PDA

View Full Version : Did an A340 Very Recently Land on a taxiway in Sao Paulo?


OVERTALK
24th Feb 2006, 03:10
Sao Paulo, Brazil Airport (Question)
.
A 23 Feb 06 report that an Airbus A340 landed on a taxiway in Sao Paulo.
.
Does anybody know any more?
.
Matter raised in a Curt Lewis fltsafety.org newsletter dated 24 Feb

broadreach
24th Feb 2006, 23:58
Will keep an eye out for local reports and post if sighted.

AIRWAY
25th Feb 2006, 11:08
Yes.

It was an A340 from TAP Portugal.

TheShadow
25th Feb 2006, 13:50
Any idea of the date, weather, time, day/night etc?

Rego?

AIRWAY
25th Feb 2006, 14:22
21/02/2006 21:15

SBGR 212100Z 35002KT 9999 FEW010 BKN100 21/19 Q1011 RETSRA WS

captjns
25th Feb 2006, 14:34
Maybe he wanted an ontime gate arrival and took a short cut.

Johnbr
26th Feb 2006, 02:45
Well...Although I'm on my annual 30 days leave,I'm located in Rio,very close to Sao paulo,and in contact with a few coleagues I've heard nothing of this rumor,and if you know SBGR you would say it isn't very likely...Both taxiways that run parallel to the runways are too narrow and too bumpy for an A340 to land and without being subjected to some damage...I'm pretty confident I would've heard something..

broadreach
26th Feb 2006, 12:58
Nothing I could find in the news. Guarulhos image at:

http://www.lideraviacao.com.br/signature/atendimento/imgs_bases/guarulhos_01_0.jpg

Or Google Earth 2325'50.46"S 4628'06.87W

Send Clowns
26th Feb 2006, 14:49
Looks like the taxiways are just as wide as the runways. It's happened before, and it'll happen again. Notice from Airway it was good VMC. Presume they were approaching visually without confirming on the ILS.

jovica
26th Feb 2006, 19:54
Pardon my ignorance, but I need a clarification. How can one land an aircraft on a taxyway? I mean, there is ILS, lights, markings on the RWY..... How can mistake like that happen? I don't get it...

the heavy heavy
27th Feb 2006, 00:02
:sad: hello chaps,

the southerly has some work in progress (as of 2 weeks ago) and the northern only got an ndb app from one direction/ full ils from the other. the vor/dme associated with that ndb is u/s.

so i guess if u were tired and got a late switch to the ndb on the right and were a bit off centre (+-5),it may even be offset by a couple, and got a late vis at decision u could just possibly **** it up and land on a taxi way. anybody who been in and out of gru in dodgy weather will testify that it can get a little bit like hard work flying that ndb procedure coming in from the nw.

unforgivable but possible.:ok:

Belgique
27th Feb 2006, 03:29
Spoke to the captain. Seems he had a runway incursion incident recently so he tries to stay clear of runways wherever and whenever possible.

Runway aversion. A new phobia.

FirstOfficer
27th Feb 2006, 13:46
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0988036/L/

Better view of the airport.

CargoOne
27th Feb 2006, 14:57
Pardon my ignorance, but I need a clarification. How can one land an aircraft on a taxyway? I mean, there is ILS, lights, markings on the RWY..... How can mistake like that happen? I don't get it...

Things which seems to be unbelievable are happening sometimes.
Some time ago (2004 or 2005) Aeroflot have landed on taxiway at Barcelona. On the first attempt they went go around due to another aircraft on taxiway (while they were sure it is on runway) but on the second attempt they have succeded with a firm landing on TWY Tango :)

Newforest
27th Feb 2006, 15:38
Seattle/Tacoma (SEA), Washington is popular for this type of diversion. In 01/04, A DHC-8 landed on Taxiway Tango which is similar to Runway 16R. Also an AA MD-80 has performed this feat.

Spigot
27th Feb 2006, 16:19
Coming in from the NW sector,performing a vor/ndb procedure for rwy 27L,it is possible to mistake and land on 27R(rwy's displaced)being 27R the closer one.Not to mention the final procedure leads you in on a angled approach.
There has been a few landings on 27R,having 27L as active,due to low vis/ceiling and MAP for non precision very close to runway...
Actually,you can takeoff/land from taxiways in various airports throughout Brazil,mostly on 1 runway fields.It depends on the PCN X ACN to limit that operation(max weight prob. 737/a320 limited).Landings and takeoff's from taxiways are a reality in aviation,take Ancorage for an example..low vis/poor crew CRM/awareness,workload...nothing that a proper "breifing" can avoid.
In a 3 man crew,if you have the middle jump seat guy"follow"trough..you have a extra set of eyes to help the operating crew,in any phase of flight.
Regards,be well
Spigot

Johnbr
27th Feb 2006, 19:17
Again,I'm so sorry,but if you look at the link :http://www.lideraviacao.com.br/signature/atendimento/imgs_bases/guarulhos_01_0.jpg
You'll see there's only one twy in which someone could land parallel to the rwy's.And believe me there's small "hills" along that twy that would make an airplane in app speeds come off the ground!!!I can be wrong,for someone from Portugal has just mail me saying it indeed happened...weird...very weird...

FirstOfficer
27th Feb 2006, 19:58
Yes it has happened, the crew concerned is off duty pending an investigation.

Krueger
28th Feb 2006, 14:52
On the 21st of February, an A340 from TAP Portugal landed on a taxiway at SBGR (Guarurulhos, So Paulo).
This incident is being investigated by the proper authorities.
A lot of contributing factors can be advanced: Recent Rain; height of the sun and it's direction at the time; ILS u/s; VOR u/s; phraseology (Brazilian Portuguese).
The aircraft was inspected on site and was given an ok.
The crew are suspended until the conclusions of the investigation.

Check Six, Krueger...

Johnbr
28th Feb 2006, 15:40
Guys...I'll take it all back...Just received confirmation of the incident from a fellow pilot from Sao Paulo...Indeed happened on Rwy27R TAP A340 landed on Twy B...after refused to accept the fact,insisted the he's not been given instruction to go around..Both pilots were dead headed back to Portugal and removed from duties pending further investigation.It was indeed a very serious incident,as there was an American or United aircraft taxiing back on the same twy.The damage happened only to the twy which isn't prepared for a landing much less of an A340...As for the causes,really,it still amazes me...It was visual at the time,and someone said something about sun glare which I find very unlikely...remember: rwy 27R in the morning ....the sun would be on his tail...Shocking....

Krueger
28th Feb 2006, 16:04
Actually the sun was in front of them and regarding the other contributing factors, this incident doesn't surprise me at all.

FirstOfficer
28th Feb 2006, 16:40
If its to follow that theory, then maybe we should expect this kind of incident more often?

the heavy heavy
28th Feb 2006, 18:01
Actually the sun was in front of them and regarding the other contributing factors, this incident doesn't surprise me at all.:confused:

Krueger,

if this dosen't suprise u then i'm shocked!

I for 1 can understand how u can get yourself in this position at gru. however if ur told to do a g/a and u don't and u land on a taxiway....... best of luck with the court martial:ouch:

Johnbr
28th Feb 2006, 18:40
Krueger,
Did it happened in the afternoon hours?And why it does not surprise you?Is it only a GRU problem?I'm curious,cuz I've been flying in and out of Gru for many years and can see no major problem operating there (I wouldn't say the same of GIG,which is my home base).

Krueger
28th Feb 2006, 18:47
Court Martial????!!!! UUUUhhhhhh!

Aren't you being a little bit over the edge? In the best interest of flight safety, you should avoid this type of finger pointing.

One thing is a mistake and a totally different thing is a violation.

Imagine yourself on the controls, on the same situation, then you hear a controller saying something that you don't understand (for instance, go-around in brazilian portuguese, which is totally different than in portuguese). What would you do?

Thank god you don't belong to any acident investigation team!:ok:

Check Six , Krueger...

the heavy heavy
28th Feb 2006, 19:27
krueger,

my point is not that i'd court martial theese chaps but that i'm pretty sure that if the boys landed against atc instructions somebody will get 'nasty' with them.

they have my sympathy and my understanding.

as i said i understand how u could get yourself in this position in gru. i have been to gru many times and i have shot approachs there in awful weather with limited nav aids. that's what we get paid for.

the interesting aspect of this incident is the human factors that led to it. we all make mistakes, period. we have to accept that as professional pilots that we when are held accountable for the decisions we make that sometimes the truth will be that on that particular day and in those particular conditions we were wrong, maybee even negligent.

no matter what other factors come to light in this incident the very fact that this crew elected to land on that taxiway was a very poor decision. if you have been to gru i would be suprised if you thought it was an easy mistake.

i hope that their company shows them understanding when dealing with their case. my point is if the facts show that they landed on a taxiway with atc telling them to g/a i would expect them to be in some trouble.

fox 2.... heavy

Krueger
28th Feb 2006, 23:43
your statement is based on the fact that they landed knowing that TWR was sending them around. However, that is a point that will be clarified by the investigation. I was made to believe that TWR instructed them to go around in Brazilian portuguese. However, go-around in portuguese is a totally different word.
Check Six, Krueger...

the heavy heavy
28th Feb 2006, 23:52
any doubt no doubt!

no doubt we will find out in time.

anyway u look at it it's bad.

knock it off... heavy

56P
1st Mar 2006, 01:17
At least they had the right aerodrome!

Belgique
1st Mar 2006, 02:07
...It was visual at the time,and someone said something about sun glare which I find very unlikely...remember: rwy 27R in the morning ....the sun would be on his tail...Shocking....

According to Expedia.com TAP{ only arrives pm hrs (late afternoon or early evening). Flts 6077 (tues) or 185 (wednes). It's more likely the sun was in their eyes late afternoon. That would make a lot more sense.

Anybody know the actual flight number/rego?

broadreach
1st Mar 2006, 03:06
It's an afternoon arrival, scheduled time 1650LT according to TAP's site.

Conditions an hour before or after are irrelevant; Sao Paulo weather at this time of year changes all the time. And it's been raining in the afternoon almost every day. They would have been landing almost directly into the sun so if the crew say "glare" one should be inclined to accept that. As for ILS/VOR unserviceable, no idea, perhaps someone on here has recent experience.

Regarding Brazilian vs Portuguese, sorry Krueger, can't buy that. In the first place you would have to dig up a very limited ATC guy who wasn't familiar with the differences, considering there's a flight every day. Secondly, and perhaps someone from TAP might clarify, one would expect communication with a European airline to be conducted in English. If it wasn't, there's a wakeup call in itself. Tapes - assuming they still exist and are compared - will no doubt clear it all up.

Belgique
1st Mar 2006, 04:21
http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Safety_Issues/others/wrongrunway_files/close-up.jpg
.
From the Google image you can easily see that in low visibility the very significantly displaced threshold of r/way 27L could lead to an honest mistake - i.e. you see just the squared (not curving) taxiway threshold and the real 27R threshold to its left (although it wasn't low visibility - just sun-glare - it nevertheless has the same effect, particularly if the sun-glare is exacerbated by a wet reflective runway & taxiway in the late afternoon).

Founder
1st Mar 2006, 09:26
According to a rumor a SAS aircraft took off from a taxiway at ESSA Stockholm Arlanda. The ATC aparantly only said to the pilots, next time, use the runway... =)

FirstOfficer
1st Mar 2006, 10:55
There is a healthy discussion going on about this incident on a Portuguese aviation forum, if anyone who understands the lingo is interested please pm me, due to rules i cannot leave the link here.

Safe Flying

greek-freak
1st Mar 2006, 12:13
I found a quite nice article in the seattle times about those
taxiway landings at Seattle-Tacoma airport somebody mentioned earlier:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2002621198_seatac13.html

threemiles
1st Mar 2006, 12:21
From the Google image you can easily see that in low visibility the very significantly displaced threshold of r/way 27L could lead to an honest mistake - i.e. you see just the squared (not curving) taxiway threshold and the real 27R threshold to its left (although it wasn't low visibility - just sun-glare - it nevertheless has the same effect, particularly if the sun-glare is exacerbated by a wet reflective runway & taxiway in the late afternoon).
Doesn't a landing briefing include a wrap up on the airport layout before starting the approach, considering the risk of a runway misinterpretation in the case you decribe? Don't buy into that. Bad airmanship.

Johnbr
1st Mar 2006, 12:28
Guys,I'am more and more convinced now,that this was an honest mistake.
Regarding language,99 times out of 100 TAP pilots conduct their R/T in Brazil or wherever in English.The only thing they say in portuguese down here are good mornings,thank you etc..The word for "go around" in brazilian port. is completely different from that one used in portuguese in Portugal ("arremeter" in Brasil and "borregar" in Portugal,but I guess the Portuguese pilots would understand the brasilian "arremeta!" as I would understand their "borregar".)The TAP pilot apparently,said that he thought the instruction was given to another aircraft coming in behind him.Those things sometimes happen even between americans and Brits,don´t they?
In Gatwick in 1988 I heard the following:
-Ma'am,let's make sure we're speaking the same language(very southern american pilot)
-Ok,I'm speaking english,you?(female controller without missing a beat)

ward
1st Mar 2006, 14:12
I was made to believe that TWR instructed them to go around in Brazilian portuguese. However, go-around in portuguese is a totally different word.
Check Six, Krueger...
So why did they not request clarification or switch to English if needed?

JanetFlight
2nd Mar 2006, 02:12
According to a rumor a SAS aircraft took off from a taxiway at ESSA Stockholm Arlanda. The ATC aparantly only said to the pilots, next time, use the runway... =)

Hey Founder....I Liked that One...:O ;) :ok: :ok: :ok:

broadreach
2nd Mar 2006, 23:50
Johnbr thanks for that follow-up re Portuguese vs Brazilian. Much of a muchness. Hope the TAP crew aren't crucified, lessons are learned and widely disseminated.

M609
3rd Mar 2006, 09:15
SAS landed a Fokker 50 on the south paralell at Bod/ENBO about 5 years ago as well. 4 minutes earlier there was a string of 6 F-16s taxing down on it!

alemaobaiano
6th Mar 2006, 12:03
There was a report on the local news over the weekend about this incident.

Air to ground communications was compromised by an illegal FM radio station transmiting a very powerful signal on a frequency around 100MHz in the Guarulhos area. This site has since been closed down and the equipment confiscated by the authorities.

It was also reported that the pilots did not have the relevant NOTAMS concerning the work in progress at GRU.

As usual, there wasn't just one factor involved in the incident.

Tchau

broadreach
7th Mar 2006, 01:30
Alemaobaiano,

You've kept a good lookout! I wasn't able to find the weekend news reference you mention but, based only on your succinct synopsis, one might smell a few red herrings being dragged across the chain of events, nearly a fortnight after the fact.

Ask yourself, are clandestine radios really news? The issue of their blanketing essential frequencies has been around for quite a few years.

Notams re work in progress at GRU, one wonders how that could possibly have influenced the outcome.

Think you'll probably agree that, bearing above points in mind, there is some embarassed pr ass-covering underway :O

I'm far from a conspiracy theorist but, you know, friends will be friends and I would probably do the same myself. But it doesn't really wash, does it.

alemaobaiano
7th Mar 2006, 12:11
Broadreach

It was on Band News on Saturday evening, and that is one of the most reputable news channels in Brazil (not saying much I know, but it wasn't on Globo). It is, as you point out nothing new, and as there were no casualties and no damage this was just a brief filler on the evening bulletin, from a police point of view rather than aviation.

It's difficult to see who would be covering up for whom. The original premise was pilot error by a foreign pilot, so what would be the motive for local agencies covering up anything? Let the news run and there is no blame on GRU. The TAP crew take the fall.

The NOTAMs issue is relevant, in that one runway was notified as closed and without full lighting, therefore the crew's mental picture would have been at odds with reality. They expected to see two live runways, and that is what they "saw", without access to the NOTAM to correct their mental expectations. The weather at the time may well have been contributary factor, heavy isolated showers are common at this time of the year.

The captured transmitter is reported to have an output of 3kW in the range 100-120MHz and to have been positioned on the approach path close to the airport. Most radios on tower frequency are in the range of 10-15W so a badly matched antenna with an input of 3kW is more than capable of swamping the frequency. This effect was also reported by a United flight taxi-ing at the same time.

Sorry, but I don't see a cover up going on. Who gains with this additional information? Surely a cover up would have just left the crew out to dry?

This report actually seems to reflect the reality of most aviation incidents, in that there is very rarely one causal event but a string of unrelated issues that come together at the worst possible moment. In this case the report explains the extenuating circumstances that led to a possible aircrew error. This crew probably still made a mistake, but the responsibility for that mistake doesn't lie 100% at their door.

Boa sorte

FJP
7th Mar 2006, 20:03
Maybe he wanted an ontime gate arrival and took a short cut.

:mad: Wait for comments when your time comes!!!
That's not so funny!
Regards,
FJP

FJP
7th Mar 2006, 21:28
Well...Although I'm on my annual 30 days leave,I'm located in Rio,very close to Sao paulo,and in contact with a few coleagues I've heard nothing of this rumor,and if you know SBGR you would say it isn't very likely...Both taxiways that run parallel to the runways are too narrow and too bumpy for an A340 to land and without being subjected to some damage...I'm pretty confident I would've heard something..

:* It has hapeened!!
We professionals should not gossip! It is very much important to try to find out , WHY DID it Hapen than Think that will never hapen to us or to YOU! This remark is not meant to anyone in Particular but by some guys age ...you will need a lot of time to retire!
Please do not read this as agnaisnt you or anyone!
As aprofessional I will take a stand in favour of that Crew of the TAP 340 despite no particular simpathy for many arrogant of their attitudes!
Please note there are bad and good everywhere and that is a fact! Even in TAP. By the away many good professionals, and I just mean that.
I am two years from retirement so no need to ass kissing or to intend to join them just facts.
Aviation is serious and not destructive talking.
It hapen yes fact! WHY.I bet INAC will never Finish a serious enquire or at the end will have a sposkman for bla bla like in SATA's Accident whrere Captain Mesquita and all the others have died. What was the result? nothing all operation continues just as the same!
So be factual and find out and push to find out in reality Things like:
PSV Fduty period
Crew pressure
ATC """ ARREMETER" ?! equal to Go arround etc overshoot!? Where they ware of that?
Situation Wareness?
Complacency?
Cockpit CM1/CM2 level of authorithy or just CM2 accpetance?
Knowing TAP standards however those may not be the primary factors ... but just a bad day those guys may want to wish that what hapen did not hapen to them!
REgards.
FJP

FJP
7th Mar 2006, 21:36
Looks like the taxiways are just as wide as the runways. It's happened before, and it'll happen again. Notice from Airway it was good VMC. Presume they were approaching visually without confirming on the ILS.

Please do not presume!
ILS was off!
They landed in the other Rwy
See the Metar WS, RETS etc
Twy is was 25m wide.... bad situation wareness fact!
Briefieng etc did they brief what expect to see? did it match.
The CVRs will say if missed app was considered or not.
Hope someone will give us some professional light, and serious, straight to the point facts and then see who's the one to trough the first stone...
Regards.
FJP

FJP
7th Mar 2006, 21:44
Court Martial????!!!! UUUUhhhhhh!

Aren't you being a little bit over the edge? In the best interest of flight safety, you should avoid this type of finger pointing.

One thing is a mistake and a totally different thing is a violation.

Imagine yourself on the controls, on the same situation, then you hear a controller saying something that you don't understand (for instance, go-around in brazilian portuguese, which is totally different than in portuguese). What would you do?

Thank god you don't belong to any acident investigation team!:ok:

Check Six , Krueger...

:ok: :ok: :ok: :ok: Thanks mate for your comment!:ok: I fully endorse make it in bold and underline! How can we airmen like this?
Before we blame let us understand the facts. and make those facts available to the class to avoid things similar in the future this is the essentials in Safe aviation, do not point your finger to a " Professional" Colleague!
:ok: Krueger :ok: , once agian, Good Job welldone
FJP

FNC
8th Mar 2006, 10:59
" SATA's Accident whrere Captain Mesquita and all the others have died. What was the result? nothing all operation continues just as the same"

SATA has installed GPS nav on its ATP fleet afterwards

FJP
8th Mar 2006, 12:16
" SATA's Accident whrere Captain Mesquita and all the others have died. What was the result? nothing all operation continues just as the same"

SATA has installed GPS nav on its ATP fleet afterwards

What a heavy price Mesquita was obliged to pay!!!
So, with GPS nav what has changed other than more precise situation wareness,,,, if Vis is say under 1500/2000mts do they still fly ?
Just wanted to understand?
Regards.

FNC
8th Mar 2006, 12:26
I have no idea on the procedures they comply or not.
I am not a (commercial) pilot and do not work for SATA.
But I am sure they won't be flying onto a mountain anymore while not knowing it is in front of them.

FJP
8th Mar 2006, 12:39
I have no idea on the procedures they comply or not.
I am not a (commercial) pilot and do not work for SATA.
But I am sure they won't be flying onto a mountain anymore while not knowing it is in front of them.

Appreciate your comments.
Have a good ay and many safe landings,
Regards
FJP

broadreach
8th Mar 2006, 23:39
Alemaobaiano,

Thanks for your reasoned and insightful post, far more so than my last one. I agree with just about everything you've said.

My tending toward an ass-covering explanation was an exercise in adding the near total absence of news coverage of a serious incident to the still relatively opaque conduct of Brazilian aviation authorities and spicing it with TAP upper management's close ties with those same authorities.

Had it been more than an incident, there would have been all sorts of bad press flying around, much of it damaging to more public/corporate reputations than those of the unfortunate crew. Or damaging to projects, e.g. the Varig/TAP deal. Therefore, better to carefully ensure, throughout both systems, that nothing unfiltered is said.

The only quarrel with that, of course, is that the incident doesn't find its way quickly into the knowlege base of the hundreds of crews flying into GRU every day and, from there, to greater awareness of a specific threat.

Note FJP's comment a few posts up, twy 25m wide. A340's track just under 11m. Whew.

sf25
9th Mar 2006, 07:53
only explanation to a non professional like me is that the crew must have been suffering total fatigue ... guess they came from lisbon - 11 hours (?) overnight .... could that be a factor?

discountinvestigator
9th Mar 2006, 12:13
Perhaps the investigators will ask why the crew were not making the required visual reference checks on very short final. Whatever happened to the 100 feet, threshold visible, TDZ visible and then 50 feet, threshold not visible, TDZ visible, aircraft expected to touchdown in the TDZ?

That is a basic requirement. Although, I have to admit, not every airline that I audit (pre accident) or work with (post accident) seems to have this basic requirement in place for JAR OPS 1.

As for ATC sending them around, bit of a false one that. Other questions will be in relation to which side the PAPIs were on (or VASIs but still a requirement for jet aircraft operations to runways).

We have all done, or will do, the false perspective thing at some point, so let's not be too harsh here.

Yellow lines not white ones?

Pity that ATC did not have the Park Air Systems RIMCAS system installed and operating then! That has been giving protection to some runways for years in this area of taxiway landings/take-offs.

Just a Grunt
11th Mar 2006, 05:45
A CX A340 took off from a taxiway at Anchorage in 2002, with the mains hitting a snow berm just after take-off

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20020204X00182&ntsbno=ANC02IA011&akey=1

very lucky

Belgique
11th Mar 2006, 12:16
Pity that ATC did not have the Park Air Systems RIMCAS system installed and operating then! That has been giving protection to some runways for years in this area of taxiway landings/take-offs.
.
Is this a bit of Honeywell kit or what? Park Air Systems? Never heard of them.
B

BOAC
11th Mar 2006, 12:34
Google has.

Globaliser
11th Mar 2006, 12:40
A CX A340 took off from a taxiway at Anchorage in 2002, with the mains hitting a snow berm just after take-offCX? Since when was CX "Taiwanese registration"?

Definitely a different airline.

BusyB
11th Mar 2006, 13:13
CX is Cathay Pacific, the incident you're refering to was China Airlines. I'd read your reports a bit more carefully before you tell everyone about them!;)

Just a Grunt
11th Mar 2006, 21:20
oops. Apologies to cathay