Stanislas de Kertanguy

Martin <[email protected]> wrote:

    > 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.

<[email protected]>

    > >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.

I don't pretend that my experience as a passenger is enough to comment
on the quality and safety of an airline on such a situation. I leave
this job to EXPERTS. Your landing at CDG makes you no expert - unless
you actually *are* one?

BTW, I would react exactly the same if you made equal comments on BA,
LH, KL or whatever serious airline: inventing a policy of "landing
planes in a storm and crashing them" because of ONE accident of which
the inquiry is still going on. Unless it's some kind of Magda-humour,
but it's not very glorious of you.


--
remplacez "lesptt" par "laposte" pour me joindre
substitute "laposte" to "lesptt" to reach me

Martin

On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 17:56:53 -0400, Dave Smith
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >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.

Now that Addidas has bought Reebok :-)
--
Martin

Martin

On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 00:18:17 +0200, [email protected]
(Stanislas de Kertanguy) wrote:

    >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!

You are morphing into Mixi. Tell me I am wrong :-)
--
Martin

Stanislas de Kertanguy

Martin <[email protected]> wrote:

    > >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.

Well you know what? whereas I am generally irritated to the highest
point by Mxsmanic, on this case I agree with him 100% : the way the
evacuation was carried out makes me even more confident with AF.

Now that's my last word on the thread because we're clearly biting each
other's neck.

--
remplacez "lesptt" par "laposte" pour me joindre
substitute "laposte" to "lesptt" to reach me

Martin

On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 00:33:42 +0200, [email protected]
(Stanislas de Kertanguy) wrote:

    >Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> 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.
    ><[email protected]>
    >> >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.
    >I don't pretend that my experience as a passenger is enough to comment
    >on the quality and safety of an airline on such a situation. I leave
    >this job to EXPERTS. Your landing at CDG makes you no expert - unless
    >you actually *are* one?

My AF experience in CDG has stuck in my mind for decades. It equalled
a very small number other really rotten flying experiences I have had.

    >BTW, I would react exactly the same if you made equal comments on BA,
    >LH, KL or whatever serious airline: inventing a policy of "landing
    >planes in a storm and crashing them" because of ONE accident of which
    >the inquiry is still going on. Unless it's some kind of Magda-humour,
    >but it's not very glorious of you.

Only you have used the word policy.
--
Martin

Stanislas de Kertanguy

Martin <[email protected]> wrote:

    > >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!
    >
    > You are morphing into Mixi. Tell me I am wrong :-)

You're wrong, for there is a smiley in my message, indicating irony and
good humour on this post, and I *never* saw a smiley in any of Mixi's
posts :-)
--
remplacez "lesptt" par "laposte" pour me joindre
substitute "laposte" to "lesptt" to reach me

Martin

On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 00:39:33 +0200, [email protected]
(Stanislas de Kertanguy) wrote:

    >Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> >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.
    >Well you know what? whereas I am generally irritated to the highest
    >point by Mxsmanic, on this case I agree with him 100% : the way the
    >evacuation was carried out makes me even more confident with AF.
    >Now that's my last word on the thread because we're clearly biting each
    >other's neck.

    :-)
--
Martin

Mxsmanic

Martin writes:

    > How do you know the landing wasn;t bad?

Passengers have so indicated to the media thus far.

    > 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.

It's not a frequent occurrence.

    > In this case there was thunder and lightning so that's irrelevant.

Not if you claim that there's a correlation and that a failure to heed
the correlation was negligent.

    > There is always a reason for an accident.

Yes, but sometimes the reasons are random.

No Spam

"Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 17:45:30 +0200, [email protected]
    > (Stanislas de Kertanguy) 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.

The decision is made by both the controller and the pilot.
Unless the pilot was making an emergency landing, yes ATC
had cleared the aircraft to land. Airliners do not land
without a proper clearance, except in the most unusual
circumstances.

No Spam

"Donna Evleth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:BF16C3B0.1381A%[email protected]...
    > 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?

In part, because the decisions are not made after
the fact, by amateur armchair meteorologists and
controllers, in the absencce of the facts.

No Spam

"Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > The lights are always turned off during a landing.

Not all of them, and not seconds before touchdown.
By now, we all know that you've been a passenger
before. But you have also shown that you really
don't know jack shit about aviation. You keep flying
your foot into your mouth. Being a passenger on a
rainy approach to Munich does not give you any insight
into how these things happen in real life.

Have you noticed that you have metamorphosed into
a MartiMixiMosis on this thread?

Mxsmanic

Martin writes:

    > That's the end result of thousands of flights every day. Usually the
    > plane survives too.

No problem, then, except for loss of the airframe.

    > The case has only just been opened.

Yes.

    > So you would chose Air France in preference to another airline that
    > had never had an accident of any sort?

I usually don't examine the records of airlines before choosing, like
most people. I find AF crews to be surly, and I don't much care for
their attitude towards alcohol, but their handling of the evacuation
in this accident was exemplary.

Mxsmanic

Martin writes:

    > 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 :-)

Without exception, they are airlines with very few flights and flight
miles. Air travel is very safe, so any airline must generally fly a
great deal before it has any accidents.

    > 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).

It has had only one accident with fatalities attributable to crew
error since 1970.

Mxsmanic

Martin writes:

    > Odd that you quote a witness to support your argument that the landing
    > was normal and contradict witnesses who said it was dark.

Darkness could be due to an electrical failure. The actual touchdown
itself was apparently normal.

    > Have you seen a video of the actual crash. What I have seen started
    > sometime after the crash.

I've seen only the aftermath, but I've seen a computer recreation of
the aircraft movement. It overshot the runway and fell into a ditch.

Mxsmanic

Dave Smith writes:

    > 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.

The kind that makes it difficult to land aircraft, no doubt.