TAM A320 crash at Congonhas, Brazil

[Lemurian]

Landing : abort or not . Piloting issues.

The FCOM and some manufacturers publications give some guidance to the landing and go-around techniques. The following are general rules, applicable to all types of aircraft.

1. A stabilised approach, in configuration, speed and flight path.
2. A firm touch-down as close as possible to the touch-down zone.
3. A prompt selection of thrust reversers.
4. A monitoring of the availability of speedbrakes
5. A timely and modulated brake application ensuring a controlled speed before runway exit.

The main problem lies with the built-in priorities in the deceleration devices : The speedbrakes' failure to extend means the unavailability of automatic wheel brakes which should trigger a pilot takeover on *manual* use of the brake pedals and the deployment of a thrust reverser discourages an attempt for a go-around and we find ourselves in a *cul-de-sac* where the apparent only option is to stick to the landing and try to stop before the end of the runway.

1. CONTINUE THE LANDING
   The procedure requires a good crew's grasp of the aircraft systems and SOPs, in terms of adherence to general call-outs and systems abnormality management, the *triggers* for emergency memory items...etc... In this instance, the addition of a *No Deceleration* to the correct *No Spoilers* announcement by the co-pilot could have speeded-up the pedal brake application. The study of the dynamics of the accident show that the exit speed would have been vastly reduced. IMHO, a change in the SOPs is required.
2. ABORT the LANDING
   I am here on a very shaky ground as both manufacturers expressly discourage an attempt to go-around after reverser election.
   The reasons are :
   1/-The risk of an engine compressor stall
   2/-The risk of the reverser not stowing properly in its locked position
   3/-The risk of major thust assymetry as both will accelerate at different speeds
   4/-The risk of not meeting the required climb gradient with a late rotation on the runway compounded with an important flaps drag.
   Thinking in general terms, any attempt to touch-and-go has to cater for all the above points but in reality, everything boils down to *Get the engine{s} out of reverse and allow it (them) to stabilise in forward thrust with the reversers stowed* before a go-around thrust application.
   That delay will also be used for retracting the flaps to a lesser setting (which is a normal requirement for an overshoot anyway).

Looking now at the different times required :
- 3 seconds to cancel reverse thrust
- 2 seconds for stabilisation into forward idle
- 5 seconds for acceleration to CLB thrust, during which directional problems will be the most important as the engine left in CL will reach GA sooner.
- 3 seconds to reach GA thrust.
Total time : 13 seconds. Considering the landing speed of the CGH A320 - 140 kt or 72 m/s - it represents a ground roll of some 936 meters beyond the touch-down zone.. Of course, we have to consider that the aircraft might have achieved airborne speed before the end of these long 13 seconds as the deceleration was basically nil.
Any attempt to rush that procedure means impending catastrophe and, as far as I know, only TRIs who have practised touch-and-goes during initial base training seem capable of pulling it off successfully.
Should our training be changed to include *rejected Landing*?
A few articles for your perusal :
AI rejected landing
BAC wet runway guide