Airliner crash in Toronto
- Thread starter JDMcFly
- Start date
ASpilot2be
Qbicle seat warmer
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Somewhere I read that this occured on the same day and airport as an AC accident in which 109 people died, is that true?
[/ QUOTE ]
It happened in the 1970s I believe.
[/ QUOTE ]
Kinda creepy if you ask me
[ QUOTE ]
Somewhere I read that this occured on the same day and airport as an AC accident in which 109 people died, is that true?
[/ QUOTE ]
It happened in the 1970s I believe.
[/ QUOTE ]
Kinda creepy if you ask me
Persian_Pilot
Well-Known Member
I am confused,
CCN said the plane went into fire afew minutes after the crash,!
here's my question.
how did they evacuated over 200 people in afew minutes !!!!!?
GOD be with them !
CCN said the plane went into fire afew minutes after the crash,!
here's my question.
how did they evacuated over 200 people in afew minutes !!!!!?
GOD be with them !
Chris_Ford
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
I am confused,
CCN said the plane went into fire afew minutes after the crash,!
here's my question.
how did they evacuated over 200 people in afew minutes !!!!!?
GOD be with them !
[/ QUOTE ]
All planes, to be certified, must evacuate all pax from 1/2 the doors in 90 seconds.
Pretty impressive, huh?
I am confused,
CCN said the plane went into fire afew minutes after the crash,!
here's my question.
how did they evacuated over 200 people in afew minutes !!!!!?
GOD be with them !
[/ QUOTE ]
All planes, to be certified, must evacuate all pax from 1/2 the doors in 90 seconds.
Pretty impressive, huh?
Persian_Pilot
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am confused,
[/ QUOTE ]
All planes, to be certified, must evacuate all pax from 1/2 the doors in 90 seconds.
Pretty impressive, huh?
[/ QUOTE ]
Oh yah, But I heard something about the plane being up-side down or something like that.
don't you think it's a
little too impressive???
[ QUOTE ]
I am confused,
[/ QUOTE ]
All planes, to be certified, must evacuate all pax from 1/2 the doors in 90 seconds.
Pretty impressive, huh?
[/ QUOTE ]
Oh yah, But I heard something about the plane being up-side down or something like that.
don't you think it's a
Persian_Pilot
Well-Known Member
hmm yah i looked at the picture, it doesn't really look up-side down.
But.... I don't know , just something doesn't feel right in here
But.... I don't know , just something doesn't feel right in here
Persian_Pilot
Well-Known Member
Guys,
Any official report yet?
Any official report yet?
Chris_Ford
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Guys,
Any official report yet?
[/ QUOTE ]
Yep, they confirmed that my speculation was right, way back on page 3.
Guys,
Any official report yet?
[/ QUOTE ]
Yep, they confirmed that my speculation was right, way back on page 3.
Persian_Pilot
Well-Known Member
Thanks Chris
EricPalmer
New Member
Good reading all. Learned a lot. Considering everything else, having a large ravine at the end of the runway like that really sux.
Off topic trivia earlier in the thread. The earlier A340-200 and 300 have smaller engines ( the largest varient of the CFM56 at around 34,000lbs ) The more new A340 500 and sexy 600 have engines in the 53k and 56k power range. A340-200s and 300s have a rep as being "underpowered" but one would think with all the successful flights that have been done with them, that this is a subjective thought by pilots that have flown the thing.
Off topic trivia earlier in the thread. The earlier A340-200 and 300 have smaller engines ( the largest varient of the CFM56 at around 34,000lbs ) The more new A340 500 and sexy 600 have engines in the 53k and 56k power range. A340-200s and 300s have a rep as being "underpowered" but one would think with all the successful flights that have been done with them, that this is a subjective thought by pilots that have flown the thing.
Bandit_Driver
Gold Member
Anyone catch the quote from the Canadian Safety board in the USA Today? They don't believe wx was to blame "as the aircraft tracked nicely down the runway but refused to stop"
So..... the excess water that made the plane unable to stop was caused by a passing herd of elephant taking a toilet break!!
or may be it was rain
is rain anything to do with the wx
go on air investigator u need to do some of these
and then try some
food, your brain cells obviously need the energy
or may be it was rain
is rain anything to do with the wx
go on air investigator u need to do some of these
EricPalmer
New Member
According to this... pax were taking off their onboard luggage during the evacuation. If ever there were an argument for carry-on baggage limits.....
* Link to Flight International
* Link to Flight International
flyover
New Member
What seemed obvious is turning out to be the case. Crew attempted to land with severe thunderstorm on runway. Became unstable, touched down long and fast, hydroplaned off the runway. Pretty much a typical scenario.
http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/reports/air/2005/a05h0002/a05h0002_update_20051116.asp
At about the time that AF358 landed, a sharp boundary of rain associated with the thunderstorm moved approximately north to south over Runway 24L, accompanied by wind gusts and a change in surface wind strength and direction. Severe lightning and lightning strikes were also reported during this period. At 1604, the conditions observed at the weather site to the south of Runway 24L were winds 340 degrees true at 24 knots with gusts to 33 knots, severe thunderstorm activity over the airfield with a visibility of 1 sm in heavy rain, and a reported ceiling of 4500 feet agl.
Digital Flight Data Recorder Information
During the final approach phase, the aircraft's FMS showed the wind coming from 300 degrees true at between 15 and 20 knots, with an approximate 8-knot headwind component. The crew changed the aircraft's automatic brake setting from the "low" to the "medium" position in view of the expected reduced runway friction conditions for the landing. The aircraft was aligned with the localizer and glide path. The approach speed was 140 knots, appropriate for the computed aircraft weight of 185 tonnes for the landing. The autopilot and auto-thrust systems were engaged for the approach. Both were disconnected at about 350 feet above ground, from which point the crew continued with the approach visually and landed in accordance with the airline's standard operating procedures (SOPs). The aircraft then went slightly above the glide path and arrived over the runway threshold at an estimated height of 100 feet; the normal height at that point is 50 feet. At that time, the indicated airspeed increased from 139 to 154 knots. During the flare, the aircraft entered a heavy shower area, and the crew's forward visibility was significantly reduced as they entered the downpour. The digital flight data recorder (DFDR) recorded wind veered to 330 degrees true, causing a tailwind component of approximately 5 knots. The runway became contaminated with at least ¼ inch of standing water.
The aircraft touched down approximately 4000 feet down the 9000-foot runway. The spoilers deployed automatically after touchdown and the DFDR recorded that the crew applied maximum pressure to the aircraft's brake pedals. The pressure remained constant until the aircraft departed the end of the runway surface.
......The aircraft departed the end of the runway at a ground speed of 79 knots. It came to rest 1090 feet beyond the departure end of the runway. The DFDR data show that the aircraft landed with 7500 kg of fuel; 4500 kg of trip fuel was required to fly to Ottawa.
http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/reports/air/2005/a05h0002/a05h0002_update_20051116.asp
At about the time that AF358 landed, a sharp boundary of rain associated with the thunderstorm moved approximately north to south over Runway 24L, accompanied by wind gusts and a change in surface wind strength and direction. Severe lightning and lightning strikes were also reported during this period. At 1604, the conditions observed at the weather site to the south of Runway 24L were winds 340 degrees true at 24 knots with gusts to 33 knots, severe thunderstorm activity over the airfield with a visibility of 1 sm in heavy rain, and a reported ceiling of 4500 feet agl.
Digital Flight Data Recorder Information
During the final approach phase, the aircraft's FMS showed the wind coming from 300 degrees true at between 15 and 20 knots, with an approximate 8-knot headwind component. The crew changed the aircraft's automatic brake setting from the "low" to the "medium" position in view of the expected reduced runway friction conditions for the landing. The aircraft was aligned with the localizer and glide path. The approach speed was 140 knots, appropriate for the computed aircraft weight of 185 tonnes for the landing. The autopilot and auto-thrust systems were engaged for the approach. Both were disconnected at about 350 feet above ground, from which point the crew continued with the approach visually and landed in accordance with the airline's standard operating procedures (SOPs). The aircraft then went slightly above the glide path and arrived over the runway threshold at an estimated height of 100 feet; the normal height at that point is 50 feet. At that time, the indicated airspeed increased from 139 to 154 knots. During the flare, the aircraft entered a heavy shower area, and the crew's forward visibility was significantly reduced as they entered the downpour. The digital flight data recorder (DFDR) recorded wind veered to 330 degrees true, causing a tailwind component of approximately 5 knots. The runway became contaminated with at least ¼ inch of standing water.
The aircraft touched down approximately 4000 feet down the 9000-foot runway. The spoilers deployed automatically after touchdown and the DFDR recorded that the crew applied maximum pressure to the aircraft's brake pedals. The pressure remained constant until the aircraft departed the end of the runway surface.
......The aircraft departed the end of the runway at a ground speed of 79 knots. It came to rest 1090 feet beyond the departure end of the runway. The DFDR data show that the aircraft landed with 7500 kg of fuel; 4500 kg of trip fuel was required to fly to Ottawa.
