Plane Skids Off Runway in Toronto, Burns

[Stardate]

One sometimes wonders why one bothers to post...


Lurking does have its benefits.


Wonder what Lurker's doing these days?


Funny how every time he mentioned his "Persian" I initially thought he was referring to a cat.


I hope that "cool cat" is doing all right and hopefully recovering from her illness.


Oh well...

Try something sweeter :wink: , and I'm sorry, I only looked at the text earlier -the video took too long to download.

[Parrothead]

Which was the Airbus that lost both engines in mid Atlantic and had to glide all the way to the Azores? Lost fule due to a leak or somesuch.

Only power was from a tiny little wind turbine. Apparently the glide lasted for nearly an hour and the pilot put it down slap onto the runway at a military base. No Flaps, no reverse thrust and no brakes.

You mean the Air Transat flight 236?

[John Kierein]

I think that the Air France flight was hit by lightning just before it "landed". There were reports that the lights went out. I think this airplane is fly by wire instead of hydraulics. That may be why they lost control of it if it lost electrical power at a crucial time before they could transfer to mechanical control.

http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/a340-200/


I wonder if all the composites in modern aircraft are eliminating the Faraday cage effect that protects metal aircraft and cars against lightning?

[Melusine]

[edit]

Regarding a plane floating on water, the problem is to get it down in one piece, or at least to keep a big piece together.
http://www.flugzeug-absturz.de/videos/video3.mov
125 of 175 Passengers dead!

I guess thats the video captain swoop mentioned.

That's an Ethiopian Airlines 767-200ER ditching near Moroni, Comoros Islands on November 23, 1996. It was hijacked and was trying to land after having run out of fuel. Perhaps a controlled ditching would have been less disastrous. 127 of the people on board, including 10 of the crew, died. The three sub-animals that hijacked the airplane also had their pathetic lives terminated.

Here's a link re intentional ditchings. It would appear that when the plane is under control and the passengers have readied themselves, the odds are pretty good.

5 or 6 minutes isn't much time, (and that was a DC9), especially if the plane has 200 or so people. 35 of the 57 died...there's something to be said about sitting near emergency exits! Thanks for the link, but it doesn't look very hopeful for landing in wide open water, especially for something like a big, fat Airbus.

[Stardate]

While I'm Candy, Delta Airlines should have taken over any concerns for passengers of France Air. When an Aircraft goes down, the immediate airlines or co-airline takes over ownership depending on location. That's why I was concerned when this first happened. That's a part of my job!

[pghnative]

5 or 6 minutes isn't much time, (and that was a DC9), especially if the plane has 200 or so people. 35 of the 57 died...there's something to be said about sitting near emergency exits! Thanks for the link, but it doesn't look very hopeful for landing in wide open water, especially for something like a big, fat Airbus.

According to a report on NPR yesterday, planes are designed to be completely evacuated in 3 minutes.

edited to add: Regarding this:

Some passengers said, the cabin crew had not its best day, directing passengers to exits without slides...

Other Passengers now tell it the other way. That the cabin crew has been very calm and professional.

A news report I heard today is consistent with BOTH sets of passengers being correct. The gist was that part of the post-crash investigation was going to look at reports that some evac slides didn't inflate properly. This would of course result in cabin crew inadvertantly directing passengers to exits without slides.

[Melusine]

5 or 6 minutes isn't much time, (and that was a DC9), especially if the plane has 200 or so people. 35 of the 57 died...there's something to be said about sitting near emergency exits! Thanks for the link, but it doesn't look very hopeful for landing in wide open water, especially for something like a big, fat Airbus.

According to a report on NPR yesterday, planes are designed to be completely evacuated in 3 minutes.

Really? Why do I have little faith in that happening on a large plane? Maybe because of how slow people move in the aisles when leaving, but then that's dealing with luggage and all. It just doesn't seem like 3 minutes is much time, but then if the flight attendants can get people to hustle, maybe so. Perhaps 3 minutes is enough time if everyone is prepared, all exits are workable, and the aircraft is one piece, but it's hard to say how people will act in a disaster.

Does anyone know yet how long it took for people to evacuate this Airbus plane?

[Nicolas]

FAR/JAR aircraft certification rules:

When an aircraft manufacturer builds new aircraft, they must pass many stringent tests as part of the airworthiness certification procedure. Some 30 years ago, the Full Scale Evacuation Demonstration was introduced as part of that certification process. The main parameters of the demonstration are that the participating cabin crew should be able to evacuate all of the passengers through only half the available exits in under 90 seconds.

They were so lucky the plane started to burn only after they evacuated.

[Parrothead]

Does anyone know yet how long it took for people to evacuate this Airbus plane?

According to CBC

They had precious few minutes to move 297 passengers out through the emergency exits before they might be overcome by toxic fumes.

Airport officials say emergency response teams were on site within 52 seconds. "By that time, approximately three-quarters of the passengers had come down the chute and into the field," said Mike Figliola, fire chief with the Greater Toronto Airports Authority.

The plane was emptied of passengers and crew within two minutes. The rescue operation turned into the job of putting out the fire.

edit: The "black boxes" have been recovered and the Transportation Safety Board will be holding a press conference at 5:30 pm EDT

[Nicolas]

FAR/JAR aircraft certification rules:

When an aircraft manufacturer builds new aircraft, they must pass many stringent tests as part of the airworthiness certification procedure. Some 30 years ago, the Full Scale Evacuation Demonstration was introduced as part of that certification process. The main parameters of the demonstration are that the participating cabin crew should be able to evacuate all of the passengers through only half the available exits in under 90 seconds.

They were so lucky the plane started to burn only after they evacuated.

Edit: if I read local news here, the engine appeared to have started to burn immediately. The fire spread to the rest of the plane, but as no explosions occured the passengers had enough time to exit through safe (away from fire) doors. Or so it appears, as the news is still a bit of a mess. Today's paper (which was made only few hours after the first news came in) reported that "probably most of the 200 passengers did not surivive". That's 300, and all survived luckily.

This was an escape as described in the books. Unfortunately, many crashes simply make such an escape impossible.

[Melusine]

Does anyone know yet how long it took for people to evacuate this Airbus plane?

According to CBC

They had precious few minutes to move 297 passengers out through the emergency exits before they might be overcome by toxic fumes.

Airport officials say emergency response teams were on site within 52 seconds. "By that time, approximately three-quarters of the passengers had come down the chute and into the field," said Mike Figliola, fire chief with the Greater Toronto Airports Authority.

The plane was emptied of passengers and crew within two minutes. The rescue operation turned into the job of putting out the fire.

edit: The "black boxes" have been recovered and the Transportation Safety Board will be holding a press conference at 5:30 pm EDT

Thanks, I've been able to only grab news during the day this week, but CNN showed they got out in 90 seconds. These are very lucky people. Amazing how fast the fire crew got there, too.

I was reading that they think maybe a wind shear may have contributed to the problem, and after the accident in Dallas, USA some years ago, the US had to implement these wind shear detectors, but Canada may have not done so at all airports. If they knew they had a bad storm on the ground, why didn't they divert the plane? I guess we'll find out when they listen to the control tower recordings.

[Eoanthropus Dawsoni]

I wonder if all the composites in modern aircraft are eliminating the Faraday cage effect that protects metal aircraft and cars against lightning?

Interesting question. I have no idea what composites are used in large aircraft, but I do know that at least some of the composites used in light aircraft are in a large part carbon, which is a conductor.

Lightning scares me. I live on a hill top and am concerned about lightning strikes on the house so I am trying to turn it into a Faraday cage. I have put on a steel roof and am now in the process of installing ground rods on all corners, then will ground the roof to them.

[Eoanthropus Dawsoni]

Which was the Airbus that lost both engines in mid Atlantic and had to glide all the way to the Azores? Lost fule due to a leak or somesuch.

Only power was from a tiny little wind turbine. Apparently the glide lasted for nearly an hour and the pilot put it down slap onto the runway at a military base. No Flaps, no reverse thrust and no brakes.

Air Canada did something like that too. The Gimli Glider.

[Donnie B.]

Actually, according to ABC news, most crashes that occur on takeoff or landing are survivable. That's been the historical trend; most passengers survive such events.

There are exceptions, of course, but it's entirely unjustified to refer to this one as the "Toronto miracle", as some have done.

The report that made this point included footage of the Sioux City crash. That one was exceptional for the degree to which the plane was crippled -- yet something like 180 out of 290 passengers and crew survived.

[captain swoop]

Which was the Airbus that lost both engines in mid Atlantic and had to glide all the way to the Azores? Lost fule due to a leak or somesuch.

Only power was from a tiny little wind turbine. Apparently the glide lasted for nearly an hour and the pilot put it down slap onto the runway at a military base. No Flaps, no reverse thrust and no brakes.

You mean the Air Transat flight 236?

That's the one. Last year Channel 5 in the UK ran a series about Air Emergencies rather than out and out disasters. This was one of them. Was quite good.

[jumbo]

I wonder if all the composites in modern aircraft are eliminating the Faraday cage effect that protects metal aircraft and cars against lightning?

This has been a worry with several military aircraft. older metal ons often shrug off a strike due to the faraday cage effect. I belive after the loss of a couple of composite clad jets it was found that at least one composite had the habit of pretty much exploding at the site of the strike.

I have no idea how much composite material is on the surface of the aircraft in this case though.

[Nicolas]

On the A340, not many composites are used IIRC. Mainly in the rudder.

Aircraft composites for large aircraft are often fibre-metal laminates, so they contain metals. I don't know more about their behaviour in lighting, but the fact that they are used seems to point out that it isn't more of a problem than with metals.

[Wally]

It would appear that when the plane is under control and the passengers have readied themselves, the odds are pretty good.

That's a great analogy! Wasn't there a plane incident in Utah where the plane crashed, but a good number of passengers survived? I believe the passengers knew that they were in for a bumpy landing. 8-[

IIRC, that jet lost its hydraulics, so didn't have any rudder/flaps/etc. They had to "learn" to steer what little they could by varying the engine thrusts. On landing, they did in fact cartwheel. Several were killed, but several did manage to make it out alive. Amazing video of the whole crash out there somewhere.

Perhaps you're thinking of the DC-10 that in 1989 lost hydraulics due to an engine #2 compressor fan disintegrating. It tried to land safely at Sioux City, Iowa, but at the last moment a wing touched down and caused the airplane to cartwheel.

The flight crew and the DC-10 expert who happened to be a passenger deserve a lot of credit for even getting it to the runway.

Here's the story.

Here's the video.

Bravo, Captain Haynes, as well as Copilot Records, Flight Engineer Dvorak, and Mr. Fitch!
=D>


[edit/typo]

Yep. That's the one I had in mind. Utah, Iowa. . . kinda the same, aren't they???

As for floating, I seem to recall a discussion on this topic some time ago. It was one of my peaves with Airport 75 (or whichever one had the 747 sink to the bottom of the ocean). Basically, you're talking about a huge aluminum "can" here. As long as it remains sealed, I can't see it sinking.

unless I'm totally underestimating the weight of the engines here. :-?

[Nicolas]

A non-damaged aircraft should stay afloat (at least for a while). That's why the slides (chutes) can be used as rafts as well. The problem is that hitting the water usually serisoulyu damages the aircraft. There is one example of a 50+ pax aircraft landing in open sea, where the aircraft did not sink and all passengers escaped useing rafts.

But in general, crashing/landing in open water is not something you want with an aircraft.

[publiusr]

On the A340, not many composites are used IIRC. Mainly in the rudder.

Aircraft composites for large aircraft are often fibre-metal laminates, so they contain metals. I don't know more about their behaviour in lighting, but the fact that they are used seems to point out that it isn't more of a problem than with metals.

The 787 will be using a lot more composites. It may be green--but I like four-engine jets myself. You see more and more twin jets flying across water. I don't like it.

[Glom]

The 787 will be using a lot more composites.

A metal webbing should resolve that problem. The Faraday cage doesn't need to be sheet metal.

It may be green--but I like four-engine jets myself. You see more and more twin jets flying across water. I don't like it.

That's because they're so much better. The A380 is the last quad airliner.

[Nicolas]

If more planes in the size of the A380 should be made, they would probably use 4 engines as well. But for most aircraft, 2 engines are enough. They are reliable and strong these days, and are capable to continue flight on one engine.

If more than 1 engine falls out on a 4 engine aircraft, the problem is in most cases not with the individual engines anyway (fuel probs, things like that).

BTW "4 engines" does not necessarily mean "large plane":



4 engines seems a rather odd decision here. I guess things like engine availability, ground clearance, wing loads and maybe even weight played a role in this decision.

[Andreas]

4 engines seems a rather odd decision here. I guess things like engine availability, ground clearance, wing loads and maybe even weight played a role in this decision.

Probably more like low noise emission and ability to start from short runways. These BAe 146 / Avro RJ are designed to operate from small airports closer to city centers.

[captain swoop]

the RAF was a big customer, I wonder if that had anything to do with it?

[sarongsong]

August 7
"Combine landing 4,000 feet long on a wet runway with a tailwind and the result is what happened in Toronto last Tuesday...investigators have practically ruled out a lightning strike and hydroplaning as contributing factors in the accident..."

[Nicolas]

4 engines seems a rather odd decision here. I guess things like engine availability, ground clearance, wing loads and maybe even weight played a role in this decision.

Probably more like low noise emission and ability to start from short runways. These BAe 146 / Avro RJ are designed to operate from small airports closer to city centers.

Bingo. I didn't think about that in my previous post. But it makes sense to me! If it was only a sound reduction, I wouldn't be too sure, but runway length seems very probable here.

[captain swoop]

They still have problems with smoke entering the cabin, a flight made an emergency landing last week at Leeds bradford.

[Nicolas]

"they" is that "the A340"?

[captain swoop]

No, the BAE146

[Nicolas]

Oh, OK that's clear now.