OPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 6675 times:
From pprune...
FROM : AIRBUS CUSTOMER SERVICES TOULOUSE TX530526F
TO : ALL
A300/A310/A300-600/A319/A320/A321/A330/A340/A318/A340-500
/A340-600 OPERATORS
ACCIDENT INFORMATION TELEX - ACCIDENT INFORMATION TELEX
SUBJECT: AF358 A340-300 ACCIDENT
OUR REF.: AF358 AIT 3 DATED 17th August 2005
OUR PREVIOUS REF.:
- AF358 AIT 1
- AF358 AIT 2
The preliminary analysis of the DFDR data indicates the
following sequence of events:
The short final and landing were performed manually with the autopilot (AP) and autothrust (ATHR) disconnected at about 300 feet AGL. The aircraft was in configuration FULL with auto-brake selected to MED.
There was a right variable crosswind of about 20 kts and a tail wind component during the final stage of the approach.
At the time of touchdown, the airspeed was 143 kts and the
ground speed 148 kts. Visibility was reported to be 0.5 to 0.25 NM in heavy rain.
The touchdown zone is located approximately 4000 feet from the threshold of the 9000-foot runway.
Following the MLG touchdown, the ground spoilers normally
extended.
Soon after touchdown, the autobrake was overridden upon pilot maximum brake pedal inputs which were kept to the end.
Consistent with the tyre marks left on the runway, the DFDR confirms that brake pressure was normally applied to the brakes and that the antiskid function operated normally.
Upon activation, the 4 engines thrust reversers fully deployed and remained in this position until the aircraft came to a stop.
At the end of the runway the aircraft ground speed was 79 kts.
Based on the preliminary DFDR analysis and consistent with on- site observations:
- the braking performances are consistent with a contaminated runway condition in line with heavy rain conditions.
- there is no indication that any aircraft systems or engine
anomalies existed at the time of the accident.
The detailed investigation work will continue under the
leadership of the Transportation Safety Board of Canada.
At this stage of the investigation, Airbus has no specific
recommendations to give to operators.
When appropriate and upon Canadian TSB approval, additional information about this event will be issued through the normal Airbus to Operators communication channels.
YANNICK MALINGE
VICE PRESIDENT FLIGHT SAFETY
AIRBUS
SPREE34 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 1576 posts, RR: 12 Reply 1, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 6606 times:
This factual post may cause severe brain cramps to prognosticators and armchair experts.
I don't understand everything I don't know about this.
Hoya From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 312 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 6522 times:
Well, they stated ground speed was 148kts and air speed was 143kts, so tailwind wasn't that strong. It appears that the pilots simply landed too far the runway, and ran out of room. The wet runway appears to be a factor, but since all systems were functioning and there were no anomalies, it states braking performance was consistent with the conditions, the evidence seems to point that this accident was caused by poor pilot judgement.
StealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 4205 posts, RR: 52 Reply 6, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 6292 times:
Quote: At this stage of the investigation, Airbus has no specific
recommendations to give to operators
One recommendation to operators could be .. to land closer to the beginning of the runway!!
One of the 3 most useless things in aviation.. Runway behind you!
I understand this is preliminary, I am interested in what the inquiries find out about the "human factors" issues.
Regards
Chris
Of course old planes are safe, how do you think they got to be old?
FlySSC From Lebanon, joined Aug 2003, 6410 posts, RR: 64 Reply 10, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 5900 times:
Quoting OPNLguy (Thread starter): The touchdown zone is located approximately 4000 feet from the threshold of the 9000-foot runway.
5000ft to stop an A343, though short, is normally enough.
Quoting Hoya (Reply 3): It appears that the pilots simply landed too far the runway, and ran out of room.
Landing 4000 feet from the threshold of a 7000-foot runway would be a real "too far landing", not on a 9000-foot runway.
Quoting Hoya (Reply 3): The wet runway appears to be a factor
The Runway was not "wet". The Runway was over flooded and reported to the ATC as "heavy contaminated" by the pilot of the a/c who landed just prior AF358
Frequentflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 735 posts, RR: 5 Reply 11, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 5818 times:
Quoting FlySSC (Reply 10): Landing 4000 feet from the threshold of a 7000-foot runway would be a real "too far landing", not on a 9000-foot runway.
I would ask Pilots what they think about that statement... That plane landed right near the middle of the runway length.
DAYflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 8 Reply 12, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 5742 times:
Interesting read. If all systems funtioned properly it sounds as if the rain and the long touchdown are possibly to blame, which is what many thought to begin with.
Not as off topic as you might think... the winds were reported to be quite variable with IIRC windshear... what were the winds the crew were expecting a few seconds (about 3000 ft worth!!) back?
Windshear or a microburst turning a 20-30knot headwind into tailwind or near to it could change all the math
The other thing the report mentions is that the thrust reversers were working normally but does not mention the power settings.. I am not an expert in A340 thrust reverser systems and how much retardation is available from them but it seems significant that this is not mentioned.
Just 2 thoughts
Chris
Of course old planes are safe, how do you think they got to be old?
Slider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 5534 posts, RR: 46 Reply 14, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 5664 times:
Quoting OPNLguy (Thread starter): Visibility was reported to be 0.5 to 0.25 NM in heavy rain.
The touchdown zone is located approximately 4000 feet from the threshold of the 9000-foot runway.
Philb From Ireland, joined May 1999, 2915 posts, RR: 19 Reply 15, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 5537 times:
Stealthz,
My money has been on microburst activity since the BBC ran a piece at midnight, UK time, around 4 hours after the event, from the UK Met Office which highlighted that the YYZ weather report immediately preceeding the crash had talked of light winds yet, ten minutes later, they put out an urgent broadcast update detailing winds variable with gusts up to 40 knots.
FlySSC From Lebanon, joined Aug 2003, 6410 posts, RR: 64 Reply 16, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 4811 times:
Quoting Frequentflyer (Reply 11): That plane landed right near the middle of the runway length.
Landing "near the middle" of the runway doesn't mean systematically "dangerous landing" or "too far landing" or "crash is imminent" !!!
Landing 4000ft from the threshold of a 9000-foot Rwy can not be the cause of a crash, and can not be the ONLY CAUSE of THIS crash.
It "only" appears to be certainly a factor contributing to the crash, along with the Runway conditions, ravine in the end, poor/uncertain weather report given to the pilots, etc... etc...
We sould all know that an accident in general, and a crash in particular, is the result of multiple contributing factors :
All the factors have to exist to cause the crash... but if you take out just one of them, the crash doesn't occur :
Take out the weather factor : the planes land half the Runway but has still enough lengh to stop safely.
Take out the factor "land half the Runway" : the plane lands in the right zone on a heavy contaminated Rwy and can stop right at the very end of it ...
Take out the factor "uncertain/poor weather report" : the pilots are clearly aware of the real danger to land on that Rwy and request another longer Rwy of a decide to divert.
Take out the "ravine" at the end of the Rwy : the planes doesn't stop and got stick in the mud with more or less damages but certainly not the complete loss of the aircraft. (This happened just a few months ago to an Angola Airlines B743 at CDG)
AceFreighter From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2003, 177 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 4660 times:
Interesting that the BA 747 landing before the AF 340 diverted to Ottawa without making an apporach.
Eddieho From Canada, joined Jan 2004, 227 posts, RR: 1 Reply 18, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 4501 times:
From what I recall (and what I experienced) during the landing that report sounds quite right... everything during the landing "sounded" normal.
There was some extra thrust applied (throttle up and down) moments before landing - as if it lost power and needed more power to keep the plane going. But it went too far... I remember seeing the building on my left and we were still relatively quite high (which I compared to the map on google earth - that building indicated the start of the runway)
BTW... I have a question - during evacuation I remember seeing NO emergency lights down by the aisles (like the ones shown in the video). Is that normal?
UN_B732 From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 4246 posts, RR: 4 Reply 20, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 4152 times:
Don't they have to use AutoLand in those conditions? I always thought autoland was required under certain IFR conditions. Thank God noone died.
VS11 From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 753 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 3924 times:
Quoting Eddieho (Reply 18): From what I recall (and what I experienced) during the landing that report sounds quite right... everything during the landing "sounded" normal.
Looks like you were on that flight. I am very happy that everyone got out safely. Is there another post where you share your experience during the evacuation? It would be very interesting.
PADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1673 posts, RR: 7 Reply 22, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 3717 times:
Quoting FlySSC (Reply 10): 5000ft to stop an A343, though short, is normally enough.
Quoting FlySSC (Reply 10): The Runway was not "wet". The Runway was over flooded and reported to the ATC as "heavy contaminated" by the pilot of the a/c who landed just prior AF358
Well, those two answers of you rise a bit of a question, don't they? Can you land a A343 on a 5000ft long baby swimming pool? Reality showed that you actually can't.
Now the question is: Did the pilot anticipated at touchdown that there wasn't enough runway left to come to a complete stop. And, if so, can you blame him for not performing a go-around? The pilot could argue that the weather was simply too bad to properly estimate the plane's position on the runway.
Morvious From Netherlands, joined Feb 2005, 639 posts, RR: 1 Reply 23, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 3700 times:
Quoting FlySSC (Reply 16): Landing 4000ft from the threshold of a 9000-foot Rwy can not be the cause of a crash, and can not be the ONLY CAUSE of THIS crash.
Nope, but this helped a lot.
A crash is always blamed to more things.
A few things.
Over flooded runway (as reported above)
Very bad weather conditions
They did land with only 5000ft of runway left at 143 kts
They left the runway with 79 kts
So they managed to deaccelerate 74 kts on 5000ft.
Seems to me even 9000ft of runway would be even to close for comfert in this conditions.
Patrickj From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 89 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 3612 times:
Quoting Frequentflyer (Reply 11): Quoting FlySSC (Reply 10):
Landing 4000 feet from the threshold of a 7000-foot runway would be a real "too far landing", not on a 9000-foot runway.
I would ask Pilots what they think about that statement... That plane landed right near the middle of the runway length.
Having flown several thousand hours in wide-body airliners I would say that if they landed 4000 ft down the runway then they screwed up big time. Normal touchdown should occur at or just beyond the fixed distance marker (1000 ft). If it wasn't on by the 2000 ft marker they should have gone around. By the way 5 kts tail wind component is not that much, most transports are rated for 10 kts of tailwind on landing.
25 Olympus69: Hi Eddie. I'm curious about the building you are referring to. The Google map doesn't even show runway 24L and the satellite picture was made while t
26 AKelley728: Agreed... OPNLGuy, welcome to my RU list. [Edited 2005-08-19 19:16:44]
27 AIRCANL1011: How is the ravine a factor in the crash? By the time the plane went into the ravine it had "Crashed". The ravine may have made things worse, but it d
28 FlySSC: Certainly not, concerning TAAG B743 at CDG ... but fast enough not to be able to stop after landing on a dry 3600m Rwy and overrun the end of it by q
29 Bohlman: A half of a mile visibility is fine for a CATI ILS approach. I didn't see a cieling report in there, but the fact that they disconnected the autopilo
30 CaptainCanuck: I really think we should leave the ravine out of this. As soon as they elected to touch the aircraft down on the runway, they had already locked in th
31 Olympus69: Running off the end of a runway does not of itself constitute a "Crash". Falling into a ravine does. If the ravine hadn't been there who knows what w
32 SuseJ772: I am not by any means an expert, but does it seem odd that in 5000 feet (almost a mile) the plane only slowed down 69 kts? Does anybody have info on
33 SuseJ772: Ahh, those crazy French! If everyone just did things like the British
34 AIRCANL1011: That's not fair. The British were also flying a Boeing so they had an unfair advantage all around [Edited 2005-08-19 20:28:19]
35 Bohlman: Agreed, but 3000ft worth because of a 5kts tailwind?
36 Eddieho: Yes I imagine it's the GTAA building... I was on the left side of the plane, and looking at Google Earth it roof of it does look quite familiar. And I
37 Glideslope: I want to hear the CVR. It will add some light to the Humane Factor. This should have been an aborted landing. Why would they want to try and stop in
38 ScottB: Actually they managed to decelerate 64 kts, not 74 kts. Doing the math, assuming constant deceleration, says they would have required approximately 2
39 FlySSC: "Crash" doesn't mean anything and has no real signification. Events involving the safety are classified as 'incident" or "accident". What happened in
40 Fanoftristars: They interviewed a "Million Miler" on the Today Show, the day after the incident and she also noted that the plane seemed to be much higher than norm
41 Hmmmm...: There's always going to be someone who will try to deflect blame for this crash away from the pilot and towards other things. Blame the rain. Blame a
42 Patrickj: Tailwind will add approximately 100 feet of rollout for every knot of tailwind component (its a ballpark average). Even with the tailwind a touchdown
43 YYZYYT: Um, yes, actually it could have been much worse. I'm sure Eddieho and his 318 fellow occupants can expand on that...
44 AMSSFO: You're right. The QF 744 left the runway at 88kts according to the accident report. It certainly didn't break in pieces neither did it burn. It was h
45 AIRCANL1011: I think if even one person had been killed or in anyway disabled from this "incident" then it would have been a lot worse, don't you think
46 KL662: You forgot "Blame Canada"... But seriously, I think it's human nature to want to pin such a tragedy on something that's 'fixable' -- some directive f
47 PITrules: Thank You! The exact point I tried to make in another thread. The fact remains that YYZ's runways are not grooved, which is a major anomaly and safet
48 Filejw: Touchdown zone usually means an area on the R/W, not where the A/C its self made contact with the runway.There is more than one 9000' runway in the wo
49 YYZatcboy: Could the Glidescope have been malfunctioning?
50 Olympus69: OTOH, LH470 (a 744) landed about 5 minutes before AF358. I don't know if they landed on 24L or 23.
51 Bhmbaglock: If you crunch the numbers, over 70% of KE at touchdown was dissipated when the a/c left the runway based on reported groundspeeds. This is a truer de
52 Ikramerica: Exactly. those of us who stated "the pilot should not have tried to land" got lambasted for jumping to conclusions. but the simplest answer is usuall
53 FlySSC: First, it's not "his 318 fellow occupants" but 308. Second : you know perfectly what I mean when I write "It couldn't be worse". The subject is the "
54 PipoA380: You are a fine lover of Murphy's law aren't you? I love it! Cheers, Philippe
55 TheSonntag: Just one question, how is deceleration workin? Does it really take the same amount of runway to decelerate from 150 knots to 100 knots as it does from
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 1737 posts, 
From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 4205 posts, 
From France, joined Jul 2005, 198 posts, 
From Lebanon, joined Aug 2003, 6410 posts, 
From Ireland, joined May 1999, 2915 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2003, 177 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Feb 2005, 937 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1673 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
