曝光臺(tái) 注意防騙 網(wǎng)曝天貓店富美金盛家居專營(yíng)店坑蒙拐騙欺詐消費(fèi)者

to be stabilized by 1,000 feet, putting you and your aircraft “in the slot” for landing at the touchdown
zone. However, do you know how little destabilization it takes to make a large difference
in that touchdown point or how little of a deviation above glide path will result in running out
of runway? By presenting a classic example of a destabilized approach, we hope to heighten
your awareness of the importance of being solidly “in the slot” on all your approaches.
I hope you enjoy this seventh issue of Runway Risks and that you find it helpful in operating safely.
It is certainly our pleasure to bring it to you.
Fraternally,
Captain Rory Kay (UAL)
Executive Air Safety Chairman
continued on page 2
The causal factors contributing
to runway excursions and the
dangers associated with them
can be grouped into four basic
categories:
»» destabilized approaches
»» runway surface braking
coefficient/contamination
»» aircraft performance
»» post-excursion survivability
By examining these four items
individually over the next four
issues and presenting associated
case studies from around the world,
we hope to raise the collective
runway safety awareness of all of
ALPA’s membership.
Factors Contributing to
Runway
Excursions
The Air France Airbus A340-313
aircraft (registration F-GLZQ, serial
number 0289) departed Paris,
France, at 1153 Coordinated Universal
Time (UTC) as Air France Flight 358 on a
scheduled flight to Toronto, Ontario, with
297 passengers and 12 crew members on
board. Before departure, the flight crew
members obtained their arrival weather
forecast, which included the possibility
of thunderstorms. While approaching
Toronto, the flight crew members were
Case Study—
Air France Flight 358,
Toronto, Ontario,
August 2, 2005
The following is excerpted from the Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSBC) accident report number
A05H0002. The entire report is available at the following link: HTML PDF [4678 KB]. The Cockpit Voice
Recorder (CVR) and Air Traffic Control (ATC) transcripts are not yet available.
2 Reducing Incursions, Excursions, and Confusion
continued on page 3
advised of weather-related delays. On
final approach, they were advised that
the crew of an aircraft landing ahead
of them had reported poor braking action,
and Air France Flight 358’s aircraft
weather radar was displaying heavy
precipitation encroaching on the runway
from the northwest.
At about 300 feet above ground level
(agl), the surface wind began to shift
from a headwind component to a 10-
knot tailwind component, increasing
the aircraft’s groundspeed and effectively
changing the flight path.
With the autopilot and autothrust systems
disengaged, the pilot flying (PF)
increased the thrust in reaction to a decrease
in the airspeed and a perception
that the aircraft was sinking. The power
increase contributed to an increase in
aircraft energy and the aircraft deviated
above the glide path and ground speed
increased. The aircraft crossed the runway
threshold about 40 feet above the
glide slope [~120 feet above runway
threshold].
When the aircraft was near the threshold,
there were ominous thunderstorms with
lightning strikes on the missed approach
path. At this point, the crew members
became committed to landing and believed
that their option to go around no
longer existed.
Approaching the threshold, the aircraft
entered an intense downpour, and
the forward visibility became severely
reduced.
During the flare, the aircraft traveled
through an area of heavy rain, and
visual contact with the runway environment
was significantly reduced.
There were numerous lightning strikes
occurring, particularly at the far end of
the runway. The aircraft touched down
about 3,800 feet down the runway,
reverse thrust was selected about 12.8
seconds after landing, and full reverse
was selected 16.4 seconds after touchdown.
The aircraft was not able to stop
on the 9,000-foot runway and departed
the far end at a groundspeed of about
80 knots. The aircraft came to rest in
a ravine at 2002 UTC (1602 eastern
daylight time) and caught fire. All passengers
and crew members were able
to evacuate the aircraft before the fire
reached the escape routes. A total of
two crew members and 10 passengers
were seriously injured during the crash
　
中國(guó)航空網(wǎng) m.k6050.com
航空翻譯 www.aviation.cn
本文鏈接地址：航空資料35(180)