TAM A320 crash at Congonhas, Brazil
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 38N
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lawyers with time and time on their side rule the world, and any decision you take can be questioned by people who can take hours/days/weeks to review your decisions which affected real lives that you had to take in a minute or so.
For the TAM A320, the final, fateful decision window for pulling any chance of success from a bad set of circumstances seems likely not longer than 5 or ten seconds, after allowing time for discovery of the problem and before allowance of time for putting into effect the fateful plan B.
If the aircraft were properly planted on the runway, various deceleration means deployed & activated, and yet ground speed reduction was not happening according to normal - for reasons unknown, a large chunk of the window for any go-round decision could have already passed before the deadly seriousness of the problem was clear.
If a last-chance decision was considered under such circumstances, it possibly was to either A) attempt a go-round, even with one reverser deployed, or B) not go-round despite clearly excessive speed on the ground and certain knowledge the aircraft would experience that awful drop at runway's end, with terrible consequences almost inevitable.
If the PF believed the reverser could not be stowed safely in time to execute a go-round - or the outcome might not be knowable until too late, then a rational decision might have been to kill thrust ASAP on the engine with the reverser deployed and go to maximum TOGA thrust on the engine with reverser locked out. This choice could have made for an improvised single engine departure with lots of negatives in the profile.... but still a chance at flight and maybe instinctively better than going over that wall at runway's end.
Would this option stand any chance of success?
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: spain
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gentelmen the loss of brakes memory items might help when landing
on long runways, but on short runways I would rather keep my nosewheel
steering so I can direct the plane into the safest direction available.
on long runways, but on short runways I would rather keep my nosewheel
steering so I can direct the plane into the safest direction available.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: btw SAMAR and TOSPA
Posts: 566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Similar event?
1 reverser deactivated
mishandling
veered off runway
overshot
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...t=siberia+a310
http://www.kommersant.com/p724140/Irkutsk_A310_Crash/
mishandling
veered off runway
overshot
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...t=siberia+a310
http://www.kommersant.com/p724140/Irkutsk_A310_Crash/
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For PEI 3721 - I can only speak for the 737, but an 'INOP' reverser normally has the reverser actuating lever on the throttle wire-locked so it cannot be moved. Of AB I know nothing.
**************************************
TwoOneFour's link is interesting and appears to answer an earlier and possibly relevant question about AB throttles:
"In an effort at maintaining directional control, the captain then moved the #1 thrust lever out of reverse and inadvertently moved it to the Take-Off/Go-Around (TOGA) position, while leaving the #2 thrust lever in the full reverse position."
I'm still not sure this movement is possible on a 737 but it appears so on an AB. Whether or not it is relevant we will see but I would suggest it needs to be looked at by AB?
**************************************
TwoOneFour's link is interesting and appears to answer an earlier and possibly relevant question about AB throttles:
"In an effort at maintaining directional control, the captain then moved the #1 thrust lever out of reverse and inadvertently moved it to the Take-Off/Go-Around (TOGA) position, while leaving the #2 thrust lever in the full reverse position."
I'm still not sure this movement is possible on a 737 but it appears so on an AB. Whether or not it is relevant we will see but I would suggest it needs to be looked at by AB?
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Salvador - Brazil
Age: 45
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilot says ILS wasn't working at the time of the accident.
http://portalexame.abril.uol.com.br/.../m0134242.html
"um experiente comandante com mais de 15 000 horas de vôo, pousou em Congonhas cerca de dez minutos antes do Airbus que se acidentou. Pouco antes de aterrissar ele recebeu por rádio o aviso da torre de que o ILS năo estava funcionando"
Means
"An experienced comander with more than 15.000 hours of flight, landed in congonhas about ten minutes before the airbus accident. Before landing he received by radio an advice that ILS wasn't working".
Not only that, see this:
"De acordo com relatos de especialistas, o piloto da TAM passou da faixa de 1 000 metros em que deveria começar o pouso"
Means
"Specialists told that the TAM pilot started the landing 1.000m after the initial point that the landing should have started."
Can someone confirm that ILS wasn't working ?
If so, now we have:
- Rev-2 INOP
- No Grooving on the runway
- Bad weather
- High weight
- Small Runway
- No ILS
- Started landing at +1000m ?
http://portalexame.abril.uol.com.br/.../m0134242.html
"um experiente comandante com mais de 15 000 horas de vôo, pousou em Congonhas cerca de dez minutos antes do Airbus que se acidentou. Pouco antes de aterrissar ele recebeu por rádio o aviso da torre de que o ILS năo estava funcionando"
Means
"An experienced comander with more than 15.000 hours of flight, landed in congonhas about ten minutes before the airbus accident. Before landing he received by radio an advice that ILS wasn't working".
Not only that, see this:
"De acordo com relatos de especialistas, o piloto da TAM passou da faixa de 1 000 metros em que deveria começar o pouso"
Means
"Specialists told that the TAM pilot started the landing 1.000m after the initial point that the landing should have started."
Can someone confirm that ILS wasn't working ?
If so, now we have:
- Rev-2 INOP
- No Grooving on the runway
- Bad weather
- High weight
- Small Runway
- No ILS
- Started landing at +1000m ?
Interesting to see that TAM have now put MEL on their public website, I guess in response to the press coverage of the T/R issue
http://www.taminforma.com.br/noticia.aspx?id=1497
http://www.taminforma.com.br/noticia.aspx?id=1497
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The #2 reverser was locked out according to TAM per MEL and legal for this airport. If they landed on speed and in the TDZ if braking action was normal non of this should have happened. It did happen so one of the three wasn't there. Maybe more. If a go around was attempted after TR deployment on #1, which is not recommended of course, the right engine would spool immediately and the left would have to come out of reverse and then start to spool up well after the right engine. The results would probably follow the google earth picture posted earlier which was a well done illustration of what the security cameras showed. I have landed and after stowing the reversers realized the brakes were not effective and would have had an overrun without going back into reverse. Add a long landing and extra speed with one reverser on a slick runway doing training and things can go wrong.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some Speculations
I think the FDR & CVR will give good evidence to the causes of this tragic accident. But it will take some time until the results become public.
Here some thoughts from my side, most of them just speculations from watching the surveillance camera videos.
<somewhat speculative>
A. At a position about abeam the Terminal the Aircraft was moving about 3 times faster than the previous traffic. Assuming that the previous traffic had already decelerated and was rolling to the next exit at a prudent 30kts on the wet/slippery runway, that means the TAM was doing at least 90kts.
B. Judging by the water spray I am sure that #1 Rev was deployed and probably at full thrust. This rules out the "Go Around" theory unless they made the always fatal "Stop - Go - Stop" decision.
C. Very little deceleration visible, if any at all. Aquaplaning? Brake problems?
The deactivated #2 reverser is of little relevance as T/R only add a few percent to the overall deceleration.
D. The Flash: this I find interesting as the time between the flash and the impact (about 5-6 seconds from the timestamps on the surveillance video) gives some insight to the speed at the end of the runway.
But what could have caused the flash? Post #260 has a map with a track that looks fairly plausible.
This picture shows that there is no wall or fence at the airport perimeter. Besides the perimeter is only about 90m from the crash site. 90m in 5 seconds means 18m/s or about 36kts. At that speed the A/C would have probably impacted on the street below.
I think it is more likely that the flash happened after the A/C went through the grass and hit the Taxiway again. At a higher speed this could certainly collapse part of the gear and impact the left engine onto the tarmac. The inner edge of the taxiway is about 150m from the impact site so this comes out to a speed of about 60 kts. Enough to hurl it over most of the street into the building.
There are a few more smaller obstacles on the possible path of the aircraft (outer threshhold lights, a small something further left) which - if the cause of the flash - would mean even higher speeds.
</somewhat speculative>
<very speculative>
My thoughts on this accident:
"Stop - Go Around - Stop" accident: Not very likely, given that both pilots were very familiar with the short runway, but not unheard of. Two experienced Captains (never a good combination) could be a contributing factor for such a scenario. The CVR will tell.
Long Landing: Possible, especially on a training flight. On such a short and possible slippery Runway it would not take to much of a float to get the speeds I have estimated (ca. 90 kts abeam the Terminal - ~600m before the end of the runway) Again, the pilots knew the danger of this runway so there would have to be some contributing factors to not abort the landing. The FDR will tell.
Malfunction of the brakes: Unlikely but not impossible. But applying Occams Razor I find the long landing theory more plausible.
Eng #2 going accidentally into TOGA Thrust: Interesting possibility. As someone pointed out this has already happened in the past. But being a Boeing driver I don't know enough about the A320 Thrust Lever / Reverse Lever interconnection to speculate on this one.
</very speculative>
Well, those are my thoughts on this accident. Please take with a grain of salt.
brgds
Here some thoughts from my side, most of them just speculations from watching the surveillance camera videos.
<somewhat speculative>
A. At a position about abeam the Terminal the Aircraft was moving about 3 times faster than the previous traffic. Assuming that the previous traffic had already decelerated and was rolling to the next exit at a prudent 30kts on the wet/slippery runway, that means the TAM was doing at least 90kts.
B. Judging by the water spray I am sure that #1 Rev was deployed and probably at full thrust. This rules out the "Go Around" theory unless they made the always fatal "Stop - Go - Stop" decision.
C. Very little deceleration visible, if any at all. Aquaplaning? Brake problems?
The deactivated #2 reverser is of little relevance as T/R only add a few percent to the overall deceleration.
D. The Flash: this I find interesting as the time between the flash and the impact (about 5-6 seconds from the timestamps on the surveillance video) gives some insight to the speed at the end of the runway.
But what could have caused the flash? Post #260 has a map with a track that looks fairly plausible.
This picture shows that there is no wall or fence at the airport perimeter. Besides the perimeter is only about 90m from the crash site. 90m in 5 seconds means 18m/s or about 36kts. At that speed the A/C would have probably impacted on the street below.
I think it is more likely that the flash happened after the A/C went through the grass and hit the Taxiway again. At a higher speed this could certainly collapse part of the gear and impact the left engine onto the tarmac. The inner edge of the taxiway is about 150m from the impact site so this comes out to a speed of about 60 kts. Enough to hurl it over most of the street into the building.
There are a few more smaller obstacles on the possible path of the aircraft (outer threshhold lights, a small something further left) which - if the cause of the flash - would mean even higher speeds.
</somewhat speculative>
<very speculative>
My thoughts on this accident:
"Stop - Go Around - Stop" accident: Not very likely, given that both pilots were very familiar with the short runway, but not unheard of. Two experienced Captains (never a good combination) could be a contributing factor for such a scenario. The CVR will tell.
Long Landing: Possible, especially on a training flight. On such a short and possible slippery Runway it would not take to much of a float to get the speeds I have estimated (ca. 90 kts abeam the Terminal - ~600m before the end of the runway) Again, the pilots knew the danger of this runway so there would have to be some contributing factors to not abort the landing. The FDR will tell.
Malfunction of the brakes: Unlikely but not impossible. But applying Occams Razor I find the long landing theory more plausible.
Eng #2 going accidentally into TOGA Thrust: Interesting possibility. As someone pointed out this has already happened in the past. But being a Boeing driver I don't know enough about the A320 Thrust Lever / Reverse Lever interconnection to speculate on this one.
</very speculative>
Well, those are my thoughts on this accident. Please take with a grain of salt.
brgds
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Ireland
Age: 52
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gentelmen the loss of brakes memory items might help when landing
on long runways, but on short runways I would rather keep my nosewheel
steering so I can direct the plane into the safest direction available.
on long runways, but on short runways I would rather keep my nosewheel
steering so I can direct the plane into the safest direction available.
"Specialists told that the TAM pilot started the landing 1.000m after the initial point that the landing should have started."
MORE than halfway down the 1880 meters – that makes a lot of sense. And that would be inspite of video showing it touching down in the general area of the END of the runway.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gentlemen ,
Interestingly the facts apparent would indicate that Aircraft A in the video conducted a normal Landing with a mean speed approaching runway turn off - approx 26knots deduced from video evidence , assuming undoctored tapes!
Aircraft B -
The subject aircraft travelled the same distance at approx 131.65knots according to my calculations based upon the video evidence.
Any hypothesis as to how Aircraft B speed was achieved would be purely conjecture on my part.
Mister approach.
Interestingly the facts apparent would indicate that Aircraft A in the video conducted a normal Landing with a mean speed approaching runway turn off - approx 26knots deduced from video evidence , assuming undoctored tapes!
Aircraft B -
The subject aircraft travelled the same distance at approx 131.65knots according to my calculations based upon the video evidence.
Any hypothesis as to how Aircraft B speed was achieved would be purely conjecture on my part.
Mister approach.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UAE
Age: 45
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The guy meant 1000ft, and believe me, the media is saying lots of BS...Today, there was an "aviation specialist" explaining how an engine in reverse thrust works...he used a car wheel as an example, saying that “Imagine what would happen to a car if the right wheel is spinning forward an the left one is spinning in reverse...apply that to an airplane and you will undersatnd what happend...so you can imagine what happened to the Airbus” 
. Oh, and there was also an animation showing what happens when the pilot selects reverse thrust: engine fan reversing the blades direction from clockwise to counterclockwise! Really good explanation..
Some times I just feel like jumping into the TV
. Oh, and there was also an animation showing what happens when the pilot selects reverse thrust: engine fan reversing the blades direction from clockwise to counterclockwise! Really good explanation.. Some times I just feel like jumping into the TV
Last edited by Rippa; 21st Jul 2007 at 03:27.
No matter how well we understand our FOM, and whether design engineers credit thrust reversers for less stopping distance etc, when approaching an airport with only short runways (short or long: full length available) the question for us will always be:
With two or three bad factors (short, wet, possibly scattered patches of snow, or heavy weight aircraft, maybe a little tailwind, dark...), Should We Land, OR Divert? And these do not include higher elevation runways.
How about your aircraft being recently overhauled at "outsourced" maintenance hangars? Have your own mechanics/engineers (assuming that your company has any left...) described how many problems come out of
some of these facilities? Hint: "Sweet home......I'm coming home to you"
Some of these factors should be considered before we bypass any suitable alternates enroute to the destination, depending on fuel remaining.
I'm still baffled-How does an absolutely perfect understanding of performance manuals and memorized limitations help us if we become Mission-Oriented to the exclusion of everything else?
Books can not be allowed to overrule pilot judgement, including on the last day/leg of a trip.
Studies have proven how many chances are taken by pilots on the last leg home. With a thrust reverser on MEL, I might refuse to accept any plane sceduled to land on a runway with wet conditions observed or forecast-even if it is 9500' at sea level in calm winds, no matter what the MEL book states. Your company's main concern is flying those passengers from A to B. That is their problem. Your problem is safety (and possibly continuing your career?). An airline's operation personnel already display a lack of judgement when no substitute jet is made available.
Our company Dispatchers normally do anything they can to re-route certain problem aircraft (anti-skid or thrust rev. on MEL), based on some conversations I've had with them.
Limitations are based upon test pilots flying brand-new aircraft over and over again with perfect brakes and antiskid systems, mostly to dry runways.
With two or three bad factors (short, wet, possibly scattered patches of snow, or heavy weight aircraft, maybe a little tailwind, dark...), Should We Land, OR Divert? And these do not include higher elevation runways.
How about your aircraft being recently overhauled at "outsourced" maintenance hangars? Have your own mechanics/engineers (assuming that your company has any left...) described how many problems come out of
some of these facilities? Hint: "Sweet home......I'm coming home to you"
Some of these factors should be considered before we bypass any suitable alternates enroute to the destination, depending on fuel remaining.
I'm still baffled-How does an absolutely perfect understanding of performance manuals and memorized limitations help us if we become Mission-Oriented to the exclusion of everything else?
Books can not be allowed to overrule pilot judgement, including on the last day/leg of a trip.
Studies have proven how many chances are taken by pilots on the last leg home. With a thrust reverser on MEL, I might refuse to accept any plane sceduled to land on a runway with wet conditions observed or forecast-even if it is 9500' at sea level in calm winds, no matter what the MEL book states. Your company's main concern is flying those passengers from A to B. That is their problem. Your problem is safety (and possibly continuing your career?). An airline's operation personnel already display a lack of judgement when no substitute jet is made available.
Our company Dispatchers normally do anything they can to re-route certain problem aircraft (anti-skid or thrust rev. on MEL), based on some conversations I've had with them.
Limitations are based upon test pilots flying brand-new aircraft over and over again with perfect brakes and antiskid systems, mostly to dry runways.
Last edited by Ignition Override; 21st Jul 2007 at 04:24.
Guest
Posts: n/a
That emergency stop button needs to be added soon.
Look at the trends. More and more airports being surrounded by roads and buildings.
Lots of incidents reported here are over runs.
When there is a nice meadow to run over into, or a sandy beach no problem. When the end of the runway is a road or a built up area then death and destruction follows.
Minimum equipment for an aircraft landing at an airport with no safe over run area.
1, Brakes that work.
2, A runway that isnt like an ice rink.
3, Them thrust reverser thingies all working that help if conditions 1 and 2 are not met.
4, A big red button marked "aw sh1t" that deploys a parachute out the a$$ end if the several hundred tons of aluminium, fuel and humans ain't going to stop before we have another disaster.
Waiting for the report....
Lots of incidents reported here are over runs.
When there is a nice meadow to run over into, or a sandy beach no problem. When the end of the runway is a road or a built up area then death and destruction follows.
Minimum equipment for an aircraft landing at an airport with no safe over run area.
1, Brakes that work.
2, A runway that isnt like an ice rink.
3, Them thrust reverser thingies all working that help if conditions 1 and 2 are not met.
4, A big red button marked "aw sh1t" that deploys a parachute out the a$$ end if the several hundred tons of aluminium, fuel and humans ain't going to stop before we have another disaster.
Waiting for the report....
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Something I had not seen in the link from A-Floor to the BBC news item at #237, which could be a complete red herring or........................
"Globo TV also reported that the same plane had problems landing at Congonhas the day before the crash. The channel said the plane only managed to stop at the limit of the runway. The pilot told air traffic controllers it was very slippery but did not mention any other problems, the report said. "
My bold
I see the TAM MEL has no restriction on slippery runways.
"Globo TV also reported that the same plane had problems landing at Congonhas the day before the crash. The channel said the plane only managed to stop at the limit of the runway. The pilot told air traffic controllers it was very slippery but did not mention any other problems, the report said. "
My bold
I see the TAM MEL has no restriction on slippery runways.
The Analog Kid
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Brecon Beacons National Park
Age: 57
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Max Tow
Interesting to see that TAM have now put MEL on their public website, I guess in response to the press coverage of the T/R issue
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: philippines
Age: 36
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sirs....
I'm Really Curious About The TAM incident...
I've watched the seconds from disaster & air crash investigation in NatGeo....
the incident of Air France And United Air overshot on the runway
is also the same situation happend in TAM.....
"Bad weather"
The Air France did not skid off on the runway because the spoilers was armed... but the pilot land the aircraft half of the runway(short runway)
and use the thrust reverser too late resulting to overshot the runway...
United Air......did not arm the spoilers and uses only the thrust reverser.
and the aircraft touches on the ground.....the aircraft starts to skid off on the runway results to overshot....
In The TAM situation.....
some said that the one of the thrust reverser has a problem....
and the pilot attempted to go-around...
can i ask some question about these?
1.Did the pilot arm the spoilers?
2.During Touch Down, Did the spoilers deploy?
And the pilot uses the thrust reverser.....
3.is there any pressure happening inside the cockpit?
4.Did the pilots already know that the thrust reverser has a problem?
during the landing procedure and declares a go-around
5.And why the Aircraft did not skid off on the runway during the touch
Unlike the united air(few seconds after it touch on the ground)
and my last question that still very curious to me....
Why The TAM aircraft skids off the runway near to the edge of the runway and resuling to overshot...and it goes to the left...
but not during the touch-down...
Did The Aircraft skids off the runway unexpected or "INTENTIONALLY"
i've watched the final moments of TAM from the youtube and pictures
of CNN....
and i've observed that remains of the aircraft... the Rudder is fully deployed to the left.....
can someone clarify for this....?
I'm Really Curious About The TAM incident...
I've watched the seconds from disaster & air crash investigation in NatGeo....
the incident of Air France And United Air overshot on the runway
is also the same situation happend in TAM.....
"Bad weather"
The Air France did not skid off on the runway because the spoilers was armed... but the pilot land the aircraft half of the runway(short runway)
and use the thrust reverser too late resulting to overshot the runway...
United Air......did not arm the spoilers and uses only the thrust reverser.
and the aircraft touches on the ground.....the aircraft starts to skid off on the runway results to overshot....
In The TAM situation.....
some said that the one of the thrust reverser has a problem....
and the pilot attempted to go-around...
can i ask some question about these?
1.Did the pilot arm the spoilers?
2.During Touch Down, Did the spoilers deploy?
And the pilot uses the thrust reverser.....
3.is there any pressure happening inside the cockpit?
4.Did the pilots already know that the thrust reverser has a problem?
during the landing procedure and declares a go-around
5.And why the Aircraft did not skid off on the runway during the touch
Unlike the united air(few seconds after it touch on the ground)
and my last question that still very curious to me....
Why The TAM aircraft skids off the runway near to the edge of the runway and resuling to overshot...and it goes to the left...
but not during the touch-down...
Did The Aircraft skids off the runway unexpected or "INTENTIONALLY"
i've watched the final moments of TAM from the youtube and pictures
of CNN....
and i've observed that remains of the aircraft... the Rudder is fully deployed to the left.....
can someone clarify for this....?
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
kurimaw- there are aviation experts here trying to piece together what information we can from the very limited data and information released so far. It would help if, for the time being, amateurs and aviation enthusiasts kept from interjecting asking for information we just don't have yet!
Person Of Interest
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Keystone Heights, Florida
Age: 68
Posts: 842
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rippa,
Condolences for the loss of your colleagues...I find your posts accurate, straight forward and honest...
Bomarc...are you collecting info from the pro-pilots here so you can pass it on to the press and get banned from this thread as well?
Condolences for the loss of your colleagues...I find your posts accurate, straight forward and honest...
Bomarc...are you collecting info from the pro-pilots here so you can pass it on to the press and get banned from this thread as well?