Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Air France plane crash at Toronto

This is topic Air France plane crash at Toronto in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=004179

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 08-02-2005, 04:18 PM:

As reported on the CBC news feed Link

Passenger jet on fire at Toronto airport
Last Updated Tue, 02 Aug 2005 17:15:37 EDT
CBC News

An Air France jet with as many as 200 people aboard has skidded off a runway while landing at Toronto's Pearson International Airport, bursting into flames and sending thick black smoke pouring into the air.

There is no word on the condition of the passengers and crew members on board the A340, with the plane still burning an hour after the 3:50 p.m. crash.
The Air France jet burst into flames after skidding off a runway at Toronto's Pearson Airport Tuesday.

The airplane was trying to land in bad weather when it skidded off the east-west runway just metres from one of Toronto's busiest roads, Highway 401.

"There was quite a downpour. The visibility was really bad, with lots of lightning," said John Finlay, a CBC News journalist who was at the airport at the time of the accident.

The jet crashed through barriers and ended up in the Etobicoke Creek ravine, a small valley at the far west end of the airport, the aircraft's fuselage tipped down and its tail in the air.

"An Air France plane landing on Runway 24 Left went off the end of the runway in the area of Convair Drive and the 401 area in Mississauga," Peel police Sgt. Glyn Griffiths said at about 4:30 p.m.

He said the number and extent of injuries was still unknown.
Rescue crews trying to extinguish the flames.

The incident happened as most operations at the airport were grounded because of the severe thunderstorms that had been reported in the area.

Rescue crews are on the scene.

The Greater Toronto Airport Authority is holding a news conference at this hour to give details about the crash.

[ 08-02-2005, 07:09 PM: Message edited by: Adam Martin ]

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 08-02-2005, 04:49 PM:

The story just broke on BBC radio, which reported contradictory accounts. One eyewitness told a Canadian TV station that the aircraft appeared to touch down normally but was then failed to decelerate and crashed into a ravine past the end of the runway. Various sources put the total number of passengers and crew at 204, 252 and 291: one is quoted is saying that all survived. I hope he's right.

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 08-02-2005, 05:09 PM:

The report said there was a thunderstorm with lightning and strong wind gusts in the area at the time of the crash. It also said that the storm had worsen on the final approach. Those thunderstorms create the possibility of wind shear.

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 08-02-2005, 05:12 PM:

According to the GTAA:

They've been under Red Alert (triggered by LDS, run by NAV Canada) on and off since 12:20.

Heavy rain and hail at the time (16:03).

They ended up 200m off the end of 24 left. A little faster and they could have made it into the drink.

297 and 12 crew on board. Only 14 injuries.

A/C completely evacuated prior to fire outbreak.

TSB on the way with their marshmallows.

Leave it to the French to slid off a 9000' runway and mess up a great safety record at YYZ (no incidents since two in the 70s).

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 08-02-2005, 05:19 PM:

the latest from cbc Link

No fatalities in Toronto airplane fire
Last Updated Tue, 02 Aug 2005 18:13:44 EDT
CBC News

All 309 people aboard a jet that overshot a runway and burst into flames at Pearson International Airport Tuesday survived the ordeal, according to fire officials on the scene.

There were 14 minor injuries, however.
The Air France jet burst into flames after skidding off a runway at Toronto's Pearson Airport Tuesday.

One passenger aboard the Air France Airbus A340, Roel Bramar, told CBC News that he saw lightning just as the plane landed in a torrential downpour at about 3:50 p.m.

"I'm sure that the bad weather was responsible," said Bramar, who was not injured and managed to scramble off the plane by means of an emergency chute. He was the second person off the plane, he said.

* RELATED STORY: Everyone was 'running like crazy': passenger

Flight 358 from Paris had been scheduled to arrive at Toronto at 3:35 p.m. EDT. Something went badly wrong, and the plane overshot its intended runway by about 200 metres.

The plane skidded off Runway 24 Left, an east-west runway laid out parallel to one of Toronto's busiest roads, Highway 401. It ended up in the Etobicoke Creek ravine, a small valley at the far west end of the airport, the aircraft's fuselage tipped down and its tail in the air.

"We had a hell of a roller-coaster going down the ravine," Bramar said. "All I could think of was 'Get off!'"

Emergency crews were still on the scene by early evening.
Rescue crews trying to extinguish the flames.

While cleanup efforts continued and the Transportation Safety Board of Canada prepared to begin its investigation, all incoming flights were being rerouted to Ottawa's airport.

* YOUR SPACE: Send us your eyewitness accounts and photos

The incident happened as most operations at the airport were grounded because of severe thunderstorms in the area.

At mid-afternoon Tuesday, a spokesperson with the Greater Toronto Airports Authority said lightning was causing technical problems with the airport's lightning-detection system. All aircraft were grounded for safety reasons as a result, largely to protect crews working on the ground.

[ 08-02-2005, 07:09 PM: Message edited by: Adam Martin ]

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 08-02-2005, 06:02 PM:

In light of the last paragraph of Gordon's post, what imbecile gave permission for the plane to land under those conditions?

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 08-02-2005, 06:05 PM:

That paragraph isn't actually accurate. Planes weren't grounded, ground services (such as marshalling) just weren't available since ground crews aren't allowed outside during lightning activity.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-02-2005, 06:43 PM:

It seems like the pilot shouldn't have attempted the landing if it was that bad of a storm. I have to wonder if this was like that first air show Airbus crash where the plane was programmed to land but the pilot was frantically trying to re-program the nav so it didn't. Things happen real fast in a jet, to fast to be doing that sort of stuff on approach...

Mark

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 08-02-2005, 07:12 PM:

I was in an Airbus 10 years ago during a storm in the Caribbean and the pilot attempted to land three times before aborting and flying another 40 minutes to the next available airport. From what they told me the on board computers upon wheel touchdown told them to "go around" so as not to overshoot the runway [uhoh]

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 08-02-2005, 08:15 PM:

Landing in a situation like that is always up to the Captain. However, the information he may or may not have will be the focus of any investigation.

We can make more planes; people come harder.

Louis

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 08-02-2005, 08:33 PM:

Landings are always at the pilot's discretion. ATC doesn't fly the aircraft, nor is weather their main concern. So it will be interesting to see what this captain and flight crew were up against (and what information and tools they had to work with) during this arrival.

Coincidently, exactly 20 years ago today, Delta Air Lines tried a similar arrival in an L-1011 at DFW with quite less than fortunate results (DAL191). Looks like we may still have something to learn about operations close to the ground when there are thunderstorms nearby.

This one will be a hot topic in my AV115 Aviation Meteorology class this fall.

Oh yeah, both The High and the Mighty and Island in the Sky came out today on R1 DVD. Need to run out and grab them. Would you believe I've never seen either one?

Marshmellows over a Jet-A and luggage fire? I think I'll pass. [Razz]

[ 08-02-2005, 09:35 PM: Message edited by: Paul Mayer ]

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 08-03-2005, 02:13 AM:

quote: Bill Enos
In light of the last paragraph of Gordon's post, what imbecile gave permission for the plane to land under those conditions?

A Canadian aviation expert noted that Daryl points out, the 'red alert' at the airport meant that ground movements such as towing aircraft, unloading baggage and extending airbridges are not permitted in order to prevent the risk of ground staff being struck by lightning. Aircraft are allowed to land, but must then wait with the passengers and crew inside until the alert is lifted. He then continued to point out that most of the other arrivals at Toronto yesterday afternoon were diverted after either their captains, the ground controllers or both decided that landing would be too risky. If so, I guess the question needs to be asked as to why that flight attempted to land in conditions when so many others didn't.

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
I have to wonder if this was like that first air show Airbus crash where the plane was programmed to land but the pilot was frantically trying to re-program the nav so it didn't.

quote: Richard Fowler
I was in an Airbus 10 years ago during a storm in the Caribbean and the pilot attempted to land three times before aborting and flying another 40 minutes to the next available airport. From what they told me the on board computers upon wheel touchdown told them to "go around" so as not to overshoot the runway

In which case, why didn't the pilot 'go around' in this case, too? If the plane was failing to decelerate after touchdown, surely that would have been the obvious thing to do? A passenger who was interviewed on the radio this morning said that the touchdown was 'very hard... much more of a thud than usual'. Perhaps the heavy landing could have damaged the undercarriage and/or sensors which feed the on-board computers, thereby contributing to the accident? Thankfully, both the crew and (presumably) the black boxes survived intact, and so the investigation should be able to get to the bottom of it.

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 08-03-2005, 02:36 AM:

Obviously this is very early so we don't yet know what that crew knew or what they had to work with on that approach. I can tell you though that the final decision on landing or diverting always rests with the pilot in command. ATC controllers and airline dispatchers can recommend or suggest courses of action, but the PIC always makes the final call. That's why they make the big bucks, or Euros in this case, because they are expected to make the big decisions.

As for the hard touchdown, in this case that's what a prudent pilot would want. The runway was apparently quite wet, with very gusty winds at the time. The aircraft would be using a higher than normal approach speed to help with control effectiveness in such conditions. So the aircraft would be touching down at higher than normal speed as well. The technique in such cases is to put it down hard in order to minimize any chance of hydroplaning, forcing the tires through any water and into solid contact with the pavement. A hard landing is a good landing in this case. But in this case it appears the landing wasn't hard enough. [Big Grin]

[ 08-03-2005, 12:25 PM: Message edited by: Paul Mayer ]

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 08-03-2005, 05:44 PM:

Hard enough to run it straight off the end of the runway in a 24-33 knot (103 degree) crosswind though. [Big Grin]

Hard enough to stop about 50' short of the drink too.

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=toronto&ll=43.657,-79.623

My favourite ATC quote to AC 691 (right after telling him to check his comments about his fancy radar):

"We've had an aircraft slide off the runway. Uh, you will not be landing on runway 24 left. Your approach clearance is cancelled." Sorry, too bad for you. [Smile]

52 second emergency response time, BTW.

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 08-03-2005, 06:04 PM:

quote: Paul Mayer
Looks like we may still have something to learn about operations close to the ground when there are thunderstorms nearby.

Nah, we know what is what pertaining to safe operations during thunderstorms and wind shears. It's just when some dumbass pilot/captain thinks HE knows better that f*cks the innocent...gotta save that fuel cost and land where/when scheduled no matter the cost to the "geese."

A great pilot friend of mine, with whom I've flown with many times in his Piper, always sez "Any landing you can walk away from is a good one." That has always stuck in my mind and I agree with him. [beer]

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 08-03-2005, 06:18 PM:

Well, they did all walk away from this one. So what's your problem with the pilot, other than he let the co-pilot try to land it? [Smile]

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 08-03-2005, 06:33 PM:

A good landing when a great one was called for. You know, a "great" landing as in being able to use the aircraft again.

Anyone want to buy a slightly used scratch and dent A-340?

Thanks for the pic Daryl. Look at those tracks! Right down the centerline, body gear and nose gear in line, even with that quartering tailwind.

BTW, great ARFF response by the guys at YYZ! [thumbsup]

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 08-03-2005, 06:39 PM:

Daryl, I don't know why you're getting your panties all tied up in a knot at me... Yes I know EVERYONE walked away... AND THAT IS GREAT! I didn't just fall off the turnip truck ya know. I was making general statement.

I do believe the lack of deaths in this particular incident was due to luck and mostly to the professionalism, cool heads, and dedication of the cabin crew.

But, as you put it, *MY* problem with that particular pilot is he KNEW and was warned there were dangerous winds and storm conditions and elected to land anyway. At least that's the info us peons here in Texas have for now.

(Edit: Corrected typo)

[ 08-03-2005, 08:03 PM: Message edited by: Phil Hill ]

Posted by Will Kutler (Member # 770) on 08-03-2005, 07:29 PM:

I was stationed at RAF Upper Heyford in support of Desert Storm.

While in the UK, a friend and I went to tour Duxford Air Musuem.

It was an EXTREMELY windy day, so it was interesting (and suprising) to see a Spitfire (I believe the one belonging to The Old Flying Machine Company) out flying around.

Now my friend and I were standing on the spectators side of the fence, right next to a PBY Catalina Flying Boat.

The pilot attempted several go arounds before commencing with his final approach. That wind was really tossing that plane around!

Upon touching down, the pilot managed to catch the left wing tip in the (dirt/grass) airstrip. The aircraft did a 90 degree pivot and started comming directly toward us and the PBY!

My friend and I took off a running! Luckily the aircraft stopped and no extra damage was done.

Now my friend and I are both amateur photographers and were burning as much film as we could. Unfortunately, neither of us had motor drives, but between the two of us, we got the entire sequence of events on film.

Cheers

K.

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 08-03-2005, 07:43 PM:

I'm just yanking your chain Phil. The way the weather was yesterday (and today -- and most of the last two months, especially the last two weeks) I'm really not surprised they landed. The weather was quite sporadic (the warnings were on and off all day) and there really weren't that many diversions to other airports.

Based on some brief shots from a helicopter, it looks like they may have seriously overshot and missed more of the runway than the amount of grass they dug up.

In any case, it was some 10 year co-pilot that landed it. I guess the captain was in the back having dinner.

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 08-03-2005, 07:55 PM:

quote: Daryl C. W. O'Shea
I'm just yanking your chain Phil.

You jerk! But, I deserved it! I'm sooo darn gullible! I didn't even see it coming!

I OWE you and WILL get even! HA!

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 08-04-2005, 03:57 AM:

Some 'expert' speculated on the radio last night that the new European Union compensation rules might have something to do with this. These say that any EU-based airline operating a flight into or out of an airport in the EU must pay passengers compensation at a fixed rate for delays over X hours, put them up in hotels if delayed, AND (in some circumstances) refund the price of their tickets. I can't remember the exact details, but this was alleged to be behind the decision by the captain of a BA jumbo to continue to London after one of its engines broke down shortly after leaving Los Angeles a few months ago. Basically, if it had gone back and landed in LA, BA would have been looking at a six-figure compensation bill by the time those passengers would have been on their way again. In the event it ran low on fuel over the Atlantic, couldn't make it to London and had to make an emergency landing at Manchester. The 'expert' speculated that the same economics might apply, that the captain was under pressure from his bosses to avoid delays and that this was why the AF A340 attempted to land in very dodgy weather.

If there's any truth in that, I'm very relieved that the two trips to the US I'll be making in the next four months will both be on Northwest (not an EU-based airline, so these rules don't apply), even if they do still use antiquated DC-10s.

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 08-04-2005, 11:47 AM:

That speculation is making the rounds here too, though I thought the new EU rules applied only to departure delays. Will have to go read up on that.

Of course everyone in airline management denies this. But it wouldn't surprise me to find out that the technical ops people are being leaned on heavily to minimize any chance of flight delays. Since captains have to retake both their checkrides and their medical exams every six months, there are ample opportunities for management to punish those who don't tow the line.

I've seen checkride pass criteria change pretty abruptly based on whether the candidate was "in favor" at the time or not, usually during new-hire or upgrade evaluation rides, but it can happen on 6-month checks too, usually over things like union issues. Failing a checkride is a huge hassle, messing up work schedules for both the airline and the captain candidate until it gets resolved. It can be a living hell.

Like I said earlier, it'll be interesting to see how this one pans out. It'll be a hot topic for discussion in several of the courses I'm teaching this year.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 08-04-2005, 02:31 PM:

quote: Paul Mayer
That speculation is making the rounds here too, though I thought the new EU rules applied only to departure delays. Will have to go read up on that.

I did the looking up when I was sorting out my San José trip next month: basically, in order to be eligible for the compensation, the airline with which you're booked has to be a company registered in an EU member state, and the flight either has to be starting from and/or arriving in an EU member state.

The 'with which you're booked' bit is important: for example, the first and last legs of my trip will be on KLM, but since they're code sharing flights with NW and my ticket was bought from NW (i.e. I'm booked onto flight no. NW8774, not KL8774), I won't get any compensation if it crashes into the North Sea and I have to swim the rest of the way to Amsterdam.

IMHO the new rules are utterly moronic: the only effect they're having is to drive up the price of tickets on the 'no frills' airlines. Anyone who is so utterly stupid as to take a foreign trip without travel insurance (£20 per trip, if that) deserves everything they get if their flight is cancelled, or the airline goes bust and leaves them stranded in some tin shack terminal building in the wilds of Sodomistan. If they do have travel insurance, that'll take care of getting them home and all the expenses involved, so there's no need for any compensation from the airline.

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 08-08-2005, 01:37 PM:

Early indications are that AF358 landed long, i.e. touched down 4000' down a 9000' wet runway with a tailwind. No indications of hydroplaning. Will be fun to hear how they got themselves into that situation. Definitely a CRM scenario for the simulator.

Leo, "stranded in some tin shack terminal building in the wilds of Sodomistan". I love it. Will have to figure out a way to use that in one of my lectures. [Smile]

[ 08-08-2005, 07:30 PM: Message edited by: Paul Mayer ]

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 08-08-2005, 03:49 PM:

quote: Paul Mayer
Will be fun to hear how they got themselves into that situation.

If there wasn't any technical fault with the aircraft, it's starting to look like those pilots just forfeited their no claims bonus! It's still a miracle that this is all they lost, though. I don't know how much a new A340 costs (tens of millions of dollars/euros, probably), but compared to the worst case scenario, it's only money.

As for Sodomistan, I wish I could claim the credit... but in fact I nicked it from the Noel Coward song 'The Grand Ayatollah of Sodomistan' (was a fellow who only had one arm), written around the time of the Suez crisis and which has to be one of the most politically incorrect songs ever recorded. I've got a 78 of it in the garage somewhere: will have to dig it out and transfer it to MP3 when I get a moment.

Meanwhile, it was mentioned on the radio this morning that maintenance engineers at Northwest are very likely to be going on strike later this month. The airline says that it won't affect flights because it's 'made contingencies', but an aviation expert (yet another one) they wheeled on to provide a soundbite opined that US domestic flights could be seriously hit. Paul: do you think I'm in for any fun and games here? My trip involves Amsterdam-Minneapolis-San José on Northwest on Tuesday 6 September, and then Seattle-Memphis-Amsterdam on NW on Friday 16th. I'm insured and have confirmed with them that if things go seriously wrong and as a last resort, they'll put me on another airline: but being realistic, should I be factoring in time for delays or is this likely to have fizzled out within a week or so? Many thanks in advance. I fear that the looming strike might explain the reason why NW was £100 cheaper than any of the alternatives...

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 08-08-2005, 08:45 PM:

I guess about $200 million USD list price for an A340-313X, though nobody pays list, just like in our business. Airbus and Boeing both heavily discount. Air France has been a good customer to both so I'm sure they get a good break on aircraft prices. Insurance will probably pick up most of this one anyway. Ship F-GLZQ RIP. [Frown]

Yeah, NWA's mechanics have walked away from any further talks, but it's really hard to predict what will happen to daily operations or more importantly, when. The timing of any labor action is completely up to the mechanics now. In preparation NWA has hired plenty of strike breakers to cover routine line operations and can quickly outsource any heavy MRO work. I don't think the union's membership has taken a strike vote yet. We'll just have to watch the news for any announced action dates.

The union may try targeting selected hubs at selected peak times with things like work-to-rule slowdowns and sickouts, or they may go for a system-wide walkout. If either happens and there is no contract in effect, NWA can just lock all of the mechanics out system-wide at that point and bring in the replacements.

Operations could get very shaky schedule-wise at that point with so many new people jumping in all at once. It will take a few weeks after that to shake everything down. By then there will be plenty of incentive for both sides to get back to the bargaining table. NWA is already on the short list to go TU, bleeding millions every month, and this situation may provide just the nudge needed to finish the job. Trip cancellation insurance during this time is a very good idea.

[ 12-19-2005, 10:19 PM: Message edited by: Paul Mayer ]

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-08-2005, 10:18 PM:

quote: Paul Mayer
No indications of hydroplaning.

Paul, Are you kiddin man.... I've had many pilots tell me that if it were not for thrust reversers that most planes would never stop on wet or icy runways. That brakes aone are useless in most cases on just slightly wet surfaces at that speed and trying to stop that much tonnage.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 08-08-2005, 10:29 PM:

quote: Leo Enticknap
I did the looking up when I was sorting out my San José trip next month: basically, in order to be eligible for the compensation, the airline with which you're booked has to be a company registered in an EU member state, and the flight either has to be starting from and/or arriving in an EU member state.

Is the UK currently an EU member state? I could never figure out if they really were, or if they just needed the subventions, so they faked membership.

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 08-08-2005, 11:16 PM:

TSB guy says no evidence of either hydroplaning or systems malfunctions (brakes and reversers) at this point. Even without hydroplaning a wet runway does mean a longer stopping distance. I think these guys may have had the bad luck to have a microburst unload behind them just as they got into the flare, making a bad situation even worse.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 08-09-2005, 01:38 AM:

Unloaded microbursts! Exactly what I kept telling people. But nobody would listen to me.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 08-09-2005, 03:15 AM:

'Unloaded microbursts' sounds like how the opposite sex behaves towards their fellow human beings for a few days every month... [evil]

Paul - thanks for the heads up. I'm covered for 'cancellation or curtailment consequent upon a strike of scheduled public transport', provided that I had no prior knowledge of it when I made the booking, which in this case I genuinely didn't. Given that the booking was finalised at the start of July, I can't see how any insurer would have expected me to predict a strike six weeks ahead, and would guess that the clause is designed to protect the insurer against someone booking a bargain basement ticket on a carrier with an impending strike a few hours or days beforehand.

If NW does go TU that would be a shame: I've done two trips to the US with them before, and chose NW this time mainly because they were the cheapest, but also because they've always been very reliable and with excellent service. The only other long-haul trip I've done was on BA. It was several hours late both ways, and despite having filled in the 'special dietary needs' part of the booking form to say that I was allergic to dairy fat, I was still offered a choice of lasagne or pizza. NW, on the other hand, has always been on time, the legroom on the DC-10 is more generous than on any other plane I've been on (a big deal on a nine-hour flight, given that I'm 6'3") and there's never been any problem with the food.

Posted by Andy Summers (Member # 3207) on 08-09-2005, 09:41 AM:

That’s just horrifying, makes me feel sad…. [Frown]

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 11-16-2005, 06:53 PM:

105 of the passengers (about a third of them) are now suing for $150M.

TSB has ruled out mechanical problems and are investigating the possibility of stupid pilots.

On a related note, the boys from JetPort ran their empty Gullstream 100 off the end of the runway at YHM last night in very heavy fog and rain on their way back from dropping some exec's family off in Florida.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 11-17-2005, 02:49 AM:

If there were no technical faults with the aircraft, the weather was within legal limits for attempting a landing and the information supplied by air traffic controllers was accurate, that has to rule out every possibility except pilot error as far as I can see. Unless there was a contributory cause for that error which was beyond the pilots' control (e.g. a gang of Islamic extremists brandishing AK47s burst into the cockpit just as they were attempting to land), it looks like those pilots just blew Air France's no claims bonus!

Interestingly, when I bought my ticket for Austin at the end of this month, Air France was by far the most expensive option - almost £200 more than Northwest (something like £600 for AF compared to £380 on NW), with whom I eventually booked. Plus also, AF involved an extra leg and takes 4 hours longer (Newcastle - Paris - Atlanta - Cincinnati - Austin on AF, vs. Newcastle - Amsterdam - Memphis - Austin on NW). Admittedly, AF's core business probably isn't transatlantic passengers from the north of England, but if they're that uncompetitive in their domestic market too, it can only be the French taxpayer that is keeping them in the air.

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 11-17-2005, 03:00 AM:

I think them writing off an aircraft with an unbeatable safety record, a Concorde, took care of their no claims bonus! Of course they might have been able to split that claim with whoever left the debris on the runway.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 11-17-2005, 03:56 AM:

To be fair, I don't think the claim for that one would be against AF's policy: the Concorde crash, as I remember, was caused by a combination of a sharp bit of crud on the runway and an inherent flaw in the wing design which left the fuel tank especially vulnerable to pentration. Apparently there had been several similar but non-catastrophic incidents during the '80s and '90s; it was only good luck which prevented that disaster from happening for so long and it could just as easily have been a BA Concorde that went down. In a way, that was good luck, too: all the areas around Heathrow are densely populated, and if that crash had happened over Hounslow or Acton there would probably have been hundreds of deaths on the ground. Charles de Gaulle is surrounded by low density suburbs to the south and east, and sparely populated rural areas to the north and west (e.g. Gonesse, where the crash happened).

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 11-17-2005, 07:51 AM:

"Storms in the area" means that it is possible to have a 15 knot head wind at 25 feet, but have a 71 knot tailwind on the runway. All available weather instruments would show the headwind, but the plane lands in the bottom 15 feet. I know; it happened to me. (Data reconstructed later with level 5 thunderstorm at 6 miles moving at 60 mph toward airport.)My field was VFR in sunlight.

If I remember correctly heavy rain occurred in Canada just after the crash. Louis

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 11-17-2005, 07:58 AM:

quote: Louis Bornwasser
If I remember correctly heavy rain occurred in Canada just after the crash.

Wow, that one wins the award for broadest term of the day, and it's only 9am! [Big Grin]

There was heavy rain, thunderstorms, and hail all day, but that doesn't change the fact that the dumbasses floated themselves 4000 feet down the runway in a landing that they should have aborted.