Blame flying over Toronto runway crash

http://www.theage.com.au/news/World/...?oneclick=true

Blame flying over Toronto runway crash
August 7, 2005 - 7:39AM

Investigators trying to determine why an Air France jet skidded off a
Toronto runway have revealed that only four of the aircraft's eight
doors and emergency exits were used to escape the burning jetliner.

Real Levasseur of Canada's Transportation Safety Board told reporters
two of the slides used by the 309 passengers and crew to madly
disembark after the crash last Tuesday also didn't work properly, even
though they are supposed to automatically unfold when the emergency
doors are opened.

The discovery confirms comments by many passengers and witnesses who
said some of the slides and emergency exists were not functioning.
Some aviation experts have surmised that the impact of the Airbus
A340, which slammed into a ravine, might have damaged the exit doors
and chutes.

Levasseur said two experts from the US manufacturer of the chutes,
Goodrich Corporation, and one from the US National Transportation
Safety Board were on site looking at why these slides and doors didn't
work properly.

Veronique Brachet, an Air France spokeswoman, said the pilot was still
in a Toronto hospital with compressed vertebrae.

(probably more like he's baracaded in his hospital room and doesn't
want to leave)

Meanwhile, a passenger has filed a class-action lawsuit against Air
France, Toronto airport authorities and a Canadian private air
navigation service, accusing them of negligence in the accident, the
Toronto Star reported.

The suit, filed in Ontario Superior Court, asks for C$75 million ($A80
million). An Air France spokesman in Paris said the company had no
comment on the suit.

The plane's flight data and voice recorders were found intact and
investigators said they should have details within days to help them
solve the reasons behind the late-afternoon crash. There have been
questions about whether the 2,700-metre runway is long enough and
whether it's safe to have the ravine at the end of the runway.

Lucie Vignola, a spokeswoman for the federal transportation ministry
Transport Canada, said a plan to soon require clear, nearly flat
runway extensions is not a result of the accident.

"The timing is interesting, I guess, but we've been looking at this
for a few months - looking to see whether or not we needed to do
this," Vignola said.

She said Transport Canada decided to go ahead with the plan after it
became clear that international standards are shifting to require
additional room at the end of runways. The department has not
determined how long the safety areas would be, Vignola said.

(The GTAA is so screwed over this. Their ass will get sued.)

The Air Line Pilots Association said Pearson doesn't meet
international standards because it doesn't not have sufficient safe
areas at the end of runways, including the one on which Flight 358
attempted to land.

"Overruns are more important when runways are not very long," said
Capt. Tom Bunn, a retired commercial airline pilot of 30 years for Pan
and United Airlines, who now runs fear-of-flying courses.

"This runway is not as long as what you find at most international
airports, so the importance of an adequate overrun is increased, and
this accident is an example why."

The gully at the end of Pearsons's runway 24L has long been a source
of contention. In 1978, an Air Canada DC9 aborted takeoff and ended up
in the gully, killing two passengers.

A coroner's jury that ensued recommended filling in the gully, or
extending a causeway over it.

(Toronto has just found a new landfill site! Use it you bone-heads!)

Steve Shaw, a spokesman for the Greater Toronto Airports Authority,
said that after the 1978 accident, the gully was graded so the slope
was not so severe, but it was not filled in.

(200 garbage trucks a day will fill it in)

Levasseur, chief of the Transportation Safety Board team investigating
the craft, said it appeared the Airbus A340 came down too far down the
runway.

"We do have some information that the aircraft did land long,"
Levasseur said at a news briefing. "An aircraft like the 340 should
land well toward the back; how long exactly depends on weight, heavy
winds, there are a number of factors.

"We will certainly be looking at information; and if it turns out the
aircraft did land further down the runway ... we will try to determine
whether this had a major or critical effect.

(geeze you idiots, do ya think that a video recording of the landing
would help ya there?)

Some aviation experts said the aircraft could have been pushed by
strong cross winds at the same time it landed on a slick runway,
decreasing tyre traction and causing a hydroplaning effect.

"I think they landed a little fast, a little long and probably
hydroplaned," said Bunn.

In the class-action lawsuit filed, the plaintiff accuses Air France,
the Greater Toronto Airports Authority and Nav Canada - a private
civil air navigation service that provides airports weather and
aeronautical information - of negligence in landing the Airbus A340.

The lawsuit names passenger Suzanne Deak of Toronto as the lone
plaintiff, but the list of claimants is expected to grow. The suit was
filed on behalf of all 297 passengers on board.

"We've got a bunch of people who have been hurt in some way and we
know the passengers didn't cause the accident," Paul Miller, the
lawyer for the plaintiff, told the Toronto Star. "Chances are that all
three defendants played a role in this accident."

(Watch the $15 airport improvement fee rise to $45 after this.)

Fly Guy wrote:

Veronique Brachet, an Air France spokeswoman, said the pilot was
still in a Toronto hospital with compressed vertebrae.

(probably more like he's baracaded in his hospital room and doesn't
want to leave)

Are you Birdstrike Bill in disguise, by any chance?

Steve Shaw, a spokesman for the Greater Toronto Airports Authority,
said that after the 1978 accident, the gully was graded so the
slope was not so severe, but it was not filled in.

(200 garbage trucks a day will fill it in)

Maybe not. After all, I guess that even Birdstrike Bill would
recognise the idiocy of placing a rubbish dump just beyond the
end of a runway.