Air France Crash
Aug 3rd 2005, 4:15 am
#46
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Air France Crash
Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 17:57:24 +0200, [email protected]
> (Stanislas de Kertanguy) wrote:
>
> >Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> >1/ Had the AF358 recieved clearance from ATC, despite the bad weather?
> >>
> >> Who knows? Whether to land or not is the pilot's decision not that of
> >> ATC.
> >
> >Good! so it's not a "company policy".
>
> Who said it was? I assume the pilot is recruited and employed by AF.
You: "I go for the airlines, which don't try to land their planes in a
thunderstorm and screw it up. "
Were you meaning that AF has the policy of purposely jeopardizing
passenger safety, or was I dreaming?
> >> >2/ That's a very sneaky reproach you're making at Air France.
> >>
> >> Years ago I was in an Air France jet that landed at CDG in the middle
> >> of a thunderstorm. It frightened the shit out of me.
> >
> >That's *your* experience, innit?
>
> I shared it with the rest of the passengers.
Ah, so it decuplates the value of your experience?
> >Come on, AF, just like LH, BA, etc...
> >is among the most serious airlines in the world. You can't seriously
> >pretend they jeopardize passenger safety.
>
> Yesterday they did.
>
> Why did he land in a thunderstorm? Microbursts , wind sheer, aqua
> planing whilst landing in thunderstorms are no secret.
>
> Who do you want to blame?
The inquiry is still going on but you already found a culprit.
Congratulations! You should enroll in the Bureau Enquêtes Accidents, or
the NTSB. I'm sure they're eagerly waiting for such an expert. I don't
want to offend you, but on such a case, your posts bring nothing, just
show unwanted suspicion.
--
remplacez "lesptt" par "laposte" pour me joindre
substitute "laposte" to "lesptt" to reach me
> On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 17:57:24 +0200, [email protected]
> (Stanislas de Kertanguy) wrote:
>
> >Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> >1/ Had the AF358 recieved clearance from ATC, despite the bad weather?
> >>
> >> Who knows? Whether to land or not is the pilot's decision not that of
> >> ATC.
> >
> >Good! so it's not a "company policy".
>
> Who said it was? I assume the pilot is recruited and employed by AF.
You: "I go for the airlines, which don't try to land their planes in a
thunderstorm and screw it up. "
Were you meaning that AF has the policy of purposely jeopardizing
passenger safety, or was I dreaming?
> >> >2/ That's a very sneaky reproach you're making at Air France.
> >>
> >> Years ago I was in an Air France jet that landed at CDG in the middle
> >> of a thunderstorm. It frightened the shit out of me.
> >
> >That's *your* experience, innit?
>
> I shared it with the rest of the passengers.
Ah, so it decuplates the value of your experience?
> >Come on, AF, just like LH, BA, etc...
> >is among the most serious airlines in the world. You can't seriously
> >pretend they jeopardize passenger safety.
>
> Yesterday they did.
>
> Why did he land in a thunderstorm? Microbursts , wind sheer, aqua
> planing whilst landing in thunderstorms are no secret.
>
> Who do you want to blame?
The inquiry is still going on but you already found a culprit.
Congratulations! You should enroll in the Bureau Enquêtes Accidents, or
the NTSB. I'm sure they're eagerly waiting for such an expert. I don't
want to offend you, but on such a case, your posts bring nothing, just
show unwanted suspicion.
--
remplacez "lesptt" par "laposte" pour me joindre
substitute "laposte" to "lesptt" to reach me
Aug 3rd 2005, 4:22 am
#47
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Air France Crash
Martin ha escrito:
> >
> >1/ Had the AF358 recieved clearance from ATC, despite the bad weather?
> Who knows? Whether to land or not is the pilot's decision not that of
> ATC.
The plane was coming from a trasantlantic flight, so it was very likely
low on fuel, so there were probably not that many options to land
elsewhere and weather was reported to be awful thoughout the area.
Also, Toronto - Pearson is one of the best airports to have a bad
landing in a widebody, IMHO.
I was in a AF A340 CDG - Montreal just 3 weeks ago and I'm glad they
handled the situation so well. If any, I feel more secure flying with
them than before.
> >2/ That's a very sneaky reproach you're making at Air France.
> Years ago I was in an Air France jet that landed at CDG in the middle
> of a thunderstorm. It frightened the shit out of me.
> In a similar storm at Munich Airport in a Lufthansa jet the pilot
> backed off and we circled waiting for the storm to pass over,
> eventually we were diverted to Stuttgart to refuel.
> --
There are storms and storms, and airports and airports. You can never
tell unless you're on the cabin.
We'll see what the investigation reveals.
J.
> >
> >1/ Had the AF358 recieved clearance from ATC, despite the bad weather?
> Who knows? Whether to land or not is the pilot's decision not that of
> ATC.
The plane was coming from a trasantlantic flight, so it was very likely
low on fuel, so there were probably not that many options to land
elsewhere and weather was reported to be awful thoughout the area.
Also, Toronto - Pearson is one of the best airports to have a bad
landing in a widebody, IMHO.
I was in a AF A340 CDG - Montreal just 3 weeks ago and I'm glad they
handled the situation so well. If any, I feel more secure flying with
them than before.
> >2/ That's a very sneaky reproach you're making at Air France.
> Years ago I was in an Air France jet that landed at CDG in the middle
> of a thunderstorm. It frightened the shit out of me.
> In a similar storm at Munich Airport in a Lufthansa jet the pilot
> backed off and we circled waiting for the storm to pass over,
> eventually we were diverted to Stuttgart to refuel.
> --
There are storms and storms, and airports and airports. You can never
tell unless you're on the cabin.
We'll see what the investigation reveals.
J.
Aug 3rd 2005, 4:28 am
#48
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Air France Crash
On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 18:15:25 +0200, [email protected]
(Stanislas de Kertanguy) wrote:
>Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 17:57:24 +0200, [email protected]
>> (Stanislas de Kertanguy) wrote:
>>
>> >Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >1/ Had the AF358 recieved clearance from ATC, despite the bad weather?
>> >>
>> >> Who knows? Whether to land or not is the pilot's decision not that of
>> >> ATC.
>> >
>> >Good! so it's not a "company policy".
>>
>> Who said it was? I assume the pilot is recruited and employed by AF.
>You: "I go for the airlines, which don't try to land their planes in a
>thunderstorm and screw it up. "
>Were you meaning that AF has the policy of purposely jeopardizing
>passenger safety, or was I dreaming?
No I meant what I said.
>> >> >2/ That's a very sneaky reproach you're making at Air France.
>> >>
>> >> Years ago I was in an Air France jet that landed at CDG in the middle
>> >> of a thunderstorm. It frightened the shit out of me.
>> >
>> >That's *your* experience, innit?
>>
>> I shared it with the rest of the passengers.
>Ah, so it decuplates the value of your experience?
>> >Come on, AF, just like LH, BA, etc...
>> >is among the most serious airlines in the world. You can't seriously
>> >pretend they jeopardize passenger safety.
>>
>> Yesterday they did.
>>
>> Why did he land in a thunderstorm? Microbursts , wind sheer, aqua
>> planing whilst landing in thunderstorms are no secret.
>>
>> Who do you want to blame?
>The inquiry is still going on but you already found a culprit.
I asked you a question which don't want to answer.
>Congratulations! You should enroll in the Bureau Enquêtes Accidents, or
>the NTSB. I'm sure they're eagerly waiting for such an expert. I don't
>want to offend you, but on such a case, your posts bring nothing, just
>show unwanted suspicion.
Since no other plane was involved, what alternative is there?
--
Martin
(Stanislas de Kertanguy) wrote:
>Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 17:57:24 +0200, [email protected]
>> (Stanislas de Kertanguy) wrote:
>>
>> >Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >1/ Had the AF358 recieved clearance from ATC, despite the bad weather?
>> >>
>> >> Who knows? Whether to land or not is the pilot's decision not that of
>> >> ATC.
>> >
>> >Good! so it's not a "company policy".
>>
>> Who said it was? I assume the pilot is recruited and employed by AF.
>You: "I go for the airlines, which don't try to land their planes in a
>thunderstorm and screw it up. "
>Were you meaning that AF has the policy of purposely jeopardizing
>passenger safety, or was I dreaming?
No I meant what I said.
>> >> >2/ That's a very sneaky reproach you're making at Air France.
>> >>
>> >> Years ago I was in an Air France jet that landed at CDG in the middle
>> >> of a thunderstorm. It frightened the shit out of me.
>> >
>> >That's *your* experience, innit?
>>
>> I shared it with the rest of the passengers.
>Ah, so it decuplates the value of your experience?
>> >Come on, AF, just like LH, BA, etc...
>> >is among the most serious airlines in the world. You can't seriously
>> >pretend they jeopardize passenger safety.
>>
>> Yesterday they did.
>>
>> Why did he land in a thunderstorm? Microbursts , wind sheer, aqua
>> planing whilst landing in thunderstorms are no secret.
>>
>> Who do you want to blame?
>The inquiry is still going on but you already found a culprit.
I asked you a question which don't want to answer.
>Congratulations! You should enroll in the Bureau Enquêtes Accidents, or
>the NTSB. I'm sure they're eagerly waiting for such an expert. I don't
>want to offend you, but on such a case, your posts bring nothing, just
>show unwanted suspicion.
Since no other plane was involved, what alternative is there?
--
Martin
Aug 3rd 2005, 4:36 am
#49
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Air France Crash
On 3 Aug 2005 09:22:09 -0700, "Jordi" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Martin ha escrito:
>> >
>> >1/ Had the AF358 recieved clearance from ATC, despite the bad weather?
>> Who knows? Whether to land or not is the pilot's decision not that of
>> ATC.
>The plane was coming from a trasantlantic flight, so it was very likely
>low on fuel,
No plane crosses the Atlantic with so little fuel it can't divert if
needed.
> so there were probably not that many options to land
>elsewhere and weather was reported to be awful thoughout the area.
On CNN a retired Airbus pilot gave three airports the plane could have
diverted to.
He also mentioned a known problem of pilots at the end of long
distance flights wanting to land at the destination no matter what the
conditions.
>Also, Toronto - Pearson is one of the best airports to have a bad
>landing in a widebody, IMHO.
>I was in a AF A340 CDG - Montreal just 3 weeks ago and I'm glad they
>handled the situation so well.
What happened to you that time?
> If any, I feel more secure flying with
>them than before.
I don't understand the logic in that.
>> >2/ That's a very sneaky reproach you're making at Air France.
>> Years ago I was in an Air France jet that landed at CDG in the middle
>> of a thunderstorm. It frightened the shit out of me.
>> In a similar storm at Munich Airport in a Lufthansa jet the pilot
>> backed off and we circled waiting for the storm to pass over,
>> eventually we were diverted to Stuttgart to refuel.
>There are storms and storms, and airports and airports. You can never
>tell unless you're on the cabin.
or you see the end result?
>We'll see what the investigation reveals.
Yes.
--
Martin
>Martin ha escrito:
>> >
>> >1/ Had the AF358 recieved clearance from ATC, despite the bad weather?
>> Who knows? Whether to land or not is the pilot's decision not that of
>> ATC.
>The plane was coming from a trasantlantic flight, so it was very likely
>low on fuel,
No plane crosses the Atlantic with so little fuel it can't divert if
needed.
> so there were probably not that many options to land
>elsewhere and weather was reported to be awful thoughout the area.
On CNN a retired Airbus pilot gave three airports the plane could have
diverted to.
He also mentioned a known problem of pilots at the end of long
distance flights wanting to land at the destination no matter what the
conditions.
>Also, Toronto - Pearson is one of the best airports to have a bad
>landing in a widebody, IMHO.
>I was in a AF A340 CDG - Montreal just 3 weeks ago and I'm glad they
>handled the situation so well.
What happened to you that time?
> If any, I feel more secure flying with
>them than before.
I don't understand the logic in that.
>> >2/ That's a very sneaky reproach you're making at Air France.
>> Years ago I was in an Air France jet that landed at CDG in the middle
>> of a thunderstorm. It frightened the shit out of me.
>> In a similar storm at Munich Airport in a Lufthansa jet the pilot
>> backed off and we circled waiting for the storm to pass over,
>> eventually we were diverted to Stuttgart to refuel.
>There are storms and storms, and airports and airports. You can never
>tell unless you're on the cabin.
or you see the end result?
>We'll see what the investigation reveals.
Yes.
--
Martin
Aug 3rd 2005, 4:55 am
#50
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Air France Crash
> From: Martin <[email protected]>
> Organization: ---------------------
> Newsgroups: rec.travel.europe
> Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 17:28:50 +0200
> Subject: Re: Air France Crash
>
> On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 11:06:52 -0400, Dave Smith
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>
>>> As pilots say, a safe landing is any landing you can walk away from
>>> ... and that's exactly what the passengers and crew were able to do
>>> here. The rest doesn't matter. Planes can be replaced. If I were
>>> the CEO of Air France, I'd be in an excellent mood today, despite the
>>> loss of the airframe. Huge airplane crash ... and 100% survival. You
>>> can't ask for better than that, and if any airline could guarantee
>>> odds like that on every flight, nobody would ever have to fear flying
>>> again.
>>
>> Yeah right. If I survived a plane crash on landing I doubt very much if I
>> would
>> ever fly with that airline again. Not that it is entirely their fault. There
>> are
>> usually a number of factors involved in a plane crash. Never the less, a
>> crash
>> makes for PR. The CEO of AirFrance will now be scrambling over legal issues
>> and
>> insurance rates. He is sure as hell not going to be smiling today. There are
>> a
>> few dozen people in the hospital with injuries. Do you expect me to believe
>> that
>> none of them will have fear of flying again? Get serious.
>
> I go for the airlines, which don't try to land their planes in a
> thunderstorm and screw it up.
I wonder here why the Toronto airport was allowing planes to land at all,
given the weather conditions. Why weren't they re-routing them?
Donna Evleth
>
> --
> Martin
> Organization: ---------------------
> Newsgroups: rec.travel.europe
> Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 17:28:50 +0200
> Subject: Re: Air France Crash
>
> On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 11:06:52 -0400, Dave Smith
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>
>>> As pilots say, a safe landing is any landing you can walk away from
>>> ... and that's exactly what the passengers and crew were able to do
>>> here. The rest doesn't matter. Planes can be replaced. If I were
>>> the CEO of Air France, I'd be in an excellent mood today, despite the
>>> loss of the airframe. Huge airplane crash ... and 100% survival. You
>>> can't ask for better than that, and if any airline could guarantee
>>> odds like that on every flight, nobody would ever have to fear flying
>>> again.
>>
>> Yeah right. If I survived a plane crash on landing I doubt very much if I
>> would
>> ever fly with that airline again. Not that it is entirely their fault. There
>> are
>> usually a number of factors involved in a plane crash. Never the less, a
>> crash
>> makes for PR. The CEO of AirFrance will now be scrambling over legal issues
>> and
>> insurance rates. He is sure as hell not going to be smiling today. There are
>> a
>> few dozen people in the hospital with injuries. Do you expect me to believe
>> that
>> none of them will have fear of flying again? Get serious.
>
> I go for the airlines, which don't try to land their planes in a
> thunderstorm and screw it up.
I wonder here why the Toronto airport was allowing planes to land at all,
given the weather conditions. Why weren't they re-routing them?
Donna Evleth
>
> --
> Martin
Aug 3rd 2005, 4:56 am
#51
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Air France Crash
IIRC, a following plane to Toronto declared a low-fuel PAN and
eventually diverted to Syracuse. [Maybe KLM, can't find the
reference]
eventually diverted to Syracuse. [Maybe KLM, can't find the
reference]
Aug 3rd 2005, 4:57 am
#52
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Air France Crash
> From: Martin <[email protected]>
> Organization: ---------------------
> Newsgroups: rec.travel.europe
> Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 17:55:49 +0200
> Subject: Re: Air France Crash
>
> There are better ways to go than falling 10 miles or being burnt
> alive.
Terminal cancer with excruciating pain that lasts for months?
Donna Evleth
> --
> Martin
> Organization: ---------------------
> Newsgroups: rec.travel.europe
> Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 17:55:49 +0200
> Subject: Re: Air France Crash
>
> There are better ways to go than falling 10 miles or being burnt
> alive.
Terminal cancer with excruciating pain that lasts for months?
Donna Evleth
> --
> Martin
Aug 3rd 2005, 5:01 am
#53
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Air France Crash
On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 18:57:59 +0200, Donna Evleth <[email protected]>
wrote:
>> From: Martin <[email protected]>
>> Organization: ---------------------
>> Newsgroups: rec.travel.europe
>> Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 17:55:49 +0200
>> Subject: Re: Air France Crash
>>
>> There are better ways to go than falling 10 miles or being burnt
>> alive.
>Terminal cancer with excruciating pain that lasts for months?
I'd prefer to die in my sleep.
--
Martin
wrote:
>> From: Martin <[email protected]>
>> Organization: ---------------------
>> Newsgroups: rec.travel.europe
>> Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 17:55:49 +0200
>> Subject: Re: Air France Crash
>>
>> There are better ways to go than falling 10 miles or being burnt
>> alive.
>Terminal cancer with excruciating pain that lasts for months?
I'd prefer to die in my sleep.
--
Martin
Aug 3rd 2005, 5:04 am
#54
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Air France Crash
On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 18:55:44 +0200, Donna Evleth <[email protected]>
wrote:
>> From: Martin <[email protected]>
>> Organization: ---------------------
>> Newsgroups: rec.travel.europe
>> Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 17:28:50 +0200
>> Subject: Re: Air France Crash
>>
>> On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 11:06:52 -0400, Dave Smith
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>>
>>>> As pilots say, a safe landing is any landing you can walk away from
>>>> ... and that's exactly what the passengers and crew were able to do
>>>> here. The rest doesn't matter. Planes can be replaced. If I were
>>>> the CEO of Air France, I'd be in an excellent mood today, despite the
>>>> loss of the airframe. Huge airplane crash ... and 100% survival. You
>>>> can't ask for better than that, and if any airline could guarantee
>>>> odds like that on every flight, nobody would ever have to fear flying
>>>> again.
>>>
>>> Yeah right. If I survived a plane crash on landing I doubt very much if I
>>> would
>>> ever fly with that airline again. Not that it is entirely their fault. There
>>> are
>>> usually a number of factors involved in a plane crash. Never the less, a
>>> crash
>>> makes for PR. The CEO of AirFrance will now be scrambling over legal issues
>>> and
>>> insurance rates. He is sure as hell not going to be smiling today. There are
>>> a
>>> few dozen people in the hospital with injuries. Do you expect me to believe
>>> that
>>> none of them will have fear of flying again? Get serious.
>>
>> I go for the airlines, which don't try to land their planes in a
>> thunderstorm and screw it up.
>I wonder here why the Toronto airport was allowing planes to land at all,
>given the weather conditions. Why weren't they re-routing them?
When the Lufthansa plane I was in backed off from landing at Munich,
other planes arriving while we were circling did not. I had a friend
with a car waiting to pick me up.
The ultimate decision is the pilot's.
--
Martin
wrote:
>> From: Martin <[email protected]>
>> Organization: ---------------------
>> Newsgroups: rec.travel.europe
>> Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 17:28:50 +0200
>> Subject: Re: Air France Crash
>>
>> On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 11:06:52 -0400, Dave Smith
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>>
>>>> As pilots say, a safe landing is any landing you can walk away from
>>>> ... and that's exactly what the passengers and crew were able to do
>>>> here. The rest doesn't matter. Planes can be replaced. If I were
>>>> the CEO of Air France, I'd be in an excellent mood today, despite the
>>>> loss of the airframe. Huge airplane crash ... and 100% survival. You
>>>> can't ask for better than that, and if any airline could guarantee
>>>> odds like that on every flight, nobody would ever have to fear flying
>>>> again.
>>>
>>> Yeah right. If I survived a plane crash on landing I doubt very much if I
>>> would
>>> ever fly with that airline again. Not that it is entirely their fault. There
>>> are
>>> usually a number of factors involved in a plane crash. Never the less, a
>>> crash
>>> makes for PR. The CEO of AirFrance will now be scrambling over legal issues
>>> and
>>> insurance rates. He is sure as hell not going to be smiling today. There are
>>> a
>>> few dozen people in the hospital with injuries. Do you expect me to believe
>>> that
>>> none of them will have fear of flying again? Get serious.
>>
>> I go for the airlines, which don't try to land their planes in a
>> thunderstorm and screw it up.
>I wonder here why the Toronto airport was allowing planes to land at all,
>given the weather conditions. Why weren't they re-routing them?
When the Lufthansa plane I was in backed off from landing at Munich,
other planes arriving while we were circling did not. I had a friend
with a car waiting to pick me up.
The ultimate decision is the pilot's.
--
Martin
Aug 3rd 2005, 5:27 am
#55
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Air France Crash
Martin wrote:
> >Yeah right. If I survived a plane crash on landing I doubt very much if I would
> >ever fly with that airline again. Not that it is entirely their fault. There are
> >usually a number of factors involved in a plane crash. Never the less, a crash
> >makes for PR. The CEO of AirFrance will now be scrambling over legal issues and
> >insurance rates. He is sure as hell not going to be smiling today. There are a
> >few dozen people in the hospital with injuries. Do you expect me to believe that
> >none of them will have fear of flying again? Get serious.
> I go for the airlines, which don't try to land their planes in a
> thunderstorm and screw it up.
And that is just the way I would expect most people to react. Contrary to what Mixi
seems to think about the survival rate in that crash, most people would be prefer not
to take a chance on a landing like that. Considering that the plane overshot the
runway and ended up in a ravine, it is a miracle they they did survive. I don't know
how much of that decision was the pilot's and how much influence ground control had
on it. I can tell you that I was in path of the same weather system and it was
erratic, extremely hot, rapid cooling, heavy rain and sudden gusts of wind.
> >Yeah right. If I survived a plane crash on landing I doubt very much if I would
> >ever fly with that airline again. Not that it is entirely their fault. There are
> >usually a number of factors involved in a plane crash. Never the less, a crash
> >makes for PR. The CEO of AirFrance will now be scrambling over legal issues and
> >insurance rates. He is sure as hell not going to be smiling today. There are a
> >few dozen people in the hospital with injuries. Do you expect me to believe that
> >none of them will have fear of flying again? Get serious.
> I go for the airlines, which don't try to land their planes in a
> thunderstorm and screw it up.
And that is just the way I would expect most people to react. Contrary to what Mixi
seems to think about the survival rate in that crash, most people would be prefer not
to take a chance on a landing like that. Considering that the plane overshot the
runway and ended up in a ravine, it is a miracle they they did survive. I don't know
how much of that decision was the pilot's and how much influence ground control had
on it. I can tell you that I was in path of the same weather system and it was
erratic, extremely hot, rapid cooling, heavy rain and sudden gusts of wind.
Aug 3rd 2005, 5:45 am
#56
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Air France Crash
"Martin" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email protected]...
> On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 18:55:44 +0200, Donna Evleth <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>> From: Martin <[email protected]>
>>> Organization: ---------------------
>>> Newsgroups: rec.travel.europe
>>> Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 17:28:50 +0200
>>> Subject: Re: Air France Crash
>>> On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 11:06:52 -0400, Dave Smith
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>>>> As pilots say, a safe landing is any landing you can walk away from
>>>>> ... and that's exactly what the passengers and crew were able to do
>>>>> here. The rest doesn't matter. Planes can be replaced. If I were
>>>>> the CEO of Air France, I'd be in an excellent mood today, despite the
>>>>> loss of the airframe. Huge airplane crash ... and 100% survival. You
>>>>> can't ask for better than that, and if any airline could guarantee
>>>>> odds like that on every flight, nobody would ever have to fear flying
>>>>> again.
>>>> Yeah right. If I survived a plane crash on landing I doubt very much if
>>>> I
>>>> would
>>>> ever fly with that airline again. Not that it is entirely their fault.
>>>> There
>>>> are
>>>> usually a number of factors involved in a plane crash. Never the less,
>>>> a
>>>> crash
>>>> makes for PR. The CEO of AirFrance will now be scrambling over legal
>>>> issues
>>>> and
>>>> insurance rates. He is sure as hell not going to be smiling today.
>>>> There are
>>>> a
>>>> few dozen people in the hospital with injuries. Do you expect me to
>>>> believe
>>>> that
>>>> none of them will have fear of flying again? Get serious.
>>> I go for the airlines, which don't try to land their planes in a
>>> thunderstorm and screw it up.
>>I wonder here why the Toronto airport was allowing planes to land at all,
>>given the weather conditions. Why weren't they re-routing them?
> When the Lufthansa plane I was in backed off from landing at Munich,
> other planes arriving while we were circling did not. I had a friend
> with a car waiting to pick me up.
Years ago Brazil had VASP, Varig and Cruzeiro.
My worst experience was with Vasp from Belo Horizonte to Sao Paulo.
I was thinking to myself : Never again with Vasp.
However, later, I take another flight with Vasp.
Why ? because they had the more convenient conexion for me at this time.
I strongly doubt that someone will recuse a flight because AF, Luft, British
Airway because the name.
Come on : AF and Luft are at the same level. Between Luft and AF I choose
the more convenient at this very moment, and not just 'the name'
Unless you have some strong interest in Luft and you post is just advertise.
May be we can
> The ultimate decision is the pilot's.
> --
> Martin
[email protected]...
> On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 18:55:44 +0200, Donna Evleth <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>> From: Martin <[email protected]>
>>> Organization: ---------------------
>>> Newsgroups: rec.travel.europe
>>> Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 17:28:50 +0200
>>> Subject: Re: Air France Crash
>>> On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 11:06:52 -0400, Dave Smith
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>>>> As pilots say, a safe landing is any landing you can walk away from
>>>>> ... and that's exactly what the passengers and crew were able to do
>>>>> here. The rest doesn't matter. Planes can be replaced. If I were
>>>>> the CEO of Air France, I'd be in an excellent mood today, despite the
>>>>> loss of the airframe. Huge airplane crash ... and 100% survival. You
>>>>> can't ask for better than that, and if any airline could guarantee
>>>>> odds like that on every flight, nobody would ever have to fear flying
>>>>> again.
>>>> Yeah right. If I survived a plane crash on landing I doubt very much if
>>>> I
>>>> would
>>>> ever fly with that airline again. Not that it is entirely their fault.
>>>> There
>>>> are
>>>> usually a number of factors involved in a plane crash. Never the less,
>>>> a
>>>> crash
>>>> makes for PR. The CEO of AirFrance will now be scrambling over legal
>>>> issues
>>>> and
>>>> insurance rates. He is sure as hell not going to be smiling today.
>>>> There are
>>>> a
>>>> few dozen people in the hospital with injuries. Do you expect me to
>>>> believe
>>>> that
>>>> none of them will have fear of flying again? Get serious.
>>> I go for the airlines, which don't try to land their planes in a
>>> thunderstorm and screw it up.
>>I wonder here why the Toronto airport was allowing planes to land at all,
>>given the weather conditions. Why weren't they re-routing them?
> When the Lufthansa plane I was in backed off from landing at Munich,
> other planes arriving while we were circling did not. I had a friend
> with a car waiting to pick me up.
Years ago Brazil had VASP, Varig and Cruzeiro.
My worst experience was with Vasp from Belo Horizonte to Sao Paulo.
I was thinking to myself : Never again with Vasp.
However, later, I take another flight with Vasp.
Why ? because they had the more convenient conexion for me at this time.
I strongly doubt that someone will recuse a flight because AF, Luft, British
Airway because the name.
Come on : AF and Luft are at the same level. Between Luft and AF I choose
the more convenient at this very moment, and not just 'the name'
Unless you have some strong interest in Luft and you post is just advertise.
May be we can
> The ultimate decision is the pilot's.
> --
> Martin
Aug 3rd 2005, 5:49 am
#57
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Air France Crash
>> A local reporter said there might have been a particular type of
>> downdraft (I forget the technical name) that the 'plane might have
>> encountered, being first a strong headwind, then a strong downwind, then
>> a strong tailwind. Obviously that would cause some tossing about and,
>> that close to the ground . . .
> I suspect you mean a microburst , they have been involved in a
> number of incidents.
> http://cimms.ou.edu/~doswell/microbursts/Handbook.html
> Keith
Does Bill Gates have anything to do with Microburst or is this a far eastern
phenomenon ?
>> downdraft (I forget the technical name) that the 'plane might have
>> encountered, being first a strong headwind, then a strong downwind, then
>> a strong tailwind. Obviously that would cause some tossing about and,
>> that close to the ground . . .
> I suspect you mean a microburst , they have been involved in a
> number of incidents.
> http://cimms.ou.edu/~doswell/microbursts/Handbook.html
> Keith
Does Bill Gates have anything to do with Microburst or is this a far eastern
phenomenon ?
Aug 3rd 2005, 5:51 am
#58
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Air France Crash
On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 13:27:30 -0400, Dave Smith
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Martin wrote:
>> >Yeah right. If I survived a plane crash on landing I doubt very much if I would
>> >ever fly with that airline again. Not that it is entirely their fault. There are
>> >usually a number of factors involved in a plane crash. Never the less, a crash
>> >makes for PR. The CEO of AirFrance will now be scrambling over legal issues and
>> >insurance rates. He is sure as hell not going to be smiling today. There are a
>> >few dozen people in the hospital with injuries. Do you expect me to believe that
>> >none of them will have fear of flying again? Get serious.
>> I go for the airlines, which don't try to land their planes in a
>> thunderstorm and screw it up.
>And that is just the way I would expect most people to react. Contrary to what Mixi
>seems to think about the survival rate in that crash, most people would be prefer not
>to take a chance on a landing like that. Considering that the plane overshot the
>runway and ended up in a ravine, it is a miracle they they did survive. I don't know
>how much of that decision was the pilot's and how much influence ground control had
>on it. I can tell you that I was in path of the same weather system and it was
>erratic, extremely hot, rapid cooling, heavy rain and sudden gusts of wind.
Maybe Mixi believes Air France has God on their side. The fact that
they all survived is described as a miracle in Canada too. Of course
it could be that the AF pilot was just unlucky.
My daughter who seems to attract storms, was in a KLM plane that was
struck by lightning as it came into land at Schiphol, there was a
flash and a large bang just outside the window where she was sitting.
The two guys sitting next to her didn't even look up, but continued to
argue about a football match. There was no comment from the cockpit.
--
Martin
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Martin wrote:
>> >Yeah right. If I survived a plane crash on landing I doubt very much if I would
>> >ever fly with that airline again. Not that it is entirely their fault. There are
>> >usually a number of factors involved in a plane crash. Never the less, a crash
>> >makes for PR. The CEO of AirFrance will now be scrambling over legal issues and
>> >insurance rates. He is sure as hell not going to be smiling today. There are a
>> >few dozen people in the hospital with injuries. Do you expect me to believe that
>> >none of them will have fear of flying again? Get serious.
>> I go for the airlines, which don't try to land their planes in a
>> thunderstorm and screw it up.
>And that is just the way I would expect most people to react. Contrary to what Mixi
>seems to think about the survival rate in that crash, most people would be prefer not
>to take a chance on a landing like that. Considering that the plane overshot the
>runway and ended up in a ravine, it is a miracle they they did survive. I don't know
>how much of that decision was the pilot's and how much influence ground control had
>on it. I can tell you that I was in path of the same weather system and it was
>erratic, extremely hot, rapid cooling, heavy rain and sudden gusts of wind.
Maybe Mixi believes Air France has God on their side. The fact that
they all survived is described as a miracle in Canada too. Of course
it could be that the AF pilot was just unlucky.
My daughter who seems to attract storms, was in a KLM plane that was
struck by lightning as it came into land at Schiphol, there was a
flash and a large bang just outside the window where she was sitting.
The two guys sitting next to her didn't even look up, but continued to
argue about a football match. There was no comment from the cockpit.
--
Martin
Aug 3rd 2005, 6:03 am
#59
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Air France Crash
On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 19:45:25 +0200, "Montesquiou"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Unless you have some strong interest in Luft and you post is just advertise.
I haven't flown with Lufthansa since, so no advertisement. Just the
way it should be done in a severe thunderstorm.
--
Martin
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Unless you have some strong interest in Luft and you post is just advertise.
I haven't flown with Lufthansa since, so no advertisement. Just the
way it should be done in a severe thunderstorm.
--
Martin
Aug 3rd 2005, 9:16 am
#60
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Air France Crash
Dave Smith writes:
> Yeah right. If I survived a plane crash on landing I doubt very much if I would
> ever fly with that airline again.
It's true that some people never think things through.
However, when an aircraft experiences a completely unpredictable,
sudden, catastrophic event, and successfully evacuates all passengers
and crew, that's a sign of a _good_ airline, not a bad one. Any
airline can be affected by such events at random; but only good
airlines are able to ensure high survival rates in such serious
accidents.
The fact that Air France was able to get everyone out without any
deaths in an accident like this speaks very highly of the airline. A
less competent aircrew may not have been able to do this, causing many
people to die. Since the airline did not cause the accident, but did
react to it admirably, it's actually an excellent endorsement of that
airline, and potentially a good reason to fly with them in the future.
> The CEO of AirFrance will now be scrambling over legal issues and
> insurance rates.
Will he? Truly random events don't affect insurance rates, and there
aren't really any legal issues to discuss for acts of god. Everyone
got out alive, and this was a very serious accident, so it's hard to
see any sign of negligence or wrongdoing at this point. Unless and
until someone can prove that the airline had some sort of
responsibility in causing the accident, the airline is free and clear.
> He is sure as hell not going to be smiling today.
Maybe he thought things through more carefully, as I did.
> There are a few dozen people in the hospital with injuries. Do
> you expect me to believe that none of them will have fear of
> flying again?
They may or they may not, but again, if they think things through,
they will realize that this is a ringing endorsement of Air France,
and only emphasizes how safe flying really is.
> Yeah right. If I survived a plane crash on landing I doubt very much if I would
> ever fly with that airline again.
It's true that some people never think things through.
However, when an aircraft experiences a completely unpredictable,
sudden, catastrophic event, and successfully evacuates all passengers
and crew, that's a sign of a _good_ airline, not a bad one. Any
airline can be affected by such events at random; but only good
airlines are able to ensure high survival rates in such serious
accidents.
The fact that Air France was able to get everyone out without any
deaths in an accident like this speaks very highly of the airline. A
less competent aircrew may not have been able to do this, causing many
people to die. Since the airline did not cause the accident, but did
react to it admirably, it's actually an excellent endorsement of that
airline, and potentially a good reason to fly with them in the future.
> The CEO of AirFrance will now be scrambling over legal issues and
> insurance rates.
Will he? Truly random events don't affect insurance rates, and there
aren't really any legal issues to discuss for acts of god. Everyone
got out alive, and this was a very serious accident, so it's hard to
see any sign of negligence or wrongdoing at this point. Unless and
until someone can prove that the airline had some sort of
responsibility in causing the accident, the airline is free and clear.
> He is sure as hell not going to be smiling today.
Maybe he thought things through more carefully, as I did.
> There are a few dozen people in the hospital with injuries. Do
> you expect me to believe that none of them will have fear of
> flying again?
They may or they may not, but again, if they think things through,
they will realize that this is a ringing endorsement of Air France,
and only emphasizes how safe flying really is.
