Air France crash at YYZ (Merged)
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Confusio Helvetica
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bah. I don't know what kind of statistics would be useful or informative. Statistically, any deviation from the absolutely ordinary sunny day visual approach in perfect metereological conditions with no traffic will increase the likelihood of something going amiss.
Statistically, you'll find that around "Red Alerts", ground stops, whatever due to thunderstorms, you have a higher percentage of go-arounds, and a higher percentage of accidents.
But go-arounds are generally safer than the alternative.
And from what I've seen, when something like this happens to an aircraft, and it happens under meteorological conditions which are universally agreed to be marginal, the investigating authority inevitably faults the pilots' decision. Unfortunately, 411A seems to be on vacation.
Yup, plenty of red herrings here folks. Spoiler non-deployment has been faulted in previous incidents and accidents, so I suppose it's worth discussing, but I don't see how speculation on their position in the wreckage photos is going to prove anything either way.
Ravine location is fairly irrelevant here; although a US jury recently awarded damages against the airport in the Little Rock (non-spoiler deployment in thunderstorm) accident to the positioning of light standards, so, at least for airports handling US passengers, these things are cause for consideration.
KLM 691 is the biggest red herring of them all. Many accusations are flying back and forth, and few of them are based in facts; even more amusing is that the few facts that we have are contested for no good reason. Hell, I suspect if the captain of the flight himself were to come in here, someone would accuse him of not knowing what he was talking about. Here's the basic details: Toronto was hit by a couple of isolated thunderstorm cells. From what I've seen of the radar, there was no huge front across North America that would have suggested to someone in AMS ten hours before that an hour's extra fuel was an excellent idea, since there was a good chance that every suitable airport within 1000 miles would be suffering a rare August blizzard. On the ATC recording, KLM 691 is the aircraft after AF358 to be handed off to YYZ tower for 24L. When KLM 691 comes back on, they called "pan pan pan, fuel emergency". They had fuel for SYR plus 30 minutes. The controller offered to find them something closer with a suitable runway, but they declined. Some people around here get all jumpy around the word "emergency"...
Statistically, you'll find that around "Red Alerts", ground stops, whatever due to thunderstorms, you have a higher percentage of go-arounds, and a higher percentage of accidents.
But go-arounds are generally safer than the alternative.
And from what I've seen, when something like this happens to an aircraft, and it happens under meteorological conditions which are universally agreed to be marginal, the investigating authority inevitably faults the pilots' decision. Unfortunately, 411A seems to be on vacation.
Yup, plenty of red herrings here folks. Spoiler non-deployment has been faulted in previous incidents and accidents, so I suppose it's worth discussing, but I don't see how speculation on their position in the wreckage photos is going to prove anything either way.
Ravine location is fairly irrelevant here; although a US jury recently awarded damages against the airport in the Little Rock (non-spoiler deployment in thunderstorm) accident to the positioning of light standards, so, at least for airports handling US passengers, these things are cause for consideration.
KLM 691 is the biggest red herring of them all. Many accusations are flying back and forth, and few of them are based in facts; even more amusing is that the few facts that we have are contested for no good reason. Hell, I suspect if the captain of the flight himself were to come in here, someone would accuse him of not knowing what he was talking about. Here's the basic details: Toronto was hit by a couple of isolated thunderstorm cells. From what I've seen of the radar, there was no huge front across North America that would have suggested to someone in AMS ten hours before that an hour's extra fuel was an excellent idea, since there was a good chance that every suitable airport within 1000 miles would be suffering a rare August blizzard. On the ATC recording, KLM 691 is the aircraft after AF358 to be handed off to YYZ tower for 24L. When KLM 691 comes back on, they called "pan pan pan, fuel emergency". They had fuel for SYR plus 30 minutes. The controller offered to find them something closer with a suitable runway, but they declined. Some people around here get all jumpy around the word "emergency"...
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: btw SAMAR and TOSPA
Posts: 566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From what you can hear at liveatc the plane was making a straight-in with hand-off to tower 118.35 at 1600LT which is 3 mins before the overrun. There was no other approach of the same flight number in the hour before (if I haven't overheard it).
There were also no weather related diversions on these frequencies until the following three planes were requested to divert due to airport closure (the KLM to SYR and the others to London). Can't rule out though that there were go-arounds and diversions on the departure frequency.
There were also no weather related diversions on these frequencies until the following three planes were requested to divert due to airport closure (the KLM to SYR and the others to London). Can't rule out though that there were go-arounds and diversions on the departure frequency.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Thailand
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having looked at the pictures in this morning's papers, is anyone else surprised by the amost total destruction of the A340 after the fire service were apparently at the aircraft only minutes after the accident?
Props are for boats!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: An Asian Hub
Age: 56
Posts: 994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From alot of the TV footage Ive seen on the news it looks like the reversers deployed because they werent stowed at all.
If the A340 is similair to the A320 then the auto brakes wont operate unless there is a groundspoiler deployed signal. And the reversers wont operate unless there is ground signal ie. squat switch. Correct me if Im worng guys. When the Ground spoilers are armed during approach the wont deploy unless there is a ground signal aswell.
So its looking like the spoilers failed to arm for some reason also affecting the AutoBrakes( which are very effective in the A320).
So who kows really what happened but lets all be thankfull there were no fatalities full merits to the Air France Crew.
Sheep
If the A340 is similair to the A320 then the auto brakes wont operate unless there is a groundspoiler deployed signal. And the reversers wont operate unless there is ground signal ie. squat switch. Correct me if Im worng guys. When the Ground spoilers are armed during approach the wont deploy unless there is a ground signal aswell.
So its looking like the spoilers failed to arm for some reason also affecting the AutoBrakes( which are very effective in the A320).
So who kows really what happened but lets all be thankfull there were no fatalities full merits to the Air France Crew.
Sheep
Last edited by Sheep Guts; 5th Aug 2005 at 09:16.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Europe
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The flight data and voice recorders — the so-called "black boxes" — were recovered Wednesday and sent to TSB headquarters in Quebec.
If this is true, I will not make "hasty judgment", but I will just notice that the proofs of the accident are in the home country of the crew, the company, and aircraft maker involved in that crash.
Here is what I found on "Le Figaro" web site a few minutes ago:
Retrouvées dès mercredi soir, visiblement en assez bon état, les deux boîtes noires de l'Airbus A 340-300 seront transportées en France pour extraire leurs informations, le bureau de la sécurité des transports au Canada ne disposant pas des équipements nécessaires. Les données seront ensuite renvoyées au Canada, où le groupe d'enquête, constitué d'une cinquantaine d'experts canadiens, français et américains, tentera de les faire «parler».
Last edited by JP4; 5th Aug 2005 at 09:58.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are there any reference sources for the typical installation costs of runway overruns, and variables which would affect their efficacy?
The ones at JFK do seem to have been very effective, but multiplying by 12 for a six runway airport, or applying these on less heavily used or loco "friendly" airfields cannot be cheap.
Is MAN the only place in the UK to have them, or are they elsewhere? The beancounters would presumably have done a CoBA on these, which must surely be more likely to be positive at heavily utilised single runway airfields like LGW?
As for the reference that this event "could have been another Kegworth", iirc there were no ground fatalities due to this incident, weather conditions and runway usage notwithstanding.
The ones at JFK do seem to have been very effective, but multiplying by 12 for a six runway airport, or applying these on less heavily used or loco "friendly" airfields cannot be cheap.
Is MAN the only place in the UK to have them, or are they elsewhere? The beancounters would presumably have done a CoBA on these, which must surely be more likely to be positive at heavily utilised single runway airfields like LGW?
As for the reference that this event "could have been another Kegworth", iirc there were no ground fatalities due to this incident, weather conditions and runway usage notwithstanding.
ManchesterMan
I understand from passenger accounts of the accident
the A340 was on its second approach to the airfield
when it crashed........
I understand from passenger accounts of the accident
the A340 was on its second approach to the airfield
when it crashed........
Other passengers in that airplane were convinced an engine had been on fire before the landing. Again: the investigators found no proof whatsoever, but tell that to the passengers.
Unfortunately, witness accounts are unreliable by nature. Not because these people are liars, but because the mind plays strange tricks to humans in stressful situations. (And of course, most people are totally unfamiliar with aircraft operations.)
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to this morning's Globe and Mail newspaper, "Data from Pearson airport's ground radar and witnesses suggest Flight 358 was nearly halfway down the [runway] before it touched down. Investigators are puzzled at the high-speed [nearly 150 km/hr] overrun, but one emerging scenario is that the [pilot, after touchdown] momentarily reapplied power, perhaps to initiate a 'go-around'". From the way the article (by Paul Koring, who is more knowledgeable in aviation matters than the average reporter) is worded, it seems that none of the above was gleaned from the TSB investigators' briefing: "Officially, the TSB has released very little information".
Rockhound
Rockhound
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Never diverting!
Posts: 377
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
xetroV is 100% right! Humans are the worst witnesses specially the once sitting inside a moving tube with limit view out.
Just two weeks ago i was desoriented when positioning in a 767 to my home airport purely by the minds willingness to try to interpretate limited information to create the whole picture.
Just two weeks ago i was desoriented when positioning in a 767 to my home airport purely by the minds willingness to try to interpretate limited information to create the whole picture.
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ignition
there was a link in my original post on the ALPA release if you want to read it. It was not yet on ALPA website, it went to Canada News Wire.
This additionally from Globe and Mail (snippet):
there was a link in my original post on the ALPA release if you want to read it. It was not yet on ALPA website, it went to Canada News Wire.
This additionally from Globe and Mail (snippet):
Some pilots, meanwhile, are expressing safety concerns about Pearson. The Air Line Pilots Association, which represents pilots at airlines around the world including Air Canada's regional carrier Jazz, said it has been long concerned about the valley about 200 metres past the end of the runway.
A coroner's jury recommended installing a causeway after a 1978 incident in which an Air Canada DC-9 aborted takeoff and ended up in the ravine, killing two passengers and injuring 105 others.
"They knew there was a problem and we have asked to have that fixed over the years and it has not been addressed," said ALPA spokesman John Mazor.
But Mr. Lavasseur dismissed suggestions that Pearson is unsafe because of the valley 200 metres from the end of the runway.
He said airplanes are designed to require a minimum runway length depending on their gross weight at takeoff and landing.
"I have no reason to believe that this runway doesn't meet criteria -- that Transport Canada would not leave that runway operating if it wasn't suitable and acceptable," Mr. Lavasseur said.
Other pilots are complaining that Pearson has no wind-shear detectors and that the runways are not grooved, which allows them to drain water faster after downpours.
But Kent Wilson, president of the Air Canada Pilots Association, said his union does not have particular safety concerns about Pearson.
He said the union supports any moves that will make the airport safer, but added that it is not realistic to expect that 1,000 feet of overrun at every airport.
A coroner's jury recommended installing a causeway after a 1978 incident in which an Air Canada DC-9 aborted takeoff and ended up in the ravine, killing two passengers and injuring 105 others.
"They knew there was a problem and we have asked to have that fixed over the years and it has not been addressed," said ALPA spokesman John Mazor.
But Mr. Lavasseur dismissed suggestions that Pearson is unsafe because of the valley 200 metres from the end of the runway.
He said airplanes are designed to require a minimum runway length depending on their gross weight at takeoff and landing.
"I have no reason to believe that this runway doesn't meet criteria -- that Transport Canada would not leave that runway operating if it wasn't suitable and acceptable," Mr. Lavasseur said.
Other pilots are complaining that Pearson has no wind-shear detectors and that the runways are not grooved, which allows them to drain water faster after downpours.
But Kent Wilson, president of the Air Canada Pilots Association, said his union does not have particular safety concerns about Pearson.
He said the union supports any moves that will make the airport safer, but added that it is not realistic to expect that 1,000 feet of overrun at every airport.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: ISTANBUL
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
spoiler and reverse issue
There are a lot of issue going on whether the spoilers were extended or not. Some detailed info from FCOM would help you all, in my opinion.
1) The reversers were deployed. (As we all agree)
This means that :
- Engine FADEC was operating.
- at least one LGCIU send the aircraft on ground signal
- TLA to reverse was sent by PRIM
- switch reverse signal from EIU
FADEC = Full Authority Digital Engine Control System
LGCIU = Landing Gear Control Interface Unit
TLA = Thrust Lever Angle
PRIM = Flight Control Primary Computer
EIU = Engine Interface Unit
2) The spoilers were not extended :
Ok firends let us consider that (like some of you not me !) the crew did not arm the ground spoilers then :
Full Extension:
The ground spoilers on the 340 (and 320/330) fully extend during rejected take off (at speeds greater then 72knots) or at landing when both main landing gears have touched down and :
- All thrust levers are set to idle, provided ground spoilers are armed
or
- reverse is selected on at least two symmetrical engines (remaining engines at idle)
Patial Extension:
The ground spoilers parially extend when reverse is selected on at least two symmetric engines (remaining engines at idle) and one main landing gear is compressed. This partial extension, by decreasing lift, will ease the compression of the second main landing gear and consequently will lead to the normal ground spoiler extension.
Ok so as the reversers were open at least one LGCIU felt the landing and according to the spoiler logic they must have been extended although they are not armed but here it comes :
On the introduction of the spoilers the book says :
The system automatically retracts the spoilers to their zero position, if it detects a fault or loses electrical control
So let us wait the end of the investigation and please not try to argue the crew.
Safe Landings to all
1) The reversers were deployed. (As we all agree)
This means that :
- Engine FADEC was operating.
- at least one LGCIU send the aircraft on ground signal
- TLA to reverse was sent by PRIM
- switch reverse signal from EIU
FADEC = Full Authority Digital Engine Control System
LGCIU = Landing Gear Control Interface Unit
TLA = Thrust Lever Angle
PRIM = Flight Control Primary Computer
EIU = Engine Interface Unit
2) The spoilers were not extended :
Ok firends let us consider that (like some of you not me !) the crew did not arm the ground spoilers then :
Full Extension:
The ground spoilers on the 340 (and 320/330) fully extend during rejected take off (at speeds greater then 72knots) or at landing when both main landing gears have touched down and :
- All thrust levers are set to idle, provided ground spoilers are armed
or
- reverse is selected on at least two symmetrical engines (remaining engines at idle)
Patial Extension:
The ground spoilers parially extend when reverse is selected on at least two symmetric engines (remaining engines at idle) and one main landing gear is compressed. This partial extension, by decreasing lift, will ease the compression of the second main landing gear and consequently will lead to the normal ground spoiler extension.
Ok so as the reversers were open at least one LGCIU felt the landing and according to the spoiler logic they must have been extended although they are not armed but here it comes :
On the introduction of the spoilers the book says :
The system automatically retracts the spoilers to their zero position, if it detects a fault or loses electrical control
So let us wait the end of the investigation and please not try to argue the crew.
Safe Landings to all
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re the spoilers not being extended: Could the pilot have "automatically" retracted the spoliers as he came to rest to aid in the evac? With different types having overwing exits this might just be a "instinctive" move?
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Canadian Shield
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SURELY THE TIME HAS NOW COME TO HAVE PERMANENT VIDEO RECORDING OF AIRCRAFT MOVEMENTS, ESPECIALLY THE ACTIVE RUNWAY(S), AT ALL MAJOR AIRPORTS.
IT SEEMS ABSOLUTELY INCREDIBLE IN THE 21ST CENTURY THAT INVESTIGATORS ARE STILL TRYING TO DETERMINE (FROM TIRE TRACKS) WHERE THE A/C TOUCHED DOWN.
THIS WOULD NOT ONLY HAVE EXPEDITED INVESTIGATION OF THE YYZ ACCIDENT BUT WOULD HAVE BEEN A MAJOR HELP IN THE CDG CONCORDE CRASH.
I APPRECIATE THAT THIS WOULD NOT ALWAYS PROVIDE PERFECT INFORMATION DUE TO METEROLOGICAL FACTORS SUCH AS FOG, BUT IT WOULD SURELY BE A MASSIVE ADVANCE OVER WHERE WE ARE TODAY.
IT SEEMS ABSOLUTELY INCREDIBLE IN THE 21ST CENTURY THAT INVESTIGATORS ARE STILL TRYING TO DETERMINE (FROM TIRE TRACKS) WHERE THE A/C TOUCHED DOWN.
THIS WOULD NOT ONLY HAVE EXPEDITED INVESTIGATION OF THE YYZ ACCIDENT BUT WOULD HAVE BEEN A MAJOR HELP IN THE CDG CONCORDE CRASH.
I APPRECIATE THAT THIS WOULD NOT ALWAYS PROVIDE PERFECT INFORMATION DUE TO METEROLOGICAL FACTORS SUCH AS FOG, BUT IT WOULD SURELY BE A MASSIVE ADVANCE OVER WHERE WE ARE TODAY.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
er340790,
I would tend to agree that in this day an age, having video evidence would be helpful. Of course, having video evidence in the cockpit would also be a massive boon but most pilots wont have it.
In the case of Air Chance, it matters very little. The Concorde investigation was fixed with almost every salient piece of damming evidence against Air Chance omitted.
If the recorders in this accident head off to Paris, the truth will end up somewhere else as well.
Maybe we could save ourselves a lot of bother and check to see if there was a Continental DC10 taking off ahead of the landing A340. If there was, then its an open and shut case.
I would tend to agree that in this day an age, having video evidence would be helpful. Of course, having video evidence in the cockpit would also be a massive boon but most pilots wont have it.
In the case of Air Chance, it matters very little. The Concorde investigation was fixed with almost every salient piece of damming evidence against Air Chance omitted.
If the recorders in this accident head off to Paris, the truth will end up somewhere else as well.
Maybe we could save ourselves a lot of bother and check to see if there was a Continental DC10 taking off ahead of the landing A340. If there was, then its an open and shut case.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Wet Coast
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Transportation Safety Board investigator Réal Levasseur said the recorder is an earlier model type and it would be very expensive to buy the necessary equipment to retrieve the data from the flight recorders.
Something fishy 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: MANCHESTER
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DINGERX
I meant statistics of aircraft doing multiple (ie:more than one
approach) in bad weather - later to crash.
Obviously no-one will be concerned about go-arounds involving
runway incursion etc when the aircraft simply lands the next
time round without a problem.
Over the years I have heard of numerous crashes after multiple
(ie more than one) attempt has been made in severe weather.
I'm sure you have too ?
I read in the press an interview with a survivor who stated that
they were on a second attempt to land so naturally accepted
this as fact - not having reason to doubt the journalism.
I meant statistics of aircraft doing multiple (ie:more than one
approach) in bad weather - later to crash.
Obviously no-one will be concerned about go-arounds involving
runway incursion etc when the aircraft simply lands the next
time round without a problem.
Over the years I have heard of numerous crashes after multiple
(ie more than one) attempt has been made in severe weather.
I'm sure you have too ?
I read in the press an interview with a survivor who stated that
they were on a second attempt to land so naturally accepted
this as fact - not having reason to doubt the journalism.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BBC Radio Five in the UK is just reporting that initial findings point to the plane landing long on the runway, hence the overrun. They apparently got the information from the lead investigator!