View Full Version : Embraer crash in Bahia Brazil.

26th Aug 2010, 17:57
Plane landed short. Any details?

This is all the information we have.

Embraer Crash in Bahia Brazil, NO fatalities | George Hatcher’s Air Flight Disaster (http://airflightdisaster.com/?p=11112)

26th Aug 2010, 18:18
From your link, George points out that crashes aren't resolved "for years."

In this case, with everyone alive when it all came to a stop and fire on engines was put out, odds of getting coherent resolution would seem to be on a much shorter timeline.

No fatalities? Good news!!!

26th Aug 2010, 19:14
Um avião modelo ERJ-145, da Embraer, usado pela companhia aérea Passaredo, fez um pouso forçado nesta quarta-feira em Vitória da Conquista, na Bahia. A aeronave saiu de Guarulhos, em São Paulo, por volta das 13h, e acabou pousando no Aeroporto Pedro Otacílio de Figueiredo, na cidade localizada a 509 km de Salvador, por volta das 14h50m. Segundo a assessoria de imprensa da companhia, o trem de pouso do avião não teria funcionado, forçando um pouso "de barriga" na pista. Testemunhas disseram que viram uma das turbinas pegando fogo no momento do pouso.
- Foi um susto muito grande. Quando o avião colocou a roda no chão, a fuselagem saiu arrastando para dentro do mato e o pessoal gritando e gritando porque tava pegando fogo na turbina e para sair logo - conta a passageira Railda Góes.
A companhia inicialmente disse que não havia feridos. Mas, a informação é de que duas pessoas ficaram levemente feridas: uma mulher teria passado mal após o susto. A empresa informou ainda que presta assistência a todos os passageiros e que enviou técnicos ao local para averiguações.
Google translation:

An ERJ-145 aircraft, Embraer, used by the airline Passaredo, crash-landed Wednesday in Vitoria da Conquista, Bahia. The aircraft went out of Guarulhos, in Sao Paulo, around 13h, and finally landing at the airport Otacílio Pedro de Figueiredo, in the city located 509 km from Salvador, about 14h50m.

According to a spokesperson for the company, the plane's landing gear would not have worked, forcing a landing "belly" on track. Witnesses said they saw a turbine on fire at the moment of landing.

- It was a very big scare. When the plane put the wheel on the ground, the fuselage dragging out into the bush and people yelling and screaming because it was getting fire in the turbine and to leave immediately - he tells the passenger Railda Garcia.

The company initially said there were no injuries. But the information is that two people were slightly injured, a woman would have gotten sick after the shock. The company said it would assist all passengers and sent technicians to the site for investigation.


- GY :eek:

Ex Cargo Clown
27th Aug 2010, 00:32
Looking at the state of the aircraft in that picture it is a miracle that there were only two minor injuries.

Well done to the crew concerned, this looks as though it could have been a lot worse :eek:

27th Aug 2010, 02:35
A local aviation site, ContatoRadar, provides a few more photos. Sifting amongst the posts the most plausible sequence of events seems to be a normal approach, slight undershoot and main gear being snapped off by the kerb at the end of the runway.

27th Aug 2010, 13:31

A clear version of the first I think and then this....


That doesn't look quite right now. :eek:

- GY

Sir George Cayley
27th Aug 2010, 14:12
Kerb at the end of the runway :confused::eek:

Sir George Cayley

29th Aug 2010, 01:36
Sir George,
I think you know what I meant, but will elaborate. A step between the asphalt runway surface and the dirt surface prior to the threshold. Perhaps as a result of erosion caused by heavy rains. Not something likely to be friendly to main gear at 110-120 knots.

29th Aug 2010, 07:25
Man, they just got these birds. I wonder if it is similar to what happened at Rio Sul when they first got jets and transitioned from turbo-props. Would explain them landing short.

29th Aug 2010, 08:52
Perhaps this shows how worthwhile it is to de-lethalise, by ramping, the undershoot area in front of the runway lip, as is mandatory in the EU I believe.

29th Aug 2010, 09:22
'De-lethalise', love that word! Made my Sunday :}

30th Aug 2010, 07:29
Correct me if I am wrong, but I would have thought that transitioning from turbo props to jets would have made them land deep?

1st Sep 2010, 01:48
Another insight from a post on the ContatoRadar site, secondhand observation by supposedly knowlegeable witnesses who took the trouble to check the end of the runway:
Gear was down but the aircraft lost altitude on short finals, main gear hit 10cm below the concrete lip at the beginning of the runway overshoot area and collapsed; left main gear ricocheted up, hitting the left horizontal stabilizer. Aircraft veered left and collided with vasi, right engine ingested bits of same and caught fire.
I've not been to Vitoria da Conquista but... there are a few clips on YouTube showing an approach over a small lake or reservoir. There's an embankment, not very high but steep,immediately prior to the paved 50m overrun area before the threshold. In the clips that overrun area looked slightly ramped itself.

1st Sep 2010, 02:42
Correct me if I am wrong, but I would have thought that transitioning from turbo props to jets would have made them land deep?

I guess I wasn't very specific, there is not only one pit-fall as a result of them transitioning from props to jets.

I was comparing it to the Rio Sul EMB crash in which the fuselage cracked in half just behind the main gear mountings. It was a case of getting too slow in a swept wing aircraft and developing a high rate of sink at an altitude which affords no room for recovery.

Then again, maybe they just aimed at the wrong place. :confused:

1st Sep 2010, 04:54
I fully understood the meaning of the word "kerb" in this situation and it was fine. In the USA we might have spelled it ''curb''.

I flew for a regional about 23 years ago and one of their planes landed just short of the runway...I mean NOSE wheel on pavement and main gear just short/ creamed the gear right off.

There is a good reason to touchdown on the one thousand foot fixed distance marker.

1st Sep 2010, 05:44
Lambert...turbo-props and pistons respond immediately to power lever movements...jet engines do not...

Imagine,you're new on the airplane, a tad fast on approach, thrust levers to flight idle, speed now OK but a/c going low on the profile. Move thrust levers fwd a bit, no help, now really low on profile and getting slow.

Thrust levers now moved really fwd but guess what??? You know the answer (I hope)...no response from the engines...they're not spooled up yet...

End result??? You have to take what you got...in this case, it was close but no cigar...still well done to the crew for not screwing up and stalling the a/c or plowing it into the ground...

I think that was what was meant by the transition from turbo props to jets...

Deep and fast
1st Sep 2010, 05:53
I fly the jungle jet, and spool time is really not an issue! Sink rate if you get slow definitely is.

Set the thrust fly the speed and make measured adjustments of thrust. It really isn't that difficult.

D and f

Ps and do remember thrust is not proportional to thrust lever angle, so if you do get slow and need thrust push em forward enough!

1st Sep 2010, 13:58
part of the equation differences/ between turbo prop and jet is this.

the jet engines provide thrust and do not energize the air flow by prop action over the wing.

the turboprop or piston actually energizes the air flow over the wing directly upon power application.

if you are low and slow in a jet, add a LOT of power until the trend reverses...In the jets I've flown, I've seen about 1.5 inches of movement useful. especially when dropping below the tree line, having the natural wind suddenly blanked by the trees.

for more difference between turboprop/piston and jets, see the fine book, "handling the big jets" by davies.

1st Sep 2010, 21:25
I have landed the 145 on a few short runways (IOM, BHD, ROA) but I find 3,000 feet a bit short, especially if you do not have TRs (I have flown them with and without TRs). I'd like to see the t/o and landing performance data for this runway. I am curious what the max payload for this particular runway is ... :eek:

More from FlightInternational (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/08/31/346749/passaredo-embraer-erj-145-suffers-serious-damage-in-landing-mishap.html).

Capn Bloggs
1st Sep 2010, 23:45
From one colonial to another:
I fully understood the meaning of the word "kerb" in this situation and it was fine. In the USA we might have spelled it ''curb''.

A "kerb" is a lip on the side of a road (or in this case, across the underrun of a runway).
"Curb" means to stop, reduce or desist in doing short landings!