Air France Frequence Plus - AF Plane reported on fire in YYZ Toronto

Not much other news yet....

Let's hope everyone gets out OK.

Now reported to be Lufthansa

People on the Air Canada board are saying it is an Air France jet (http://64.78.185.85/forum/showpost.php?p=4401500&postcount=9), and some have reported seeing the flames.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1123014388624_118423588/?hub=TopStories

Initial news report (http://news.yahoo.com/s/cpress/20050802/ca_pr_on_na/plane_crash) says Air France.

Confirmed AIR FRANCE trying to land, run off runway.

TORONTO, Aug 2 (Reuters) - An Air France plane was on fire after apparently running off the runway at Toronto's Pearson International Airport, CP-24 Television said on Tuesday.

The television showed pictures of flames and smoke from the fuselage of the jet, apparently a large, wide-body jet. CNN said it appeared that there were 200 people aboard.

Traffic Cams are supplying live pictures to news agencies

AIR FRANCE TICKET AGENT SAYS BURNING TORONTO PLANE IS ITS A340 PARIS-TORONTO FLIGHT

TV said it was a 737. AF has no 737 on CDG-YYZ-CDG

It was AF358 CDG-YYZ.. Airbus 343.. landed at 402pm according to WorldSpan FLIFO..

Abc News Confirms from AF employee its a AF A340

http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/traveller/compass/camera/camhome.htm

CAMERA LOCATION 36 ON THE INTERACTIVE MAP.

I do hope that there are no injuries or fatalities. Looks serious.

Not much other news yet....

Let's hope everyone gets out OK.

None of our lot there I hope.

Please tell me none of our lot is on that plane.

/E

je l'ai vu decoller ce matin. ca fait bizarre :(

live camera (http://www.pulse24.com/Plugins/CP24Live/popup_player.asp?speed=56)

Courage chers amis..... :(

from MSNBC:

Toronto's News680, citing emergency medical personnel on the scene, reported that there are survivors, some of whom were observed walking up from of the gully where the Airbus 340 aircraft came to rest.

FAA says 241 Pax... WABC in NY says Pax are found wondering on the Highway near the airport.....

Live footage from the scene here on CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/home/main100.shtml)

Fox Reports The Pilots are Safe....

(AP) A passenger jetliner erupted in flames Tuesday after skidding off a runway while landing in a fierce thunderstorm at Toronto's Pearson International Airport. Black smoke billowed into the air as the wreck burned.

CBS News reports there were no fatalities and 241 passengers aboard were evacuated.

Police said the plane was an Air France A340 from Paris that was trying to land when it ran into trouble. There was a storm — with lightning and strong wind gusts — in the area at the time.

I hope this is correct.

There's a news conference at 6 pm.

Eyewitness on ctv news says that it made touchdown ok but that it got hit by lightning right after touchdown so could have lost all power for braking etc.

Let's hope cbc news is correct and all passengers were evacuated.

As much as I dislike AF, I would wish that this had not happened.

I wish all pax the very best, and that there are no fatalities or even serious injuries.

Horrible pictures on all the major channels in Chicago. After such a long time with no major accidents, it happens to an aircraft with a perfect record, the A340.

I just pray everyone is ok

eyewitnesses reporting that the aircraft was hit by lightning as it was landing, lost all power, and overshot the runway.

Also CTV News is now reporting that all pax are safe. I hope this is the case.

Thoughts and prayers are with those on board and their families...

Latest reports from local 680 news and CTV (local station feeding CNN) most passengers o.k.

It seems the plane dropped very quickly and perhaps the planes burst. A passenger reported there were some injuries onboard from a survivor who walked off the plane through the chutes. Apparentely the fire came in the middle or back of the plane.

There were many people who walked over to the local highway (401) and called home from there..

The media is speculating wildly about the load; does anyone know the capacity of an AF A340 in transatlantic configuration?

Apparently, it was F-GLZQ, an Air France A340-300.

Only 2 A340-300 were totally destroyed, one Air France which burned on ground, and one SriLankan destroyed by Tamil Tiger rebels. However, a Sabena A340 had a maingear problem while landing in Brussels and got off the runway with no damage nor fatalities.

Hoping everyone's all right !

CJ99 : Apparently a two-class configuration, so 36 C and 236 Y, but could also be an old 3-class configuration (6 F, 42 C, 204 Y).

I am certainly glad to hear that no fatalities have yet been reported. Let's hope it stays that way!

I do wish these news channels would be a little more thorough in selecting their experts

Someone with a PPL is an 'aviation expert' apparently.

I also heard that it was definately an A340-300 that crashed and not a A340-200. Because the -200 could never fly CDG-YYZ as it turns out that the A340-200 is a short-haul aircraft! ...?

On another point I was quite intrigued to note that they also said that as the passengers had to undergo 'formalities such as immigration' before they'd be able to interview the passengers.

Two years ago my wife had a fit onboard an EK flight in economy 50 minutes before arrival (DXB-LGW). Foaming at the mouth, convulsions, rolled back eyes, the works! They had her off the plane first, straight into an ambulance and onto the A&E unit of the local hospital. Would the priority of the emergancy services in this (CDG-YYV) incident be to get them passengers to immigration or is it just another 'expert' opinion???

NOTE TO SELF: The wife's fit got her moved from Y to F (bypassing C). Learn to imitate those actions ;)

291 on board (crew and Pax)
Looks like both pilot and co-pilot did come out. Co-pilot flagged a car on high way to be brought to a hospital.
4 passengers-injured sent to St Joseph hospital plus another one , most probably a child or teenager sent to the Sick Children hospital. So far 3 bus load of passengers.

Awaiting for the conference call to be updated

Everyone are ok!! ^ ^ ^

Glad to hear that it looks like all okay! Hats off to the flight attendants.

However, a Sabena A340 had a maingear problem while landing in Brussels and got off the runway with no damage nor fatalities.

Hoping everyone's all right !

I seem to remember a VS A340 also having gear problems a few years back on approach to LHR. I believe there are photos floating about.

297 pax 12 crew. All survived. A few minor injuries according to ongoing press conference.

Airport Authority reporting that there were 14 minor injuries.

Plane overshot the runway by 200 meters.

franch tv is quoting AF confirming all passangers safe :D

Crew and passengers in the exit rows must have been nothing less than fantastic! ^ Great news.

What was the time interval between the crash and the outbreak of serious fire?

So glad to hear everyone is OK.
Sounds like a very well executed evacuation procedure by crew combined with excellent response from emergency services on the ground.

I seem to remember a VS A340 also having gear problems a few years back on approach to LHR. I believe there are photos floating about.

Indeed you are right.
G-VSKY, a Virgin A340-311, on 6th november 1997, flying Los Angeles - London Heathrow. 5 passengers and 2 crews injured, but no fatalities. After examination, part of the left main landing gear was missing...

...and found beyond the end of Los Angeles' runway 24L.

CBC says all safe!!!! ^

and, also:

"At mid-afternoon Tuesday, a spokesperson with the Greater Toronto Airports Authority said lightning was causing technical problems with the airport's lightning-detection system.". :confused: :confused: :confused:

As of 6:27PM Eastern, there is absolutely NO mention of the crash on airfrance.com!! They'll probably take as long to post something as they did to find my baggage in BIQ last week (2 days!).

What was the time interval between the crash and the outbreak of serious fire?

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/08/02/toronto.crash/index.html

The video link on that report was an interview of a witness. He was saying that the fire comes out within seconds.

On that pulse24 live link a witness just said the plane came in from a much higher approach than normal.

On cnn.com...

Bramar said he was the second person off the plane, jumping down a chute. "Everybody was running like crazy, just in case there was an explosion."

franch tv is quoting AF confirming all passangers safe :D

It's looking good for the people who were on board that flight and I hope that the history will look favourably on the AF employees and customers involved. Looking at the remains of the aircraft, I would say someone's God was most definitely with them today.

Well it's wonderful that we had such a great outcome from this tragedy.

I must say that watching the idiots on CNNI trying to conceal their disappointment that there were no gore or fatalities as they trotted out one self-appointed expert after another to engage in a few minutes of random speculation was sickening.

Low point: interviewing some hick who "saw the whole thing" from the highway. After trying without much luck to get him to say something salacious, there was a pause, followed by the CNN guy saying, "well, I guess you don't see something like this every day!" ****ing idiots.

Whereas I had the "luxury" of listening to BBC radio 5 on drive back from cinema - David Learmonth and Eric Moody were their experts, and it's nice to hear experts with expertise...

^ to the AF and GTAA staff on this one I think...

I am certainly glad to hear that no fatalities have yet been reported. Let's hope it stays that way!

I do wish these news channels would be a little more thorough in selecting their experts

Someone with a PPL is an 'aviation expert' apparently.

I also heard that it was definately an A340-300 that crashed and not a A340-200. Because the -200 could never fly CDG-YYZ as it turns out that the A340-200 is a short-haul aircraft! ...?
On another point I was quite intrigued to note that they also said that as the passengers had to undergo 'formalities such as immigration' before they'd be able to interview the passengers.

Two years ago my wife had a fit onboard an EK flight in economy 50 minutes before arrival (DXB-LGW). Foaming at the mouth, convulsions, rolled back eyes, the works! They had her off the plane first, straight into an ambulance and onto the A&E unit of the local hospital. Would the priority of the emergancy services in this (CDG-YYV) incident be to get them passengers to immigration or is it just another 'expert' opinion???
NOTE TO SELF: The wife's fit got her moved from Y to F (bypassing C). Learn to imitate those actions ;)
It can fly it easy The 200 has a longer range than the 300
http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=27

^ for all The AF staff and the quick response from emergency service in Toronto!

Glad to find out everyone survived and only "minor injuries" from what I've learnt.

A combination of a miracle and an expert crew. Glad all is well. Very tense moments for me this afternoon. Thoughts immediately ran to wonder if anyone posted this itinerary here on FT.

On another point I was quite intrigued to note that they also said that as the passengers had to undergo 'formalities such as immigration' before they'd be able to interview the passengers.Of course, this is YYZ... (home to the most brutal immigrations/customs I've ever experienced).

Happy to hear everyone is OK.

The media is speculating wildly about the load; does anyone know the capacity of an AF A340 in transatlantic configuration?seatguru.com lists 276 seats, add crew and infants and I can see the number being ~300...

Of course, this is YYZ... (home to the most brutal immigrations/customs I've ever experienced).

Happy to hear everyone is OK.

As a canadian, never had any problem with immigration in YYZ, may be you were the problem...I could probably say that most US Immigration offices are brutal...

Glad to hear that everyone came out alive of that inferno!

sorry to hear what happend
is F-GLZQ written off or will it still be in service

Not to get off-topic here, but...
...may be you were the problem...I could probably say that most US Immigration offices are brutal...OK, so 'brutal' is perhaps the wrong word... but, no, sorry, I was not the problem--I know of a number of people who have been subjected to the same intensive, intrusive, and almost uncivil questioning at YYZ; not once, but multiple times (I used to have to fly there for quick business trips while working for a large multinational financial services company). Can't say that I've been subjected to similar treatment by US officials, or at other Canadian airports, for that matter (YUL and YVR). And FWIW, I don't hold either a US or Canadian passport.

sorry to hear what happend
is F-GLZQ written off or will it still be in serviceSounds to me like a write-off: eyewitness reports say the plane broke apart, plus all that fire damage...

Why would an airliner attempt to land in this type of weather? From all accounts, there was a severe thunderstorm directly over the airport at the time the plane landed. There were 64 lightning strikes during the hour. Not to be cruel, but I thought airlines had learned after the Dallas DL crash.

Funny! The reporter on the live feed CP24 just said, "An Air France Airbus 380 crashed..."

When did those 380s make it in the air?? When did SQ give up their launch customer status??

Gotta love clueless reporters!

Thank goodness all are well!

I must say that watching the idiots on CNNI trying to conceal their disappointment that there were no gore or fatalities as they trotted out one self-appointed expert after another to engage in a few minutes of random speculation was sickening.

Low point: interviewing some hick who "saw the whole thing" from the highway. After trying without much luck to get him to say something salacious, there was a pause, followed by the CNN guy saying, "well, I guess you don't see something like this every day!" ****ing idiots.

Alan, just reading this makes me angry as it's one of my pet peeves. Fortunately I didn't watch any TV today.

As of 6:27PM Eastern, there is absolutely NO mention of the crash on airfrance.com!!

And still nothing. The website says:

Flight operation news
No particular event to be reported at this time on our whole network.

Here they got the substance right. The crew got everyone off the plane safely. Yet they don't have the form right. They aren't advising people on the website. You'd think they'd want to report the good news of no fatalities.

And still nothing. The website says:

Flight operation news
No particular event to be reported at this time on our whole network.


I thought that was the case too when I first went to the Air France website. If you dig a little bit, you can get to Corporate News:

http://www.airfrance.com/double6/Y1/infogles.nsf/(PublishedNewsEN)?OpenView

Hopefully the link works - but if you dig a bit... just look for "Air France Corporate News"

Hope that helps,
Chris

There is a link to a press release on www.airfrance.ca now. The 'Informations aux passagers' link at the top now mentions this accident on the French version, but not the English.

I thought that was the case too when I first went to the Air France website. If you dig a little bit, you can get to Corporate News:

http://www.airfrance.com/double6/Y1/infogles.nsf/(PublishedNewsEN)?OpenView

Hopefully the link works - but if you dig a bit... just look for "Air France Corporate News"

Hope that helps,
Chris

The first press release states, "According to ... our station manager in Toronto, there would be no victims." A great example of how the conditional is used differently in French and English--one can imagine an exasperated Canadian family member wondering, "there would be no victims?!"

En tout cas, so glad that the ending is relatively happy. Hats off to passengers, crew, and YYZ.

FWIW the flight operations part of website now reports:

Air France flight AF 358, inbound to Toronto from Paris, had an accident while landing at Toronto Pearson Airport. The aircraft, an Airbus A340, carried 297 passengers and 12 crew members. Everyone on board the jet was able to get off the plane. There are no victims. 22 passengers suffering minor injuries are treated at area hospitals.

Air France is doing everything to give assistance to passengers who where on board flight AF 358.

Air France has established a passenger information centre, and a toll-free number is available for family and friends of those who may have been on board flight AF 358 The toll-free number is :
For those calling from France : 0 800 800 812
For those calling from outside : + 33 1 56 93 10 00

For information about our flights, please refer to the "Schedule - Flight status" section of the site.

Hmm... 297 pax? According to timetable, looks like they seat 252 or 272. Lap kids? That many?

Sounds to me like a write-off: eyewitness reports say the plane broke apart, plus all that fire damage...

No question whatsoever.

It will be interesting to see houw the studies of this incident come out relative to the weather at the time...which sounds quite severe.

Hmm... 297 pax? According to timetable, looks like they seat 252 or 272. Lap kids? That many?
Alpha Golf Sometimes it is better to count blessings. :)

I don't blame AF for taking their time in publishing info on the website. They would want to run it all by their lawyers since they are bound to be sued by lots of passengers. Or are those kinds of lawsuits popular or possible in Canada?

Hmm... 297 pax? According to timetable, looks like they seat 252 or 272. Lap kids? That many?

Sabre's AF358 status on 02AUG shows configuration is J30Y261

Detailed report on the occurrence at german TV news Tagesschau - klick here (http://streaming.tagesschau.de/bb/redirect.lsc?rewrite=http://www.tagesschau.de/styles/container/video/style_video_asx/0,1317,OID4588696_RESms256,00.asx&content=content&media=ms).

^ Cabin crew ^ evacuation capabilities of A340 ^ passengers
:td: taking risks in civil aviation

:td: taking risks in civil aviation

According to the latest reports the airport was closed or partially closed two hours before the accident.

Since long haul flights, especially if bad weather is expected at the final destination carry a certain amount of extra fuel, I suspect the plane had to land at some point.Certainly smaller planes are cleared to land earlier, if they do not have those extra quantaties of fuel.

The problem once again seems to be that an airport should not have anything except plain ground behind the runways, it was also the same problem with LH in WAW more than a decade.

Normally those planes overshoot the runway, maybe lose some parts of the gear and slide for a couple of hundred yards, but that`s it.

It is certainly easier said than done in such a big congested Metro area like YYZ, but at least at WAW it was absolutely ridiculous that they have a wall ( ! ) behind a runway....

Good to read that everything worked out fine.The plane is a complete write off, but was probably already more or less fully depreciated considering its age.

At this point it shows off that crew emergency training is a serious and important factor and legacy carrier like AF pay a lot of attention to details and efficient training.

One should point out once again that most LCC`s send their crews to training facilities in Eastern Europe that lack everything, even detailed aircraft models.I wonder how those guys perform under such circumstances...

Edited since it seems that the AC was only 6 years old and therefore not being fully depreciated....However the insurance company will pay for it anyway...

I don't blame AF for taking their time in publishing info on the website. They would want to run it all by their lawyers since they are bound to be sued by lots of passengers. Or are those kinds of lawsuits popular or possible in Canada?

Lawsuits are popular in Canada but tort laws are much stricter about award amounts unlke the US.......Canadian courts do not give things like treble damages nor excessive amounts for "inconvenience".

Folks

Here's an account of this by a UK-born firefighter who works in Toronto and is a subscriber to a chatgroup for a UK soccer team (Huddersfield Town)


[I]Thanks for your best wishes. These calls are usually terrible outcomes.

I know many of the firefighters at the plane crash.

The TV pictures from the other side of the site that have now come out,
show the trucks next to the aircraft. It is a deep ravine 250M from the end
of a 9000 ft runway. One of the longest in Canada. The initial TV pictures came from a road camera that monitors traffic. We use it for car accidents in my area.

This aircraft had someone looking after it after it crashed, it was a miracle that anyone at all survived. The sudden storm surge as it landed was unbelievable. I am on my days off this week, and thought I would be called in to work. I live 11 KM west of the airport and my fire station covers the area
involved. The three fire trucks at my station responded to the call.

The Toronto airport has two fire stations of its own, with high tech, brand
new equipment, and we send fire trucks from five fire stations around the
airport to assist with any major call. We had ten fire trucks from Mississauga Fire service at the scene, and I would have been there if I was on shift.

The Toronto airport is actually in my city ( Mississauga ) so we cover it
with the airport fire dept. The highway ( motorway ) that could be seen on TV is the one of the busiest in the world with nine lanes in each direction. It was full of traffic in rush hour. It is amazing that the pilot kept the aircraft straight and the ravine probably stopped it going on to the highway.

Survivors came up on to the highway and cars stopped and took them to one of the five hospitals in the area. The fire broke through the aircraft after everyone was off the plane.

The ravine is tough to get to, but the fire trucks were onscene in 40
seconds. There are two service roads around the ravine.

The brand new crash trucks at the airport have long booms with
piercing nozzles that go through the shell of the aircraft and put the fire out.
You could not see that on TV. They use massive amounts of foam and not water.

When JP3 fuel is burning it is almost impossible to contain the fire.
The aircraft would be almost empty of fuel and it is good it was not taking
off. At my house at the same time as the crash we had 100Km an hour winds, coming sideways and hailstones 40CM in diameter. This all came on within a minute.

The ravine and trees slowed the aircraft down and thankfully with great
results. When people walk away from a plane crash and talk calmly on their mobile phones it is amazing. One guy got off the plane and called his son in the terminal who was waiting for him. He was sitting in the back seat in the aircraft.

These calls are the worst calls for emergency services as the outcome is
usually dire. Emergency staff onscene would be concerned about geting people away from the plane.

I should say that I am really impressed with the emergency services in
England after everything that has happened in London.

All the best to you all. I am looking forward to another football season. "

From the Globe and Mail:

t was raining and slippery, she said, and they were having trouble getting up. She was carrying a bag of luggage that she had salvaged from the plane, and as she tried to climb up the ravine to safety, she slipped and fell. "It was really hard," she said. "Everyone was trampling over everyone."

There are several reports of goofballs like this taking their carry-ons with them in the evacuation. Granted, I've never been in such a situation. But I'd like to think that I would enough sense to leave my stuff on plane!


Hamon Pauline, a teenager visiting Canada from France, who had also been picked up off the highway, said the lengthy airport processing procedures meant she was unable to call her parents until about 10 p.m. Eastern Time, nearly 4 a.m. in France. She said her parents were worried and relieved to finally hear from her. [COLOR=Blue]She said she didn't know why it took so long for her to get access to a phone.[/COLO

Though I am sure that everyone with loved ones onboard had heard the good news that there were no fatalities or serious injuries, it would have been a good thing for the Pearson authorities to have organized better communcation for the passengers. Of course, it is easy to second guess.


With so many passengers being picked up by passing drivers on highway 401, I am impressed that everyone was accounted for rather quickly.

Of course, this is YYZ... (home to the most brutal immigrations/customs I've ever experienced).


Nah, that'll be Dover UK. Apparently customs and imigrations school is down there. Mind you, it's better now after EU and all.

I do agree that customs in Toronto can be pretty grim.


Happy to hear everyone is OK.

Indeed!

/E

IMO,some incredible still pictures being shown on CBC this morning(CNN as well).Passengers jumping from just before the wing with the fire very evident in the background.A picture of passengers fleeing from inside the aircraft :eek: .
Absolutely incredible there were no fatalities.Its being called the "Great Escape"

One should point out once again that most LCC`s send their crews to training facilities in Eastern Europe that lack everything, even detailed aircraft models.I wonder how those guys perform under such circumstances...

and add to that the fact that some LCC's, e.g. Ryanair, require their employees to pay for the training!
___

I do wonder out of curiosity whether the evactuation orders shouted by the crew on this occasion were in French or English.

Turning on the TV early this morning to learn that all those deaths that were predicted yesterday night didn't happen. What wonderful news!!!
But it bugs me that if the worst had happened details would have been plastered over the front page of every British newspaper. As everybody survived the story could be found.... well, back on the 8th page of the rag I picked up. :(

Anyway, I'm so proud proud proud of everybody involved, and of all those nice Canadians who picked people up and... (eyes itchy with tears now) anyway, it's such a bloody marvellous outcome to such a dreadful event.

[QUOTE]Though I am sure that everyone with loved ones onboard had heard the good news that there were no fatalities or serious injuries, it would have been a good thing for the Pearson authorities to have organized better communcation for the passengers. Of course, it is easy to second guess
Some pax were interviewed at their homes around 8 PM last night so it would appear that the confusion or lack of phone call from the teenager might be related to something else other than confusion by authorities at Pearson

[QUOTE=LapLap]
But it bugs me that if the worst had happened details would have been plastered over the front page of every British newspaper. As everybody survived the story could be found.... well, back on the 8th page of the rag I picked up. :(
QUOTE]
Yes, unfortunatly I've noticed that today and last night too with the television news and thought exactly the same thing. But then, I don't tend to like the media these days anyway.

Well it's wonderful that we had such a great outcome from this tragedy.

I must say that watching the idiots on CNNI trying to conceal their disappointment that there were no gore or fatalities as they trotted out one self-appointed expert after another to engage in a few minutes of random speculation was sickening.

Low point: interviewing some hick who "saw the whole thing" from the highway. After trying without much luck to get him to say something salacious, there was a pause, followed by the CNN guy saying, "well, I guess you don't see something like this every day!" ****ing idiots.

Amen, Alan.

I saw the first wire reports about 11PM last night and turned on CNN before going to bed. It was unbelievable. Wolf and Co. were reporting "live" from the scene (they had access to a camera that was filming the crash site :rolleyes: ) and their "star reporter" was some idiot eyewitness plane-spotter who had stopped his white van along the side of Highway 401 and was talking to them on his cell phone.

The eyewitness claimed to have seen the whole wreck, blah blah blah - just kept babbling on as Wolf and Co. lapped it up and breathlessly intoned about how many casualties there probably were (as they repeatedly played back footage of the "horrific fireballs" exlpoding from the fuselage) ... though he claimed to have seen the entire wreck unfold, the eyewitness somehow missed the 309 passengers and crew who scrambled to safety, many of them (including the co-pilot, according to the police) running onto Highway 401 where he was parked!

So I went to bed thinking that it was most likely that all 309 pax and crew on board had been killed - a very pleasant surprise this morning to read the real news and see that all had survived. ^

CNN is a disgrace. :td: :td:

I just discovered the news this morning (French time) and have not had the opportunity of watching TV coverage.

All that can be said is... there has been a miracle... ^

Deleted

Does anyone know how much time elapsed from the time the doors were opened until everyone was evacuated?

Does anyone know how much time elapsed from the time the doors were opened until everyone was evacuated?

Firefighters were there 52 seconds after the crash (their casern was 500m from the crash site) and since YYZ was still in a Red Alert situation (weather) trucks and equipment were already out and on standby.

According to the firefighters, it took another minute for the pax and crew to get out, with the co-pilot being the last to leave the A/C. So all in all, less than 2 minutes to evacuate!

http://makeashorterlink.com/?X2E915C8B

Hmmm...Interesting. All I have ever heard of AF is that they have the OTC A340 with 6F, 42J and 204Y seats, and the NTC with 36J and 236Y. I guess they must have other versions that they haven't told us about.
in the NTC thread post 78 you see there will be a 30-261 conf to

Thanks, Super Larry, 2 minutes is incredible! It would be interesting to hear comments from crew/passengers--suggestions to implement an even faster evacuation--if that would be possible. Perhaps AF considers this an acceptable time frame. Obviously, it worked.

I heard about one woman that was struggling with her luggage, carrying it through the field. I would guess that most people heeded common sense and left their belongings behind.

There were reports of people calling loved ones from the ravine or highway. My cell phone is usually in my carry on in the overhead. But I would guess that many men most likely have theirs clipped on their waistband or in a pocket.

Thank god, the almighties, the crew, the passengers and anyone elso we can think off.

Couldn't believe the news last night, but the news now is even better. ^ ^

one hair-raising photo here:

http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/f-gzlq/photo.shtml

I guess the slide did not deploy on this exit...

Nothing short of a miracle, considering the dangerous conditions surrounding this accident. Crew should be commended for an amazing job well done.

I was watching the news yesterday night at CNN and it just amazes me how ignorant some of these reporters could be. I catched a short interview with one of the passengers being taken away in a wheelchair and the reported asked "Did you escape through the window or the door"? Echoing another comment by a previous poster, it seems that the more tragic and sensationalist the news, the better coverage they get here in the USA.

Echoing another comment by a previous poster, it seems that the more tragic and sensationalist the news, the better coverage they get here in the USA.

I guess in the eyes of American TV Networks the crash is no longer newsworthy. No stories to run about that classes of 28 young French coming to Canada to learn English, or that group of 15 people from a small village near Lyon that saved their money during 5 years in order to fullfill their dreams of coming to Canada, etc... :rolleyes:

If there is no blood, no deads, then it's just good enough to go to page 47 of a newspaper at the right bottom corner for a 1/8 of a page... :rolleyes:

Was just passing Pearson this evening when AF359 (YYZ-CDG) taxied out to 24R for takeoff. AF has put a 777-200 on this route for now. Does anyone know how aircraft will be juggled to compensate for the loss of the A340?

I've been on AF359/358 several times, so this accident really hits home. Thank God all are OK.

Latest news is apparently the FDR/CVR were recovered yesterday, but were of a type that could not be decoded by the TSB's equipment (Transporation Safety Board - Canadian equivalent to the NTSB), so they're being shipped to France for data retrieval. I wouldn't be surprised if they were on the flight I saw depart!

The FO was interviewed today (he conducted the approach/landing). The Captain remains in hospital with back problems and has not yet been interviewed.

Maplelift

Does the co-pilot usually handle approach and landing? If so, what is the pilot doing during this?

I guess I'd always assumed the pilot handles these things!

Does the co-pilot usually handle approach and landing? If so, what is the pilot doing during this?

I guess I'd always assumed the pilot handles these things!

My understanding is that it is not uncommon for the FO to conduct the approach/landing, to maintain and increase proficeincy. I presume that the Captain retains ultimate responsibility for flight safety. There are eyewitness accounts (airport ground staff and some experienced FF's on the aircraft) that felt that the approach was fast (understandable and appropriate given the severe thunderstorm conditions present at the time) and that the aircraft landed long - close to mid-runway. 24L at Pearson is 9040 Ft long, so fast touchdown with only 4500 feet to go combined with hydroplaning and a possible sudden wind direction change to a tailwind could all have contributed to the overrun. Obviously the investigation will determine the touchdown point. It is known today that the aircraft was travelling close to 150 km/h when it departed the end of the runway, which doesn't sound like it slowed much from touchdown. Three of four engines were confirmed to have reversers deployed - the fourth could not be immediately ascertained due to damage.

Also noteable is that Pearson does not have engineered runway surfaces (designed to crush, impeding the forward motion of the aircraft) in the runway overrun zones, which to my mind is problematic given that there are manmade and natural hazards close to the airport perimeter, and the runways themselves end only a few hundred meters from the perimeter. Given that if the overrun had occured in the opposite direction, on 06R, the aircraft may well have found itself in the middle of Highway 427, an 8-10 lane major traffic artery.

Does the co-pilot usually handle approach and landing? If so, what is the pilot doing during this?

I guess I'd always assumed the pilot handles these things!

Au contraire, I know that on many (if not most) airlines the pilot and co-pilot handle landings and take-offs 50-50. The captain still has the last say and the responsibility, of course.

Everyone seems to be relieved that this ended happily. Does anyone know of an investigation of what caused the accident in order to avoid them in the future? As someone posted, it seems strange that the landing aircrafts were not directed to other airports, considering the weather conditions. Has there been any comments by the responsible authorities?

From the Globe and Mail (Canada's leading newspaper)

For the full story: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050805.wcrash05/BNStory/National/


Air France's flight 358 landed beyond the normal touchdown zone on runway 24L at Toronto's Pearson international airport before it skidded into a creek bed and exploded into flames, lead investigator Réal Levasseur confirmed at a press conference Friday.

“The information that I have is that the aircraft landed longer than normally or longer than usual for this type of aircraft. How long, exactly, or how far more than usual is what we're trying to determine right now,” Mr. Levasseur said.

He also said there is no indication that the plane was hit by lightning and that the cockpit and engines are fairly well intact.

From the Globe and Mail (Canada's leading newspaper)

For the full story: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050805.wcrash05/BNStory/National/


Thanks, Braniff. Precisely the information I was after in the full story. We'll be waiting for the final reports...

Does the co-pilot usually handle approach and landing? If so, what is the pilot doing during this?

I guess I'd always assumed the pilot handles these things!


It is standard for the captain and the first officer to alternate duites as PF (pilot flying) and PNF (pilot not flying) . The PNF handles radio communications, reads check lists and makes other required call outs. (Speeds, altitude, and the like). The term PNF is, at many airlines, being replaced by "pilot monitoring". The role of the PNF (or PM) is not a passive one and the new term is intended to reflect just that.

Most people in the industry use the terms "captain" and F/O" rather than "pilot" and "co-pilot". ("Co-pilot" sounds like a new kid learning the ropes) The latter terms to seem to be favoured by outsiders, including the press.