Earlier last week, on August 23, Air France's A343 experienced, yet again, more issues taking off from Bogotá's international airport. This time AF429 (BOG-CDG) had to abort take off on 3 different occasions after experiencing unspecified mechanical issues. The first take off attempt was apparently cancelled because of problems with the landing gear, the second attempt occurred the following day in the morning and the third on that very same afternoon. After the 3 attempts, and 2 days of aborting take off, the flight was cancelled leaving many travelers stranded.

Earlier this year, AF's 343's experienced multiple issues during take off causing for a layover to be added on the route because the planes were barely making it off the ground, this issue was patched by adding a short layover in LIS and other Caribbean islands. However...

Are AF's 343 a disaster waiting to happen? Is AF management aware of the incidents going at BOG?

I think its time to retire the 340s at BOG.

In french: http://www.crash-aerien.aero/www/news/a ... id=563376#
In spanish: http://www.eltiempo.com/bogota/quejas-p ... ado-123852

"Deadly" is quite the allegation.

Deadly...really? Did anyone die in the incidents you mention? Maintenance-prone sounds more appropriate.

That's some serious exaggeration...

Although the aircraft might not be optimal for BOG Air France wouldn't put their passengers at risk. If it wasn't safe to fly that aircraft to BOG they wouldn't. It may not be practical but it is surely safe.

The strange thing is that on the three accidents this year in BOG,It was always the same aircraft (F-GLZU). This aircraft seems to be used to incidents,last year will spotting an Air France A340's landed without the central landing gear . Guess wich A340 ? F-GLZU. He also had a few other incidents this year.

kabq737 wrote:

That's some serious exaggeration...

Although the aircraft might not be optimal for BOG Air France wouldn't put their passengers at risk. If it wasn't safe to fly that aircraft to BOG they wouldn't. It may not be practical but it is surely safe.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1361555&p=19516459&hilit=air+france+bogota#p19516459

Looks like negligence

Yes lets retire all aircrafts older than 5yos. These threads have to stop, as long as Cessnas from the 1960s are still flying and not breaking up in mid air, there is no reason why aircrafts need to be retired based on age.

For a nearly 30yr-old widebody type that's NEVER had a fatal incident in its entire history; this is quite the allegation.

But then again, if anyone could spin gold into straw, it would be AF....

Air France's A340's aren't an accident waiting to happen, they're an accident that HAS happened.- AF358

KTPAFlyer wrote:

Air France's A340's aren't an accident waiting to happen, they're an accident that HAS happened.- AF358

Kind of an irrelevant comment. Do you understand the details of AF358? Had absolutely nothing to do with the type of airplane.

While you can probably tell which type of airplanes I prefer, I'd have no hesitation to fly an A340 or any other Airbus. Implying they aren't safe is ignorant and inappropriate.

As previously stated, there has never been a single fatal accident involving an A340, unlike A300, A330, MD11, B747, B767, B777...the only other widebodies without fatalities are virtually new (A380, A350, B787)....

Wind your neck in

A Dog is only as good as it's training...

An airliner is only as good as...,

LAX772LR wrote:

For a nearly 30yr-old widebody type that's NEVER had a fatal incident in its entire history; this is quite the allegation.

But then again, if anyone could spin gold into straw, it would be AF....

True thus far no fatal incidents, however the most damaging incidents have both involved AF A340s one burning out during servicing and the other one crashing at YYZ, so.... not to be to pessimistic but if any airline is going to destroy an aircrafts safety record, it would be AF, it wouldn't be the first time

HTCone wrote:

As previously stated, there has never been a single fatal accident involving an A340, unlike A300, A330, MD11, B747, B767, B777...the only other widebodies without fatalities are virtually new (A380, A350, B787)....

Wind your neck in

A Dog is only as good as it's training...

An airliner is only as good as...,

While you are correct in what you say... your comment of a dog is only as good as its training is total crap! Let's just take a look at half the Russian airliners built that had multiple multiple issues beyond any engineer or pilot error, along with a lot of other incidents and accidents in aviation history due to defects in the aircraft and not due to pilots or airline engineers!

So why don't you wind your neck in a bit on that one!

Lufhansa is doing A-340-300 on this leg as well.
No incidents have been reported yet.

AR has operated A340-300s for years in BOG too without any incidents.

pipeafcr wrote:

kabq737 wrote:

That's some serious exaggeration...

Although the aircraft might not be optimal for BOG Air France wouldn't put their passengers at risk. If it wasn't safe to fly that aircraft to BOG they wouldn't. It may not be practical but it is surely safe.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1361555&p=19516459&hilit=air+france+bogota#p19516459

Looks like negligence

There are other operators out there using the same aircraft into BOG without issue. While I agree that it is possible that there is an "Air France Factor" I also believe that there isn't anything wrong with using the A340 specifically on these flights. Even though Air France has demonstrated questionable practices in the past it's not like they would continue to do something likely to hurt or kill passengers.

The A340 is not a "disaster waiting to happen". They are fantastic aircraft with a superb safety record. Air France on the other-hand, is a disaster waiting to happen, and has had some interesting ones in their past.

Does anyone know what exactly the issue is? A340s have been operating for years, decades even at BOG (AF, LH, IB), without incident. Why is AF having so many issues now?

Why haven't they deployed the 787-9 to BOG? Wouldn't it have much better performance with similar payload?

HTCone wrote:

As previously stated, there has never been a single fatal accident involving an A340, unlike A300, A330, MD11, B747, B767, B777...the only other widebodies without fatalities are virtually new (A380, A350, B787)....

Wind your neck in

A Dog is only as good as it's training...

An airliner is only as good as...,

To be fair 3 of the 777 fatal hull losses had nothing to do with the aircraft. OZ in SFO was pilot error/inexperience? Beyond that the 1 fatality occurred outside of the aircraft. One MH crash is still inconclusive and the other was shot down which could have happened to any plane in the wrong place at the wrong time. The other major accidents that could be contributed to aircraft failure I'm aware of are BA, EK and SQ, none of which resulted in fatality. In my book the 340 and 777 have near spotless records and are completely safe.

pipeafcr wrote:

Earlier last week,..

...Are AF's 343 a disaster waiting to happen? Is AF management aware of the incidents going at BOG?

I think its time to retire the 340s at BOG.

Massive exaggeration - was your post intended as some sort of interview for the Daily Mail?

The fact that the pilots acted on the warnings and eventually grounded the plane (twice) shows that the safety culture is present. Aircraft can and do break down .. its how you manage them that counts and an aging aircraft doesn't help.

I have seen many airlines which operate aircraft which I would not fly on but which departed back to their base as it was not 'economical' to repair it at the place it broke down. I'm not going to name the airlines but among the more dodgy ones.
1. Air-conditioning problems caused a lot of condensation in the aircraft.. it was practically 'raining' in the cockpit and a lot resetting was going on.. eventually left and the crew said it would clear up once they got to cruise (A310)
2. Same airline and auto-pilot inop... yep they hand flew it 3 hours back to base. (A310)
3. Belt loader hit the edge of the cargo compartment.. not really a problem but the door would not sit flush. Flew back (737)
4. Captain's seat sank to the lowest position on landing while adjusting prior landing... motor sheared. Seat was raised by placing 2 x 4s under the seat to take the weight and some rope to make sure the 2 x 4s didn't move. Captain explained that F/O would fly back (MD11).. and they had another crew change enroute before they got back to base!
5. A wet-leased 737F which was brought in while the regular airplane was away. It had its own engineer but the regular engineer was there (he had nothing to do anyway!).. after the aircraft the departed he mentioned that the aircraft was a train wreck waiting to happen...no cargo nets in the lower hold, fire-detection/suppression systems, and ...boost pumps MEL'd but the amount they fuelled would not be possible without using the tank! etc etc

These are just some of the memorable ones.. usually there would be a quiet discussion between the inbound and outbound crews before the inbound crews wrote up the tech log. If the engineer was an employee of the airline he would be involved in the discussion.. If it was a contracted engineer they no way.

I can understand if the incidents above happened in a war zone with the walls falling around you but this was in a major ASEAN airport with full facilities...

Here we can see why Pilots need some sort of representation to avoid pressure on them to accept airplanes which are unsafe. For all the airlines above (except the MD11 which was a first world airline) pilots were at the mercy of their bosses .. ie "If you don't bring the airplane back you can stay there!" .

Sorry for rambling...
bug

HTCone wrote:

As previously stated, there has never been a single fatal accident involving an A340, unlike A300, A330, MD11, B747, B767, B777...the only other widebodies without fatalities are virtually new (A380, A350, B787)....

Wind your neck in

A Dog is only as good as it's training...

An airliner is only as good as...,

Not taking anything away from the A340 but there much less of them out there compared to a A330, 747 and etc. It’s just as safe as any other modern airliner.

ikolkyo wrote:

Not taking anything away from the A340 but there much less of them out there compared to a A330, 747 and etc.

To be fair, the 747classics and 744F have had their fair share of fatal mishaps though, even taking into account their ubiquity.

Though the 744 pax never had a fatal accident that was the airframe's fault, IINM.
In fact, the only pax 744 fatal accident I can recall is SQ006, and the cause of that would've destroyed any airframe.

LAX772LR wrote:

ikolkyo wrote:

Not taking anything away from the A340 but there much less of them out there compared to a A330, 747 and etc.

To be fair, the 747classics and 744F have had their fair share of fatal mishaps though, even taking into account their ubiquity.

Though the 744 pax never had a fatal accident that was the airframe's fault, IINM.
In fact, the only pax 744 fatal accident I can recall is SQ006, and the cause of that would've destroyed any airframe.

Aviation as a whole was different when those old classics were in service, much safer today than in those days,

Please keep the discussion on topic. There no need for personal/off-topic comments...they're getting a little ridiculous. The title has been changed, but it's fair to debate potential safety issues with the aircraft in question — for and against — just keep it respectful.

✈️ atcsundevil

77H wrote:

The other major accidents that could be contributed to aircraft failure I'm aware of are BA, EK and SQ, none of which resulted in fatality.

SQ wasn't even a hull loss, so there's that.

Boair wrote:

The strange thing is that on the three accidents this year in BOG,It was always the same aircraft (F-GLZU). This aircraft seems to be used to incidents,last year will spotting an Air France A340's landed without the central landing gear . Guess wich A340 ? F-GLZU. He also had a few other incidents this year.

The A340 (as well as MD-11) is able to operate without the central landing gear. If the landing weight is low, the aircraft can be landed without the central landing gear to prevent wearing.

Coal wrote:

Does anyone know what exactly the issue is? A340s have been operating for years, decades even at BOG (AF, LH, IB), without incident. Why is AF having so many issues now?

LH did have a similar problem with A340 in BOG last november, not specific to AF

I believe AF indicated previously that they intend making BOG a B789 route.

An issue with these hot and high airports is that twins can be restricted in payload. I'm only an ATCO so if any pilots can correct me on this, please do so. An aicraft needs to be able to maintain a certain level of climb (400fpm?) on departure after a single engine failure. A big twin at MTOW is far more compromised after single engine failure (-50% thrust) than a big quad (-25% thrust). Hence why you see 340s, 380s and 747s departing JNB mid summer days without issues while 777s and 330s either have to offload or wait for temps to drop. Now the newest twins like the 787s and A350s aren't as compromised as older ones, so the number of these niche routes are disappearing. It's one of the reasons why SAA, AF and IB have held onto their 340s so long.

In my own personal opinion, AF have improved massively in recent years. There's only one big European airline I wouldn't fly with for safety reasons, and it ain't AF.

theSFOspotter wrote:

Why haven't they deployed the 787-9 to BOG? Wouldn't it have much better performance with similar payload?

The A340 being a quad is well suited for BOG.

I would still like an answer to your question about performance and payload of the 789 at BOG.

Quad's actually are worse at field performance as they have less thrust:weight ratio relative to twins (single engine out only takes 25% of thrust, so the twin has to have higher single engine performance than 3 engines on a quad). Also a reason (among others) that the A340 takes a long time to get to altitude compared to her contemporaries (A330/777).

KTPAFlyer wrote:

Air France's A340's aren't an accident waiting to happen, they're an accident that HAS happened.- AF358

Nothing to do with the aircraft!!! Everything to do with landing in a thunderstorm.

And any landing you can walk away from... (i.e. no fatalities) is a good landing. It wasn't a great landing though, as the aircraft could no longer be used!

Beech

A340 are known to be poor climbers (especially the -300 with lowest thrust to weight ratio). It's definitely a type problem, but upgrading would cost more and surely damage the route competitiveness

texl1649 wrote:

Quad's actually are worse at field performance as they have less thrust:weight ratio relative to twins (single engine out only takes 25% of thrust, so the twin has to have higher single engine performance than 3 engines on a quad). Also a reason (among others) that the A340 takes a long time to get to altitude compared to her contemporaries (A330/777).

Performance will all engines turning is irrelevant.

euroflyer wrote:

Coal wrote:

Does anyone know what exactly the issue is? A340s have been operating for years, decades even at BOG (AF, LH, IB), without incident. Why is AF having so many issues now?

LH did have a similar problem with A340 in BOG last november, not specific to AF

Which problems please?

In 2015 one of the crews made an error while taxiing and stuck the plane in the mud.
In 2016 a take-off was rejected as a gust of wind hit the plane and exceeded the tail wind limitations.
In July this year a baby was born on the flight and last week there was an oil smell on the flight and the plane returned to FRA.

69bug wrote:

2. Same airline and auto-pilot inop... yep they hand flew it 3 hours back to base. (A310)

bug

Oh the horror!

seahawk wrote:

euroflyer wrote:

Coal wrote:

Does anyone know what exactly the issue is? A340s have been operating for years, decades even at BOG (AF, LH, IB), without incident. Why is AF having so many issues now?

LH did have a similar problem with A340 in BOG last november, not specific to AF

In 2016 a take-off was rejected as a gust of wind hit the plane and exceeded the tail wind limitations.

Unfortunately, no official report for this incident but there are strong doubts on "the tailwind being over limitation". French BEA asked the German BFU to join the investigation on AF423 with possible similarities with LH543 on 18/11/16

So you accuse the LH crew of lying?
Considering that the plane had no defect and nothing apart from the 6 tires and 5 wheels (if I remember correctly) were replaced after the brakes over heated.

One must not forget that Bogota often operates in tailwind conditions as only runway 13R has an ILS.

I've read the French language article. It has nothing to do with A340-300 performance, and does not specify what was the technical issue. While A343 can look a bit "lazy" during the climb, compared to B757, it has more potential power in case of an engine failure, which is always taken into the account while making performance
calculations. I don't think the A340 is under-powered at all. It is in my opinion safe and efficient aircraft.

Technical problems might happen at any time with any type. So it was a correct decision to abort that take off and cancel the flight.

First of all SKBO/BOG has a CATI ILS on runway 13L and a CATII ILS on runway 13R, which is being upgraded and soon will become a CATIII ILS approach.

All aircraft have last minute maintenance issues, glitches, equipment failures and faults that can occur at any time,

So they rejected a take-off due to a technical item before V1 is standard procedure, maybe when they returned to the gate after a maintenance check you need spare parts, components or replace computers which are not readily available at BOG and you have an AOG (airplane on ground). And after parts are ordered and delivered to BOG to repair the aircraft; a new and different fault occurs during the next take-off run you once again you have another rejected take-off and back to the gate.

As I see it the crew did what is correct and most important are not risking or compromising safety of the flight, for the passengers it is a different story; flight delays and late arrivals to their destinations and lost connections.

AV757.

Also KLM is operating the Boeing 787-900 to BOG:

seahawk wrote:

So you accuse the LH crew of lying?
Considering that the plane had no defect and nothing apart from the 6 tires and 5 wheels (if I remember correctly) were replaced after the brakes over heated.

Who am I to accuse anyone? Of course not. Just saying that BEA request to BFU is not innocent, and that the only evidence we have from LH543 is coming from a passenger's mouth. Would love to have any more detailed information though, it's quite difficult to find any about this particular RTO.

We know according the METAR of the time that a tail wind of 8ktswas expected. The limit for the A340 is 10kts. So it is imho possible that it was exceeded temporarily.

But in the end the problem lies with the airport and the insufficient ILS equipment, which forces to airport to operate in tail wind conditions way too often.

Pardon my probably stupid question, but ILS is "Instrument Landing System" and we're talking about take-offs, so what gives ?

HTCone wrote:

Hence why you see 340s, 380s and 747s departing JNB mid summer days without issues while 777s and 330s either have to offload or wait for temps to drop. Now the newest twins like the 787s and A350s aren't as compromised as older ones, so the number of these niche routes are disappearing.

Newer doesn't necessarily mean better. An A330, especially one with Rollers, will achieve a higher oei gradient than the 787 and probably the a350 too. The older A310 is/was untouchable in this regard.

Aesma wrote:

Pardon my probably stupid question, but ILS is "Instrument Landing System" and we're talking about take-offs, so what gives ?

As they only have an ILs for runway 13R/13L ops, they often operate with tailwind conditions when ILS is needed for approach conditions.

Aesma wrote:

Pardon my probably stupid question, but ILS is "Instrument Landing System" and we're talking about take-offs, so what gives ?

Takeoffs and landings better be in the same direction, or you have a problem... Only 13R and 13L are ILS equipped at BOG.

pipeafcr wrote:

kabq737 wrote:

That's some serious exaggeration...

Although the aircraft might not be optimal for BOG Air France wouldn't put their passengers at risk. If it wasn't safe to fly that aircraft to BOG they wouldn't. It may not be practical but it is surely safe.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1361555&p=19516459&hilit=air+france+bogota#p19516459

Looks like negligence

No, looks more like an uninformed poster with a penchant for wild and unsubstantiated allegations not rooted in fact.

And yes, I mean YOU. Classic troll that you are, you make an off the wall post, and then disappear from the thread. Shame on you, and shame on A.net for not better policing this type of behavior,.

catiii wrote:

pipeafcr wrote:

kabq737 wrote:

That's some serious exaggeration...

Although the aircraft might not be optimal for BOG Air France wouldn't put their passengers at risk. If it wasn't safe to fly that aircraft to BOG they wouldn't. It may not be practical but it is surely safe.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1361555&p=19516459&hilit=air+france+bogota#p19516459

Looks like negligence

No, looks more like an uninformed poster with a penchant for wild and unsubstantiated allegations not rooted in fact.

And yes, I mean YOU. Classic troll that you are, you make an off the wall post, and then disappear from the thread. Shame on you, and shame on A.net for not better policing this type of behavior,.

You're not referring to me are you? I was just trying to put a troll in his place...