TAM A320 crash at Congonhas, Brazil [Archive]

PEI_3721

17th Jul 2007, 23:36

As per thread here Pantanal ATR 42 off runway at Congonhas (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=284262) and here B737-800 skids off the Runway Cochin India. (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=284152)

Three this week wont help the stats!

Managing the Threats and Errors during Approach and Landing. (http://www.flightsafety.org/ppt/managing_threat.ppt) N.B. Slide 26
FSF ALAR Tool Kit (http://www.flightsafety.org/alar_resources.html), sect 8.1 onwards.
Safety aspects of aircraft performance on wet and contaminated runways (http://www.nlr-atsi.com/publications.php)
When a Runway is Not Long Enough to Land On (http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/publications/tp185/1-06/Operations.htm#Long)
Quote From the ref. "In the unlikely event that you do run out of runway, let us hope that you do not run out of luck!"
Luck is not aided by failure to learn lessons from previous events.

Doors to Automatic

17th Jul 2007, 23:37

I'm guessing it is the big "T" shaped building at the end of 17R (plane landing on 35L). See google earth.

I'd also guess that unable to stop the pilot attempted to turn the plane onto the taxiway at high speed and it skidded - there was a similar incident involving, I believe, an F100 a while back but on this occasion they managed to turn the aircraft and keep it within the confines of the field.

They must have been going at a fair speed to make it down the hill, across that road and into the building!

Informed speculation at this point though.

broadreach

17th Jul 2007, 23:46

I'm watching live news right now. It looks very bad, I'm afraid. For the aircraft to cross the road and enter the TAM cargo reception depot it must have been going at a hell of a clip. The road is about 80m wide and, at that point, some 10m below the surface of the runway. Very close to the same point a BRA 737 skidded to some six months ago.

alemaobaiano

17th Jul 2007, 23:46

DtA, there were two incidents shortly before the runway was closed for resurfacing, and there was a wet weather restriction placed on some heavier types landing.

However, as was noted in the ATR thread, and this one too, the main runway has recently reopened after resurfacing to reduce aquaplaning incidents. It was reopened without the planned grooves, due to pressure over delays in air travel, and has seen two incidents in as many days.

ab

Doors to Automatic

17th Jul 2007, 23:51

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mrJgr-4K0M

I think it is the building at 0:42 into this film. Note the short length of the runway and the immediate substantial drop in terrain.

duwde

17th Jul 2007, 23:53

That is the EXACT building..

You can watch the live tv coverage of the accident on:
http://video.globo.com/Videos/Player/Noticias/0,,GIM61910-7823-GLOBO+NEWS+AO+VIVO,00.html

bomarc

18th Jul 2007, 00:01

does anyone know if this runway slopes downhill?

I would like all information people have in order to make sure that worldwide news organizations are reporting as truthfully as possible

broadreach

18th Jul 2007, 00:06

For those of you with Google Earth, the TAM cargo depot can be seen at
23-37-10-77S, 46-39-44-18W.
The cargo depot is the L-shaped building; immediately south of it is a Shell station which did not catch fire (writing at 21:00LT).
TAM are holding the pax list back until families informed.
Runway re-grooving, by the way, is scheduled to begin on 25 July when the surface is cured.
The runway does not slope downhill.
Doors to Automatic, spot on.

TAM just informed 175 SOB. 155 pax, 6 crew, 14 TAM deadheading.

Rippa

18th Jul 2007, 00:12

The runway is slightlly down hill...not very noticeble / significant.
The building is the one in a T shape....

PA38-Pilot

18th Jul 2007, 00:13

For runway 35L (Longest one):
- Landing distance 1880 mts
- Downslope

http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/711/untitledmg9.th.jpg (http://img440.imageshack.us/my.php?image=untitledmg9.jpg)

bomarc

18th Jul 2007, 00:15

Is it now safe to say:

the plane was landing towards the north, on the longest runway about 6365feet in length.

the runway was recently resurfaced, with regrooving planned for july 25 after the surface has cured.

the runway was wet from light rain

that once off the runway, the terrain drops about 30feet

that the building hit is a cargo depot and not a gas/petrol station

alemaobaiano

18th Jul 2007, 00:27

Bomarc, that's pretty much it, except that the impact was on the left side of the building, which is next to the gas station. Local fire crews are reporting serious concerns about the gasoline stored there, but have that part of the fire under control.

ab

broadreach

18th Jul 2007, 00:27

Bomarc, correct. It might be useful to note that it's been raining since yesterday morning, heavily at times.

The gas station is south of the cargo depot. If you've looked at the Google image the building immediately south of the upright part of the "L" is a TAM garage where you can drop your car off and pick it up on return.

Eyewitness accounts, unreliable as they may be, say the aircraft did attempt to take off again. The aircraft had sufficient airspeed not to simply drop straight down onto the road - a taxi passenger describes it as having passed overhead, left wing having hit the TAM cargo buiding and exploding.

FlyingRabbit

18th Jul 2007, 00:34

ramp employee at the airport now saying the pilot tried a go-around after plane touched the runway.

TAM updated SOB to 176

FlyingRabbit

18th Jul 2007, 00:48

plane is PT-MBK

local news report no survivors

broadreach

18th Jul 2007, 00:54

Please note I'm not a pilot, others might respond differently. But it's been blustery since Sunday evening, with constant rain and it's an aircraft-carrier runway so the winds at either end can be funny. But that would not have been the problem; they didn't get near the end, and if the accident started with aquaplaning - as with the Pantanal ATR 42 yesterday - who knows what direction they would have been pointing when they decided on a GA.

At 22:40LT, fire inside the cargo depot still out of control and a high plume of smoke. News services are now cautiously saying survivors unlikely and several casualties in the the TAM building.

Airlines have, apparently off their own bat, retouted CGH flights to GRU and Viracopos.

Rippa

18th Jul 2007, 00:55

"there is a notam indicating "down currents" near approach end runway 17...could this have helped bring the plane down as it went over that end while taking off again?"

Actually, the air is turbulent around the airport because it is surrounded by buildings...it is a very central airport, right in the middle of Sao Paulo. Nickname is "airplane carrier" and the usual briefing between the pilots is "touch down maximum at 1000ft runway marks or go-around". Very marginal operation for this airplane in this weather.

steve_austin

18th Jul 2007, 01:03

From an update on Globo news:

"The plane was skidding, it looked like it was taxiing, I never saw something so ugly" said Luís Santos, working for CTS Security, who was in a black Volkswagen at the gas station during the accident. The siding of the vehicle was marked by debris from the plane. "I could hear the increasing roar of the turbine and the plane kept growing. He passed 'liking' right about where the street electric wires are. When it hit [the building?], everything exploded", added Santos.

"O avião vinha derrapando, parecia que ele estava taxiando, nunca vi um negócio tão feio", disse Luís Santos, da empresa CTS de vigilância e segurança, que estava em um gol preto no posto na hora do acidente. A lateral do veículo ficou marcada por estilhaços da fuselagem do avião.
"Dava para ouvir o barulho da turbina aumentando e o avião crescendo. Ele passou 'lambendo' bem na altura dos fios. Na hora que deu a pancada, explodiu tudo", acrescentou Santos.

HowlingWind

18th Jul 2007, 01:20

As FlyingRabbit mentioned, the authorities are stating there are no survivors (a colonel in the fire brigade is quoted as saying there are numerous casualties on the ground as well). From www.folha.com.br (http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/cotidiano/ult95u312806.shtml)

If that is true, with the deaths aboard the plane alone it will be the worst crash in Brazilian history.

This photo shows the drop-off at the end of the taxiway turnoff and runway above Avenida Washington Luis.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v224/howlingwind/07198157.jpg

Here's an aerial view.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v224/howlingwind/MVB_sp_localizador_aviao.jpg

Very sad day in Brazilian aviation.

bomarc

18th Jul 2007, 01:22

THANK YOU ALL FOR HELPING ME UNDERSTAND WHAT WAS GOING ON IN BRAZIL TODAY DURING THIS GREAT TRAGEDY.

I think it is now fair to say that a fully loaded TAM AIR Airbus 320 over ran runway 35 left, some 6365 feet long during a rainy evening hitting a cargo structure and perhaps a gas/petrol station.

That the runway was awaiting grooving after repaving...that rain had been continuous since yesterday

that the airport had a similiar incident yesterday involving an ATR 42 turboprop airport

that this airport had been notorious for problems of this nature, so bad that a JUDGE had ordered restrictions on this airport, but he was over ridden by a higher court.

a marginal situation costing the lives of up to 200 people (176 on the plane, more on the ground)

It is possible that the plane was attempting to takeoff again after touchdown.

that winds near the airport are affected by the nearby buildings.

that with wet runway conditions, the airbus 320 at max landing weights is a marginal situation on this length of runway

alemaobaiano

18th Jul 2007, 01:44

that this airport had been notorious for problems of this nature, so bad that a JUDGE had ordered restrictions on this airport, but he was over ridden by a higher court.

Bomarc, the restrictions applied before the resurfacing, and that work was intended to overcome those problems. The earlier restrictions are irrelevant to this incident due to the new surface, which supposedly has a better grip co-efficient than the earlier runway. There have been no moves to re-impose restrictions since the runway reopened, probably because this is the first rain we have had since then.

Also, an A320 wouldn't be at maximum landing weight for this airport, even on a bright sunny day.

ab

PA38-Pilot

18th Jul 2007, 02:01

Also, MLW for the A320 is 66,000kgs or less (not the max. weight indicated on the chart). As AB said, I highly doubt it was anywhere close to that.

alemaobaiano

18th Jul 2007, 02:11

It is an approach that requires concentration from the crew, certainly, but it's very nature means that pilots know that a very high level of precision is required from them, and so they are likely to be even more "on the ball" than usual.

A sad day indeed.

RobertS975

18th Jul 2007, 02:21

Early scenario very similar to AF at YYZ and WN at MDW except for the luck of those pax and crew. If this TAM aircraft was indeed attempting a go-around, then that may have added much more speed and energy to this accident. We will have to see if those reports of an attempted go-around are true.

bomarc

18th Jul 2007, 02:27

yes roberts, thank you

does sound like air france toronto...also an airbus, but a 340

Rippa

18th Jul 2007, 02:34

TAM A320 has a MLW of 64.500kg, and it is NOT unusual to land at CGH near that weight. I am not sure, but I think that there is no landing restriction on 35L / 17R even when wet (allowed weight is limited by MLW).
Passenger view of landing in CGH
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUdmkHP0wsE
Pilot view...notice that the pilot vacates the runway at the last way out, after landing relatively short
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZ77mPgJ_Sk&mode=related&search=
Interesting one...B 737 landing at 17R...notice the "glide slope...glide slope" and the PAPI 4 red lights
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjm90iM4Bok&mode=related&search=

PJ2

18th Jul 2007, 02:39

Re, "we must now think of possible mechanical problems...delays in spoiler deployment for example...delays in thrust reverser use...."

In Config FULL, neither spoiler deployment nor reverse thrust are available until the AIRGR switch is in the GROUND mode. This is not the case in Config 3. I suspect that given the runway length and contaminated runway conditions that this would likely have been a Config Full landing but we'll have to wait for the numbers.

Also, it will be of interest to know if the CAS was managed or selected. In the Lufthansa overrun accident in Poland, the speed was in the "Selected" mode and there was a slight tailwind if I recall correctly, (I believe this is not the case here given the METAR info). The above scenario (spoilers/reverse unavailable) did however play a role in the accident. I believe this was one reason Lufthansa went to Config 3 landings but that's only hearsay.

FYI, a go-around at/after a touchdown is a valid and approved Airbus maneuver so long as reverse has not been selected. CATII and III certification standards provide for a touchdown during any go-around maneuver.

Rippa

18th Jul 2007, 02:45

Conf FULL is mandatory at CGH (airline policy), and many times autobrake is not selected due to the dalay between touchdown and autobrake actuation...so manual "full" braking is more "popular" at CGH.

warmkiter

18th Jul 2007, 04:07

Also, it will be of interest to know if the CAS was managed or selected. In the Lufthansa overrun accident in Poland, the speed was in the "Selected" mode and there was a slight tailwind if I recall correctly, (I believe this is not the case here given the METAR info). The above scenario (spoilers/reverse unavailable) did however play a role in the accident. I believe this was one reason Lufthansa went to Config 3 landings but that's only hearsay.

sorry but DLH did not "go for config 3 landings "

its up to the crew what flap setting is used and F Full is usually the standart setting...

cheers

lars

PJ2

18th Jul 2007, 04:13

Understand that it's up to the crew - always! :)

In fact, Config 3 is increasingly the "standard" landing config setting, mainly due to reduced fuel flow, although there is some information about increased roll stability...

KC135777

18th Jul 2007, 04:32

"on the ball"....well, they should be...but, the AA LIT accident involved fatigue (13+ hour CDD).

Fatigue causes degraded judgment/decision making abilities (similar to the affects of alcohol).

KC

Hookerbot 5000

18th Jul 2007, 05:21

Scores of people are feared dead after a passenger plane carrying 176 people crashed at Congonhas airport in Sao Paulo, Brazil, starting a major fire.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6903837.stm

The state governor said the chances of finding survivors were "practically nil", while a fire official said more may have been killed on the ground.
The TAM airlines Airbus A320 is thought to have slid off the end of the runway as it landed in very wet conditions.

Concerns had been raised about the safety of the runway during heavy rain.

There had been persistent, heavy rain in the two hours preceding the accident.

On Monday afternoon, a smaller plane skidded off the runway onto the nearby grass in similar conditions.

Major fire

TAM Express flight 3054 was carrying 170 passengers and six crew when it attempted to land at Congonhas airport in the heart of Sao Paulo.
The plane was travelling to the city from Porto Alegre in the south of the country.

After touching down on the airport's main runway at 1850 (2150 GMT), the passenger jet skidded before sliding across a busy road in a residential area.

It then struck a depot used by TAM for storing cargo and some fuel.
Brazilian television showed pictures of a major fire at the scene and the emergency services arriving in large numbers to deal with the aftermath of the accident.

An eyewitness, TAM employee Elias Rodrigues Jesus, said the plane had exploded after slamming into the depot.

"All of a sudden I heard a loud explosion, and the ground beneath my feet shook," he told the Associated Press.

"I looked up and I saw a huge ball of fire, and then I smelled the stench of kerosene and sulphur."

A doctor at Sao Paulo's mortuary said 30 badly charred bodies had been brought in.

Sao Paulo state Governor Jose Serra said: "I was told that the temperature inside the plane was 1,000 degrees [1,830 Fahrenheit], so the chances of there being any survivors are practically nil."

President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva declared three days of national morning for the victims of the crash.

Safety concerns

The BBC's Gary Duffy in Sao Paolo says the weather has been bad for much of the day and there has been concern for some time about safety at Congonhas during heavy rain.
In February, a judge briefly banned flights in and out of the airport, which is the busiest in Brazil

Pilots had complained that water was pooling on the surface of the landing strip, making braking difficult and occasionally causing planes to skid out of control.

Remedial work, including laying a new surface, has been carried out in recent months.

However, a much smaller plane skidded off the runway before stopping on grass in similar weather conditions on Monday. No-one was injured in the incident.

Air safety in Brazil has been a major issue since a crash last year when a passenger plane collided with an executive jet over the Amazon, our correspondent says.
Some 154 people died in that incident, which was, at the time, the worst air crash in the country's history.

:eek:

Toothbrush

18th Jul 2007, 06:49

According to dutch news website this was already the second attempt at landing.

"Tweede poging

Een correspondent van het Radio 1-journaal meldde dat het vliegtuig eerder al een poging deed om te landen, maar er toen voor koos in de lucht te blijven. De tweede poging werd de piloot fataal."

Second attempt

A correspondent of the radio-1 newsbroadcast reported that the aircraft had already attemoted a landing but elected to remain airborne. A second attempt proved fatal.

NigelOnDraft

18th Jul 2007, 07:48

Just to be clear, the longer CGH runway seems a little longer than ABZ (?) We (BA) operate MLW 64.5T (I think?) A320s in there routinely with no special restrictions / rules, although naturally one takes more care / planning / briefing. In fact, I believe we have even tankered in there on occasion to MLW. We now have a F3 SOP for the 320/1 to save 2ps worth of fuel, but I doubt many would follow it at ABZ ;)
I have done a tough and go there due combination of gusty wind, managed speed + ATHR and incompetance ;)
An A320 with 176 people on it by definition will be not far off MLW, unless they are all children without baggage...
The pure runway length I would therefore think not the major issue. The state of the runway surface is, of course, a different matter completely, and I find the A320 series quite easy to skid/slide on a slippery surface - i.e. antiskid hammering away and little retardation.

Sky Wave

18th Jul 2007, 08:20

NOD

An earlier poster said that the elevation is 2450ft. So yes, about the same length as ABZ but 2250ft higher. That must impact on performance.

SW

NigelOnDraft

18th Jul 2007, 08:27

SW - good point (thankfully I said 'seems' and used a '?' ;) ) it will affect it and certainly now make it "tighter" than ABZ in runway length terms...

18th Jul 2007, 08:31

With referenece to the Warsaw accident and Spoiler/Reverse. After this accident the air/ground logic was modified so that with one Main Landing Gear(MLG) compressed the spoilers would half deploy to assist in getting the other MLG down. Once this had occurred full spolier deployment would automatically happen. Additionally with one MLG compressed and REV selected, Spoilers will fully deploy. I think in the original Warsaw accident the aircraft travelled a considerable distance down the R/W with just one MLG compressed hence no spoiler.........

The fact this runway was ungrooved may have played a major part in this. If the crew realised the aircraft was aquaplaning (which would take some time for them to realise) and they then tried to go around it looks like they ran out of runway.

Bristol Airport in the UK had a lot of problems last winter due to a new surface waiting to "cure" before grooving. After a couple of incidents of aircraft sliding off the side (most) major operators refused to operate into the airport ...... it was grooved PDQ!

A4

LoadMan

18th Jul 2007, 09:21

A320 with 180 pax, Airbus OEW (normally too low) and some remaining fuel is ~60 tons, maximum MLW is 66 tons for several weight variants.
Landing Field Length requirement would be ~4000-4500ft for dry runway.

The severeness of the impact implies that they attempted a go-around or at least had some extraordinary issues (compare A310 crash/overrun in Russia some time ago).

Photos from Monsieur airliners.net

Here a got shot of the place. You can see the building with "TAM" written on the side.
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1056400/L/
Here an overview to give an impression. Crash area is on the left side.
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0634881/L/
Here another one with a better view of the steep end of runway 35L/17R.
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0297560/L/
This looks like the place, but only the taxiway leading to it.
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0018003/L/

ORAC

18th Jul 2007, 09:44

July 18 (Bloomberg) -- A Brazilian passenger plane crashed and burst into flames on landing at Sao Paulo's domestic airport late yesterday. At least 200 people may have been killed, in what would be the country's worst air disaster.

Survivors probably won't be found on the plane, which was carrying 176 people, Sao Paulo State Governor Jose Serra said at a news conference broadcast by Band News television. The plane, built by Airbus SAS and operated by TAM SA, the country's biggest airline, slid off the runway, crossed a highway and hit a gas station and a building. Twenty-five people were killed on the ground, Band reported.

"This could be the worst plane crash ever in Brazil,'' Amaryllis Romano, an airline analyst at Tendencias Consultoria in Sao Paulo, said. "I'm numb. It's something that you always feared could happen but never really thought would.''.........

The plane's fuselage came to a rest inside a three-story building and was engulfed in flames, making it impossible for rescue workers to reach it.

Workers retrieved 27 bodies from the plane and another 25 on the ground, Douglas Ferrari, a doctor who took part in the rescue effort, told Band News. As many as 100 people may have been working in the building at the time of the crash, he said.

Eight people have been rescued from the site and are being treated at local hospitals, according to a spokeswoman for Sao Paulo city public health department.......

DCS99

18th Jul 2007, 10:29

Have a dek at this:

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1021719/L/

It's deja-vu all over again...

boristhemini

18th Jul 2007, 10:33

And 25yrs prior to that near miss........

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0261405/L/

Doors to Automatic

18th Jul 2007, 11:38

If ever there was a case for an EMAS arrestor system this must surely be it!

Sallyann1234

18th Jul 2007, 11:49

If ever there was a case for siting an airport somewhere else outside the city this must surely be it.

Blues&twos

18th Jul 2007, 12:07

"we must now think of possible mechanical problems...delays in spoiler deployment for example...delays in thrust reverser use...."

I was under the impression that braking performance on landing was calculated under the assumption that rev thrust was not available (in case of rev thrust malfunction on touchdown).

Is this right, or am I talking rubbish?

FlyingRabbit

18th Jul 2007, 12:08

Witnesses today saying that the planed touched the runway too late and when attempted to go around the tail hit the runway.

Rhumdo

18th Jul 2007, 12:17

Good point sport. Just who is the 'we' in : "we must now think of possible mechanical problems..."?

Always a good idea to check your facts before apportioning blame on man or machine. And it's in the rule book for accident investigation: base first options of probable cause on facts & evidence...ect

Facts - Wet runway, recently resurfaced without water run off grooving, commercial pressure to get run way open for summer Ops, possible tailwind component, prevous over run case in the past couple of weeks ect.

-my first opinion would not be to suspect the A/C at this point, and as it turns out they attempted the TOGO their way out of it,it looks like the plane was functioning and serviceable.

Bit too early to tell I'd say.

brabazon

18th Jul 2007, 12:26

Just got out my copy of "Handling the Big Jets" by D.P. Davies (3rd edition, reprinted 1997 c. CAA), he included a sub-chapter on aquaplaning and finised with the following summary:
"This sub-chapter on aquaplaning has been written rather forcibly - and for good reason. While some accidents are truly unavoidable and others the result of a most unusual chain of circumstances, aquaplaning accidents are nearly all avoidable. It is not the end of the world to stand off or divert occasionally. But it is asking for trouble to attempt a landing on a tight, very wet runway. Think well before you expose yourself to this kind of risk."
This is no way is intended to pre-judge any accident investigation, but just a reminder to one and all that risks are involved in aviation.

fireflybob

18th Jul 2007, 12:27

Not in anyway attempting to start a Boeing versus Airbus debate but, pro rata, have there been more cases of A320 overrun as opposed to B737 ?

wmg

18th Jul 2007, 12:29

I was checking the list of the crew and it had Two Capt's on this flight no F/O, any chance this flight was a trainee flight???

scudpilot

18th Jul 2007, 12:49

barit1

18th Jul 2007, 12:50

Sallyann1234 says:
If ever there was a case for siting an airport somewhere else outside the city this must surely be it.
If ever there were a case for prohibiting construction within obvious clear zones of an existing airport, this must surely be it. While I don't know which came first (the airport or the community) in Sao Paulo, I do know that Chicago Midway was once surrounded by farmland.

What are the costs of buying up the vulnerable land off the ends of the runway, vs. the costs of an (I daresay predictable) accident such as this?

Back at NH

18th Jul 2007, 12:51

Not......But....

Yeah Ok I believe you.

Can this be a training flight?? Why start speculation like this. As the post above, first look probable major factor is runway/weather combination. Don't drag it to a 'Wouldn't happen to a Boeing' or training implication.

broadreach

18th Jul 2007, 12:52

WMG - don't think so. Both pilots are "comandantes" and in the rush of things the newspaper might not have been told which of the two was acting FO.

It's a very hard blow for TAM, who had 14 crew repositioning as passengers.

The accident site is still smouldering. Rain has stopped and Congonhas is open.

ChristiaanJ

18th Jul 2007, 12:54

If ever there was a case for an EMAS arrestor system this must surely be it!"EMAS" = engineered materials arrestor system, or "gravel pit overrun" for those not familiar with the system.
Two notes:
- from the pics it does not really look as if there is enough space at the end of the runway (about 200 ft would be needed at least);
- an EMAS "gravel pit" is only about the width of the runway; both the ATR and the A320 slid off the side of the runway before they got to the end, so they would have missed the EMAS.

NigelOnDraft

18th Jul 2007, 13:05

If ever there was a case for an EMAS arrestor system this must surely be it!How can you say that :rolleyes: Assuming the TAM spokesman was correct, that the aircraft was attempting to take-off again, I really cannot see an arrestor system stopping 65T of aircraft at 100K+ and possibly airborne....
Edit: EMAS design spec is for 70K or less entry speed. By most accounts, I suspect this aircraft was doing considerably more than this. EMAS will also rely on "weight on wheels" to crush the material and retard the aircraft. If the aircraft was taking off again this would not necessarily be present...

alemaobaiano

18th Jul 2007, 13:05

Witnesses may be saying that it touched down long, but Brig-Gen Saito, Chief of the Airforce has stated that the touchdown was at the normal point and in the normal attitude, however the aircraft failed to decelerate on landing.

ffb, at Congonhas there have been more Boeing incidents, this is the first involving an Airbus. Also, when restrictions were applied to the previous runway surface they applied to 2 Boeing 737 variants, and the Fokker 100. There were no prior concerns about the 319/320 landing at Congonhas, except for the general concerns about the location of the airport.

ab

Rippa

18th Jul 2007, 13:13

Two new FACTS:
- One of the pilot's was on his way to the LHS, an therefore, that was a treinee flight. He was a experienced Captain and was on a horizontal move (upgrade) to the A320. I don't know the guys, but some friends told me that they had lot's of flight time (one was a former 767 captain) and great guys to work with. Can add that most part of TAM pilot's has previous experience on the A320 / 330 as F/O's and that CGH (SBSP - Congonhas airport) is the airline's main base of operations, just like LHR for BA...pilot's are familiar with the airport and landing there under nasty weather is not unusual. The airline does not "pressure" the pilot's to land at all cost in CGH under bad weather...it is up to the PIC to decide to land or divert (normaly to GRU - in the same city)
- Chatting with very good friend of mine, he told me that he flew that same aircraft monday and that reverser #2 was INOP (on monday). Although required landing distance does not take into account reverser deployment, this could help to make things worse.

NigelOnDraft

18th Jul 2007, 13:21

- Chatting with very good friend of mine, he told me that he flew that same aircraft monday and that reverser #2 was INOP (on monday). Although required landing distance does not take into account reverser deployment, this could help to make things worse.In our company, I am fairly sure that is correct for DRY runways. For WET operations, I believe TO and Ldg performance are affected...

BOAC

18th Jul 2007, 13:27

Does anyone have sight of any notams regarding 35L at the time?

Rippa

18th Jul 2007, 13:29

Dont have the airport landing analysis at hand, but QRH 04.04 (landing distance with autobrake) does not use REV in the formula...you must apply corrections to "2 rev operative".

brabazon

18th Jul 2007, 13:29

WMG - I am not a pilot, but do know about aircraft performance, hence why I have the book - I did not say that the quote was related to the accident in any way, but that risks are involved. As for calling it a "stupid book" well perhaps others may disagree.

broadreach

18th Jul 2007, 13:29

Congonhas was opened in 1936 and, at the time, all the surrounding area was farmland. However, it was built on the top of a hill and successive lengthenings increased the drop at either end. Urban sprawl gradually took over the farmland.

Up until 1985, when Guarulhos was opened, Congonhas was the city’s main airport, handling aircraft up to 727s; when four-engine jet service began they used Viracopos.

This crash will reopen the debate about whether another airport should be built further south of São Paulo.

barit1

18th Jul 2007, 14:03

eejit has a point, but I do not believe it belongs on this thread.

There are many redundancies built into commercial air transport today, so that variables in mechanical snags, crew performance, wx, etc. can be handled safely.

Had this identical event occurred at an airport with proper overrun space, we would be reading about maybe a $1 million damage and a few minor evacuation injuries, but no loss of life. However the existing Congonhas airport design removed that final layer of redundancy, that final safety cushion, and the loss of life is the direct result of that. The same applies of course to KMDW (http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20051213X01964&key=1).

Propellerhead

18th Jul 2007, 14:16

T/O data is either wet or dry. ALL landing data assumes the runway is wet up to 3mm of water. Over 3mm is flooded and extra corrections apply. In my company we also assume forward idle thrust. There may still be a correction for thrust reverse inop but would have to check MEL. I would say very unlikely that they were landing above their max Landing Weight for the runway.

mjtibbs

18th Jul 2007, 14:42

do any websites have pictures of the scene in daylight?

For some reason all the news websites i've come across only have photo/video from the immediate aftermath.

I am just trying to get a perspective of the scene in daylight.

fireflybob

18th Jul 2007, 14:48

I would suggest that aircraft design is a factor when landing on critical runways. As has been stated it may be the case that benefit from reverse thrust is not accounted for but "older" aircraft had target type thrust reversers which provided a significant amount of aerodynamic braking when they were deployed. The fan type engines do not have this benefit.

My previous post was not intended to malign any specific type but merely a request for some statistical information - ie are certain types more predisposed to overruns when landing on wet runways? I think it's a fair question to ask.

Rippa

18th Jul 2007, 14:48

try this:

www.folha.com.br

Online news website.

HowlingWind

18th Jul 2007, 14:58

Sao Paulo newspaper now reporting that TAM have raised the number of SOB to 186. They now say there were 162 pax and 18 TAM employees in addition to the six crew members assigned to the flight. Up to 14 persons believed killed on the ground.

Link to online story (http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/cotidiano/ult95u312898.shtml) (in Portuguese)

gnadirs

18th Jul 2007, 15:15

Performance lesson:

DRY RWY: reverse thrust is not taken into consideration hence no penalty shall be included in the calculation in case of a reverser inop.

WET RWY: reverse thrust is taken into consideration for TO and LDG.

My condolences to everyone involved in this horrible incident!

PJ2

18th Jul 2007, 15:29

gnadirs;
"DRY RWY: reverse thrust is not taken into consideration hence no penalty shall be included in the calculation in case of a reverser inop.
WET RWY: reverse thrust is taken into consideration for TO and LDG."
Not on the Airbus or Boeing.

Although there are considerations when using takeoff and landing data for contaminated runways when using contaminated runway speeds. But "contaminated" doesn't mean light rain. Post #28 provides the QRH Landing Data for Config FULL. The chart displayed is actually the "Autoland Landing Distance with Autobrake" Chart. You can see in the right-hand columns under "Corrections (%) on landing distance, the 2nd column is "2 Rev. Op." with percentages to subtract from the appropriate landing distance columns on the left (under "Actual Landing Distance (Feet)". Reverse is not taken into account in any of the circumstances listed. The extreme example illustrates this...under "Ice" in the Runway Condition column, the "2 Rev. Op." column shows -23%.

fourgolds

18th Jul 2007, 15:29

I would hate to apportion blame until the final investigation is out. But surely the regulating body and /or airport authority must have some accountability here. Its only political pressure and economics that can continue operations over so many years and so many incidents at what is clearly a dangerous airport. If its true ,the mentioning of a judge,s decision being overruled by a higher authority says it all.Why do the very people that are designed to enforce safety often work against the best interests of us all . This is a warning to all regulating bodies that when issues and incidents ( eg fatigue) are complained about , the pilots are not merely crying wolf . You have an obligation to listen and regulate. ( No offence please to the many regulators who are on the right side of the fence and doing there best to protect us all)

wileydog3

18th Jul 2007, 16:26

"Clearly dangerous"? How so?

Every airline operates with an eye on three factors; safety, risks and economics.
If you want to be completely safe, you don't fly.
If you accept all risks, you are highly vulnerable to accidents/incidents.
If you don't acknowledge economics, you're out of business.

And most everyone has read the report that was published years ago that said a fatal accident will cost a carrier OVER $1 BILLION US in lost revenue and law suits so I doubt anyone will knowingly operate in and out of a 'clearly dangerous' airport, much less make it a hub.

If one is ready to bandy about 'clearly dangerous' because they have runways less than 8000ft long, airports in the US such as LGA, DCA, SAN, Burbank, MDW and others would have to be closed.

And while we are terming it a 'clearly dangerous' airport, what kind of pilot would routinely fly in and out of a 'clearly dangerous' airport. For that to happen you have to assume a rational person is consciously making irrational decisions. Who does that on a continuing basis?

Dysonsphere

18th Jul 2007, 16:46

A pilot who needs to keep his job , never under estemate management pressure

wileydog3

18th Jul 2007, 17:07

"A pilot who needs to keep his job , never under estemate management pressure"

IF a 4-stripe knowingly flies into an airport that is 'clearly dangerous', s/he has no business in the cockpit or for that matter working in any capacity that involves making any decision where life is involved. And with an A320 you have to have 2 people in the cockpit who concede to 'management pressure' knowing the result may well be death if not at least severe injury and incapacitation. And if one of the DH crewmembers was in the cockpit, that is more than 2 people who are risking life and limb to keep a job.

My point.. no one knowingly attempts to land at a 'clearly dangerous' airport. One doesn't survive long doing that. Let me add, as an old guy with almost 40yrs in the cockpit, I have *NEVER* made an approach and landing to an airport I considered 'clearly dangerous' regardless of what management said. (note: comments meant for peacetime civilian ops and not military ops where all bets are off when it comes to some missions)

Vapor

18th Jul 2007, 17:17

Nice to see that the BBC have done a lot of ground work on the report, they have listed the carriers that the use the A320 as Operators include: TAM - Brazil; Nouvelair - Tunisia; Air Cairo - Egypt; Wizz Air - Hungar
Obviously the more well known airlines!

They must have read your post Scudpilot, the BBC have changed their list of A320 operators!
Launched: 1998
In operation: 1,700
Operators include: British Airways; Air France; Air Canada; China Eastern Airlines; Iberia; United Airlines; Jet Blue Airways
They just have to get the decade right now..

wingview

18th Jul 2007, 17:39

The runway seems, from what I've heard, about 100 ft higher than the freeway around the airport. I didn't hear anything of casulties on the freeway so it must have had some speed and a bit of lift to fly over the road and then sadly crashing into that building.
How quick will the engines respond for a GA after have them at idle for landing and does the wet rwy have any effect on this?

slip and turn

18th Jul 2007, 17:44

I don't know what the decade has to do with it, Vapor, but this is the century after man safely landed six manned spacecraft on the moon, with no go arounds unless you count Apollos 8, 9 and 13.

wileydog3 is on the money with his thought-provoking observations here:
Every airline operates with an eye on three factors; safety, risks and economics.
If you want to be completely safe, you don't fly.
If you accept all risks, you are highly vulnerable to accidents/incidents.
If you don't acknowledge economics, you're out of business.
.... what kind of pilot would routinely fly in and out of a 'clearly dangerous' airport? For that to happen you have to assume a rational person is consciously making irrational decisions. Who does that on a continuing basis?

However, I think the jury has to be out on rational persons consciously making irrational decisions especially when politics and commercial interests dare them to differ, so I am less inclined to agree with the next quote:
My point.. no one knowingly attempts to land at a 'clearly dangerous' airport. One doesn't survive long doing that.
I think they might survive for as long as their luck lasts.

I very much agree with (note: comments meant for peacetime civilian ops and not military ops where all bets are off when it comes to some missions) All is fair in love and war ... but that's the proviso that seems so easily to creep into peacetime civilian ops thesedays to keep stockholders happy.

I always feel very sad when I learn of lives lost of innocent victims of political will.

fourgolds

18th Jul 2007, 17:54

Dear Wileydog

There is no professional pilot who would knowingly operate into a dangerous airport . Well thats debatable. However thats not my point , you have misunderstood. I am merely saying that economics and corruption often take precedent over safety. Its the world we live in. As pilots we are the final link in the chain but what I am saying is that the regulating authority where responsible need to share accountability. Let me give an example.

Airport "x" maintainance authorities discover huge rubber deposits on the only runway. The junior manager advises his superior who agrees. So the beraucratic procedure starts .ie getting permissions , the issuing of notams etc.Problem is that airport "x" will have to be closed for some time to allow for the said maintainance at great costs to the local operator. So it is agreed by some sort of a risk management model to contiue opps ( example its not the rainy season so we dont have to worry for now) ,( i.e. the rubber deposits when wet turn into a slippy blubber)
Now what happens is that your highly professional colleague in the flight deck who would never fly into an airport that is " obviously dangerous" happens to be the first to land after a surprise rain shower has moved through the field. And my Goodness an aquaplane and off the runway.

So what I am saying is that often " overruled your Honour" takes precedent over " thank you your honour we are onto it"

My condolenses to all concerned .

Rippa

18th Jul 2007, 18:24

Last report:

- Aircraft had 62.7 Tons at landing (maximum is 64.5 Tons for wet runway at CGH)
- Both pilots were captains (I appologize for my previous post). Master pilot had 13.000 TT and has been with TAM for 19 years and the other captain had 11.000 TT, 6 months with TAM (master = more senior)

NigelOnDraft

18th Jul 2007, 18:56

To those of you quoting QRH Ldg Dists... In our Ops, these are for "non-normals" only... and for consultation "in flight". The Manual Land tables further state they assume "Max Manual Braking" and "Max Reverse" and are unfactored. They go on to say that an appropriate factor should be added, and that "50% is a conservative factor".
For planning purposes, there is a Performance Manual distance, and it is this distance that is amended by the MEL. I again state I believe that 1 Rev U/S would affect the "Wet" landing distance using the planning criteria.

Flapping_Madly

18th Jul 2007, 19:14

Please forgive a silly question from SLF.

If the airport is tight and so unforgiving why is it the busiest airport in South America.?

Are the folks at Guarulhos sitting around wondering if it something someone said that keeps them all away?

NW1

18th Jul 2007, 19:28

gnadirs: You really shouldn't introduce a posting with an arrogant title such as "performance lesson" and then produce incorrect information. a) it makes you look silly and b) it might mislead those wanting to learn.

Rainboe

18th Jul 2007, 19:31

Because Sao Paulo is I believe, almost the worlds most populated city. It's enormous. You are 30 miles out at about 12,000 on the approach flying over skyscrapers, and 30 miles later you land having flown all the way over skyscrapers. Quite a staggering sight. What has busy airports and being tight and unforgiving got to do with each other? There is no connection. Don't understand what your last line means.

easyprison

18th Jul 2007, 19:38

If the runway was ungrooved and was of concern the airline should have protested.

Does this remind any of of easyJet Vs Bristol Airport a few months ago?!!!

Rippa

18th Jul 2007, 19:39

If I am not mistaken, Sao Paulo metropolitan area has around 12 million people. As all big cities, SP has a nasty traffic...sometimes around 100km during rush hours. Happens that CGH is in the middle of the city and GRU is far from the center, so it is more easy to get to where you have to be (home, meetings, etc...) landing at CGH. As any business, airlines follow passenger demand (supply X demand) and this is why it is one of the busiest airports in SA.

alexmcfire

18th Jul 2007, 19:53

Hindsight is always 20/20, but I think more space is needed around the airport, roads around it should be overbuilt to tunnels.

wileydog3

18th Jul 2007, 19:54

I know the old axiom is "I would rather be real lucky than just good" but one does not plan on luck being the prime factor in a successful aviation career.

Again, we can rewrite the equation with unknowns but again, rational people do not knowingly make irrational decisions. People do not make mistakes on purpose. That is not a 'mistake' but rather a 'violation'. I have never heard in the cockpit, "Hey guys.. this is real stupid and dangerous but here goes." And the crew says, "Sure, let's try it."

Yes, people do act with insufficient information and I have heard more than one 'experience is what you get when you were expecting something else."

Here in the we have a number of paradox airports such as LGA and DCA where you do not have overruns, do not have long runways and have very complex weather systems which produce fog, snow and other significant 'threats', to use the jargon. The paradox is that since the margins are already reduced by the very physical nature of the airport and environment, most of the guys I know and flew with adopted a very tight attitude as to what was acceptable and what was not. Thus, it was the pilot that compensated for a less than stellar facility. Thus, also, the airport was not 'clearly dangerous'. Challenging maybe but not 'clearly dangerous'.

akerosid

18th Jul 2007, 19:59

Came across this Youtube video on A.net, of an A320 arriving on the far end, 17R. As Rainboe points out above, you can see the sheer size of the metropolis in this footage. As the aircraft comes in on short finals, you can also just see a TAM building to the right of the picture, above the FO's glareshield; I assume this is where the 320 stopped?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZ77mPgJ_Sk

wileydog3

18th Jul 2007, 20:12

you have, by your own comments, said it was conditions not known to the pilot that constitutes a 'surprise' and it is the 'surprise' that makes the airport 'clearly dangerous'. Again, no one charges into an accident on purpose and so I maintain that one does not knowingly fly into a 'clearly dangerous' airport.

And yes, everyone involved shares responsibility and yes the PIC is the final authority on whether or not the flight continues. And no doubt, every group can gather statistics to show what is 'normal' or 'routine' into an airport and use that data to support any position whether it be increased ops, limited ops, no ops and all could be argued on safety merits.

I have to wonder if TAM has a FOQA program and what data they have on actual ops into and out of the airport. My previous 'home' had FOQA and we found there was considerable difference between what was the assumed environment and the real environment.

PK-KAR

18th Jul 2007, 20:24

Rippa, Has TAM denied the reverser #2 being inop in its press conference? :bored:

Cheers...

Rippa

18th Jul 2007, 20:32

No. I watched the press conference and the VP of ops told the press that the rev #2 was inop (secured closed). The VP of engeneering didnt give much attention to that, replying that the reversers are not mandatory for CGH ops and that the landing weight was within safety margins (62.7 T)..in other words, aircraft was within flight envelope.
Here is a internal email from TAM's president (could someone translate???)

COMUNICADO DA PRESIDÊNCIA
É com muita tristeza que informo sobre o acidente com o nosso vôo JJ 3054, que deixou o aeroporto Salgado Filho, em Porto Alegre, às 17h16 de ontem, com destino ao aeroporto de Congonhas, em São Paulo.
Em meu nome, de toda a direção da TAM, de nossos acionistas e funcionários, quero manifestar nossa mais irrestrita solidariedade às famílias das vítimas. Nossa prioridade absoluta, neste momento de dor, é apoiar os familiares e amigos dos passageiros, funcionários e tripulantes. Estamos adotando todos os esforços para oferecer o amparo possível em face deste trágico acontecimento.
Desde os primeiros momentos, a TAM mobilizou todo o seu corpo funcional, equipes de médicos, psicólogos e assistentes sociais para as medidas necessárias. Já estamos providenciando o transporte de familiares das vítimas de outros estados para São Paulo e assegurando o atendimento por meio de nosso Programa de Assistência às Vítimas e Familiares.
Temos que aguardar os resultados das investigações para saber as causas que levaram a essa tragédia. Asseguramos que a tripulação (comandante, co-piloto e comissárias) era de grande competência, experiência, dedicação e absolutamente treinada dentro das recomendações da aviação mundial. A aeronave Airbus A320 prefixo MBK, incorporada a nossa frota em dezembro de 2006, estava em perfeitas condições de manutenção, de aeronavegabilidade e de operação.
O momento é de apoio às famílias dos 162 passageiros, 6 tripulantes, 18 funcionários da TAM que estavam a bordo da aeronave e também nossos colaboradores e clientes que se encontravam no nosso terminal de cargas, na avenida Washington Luiz, quando ocorreu o acidente: três vítimas fatais, cinco desaparecidos e 11 hospitalizados.
Nossa empresa está oferecendo total colaboração e acompanhará de perto as investigações conduzidas pelas autoridades aeronáuticas.
Mesmo em luto, asseguramos que nossas operações continuam regulares.
Marco Antonio Bologna
Presidente da TAM

lomapaseo

18th Jul 2007, 20:50

NW1
gnadirs: You really shouldn't introduce a posting with an arrogant title such as "performance lesson" and then produce incorrect information. a) it makes you look silly and b) it might mislead those wanting to learn.

I appreciate differences in interpretation being discussed openly on this board. At this time this discussion may be highly relavant for general A320operations into and out of CGH.

If you may could you explain the significance of reverser placarded operations in these circumstances?

akerosid

18th Jul 2007, 20:58

No expert on Portuguese, but I'll make a stab at it:

With much sadness, we report an accident to our flight JJ 3054, which left Salgado Filho Airport, Porto Alegre, at 17.16 local time, bound for Sao Paolo Congonhas.
On my behalf and from all directors of TAM, from our employees, we express our strongest solidarity with the families of the victims. Our absolute priority right now is with the families and friends of the passengers, employees and crew. We hope to do everything we can to help in the face of this tragedy.
From the first moments (after the crash), TAM mobilised its entire corporation, teams of doctors, psychologists and social assistance as required.We hope to provide transport for families of victims from outside Sao Paolo, as part of our Program of Assistance for the Families of Victims. We await the results (?) of the investigation of the circumstances leading to this tragedy. Be assured that the crew (captain, co pilot and cabin crew) had great competence, experience and dedication and were trained to the highest world standards. The aircraft, registered MBK (PT-MBK) was incorporated into our fleet in December 2006 and was in perfect condition of maintenance, navigation (?) and operation.
(?) ... 162 passengers, 6 crew, 18 TAM employees on board our aircraft, together with clients and colleagues in our cargo terminal on Avenue Washington Luiz, where the accident took place, 3 victims dead, 5 missing (?) and 11 hospitalised.
We promise our total cooperation with the civil aviation authorities in the course of the investigation.
Meanwhile, our operations continue as normal.
Respectfully,
M A Bologna
President of TAM

a320_richie

18th Jul 2007, 21:02

I just finished my type-rating A320, so could someone please explain what's wrong with the following calculation:

Approx. LDW 140.000 Lbs
Airport elevation approx. 2500 feet (ISA)
According to the met. report in a post above: 10 kts tailwind
water on the runway approx 1/4 inch

actual landing distance:
5430 feet (config full)
543 feet correction (4% per 1000ft above SL)
1140 feet correction (21% per 10 kts tail wind)
-----
7113 feet

LDA according to Jeppesen chart 10-9 (9 sep 05) 5938 feet

PJ2

18th Jul 2007, 21:10

NigelOnDraft;
If I want to know how much runway the aircraft is actually going to take to come to a full stop from a height of 50ft, I would consult the "Actual Landing Distance without Autobrake - Config FULL" to get an idea of what a very aggressive approach/touchdown would produce - (the landing is, as you know, practically no flare and max braking to a full stop, engines in forward idle thrust the whole time). Then I would consult the "Actual Landing Distance with Autobrake - Config FULL or Config 3" to see the effects of Brakes LOW and MED and the reduced flap configuration. Neither chart takes into account or requires the use of reverse thrust.

I fully agree with you that these are the charts, rather, more specifically, the "Actual Landing Distance without Autobrake - Config FULL" charts, which are used in ECAM work and other abnormalities covered by the QRH and in that work, wet and contaminated runway factors do indeed assume the use of maximum reverse on the operating engines/reversers.

But the raw charts in and of themselves present useful, practical and actual test-flight data that can be used independantly of factors applied in abnormalities and as such these raw distances are not affected by the use (or lack) of reverse thrust. The effects of maximum reverse are incorporated in the factors presented in the QRH abnormalities, (QRH Ch.2) under the WET and CONTAM columns.

The charts you refer to for planning purposes are indeed for Dispatch only and carry the x1.67 factor along with an additional 15% because the runway is always assumed to be wet. These numbers are not intended for use once in flight but are to check academic legalities for dispatch in re the above 1.67 and 1.15 factors. The actual landing distance charts have no such factors incorporated.

BOAC

18th Jul 2007, 21:17

a320:

As I read it, you have the wrong runway. It appears to have been 35L (with a headwind?)

Capt. Inop

18th Jul 2007, 21:18

eagle21

18th Jul 2007, 21:21

Quote:

I just finished my type-rating A320, so could someone please explain what's wrong with the following calculation:

Approx. LDW 140.000 Lbs
Airport elevation approx. 2500 feet (ISA)
According to the met. report in a post above: 10 kts tailwind
water on the runway approx 1/4 inch

actual landing distance:
5430 feet (config full)
543 feet correction (4% per 1000ft above SL)
1140 feet correction (21% per 10 kts tail wind)
-----
7113 feet

LDA according to Jeppesen chart 10-9 (9 sep 05) 5938 feet

You have assumed the RWY was contaminated. Was it? a 1/4 of a inch is 5.5 milimeters. A RWY can be WET without being contaminated provided the standing water is less than 3 milimeters.

This is my understanding.

NigelOnDraft

18th Jul 2007, 21:34

PJ2NigelOnDraft;
If I want to know how much runway the aircraft is actually going to take to come to a full stop from a height of 50ft, I would consult the "Actual Landing Distance without Autobrake - Config FULL" to get an idea of what a very aggressive approach/touchdown would produce - (the landing is, as you know, practically no flare and max braking to a full stop, engines in forward idle thrust the whole time). Then I would consult the "Actual Landing Distance with Autobrake - Config FULL or Config 3" to see the effects of Brakes LOW and MED and the reduced flap configuration. Neither chart takes into account or requires the use of reverse thrust.Our charts must be different to yours ;) We only have "A320 Ldg Dist without Autobrake" which state "..assume max Manual Braking and maximum reverse thrust".

We then have some "Autoland" charts and correction factors...

manrow

18th Jul 2007, 21:37

I think we are all in danger here of quoting SOME of the rules but missing the obvious rules of how the regulations are achieved.
All aircraft I believe have to demonstrate that they can land safely on runways when they are slippery for whatever reasons.
But they achieve the numbers by applying correct techniques which most of us are trying to avoid. They put it down on the correct area (not trying to show how clever we are with a smooth arrival); apply maximum retardation with reverse and brakes (so hell with passenger comfort lets stop it when in doubt). They then factor the numbers to allow an allowance for us not getting it right.
So where is the problem?
I suspect it is in our jaundiced view that we wish to show passengers how smooth our operation is - big deal 200 die as a result?
I relate all this as a pilot who found it very difficult to put the aircraft down firmly on suspected contaminated runways. You have been warned!

Admiral346

18th Jul 2007, 21:48

PJ2- I almost agree with you:
the charts for actual landing distance are produced as you discribe - the only problem is: they are produced by test pilots, who have several tries to achieve the best possible performance. I don't know about you, but I am no test pilot. I am what you call in Germany a "line-swine". And I have pax in the back who do not appreciate being slammed onto a RWY at 600 fpm. All this influences my habbits of landing a plane, and I do land harder in the winter on a 2000m RWY than in summer on a 4000m. But I am a victim of my habbits. Do you get what I mean? I always try to consider the weaknesses I have - not being a test pilot, being tired, fatigued, no new brakes, tyres... and add my 30% to what the chart gives.

Nic

PJ2

18th Jul 2007, 22:02

eagle21;

It looks to me like the "Autoland Landing Distance with Autobrake" chart has been used by Capt. Inop. Using this chart the numbers, correcting for the headwind/tailwind item already mentioned by BOAC and taking your comment into account that the runway was just wet but not flooded (I would agree given the wx above), the calculation (using my own Airbus QRH which may differ slightly due different manufacture weights), would be closer to:

Autoland Landing Distance with Autobrake
62,700kg approx
Config FULL with Autobrakes MED distance WET = 5200ft approx
Altitude correction, 3%/1000 = 7.5% x 5200 = 5600 approximately
2 Reversers operative = 0% - no credit, no liability.
Minus Headwind of 8kts or so, (-3% approx) = 5600 - 3% = 5400ft approx

The tables take into account speed increments linked to headwind and autoland. Any further speed increment of 5 knots increases landing distance by 7% for all runways.

The Landing Distance Without Autobrake Config FULL is much shorter because of the landing technique assumed - hardly any flare, immediate maximum manual braking until stopped, no reverse accounted for:

62,000kg
Wet distance = 3760ft (compared to 2690ft DRY)
4%/1000ft ASL = 10% x 3760 = 4100ft approx
No credit for headwind
- 6% for 2 Reversers Operative = 4100ft - 6% = 3900ft approx.

E&OE...

We must be very cautious with these numbers however - a great many assumptions are made and we're working with practically no information and as such the exercise is an academic one. Also, no pilot fully expects to "slam" his/her aircraft onto the runway and execute maximum braking when, in the moment, there is no emergency or abnormality. Thus drawing conclusions from this exercise would be folly. The investigation does this for real.

To the family, friends of all passengers and to compatriots of the operating and deadheading crew and to all Brazillians who must endure this tragedy so soon after another, I extend my heartfelt sympathies. Your pain is shared by many, including airline crews the world over. RIP.

PJ2

18th Jul 2007, 22:09

Admiral346;

"Line - swine"...LOL, and I most assuredly belong in that grand class - no test pilot talking here. Absolutely I get what you mean.

One item though...these charts aren't meant for line operations but are created as a baseline upon which factors emerging from abnormals are calculated. They represent the best the airplane can do and no I don't think I could slam an airplane on, not, at least, intentionally, as good as a test pilot who did it for a living. But, in contrast to previous manuals in my experience anyway, the information is there and not absent as it was from so many previous FCOMs and AOMs.

NigelOnDraft, yes, ok, and understand - thanks.

Max Tow

18th Jul 2007, 22:22

Going back to Rippa's earlier report of the press conference, how can an aircraft with inop thrust reverser (if that is so) be described as "in perfect condition of maintenance"?

Rainboe

18th Jul 2007, 22:35

Because reversers are not 'required'. They are available as a useful addition to retardation only, but not essential. No doubt the aeroplane was very well maintained. Most airliners are flying around with various items going unserviceable almost by each leg. It's a fact of life, and no big deal. A reverser U/S is just one of those things.
Until further information comes in, I suggest we don't go blaming this aspect. The important thing at the moment is to just establish exactly what happened with none of that daft speculation that took place with the Kenyan accident!

Rippa

18th Jul 2007, 22:36

Dispatched according MEL

theamrad

18th Jul 2007, 22:40

UTV news this evening stated definitively that the accident was caused by a “faulty runway” continuing to be used. – Great – who needs details – better still who needs investigators, their (usually) extensive experience base in piloting, engineering, aircraft status/performance, regulations, human factors, etc etc.; not to mention weeks or months (sometimes years) of work – We’ve got UTV.

Seriously, does anyone know about the touchdown (in ‘normal’ box for CGH or late) or the rumour about an attempted GA ‘on the ground’ – is it true or false? Was the runway contaminated or ‘just’ wet?

I can’t imagine the horror for relatives of the victims – especially those who witnessed it or the immediate aftermath – my thoughts are with them.

Rippa

18th Jul 2007, 22:45

Runway was wet. Sao Paulo tower has a policy of "closing" the airport when the runway is contaminated (takeoff and landings are suspended). I had to divert sometimes becouse of that...The rain last days has been constant, but light, just like a cold winter day.

broadreach

18th Jul 2007, 22:59

An observation regarding standing water at Congonhas.

The rain began on Sunday 15th and only let up this afternoon, the 18th. Prior to that, and throughout most of the time the main runway at CGH was being resurfaced, there was a long dry spell, no rain other than the very occasional drizzle. The runway was reopened around the end of June or a fortnight ago and this was the first real rainfall the new surface had seen. Presumably also the first opportunity to measure standing water.

On any new flat surface of that area, there are going to be places where the runoff is slower than others, and which the people who go out and measure depth will need a few heavy rainfalls to learn about and pay special attention to. Apparently, standing water was being measured regularly during this last rainy spell; I just wonder how thoroughly a team can actually take measurements between takoffs and landings at a very busy airport, and whether there might not have been deeper patches in spots they hadn't had time to check.

Added to which, the gunk of rubber accumulating for a few weeks on new, dry concrete and then loosened up by rain. According to the media there were numerous reports by crews to the tower at CGH that the surface was especially slippery. Rippa might be able to corroborate this or say the reports were nothing out of the normal griping.

As background, I live and work 2.8 miles southwest of CGH, at the top of a building from which I can see the runway and which gets pretty much the same weather. The roof leaks in heavy rain and the small pool does when over a certain level so I keep a very close eye on rainfall. Between Sunday and today there’s been about 60mm but I can’t recall any time during the three days of rain when the terrace was really splashy drenched. Granted, it’s drained but there’s hardly any slope. So I wonder how thorough that measuring really is and whether there are places it puddles but that haven’t yet been identified.

theamrad

18th Jul 2007, 23:34

Thanks for the rain info gentlemen.

The comments on last years B734 overrun thread seem so much more prophetic now in the aftermath of this tragedy.

Interesting about the close for the contaminated case, but then as broadreach intimates concerning newly laid surface, long dry spell and expected build up of rubber deposits - followed by first rain........at least has the potential to be very nasty.

Rippa

19th Jul 2007, 00:09

One of the many evening news brought a video of the accident, aperantly a surveillance camera from the operational side of the airport. The video shows two landings (first nomal landing and the second was the accident). I could see that the second Airbus was faster than the first one...and a explosion.
It will soon be at youtube I belive...

Max Tow

19th Jul 2007, 00:12

Rainboe: My point is that for anyone (let alone the airline head) to state without qualification that the aircraft was in "perfect condition of maintenance" is premature pending the investigation. If indeed TAM have also agreed that there was u/s thrust reverse, "adequate" might already be a more sensitive description of the aircraft's condition, particularly when an aircraft has suffered an overrun accident of this nature. Even better, why can't these people just say that every aspect of the operation will be investigated and leave it at that.
Incidentally, your own assertion that "no doubt the aeroplane was very well maintained" also seems to evidence the very speculation which you seek to discourage, unless your location is somewhere more relevant than Hampshire.

Rippa

19th Jul 2007, 00:47

This gives an idea...

http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/cotidiano/ult95u312781.shtml

ATCNetwork

19th Jul 2007, 01:10

Press release from IFATCA

18 July 2007
PRESS RELEASE
Air Safety Compromised in Brazil
IFATCA offers its condolences to the families of this tragic accident involving TAM, which
happened in Congonhas Airport in Sao Paolo. We received the news of this accident with horror,
but not total disbelief.
Following the mid-air collision in September 2006, this is yet another disastrous civil aviation
accident in Brazil in a short period. In both cases numerous warning signs, multiple risks and
safety relevant reports were ignored.
IFATCA has condemned the stance of the Brazilian Government to let the military FAB introduce
its so called Plan B. This plan was to jail leaders of the air traffic controllers’ association and
replace highly skilled and trained ATCOs by military air defense personnel who are neither
trained, nor qualified to control civilian traffic.
"How many more people will be killed before the Brazilian governments stops the FAB's live
experiments on the traveling public's safety?" says the President of IFATCA, Mr. Marc
Baumgartner. The Brazilian government has focused much energy in chasing scapegoats
instead of re-engineering the necessary safety oversight and risk assessment to prevent
Brazilian civil aviation from falling into deeper chaos. By delegating safety oversight, safety
management and safety provision to the FAB, the Brazilian government is endangering the lives
of the traveling public in Brazil. Warnings on the conditions at the airport in Congonhas have
repeatedly been ignored by the authorities.
"IFATCA urges the government of Brazil to stop the current repressive organizations of Air
Traffic Control and civil aviation in Brazil. Air safety is currently compromised and is a danger to
the traveling public, the Brazilian economy and the credibility of the Brazilian state as a great
nation of this world. Continuing to ignore internationally agreed standards on Air Traffic
Management and Airport design (layout) will only lead to further hardship and possibly more
accidents", warns the President of IFATCA.

HowlingWind

19th Jul 2007, 01:17

Rippa, I believe the second video here may be the one you referred to. The first one shows the explosion just off the left side of the screen, but it clearly lights up the sky.

http://g1.globo.com/Noticias/SaoPaulo/0,,MUL72804-5605,00.html

BTW, a slight correction to some earlier information here -- reg was PR-MBK, not PT-MBK. Previously it was N454TA with TACA and VN-A168 with Pacific Airlines.

londonmet

19th Jul 2007, 01:18

The shoddy job at Bristol spring to mind?

Rippa

19th Jul 2007, 01:42

Yep, that the video...
TAM also lands at SDU (SBRJ - Rio de Janeiro) with the A319. The runway is shorter (1390 mts X 45 mts), but at sea level and has a great breaking action.

lomapaseo

19th Jul 2007, 02:04

the comparison between the two videos doesn't really show a touchdown speed but it appears to show a substantial difference in the amount of water thrown forward by the wheels and/or thrust reverse.

Rippa

19th Jul 2007, 02:13

On the second video, there are 2 different landings. Note that the first Airbus is already at taxi speed and clearing the runway, but the second one seems to be at full reverse, way faster and sliding to the left, into the taxiway F.
The first video is the accident in slow motion and closer (zoom).

duwde

19th Jul 2007, 03:03

Here's another video showing multiple cameras of the accident:
http://noticias.uol.com.br/uolnews/brasil/2007/07/18/ult2486u946.jhtm
(First they show a standard landing, and later the accident plane landing)

I'm from Brazil and the only thing I fly is flight simulator, but ísn't there a big difference in speed in the video ? It seems to me that the plane was at high speed (about +-80kias) at the end of the runway...

I know the 2nd reverser wasn't working (as stated here by Rippa, and reported by TAM in they press report). I also know that the runway didn't have the "grooves". But would the plane end the runway at high speed even without the 2nd reverser and the grooves ?

What may have caused this accident ? Certanly the pilot knew the plane was going too fast and wouldn't be able to stop, did he try to take off again ? Why didn't it work ?

I know I'm just speculating on this, but at first I thought that the plane was trying to stop and somehow wasn't able (because of many factors, including 2nd reversor, wealther conditions, weight, and many more). But after seeing this video it's clear to me that the pilot KNEW that the plane would not be able to stop a long time before ending the runway...

finfly1

19th Jul 2007, 03:51

Why is the NTSB going to involve themself in a South American airline crashing at a South American airport, flown presumably by a South American pilot flying a European jet?

Ignition Override

19th Jul 2007, 04:28

There was a lot of debate about whether a given jet has certain penalties on wet runways, whether with spoilers, reversers or whatever.

I don't see the point of such debate, unless the Captain used less than conservative judgement (ignored major penalties in the MEL) when he/she accepted the aircraft for the flight, given awareness of the very short runway, the status of thrust reversers, autospoilers, anti-skid etc, or should he have delayed the approach, possibly finding a nearby alternate airport (within fuel range) with a longer runway? When the landing gear are extended on many planes, an antiskid light is sometimes displayed, telling you that you need to go fairly easy on the brakes. No sweat with a long runway if you land in the touchdown zone.
About two winters ago, I told Dispatch that we would only operate with part of the flight release 'tanker fuel' (for cost) to an airport in the 'remote Midwest' with short runways (less than 8,000'). There were scattered patches of melting snow.

National Public Radio (US) today stated that the flying pilot tried to attempt a takeoff just after the landing. The press might have received totally inaccurate information. Few members of the press have a Private Pilot's license, and not many understand the factors involved with any takeoff or landing.

PJ2

19th Jul 2007, 04:57

Ignition Override;

re, There was a lot of debate about whether a given jet has certain penalties on wet runways, whether with spoilers, reversers or whatever.

I don't see the point of such debate

The debate is valuable if for no other reason than it puts information in front of a very large community many of whom may be professional airline pilots flying the same equipment. Such discussion clarifies these matters, hopefully reduces misunderstandings and may put knowledge in a pilot's hands with which to handle future circumstances.

The "debate" (don't think it was quite that) isn't about searching for answers to this accident - not at all, at least that certainly isn't my own interest; - there's investigators for that and most here know enough to wait for their work to unfold. But the interest in these circumstances is clearly very high, almost certainly for the reasons given. We cannot possibly surmise what was on the Captain's mind at this point, if ever, but sufficient research can be done regarding the planning stages of the flight to hopefully gain valuable insight.

There would be no reason not to assume that the crew was as conservative as was demanded by the situation, a situation with which we may be certain they had seen many times before.

The media speculation we see is standard fare, much as the "expert" with the PPL. It soon goes away, leaving the investigators to their sad tasks and the families to grieve in private.

finfly1;

re, Why is the NTSB going to involve themself in a South American airline crashing at a South American airport, flown presumably by a South American pilot flying a European jet?

Although I cannot point to the direct relationship, likely it has to do with ICAO Annex 13 which provides for varying levels of official status for foreign investigative bodies. The aircraft is certified in the US and this may be enough to provide the connection, or they may be invited for certain expertise on a consultative basis. The Canadians have vast experience with "contaminated" runways (CRFI, for one tool), wet or snow-covered and may also be part of any investigation.

manrow

19th Jul 2007, 05:37

finfly1

While there is intense competition between the aircraft manufacturers across the Atlantic, there is thankfully enormous co-operation between the accident investigation bodies worldwide, and as others have posted there are pockets of expertise scattered all over the world.

Furthermore this accident, like all others, will be looked at by manufacturers and regulators alike to see if lessons can yet again be learnt for the benefit of the flight crews and hence the passengers at large.

Major Attack

19th Jul 2007, 05:51

I thing the answer is easier then that.

According to Annex 13 the representatives from the accident boards of the followin countries should be invited to any accident investigation.
1. The country where the accident happened (obviously)
2. The country where the aircraft was registrated.
3. The country where the aircraft was built
4. The country where the engines were built

MJ

OverRun

19th Jul 2007, 07:15

The two components of wet weather friction on runways are skid resistance and macrotexture. This runway lacked macrotexture because the grooving was not yet done, which would have increased the risk of aquaplaning when there was water on the runway. But it may also have lacked wet skid resistance.

In some cases of new asphalt surfacings, but not all, the wet skid resistance may be unexpectedly low for a short time (Low here is defined as the skid resistance level which would trigger an investigation for higher-risk sites).

Some research has confirmed the suggestion that these “early life” phenomena can be attributed to the presence of a film of binder that can adhere to the surface of the aggregate for a significant period of time (until the traffic wears it off).

The binder film appears to have several effects, of which the key one for this wet runway is:
(i) It prevents the microtexture on the aggregate particles making contact with the tyre, resulting in lower wet friction at higher speeds than would normally be expected.

The fact that the runway was wet for several days leads me to also speculate about some slight emulsification occurring of the bitumen. Depending on the properties of the bitumen, this could also lead to either more of this binder film or even another film on the surface. Accentuating the problem. It would be nice to see some [accurate] wet weather skid resistance measurement results on the runway.

BOAC

19th Jul 2007, 07:57

Assuming that in the second video the film speeds are the same, the speed (in frame) would appear to be over 3 times higher, and it looks as if a single reverser (No 1) is in use.

Does no-one have the relevant Notams for the day in question?

Dreadful to watch.

skiesfull

19th Jul 2007, 08:28

Certification of the aircraft assumes that for a wet or dry runway, reverse is not required. However, in determining the minimum landing distance required for the configuration and conditions, the lack of available reverse thrust means an additional distance should be factored into the calculations. I assume that TAM's MEL refers to dispatch with an u/s T/R as requiring reference to additional landing distance required?
If the weather reported in an earlier post was correct at the time of landing, then the correct landing technique should have been as follows:-
correct land flap setting, approach speed close to Vref, firm touchdown on the touchdown point (and on centreline), immediate deployment of speedbrakes/spoilers, immediate application of wheelbrakes (auto or manual),selection of available reverse. The retardation should aim to bring the speed close to taxi speed before encountering the rubber deposits at the reciprocal touchdown point.
It is the task of the investigating authorities, to determine whether or not the above techniques were not used and if that is the reason for the overrun.They may determine that other factors such as runway surface condition or precipitation/contamination were causal factors.
Too many overruns are happening because of inappropriate technique. Perhaps the professional pilots amongst us, should ask their simulator instructor to allow them 5 minutes to practise a landing on a short runway in conditions such as turbulence with moderate rain. It is the best place to hone such skills - unfortunately simulator sessions are all-too-often box-ticking exercises with no time for developing basic skills.

Brian Abraham

19th Jul 2007, 08:38

Seems as it may not be a over run as in failure to stop, but perhaps a failed attempt to over shoot. Would explain your high speed observation BOAC. From Avweb for what its worth

A320 Crash In Brazil Prompts Calls For Change
Thousands of runways around the world have inadequate overrun safety areas, the International Federation of Air Line Pilots' Associations said on Wednesday, a day after a TAM Airlines Airbus A320 crashed in Brazil, killing at least 189 people. The crew had been trying to land on a wet runway at Sao Paulo Cagonhas Airport, and took off again when they were unable to stop. The airplane cleared the airport fence and a highway but crashed into a gas station and a building before exploding into flames. The 6,362-foot runway has often been criticized as too short. Runway-end safety areas should be established at all airports with airline operations, IFALPA said, with an overrun space at least 800 feet long or an arrestor system that could halt an errant aircraft. This week's crash is now the worst air disaster ever for Brazil, superseding the death toll of 154 in last September's crash of a Gol Airlines 737 that collided in midair with an Embraer Legacy business jet. The NTSB has sent a team to Brazil to assist in the investigation.

Wonder what remarks the investigation into the 737 incident in March last year had to make re the over run.

cwatters

19th Jul 2007, 08:39

> In some cases of new asphalt surfacings, but not all, the wet skid
> resistance may be unexpectedly low for a short time.

This appears to be well known for roads - particularly by motorcyclists. Some documents on the web suggest it can take upto 3 years for the film to oxidise and be worn off on a road. I would hope technology is more advanced for runways.

TwoOneFour

19th Jul 2007, 08:50

Daftest related story: the report in Emirates Today (http://www.zawya.com/Story.cfm/sidZAWYA20070719040557/SecIndustries/pagTransport/chnMiddle%20East%20Transport%20News/obj224033E5-8F1A-11D4-867000D0B74A0D7C/) which says EK is not changing plans to serve Sao Paulo, which misses entirely the fact that EK would actually be operating to a different airport. :ugh:

Rainboe

19th Jul 2007, 08:58

One notes the following:
-It is apparent that the speed was high near the usual turn-off with high reverse on No.1 showing.
-It is thought a go-around was being attempted. There cannot have been much runway left from the point where of usual turn-off, therefore not much time to allow for transit of No.1 from high reverse to reverse idle to forward idle to power up.
-The evidence shows there was a marked swing left off the runway. If indeed a go-around from a short runway landing was being attempted, it seems highly possible only high power from one engine (the right) was likely to be available whilst No.1 would still be transiting or increasing power. At the sub-V1 speed at the time, this would be an undoubtedly doomed scenario with an uncontrollable swing.

I think the maintenance state of the aircraft is totally irrelevant anyway to the cause of this accident. Even with both reversers functioning, it is highly unlikely that a go-around from landing deep on a shortish runway and in reverse power will be a successful alternative.

RoyHudd

19th Jul 2007, 09:08

How long does it take to clean a runway landing sections (each end) of rubber deposits? Is it an expensive operation, and is expertise generally available around the world.

And has this cleaning been done on the main r/w at Congonhas since the accident? (I presume the r/w is back in use)

There are a lot of black and slippery (when wet) runway ends in Europe, especially at certain Greek islands, which have concerned me in recent years.

BOAC

19th Jul 2007, 09:15

I concur, although judging by the 'speed' of the first a/c I would guess the viewpoint of the camera is well over half-way down the runway, so I would think the 'g/a' theory not likely since reverse is still 'in' on No 1 at that point - and up to 'off-frame'. I think the first may even have been beginning the turn-off at the end of frame, and it certainly did not appear to have any reverse spray at all in the whole visible run.

The concentration on serviceable reversers IS relevant since in all my 737 flying, landings on 'slippery' or 'contaminated' runways are not allowed with one locked out. If you aquaplane, it is only the reversers that will stop you - for a while.

So - was the runway 'slippery when wet'? Was it 'wet'. Was it 'contaminated'?

Obviously the enquiry will hopefully have all these answers but I think it is important to lay this 'reversers don't matter' trend here.

Sky Wave

19th Jul 2007, 09:25

I think Rainbow has hit the nail on the head. From the video the speed is so much higher than the first landing aircraft that I struggle to believe that he had any retardation.
With the No 2 locked out, if he had selected reverse and then changed his mind and decided to go around, I assume you would immediately get thrust on the No 2 engine whilst No 1 is still in reverse. (I know you mustn't make a go around decision after you've selected reverse thrust)

I'm not an Airbus pilot, can you move the thrust levers out of reverse before the reverse doors are closed, or is there some kind of lock?

gonso

19th Jul 2007, 09:35

Excelent post Rainboe.
There are two golden rules when it comes to approach and landing.
1) Once a go-around has been initiated, don't revoke your decision.
2) Once thrust reversers have been deployed, go-around is not an option anymore.
The one reverser in transition and the other at g/a thrust can definitely explain the large change of ground track in such a short distance.
Initially it reminded me the Girona accident. A lot. It was then a suspicion that reversers had been deployed and a go-around was attempted afterwards. We know now that the collapsed on landing nose gear, broke the thrust control cables, causing the left engine to advance to full thrust !
There is always a reason for such a deviation from the centreline or extended centreline. Sometimes it is obvious, some other times...not. We'll see.

vapilot2004

19th Jul 2007, 09:36

I think Rainbow has hit the nail on the head. From the video the speed is so much higher than the first landing aircraft

This link,as previously posted
http://g1.globo.com/Noticias/SaoPaulo/0,,MUL72804-5605,00.html
loads a page with two embedded video players. The second video player from the top titled "VEJA TAMBÉM Outros vídeos que podem lhe interessar" has a 31 second clip that shows the following:

A male reporter with playback of two aircraft traversing the screen.

The first aircraft takes about thrirteen seconds to move from the right to left side of the frame.

The second aircraft does the same in less than three seconds.

The video playback speed is virtually identical in both clips of the runway. Note the timing of the blinking lights on the buildings in the background.

BOAC

19th Jul 2007, 09:52

I would welcome an input from an AB driver on the system but I would assume the same safety interlocks are in place as on the 737?

I really do think this 'g/a' theory is a red herring, certainly in the part we see on the video.

Firstly, on the 737 the throttles are 'locked' when reverse is deployed so they cannot be advanced until the reversers are 'stowed'.

It follows (737) that g/a thrust cannot be applied until the reversers are both stowed.

There is no sign of cancellation of reverse on the video.

If we are to blame the engine handilng for the swing, is it not far more likely that 'firewall' reverse thrust was being applied on number 1 as the run continued, thus causing control difficulty on a less than ideal surface?

Are we now agreed that reversers ARE important stopping mechanisms on slippery surfaces - or is the AB MEL different? I shudder to think of new pilots thinking it 'doesn't matter'.

Regarding the runway, Rippa in #126 suggests it was 'wet' but not 'contaminated'. Was it 'slippery when wet'?

NigelOnDraft

19th Jul 2007, 10:07

I would welcome an input from an AB driver on the system but I would assume the same safety interlocks are in place as on the 737?I am sure the interlocks are there in pratice i.e. what you get. However, the physcial interlocks asre just with the rev lever selected the thrust lever can only go in the rev range.
It follows (737) that g/a thrust cannot be applied until the reversers are both stowed.AB you can select GA Power on both from full Reverse in 0.25s just by shoving everything forward... However it will give you idle in that engine until the reverser buckets are stowed. With 1 Rev locked out and below VMCG this will naturally make your eyes water :eek:
Are we now agreed that reversers ARE important stopping mechanisms on slippery surfaces - or is the AB MEL different?I am sure AB MEL says Wet Ldg Perf affected...
Regarding the runway, Rippa in #126 suggests it was 'wet' but not 'contaminated'. Was it 'slippery when wet'?How could they know? It was a new surface and had hardly ever been 'wet' before?

Rainboe

19th Jul 2007, 10:47

I was under the impression that 737 thrust reverser interlocking only applied on individual engines. I'm not sure whether you can have one still out of forward idle and one at GA thrust- it's not exactly something you get any practical experience with! A lot of reports appear to substantiate that a go-around was being attempted and the plane was at high speed. It reportedly crossed the major highway (a bit like the M1 next to East Midlands) without touching it and impacted the building more or less directly. A significant left deviation took place, stronger than I would have expected from asymetric reverse only. I can't help thinking they were in such a deep hole they took the only way out they could possibly see- to try and get airborne again. But that is moving into an area I don't like- a bit too speculative maybe.

ChristiaanJ

19th Jul 2007, 10:49

The runway surface was new, not yet grooved, with a rubber deposit and wet, so the runway surface condition is likely to have played a role.

However, the runway had been re-opened a fortnight or so ago, and it had been raining for the last few days.

So it seems unlikely this was the first A320 landing in exactly those conditions. In other words, there must have been concomitant factors.

stagger

19th Jul 2007, 11:00

The BBC have inferred that - since the aircraft appears to be travelling faster than other aircraft along the part of the runway covered by the video - it was therefore a "fast landing"

Brazil jet in 'fast landing' film (http://http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6905499.stm)

Surely the video doesn't tell you much about speed at the threshold - and instead implies lack of retardation?

theamrad

19th Jul 2007, 11:24

Stagger - SKY is coming out with the same inference ('appears to show' etc,etc) - shouldn't really be surprising. If you remember how the Bristol airport issue was reported by the bulk of the media last year. Despite some of them coming to PPRUNE for information concerning the real situation - the majority continued to spout the content of a certain Directors PR exercise. The public thought that certain operators (the ones who stopped landing there) were 'nervous flyers' and believed that the previous overrun events were due to 'windy' conditions - but NOT a SLIPPERY runway! . I'd love to hear a statement from the said Director now about how last years Bristol situation doesn't relate to this accident.

Rainboe - I know its heading into the realms of speculation at this point, but I can't help agree with that scenario as a possibility. I guess we'll have to wait for the FDR data for confirmation of whether there was an attempt at acceleration or not.

broadreach

19th Jul 2007, 12:22

An article in today's Estado de Sao Paulo (http://txt1.estado.com.br/editorias/2007/07/19/cid-1.93.3.20070719.83.1.xml) states that the TAM aircraft did swing left onto the grass and that the undercarriage did hit the low (about 15") wall at the edge of the taxiway.

It also states that 30 seconds elapsed between touchdown and crash.

alemaobaiano

19th Jul 2007, 13:15

Listening to the press conferences yesterday, and looking at the images that were released I got the distinct impression that spin control is in full flow and that every effort is being made to pin this on the crew.

The first film released showed the aircraft at a "higher than normal" speed for that portion of the runway, especially as they very carefully compared the images to a previous landing. It is travelling faster, but was that because the crew had already started to go-around?

Of much more importance is the image from the other end, which has just been obtained by TV stations here. That shows an apparently normal touchdown, a situation backed up by the comments of Brig-Gen Saito and the testimony of the tower controller on duty.

Why was the more important video not released at the same time? Probably to allow the idea of a "higher than normal" speed to sink into the public consciousness and so cast doubt on the crew, rather than the runway surface.

Both videos clearly show water present, both on the ramp and, from the spray generated by the aircraft, on the runway. We don't know the actually level of water, but the presence of water contradicts the impression left by the press conference yesterday.

Colonel Ferreira, probably the most respected aviation expert in Brazil, has publicly rebuffed the official line and commented about both videos on TV this morning. He left no doubt as to his views of why the first video was released, and why the second was not widely publicised.

I had originally included my views on why we are seeing the spin doctors in action, but on reflection decided that this is not the place for that. This forum is for factual information, or at least informed opinion, not wild speculation.

ab

LoadMan

19th Jul 2007, 13:19

>It also states that 30 seconds elapsed between touchdown and crash.

This would fit with the video footage. the straight line distance between runway 35L treshold and the crash site is 2km (from GoogleEarth). 30 seconds would mean an average speed of 240km/h, equal to 130kts. Approach speed for A320 (62t, 2500ft, conf full) is about 130 to 135 knots.
The 30 seconds are surely no exact time (+/- 5), as is the distance (+/- 200), but it looks like the aircraft was rather fast (for a landing).

booke23

19th Jul 2007, 13:25

"I'd like to think a go around was being attempted at that stage - unless the 320 thought otherwise of course..."

What exactly do you mean by that statement Paxman?

I don't think introducing fictitious old wives tales to this thred is helpful.

Rippa

19th Jul 2007, 13:38

Weather at CGH:

It was raining, yes, but it was not a TS or +RA, more like a -RA or DZ for the past days. The runway was not contaminated; Sao Paulo tower does not allow ops at CGH with contaminated runway (there is a team from INFRAERO, the local airport manager, which measures the amount of water on the runway / standing water to determine the runway condition). So I find it hard to believe that the runway was contaminated. Due to the new surface, the runway gets slippery when wet, so extra caution is required. I personally think that my colleague had some other problem, such as loss of braking, flat tire, etc... All TAM pilots (or Brasilian airline pilots) are very experienced in landing at CGH, once it is a major airport, in terms of passenger volume and airline flights. I personally have 332 landing at CGH (all of them on B737 efis / NG or A319 / 320) in all kind of weather and never had a problem...never had a system failure also during the landing roll, so that's why I believe that he had some kind of severe failure, as mentioned before.
I consulted the Airbus MEL, and it says that no reversers are required for normal ops (only 2 rev required for ops at SDU – SBRJ airport) and the only operational item is to "not use the inop reverse during landing roll" - do not command rev. on that engine.

Centaurus

19th Jul 2007, 13:41

It follows (737) that g/a thrust cannot be applied until the reversers are both stowed

I recall a 737-200 crashed in Canada when landing in a snow storm. The aircraft had just touched down when a snow-plough appeared out of the murk in front of the 737. The pilot had initiated reverse on both engines but quickly cancelled reverse and at the same time lifted the aircraft over the snow-plough. Due to slightly different stow speeds on the actuated reversers and the fact the landing gear oleo extension cut off the hydraulic power to the reversers as the pilot hauled off the deck, one reverser stowed but the other did not. As the aircraft climbed, the throttle closed sharply on the reverser that had not quite shut and the open reverser doors were forced open by increasing airspeed. The pilot broke his thumb when it was trapped by the split throttles and the aircraft banked steeply under asymmetric thrust and an open reverser door and crashed with loss of lives.

BOAC

19th Jul 2007, 13:49

Rippa - the 737 MELs I am used to would preclude landing on a 'slippery runway' with a T/R u/s. - yours does not?

Jose lourenco

19th Jul 2007, 13:50

Hi folks! This is my first post.
First I’d like to add that is too early to speculated about “the probably causes”. Let’s say a prayer for all those poor souls.
I remember when we operated L188 in Shuttle Service back in the 80`s. (Those are the day when the sex was safe and the aviation dangerous…). You could stop a L188 using only the revs… 30 years and no a single accident… No auto brake, no antiskid, no spoilers, no EFIS, no GPS, no fly by wire, only the old stick and rudder and basic T…
Then came the new high-tech jets, and the “wall” becomes higher and narrow… Special type rating for landing in SDU (the CGH`s counter part in Rio de Janeiro), restrictions for F/o operation, a more restrictive MEL…
The deregulation stats a fierce battle for the shuttle service easy money.
They called this progress…
Please, allow me some opinions:
1. The airlines will continue to operate in CGH BECAUSE passengers want to arrive in downtown, BECAUSE, São Paulo, like any others large cities in Brazil lack of an efficient and safe mass transportation linking the main airport and downtown, BECAUSE the “authorities” understand isn’t your problem, BECAUSE the people that elected the “authorities” do not give a dam….
2. I’ve been a “Boeing Field Boy” since I left L188`s, and I knew that the best airplane is that one that pays your bills, but now flying A320`s is it the first time that I see a performance table that takes the revs in account for landing distance calculation. YOU CAN LAND A 777 WITH A VREF LOWER THAN A A321.
3. That tragedy has been announced for long time…
4. It will not be the last.
Ps. Who knows the guy in charge for measure the 3mm water layer on the runway?

broadreach

19th Jul 2007, 13:50

Fully agree with Alemaobaiano re spin-doctoring.

On another forum, commenting on the video clips released by Infraero, someone pointed out that at 18:51:38:453, just prior to the aircraft leaving the runway, there appears to be a small explosion.

alemaobaiano

19th Jul 2007, 14:04

Rippa

Have tests been carried out to determine the contamination level of the new surface? I can't find anything about that in publicly available material, and Infraero haven't said anything about that in recent days, letting the 3mm figure continue to be reported.

The 3mm standing water limit applied to the old surface, not the new one. A new surface would have different characteristics to the old one, and it follows that the old limits would no longer apply.

ab

wileydog3

19th Jul 2007, 14:18

Why is the NTSB involved? ...because they were invited due to their expertise, knowledge of the A320, and were available to render assistance?

spagiola

19th Jul 2007, 14:21

On the video showing the TAM A320 crossing from right to left, just before the A320 exits the frame, there seems to be a white flash -- might it have hit something with either the MLG or the engine as it swerved off the runway? What is there to hit beside a runway that could cause such a flash?

theamrad

19th Jul 2007, 14:24

alemaobaiano - very often how the issue of how safety and regulatory matters play out is influenced so some degree or other by ‘political’ or economic interests. I don’t think there’s any harm in bringing that into the discussion here, if, as you believe, there is an agenda at work. While most people here probably would rather not engage in wild speculation in the absence of known facts – It’s probably useful for the rest of us to know about it – especially if an agenda is at work at an official level – as opposed to general sensationalism/incompetence demonstrated by SOME of the media which many have come to expect as routine.

Rippa – you’ve mentioned about depth measurements being taken – do you know about the status of friction measurements – esp in consideration of the new surface and possible deposit build-up?

Broadreach – I noticed the same thing on the video – but I had thought it was more likely to have been the initial impact off the runway – followed a little later by the larger fire.

Centaurus – therein lies the logic of Mr. B’s advice – but then imminent contact with a hard object previously unseen………

Rippa

19th Jul 2007, 14:33

BOAC,

Can't really remember, I have been flying the bus for the past two years, so I do not recall anything about the 737 MEL. What I can tell you is that there is all kind of 737's operating at CGH (GOL, VARIG, BRA), brand new ones and some old ones...don't believe that the rev are required for that airport / slippery runway.
Don't know hot to insert images here...I could show the relevant MEL pages...

TopBunk

19th Jul 2007, 14:36

It was raining, yes, but it was not a TS or +RA, more like a -RA or DZ for the past days

Firstly, my deep and sincere commiserations to all those involved in this incident.

I departed Sao Paulo (GRU) the evening before this incident, and I would assess the rainfall that was falling most of Monday as moderate and occasionally bordering of heavy - I got quite wet doing the walkround!

Now I am not commenting on the cause of the incident, but I can confirm that the landings on the Monday were to the south as seen from crew hotel, so the aircraft would have been depositing rubber at the northerly end of the runway.

I have personal experience on landing on newly resurfaced runways (LHR etc) prior to grooving and can confirm that the stopping characteristics are much poorer than normal, and can easily equate to those experienced on contaminated runways.

[Trying to be factual]

broadreach

19th Jul 2007, 14:38

Spagiola, it appears to be the moment the undercarriage struck the low wall at the edge of the taxiway.

Beanbag

19th Jul 2007, 14:41

Re 'was a go-around attempted?' - it seems to me there are only two ways that people could come to this conclusion in the absence of any survivors and before the FDR is found. Either the captain told the tower he was going around - unlikely since surely that would have been disclosed at one of the press conferences - or someone inferred that from what they saw and heard. And to Joe Schmoe on the ground wouldn't max reverse sound a lot like take-off thrust? So as I see it there's no evidence in favour of the g/a theory, and a bit of evidence against from the video.

robbreid

19th Jul 2007, 15:17

Security cam video of TAM airbus final moments. As A320 passes terminal and heads out of view, a huge glow of light from the impact.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b78_1184812783

alemaobaiano

19th Jul 2007, 15:51

ChristiaanJ, as with every accident there will have been a series of events leading up to the tragic end, and there is very rarely a single causal factor. That is what accident investigations are for, to establish all of the factors involved and to prevent such incidents from happening again.

What concerns me about this incident is the unseemly haste with which the authorities are trying to absolve the runway of any involvement, without the slightest proof one way or the other. Was the runway condition a contributory factor? Was the inoperative reverser? Two captains on the flight deck? At this point, we don't know, and neither do the authorities, for sure. The CVR and FDR data will clarify the events, as will the tapes from ATC, but at the moment they haven't been analysed.

We saw a similar rush to apportion blame with the GOL 1907 incident, when the authorities were adamant that there was nothing wrong with the air transport system in Brazil and that the only cause was two American pilots fooling around in the sky. We now know that it wasn't like that at all, that there were multiple factors involved, any one of which in isolation would have been harmless, but which combined to cause a tragic accident, and consequently caused chaos with the air transport system here.

I don't think anyone is fixated on the runway per se, but on the reaction of the authorities to any suggestion that it might be a factor.

ab

FIRESYSOK

19th Jul 2007, 15:51

It seems the surveillance camera is aimed toward the departure end of the runway. If the airplane was going faster than others at that stage (although the clip of the slow airplane looks as if someone slowed the frame rate), either the aircraft wouldn't decelerate because of hydroplaning or technical failure, or they were attempting to fly again. Due to the fact that no reverse was available on the number #2 engine, the swing to the left could suggest the use of the #1 reverser which at that point is worth trying. What a tragedy in any case.

theamrad

19th Jul 2007, 16:32

Beanbag – I don’t think anyone here has made any conclusions or offered any theories about an attempted GA. Maybe the issue arose in discussion BEFORE we all had the retrospective advantage of seeing video of the landing roll??? Maybe making the quite reasonable assumption of what an experienced ATPL in a transport category aircraft might do (or consider doing) with failure to decelerate adequately (for whatever reason) with 2 to 3 thousand feet of runway remaining and a really bad situation at the end of that runway ??? Then taking that reasonable idea and asking here if anyone knows if it happened or not. Maybe we aren’t all present at press conferences?

Broadreach – disregard my previous comment about the flash at the end of the runway – I thought you were referring to something else.

The video appears to me to show spoilers up – I’m not 100% on AB hydraulics – so what are the chances of a more serious type failure on brakes with the A320?

lomapaseo

19th Jul 2007, 16:34

Something to keep in mind

High reverse eflux at moderate speeds pushes the water on the runway forward as moving waves (with the aircraft) of high thickness and troughs of low thickness. When a high thickness trough is intersected by the mains, there goes the braking.

BOAC

19th Jul 2007, 16:51

theamrad - the 'g/a' thing started here around #35 and by #140 the media were running with it (possibly from here?) and it 'picked up' here again at #150. There is an interesting comment around the #40's about a 'tail strike'?

Mad (Flt) Scientist

19th Jul 2007, 16:52

Why is the NTSB involved? ...because they were invited due to their expertise, knowledge of the A320, and were available to render assistance?

Because it is their right under ICAO to be involved, given the engine certification.

shortfinals

19th Jul 2007, 17:40

Any Conghonas aviators confirm approach aid details? Looks like NDB and VOR/DME but no ILS on any of the runways.

Might ILS have helped (assuming they had somewhere to put the localiser arrays)? The weather was dull and damp but scarcely on minimums, and presumably the PAPIs were working.

As usual the last thing we will learn is if there was an unexpected distraction or technical malfunction.

theamrad

19th Jul 2007, 17:40

theamrad - the 'g/a' thing started here around #35 and by #140 the media were running with it (possibly from here?)

BOAC - I thought it was the other way around:} – that it ended up here after a rumour in the media, with someone asking if it was true or not – but then isn’t that the problem with rumour – around and around it goes – where it started no-one knows!! :confused:

I thought before the video came out – the attempt at a GA might have been at least a possibility – but the video seems (obviously) to suggest otherwise – that is unless it went really badly, along the lines of Rainboe’s earlier thoughts.

Unfortunately the 'video screen speed measurements' have even reached RTE here now - with the necessary stating of the obvious - I suppose they did at least mention the important bit - the FDR being sent off for analysis.

Ignition Override

19th Jul 2007, 17:45

PJ2:

True, those discussions can be very beneficial.

One potential hazard, at least with some other A-320 go-arounds/balked landings is that pilots sometimes fail to put the thrust levers all the way forward to the TOGA detent, and/or don't check the FMA on the PFD.
Not verifying modes on the Airbus PFD or on the B-757 resulted in serious problems.
One A-320 almost hit the ground after a go-around at LAS, due to various crew coordination issues.

Some confusing situations or incidents involved highly-experienced pilots who fly the A-330.

Johnbr

19th Jul 2007, 17:45

Guys....
I used to be a Shuttle service capt for over 10 years flying both the 737/300 an A319 between Rio and Sao Paulo.I have at least 2000 landings on that runway under my belt.I cannot offer any conclusion on what might have happened,but that runway IS slippery.And more so that it has been recentely resurfaced,the rain kept pouring down,sometimes quite heavily during the day in question,with not a single sunny spell all day long i.e the water kept soaking the runway.Add to that the fact that almost 80% of landings in CGH are performed in the southerly direction with rubber accumulation at the end of the A320´s landing roll and there you have it:perfect condition for an accident to take place.Bear in mind that our eyes and minds are expecting the aircraft to be a lot slower than it was,it doesn´t seem accurate to say it actually had the speed to take off at that point.It was fast,but maybe it was at,let´s say 90 kt,when it was expected to be at 30 or 40...still not enough to fly...Who knows...
Maybe that glare at the end was caused by eng.stall...Who knows...Aquaplaning combined with darkness and a 1or 2 second late decision to go around...Who in hell knows...Not having any other data available,to me at least,it´s quite evident that the runway has indeed played a big part in this terrible event...No other conclusion is yet possible.Best regards.

Johnbr

19th Jul 2007, 17:47

Shortfinals,yes ILS on both ends...

Dogma

19th Jul 2007, 17:58

One question...

It would appear that once you start to hydro/aquaplane, you are not likely to stop, hense the reason why one aircraft could appear to stop normally and another slide of the end??

Is the rather old fashioned idea of "land firmly laddy... to break the surface tension" still good advice? Or just B/S

steve_austin

19th Jul 2007, 18:01

http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/5047/tamdk6.jpg

the video:

http://playervideo.globo.com/webmedia/GMCMidiaASX?midiaId=703185|banda=N|ext.asx (http://playervideo.globo.com/webmedia/GMCMidiaASX?midiaId=703185%7Cbanda=N%7Cext.asx)

PK-KAR

19th Jul 2007, 18:07

Might ILS have helped (assuming they had somewhere to put the localiser arrays)? The weather was dull and damp but scarcely on minimums, and presumably the PAPIs were working.
On huge pylons at runway level on the extended centerline... and err... if you overrun, you don't want to hit that while airborne and freefalling either...

steve_austin

19th Jul 2007, 18:10

http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/5047/tamdk6.jpg

canpax

19th Jul 2007, 18:35

I am ordinary Canadian PAX speaking Russian.
Reading www.avia.ru (http://www.avia.ru/) discussions, I noted some similarities with last year Irkutsk incident. Brief description of that story:

A-310 (not A-320) made normal landing at Irkutsk. Reverser (#1?) was deactivated several days before (INOP in MEL at accident time). Crew used single working reverser after landing and then started to switch reverser off. According to black box, IN THE SAME TIME as switching reverser off, engine (or both?) went a full forward power. With full pedal breaks all the way, the plane overrun the strip and hit concrete structure and car garages at 190 km/h. Explosion, fire, many deaths.

Official version (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S7_Airlines_Flight_778) is that (allegedly tiered, deep night 4 am landing) crew unwillingly pushed main gears in the same motion as disengaging of reverser. This unusual hand kinetics was disputed by pilots during discussions. Alternative version – something wrong in engine(s) control that caused SYNHRONEOUS stepwise command (i) reverser off (ii) forward thrust on. Inappropriate locking procedure of INOP reverser several days before incident was blamed in such malfunction (in alternative version).

Although far fetched guess, unexpected forward thrust while landing may explain high speed while reverser still working. This theory has a chance if TAM black boxes reveal that crew did NOT attempt to go-around…

NigelOnDraft

19th Jul 2007, 18:59

I am not suggesting "long landing" / "go around at/prior touchdown" were factors in this accident, but they have been mentioned by some. An interesting analysis of these factors is available at http://amelia.db.erau.edu/reports/ntsb/aar/AAR77-01.pdf re an AA 727 at St Thomas, also with a tragic outcome...

Unwell_Raptor

19th Jul 2007, 20:18

Here's a post from a man who knows a bit

This caught my attention today, especially when I heard it was an A320 landing on a rain slickened, short runway, which is something I do on a regular basis. As a matter of fact, two runways I land on (routinely) are shorter than this accident runway in Brazil. It is easy to be an armchair expert discussing tragedies such as these, but when I heard about this fiery crash, I remembered a little statement printed on page 256 of the airline's A319/320 Pilot Manual:

WARNING
Do not attempt a go around once the aircraft is on the runway
and reverse thrust is initiated. Up to five seconds are required
for a reverser to close in the forward thrust position. Also, there
is a possibility that the reverser will not stow in the forward thrust
position during a go around attempt.

Uh oh...

theamrad

19th Jul 2007, 21:10

Just with respect to the official agenda which our Brazilian colleagues complained of earlier. I must suspend the usual general derision with which I treat some of the media (and for which some have criticised me in the past). While in this neck of the woods: BBC, RTE, and C4 news have continued to pedal the ‘official’ version, the ‘video screen speed measurements’ and (to varying degrees) suggestions that the pilots were landing with excessive speed/nothing wrong with the runway.
ITV news seems to have done some journalistic work and come up trumps. The main thrust of their story this evening was the suggestion that officials produced video clips in such a way as to suggest the pilots were in error, and that they(officialdom) were trying to deflect attention from the whole runway issue. They mentioned a couple of skids in previous days also, and that the runway condition had been a concern before the accident. ITV even had a simple (if very brief) description of touchdown zone and how a pilot can go around – without speculating that this had been attempted in this case. The story ended with what is obvious to us – either way – the truth will come out with the FDR data. So for me at least – full marks for ITV tonight.
Maybe ease up on criticism of me in the future guys if I’m on a rant about the media – I’ll definitely give credit where it’s due.

Dogma - It would appear that once you start to hydro/aquaplane, you are not likely to stop, hence the reason why one aircraft could appear to stop normally and another slide of the end??Whether it was at play here or not, time will tell – but when it does happen, it’s likely to continue and considerably effect the distance required. For example, Qantas B744 at Bangkok – even after full manual braking applied, the crew noticed no appreciable deceleration – aquaplaning – you can check the Boeing brochure for a brief description http://www.smartcockpit.com/pdf/flightops/safety/0022/ (http://www.smartcockpit.com/pdf/flightops/safety/0022/). But suffice to say in that instance, it did continue and effective deceleration didn't occur until within 1,000 feet of the runway end.

Unwell_Raptor - it's been said a few times already pages back.

RobertS975

19th Jul 2007, 21:25

There has been a huge amount of attention paid to this newly paved runway with heavy rain and no runway grooving carried out as yet. But all the other flights previous to this one landed safely including a TAM A320 immediately prior to the accident flight. The key to learning from this tragedy is to understand what was different about this flight than all the other flights that landed safely that night. You can see in the video that the accident airplane is in a completely different state (far more speed) than other planes of the same type landing just prior to the accident. Something caused that to happen to this airplane, and not to others. Aquaplaning does not happen to one plane of a certain type at a certain weight going a certain speed and not to another plane of the same type, same weight going the same speed. Something was different about this flight that was unrelated to the runway.

Hydroplaning was initially blamed as the cause of the AF A340 accident at YYZ. Eventually, it was determined that that aircraft landed hopelessly long and fast. My speculation is that we will eventually learn that this plane's landing profile was out of the normal envelope, and then the co-factors (wet, slippery runway, hydroplaning, lack of reverse) all come into play.

Doors to Automatic

19th Jul 2007, 21:35

But what doesn't make sense is that the pilots (both captains I understand) were based at Congonhas and very experienced on type and at the airport. They would have surely landed there hundreds of times in the past, thereby knowing the exact performance of the aircraft in relation to the runway.

My guess is that they hydroplaned sometime after the initial touchdown and tried to GA out of it. The reason for this is that they knew that they wouldn't stop in time and thereofore head over the cliff edge. Hence my previous comment about an EMAS.

mach411

19th Jul 2007, 22:03

I edited the available footage and created a continuous video that is perfectly synchronized so there is no time gap or overlap. This gives a better idea of how the speed of the aircraft varies throughout the runway. The second half of the video is the same thing however I don't use one of the camera angles as it overlaps another.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oT2RLbHz-rI

After a analyzing the video (using reference points, etc) I found that the aircraft speed remained mostly unchanged at around 60 m/s or 216 km/h.

This was recently confirmed by Infraero who claimed the plane touched down at 110 knots (~ 200 km/h) and left the FOV of the last camera also at 110 knots. (source: Globonews TV)

bomarc

19th Jul 2007, 22:11

air france/yyz also took 17 seconds to get into reverse after touchdown...18 seconds for southwest/midway.

ONE question is the thrust reversers status...There is a post indicating that number two was on MEL. certainly post crash analysis will answer thrust reverser use.

Kudos to the gentleman who posted the warning about going around after thrust reversers are deployed...I've not seen good enough imagines to verify if the number one thrust reverser had been deployed, even if the number two was stowed iaw MEL.

rules of thumb about speed...for every one knot extra 2percent more runway

for every 10 feet higher than normal at the threshold, an extra 200 feet of runway needed .

this was a demanding landing...for the pilot's sake, I hope the FDR shows on speed on sink with firm touchdown in the TDZ.

ChristiaanJ

19th Jul 2007, 22:12

Doors to Automatic,
Let's wait for the FDR....? We just don't KNOW what happened, and what they did.
An EMAS would have made no difference.... they went off the side of the runway, well wide of where an EMAS might have stopped them.

Doors to Automatic

19th Jul 2007, 22:25

My point is that had there been an EMAS they might have continued with the landing rather than attempt a very late GA. But you are right we should wait for the FDR and the CVR.

bomarc

19th Jul 2007, 22:26

christian j

I disagree with you about the emas...certainly if the plane was completely out of control and no attempt at go around was made, emas wouldn't have stopped them...BUT:

if the crew knew that there was emas that would stop them, a desperation play of a go around after thrust reverser deployment might not have been needed...they might have gone straight ahead into the emas.

if there was no attempt at go around and the number one reverser was pulling the nose left, given an emas ahead, cancelling reverse, regaining control INTO the emas would make sense.

it will be awhile before really knowing on this subject...but facing a blast fence at the end, I might have swerved...facing 500-1000feet of emas...I would have gone straight ahead like a prisoner of 30 years heading straight to a date with raquel welch!

PEI_3721

19th Jul 2007, 23:41

This assumes that all of the conditions in the accident situation are the same or sufficiently similar to the previous landings to produce the same result.
The braking performance on contaminated runways is very variable, just as 2.9mm of water (not contaminated) vs 3mm which is (but only by definition) will not protect you from an excursion, neither will accepting without question what has gone before. Hydroplaning speeds (and characteristics) vary with small and seemingly insignificant changes in conditions. In addition to the often quoted relationship between speed and tyre pressure, and factors involving a firm touchdown or the depth of water at that point, there are also factors of tyre type (material), tread pattern, and tread wear. Then add minor changes in wind direction (which could also pool water in patches on the runway), aircraft systems availability, malfunction, and crew behaviour, then you have a completely different situation.
This is a very good reason to be wary of reported braking performance from preceding aircraft (PIREPs); it only relates to that specific aircraft, that crew, in the conditions at that time.

You are in charge of your landing and only you can make the judgement about the reported conditions. Yet again the question of ‘can the aircraft land here’ must be restated as “should the aircraft be landing here”, and of course asked by a whole range of people, not just the crew who may not have sufficient information to judge – even if they might believe they have because it’s a familiar airport.

Hydroplaning Ref Aircraft Performance on Contaminated Runways. (http://www.tc.gc.ca/tdc/publication/pdf/13500/13579.pdf) - 12 Mb

PAXboy

19th Jul 2007, 23:43

non-pilot speaking: If the photo in #195 shows standing water being illuminated by the landing lights, then they would have had little chance.

DtA in #200:But what doesn't make sense is that the pilots (both captains I understand) were based at Congonhas and very experienced on type and at the airport. They would have surely landed there hundreds of times in the past, thereby knowing the exact performance of the aircraft in relation to the runway.Not necessarily. As you will doubtless have read, the runway had just been resurfaced, was in the process of 'curing' and not yet grooved. This was the first sustained rain on it and so pilots could not be expected to know the expected performance.

broadreach

20th Jul 2007, 00:03

Whether the condition of Congonhas’s newly paved runway is eventually shown to have contributed or not to the TAM accident, it is seen by much of the media and the public as yet another example of government bungling, following on the Gol/Legacy collision, ATC black hole, the flip-flopping over ATC privatisation/increased militarisation. Added to which, scandal after scandal involving politicians and including Infraero management.

Responsibility for air transport safety in Brazil is split between so many different government entities now that power struggles are inevitable, as are the attempts to avoid blame when something goes wrong. ANAC, ministry of defense, the airforce, Infraero and a few others.

When something does go wrong, more parties get involved. In the case of the Gol accident it was the Federal Police, the judiciary and Congress. They do not coordinate actions and frequently work at cross purposes. Political parties tug and push; the media does likewise. It’s not all that much different in other countries.

So far, the government’s disaster response has been to disappear from public view, although president Lula, at a ceremony, expressed regret and said he’d ordered the Federal Police (!) to inspect the runway. Some sort of statement is expected tomorrow Friday 20 when “changes” are to be announced – the rumour mill in Brasilia is in top gear. The only representative who’s shown his face is the president of Infraero, to say the runway wasn’t to blame; he’s also pointed out the “smoke” coming from the A320’s port engine, which looks to most other observers more like spray blown forward.

A lot of people were surprised at the alacrity with which Infraero released those clips. It would have been more like Brazil to have hidden them from public view. There’s no suspicion of their having been tampered with, but the speed at which they were wheeled out to compare the two landings seems almost distasteful – even though it’s been tremendously elucidative to observers who would otherwise be in the dark.

Evening news developments:

TAM’s president confirmed to Globo today that the starboard thrust reverser had been inoperative since last Friday 13th and that they had 10 days in which to correct it. Globo say the captain of the same aircraft reported the runway as very slippery on Monday.

Sifting through the media expert interviews, most seem either convinced or accepting that:
a) Touchdown speed was normal and that they did not land long.
b) The port engine was still in reverse thrust when the aircraft passed the cameras and approached the end of the runway.
c) A GA was likely being attempted. Most are very cautious on this, some adamant based on the speed, none denying the possibility.
d) Standing water MAY have been a factor but rainfall at the time would indicate less than 1mm overall was likely.

Mudfoot

20th Jul 2007, 00:25

bomarc wrote:
if there was no attempt at go around and the number one reverser was pulling the nose left...

Do they dispatch with only 1 T/R operative?!? (non-pilot but working for a major manufacturer) I remember when the A310s were having trouble with the T/R locking mech, but BOTH were disabled if 1 was inop. :confused:

bomarc

20th Jul 2007, 01:19

anyone care to guess, based on picture posted on previous page, if spoilers were deployed?

Brian Abraham

20th Jul 2007, 01:29

I ask the same question bomarc. Difficult to tell, but does seem to put to rest any argument about whether #1 was in reverse or not.

bomarc

20th Jul 2007, 01:39

brian

I can't even tell about number 1 TR from the picture I see...is it deployed?

RobertS975

20th Jul 2007, 01:50

Has anyone commented on the flash visible from the left side of the aircraft on the video just before it disappears from view?
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2007/07/19/vo.brazil.plane.landing.televisa
Edited to fix link.

canpax

20th Jul 2007, 01:58

(my similar earlier post somehow was not posted)

One year ago in Irkutsk (Russia) it was somewhat similar
disaster. After landing and deployment of a reverser A-310
suddenly got full forward power and hit concrete structure.
Oficial report blaims crew that (allegedly) unintentionally moved main gear
while disengaging reverser. Second reverser was INOP (MEL)
for several days. Many pilots disputed this alleged strange hand kinetics
and suggest that wrong INOP reverser locking procedure may
cause mulfunction -- unexpected forward power.

Initial guessing were long speedy landing and G/A but non were proven right. Black boxes revealed normal landing and no GA attempt. In contrary,
pedal breaks were applied all the way, but full forward power moved
the plane to concrete structure. Apparently, the crew did not recognized
full power...

RIP.

Scurvy.D.Dog

20th Jul 2007, 01:58

An observation for what it is worth.
.
I have seen many A320 landings at our airport (similar runway length although grooved) in light wind conditions.
The visual dynamic (as seen) would be similar (from our tower) to that of the camera position in the video i.e. mid field ish’ and about the same distance from the thresholds (given relative aircraft size in the video etc)
.
Assumptions based on nothing:-
.
1. Touchdown at normal position
2. Touchdown speed within normal limits
3. Runway wet not flooded
.
Assumptions based on info here:-
.
1. Runway newly surfaced
2. Runway un-grooved
3. One previous over run/run off on the new surface (on the Monday previous)
4. Other aircraft landed without over run the night of the A320 accident
5. No 2 Rev inop
6. No 1 Rev operating (video)
7. Spoilers deployed (video) although not conclusive from the video quality IMHO
.
Questions arising:-
.
1. Should the aircraft appear slightly nose down (as is clearly visible on brake application during a normal landing of this aircraft type) or minor vertical oscillations (nose up and down a small amount on the nose oleo) if braking was having any retarding effect intermittently (even if aquaplaning)? .. as it does not look compressed to me???
2. Would the Rev thrust be deployed at or before application of brakes?
3. What could a crew do if the Rev are deployed and no brakes/ing available?
.
I know absolutely zip about Airbus systems, I do however remember a thread on here not that long ago about an exciting land and exit (an A321 from memory) where a certain config, or a change of config was required to get wheel braking …. Again, might be irrelevant, however based on what I have observed (generally speaking) even if aquaplaning or speed on touchdown was at play, by the time they reached the position as depicted in the Video i,e the upwind end, they would still have lost much of their speed.
.
It ‘looks’ completely wrong to me!:uhoh:

bomarc

20th Jul 2007, 02:09

one reason that the nose might be down is excessive speed associated with "wheelbarrowing" (sp)

proper thrust reverser use would pull the nose down too

the images are not conclusive, but certainly raise rational questions

if plane landed fast, on nosewheel first...yikes

canpax

20th Jul 2007, 02:10

Here some references to Irkutsk disaster:

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20060709-0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S7_Airlines_Flight_778
http://www.avianews.com/russia/2006/november/22a.htm (rus)

Scurvy.D.Dog

20th Jul 2007, 02:38

... I actually think the nose is 'uncompressed' compared to normal i.e. lack of retardation forces :ooh:
.
I have edited the previous to correct the intent :ok:

TopBunk

20th Jul 2007, 02:58

Whilst I continue to favour the probable causes as (in order) being:

runway braking action/hydroplaning
deep landing and/or
higher than desired speed
late reverse selectionthere is one other possibility that could contribute that is so far unmentioned.

That is that they were doing a non precision approach as part of training - the wx reported on page 1 would not preclude it. If they then forgot to 'Activate the Approach' [easy to do on the bus on an NPA] and selected 'managed' speed at the OM/4d, the commanded speed would increase to 250kts. This would then be detected, but in the meantime would destabilise the approach, the extent depending on the duration of the speed increase.

Just for the sake of completeness and without knowing what NPAs are available.

gchriste

20th Jul 2007, 03:00

Seems like Australia media today are doing their bit to sensationalise the fact that one RT was inop:

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22104328-2,00.html (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22104328-2,00.html)

Crashed Brazilian plane 'flew with mechanical fault'

THE Airbus 320 airplane that crashed and burned on landing in Brazil killing some 200 people was flying with a fault in the equipment meant to slow it down, the airline TAM has said.
While they do attribute it to info from TAM, they seem to be doing their best to make it seem like the fact they took off with it inop was what caused the crash :eek:

Jose lourenco

20th Jul 2007, 03:10

Maybe this could give some clues for this tragic accident. Just add all these factors:
Airline pressure
A pilot in training
Marginal weather
Non-precision approach
High landing weight
A reported brake action poor runway
One deactivated reverser
AND
Airbus A319 A320 A321
Temporary Revision N 924-4 – Jun06
Subject: DEGRADED BRAKING EFFICIENCE DURING LANDING
SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ISSUES – Issues 1 to 3
A few cases of degraded braking efficiency occurred during landing, while the aircraft was at low speed (approx. 60 Kt), and in AUTOBRAKE mode.
……………………………………………………………………………………….
REASON FOR ISSUE 4
Pending decertification of above-mentioned tires, this TR is reissued to specify that:
- Some of reported cases reveled that, when a landing is initiated whit the AUTOBRAKE, degraded braking efficiency may continue even after the flight crew changes to manual braking by using the pedals.
- In the event of a lack in braking efficiency, the “LOSS OF BRAKING” procedure (FCOM 3.02.32) applies.

Max Tow

20th Jul 2007, 03:14

From BBC website:

Quote

But Jose Carlos Pereira, the head of the nation's airport authority Infraero, told AP that closing the airport - one of Brazil's busiest - was unjustified.

"It's not a matter of shutting down the airport or opening indiscriminately. We have operated thousands of times under heavy rain and nothing has happened," Mr Pereira said

Unquote.

More arse covering rubbish from those involved. I'd say the number of overrun incidents including recent events hardly constitutes "nothing".
A worrying symptom of the crisis in Brazilian aviation safety in the light of recent events (incl Gol mid-air) has been the way in which those in authority have done everything to protect their respective backsides and little to foster objective cooperation in finding solutions. Not surprising I suppose when the first reaction of the government after any accident seems to be to look for someone to prosecute. In Brazil, incidentally, members of the government are themselves immune from prosecution which sets a fine example!

PJ2

20th Jul 2007, 03:29

Hi TopBunk;

I've seen that occur a few times on both 320 and 340 fleet types. Usually it's a non-issue with a quick disconnect of the autopilot and autothrust, a regaining of the stabilized descent and re-engagement but it can be a real surprise for a crew new to the Airbus - not the case here. Going around and sorting it out is the other option.

TopBunk

20th Jul 2007, 03:53

PJ2
One of the pilot's was on his way to the LHS, an therefore, that was a treinee flight. He was a experienced Captain and was on a horizontal move (upgrade) to the A320.

I was thinking of this post, suggesting that the trainee might be new to the A320.

One of the insidious things about the non-moving thrust levers and managed speed is that the engine instrument scan becomes degraded. It can take a couple of seconds to realise what has happened (longer if you don't know what has happened:rolleyes: if new on type) and to react by disconnecting the Autothrust system. In the meantime, the aircraft has accelerated possibly 25 kts, agreed possibly only 10 kts if experienced on type. So, without wishing to say this DID happen, it is easy to envisage that an approach could be unhelpfully destabilised in such a way resulting in excess speed at threshold.

Yes, of course a GA could/should be the order of the in such circumstances, but sometimes the training value by quick intervention doesn't happen.

Again, not saying that this is what happened here.

bekolblockage

20th Jul 2007, 04:11

Flash on the Video

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Has anyone commented on the flash visible from the left side of the aircraft on the video just before it disappears from view?

My guess is its when they've taken out one of the runway edge lights.

Brian Abraham

20th Jul 2007, 04:12

Report from Aviation Week at http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=comm&id=news/TAM07187.xml
My bolding, illustrates the difficulty in knowing what goes on until all the facts are in (eg recorder read outs).

TAM Accident Highlights Congonhas Concerns
Jul 18, 2007
By Luis Zalamea
The July 17 incident involving a TAM airliner has put the spotlight on operational concerns about Congonhas Airport, with its location in the thick of downtown Sao Paulo and runways that become hazardous when wet.
An Airbus A320 belonging to Tam Brazil crashed into a compound of Tam warehouses and fuel deposits after skidding off the runway in the rain at Sao Paulo Congonhas, with the resulting explosion killing all on board and some people on the ground. Initial investigations suggest the pilot apparently overshot the short runway and tried to take off again, then aborted, moves which led to skidding and crash into Tam's compound.
Congonhas has had chronic trouble with flooded runways during the severe rain season, trouble that prompted frequent closings of the airport and required extensive repairs in runways and drainage canals. In the past month five aircraft experienced problems with skidding, but none had fatal consequences. The runway involved in the Tam accident had been in fact repaired and returned to use late in June but without grooving or surface lining with furrows that would have prevented skidding, reported Brazil's O Globo.
The length of the airport's runway also has previously come under fire from pilots.
Tuesday's disaster will certainly exacerbate the nationwide debate in Brazil about safety in the air. President Luiz Inazio Lula da Silva called an emergency meeting of aviation regulators and airlines to again review the state of air safety, and order a "serious" investigation of the crash. He also declared three days of national mourning for its victims.
No official figure on the number of casualties has been released, but airport firefighters and rescuers from Brazil's Airport Police on the scene estimated those killed on board, plus fatalities on the ground, might total as high as 200.
TAM reported 186 passengers and crew members aboard. Unofficial estimates by rescuers allege 20 ground workers and innocent bystanders were also killed, which would make this the deadliest air accident in Brazilian history. So far 158 bodies have been recovered but not all identified.

If it be that they attempted an over shoot then aborted could the spoilers be dis armed as with QF at BKK? (assuming the throttles had been closed at some point before the overshoot decision)

Rippa

20th Jul 2007, 04:22

I must apologize for the information, that is not correct. Actually, both pilots were Captains, one with 19 years working for TAM (and related airlines). The other one was new to the airline (6 months), although an experienced, former Transbrasil 767 captain.
Working for TAM for the past two years, I have not seen an approach being conducted in selected speed. Normally, corrections are applied on the perf. page of the FMCG and managed speed is used.
I had to go to the airport today, and saw the accident site...after almost 48 hrs, it was still burning (isolated fire). What a horrible site....
The flash: might by a tire burst, compressor stall, runway edge light, taxiway light, etc...too many possiblities.

Ignition Override

20th Jul 2007, 05:06

Doors To Automatic:

That is an interesting question about both pilots' experience landing there.

I could be mistaken, but the tragedy which involved the Southwest B-737 and Chicago Midway (MDW) involved highly-experienced pilots who had probably been in and out of Midway numerous times, possibly with snow falling.
Maybe constant repetition, despite the snow on the ground, lulled those pilots into believing that with operative anti-skid, autospoilers and thrust reversers, the landing should have been no problem? It is even more tragic to remember that Chicago O'Hare has several much longer runways, with only about 10 minutes required to fly from MDW to ORD.

My question is whether those very experienced pilots (with that very short runway) in Brasil could have believed that they could deal with normal weather conditions, no matter how often it rains on that runway?

Years ago after a Lufthansa A-320 First Officer died after a (hydroplaning) landing on a wet runway in Poland, Airbus modified the software which links wheel spin-up to thrust reversers, autospoilers and the anti-skid.

duwde

20th Jul 2007, 05:42

This link shows multiple cameras of the accident, take a look:
http://noticias.uol.com.br/uolnews/brasil/2007/07/18/ult2486u946.jhtm
(They also show other planes landing, "velocidade normal" means standard speed, so it is not the plane that crashed... but the other one is)

I'm brazilian (non pilot, flight simulator only) and the press is delighted with the rev-2 problem that was kept out of the media for the last days and is now the big hit... The public is SURELY gonna think that the plane was DAMAGED and THAT caused the accident, therefore putting all responsability to TAM. (so the government will again be free of any charge). It's even worse because everyone remebers the TAM-402 flight accident in 1996 that was caused by a reverse deployment just after take-off in the very same city/airport (killing 99 people). So reverse-problem is surely gonna be the blame for a while...

If the rev-2 was inop + bad weather + small runway + almost on weight limit + no groovings = why not divert to SBGR in the VERY SAME city ? SBGR (Guarulhos) has big runways (3700m/3000m). Congonhas (SBSP) has only 1940m/1435m.

Is there any big penalty on the pilot if he chooses to divert the landing to a near airport (on the very same city) ??

PJ2

20th Jul 2007, 05:47

TopBunk;

Yes, of course a GA could/should be the order of the in such circumstances, but sometimes the training value by quick intervention doesn't happen.

Yes, understand fully.

Dream Land

20th Jul 2007, 06:31

Somewhere on this thread someone made a comment about manual braking being preferred to auto braking due to the delay of application, personally my preference is MED auto brake, delay is almost non existent.

A-FLOOR

20th Jul 2007, 07:37

Dutch news sources are now reporting that TAM has admitted to dispatching the aircraft with one of the reversers INOP.

:ouch:

RoyHudd

20th Jul 2007, 07:40

And?????????

There are probably between 50 and 100 Airbus a/c operating today with a reverser locked-out. Not a stopper, so to speak!

BOAC

20th Jul 2007, 07:43

RH - perhaps you can give me an answer, since I have not had one yet. What is a 'typical' AB MEL restriction in that config for slippery/contam? As I said earlier, 737 'forbids' dispatch, presumably on the basis that up to 50% of the retardation is lost in the event of aquaplaning etc.

A-FLOOR

20th Jul 2007, 07:44

RoyHudd- And????? Probably not to this airport in these conditions.
From the beeb: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6907704.stm

hetfield

20th Jul 2007, 07:51

@BOAC

Same for A320, in my company. But I'm pretty sure you know that....;)

Brian Abraham

20th Jul 2007, 08:28

Are there many airports that have a over run as unforgiving as this? From http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/6903885.stm
http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m56/babraham227/TAM.jpg

BOAC

20th Jul 2007, 08:46

Leeds R14 comes to mind and a while back, but I think Bilbao landing south easterly for starters. Not forgetting Jersey R 27:)

RoyHudd

20th Jul 2007, 08:51

GUR 27 in a 737, wet, BKN 400, southerly 25G30...pucker factor high!

Wycombe

20th Jul 2007, 09:00

20 at Southampton (UK) must be a contender also. 1700M runway used by a/c up to mini-bus/757 size, small RESA, then a fence and 6 lane Motorway.

A Citation over-ran and ended up on it in the wet some years ago.

SMALP

20th Jul 2007, 09:16

I fly AB from a to a short rwy (flr) and we and a "no dispatch" policy in that apt whith 1 Rev inop. :ok::ok:
-Recently I had a Rev fault indication that the tec found was related to a faulty proximity sensor in the main landing gear strut and not to a Rev imself. Interesting noting that some braking issue also led to a rev inop. So could be nice to know if the Rev inop in the Tam was due to actually a faulty Rev or perhaps to other reasons.

Doors to Automatic

20th Jul 2007, 09:36

Jersey 27 is very similar and 1000ft shorter!! Frequently accepts B737s and A320s even the odd A321.

I was there a few weeks ago watching planes land in heavy rain whilst waiting for my flight back to East Mids. It was tight!!

22/04

20th Jul 2007, 09:46

Could someone clarify

With one reverser inop would standard practice be to land and use the one remaining, with acceptable asymmetry, or to use neither ( or even to use one at idle only)

atakacs

20th Jul 2007, 09:48

Guess too early to speak about FDR / CVR recovery as the crash site is not yet fully secured but just wondering how long they can survive in a fire environmnet. I know that regulations call for 1100 degC / 30 min... no idea if this will be good enough here...

BOAC

20th Jul 2007, 09:49

22/04 - On a normal runway, up to full reverse on one side is controllable and used as 'standard' in the event of an engine out landing on a two-engined a/c.

Atakacs - The pics I have seen show the tail section reasonably intact, so hopefully they will be ok.

wiggy

20th Jul 2007, 10:00

No, Jersey 27 is not 'very similar', it's like comparing apples with Oranges. At least one big difference is that Jersey is not far off Sea Level whilst Congonhas is about 2500' AMSL.

Doors to Automatic

20th Jul 2007, 10:02

What difference does that make to braking capability?

BOAC

20th Jul 2007, 10:08

A quick 'advisory' here - I'm as guilty as anyone, but we need to keep this thread focussed on the accident rather than discussions about other airports. Maybe we need a new thread about over-run areas?

bomarc

20th Jul 2007, 10:20

an airport at 2500 feet vs sea level and landing distances...

an airplane needs to approach a field at an indicated airspeed based on weight (additivies for wind)...that speed is the same regardless of elevation of the airport

but here is the rub

if the indicated airspeed is the same at sea level and 2500 feet...the TRUE AIRSPEED is higher at 2500feet/ this means a higher ground speed and a longer landing run than at sea level.

google things like ''density altitude'' or "high density altitude" for greater details.

note; HIGH density altitude does'nt mean that the density is high!