Air France crash at YYZ (Merged)
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dallas, TX USA
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with some who may be thinking that this accident is starting to look similar to the MD80 accident in Little Rock on 6/1/99. Here's a link to a NTSB produced video (5MB, and an old avi format which required me to download the file to my desktop to play it) of the landing done by that flight crew in similar weather conditions.
Added: forget that other video, this is a much better version of the same video at 2.2MB and much better quality.
AA Flight 1420 MD80, Little Rock, AR
Some of the similar characteristics are the long touchdown, departing the end of the runway at a fairly high speed, similar weather, etc.
One of the more interesting findings of flight 1420, was that the spoilers failed to deploy because the weather conditions during the landing basically fooled the spooler auto-deploy system. Thus wheel braking was ineffective due to continued wing lift and the lack of weight on the wheels.
It's possible that the A340 spoiler auto-deploy system was fooled in this case as well, but we'll see what the investigators have to say.
Added: forget that other video, this is a much better version of the same video at 2.2MB and much better quality.
AA Flight 1420 MD80, Little Rock, AR
Some of the similar characteristics are the long touchdown, departing the end of the runway at a fairly high speed, similar weather, etc.
One of the more interesting findings of flight 1420, was that the spoilers failed to deploy because the weather conditions during the landing basically fooled the spooler auto-deploy system. Thus wheel braking was ineffective due to continued wing lift and the lack of weight on the wheels.
It's possible that the A340 spoiler auto-deploy system was fooled in this case as well, but we'll see what the investigators have to say.
Last edited by Flight Safety; 5th Aug 2005 at 18:13.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Beverly Hills 90210
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
aardvark2zz; posted 4th August 2005 17:25. Assuming that a "standard" deceleration on a wet runway was achieved then the touchdown point calculates to the half-runway mark.....
By PAUL KORING
Air France's ill-fated Flight 358 "landed long," far beyond the normal touchdown zone, as the co-pilot struggled to reduce speed and get the big Airbus A-340 on the ground, according to aviation experts familiar with the early stages of the investigation. Data from Pearson airport's ground radar and witnesses suggest Flight 358 was nearly halfway down the 2,800-metre Runway 24L before it touched down......
Air France's ill-fated Flight 358 "landed long," far beyond the normal touchdown zone, as the co-pilot struggled to reduce speed and get the big Airbus A-340 on the ground, according to aviation experts familiar with the early stages of the investigation. Data from Pearson airport's ground radar and witnesses suggest Flight 358 was nearly halfway down the 2,800-metre Runway 24L before it touched down......
hmmmm, pretty good, if I may say so myself
This is all beginning to sound just like an afternoon at JFK some 20 years ago. I was, at the time, in the left seat of the DC-10 with a Part 121 Carrier based at JFK.
There were thunderstorms all over Long Island and the weather radar was mostly "red". Needless to say there were big ATC delays.
Eventually we were positioned on to finals to 04R and was it ever wet! I had already very carefully briefed a 50 flap landing (normally we used 35 flap - 50 flap produced an airframe vibration which "The passengers didn't like"). Autothrottle was taken out and I hand- flew the approach with every intention of doing a firm landing on the wet runway. All went well after a very interesting approach.
We eventually got down to the hotel which was right on the edge of JFK, had a quick change, and then met in the bar for a well-deserved cold beer.
"Have you looked out the window" said my excellent American F/E?
There just outside the window was an SAS DC-10-30 off the end of the same runway with its nose in Jamaica Bay!
He had been going round the hold a couple of thousand feet above us in the very unpleasant weather but his flight had not ended as happily as ours.
Later in the bar, one of the local FAA inspectors told us that the other guy had:
a. Used 35 flap for passenger comfort.
b. Kept the autothrottle in (which tended to give a bit of a float).
c. Didn't get it on the ground until halfway down the runway.
d. When the F/O suggested a G/A made the comment that he wasn't going back up into that bloody awful weather.
Once again, nobody got killed but it was a hell of a sad way to end a flight (and probably a career).
Drastic weather requires drastic skills!
PS. The aeroplane was eventually dragged back up onto JFK and was put in the PanAm hangar. Fedex bought it and I presume it is still gainfully employed.
There were thunderstorms all over Long Island and the weather radar was mostly "red". Needless to say there were big ATC delays.
Eventually we were positioned on to finals to 04R and was it ever wet! I had already very carefully briefed a 50 flap landing (normally we used 35 flap - 50 flap produced an airframe vibration which "The passengers didn't like"). Autothrottle was taken out and I hand- flew the approach with every intention of doing a firm landing on the wet runway. All went well after a very interesting approach.
We eventually got down to the hotel which was right on the edge of JFK, had a quick change, and then met in the bar for a well-deserved cold beer.
"Have you looked out the window" said my excellent American F/E?
There just outside the window was an SAS DC-10-30 off the end of the same runway with its nose in Jamaica Bay!
He had been going round the hold a couple of thousand feet above us in the very unpleasant weather but his flight had not ended as happily as ours.
Later in the bar, one of the local FAA inspectors told us that the other guy had:
a. Used 35 flap for passenger comfort.
b. Kept the autothrottle in (which tended to give a bit of a float).
c. Didn't get it on the ground until halfway down the runway.
d. When the F/O suggested a G/A made the comment that he wasn't going back up into that bloody awful weather.
Once again, nobody got killed but it was a hell of a sad way to end a flight (and probably a career).
Drastic weather requires drastic skills!
PS. The aeroplane was eventually dragged back up onto JFK and was put in the PanAm hangar. Fedex bought it and I presume it is still gainfully employed.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Currently on the left side of the pond
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Norodnik
Those are some very serious accusations. Do you have something to back it up? Substance, not conspiracy theory requested.
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.
Received this by email ..
From the photos that were attached to the email which were taken from outside the aircraft during the evacuation, it appears the flames are more noticable at the wing root of the starboard wing.
It was difficult to see if 1L side was deployed, if it was it was not normally inflated at the time of the photos, slide 2L was not deployed.
Photos show captains cockpit window open, no sign of escape rope.
Air France's flight 358 landed beyond the normal touchdown zone on runway 24L at Toronto's Pearson international airport before it skidded into a creek bed and exploded into flames, lead investigator Réal Levasseur confirmed at a press conference Friday.
“The information that I have is that the aircraft landed longer than normally or longer than usual for this type of aircraft. How long, exactly, or how far more than usual is what we're trying to determine right now,” Mr. Levasseur said.
He also said there is no indication that the plane was hit by lightning and that the cockpit and engines are fairly well intact.
All 309 passengers and crew escaped the wreckage with little more than scrapes, bruises and strains. Forty three people were taken to seven Toronto-area hospitals where some were treated for broken bones.
Although flight procedures vary from airline to airline, standard practice is to abort a landing and initiate a “go-around” – meaning adding power, climbing away and returning to the landing pattern for a second attempt – if the aircraft is not going to hit the “landing zone” at the right speed.
A runway's landing zone varies but is generally considered to be from about 275 metres to 450 metres from the threshold. Pearson's runway 24L is 2,740 metres long.
Some passengers have said they thought the plane was flying faster than usual before a landing. Aviation sources have confirmed that the co-pilot, a 43-year-old Air France veteran with more than 10,000 flying hours, was flying manually.
That is common among airliner pilots, even though modern, automatic landing systems governed by sophisticated computers and following radio beams can consistently land aircraft even in the worst visibility and foulest weather conditions with greater precision and reliability than highly trained pilots.
Automatic landing systems are usually used in relatively calm, foggy conditions, however, and the systems that can take an aircraft right down require runways with radio and directional beams more sophisticated than those at Pearson's 24L.
A touchdown so far along the runway suggests a difficult and unstable few seconds before touchdown, precisely the sort of situation that can eat up significant chunks of runway length.
“If you are carrying some extra speed and suddenly get a tailwind [a possibility in the gusty conditions that existed when Flight 358 was landing at 4 p.m. on Tuesday] it can carry you down the runway,” one experienced pilot said.
"If that happens, you go-around,” he said.
Another veteran pilot with experience dealing with human factors in aviation mishaps noted that “it's human nature to try and complete what you have started.” Pilots are trained to resist that impulse because aborting a landing is safer.
Praise has been heaped on the co-pilot for his bravery in making a last check of the evacuated and burning wreck of the Airbus A-340, but his handling of the landing will come under intense scrutiny.
Air France chief executive officer Jean-Cyril Spinetta said the “crew, naturally, decided to land” at Toronto when it reopened after being closed because of bad weather. He also confirmed, however, that the flight had enough fuel to reach Montreal and the pilots were “not therefore obliged to touch down.”
The decision to land in difficult weather conditions ultimately rests with the pilots as long as the airport is open.
Mr. Spinetta said that after landing, the crew “activated the thrust reversers normally, which operated as expected.”
Given the interconnections of brakes, spoilers – the flat panels that rise from the wings to destroy lift and keep the aircraft on the runway -and the thrust reversers, all three systems should have been working.
However, if the rain-drenched runway was sufficiently wet and the aircraft was travelling sufficiently fast, it could have aquaplaned – in effect slid on a film of water.
“The information that I have is that the aircraft landed longer than normally or longer than usual for this type of aircraft. How long, exactly, or how far more than usual is what we're trying to determine right now,” Mr. Levasseur said.
He also said there is no indication that the plane was hit by lightning and that the cockpit and engines are fairly well intact.
All 309 passengers and crew escaped the wreckage with little more than scrapes, bruises and strains. Forty three people were taken to seven Toronto-area hospitals where some were treated for broken bones.
Although flight procedures vary from airline to airline, standard practice is to abort a landing and initiate a “go-around” – meaning adding power, climbing away and returning to the landing pattern for a second attempt – if the aircraft is not going to hit the “landing zone” at the right speed.
A runway's landing zone varies but is generally considered to be from about 275 metres to 450 metres from the threshold. Pearson's runway 24L is 2,740 metres long.
Some passengers have said they thought the plane was flying faster than usual before a landing. Aviation sources have confirmed that the co-pilot, a 43-year-old Air France veteran with more than 10,000 flying hours, was flying manually.
That is common among airliner pilots, even though modern, automatic landing systems governed by sophisticated computers and following radio beams can consistently land aircraft even in the worst visibility and foulest weather conditions with greater precision and reliability than highly trained pilots.
Automatic landing systems are usually used in relatively calm, foggy conditions, however, and the systems that can take an aircraft right down require runways with radio and directional beams more sophisticated than those at Pearson's 24L.
A touchdown so far along the runway suggests a difficult and unstable few seconds before touchdown, precisely the sort of situation that can eat up significant chunks of runway length.
“If you are carrying some extra speed and suddenly get a tailwind [a possibility in the gusty conditions that existed when Flight 358 was landing at 4 p.m. on Tuesday] it can carry you down the runway,” one experienced pilot said.
"If that happens, you go-around,” he said.
Another veteran pilot with experience dealing with human factors in aviation mishaps noted that “it's human nature to try and complete what you have started.” Pilots are trained to resist that impulse because aborting a landing is safer.
Praise has been heaped on the co-pilot for his bravery in making a last check of the evacuated and burning wreck of the Airbus A-340, but his handling of the landing will come under intense scrutiny.
Air France chief executive officer Jean-Cyril Spinetta said the “crew, naturally, decided to land” at Toronto when it reopened after being closed because of bad weather. He also confirmed, however, that the flight had enough fuel to reach Montreal and the pilots were “not therefore obliged to touch down.”
The decision to land in difficult weather conditions ultimately rests with the pilots as long as the airport is open.
Mr. Spinetta said that after landing, the crew “activated the thrust reversers normally, which operated as expected.”
Given the interconnections of brakes, spoilers – the flat panels that rise from the wings to destroy lift and keep the aircraft on the runway -and the thrust reversers, all three systems should have been working.
However, if the rain-drenched runway was sufficiently wet and the aircraft was travelling sufficiently fast, it could have aquaplaned – in effect slid on a film of water.
It was difficult to see if 1L side was deployed, if it was it was not normally inflated at the time of the photos, slide 2L was not deployed.
Photos show captains cockpit window open, no sign of escape rope.
MilkyWay,
All I can say is what I saw in the photos I received, the ones I received were taken during the evacuation with passengers still deplanning through 1L and 2L.
The rope may have been used later, I dont know.
I did notice in your photo the wipers are not in the normal stowed position.
All I can say is what I saw in the photos I received, the ones I received were taken during the evacuation with passengers still deplanning through 1L and 2L.
The rope may have been used later, I dont know.
I did notice in your photo the wipers are not in the normal stowed position.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Great White North
Age: 51
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A couple of posts back, a few people mentioned having CTV cameras at major airports to capture airport operations.
What about the cameras on board the aircraft? Do these larger aircraft not have cameras in the tail fin? Or on the underbelly that assist with taxi operations on smaller taxiways. These same images appear on the passangers little tv's in the seat backs and on the PFDs in the cockpit. Do these not receord? How hard would it be for these cameras to be connected to a looping recording system that captures the last 60 minutes of flight. Kinda like the looping voice recorder in the cockpit.
What about the cameras on board the aircraft? Do these larger aircraft not have cameras in the tail fin? Or on the underbelly that assist with taxi operations on smaller taxiways. These same images appear on the passangers little tv's in the seat backs and on the PFDs in the cockpit. Do these not receord? How hard would it be for these cameras to be connected to a looping recording system that captures the last 60 minutes of flight. Kinda like the looping voice recorder in the cockpit.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reference the aircraft cameras in posts above. They are fitted to the longer A340-600 but not to the A340-300 such as the series involved in this case. (Currently on board cameras are not recorded in any case.)
There are runway video cameras fitted at some airports and these have proved useful in analysing incidents such as the Cathay 340 tail strike out of Auckland. I believe they are a good idea and could easily be installed at all major airports on a continuous loop system.
Regarding the FDR, there are different types of recorder around, plus the format (i.e. dataframe) of the recorded parameters varies from airline to airline as long as they have included all the mandatory parameters. This can take time for an investigation team to sort out. Also unless the GPS position is recorded to a sufficient resolution it can still require a fair bit of work to accurately compute the exact touchdown point from the FDR data. Hence the usefulness of ground video.
There are runway video cameras fitted at some airports and these have proved useful in analysing incidents such as the Cathay 340 tail strike out of Auckland. I believe they are a good idea and could easily be installed at all major airports on a continuous loop system.
Regarding the FDR, there are different types of recorder around, plus the format (i.e. dataframe) of the recorded parameters varies from airline to airline as long as they have included all the mandatory parameters. This can take time for an investigation team to sort out. Also unless the GPS position is recorded to a sufficient resolution it can still require a fair bit of work to accurately compute the exact touchdown point from the FDR data. Hence the usefulness of ground video.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Vietnam
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
voice recorder and flight data
My question is Anybody know that if those box are send in France for reading I expect that the Canadian TSB would send someboby with the boxes since they are in charge of the investigation ???
Guest
Posts: n/a
Great skill but...
JW411 (hm ...I just wander what is similar with ..411a)
You did a great job, but......
.. and may I here quote my CAA LASORS:
"The superior pilot is the one using his superior knowledge and his superior judgement to avoid those situations that otherwise would require him to display HIS SUPERIOR skill"
You did a great job, but......
.. and may I here quote my CAA LASORS:
"The superior pilot is the one using his superior knowledge and his superior judgement to avoid those situations that otherwise would require him to display HIS SUPERIOR skill"
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
N380UA said
"FF
cameras are fitted on the -300 as well."
That's news to me
Which airline has them on their -300s? The taxi camera system (TACS) was introduced on the -600 in the tail-fin and behind the nose leg to aid in the taxi of the much longer airframe. I was not aware that they were offered as an option on new 300s and further more I cannot see why an airline would spend the extra money when they were not required.
Regards
FF
P.S. There is a In-Flight Entertainment system camera that can be fitted to Airbus aircraft showing an external view, but again I do not believe these are recorded due to bandwidth limitations.
"FF
cameras are fitted on the -300 as well."
That's news to me
Which airline has them on their -300s? The taxi camera system (TACS) was introduced on the -600 in the tail-fin and behind the nose leg to aid in the taxi of the much longer airframe. I was not aware that they were offered as an option on new 300s and further more I cannot see why an airline would spend the extra money when they were not required.
Regards
FF
P.S. There is a In-Flight Entertainment system camera that can be fitted to Airbus aircraft showing an external view, but again I do not believe these are recorded due to bandwidth limitations.
Last edited by Flyer Flier; 6th Aug 2005 at 09:40.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: In the mountains of Switzerland
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cameras
Our A343s have In-Flight Entertainment system cameras installed but they are not recorded. They can be switched off from the cockpit and our SOPs recommend them be be off in messy weather conditions (xxx x-wind or very gusty) not to frighten the Pax.
df
df
My question is Anybody know that if those box are send in France for reading I expect that the Canadian TSB would send someboby with the boxes since they are in charge of the investigation ???
The parties decide together what is the best equipment to decode along with the best experience. The parties have a right to participate and no doubt will. There is little way hanki-panky can take place and not be detected by the other parties.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This morning's Globe and Mail story by Paul Koring borders on the hilarious. Following the headline " Flight recorders may yield crucial answers" comes the following:
"Although it may take months before the investigation is complete, the flight and cockpit recorders should quickly provide answers to crucial questions about whether the Air France pilots were considering aborting the landing and briefly advanced the throttles to initiate a "go-around" after landing halfway down the runway".
I've just had this brainwave, which might save thousands of dollars and many hours of analysis:
Why not ask the pilots?
Where do I collect my reward?
Rockhound
"Although it may take months before the investigation is complete, the flight and cockpit recorders should quickly provide answers to crucial questions about whether the Air France pilots were considering aborting the landing and briefly advanced the throttles to initiate a "go-around" after landing halfway down the runway".
I've just had this brainwave, which might save thousands of dollars and many hours of analysis:
Why not ask the pilots?
Where do I collect my reward?
Rockhound
Green Guard:
You are obviously new to these shores. Let me explain that 411a and I have absolutely no connection whatsoever.
He is an American gentleman living in Arizona who is a great fan of the lightweight Lockheed 3-holer otherwise known as the L1011.
I am an old DC-10 man and have never been near an L1011. I have only visited Arizona twice and I am a Brit.
We can both be controversial and I have often considered changing my callsign but I don't see why I should for we were here before they were (unless he turns out to be a native American - in which case I apologise in advance)!
You are obviously new to these shores. Let me explain that 411a and I have absolutely no connection whatsoever.
He is an American gentleman living in Arizona who is a great fan of the lightweight Lockheed 3-holer otherwise known as the L1011.
I am an old DC-10 man and have never been near an L1011. I have only visited Arizona twice and I am a Brit.
We can both be controversial and I have often considered changing my callsign but I don't see why I should for we were here before they were (unless he turns out to be a native American - in which case I apologise in advance)!
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: GVA
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rockhound,
I am sure the investigators already did it and they may know the answer. But you have to rely on facts (FDR in this case) before making a public announcement.
I remember an expression which said : if the pilot survives, you'll never know the truth.
Ok, it may be exaggerated but not completely.
Why not ask the pilots?
I remember an expression which said : if the pilot survives, you'll never know the truth.
Ok, it may be exaggerated but not completely.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, MilkyWay, I cannot agree. I concede that the recorders should be read by the investigators before they make any public announcement, in case there is any conflict between the evidence from the pilots and that from the recorders, but surely the answer to the question, Was a go-around attempted or not?, can be provided definitively by the pilot(s). The latter know full well that, if they lie, they will be caught out.
Rockhound
Rockhound
Folks,
Just wondering : anyone with some information as of why the FDR (and CVR) are not fully exploitable by the TSA (regardless of their current location, which is also somewhat mysterious….) ?
Canada is certainly not a third world country and the A340 is definitely a recent and common airplane. They might be some very good reasons for this to happen but it’s really puzzling…
alex
Just wondering : anyone with some information as of why the FDR (and CVR) are not fully exploitable by the TSA (regardless of their current location, which is also somewhat mysterious….) ?
Canada is certainly not a third world country and the A340 is definitely a recent and common airplane. They might be some very good reasons for this to happen but it’s really puzzling…
alex