Dwight Drane Posted August 2, 2005 Posted August 2, 2005 Pilots I know absolutely hate the Airbus safety factors. They are a new fleet, but everything is computerized and built on the cheap compared to Boeing. The older they get, the more problems you'll see. Hopefully this was just an accident. Coming from France and going to Canada, you have to at least investigate possible sabotage. Sounds like a bunch of survivors....thank God.
JoeFerguson Posted August 2, 2005 Posted August 2, 2005 many cars pulled along sides of HWY 401 watching the scene. Eyewitness account says plane landed and ran off runway and cracked in half. Fireball erupted shortly after the plane cracked in half. 396572[/snapback] www.pulse24.com for a live video feed. Click on CP24 live link on the right hand side
spidey Posted August 2, 2005 Author Posted August 2, 2005 Pilots I know absolutely hate the Airbus safety factors. They are a new fleet, but everything is computerized and built on the cheap compared to Boeing. The older they get, the more problems you'll see. Hopefully this was just an accident. Coming from France and going to Canada, you have to at least investigate possible sabotage. Sounds like a bunch of survivors....thank God. 396576[/snapback] Not sure about survivors but one can hope that 1/2 isnt burning and folks may have survived.
scribo Posted August 2, 2005 Posted August 2, 2005 CNN is saying survivors taken to Toronto hospital. There were about 200 aboard.
theesir Posted August 2, 2005 Posted August 2, 2005 perhaps some good news "A Toronto radio station said some passengers were seen climbing from the plane, and that most of the others had been safely evacuated." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5080201333.html
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted August 2, 2005 Posted August 2, 2005 Not sure about survivors but one can hope that 1/2 isnt burning and folks may have survived. 396579[/snapback] It's not unusual for accidents of this type for a lot more people to survive than you'd expect. A combination of low (relatively) impact speeds and the fact that airplanes on landing are running closer to empty than full, which reduces the severity of the fire.
UConn James Posted August 2, 2005 Posted August 2, 2005 MSNBC was just reporting varying degrees of injures, but NO fatalities.
erynthered Posted August 2, 2005 Posted August 2, 2005 From what I'm hearing it was a "micro burst". Thats a pilot no-no. They should have known better, sounds like pilot error. tragic.......
spidey Posted August 2, 2005 Author Posted August 2, 2005 From what I'm hearing it was a "micro burst". Thats a pilot no-no. They should have known better, sounds like pilot error. tragic....... 396597[/snapback] eyewitness say it landed and was reversing engines so probably not micro burst. However power went out just before landing speculation struck by lightning.
Tony P Posted August 2, 2005 Posted August 2, 2005 MSNBC was just reporting varying degrees of injures, but NO fatalities. 396593[/snapback] Yep. Global/MSNBC reporting 291 on board many injuries but no reported fatalities. Also that most of air operations were shut down due to weather and that the lightning detection equipment at Pearson was not operating properly. The airport is now closed with flights being diverted to Ottawa and Buffalo. Belief is that the flight was possibly at the proverbial “point of no return” on approach and may have encountered a down draft or possibly lightning.
Zac Posted August 2, 2005 Posted August 2, 2005 Who the fu@k cleared them to land, NASA!? 396628[/snapback] Air traffic was malfunctioning
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted August 2, 2005 Posted August 2, 2005 Yep. Global/MSNBC reporting 291 on board many injuries but no reported fatalities. Also that most of air operations were shut down due to weather and that the lightning detection equipment at Pearson was not operating properly. The airport is now closed with flights being diverted to Ottawa and Buffalo. Belief is that the flight was possibly at the proverbial “point of no return” on approach and may have encountered a down draft or possibly lightning. 396607[/snapback] Doesn't sound like a down-draft, as it looks like it ran off the end of the runway rather than hit early. Probably weather-related or pilot error that caused it to touch down either very fast or very late (towards the middle of the runway).
kegtapr Posted August 2, 2005 Posted August 2, 2005 Air traffic was malfunctioning 396637[/snapback] That doesn't explain why it would land. Send it to Buffalo in that case.
erynthered Posted August 2, 2005 Posted August 2, 2005 eyewitness say it landed and was reversing engines so probably not micro burst. However power went out just before landing speculation struck by lightning. 396599[/snapback] Didnt know a micro burst was a visual thing. Sat. pic's from what I hear do show Micro bursts. I believe these are available to pilots. Though I could be wrong........
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted August 2, 2005 Posted August 2, 2005 Didnt know a micro burst was a visual thing. Sat. pic's from what I hear do show Micro bursts. I believe these are available to pilots. Though I could be wrong........ 396642[/snapback] Advanced doppler radar will, and is available to pilots. But according to witnesses, the plane was on the ground and ran off the runway...it didn't crash on landing, it effectively crashed after landing. That's probably not a micro-burst, and if it is, it isn't even close to your typical downdraft-induced crash.
erynthered Posted August 2, 2005 Posted August 2, 2005 Advanced doppler radar will, and is available to pilots. But according to witnesses, the plane was on the ground and ran off the runway...it didn't crash on landing, it effectively crashed after landing. That's probably not a micro-burst, and if it is, it isn't even close to your typical downdraft-induced crash. 396643[/snapback] 20 years ago today 191, Dallas. I'll bet you a buck. And by the way who the !@#$ is "according to witnesses" Yeah, their gonna tell me what happened, they work at NASA?
VABills Posted August 2, 2005 Posted August 2, 2005 Advanced doppler radar will, and is available to pilots. But according to witnesses, the plane was on the ground and ran off the runway...it didn't crash on landing, it effectively crashed after landing. That's probably not a micro-burst, and if it is, it isn't even close to your typical downdraft-induced crash. 396643[/snapback] The report was the pilot touched down late, and didn't have enough runway left. Inital reports on the news was that no doubt pilot error. Of course the news media is never wrong.
Recommended Posts