| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Great White North | |
| Air France Jet Landed Too Far Down Runway | |
| 2005-08-06 | |
Real Levasseur, chief of the Transportation Safety Board team investigating the craft, said officials in France who have been downloading data from the cockpit voice recorders - the so-called black boxes - announced Friday most of the indicators from the boxes appeared intact and were not destroyed in the fire. Levasseur said all interviews with the co-pilot - whom Air France said was at the controls during Tuesday's landing - and cabin crew were complete. Levasseur said the Airbus 340 landed too far down the 9,000-foot runway before skidding some 200 yards, landing nose down in a ravine amid torrential rains and winds. ``An aircraft like the 340 should land well toward the back; how long exactly depends on weight, heavy winds, there are a number of factors,'' he said. ``We will certainly be looking at information; and if it turns out the aircraft did land further down the runway ... we will try to determine whether this had a major or critical effect.'' Witnesses and some passengers have said that it appeared that Air France Flight 358 from Paris was coming in too fast and too long when it landed at about 4 p.m. Some aviation experts said the aircraft could have been pushed by a strong cross winds at the same time the aircraft landed on a slick runway, decreasing tire traction and causing a hydroplaning effect. ``I think they landed a little fast, a little long and probably hydroplaned,'' said Capt. Tom Bunn, a retired commercial airline pilot of 30 years for Pan Am and United Airlines. Levasseur on Thursday dismissed questions about whether the east-west 24L runway was long and safe enough, saying it met international standards. However, the Air Line Pilots Association, which represents 64,000 airline pilots at 41 airlines in Canada and the United States, disputed this, saying the ravine at the end of the runway may have contributed to the crash. In a statement Thursday, the union said the crash occurred ``at an international airport that, unfortunately, does not meet international standards.'' Levasseur said there was no evidence, meanwhile, that lightning struck the Airbus A340 as it was landing, as reported by some witnesses. ``The wings and wing tips are in pretty good shape.'' He also said investigators have determined that all four engine thrust-reversers were in operation and working fine, ``So that's a good sign.'' | |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #7 The fact is though, that runway is too short. If I can make a prediction, all "heavies" from now on will refuse to land on that runway in rain or strong winds. Air France in particular will not use that runway again. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2005-08-06 18:39 |
| #6 strong gusts,perhaps the computer is fooled into thinking the plane is stalling and automatically adds thrust-or indicates to pilots that a/c is stalling which would cause them to increase power and try to keep some height Ima liking that.... |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-08-06 12:47 |
| #5 If Air France is investigating itself,I can tell you what the result will be-inadequate AirTraffic Controll cmbined w/too short runway and bad weather caused the heroic flight crew to take the only chance they had at landing during a small window of less winds. If the ATC had not misguided them,the crew would have landed where they should have. If the runway met EU standards,there would have been enough runway. If the ATC had not tried to land aircraft in such terrible weather,none of this would have happened. Nothing to do w/an inexperienced copilot letting his ego take over and commit to a landing he had started,instead of going around. Certainly there was no panic in the copilot trying to land as fast as he could in bad weather and afraid it would be worse if he went around. BTW,why was the pilot letting his copilot land in such bad weather? Unless this was a check ride,every pilot I've known or read about wants the controls in tight situations. I could be completely wrong,but if the Warsaw and Canadian incident turn out to be very similar,it may point to a problem w/flight control system. If the winds are just right,rapid strong gusts,perhaps the computer is fooled into thinking the plane is stalling and automatically adds thrust-or indicates to pilots that a/c is stalling which would cause them to increase power and try to keep some height. Have no idea if this is case,but if it keeps happening,worth a look. |
| Posted by: Stephen 2005-08-06 12:29 |
| #4 Overshooting a runway is way the hell better than the alternatives. You get to skid for awhile, and reverse thrust. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-08-06 11:40 |
| #3 ...but it is too soon to know if that was the reason for the crash, aviation investigators said Friday. I'd have to say overshooting a runway kinda, sorta contributes to a crash... |
| Posted by: Raj 2005-08-06 10:23 |
| #2 Regardless of what caused the crash, somebody's guardian angel is in line for a merit pay increase. |
| Posted by: Mike 2005-08-06 09:22 |
| #1 it appeared that Air France Flight 358 from Paris was coming in too fast The crew of the A320 in Warsaw also increased speed during landing after receiving information from the tower about windshear across their flight path. Levasseur should have said that the A340 landed too far down the runway, for this particular runway. Had they used the adjacent runway, 24R, which is 500 feet longer, maybe this wouldn't have been a big deal (200 yards = 600 feet, 24R is 9,500ft long) Sounds like a repeat of the Warsaw incident (except there they did have a longer runway). |
| Posted by: Rafael 2005-08-06 01:02 |