Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

TAM A320 crash at Congonhas, Brazil

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

TAM A320 crash at Congonhas, Brazil

Old 8th Oct 2007, 08:08
  #2741 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Portugal
Posts: 39
bubbers44 wrote:
I guess Boeing pilots got spoiled knowing that on a short slick runway no matter what the airplane wanted to do you could always go manual ground spoilers, manual brakes, manual reverse and if a throttle stuck half way up you could shut the engine down and not have to worry about if the ground spoilers would retract or not deploy. I know this realy annoys some people but I always liked it that way. Just my opinion.
It's a strange concept in this american airplanes, which still leaves the pilot in control. Unbeliavable...

Even in the old fashioned A310, I recently had a failure of ground spoilers to deploy on a landing on a relatively short rwy (2.300m) following an approach with moderate to sev turb. After touchdown, "no spoilers!", hand on lever, manually deployed the speedbrakes, 8 panels deploy instead of 14 (normal system operation), and we have a non event, using aprox half of the rwy lenght for that landing. Maintenance report, end of subject. I REALLY missed the computer thinking for me to perform those actions.

Cheers
3Ten is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2007, 06:07
  #2742 (permalink)  
PBL
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Bielefeld, Germany
Posts: 955
I posted a reply yesterday to aviodornovato pointing out that:
* he misunderstands the legal concept of guilt, which contrary to what he says is not a "legal consequence of causality", and
* if he wants to reduce causality to correlation (Hume's "constant conjunction") then he is going to have trouble explaining the causality in aircraft accidents. To have correlation, you need many similar events with similar conjunctions. Aircraft accidents are by and large unique, so it is all but impossible to establish correlation. That is why accident investigation agencies and people like ourselves use the Counterfactual Test.

I would still like to know what happened to my original note.

BTW, I think BOAC's view on learning from the accident is hopelessly narrow. I know no means of selecting the causal factors "important to pilots" from amongst the causal factors of an accident, until you actually have all of the causal factors and understand their causal relations. He seems to want to pick and choose in advance of having a full explanation, which I don't think can be done reliably.

I also notice that no one is bothering to answer the questions I posed with my simple example. Anyone who thinks they can prioritise causes should be able to do so easily with this simple example, as well as explain their reasons for doing so.

PBL
PBL is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2007, 15:25
  #2743 (permalink)  

aka Capt PPRuNe
 
Join Date: May 1995
Location: UK
Posts: 4,541
Ladies and Gentlemen, for your information, the "missing" posts have been removed from this thread in the interest of keeping it more factual of interest to the wider pilot audience rather than having it descend into the equivalent of an 'academia hair splitting contest'. The debate over what constitutes "guilt" or whatever was not relevant and you can carry on your debate over on the Non Airline Transport forum where your posts now reside: Academic argument over concepts of 'guilt' in law after an aviation accident

A reminder that this thread has probably run its course for the time being. The technical debates, whilst of interest, have tended more recently to have become bogged down in minutiae and therefore I request that you keep the debate on topic or else use the Tech Log forum.
Danny is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2007, 16:37
  #2744 (permalink)  

Sun worshipper
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 494
Hear ! Hear !
And Thanks Danny.
Lemurian is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2007, 19:00
  #2745 (permalink)  
PBL
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Bielefeld, Germany
Posts: 955
While I applaud the move to remove misleading comments about guilt, I don't approve of the move to call it "academic". Being one of the few people here who are associated with an academy, I find it inappropriate that facile and obviously incorrect views are labelled "academic", just as professional aviators might find it inappropriate if I labelled facile and obviously incorrect views as "pilot's arguments".

Although on current form it wouldn't be.

PBL
PBL is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2007, 20:19
  #2746 (permalink)  
Dep Chief PPRuNe Pilot
 
Join Date: Jan 1997
Location: UK
Posts: 7,325
Well, with genuine respect guys, you'll have to live with our decision.

The cumulative 100's of thousands of hours experience on the forum left the thread long ago. Only a handful of brave souls remain who actually land transport jets in foul weather added a leavening of practical experience to the jousting between the Brazilian contingent and the academics.

Everyone else just closed the powers levers and left you to it long ago.

Regards
Rob
PPRuNe Towers is offline  
Old 10th Oct 2007, 00:29
  #2747 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,561
To continue this thread with no new data has reduced it to rehashing old information without any new knowledge. Going to the guilt topic really demonstrates that. For once I agree with Danny.
bubbers44 is offline  
Old 10th Oct 2007, 00:32
  #2748 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Timbuctu
Posts: 27
This message was deleted by the poster himself... I am not sure what is PBL's goal here as yet...

So let's not make a final judgement so far...

Last edited by aviadornovato; 10th Oct 2007 at 16:23.
aviadornovato is offline  
Old 10th Oct 2007, 02:07
  #2749 (permalink)  
I support PPRuNe
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Belo Horizonte, Brazil
Posts: 162
My friend...

How are we getting on with your friend?
BOAC, I did not forget what I promised. Remembe? I got in touch with my friend, the one who sent me the letter from the Brazilian pilot in China and
I asked him about the letter, if we couls trust it. Do you know what he did? He said that he was getting in touch with a close friend of his who was an instructor for A320 pilots in the simulator. He sent me a copy of a e-mail he sent to him. Guess what? The instructor changed the subject kindly and did not answer the question about thar e-mail from China. I then asked point blank my friend about the letter. He said that is was exagerated and could not be trusted. So I guess BOAC that we shouldn't believe in that letter. I am sorry for publishing it here.

In the other hand noone answered my question if there are examples of other aircrafts landing with one reverser locked out and having the same problems as the three accidentes with the A320...

Regards to all from Los Angeles.
marciovp is offline  
Old 10th Oct 2007, 05:56
  #2750 (permalink)  
PBL
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Bielefeld, Germany
Posts: 955
Originally Posted by PPRuNe Towers
Well, with genuine respect guys, you'll have to live with our decision.

The cumulative 100's of thousands of hours experience on the forum left the thread long ago. .......

Everyone else just closed the powers levers and left you to it long ago.
Nice rhetoric, Rob, but what you are really saying is the following.

There are first class citizens of this site, namely certain professional pilots, and second class citizens, namely others. Those of us with tens of thousands of hours thinking hard about and advising others on systems and causality and accidents and explanations of accidents are apparently second class citizens; those professional pilots with a few tens to a few hundreds of hours thinking about causality and accidents remain first class, and decide when talk of particular accidents is "enough".

I find that excessively and unnecessarily restrictive, and I doubt whether it is in the interests of your first-class citizens either.

PBL
PBL is offline  
Old 10th Oct 2007, 06:27
  #2751 (permalink)  
Dep Chief PPRuNe Pilot
 
Join Date: Jan 1997
Location: UK
Posts: 7,325
Readers came to their own conclusions some weeks ago. Not regarding the accident but the hair splitting discussion.

They will have also worked out for themselves which few contributions have kept it here on the 'front page' rather' rather than getting switched over to the tech log forum.

Regards again,
Rob
PPRuNe Towers is offline  
Old 10th Oct 2007, 07:35
  #2752 (permalink)  
PBL
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Bielefeld, Germany
Posts: 955
I don't care where this thread appears. Tech Log sounds like a good place. But I do care somewhat about being told retrospectively what it is OK to discuss and what not. I need to determine if I am wasting my time here.

What aspect of the discussion were you referring to when you mentioned "hair-splitting"?

PBL
PBL is offline  
Old 10th Oct 2007, 09:04
  #2753 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Somewhere in the Tropics UTC+7 to 9
Posts: 450
In the other hand noone answered my question if there are examples of other aircrafts landing with one reverser locked out and having the same problems as the three accidentes with the A320...
How about also adding "Landings where at least 1 Thrust Lever was still in positive thrust above idle"...

PK-KAR
PK-KAR is offline  
Old 10th Oct 2007, 12:32
  #2754 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 533
PPRuNe Towers, Danny,

now what exactly was considered hair-splitting about me pointing to specific pages ef the report of an incident similar to this accident, showing that runway length was important, and that and how the aircraft in that case kept on the runway to the end, and why I think the evidence for that is convincing. I was presenting an argument why the lack of an overrun area was a causal factor and needs to be looked at.

And if so many readers have deserted the thread, well, that's their decision, but why are posts deleted which discuss technical details, that are relevant to aviation safety? And why selectively?

I see that even this late in the thread some very experienced professional pilots are still actively following it.

What exactly are the criteria to decide whether or not a thread has "run its course"? Why should it concern the moderators if technical minutiae are discussed by parties interested and experienced in matters of aviation safety?

My understanding was that moderation should take place if completely unrelated things are discussed (in which case I have no problem with the posts being moved to another or a new thread) or if unsuitable language and insults are used (in which case I appreciate it if the posts are deleted).


Respectfully,
Bernd
bsieker is offline  
Old 10th Oct 2007, 13:39
  #2755 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 5,280
I know no means of selecting the causal factors "important to pilots" from amongst the causal factors of an accident, until you actually have all of the causal factors and understand their causal relations. He seems to want to pick and choose in advance of having a full explanation, which I don't think can be done reliably.

PBL
My sentiments as well and in my view pertinent to the discussion of this accident in this thread as many of the posters have already directed their opinions to blame The views of causality are widely shared among aviation professionals and also supported within ICAO.

However, views about legal torts are not as widely shared among nations and are typically beyond the scope of aviation professionals to discuss and in my view are not appropriate in this thread
lomapaseo is offline  
Old 10th Oct 2007, 15:57
  #2756 (permalink)  
PBL
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Bielefeld, Germany
Posts: 955
Originally Posted by lomapaseo
However, views about legal torts are not as widely shared among nations and are typically beyond the scope of aviation professionals to discuss and in my view are not appropriate in this thread
That may be. But was it really a problem of some sort that could not have been solved more politely? Am I, and gpvictor, and bsieker, and 3Ten really so uncontrolled? I have run panel sessions at international conferences and never once come close to taking a microphone away from a speaker.

And have you compared what is said on this thread, by anybody, about anything, with what has been going on with the discussion of a pilot fired for allowing someone on the flight deck, against U.K. DfT regulations? People there seem to be writing anything they want, and there is nobody telling them please to stick to the discussion of U.K. regulations, whether they are to be adhered to, and what management may do with people who willfully break them, and saying that anything else is "off thread", or "hair splitting".

One contributor was "escorted off" this thread for some reason, and is actually one of the most useful information sources I have had about what is going on in Brazil concerning this accident, because he has access to some critical public documents.

Nobody really worries if scissors are used to trim a bit of paper here and there, but it seems to me that fingers are also being lopped off, and I think one could be a little more careful.

PBL

Last edited by PBL; 10th Oct 2007 at 16:18.
PBL is offline  
Old 10th Oct 2007, 16:31
  #2757 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Timbuctu
Posts: 27
I just don't understand what is your goal here as yet...

I have just entered (and diverted) to the law-related subjects because it seems you are very concerned with the juridical consequences of this accident.

Accidents have many causes, yes. The short runway was a cause, allright...
The warning was not installed because it could take away the crew's concentration at landing (LOL, but anyway...).

PBL, my question is:

What do you really want to prove with all this discussion with causality ? How does it relates to this particular accident ?
aviadornovato is offline  
Old 10th Oct 2007, 17:31
  #2758 (permalink)  
PJ2
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: BC
Age: 72
Posts: 2,436
bernd;
I see that even this late in the thread some very experienced professional pilots are still actively following it.
Absolutely, even the "hair-splitting" discussions because, very often, that is what comprehending the pathways to an accident turns on. The thread turned in its nature some time ago and I suspect many still follow with great interest. Those who perhaps dropped out a while back were those whose interests in blame, in TLA details or the A vs B war were no longer being rewarded with comeback responses. Even marciovp has admitted that he shouldn't have posted the nonsense about a friend's letter so that issue has disappeared. What we're seeing are perhaps the seeds of how the actual investigation may (and perhaps should) unfold. In some ways, the discussion here blends nicely with the GOL thread.
PJ2 is offline  
Old 10th Oct 2007, 17:46
  #2759 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Timbuctu
Posts: 27
Those who perhaps dropped out a while back were those whose interests in blame, in TLA details or the A vs B war were no longer being rewarded with comeback responses.
Man,

You are really a spin-doctor. You are in the GOL thread and in this one to make the public relations you were asked directly or indirectly to do.

When the questions go right to the point you, your pupil Bernd and the (Airfrance?, Airbus ?) guy Lemurian simply do not answer.

Not to mention the very arrogant and unbearable behaviour here.

Do you really think we Brazilians don't know how this game is played and how the so-called "academics" are used to do the dirty job ? I think many here are aware of the role the internet is playing in the PR strategy of many corporations.

Including in discussion boards...
aviadornovato is offline  
Old 10th Oct 2007, 18:38
  #2760 (permalink)  
PJ2
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: BC
Age: 72
Posts: 2,436
aviadornovato;

Bernd? My pupil?, (not that I wouldn't be honored by such), Spin? Arrogant? Unbearable behaviour? "PR strategy"?

Sir, you are so far off base in comprehending my comments and intentions both here and throughout the thread that your post hardly warrants a response.

I am an A340/A330 Captain with 35 years at a major North American carrier with McDonnel-Douglas, Boeing, Lockheed and Airbus under my belt. My one and only "ax" to grind is flight safety, information flow and understanding.

Wow. Perhaps the thread has indeed run it's course with responses like this one.

PJ2
PJ2 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.