Passengers survive airplane crash

[Chris]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4740381.stm

An Air France plane has skidded off a runway and burst in flames at Toronto's Pearson airport, but all 309 people aboard survived, officials say. They said 14 people aboard the Airbus A340 were treated for minor injuries. Flight 358 from Paris burned for more than two hours after the crash landing in bad weather. The accident took place in heavy rain near Highway 401, one of Canada's busiest motorways, and emergency vehicles raced to the scene

I was shocked. I am glad to learn that they all survived. By the looks of it it did not look good on TV.

[tman_ndsu08]

To call this a "crash" is about the same as calling it a crash when you accidentally bump into a shopping cart in the grocery store parking lot.

The plane flew normally and landed normally. Simply, the run way was covered with water so it couldn't slow down fast enough and gradually slumped off the run way into the soft grasses beyond.

It's the airport's fault for allowing the attempted landing. They should've known it would be too wet for a plane that size. Typical Canadians.

[Chris]

I heard it was a wind shear. A 30 kt headwind turned into a 45kt tail wind in a split second,

[Chris]

Also our definition of "crash" we think of a plane falling from the sky. But it indeed "crashed" through safety barriers totally demolishing the plane.

[oranged]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 To call this a "crash" is about the same as calling it a crash when you accidentally bump into a shopping cart in the grocery store parking lot. The plane flew normally and landed normally. Simply, the run way was covered with water so it couldn't slow down fast enough and gradually slumped off the run way into the soft grasses beyond. It's the airport's fault for allowing the attempted landing. They should've known it would be too wet for a plane that size. Typical Canadians.

Typical Canadians? I getting pretty tired of stupid steriotypes against canadians that don't make any sense. It's bad enough to call them liberal pansies, when you just make up stuff that's not in anyway truth based,it's just narrow minded and mean.

[tman_ndsu08]

Luckily, you're from Sweden.

So don't get your blonde haired, blue eyed, tall, white butt all bent out of shape because of some stereotypes, ok?

[Sean]

tman, cut the attitude garabage out. There is no need to be so rude.

Glad everyone survived this...

[Nono]

It did look miraculous to see the thing burning on The Tube.

Yes it sounds like a case of aquaplaning, causing the aircraft to skid out of control while the water beneath the wheels prevented them from getting any grip on the runway. Course it will be argued that the crew could have used variable thrust on the engines to get it lined up again and then reverse thrust to brake. Maybe they were trying to, but just ran out of runway.

Also if there were thunderstorm conditions (which it sounds like) there would have been sudden, completely unpredictable micro-gusts of wind to complicate matters by jerking the plane this way and that.

Also, at the end of that runway (one of Toronto's shorter ones) is a ravine -- I mean right off the end of it. And standing in that ravine is a dense thicket of pylons holding the approach lights for aircraft landing the other way. You go off the end of that thing and you find yourself hurtling down into a ravine while steel pylons tear into your fuel tanks with sparks setting the stuff alight and generally ripping your aircraft to shreds.

So that's how lucky it is that practically no one was even hurt in this "incident".

And with that you´ll excuse me cause I'm at an airport internet café and soon have to catch a flight ...

[righthand]

Quote by: |Chris| I heard it was a wind shear. A 30 kt headwind turned into a 45kt tail wind in a split second,

Reluctant to get involved with this racial mud slinging, and all from the same direction. So Swedes and Canadians are on some hit list too. It's a pity others have not learned a history lesson centuries old. The Swedes were one time the imperialist power of 'old' Europe. Now they are an example to all. On the American continent, the Canadians were a good example until they started 'rendering' their citizen to a foreign 'hostile' power. Corruption of laws emanate from one source.

Back to the thread. One passenger interview stated that about a minute before the 'crash' all power was lost. Wind shear does not do that. He believed that they were struck by lightening. It was the middle of an intense storm.

Now for my dig, but I've broad shoulders. Weren't they luck it was a European Airbus. Let's see if there are moves to ban them from US skies.

[RickSp]

The plan's crew deserve a lot of credit for evacuating the plane before the fire spread. A little more panic or confusion could have resulted in a very different outcome.

[Nono]

Quote by: rh One passenger interview stated that about a minute before the 'crash' all power was lost. Wind shear does not do that. He believed that they were struck by lightening. It was the middle of an intense storm.

An aircraft should act as a Faraday cage. If a lightning strike did cause power failure on an A340 (which is your actual Airbus-specialty electrics-dependent fly-by-wire aircraft) or worse if it compromised control of the aircraft, this would indeed raise serious questions.

Anyway, windshear is nasty stuff with or without lightning, and where there's the latter there's usually the former.

[Chris]

Quote by: righthand [/b]Reluctant to get involved with this racial mud slinging, and all from the same direction. So Swedes and Canadians are on some hit list too. It's a pity others have not learned a history lesson centuries old. The Swedes were one time the imperialist power of 'old' Europe. Now they are an example to all. On the American continent, the Canadians were a good example until they started 'rendering' their citizen to a foreign 'hostile' power. Corruption of laws emanate from one source. Back to the thread. One passenger interview stated that about a minute before the 'crash' all power was lost. Wind shear does not do that. He believed that they were struck by lightening. It was the middle of an intense storm. Now for my dig, but I've broad shoulders. Weren't they luck it was a European Airbus. Let's see if there are moves to ban them from US skies.

But isn't this the first crash in that model Airbus? And it wasn't due to equipment failure, only weather failure.

[tman_ndsu08]

And it wasn't due to equipment failure, only weather failure.

Weather failure?

You mean human error by the Toronto tower.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Weather failure? You mean human error by the Toronto tower.

The tower isn't responsible for this crash. The pilot is the sole authority on this and any other plane. It's his responsibility to judge conditions and, if necessary, divert to an alternate airport. This is pure pilot error, either by his flying abilities or his judgement.

[Chris]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Weather failure? You mean human error by the Toronto tower.

No I mean failure due to weather and not failure due to equipment.

Quit being so cynical. Your statement about Canadians reflects upon your lack of respect for human life and also your intelligence.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Zeebadee The tower isn't responsible for this crash. The pilot is the sole authority on this and any other plane. It's his responsibility to judge conditions and, if necessary, divert to an alternate airport. This is pure pilot error, either by his flying abilities or his judgement.

Ok, I will defer to your knowledge.

But yes, human error.

[Nono]

Quote by: Zeeb The tower isn't responsible for this crash. The pilot is the sole authority on this and any other plane. It's his responsibility to judge conditions and, if necessary, divert to an alternate airport. This is pure pilot error, either by his flying abilities or his judgement.

Legally that will doubtless be the verdict. A lot of it was probably bad luck (but then the aircraft commander failed to account for Murphy's Law). I hear that other aircraft had decided to go to their alternates, so that won't help the AF captain.

As for closing the airport like Pearson, it causes such terrible chaos that it's a difficult decision to actually make. Yes, there are definite published parametres, but they're constantly being bent this way and that. Same for the pilot's decision whether to divert. Such are the economic facts of life.

[righthand]

Quote by: Zeebadee The tower isn't responsible for this crash. The pilot is the sole authority on this and any other plane. It's his responsibility to judge conditions and, if necessary, divert to an alternate airport. This is pure pilot error, either by his flying abilities or his judgement.

Certainly on a ship the captain is responsible and a plane is a flying ship, I think in law. To jump from that to "this is pure pilot error, either by his flying abilities or his judgement" seems an extraordinary leap with no connection in between.

Update

AP Investigators trying to determine why an Air France jet skid off a Toronto runway revealed Saturday that only four of the aircraft's eight doors and emergency exits were used to escape the burning jetliner. Real Levasseur of Canada's Transportation Safety Board told reporters two of the slides used by the 309 passengers and crew to madly disembark after the crash last Tuesday also didn't work properly, even though they are supposed to automatically unfold when the emergency doors are opened. Levasseur said two experts from the U.S. manufacturer of the chutes, Goodrich Corp., and one from the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board were on site looking at why these slides and doors didn't work properly. Lucie Vignola, a spokeswoman for the federal transportation ministry Transport Canada, said a plan to soon require clear, nearly flat runway extensions is not a result of Tuesday's accident. She said Transport Canada decided to go ahead with the plan after it became clear that international standards are shifting to require additional room at the end of runways. The department has not determined how long the safety areas would be, Vignola said. The Air Line Pilots Association said Pearson doesn't meet international standards because it doesn't not have sufficient safe areas at the end of runways, including the one on which Flight 358 attempted to land.

and much more from CBS News..."4 Exits Not Used In Toronto Crash" http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/...46_page2.shtml

So there seems to be plenty of blame to go around. Big bucks for the lawyers. I'd be very worried about those US emergency doors not opening. Unbelievable.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: righthand Certainly on a ship the captain is responsible and a plane is a flying ship, I think in law. To jump from that to "this is pure pilot error, either by his flying abilities or his judgement" seems an extraordinary leap with no connection in between.

While the doors and chutes may be important after a landing, they didn't contribute anything to the cause of this crash. This pilot chose to land in unsafe weather conditions, touched down too far down the runway, and came in too fast. Hydroplaning shouldn't have been a contributing cause either, unless the pilot mis-used the brakes. The thrust reversers are normally used to bring the aircraft to a speed below that which hydroplaning occurs before any major braking is used. Everything points to pilot error, however, with millions of dollars worth of lawsuits undoubtedly being prepared, Air France will do everything in it's power to obfuscate the issue and spread the blame (and the monetary awards).

[righthand]

Quote by: Zeebadee While the doors and chutes may be important after a landing, they didn't contribute anything to the cause of this crash. This pilot chose to land in unsafe weather conditions, touched down too far down the runway, and came in too fast. Hydroplaning shouldn't have been a contributing cause either, unless the pilot misused the brakes. The thrust reversers are normally used to bring the aircraft to a speed below that which hydroplaning occurs before any major braking is used. Everything points to pilot error, however, with millions of dollars worth of lawsuits undoubtedly being prepared, Air France will do everything in it's power to obfuscate the issue and spread the blame (and the monetary awards).

Your are correct!

Except for the cost of the plane, this may have been one of the cheapest lessons in aviation history. Given the door problem the possibilities for disaster were huge.

Forget crash. Standing plane...fire in galley or high-jack...doors closed...panic in metal tube...outcome?