Air France sues over crash

[Widow]

Why do people find it so hard to understand ... it's not JUST about PREVENTION, it's also about MITIGATING RISK when the inevitable does occurr (human error!).

And what about this from the TSB report?

Other Findings 1. There is no indication that the captain's medical condition or fatigue played a role in this occurrence.

And yet ...

Both the captain and first officer had been off for sufficient time before the flight to allow them to obtain sufficient restorative sleep, and both were well rested before beginning the flight. Although the captain had declared that he had recently been experiencing an unusual level of fatigue, the aeromedical centre (AMC) had determined that his condition did not affect his fitness to fly. Based on AMC's determination, Air France medical staff put in place a reduced flight schedule for the captain. BEA's medical physician was requested to provide an assessment of the possible impact of the captain's medical situation on his performance. No medical assessment was available to the TSB.

[cyxe]

Why do people find it so hard to understand ... it's not JUST about PREVENTION, it's also about MITIGATING RISK when the inevitable does occurr (human error!).

I understand what you are getting at.
Why put those water-filled barrels along corner guardrails at freeway exits? I mean, what's the point - drivers shouldn't be hitting guardrails in the first place, right? Pay attention and stay on the road!
There are plenty of factors (human, engineering, design etc), before, during, and immediately after an event like that that can reduce the likelihood of injury or loss of life.
None of that absolves the crew of course. But as far as total responsibility for the post accident injuries etc (which the report suggested were partially due to the terrain)...I would not be surprised if the court would find the airport's responsibilty, while maybe not high, greater than zero percent.

[mcrit]

Here's a little exercise for you Widow. Look up the landing distance required for an A340 at max landing weight, apply appropriate contaminated runway corrections and compare that to the length of 24L in Pearson.

[Hedley]

I would not be surprised if the court would find the airport's responsibilty, while maybe not high, greater than zero percent

Anything greater than zero is complete victory for
an ambulance chaser because:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_pocket

The deep pocket is often the target defendant in a lawsuit, even when the true (moral) culpability is with another party because the deep pocket has money to pay a verdict.

[invertedattitude]

Trust me, between all the parties they are suing they are going to wish they never did, even if they do win this foolish suit.

[scrambled_legs]

The fact that the GTAA is getting sued for not following post crash recommendations, doesn't surprise me. The fact that the person suing is the airline that elected to land on less then a third of the runway, baffles me.

[Widow]

I'm sure Air France is just trying to pass the blame. After all, the passengers did file a class action lawsuit against them within days of the accident.

Still, that doesn't excuse the failure to follow a previous recommendation.

[Doc]

TSB's recommendations, are just that. Recommendations. They are neither chiseled in stone, or written in blood. Their recommendations can be followed, but there is certainly no legal requirement that they be.
Bottom line. In the case of an over run they will almost always "recommend" a longer clearway. Regardless of how loooong the runway is in the first place.
They could have recommended better brakes. Or rain tires. Or a drag chute. None of which would have sent Air France off on a shopping trip for tires, or Pearson persons on a hunt for arrestor cables....

[JBI]

...

[scrambled_legs]

Can the GTAA sue Air France for endangering the AFF due to a negligent decision to continue to land with 2/3's of the runway behind them. The accident would have still been an accident if they had a 4 mile overrun area. The accident had already occurred by the time they discovered the gully and the gully prevented them from entering the freeway and killing more innocent people. Unlike the fatal accident, no-one was injured in this accident as a result of the gully.

[taylor498]

Arent the runway overruns meant for situations where you dont have sufficient breaking power or the runway is exceptionally slick, not because you neglected to use the runway that is now behind you?

Kudos!

[Cat Driver]

So how about Harare with over 15000 feet of paved runway, how much over run would be reasonable there?

[square]

square:

are you gonna land a Navajo halfway down a 1500 foot strip?

That was exactly the point, you wouldn't... if you have... go around. get it?

I was taught to aim for the numbers...

Forgive me, 49% down the runway. You caught me.

[rd1331]

I really really don't get this. They are blaming the runway because they landed lond and ran off the end. Thats like flying yourself into terrain and then blaming the mountain for being there. If they had done there job, there wouldn't have been an accident. TC investigation was a joke. I wouldn't be surprised if all CFIT accidents now blame the earth for being in the way of the aircraft. I personally think they didn't want to name the pilots at fault after the guy in winnipeg that got charged for his aircraft running out of fuel. Would open the Air France pilots up to getting charged for negligence. But thats another story.

Its not the runway (GTAA) fault that they landed 2/3 down the runway with a tailwind, fast. Just like it wouldn't be the mountains fault if you flew your airplane into it because you weren't following your MEAs. GTAA should turn around and sue there asses off for slander, christ air france is still landing on that "Unsafe runway." Negligence???? Hmmmmm.....

[AuxBatOn]

Widow, while I do agree that we must make every possible effort to make flying safer, I also think that you can't totally make it 100% safe. You will always have risk associated with flying (as there are risks associated with driving to work every morning). You have to take reasonable actions. Making runways longer so pilots can screw up is just not worth it IMHO. A properly trained pilot will be able to land or if he's not in a position to land after an approach, overshoot. IF you want to make it 100% safe, you'll need 20 000' runways and even then, I'm sure some pilots will find a way to overrun. IMHO, if you can't land an ILS within the 1000' markers, overshoot. That's an unstable approach and you might risk more than an overrun. In that particular accident, here's my question: Why didn't the pilots overshoot when they say they were not in a position to land??

AuxBatOn

[cyxe]

As a previous poster mentioned, in determining fault for an accident like this, there is the ability to apportion blame. Therefore, while I think that it is highly unlikely that the airport's lack of overrun facilities will be the major cause of the accident, it could be argued that the fact that Pearson did not install any sort of overrun system despite having it recommended after the earlier fatal accident is negligent.

It is as widow has discussed. There is a chain of events that leads to accidents. If the crew didn't elect to continue into a thunderstorm, and if they hadn't landed long, and if they didn't delay on deploying the thrust reversers, and if the runway didn't suddenly drop off at the end there would have been no accident or there would have been significantly less damages. While it's obvious that the crew is mostly to blame, I can see how it could be argued that a certain percentage of the liability could be placed on the airport. It's definitely not a slam dunk even for any of the percentage.

If you're Air France's insurers and you've just forked over a couple hundred million dollars in insurance claims for this accident, it makes economic sense to spend a few thousand dollars on legal fees to try and recoup some of those payouts. I don't think that this has anything to do with Air France trying to save face.

Exactly. Particularly the second last sentence.

[Redwine]

Personally, I hope AF wins this lawsuit. Serves the GTAA right. That runway is not up to Intl safety standards

[Doc]

Lets make the runways shorter.
No, really. Cat pointed out that Harare has over 15000 feet of runway. Cat, I'm here to tell you, when somebody goes off the end or that runway, somebody will start calling for longer over runs.
Auxbat points out that we need 20,000 foot runways to be perfectly safe. I disagree (what else is new?) That would create complacency in the cockpit.
Nope. Lets make the runways the absolute minimum length required for a really "bad day at the office", like plus 35 degrees, zero wind.....etc. Then, we put gravel traps off the ends. Like they use at F1 circuits. If you're "on your game" you'll stop. If not, into the gravel you go. No over run. Just an instant "sinking" feeling. Then we can all sit back and laugh at the crews, and nobody gets hurt.

[Bubbaganoosh]

What else would you expect from ze frenchies

[Cat Driver]

Eric Sivel, EASA´s deputy director of rulemaking at EASA, is in favour of the modern performance and competency-based systems as embodied in training for the multi-crew pilot licence, but says that whenever the agencies try to advance the regulatory case for competency-based training programmes at all levels, pilot organisations and states press for adherence to hours-based training, because "hours are easier to count". Finnigan says there is concern at the inadequate level of system preparation for single-pilot operated very light jets.

Doc, maybe the culture of equality regardless of performance that has crept into the school system where Johnny has graduated from high school but can't read or write has just naturally crept into the aviation sector of society.

After all in a society where one can not discriminate against Johnnie because Johnnie is " Slow " in school it follows that Johnnie would demand equality in a Boeing or an Airbus.

[Kosiw]

This is just so typical of those "Cheese eating surrender Monkey's"....

[Cat Driver]

Clunk, the length of the runway is only one part of the problem.

What I could never figure out was why so many couldn't do an approach so as not to have to do a steep turn just prior to landing so they would not land on the grass.....what is needed is wider runways as well as longer.

Did you ever experience the thrill of wondering if they would figure out they were approaching to land off to the side of the runway?

Or was I the only one to have that rush.....?

My method of curing that problem was to not let them land until they could figure out how to do a full final approach lined up with the center line.

Generally that worked...it is called giving them incentive because they dearly love to do the landing.

[Four1oh]

funny, the argument against improving the overrun goes along the same lines as the people who complained about seatbelt enforcement. You won't need a seatbelt if you don't crash, though, right? Don't need those pesky air bags either, fenders engineered to crush on impact. Pretty stupid argument if you look at it that way.
Untold millions of dollars have been spent since the beginnings of aviation to find ways of flying and crashing safer to the people on board. Why bother with GPWS? TCAS? I could go on, I guess, but whatever.

[Doc]

So Four1oh.....at what point would you end the runway, and create an over run area? Would you have a three hundred foot over run on a 10,000 foot runway? Then what length of over run area would you suggest for an 8,000 foot runway? Longer. It'd have to be, wouldn't it? Five hundred feet enough? Can you see where I'm going here? At what point do you consider enough, enough? Never? Or after the runways are all 15,000 feet long? Why not just knock down all the buildings,and pave an area, say, three miles by three miles, stick a wind sock in the middle and say..."Have at 'er..." Or would we still need an over run area for all these bloody poor pilots, who just don't seem to be able to make good decisions? Well? Get some dual!

[Cat Driver]

Would it be possible to shorten some of those runways?

Rather than extend them why not shorten them where extending would be difficult if not near impossible?

Could some of these long runways be re-designed to have the last few hundred feet be catch basins that would stop aircraft that have landed beyond the normal touchdown zones and are unable to be stopped by normal means?