Air France Flight 358
| Air France Flight 358 | |
|---|---|
 The accident machine in September 2004 at Paris-Charles-de-Gaulle airport |
|
| Accident summary | |
| Accident type | Overshooting the runway |
| place | Toronto, Canada |
| date | August 2, 2005 |
| Fatalities | 0 |
| Survivors | 309 |
| Injured | 43 |
| Aircraft | |
| Aircraft type | Airbus A340-300 |
| operator | Air France |
| Mark | F-GLZQ |
| Passengers | 297 |
| crew | 12 |
| Lists of aviation accidents | |
The Air France Flight 358 ( AF 358 ) was a passenger flight of Air France on 2. August 2005 by the Paris-Charles de Gaulle (CDG) to Toronto Pearson International Airport (YYZ) . The machine left Paris at 11:15 a.m. UTC (1:15 p.m. local time ) and landed in Toronto at 8:02 p.m. UTC (4:02 p.m. local time).
When landing at the Canadian airport, the plane shot over the runway, fell into a ditch and went up in flames. 309 people (297 passengers and 12 crew members) were on board the Airbus 340-313X , the captain was 54-year-old Alain Rosaye and co-pilot was 42-year-old Frédéric Naud. Since the accident resulted in no fatalities and only a few slightly injured, the miracle of Toronto is also spoken of. The machine burned out completely.
As a result, all planned landings were diverted to other airports, the largest operation after Operation Yellow Ribbon , which diverted 255 flights to 15 different Canadian airports following the terrorist attacks in the USA on September 11, 2001 .
procedure
The accident happened on August 2, 2005 at 4:02 p.m. local time. At that time, there was a strong thunderstorm with heavy rain and gusty winds over the airport. The machine touched down only 1160 meters (3800 feet) behind the beginning of runway 24, that is, significantly too late and was braked with full force by means of the landing gear brakes. However, the thrust reversal was only initiated 12.8 seconds after landing and had only reached full power 16.4 seconds after landing. The braking distance was no longer sufficient. The machine rolled 300 meters beyond the end of the runway and came to a standstill after sliding 12 meters deeper into a group of trees to just before a small stream, where the tail unit broke off and the aircraft caught fire. Fire broke out in the middle of the machine and blocked some emergency exits, and two evacuation slides failed . Nevertheless, the aircraft was evacuated within two minutes of crash landing, injuring some of the occupants. The copilot was the last to leave the wreck.
The passengers ran to the highway, which runs parallel to the airstrip, where the Peel Regional Police met them. Some of the injured, including the captain, were taken away by drivers and taken to nearby hospitals. The plane burned out completely within two hours, the final extinction was reported at 6:00 p.m. The accident was filmed on a webcam and the material was then broadcast on CNN and n-tv , for example . In the investigation that started immediately, the lightning strike reported by some eyewitnesses could not be confirmed.
Passengers
| nationality | Total |
|---|---|
 Canada
|
104 |
 France
|
101 |
 India
|
8th |
 Italy
|
19th |
 United Kingdom
|
7th |
 United States
|
19th |
 Mexico
|
1 |
 Germany
|
2 |
| Unknown | 64 |
| Total | 297 |
Aircraft
The aircraft involved in the accident was an Airbus A340-313 , which made its maiden flight in 1999. The aircraft with the aircraft registration F-GLZQ was equipped with four CFM56-5C4 engines, which could bring it to a maximum speed of Mach 0.86. The last inspection of the aircraft was carried out on July 5, 2005.
examination
The aircraft accident investigation was carried out by the Canadian Transportation Safety Board (TSB, Transportation Safety Board of Canada ) in cooperation with other organizations:
- Transport Canada - Ministerial observer for Minister of Transport (Canada)
- airbus
- Air France
- GE Aviation
- United States National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)
Assumptions by Canadian investigators prior to the investigation
Canadian investigators raised allegations against both pilots of the disaster Airbus in the run-up to the investigation . In particular, they criticized the behavior of the first officer who was driving the aircraft at the time of the accident. He only let the aircraft touch down on the runway “far behind the normal touchdown zone” and thus clearly too late , thereby missing the safe zone of the 2,800 meter long runway. After noticing the error, the pilots initiated emergency braking, but the aircraft was still moving at around 150 km / h on the unpaved terrain after the end of the runway . A claim that the first officer tried to take off could not be confirmed.
Delayed triggering of the thrust reverser
The thrust reversal (also called reverse thrust), which must be initiated immediately after landing, only took place 17 seconds after the aircraft touched down and was therefore much too late. The master later explained that the first officer kept the controls very cramped when the engine touched down and that the master was therefore only able to activate the reverse thrust himself after a few seconds. The investigators assume that without this delay, the remaining 1500 m runway section would have been sufficient to bring the aircraft safely to a standstill.
Downburst as a possible explanation for the behavior of the aircraft
The investigators' analysis of the ground radar revealed that the aircraft's speed on the runway initially increased instead of decreased. In view of the weather conditions at the time of landing, an at least plausible explanation for this is that a downburst fell behind the landing aircraft and the gust roller hitting the ground hit the aircraft from behind. The aircraft would have been lifted by this rapidly moving rotor and would have accelerated a few meters above ground without the pilots being able to effectively counter the acceleration. The brakes would have been ineffective because the landing gear was no longer in contact with the ground. This declaration should also be used to reconcile the testimony of passengers that they felt the plane accelerate again.
Even the functions of the aircraft for automatic landing could not prevent the accident because the remaining runway length was too short. In the case of a manually controlled landing during heavy precipitation ( wet downburst ), the so-called water slipperiness ( aquaplaning ) would have been added, which would have further extended the braking distance.
Missing warning devices at the airport
There was no so-called Windshear Radar ( NEXRAD - next generation radar ) at Toronto Airport . The NEXRAD radar, which is based on the Doppler effect, is intended to warn airports and pilots of sudden gusts and a downburst. In Canada , no airport has yet been equipped with the NEXRAD, but in the United States it is already standard for airports.
The final investigation report of the TSB did not clarify whether air traffic control and the flight meteorologist on duty had online satellite images from geostationary satellites from which the dangerous meteorological development could be clearly seen. In any case, this pictorial weather information was not available to the pilots, they strictly followed the landing instructions of the tower.
Air France boss Jean-Cyril Spinetta said that the airport authorities should urgently advise against landing in this adverse weather situation . The investigators, however, said that the captain was fully responsible for the decision to land.
Final report of the TSB
The TSB's investigations have been completed; the final report was released for publication on October 16, 2007. The TSB essentially comes to the conclusion that the accident can be traced back to a chain of adverse, weather-related events.
In the opinion of the TSB, the accident shows that pilots in particular the direct effects of convective events, such as B. local thunderstorms, dangerous wind shear and downbursts in connection with heavy rain during take-offs and landings are still underestimated. Some of the data read out by the flight data recorder are documented in the appendix to the final report.
Action for damages
A passenger who was slightly injured in the accident, Suzanne Deak, appears as plaintiff on behalf of all 297 occupants and wants to sue Air France for 75 million Canadian dollars, around 50 million euros, for damages. In Ontario, Canada, she filed a class action lawsuit against three defendants with the Ontario Supreme Court located there . The lawsuit is based on the negligence of the Air France pilots and neglect of the duty of care of the airport operator and a private Canadian air traffic control company . According to the passengers, the accident was caused by the negligent cooperation of all three defendants. Each and every one of them would have made mistakes before the accident.
Consequences
As after most aircraft accidents, the number of the scheduled flight from Paris to Toronto was initially changed. After April 1, 2009, flights under number 358 were operated again, according to the FlightAware website, for example, in 2013 flights from Réunion to Paris Orly.
The TSB investigation found that the "Runway Safety Areas" at the end of the runways at Canadian airports do not meet international standards and need to be improved. The TSB also suggested precautions that the airline and airport operators should take if landings occur in poor weather conditions.
After the accident, Captain Alain Rosaye voluntarily retired from Air France. He has not operated an Air France aircraft or any other aircraft since the accident. He still suffers from the psychological stress and the consequences of the injury. First officer Frédéric Naud was given a three-month leave of absence during the investigation and has been flying for Air France again since the beginning of 2006.
Web links
- Canadian Transport Safety Authority (TSB) report
- Images of a weather satellite about the AF-358 crash with animations
- TV report "CBS News Special Report, Air France Flight 358 crashes in Toronto, Ontario, Canada" (Engl.)
Individual evidence
- ↑ www.sueddeutsche.de/panorama/204/371017/text/ ( Memento of the original dated June 11, 2009 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. .
- ↑ www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/2005/a05h0002/a05h0002.pdf .
- ^ Accident report TSB Canada (English), pp. 44–51 and 133, accessed on September 6, 2016.
- ↑ www.tsb.gc.ca/en/reports/air/2005/a05h0002/a05h0002_update_20051116.asp ( Memento from September 8, 2006 in the Internet Archive ) Update by the TSB November 16, 2005.
- ^ NTSB to assist in investigation of Air France accident in Toronto. ( Memento of June 4, 2011 in the Internet Archive ) Retrieved on February 23, 2013 (English)
- ^ Weather satellite imagery with Quicktime animation .
- ↑ Aviation Investigation Report AF358 (PDF, English; 4.8 MB) .
- ↑ USA Today . David Grossman: "Check your travel superstitions, or carry them on?" , Accessed May 2, 2008.
- ↑ CBC News: TSB advises runway changes in light of Air France crash. December 12, 2007, archived from the original on June 11, 2009 ; Retrieved May 2, 2008 .
