Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: AF A340 Landed Halfway Down Runway - Investigators

Tue Aug 09, 2005 2:07 am

Quoting Stealthpilot (Reply 46):
Let's not be too hasty and jump to blame the pilots. It might turn out to be human error, it might not. It would be nice if life were simple enough to follow plain rules like that, but some companies push their crew directly and indirectly to get planes up and on time.

I asked my brother, a DL 764 pilot, about his views on what happened. He said most of the DL pilots he's talked to say that this accident was clear pilot error, and he agrees. The a/c simply landed too far down a wet runway, and didn't have sufficient room to stop the airplane. Upon coming out of the clouds, the AF pilots should have realized this and gone around once more. In my brother's words, they "gooned the landing, probably because they had a bad case of get-home-its."
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
TGV
Posts: 722
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 1:37 pm

RE: AF A340 Landed Halfway Down Runway - Investiga

Tue Aug 09, 2005 3:03 am

Just doing simple physics here, with values given above in the post:

V0 at touchdown: 275 km/h = 76.4 m/s
V1 at the end of the runway: 150 km/h = 41.7 m/s

Length of runway used: 5500' = 1676 m

Corresponding average deceleration between touchdown and end of runway: - 1.22 m/s.

Corresponding time: 28.4 s.


I am not an aviation specialist, but a railways specialist. I can tell you that emergency braking on a TGV (high speed train), between 300 km/h and 0 is made considering an average deceleration of -1.05 m/s. This value is conservative, as it is used for safety purposes, and must be guaranteed even in degraded modes for the rolling stock.
The braking power of airplanes is considerably higher than those of trains (you don't even have safety belts in trains!). So this -1.22 m/s is very low in my view.

I have found a site with the accident report of the A320 in Warsaw, giving the following values (page 38):
c) Actual deceleration values during rollout in Warsaw were:
- at the initial phase (15:34:00) -0.27g (about -2.6 m/s)
- at the final phase (15:34:16) -0.14g (about -1.4 m/s)
- average for the whole rollout -0.213g (about -2.1 m/s)

link : http://sunnyday.mit.edu/accidents/warsaw-report.html

We can see that the values are considerably higher than those found here, which confirms that there was a problem in the deceleration phase.

If we calculate the average deceleration that would have been necessary for the plane to stop in the 1676 m available between touchdown and the end of the runway we find -1.74 m/s, far less than the average deceleration made by the A320 in Warsaw, and a value that should therefore be possible for a plane without any problem. Using the A320 average deceleration value (-2.1 m/s), the A340 would have stopped 287 m before the end of the runway.

I would be interested if some aviation specialists could give us some deceleration data for planes, but for me the question, regardless of the touchdown point is: "for which reason the braking performances of this plane have been so low on the runway?".

[Edited 2005-08-08 20:19:32]
I will never fly again 777 with 3-4-3 config in Y
 
JAM747
Posts: 524
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 12:17 am

RE: AF A340 Landed Halfway Down Runway - Investigators

Tue Aug 09, 2005 3:04 am

Wouldn't surveillance cameras on runways be beneficiary to monitor landings and take offs in case of an incident the investigations could be easier? Maybe this is done already at some airports, does any one know? There are cameras at malls, tolls and all over airports why not have some for the runways?
 
redngold
Posts: 6686
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2000 12:26 pm

RE: AF A340 Landed Halfway Down Runway - Investigators

Tue Aug 09, 2005 3:22 am

I haven't seen a taxi/runway diagram of YYZ in a very long time, so I ask the following questions:

1. Is there a displaced threshold on Rwy 24L? If so, how far?

2. What is the length of Rwy 24R?

2. When comparing Rwy 24L and Rwy 24R, are their approach ends adjacent or staggered? If staggered, by how much?

3. Is there a displaced threshold on Rwy 24R? If so, by how much?

Leading to the ultimate question:
Is it possible that the PIC mistook Rwy 24L for Rwy 24R, and landed wrong due to this error?

(Yes, I know that he had to be dialed in to the correct frequencies and that he got landing clearance from ATC. I just wonder how many times these parallel runways create the potential for pilot error.)
Up, up and away!
 
jush
Posts: 1495
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2005 2:10 am

RE: AF A340 Landed Halfway Down Runway - Investigators

Tue Aug 09, 2005 3:33 am

very interesting to hear that the plane might only decreased its speed by 50 knots over half the runway until it ended up in the ravine.. the conditions must have been shitty on that runway...
There is one problem with airbus. Though their products are engineering marvels they lack passion, completely.
 
md80fanatic
Posts: 2365
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 11:29 pm

RE: AF A340 Landed Halfway Down Runway - Investiga

Tue Aug 09, 2005 4:05 am

Thanks for the 150kts correction.  Smile My bad.

When I use a mph-to-kt converter I get 150mph = 130.3kts.....what's up wit dat?  scratchchin 

However 130kts is still quite nearly unbelievable unless that bird was on glare ice. C'mon....Even on a wet runway with no reversers deployed, zero thrust, spoilers open and zero braking effort that bird should have slowed more than 18kts total in 4000ft (over 3/4 statute miles) due to the resistance caused by the weight of the aircraft on the wheel bearings alone.

If those bearing sets are that slippery....then Airbus should get out of the airliner business and start supplying the world's wheel bearing needs...talk about a money making proposition (considering the skyrocketing cost of fuel).

Something must still be missing IMO, as stated above by another poster.
 
md80fanatic
Posts: 2365
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 11:29 pm

RE: AF A340 Landed Halfway Down Runway - Investigators

Tue Aug 09, 2005 4:10 am

Yes, I now know it was Km/hr.....DUH.

Even at 80 knots I still think it should have slowed more than that in 4000ft, even totally unassisted (no thrust situation)

I'll shut up now...because I think we have a little "cover up" going on here....how nice!!! I will wait for the expert's expert expert conclusions.  Big grin
 
707lvr
Posts: 457
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 3:41 am

RE: AF A340 Landed Halfway Down Runway - Investigators

Tue Aug 09, 2005 4:35 am

There's an aerodrome chart for Pearson here:

http://taylor.textamerica.com/

about 60% down a very long page with some interesting facts and discussion.
 
Olympus69
Posts: 1571
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2002 11:21 pm

RE: AF A340 Landed Halfway Down Runway - Investigators

Tue Aug 09, 2005 4:56 am

Quoting Redngold (Reply 54):
I haven't seen a taxi/runway diagram of YYZ in a very long time, so I ask the following questions:

1. Is there a displaced threshold on Rwy 24L? If so, how far?

2. What is the length of Rwy 24R?

3. When comparing Rwy 24L and Rwy 24R, are their approach ends adjacent or staggered? If staggered, by how much?

4. Is there a displaced threshold on Rwy 24R? If so, by how much?

Leading to the ultimate question:
Is it possible that the PIC mistook Rwy 24L for Rwy 24R, and landed wrong due to this error?

1. No.
2. 9,697 feet.
3. Staggered. The threshold of runway 24L is about 400 feet beyond the displaced threshold of 24R.
4. Yes, 197 feet. LDA = 9,500 feet.
I don't really see how he could mistake them. If he was on the wrong ILS frequency his localizer needle would show him to be way off the centreline. Also, the way the runways are staggered he would land short on 24L, not long.
 
Olympus69
Posts: 1571
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2002 11:21 pm

RE: AF A340 Landed Halfway Down Runway - Investigators

Tue Aug 09, 2005 6:50 am

Quoting Olympus69 (Reply 59):
3. Staggered. The threshold of runway 24L is about 400 feet beyond the displaced threshold of 24R.

I misread the scale on the airport diagram I was using. The threshold of runway 24L is actually about 800 feet beyond the displaced threshold of 24R.
 
MrChips
Posts: 933
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 2:56 pm

RE: AF A340 Landed Halfway Down Runway - Investiga

Tue Aug 09, 2005 10:16 am

Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 57):
Even at 80 knots I still think it should have slowed more than that in 4000ft, even totally unassisted

OK...I'm not picking on you directly this time, MD80fanatic, but anyone who says that the aircraft should have slowed down more in that length of runway.

I'll tell you what - it was impossible, according to the laws of physics, for that aircraft to come to a halt. Here's why:

So, we have established the fact that on a bare and dry runway, an A340 can come to a halt approximately 4500' from touching down, using maximum braking, spoilers and reverse thrust. Now things get complicated.

Here in Canada, we have what is known as the Canadian Runway Friction Index (CRFI), which is a measure, from 0 to 1, of the relative co-efficient of friction of a contaminated runway surface. In the CRFI, a bare and dry runway will have an index between 0.81 and 1.0, depending on the quality of the surface. Now, since Pearson is a well maintained airport, we can probably assume that the CRFI of this runway is between 0.9 and 1.0.

Now, let's add some rain. For this runway, surfaced in asphalt, the CRFI varies between 0.6 with 0.01" of water on the surface, to 0.3 with 0.03" of water on the surface. If there is more than 0.1" of water on the surface, then in all likelihood, the aircraft would be hydroplaning, in which case the CRFI would be between 0.05 and 0.0.

Now for the purposes of this exercise, we will assume that the aircraft is NOT hydroplaning (as the investigators have said) and the CRFI will fall anywhere within that 0.30-0.60 range. According to the Tables found on page AIR 1-13 of the AIP CANADA, the recommended landing distances are as follows:


CRFI index = 1.0 - 4500' (bare and dry)
CRFI index = 0.60 - 6750' (with 0.01" of water on the surface - a damp runway)
CRFI index = 0.30 - 8480' (with 0.03" of water on the surface - a wet runway)

Heavy rain (0.03" to 0.1" of water, CRFI = 0.27-0.30) does not appreciably increase the results over the wet runway results.

As we can see from this, the aircraft obviously could not stop in 5500' of runway under conditions of anything less than bare and dry, simply because the tires cannot generate enough grip to allow the wheel brakes to be effective, even with maximum reverse and spoilers deployed. Add in the possibility of a tailwind, and distances increase even further. Finally, if the aircraft hydroplaned even for one second, stopping distances will increase considerably once again.

[Edited 2005-08-09 03:19:43]
Time...to un-pimp...ze auto!
 
Olympus69
Posts: 1571
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2002 11:21 pm

RE: AF A340 Landed Halfway Down Runway - Investigators

Tue Aug 09, 2005 11:30 am

There is a fallacy in your conclusions based on the CRFI tables. The landing distances shown are from a height of 50 feet, not from touchdown as you seem to be assuming.
"Goodbye, Mr. Chips".
(Sorry, I couldn't resist that. Smile The 1939 version was one of my favourite movies, though I haven't seen it in about 40 years.)
 
hawker
Posts: 103
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 12:18 pm

RE: AF A340 Landed Halfway Down Runway - Investiga

Tue Aug 09, 2005 5:38 pm

Latest from investigators. Probably posted elsewhere but can't find it.

Engines OK
Brakes OK
No aquaplaning.

So unless the aircraft touched down earlier and a major tailwind then pushed it further down the runway, it is shaping up as only one major cause accident.

Note the investigator says he will not investigate human factors. So will the final report say nothing about why the plane landed long?

www.smh.com.au/news/world/probe-rule...rash/2005/08/09/1123353294384.html
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 11789
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: AF A340 Landed Halfway Down Runway - Investigators

Tue Aug 09, 2005 5:59 pm

Based on the available information, the conclusion would seem pretty obvious...the folks up front were practicing textbook sloppy flying.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
backfire
Topic Author
Posts: 3467
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 8:01 am

RE: AF A340 Landed Halfway Down Runway - Investigators

Tue Aug 09, 2005 8:11 pm

If the deceleration wasn't as sharp as might be expected, perhaps this indicates that the crew didn't know how far down the runway the aircraft had landed.
 
AMSSFO
Posts: 912
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:42 am

RE: AF A340 Landed Halfway Down Runway - Investigators

Wed Aug 10, 2005 5:04 am

Quoting Olympus69 (Reply 62):
There is a fallacy in your conclusions based on the CRFI tables. The landing distances shown are from a height of 50 feet, not from touchdown as you seem to be assuming.

Interesting details brought up by MrChips. So, Olympus69 (or MrChips), what's the distance flown by the plane from a height of 50 feet until touch down assuming no tailwind and plane following the glideslope?

As a side, why do they give those distances from a height of 50 feet? Is that decision height?
Thanks!
 
travelin man
Posts: 3238
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2000 10:04 am

RE: AF A340 Landed Halfway Down Runway - Investigators

Wed Aug 10, 2005 5:21 am

This reminds me of the WN crash at Burbank a few years ago. The 733 landed too far down the runway, went through the retaining wall, and almost ended up in a Chevron. And it was pilot error, all the way (pilots were fired by WN).
 
slider
Posts: 7565
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 11:42 pm

RE: AF A340 Landed Halfway Down Runway - Investigators

Wed Aug 10, 2005 6:12 am

Quoting Stealthpilot (Reply 46):
Let's not be too hasty and jump to blame the pilots. It might turn out to be human error, it might not.

Get-home-itis.

It is pilot error. The fact that no lives were lost, and that this was one of the best evacuations witnessed doesn't change the fact that they made a bad freaking decision to put 'er down at YYZ at that moment.

Landing that long with a full widebody in those conditions is a recipe for disaster, any way you slice it.

I'm certain the investigation will corroborate that notion as the root cause, with some other contributory causes.
 
LY744
Posts: 5185
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 11:55 pm

RE: AF A340 Landed Halfway Down Runway - Investigators

Wed Aug 10, 2005 6:25 am

Quoting AMSSFO (Reply 66):
So, Olympus69 (or MrChips), what's the distance flown by the plane from a height of 50 feet until touch down assuming no tailwind and plane following the glideslope?

1000 feet.

Quoting AMSSFO (Reply 66):
As a side, why do they give those distances from a height of 50 feet?

I'm not an expert, but... 50 feet is the height that an airplane is supposed to be at when it's crossing the threshold (the very beginning of the runway). i.e. when they give you a distance from 50' AGL, that's the legal landing distance from the edge of the runway.


LY744.
Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
 
frequentflyer
Posts: 708
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 3:22 am

RE: AF A340 Landed Halfway Down Runway - Investigators

Wed Aug 10, 2005 6:37 am

Quoting Travelin man (Reply 67):
This reminds me of the WN crash at Burbank a few years ago. The 733 landed too far down the runway, went through the retaining wall, and almost ended up in a Chevron. And it was pilot error, all the way (pilots were fired by WN).

Hey Travelin'

Kinda reminds me of WN at BUR too, but I thought that 737 came on far too quick IIRC. (RWY was dry I think)
Take off and live
 
Cruiser
Posts: 941
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2005 2:08 am

RE: AF A340 Landed Halfway Down Runway - Investigators

Wed Aug 10, 2005 8:29 am

Well, my theory was wrong. This is why I should always wait for the final report.

The lead investigator announced today that the plane did not attempt a go-around.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...050809.wxplane09/BNStory/National/


Cruiser
Leahy on Per Seat Costs: "Have you seen the B-2 fly-by at almost US$1bn a copy? It has only 2 seats!"
 
Tornado82
Posts: 4662
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 10:19 am

RE: AF A340 Landed Halfway Down Runway - Investigators

Wed Aug 10, 2005 9:08 am

Quoting Jush (Reply 55):
very interesting to hear that the plane might only decreased its speed by 50 knots over half the runway until it ended up in the ravine.. the conditions must have been shitty on that runway...

148kts-80kts = 68kts.

I would think that in 3/4 of a mile (give or take) that if you let off the gas in your car, put it into neutral, and drifted that wind resistance alone would cut your speed by more than ~70kt in that distance (Let's say 80mph to a halt). An A-340 is a completely different aerodynamic body than a car however, but with the spoilers up, reversers at least open (even if just idle thrust) and presumably SOME braking action... it surely should have lost more than 70 kts in that time, no?
 
travelin man
Posts: 3238
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2000 10:04 am

RE: AF A340 Landed Halfway Down Runway - Investigators

Wed Aug 10, 2005 10:10 am

Quoting Frequentflyer (Reply 70):
Hey Travelin'

Kinda reminds me of WN at BUR too, but I thought that 737 came on far too quick IIRC. (RWY was dry I think)

Yeah, you're absolutely right in that the runway was dry. And he did come in too quick (touched down 2800' down the 6032' runway with a groundspeed of 181 knots.) But it seems like while the AF plane didn't come in "too quick", the fact that the runway was wet made the effect just the same.

Here is the BUR accident report from airdisaster.com:

http://www.airdisaster.com/cgi-bin/v...=N668SW&airline=Southwest+Airlines
 
SegmentKing
Posts: 3224
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2000 7:16 am

RE: AF A340 Landed Halfway Down Runway - Investigators

Wed Aug 10, 2005 10:59 am

In regards to the pilots not knowing how much distance they have, most airports are REQUIRED to have distance markers off to the side of the runway. They say "1" "2" "3" etc meaning there is only 1,000 feet remaining, 2000 feet remaining, etc...
~ ~ ~ ~ pRoFeSsIoNaL hUrRiCaNe DoDgEr ~ ~ ~ ~
 
stealthpilot
Posts: 502
Joined: Tue May 11, 2004 4:28 am

RE: AF A340 Landed Halfway Down Runway - Investigators

Wed Aug 17, 2005 5:59 pm

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 51):
The a/c simply landed too far down a wet runway, and didn't have sufficient room to stop the airplane.

If that was clearly the case I agree it was pilot error, I thought the reason was uinknown. Sorry
-Nikhil
eP007
 
ACEregular
Posts: 578
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 8:00 am

RE: AF A340 Landed Halfway Down Runway - Investigators

Wed Aug 17, 2005 6:22 pm

Surely as the plane began its touch down the horizon of the runway would have appeared to be somewhat in a different postion to what would be expected and visually deemed to short to stop, could he not have done a touch and go style go around??
 
babaero
Posts: 419
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 4:39 am

RE: AF A340 Landed Halfway Down Runway - Investigators

Thu Aug 18, 2005 1:04 am

Official Airbus report

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
 
AMSSFO
Posts: 912
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:42 am

RE: AF A340 Landed Halfway Down Runway - Investigators

Thu Aug 18, 2005 3:23 am

Quoting ACEregular (Reply 75):
Surely as the plane began its touch down the horizon of the runway would have appeared to be somewhat in a different postion to what would be expected and visually deemed to short to stop, could he not have done a touch and go style go around??

From the airbus report (reply 77)

Quoting Babaero (Reply 76):
Visibility was reported to be 0.5 to 0.25
NM in heavy rain.

that's maximum 2800 feet, which is less than the 5000 feet remaining runway. They didn't see the end of the runway.
 
GBan
Posts: 488
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 5:10 pm

RE: AF A340 Landed Halfway Down Runway - Investigators

Thu Aug 18, 2005 5:26 am

Quoting AMSSFO (Reply 77):
that's maximum 2800 feet, which is less than the 5000 feet remaining runway. They didn't see the end of the runway.

If this is correct I'd say the airport should have been closed at such low visibility. But I admit I'm not a professional and I don't know the regulations...
 
CORULEZ05
Posts: 1250
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2005 10:39 am

RE: AF A340 Landed Halfway Down Runway - Investigators

Thu Aug 18, 2005 6:01 am

The investigations are pointing towards pilot error. I mean, there was no mechanical failure so that basically only leaves weather and pilot to blame. Yes the weather is to blame because the wet runway definetly had something to do with the accident BUT the pilot should of performed a go-around seeing how bad the weather conditions were. From what I heard, this bad weather was isolated to the YYZ area, meaning surrounding airports were NOT having the same bad weather. So, seeing the bad conditions they should of performed a go-around and asked for a diversion to another airport.

Quoting AMSSFO (Reply 77):
that's maximum 2800 feet, which is less than the 5000 feet remaining runway. They didn't see the end of the runway.

If they couldn't see the end of the runway, they should have NEVER attempted to land there. They must of had some visibility in order to get aligned with the runway. Fact is, these pilots wanted to land at that percise moment. Perhaps they felt it would be safer than attempting a go-around in such harsh weather.

All in all, pilot error is going to be most likely ruled as the cause of this accident...willing to put money on it.
Fly jetBlue today!!!!!!!
 
AMSSFO
Posts: 912
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:42 am

RE: AF A340 Landed Halfway Down Runway - Investigators

Thu Aug 18, 2005 6:29 am

Quoting GBan (Reply 78):
If this is correct I'd say the airport should have been closed at such low visibility.



Quoting CORULEZ05 (Reply 79):
If they couldn't see the end of the runway, they should have NEVER attempted to land there. They must of had some visibility in order to get aligned with the runway.

The fact that they didn't see the end of the runway doesn't mean that they didn't see any part of the runway at all. What I meant was that they saw at max 2800 feet of the runway and thus could not oversee the whole runway until the very end; so there is no reason to assume that the pilots noticed that the "horizon of the runway would have appeared to be somewhat in a different postion to what would be expected and visually deemed to short to stop" as ACEregular (Reply 75) suggested.
And I don't think this is really low visibility, forcing the airport to shut down. Planes can land with much much less visibility although I do not know what the minima are exactly. It also depends on the CAT.
It looks like the pilots did not realise they landed that far on the runway until it was far too late to try a go-around. Why they didn't needs yet to be answered.
 
SegmentKing
Posts: 3224
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2000 7:16 am

RE: AF A340 Landed Halfway Down Runway - Investigators

Thu Aug 18, 2005 7:50 am

... but surely the pilots should have been able to see the distance markers on the side as well as the landing zone markings on the runway for the other end.... even if they did see the landing zone markers for the opposite end (some 2500' before end) would the pilots have had time to spool the engines to 150kts and retract flaps a notch or two & the spoilers???

I'm still thinking we're gonna see 2 pilot's retire early...

[Edited 2005-08-18 00:52:45]
~ ~ ~ ~ pRoFeSsIoNaL hUrRiCaNe DoDgEr ~ ~ ~ ~
 
tnsaf
Posts: 122
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 10:58 pm

RE: AF A340 Landed Halfway Down Runway - Investigators

Thu Aug 18, 2005 8:51 am

Only military and dual use runways in Canada have distance to go markers. YYZ doesn't.
700 hours and counting...
 
CORULEZ05
Posts: 1250
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2005 10:39 am

RE: AF A340 Landed Halfway Down Runway - Investigators

Thu Aug 18, 2005 9:13 am

Quoting SegmentKing (Reply 81):
I'm still thinking we're gonna see 2 pilot's retire early...

 yes   yes   yes   yes 

If you can call that "retiring".....  Wink
Fly jetBlue today!!!!!!!

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos