Air France 358 Flight is Airbus A340-313E, registration F-GLZQ, on scheduled international flights from Paris, France, to Toronto, Ontario, Canada. On August 2, 2005, on landing at Toronto Pearson International Airport at 4: 02.00 EDT, crashed near Etobicoke Creek, about 300 m (980 ft) off the edge of the runway. All 309 passengers and crew of the Airbus A340 survived, with 12 people seriously injured. The accident highlights the role played by highly trained stewards during emergencies.
Due to bad weather, 540 flights depart and arrived at Pearson canceled. Many small and medium-sized planes are suddenly diverted to other Canadian airports in Ottawa, London, Hamilton and Winnipeg. Most of the larger planes were diverted to Montreal, Syracuse, New York, and Buffalo, New York. Flights from Vancouver are returned. Accident Air France Flight 358 is the biggest crisis to hit Toronto Pearson since airport involvement in Operation Yellow Ribbon.
Jean Lapierre, the Canadian Transport Minister, called Flight 358 a "miracle" because all passengers survived. Other press sources describe the accident as " Miracle in Toronto ", " Toronto Miracle ", "Miracle" Escape , and Miracle of Runway 24L ".
The accident was investigated by the Canadian Transportation Safety Board (TSB), with a final report released on 13 December 2007.
Video Air France Flight 358
Aircraft
The aircraft that operates Flight 358 is a 6-year-old Airbus A340-313E, powered by 4 CFM International CFM56 engines. With the Producer Number (MSN) 289 and F-GLZQ registration, the aircraft made its first flight on August 3, 1999, and was sent to Air France on September 7, 1999. There were 297 passengers and 12 crew members on an Airbus plane. On this flight, the plane was flown by Captain Alain Rosaye, 57, and First Officer Franca Naud, 43. Rosaye is an experienced pilot with 15,411 hours of total flight and Naud has 4,834 hours of flight time.
Maps Air France Flight 358
Passenger
Of the 297 passengers, there were 168 adult men, 118 adult women, 8 children and 3 infants. Among them, 3 passengers sat in the crew seats, one in the third passenger seat of the flight deck and two in the crew rest area. Passengers consist of business people, tourists and students.
Incident
The accident occurred on August 2, 2005, at 16:02 EDT (20:02 UTC). Air France Flight 358, Airbus A340-313E with 297 passengers and 12 crew, surpassed the end of the 24L runway at Toronto Pearson International Airport (in Mississauga, Ontario) and came to rest in a small ravine 300 m (980 ft) past the end of the runway. All passengers and crew evacuated the plane successfully. Twelve major injuries and no casualties resulting from the accident. The rest suffered minor injuries or none. The post-collision fire destroyed the plane.
Flights landed during very bad weather - strong winds, heavy rain, and lightning storms near the airport (see weather, below) - and landed farther along the runway than usual. Some passengers reported that the plane swayed from side to side before landing, possibly due to turbulence and strong winds associated with the storm system. One passenger described the accident as like a "car accident, but it keeps on going and going, non-stop."
The aircraft was cleared for landing at 16:01 EDT on Runway 24L, which, with a length of 9,000 feet (2,700 m), was the shortest runway at Pearson Airport. After landing, the plane does not stop before the end of the runway, but proceeds as far as 300 meters (980 ft) to glide into the chasm of Etobicoke Creek at a speed of 148 km/h (92 mph), on the west bank of the airport near the intersection of Dixie Road and Highway 401.
After the plane stops, the crew sees a fire outside and begins to evacuate. When the emergency exit door is opened, one of the right out middle slides (R3) deflates after being punctured by debris from the plane, while one of the left slides (L2) fails to be used altogether for unknown reasons. The two left rear exits remained closed by fire. A number of passengers were forced to jump from the plane to get out. The actions of the flight attendants, which ensure that all passengers are quickly evacuated, contribute to the safety of the passengers. The first officer was the last to leave the plane, which was evacuated within the required 90 seconds.
The emergency response team responded to the incident and was on location within 52 seconds of the accident. The TSB's official report stated that "the first response vehicle arrived at the scene within a minute of an audible crash alarm".
After the accident, several passengers - including those wounded - ruffled the ravine to Highway 401 that was almost parallel to the runway. Peel Regional Police deployed first officers and several passengers along Highway 401, receiving assistance from motorists passing through the airport when the accident occurred. Some riders take injured people, including pilots, directly to the hospital. Another rider takes an unharmed passenger to the airport. The main fire was burned for two hours, ending before 18:00 EDT. All fires occurred on the afternoon of August 3, 2005, and investigators could start their work.
The accident caused the cancellation or transfer of hundreds of flights, with ripple effects throughout the North American air traffic system. That night, four of the five runways at Pearson were back in operation, but the flight and backlog passengers continued until the following day.
The accident also caused traffic congestion throughout the Toronto highway system. Highway 401, one of the world's busiest highways, is the main route through the Greater Toronto Area, and accidents occur near the widest point of the highway where 18 traffic lanes cross between Highway 403, Highway 410 and Highway 427. Although the flame is extinguished in a few hours, there is traffic jam on the highway for days after an accident because the rider is slowing down or interesting to see the ruins. This created a lot of traffic collisions, pushing the Ontario Provincial Police to step up patrols along the highway section.
In 1978, Air Canada Flight 189 drove to Etobicoke Creek, where the AF358 accident, which resulted in two deaths. Air Canada DC-9 uses the runway 24R-06L, crashing into the northern part of the AF358 crash scene and deeper into the abyss. The runway of the Air France landing aircraft, 24L-06R, is an east-west runway with a length of 2.7 kilometers (9,000 feet), so the plane does not land very far from the runway. After the AF358 crash, there were several calls to keep the gap filled or stretched by the bridge. Others say that such an effort would be costly. (Note: At the time of the fall of Air Canada Flight 189, the airstrip used by Air France 358 does not exist yet, and the runway 24R-06L is numbered 24L-06R.It is runway 23-05, at that time, numbered 24R-06L)
This is the first time an Airbus A340 series was involved in a collision, ending a 14-year net record. The aircraft involved entered service in 1999 and has undergone the last maintenance checks in France on July 5, 2005. It made 3,711 flights with a total of 28,426 flight hours.
One passenger took four evacuation photos with his camera, which was released to the media. The Canadian Transportation Safety final report refers to photographs and draws conclusions about the nature of disasters based on photographs. Mark Rosenker, chief executive of the National Transportation Safety Council, criticized the concept of passengers who photographed the disaster, stating, "Your business is off the plane Your business is helping anyone who needs help." According to Rosenker, taking photos during the evacuation of the aircraft is irresponsible. Helen Muir, a professor of aerospace psychology at Cranfield University in England, stated that stopping during evacuation "is something we do not want to do." However, Muir added that the photo "is very valuable for accident investigators".
Weather
METAR (weather observation) for Pearson was released almost right at the time of the accident. It states that the weather at 20:01 UTC (16:01 EDT) consists of winds from 340 ° right (north-northwest) at 24 kn speed (44 km/h) at 33 kn (61 km/h) , with span> 1 1 / 4 mile (2.0 km) visibility in lightning storms and heavy rain. The ceiling overcast at an altitude of 4,500 feet (1,400 m) above ground level with a towering cumulus cloud. The temperature is 23 Â ° C (73 Â ° F). According to the Air Canada Pilot, the 24L runway has 227 Â ° true (237 Â ° magnetic) heading, and the minimum for the ILS approach is 200 feet (61 m) above ground and visibility 1 / 2 mile (0.80 km) or the runway visual range (RVR) of 2,600 feet (790 m). METAR to 21:00 UTC (17:00 EDT), nearly an hour after the accident, showed wind support to the south and improved conditions in general, while noting the high smoke of the burned aircraft.
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation reported that the accident occurred two hours after the suspension was declared at the airport due to a severe lightning storm in the area (the status of "red alert", which, for security reasons, stopped all land activity in the apron area and the gate of the plane could still land , and take off if still in queue). Visibility at the time of the accident is reported to be very poor. There was lightning, strong winds, and hail at the time and new rain began when the plane landed. Within two hours, the wind increased from 5 to 30 km/h (3 to 20 mph) and the temperature dropped from 30 to 23 Â ° C (86 to 73 Â ° F). A serious lightning storm warning was in effect since 11:30 and all outbound flights and ground service operations have been canceled but landing is still allowed.
Injuries
The following table summarizes the injuries as reported by the Transportation Safety Board.
Of the twelve passengers who suffered severe injuries, nine suffered injuries from impact and three suffered injuries from evacuation. Most of the injuries occurred on passengers and crew located on the flight deck and front cabin. According to passenger reports, the jump from the plane to the ground caused many injuries, including broken legs, and broken spine. The captain suffered a back and head injury when a collision occurred when his chair was snatched from its place by a collision force, causing him to hit his head against the upper control. Minor injuries include crooked ankles, neck pain, bruising and the effects of inhaling smoke. A total of 33 people were taken to hospitals inside and outside Toronto for treatment, of which 21 were treated for minor injuries and released. The York-Finch Campus at Humber River Regional Hospital treats seven people to inhale smoke. William Osler Health Center, Etobicoke General Hospital, Credit Valley Hospital, and Peel Memorial Hospital are the closest hospitals that have received casualties.
In addition to the Toronto Airport Authority, on-site emergency services are also provided by Peel Regional Paramedic Services, Peel Regional Police, Mississauga Fire and Emergency Services, Toronto EMS, and Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Ontario Provincial Police patrols on Highway 401. The Toronto Transit Commission provides two transit buses to act as shelters for victims.
Investigation
Representation
The Canadian Transportation Safety Board (TSB) took over the crash site as emergency response teams completed their work. TSB led the investigation, with the cooperation of several other organizations:
- Carrying Canada as an incident country representative
- Air France as an operator
- Airbus as Airframe manufacturer
- GE Aviation as a machine manufacturer
- French Transportation Department representing the country of operator and airframe manufacturers
- The National Transportation Safety Agency of the United States represents the country of machine manufacturers
Evidence
Flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder sent to France for analysis. Preliminary results showed that the aircraft landed 1,220 m (4,000 ft) from the start of a 2,743 m (9,000 ft) runway at a base speed of 148 knots (274 km/h, 170 mph) - 140 knots considered normal - with towing wind, slip on the runway and travel over 70 knots (130 km/h; 81 mph) as it passes through the tarmac and falls into a ravine. The 490 m (1,610 feet) extended tire mark indicates emergency braking action.
RÃÆ'Ã… © al Levasseur Shedalin, TSB's chief investigator for the accident, said the plane landed too far on the runway to stop well on the wet sidewalk. Researchers found no evidence of engine problems, brake failure, or problems with spoilers or thrust reversals. Why the evacuation launch failed to be implemented from two exits is still under investigation. Some of the escaped passengers were forced to jump about 2 m (6.6 feet) to the ground.
Deviation
The final report of the TSB states: "During the beacon, the aircraft entered a heavy shower area, and the foresight of the crew of the ship decreased significantly as they entered the rain." This indicates the possibility that the plane was hit by bad weather due to the downpour, causing the Airbus to land long. Based on the Air France A340-313 Quick Reference Handbook (QRH), page 34G, "Landing Distance Without Autobrake", a minimum distance of 1,155 m (3,789 ft) will be used in dry conditions to bring the aircraft to a complete aircraft. Stop. In wet conditions the braking distance increases with 5-knot tailwind, operating reversal, and 6.3 mm (0.25 in) from rain on the runway up to 2,016 m (6,614 ft). There is not enough rest of the runway available at touch down point AF 358.
Another possible irregularity in the government report on the accident:
- The passenger oxygen tank is suspected to explode in the heat of the fire. (Emergency oxygen passengers are provided through a chemical oxygen generator but the aircraft will carry therapeutic oxygen for passengers who need a constant supply during the flight and first aid situation.)
- A copy of "Aircraft Crash Chart E.R.S." at Pearson International Airport does not include a blueprint for the Airbus A340 model aircraft at the time of the crash. The blueprints will contain important information related to search and rescue efforts, and provide the location of fuel and pressurized gas tanks so that rescue teams can avoid them.
Conclusion
TSB concluded in its final report that the pilot has lost clues that will encourage them to review their decision to land, and also that:
- Air France has no procedure associated with the required distance from the storm during landing and landing. After the autopilot was released, the flying pilot increased the engine's impetus in response to the decrease in air velocity and the perception that the plane was drowning. Increased power contributes to the increase of aircraft and aircraft energy deviating above the flight path.
- At a height of 300 feet above the ground, the wind changes from a headwind toward the pull.
- As it approaches the threshold, the plane enters a heavy downpour and the visibility forwards becomes greatly reduced.
- When the aircraft is near the threshold, crew members commit to the landing and are confident that their go-around option is no longer there.
- Non-flying pilots do not make standard notes about spoilers and inverting thrust power during landing. This contributes to delays in flying pilots choosing a thrust reversal.
- There is no landing distance shown on the operational flight plan for the condition of the runway contaminated at Toronto/Lester B. Pearson International Airport.
- The crew did not calculate the required landing distance for the 24L runway although routine weather weather reports (METARs) called for a lightning storm. The crew is not aware of any margin of error.
- The topography at the end of the runway outside the area and the end of the 24L Runway contributes to the damage and injury to the crew and passengers.
TSB suggests a change to carry Canada's runway standards in accordance with those used abroad, either by extending it to a 300 runway safety area (or Security Runway Safety Area) or, if that is not possible, providing an equivalent effective backup method to stop the aircraft fly. Other recommendations made by the TSB include having the Department of Transport set clear standards that restrict approaches and landings in convective weather for all operators at Canadian airports, and provide training mandates for all pilots involved in Canadian air operations to make it possible for them to make poor landing decisions weather.
Compensation
Within one week of accidents, cash payments ranging from $ 1,000 to $ 3,700 (all figures in this article in Canadian dollars unless otherwise indicated) are provided to passengers for temporary emergency use. This fund is provided to passengers through an emergency center established at Novotel Hotel in Mississauga, near the airport. This payment is independent of the claim process, which has already begun for uninvited passengers. It is hoped that Air France insurance companies will pay for any damages and additional compensation for passengers who have to go through trials; however, only EUR6,000 to EUR9,000 is offered, prompting passengers to turn to lawsuits seeking legal action. Insurance is handled by SocietÃÆ'Â © de Gestion & amp; D'Expertises D'Assurances in France. All passengers have also been offered free round-trip tickets to any Air France destinations in the world in the same tariff class that they originally ordered on AF358.
After a four-and-a-half year lawsuit, Air France settled a compensation suit with 184 of 297 passengers (excluding flight crew) on Flight 358 aircraft. Compensation for a total of $ 12 million. Air France will pay $ 10 million, and has been exempt from claims of passengers from the incident, according to the assessment summary. Airbus and Goodrich, a company that makes emergency evacuation systems on airplanes will pay $ 1.65 million, and claims against them in a lawsuit have been released.
J.J. Camp, a Vancouver lawyer representing the claimant, says that passengers who are seriously harmed with physical or psychological injury will be eligible for a maximum payment of $ 175,000. Passengers who are not seriously injured in accidents will receive a minimum payment of between $ 5,000 and $ 10,000.
Litigation
Passenger class action
Within days of the accident, a class action suit was filed on behalf of all passengers on board by plaintiffs representative Suzanne Deak to the Ontario High Court. Lawyers representing Deak and passengers are Gary R. Will and Paul Miller from Will Barristers in Toronto. The plaintiffs seek payment for general damages and are aggravated by the amount of $ 75 million, and payments for special damages and damages of $ 250 million. The second class action lawsuit was also filed by plaintiffs Sahar Alqudsi and Younis Qawasmi (her husband) for $ 150 million a few days later. However, the two lawsuits have since joined since only one lawsuit is allowed to be prosecuted.
In December 2009, a $ 12 million settlement agreement was reached between Air France and the class. The settlement completed the claims of 184 passengers and their families. Forty-five other passengers have opted out of the lawsuit, while another 68 have agreed to a settlement with Air France.
Air France stated that they will not lose money from lawsuits because it is protected by insurance companies. Air France did not provide further contact and assistance to those who held lawsuit lawsuits until there was an agreement between the two lawyers of both parties.
Air France Demands
In June 2008, almost 3 years after the accident, Air France filed suit against Toronto Municipal Airport Authority, NAV Canada, and the Government of Canada for $ 180 million. In a claim statement filed with the Ontario High Court, Air France alleges that "GTAA failed to provide a safe environment for the conduct of civil air operations." The statement also claims that "People's neglect and injury and property damage are caused solely by the defendants' negligence". Air France said Transport Canada was "negligent" by not implementing a coronary inquiry recommendation into a 1978 crash that urged the creation of a 300-meter security area to allow more space for the aircraft to stop after landing.
Aftermath
The investigation by the Canadian Transportation Safety Board found the runway safety zone at the end of the runway at several Canadian airports below accepted international standards. The report highlights that the Toronto Pearson runway meets Canada's current standards, and the 24L runway has a de facto 150-meter RESA. TSB also suggests precautions are needed to be taken by airlines when landing in bad weather.
Flight 358 is no longer used on this route (numbers are now used for Air France flights from Roland Garros Airport in Sainte-Marie, RÃÆ'Â Â © union to Paris). The route designation for the Paris-Toronto Air France route is now 356, using the Boeing 777 aircraft.
Dramatization
The Discovery Channel Canada/National Geographic TV series Mayday (also called Air Crash Investigation or Air Emergency ) featured an accident in the 2006 episode titled Desperate Escape which includes interviews with survivors and dramatization of collisions.
The accident was also featured on The Weather Channel's Storm Stories television program.
See also
References
Bibliography
External links
- Flight Network Security Page
- Canada Transportation Safety Board
- HTML Final Report, PDF (Archive)
- (in French) HTML End Report, PDF (Archive)
- Bureau d'EnquÃÆ'ªtes et d'Analyses pour la SÃÆ'Â © curitÃÆ'Â © de l'Aviation Civile
- "An accident in Toronto."
- "An accident to Airbus A340 in Toronto on 2 August 2005." (Archive)
- Transport Safety event Chronology
- Photo of Transportation Safety Board
- CBS News Special Report - Air France Flight crashed in Toronto, Canada. (Video)
- Satellite weather imagery with QuickTime animation
- Media madness from Toronto: Gods, lightning and the crash of Air France 358. Salon
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments