Thanks for the responses, Bernd, armchairpilot94116.
Originally Posted by bsieker
This is an inaccuracy of the (presumably) English translation of the narrative in the report.The aircraft passed the runway threshold while still almost aligned, although quite a bit to the left of the centerline
Or an inaccuracy in the diagram of the aircraft's path?
Bernd, perhaps I'd better recapitulate what I originally said:-
Originally Posted by RWA
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./
Happy to amend the last sentence to read just
'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' if you wish.
I honestly cannot work out why this discussion KEEPS coming (or being 'steered') back to the Congonhas runway - given that the 'exact same' accident has occurred quite recently on much longer runways elsewhere.
In any case, the 'solution' usually proposed (EMAS) is not in fact a solution at all. It is at best a means of turning a completely uncontrolled arrival into a 'somewhat controlled' one. There's no doubt that EMAS might have reduced the severity of two out of the four accidents (the ones where the aeroplanes stayed more or less on the runway line until late on) but even in those two cases there would still have been a considerable risk of death or injury.
That's why I expressed the opinion, in the original post, that
"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'."
Mind you, Bernd - looking on the bright side
- given that you only commented on the Taipei incident, and did not dispute the other cases, can I take it that you broadly agree with me on the limited relevance of runway length?
Tony