Air France crash at YYZ (Merged)
Unfortunately this website is going the direction of Airliners.net. i.e. the % of amateurs making "expert" comments is ruining what should be an interesting and informative discussion. As has been said before the KLM aircraft was not running on fumes, they made a sensible decision to communicate their fuel state early. I would suggest that at the time of their go-around that they had approx 1 hrs fuel left. Hardly running on fumes. I think some of the posters on this forum might be running on fumes though!
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Southend , UK
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rotornut,
thats my concern about inconsistency. A previous report openly stated that the FO was last off the aircraft.
There has also been a big deal about the fact tht it was the First Officers landing, and that he was very experienced.
Something not adding up.
Strange
thats my concern about inconsistency. A previous report openly stated that the FO was last off the aircraft.
There has also been a big deal about the fact tht it was the First Officers landing, and that he was very experienced.
Something not adding up.
Strange
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,852
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, I heard that too. But the statement about the captain being the last one off came from the fire chief during an interview. He said that he was in contact with the captain by radio and he was definitely the last one off.
Guest
Posts: n/a
eal 401
"Well, I watched the same clip sober and she was merely talking about the safety features on the aircraft. Nothing to do with evacuation."
Thanks for that EAL, but I must say I got the distinct impression that she was talking about the successful evacuation of the AF aircraft ? If that was the case, then what was her point ? Why not mention the many other safety features also ?
It looks like trainer too 2 might well be correct, I know some TV people do mutilate interviews for their own purposes. In that case, if I were the lady, I would be a bit upset. Not that you can do anything about it afterwards.
Not that the point is of great weight anyway.
old TV doubter
Thanks for that EAL, but I must say I got the distinct impression that she was talking about the successful evacuation of the AF aircraft ? If that was the case, then what was her point ? Why not mention the many other safety features also ?
It looks like trainer too 2 might well be correct, I know some TV people do mutilate interviews for their own purposes. In that case, if I were the lady, I would be a bit upset. Not that you can do anything about it afterwards.
Not that the point is of great weight anyway.
old TV doubter
Disaster Averted as EMAS Once Again Saves Lives
& Equipment at JFK
At approximately 3:25 pm on the afternoon of January 22, 2005, a Boeing 747 cargo plane overran runway 04R at JFK International Airport, NY and was safely stopped by the Engineered Material Arresting System (EMAS). There were no reported injuries to the crew or damage to the aircraft. A thorough check on the aircraft was conducted and it was scheduled to return to service on January 27.
The aircraft had an estimated weight of just over 600,000 lbs. Details are still limited at the moment, as no official announcement has been made by the FAA or NTSB regarding the incident. However, early indications show that the combination of adverse weather and reduced thrust reverser capability may have played a role in the incident.
Fortunately, the plane was stopped by the EMAS 300 feet into the arrestor bed and about 200 feet from Thurston Bay. This marks the 3rd instance in which an EMAS has saved an aircraft in an overrun emergency.
There are now 15 EMAS installations throughout the U.S with several more in the planning and design stage. With the FAA’s recent full acceptance of EMAS as an equivalent to a standard safety area, more airports can now further enhance airport safety with the technology.
Just to stir the pot (-:
& Equipment at JFK
At approximately 3:25 pm on the afternoon of January 22, 2005, a Boeing 747 cargo plane overran runway 04R at JFK International Airport, NY and was safely stopped by the Engineered Material Arresting System (EMAS). There were no reported injuries to the crew or damage to the aircraft. A thorough check on the aircraft was conducted and it was scheduled to return to service on January 27.
The aircraft had an estimated weight of just over 600,000 lbs. Details are still limited at the moment, as no official announcement has been made by the FAA or NTSB regarding the incident. However, early indications show that the combination of adverse weather and reduced thrust reverser capability may have played a role in the incident.
Fortunately, the plane was stopped by the EMAS 300 feet into the arrestor bed and about 200 feet from Thurston Bay. This marks the 3rd instance in which an EMAS has saved an aircraft in an overrun emergency.
There are now 15 EMAS installations throughout the U.S with several more in the planning and design stage. With the FAA’s recent full acceptance of EMAS as an equivalent to a standard safety area, more airports can now further enhance airport safety with the technology.
Just to stir the pot (-:
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Cardiff, UK
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I must admit to being one of the "great uninformed": however perhaps the other non-experts around should go and read about this accident to put low fuel related emergencies in perspective:
http://www.airdisaster.com/cgi-bin/v...irline=Avianca
This gives a clear indication as to why it's important to stand up and declare a fuel emergency, especially when the ATC is under (more) pressure (than ususal) and the weather is stinking.
These poor folks failed to convey the urgency of their situation by not declaring an emergency: as a result they were left to circle around in the dark (getting increasingly panic stricken) until they eventually ran out of fuel and crashed (as I understand it-correct me if I'm wrong?). This makes the practice of declaring an emergency (like the KLM) look quite sensible, I think?
As for the Airbus, what a miracle! It is rare to see such a serious accident turn out well for the people on board. It will be interested to see what the air crash investigators come up with.
Daniel
http://www.airdisaster.com/cgi-bin/v...irline=Avianca
This gives a clear indication as to why it's important to stand up and declare a fuel emergency, especially when the ATC is under (more) pressure (than ususal) and the weather is stinking.
These poor folks failed to convey the urgency of their situation by not declaring an emergency: as a result they were left to circle around in the dark (getting increasingly panic stricken) until they eventually ran out of fuel and crashed (as I understand it-correct me if I'm wrong?). This makes the practice of declaring an emergency (like the KLM) look quite sensible, I think?
As for the Airbus, what a miracle! It is rare to see such a serious accident turn out well for the people on board. It will be interested to see what the air crash investigators come up with.
Daniel
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From Yahoo....
"David Learmount, an aviation safety expert with British-based Flight International magazine, said the crash appears similar to others in which planes have overshot runways before hitting obstacles or uneven ground "
Such genius!
"David Learmount, an aviation safety expert with British-based Flight International magazine, said the crash appears similar to others in which planes have overshot runways before hitting obstacles or uneven ground "
Such genius!
Do not mistake a stupid quote choice by a lay "journalist" member of the mass hysteria (nee media) for the actual thought or opinion of David Learmount.
Indeed, perhaps I mistake your comment. Maybe it was not directed at Learmount, but at the reporter who quoted him?
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Jerez
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This photo clearly shows that the speedbrakes aren't extended, so that must be an important factor: (unless they were retracted for the evacuation)
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/893221/L/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/893221/L/
Last edited by Oscar Juliet; 4th Aug 2005 at 13:17.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oscar - I know it infuriates people to say it, but we have to wait for the investigation team. If are you saying you KNOW the speedbrakes were not used during landing, please contact the investigation team immediately! On the 737, and PROBABLY (NB I do not know) on the 340, the speedbrakes are selected down for an evacuation.
Interesting interview with Air Canada Captain Marc Antoine Plourde from the CBC's The National, Real Player needed.
here
The photo also shows that the plane is missing its tail, that might have contributed to it as well. 
here
This photo clearly shows that the speedbrakes aren't extended, so that must be an important factor:
(a bear of little brain)
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: 51 10 03.70N 2 58 37.15W
Age: 75
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ehmm engines are not running....
Oh my God, I can see tomorrows headline right now.... "Crash Jet ran out of fuel"
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
erm, i didnt know the a340 had speed brakes! but from that picture it is clear that the spoilers are down.
I have never flown the airbus, but i know in general terms, 70 - 80 % of braking action is from the wheels, and a large percent from the rev. thrust - which appears too have been used...
I have never flown the airbus, but i know in general terms, 70 - 80 % of braking action is from the wheels, and a large percent from the rev. thrust - which appears too have been used...
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TSB Press conference re AF358
Quote:
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.
16 Blades
Hmm ... so the 9000 ft. actual runway length might have been effectively less than 6000 ft. if the water caused hydroplaning equivalent to icy conditions. As noted earlier, at max. weight, the Aircraft Characteristics for Airport Planning Manual for the A340-200/300 shows min. landing field length between (about) 6200 and 6800 ft. -- so if the surface was effectively 'icy', the pilot could have touched down at the earliest possible point, applied spoilers, brakes, and thrust reversers, and still ended up off the runway.
Facts from the TSB press conference (just concluded; covered live on local radio stations):
Both cockpit recorders recovered; some fire damage, but appeared to be in good shape; sent to Ottawa for analysis.
No evidence of any malfunctions prior to departure from runway (i.e., no parts found on the runway!); no reports of problems from flight crew prior to touchdown.
Aircraft speed approx. 140 knots at touchdown (normal);
approx. 80 knots at time of departure from runway(!).
Three thrust reversers confirmed as deployed (confirmation of #3 engine reverser will have to wait for flight recorder analysis).
There were some remarks on braking conditions, but they were in French and I missed 'em ...
Another press conference will be held at about 3 PM EDT today.
yyzbuff
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.
16 Blades
Hmm ... so the 9000 ft. actual runway length might have been effectively less than 6000 ft. if the water caused hydroplaning equivalent to icy conditions. As noted earlier, at max. weight, the Aircraft Characteristics for Airport Planning Manual for the A340-200/300 shows min. landing field length between (about) 6200 and 6800 ft. -- so if the surface was effectively 'icy', the pilot could have touched down at the earliest possible point, applied spoilers, brakes, and thrust reversers, and still ended up off the runway.
Facts from the TSB press conference (just concluded; covered live on local radio stations):
Both cockpit recorders recovered; some fire damage, but appeared to be in good shape; sent to Ottawa for analysis.
No evidence of any malfunctions prior to departure from runway (i.e., no parts found on the runway!); no reports of problems from flight crew prior to touchdown.
Aircraft speed approx. 140 knots at touchdown (normal);
approx. 80 knots at time of departure from runway(!).
Three thrust reversers confirmed as deployed (confirmation of #3 engine reverser will have to wait for flight recorder analysis).
There were some remarks on braking conditions, but they were in French and I missed 'em ...
Another press conference will be held at about 3 PM EDT today.
yyzbuff
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Great White North
Age: 51
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding KLM go-around and then declaring a low fuel emergency after the crash........
The KLM pilot was clearly heard stating they want a turn direct to Syracuse. ATC tried to get them to an airport closer if the runway length was sufficient. KLM declined, they have planned for Syracuse, they have enough fuel to make Syracuse, with 30 minutes remaining.
The KLM pilot was clearly heard stating they want a turn direct to Syracuse. ATC tried to get them to an airport closer if the runway length was sufficient. KLM declined, they have planned for Syracuse, they have enough fuel to make Syracuse, with 30 minutes remaining.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Europe
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oscar - I know it infuriates people to say it, but we have to wait for the investigation team. If are you saying you KNOW the speedbrakes were not used during landing, please contact the investigation team immediately! On the 737, and PROBABLY (NB I do not know) on the 340, the speedbrakes are selected down for an evacuation
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Mk. 1 desk at present...
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pegasus77:
I know what you mean, but don't over-generalize; I could take you to some lovely islands where you can experience the seasonal delights of high-speed (30kt+) fog... 
Back on-topic, could someone familiar with the way the Candian TSB operates take a guess at when they'll release preliminary data from the FDR readout?
R1
You don't switch "the autoland" on for landing, there is no such switch. In low visiblity ops, you leave the autopilot on untill after landing. This is done in FOG, that means hardly any wind and low visiblity.
Back on-topic, could someone familiar with the way the Candian TSB operates take a guess at when they'll release preliminary data from the FDR readout?
R1