Air France crash at YYZ (Merged)
See “Managing threats and errors during approach and landing” (2.7 mb download) from the Flight Safety Foundation.
Material in this presentation should add some interest to training sessions as well as provide a timely reminder of the many basic facts that we often overlook.
Pictures of the Toronto runway suggests that it has a concrete surface, is this correct. If so, note the reference to the poor braking performance on wet concrete (grooved or otherwise) in the training material.
Material in this presentation should add some interest to training sessions as well as provide a timely reminder of the many basic facts that we often overlook.
Pictures of the Toronto runway suggests that it has a concrete surface, is this correct. If so, note the reference to the poor braking performance on wet concrete (grooved or otherwise) in the training material.
The Cooler King
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: In the Desert
Posts: 1,703
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From your friends at Yahoo.....
(It says the plane landed at 160 mph which I work out as about 139 kts.....that's hardly a high airspeed for landing is it?
If the guy chose to make it a positive landing - how would that affect the airspeed? i'm just a PPL at this stage so bear with what might be a dumb question. Thanks
)
Toronto crash probe focuses on speed, runway By Cameron French
36 minutes ago
TORONTO (Reuters) - The Air France jet that crashed in Toronto this week was moving at nearly 100 mph (160 km/h) as it careened off the end of the runway into a ravine, investigators said on Thursday.
Two days after the crash, which miraculously claimed no lives even as fire gutted the Airbus A340, investigators are focusing on why the plane was unable to stop after it touched down during a severe thunderstorm.
They will probe the plane's steering and brake units, as well as the tire tracks left on the runway, in an investigation that could take months.
"Because this was a landing and overrun accident, it's of interest to us where the plane touched down," Real Levasseur, lead investigator with Canada's Transportation Safety Board, told reporters.
The aircraft probably landed at about 160 mph (260 km/h), but had slowed to only 95 mph (150 km/h) by the time it ran off the end of the runway, he said.
However, it may take a few days longer to get concrete information about the plane's final moments, as Canadian investigators said they lack the proper equipment to decode the plane's "black box" flight recorders.
Levasseur said the recorders, one of them blackened and soot covered after the fire, will be sent to France so safety officials there can extract the information, a process that will likely take two or three days.
The plane, which had been en route from Paris to Toronto, was reduced to a burned-out carcass after the accident, with pieces of wing and a gleaming, white nose visible among charred and mangled wreckage.
All 309 passengers and crew were able to make it off the plane before it was consumed. A few dozen received minor injuries, including broken bones, as they left the aircraft.
Levasseur said investigators were braving hot and humid conditions as they probed the still-smoldering wreckage.
"There's a lot of mud, there are pieces that are there that are very sharp. It smells like smoke, so it's not very nice around the site, and it's also very dangerous," he said.
CREW REPORTED NO PROBLEMS.
Investigators say the crew reported no problems as the plane approached Toronto's Pearson International Airport, and the landing appeared normal.
"I have no indication that the aircraft was not functioning properly at the time of landing," Levasseur said.
Attention has focused on weather conditions at time of the landing, and whether a wet runway could have caused aquaplaning. The airport was under a red alert as the plane landed, which means there is a danger of lightning and thunder.
Questions have also surfaced about the position of the runway, which ends just short of a steep ravine. In a similar incident in 1978, an Air Canada DC-9 plunged into the ravine after an aborted takeoff, killing two passengers and injuring 105.
Investigators said they are looking at a coroner's recommendation from the time that the airport install a causeway.
A Toronto law firm will hold a public meeting next week to inform passengers how they should proceed if they want to make a legal claim.
One lawyer at the firm said he had already been in contact with passengers about a possible lawsuit.
"We're looking into it, there's no doubt we're looking into it," said Paul Miller, a lawyer with Will Barristers in Toronto.
Air France has said the Airbus plane had joined its fleet in September 1999 -- making it a relative newcomer compared with the large number of far older planes still flying.
(It says the plane landed at 160 mph which I work out as about 139 kts.....that's hardly a high airspeed for landing is it?
If the guy chose to make it a positive landing - how would that affect the airspeed? i'm just a PPL at this stage so bear with what might be a dumb question. Thanks
)Toronto crash probe focuses on speed, runway By Cameron French
36 minutes ago
TORONTO (Reuters) - The Air France jet that crashed in Toronto this week was moving at nearly 100 mph (160 km/h) as it careened off the end of the runway into a ravine, investigators said on Thursday.
Two days after the crash, which miraculously claimed no lives even as fire gutted the Airbus A340, investigators are focusing on why the plane was unable to stop after it touched down during a severe thunderstorm.
They will probe the plane's steering and brake units, as well as the tire tracks left on the runway, in an investigation that could take months.
"Because this was a landing and overrun accident, it's of interest to us where the plane touched down," Real Levasseur, lead investigator with Canada's Transportation Safety Board, told reporters.
The aircraft probably landed at about 160 mph (260 km/h), but had slowed to only 95 mph (150 km/h) by the time it ran off the end of the runway, he said.
However, it may take a few days longer to get concrete information about the plane's final moments, as Canadian investigators said they lack the proper equipment to decode the plane's "black box" flight recorders.
Levasseur said the recorders, one of them blackened and soot covered after the fire, will be sent to France so safety officials there can extract the information, a process that will likely take two or three days.
The plane, which had been en route from Paris to Toronto, was reduced to a burned-out carcass after the accident, with pieces of wing and a gleaming, white nose visible among charred and mangled wreckage.
All 309 passengers and crew were able to make it off the plane before it was consumed. A few dozen received minor injuries, including broken bones, as they left the aircraft.
Levasseur said investigators were braving hot and humid conditions as they probed the still-smoldering wreckage.
"There's a lot of mud, there are pieces that are there that are very sharp. It smells like smoke, so it's not very nice around the site, and it's also very dangerous," he said.
CREW REPORTED NO PROBLEMS.
Investigators say the crew reported no problems as the plane approached Toronto's Pearson International Airport, and the landing appeared normal.
"I have no indication that the aircraft was not functioning properly at the time of landing," Levasseur said.
Attention has focused on weather conditions at time of the landing, and whether a wet runway could have caused aquaplaning. The airport was under a red alert as the plane landed, which means there is a danger of lightning and thunder.
Questions have also surfaced about the position of the runway, which ends just short of a steep ravine. In a similar incident in 1978, an Air Canada DC-9 plunged into the ravine after an aborted takeoff, killing two passengers and injuring 105.
Investigators said they are looking at a coroner's recommendation from the time that the airport install a causeway.
A Toronto law firm will hold a public meeting next week to inform passengers how they should proceed if they want to make a legal claim.
One lawyer at the firm said he had already been in contact with passengers about a possible lawsuit.
"We're looking into it, there's no doubt we're looking into it," said Paul Miller, a lawyer with Will Barristers in Toronto.
Air France has said the Airbus plane had joined its fleet in September 1999 -- making it a relative newcomer compared with the large number of far older planes still flying.
Controversial, moi?
1. declaring a low fuel emergency should sound like: "MAYDAY, MAYDAY, MAYDAY! KLM 691 declaring low fuel emergency request direct Syracuse at 15000ft" (or whatever optimum altitude). A PAN,PAN call is not correct. That's an URGENCY call; ultimately it was treated as such by ATC not giving them their optimum altitude rightaway.
2. Whatever your alternate: you aim to land anywhere with 45min. It might be legal and not unsafe to land with 30 minutes, but far from preferable. SYR was KL691 alternate. If you want to make it all the way to SYR and planning to land with 30'' hoping to get your optimum altitude is flying on fumes in my book.
3. KLM 691 also got stuck in the hold, giving them plenty of time to contemplate options. Going 'in' to an area with +TS and gambling on a expeditious landing & the risk of overshooting or someone blowing a tire on the runway ahead of you and knowing that in that case you will end up in an emegency is STUPID. KLM691 crew had their options and chose to ignore them.
Being very familiar with the standards and abilities of KLM crews in general your pompous and unfounded assertions are perhaps the worst example of the multitude of ill-informed, speculative rubbish written on the preceding 20 odd pages.
Too much to hope that we all wait for the facts to be published?
Join Date: May 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As you have no idea how much fuel they had or were likely to land with you are making assumptions.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's be thankful it ended as it did. We'll all read about the reasons why it happened etc. sometime in the future and see who did or didn't do what.
172driver,
This Timesonline arcticle you linked to also says:
Quote:
"Under rules enforced by the European Aviation Safety Agency, based in Cologne, airline manufacturers are not given permission-to-fly certificates until they have demonstrated that they can evacuate a passenger-load of at least 44 people in 90 seconds."
Unquote
There must have been cries of joy and the champagne has been flowing in Toulouse, then.
I guess, it's just an out-of-context-quote by the journo.
On passenger/eyewitness reports I have so far accumulated the following:
1- "One minute before the landing there was a power failure in the cabin. . ." Obviously, both a control freak for having the exact time and an expert for knowing it was a power failure and that it was restricted to the cabin.
2- "...I was out in 3 minutes. . ." Another control freak. 'OK, set watch to stopwatch function, press button now, get moving, I'm out, press button again'.
3 - ". . . and then the lights went out. . ." It is standard procedure with a number of airlines (not just European ones), to turn off cabin lights before take-off and landing at night. While this is usually explained by the crew 'to give you a better view of the city' it is really to accustom people's eyes to lower light conditions
in case something goes wrong and they have to get out. Since this was a daylight arrival, I don't know why the lights might have been on (with the weather it could have been dark eough outside), but may it's SOP and then it would be SOP to switch them off before landing.
4 - "... after the landing people started clapping, but then the engines spooled up...". Ever heard of reverse thrust, mister?
5 - "... the oxygen masks never deployed. . ." And why would they?
6 - "... all exits were opened. . ." Yeah, right, you took the time to check them all, you could see them all and the crew would have done that regardless of fumes and fire at the rear.
Just goes to show how much these 'reports' are worth.
But the most shocking thing for me is that there are people in an aircraft that has just crashed (or overshot the runway and got severely damaged), there is smoke in the cabin, maybe visible fire, you are told in no uncertain terms to get out as fast as possible and people take their cameras and TAKE PICTURES.
I assumed there must be a limit to stupidity, but obviously there isn't.
It just occured to me:
What does the \'European Aviation Safety Agency\'? do?
Any connection with the JAA and/or the Luftfahrtbundesamt?
Are they responsible for general aviation?
172driver,
This Timesonline arcticle you linked to also says:
Quote:
"Under rules enforced by the European Aviation Safety Agency, based in Cologne, airline manufacturers are not given permission-to-fly certificates until they have demonstrated that they can evacuate a passenger-load of at least 44 people in 90 seconds."
Unquote
There must have been cries of joy and the champagne has been flowing in Toulouse, then.
I guess, it's just an out-of-context-quote by the journo.
On passenger/eyewitness reports I have so far accumulated the following:
1- "One minute before the landing there was a power failure in the cabin. . ." Obviously, both a control freak for having the exact time and an expert for knowing it was a power failure and that it was restricted to the cabin.
2- "...I was out in 3 minutes. . ." Another control freak. 'OK, set watch to stopwatch function, press button now, get moving, I'm out, press button again'.
3 - ". . . and then the lights went out. . ." It is standard procedure with a number of airlines (not just European ones), to turn off cabin lights before take-off and landing at night. While this is usually explained by the crew 'to give you a better view of the city' it is really to accustom people's eyes to lower light conditions
in case something goes wrong and they have to get out. Since this was a daylight arrival, I don't know why the lights might have been on (with the weather it could have been dark eough outside), but may it's SOP and then it would be SOP to switch them off before landing.
4 - "... after the landing people started clapping, but then the engines spooled up...". Ever heard of reverse thrust, mister?
5 - "... the oxygen masks never deployed. . ." And why would they?
6 - "... all exits were opened. . ." Yeah, right, you took the time to check them all, you could see them all and the crew would have done that regardless of fumes and fire at the rear.
Just goes to show how much these 'reports' are worth.
But the most shocking thing for me is that there are people in an aircraft that has just crashed (or overshot the runway and got severely damaged), there is smoke in the cabin, maybe visible fire, you are told in no uncertain terms to get out as fast as possible and people take their cameras and TAKE PICTURES.
I assumed there must be a limit to stupidity, but obviously there isn't.
It just occured to me:
What does the \'European Aviation Safety Agency\'? do?
Any connection with the JAA and/or the Luftfahrtbundesamt?
Are they responsible for general aviation?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Ireland
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hotdog wrote:
The red line AirDisaster shows is on the taxy way
Is that where the AirDisaster "experts" reckon they should have landed?
The airliner's path super-imposed on the linked image is correct. It is an oblique view apparently taken from the excellent Google Earth application. The satellite image used is old and shows the airport while the runway in question was under construction which is why its appearance is more like a taxiway than an in-service runway. If you don't have Google Earth, you can get a wider view of the same area from above on the Google Maps website
Correct path is red line: [ http://www.airdisaster.com/user-uploads/upd.jpg ].
Is that where the AirDisaster "experts" reckon they should have landed?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Levasseur said the recorders, one of them blackened and soot covered after the fire, will be sent to France so safety officials there can extract the information, a process that will likely take two or three days.
In all seriousness, shouldn't the FDR/CVR be examined in Canada, they are pretty standard industry wide. Does the A340-300 have a QAR as standard fit?
Paxing All Over The World
An EMAS arrestor bed would likely have made this overrun a near non-event. But the total runway length would be some 500' shorter which would reduce maximum weights and therefore revenues for the carriers and the GTAA.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gordon,are you suggesting these lovely people that sounded the death knell for our favorite aircraft would hope to have some data corrupted by a certain government? mmn funny that, that was exactly my first thought;not that it has ever happened before with a product of "AYERBOOS" ? Oh well only once(or twice or?)
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Europe
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gordon: QAR must be standard in the Air France 340. They are mandatory in France since a long time.
And yes if I would have been the Canadian safety board, I would have kept those "black boxes" in Canada for processing.
If I remember well, a Lufthansa Airbus did almost the same in...Prague(?) and the reason was a problem with the spoilers which didn't deploy. Look at the pics, the spoilers appear to be fully down! Anyone who can recall this?
And yes if I would have been the Canadian safety board, I would have kept those "black boxes" in Canada for processing.
If I remember well, a Lufthansa Airbus did almost the same in...Prague(?) and the reason was a problem with the spoilers which didn't deploy. Look at the pics, the spoilers appear to be fully down! Anyone who can recall this?
looking at the picture earlier I think that you will see that there is close to 300m between the runway end, and the gully. plenty of room for an EMAS system. if I remember correctly one of the tests was a 727 leaving the runway at 35 knots. admittedly lower speed than the latest, but I would imagine thaT THERE WOULD BE NO LOSS OF RUNWAY LENGTH AS PREVIOUSLY STATED
Eight Gun Fighter
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Western Approaches
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The black boxes were to be sent to Ottawa and any communication between the pilots and the control tower or other recorded information was to be downloaded at a lab in Ottawa".
There appears to be some conflicting information out there.
There appears to be some conflicting information out there.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
gordonroxburgh. Captplaystation, JP4; a bit hasty to make judgements, me thinks.
From Associated Press AP news service:
The flight data and voice recorders — the so-called "black boxes" — were recovered Wednesday and sent to TSB headquarters in Quebec.
The information they hold will reveal conversations between the pilots and Pearson's control tower in the moments before the passenger jet skidded off the 1.6-mile runway.
However, Levasseur said his team did not have the proper equipment to download the information on those black boxes, so it would take several days for special computer equipment from France. He said that would delay the investigation and removal of the wreckage by several days.
From Associated Press AP news service:
The flight data and voice recorders — the so-called "black boxes" — were recovered Wednesday and sent to TSB headquarters in Quebec.
The information they hold will reveal conversations between the pilots and Pearson's control tower in the moments before the passenger jet skidded off the 1.6-mile runway.
However, Levasseur said his team did not have the proper equipment to download the information on those black boxes, so it would take several days for special computer equipment from France. He said that would delay the investigation and removal of the wreckage by several days.
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So
ALPA have a release saying YYZ is not to international standards. How interesting. Why have we not seen ALPA call for their members not to fly there before now?
Does ALPA have any recent history of making any waves about this runway, especially considering the GTAA is massively upgrading YYZ at a cost of (literally) billions and could have made improving 24L a part of this?
ALPA have a release saying YYZ is not to international standards. How interesting. Why have we not seen ALPA call for their members not to fly there before now?
Does ALPA have any recent history of making any waves about this runway, especially considering the GTAA is massively upgrading YYZ at a cost of (literally) billions and could have made improving 24L a part of this?
The number of red herrings dragged across this thread would make the fishing dock at Mallaig smell like a field of lavender.
The spoilers, reverse thrust from the fourth engine, the KLM go-round, are all side issues.
It would seem perfectly plain that what happened was the aircraft landed normally in a window between fairly fierce but localised cells and that immediately after touchdown the window closed, presenting the flight deck with a split-second choice between a go-round straight into the cell or complete the arrival. In a few seconds they would have passed from a wet, grooved, section of runway to one with little adhesion, "hailstones the size of marbles" and zilch forward vision.
It would also seem reasonable to assume that spoilers and reverse thrust worked as advertised but that brakes didn't have much effect because immediately after touchdown the runway was effectively flooded. It happens and sometimes it happens very fast. I hope that in the final analysis the crew will have been found to have done the right thing.
I'm all for speculation and hindsight but please, perspective and perception of reality.
And blaming ravines and other obstacles has to be the ultimate red herring.
The spoilers, reverse thrust from the fourth engine, the KLM go-round, are all side issues.
It would seem perfectly plain that what happened was the aircraft landed normally in a window between fairly fierce but localised cells and that immediately after touchdown the window closed, presenting the flight deck with a split-second choice between a go-round straight into the cell or complete the arrival. In a few seconds they would have passed from a wet, grooved, section of runway to one with little adhesion, "hailstones the size of marbles" and zilch forward vision.
It would also seem reasonable to assume that spoilers and reverse thrust worked as advertised but that brakes didn't have much effect because immediately after touchdown the runway was effectively flooded. It happens and sometimes it happens very fast. I hope that in the final analysis the crew will have been found to have done the right thing.
I'm all for speculation and hindsight but please, perspective and perception of reality.
And blaming ravines and other obstacles has to be the ultimate red herring.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
broadreach: fine, but the first question to be asked must be WHERE on the runway (distance) did they touch down?
That key variable will put all these other variables into perspective: speed, weather, aircraft performance, etc., to be properly compared with SOP etc.
That key variable will put all these other variables into perspective: speed, weather, aircraft performance, etc., to be properly compared with SOP etc.
JP-4:
After an A-320 touched down years ago in Warsaw ( the Lufthansa FO died), the pilots were not able to extend the spoilers or thrust reversers because the main gear were not properly spinning up due to water on the runway (so much for any braking and anti-skid/autobrakes), and so the plane slid off the runway. I have never trained on the Airbus. Along with modifying software on the A-320/319s, was it also modified on the A-340/330, or was it different from the beginning?
somebody referred to a comment such that US ALPA made a negative safety judgement about Toronto Airport and I can not remember anything about YYZ in any safety bulletins, and have flown there a little bit over the years. Except for having some major noise abatement procedures, different words for certain things and slightly different charting details, I have noticed nothing that is worthy of comment up there. Could somebody be trying to "rock the boat" with a pile of "baloney", to put it diplomatically, in order to spread more resentment towards the US (which is quite trendy these days)
? If not, e-mail me about exactly what ALPA said. I've always enjoyed flying up there. Our US ATC and many airports have their own major flaws; enough provincial characteristics and use far too many colloquialisms. Never mind the random and arbitrary manner also among certain US airport TSA personnel towards foreign crewmembers, as happened with many domestic crews about three years ago. How about pilots with freight airlines who travel one-way.
We must be very careful not to "cast the first stone" from an eagle's perch of imagined near-perfection. Find out about various US upper midwestern airports (Grand Forks, Traverse City, somewhere in Wisconsin etc) and how some might have forgotten to use de-icing fluids on runways or report anything realistic (over last two hours) about winter braking actions/conditions...whether by a Saabmeter/Tapley/ pick-up truck or by a jet/turboprop. Runways might be treated but not runway turn-off areas connecting runways to taxiways! One brand-new Captain (in my upgrade class) stated "I got no braking!"
and saw his IOE line check airmen immediately using max reverse thrust for this then waiting the required few hours for both engines to be inspected.
Hydroplaning might not have been a factor in Toronto, but the previous interconnections between Airbus systems used during landing made me curious.
After an A-320 touched down years ago in Warsaw ( the Lufthansa FO died), the pilots were not able to extend the spoilers or thrust reversers because the main gear were not properly spinning up due to water on the runway (so much for any braking and anti-skid/autobrakes), and so the plane slid off the runway. I have never trained on the Airbus. Along with modifying software on the A-320/319s, was it also modified on the A-340/330, or was it different from the beginning?
somebody referred to a comment such that US ALPA made a negative safety judgement about Toronto Airport and I can not remember anything about YYZ in any safety bulletins, and have flown there a little bit over the years. Except for having some major noise abatement procedures, different words for certain things and slightly different charting details, I have noticed nothing that is worthy of comment up there. Could somebody be trying to "rock the boat" with a pile of "baloney", to put it diplomatically, in order to spread more resentment towards the US (which is quite trendy these days)
? If not, e-mail me about exactly what ALPA said. I've always enjoyed flying up there. Our US ATC and many airports have their own major flaws; enough provincial characteristics and use far too many colloquialisms. Never mind the random and arbitrary manner also among certain US airport TSA personnel towards foreign crewmembers, as happened with many domestic crews about three years ago. How about pilots with freight airlines who travel one-way.We must be very careful not to "cast the first stone" from an eagle's perch of imagined near-perfection. Find out about various US upper midwestern airports (Grand Forks, Traverse City, somewhere in Wisconsin etc) and how some might have forgotten to use de-icing fluids on runways or report anything realistic (over last two hours) about winter braking actions/conditions...whether by a Saabmeter/Tapley/ pick-up truck or by a jet/turboprop. Runways might be treated but not runway turn-off areas connecting runways to taxiways! One brand-new Captain (in my upgrade class) stated "I got no braking!"
and saw his IOE line check airmen immediately using max reverse thrust for this then waiting the required few hours for both engines to be inspected. Hydroplaning might not have been a factor in Toronto, but the previous interconnections between Airbus systems used during landing made me curious.
Last edited by Ignition Override; 5th Aug 2005 at 05:45.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: MANCHESTER
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AF A340 Crash
I understand from passenger accounts of the accident
the A340 was on its second approach to the airfield
when it crashed........
It seems quite common to hear that crashed aircraft
who do come to grief on landing have several attempts
before the fatal one.......
Are there any statistics anywhere that would show
this to be the case?
(When I say 'common' - obviously I mean in terms of
relativity)
On the subject of arrester beds I remember
Manchester installing one on runway 24 a good
number of years ago and can recall only one
aircraft using it.
Well done the crew for getting everyone off the
plane in one piece!
the A340 was on its second approach to the airfield
when it crashed........
It seems quite common to hear that crashed aircraft
who do come to grief on landing have several attempts
before the fatal one.......
Are there any statistics anywhere that would show
this to be the case?
(When I say 'common' - obviously I mean in terms of
relativity)
On the subject of arrester beds I remember
Manchester installing one on runway 24 a good
number of years ago and can recall only one
aircraft using it.
Well done the crew for getting everyone off the
plane in one piece!