Air France Crash
Aug 3rd 2005, 9:49 am
#76
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Air France Crash
On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 23:28:10 +0200, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
wrote:
>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.
You are a clear demonstration of 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.
>A thunderstorm, you mean?
--
Martin
wrote:
>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.
You are a clear demonstration of 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.
>A thunderstorm, you mean?
--
Martin
Aug 3rd 2005, 9:50 am
#77
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Air France Crash
Mxsmanic wrote:
> 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.
Yeah. Right. Having been through a plane crash is all the thinking through that a lot
of people need to do.
> 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.
While the crew appear to have done an excellent job in getting the people out of the
plane very quickly, their survival incredible stroke of luck. There aren't often
such horrendous crashes without casualties and serious injuries.
> 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.
Whether or not they "caused" the accident is still under review. As a number of
people here have pointed out, it may have been a bad decision to land in those
weather conditions. Whether or not the "caused" the accident, there is still the
matter of an expensive aircraft destroyed and the inevitable law suits. It is going
to cost insurance companies millions of dollars. Typically, airline companies that
have crashes see their rates rise dramatically.
> > 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.
It wasn't an act of god. It's not like the plane was sitting on the tarmac and was
hit by an meteorite. It was a piece of equipment that is maintained by the airline
and with a crew who made the decision to land in a bad storm with unpredictable
meteorological events going on.
> > He is sure as hell not going to be smiling today.
> Maybe he thought things through more carefully, as I did.
Au contraire. The guy has some factual information about the event, the financial
consequences and the impact on their marketing. Unlike yourself, he is not in a
position to sit there and make inane comments that have no base in reality.
> 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.
Two planes lost in 5 years? In the eyes of people who do more than just walk, that is
hardly a ringing endorsement.
> 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.
Yeah. Right. Having been through a plane crash is all the thinking through that a lot
of people need to do.
> 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.
While the crew appear to have done an excellent job in getting the people out of the
plane very quickly, their survival incredible stroke of luck. There aren't often
such horrendous crashes without casualties and serious injuries.
> 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.
Whether or not they "caused" the accident is still under review. As a number of
people here have pointed out, it may have been a bad decision to land in those
weather conditions. Whether or not the "caused" the accident, there is still the
matter of an expensive aircraft destroyed and the inevitable law suits. It is going
to cost insurance companies millions of dollars. Typically, airline companies that
have crashes see their rates rise dramatically.
> > 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.
It wasn't an act of god. It's not like the plane was sitting on the tarmac and was
hit by an meteorite. It was a piece of equipment that is maintained by the airline
and with a crew who made the decision to land in a bad storm with unpredictable
meteorological events going on.
> > He is sure as hell not going to be smiling today.
> Maybe he thought things through more carefully, as I did.
Au contraire. The guy has some factual information about the event, the financial
consequences and the impact on their marketing. Unlike yourself, he is not in a
position to sit there and make inane comments that have no base in reality.
> 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.
Two planes lost in 5 years? In the eyes of people who do more than just walk, that is
hardly a ringing endorsement.
Aug 3rd 2005, 9:52 am
#78
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Air France Crash
Mxsmanic wrote:
> > 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.
That was the decision of one of the crew members.
> Obviously if the decision to land proves to have been optional and
> made in poor judgement, that changes things, at least for the pilot.
The pilot is a representative of the company, and the company end sup
holding the bag.
> > 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.
That was the decision of one of the crew members.
> Obviously if the decision to land proves to have been optional and
> made in poor judgement, that changes things, at least for the pilot.
The pilot is a representative of the company, and the company end sup
holding the bag.
Aug 3rd 2005, 9:52 am
#79
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Air France Crash
On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 23:33:26 +0200, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
wrote:
>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.
The lights are always turned off during a landing.
--
Martin
wrote:
>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.
The lights are always turned off during a landing.
--
Martin
Aug 3rd 2005, 9:55 am
#80
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Air France Crash
Mxsmanic wrote:
> 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.
Yes. You have proved that point for us many times.
> > 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?
Lightning, thunder, rain, heavy rain, hail, sudden gusts of wind. I live about 60 km south
of the crash site and the weather system travelled through here. It was a short lived but
nasty storm.
> 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.
Yes. You have proved that point for us many times.
> > 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?
Lightning, thunder, rain, heavy rain, hail, sudden gusts of wind. I live about 60 km south
of the crash site and the weather system travelled through here. It was a short lived but
nasty storm.
Aug 3rd 2005, 9:55 am
#81
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Air France Crash
On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 23:35:23 +0200, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Martin writes:
>> A large thunderstorm that was directly over the airfield.
>And of course all such thunderstorms are identical.
The effects are known and predictable.
>> 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.
Odd that you quote a witness to support your argument that the landing
was normal and contradict witnesses who said it was dark. Have you
seen a video of the actual crash. What I have seen started sometime
after the crash.
--
Martin
wrote:
>Martin writes:
>> A large thunderstorm that was directly over the airfield.
>And of course all such thunderstorms are identical.
The effects are known and predictable.
>> 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.
Odd that you quote a witness to support your argument that the landing
was normal and contradict witnesses who said it was dark. Have you
seen a video of the actual crash. What I have seen started sometime
after the crash.
--
Martin
Aug 3rd 2005, 9:56 am
#82
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Air France Crash
Martin wrote:
> So you would chose Air France in preference to another airline that
> had never had an accident of any sort?
> --
He doesn't fly. His biggest choice would be Nike or Addidas.
> So you would chose Air France in preference to another airline that
> had never had an accident of any sort?
> --
He doesn't fly. His biggest choice would be Nike or Addidas.
Aug 3rd 2005, 10:10 am
#83
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Air France Crash
Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Sometimes planes have to land in bad conditions.
>
> Wait and see.
Exactly. So *all of us* should wait before assessing that AF is an
airline which "" [don't try] tries to land [their] its planes in a
thunderstorm and [screw] screws it up. ""
--
remplacez "lesptt" par "laposte" pour me joindre
substitute "laposte" to "lesptt" to reach me
> >Sometimes planes have to land in bad conditions.
>
> Wait and see.
Exactly. So *all of us* should wait before assessing that AF is an
airline which "" [don't try] tries to land [their] its planes in a
thunderstorm and [screw] screws it up. ""
--
remplacez "lesptt" par "laposte" pour me joindre
substitute "laposte" to "lesptt" to reach me
Aug 3rd 2005, 10:10 am
#84
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Air France Crash
Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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?
Such airlines are very few. One usually quotes Quantas, which is not
very common to fly Paris-Toronto, hmm ????
--
remplacez "lesptt" par "laposte" pour me joindre
substitute "laposte" to "lesptt" to reach me
> > 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?
Such airlines are very few. One usually quotes Quantas, which is not
very common to fly Paris-Toronto, hmm ????
--
remplacez "lesptt" par "laposte" pour me joindre
substitute "laposte" to "lesptt" to reach me
Aug 3rd 2005, 10:11 am
#85
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Air France Crash
Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
> No I meant what I said.
So you meant that AF is an airline that as the regular policy of landing
its planes in a thunderstorm and destroying it (these are your words)?
> >> >> >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.
I'm not blaming the airline or the pilot. I'm just happy for the
passengers and crew, and waiting for the results of the inquiry, which
you are not doing.
> >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?
Well then, I'm sure your comments will be appreciated. Just write to the
DGAC, they need workforce.
--
remplacez "lesptt" par "laposte" pour me joindre
substitute "laposte" to "lesptt" to reach me
> No I meant what I said.
So you meant that AF is an airline that as the regular policy of landing
its planes in a thunderstorm and destroying it (these are your words)?
> >> >> >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.
I'm not blaming the airline or the pilot. I'm just happy for the
passengers and crew, and waiting for the results of the inquiry, which
you are not doing.
> >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?
Well then, I'm sure your comments will be appreciated. Just write to the
DGAC, they need workforce.
--
remplacez "lesptt" par "laposte" pour me joindre
substitute "laposte" to "lesptt" to reach me
Aug 3rd 2005, 10:11 am
#86
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Air France Crash
On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 00:10:56 +0200, [email protected]
(Stanislas de Kertanguy) wrote:
>Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >Sometimes planes have to land in bad conditions.
>>
>> Wait and see.
>Exactly. So *all of us* should wait before assessing that AF is an
>airline which "" [don't try] tries to land [their] its planes in a
>thunderstorm and [screw] screws it up. ""
An "Act of God"? :-)
--
Martin
(Stanislas de Kertanguy) wrote:
>Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >Sometimes planes have to land in bad conditions.
>>
>> Wait and see.
>Exactly. So *all of us* should wait before assessing that AF is an
>airline which "" [don't try] tries to land [their] its planes in a
>thunderstorm and [screw] screws it up. ""
An "Act of God"? :-)
--
Martin
Aug 3rd 2005, 10:12 am
#87
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Air France Crash
"Mxsmanic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.
That is utter speculation on your part and it is totally uninformed. It is
quite possible that a more competent flight deck crew may have taken the
decision to divert, in what seemed to be truly appalling conditions. Let us
await the results of the Canadian enquiry before thinking about heaping
praise on Air France.
JohnT
news:[email protected]...
> 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.
That is utter speculation on your part and it is totally uninformed. It is
quite possible that a more competent flight deck crew may have taken the
decision to divert, in what seemed to be truly appalling conditions. Let us
await the results of the Canadian enquiry before thinking about heaping
praise on Air France.
JohnT
Aug 3rd 2005, 10:18 am
#88
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Air France Crash
Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Exactly. So *all of us* should wait before assessing that AF is an
> >airline which "" [don't try] tries to land [their] its planes in a
> >thunderstorm and [screw] screws it up. ""
>
> An "Act of God"? :-)
Nope :-) because in this case, we must accept that the storm over YYZ is
*also* an act of God, and the conclusion is that God is not
self-coherent!
--
remplacez "lesptt" par "laposte" pour me joindre
substitute "laposte" to "lesptt" to reach me
> >Exactly. So *all of us* should wait before assessing that AF is an
> >airline which "" [don't try] tries to land [their] its planes in a
> >thunderstorm and [screw] screws it up. ""
>
> An "Act of God"? :-)
Nope :-) because in this case, we must accept that the storm over YYZ is
*also* an act of God, and the conclusion is that God is not
self-coherent!
--
remplacez "lesptt" par "laposte" pour me joindre
substitute "laposte" to "lesptt" to reach me
Aug 3rd 2005, 10:21 am
#89
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Air France Crash
On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 00:10:58 +0200, [email protected]
(Stanislas de Kertanguy) wrote:
>Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > 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?
>Such airlines are very few.
There are many European airlines that have never had a fatal accident
http://www.airsafe.com/events/regions/eu_nofat.htm Some not so well
known :-)
In Europe Air France has the second highest number of fatal accident
events after the former USSR ( third highest if you count Turkey as
European, which I understand the French don't).
http://www.airsafe.com/events/regions/europe.htm
>One usually quotes Quantas, which is not
>very common to fly Paris-Toronto, hmm ????
Nobody mentioned Mixi flying to Toronto, so far.
--
Martin
(Stanislas de Kertanguy) wrote:
>Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > 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?
>Such airlines are very few.
There are many European airlines that have never had a fatal accident
http://www.airsafe.com/events/regions/eu_nofat.htm Some not so well
known :-)
In Europe Air France has the second highest number of fatal accident
events after the former USSR ( third highest if you count Turkey as
European, which I understand the French don't).
http://www.airsafe.com/events/regions/europe.htm
>One usually quotes Quantas, which is not
>very common to fly Paris-Toronto, hmm ????
Nobody mentioned Mixi flying to Toronto, so far.
--
Martin
Aug 3rd 2005, 10:24 am
#90
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Air France Crash
On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 00:11:00 +0200, [email protected]
(Stanislas de Kertanguy) wrote:
>Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>> No I meant what I said.
>So you meant that AF is an airline that as the regular policy of landing
>its planes in a thunderstorm and destroying it (these are your words)?
They are not my words. You snipped my words.
>Well then, I'm sure your comments will be appreciated. Just write to the
>DGAC, they need workforce.
I'm sure they would equally welcome you as an independent no axe to
grind patriotic Frenchman.
--
Martin
(Stanislas de Kertanguy) wrote:
>Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>> No I meant what I said.
>So you meant that AF is an airline that as the regular policy of landing
>its planes in a thunderstorm and destroying it (these are your words)?
They are not my words. You snipped my words.
>Well then, I'm sure your comments will be appreciated. Just write to the
>DGAC, they need workforce.
I'm sure they would equally welcome you as an independent no axe to
grind patriotic Frenchman.
--
Martin
