Air France Crash
Aug 3rd 2005, 9:17 am
#61
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Air France Crash
Martin writes:
> I go for the airlines, which don't try to land their planes in a
> thunderstorm and screw it up.
At this point we don't know why they landed under such poor
conditions. They may have been constrained to do so by factors as yet
unannounced.
Obviously if the decision to land proves to have been optional and
made in poor judgement, that changes things, at least for the pilot.
> I go for the airlines, which don't try to land their planes in a
> thunderstorm and screw it up.
At this point we don't know why they landed under such poor
conditions. They may have been constrained to do so by factors as yet
unannounced.
Obviously if the decision to land proves to have been optional and
made in poor judgement, that changes things, at least for the pilot.
Aug 3rd 2005, 9:19 am
#62
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Air France Crash
Martin writes:
> Who knows? Whether to land or not is the pilot's decision not that of
> ATC.
I think one can safely assume that he had clearance. Forcing an
aircraft onto a runway against the instructions of air-traffic control
is a good way to end a career.
> 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.
What does that have to do with the wisdom or lack of wisdom in landing
under such conditions?
Sometimes planes have to land in bad conditions.
> 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.
How similar was the storm, exactly?
> Who knows? Whether to land or not is the pilot's decision not that of
> ATC.
I think one can safely assume that he had clearance. Forcing an
aircraft onto a runway against the instructions of air-traffic control
is a good way to end a career.
> 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.
What does that have to do with the wisdom or lack of wisdom in landing
under such conditions?
Sometimes planes have to land in bad conditions.
> 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.
How similar was the storm, exactly?
Aug 3rd 2005, 9:21 am
#63
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Air France Crash
Martin writes:
> Yesterday they did.
How? What should the pilot have done differently, and why?
> Why did he land in a thunderstorm?
Sometimes you have to land even in bad weather. We don't yet know the
exact circumstances behind the decision to land.
And the landing wasn't really particularly bad, it's just that the
plane slid off the runway. There are a lot of things that can cause
that.
> Microbursts , wind sheer, aqua
> planing whilst landing in thunderstorms are no secret.
They can occur even in the absence of a thunderstorm, as can lightning
strikes.
> Who do you want to blame?
It's best not to blame anyone until there is a clear reason to do so.
At present it appears to have been a random accident. These things
happen.
> Yesterday they did.
How? What should the pilot have done differently, and why?
> Why did he land in a thunderstorm?
Sometimes you have to land even in bad weather. We don't yet know the
exact circumstances behind the decision to land.
And the landing wasn't really particularly bad, it's just that the
plane slid off the runway. There are a lot of things that can cause
that.
> Microbursts , wind sheer, aqua
> planing whilst landing in thunderstorms are no secret.
They can occur even in the absence of a thunderstorm, as can lightning
strikes.
> Who do you want to blame?
It's best not to blame anyone until there is a clear reason to do so.
At present it appears to have been a random accident. These things
happen.
Aug 3rd 2005, 9:25 am
#64
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Air France Crash
Martin writes:
> No plane crosses the Atlantic with so little fuel it can't divert if
> needed.
But options for diversion are not unlimited, and if the optional
airports are experiencing the same weather and/or do not have the
facilities for landings in poor weather, or if other factors
intervene, diversion may not be a good idea.
> On CNN a retired Airbus pilot gave three airports the plane could have
> diverted to.
The retired Airbus pilot wasn't in the cabin. I can start up Flight
Simulator and find three airports to divert to as well, but that
really doesn't prove anything.
> 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.
I think it's called fatigue.
Still, we don't currently know all the circumstances surrounding the
landing, so it is too early to evaluate the pilot's decision.
> I don't understand the logic in that.
Obviously.
> or you see the end result?
End result = 0 dead. Sounds good to me. Unless the final
investigation reveals some sort of negligence or in competence, case
closed, in favor of the airline.
> No plane crosses the Atlantic with so little fuel it can't divert if
> needed.
But options for diversion are not unlimited, and if the optional
airports are experiencing the same weather and/or do not have the
facilities for landings in poor weather, or if other factors
intervene, diversion may not be a good idea.
> On CNN a retired Airbus pilot gave three airports the plane could have
> diverted to.
The retired Airbus pilot wasn't in the cabin. I can start up Flight
Simulator and find three airports to divert to as well, but that
really doesn't prove anything.
> 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.
I think it's called fatigue.
Still, we don't currently know all the circumstances surrounding the
landing, so it is too early to evaluate the pilot's decision.
> I don't understand the logic in that.
Obviously.
> or you see the end result?
End result = 0 dead. Sounds good to me. Unless the final
investigation reveals some sort of negligence or in competence, case
closed, in favor of the airline.
Aug 3rd 2005, 9:27 am
#65
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Air France Crash
Martin writes:
> I haven't flown with Lufthansa since, so no advertisement. Just the
> way it should be done in a severe thunderstorm.
Next time be sure to communicate your decision to the pilot so that he
knows whether or not it's safe to land.
> I haven't flown with Lufthansa since, so no advertisement. Just the
> way it should be done in a severe thunderstorm.
Next time be sure to communicate your decision to the pilot so that he
knows whether or not it's safe to land.
Aug 3rd 2005, 9:28 am
#66
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Air France Crash
Dave Smith writes:
> 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.
Many people are stupid, and don't think things through. But some do.
> 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.
A thunderstorm, you mean?
> 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.
Many people are stupid, and don't think things through. But some do.
> 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.
A thunderstorm, you mean?
Aug 3rd 2005, 9:29 am
#67
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Air France Crash
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) writes:
> I understand what you're saying, but I'd just as soon NOT
> merely "walk away, alive" from my flight, thank you very
> much!
I guess you could be removed dead in a body bag instead, if that's
what you prefer.
> I understand what you're saying, but I'd just as soon NOT
> merely "walk away, alive" from my flight, thank you very
> much!
I guess you could be removed dead in a body bag instead, if that's
what you prefer.
Aug 3rd 2005, 9:30 am
#68
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Air France Crash
Stanislas de Kertanguy writes:
> Oh, strange, you don't pretend any more that AF pilots drink alcohol
> during flight?
Some of them do, from what I've seen, but that doesn't mean that none
of the pilots fly sober. There are good pilots and bad pilots on
every airline.
Also, the lives were saved here by flight attendants, not pilots.
It's still possible that the pilot exercised bad judgement in landing,
but only the full investigation will say for sure.
If the pilot were drunk ... that would be a big problem.
> Oh, strange, you don't pretend any more that AF pilots drink alcohol
> during flight?
Some of them do, from what I've seen, but that doesn't mean that none
of the pilots fly sober. There are good pilots and bad pilots on
every airline.
Also, the lives were saved here by flight attendants, not pilots.
It's still possible that the pilot exercised bad judgement in landing,
but only the full investigation will say for sure.
If the pilot were drunk ... that would be a big problem.
Aug 3rd 2005, 9:31 am
#69
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Air France Crash
Martin writes:
> and that Airbus make junk?
I haven't made any comment either way on the aircraft in this case.
> and that Airbus make junk?
I haven't made any comment either way on the aircraft in this case.
Aug 3rd 2005, 9:32 am
#70
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Air France Crash
On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 23:19:18 +0200, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Martin writes:
>> Who knows? Whether to land or not is the pilot's decision not that of
>> ATC.
>I think one can safely assume that he had clearance. Forcing an
>aircraft onto a runway against the instructions of air-traffic control
>is a good way to end a career.
>> 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.
>What does that have to do with the wisdom or lack of wisdom in landing
>under such conditions?
>Sometimes planes have to land in bad conditions.
Wait and see.
>> 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.
>How similar was the storm, exactly?
A large thunderstorm that was directly over the airfield. Reports on
the Toronto crash reported it being dark when they evacuated although
it was only late afternoon at the time.
--
Martin
wrote:
>Martin writes:
>> Who knows? Whether to land or not is the pilot's decision not that of
>> ATC.
>I think one can safely assume that he had clearance. Forcing an
>aircraft onto a runway against the instructions of air-traffic control
>is a good way to end a career.
>> 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.
>What does that have to do with the wisdom or lack of wisdom in landing
>under such conditions?
>Sometimes planes have to land in bad conditions.
Wait and see.
>> 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.
>How similar was the storm, exactly?
A large thunderstorm that was directly over the airfield. Reports on
the Toronto crash reported it being dark when they evacuated although
it was only late afternoon at the time.
--
Martin
Aug 3rd 2005, 9:33 am
#71
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Air France Crash
Nige writes:
> Does Bill Gates have anything to do with Microburst or is this a far eastern
> phenomenon ?
Neither. A microburst is a very sudden, localized, extreme movement
of air, usually a downdraft, and usually associated with bad weather.
Aircraft have crashed after encountering microbursts on landing.
However, from the reports of passengers in this case, there was no
microburst. The landing was largely normal. The fact that the lights
went off during the landing is an indication that some other problem
came up.
> Does Bill Gates have anything to do with Microburst or is this a far eastern
> phenomenon ?
Neither. A microburst is a very sudden, localized, extreme movement
of air, usually a downdraft, and usually associated with bad weather.
Aircraft have crashed after encountering microbursts on landing.
However, from the reports of passengers in this case, there was no
microburst. The landing was largely normal. The fact that the lights
went off during the landing is an indication that some other problem
came up.
Aug 3rd 2005, 9:35 am
#72
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Air France Crash
Martin writes:
> A large thunderstorm that was directly over the airfield.
And of course all such thunderstorms are identical.
> Reports on the Toronto crash reported it being dark when they
> evacuated although it was only late afternoon at the time.
As it often is under heavy cloud cover. Of course, anyone can see the
actual conditions by watching the video. It doesn't look especially
dark to me, although it's darker than bright sunlight, of course.
> A large thunderstorm that was directly over the airfield.
And of course all such thunderstorms are identical.
> Reports on the Toronto crash reported it being dark when they
> evacuated although it was only late afternoon at the time.
As it often is under heavy cloud cover. Of course, anyone can see the
actual conditions by watching the video. It doesn't look especially
dark to me, although it's darker than bright sunlight, of course.
Aug 3rd 2005, 9:37 am
#73
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Air France Crash
On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 23:21:59 +0200, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Martin writes:
>> Yesterday they did.
>How? What should the pilot have done differently, and why?
>> Why did he land in a thunderstorm?
>Sometimes you have to land even in bad weather. We don't yet know the
>exact circumstances behind the decision to land.
>And the landing wasn't really particularly bad, it's just that the
>plane slid off the runway.
How do you know the landing wasn;t bad?
I've been flying for 40 odd years in all sorts of awful weather I have
never been in a plane that has slid off the runway.
>There are a lot of things that can cause
>that.
Wait and see.
>> Microbursts , wind sheer, aqua
>> planing whilst landing in thunderstorms are no secret.
>They can occur even in the absence of a thunderstorm, as can lightning
>strikes.
In this case there was thunder and lightning so that's irrelevant.
>> Who do you want to blame?
>It's best not to blame anyone until there is a clear reason to do so.
>At present it appears to have been a random accident. These things
>happen.
There is always a reason for an accident.
--
Martin
wrote:
>Martin writes:
>> Yesterday they did.
>How? What should the pilot have done differently, and why?
>> Why did he land in a thunderstorm?
>Sometimes you have to land even in bad weather. We don't yet know the
>exact circumstances behind the decision to land.
>And the landing wasn't really particularly bad, it's just that the
>plane slid off the runway.
How do you know the landing wasn;t bad?
I've been flying for 40 odd years in all sorts of awful weather I have
never been in a plane that has slid off the runway.
>There are a lot of things that can cause
>that.
Wait and see.
>> Microbursts , wind sheer, aqua
>> planing whilst landing in thunderstorms are no secret.
>They can occur even in the absence of a thunderstorm, as can lightning
>strikes.
In this case there was thunder and lightning so that's irrelevant.
>> Who do you want to blame?
>It's best not to blame anyone until there is a clear reason to do so.
>At present it appears to have been a random accident. These things
>happen.
There is always a reason for an accident.
--
Martin
Aug 3rd 2005, 9:47 am
#74
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Air France Crash
On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 23:25:54 +0200, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Martin writes:
>> No plane crosses the Atlantic with so little fuel it can't divert if
>> needed.
>But options for diversion are not unlimited, and if the optional
>airports are experiencing the same weather and/or do not have the
>facilities for landings in poor weather, or if other factors
>intervene, diversion may not be a good idea.
>> On CNN a retired Airbus pilot gave three airports the plane could have
>> diverted to.
>The retired Airbus pilot wasn't in the cabin. I can start up Flight
>Simulator and find three airports to divert to as well, but that
>really doesn't prove anything.
>> 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.
>I think it's called fatigue.
>Still, we don't currently know all the circumstances surrounding the
>landing, so it is too early to evaluate the pilot's decision.
>> I don't understand the logic in that.
>Obviously.
>> or you see the end result?
>End result = 0 dead.
That's the end result of thousands of flights every day. Usually the
plane survives too.
> Sounds good to me. Unless the final
>investigation reveals some sort of negligence or in competence, case
>closed, in favor of the airline.
The case has only just been opened.
So you would chose Air France in preference to another airline that
had never had an accident of any sort?
--
Martin
wrote:
>Martin writes:
>> No plane crosses the Atlantic with so little fuel it can't divert if
>> needed.
>But options for diversion are not unlimited, and if the optional
>airports are experiencing the same weather and/or do not have the
>facilities for landings in poor weather, or if other factors
>intervene, diversion may not be a good idea.
>> On CNN a retired Airbus pilot gave three airports the plane could have
>> diverted to.
>The retired Airbus pilot wasn't in the cabin. I can start up Flight
>Simulator and find three airports to divert to as well, but that
>really doesn't prove anything.
>> 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.
>I think it's called fatigue.
>Still, we don't currently know all the circumstances surrounding the
>landing, so it is too early to evaluate the pilot's decision.
>> I don't understand the logic in that.
>Obviously.
>> or you see the end result?
>End result = 0 dead.
That's the end result of thousands of flights every day. Usually the
plane survives too.
> Sounds good to me. Unless the final
>investigation reveals some sort of negligence or in competence, case
>closed, in favor of the airline.
The case has only just been opened.
So you would chose Air France in preference to another airline that
had never had an accident of any sort?
--
Martin
Aug 3rd 2005, 9:49 am
#75
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Air France Crash
On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 23:27:15 +0200, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Martin writes:
>> I haven't flown with Lufthansa since, so no advertisement. Just the
>> way it should be done in a severe thunderstorm.
>Next time be sure to communicate your decision to the pilot so that he
>knows whether or not it's safe to land.
Perhaps one of the passengers should have done that yesterday?
I don't need to communicate anything if the pilot is trained.
--
Martin
wrote:
>Martin writes:
>> I haven't flown with Lufthansa since, so no advertisement. Just the
>> way it should be done in a severe thunderstorm.
>Next time be sure to communicate your decision to the pilot so that he
>knows whether or not it's safe to land.
Perhaps one of the passengers should have done that yesterday?
I don't need to communicate anything if the pilot is trained.
--
Martin
