# Jet Crash At Pearson?



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

There are tidbits on the news right now about an Airbus that skidded off the runway at Pearson, and is on fire right now - gads I hope there are no casualties. Anyone have any info on what's going on?


----------



## Puccasaurus (Dec 28, 2003)

Just what's on the radio:
- crashed/skidded off the runway, through the barriers and into a ravine on landing
- Air France flight
- some/all survived
Hope no one is badly hurt.


----------



## Applelover (Mar 6, 2005)

Keep us posted....hopefully everyone escapes unscathed


----------



## Applelover (Mar 6, 2005)

Passenger jet on fire at Toronto airport
Last Updated Tue, 02 Aug 2005 17:07:27 EDT 
CBC News
An Air France jet with as many as 200 people aboard has skidded off a runway while landing at Toronto's Pearson International Airport, bursting into flames and sending thick black smoke pouring into the air. 

There is no word on the condition of the passengers and crew members on board the A340, with the plane still burning an hour after the 3:50 p.m. crash. 


The Air France jet burst into flames after skidding off a runway at Toronto's Pearson Airport Tuesday. 
The jet has a capacity of about 200 people. 

The airplane was trying to land in bad weather when it skidded off the runway just metres from one of Toronto's busiest roads, Highway 401. 

"There was quite a downpour. The visibility was really bad, with lots of lightning," said John Finday, a CBC News journalist who was at the airport at the time of the accident. 

The jet crashed through barriers and ended up in a small ravine at the far west end of the airport, the fuselage tipped down and the aircraft's tail in the air. 

"An Air France plane landing on runway 2-4 went off the end of the runway in the area of Convair Drive and the 401 area in Mississauga," Peel police Sgt. Glyn Griffiths said at about 4:30 p.m. 

He said the number and extent of injuries was still unknown. 


Rescue crews trying to extinguish the flames. 
The incident happened as most operations at the airport were grounded because of the severe thunderstorms that had been reported in the area. 

Rescue crews are on the scene. 

The Greater Toronto Airport Authority is holding a news conference at this hour to give details about the crash


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

A340


----------



## Applelover (Mar 6, 2005)

By the looks of it...there are gonna be casualties...I was just on pulse24.com and things don't look good......


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Not what I'm hearing on CBC - no deaths, some casualties. Listening to an eye witness who saw the landing. Looked normal then the plane started to rock an then skidded off the end of the runaway and cracked apart.
He did say there was a lot of fire and smoke so no deaths would be :clap:


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

If the plane broke in half and no one dies, which is what is being reported as of 6:00 p.m., it would be remarkable.

It's a matter of time before someone blames something other than the weather. Waiting for it...


----------



## Applelover (Mar 6, 2005)

Hmmmm there's a news briefing right now on Pulse 24. Let me know what happens since I'm at work....


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

News conference states no deaths among 297 passengers and four crew with only 14 suffering minor injuries. :clap:


----------



## Applelover (Mar 6, 2005)

Whew, glad everyone is ok!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Live traffic cam here

http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/traveller/compass/camera/camhome.htm


----------



## Grunt (Jun 14, 2005)

http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/traveller/compass/camera/loc37.htm#camera appears to be the camera showing the plane...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Lot of flames for 14 injured and none dead


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

It's utterly remarkable that everyone got out. Thanks goodness it came to a stop before the fire took hold. 

The CTV newscaster (who said he was a pilot) issued some inane comments while talking to Jim Junkin on the phone over the incident. Things like: "It could be a 737 but, and I'm a pilot and know these details, they don't tend to be flown over the atlantic". "Well, aircraft fuel can be very flammable under these conditions".


----------



## autopilot (Dec 2, 2004)

Does anyone else think there may have been an issue before landing?


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

NewsWorld had a phone interview with one of the passengers, who said that the weather was very bad with lots of lightning. He thought the plane was coming in a little fast and as soon as it touched down, the cabin lights went out and the plane just kept going until it went off the runway. Hit by lightning at some point maybe?


----------



## comprehab (May 28, 2005)

I heard it was lightning


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Eye witness out side the plane said no indication of landing tho the plane rocked part way down the runway.- 
On board interview said AFTER the plane landed but before going off the end of the runaway the lights went out which he thought was unusual. He was second off the plane and was interviewed on CBC live.
Could be the pilot lost power just after touch down - eye witness said much lightning visible as they landed.

297 passengers, ALL alive, MINOR injuries only :clap:

CBC happened to have a reporter at the airport and his videos are terrific. CBC all got out BEFORE the fire.


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> 297 passengers, ALL alive, MINOR injuries only...


Indeed, this is very good news. :clap:


----------



## comprehab (May 28, 2005)

Yes, very goood. At first i thought the worst...that Canada was getting its "turn" from the terrorists. Thank god that everything is all right.


----------



## autopilot (Dec 2, 2004)

The lengths some folks will go to to avoid customs, eh?


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

CNN has decent coverage right now, with a good video feed of the firefighters' efforts. A few minutes ago it looked as if the tail section sagged down and broke away partially, then lots of flames erupted from the interior. So fortunate that everyone got out right after the plane stopped in the ravine. 

CNN interviewed a different passenger than the one interviewed by the CBC, who also said that the cabin lights went out -- but just before it touched down.


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

used to be jwoodget said:


> It's utterly remarkable that everyone got out. Thanks goodness it came to a stop before the fire took hold.
> 
> The CTV newscaster (who said he was a pilot) issued some inane comments while talking to Jim Junkin on the phone over the incident. Things like: "It could be a 737 but, and I'm a pilot and know these details, they don't tend to be flown over the atlantic". "Well, aircraft fuel can be very flammable under these conditions".


No Kidding eh! I knew it was an A340 as soon as I saw the wing tip aileron thingamagig! 
As you can tell, I'm no pilot, but I know my commercial aircraft. 
Really glad to hear everyone is OK, or close to OK!


----------



## AppleAuthority (May 21, 2005)

Hearing it on the radio--woah that was a shock. Thank God everyone made it out! I heard that the plane was hit [by lightning] before landing, but that wouldn't explain the power loss after landing. It must've been hit once or maybe even multiple times. That new footage from the CBC is amazing :-O


----------



## Toca Loca Nation (Jun 22, 2004)

I'm at st. clair and bathurst, and there is something in the air that smells very chemical. i'm thinking this is the smoke from the fire? anyone else notice this?


----------



## comprehab (May 28, 2005)

My dad just laughed outloud at the incident (after realizing no one was seriously hurt) when he realized that he has been on that exact air France flight from Paris to Pearson on an A340 THREE times before. Interesting, eH?


----------



## AppleAuthority (May 21, 2005)

Toca Loca Nation said:


> I'm at st. clair and bathurst, and there is something in the air that smells very chemical. i'm thinking this is the smoke from the fire? anyone else notice this?


I'm not there, but as far as I know jet fuel has a strong smell, like chemicals. Try not to breathe it in as much is all the advice I can give.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

I took this picture today around 17:45, it shows a line up of all the other aircraft stranded on the taxiways waiting to clear the emergency. The dark band in the sky is the smoke from the crash. Our ramp is at the north end of Pearson, so the shot is looking south toward the passenger terminals and the tower.










If I'm getting the crash site correct, that plane had to go through two fences, one of which is about 20' high with concrete abutments on the bottom, then across the service road and through another fence into the ravine.

My kudos to the crew for getting the passengers out so quickly...


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

Toca Loca Nation said:


> I'm at st. clair and bathurst, and there is something in the air that smells very chemical. i'm thinking this is the smoke from the fire? anyone else notice this?


that's barbacued chicken from Churrasco of st clair.

Don't eat it!!!


----------



## Toca Loca Nation (Jun 22, 2004)

gastonbuffet said:


> that's barbacued chicken from Churrasco of st clair.
> 
> Don't eat it!!!


hola amigo!

digame - is there any place to get cabsha around here?


----------



## autopilot (Dec 2, 2004)

We smelled something around Bayview and Eglinton also...


----------



## The Great Waka (Nov 26, 2002)

I too was around the Bayview area today, and it smelt of old air (like the stale air out of a tire). Don't know if that was connected, but hey.

Just glad that everyone is ok.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Here's the location of the crash site on Google Maps 

Not sure which runway it was, but you can see a few running perpendicular to Hwy 401. From the shots, it looked like it got pretty close to the hwy. 

Just amazing and awesome that no-one was killed.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> *Evacuation of jet took only seconds*
> Air France CEO lauds crew
> 
> The evacuation of more than 300 people aboard an ill-fated Air France flight took less than two minutes, with a co-pilot the last to leave the flaming wreckage — a “textbook case” of how to deal with an airliner emergency, officials said today as the investigation into the dramatic crash of Flight 358 got underway in earnest.
> ...


 :clap:

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...54&t=TS_Home&DPL=IvsNDS/7ChAX&tacodalogin=yes


----------



## miguelsanchez (Feb 1, 2005)

the aircraft landed on 24L, then skidded off the end of the runway at relatively low speed, causing minimal damage. that's probably why everyone got out ok.

here is a map showing the location of the crash and the runway. sorry for the quality. i couldn't upload a larger file.


----------



## Jae (Aug 3, 2005)

Comprehab -

I've been on that flight a couple of times as well... Paris to Pearson, A340 etc... Never had really crappy weather though! Coulda happened to any plane for any airline I bet, just one of those things... =] Still makes ya think though...

*scratches head*


----------



## MacAndy (May 17, 2004)

kps said:


> If I'm getting the crash site correct, that plane had to go through two fences, one of which is about 20' high with concrete abutments on the bottom, then across the service road and through another fence into the ravine.


The news footage they had, taken from the other side of the ravine by CTV I think it was, showed the runway ending just a few hundred feet from the edge of the ravine, with three straight skid marks across a short patch of grass and then off the edge, so no fences were involved. I would think they would not want fences and concrete abutments simply because any plane in distress does not need assistance from things like this to tear open it tanks!

As for the smoke, I work at Burnhamthorpe and 427, could see the source of the smoke, and it was blowing northeast across the top of the city. We were just a few miles from it and we could smell nothing. So anyone further east of us is likely smelling the wonderful neighbourhood they live in. ;-)

So glad everyone got out alive - we watched the smoke from our windows, facing north, and one woman here got a message from her boyfriend who works across from the airport and told her it was an Air France plane - he was that close - so we were all sickened at the thought of what was going on.

My guess is that lightning knocked out the power just as he was halfway down the runway, and when the power goes out, there is no power to reverse the engines, which is 80-90% of the stopping power of these 200+ tonne beasts. The brakes on the wheels are there for taxiing only.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Actually, it careened into the gully 200 metres at the end of 24L and parts of the aircraft broke off. If the gully had not been there, the aircraft may not have been lost. It was incredibly fortunate that there were no serious injuries. There are photos indicating that the forward, portside door chute did not deploy and people had to climb down. Moreover, the fire engines were unable to control the fire and were unable to reach the front end of the plane due to the gully.

There are lots of questions to answer but given the loss of an AC plane into a similar gully in 1978, I wonder whether it would be cost effective to design some sort of run-off pit filled with loose gravel at the ends of runways?

BTW, at least one of the reverse thrusters was deployed (as shown in one of the Star photographs).


----------



## MacAndy (May 17, 2004)

What I saw on TV was only about a hundred feet of grass at the end of the runway with the three skidmarks, didn't look like 200 metres at all. Now, if the officials are saying the plane overshot the runway by 200 metres, they may be counting back from the absolute furthest position the plane should need to go to before making the turn off the tarmac onto the taxi area. The footage on TV showed very little distance, not even the length of the plane, off the paved portion of the tarmac that had yellow warning stripes painted at the end.

The reverse thrust is within the engine - no? Do you mean the aerleron [flap] in the down position in the Star photo?

Who took the photo of the people come out of the doorway? Must have been a passenger as no news crew was there in the first 90 seconds when people were getting out. What a shot.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

MacAndy said:


> The reverse thrust is within the engine - no? Do you mean the aerleron [flap] in the down position in the Star photo?
> 
> Who took the photo of the people come out of the doorway? Must have been a passenger as no news crew was there in the first 90 seconds when people were getting out. What a shot.


There is a picture (CNN and the Star) that shows one of the engines with the reverse thrust panel deployed. Perhaps it deployed late in the landing. This happened with an Airbus in Prague I think, which also overran the runway a few years ago. 

The picture of the people climbing down was not attributed (exclusive to the Toronto Star). Might have been a phone cam but looked better res than typical. One of the passengers in the picture is carrying his briefcase.....


----------



## miguelsanchez (Feb 1, 2005)

macandy, here is a close-up of the area from google maps:

close-up of runway 24L and ravine 

using the scale at the bottom left of the screen, you can see that it is indeed about 200m from the end of the runway to the ravine. the aircraft must have passed over the service road as well. this pic was taken before the runway construction was completed, as there are no markings and the asphalt is still black.

can someone point me to the photo showing the aircraft's spoilers and thrust reverser deployed?

thanks,

miguel


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

miguelsanchez said:


> can someone point me to the photo showing the aircraft's spoilers and thrust reverser deployed?


Here's one picture, from AP c/o CNN.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

If only ONE thrust reverser was deployed that would account for the "rocking" the one eye witness mentioned.
That could also be caused by a blown tire as well as one passenger said there was a loud bang afer they had landed but before the overshoot.

He was also much further down the runway than normal landing procedure.


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

Toca Loca Nation said:


> hola amigo!
> 
> digame - is there any place to get cabsha around here?


nah, at least none i know of. There are Tita's on St. Clair and Caledonia, and Kensington mkt. Havanna as well, but never seen Cabshas (apart from the box i got two months ago , now all gone). Also seen Vauquitas.


now back to the Thread:

Now that we know everybody is safe, I dare to say, with a lot of stupidity on my part(never stopped me before): What a ride!!! what a rush!!! wished i was there!!. 

hey, i admitted stupidity, ok? so let me be.


----------



## Mrs. Furley (Sep 1, 2004)

My husband and I were watching the news last night, expecting to hear about how many fatalities there were. We were absolutely elated to find out there were zero!

Incredible.

Did anyone see the character named Roal that they were interviewing? That guy should be on TV more often.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

It was interesting that the 9 pm broadcast of the National on CBC Newsworld was replete with errors. At one point Kelly Crowe restarted her spiel three times on the voice-over. By the 10 pm broadcast on the main channel those "issues" were all resolved. The newsrooms must have been going ape over the story.

macdoc, the photos only show one engine. I would expect all four engines deployed. The question is whether the deployment was on time since its semi-automatic. The veering might have been due to a tyre burst or a brake system failing. But I still don't understand why there isn't a gravel bed in front of the gully (on 24L and its neighbour).


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Well the airport must be redirecting flights today to a different runway because
at work we usually see about 30 - 40 jets flying over on their way to land at TIA
(I work in North York, Just north of Sheppard and Yonge)

It was pretty quiet today for a change, Also the air seemed a bit cleaner.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

JW - one wonders if the "black out" during the rollout might have screwed up the deployment.
Still he came in fast, slick conditions and way down the runway so even with all the thrusters reversed and brakes on he likely just ran out of space.

I've no understood why there is no gravel run outs on airports - maybe it makes rescue too difficult.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> I've no understood why there is no gravel run outs on airports - maybe it makes rescue too difficult.


$$$$$$


----------



## miguelsanchez (Feb 1, 2005)

many airpors have grass or dirt runout areas:

glasgow 

faro, portugal 

padang, indonesia 

and some runways leave no room for error:

funchal runway 05 

funchal runway 23 (same runway, other direction) 

kai tak in hong kong (now closed) is another that comes to mind for harrowing landings and take-offs.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Grass or dirt makes sense - gravel does not. Good for runaway trucks - not so good for rescue vehicles.
Better the ravine than skidding onto the 401. 

Can anyone pinpoint where he ended up










The over laps are not very accurate here. I'm trying to figure out if he went over that feeder road??


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

The thing is, pilots flying into Funchal know the extreme limitations (they often lift off with low fuel and hop to the next island in the Canaries to fill their tanks). Pearson has long runways by international standards but the southern ones are flanked by the 427 and the Etobicoke creek. As a result of this crash, methinks they'll get some sort of resistant run-out area. Just add it to the AIF...... 

BTW macdoc, take another look at miguelsanchez' Google map. Overshooting the runway doesn't run the plane onto the 401..... the planners were not totally nuts 

The Toronto Star has another view of the landing (again not very accurate):http://www.thestar.com/static/Flash/050803_airfrancecrash.html


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Skidding planes don't follow the guidelines..
From an aviation site discussion.



> Was just down on the 401 right where it all happened. Its just amazing, the tip of the wing is less than 50 feet from the highway


http://www.jetphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?p=282570#post282570

50' eh.....


----------



## miguelsanchez (Feb 1, 2005)

i'm not so sure about that number (50 feet). the wingspan of the a340 is just under 200 feet, and it ran off the runway pretty much along the centre line (according to the photo of the nose cone sitting directly in front of one the runway's landing lights. using the map to which i linked earlier, one can deduce that the distance from the wingtip is probably a few hundred feet from the edge of the highway. 

even from the traffic cam pics from yesterday it seems like much more than 50 feet.

and yes, if it ended up in the ravine, it crossed the service road (an internal airport road, btw, not a public road. it's for fire/emergency vehicles and other service vehicles).


----------



## MacGYVER (Apr 15, 2005)

Here is a good video to watch of an Aerial shot of the entire Air France crash site:

http://www.canada.com/national/index.html click on the video part.

As you can see Air France is right near the river. It went across the service road and down. The left wing tip is approximately 50-100 feet away from the 401.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

> The news footage they had, taken from the other side of the ravine by CTV I think it was, showed the runway ending just a few hundred feet from the edge of the ravine, with three straight skid marks across a short patch of grass and then off the edge, so no fences were involved. I would think they would not want fences and concrete abutments simply because any plane in distress does not need assistance from things like this to tear open it tanks!


I work for an airline and work out of the airport. I'm very familliar with the area in question, the gully and Etobicoke Creek are * off * airport property. That plane definitelly went through two fences and accross the service road (Corvair) which runs from south of Brittania Rd and the entrance to midfield cargo around to Renforth. If you work at 427 and Burnamthorpe you're just a few minutes away, give it a try and go along Corvair to Brittania. I routinely drop off aircraft parts to most of the airlines located at Pearson and take that road several times a week. 

Note *Macdocs* image, the creek and gully is west of the ring road which bends precisely at the end of 24L-06L.


----------



## MacGYVER (Apr 15, 2005)

Hi kps,

I too worked at the airport for a long time. Worked closely with Emergency Services. You should check out the above video.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

The OPP gave out 50 tickets to rubber-necking gawkers on the 401 today. Some had cameras and tried to pass for media. For every act of heroism, you can count on a few human sloths.....

CBC also had some aviation expert on suggesting that there should be a gravel retardation area at the end of the runway.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Thanks, I just finished watching it. It's exactly where I thought it went off, but it slid further south west. I'll try and go down there tomorrow and see if i get through, but I doubt it. I'll bet they'll have it blocked off from Britannia to the GTAA general stores on Corvair.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

This caught my eye.  Another 5 knots, another 20' down the runaway......
Can you imagine what the pilot was thinking seeing that concrete heading straight for him.
Whew.!!!!!


----------



## miguelsanchez (Feb 1, 2005)

there are more photos of the aftermath on this site:

http://www.yyznews.com/photos.html

you'll have to scroll down a bit to see them.

edit: also more photos here:

http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/f-glzq2/photo.shtml


----------



## Loafer (Jan 7, 2004)

The similarities between this one and Pearson is uncanny.....even the fact no one died, check it out.....

http://69.57.136.18/moviestorage2/taca.mpg


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Miguel those are amazing

here's one


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I am amazed at the number of cell phone pictures that were taken. I saw a variety of these on the CBC news last night. Imagine someone bringing back a pet, which would have been down in the baggage area?????


----------



## miguelsanchez (Feb 1, 2005)

more photos can be found here:

airliners.net photos 

the first four give a clear indication of the depth of the ravine, and also the track that the aircraft followed as it left the runway.


----------



## comprehab (May 28, 2005)

Very good photos. Every time i see the plane i can't figure out how no one died.


----------



## miguelsanchez (Feb 1, 2005)

just noticed something in one of the pics. one of the cockpit windows is open, and there is a knotted rope hanging out. this is what the pilots use to escape the plane during an emergency/hi-jacking/whatever. i wonder if the captain (left seat) who apparently has a back injury used this rope, and the first officer stayed with the aircraft to ensure everyone got out safely.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Vellllly intelesting.......









The damn thing was still going 150 km an hour WHEN IT HIT THE GULLY!!!! 



> *Jet's skid marks raise puzzling questions*
> By PAUL KORING
> Saturday, August 6, 2005 Updated at 2:03 AM EDT
> From Saturday's Globe and Mail
> ...


Hmmm wonder if they tried to abort and the reverse thrusters prevented it.
The take of speed for an a340 is Take-off speed @ MTOW:. V1 140kts @ flap2/
260 km per hour and landing speed is 121 knots or 220 KM per hour so he sure did not lose much speed or he came in waaaaay hot - there was a wind shear and wind direction issues as well as hydroplaning.

Good analysis and info here ( unlikely spot )

http://taylor.textamerica.com/


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

My parents refused to fly together for years, figuring that a plane crash of any kind is totally deadly for everyone aboard. This sheds new light on how a disaster can be managed. Kudos to the brave staff and passengers. Looking at those pictures, I'm truly amazed.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> According to a source familiar with Air France's manual, an Airbus 340 weighing 170 tonnes (likely about the weight of Flight 358) would need about 1,450 metres to stop on a wet runway. However, on a runway "contaminated" with 0.65 centimetres of water -- not unlike the very heavy downpour that drenched Pearson airport's runway 24L as the flight was landing -- 1,800 metres would be needed to slow and stop.
> 
> Runway 24L is 2,740 metres long. A pilot hitting the centre of the landing zone would have about 2,400 metres to slow and stop an A-340.
> 
> Instead, *Flight 358 landed with only about 1,500 metres left on a slight down slope, with a modest tailwind and a very wet runway.*


I wondered if it might be a tailwind involved. I vividly remember my one and only attempt at a downwind landing in a sailplane  The plane never wants to touch down - - I ended up going around much to my embarrassment and in a sailplane THAT's a tricky manuever.
As ever a combination of factors led to this. 
Glad all survived.


----------



## miguelsanchez (Feb 1, 2005)

macdoc, why weren't they landing heavies on 23 that day? it's got 2000' more length. my work-place is near the threshold for 23 and i don't remember seeing any heavies that pm (when most of the european flights are arriving). 

any ideas?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Maybe wind direction. Does the 340 qualify as a heavy??? I guess 4 engine long haul.
Anyone got a map of the airport and wind direction that day??


----------



## MacGYVER (Apr 15, 2005)

Here is a link to the actual runways:

http://www.yyzspotter.com/spotyyz.htm

Normally when they don't land aircraft on 23 it is due to wind conditions.

Yes the A340 qualifies as a heavy. 

The biggest factor here, was the weather.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Weather contributed but my guess it will laid at the door of the pilots for not going around after landing long - the tailwind would bring them in hot as well. I'm not sure how their ground speed instrumentation works at that close proximity but it had to have felt hot.
Mitigating MIGHT be that brief blackout cabin passengers experienced.

I'm somewhat surprised the co-pilot was doing the landing but often the on high end flight routes those distinctions are marginal as to experience and capability.

Was there any mentioned of fuel levels??

23 certainly seemed the better runway given the weather.


----------



## MacGYVER (Apr 15, 2005)

Ummmm no! 23 would have been a disaster runway for the type of winds that were kicking up at the time. If memory serves me correct, the winds were coming from 280 and strong..... 23 is deadly when you have such a cross wind coming from that angle on that side of the airport. ATC made a wise decision to use the other runways for landing.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Could not have been 280 and a "quartering tail wind"


















280 does make sense for using that runway but reports were of a partial tailwind so if it gusted from the North north east suddenly that would add



> A METAR (weather observation) for the Pearson Airport was released almost exactly at the time of the accident. It stated that the weather at 20:04 UTC (16:04 EDT) consisted of *winds from 340° true (north-northwest) at 24 knots* (44 km/h) gusting to 33 knots (61 km/h)


Yikes they should have been landing on 33 

Wind almost due north gusting to 61 kmph and runway pointing slightly south = hot landing.

That weather report came in just as the plane was landing and that should have prompted a switch of runways.


----------



## miguelsanchez (Feb 1, 2005)

correct me if i'm wrong, but once the pilots reach the decision height, is a go-around not possible? when using auto-land (for ils approach), do the spoilers and thrust reversers/throttles deploy automatically when the weight-on-wheels switch is activated i.e. main gear on runway?

my first thought was that pilots attempted a go-around, but realised that they wouldn't have enough room to get to rotate speed, so then applied full brake and throttle to stop the aircraft. 

now it looks more like a tailwind must have helped to float the plane down the runway. with localiser and glideslope both working, they should have touched down in the safe zone, but the weather forced the plane to land long.

regarding the wind, it was all over the place during the storm, so there could have been a tailwind gust, possibly due to microburst.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

It was effectively a tailwind anyway. 340 is nnw and the runway is wsw oriented and with gusts it would be really whacky.

Floating is exactly what happens with a tailwind and that would indeed limit options.
They only scrubbed off about 60 kmph even under reverse thrusters and big time standing on the brakes and that all points to tailwind plus long touchdown and wet.

I would tend to agree that a go around under tailwind conditions would not be possible unless done immediately at touchdown before the reverse thrusters deployed.
Now I know the scenario I can pretty much imagine the "no win" options the pilots had. 

Airspeed plus windspeed is additive when a tailwind is involved which is why planes generally land into the wind - even modern jets are subject to physics.
So instead of landing into a 60 kph wind which at 240 landing airpseed or so would result in a nice comfortable 180 ground speed.

They likely had a ground speed close to 260 or even higher ( that's why it floated ) and with half the runway gone and wet......not a chance to haul it in. That's also why it hit the ravine at 150. 

Sure makes sense now given that weather report.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Doesn't make sense to me, but I'm not a pilot. I would have thought that given the conditions and the drifting down the runway, the safest thing to do would have been to apply thrust and rotate prior to wheels touching - or even 10's of seconds after touching. But since none of us were in the cockpit, this speculation is pointless. 

OTOH, anyone care to speculate how LONG the runway would have had to have been to have allowed a full stop on blacktop under those conditions? I'd guess an extra 500 metres!


----------



## miguelsanchez (Feb 1, 2005)

utbjw, it depends on the landing weight of the aircraft:










and then there's corrections as well:










let's take a wild guess and add 20,000kg of fuel to the dry weight of the aircraft, 130,000kg, plus 21,000kg for pax (300 x average of 70kg), + 12,000kg for cargo (300 x average 40kg). so the landing weight is in the vicinity of 183,000kg. round up to 190,000 for safety.

so on a wet runway with 6.3mm of standing water, you're looking at 2010m to stop the aircraft. factor in the corrections on the second chart (580ft above sea level, 10k tailwind, all reversers operating), and you're going to need 2375m to stop the aircraft. now granted the tailwind was not constant, but even at somewhere between 2010m and 2375m, there's not a lot of room for error when the runway is only 2700m long.

for you pilots out there, how's my math? corrections are welcome.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

miguelsanchez, your math looks great but the plane touched down at least 1000 metres in from the eastern end. Using that information along with your estimate of 2170 (+/- 100)m, the runway would have had to have been about 500 metres longer than it was to afford a stop on the pavement. That sounds like a heck of a lot of extra space (and not something the GTAA or any other airport is going to tack on to its runways).


----------



## miguelsanchez (Feb 1, 2005)

yes i know, which makes me wonder again why they were not landing on runway 23, which has a length of 3480m, and runs in the same direction as 24L.

(macgyver's earlier explanation notwithstanding).


----------

