AF A340 off rwy @ Douala
 

came to rest off rwy in bad wx
happened on AF 943. (must have occured sunday or monday)

link in french:
http://www.lemessager.net/details_ar...code_art=10562
any further information is greatly appreciated

I got very little ('non-journalisitic' ie relevant:{ ) out of a 'Babelfish' translation of the article except that there would appear to have been a lot of rain in the area. I think it implied there were no injuries and no-one from Air France would talk to them.

Yet another AF A340 incident? :uhoh: :eek:

Mon Dieu!
 

Can these AF boys please try and stay on the runway in future?

Not serious. Glad no injuries ensued.

Translation of link:
the aircraft came off the runway. the return flight was cancelled. there has been no official information as to the cause. there was heavy rainfall at the time of the landing. the aircraft might have been damaged. 'it could have cost the lives of several dozen passengers' (no reason adduced to support this statement).

A lot of words to say very little.

THe most succinct definition of journalism I've seen to date

And, it seems, of most PPRuNe contributions :rolleyes:

:ok: Hard stuff with :mad: AF management pilots....:ouch:

Didn't they also kill some cows in Port Harcourt some time ago ?

:) Yes they did it but I think they had not seen them !
Two other old incidents are also reported with A340 instructors: a tail strike (don't remember where) during a go-around and a runway excursion when landing at Libreville...That makes a lot with Cayenne landing before runway threshold (Instructor PNF) !:bored:

According the IFALPA Daily News Service (23-2) the aircraft made an approach in bad wx conditions (heavy rain). During landing the crew decided to make a wave off (G/A in close proximity of the rwy). During this procedure the runway was touched and the aircraft went round for a second uneventful landing. It is not uncommon to touch the runway during a wave off and the spoilers will disarm automatically. Maybe this is the source that the aircraft "left" the runway.

I have got another version:
The plane went through heavy rain during flare and flight crew lost visual references and then decided to interrupt landing by pulling up, but plane touched down ground partly besides runway.
It is said that pilots asked themselves if they had made a tail strike and made a long holding pattern to analyze the situation before landing again safely.
The plane seems to be damaged in the tale zone and will be flyed back to CDG to-morrow with no passengers.

absurdity !
 

this article is just an absurdity, it's not even in french, it's in a kind of cameroonese translated into french. I had to read it at least three times to try to get something out of it !! :confused: (I am french)
It basically says that the flight to paris is cancelled, because aircraft status seems under investigation.
so they realised that the day before, the flight has run-off the runway !!!!:sad:
there is not a single passenger of the previous day, that remember having such an experience on that flight:eek: :eek:
it even saying that af 340 might be old, an AF could be searched on this issues and could be placed on a camerronese "black-list".
for information, it became a state affair when france placed cameroon airlines in it's "black-list" a few months ago:hmm:
so please before posting such absurd news links, read it twice and think about it twice, the whole airline industry will benefit of it

some more...
 

approach in microburst, a/c landed on rw30, skidded off the runway into the gravel, tailstrike while going around, holding for 1 hour, landed normally.
parked on cargo ramp already for four days as cameroun caa has declared "accident" and a/c is evidence.

:bored: Another embarassing incident for AF, the Captain PF woud have been qualified 6 weeks ago ?

@ arc-en-ciel:
be sure that i ve read it as thoroughly as possible, found it confusing as well (blamed it on babelfish first) but at that time it was the only piece of information. now, as more "hard" information are coming through, it sure remains a noteworthy incident.
just for the records, can someone ID the A340 ?
other french links:
http://www.crash-aerien.com/www/news...d=2197&check=0
http://fr.allafrica.com/stories/200602220600.html
http://fr.allafrica.com/stories/200602220678.html

They say F-GLZM here:
http://www.ledauphine.com/info/france/art_61981.php

Maybe AF has had a series of "events" because they fly to many "difficult" or defective or in-need of improvements airports.

Rwy in Sight

In that case, Rwy in Sight, what on earth is the French CAA doing about it? Surely they've seen more than enough evidence to react?:eek:

Calling Inspector Clouseau!:}

Come on get real... please.

Quote: Originally Posted by Rwy in Sight
"Maybe AF has had a series of "events" because they fly to many "difficult" or defective or in-need of improvements airports.

Rwy in Sight"

Hey, Douala has very good facilities and the runway is nice and flat, clean surface and no obstacle in the area. It has full HIALS and is equiped with ILS and RNAV GPS approaches.

Not blaming one side or another, but I have been operating many times over the years in and out of Douala, and it is far from being bad runway or approach conditions. I think the cause lies somewhere else:suspect:

Agree with you Flex...Douala has some of the best facilities in that part of Equatorial Africa (operated in there a month or so back..and I go down that way 2 -3 times a month), RWY 30 also has a VOR/DME Arc as well as the ILS..I wonder who screwed the pooch this time? AF are making a bit of a habit of this it would seem.:uhoh:

Flew over Doula on tues,notams saying ILS U/S - did AF harvest it with the A340 ?

[QUOTE=FLEXPWR]Quote: Originally Posted by Rwy in Sight
"Maybe AF has had a series of "events" because they fly to many "difficult" or defective or in-need of improvements airports.

Yep, that may include our wonderful CYYZ. But we have a nice terminal building eh!

"Maybe AF has had a series of "events" because they fly to many "difficult" or defective or in-need of improvements airports." By Rwy in Sight
Do you think AF is exclusive in doing that? Others operate in the same environement.
Such excuses were quite common with incidents of a central european regional carrier (CRX), saying more daliy landings, apparently difficult airports, difficult aircraft etc. are reason for more incidents.
Well, I stated then and state now: Thats no excuse. You have to deal with it.
It might be the airport, ATC, your aircraft or new collegues. Either you deem beeing capable of doing it, and consequently take responsability, or you dont operate. If the environement is difficult, there are remedies. Like not flying there, or flying there with adequate equippment and finally doing that with adequately selected and trained pro's!
In this particular case:
The A340(300) might be economical, but it's performance on T/O an LDG is edgy. If once and for all the operators (and especially the manufactorer) would acknowledge this and train pilots adequately (especially in the questionable CCQ/MFF environement) then these incidents might be reduced.
Gretchenfrage

:ok: I can't make a better statement ! BRAVO.
One has to know and deal with three major A340 characteristics: "hands off" stick handling philosophy, big ground effect, roll rate law.
But with such management pilots final approaches, AF must change many people !
http://www.airliners.net/open.file?i...v_id=&next_id=

Gretchenfrage, I entirely agree with you...
By the way, would you now care to explain how even the holly gods of SWR landed aside the bitumen twice in Yaounde and once in Lagos, and there was also the story with the A32 in MUC, and...

Humbleness doesn't seem to be your first value. Funny, the best pilots I observed during the last 25 years were also the quietest...
You value the quality of your flying and your peers as perfect. So does AF!

As for the T/O performance (or lack of it, what a slouch, even worse than your Jumbolinos) of your 340s, well history has it, SWR always bought or got the lowest performers off the line :rolleyes:

:)
Oh, you remenber that !
But Jacques, the B747 Captain concerned, was not an instructor but a sympathetic pilots elected representative:O
Many ones do not understand that flying below 3° path in short final will not shorten landing distance but, at the contrary, will increase it because of ground effect...and that 7708 feet of dry runway are quite enough to land without overrunning it, even at MLW.
And on the San Marteen shot of last juanuary 24th, we have the chief of the "Service Prévention et Sécurité des Vols" as commander of the Air France flight !:yuk:

You actually did some work for a change? (ive been hearin stories about you Mr Digler :} :p )

[quote=GretchenfrageIf once and for all the operators (and especially the manufactorer) would acknowledge this and train pilots adequately (especially in the questionable CCQ/MFF environement) then these incidents might be reduced.
Gretchenfrage[/quote]

I agree with you. However could be tantamount to an admission by Airbus that their product is defective. This may result in Aviation Agencies around the world, except France or course, in reviewing training and operating procedures concerning the A-340 during all performance critical phases of flight.

We all know what should be a rather obvious answer to that would be.



But of course ,Airbus is certainly not alone in that regard, are they ? :suspect: (< edit for grammar)


I don't believe that the aircraft is defective. A bit underpowered ? maybe.
However not having flown one, I am not a very enlightened source on this.

F4F
you quote me on:
"finally doing that with adequately selected and trained pro's! "

First you agree and just after that you state selfrighteously: "Humbleness doesn't seem to be your first value. Funny, the best pilots I observed during the last 25 years were also the quietest."
Hear, hear......
I truly hope your agreement on this statement is genuine and therefore don't quite understand your sarcastic attachement, if it was not for the old saying that throwing a stone into a sheepherd, the yelling comes from the one that got hit.
Your kin is fast to criticise any comment on reg carriers as "arrogance from the mainliners" and the moment this criticism is evenly applied to the big shots aswell, it's suddenly "unhumble" and only the quiet ones are qualified "good".
I don't go by that, nothing improves by shutting up. Safety and professionalism applies to everyone in the skies, even to holy SWR (you watch too much Hollywood stuff).
(By the way: I don't fly their A340'ies)

GF

Spot on F4F!
Hollywood stuff? Hmm, maybe you´ve watched this too many times! :D

AF low
 

The picture is a bad fake.

Gretchenfrage, as you were quick to recognise, I only partly agree with your point of view. Though I concur with you regarding the technical aspect of the problem, I surely disagree with your constant bashing of CRX (by the way, where is "Aeropers", or are you guys one and only entity?) and in this case AF. This is looking more and more like racial hatred iso sound judgment.

Let's have a look at AF:
All its pilots have passed their selection criteria, and believe me the standard is high. The majority of them come from the ENAC. The studies at ENAC make the ex SLS just look like an amateur lot. Then, their TRs and checking system is by any means as serious and severe as it is in any other major.

Now ex CRX:
Their pilots were also, as far as I know, selected seriously (though the shape of the frame must have been different than it was for the bankrupt SWR guys). Following 2 accidents that should never have happened, the company as a whole was assessed and its pilots screened a number of times. In the process some were quicked out, some downgraded, well, call 'em virtual casualties. Now you are telling us that the boys and girls left still don't have the same level as you golden boys of ex SWR. Now I just thought you guys were now sharing a common safety and training culture for a number of years, working for the same airline. Is there another subtle fundamental difference, too difficult for me to grasp :suspect:

Majors as well as commuters (and yes, making 4 or 1 T/O and LD a day makes a hell of a difference in the risks taken, just about 4 times greater in this case) are at the same merci of some wrong action by a crew. Most of these incidents or accidents don't happen due to lack of training or the safety culture of the company. They happen due to an individual's most important characteristic, the so called attitude.
Considering the tone of your writing, superiority is most probably the attitude attribute that suits you most.

Just prey not to be the next one making the headlines...


P.S.
Please don't "kin" me, I have nothing to do with any of the operators listed above :E

Wot.... Like Toronto!

Two hull losses and a tail-scrape that was almost a third... can we expect press releases from AF and the Pilot's Union shortly crowing about what a good job they did?

Perhaps the French Government ought to look a little closer to home before it starts black-listing others.

F4F, you made your point. Try to let my “hated entity” out of your brain cell for a moment, you might get mine aswell.
1. “Now you are telling us that the boys and girls left still don't have the same level as you golden boys of ex SWR.”
Cite me where I ever supposedly said that, or take it back like a pro.
2. The logic about multiple landings and increased risk just can’t withstand. Otherwise the highest risk would be on the poor cadet doing his first 20 daily circuits solo and the least would be on the sometimes single monthly landing long-haul pilots do, eventually coming to the joking conclusion that a student should begin with the latter on a oh-so-easy 744 and a grey-haired skipper with 20’000h should finish his career with circuits on a 150. - Every landing has it’s threats and you have to deal with them. There is no such thing as increased leniency that can be applied to any specific operation for any reason (except maybe test-flights and similar), because the ultimate and only goal to it, is to land safely.
Once you understand this logic, we can go one step further.
I criticise ANY operation/operator who assumes for itself having a more “difficult or risky” environement, just to cover for more incidents. If it is genuinely so, then they have to mitigate the additional threats as to bring them down to average and comparable levels. This has to be done by bringing in adequate equipment, personnel, training, sop etc.
Once you understand this, you will realise that I am not bashing any group of pilots, even less hieving others on a podium. It’s the operators who create the environement I am criticising. They apply inadequte selection and training, they apply unhealthy pressure, create fatigue and they bring in these feeble excuses just to cover their cynical strive for cheaper employees and material to bring increased profit to their shareholders, leaving professionalism as one of the main victims. So called “management pilots” increasingly help them and it’s ironical that they are apparently (see comments of ie. AF pilots) involved in proportionally more and more incidents….
We as professionals are also among those victims, even more so as we finally take responsibility and blame for the evil game of our managements. That is why I hate to see fellow pro’s singing their song and that are the guys I criticise! If our standard is not up to the task, if our equipment is not adequate, then we should stand up rather than help cover up and succumb to the all too transparent habit of rule and divide. By that I mean management successfully heating up pilot bodies against each other, or having some painting others with attitudes.
GF

Management pilots
 

They are indeed proportionally more management pilots involved in accidents/ incidents etc, just think about the crash of AA in Little Rock. Many examples, the CEO of Edelweiss Air for example still flies around once in a blue moon in a A330 :eek: Ex CEO Swiss and Crossair pilot A.Dose decided to take out the cargo fire extinguishing system in the MD80's to increase profit. He also employed the CRX deadly pilots despite protests. The selection and training was not up to standard and it cost many innocent lives.
The management provides the environment, I think every pilot here agrees that Air France, Swiss, American Airlines, Lufthansa etc is a much better, safer place to work at than any dubious start-up, charter or any other out of money company.

As bad a fake as any of the following?

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0999820/M/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0994291/M/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0989957/M/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0988350/M/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0988348/M/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0985519/M/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0983091/M/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0981714/M/

@Globaliser
 

I still think the AF A340 is a bad fake.

If you compare it to the pictures of the AA, Delta, US Air:

1) The aircraft looks artificially put into an existing picture, maybe one of the kind you posted.
2) The aircraft ist too large compared to the rest.
3) The aircraft is crystal sharp, and so are the people, a lens cannot focus on the moving object and on the background.
4) The people are not looking in the direction of the aircraft.
5) There is no shadow of the aircraft but from the people.

Someone tried to dramatize the approach, it is low but not that low.

Bad fake, prove otherwise