PDA

View Full Version : Good News! Airliner Crash



Pirschjaeger
08-02-2005, 06:24 PM
This is a airliner crash with a twist; everyone survived. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

TORONTO - A jetliner carrying 309 people skidded off a runway while landing in a thunderstorm Tuesday, sliding into a ravine and breaking into pieces, but remarkably everyone aboard survived by jumping to safety in the moments before the plane burst into flames.

Fourteen people suffered minor injuries in the 4:03 p.m. crash landing of Air France Flight 358 from Paris €" the first time an Airbus A340 had crashed in its 13 years of commercial service.

The plane, carrying 297 passengers and 12 crew, overshot the runway by 200 yards at Toronto's Pearson International Airport, said Steve Shaw, a vice president of the Greater Toronto Airport Authority.

The aircraft skidded down a slope into a wooded area next to one of Canada's busiest highways, and some survivors said that passengers scrambled up to the road to catch rides with passing cars.

"The plane touched ground and we felt it was going off road and hitting a ravine and that's when we thought that was really the end of it," said Olivier Dubois, a passenger who was sitting in the rear of the A340 Airbus.

"It was really, really scary. Everyone was panicking," Dubois told CTV. "People were screaming and ... jumping as fast as possible and running everywhere, because our biggest fear is that it would blow up."

Roel Bramar, who was also in the back of the plane, said he used an escape chute to get out of the plane.

"We had a hell of a roller coaster coming down the ravine," Bramer told CNN.

They said the power went off shortly before landing, perhaps after the plane was hit by lighting. But Dubois said he did not expect a crash landing and that there was no warning from the captain.

"It was very very fast," Dubois said. "As soon as the plane stopped, they immediately opened the side of the plane where we couldn't see anything and they told us to jump."

He said some passengers scrambled onto nearby Highway 401, where cars stopped, picked them up and took them to the airport. Two busloads of passengers were taken to an airport medical center.

Corey Marks told CNN he was at the side of the road when he watched the plane touch down and crash.

"It was around 4 o'clock, it was getting really dark, and all of a sudden lightning was happening, a lot of rain was coming down," Marks said. "This plane ... came in on the runway, hits the runway nice. Everything looked good, sounds good and all of a sudden we heard the engines backing up. ... He went straight into the valley and cracked in half."

A row of emergency vehicles lined up behind the wreck, and a fire truck sprayed the flames with water. A government transportation highway camera recorded the burning plane, and the footage was broadcast live on television in Canada and the United States.

A portion of the plane's wing could be seen jutting from the trees as smoke and flames poured from the middle of its broken fuselage. At one point, another huge plume of smoke emerged from the wreckage, but it wasn't clear whether it was from an explosion.

Airbus spokeswoman Barbara Kracht said the A340 has never crashed before in its 13 years of commercial service.

Chris Yates, an aviation specialist with Jane's Transport magazine, said the A340 is a very popular "workhorse" among carriers serving Asian and trans-Atlantic routes, with a very good safety record.

Although it was too early to draw any conclusions about the accident, Yates said, "we're probably talking about a weather-related issue here."

Although modern airliners are safer than ever, he said, extreme conditions can still be dangerous, especially during takeoff and landing.

"You can never account for weather," Yates said. "A thunderstorm can happen anywhere €" it comes down to the judgment of the air traffic controller and the skill of the pilot to determine whether it's appropriate to land or to divert elsewhere."

Tuesday's airplane crash in Toronto came exactly 20 years after an American disaster that focused renewed attention to wind shear, a natural phenomenon that can make airplanes drop out of the sky.

While the cause of the Toronto crash has not yet been determined, the fact that it happened during a thunderstorm raises the possibility of wind shear.

The 1985 airline crash at Dallas-Forth Worth airport, which killed more than 137 people, made dealing with wind shear "a national imperative" for the U.S. federal government, said Larry Cornman of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo.

Since then, he said Tuesday, systems to detect wind shear have been installed at almost all major airports in the United States. Cornman said the Canadian government investigated installing such systems during the 1990s, but added he did not know how many have been installed.

Wind shear is a sudden change in wind speed or direction. The most dangerous kind, called a microburst, is caused by air descending from a thunderstorm.

The last major jet crash in North America was on Nov. 12, 2001, when American Airlines Flight 587 lost part of its tail and plummeted into a New York City neighborhood, killing 265 people. Safety investigators concluded that the crash was caused by the pilot moving the rudder too aggressively.

Toronto's Lester B. Pearson International Airport handles over 28 million passengers a year. Located 17 miles west of Toronto in the town of Mississauga, it has three terminals. Air France operates out of Terminal 3.

Paris-based Air France-KLM Group is the world's largest airline in terms of revenue. It is the product of the French flagship airline's acquisition last year of Dutch carrier KLM. For the year ended in March, the company earned $443 million on revenues of $24.1 billion.

Air France-KLM operates a fleet of 375 planes and flies 1,800 daily flights, according to the company's Web site. In the last fiscal year, it carried 43.7 million passengers to 84 countries around the globe. That made it the largest European carrier in terms of the number of passengers carried.

The A340 is part of the A330/A340 family of six related aircraft, all sharing the same frame, manufactured by Airbus, which is 80 percent owned by European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co. Britain's BAE Systems PLC owns the rest.

The craft owned and flown by Air France is the A340-300. The plane, usually is equipped to carry 295 passengers, and fly 7,400 miles before refueling.

There are currently 237 of the A340-300 and its sister craft, the A340-200, in operation, according to the manufacturer.

Fritz

Pirschjaeger
08-02-2005, 06:41 PM
Oooops, just noticed Talor-T already posted. Hmmm, timezones. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Anyways, this sentence makes you think a little.

"Airbus spokeswoman Barbara Kracht said the A340 has never crashed before in its 13 years of commercial service."

Does she mean this particular plane or the A340 in general? Depending on her meaning it can be discomforting. Reminds me of the 747-400 that broke up at 30,000+ between Taiwan and Honk Kong a few years ago.

The investigation determined it was the fault of a shaudy repair done in 1985. The plane's tail had hit the runway on takeoff (fairly common occurance) due to overloading, resulting in a cracked frame. Although the repair instructions were readily available from Boeing the people in charge of the repairs never contacted the manufacturer for advice. The wrong metal was used in the repairs and there was a corrosive reaction. Some 15+ years later the complete tail section broke off in mid flight. The pilots never even had a chance to report a problem.

Barbara Kracht's statement is not a comforting one.

Fritz

LStarosta
08-02-2005, 06:43 PM
LOL!

"That particular plane hadn't crashed before"

jensenpark
08-02-2005, 09:25 PM
simply amazing no one got killed -in the plane or on the ground.

I know the Pearson airport area quite well and I'm amazed nothing got hit.

Someone I work with flew out of Pearson 2 hours earlier and it was a clear sky...guess the system just moved in super fast...

AerialTarget
08-02-2005, 09:38 PM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
The last major jet crash in North America was on Nov. 12, 2001, when American Airlines Flight 587 lost part of its tail and plummeted into a New York City neighborhood, killing 265 people. Safety investigators concluded that the crash was caused by the pilot moving the rudder too aggressively.

"The crash was caused by the pilot moving the rudder too aggressively." Smoke what?

Zyzbot
08-02-2005, 10:36 PM
Originally posted by AerialTarget:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
The last major jet crash in North America was on Nov. 12, 2001, when American Airlines Flight 587 lost part of its tail and plummeted into a New York City neighborhood, killing 265 people. Safety investigators concluded that the crash was caused by the pilot moving the rudder too aggressively.

"The crash was caused by the pilot moving the rudder too aggressively." Smoke what? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Flight 587:

http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2004/AAR0404.htm

arcadeace
08-02-2005, 11:10 PM
Good thread title.

Aeronautico
08-03-2005, 05:19 AM
Originally posted by Arcadeace:
Good thread title.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I concur. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

sapre
08-03-2005, 05:33 AM
DM of this plane is clearly overmodelled.



Sorry, couldn't resist.

Lucius_Esox
08-03-2005, 06:59 AM
Yep, it's certainley not very often this sort of thing happens and EVERYONE survives!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

I suppose the old adage "when your numbers up" comes to mind,,, jeeez that must have been scary though http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif

Pirschjaeger
08-03-2005, 07:26 AM
Originally posted by AerialTarget:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
The last major jet crash in North America was on Nov. 12, 2001, when American Airlines Flight 587 lost part of its tail and plummeted into a New York City neighborhood, killing 265 people. Safety investigators concluded that the crash was caused by the pilot moving the rudder too aggressively.

"The crash was caused by the pilot moving the rudder too aggressively." Smoke what? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What do you expect coming from a news source called "Yahoo"? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I had heard this before and thought it was a little odd. It was also mentioned in the investigation report. Still, I think it's odd.

Fritz

Pirschjaeger
08-03-2005, 07:32 AM
Originally posted by Arcadeace:
Good thread title.

A good friend and I discuss flying airliners often, including accident reports. The conversation often goes to the casualties caused by crash landings, in particular the flammability. This is the cause of so many deaths during crash landings.

For once, it was, IMHO, more than just good news. It just about a miracle. I thought the title was fitting considering no one was killed.

The title also brought you here. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

BTW, my buddy is a 777 pilot and flies the Chicago/Beijing route. I've learnt a lot of interesting stuff from him.

Fritz

Pirschjaeger
08-03-2005, 07:34 AM
Originally posted by sapre:
DM of this plane is clearly overmodelled.



Sorry, couldn't resist.

If it were a P-47 it would still be flyable. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Fritz

Pirschjaeger
08-03-2005, 07:42 AM
Originally posted by Lucius_Esox:
Yep, it's certainley not very often this sort of thing happens and EVERYONE survives!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

I suppose the old adage "when your numbers up" comes to mind,,, jeeez that must have been scary though http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif

My father was on a flight from Frankfurt to Toronto a few years ago. As they were making their approach the plane powered up and circled the airport. When this happened a second time he said it became very quiet in the plane. On the third time everyone new something was wrong.

The captain annouced that one of the landing gear wasn't coming down. They tried a few more times the went into a circling pattern to burn off the fuel. He said they were told they would have to make a crash landing. One the last approach, the captain announced that the gear finally came down. Lucky I'd say.

My father told me the thing that bothered him the most was when a father with his two sons was writing notes and putting them into his sons' pocket, for identification. Dad told me he will never forget that, or the feeling he had.

Fritz

DxyFlyr
08-03-2005, 08:00 AM
...a father with his two sons was writing notes and putting them into his sons' pocket, for identification


Wow, there's a dad on the ball. I can see how that would make for a memorable moment for your father. Scary stuff.

AerialTarget
08-03-2005, 02:24 PM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
I had heard this before and thought it was a little odd. It was also mentioned in the investigation report. Still, I think it's odd.

Yes, and moreover I don't believe it for one second. Pilot error my foot! Even if it is true, there is something very seriously wrong with any airplane that loses not only its vertical stabilizer but also its engines due to "excessive rudder input." I will never set foot on an Airbus.

Pirschjaeger
08-03-2005, 02:36 PM
Originally posted by AerialTarget:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
I had heard this before and thought it was a little odd. It was also mentioned in the investigation report. Still, I think it's odd.

Yes, and moreover I don't believe it for one second. Pilot error my foot! Even if it is true, there is something very seriously wrong with any airplane that loses not only its verticle stabilizer but also its engines due to "excessive rudder input." I will never set foot on an Airbus. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The most amazing thing is that it seemed to be accepted as the reason for the crash. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Fritz

Zyzbot
08-03-2005, 02:41 PM
From the report:

€œSafety Board investigators conducted an airplane performance study to describe
the motion of the accident airplane, identify the causes of the motion, and calculate the resulting aerodynamic loading on the vertical stabilizer.

The airplane performance study revealed that the first officer€s cyclic rudder pedal inputs, which began about 7 seconds before the vertical stabilizer separation, led to increasing sideslip angles that, along with the continued rudder deflections, produced extremely high aerodynamic loads on the vertical stabilizer. The airplane performance study indicated that, at 0915:58.4, when the vertical stabilizer separation began, the aerodynamic loads on the vertical stabilizer were about two times the loads defined by the limit load design envelope (see figure 15)

Given the aerodynamic loads at the time that the vertical stabilizer separated, it can be determined that the vertical stabilizer€s structural performance was consistent with design specifications and had exceeded certification requirements. However, to determine if stresses in the vertical stabilizer at the time of failure corresponded to a material failure, the Safety Board conducted a detailed structural analysis of the accident condition. The structural analysis was to determine if the aerodynamic loading on the flight 587 vertical
stabilizer was sufficient for fracture of the attachment lugs and subsequent separation of the vertical stabilizer and the sequence in which such a separation would progress.

The structural analysis included an assessment of Airbus€ full-scale certification
test, which was conducted during the design and certification process to demonstrate that the vertical stabilizer could withstand limit and ultimate loads. During the test, the vertical stabilizer was loaded to about two times the design limit load for the lateral gust condition before the left rear main attachment lug fractured because of a tensile static overload.€

The full report is available as a PDF file in the link I posted above.

AerialTarget
08-03-2005, 03:06 PM
Originally posted by AerialTarget:
there is something very seriously wrong with any airplane that loses not only its vertical stabilizer but also its engines due to "excessive rudder input."

ploughman
08-03-2005, 05:09 PM
You know, I've had a pretty good cruise through the .pdf document and I can't really see anything about the physical loss of engines. Why is that?

Zyzbot
08-03-2005, 05:43 PM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
You know, I've had a pretty good cruise through the .pdf document and I can't really see anything about the physical loss of engines. Why is that?


All I have found so far is this:

"Both engines separated from the airplane before ground impact. Neither engine
showed evidence of uncontainments, case ruptures, or preimpact failure, and engine
operation was normal throughout the airplane€s ground operations, takeoff, and initial
climb. FDR and CVR data showed that engine separation occurred during the
out-of-control airplane motion that followed the separation of the vertical stabilizer. Fuel
may have been ignited during the engine separation and may have caused a flash fire.
Also, during the airplane€s descent, the out-of-control motion would have disrupted the
airflow into the engines and likely caused engine compressor surges."


Maybe the reprt doesn't dwell on it since the engines came off well after the vertical stabilizer was lost.