Air France crash at YYZ (Merged)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: england
Age: 58
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To Royhuudd,
No AF hasn't.
But very interresting question. To all Airbus pilots. What do you think of the A/Thr on a turbulent final approach?
Let's say from one to ten ( ten being very good)
myself : 4
No AF hasn't.
But very interresting question. To all Airbus pilots. What do you think of the A/Thr on a turbulent final approach?
Let's say from one to ten ( ten being very good)
myself : 4
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 Star - all YYZ's fault
We're getting a preview of how AF358 pax lawyers are going to try and screw the GTAA for money - no wonder the Libs don't want to reduce airport rents, they probably fear any savings will go to the lawyers:
No grooved runway
No EMAS
TC runway overruns "not to ICAO standards"
No Doppler radar
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Con...StarSource=RSS
No grooved runway
No EMAS
TC runway overruns "not to ICAO standards"
No Doppler radar
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Con...StarSource=RSS
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Follow-up article:
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Con...9037&t=TS_Home
TC can stop the investigation now, "the Star has concluded" so no need for further study. 
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Con...9037&t=TS_Home
An investigation by the Toronto Star, published yesterday, found that the accident could have been avoided if simple safety measures used at many U.S. airports were implemented.
Experts concluded the Pearson runway involved in the accident — runway 24L — should be longer and have special grooves that give better traction during wet conditions.
The Star also concluded the multi-million-dollar Air France jet could have been saved had the runway been built with "crushable concrete" that significantly slows runaway planes.
Experts concluded the Pearson runway involved in the accident — runway 24L — should be longer and have special grooves that give better traction during wet conditions.
The Star also concluded the multi-million-dollar Air France jet could have been saved had the runway been built with "crushable concrete" that significantly slows runaway planes.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How do know if your touchdown point will be too long?
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: "this is where the magic happens"
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A/thrust on gusty APP
Performance on the A319: a lousy 3/10!
Overal I´m NOT impressed with the Airbus Auto Thrust!
Even on a relatively calm but sunny day (with a bit of thermal up/downdrafts) it lets the speed drop below Vref and even into the orange Vls range before it wakes up and shoves a shed load of thrust to compensate. Sure, above 100´ RA you can quickly click the TL´s into the MCT detent and right back again, but that´s a bit too drastic in most cases.
Moving thrustlevers (ala Boeing) would have been a LOT better as you can then override and ´help´ the A/T deal with a little gust or a bit of thermal.
Better yet: switch the stupid thing off, but unfortunately that leaves you in a bit of a grey area with some SOP´s.
Overal I´m NOT impressed with the Airbus Auto Thrust!
Even on a relatively calm but sunny day (with a bit of thermal up/downdrafts) it lets the speed drop below Vref and even into the orange Vls range before it wakes up and shoves a shed load of thrust to compensate. Sure, above 100´ RA you can quickly click the TL´s into the MCT detent and right back again, but that´s a bit too drastic in most cases.
Moving thrustlevers (ala Boeing) would have been a LOT better as you can then override and ´help´ the A/T deal with a little gust or a bit of thermal.
Better yet: switch the stupid thing off, but unfortunately that leaves you in a bit of a grey area with some SOP´s.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Great White North
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FOXMOTH
Maybe you can aswer my question from Page-35 of this post?
________________________________________________
Rumet,
I agree with your summary.
How did that 4000' disappear?
Yes, a crew “knowledgeable of the locale” probably should have done a go-around.
But the peculiar thing is that on airports with certain topography, some types of glide-slope guidance equipment might suck you in. I wish I knew how the “voting rationale” on an FMS works . . . and when it decides to tell you, “You-take-it”!
If this flight was “slotted in” on a short-final (5 nM?) . . . and if the altitude was a little too high . . . what does the FMS do when it never receives a “fly-down” from the glide-slope transmissions?
RESA
_________________________________________________
YYZ does appear to have that "certain topography" infront of its glideslope antenna.
RESA
Maybe you can aswer my question from Page-35 of this post?
________________________________________________
Rumet,
I agree with your summary.
How did that 4000' disappear?
Yes, a crew “knowledgeable of the locale” probably should have done a go-around.
But the peculiar thing is that on airports with certain topography, some types of glide-slope guidance equipment might suck you in. I wish I knew how the “voting rationale” on an FMS works . . . and when it decides to tell you, “You-take-it”!
If this flight was “slotted in” on a short-final (5 nM?) . . . and if the altitude was a little too high . . . what does the FMS do when it never receives a “fly-down” from the glide-slope transmissions?
RESA
_________________________________________________
YYZ does appear to have that "certain topography" infront of its glideslope antenna.
RESA
The Cooler King
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: In the Desert
Posts: 1,703
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Funny that, only from my experience of talking with them, there are lots of Air France pilots who would gladly bin their 'buses for Boeings or anything else for that matter.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FOXMOTH
Maybe you can aswer my question from Page-35 of this post?
Last edited by foxmoth; 4th Oct 2005 at 08:09.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can not believe there is a 28+ page debate on this and it is still going on.
This accident was because they landed half way down the runway and for no other apparent reaon.
If the crew followed the stabilised approach philosophy which most of the time requires the aircraft to be fully configured on speed and on the correct glidepath by 1000ft or 500ft and then touchdown within the touch down zone none of this would have happened.
If your aircraft is flying you instead of you flying it you shouldn't be there. Simple as that.
This accident was because they landed half way down the runway and for no other apparent reaon.
If the crew followed the stabilised approach philosophy which most of the time requires the aircraft to be fully configured on speed and on the correct glidepath by 1000ft or 500ft and then touchdown within the touch down zone none of this would have happened.
If your aircraft is flying you instead of you flying it you shouldn't be there. Simple as that.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.
I am with you NXMEMBER and ROCKHOUND.
I have been flying the buses (330 / 340 / 346) for the last 10 years and they are great. They are like any other aeroplane (I have also flown Boeing's) if you do not do things correctly they will bite!
RESA Nothing wrong with being fed in at 5 miles if it is flown properly, topography does not come into play, he was not doing an auto land. The FMS will not do anything unless you make it, as it will not have captured the glideslope in your scenario.
Nothing wrong with disconnecting the AP at 300' on finals, however airbus recommend not disconnecting A/THR in normal circumstances below 1000'. Why? Because you have to give some attention inside to the ECAM as you match the little blue O (donut) to the reguired N1, then use the instinctive disconnect buttons on the thrust levers. If you just use the disconnect buttons then N1 goes to the demanded position i.e. CLIMB thrust. Not what you want at 300' on glideslope and centreline at Vref. You have now got a shed load of thrust above what is required and a lot more energy to get rid of and you will not touchdown at 1500' unless you do a carrier landing, even then you will be destabilised in the last critical 300'. Or if you have given it your full attention and you now look outside you could have gone high from that point in. They should have carried out a rejected landing, taught at my airline, always assuming they have NOT selected reverse!!! Reverse selected you are committed. Going ahead into a big one, then you have to ask for an immediate turn at 400' or just do it and inform them of your intentions. You are flying the aircraft.
Just in case anyone asks deselecting reverse and applying TOGA is not recommended for any airliner. Many years ago a 737 tried it and one stayed in reverse with dire consequences.
I have been flying the buses (330 / 340 / 346) for the last 10 years and they are great. They are like any other aeroplane (I have also flown Boeing's) if you do not do things correctly they will bite!
RESA Nothing wrong with being fed in at 5 miles if it is flown properly, topography does not come into play, he was not doing an auto land. The FMS will not do anything unless you make it, as it will not have captured the glideslope in your scenario.
Nothing wrong with disconnecting the AP at 300' on finals, however airbus recommend not disconnecting A/THR in normal circumstances below 1000'. Why? Because you have to give some attention inside to the ECAM as you match the little blue O (donut) to the reguired N1, then use the instinctive disconnect buttons on the thrust levers. If you just use the disconnect buttons then N1 goes to the demanded position i.e. CLIMB thrust. Not what you want at 300' on glideslope and centreline at Vref. You have now got a shed load of thrust above what is required and a lot more energy to get rid of and you will not touchdown at 1500' unless you do a carrier landing, even then you will be destabilised in the last critical 300'. Or if you have given it your full attention and you now look outside you could have gone high from that point in. They should have carried out a rejected landing, taught at my airline, always assuming they have NOT selected reverse!!! Reverse selected you are committed. Going ahead into a big one, then you have to ask for an immediate turn at 400' or just do it and inform them of your intentions. You are flying the aircraft.
Just in case anyone asks deselecting reverse and applying TOGA is not recommended for any airliner. Many years ago a 737 tried it and one stayed in reverse with dire consequences.
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TSB of Canada responds to Toronto Star articles:
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Con...l=968350116895
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Con...l=968350116895
Fact Sheet Issued today by TSB
TSB Fact Sheet
The Fact Sheet links to TSB's own photos (all 3 of them).
Bureaucracy has a stately pace.
The Fact Sheet links to TSB's own photos (all 3 of them).
Bureaucracy has a stately pace.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds like a journo witch hunt..
New Questions in Air France Crash
Oct, 22 2005 - 12:20 PM
An aviation lawyer says pictures of the Air France fight that crash landed in Toronto last August suggest the plane may have been short on fuel.
The Transportation Safety Board pictures show that while the fuselage if the Airbus was almost entirely burned, the wings were virtually untouched by flames.
And, there doesn't appear to have been a major explosion.
Mary Schiavo says a lack of fuel may answer the question of why the pilot chose to land in such rainy, windy conditions.
But others say if the plane had been low on fuel, the pilot would have notified the control tower.
- AM 640 Toronto 24 Hour Newscentre
New Questions in Air France Crash
Oct, 22 2005 - 12:20 PM
An aviation lawyer says pictures of the Air France fight that crash landed in Toronto last August suggest the plane may have been short on fuel.
The Transportation Safety Board pictures show that while the fuselage if the Airbus was almost entirely burned, the wings were virtually untouched by flames.
And, there doesn't appear to have been a major explosion.
Mary Schiavo says a lack of fuel may answer the question of why the pilot chose to land in such rainy, windy conditions.
But others say if the plane had been low on fuel, the pilot would have notified the control tower.
- AM 640 Toronto 24 Hour Newscentre
from news story quoted above:
That is quite common--needs no low fuel explanation.
while the fuselage if the Airbus was almost entirely burned, the wings were virtually untouched by flames.