AF A330 severe hard landing ccs
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If there is an undercarraige problem indicated, and you have to burn fuel for THREE hours, and then risk a heavy landing, isn't it more logical to proceed to your destination to make the landing ?
However if there was a warning it would indicate the gear was not fully retracted in which case you would be limited to gear operational speeds in cruise, (the Boeing equivalent is 270 knots IAS.) Also there would be unknown extra drag implications depending on how much drag there was from the gear doors or undercarriage leg and wheels. Faced with such an uncertain situation no one would want to launch off across the atlantic with nothing en route until the Azores.
Or, you could use the fuel to fly to an easier airport with longer runway.
As far as french mentality is concerned the situation is hopeless unless the blood factor is involved particularly with non Airbus aircraft.
As far as french mentality is concerned the situation is hopeless unless the blood factor is involved particularly with non Airbus aircraft.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: s england
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CY flyer
Before continuing a flight you must consider plausible single failures. I doubt the performance of a heavy 330 gear down one eng inop is particulary impressive. Additionally if a heavy landing has caused an undetected gear problem then it begs the question of what other undetected structural damage is there? The decision of the AF crew in this scenario is understandable.
Before continuing a flight you must consider plausible single failures. I doubt the performance of a heavy 330 gear down one eng inop is particulary impressive. Additionally if a heavy landing has caused an undetected gear problem then it begs the question of what other undetected structural damage is there? The decision of the AF crew in this scenario is understandable.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: France
Age: 61
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some infos
In short, the Load 15 Report is immediately available with a few keystrokes using any of the three MCDUs. Station personnel should be sufficiently competent to read such ACMS Reports.
1° Hard landing at CCS reported by crew
2° No report 15 generated ( neither automatically nor available in the system).
3° Two ground engineers perform an independant inspection according to information 1 and 2.
4° The F/O performs a throrough preflight according to info 1°
5° Incident with flight CCS-CDG
6° Next day, at power up of the aircraft a report 15 for the leg CDG-CCS is emitted and available.
I'll let you speculate.
This will be my only post on the subject.
Last edited by pgroell; 30th Apr 2011 at 17:22. Reason: Typo
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Sherbourne
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could it be like the A346, another case of the Managed Speed curse of this design?
Air France looks like an airline with endemic CRM or poor pilot handling issues. It cannot be long before the carrier is forced to undertake a KAL style safety audit.
korean airlines internal audit safety report
Since KAL reviewed their procedures after a series of notable crashes and accidents, they have not had any further hull losses. The French have banned many airlines from its airspace for allegedly having poor safety and aircraft maintenance concerns, but do not appear to accept that something is seriously wrong with their own national carrier.
Air France looks like an airline with endemic CRM or poor pilot handling issues. It cannot be long before the carrier is forced to undertake a KAL style safety audit.
korean airlines internal audit safety report
Since KAL reviewed their procedures after a series of notable crashes and accidents, they have not had any further hull losses. The French have banned many airlines from its airspace for allegedly having poor safety and aircraft maintenance concerns, but do not appear to accept that something is seriously wrong with their own national carrier.
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The French have banned many airlines from its airspace for allegedly having poor safety and aircraft maintenance concerns, but do not appear to accept that something is seriously wrong with their own national carrier.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: venezuela
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A few facts :
1° Hard landing at CCS reported by crew
2° No report 15 generated ( neither automatically nor available in the system).
3° Two ground engineers perform an independant inspection according to information 1 and 2.
4° The F/O performs a throrough preflight according to info 1°
5° Incident with flight CCS-CDG
6° Next day, at power up of the aircraft a report 15 for the leg CDG-CCS is emitted and available.
1° Hard landing at CCS reported by crew
2° No report 15 generated ( neither automatically nor available in the system).
3° Two ground engineers perform an independant inspection according to information 1 and 2.
4° The F/O performs a throrough preflight according to info 1°
5° Incident with flight CCS-CDG
6° Next day, at power up of the aircraft a report 15 for the leg CDG-CCS is emitted and available.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Crew lounge
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A few facts :
1° Hard landing at CCS reported by crew
2° No report 15 generated ( neither automatically nor available in the system).
3° Two ground engineers perform an independant inspection according to information 1 and 2.
4° The F/O performs a throrough preflight according to info 1°
5° Incident with flight CCS-CDG
6° Next day, at power up of the aircraft a report 15 for the leg CDG-CCS is emitted and available.
1° Hard landing at CCS reported by crew
2° No report 15 generated ( neither automatically nor available in the system).
3° Two ground engineers perform an independant inspection according to information 1 and 2.
4° The F/O performs a throrough preflight according to info 1°
5° Incident with flight CCS-CDG
6° Next day, at power up of the aircraft a report 15 for the leg CDG-CCS is emitted and available.
- after take off : landing gear did NOT retract ;
- aircraft remained in "ground mode" : no pressurisation ; outflow valves fully open etc...
In this specific case I fail to see anything wrong with "CRM" or "pilot handling".
The ground engineers did not perform any better (or worse) than those of other airlines facing the same situation (Monarch / SR? etc...).
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Here, there and everywhere
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
same thing happened at Swissair.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Among camels and dunes
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
These landings are determined by the accelerometers, however, a "hard landing 15 report" is also issued from a hard sideways landing, meaning the gear has taken an extreme side loading from a crabbed crosswind landing on the downwind gear for example.
This is I believe the most penalizing, as it would seem not hard but the angle for the load was extreme.
This is I believe the most penalizing, as it would seem not hard but the angle for the load was extreme.
I might take my chances flying on an air carrier based in, say, the Democratic Republic of Congo, or Equatorial Guinea, or OhMyGawdStan or some other blacklisted country like those, because the high accident rates in those countries are more or less evenly attributed across all the carriers from those countries.
But in the case of Air France, it's time to acknowledge the elephant in the room - there is only one French air carrier who keeps showing up in the news on a regular basis with accidents, runway excursions, damaged aircraft, etc., etc., and that's Air France.
Enough already, I'm not going to fly on Air France again. Maybe if other passengers made the same decision and Air France start to see their load factors decline they might get the message and clean up their act.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: France
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Shorrick Mk2
there is only one French air carrier who keeps showing up in the news
Originally Posted by V1... Ooops
Maybe if other passengers made the same decision and Air France start to see their load factors decline they might get the message and clean up their act.
If there was any decrease in LF, management would blame it on foreigners being fickle and appeal to their loyal followers to make up the difference.
It's only by living with them that I've come to understand just how many mental blocks your average Frenchman carries with him from cradle to grave.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As SLF, now avoid flying AF (Aerofrog). Had two experiences which seem to typify their attitude to safety:
1) Takeoff from Frankfurt in an A320. When the FA was stiill giving the safety demonstration, the aircraft accerated and she ran down the fuselage trying to avoid falling over.
2) Landing Douala in a 747-200. The screen in front of my seat had a sign " The screen must be open for take-off and landing". It was closed.
Have never flown with them since
1) Takeoff from Frankfurt in an A320. When the FA was stiill giving the safety demonstration, the aircraft accerated and she ran down the fuselage trying to avoid falling over.
2) Landing Douala in a 747-200. The screen in front of my seat had a sign " The screen must be open for take-off and landing". It was closed.
Have never flown with them since
Sun worshipper
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 494
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agenda or ...,
V1 OOPs ! :
... You get the point.
In this case, I suggest you take a look at American Airlines which has seen 2087 deaths (This includes the 1530 people who died on 11 September 2001) in the pâst twelve years against AF 327 ( Concorde and AF447).
I also suggest you take a look at Southwest- which seem to make a nasty habit of spectacular runway excursions and metal fatigue. But I give you that they are lucky. Two examples that come to mind. Am I alone ?
And ponder the fact that had the engines stuck on idle on that BA 777 done it just 30 seconds earlier, thre toll would have been quite different and the statistics not so glorious.
Thank God for his blessings !
I don't mind critics. Imbecillic chauvinistic points of view are something else.
Enough already, I'm not going to fly on Air France again.
I might take my chances flying on an air carrier based in, say, the Democratic Republic of Congo, or Equatorial Guinea, or OhMyGawdStan or some other blacklisted country like those, because the high accident rates in those countries are more or less evenly attributed across all the carriers from those countries.
In this case, I suggest you take a look at American Airlines which has seen 2087 deaths (This includes the 1530 people who died on 11 September 2001) in the pâst twelve years against AF 327 ( Concorde and AF447).
I also suggest you take a look at Southwest- which seem to make a nasty habit of spectacular runway excursions and metal fatigue. But I give you that they are lucky. Two examples that come to mind. Am I alone ?
And ponder the fact that had the engines stuck on idle on that BA 777 done it just 30 seconds earlier, thre toll would have been quite different and the statistics not so glorious.
Thank God for his blessings !
I don't mind critics. Imbecillic chauvinistic points of view are something else.
Junior trash
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,025
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And ponder the fact that had the engines stuck on idle on that BA 777 done it just 30 seconds earlier, thre toll would have been quite different and the statistics not so glorious.
The point with AF is the number of incidents, all (AF 447 pending) self inflicted. Fatalities is not the only measure. YYZ, JFK and now CCS all non fatal but serious incidents resulting in major airframe damage/write offs, it doesnt look good.
How many write offs has BA or Lufty had in the last 12 years (or indeed 20)? AF however, 2011 ERJ - JFK (caused by AF) 2009 A330 - Atlantic, 2007 F100 - Pau, 2005 A340 - Toronto, 2003 CRJ - Brest, 2000 Concorde - Gonesse, 1999 747F - Chennai, 1999 737 - Biarritz. And if we go back to 1991 theres yet more.