Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Fri 08/05/2005 View Thu 08/04/2005 View Wed 08/03/2005 View Tue 08/02/2005 View Mon 08/01/2005 View Sun 07/31/2005 View Sat 07/30/2005
1
2005-08-05 International-UN-NGOs
Air France Crash Probe Starts Amid Landing Dispute
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Pappy 2005-08-05 00:29|| E-Mail|| Front Page|| [11132 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 I'm a little confused here. I thought the final decision was always the pilot's. The tower has to clear him to land, but he can always abort on his own authority, and it's therefore his responsibility.
Posted by Jackal">Jackal  2005-08-05 01:07|| home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html]">[home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html]  2005-08-05 01:07|| Front Page Top

#2 Well, I can attest to the torrential rainfall at the exact time of landing (given as 4:03pm). The pilot in command has the final say, but he is guided by the information that ATC provides. If there were planes landing ahead of him on the same runway (as claimed by another witness close by) then he would have no reason not to attempt a landing. ATC should have closed the airport, or cancelled his clearance. But they didn't.
Posted by Rafael 2005-08-05 01:27||   2005-08-05 01:27|| Front Page Top

#3 This sounds like what happened to Delta Flight 191 at DFW Airport in 1985. The Fort Worth Star Telegram story on this accident, toward the end, notes the similarities. Here's the meat:

"Tuesday's crash in Toronto came 20 years to the day after the crash of Delta Flight 191 at Dallas/Fort Worth Airport, which killed 137 people. That disaster focused renewed attention on wind shear, a natural phenomenon that can make airplanes drop out of the sky, said Larry Cornman of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo.

Wind shear is a sudden change in wind speed or direction.

The most dangerous kind, called a microburst, is caused by air descending from a thunderstorm.

While the cause of the Toronto crash has not been determined, the fact that it happened during a thunderstorm raises the possibility of wind shear.

Since the D/FW crash, Cornman said Tuesday, systems to detect wind shear have been installed at almost all major airports in the United States.

He said the Canadian government investigated installing such systems during the 1990s, but he added that he did not know how many have been installed."

From what's been revealed so far, this seems the likely reason. Here's an excellent PDF (Dallas Morning News) explaining microbursts and how they can affect aircraft.

Fight 191 made everyone who was living in the DFW area a walking-talking fount of info on windshear and microbursts. Lessons learned - the hard way.
Posted by .com 2005-08-05 01:43||   2005-08-05 01:43|| Front Page Top

#4 Pilot's fault: unexpectedly getting hit by lightning would be a pretty good defense in my mind. While our culture of blame has long since rejected the notion - the fact is that some things are just an accident and finding fault is just a spectator sport.
Posted by 2b 2005-08-05 07:34||   2005-08-05 07:34|| Front Page Top

#5 not to imply that that's what anyone else was doing here when discussing how it happened. But you watch, the media will wet all over itself trying to assign "blame".
Posted by 2b 2005-08-05 07:36||   2005-08-05 07:36|| Front Page Top

#6 TORONTO (CP) - The Air France jet that skidded into a wooded ravine and erupted in flames at a Toronto airport landed further down the runway from where a similar passenger jet would normally touch down, the lead investigator into the crash said Friday. Air France flight 358 landed "longer than normally, or longer than usual for this type of aircraft," Transportation Safety Board investigator Real Levasseur told a news conference.
Data and witnesses have already suggested the plane carrying 309 passengers and crew was nearly halfway down the runway at Pearson International Airport before it touched down. Everyone on board escaped with their lives; 43 people suffered minor injuries. Despite emergency braking, the plane hurtled off the end of the runway at nearly 150 kilometres per hour before toppling into a ravine just metres from Etobicoke Creek and erupting into flames. Levasseur added that all four of the plane's thrust reversers were operating correctly when it landed.

I guess we know what the cockpit voice recorder will reveal:
"Reverse thrust, full brakes....please stop....stop dammit.....ah, crap!"
Posted by Steve">Steve  2005-08-05 11:29||   2005-08-05 11:29|| Front Page Top

#7 .com:
I thought most airports had installed wind-shear detectors? Of course, if it happens on runway 6 while the detector is on runway 15, oh well.

I did not mean that it was the pilot's fault, just that the final decision was his, and just because the airport says "we're open," doesn't mean he can abdicate his responsibilty to determine safety for himself.
Posted by Jackal">Jackal  2005-08-05 11:32|| home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html]">[home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html]  2005-08-05 11:32|| Front Page Top

#8 Jackal, in the US I believe detectors are now on all commercial-use runways at all Tier 1 airports and at almost all Tier 2 airports. As the article I cited states, Canada's situation is unknown - which I think means the reporters were charitably allowing him to pretend ignorance and the fact was they didn't follow suit across the board.

As for comment #6, this could also be caused by a microburst in front of them causing them to flare and stay aloft longer than intended - then come down pretty hard as they passed through it and it became a tailwind cutting lift dramatically - which is what doomed Flt 191 - in that case they passed through the microburst about .1 mile before reaching the runway and crashed short. You may recall the landing gear crushed cars on the highway (Hwy 114) running along the edge of the airport property.
Posted by .com 2005-08-05 11:41||   2005-08-05 11:41|| Front Page Top

#9 The wind shear situation and the microburst situation are a bit different.

I think (this is based on memory - I might be getting this wrong) that in the former (much more common) you point the cockpit down an extra few degrees (because shear decreases in nearer the ground), in the latter you do the reverse if you are in the downdraft portion of the microburst. I'm not sure if Canada has detectors or if they can distinguish the two situations.
Posted by mhw 2005-08-05 12:33||   2005-08-05 12:33|| Front Page Top

#10 heck..don't mind me. This thread is what is best about blogs. And it may well end up being a bad decision by the pilot or someone else. I just hate the way the media loves to assign blame even when it it was just an accident - but that was a personal rant unassociated with your comment - carry on :-)
Posted by 2b 2005-08-05 13:20||   2005-08-05 13:20|| Front Page Top

#11 Just FYI from the microburst link I gave in #3:

Microburst: A brief but powerful column
of downward-moving air associated with
thunderstorms. With a duration of only a
few minutes, a diameter of less than 2.5
miles and strong winds, microbursts can
cause a plane to lose altitude rapidly. This
is especially dangerous during takeoffs
and landings.

Wind shear: A sudden change of wind
speed and direction between two
points. A major contributor of wind
shear is a microburst.
Posted by .com 2005-08-05 14:38||   2005-08-05 14:38|| Front Page Top

#12 For all your meteorological needs, click here. (then Basics of Meteorology, and Aviation Weather Hazards)

BTW, this sounds eerily similar to what happened in Warsaw (mid 1990s?) to an Airbus A320. Same circumstances: rain storm, plane landing further down the runway, not enough room to stop, everyone survives except the pilot. It may be Airbus hasn't really fixed that landing gear-thrust reverser problem.
Posted by Rafael 2005-08-05 16:06||   2005-08-05 16:06|| Front Page Top

#13 Oops, bad link. Go to www.navcanada.ca then choose Local Area Weather Manuals on the left.
Posted by Rafael 2005-08-05 16:09||   2005-08-05 16:09|| Front Page Top

#14 More info on the Lufthansa A320 crash in Warsaw:

3...Ground spoilers, when selected, will extend provided that either shock absorbers are
compressed at both main landing gears....Engine reversers, when selected, will deploy provided that shock absorbers are compressed at both main landing gears....
4 In emergency, the crew is unable to override the lock-out and to operate ground spoilers and engine thrust reversers.

SOURCE ...near the bottom.
Posted by Rafael 2005-08-05 16:29||   2005-08-05 16:29|| Front Page Top

#15 I've been told by pros.... MET and Pilots, microbursts are like porn, impossible to deliniate, but you'll know it when you see/in it.
Posted by Shipman 2005-08-05 17:26||   2005-08-05 17:26|| Front Page Top

#16 AFP is reporting the plane landed too far down the runway to stop.
Posted by phil_b 2005-08-05 19:03||   2005-08-05 19:03|| Front Page Top

23:54 God Save The World
23:47 Lone Ranger
23:40 phil_b
23:38 Sock Puppet 0’ Doom
23:33 PlanetDan
23:32 2b
23:24 2b
23:16 Ptah
23:12 trailing wife
23:07 Laurence of the Rats
23:05 trailing wife
23:05 DanNY
23:03 Jackal
23:03 trailing wife
22:59 DanNY
22:54 DanNY
22:44 trailing wife
22:41 Robert Crawford
22:40 Robert Crawford
22:27 trailing wife
22:23 CrazyFool
22:23 Edward Yee
22:16 Bobby
22:15 trailing wife
Merry-Go-Blog










Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com