Air France crash at YYZ (Merged)
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In answer to Rumet's query - did the thrust remain at idle after the threshold? - today's Globe and Mail quotes the lead TSB investigator at Monday's briefing as follows: "I'm convinced there was no effort, no attempt was made to get the aircraft back up again. This crew came over the threshold with the idea to land that airplane and that's what they did". The story concludes: Flight 358 landed with only about 1500 m left on a slight down slope, with a modest tailwind and a very wet runway.
Rockhound
Rockhound
ex-Tanker
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Luton Beds UK
Posts: 907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Praise and blame
So after the euphoria of the textbook evacuation, we are finally, after quite a few pages, getting to the point of all this, which is as in all accidents, "why did it happen".
I challenge you to find an accident or incident where there have been flooded runways and gusting strong winds, where the crew hasnīt made a mistake. Either a mistake of judgement, or a mistake in handling or both.
It is, sadly just a matter of time before the fellows up front are going to be blamed.
And letīs be honest - we have all imagined how it would be, to cock up a landing and then have to change gear and order an evacuation. It is at times like that, that a good cabin crew and a good relationship with the cabin crew is worth its weight in gold.
As for the gulley - see Athens and the Swissair DC-8 overrun, in very similar circumstances - which would have been surviveable had the gulley not have been there and the ship caught fire. (Yes, it is still there).
I challenge you to find an accident or incident where there have been flooded runways and gusting strong winds, where the crew hasnīt made a mistake. Either a mistake of judgement, or a mistake in handling or both.
It is, sadly just a matter of time before the fellows up front are going to be blamed.
And letīs be honest - we have all imagined how it would be, to cock up a landing and then have to change gear and order an evacuation. It is at times like that, that a good cabin crew and a good relationship with the cabin crew is worth its weight in gold.
As for the gulley - see Athens and the Swissair DC-8 overrun, in very similar circumstances - which would have been surviveable had the gulley not have been there and the ship caught fire. (Yes, it is still there).
As for the gulley - see Athens and the Swissair DC-8 overrun, in very similar circumstances - which would have been surviveable had the gulley not have been there and the ship caught fire. (Yes, it is still there).
maybe, but that airport is no longer in use 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Few Cloudy (quote)
I challenge you to find an accident or incident where there have been flooded runways and gusting strong winds, where the crew hasnīt made a mistake. Either a mistake of judgement, or a mistake in handling or both.
(end quote)
On the contrary -- there are thousands if not millions of 'incidents' where the plane lands (or takes off) safely in spite of lousy conditions. One might assume that the crew did everything right in those instances, and / or was lucky.
The insistence of some pilots that there must be some external cause for any aviation accident is certainly understandable. However, when all else is said and done, getting a plane down safely always comes down to the instinct and experience (judgment) and skill of the guy holding the yoke, even more so under crappy conditions. And I challenge YOU to find any profession involving judgment where nobody ever makes a mistake. There ain't one.
Pilots are in a nasty position -- when THEY make mistakes, people can die, and multi-million dollar vehicles can be destroyed. Plane crashes can happen when mechanical failures occur, or (yes) external factors like sudden extreme wind conditions, FOD, vehicle incursions, etc., create situations where no matter what the pilot does, he/she is screwed, but SOMETIMES, crashes ARE at least partly due to 'pilot error'. It is, however, an undeniable fact that aircraft manufacturers, airlines, airports, and government agencies all have a vested interest in making the 'little guy' in the cockpit take most if not all the blame ...
(Oddly enough, air traffic controllers -- who often end up on opposite sides of a blame-slinging exercise from pilots -- are in a similar position. Their mistakes can kill -- and the owners of the system that trains 'em, overworks 'em, and forces 'em to use outdated technology or new technology that is full of bugs are likely to say 'It's Joe Blow's fault -- our system is Just Fine.')
So ... the rush to Blame the Pilot is wrong. But the reflexive urge to Blame Anybody But the Pilot is also wrong.
I challenge you to find an accident or incident where there have been flooded runways and gusting strong winds, where the crew hasnīt made a mistake. Either a mistake of judgement, or a mistake in handling or both.
(end quote)
On the contrary -- there are thousands if not millions of 'incidents' where the plane lands (or takes off) safely in spite of lousy conditions. One might assume that the crew did everything right in those instances, and / or was lucky.
The insistence of some pilots that there must be some external cause for any aviation accident is certainly understandable. However, when all else is said and done, getting a plane down safely always comes down to the instinct and experience (judgment) and skill of the guy holding the yoke, even more so under crappy conditions. And I challenge YOU to find any profession involving judgment where nobody ever makes a mistake. There ain't one.
Pilots are in a nasty position -- when THEY make mistakes, people can die, and multi-million dollar vehicles can be destroyed. Plane crashes can happen when mechanical failures occur, or (yes) external factors like sudden extreme wind conditions, FOD, vehicle incursions, etc., create situations where no matter what the pilot does, he/she is screwed, but SOMETIMES, crashes ARE at least partly due to 'pilot error'. It is, however, an undeniable fact that aircraft manufacturers, airlines, airports, and government agencies all have a vested interest in making the 'little guy' in the cockpit take most if not all the blame ...
(Oddly enough, air traffic controllers -- who often end up on opposite sides of a blame-slinging exercise from pilots -- are in a similar position. Their mistakes can kill -- and the owners of the system that trains 'em, overworks 'em, and forces 'em to use outdated technology or new technology that is full of bugs are likely to say 'It's Joe Blow's fault -- our system is Just Fine.')
So ... the rush to Blame the Pilot is wrong. But the reflexive urge to Blame Anybody But the Pilot is also wrong.
ex-Tanker
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Luton Beds UK
Posts: 907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yyz buff,
Slight misunderstanding of the syntax - I was talking about accidents and incidents - not the lucky guys who got away with pressing on in dangerous conditions - and certainly not about the "thousands or millions" who operate according to the book and with great skill in "lousy" weather, which is what we are paid to do.
Avman,
Gotcha! But let's just say the SR accident was in 1979 and ATH was still not fixed 20 years later. There are plenty of airports with hazards off the runway end ( the hill to the ex-Vauxhall car park in LTN - the sea off many coastal runways) but there are other fixeable ones too - like the stream in the gulley off 28 in ZRH etc.
It is more than annoying, that these don't get fixed.
Slight misunderstanding of the syntax - I was talking about accidents and incidents - not the lucky guys who got away with pressing on in dangerous conditions - and certainly not about the "thousands or millions" who operate according to the book and with great skill in "lousy" weather, which is what we are paid to do.
Avman,
Gotcha! But let's just say the SR accident was in 1979 and ATH was still not fixed 20 years later. There are plenty of airports with hazards off the runway end ( the hill to the ex-Vauxhall car park in LTN - the sea off many coastal runways) but there are other fixeable ones too - like the stream in the gulley off 28 in ZRH etc.
It is more than annoying, that these don't get fixed.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Near the Christmas poo
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's now reported that the crew did not try a go around at any time.
" Jet probe rules out 'go around'
Réal Levasseur, the lead investigator of Air France's Flight 358 crash, said that pilots didn't attempt a "go around" before or just after touchdown.
The Airbus 340 landed nearly a kilometre too far down the runway.
So far the investigation has found nothing mechanically wrong with the aircraft too."
(from Radar Vectors)
" Jet probe rules out 'go around'
Réal Levasseur, the lead investigator of Air France's Flight 358 crash, said that pilots didn't attempt a "go around" before or just after touchdown.
The Airbus 340 landed nearly a kilometre too far down the runway.
So far the investigation has found nothing mechanically wrong with the aircraft too."
(from Radar Vectors)
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are plenty of airports with pretty much zero options after an overshoot - somewhere like Madeira or an undershoot - like St. Maarten!
So what do you do then - require Cat 3B installations and all autoland approaches regardless of weather just in case?
So what do you do then - require Cat 3B installations and all autoland approaches regardless of weather just in case?
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Hornby Island, British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No doubt one of the outcomes of this crash will be a process of lobbying for some kind of arrestor bed at the end of 24L, assuming that the lobbyists are unable to get the ravine contour changed.
Is anyone able to comment on what would have happened to the cargo 747 at Halifax that over-ran the runway during an underpowered takeoff if it had happened to have entered an arrestor bed at the end of the runway? Its engines would still have been blasting away, presumably.
Most people seem to assume that the arrestor bed would only be used by a landing aircraft that had not stopped before the end of the runway. But what happens to a plane that is trying to takeoff that over-runs the runway and whaps into the arrestor system? Given that it is full of fuel, I presume that there is a high possibility of a flaming end to the journey.
To what extent does one need a clear over-run to enable an underpowered plane to take off versus an arrestor bed to stop a over-run by an overspeed landing plane? There seems to me to be a dilemma here about the use of the space at the end of a runway, assuming there is any such space available.
Is anyone able to comment on what would have happened to the cargo 747 at Halifax that over-ran the runway during an underpowered takeoff if it had happened to have entered an arrestor bed at the end of the runway? Its engines would still have been blasting away, presumably.
Most people seem to assume that the arrestor bed would only be used by a landing aircraft that had not stopped before the end of the runway. But what happens to a plane that is trying to takeoff that over-runs the runway and whaps into the arrestor system? Given that it is full of fuel, I presume that there is a high possibility of a flaming end to the journey.
To what extent does one need a clear over-run to enable an underpowered plane to take off versus an arrestor bed to stop a over-run by an overspeed landing plane? There seems to me to be a dilemma here about the use of the space at the end of a runway, assuming there is any such space available.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Few Cloudy and YYZbuff,
Exactly right. Humans are involved and humans make mistakes, sometimes involuntarily, sometimes as a result of external circumstances or forces. The worst of it is, immediately the lawyers pounce and try to prove these same humans were negligent, or incompetent, or reckless or somehow deliberately endangered the lives of other people. Now we have the lawsuit against Air France, the GTAA, NavCanada and God knows who else. There should be some law or mechanism to short-circuit these proceedings from the get-go or laugh the lawyers out of court on the first day of the hearing.
Rockhound
Exactly right. Humans are involved and humans make mistakes, sometimes involuntarily, sometimes as a result of external circumstances or forces. The worst of it is, immediately the lawyers pounce and try to prove these same humans were negligent, or incompetent, or reckless or somehow deliberately endangered the lives of other people. Now we have the lawsuit against Air France, the GTAA, NavCanada and God knows who else. There should be some law or mechanism to short-circuit these proceedings from the get-go or laugh the lawyers out of court on the first day of the hearing.
Rockhound
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: England
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Go Round Prompter
With a commentary by Don Bateman (MR EGPWS)
IMPETUS
Would this be a practical and useful proposition?
IMPETUS
FAR 25.113 (Takeoff Distance and Takeoff Run) spells out with great precision the exact requirements for performance (screen heights, V1 etc) - however you should know that actual take-off performance "monitoring" in real time is a totally inexact science. That is why a take-off performance monitor would enhance safety by annunciating any acceleration discrepancy. But now the recent accident to an A340-300 at Toronto has highlit a similarly inexact situation in the approach and landing evolution. Is a Landing Performance Monitor technologically feasible? First, we shall examine the problem.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Men, maybe more than women, find it hard to admit that they find a situation makes them uncomfortable, or factors are outside their "personal limits" and might be competitive with each other, wanting to face a challenge, i.e. a very gusty crosswind with heavy rain very close to the airport
Narrative from official report to an accident somewhere in the Middle East March 14th 1979........
This type of accident will continue to feature until Air Traffic Controllers are given more authority to deny an approach. ATC has seen more botched approaches from the Tower than pilots will ever see in their lifetime.
PROBABLE CAUSE: "The aircraft's encounter with a downburst associated with a thunderstorm, the effects of which exceeded the performance capability of the aircraft. The encounter resulted from the flight crew's decision to conduct an approach to land without due regard to the prevailing weather conditions."
Certainly the authorities have not announced such rubbish for the subject accident.
Would the poster please tell us where this statement of cause comes from?
Guest
Posts: n/a
lomapaseo
qsyenroute's post says:
"Narrative from official report to an accident somewhere in the Middle East March 14th 1979........"
It is fairly clear surely that he/she is pointing out that similar accidents have been occurring for a long time, and that in his/her opinion a (partial?) remedy might be to give more authority to ATC?
DrDave
qsyenroute's post says:
"Narrative from official report to an accident somewhere in the Middle East March 14th 1979........"
It is fairly clear surely that he/she is pointing out that similar accidents have been occurring for a long time, and that in his/her opinion a (partial?) remedy might be to give more authority to ATC?
DrDave
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Boston, USA
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most people seem to assume that the arrestor bed would only be used by a landing aircraft that had not stopped before the end of the runway. But what happens to a plane that is trying to takeoff that over-runs the runway and whaps into the arrestor system? Given that it is full of fuel, I presume that there is a high possibility of a flaming end to the journey.
To what extent does one need a clear over-run to enable an underpowered plane to take off versus an arrestor bed to stop a over-run by an overspeed landing plane? There seems to me to be a dilemma here about the use of the space at the end of a runway, assuming there is any such space available.
To what extent does one need a clear over-run to enable an underpowered plane to take off versus an arrestor bed to stop a over-run by an overspeed landing plane? There seems to me to be a dilemma here about the use of the space at the end of a runway, assuming there is any such space available.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re Dr Dave's and qsyenroute posts: People are becoming seriously confused here. AF 358 received landing clearance from ATC. It appears that, had it touched down at or near the threshhold, none of us would be pontificating on page 31 or whatever of this thread, for the simple reason that the thread would not exist because the aircraft would have stopped well before the end of the runway, as it does 9999 times out of 10000.
Speaking of pontificating, the IMPETUS file that TheShadow brought up is right up there near the front. As I started reading it, my eyes glazed over but I did notice that the recounting of the QF1 @ BKK overrun was highly oversimplified. In that incident, when the FO, who was PF, was about to land long the captain ordered a go-around and the FO began to comply. As the wheels touched, the captain, without announcing that he was taking control, decided to countermand his own order and complete the landing, so retarded the throttles, which had just been advanced to TOGA power by the FO, with the inevitable result that they ran out of runway. It was a total breakdown of CRM. No fancy computer program is going to prevent that.
Rockhound
Speaking of pontificating, the IMPETUS file that TheShadow brought up is right up there near the front. As I started reading it, my eyes glazed over but I did notice that the recounting of the QF1 @ BKK overrun was highly oversimplified. In that incident, when the FO, who was PF, was about to land long the captain ordered a go-around and the FO began to comply. As the wheels touched, the captain, without announcing that he was taking control, decided to countermand his own order and complete the landing, so retarded the throttles, which had just been advanced to TOGA power by the FO, with the inevitable result that they ran out of runway. It was a total breakdown of CRM. No fancy computer program is going to prevent that.
Rockhound
This type of accident will continue to feature until Air Traffic Controllers are given more authority to deny an approach. ATC has seen more botched approaches from the Tower than pilots will ever see in their lifetime.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Mk. 1 desk at present...
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To all the folks theorising over touchdown vs. threshold airspeed, I'd caution them to remember the conditions - don't hang too much significance on two *instantaneous* airspeed numbers.
FWIW, the gossip I'm hearing (not from any especially authoritiative source, I hasten to add) is that the key question to be asked will be: did anyone on the flight deck say 'I have control', and if not, why not?
R1
FWIW, the gossip I'm hearing (not from any especially authoritiative source, I hasten to add) is that the key question to be asked will be: did anyone on the flight deck say 'I have control', and if not, why not?
R1
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Great White North
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Question:
Has anyone heard what the A/C altitude was crossing the threshold?
I recall hearing the TSB "talking-head" stating that there was some discrepencies with the A/C's TCH. I assume this means that the various sources of recorded data, at this point in time, contradict each other?
How could this occur . . . if in fact it did?
I may have heard wrongly . . . any info?
RESA
Has anyone heard what the A/C altitude was crossing the threshold?
I recall hearing the TSB "talking-head" stating that there was some discrepencies with the A/C's TCH. I assume this means that the various sources of recorded data, at this point in time, contradict each other?
How could this occur . . . if in fact it did?
I may have heard wrongly . . . any info?
RESA