FREE E-Newsletter
Wings Magazine
Subscribe
  ABOUT US   |   CONTACT US   |   SUBSCRIPTION CENTRE   |   ADVERTISE   |   SITEMAP
MAGAZINE
Current Issue
Past Issues
News Archives
Web Exclusives
Video
Photo Gallery
 
MARKETPLACE
Aviation Books
Job Board
Classifieds
New Products
COMMUNITY
Events
AME Hall of Fame
100th Anniversary
Aviation Quiz
Association News
 
RESOURCES
A-List
E-Newsletter
Links
Sitemap
Careers in Aviation
Publications
Helicopters Magazine Careers in Aviation
Air France sues over 2005 crash at Pearson
Written by Drew Mccarthy   
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 about $180 million, charging they all cut corners that contributed to the crash of its Airbus A340 jet.

Air France is still landing A340s on Runway 24L at Pearson. Doesn't that undermine its entire case?

What do you think?

COMMENTS

This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
Written by Guest on 2009-02-03 13:18:46
it is the flight crews fault for the accident and not the gtaa fault 
it is air france who should be held accountable and not the gtaa,the flight crew knew the risks involved in such a stupid decision to land instead of doing a go around,i say that gtaa should sue air france for the damge caused by the airline company's flight crew
Written by Guest on 2008-06-11 11:07:02
You've just pointed out a half a dozen good reasons why the GTAA et al.should not be found responsible. The Transportation Safety Board's report(Report Number A05H0002)is available on-line.
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
Written by Bill on 2008-06-11 09:19:37
It seems very unlikely that the GTAA would be found guilty in this action. Thunderstorm, the flight made a go-around because of cell activity in the area, the pilot was fully aware that other aircraft were diverting, but he still attempted to land, even after not being able to touch down until he was halfway down the runway. The fact that the aircraft aquaplaned due to surface water should have indicated to the pilot that he wasn't going to make a safe stop, and he should have aborted the landing. Given that the runway has a "hump", this should have made the pilot all the more cautious. (The 1st officer was flying, I think). 
IMVHO, this lawsuit is just the insurance company just trying to recoup the payouts.

POST A COMMENT
Name:
E-mail Address:
Comment:

Captcha
Enter the code above: