News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.3K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.5K     0 

He was probably past the cutoff point to abort the landing.

At a certain point, they need to either commit or abort after which time they are dealing with the consequences of whatever actions they took. It may have been riskier to abort the landing than it would have been to commit to it.



there was still time as you can see from a recent example, but as mentioned by others its a snap call.
 
… It may have been riskier to abort the landing than it would have been to commit to it.
I suppose there was the chance the plane may have been damaged to some extent unknown to them, and trying to keep flying when the plane might be coming apart won’t end well.
 
I suppose there was the chance the plane may have been damaged to some extent unknown to them, and trying to keep flying when the plane might be coming apart won’t end well.
Great article here on AC621. https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com...he-crash-of-air-canada-flight-621-ecd4c5ab831

Interesting book on a young girl who lost almost her entire family in the AC621 crash. -Repairing Rainbows, by Lynda Fishman.
 
Yup. A split second decision. It's hard to get perspective, but it looks like he touched down a fair bit down the runway and might have assessed that they didn't have enough left to spool up, pull in surfaces, etc. That was part of Air France running off the end in the rain number of years ago.
 
Yup. A split second decision. It's hard to get perspective, but it looks like he touched down a fair bit down the runway and might have assessed that they didn't have enough left to spool up, pull in surfaces, etc. That was part of Air France running off the end in the rain number of years ago.

The Air France incident was hit by a micro burst, which is very different from crosswind landings
 
True, but the TSB cited a further than normal touchdown as a contributing factor. The circumstances were totally different (tailwind, wet runway, etc.) so it was probably s poor comparison to cite.
 
Great article here on AC621. https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com...he-crash-of-air-canada-flight-621-ecd4c5ab831

Interesting book on a young girl who lost almost her entire family in the AC621 crash. -Repairing Rainbows, by Lynda Fishman.

What is it about Air France and Pearson?!?

1706031520129.png


 
Ouch! I'd rephrase the question, "what is it about Air France and airbus aircraft?"
 
What is it about Air France and Pearson?!?

View attachment 534732

It's because the runway lights are in English 😁

I'm curious about the go-around. I'm not a commercial pilot (or a pilot of any kind) but do subscribe to view that once you are on the ground - where you intended to be in the first place - you should stay there. A good landing is the one you can walk away from. I'm reminded of AC 621 in 1970. A pilot's visual awareness of large aircraft is pretty poor.
 
I'm away so haven't really followed what happened but what were the winds like?

Thirty odd years ago I remember a company 757 landed on the tail and sent one flight attendant to hospital with a severe back injury and the aircraft was a guest here at Pearson while temp repairs were conducted before it flew unpressurized back to the USA for permanent repairs. I think it was a brand new aircraft if I remember correctly.
 
It's because the runway lights are in English 😁

I'm curious about the go-around. I'm not a commercial pilot (or a pilot of any kind) but do subscribe to view that once you are on the ground - where you intended to be in the first place - you should stay there. A good landing is the one you can walk away from. I'm reminded of AC 621 in 1970. A pilot's visual awareness of large aircraft is pretty poor.
Yes, but they would be mindful of the Air France flight in 2005 that over shot the runway.

Pilots practice the touch-and-go procedure when qualifying, it should be routine.
 
It's because the runway lights are in English 😁

I'm curious about the go-around. I'm not a commercial pilot (or a pilot of any kind) but do subscribe to view that once you are on the ground - where you intended to be in the first place - you should stay there. A good landing is the one you can walk away from. I'm reminded of AC 621 in 1970. A pilot's visual awareness of large aircraft is pretty poor.

Its the wrong belief to have. A planes natural design is at high speeds is to want to fly. You actually have to fight with a plane to get it to land. Speed brakes, flaps and slats, reverse thrust, all designed to try to stop a plane from flying. Its often much safer to fly again and try again than to try to wrestle it to the ground where you can slide off the runway, flip over and burst into flames.
 
Yes, but they would be mindful of the Air France flight in 2005 that over shot the runway.

Pilots practice the touch-and-go procedure when qualifying, it should be routine.

Its the wrong belief to have. A planes natural design is at high speeds is to want to fly. You actually have to fight with a plane to get it to land. Speed brakes, flaps and slats, reverse thrust, all designed to try to stop a plane from flying. Its often much safer to fly again and try again than to try to wrestle it to the ground where you can slide off the runway, flip over and burst into flames.
I take both of your points and, as stated, do not come from a position of strong knowledge, but going around assumes you didn't leave important parts on the runway that you are not aware of. That was my point of citing AC621 where they did attempt a go-around after a hard landing, unaware that they had left an engine behind.
 

Back
Top