TAM A320 crash at Congonhas, Brazil
If ever there was a case for siting an airport somewhere else outside the city this must surely be it.
"we must now think of possible mechanical problems...delays in spoiler deployment for example...delays in thrust reverser use...."
Is this right, or am I talking rubbish?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: within staggering distance
Age: 63
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good point sport. Just who is the 'we' in : "we must now think of possible mechanical problems..."?
Always a good idea to check your facts before apportioning blame on man or machine. And it's in the rule book for accident investigation: base first options of probable cause on facts & evidence...ect
Facts - Wet runway, recently resurfaced without water run off grooving, commercial pressure to get run way open for summer Ops, possible tailwind component, prevous over run case in the past couple of weeks ect.
-my first opinion would not be to suspect the A/C at this point, and as it turns out they attempted the TOGO their way out of it,it looks like the plane was functioning and serviceable.
Bit too early to tell I'd say.
Always a good idea to check your facts before apportioning blame on man or machine. And it's in the rule book for accident investigation: base first options of probable cause on facts & evidence...ect
Facts - Wet runway, recently resurfaced without water run off grooving, commercial pressure to get run way open for summer Ops, possible tailwind component, prevous over run case in the past couple of weeks ect.
-my first opinion would not be to suspect the A/C at this point, and as it turns out they attempted the TOGO their way out of it,it looks like the plane was functioning and serviceable.
Bit too early to tell I'd say.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just got out my copy of "Handling the Big Jets" by D.P. Davies (3rd edition, reprinted 1997 c. CAA), he included a sub-chapter on aquaplaning and finised with the following summary:
"This sub-chapter on aquaplaning has been written rather forcibly - and for good reason. While some accidents are truly unavoidable and others the result of a most unusual chain of circumstances, aquaplaning accidents are nearly all avoidable. It is not the end of the world to stand off or divert occasionally. But it is asking for trouble to attempt a landing on a tight, very wet runway. Think well before you expose yourself to this kind of risk."
This is no way is intended to pre-judge any accident investigation, but just a reminder to one and all that risks are involved in aviation.
"This sub-chapter on aquaplaning has been written rather forcibly - and for good reason. While some accidents are truly unavoidable and others the result of a most unusual chain of circumstances, aquaplaning accidents are nearly all avoidable. It is not the end of the world to stand off or divert occasionally. But it is asking for trouble to attempt a landing on a tight, very wet runway. Think well before you expose yourself to this kind of risk."
This is no way is intended to pre-judge any accident investigation, but just a reminder to one and all that risks are involved in aviation.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Sandhurst, Berkshire
Age: 57
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice to see that the BBC have done a lot of ground work on the report, they have listed the carriers that the use the A320 as Operators include: TAM - Brazil; Nouvelair - Tunisia; Air Cairo - Egypt; Wizz Air - Hungar
Obviously the more well known airlines!
Obviously the more well known airlines!
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sallyann1234 says:
If ever there were a case for prohibiting construction within obvious clear zones of an existing airport, this must surely be it. While I don't know which came first (the airport or the community) in Sao Paulo, I do know that Chicago Midway was once surrounded by farmland.
What are the costs of buying up the vulnerable land off the ends of the runway, vs. the costs of an (I daresay predictable) accident such as this?
If ever there was a case for siting an airport somewhere else outside the city this must surely be it.
What are the costs of buying up the vulnerable land off the ends of the runway, vs. the costs of an (I daresay predictable) accident such as this?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Midlands
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not......But....
Yeah Ok I believe you.
Can this be a training flight?? Why start speculation like this. As the post above, first look probable major factor is runway/weather combination. Don't drag it to a 'Wouldn't happen to a Boeing' or training implication.
Yeah Ok I believe you.
Can this be a training flight?? Why start speculation like this. As the post above, first look probable major factor is runway/weather combination. Don't drag it to a 'Wouldn't happen to a Boeing' or training implication.
WMG - don't think so. Both pilots are "comandantes" and in the rush of things the newspaper might not have been told which of the two was acting FO.
It's a very hard blow for TAM, who had 14 crew repositioning as passengers.
The accident site is still smouldering. Rain has stopped and Congonhas is open.
It's a very hard blow for TAM, who had 14 crew repositioning as passengers.
The accident site is still smouldering. Rain has stopped and Congonhas is open.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Doors to Automatic"
If ever there was a case for an EMAS arrestor system this must surely be it!
Two notes:
- from the pics it does not really look as if there is enough space at the end of the runway (about 200 ft would be needed at least);
- an EMAS "gravel pit" is only about the width of the runway; both the ATR and the A320 slid off the side of the runway before they got to the end, so they would have missed the EMAS.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If ever there was a case for an EMAS arrestor system this must surely be it!
Assuming the TAM spokesman was correct, that the aircraft was attempting to take-off again, I really cannot see an arrestor system stopping 65T of aircraft at 100K+ and possibly airborne....Edit: EMAS design spec is for 70K or less entry speed. By most accounts, I suspect this aircraft was doing considerably more than this. EMAS will also rely on "weight on wheels" to crush the material and retard the aircraft. If the aircraft was taking off again this would not necessarily be present...
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Brasil
Posts: 351
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Witnesses may be saying that it touched down long, but Brig-Gen Saito, Chief of the Airforce has stated that the touchdown was at the normal point and in the normal attitude, however the aircraft failed to decelerate on landing.
ffb, at Congonhas there have been more Boeing incidents, this is the first involving an Airbus. Also, when restrictions were applied to the previous runway surface they applied to 2 Boeing 737 variants, and the Fokker 100. There were no prior concerns about the 319/320 landing at Congonhas, except for the general concerns about the location of the airport.
ab
ffb, at Congonhas there have been more Boeing incidents, this is the first involving an Airbus. Also, when restrictions were applied to the previous runway surface they applied to 2 Boeing 737 variants, and the Fokker 100. There were no prior concerns about the 319/320 landing at Congonhas, except for the general concerns about the location of the airport.
ab
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UAE
Age: 45
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two new FACTS:
- One of the pilot's was on his way to the LHS, an therefore, that was a treinee flight. He was a experienced Captain and was on a horizontal move (upgrade) to the A320. I don't know the guys, but some friends told me that they had lot's of flight time (one was a former 767 captain) and great guys to work with. Can add that most part of TAM pilot's has previous experience on the A320 / 330 as F/O's and that CGH (SBSP - Congonhas airport) is the airline's main base of operations, just like LHR for BA...pilot's are familiar with the airport and landing there under nasty weather is not unusual. The airline does not "pressure" the pilot's to land at all cost in CGH under bad weather...it is up to the PIC to decide to land or divert (normaly to GRU - in the same city)
- Chatting with very good friend of mine, he told me that he flew that same aircraft monday and that reverser #2 was INOP (on monday). Although required landing distance does not take into account reverser deployment, this could help to make things worse.
- One of the pilot's was on his way to the LHS, an therefore, that was a treinee flight. He was a experienced Captain and was on a horizontal move (upgrade) to the A320. I don't know the guys, but some friends told me that they had lot's of flight time (one was a former 767 captain) and great guys to work with. Can add that most part of TAM pilot's has previous experience on the A320 / 330 as F/O's and that CGH (SBSP - Congonhas airport) is the airline's main base of operations, just like LHR for BA...pilot's are familiar with the airport and landing there under nasty weather is not unusual. The airline does not "pressure" the pilot's to land at all cost in CGH under bad weather...it is up to the PIC to decide to land or divert (normaly to GRU - in the same city)
- Chatting with very good friend of mine, he told me that he flew that same aircraft monday and that reverser #2 was INOP (on monday). Although required landing distance does not take into account reverser deployment, this could help to make things worse.
Last edited by Rippa; 18th Jul 2007 at 13:48.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
- Chatting with very good friend of mine, he told me that he flew that same aircraft monday and that reverser #2 was INOP (on monday). Although required landing distance does not take into account reverser deployment, this could help to make things worse.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UAE
Age: 45
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dont have the airport landing analysis at hand, but QRH 04.04 (landing distance with autobrake) does not use REV in the formula...you must apply corrections to "2 rev operative".
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WMG - I am not a pilot, but do know about aircraft performance, hence why I have the book - I did not say that the quote was related to the accident in any way, but that risks are involved. As for calling it a "stupid book" well perhaps others may disagree.
Congonhas was opened in 1936 and, at the time, all the surrounding area was farmland. However, it was built on the top of a hill and successive lengthenings increased the drop at either end. Urban sprawl gradually took over the farmland.
Up until 1985, when Guarulhos was opened, Congonhas was the city’s main airport, handling aircraft up to 727s; when four-engine jet service began they used Viracopos.
This crash will reopen the debate about whether another airport should be built further south of São Paulo.
Up until 1985, when Guarulhos was opened, Congonhas was the city’s main airport, handling aircraft up to 727s; when four-engine jet service began they used Viracopos.
This crash will reopen the debate about whether another airport should be built further south of São Paulo.