Originally Posted by PBL
But if they had had a longer runway, with escape areas, would we be here discussing this?
Originally Posted by DingerX
Numerous A320s have attempted landings with the TLA in the wrong position
This one is one of the few that finished off the runway
A major distinguishing factor is the shortness of the field
Sorry, PBL, DingerX, but I think the logic of those statements is just plain awry.
Congonhas is the fourth recorded serious occurrence of this type - and the major points of similarity are:-
1. Aircraft was A320.
2. One reverser was inop.
3. One TL was wrongly-positioned.
4. ALL aircraft eventually swerved off the runway BEFORE the end.
There is no apparent correlation as to runway length. At Bacolod the length was 5,932' (i.e. shorter than at Congonhas); at Phoenix 11,500'; and at Taipei 9,200'. Further, the availability or otherwise of run-off areas would appear to be immaterial since none of the aircraft reached such areas before going out of control and veering off the runway altogether.
In the case of Congonhas, in my opinion:-
1. The 'condition' of the runway (newly-surfaced, ungrooved, and wet), and its limited length, are highly likely to have contributed to the SEVERITY of the accident.
2. However, given that large numbers of aeroplanes (including other A320s) had landed at Congonhas without incident in the same conditions on the same day, and taking into account the evidence of previous similar (heck, almost IDENTICAL) occurrences on much longer runways, neither its condition nor its limited overall length would appear to be in the same league as the wrong TL position, the inop. reverser, and the non-availability of both ground spoilers and autobrakes as 'causes'.