Airliner crash in Toronto

[ QUOTE ]
Even if you can't see the car in front of you while you're driving is a moot point when it comes to flight/ground visibility in reference to aviation.

Unless, of course, you're landing a few feet behind a diesel truck or a large column of automobiles.

[/ QUOTE ]

Aren' there minimums for IFR, or are they allowed to land with essentially 0 visibility?

I don't know anything about IFR so any info would be great, Doug.
 
[ QUOTE ]
At least they haven't blamed it on terraists yet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, they are doing just that on airliners.net's forums. Another guy is blaming the pilots for not being patient enough to wait for better wx.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Is an A340-2/300 even able to do a go around? Isn't that thing like the most underpowered airliner out there?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you kidding me? How many other airliners out there have FIVE APUs?
bandit.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
Is an A340-2/300 even able to do a go around? Isn't that thing like the most underpowered airliner out there? I have seen it take off here in Denver and it uses nearly all of that 16,000' runway we have. The big joke on it is that the only reason it is able to gain altitude is due to the curvature of the earth. If the microburst thing is true that would go along with the witness accounts though. They said it seemed to drop and lose alot of altitude before it hit. Then again we do that every time we land right?

Seriously though, they should be able to deal with those winds that were reported, as Doug said, that really isn't that bad for an airliner. We get that in Denver every afternoon.

[/ QUOTE ]

One person who saw the accident occur said that the aircraft's tires blew out when it hit the runway. Maybe that microburst theory is correct?

Sudden loss of altitude?

Somebody else also mentioned what you stated about it not having the power to do a go-around (in this situation anyways).

Doug, what do you think?
 
Wow, according to the media it has also been hit by lightning. Geez, everything went wrong on that app if all of this stuff is true (doubt it).
 
Yeah, we can try to pretend this wasn't a thunderstorm accident, but the consistent report is damned severe weather at the time of the landing. A pilot driving on a road at the approach end said rain was so hard he couldn't see the car in front of him. I'd say there is quite a lot of information. They've also been showing the radar at the time of the accident. Big thunderstorms at the airport.

This is nothing to be that surprised about. Airline crews attempt landings in thunderstorms too often. Sometimes they win, sometimes they lose. These guys lost.

So far they are saying no casualties. Let's hope.
 
Some reports that they took a lightning strike just as they touched down.

Passenger reports say that the power went out just as they touched.

Lightning strike on a FBW aircraft...hmmm..
 
[ QUOTE ]
Aren' there minimums for IFR, or are they allowed to land with essentially 0 visibility?

[/ QUOTE ]

More or less.

But even 1/2 mile of visibility is only a basic IFR approach. I'm not even sure if you require a Cat-I to execute it.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Even if you can't see the car in front of you while you're driving is a moot point when it comes to flight/ground visibility in reference to aviation.

Unless, of course, you're landing a few feet behind a diesel truck or a large column of automobiles.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true. A level 6 thunderstorm will not reduce RVR visibility below CAT 1. But once on the runway your visibility will be near zero because of the volume of water on the windshield. For a car vis will be near zero. These are reports very consistent with other windshear/thunderstorm approach accidents.

[ QUOTE ]
autobrakes?
antiskid?
ground spoiler fault?
hydroplaning on an ungrooved surface?
heavily contaminated runway?
thrust reverser problem?

[/ QUOTE ]

All quite possible. Doesn't mean they should have been attempting this landing.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Some reports that they took a lightning strike just as they touched down.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just posted a thread about planes gettig hit by lightening a few days ago...... here's something from MSN:

"Another report from Global TV said that there were 291 people aboard, and that all survived, but that could not be independently confirmed."

Thank God.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Aren' there minimums for IFR, or are they allowed to land with essentially 0 visibility?

[/ QUOTE ]

More or less.

But even 1/2 mile of visibility is only a basic IFR approach. I'm not even sure if you require a Cat-I to execute it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, I see.

Thx, Doug.

You learn soemthing new every day.
smile.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]


Lightning strike on a FBW aircraft...hmmm..

[/ QUOTE ]

I've always wondered how that combination would work but when I worked for Frontier (fleet of A319/18s) they get hit by lightning all the time. The worst I have seen is a tailcone that got popped off the aft end in flight and some paint damage.
 
[censored] I HAD TO CHECK I WAS NOT A.NET

I thought you boys were better then speculating - 9000 feet being tight for a heavy landing, classic A.net remark!! Come on boys keep those mouths quiet, act professional, and lets wait to see what 'facts' come out over the next 24 hours.

This is the second hull loss for an A340 - what was the first?
 
[ QUOTE ]
Doug, what do you think?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, last one before I go clean the catboxes.

[ QUOTE ]
One person who saw the accident occur said that the aircraft's tires blew out when it hit the runway. Maybe that microburst theory is correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure how a microburst could cause a tire failure. I'd be curious to know if there's any tread fragments on the runway surface.

[ QUOTE ]
Sudden loss of altitude?

[/ QUOTE ]

Usually, whenever I prang an airplane on the runway, so much of the energy goes into the initial "BAM!" that I'm usually able to make the first high speed turnoff without a problem!
smile.gif


[ QUOTE ]
Somebody else also mentioned what you stated about it not having the power to do a go-around (in this situation anyways).

[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt that was a factor.
 
[ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
One person who saw the accident occur said that the aircraft's tires blew out when it hit the runway. Maybe that microburst theory is correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure how a microburst could cause a tire failure. I'd be curious to know if there's any tread fragments on the runway surface.

[/ QUOTE ]

Micro burst, tire burst - they must all be related!!

The A340 climbs no problem - I have sat upfront on one, great aircraft!
 
[ QUOTE ]
[censored] I HAD TO CHECK I WAS NOT A.NET

I thought you boys were better then speculating - 9000 feet being tight for a heavy landing, classic A.net remark!! Come on boys keep those mouths quiet, act professional, and lets wait to see what 'facts' come out over the next 24 hours.

This is the second hull loss for an A340 - what was the first?

[/ QUOTE ]

The last one i believe was in LFPG in 1994 and it was also an Air France. I don't remember if there were pax on that but the plane was completely destroyed.
 
[ QUOTE ]
The last one i believe was in LFPG in 1994 and it was also an Air France. I don't remember if there were pax on that but the plane was completely destroyed.

[/ QUOTE ]

That part is correct - but you need the reason behind it.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Seriously though, they should be able to deal with those winds that were reported, as Doug said, that really isn't that bad for an airliner. We get that in Denver every afternoon.

[/ QUOTE ]

This can be a classic setup though. If you have a crew that's unable to make an independent decision to not land in a thunderstorm they will tend to look at winds, visibility, or wait for a LLWAS or microburst advisory from the tower. This was the case with the American crash at LIT. The captain was concerned about crosswind limits and visibility reports, but didn't seem to care at all about the huge thunderstorm on the airport.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top