Air France crash at YYZ (Merged)
Location, Location, Location
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: If it moves, watch it like a hawk: If it doesn't, hit it with a hammer until it does...
Age: 60
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed Jerricho,
one can apply factors to any airfield and find that disaster results......
They were lucky that the 'incident' was at a relatively slow speed and the on-board staff were fully clued-up and able; kudos and applause to them!!!
Well done to the AF Cabin Crew; lives would've been lost if it were not for your actions!!
Respect!
one can apply factors to any airfield and find that disaster results......
They were lucky that the 'incident' was at a relatively slow speed and the on-board staff were fully clued-up and able; kudos and applause to them!!!
Well done to the AF Cabin Crew; lives would've been lost if it were not for your actions!!
Respect!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are we all missing the BIG picture here? Anyone really listened to thE YYZ ATC tape?
What on earth were those fellows doing there around an airport with the most awful weather on fumes?
I'd imagine they were attempting to land
But "fumes"? They had enough for the 160nm trip to Syracuse. I don't know what the regulations regarding contingency/delay fuel are, but that sounds like enough to me?
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
they should have enough to divert at any point, leaving them plenty of fuel for the divert (regardless of distance be it 10nm, or 1000nm), plus a 45 min hold, plus one go around - school boy stuff! - most people I have flown with also like to throw in an extra 10% of the total just for good measures too!
hats off too the FA's, but would love too know what happened too the chutes...
hats off too the FA's, but would love too know what happened too the chutes...
Eight Gun Fighter
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Western Approaches
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Comment from the Fire Chief at Pearson at a news coference this morning was that one reason the fire took so long to extinguish (reports of from 4 to 12 hours) was that there was a substantial amount of fuel onboard. Globe and Mail today quoted someone as saying the A340 has enough fuel capacity to do CDG- YYZ - CDG if they wish to. (currently taking a grain of salt)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: London & Edinburgh
Age: 38
Posts: 646
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding diversion - its an interesting question ... I know BA's two flights to YYZ ended up in YOW & YUL, but I don't know if that was pre- or post-incident.
Regarding BBC ... reporting was ok, diagram was poor, "have your say" was shocking and they shouldn't have put that page up ... some utter BS on there!
As I said earlier, maybe all this pontificating isn't the best idea?
Jordan
Regarding BBC ... reporting was ok, diagram was poor, "have your say" was shocking and they shouldn't have put that page up ... some utter BS on there!
As I said earlier, maybe all this pontificating isn't the best idea?
Jordan
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The KLM said 30 minutes at Syracuse which let's face it is not next door to YYZ - so as pointed out he wanted as direct a routing as possible as he probably anticipated other fellow diverts. Less of the hysterics please.
The first BA of the day diverted just before the AF landing according to info I have but that's not official, presumably to YOW with the trailing second service diving into YUL a couple of hours flight time behind.
The first BA of the day diverted just before the AF landing according to info I have but that's not official, presumably to YOW with the trailing second service diving into YUL a couple of hours flight time behind.
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
I thought the BBC diagram was very poor - no indication of the nearby nuclear power station, the orphanage, or the nunnery that were clearly "seconds from disaster".
Top marks to the cabin crew for getting everyone out so quickly.
Top marks to the cabin crew for getting everyone out so quickly.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,852
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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: May 2003
Location: EDDF
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Source: [email protected]
Revised at 2230hrs, Aug 04
YHM SSV675 (757-C-FFAN), SSV863 (757-CFTDV), ACA907 (320), ACA1156 (320), ELY106 (763), SSV16, SSV46
YXU FIN2417 (757 OH-LBV), ACA1074 (CRJ), ACA758 (320), ACA542 (319), ACA903 (319), ACA1052, ACA142 (A333)
YQG ACA983 (319 from MBJ), ACA1236 (321), ACA877 (763), ACA110 (321), ACA989 (319)
YUL BAW099 (772 G-YMMF), KLM691(744-PH-BFN-from SYR), RZO371 (310), TSC117 (TLS-YYZ 310), TSC113 (LYS-YYZ 310), AFL303 (763-VP-BAZ), MAH94 (762),ACA894 (762), ACA891 (763), ACA817(763), ACA849 (333)
YOW ACA087 (763), ACA1152 (320), CJA108 YYC-YYZ (735), CJA198 (YVR-YYZ 735), TSC123 (LGW-YYZ 310), BAW093 (744), AEW141 (763 UR-VVG), ACA157 (320)
YYB ACA116 (320), ACA164 (321), ACA126 (320),ACA272 (319), ACA786 (319), ACA130 (320)
YWG ACA180 (763), ACA1162, ACA1236, AC002 (343), ACA016 (345), ACA128 (321),
YQT ACA1172 (320), ACA120 (320)
IAG LTU1580 (332 D-ALPA)
SYR KLM691 (744 -PH-BFN)
NYC AAL1562
ORD MXA886 (319)
CLE COA2145, AAL1562
BKL AWE262 (320) PHX-YYZ diversion
DTW AAL1586
Revised at 2230hrs, Aug 04
YHM SSV675 (757-C-FFAN), SSV863 (757-CFTDV), ACA907 (320), ACA1156 (320), ELY106 (763), SSV16, SSV46
YXU FIN2417 (757 OH-LBV), ACA1074 (CRJ), ACA758 (320), ACA542 (319), ACA903 (319), ACA1052, ACA142 (A333)
YQG ACA983 (319 from MBJ), ACA1236 (321), ACA877 (763), ACA110 (321), ACA989 (319)
YUL BAW099 (772 G-YMMF), KLM691(744-PH-BFN-from SYR), RZO371 (310), TSC117 (TLS-YYZ 310), TSC113 (LYS-YYZ 310), AFL303 (763-VP-BAZ), MAH94 (762),ACA894 (762), ACA891 (763), ACA817(763), ACA849 (333)
YOW ACA087 (763), ACA1152 (320), CJA108 YYC-YYZ (735), CJA198 (YVR-YYZ 735), TSC123 (LGW-YYZ 310), BAW093 (744), AEW141 (763 UR-VVG), ACA157 (320)
YYB ACA116 (320), ACA164 (321), ACA126 (320),ACA272 (319), ACA786 (319), ACA130 (320)
YWG ACA180 (763), ACA1162, ACA1236, AC002 (343), ACA016 (345), ACA128 (321),
YQT ACA1172 (320), ACA120 (320)
IAG LTU1580 (332 D-ALPA)
SYR KLM691 (744 -PH-BFN)
NYC AAL1562
ORD MXA886 (319)
CLE COA2145, AAL1562
BKL AWE262 (320) PHX-YYZ diversion
DTW AAL1586
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thrust reverser:
http://www.airdisaster.com/user-uploads/af4.jpg
About says it all...
http://www.airdisaster.com/user-uploads/AF358-02a.jpg
Correct path is red line:
http://www.airdisaster.com/user-uploads/upd.jpg
Ahead by a dome...
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/interactive/w...05.nose.ap.jpg
http://www.airdisaster.com/user-uploads/af4.jpg
About says it all...
http://www.airdisaster.com/user-uploads/AF358-02a.jpg
Correct path is red line:
http://www.airdisaster.com/user-uploads/upd.jpg
Ahead by a dome...
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/interactive/w...05.nose.ap.jpg
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: SF,CA,USA
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glad everyone got off OK - that is amazing.
In the US runways are numbered by magnetic bearing - I assume they are in Canada too? Therefore occasionaly they change number as mag North moves around. I suspect that is why 23L in 1978 is 24L now...
It will be interesting to see exactly what led to the first go around. In hindsight looks like another go around was probably in order.
Can some A340 Pilots give some idea of the sophistication of the Autoland, which I assume must have been flying the plane in that kind of weather?
Clearly from the photos and witnesses the reverse thrusters were working, so you would assume the aircraft systems and therefore the ABS was working too.
Is it possible severe windshear on landing could make the autoland land really long, or is 24L a pretty tight space to stop an A340 with that much water coming down? It does not look like the tyres popped either from the photos, so it can't have landed 'that' hard...
Hold on... The photo on page A11 of to-day's Globe & Mail shows the AC DC-9 that went off what was then 23L on June 28, 1978 (the runway has been presumably re-aligned since then). If you look at the picture you can see the skid marks of the aircraft at about a 40 degree angle to the centreline of the runway.
It will be interesting to see exactly what led to the first go around. In hindsight looks like another go around was probably in order.
Can some A340 Pilots give some idea of the sophistication of the Autoland, which I assume must have been flying the plane in that kind of weather?
Clearly from the photos and witnesses the reverse thrusters were working, so you would assume the aircraft systems and therefore the ABS was working too.
Is it possible severe windshear on landing could make the autoland land really long, or is 24L a pretty tight space to stop an A340 with that much water coming down? It does not look like the tyres popped either from the photos, so it can't have landed 'that' hard...
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I too would like to know more about the A340's autoland.
I'd also like to know if any of you with A340 operational experience know of any reason why the passenger quoted on CBC tv described a complete power failure in the cabin (which I assume meant the lights went out - see below), one minute before his sense of the "crash" starting.
Any idea?
Here is the quote (I've heard this audio re-broadcast on the BBC):
"The power shut down completely. That was because of the rain or the very heavy winds or whatever," said the unidentified passenger. "One minute before we crashed completely, there was no more light in the plane. It was really really scary," he added.
Thanks!
I'd also like to know if any of you with A340 operational experience know of any reason why the passenger quoted on CBC tv described a complete power failure in the cabin (which I assume meant the lights went out - see below), one minute before his sense of the "crash" starting.
Any idea?
Here is the quote (I've heard this audio re-broadcast on the BBC):
"The power shut down completely. That was because of the rain or the very heavy winds or whatever," said the unidentified passenger. "One minute before we crashed completely, there was no more light in the plane. It was really really scary," he added.
Thanks!
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Earth
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As for the runways at YYZ,
they were renamed due to contruction of the third parallel (which is what is now 24L-06R). They kept the 24's on the south side, and the northern one became 23-05 although its magnetic heading i believe is 237 deg. Why they didn't use 24L, 24C, 24R - je ne sais pas...
they were renamed due to contruction of the third parallel (which is what is now 24L-06R). They kept the 24's on the south side, and the northern one became 23-05 although its magnetic heading i believe is 237 deg. Why they didn't use 24L, 24C, 24R - je ne sais pas...
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Armada,
The red line AirDisaster shows is on the taxy way. Is that where the AirDisaster "experts" reckon they should have landed?
Correct path is red line:
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not overly familar with YYZ myself.
Edited, added: http://www.airdisaster.com/user-uploads/ataxi.JPG
Outdated chart.
Edited, added: http://www.airdisaster.com/user-uploads/ataxi.JPG
Outdated chart.
FrankieB,
"They kept the 24's on the south side, and the northern one became 23-05 although its magnetic heading i believe is 237 deg. Why they didn't use 24L, 24C, 24R - je ne sais pas..."
At the risk of diverting the thread, I have always wondered why airports designate parallel runways with the same number with L and R as the only difference. The numbers are to the nearest ten so why at a two parallel runway air port could they not be designated 23, 24 and 05, 06 reducing the possibility of confusion of "did he say Left or Right?". Easier in FMS selections and so on.
I realise that there are airports with multiple parallels but keeping runway designators as different as feasable seems to me a way of reducing the potential confusion factor.
I'm assuming that there must be reasons, maybe someone can enlighten me.
"They kept the 24's on the south side, and the northern one became 23-05 although its magnetic heading i believe is 237 deg. Why they didn't use 24L, 24C, 24R - je ne sais pas..."
At the risk of diverting the thread, I have always wondered why airports designate parallel runways with the same number with L and R as the only difference. The numbers are to the nearest ten so why at a two parallel runway air port could they not be designated 23, 24 and 05, 06 reducing the possibility of confusion of "did he say Left or Right?". Easier in FMS selections and so on.
I realise that there are airports with multiple parallels but keeping runway designators as different as feasable seems to me a way of reducing the potential confusion factor.
I'm assuming that there must be reasons, maybe someone can enlighten me.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: North America
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why they didn't use 24L, 24C, 24R - je ne sais pas...
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Great White North
Age: 51
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If anybody is interested in listening to the ATC archive for the 20 minutes prior to AF358 entering the pattern, the 10 minutes AF358 is in the pattern, and then the following 10 minutes of go-arounds, including KLM 691 Low fuel emergency, PM me. I can email you the ATC winamp files.
And every know and then, someone gets on these boards and says pilots are paid too much..........
Whatever.....
And every know and then, someone gets on these boards and says pilots are paid too much..........
Whatever.....
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Notre Dame IN USA
Age: 82
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aeronautic...
Someone spoke to this earlier in the thread. His answer was in the form of a question and, paraphrasing, was: "Isn't it the custom in European countries to turn the cabin lights off before landing?" If that were the case, pax might have confused that with a power failure.
I'd also like to know if any of you with A340 operational experience know of any reason why the passenger quoted on CBC tv described a complete power failure in the cabin (which I assume meant the lights went out - see below), one minute before his sense of the "crash" starting.