Air France sues over crash

[CD]

Air France sues over crash
Says Pearson runway lacks safety margins

Jun 04, 2008 04:30 AM
Bruce Campion-Smith
Ottawa Bureau Chief

OTTAWA–Pearson International Airport's newest runway lacks proper safety margins and falls short of international standards, Air France alleges in a lawsuit following the dramatic 2005 crash of one of its jets at the site.

The French airline and its insurers are suing the Greater Toronto Airports Authority, which runs Pearson, the federal government and the country's air-traffic control agency for some $180 million, charging they all cut corners that contributed to the crash of its Airbus A340 jet.

The airline takes aim at the airport operator, saying the design of Runway 24 Left – which ends at a steep ravine – failed to ensure there was an "adequate margin of safety for aircraft in the event of an overrun event."

It also says in a statement of claim filed with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice that "GTAA failed to provide a safe environment for the conduct of civil air operations."

Flight 358 arriving from Paris was battered by a violent thunderstorm just as it touched down on Aug. 2, 2005. Going too fast, it ran off the rain-slicked runway and into the ravine, where it broke apart and burst into flames.

All 297 passengers and 12 crew survived the accident but 33 people were taken to hospital – two crew members and 10 passengers were admitted to hospital with serious injuries. Many more have struggled with memories of the incident.

In its lawsuit, Air France pins the blame on the Greater Toronto Airports Authority, Nav Canada and the individual air-traffic controllers who guided the big jet to the airport in the fateful minutes before the crash.

"The overrun and the consequent injuries to persons and damage to property were caused solely by the negligence of the defendants," the statement of claim says.

While Runway 24 Left was only opened in 2002, an adjacent runway was the site of a fatal accident in 1978 when an Air Canada jet ran into the steep ravine leading down to Etobicoke Creek, killing two people and seriously injuring 47 others.

An investigation into that accident found the "ravine beyond the overrun area left no additional margin for error and contributed to a high casualty rate."

Air France says Transport Canada was "negligent" by not implementing the recommendations of a coroner's inquest into the 1978 crash that urged the creation of a 300-metre safety area to give aircraft more room to stop after landing.

It also charges that the airport failed to install an apron of special concrete designed to quickly slow aircraft unable to stop on the runway. And it notes that the runway lacks grooves to help carry away rainwater and improve braking.

Transport Canada estimates the potential penalties in the lawsuit at $180 million, plus any damages awarded passengers in an ongoing class-action suit, according to a department briefing note obtained by an Ottawa researcher under Access to Information.

But in its defence, the federal government says Air France knew that runway runoff areas "are not standard in Canada" and noted the airline operated from Pearson for "many years" before the crash.

"Air France has continued to operate flights including those by A340 aircraft on Runway 24L since the said incident," the government says in its statement of defence.

Federal officials point the finger at the pilots, saying the crew failed to calculate a safe landing distance, despite reports thunderstorms were expected at the time of landing.

An investigation by the Transportation Safety Board of Canada concluded last December that the jet touched down almost halfway down the 2,740-metre runway and was still travelling at almost 150 km/h when it went off the runway.

Officials with both the GTAA and Nav Canada refused to comment yesterday on the lawsuit. However, both insisted that their respective agencies are running a safe operation at Pearson.

FLIGHT 358: A TIMELINE

Aug. 2, 2005: Air France Flight 358 overshoots the landing area at Pearson International Airport.

Aug. 5: A $75 million class-action lawsuit is filed in a Brampton court, accusing Air France, the Greater Toronto Airports Authority and Nav Canada of negligence. The lawsuit, filed in Ontario Superior Court, names Suzanne Deak of Toronto as the lone plaintiff.

Aug. 8: A $150 million class-action lawsuit is filed accusing Air France, two of its pilots, the GTAA, Airbus and Nav Canada of negligence. The suit, filed on behalf of all 297 passengers, in an Ontario Superior Court, names Sahar Alqudsi and her husband Younis Qawasmi of Mississauga, as well as another couple identified as B.B. and I.B., as the representative plaintiffs.

Aug. 10: Lawsuit filed by Suzanne Deak grows to $325 million.

February 2006: Air France makes its first formal, written offer to each of the 297 passengers. Reparations for injuries, suffering, burned luggage said to range from some $5,000 to $15,000.

Dec. 12, 2007: The Transportation Safety Board releases its report and concludes that more pilot training, better regulations and tougher runway safety standards could have prevented the crash.

Full story here...

[Guido]

Um... wasn't the cause of this determined to be the FO landing long, then applying brakes late? I seem to remember that being the final decision. Can anyone bring up a TSB report?

[Four1oh]

very interesting...

[Hedley]

What else would you expect from Air Fence?

[CD]

Aviation Investigation Report A05H0002 - Runway Overrun and Fire
Findings as to Causes and Contributing Factors

[Steve Baker]

Well, assuming for a moment that the Air France case has merit, doesn't that mean that every passenger of an Air France aircraft that landed on the 24s, or for that matter any runway with similar length and over run conditions, in the years since the crash, can sue Air France for negligence?

What a crock, "

..."The overrun and the consequent injuries to persons and damage to property were caused solely by the negligence of the defendants," the statement of claim says.

Way to take responsibility for the actions of the flight crew.

[visual approach]

complete bullshit!!! If the runway is so unsafe, maybe they shouldn't be using it anymore. Obviously they are just looking for someone else to buy them a new airplane that they destroyed.

[yycflyguy]

What a farce! They didnt even come close to getting the aircraft "in the slot" and they want to blame ATC! What ever happened to "the buck stops in the left seat" or the concept of "you cant have responsobility wihout acountabillity"Its almost as funny as TC pilots claiming they were too tired to remember to put the gear down after seven hours on duty!

Yup, you can thank corporate lawyers for attempting to cloud responsibility. The mentality to sue everybody even remotely associated with the incident wont clear the fact that it was a long landing in a thunderstorm with less than ideal crew inputs.... I think I was at the airport that day too, maybe I will be named in the suit.

[Human Factor]

If Air France somehow wins this b.s. suit I hope the GTAA tosses the airline off of the airport!

[yellowiron]

If this action taken by Air France causes the GTAA to revisit runway operations then something positive may come out of this accident.

I for one should not have to operate to max cross wind limits on contaminated runways because someone purchased property near an airport and then does not want aircraft flying over there house.

We should be landing aircraft into wind as much as possible ..

If the crew from Air France had been allow to land on the 33's they would have proceeded to the gate and then to the hotel.

[MUSKEG]

The French haven't won at anything else so why would you think they'll win this. What a bunch of losers. Here here on throwing them out of Pearson.

[Cat Driver]

The French haven't won at anything else so why would you think they'll win this. What a bunch of losers. Here here on throwing them out of Pearson.

Now there is a real good idea, and then we can throw any other airline out based on not liking their country or culture.

Wonderful attitude.

[MUSKEG]

Cat you have to admit the lawyers are just smearing everyone with crap on the premiss that if everyone stinks like crap then everyone could be at fault. Why is it that we Canadians are so quick to allow foreigners to impose their culture on us (yes that includes the USA) and we just lay back and say " oh right I'm a Candian therefore I must back down". I am sick of these silly law suits that place blame on everything and everyone except where it belongs. Oh and one more thing Cat, do you think you have the right to berate me regarding MY attitude? Right, I thought so.

[Widow]

Air France says Transport Canada was "negligent" by not implementing the recommendations of a coroner's inquest into the 1978 crash that urged the creation of a 300-metre safety area to give aircraft more room to stop after landing.

This recommendation from the Coroner would have been made in consultation with the TSB. Typical of Transport to ignore TSB recommendations.

Seems to me the only way to get Transport to sit up and pay attention is to name them in a lawsuit.

Runway 24L was compliant with Aerodrome Standards and Recommended Practices (TP 312E) in that it was designed with a strip 60 m beyond the end of the runway, free of non-frangible obstacles and graded in order to reduce the risk of damage to aircraft during an overrun situation. Although there is no RESA required or published for Runway 24L, no non-frangible objects existed along the path followed by the occurrence aircraft until a distance 150 m from the end of the runway. This established a de facto RESA that exceeded the standard currently stipulated in TP 312E by 90 m. Regardless, the investigation revealed that it was the terrain beyond this point that largely contributed to the damage incurred by the aircraft and the injuries to the crew and passengers.

[Cobra64]

they should also name the environment minsiter for allowing that creek and its associated ravine to operate so near to the end of the runways. That is blatant disregard for public safety.

[rigpiggy]

Don't worry GTAA will just up their fees.

[Flying Nutcracker]

And in the mean time..... all the lawyers are rolling in cash! Just a little reminder that a little bit of a screw up in the flight deck has HUGE random consequenses! That's what this world of aviation has come to... a feast for lawyers!

[MrWings]

This is like hitting a moose with your vehicle and then suing hunters for not killing the moose beforehand.

[Four1oh]

no this is more like when a crash 30 years ago... 30 YEARS ago involved a ravine that killed people. The post-crash recommendation, 30 YEARS ago said they need to do something about that ravine. Nothing gets done, the airport collects untold millions of improvement fees yet does next to nothing to improve passenger safety, just building new terminals. Would have AF still overrun the runway on that same landing, even with grooves? Most likely. Would it have been a hull loss and potentially a fatal situation had there been adequate overrun distance and/or stopping technology applied? I think it was a complete fluke that no one was killed, personally, and I think the airport has a little blame to absorb in this crash.

This should be a wake up call to the rest of the airports collecting fees and not actually 'improving' the airport outside the terminals.

For the record, you won't hear me defend the AF pilots for their actions and decisions either, but that airplane would be probably flying today if it wasn't for that ravine.

[xsbank]

I think 41oh has it taped - its like putting barriers up between lanes on the freeway, or those big barrels in front of off-ramps. The drivers are not supposed to get it wrong, but if sometimes they do, the highway authority provides a safety buffer for when the drivers DO screw up, the damage is mitigated, if not for the driver then for the innocent passengers.

I think Pearson is negligent if they had an accident before where an improvement was recommended, but ignored. It was a different era, but they should have been sued then.

If there had been a proper over-run, if Pearson had at least made an effort, perhaps nobody would have been injured and there would be no basis for a suit.

[Doc]

I was always kind of, um, under the impression that the runway was there for the airplanes to stop on. Otherwise, hell lets give then another 30 or 40 miles or so. Why just an extra 300 metres?
It's capital idea though. To sue, that is. If I ever put the mighty Beech off the end in YPM, I'm gonna sue the Band!

[Four1oh]

I was always kind of, um, under the impression that the runway was there for the airplanes to stop on. Otherwise, hell lets give then another 30 or 40 miles or so. Why just an extra 300 metres?
It's capital idea though. To sue, that is. If I ever put the mighty Beech off the end in YPM, I'm gonna sue the Band!

I think there's more to it than that, Doc. So why give anyone any stopway or clearway anywhere for that matter?

[scrambled_legs]

The classic result would be to fill the ravine and next year have another airliner over run and end up on the interstate, killing hundreds... then they can sue Air France!

[tvguru]

I was always kind of, um, under the impression that the runway was there for the airplanes to stop on. Otherwise, hell lets give then another 30 or 40 miles or so. Why just an extra 300 metres?
It's capital idea though. To sue, that is. If I ever put the mighty Beech off the end in YPM, I'm gonna sue the Band!

I think there's more to it than that, Doc. So why give anyone any stopway or clearway anywhere for that matter?

If that's the case they should take all the gravel or dirt, whatever you want to called it, from behind the MTO in YPM(and many of the NWO strips) and store it on each end of the runway so we are "safe" if we decide to use the middle or end of the runway as the beginning. Sure a stopway or clearway would be better then nothing, but they're only there incase the pilot screws up or there is some sort of mechanical failure. Their purpose isn't to remove the blame from the crew when they screw up. IMHO

[Widow]

Boy, reading the responses to this thread make it clear who is familiar with REASON and who is not.