ayqzbr
Posts: 38
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 11:40 pm

Report On AF Crash At YYZ Released

Wed Dec 12, 2007 3:57 pm

Canada's Transportation Safety Board has released its report into the AF crash at YYZ in August 2005.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...cereport1212/BNStory/National/home

To me two of the significant items relate to improving procedures for landing in storms and "that passenger safety briefings include clear directions to leave all carry-on baggage behind during evacuations".
 
bennett123
Posts: 7441
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: Report On AF Crash At YYZ Released

Wed Dec 12, 2007 4:03 pm

Surely they would calculate landing distance in advance!.
 
dtwclipper
Posts: 6668
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 3:17 am

RE: Report On AF Crash At YYZ Released

Wed Dec 12, 2007 4:06 pm

Wasn't an A.net member on board? I thought I remembered reading that here?
Compare New York Air, the Airline that works for your Business
 
spartanmjf
Posts: 457
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 11:31 am

RE: Report On AF Crash At YYZ Released

Wed Dec 12, 2007 4:19 pm

Carryon baggage issues notwithstanding, that cabin crew did nothing short of miraculous work in getting those passengers out of that aircraft safely, and they should be commended for that great work! Clearly, the training they received for cabin evacuation worked.
"Nuts to the man in 21D!"
 
Pihero
Posts: 4196
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:11 am

RE: Report On AF Crash At YYZ Released

Wed Dec 12, 2007 4:27 pm

This is the full official TSB report :
AF340Toronto accident report

Long and deatailed, as usual...Need time.

Regards
Contrail designer
 
FlySSC
Posts: 5182
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2003 1:38 am

RE: Report On AF Crash At YYZ Released

Wed Dec 12, 2007 4:31 pm



Quoting Ayqzbr (Thread starter):
passenger safety briefings include clear directions to leave all carry-on baggage behind during evacuations".

This is already the case.
This is common sense to everybody ... and very easy to write... But when, as a F/A, you have to organize an unprepared evacuation, it's another story.
If you don't want passengers to take their carry-on in an emergency evacuation, don't allow them to have carry on on board ! this is the only solution, otherwise don't expect from then to follow what you will say during such a stressful situation.
 
YYZYYT
Posts: 905
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2005 12:41 am

RE: Report On AF Crash At YYZ Released

Wed Dec 12, 2007 4:32 pm



Quoting Pihero (Reply 4):
This is the full official TSB report :
AF340Toronto accident report

Long and deatailed, as usual...Need time.

Regards

definitely will tkae time to read - but I am very interested in your thoughts, Pihero.
 
User avatar
GrahamHill
Posts: 2956
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 6:35 am

RE: Report On AF Crash At YYZ Released

Wed Dec 12, 2007 5:08 pm

"Idle reverse was selected 12.8 seconds after main gear touchdown, and full reverse was selected 16.4 seconds after main gear touchdown."

That's insane!  eyepopping 
"A learned fool is more foolish than an ignorant one" - Moliere
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 13358
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Report On AF Crash At YYZ Released

Wed Dec 12, 2007 6:59 pm



Quoting FlySSC (Reply 5):
If you don't want passengers to take their carry-on in an emergency evacuation, don't allow them to have carry on on board ! this is the only solution, otherwise don't expect from then to follow what you will say during such a stressful situation.

I'm sorry, but nothing I take on a plane is valuable enough to me that I will risk my life to take it off with me (apart from my wife).

No damned fool had better be trying to get their carry-on out in front of me when I'm trying to get off a burning plane. box 
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
 
ravel
Posts: 111
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2006 9:47 pm

RE: Report On AF Crash At YYZ Released

Wed Dec 12, 2007 7:14 pm

Too bad I can't get Globe and Mail videos to show... Tried many different browsers.
 
threepoint
Posts: 1292
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 10:49 am

RE: Report On AF Crash At YYZ Released

Wed Dec 12, 2007 7:30 pm

Quoting Spartanmjf (Reply 3):
that cabin crew did nothing short of miraculous work in getting those passengers out of that aircraft safely, and they should be commended for that great work!

They should be commended for their excellent work. But there was nothing miraculous about it.

Quoting FlySSC (Reply 5):
This is already the case.

Really? Very rarely do I ever hear anything about an evacuation except the position of the exit doors and the floor lighting. The carry-on rules just aren't mentioned, save for the stowing positions at takeoff and landing. You and I know why those rules are there, but 90% of your fellow passengers fail to make the connection.

Quoting FlySSC (Reply 5):
If you don't want passengers to take their carry-on in an emergency evacuation, don't allow them to have carry on on board ! this is the only solution, otherwise don't expect from then to follow what you will say during such a stressful situation.

Will never happen. But remember, most people are inherently sheep. In a confusing or terrifying situation, they will be led by a trained or simply assertive person.

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 8):
I'm sorry, but nothing I take on a plane is valuable enough to me that I will risk my life to take it off with me

Disappointingly, many passengers do not share that view. In many cases it's a conditioned response to 'grab your stuff and flee' rather than a conscious thought process.

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 8):
No damned fool had better be trying to get their carry-on out in front of me when I'm trying to get off a burning plane.

As desperate and tough as you may be, there will always be somebody in that circumstance more desperate and tough trying to get out just as fast as you. Example (from the TSB report): Two of the passengers incurred serious injuries-one when he jumped from the exit, a height of 10 to 12 feet, and the other when pushed out of the exit by other passengers.

[Edited 2007-12-12 11:52:09]
The nice thing about a mistake is the pleasure it gives others.
 
eddieho
Posts: 223
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2004 11:09 am

RE: Report On AF Crash At YYZ Released

Wed Dec 12, 2007 7:31 pm

 
A346Dude
Posts: 1161
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 11:23 am

RE: Report On AF Crash At YYZ Released

Wed Dec 12, 2007 7:58 pm



Quoting GrahamHill (Reply 7):
"Idle reverse was selected 12.8 seconds after main gear touchdown, and full reverse was selected 16.4 seconds after main gear touchdown."

That's insane!

That stuck out for me too.

The report attributes this to the fact that around the time of touchdown, the aircraft entered an especially severe downpour which severely reduced visibility. The pilots were looking out the side windows just trying to determine their position relative to the runway, and were so focussed on staying on the runway they didn't have enough time or concentration to do anything else.
You know the gear is up and locked when it takes full throttle to taxi to the terminal.
 
User avatar
litz
Posts: 1876
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2003 6:01 am

RE: Report On AF Crash At YYZ Released

Wed Dec 12, 2007 9:13 pm



Quoting A346Dude (Reply 12):
The pilots were looking out the side windows just trying to determine their position relative to the runway, and were so focussed on staying on the runway they didn't have enough time or concentration to do anything else.

Which brings things full circle back to the other main glaring point : this should have been a go-around.

- litz
 
AF340
Posts: 2267
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 7:57 am

RE: Report On AF Crash At YYZ Released

Wed Dec 12, 2007 9:47 pm



Quoting Litz (Reply 13):
Which brings things full circle back to the other main glaring point : this should have been a go-around.

Absolutely! I remember that day and how bad the weather was. Hitting the tail end of a microburst, landing in the middle of the runway, then 12 seconds later deploying the thrust reversers and not doing a go-around. Sounds to me like a bit of a case of Get-thereitis.



AF340 wave 
 
threepoint
Posts: 1292
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 10:49 am

RE: Report On AF Crash At YYZ Released

Wed Dec 12, 2007 10:01 pm



Quoting AF340 (Reply 14):
Sounds to me like a bit of a case of Get-thereitis.

Not at all, the way I read the report. The aircrew considered various diversion airports at many stages of the incident flight and were under no pressures, implied or otherwise. The possible reasons for a delayed application of reverse thrust were also addressed.
My utter speculation is that the crew didn't even realize they were in peril of an overrun until they only had a couple thousand feet remaining on the runway, by which time the only option is to hang on for the ride. Attempting a go-around in that circumstance would likely have ended with a much worse outcome.
The nice thing about a mistake is the pleasure it gives others.
 
User avatar
litz
Posts: 1876
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2003 6:01 am

RE: Report On AF Crash At YYZ Released

Wed Dec 12, 2007 10:46 pm



Quoting Threepoint (Reply 15):
My utter speculation is that the crew didn't even realize they were in peril of an overrun until they only had a couple thousand feet remaining on the runway, by which time the only option is to hang on for the ride. Attempting a go-around in that circumstance would likely have ended with a much worse outcome.

On this I agree ... once they'd gone past the point where TOGA would fail, there's no choice ...

If they'd made the attempt, theyd've gone off the end at a much, much faster speed and we'd likely have a planeful of casualties instead of a planeful of survivors.

What I found particularly telling was the sequence of pictures taken by someone on the ramp at the airport (incredibly enough, one of which shows AF358 on short final in the background) that show how fast the visibility went to absolute crap as the storm hit.

Awful, just awful weather.

- litz
 
ContnlEliteCMH
Posts: 1376
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 8:19 am

RE: Report On AF Crash At YYZ Released

Wed Dec 12, 2007 10:52 pm

The report says that even if...

... the airplane touched down at the proper speed, and
... the thrust reversers had deployed on time

then the airplane wouldn't have been able to stop on the runway given where it touched down. Of course, it might not have been going nearly so fast when it departed the runway.

From section 1.6.5: Stopping Performance

With full reverse thrust selected after touchdown in accordance with the AFM and the aircraft touching down at the recommended speed, the aircraft would have used 5574 feet (1699 m) of runway. As noted in Section 1.1.4, the touchdown point was 3800 feet down the 9000-foot runway.
Christianity. Islam. Hinduism. Anthropogenic Global Warming. All are matters of faith!
 
TaromA380
Posts: 275
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 12:35 am

RE: Report On AF Crash At YYZ Released

Wed Dec 12, 2007 11:12 pm

I didn't find the CVR transcript !?
 
User avatar
GrahamHill
Posts: 2956
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 6:35 am

RE: Report On AF Crash At YYZ Released

Wed Dec 12, 2007 11:28 pm

Air France published a press release concerning the Canadian report today. Among others:

Quote:
Air France declares that it agrees with the recommendations made in the TSB's final report, and in particular those concerning:

* the drawing up of clear standards to limit approaches and landings in stormy conditions;
* improved pilot training to ensure they take the right decision at the time of landing when weather conditions rapidly deteriorate;
* crews to establish the margin of error between landing distance available and landing distance required before conducting an approach into deteriorating weather;
* installation of a 300 m Runway Edge Safety Area (RESA) on all type 4 runways.

More here: http://corporate.airfrance.com/index...tnews[tt_news]=1667&L=1&no_cache=1
"A learned fool is more foolish than an ignorant one" - Moliere
 
pnwtraveler
Posts: 1067
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 2:12 am

RE: Report On AF Crash At YYZ Released

Wed Dec 12, 2007 11:32 pm

Since KLM diverted just prior to AF landing that should have been a warning sign. It was a 747. Landing on that particular runway during that type of weather should not have happened. One of the two other longer runways that are parallel should only be used in my opinion.
 
PITrules
Posts: 2109
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2000 11:27 am

RE: Report On AF Crash At YYZ Released

Wed Dec 12, 2007 11:33 pm

From the "Factual Information" section of the report:

"This runway was newly constructed and certified for use in October 2002. The entire surface consisted of HMA. The bearings for Runway 24L are 227ºT/237ºM. The runway is 9000 feet (2743 m) long by 200 feet (61 m) wide and is not grooved. "

"Cutting or forming grooves in existing or new pavement is a proven and effective technique for improving the drainage of some runways and providing skid resistance and preventing hydroplaning during wet weather. Test results demonstrated that, on similarly wetted grooved runways, the transverse runway grooves produced substantially greater aircraft braking friction levels than were shown by the wetted ungrooved surface data."


On first thought, I can't imagine how a newly designed and constructed runway was built without grooves. What an oversight. But then the report continues...

"In Canada, only four runways have been grooved. This reflects a policy to employ grooving only where an unusual drainage problem exists. As well, grooving allows accumulation of ice and snow in the grooves, which can lead to runway deterioration and the creation of foreign objects on the runway.

So the lack of grooving was an intentional tradeoff, one which would seem to have failed the AF flight.

I am not dismissing all the other factors contributing to the accident, but I find it strange the Canadian gov't would admit the benefit of grooving under the "factual" section of the report, but not make a mention of it in the "Analysis", "Conclusions", and "Safety Actions" sections of the report.

But then I would not expect a government to admit one of it's policies (the lack of grooving at airports) to be a contributing factor in it's own report.

I have landed a tiny CRJ at that airport15 minutes after a rainshower. The runway was damp with the sun shining. But the tower reported the Braking Action "Poor". I could not believe the runway conditions upon landing, it was almost like landing on a sheet of ice because of the built up rubber deposits and lack of grooving.
FLYi
 
eddieho
Posts: 223
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2004 11:09 am

RE: Report On AF Crash At YYZ Released

Wed Dec 12, 2007 11:34 pm

No they didnt post the transcripts

The analysis and conclusion read is very interesting

Here's some of the conclusions:

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/reports/air/2005/a05h0002/a05h0002_sec3.asp#3

------------------------


3.0 Conclusions
3.1 Findings as to Causes and Contributing Factors
The crew conducted an approach and landing in the midst of a severe and rapidly changing thunderstorm. There were no procedures within Air France related to distance required from thunderstorms during approaches and landing, nor were these required by regulations.


After the autopilot and autothrust systems were disengaged, the pilot flying (PF) increased the thrust in reaction to a decrease in the airspeed and a perception that the aircraft was sinking. The power increase contributed to an increase in aircraft energy and the aircraft deviated above the glide path.


At about 300 feet above ground level (agl), the surface wind began to shift from a headwind component to a 10-knot tailwind component, increasing the aircraft's groundspeed and effectively changing the flight path. The aircraft crossed the runway threshold about 40 feet above the normal threshold crossing height.


Approaching the threshold, the aircraft entered an intense downpour, and the forward visibility became severely reduced.


When the aircraft was near the threshold, the crew members became committed to the landing and believed their go-around option no longer existed.


The touchdown was long because the aircraft floated due to its excess speed over the threshold and because the intense rain and lightning made visual contact with the runway very difficult.


The aircraft touched down about 3800 feet from the threshold of Runway 24L, which left about 5100 feet of runway available to stop. The aircraft overran the end of Runway 24L at about 80 knots and was destroyed by fire when it entered the ravine.


Selection of the thrust reversers was delayed as was the subsequent application of full reverse thrust.


The pilot not flying (PNF) did not make the standard callouts concerning the spoilers and thrust reversers during the landing roll. This further contributed to the delay in the PF selecting the thrust reversers.


Because the runway was contaminated by water, the strength of the crosswind at touchdown exceeded the landing limits of the aircraft.


There were no landing distances indicated on the operational flight plan for a contaminated runway condition at the Toronto/Lester B. Pearson International Airport (CYYZ).


Despite aviation routine weather reports (METARs) calling for thunderstorms at CYYZ at the expected time of landing, the crew did not calculate the landing distance required for Runway 24L. Consequently, they were not aware of the margin of error available for the landing runway nor that it was eliminated once the tailwind was experienced.


Although the area up to 150 m beyond the end of Runway 24L was compliant with Aerodrome Standards and Recommended Practices (TP 312E), the topography of the terrain beyond this point, along the extended runway centreline, contributed to aircraft damage and to the injuries to crew and passengers.


The downpour diluted the firefighting foam agent and reduced its efficiency in dousing the fuel-fed fire, which eventually destroyed most of the aircraft.

3.2 Findings as to Risk
In the absence of clear guidelines with respect to the conduct of approaches into convective weather, there is a greater likelihood that crews will continue to conduct approaches into such conditions, increasing the risk of an approach and landing accident.


A policy where only the captain can make the decision to conduct a missed approach can increase the likelihood that an unsafe condition will not be recognized early and, therefore, increase the time it might otherwise take to initiate a missed approach.


Although it could not be determined whether the use of the rain repellent system would have improved the forward visibility in the downpour, the crew did not have adequate information about the capabilities and operation of the rain repellent system and did not consider using it.


The information available to flight crews on initial approach in convective weather does not optimally assist them in developing a clear idea of the weather that may be encountered later in the approach.


During approaches in convective weather, crews may falsely rely on air traffic control (ATC) to provide them with suggestions and directions as to whether to land or not.


Some pilots have the impression that ATC will close the airport if weather conditions make landings unsafe; ATC has no such mandate.


Wind information from ground-based measuring systems (anemometers) is critical to the safe landing of aircraft. Redundancy of the system should prevent a single-point failure from causing a total loss of relevant wind information.


The emergency power for both the public address (PA) and EVAC alert systems are located in the avionics bay. A less vulnerable system and/or location would reduce the risk of these systems failing during a survivable crash.


Brace commands were not given by the cabin crew during this unexpected emergency condition. Although it could not be determined if some of the passengers were injured as a result, research shows that the risk of injury is reduced if passengers brace properly.


Safety information cards given to passengers travelling in the flight decks of Air France Airbus A340-313 aircraft do not include illustrations depicting emergency exit windows, descent ropes or the evacuation panel in the flight deck doors.


There are no clear visual cues to indicate that some dual-lane slides actually have two lanes. As a result, these slides were used mostly as single-lane slides. This likely slowed the evacuation, but this fact was not seen as a contributing factor to the injuries suffered by the passengers.


Although all passengers managed to evacuate, the evacuation was impeded because nearly 50 per cent of the passengers retrieved carry-on baggage.

3.3 Other Findings
There is no indication that the captain's medical condition or fatigue played a role in this occurrence.


The crew did not request long aerodrome forecast (TAF) information while en route. This did not affect the outcome of this occurrence because the CYYZ forecast did not change appreciably from information the flight crew members received before departure, and they received updated METARs for CYYZ and Niagara Falls International Airport (KIAG).


The possibility of a diversion required the flight crew to check the weather for various potential alternates and to complete fuel calculations. Although these activities consumed considerable time and energy, there is no indication that they were unusual for this type of operation or that they overtaxed the flight crew.


The decision to continue with the approach was consistent with normal industry practice, in that the crew could continue with the intent to land while maintaining the option to discontinue the approach if they assessed that the conditions were becoming unsafe.


There is no indication that more sophisticated ATC weather radar information, had it been available and communicated to the crew, would have altered their decision to continue to land.


It could not be determined why door L2 opened before the aircraft came to a stop.


There is no indication that the aircraft was struck by lightning.


There is no information to indicate that the aircraft encountered windshear during its approach and landing.


The flight crew seats are certified to a lower standard than the cabin seats, which may have been a factor in the injuries incurred by the captain.
 
MattRB
Posts: 1358
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 4:49 am

RE: Report On AF Crash At YYZ Released

Thu Dec 13, 2007 12:54 am



Quoting PITrules (Reply 21):
On first thought, I can't imagine how a newly designed and constructed runway was built without grooves. What an oversight.

Hardly an oversight. Given the weather conditions that we encounter up here, it's necessary to not groove the runways to ensure that they're not constantly in a state of repair.

Quoting PITrules (Reply 21):
So the lack of grooving was an intentional tradeoff, one which would seem to have failed the AF flight.

It didn't fail the AF flight at all. The aircraft ran off the runway, not skidded. Had the AF flight skidded off the runway, then yes, you could say that the runway not being grooved was a contributing factor.

Quoting PITrules (Reply 21):
But then I would not expect a government to admit one of it's policies (the lack of grooving at airports) to be a contributing factor in it's own report.

Why would it mention a policy that played no contributing factor whatsoever in the crash?

You should also note the wording of what you posted:

"Cutting or forming grooves in existing or new pavement is a proven and effective technique for improving the drainage of some runways and providing skid resistance and preventing hydroplaning during wet weather."

Grooving is not effective on all runways, only some.
Aviation is proof that given, the will, we have the capacity to achieve the impossible.
 
Pihero
Posts: 4196
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:11 am

RE: Report On AF Crash At YYZ Released

Thu Dec 13, 2007 12:55 am

MODERATORS,
THERE ARE THREE THREADS ON THIS VERY SUBJECT.
COULD YOU MIX THEM INTO JUST ONE, PLEASE ?
Contrail designer
 
PITrules
Posts: 2109
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2000 11:27 am

RE: Report On AF Crash At YYZ Released

Thu Dec 13, 2007 1:43 am



Quoting MattRB (Reply 23):
Hardly an oversight. Given the weather conditions that we encounter up here, it's necessary to not groove the runways to ensure that they're not constantly in a state of repair.

Grooving is not necessary to ensure they are not always in a state of repair? So it's OK to have a braking action of "poor" on a runway only damp (not even wet). Couldn't disagree more.

And what about the weather? It isn't any different in YYZ than it is in BUF, SYR, ROC, MSP, BOS, ANC, etc. They prefer grooving.

Quoting MattRB (Reply 23):
It didn't fail the AF flight at all. The aircraft ran off the runway, not skidded. Had the AF flight skidded off the runway, then yes, you could say that the runway not being grooved was a contributing factor.

It didn't "skid" off the runway because the aircraft has "anti-skid", which was working.

Quoting MattRB (Reply 23):
Why would it mention a policy that played no contributing factor whatsoever in the crash?

OK - my original point - just because the gov't says so, then it must be so; right? Wrong. Anyone who thinks grooves wouldn't have helped AF is a fool. But that's just MHO.

Since you seemed to only read parts of my post, here is the rest of the text by the Canadian gov't:

"Test results demonstrated that, on similarly wetted grooved runways, the transverse runway grooves produced substantially greater aircraft braking friction levels than were shown by the wetted ungrooved surface data."

On first thought, I can't imagine how a newly designed and constructed runway was built without grooves. What an oversight. But then the report continues...

"In Canada, only four runways have been grooved. This reflects a policy to employ grooving only where an unusual drainage problem exists. As well, grooving allows accumulation of ice and snow in the grooves, which can lead to runway deterioration and the creation of foreign objects on the runway."

In other words, unlike BUF, MSP, etc., YYZ traded in snow and ice (and cost of repair) in the grooves in exchange for less braking action. So yes, AF lost out in this regard.

Again, I am not dismissing all the other factors in the crash. Just pointing out how the Canadian government admits grooves improve braking action "substantially" (their words), but then fails to include it as a contributing factor.

Quoting MattRB (Reply 23):
Grooving is not effective on all runways, only some.

And you think it is not effective at YYZ......because..??????
I'd like to hear why.
FLYi
 
lnglive1011yyz
Posts: 1502
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2003 12:23 pm

RE: Report On AF Crash At YYZ Released

Thu Dec 13, 2007 2:16 am



Quoting PITrules (Reply 25):
In other words, unlike BUF, MSP, etc., YYZ traded in snow and ice (and cost of repair) in the grooves in exchange for less braking action. So yes, AF lost out in this regard.

Because it snows here 6 months out of the year.

As you stated in your own argument I think, the report says that Grooving causes snow and ice buildup.

For 6 months out of the year, I'd rather land on a runway that didn't allow for snow and ice buildup, and trade-off the liklihood that my plane won't stop.

I think the contributing factors such as the tailwind, landing more than 1/2 way down the runway, the tardy application of reverse thrust, the decision to continue on an approach in weather that clearly exceeded safety concerns, and the overall misjudgement of the weather conditions trump the issue of an ungrooved runway.

Had there been grooves in the runway, given the evidence I've read so far in the report, this plane was going off the runway whether the pilots liked it or not.

The part of your argument where you quote the part of the report where it says that grooving the runway greatly reduced the stopping distance, LIKELY did not apply to the OTHER set of circumstances that were pointed out in the report. (I.E, too far down the runway.. tardy application of reverse thrust, continuning on an unstable weather approach, etc etc) .

Had the proper decisions been made during the approach, we wouldn't be sitting here discussing this.

I'm NOT arguing the fact that grooving the runway MIGHT help during wet conditions. However, does it help as much during cold/freezing weather? The policy seems to state that it doesn't.

Quoting PITrules (Reply 25):
And you think it is not effective at YYZ......because..??????
I'd like to hear why.

Again.. with snow and ice an almost daily occurrence here for 6 months of the year, the benefits of NOT having it appear to outweigh the benefits of grooving the runway.

1011yyz
Pack your bags, we're going on a sympathy trip!
 
BlueSkys
Posts: 286
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:58 am

RE: Report On AF Crash At YYZ Released

Thu Dec 13, 2007 2:26 am

I was right by the airport when it ran off the runway. The weather at the time I would consider to be ZERO visibility. I could not see the end of my car it was raining that bad.

I saw the fire and smoke and the plane when it the weather cleared up. It is a surreal feeling to be watching and airplane that size burning. I could not believe that anyone survived.

Anyone know where the CVR script can be found?
 
PITrules
Posts: 2109
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2000 11:27 am

RE: Report On AF Crash At YYZ Released

Thu Dec 13, 2007 2:39 am



Quoting Lnglive1011yyz (Reply 26):

OK, that's fine, but what does cold/snow/ice have to do with the Air France crash?

The fact remains Air France didn't crash under those conditions. The report states grooves help braking "substantially". But since YYZ runways are apparently designed for winter (again, different from ANC, MSP, and many other places with the same snow season as YYZ), Air France DID NOT HAVE THAT BENEFIT!

In optimizing (in their view) for winter, summer runway conditions have been de-optimized. It would have been nice if the report stated such
FLYi
 
threepoint
Posts: 1292
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 10:49 am

RE: Report On AF Crash At YYZ Released

Thu Dec 13, 2007 2:59 am



Quoting ContnlEliteCMH (Reply 17):
The report says that even if...

... the airplane touched down at the proper speed, and
... the thrust reversers had deployed on time

then the airplane wouldn't have been able to stop on the runway given where it touched down.

This seems to be a statement on the wrong variables. I think that "given where it (the plane) touched down" was a more contributing variable than the slightly higher than normal indicated airspeed.

Quoting Pnwtraveler (Reply 20):
Since KLM diverted just prior to AF landing that should have been a warning sign. It was a 747.

However, the previous two planes to AF358 landed safely on that runway, although the one immediately prior to AF358 (a CRJ) reported braking action as 'poor', which may not have been heard by the crew. Were you referring to a diversion prior to an approach?

Quoting Lnglive1011yyz (Reply 26):
I think the contributing factors such as...landing more than 1/2 way down the runway

You may need to revise your math on this one.

Quoting Lnglive1011yyz (Reply 26):
with snow and ice an almost daily occurrence here for 6 months of the year

Almost daily for 6 months a year? Come on now, it ain't Iqaluit.

Quoting BlueSkys (Reply 27):
The weather at the time I would consider to be ZERO visibility.

Which would make seeing your hand in front of your face very difficult. Yet there is included in the report a photograph taken from the ramp of the accident aircraft on final approach at a distance which must be at least 1 km.
The nice thing about a mistake is the pleasure it gives others.
 
A346Dude
Posts: 1161
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 11:23 am

RE: Report On AF Crash At YYZ Released

Thu Dec 13, 2007 3:00 am



Quoting PITrules (Reply 28):
In optimizing (in their view) for winter, summer runway conditions have been de-optimized. It would have been nice if the report stated such

It's called a compromise. You cannot have a runway that is optimal in both summer and winter unless you want to groove and de-groove it every 6 months.

The report also states that with the depth of water on the runway at the time of the accident, grooving would likely not have made any difference.
You know the gear is up and locked when it takes full throttle to taxi to the terminal.
 
MattRB
Posts: 1358
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 4:49 am

RE: Report On AF Crash At YYZ Released

Thu Dec 13, 2007 3:10 am



Quoting PITrules (Reply 25):

Grooving is not necessary to ensure they are not always in a state of repair?

Go have a read: http://www.ceat.uiuc.edu/PUBLICATIONS/technotes/TN%2028%20Buttlar.pdf. Note the part in the beginning where it states "Despite their widespread application, grooves in hot-mix asphalt (HMA) runways are prone to several distresses that limit their longevity at the desired level of serviceability." Grooving directly contributes to a short service life.

Quoting PITrules (Reply 25):
So it's OK to have a braking action of "poor" on a runway only damp (not even wet). Couldn't disagree more.

What instruments are used to measure braking action on a runway? When you given a braking report to the tower, what instrument in the flight deck provides you with the measurement and what standard do you use to derive the information you provide?

Or is it just pilot opinion?

Quoting PITrules (Reply 25):
And what about the weather? It isn't any different in YYZ than it is in BUF, SYR, ROC, MSP, BOS, ANC, etc. They prefer grooving.

It's quite different in BOS, where they have a salt water ocean sitting right next to the airfield. Same with ANC - not to mention the difference in climate up there.

Just because they prefer grooving doesn't mean that it should be adopted as an industry standard.

As well, FYI, MSP is mostly concrete runways and not hot-mix asphalt like here in YYZ.

Quoting PITrules (Reply 25):
It didn't "skid" off the runway because the aircraft has "anti-skid", which was working.

Nor did it skid off the runway due to hydroplaning:

Quoting TSB Report - Air 2005 - A05H0002 (Thread starter):

There was no evidence (marks on the runway or skidding or rubber reversion of the tires) that hydroplaning occurred during the landing rollout.

This seems to suggest that, despite the fact that there was heavy rain in the vicinity and, despite the lack of grooves on the runway, that there was insufficient standing water on the runway to allow hydroplaning to occur.

The aircraft ran off the runway.

Quoting PITrules (Reply 25):
Anyone who thinks grooves wouldn't have helped AF is a fool.

Grooves would not have helped AF358. Go ahead, call me foolish, but all the evidence in the report points to this fact. There was no evidence of hydroplaning, so what good would grooves have done to prevent an aircraft that landed high (40 ft above the gs @ the threshold), long (3800ft down the runway), fast (143kts), and failed to deploy its thrust reversers in a timely manner from going off the end of a runway that was, according to the company manual, too short for the conditions?

Quoting PITrules (Reply 25):
Again, I am not dismissing all the other factors in the crash. Just pointing out how the Canadian government admits grooves improve braking action "substantially" (their words), but then fails to include it as a contributing factor.

Because it wasn't. Grooving would have made absolutely no difference in this instance. This aircraft was going off the end no matter what happened because it was not in a stabilized approach and the pilot committed to this landing when he shouldn't have.
Aviation is proof that given, the will, we have the capacity to achieve the impossible.
 
MattRB
Posts: 1358
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 4:49 am

RE: Report On AF Crash At YYZ Released

Thu Dec 13, 2007 3:15 am



Quoting PITrules (Reply 25):
Just pointing out how the Canadian government admits grooves improve braking action "substantially" (their words), but then fails to include it as a contributing factor.

You forgot to mention the part in the report (the same one where they admit it improves braking action "substantially") where it says:

Quoting TSB Report - Air 2005 - A05H0002 (Thread starter):
However, in severe rainfall conditions, such as were present at the time of landing, a grooved runway may not make a significant difference to the stopping distance of an aircraft. Runway 24L was not grooved.

Again, as I've said, grooving would not have made any difference.
Aviation is proof that given, the will, we have the capacity to achieve the impossible.
 
PITrules
Posts: 2109
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2000 11:27 am

RE: Report On AF Crash At YYZ Released

Thu Dec 13, 2007 3:19 am



Quoting A346Dude (Reply 30):
It's called a compromise. You cannot have a runway that is optimal in both summer and winter unless you want to groove and de-groove it every 6 months.

One AGAIN, compared to other winter airports worldwide, Canadian airports are in the vast minority considering they are not grooved.

And even if it is a legitimate compromise, then put in the report! "Runway surface design not optimal during accident."
That's all I'm asking for.

Quoting A346Dude (Reply 30):
The report also states that with the depth of water on the runway at the time of the accident, grooving would likely not have made any difference.

It also states "Few, if any, airports provide information on runway water depth.

Furthermore, one of the purposes of grooves is to help the water run off. No one will ever know what the water depth would have been that day had it been grooved. But it would have been less than it was.
FLYi
 
Olympus69
Posts: 1571
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2002 11:21 pm

RE: Report On AF Crash At YYZ Released

Thu Dec 13, 2007 3:47 am



Quoting Lnglive1011yyz (Reply 26):
with snow and ice an almost daily occurrence here for 6 months of the year,

That is rubbish! The average first and last snowfall dates in Toronto are early to mid November thru early to mid April - 5 months. Days with snow and/or ice on the runways would average about 8 days in November, 12 in December, a total of around 45 for January/February/March and 5 in April, totalling 70 days. Toronto's annual snowfall averages about 140 cm. or 55 inches.

Those snow/day numbers are really guesses, based on 60 years as a Toronto resident and probably err on the high side.

John.
 
PITrules
Posts: 2109
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2000 11:27 am

RE: Report On AF Crash At YYZ Released

Thu Dec 13, 2007 3:48 am



Quoting MattRB (Reply 31):
Go have a read: http://www.ceat.uiuc.edu/PUBLICATIONS/technotes/TN%2028%20Buttlar.pdf. Note the part in the beginning where it states "Despite their widespread application, grooves in hot-mix asphalt (HMA) runways are prone to several distresses that limit their longevity at the desired level of serviceability." Grooving directly contributes to a short service life.

So YYZ deviated from worldwide standard due to cost.

Quoting MattRB (Reply 31):
What instruments are used to measure braking action on a runway? When you given a braking report to the tower, what instrument in the flight deck provides you with the measurement and what standard do you use to derive the information you provide?

Or is it just pilot opinion

Yes, pilot judgement. Sometimes airport vehicles are also used.

Quoting MattRB (Reply 31):
Just because they prefer grooving doesn't mean that it should be adopted as an industry standard.

It already is, and has been for decades.

Quoting MattRB (Reply 31):
This seems to suggest that, despite the fact that there was heavy rain in the vicinity and, despite the lack of grooves on the runway, that there was insufficient standing water on the runway to allow hydroplaning to occur.

It suggests because antiskid was working properly, the brakes were not gripping at all, due to poor braking action. That was because of standing water, which in turn had built up in part due to a lack of grooves.

Quoting MattRB (Reply 31):
This seems to suggest that, despite the fact that there was heavy rain in the vicinity and, despite the lack of grooves on the runway, that there was insufficient standing water on the runway to allow hydroplaning to occur.

Contradicting

Quoting A346Dude (Reply 30):
The report also states that with the depth of water on the runway at the time of the accident, grooving would likely not have made any difference.

and...

Quoting MattRB (Reply 32):
You forgot to mention the part in the report (the same one where they admit it improves braking action "substantially") where it says:

Quoting TSB Report - Air 2005 - A05H0002 (Thread starter):
However, in severe rainfall conditions, such as were present at the time of landing, a grooved runway may not make a significant difference to the stopping distance of an aircraft. Runway 24L was not grooved.

Even though I do not support the above two quotes.

Quoting MattRB (Reply 32):
Again, as I've said, grooving would not have made any difference.

That's your opinion.

True, the aircraft still may have gone off, but most likely at a lower speed.
FLYi
 
MattRB
Posts: 1358
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 4:49 am

RE: Report On AF Crash At YYZ Released

Thu Dec 13, 2007 4:26 am



Quoting PITrules (Reply 35):
So YYZ deviated from worldwide standard due to cost.

Please show the standards (that Canada is a signatory to) where it states that all runways are to be built with grooves.

Quoting PITrules (Reply 35):
It suggests because antiskid was working properly, the brakes were not gripping at all, due to poor braking action. That was because of standing water, which in turn had built up in part due to a lack of grooves.

Enough standing water to prevent the aircraft brakes from functioning properly, but not enough to induce hydroplaning? How much water does that require? Would that amount be able to build up on a surface with an overall longitudinal downward slope as well as a lateral downward slope and storm drains?
Aviation is proof that given, the will, we have the capacity to achieve the impossible.
 
pnwtraveler
Posts: 1067
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 2:12 am

RE: Report On AF Crash At YYZ Released

Thu Dec 13, 2007 4:44 am



Quoting Threepoint (Reply 29):
Were you referring to a diversion prior to an approach?

Yes sorry. KLM chose to divert before starting to approach YYZ. AF would have heard their discussion with ATC.

Quoting Olympus69 (Reply 34):
Toronto's annual snowfall averages about 140 cm. or 55 inches.

 checkmark  I would guess the last few years it has been even less. I know how often I have had to get the snowblower out of the garage. Buffalo has consistantly more snow when we have more sleet and rain due to the side of the lake we are on. Buffalo's snow comes from both Lake Ontario and Lake Erie.

Does Buffalo have cement runways or asphalt?
 
MattRB
Posts: 1358
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 4:49 am

RE: Report On AF Crash At YYZ Released

Thu Dec 13, 2007 4:54 am



Quoting Pnwtraveler (Reply 37):
Does Buffalo have cement runways or asphalt?

Asphalt & grooved.
Aviation is proof that given, the will, we have the capacity to achieve the impossible.
 
threepoint
Posts: 1292
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 10:49 am

RE: Report On AF Crash At YYZ Released

Thu Dec 13, 2007 5:00 am



Quoting PITrules (Reply 35):
So YYZ deviated from worldwide standard due to cost.

What worldwide standard is that exactly? And one thing you should know about the GTAA (YYZ operators) is that they are certainly not shy of spending money on facilities & infrastructure.

Quoting PITrules (Reply 35):
That was because of standing water, which in turn had built up in part due to a lack of grooves.

Two years of exhaustive research by the accident investigators and you're questioning their report in the first couple hours? You are making a substantial leap in assuming any standing water was deeper than it may have been on a grooved runway. I might argue that grooves would actually impede the lateral draining of the runway. Or we could agree that when a CB of that magnitude unleashes as it did that day, a bloody great culvert in the middle of the runway would not have drained the water fast enough.
The nice thing about a mistake is the pleasure it gives others.
 
PITrules
Posts: 2109
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2000 11:27 am

RE: Report On AF Crash At YYZ Released

Thu Dec 13, 2007 7:21 am



Quoting MattRB (Reply 36):
Please show the standards (that Canada is a signatory to) where it states that all runways are to be built with grooves.

When the majority of the major airports in first world countries have grooved runways, would you not consider that a 'standard' that Canada does not adhere to? I didn't say "regulatory". As far as regulatory, I believe ICAO Annex 14 volume 1 covers airport surfaces and runway texture.

Quoting Threepoint (Reply 39):
Two years of exhaustive research by the accident investigators and you're questioning their report in the first couple hours?

It raised an eyebrow when the introduction section states grooving substantially improves braking on wet runways, but the report does not mention the lack of grooves as a factor.

Quoting Threepoint (Reply 39):
You are making a substantial leap in assuming any standing water was deeper than it may have been on a grooved runway. I might argue that grooves would actually impede the lateral draining of the runway.

Not really, if you do a google search on runway grooving, you will find a plethora of articles and documents stating otherwise.
FLYi
 
tribird1011
Posts: 196
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 10:08 pm

RE: Report On AF Crash At YYZ Released

Thu Dec 13, 2007 8:21 am



Quoting Pnwtraveler (Reply 20):
Since KLM diverted just prior to AF landing that should have been a warning sign. It was a 747. Landing on that particular runway during that type of weather should not have happened.



Quoting Pnwtraveler (Reply 37):


Quoting Threepoint (Reply 29):
Were you referring to a diversion prior to an approach?

Yes sorry. KLM chose to divert before starting to approach YYZ. AF would have heard their discussion with ATC.

Not quite. Had AF landed successfully, KLM would have been the next aircraft to land on 24L. I remember hearing the liveatc archives where AF is handed off from the approach to the tower, and then tells KLM that he's cleared for the approach on 24L and to slow to (either 170KTS or 190KTS - don't remember exactly).

about a minute and half later (2 at most) the controller then tells KLM that he's no longer landing on 24L due to a plane sliding off the runway and issues missed approach instructions (KLM never talked to the tower) - at which point KLM declares a PAN call due to low fuel, and diverts to where ever it ended up.

Not sure if has been mentioned, but I don't think that this was was the initial approach for either aircraft - with regards to AF, there were rumours that he'd gone around about 4 times (personally I find this very doubtful - miss once, try again, miss twice - go somewhere else...) as for KLM (unless they were holding until they pretty much ran out of fuel) you shouldn't have a fuel issue on a missed approach, (even on a second one) - but I don't know how long they actually held...
 
RuudOnline
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 11:19 pm

RE: Report On AF Crash At YYZ Released

Thu Dec 13, 2007 11:29 am

Indeed, the KLM diverted to KSYR due to low fuel emergency after the crash

The atc tape:

http://members.home.nl/ruuddevries/CYYZ-Toronto-Aug-02-05-1600.mp3
 
QantasHeavy
Posts: 277
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 4:47 pm

RE: Report On AF Crash At YYZ Released

Thu Dec 13, 2007 11:58 am

Landing in and around thunderstorms is a bad idea. Surprised there is no policy for that. Yes I know a tower can't order someone not to land or something to that effect, but Delta 191 seemed to change a lot of the arrival procedures for thunderstorms. US in Charlotte and AA in Little Rock were nasty reminders.

Is there a general rule of 20 miles away from red/purple on the wx radar, at least on the downwind side of a storm? Even though there may not have been precip coming down they obviously were near a cumulonimbus cloud which the airport's doppler would have detected even if the aircraft was below the base of it on approach (and the onboard WX radar not pointed up).

Landing in thunderstorms wrecks a lot of planes. I am just glad the AF crew got everyone out in time. Miracle.
 
David L
Posts: 8547
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: Report On AF Crash At YYZ Released

Thu Dec 13, 2007 1:21 pm



Quoting Tribird1011 (Reply 41):
Quoting Pnwtraveler (Reply 37):


Quoting Threepoint (Reply 29):
Were you referring to a diversion prior to an approach?

Yes sorry. KLM chose to divert before starting to approach YYZ. AF would have heard their discussion with ATC.

Not quite. Had AF landed successfully, KLM would have been the next aircraft to land on 24L.

That's what I keep coming back to. It's all very well saying with hindsight that AF358 should not have attempted a landing but you can't ignore the stream of aircraft that did land in front of them and the stream of aircraft that were lined up behind them, ready to land. In my amateur opinion, the crew of AF358 were no more guilty of attempting to land in poor conditions than almost everyone else around them. As to why they landed so far down the runway and why they didn't go around, I'll leave that to the experts.
 
ContnlEliteCMH
Posts: 1376
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 8:19 am

RE: Report On AF Crash At YYZ Released

Thu Dec 13, 2007 2:08 pm



Quoting Threepoint (Reply 29):
This seems to be a statement on the wrong variables. I think that "given where it (the plane) touched down" was a more contributing variable than the slightly higher than normal indicated airspeed.

To which statement do you refer? Mine, or the report's? If mine, you are overreaching considerably on what I wrote since I drew no conclusions about which variables caused other variables or consequences. I was merely observing that according to Airbus' figures, had everything else been textbook, they *still* wouldn't have stopped on the runway given where they touched down. However, they would have been going much more slowly since by Airbus' math they would have overrun the runway by only a few hundred feet at most. They surely wouldn't have departed at 80 knots, which is blazingly fast in a vehicle with zero design consideration for rolling over anything but smooth, paved surfaces.

I have a question: Is the overrun considered part of the 9,000' runway?
Christianity. Islam. Hinduism. Anthropogenic Global Warming. All are matters of faith!
 
beechnut
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 12:27 am

RE: Report On AF Crash At YYZ Released

Thu Dec 13, 2007 3:20 pm



Quoting Threepoint (Reply 15):
Not at all, the way I read the report. The aircrew considered various diversion airports at many stages of the incident flight and were under no pressures, implied or otherwise. The possible reasons for a delayed application of reverse thrust were also addressed.
My utter speculation is that the crew didn't even realize they were in peril of an overrun until they only had a couple thousand feet remaining on the runway, by which time the only option is to hang on for the ride. Attempting a go-around in that circumstance would likely have ended with a much worse outcome.

The other point regarding a possible go-around: in the report, they state that the crew rejected the possibility of a go-around on the basis of an active cell being in the missed approach path.

Beech.
 
beechnut
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 12:27 am

RE: Report On AF Crash At YYZ Released

Thu Dec 13, 2007 3:25 pm

I would also add, on the "get-thereitis" theme: the report indicates that the crew were examining options up to landing. One critical factor was the fuel situation; at 8.7 tonnes remaining and 7.3 tonnes required for a diversion to CYOW, their options were starting to shut down; they calculated they had six minutes of holding fuel at YYZ. IT was basically try an approach and get the hell out of there if it didn't work out. However the cell in the missed approach path led them to believe, once they were established on final, that a go-around was no longer an option. So it sounds to me like the last open door, the go-around, closed on them (or at least they interpreted it that way).

Interestingly the report notes that on the captain's previous trip (to Newark), they had to divert to Boston due to weather. So I don't think he was necessarily the "get thereitis" type of pilot.

Beech
 
Olympus69
Posts: 1571
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2002 11:21 pm

RE: Report On AF Crash At YYZ Released

Thu Dec 13, 2007 10:45 pm



Quoting ContnlEliteCMH (Reply 45):
Quoting Threepoint (Reply 29):
This seems to be a statement on the wrong variables. I think that "given where it (the plane) touched down" was a more contributing variable than the slightly higher than normal indicated airspeed

I probably should have picked a different person to quote here, but I just wanted to point out the fact that it wasn't the airspeed that mattered as much as the groundspeed, which I believe was as much as 20 knots higher due to the tailwind, than it would have been with a headwind.

Another factor which doesn't seem to have been mentioned, though I may have missed it, is that one cannot immediately start braking or using reverse thrust when one has touched down. If you do, you risk having the nose gear slam down and possibly collapse. It takes several seconds for the nose gear to touch the runway, possibly using up a thousand feet or more of the already too short length of remaining runway.
 
bennett123
Posts: 7441
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: Report On AF Crash At YYZ Released

Thu Dec 13, 2007 11:25 pm

Do'nt the performance tables for the type take this into account.

Who is online