PL1
Active Member
Pretty wicked crosswind looking at the wind sock
|
|
|
- Thread starter p5connex
- Start date
cplchanb
Senior Member
there was still time as you can see from a recent example, but as mentioned by others its a snap call.
SubHuman
Active Member
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.
Air Canada Flight 621 - Wikipedia
Tim MacDonald
Senior Member
Great article here on AC621. https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com...he-crash-of-air-canada-flight-621-ecd4c5ab831I 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.
Air Canada Flight 621 - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
Interesting book on a young girl who lost almost her entire family in the AC621 crash. -Repairing Rainbows, by Lynda Fishman.
lenaitch
Senior Member
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.
Woodbridge_Heights
Senior Member
The Air France incident was hit by a micro burst, which is very different from crosswind landings
lenaitch
Senior Member
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.
christiesplits
Senior Member
What is it about Air France and Pearson?!?
Home
AviationSource News is one of the fastest growing Aviation outlets in the world serving over 3 Million readers each month on our site
aviationsourcenews.com
Tim MacDonald
Senior Member
Ouch! I'd rephrase the question, "what is it about Air France and airbus aircraft?"
lenaitch
Senior Member
It's because the runway lights are in EnglishWhat is it about Air France and Pearson?!?
View attachment 534732
Home
AviationSource News is one of the fastest growing Aviation outlets in the world serving over 3 Million readers each month on our site
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.
Tim MacDonald
Senior Member
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.
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.
urbancog
Active Member
Yes, but they would be mindful of the Air France flight in 2005 that over shot the runway.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.
Air France Flight 358 - Wikipedia
Pilots practice the touch-and-go procedure when qualifying, it should be routine.
robmausser
Senior Member
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.
lenaitch
Senior Member
Yes, but they would be mindful of the Air France flight in 2005 that over shot the runway.
Air France Flight 358 - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Pilots practice the touch-and-go procedure when qualifying, it should be routine.
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.
nfitz
Superstar
Even when the fuselage was damaged during the "touch". How do they know they've got enough parts and control left to survive?