Did an A340 Very Recently Land on a taxiway in Sao Paulo?
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Brasil
Posts: 351
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There was a report on the local news over the weekend about this incident.
Air to ground communications was compromised by an illegal FM radio station transmiting a very powerful signal on a frequency around 100MHz in the Guarulhos area. This site has since been closed down and the equipment confiscated by the authorities.
It was also reported that the pilots did not have the relevant NOTAMS concerning the work in progress at GRU.
As usual, there wasn't just one factor involved in the incident.
Tchau
Air to ground communications was compromised by an illegal FM radio station transmiting a very powerful signal on a frequency around 100MHz in the Guarulhos area. This site has since been closed down and the equipment confiscated by the authorities.
It was also reported that the pilots did not have the relevant NOTAMS concerning the work in progress at GRU.
As usual, there wasn't just one factor involved in the incident.
Tchau
Alemaobaiano,
You've kept a good lookout! I wasn't able to find the weekend news reference you mention but, based only on your succinct synopsis, one might smell a few red herrings being dragged across the chain of events, nearly a fortnight after the fact.
Ask yourself, are clandestine radios really news? The issue of their blanketing essential frequencies has been around for quite a few years.
Notams re work in progress at GRU, one wonders how that could possibly have influenced the outcome.
Think you'll probably agree that, bearing above points in mind, there is some embarassed pr ass-covering underway
I'm far from a conspiracy theorist but, you know, friends will be friends and I would probably do the same myself. But it doesn't really wash, does it.
You've kept a good lookout! I wasn't able to find the weekend news reference you mention but, based only on your succinct synopsis, one might smell a few red herrings being dragged across the chain of events, nearly a fortnight after the fact.
Ask yourself, are clandestine radios really news? The issue of their blanketing essential frequencies has been around for quite a few years.
Notams re work in progress at GRU, one wonders how that could possibly have influenced the outcome.
Think you'll probably agree that, bearing above points in mind, there is some embarassed pr ass-covering underway
I'm far from a conspiracy theorist but, you know, friends will be friends and I would probably do the same myself. But it doesn't really wash, does it.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Brasil
Posts: 351
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Broadreach
It was on Band News on Saturday evening, and that is one of the most reputable news channels in Brazil (not saying much I know, but it wasn't on Globo). It is, as you point out nothing new, and as there were no casualties and no damage this was just a brief filler on the evening bulletin, from a police point of view rather than aviation.
It's difficult to see who would be covering up for whom. The original premise was pilot error by a foreign pilot, so what would be the motive for local agencies covering up anything? Let the news run and there is no blame on GRU. The TAP crew take the fall.
The NOTAMs issue is relevant, in that one runway was notified as closed and without full lighting, therefore the crew's mental picture would have been at odds with reality. They expected to see two live runways, and that is what they "saw", without access to the NOTAM to correct their mental expectations. The weather at the time may well have been contributary factor, heavy isolated showers are common at this time of the year.
The captured transmitter is reported to have an output of 3kW in the range 100-120MHz and to have been positioned on the approach path close to the airport. Most radios on tower frequency are in the range of 10-15W so a badly matched antenna with an input of 3kW is more than capable of swamping the frequency. This effect was also reported by a United flight taxi-ing at the same time.
Sorry, but I don't see a cover up going on. Who gains with this additional information? Surely a cover up would have just left the crew out to dry?
This report actually seems to reflect the reality of most aviation incidents, in that there is very rarely one causal event but a string of unrelated issues that come together at the worst possible moment. In this case the report explains the extenuating circumstances that led to a possible aircrew error. This crew probably still made a mistake, but the responsibility for that mistake doesn't lie 100% at their door.
Boa sorte
It was on Band News on Saturday evening, and that is one of the most reputable news channels in Brazil (not saying much I know, but it wasn't on Globo). It is, as you point out nothing new, and as there were no casualties and no damage this was just a brief filler on the evening bulletin, from a police point of view rather than aviation.
It's difficult to see who would be covering up for whom. The original premise was pilot error by a foreign pilot, so what would be the motive for local agencies covering up anything? Let the news run and there is no blame on GRU. The TAP crew take the fall.
The NOTAMs issue is relevant, in that one runway was notified as closed and without full lighting, therefore the crew's mental picture would have been at odds with reality. They expected to see two live runways, and that is what they "saw", without access to the NOTAM to correct their mental expectations. The weather at the time may well have been contributary factor, heavy isolated showers are common at this time of the year.
The captured transmitter is reported to have an output of 3kW in the range 100-120MHz and to have been positioned on the approach path close to the airport. Most radios on tower frequency are in the range of 10-15W so a badly matched antenna with an input of 3kW is more than capable of swamping the frequency. This effect was also reported by a United flight taxi-ing at the same time.
Sorry, but I don't see a cover up going on. Who gains with this additional information? Surely a cover up would have just left the crew out to dry?
This report actually seems to reflect the reality of most aviation incidents, in that there is very rarely one causal event but a string of unrelated issues that come together at the worst possible moment. In this case the report explains the extenuating circumstances that led to a possible aircrew error. This crew probably still made a mistake, but the responsibility for that mistake doesn't lie 100% at their door.
Boa sorte
Wait for comments when your time comes!!!Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: BCN
Age: 75
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Johnbr
Well...Although I'm on my annual 30 days leave,I'm located in Rio,very close to Sao paulo,and in contact with a few coleagues I've heard nothing of this rumor,and if you know SBGR you would say it isn't very likely...Both taxiways that run parallel to the runways are too narrow and too bumpy for an A340 to land and without being subjected to some damage...I'm pretty confident I would've heard something..
It has hapeened!!We professionals should not gossip! It is very much important to try to find out , WHY DID it Hapen than Think that will never hapen to us or to YOU! This remark is not meant to anyone in Particular but by some guys age ...you will need a lot of time to retire!
Please do not read this as agnaisnt you or anyone!
As aprofessional I will take a stand in favour of that Crew of the TAP 340 despite no particular simpathy for many arrogant of their attitudes!
Please note there are bad and good everywhere and that is a fact! Even in TAP. By the away many good professionals, and I just mean that.
I am two years from retirement so no need to ass kissing or to intend to join them just facts.
Aviation is serious and not destructive talking.
It hapen yes fact! WHY.I bet INAC will never Finish a serious enquire or at the end will have a sposkman for bla bla like in SATA's Accident whrere Captain Mesquita and all the others have died. What was the result? nothing all operation continues just as the same!
So be factual and find out and push to find out in reality Things like:
PSV Fduty period
Crew pressure
ATC """ ARREMETER" ?! equal to Go arround etc overshoot!? Where they ware of that?
Situation Wareness?
Complacency?
Cockpit CM1/CM2 level of authorithy or just CM2 accpetance?
Knowing TAP standards however those may not be the primary factors ... but just a bad day those guys may want to wish that what hapen did not hapen to them!
REgards.
FJP
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: BCN
Age: 75
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Send Clowns
Looks like the taxiways are just as wide as the runways. It's happened before, and it'll happen again. Notice from Airway it was good VMC. Presume they were approaching visually without confirming on the ILS.
ILS was off!
They landed in the other Rwy
See the Metar WS, RETS etc
Twy is was 25m wide.... bad situation wareness fact!
Briefieng etc did they brief what expect to see? did it match.
The CVRs will say if missed app was considered or not.
Hope someone will give us some professional light, and serious, straight to the point facts and then see who's the one to trough the first stone...
Regards.
FJP
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: BCN
Age: 75
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Krueger
Court Martial????!!!! UUUUhhhhhh!
Aren't you being a little bit over the edge? In the best interest of flight safety, you should avoid this type of finger pointing.
One thing is a mistake and a totally different thing is a violation.
Imagine yourself on the controls, on the same situation, then you hear a controller saying something that you don't understand (for instance, go-around in brazilian portuguese, which is totally different than in portuguese). What would you do?
Thank god you don't belong to any acident investigation team!
Check Six , Krueger...
Aren't you being a little bit over the edge? In the best interest of flight safety, you should avoid this type of finger pointing.
One thing is a mistake and a totally different thing is a violation.
Imagine yourself on the controls, on the same situation, then you hear a controller saying something that you don't understand (for instance, go-around in brazilian portuguese, which is totally different than in portuguese). What would you do?
Thank god you don't belong to any acident investigation team!
Check Six , Krueger...
Thanks mate for your comment! I fully endorse make it in bold and underline! How can we airmen like this?Before we blame let us understand the facts. and make those facts available to the class to avoid things similar in the future this is the essentials in Safe aviation, do not point your finger to a " Professional" Colleague!
Krueger , once agian, Good Job welldoneFJP
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Madeira-Portugal
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
" SATA's Accident whrere Captain Mesquita and all the others have died. What was the result? nothing all operation continues just as the same"
SATA has installed GPS nav on its ATP fleet afterwards
SATA has installed GPS nav on its ATP fleet afterwards
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: BCN
Age: 75
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by FNC
" SATA's Accident whrere Captain Mesquita and all the others have died. What was the result? nothing all operation continues just as the same"
SATA has installed GPS nav on its ATP fleet afterwards
SATA has installed GPS nav on its ATP fleet afterwards
So, with GPS nav what has changed other than more precise situation wareness,,,, if Vis is say under 1500/2000mts do they still fly ?
Just wanted to understand?
Regards.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Madeira-Portugal
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have no idea on the procedures they comply or not.
I am not a (commercial) pilot and do not work for SATA.
But I am sure they won't be flying onto a mountain anymore while not knowing it is in front of them.
I am not a (commercial) pilot and do not work for SATA.
But I am sure they won't be flying onto a mountain anymore while not knowing it is in front of them.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: BCN
Age: 75
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by FNC
I have no idea on the procedures they comply or not.
I am not a (commercial) pilot and do not work for SATA.
But I am sure they won't be flying onto a mountain anymore while not knowing it is in front of them.
I am not a (commercial) pilot and do not work for SATA.
But I am sure they won't be flying onto a mountain anymore while not knowing it is in front of them.
Have a good ay and many safe landings,
Regards
FJP
Alemaobaiano,
Thanks for your reasoned and insightful post, far more so than my last one. I agree with just about everything you've said.
My tending toward an ass-covering explanation was an exercise in adding the near total absence of news coverage of a serious incident to the still relatively opaque conduct of Brazilian aviation authorities and spicing it with TAP upper management's close ties with those same authorities.
Had it been more than an incident, there would have been all sorts of bad press flying around, much of it damaging to more public/corporate reputations than those of the unfortunate crew. Or damaging to projects, e.g. the Varig/TAP deal. Therefore, better to carefully ensure, throughout both systems, that nothing unfiltered is said.
The only quarrel with that, of course, is that the incident doesn't find its way quickly into the knowlege base of the hundreds of crews flying into GRU every day and, from there, to greater awareness of a specific threat.
Note FJP's comment a few posts up, twy 25m wide. A340's track just under 11m. Whew.
Thanks for your reasoned and insightful post, far more so than my last one. I agree with just about everything you've said.
My tending toward an ass-covering explanation was an exercise in adding the near total absence of news coverage of a serious incident to the still relatively opaque conduct of Brazilian aviation authorities and spicing it with TAP upper management's close ties with those same authorities.
Had it been more than an incident, there would have been all sorts of bad press flying around, much of it damaging to more public/corporate reputations than those of the unfortunate crew. Or damaging to projects, e.g. the Varig/TAP deal. Therefore, better to carefully ensure, throughout both systems, that nothing unfiltered is said.
The only quarrel with that, of course, is that the incident doesn't find its way quickly into the knowlege base of the hundreds of crews flying into GRU every day and, from there, to greater awareness of a specific threat.
Note FJP's comment a few posts up, twy 25m wide. A340's track just under 11m. Whew.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: munich/frg
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
only explanation to a non professional like me is that the crew must have been suffering total fatigue ... guess they came from lisbon - 11 hours (?) overnight .... could that be a factor?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: A oneworld lounge near you
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Required visual references
Perhaps the investigators will ask why the crew were not making the required visual reference checks on very short final. Whatever happened to the 100 feet, threshold visible, TDZ visible and then 50 feet, threshold not visible, TDZ visible, aircraft expected to touchdown in the TDZ?
That is a basic requirement. Although, I have to admit, not every airline that I audit (pre accident) or work with (post accident) seems to have this basic requirement in place for JAR OPS 1.
As for ATC sending them around, bit of a false one that. Other questions will be in relation to which side the PAPIs were on (or VASIs but still a requirement for jet aircraft operations to runways).
We have all done, or will do, the false perspective thing at some point, so let's not be too harsh here.
Yellow lines not white ones?
Pity that ATC did not have the Park Air Systems RIMCAS system installed and operating then! That has been giving protection to some runways for years in this area of taxiway landings/take-offs.
That is a basic requirement. Although, I have to admit, not every airline that I audit (pre accident) or work with (post accident) seems to have this basic requirement in place for JAR OPS 1.
As for ATC sending them around, bit of a false one that. Other questions will be in relation to which side the PAPIs were on (or VASIs but still a requirement for jet aircraft operations to runways).
We have all done, or will do, the false perspective thing at some point, so let's not be too harsh here.
Yellow lines not white ones?
Pity that ATC did not have the Park Air Systems RIMCAS system installed and operating then! That has been giving protection to some runways for years in this area of taxiway landings/take-offs.
A CX A340 took off from a taxiway at Anchorage in 2002, with the mains hitting a snow berm just after take-off
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?...02IA011&akey=1
very lucky
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?...02IA011&akey=1
very lucky
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Obvious
Age: 77
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Got any references for that DiscountInvestigator?
Pity that ATC did not have the Park Air Systems RIMCAS system installed and operating then! That has been giving protection to some runways for years in this area of taxiway landings/take-offs.
Is this a bit of Honeywell kit or what? Park Air Systems? Never heard of them.
B
Too mean to buy a long personal title
Originally Posted by Just a Grunt
A CX A340 took off from a taxiway at Anchorage in 2002, with the mains hitting a snow berm just after take-off
Definitely a different airline.
