Passenger jet skids off runway, in flames at Toronto airport

[Atlantis]

Very shocking pictures. The whole plane is destroyed, incredible.
The good news is nobody died. I hope everything will be oke for the passengers.

It remember me the crash of the Air France Concorde. This had nothing to do with this accident, but it's the second air crash of Air France in a couple of years with a total destroyed aircraft.

It must be a terrible day for Air France, and of course the passengers.

[Atlantis]

We received this news yesterday evening in our offices. Because this news is important for our work.
We warned that the airport will be closed from yesterday evening till tonight 22.30 Belgium Time.

I have a question about this. I saw a picture of the airport in this topic and I saw several landingstrips. Why would they close the whole airport when they have other landingstrips? Or has the weather the devil, precautions?

[LX-LGX]

Because rescue services were not available for a (possible) next incident.

[SN30952]

I think Airbus should make theirs aircraft more fire resistant. Seb.

Because, Seb, you think there is a market for such carcasses?

Investigators said Wednesday a heavy rainstorm accompanied by lightning and strong winds was a factor that caused an Air France jet to skid off a Toronto runway and burst into flames.
The black boxes of Flight 358 from Paris will be retrieved Wednesday, investigators said.

Another thing: The Air France Airbus A340 had enough fuel to divert to Montreal or another airport where the weather was better, but "that's the pilot's decision".

The evacuation of the passengers and crew took less than two minutes, and the co-pilot* was the last to leave the flaming wreckage . 3/4 of them were able to escape in the 52 seconds. And that again was the time it took emergency crews to arrive

The pilot aborted an initial attempt to land the plane because of the storm and powerful winds.

*The co-pilot, who was in charge of the landing, had 10,700 hours and the pilot (57) had 15,000 hours.

Note: Air France-KLM shareswere down nearly 2%.

[B744skipper]

I think Airbus should make theirs aircraft more fire resistant. Seb.

Because, Seb, you think there is a market for such carcasses?

Isn't there a requirement that every aircraft needs to have a skin that can keep the fire out of the aircraft for 90 seconds or so?

[Vinnie-Winnie]

Horrible images but yeah everybody is safe so nothing to worry about

Does anyone know what the effect will be on Air France? Will they have to cancel flights in the future because of the lack of airplane or do they have a replacement aircraft which could do the job with same paw and everything?

Also sorry to go down to earth again but who will pay for all the damage caused? do airline have special insurances which re-imburses them if an accident is causec by the weather? Also who will compensate for the delays and cancellations and re-routing of flights?

[Tjipke]

To HorsePower......

I believe, the picture you're showing of the burned 340-200 at CDG was property of SABENA and was borrowed to Air France.
I think some people here on the forum will agree with me
After the so famous order by Swiss-Sabena ( which finally necked both compagnies ) they noticed, they had a few to many Airbusses. So I think this was one of them

If I'm wrong....I'm sorry

[HorsePower]

Thanks to FlySCC, I've got an explaination for the 297 pax:

The aircraft involved in the accisent is F-GLZQ. It was equipped with the new "NEV" configuration 30J/261Y = 291 PAX.
The flight was full with 297 persons on board including some babies (who are "persons" but don't have seats) and probably Non-Rev staff traveling on jump-seats, on this busy day of august.
Add to the 297 PAX a crew of 12 : 2 pilots + 10 F/A.

Sorry Tjipke, but this aircraft was delivered new directly from Airbus factory.

Regards

Seb.

[SN30952]

off course in the report on yahoo , they will blame it on the pilot that he pulled the rudder to hard ..always pilot mistake, lets see greets

I hear something alike in satellite Canadian TV. A minister of transport, there are a few, as in Belgium, overhere in Canada, said the pilot in a second attempt came in to far in the runways and did not have the necessary lenght to stop the aircraft, skidding of at the end , 200m into the ravine end.
In this case the pilot was the co-pilot, the man was said to be wounded but he was the last one to leave the aircraft after checking all cabins for eventually some remaining passenger. But everyone left.

I wonder why HE, the injured co-pilot, but in charge of that landing, had to do that.
The pilot (57), apparently unhurt, was not reported to do a last search. Did he find, he was not responsible for the mishap?
Or is this fact irrevelevant?

Note:
The two pilots in command and the cabin crew were experienced Air France staff.
The 57-year-old captain joined the Company in 1982 and logged more than 15,000 flight hours, including 1,000 on Airbus A340.
The 43-year-old first Officer joined Air France in 1985 and logged 10,700 flight hours, 2,500 of which were on Airbus A340.

[SkyJet]

...This is not the first time AF loose an A340 (due to fire)
A340-200 F-GNIA, delivered 13/05/1993, destroyed 20/01/1994 due to fire on ground at CDG, no pax on board, no victim.

As the older members might recall, (and as correctly stated by Tjipke) this was one of five (3x A342, 2x A343) Sabena-aircraft wich were immediately leased out to AF.
The aircraft was destroyed by fire on the ground.
An electrically-driven hydraulic pump which over-heated was the cause of the fire.
More similar incidents with the same type of pump prompted the manufacturer to replace the faulty pump on early production-examples of the A340.

As stated earlier, the weather at the time of the accident played an important role :
CYYZ 022020Z 34024G33KT 3SM +TSRA FEW015 OVC040TCU 23/ RMK SF2TCU6 CB ASOCTD =
CYYZ 022000Z 29011KT 4SM +TSRA BKN051TCU BKN140 23/22 A3002 RMK TCU6AC1 CB ASOCTD LTGCC VIS LWR SW-NW 2 SLP164 =
CYYZ 022004Z CCA 34024G33KT 1 1/4SM +TSRA SCT015 OVC045TCU 23/ RMK RA2SF2TCU5 CB ASOCTD =
CYYZ 022004Z 34024G33KT 1 1/4SM +TSRA SCT015 OVC045TCU RMK RA2SF2TCU5 CB ASOCTD =
CYYZ 022000Z 29011KT 4SM +TSRA BKN051TCU BKN140 23/22 A3002 RMK TCU6AC1 CB ASOCTD LTGCC VIS LWR SW-NW 2 SLP164 =

The accident happened around 2010Z, the wind changed rapidly direction and speed :
2000Z : 290° 11 knots
2004Z : 340° 24 knots gusting up to 33 knots
As the aircraft was approaching RWY 24L, it was faced with severe crosswinds, very low visibility, heavy thunderstorm with rain, CB's with possible windshear and lightning.

Given these conditions and the availability of enough fuel
THE CREW SHOULDN'T HAVE LANDED THE AIRCRAFT
and should have entered the holding or diverted to the alternate airport.

[HorsePower]

Knowing how works AF from now on, and knowing the conditions at Toronto (weather, runway floodind, etc...). J.C. Spinetta will sue Toronto airport authority to have money in return for giving the green light to land. Also, I don't think the aircraft overshoot the runway that much...

Une affaire à suivre, en tout cas... (to be continued...)

More info in french here.

More info concerning the 2 aircrafts mentioned here.

Regards

Seb.

[SN30952]

Given these conditions and the availability of enough fuel
THE CREW SHOULDN'T HAVE LANDED THE AIRCRAFT

It's always easier after, than during the storm. But I would not make any conclusions until the second officer has spoken. Slowly we gather info, what happened will also emerge. Have patience, Skyjet.

[SR89]

More pics. The presentation is in French.

An exclusivity of Radio-Canada/France2

http://radio-canada.ca/nouvelles/actual ... onto.shtml

[Ovostar]

I don't understand, you are saying that the copilot "landed" the plane ? Why ? Isn't it the Pilot Job ?

Why everyone are talking about the co-pilot ?
What did the pilot after the crash, he escaped by the cockpit window ?

[SR89]

Yep. The copilot landed the craft.

[LX-LGX]

I don't think somebody has to be blamed for not forecasting the exact weather changes between 16h00 and 16h04. Computers still cannot tell exactly when and where the next windshear will occure.

In a previous reply, SN30952 mentionned this important link:

http://www.wunderground.com/history/air ... atename=NA

Take a look at the wind speed: the sudden change at 16h00 seems to indicate a severe windshear. Wind speed changing from 20,4 km/h (12.7 mph) at 16h00 to 61,1 km/h (38 mph) at 16h04!!!

Visibility also changed dramaticly during approach and final: from 6,4 kms (4 miles) to 2 kms (1,2 miles) in a few minutes.

[A390]

In reply to the doubts of OVOSTAR:just to clarify: both "pilot" and "copilot" have the same typerating (= training and checking to fly a certain aircraft type). Under JAR_FCL (EU rules for flightcrew licences) the mention "copilot" is disappearing: both pilots have the same training, but one of them is the nominated commander, having the final responsability for the flight. the commander may delegate the conduct of the flight to the other qualified pilot. In practice, 1 pilot performs the first flightsector of the day, the ohter the 2nd sector. "Old fashionned" copilots that cannot fly the aircraft do not exist since decades, since all actual airlines models are MPA-ME aircraft (= multi-pilot, multi engine) . the time of the DC3 is behind us...It is indeed strange that most journalists still talk about "the pilot" instead of "the pilots". :wave:

[Vinnie-Winnie]

Hi all,

thanks to google news I fell on this newspaper article about human behaviour in case of panic relevant to the crash: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ ... nal/Canada

It explains although not much in detail how people behaved when they had to evacuate the plane.

[LX-LGX]

Take a look at the photo's that have been taken inside the plane, just after standstill. And then look at the photo's that were taken outside the plane, during disembarkment.

There was no fire inside the cabin just after stand still of the plane! Pax were collecting hand luggage like at a normal disembarkment, and few pax were even smiling!

[Airbus330lover]

Take a look at the photo's that have been taken inside the plane, just after standstill. And then look at the photo's that were taken outside the plane, during disembarkment.

There was no fire inside the cabin just after stand still of the plane! Pax were collecting hand luggage like at a normal disembarkment, and few pax were even smiling!

Don't forget the fire was on the rear. If the picture was taken in the front, and with doors open, it's possible that the people in the didn't saw or felled the smoke and/or fire.
I see not so much handluggage but vests ans little bags. Can you be sure that this material did not was placed on the ground of the cabin.

The photograph was very calm, to take such a pictures.