Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Air France crash at YYZ (Merged)

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Air France crash at YYZ (Merged)

Old 3rd Aug 2005, 04:37
  #101 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Southern Sun
Posts: 417
Let us hope some do learn from this.

Commandment 6

Thou shalt take-off nor shall thou attempt a landing during a thunderstorm.

Dark Knight is offline  
Old 3rd Aug 2005, 05:30
  #102 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Hornby Island, British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 102
It was interesting to listen to the various passengers interviewed for the main national evening news bulletins of both CBC and CTV News here in Canada.

They all had the same story. A relatively uneventful landing, given the weather conditions, with the passengers even applauding the landing, but then the plane keeps on cruising down the runway. All interviewed then described a serious of bumps ("a roller coaster ride" said one) and flames roaring past the windows prior to the aircraft coming to rest.

The flames prior to the plane stopping its progress was common across all the descriptions (all from passengers from the rear of the plane), suggesting that the landing gear and or the engines had collapsed or detached sufficiently early for the flames to have arisen and be observed.

One other phenomenon, noticable particularly in the CBC's footage of police getting out of their vehicles on the taxiway adjacent to the tail of the AF plane, was the fact that the ground around the police cars seemed to be tinged with white, even though they were not actually near the flaming plane and the foam produced by the fire engines.

Was it possible that there was a very localised hailstorm just as the plane landed, causing the plane to skid down the runway on ice from the hail?
McGinty is offline  
Old 3rd Aug 2005, 05:31
  #103 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Beverly Hills 90210
Posts: 88
WOW, what a change is wind direction, and speed and quite localized (i.e. a difference between nearby airports)

Toronto Intl
CYYZ 022100Z 18013KT 8SM -TSRA BKN055 BKN140 22/19 A3004 RERA RMK SC5AC2 CB ASOCTD FU ALF SLP171

Toronto Island nearby
CYTZ 022100Z AUTO 31008KT 9SM -RA BKN026 BKN084 BKN094 23/20 A3002 RMK PCPN 1.0MM PAST HR SLP165
CYTZ 022010Z AUTO 31003KT 9SM -RA FEW084 23/20 A2999
CYTZ 022000Z AUTO 27006KT 9SM FEW084 23/20 A2999 RMK SLP156

They had winds from the side at 24 knots gusting 33 knots (38 mph !!) and therefore had a slight tailwind and therefore, importantly, had no headwind !

I haven't seen too many comments in this thread about the strong crosswinds ??

I've experienced 40 mph winds while sailing and it is very impresssive.

Can someone comment on the max crosswind that a A340 can legally take when the runway is dry or especially when wet.

It was raining moderately and heavily for the past hour or more. I have the several radar images stored on my HDisk.

Pics that I couldn\'t upload while the AD.com server was down (overloaded)

Information as of 2139Z from fboweb.com

aardvark2zz is offline  
Old 3rd Aug 2005, 06:31
  #104 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Back of beyond
Posts: 781
Spot on, kiwiman

If a complete loss of airframe occurred with passengers on board and with the aircraft being in rapid motion immediately after touch down is not a crash, what is?

Car brakes at high speed, leaves the road, catches fire.

Crash or "It was simply a roadway excursion gone awry..."?

The former, methinks
RevMan2 is offline  
Old 3rd Aug 2005, 06:42
  #105 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 75
Posts: 8,275
Got up this morning expecting the worst when I checked the news.... but apparently everyone survived. Judging from the pics, those people definitely had someone on their side. Thank God.

Aircraft expert David Learmount is reported by the BBC to have said: ""Modern airliners are like that. They don't have accidents. "

So, now we can all rest easier in our beds..
Old 3rd Aug 2005, 06:44
  #106 (permalink)  

Combine Operations
Join Date: May 2005
Location: U.K.
Posts: 687

A minor correction: I doubt the QNH was 30.03 mm Hg. It should be inches, of course.

Mind you, Canada went metric a while back, so they're probably metric inches.
Farmer 1 is offline  
Old 3rd Aug 2005, 06:46
  #107 (permalink)  
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The Global village
Age: 51
Posts: 3,018
Thumbs up

Two Thumbs Up to Aaron Brown of CNN, for giving the crew of the Air France Airbus the praise he did, and that they rightly deserve.
He said something along the lines of, "Usually they hand out drinks and headsets, but today the crew of the AF aircraft proved their worth when it was demanded of them, by successfully evacuating all passengers......"

Good one Aaron - well done those Air France F/A's
Kaptin M is offline  
Old 3rd Aug 2005, 06:49
  #108 (permalink)  

Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Luton Beds UK
Posts: 905
X Wind limits and so on.

- X wind limits are dependent upon runway condition. If the runway is flooded, usually around 5 knots.

Trouble is, unless it is winter, runway reports are not usually given.

- Lightning - is usually no problem in an airliner. You get an impressive bang and a flash but little more - sometimes compass systems play up.

- Lights out before landing is standard procedure in European airlines. Lights out before evacuation is a result of switching during the evacuation drill - the emergency lights however should come on.

- Crash doesn't mean falling out of the sky but impact and damage. See Tenerife.

- Crew - evacuation seems to be good work. Decision making and APP / Ldg - let us wait and see.
Few Cloudy is offline  
Old 3rd Aug 2005, 06:53
  #109 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: W. Midlands
Posts: 353
This is the second A340 destroyed, first was an AF A340-200 in 1994:


jon01 is offline  
Old 3rd Aug 2005, 06:59
  #110 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: on the beach
Age: 64
Posts: 2,024
Many congratulations to the crew of this flight for getting the pax out so quickly, just goes to show that all their training paid off.

Now I'm not a pilot but when I looked at the weather map at the time of the crash the storm seemed to be centred around the Toronto area. Can any pilots out there say whether they would have landed given the weather scenario, hung around a bit to see if it moved away or diverted somewhere else?
Evanelpus is offline  
Old 3rd Aug 2005, 07:13
  #111 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Home for bewildered engineers
Age: 56
Posts: 17
Just noticed a revealing quote from a press conference :

"The plane burned ..... but every passenger could get off the plane prior to the burning," Air France spokesman Jerome Guyen said. "That's very good news for Air France."

Hmm. Company man through and through. I guess it might be good news for passengers as well...

Sootikin is offline  
Old 3rd Aug 2005, 07:30
  #112 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2003
Location: eastmidlands
Age: 58
Posts: 41
Angry Un-acceptable Risk!

It might be a bit harsh but why take the risk????

How many times do we have to see this?

There have been numerous incidents of this type in the last 18 months particularly in Asia (Admittedly during the rainy season).

You only have to look at the ACA posting about crew running out of hours and burning precious fuel by diverting! But at least they had the sense to do rather than destroy the aircraft, put passengers lives at risk!

Aren't the regulatory bodies putting pressure on to the individual operators to prevent them pressurising crew's to meet their schedules for the sake of a drop of fuel etc.

Bit like flying on for a couple of hours on one engine over a big pond from a remote island rather than dumping fuel and turning back or worse flying on in the same situation after a bird strike with unknown damage to airframe and adjacent engines!

And that captain knows who he is! After 35 yrs in the industry of looking at and assessing the damage from these sorts of incidents I wouldn't like to fly with him if he prepared to take un-necessary risks like that or anyone else for that matter.

Itís about time the industry woke up to all the short cutting/Cost cutting going on.

Yes we know the industry is hurting but in most cases the operators are not helping there selves.

This is why passengers along with the high cost of travelling on some routes lack of flights, over crowding, poor service, poor seat space, luggage allowances, safety issues, security etc....

Passengers are just staying at home!!!!

I know the family home abroad has been suffering in terms of rental because of some of these issues..... Customers have told us!!!!!

WAKE UP!!!!!!!!

spannerless is offline  
Old 3rd Aug 2005, 07:31
  #113 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Down at the sharp pointy end, where all the weather is made.
Age: 71
Posts: 1,535
Trouble is, unless it is winter, runway reports are not usually given.
Not the case in the UK.

We promulgate changes in runway state e.g. DAMP, DAMP, DRY, or WET, WET, DAMP, etc as conditions change. This is verfied by actual full-length inspection, even when we're busy. This information is then broadcast on the Gatwick ATIS. If there is no information on runway state, then it's because it's DRY, DRY, DRY.

The Odd One
TheOddOne is offline  
Old 3rd Aug 2005, 07:39
  #114 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 44
I think someone earlier stated that initial reports said reverse thrust wasn't used.

I've just seen some new pictures on BBC and engine 4 clearly has the thrust reverse doors open.

Cejkovice is offline  
Old 3rd Aug 2005, 07:50
  #115 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: France, why do you think I have this ouuuutrageous accent?
Posts: 57
Call me paranoid, but when any A/C lands with a flat tyre or something, there are pages of "congratulations to the crew for a job well done" on PPRuNe.

But when an AF crew manages to evacuate a burning AC after a major mishap without any significant casualties, the congratulations are much more scarce... Do I sense a slight anti-AF bias on this thread?

As far as I'm concerned, the way this particular crew acted confirms the trust I've always had not only in the AF crews but in all the crews of the major airlines I regularly fly with.
Thank you all ladies and gentlemen
yggorf is offline  
Old 3rd Aug 2005, 07:57
  #116 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Citizen of the World
Posts: 174
Obviously an accident with a good outcome. Looks like a very good evacuation. No doubt the broken fuselage helped - every hole is an exit etc. My thoughts are with the two pilots who are going to be subjected to the most intense scrutiny of their decision-making for months on end.

Much more important, in my opinion, is what was a 'ravine' doing anywhere near a runway. This is not a third-world airport. Investigators should be looking at this appalling design, especially if a DC9 went off there in the past. What might have been a simple runoff incident becomes a major accident for no good reason. Remember the DC8 in the old Athens years ago?
SIDSTAR is offline  
Old 3rd Aug 2005, 08:10
  #117 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 191
With quite some space to spare at the end of the runway before the ravine/wooded area, could the airport not install a sand filled arrestor bed? Manchester (EGCC) has one at the end of 26R/06L to avoid that small valley with the service road.
BigHitDH is offline  
Old 3rd Aug 2005, 08:16
  #118 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Kagerplassen
Posts: 223
As a 340-pilot myself I was completely shocked by the images I saw yesterday on television.

On CNN within 10 minutes they had already decided it must have been a windshear accident, which to my opinion was near the impossible (they overran, and did not crash short of the runway).

Then they got hold of an actual passenger who had evacuated the burning aircraft only minutes ago... That meant that at least some of the pax had come out alive!

After it was clear that at least most of the people got out unharmed, I was able to go to sleep.

I don't even want to speculate on what caused this crash. I only want to congratulate the crew on doing a fantastic job evacuating the aircraft and saving all the lives on board before the aircraft was completely on fire. I love professionals on board of an aircraft!

Pegasus77 is offline  
Old 3rd Aug 2005, 08:27
  #119 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 550
Pegasus - surely a windshear event is just as likely to result in an overrun as it is an undershoot.
The Greaser is offline  
Old 3rd Aug 2005, 08:35
  #120 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Kagerplassen
Posts: 223
Hi Greaser,

Could be... I always learnt that the classical windshear situation is where you have an increase in headwind, then a sudden decrease, which goes over in a blasting tailwind, and even full power cannot help you out as you are hurled to the ground... (I am exaggerating a bit), which makes you land short of the runway. It is a situation where you are short of energy, if you overrun you clearly have too much energy?

But I can be wrong offcourse, maybe you can think of some scenarios where windshear does cause you to overrun?

Pegasus77 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.