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 !!
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 !!!
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.
or 1.43 inches which is quite a lot for Toronto
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 !!
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 !!!
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.
Last edited by aardvark2zz; 3rd Aug 2005 at 17:31.
Guest
Posts: n/a
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
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
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,852
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is YYZ safe?
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
In June 1978, an Air Canada DC-9 leaving the airport had barely left the ground when the pilot aborted take-off.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Wet Coast
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
24L and 401, etc.
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?
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?
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Wet Coast
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: liverpool
Age: 36
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Hornby Island, British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Earth
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Eight Gun Fighter
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Western Approaches
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
DFDR and CVR have been recovered.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Ohcirrej
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: This is the internet FFS.........
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
IMHO it sounds like sensationalist kneejerk bullsh*t to me.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Europe
Age: 14
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Short Blunt Shock
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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