TAM A320 crash at Congonhas, Brazil
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Brasil
Posts: 351
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Broadreach, your comments are a clear reflection of the public view in Brazil, and fully illustrate the way things are here. As such they are a valuable part of the thread, and give others an insight into political interference that is part of our everyday life in Brazil, including accident investigation.
The measures announced are nothing more than window dressing, and will never come to fruition. Gilberto Kassab's (the mayor of Sao Paulo) ideas are much more realistic. Essentially, compulsory purchase of land at the end of the strip, extensions to both runways and escape areas. Unfortunately the political interests at national level will prevent this ever happening.
ab
The measures announced are nothing more than window dressing, and will never come to fruition. Gilberto Kassab's (the mayor of Sao Paulo) ideas are much more realistic. Essentially, compulsory purchase of land at the end of the strip, extensions to both runways and escape areas. Unfortunately the political interests at national level will prevent this ever happening.
ab
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Choroni, sometimes
Posts: 1,974
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another accident with a non-standard crew (two captains). Wasn't the DLH 320 overrun at WAW with two captains as well? I'm afraid there are no statistics about this phenomenon, if there is any.
Many incidents in my company, like approaches to wrong airport/rwy, overruns etc. happened with more than one captain in the cockpit.
Many incidents in my company, like approaches to wrong airport/rwy, overruns etc. happened with more than one captain in the cockpit.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Danny
Can someone with experience on the A320 family please tell us the way thrust reverse is actuated.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Same observations in all the companies I have worked for too. I think it is human nature to treat the other captain as an equal and sometimes you end up sharing decision making more than you would with a copilot.
Does anyone know why no one discusses eye witnesses to this arrival? Not even any reports from the tower or other pilots taxiing such as the AC that landed prior to this one?
Does anyone know why no one discusses eye witnesses to this arrival? Not even any reports from the tower or other pilots taxiing such as the AC that landed prior to this one?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: BC
Age: 84
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not a pilot but have hung around the strip a bit , taken 172 ground school and flown with friends some.
The aircraft comparatively speaking, appears to be going too fast in the video and may be waterski'ing as well.
I have hydro planed in a vehicle and like the mans says- there is nothing there
A chilling and tragic event and I hope the families affected can be comforted.
Y
The aircraft comparatively speaking, appears to be going too fast in the video and may be waterski'ing as well.
I have hydro planed in a vehicle and like the mans says- there is nothing there
A chilling and tragic event and I hope the families affected can be comforted.
Y
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Out of interest, I would firstly say there is enough anecdotal evidence that the runway 35L is 'slippery' when wet. Anyone disagree?
Running the approx figures for a 737-700, 2T below MLM at CGH gives:
Poor braking action, 'slippery' runway, max autobrake or max 'manual'
Basic LDR........ 2175m
For weight...... +110m
For altitude..... +170m
1 reverser u/s.. +370m
Headwind........ -140m
That makes roughly 2685m. How long is the runway..................?
This compares with about 1100m on just wet, even with no reversers.
All figures are for EXACT Vref: So, I won't be taking a 737-7 there.
I have seen lots of 'figures' quoted for the 320 on 'wet' but has anyone a 'slippery' LDR for that day? I saw Rippa quoting AB in #355, but were they talking 'slippery' or just 'wet'?
Running the approx figures for a 737-700, 2T below MLM at CGH gives:
Poor braking action, 'slippery' runway, max autobrake or max 'manual'
Basic LDR........ 2175m
For weight...... +110m
For altitude..... +170m
1 reverser u/s.. +370m
Headwind........ -140m
That makes roughly 2685m. How long is the runway..................?
This compares with about 1100m on just wet, even with no reversers.
All figures are for EXACT Vref: So, I won't be taking a 737-7 there.
I have seen lots of 'figures' quoted for the 320 on 'wet' but has anyone a 'slippery' LDR for that day? I saw Rippa quoting AB in #355, but were they talking 'slippery' or just 'wet'?
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Helsinki
Age: 47
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BOAC
I have seen lots of 'figures' quoted for the 320 on 'wet' but has anyone a 'slippery' LDR for that day? I saw Rippa quoting AB in #355, but were they talking 'slippery' or just 'wet'?
Then there is also the issue which standard the Airbus statement uses for calculating the 200 meters to spare figure, it could also include the RSA/stopway in the end, which apparently is about 100 m long (from this ADC).
I guess it goes down to analysing what exact friction coefficients were used in the demonstrations which the data in the tables was derived from.
BOAC;
I've done the calculation but the difference from the calculation I did previously using "wet" numbers and one using 6.3mm or 1/4" of water in the (academic, because we don't have the information) calculation doesn't seem to help explain the speed of the aircraft which is seen in the video towards the end of the runway.
Again, though we may bring our experience and knowledge to bear, in accessing such charts we are in areas of absolute speculation, as I know you fully appreciate. One hopes that the recorders are in good shape and can yield solid data.
I've done the calculation but the difference from the calculation I did previously using "wet" numbers and one using 6.3mm or 1/4" of water in the (academic, because we don't have the information) calculation doesn't seem to help explain the speed of the aircraft which is seen in the video towards the end of the runway.
Again, though we may bring our experience and knowledge to bear, in accessing such charts we are in areas of absolute speculation, as I know you fully appreciate. One hopes that the recorders are in good shape and can yield solid data.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beware of too MUCH contaminant depth. 'Deep' water provides a significant deleration force. It is the poor to nil braking action you need to consider.
The issue is clouded too by talk of '727's landing on short runways with ease - so what? Some 727's had nose-wheel braking, and as TB says, the reversers were very effective by comaprison. Comparisons of a/c speed on the video cams too may be misleading, although dramatic. EG We do not know, I think, anything about the weight of the first a/c, do we?
The issue is clouded too by talk of '727's landing on short runways with ease - so what? Some 727's had nose-wheel braking, and as TB says, the reversers were very effective by comaprison. Comparisons of a/c speed on the video cams too may be misleading, although dramatic. EG We do not know, I think, anything about the weight of the first a/c, do we?
Bubbers,
The lack of eyewitnesses. Several on the street saw the crash but were unable to describe it. Bear in mind that it was a dismal, cold early evening. Crews sitting in cockpits would have been facing the terminal and any aircraft taxying would have been going in the opposite direction to the crash site. Between the passenger terminal and the end of the runway there’s a smaller airforce/VIP terminal which would have blocked much of the view to that end.
Presumably some in the tower saw but might be forbidden to make any statements. When the TAM airbus landed on 35L there was a light twin awaiting takeoff clearance on 35R. Exactly when they received it will probably only be revealed in the report, but they had begun the takeoff and did not notice anything amiss until the explosion, when the tower instructed them to abort. By that time they were nearly airborne and judged it safer to continue.
In post #338 Rippa mentions having seen tyre marks at the end of 35L while he was (departing?) on 35R. The weekly newsmagazine Veja published a photo yesterday showing deep marks from the main gear crossing the grass pretty much as in the Google Earth image in #283. No nosegear marks are visible in the photo; the grass surface is uneven so the lack of marks at the exit may have been due to the nosewheel bouncing upwards on a small hummock. There is also a photo of where the main gear broke through the low wall.
BOAC
Slippery? A captain who flew the accident aircraft BHZ-CGH on Sunday evening (15 Jul, date of the first rain after the new surface was laid), told friends in an email that he’d had one of the biggest frights of his 17 year career: they touched down at the 500ft mark, aquaplaned, nearly left the side of the runway and came to a near stop at the very end, just in time to swing onto exit “E”. The email was in response to the friends’ concern that he might have been involved in the crash. To his chagrin it appeared later on a local aviation forum before being pulled, and he’s been hounded by reporters seeking (but not getting) interviews.
The lack of eyewitnesses. Several on the street saw the crash but were unable to describe it. Bear in mind that it was a dismal, cold early evening. Crews sitting in cockpits would have been facing the terminal and any aircraft taxying would have been going in the opposite direction to the crash site. Between the passenger terminal and the end of the runway there’s a smaller airforce/VIP terminal which would have blocked much of the view to that end.
Presumably some in the tower saw but might be forbidden to make any statements. When the TAM airbus landed on 35L there was a light twin awaiting takeoff clearance on 35R. Exactly when they received it will probably only be revealed in the report, but they had begun the takeoff and did not notice anything amiss until the explosion, when the tower instructed them to abort. By that time they were nearly airborne and judged it safer to continue.
In post #338 Rippa mentions having seen tyre marks at the end of 35L while he was (departing?) on 35R. The weekly newsmagazine Veja published a photo yesterday showing deep marks from the main gear crossing the grass pretty much as in the Google Earth image in #283. No nosegear marks are visible in the photo; the grass surface is uneven so the lack of marks at the exit may have been due to the nosewheel bouncing upwards on a small hummock. There is also a photo of where the main gear broke through the low wall.
BOAC
Slippery? A captain who flew the accident aircraft BHZ-CGH on Sunday evening (15 Jul, date of the first rain after the new surface was laid), told friends in an email that he’d had one of the biggest frights of his 17 year career: they touched down at the 500ft mark, aquaplaned, nearly left the side of the runway and came to a near stop at the very end, just in time to swing onto exit “E”. The email was in response to the friends’ concern that he might have been involved in the crash. To his chagrin it appeared later on a local aviation forum before being pulled, and he’s been hounded by reporters seeking (but not getting) interviews.
BOAC;
Absolutely. The slush charts indicate a slight reduction in landing distance.
The "poor-to-nil" {ICE} case would perhaps be, at least at this stage and given previous landings, also academic and as EFHF has pointed out, would yield distances of over 3500m - difficult to square with previous performances in similar circumstances.
I believe from the chart the runway paved surface is 6365ft (just converting 1940m), with a 100m "overrun" area. The "Landing with no autobrake" chart is distance from 50ft to stop; The Airbus AOM does not state what the distance is in the ALD chart - whether it is from touchdown, or from 50ft.
Absolutely. The slush charts indicate a slight reduction in landing distance.
The "poor-to-nil" {ICE} case would perhaps be, at least at this stage and given previous landings, also academic and as EFHF has pointed out, would yield distances of over 3500m - difficult to square with previous performances in similar circumstances.
I believe from the chart the runway paved surface is 6365ft (just converting 1940m), with a 100m "overrun" area. The "Landing with no autobrake" chart is distance from 50ft to stop; The Airbus AOM does not state what the distance is in the ALD chart - whether it is from touchdown, or from 50ft.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Airbus AOM does not state
I agree the 'ice' figures are unrepresentative but they might just focus people on the effect of very poor BA on the 'cosily' normal LDRs.
BOAC;
Concur with both comments.
I know previous informative comments on "hydroplaning" have been made including the generally-accepted formula for same, (9 x √ tire press) but can't recall if the "stop-hydroplaning" speed was mentioned (forgive me if it has), but (out on a memory limb here) I believe it is 7 x √ tire pressure. We inflate our 320 mains to around 198psi so the speed at which hydroplaning would cease would be around 98kts.
Concur with both comments.
I know previous informative comments on "hydroplaning" have been made including the generally-accepted formula for same, (9 x √ tire press) but can't recall if the "stop-hydroplaning" speed was mentioned (forgive me if it has), but (out on a memory limb here) I believe it is 7 x √ tire pressure. We inflate our 320 mains to around 198psi so the speed at which hydroplaning would cease would be around 98kts.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Salvador - Brazil
Age: 45
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can someone tell if ILS was working at the time of the accident ?
I'm asking that (see my last post) because a pilot told the media that he landed minutes before the accident and that ILS wasn't working at the time in congonhas...
I'm asking that (see my last post) because a pilot told the media that he landed minutes before the accident and that ILS wasn't working at the time in congonhas...
Are there any photos available of the gear tracks leaving the runway?If so are we sure that they are gear tracks and not from some ground vehicle manauevering to try and put out the fire?
If they truly are gear tracks are they continuous or stuttered from the ABS?
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UAE
Age: 45
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, I won't be taking a 737-7 there.
Just for curiosity, take a look at this photo (note the terrain at takeoff heading...compulsory left turn at 200ft).
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1158881/M/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0572008/M/
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The very unfortunate accident should remind all pilots of the absolute caution needed to be exercised when the runway is wet and/or very slippery.
In my rather long career, I have had only one rather nasty experience with difficulty stopping, and this was at the old Taipei airport long ago, in a B707.
Even with an approach flown right at Vref, and a touchdown in the first 500 feet, it took nearly 9000 feet to come to a stop...right at the very end.
The First Officer looked at me and said...."you did everything right, Captain, still, we were very lucky."
I could not have agreed more.
In my rather long career, I have had only one rather nasty experience with difficulty stopping, and this was at the old Taipei airport long ago, in a B707.
Even with an approach flown right at Vref, and a touchdown in the first 500 feet, it took nearly 9000 feet to come to a stop...right at the very end.
The First Officer looked at me and said...."you did everything right, Captain, still, we were very lucky."
I could not have agreed more.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: the City by the Bay
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
old taipei airport
Used to go there often and watch planes land. And there were times when they came right up to the very end!! Remember one time a SQ 747 landed after about 40pct of the runway had been used up and I thought for sure it was going to crash. But luckily at the very last moment it stopped. Almost everyone at TSA (the old Taipei Airport) makes sure to land right as the runway begins, wasting not an inch.
A Transasia A320 had a mishap there:
http://www.asc.gov.tw/acd_files/164-c1contupload.pdf
A Transasia A320 had a mishap there:
Runway Overrun During Landing On Taipei Sungshan Airport
TRANSASIA AIRWAYS FLIGHT 536
A320-232, B-22310
October 18, 2004TRANSASIA AIRWAYS FLIGHT 536
A320-232, B-22310
http://www.asc.gov.tw/acd_files/164-c1contupload.pdf