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

AF358 at YYZ report to come out

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

AF358 at YYZ report to come out

Old 5th Dec 2007, 21:59
  #1 (permalink)  
Dushan
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
AF358 at YYZ report to come out

Plane landed too fast, report finds

This article in National Post may require a subscription, so here is a tidbit...

CanWest News Service
Published: Wednesday, December 05, 2007

An Air France plane that crashed at Toronto's Lester B. Pearson International Airport in 2005 came in too fast and landed almost halfway down the runway, the Transportation Safety Board of Canada said yesterday.
The board will release its final investigation report into the crash in Toronto next Wednesday.
"The aircraft approached Toronto in a severe and rapidly changing thunderstorm with shifting winds and limited visibility.
 
Old 6th Dec 2007, 02:23
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Here, there, and everywhere
Posts: 1,121
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes on 7 Posts
According to my source at Air France, it was mentioned on descent with the Tstorms around that that's why they get the big bucks. On short final they said it was like flying through Niagara Falls.
punkalouver is offline  
Old 6th Dec 2007, 02:32
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Dodoland
Age: 62
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Dushan,
It will be appreciated by a lot of blokes here if you paste the link when the report comes out. I have heard rumors that Airbus will introduce a major change to SOPs related to use of autothrust.
Thanks
dessas is offline  
Old 6th Dec 2007, 03:10
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: La Belle Province
Posts: 2,179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I'd imagine TSBC will place the report on their website pretty quickly; that would avoid getting a second-hand version via a newspaper.

this is the current list of reports for 2005. You'll see the AF358 accident currently has a preliminary entry (as of Nov 05) about 8 entries down, which is where I'd expect the final report to show up when released.
Mad (Flt) Scientist is offline  
Old 6th Dec 2007, 08:42
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
On short final they said it was like flying through Niagara Falls.
I was SLF on this flight - I'll concur with this, the last section of the approach was seriously soggy - I couldn't see more than half of the wing in the heaviest of it.
Miraz is offline  
Old 6th Dec 2007, 12:08
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Here, there, and everywhere
Posts: 1,121
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes on 7 Posts
I'm not sure what SLF means, but if you were on this flight, perhaps an account of your experience would be quite interesting from what you saw to what was said by flightdeck or cabin crew or any other observations you had.
punkalouver is offline  
Old 6th Dec 2007, 12:27
  #7 (permalink)  
BRE
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
SLF = self loading freight
BRE is offline  
Old 6th Dec 2007, 14:33
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Not here
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
You don't need to wait for that report. Everything's already answered in the AF358 thread; and then some.
.
alph2z is offline  
Old 6th Dec 2007, 15:22
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: yyz
Posts: 97
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Plane landed too fast, report finds

Air France Crash; S kidded off runway near Highway 401

CanWest News Service Published: Wednesday, December 05, 2007
Story Tools

*

-+ Change font size
*

Print this story
*

E-Mail this story

Share This Story

*

Facebook
*

Digg
*

Del.icio.us
*

More

NP Network Blogs

An Air France plane that crashed at Toronto's Lester B. Pearson International Airport in 2005 came in too fast and landed almost halfway down the runway, the Transportation Safety Board of Canada said yesterday.

The board will release its final investigation report into the crash in Toronto next Wednesday.

"The aircraft approached Toronto in a severe and rapidly changing thunderstorm with shifting winds and limited visibility.

"It came in too high and too fast and touched down almost halfway down the 9,000-foot runway," the board said in a statement released yesterday.

"A combination of a wet and slippery runway and crosswinds meant the aircraft simply ran out of room."

The plane crashed on Aug. 2, 2005 with 297 passengers and 12 crew members on board. All survived after the plane skidded off the end of the runway and into a ravine near Highway 401.

One official said it was "a miracle" there were no deaths. Nine passengers and two crew members suffered serious injuries.

An interim report, released by the Transportation Safety Board in November, 2005, found no mechanical defects on the Airbus 340.

Information gathered by investigators in the interim report found the plane had almost no chance of stopping amid a sudden gust of wind and a line of fierce squalls that struck it just above a rain-slicked runway in the last few minutes before landing.

As the massive jet came in -- higher and faster than usual, the interim report said -- it was hit by sheets of rain, which significantly reduced the crew's forward visibility.

And, according to the digital flight recorder, at almost exactly the same time, the wind shifted, "causing a tailwind component of approximately five knots."

Meanwhile, the storm had left the runway "contaminated with at least inch of standing water."

The interim report also found the Air France jet landed about halfway down the runway.

Shortly after the crash, Jean-Cyril Spinetta, the chief executive of Air France, reportedly blamed airport authorities for allowing the plane to land in bad weather.

The interim report indicates air traffic controllers were aware of traction problems on the runway used by Air France Flight 358 and informed the pilot.

At least 107 passengers have joined a class-action suit against Air France, Toronto airport authorities, the control tower staff, Airbus, Goodrich, which built the jet's escape chutes, and the two pilots, seeking damages of more than $150-million.

Close
Reader Discussion
rigpiggy is offline  
Old 6th Dec 2007, 21:30
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Let's see, 150 million divided by 107 passengers (in the suit): $1.4m per passenger.

Let me see if I got this right. They had a good fright, but they were lucky enough to survive with just a few scrapes. Their baggage got barbecued.
The $1.4m will provide what exactly? Surely nobody had $1.4m worth of luggage roasted?

I dunno about other folks but if I survived an airliner crash where the aircraft literally burned to ashes, with, at best, minor injuries, well, heck that would be a big enough prize for me... hell, screw the luggage, kiss the earth like the Pope, and be thankful!

Beech

Last edited by BeechNut; 6th Dec 2007 at 22:04.
BeechNut is offline  
Old 6th Dec 2007, 21:41
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Here, there, and everywhere
Posts: 1,121
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes on 7 Posts
Let's see, 150 million divided by 107 passengers (in the suit): $88k per passenger.


Doesn't 150 million divided by 107 equal 1.4 million each?
punkalouver is offline  
Old 6th Dec 2007, 22:04
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: US
Posts: 507
Received 5 Likes on 3 Posts
Gross or Net

punkalover - Maybe Beechnut is talking net after the lawyers get their cut!

20driver
20driver is offline  
Old 6th Dec 2007, 22:06
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts


You're right. Punched up the calculator wrong and wasn't thinking. Good thing this wasn't a fuel calculation...then again we Canadians are good at messing those up.

Original message edited.

And my point is amplified. You want how many million for surviving nearly unscathed???
BeechNut is offline  
Old 6th Dec 2007, 22:10
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
punkalover - Maybe Beechnut is talking net after the lawyers get their cut!

20driver
Good one!

BeechNut is offline  
Old 7th Dec 2007, 09:24
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Chedburgh, Bury St.Edmunds
Age: 81
Posts: 1,174
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes on 5 Posts
What the amount you sue for, and what you get are very much two different things!! Start high, but expect a much less [if any] award.
JEM60 is offline  
Old 7th Dec 2007, 09:53
  #16 (permalink)  
Alba Gu Brath
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Merseyside
Age: 55
Posts: 738
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
$1.4 million each? Doesn't seem quite fair when you consider the soldier who had a pace stick thrown at his head is awarded 300. He was in a coma for 6 days, had a blood clot removed from his brain, his left hand is paralysed and he now walks with a limp.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/s...re/7120438.stm
Maybe he should follow the example in this case and sue the manufacturer of the pace stick, Staffordshire county council, Tesco (cos that's where the sergeant major shops), etc. Oh and he could sue Airbus as well, I'm sure any good solicitor could prove that there was one flying overhead when the incident took place!
Big Tudor is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2007, 14:54
  #17 (permalink)  
Dushan
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Here it is:
RUNWAY OVERRUN AND FIRE
AIR FRANCE
AIRBUS A340-313 F-GLZQ
TORONTO/LESTER B. PEARSON INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT, ONTARIO
02 AUGUST 2005
 
Old 12th Dec 2007, 21:59
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,558
Received 36 Likes on 16 Posts
Comment to TSB

On the day of the accident, I was following the progress of the thunderstorm line on the NWS Buffalo radar. Upon leaving work at QEW and Hwy 10 (~12 km. due South of the accident runway), I heard the news of the crash as I encountered a rainfall that brought QEW traffic to a halt. It would not surprise me if this was the same cell that made trouble for AFR358.

Whether or not it was, I feel strongly that weather radar returns would constitute an important part of the investigation. While I do see mention that weather radar returns were investigated, I am disappointed that the report omitted to include them in at least the appendices. Sections 2.4.1 Adequacy of Meteorological Data and 2.4.2 Weather Information Provided by Air Traffic Control beg the question that if a qualified person at ATC had access to the meteorological radar whether timely information would have been passed on to ATC and the aircrews.

It would also be of interest to have simulated what the onboard weather radar showed on the aircraft that made approaches and/or have checked with the crews who did approach what their onboard radar displayed.

As noted in the report aircrews are used to making approaches with thunderstorms in the vicinity. Hopefully patterns on onboard radar could be identified so that aircrews could recognise when it's time to hold or divert.
RatherBeFlying is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2007, 00:20
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
words for the wise:

if the wx looks "iffy" at all...wait 15 minutes...if it clears, you did it to give the pax a better ride...if it gets worse, it proves that you were right to wait.

if high and fast go around and be ready for firewall power if you encounter windshear. (it is possible that if they went around, things might have been worse...look at CLT DC9 crash about a dozen years ago)

and , dear Canada, install windshear alert system...heck, your a first class country, get doppler wx radar!
sevenstrokeroll is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2007, 09:35
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: On the dark side of the moon
Posts: 976
Received 9 Likes on 4 Posts
and , dear Canada, install windshear alert system...heck, your a first class country, get doppler wx radar!
You are 100% correct, SSR. I am very disappointed that the report did not include a recommendation to install a LLWS system at YYZ. We get plenty of days where conditions similar to those on the day of the accident exist. I have to ask, if the AF crew had been on an approach to JFK in that weather, would they have continued their approach if ATC had advised them of LLWS alerts in the vicinity of the runway? I'd certainly hope not, and instead of a smoking hulk in a ravine, AF would have had a load of slightly inconvenienced passengers sitting at the alternate airport instead.
J.O. is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.