TAM A320 crash at Congonhas, Brazil
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
eejit has a point, but I do not believe it belongs on this thread.
There are many redundancies built into commercial air transport today, so that variables in mechanical snags, crew performance, wx, etc. can be handled safely.
Had this identical event occurred at an airport with proper overrun space, we would be reading about maybe a $1 million damage and a few minor evacuation injuries, but no loss of life. However the existing Congonhas airport design removed that final layer of redundancy, that final safety cushion, and the loss of life is the direct result of that. The same applies of course to KMDW.
There are many redundancies built into commercial air transport today, so that variables in mechanical snags, crew performance, wx, etc. can be handled safely.
Had this identical event occurred at an airport with proper overrun space, we would be reading about maybe a $1 million damage and a few minor evacuation injuries, but no loss of life. However the existing Congonhas airport design removed that final layer of redundancy, that final safety cushion, and the loss of life is the direct result of that. The same applies of course to KMDW.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: UK
Posts: 293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
T/O data is either wet or dry. ALL landing data assumes the runway is wet up to 3mm of water. Over 3mm is flooded and extra corrections apply. In my company we also assume forward idle thrust. There may still be a correction for thrust reverse inop but would have to check MEL. I would say very unlikely that they were landing above their max Landing Weight for the runway.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Scotland
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
do any websites have pictures of the scene in daylight?
For some reason all the news websites i've come across only have photo/video from the immediate aftermath.
I am just trying to get a perspective of the scene in daylight.
For some reason all the news websites i've come across only have photo/video from the immediate aftermath.
I am just trying to get a perspective of the scene in daylight.
I would suggest that aircraft design is a factor when landing on critical runways. As has been stated it may be the case that benefit from reverse thrust is not accounted for but "older" aircraft had target type thrust reversers which provided a significant amount of aerodynamic braking when they were deployed. The fan type engines do not have this benefit.
My previous post was not intended to malign any specific type but merely a request for some statistical information - ie are certain types more predisposed to overruns when landing on wet runways? I think it's a fair question to ask.
My previous post was not intended to malign any specific type but merely a request for some statistical information - ie are certain types more predisposed to overruns when landing on wet runways? I think it's a fair question to ask.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UAE
Age: 45
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not available in stores.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Eye of the Storm
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sao Paulo newspaper now reporting that TAM have raised the number of SOB to 186. They now say there were 162 pax and 18 TAM employees in addition to the six crew members assigned to the flight. Up to 14 persons believed killed on the ground.
Link to online story (in Portuguese)
Link to online story (in Portuguese)
Last edited by HowlingWind; 18th Jul 2007 at 17:52.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: high and not so lonely
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Performance lesson:
DRY RWY: reverse thrust is not taken into consideration hence no penalty shall be included in the calculation in case of a reverser inop.
WET RWY: reverse thrust is taken into consideration for TO and LDG.
My condolences to everyone involved in this horrible incident!
DRY RWY: reverse thrust is not taken into consideration hence no penalty shall be included in the calculation in case of a reverser inop.
WET RWY: reverse thrust is taken into consideration for TO and LDG.
My condolences to everyone involved in this horrible incident!
gnadirs;
Not on the Airbus or Boeing.
Although there are considerations when using takeoff and landing data for contaminated runways when using contaminated runway speeds. But "contaminated" doesn't mean light rain. Post #28 provides the QRH Landing Data for Config FULL. The chart displayed is actually the "Autoland Landing Distance with Autobrake" Chart. You can see in the right-hand columns under "Corrections (%) on landing distance, the 2nd column is "2 Rev. Op." with percentages to subtract from the appropriate landing distance columns on the left (under "Actual Landing Distance (Feet)". Reverse is not taken into account in any of the circumstances listed. The extreme example illustrates this...under "Ice" in the Runway Condition column, the "2 Rev. Op." column shows -23%.
"DRY RWY: reverse thrust is not taken into consideration hence no penalty shall be included in the calculation in case of a reverser inop.
WET RWY: reverse thrust is taken into consideration for TO and LDG."
WET RWY: reverse thrust is taken into consideration for TO and LDG."
Although there are considerations when using takeoff and landing data for contaminated runways when using contaminated runway speeds. But "contaminated" doesn't mean light rain. Post #28 provides the QRH Landing Data for Config FULL. The chart displayed is actually the "Autoland Landing Distance with Autobrake" Chart. You can see in the right-hand columns under "Corrections (%) on landing distance, the 2nd column is "2 Rev. Op." with percentages to subtract from the appropriate landing distance columns on the left (under "Actual Landing Distance (Feet)". Reverse is not taken into account in any of the circumstances listed. The extreme example illustrates this...under "Ice" in the Runway Condition column, the "2 Rev. Op." column shows -23%.
Last edited by PJ2; 18th Jul 2007 at 15:44.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: united arab emirates
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would hate to apportion blame until the final investigation is out. But surely the regulating body and /or airport authority must have some accountability here. Its only political pressure and economics that can continue operations over so many years and so many incidents at what is clearly a dangerous airport. If its true ,the mentioning of a judge,s decision being overruled by a higher authority says it all.Why do the very people that are designed to enforce safety often work against the best interests of us all . This is a warning to all regulating bodies that when issues and incidents ( eg fatigue) are complained about , the pilots are not merely crying wolf . You have an obligation to listen and regulate. ( No offence please to the many regulators who are on the right side of the fence and doing there best to protect us all)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: No one's home...
Posts: 416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Clearly dangerous"? How so?
Every airline operates with an eye on three factors; safety, risks and economics.
If you want to be completely safe, you don't fly.
If you accept all risks, you are highly vulnerable to accidents/incidents.
If you don't acknowledge economics, you're out of business.
And most everyone has read the report that was published years ago that said a fatal accident will cost a carrier OVER $1 BILLION US in lost revenue and law suits so I doubt anyone will knowingly operate in and out of a 'clearly dangerous' airport, much less make it a hub.
If one is ready to bandy about 'clearly dangerous' because they have runways less than 8000ft long, airports in the US such as LGA, DCA, SAN, Burbank, MDW and others would have to be closed.
And while we are terming it a 'clearly dangerous' airport, what kind of pilot would routinely fly in and out of a 'clearly dangerous' airport. For that to happen you have to assume a rational person is consciously making irrational decisions. Who does that on a continuing basis?
Every airline operates with an eye on three factors; safety, risks and economics.
If you want to be completely safe, you don't fly.
If you accept all risks, you are highly vulnerable to accidents/incidents.
If you don't acknowledge economics, you're out of business.
And most everyone has read the report that was published years ago that said a fatal accident will cost a carrier OVER $1 BILLION US in lost revenue and law suits so I doubt anyone will knowingly operate in and out of a 'clearly dangerous' airport, much less make it a hub.
If one is ready to bandy about 'clearly dangerous' because they have runways less than 8000ft long, airports in the US such as LGA, DCA, SAN, Burbank, MDW and others would have to be closed.
And while we are terming it a 'clearly dangerous' airport, what kind of pilot would routinely fly in and out of a 'clearly dangerous' airport. For that to happen you have to assume a rational person is consciously making irrational decisions. Who does that on a continuing basis?
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: No one's home...
Posts: 416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"A pilot who needs to keep his job , never under estemate management pressure"
IF a 4-stripe knowingly flies into an airport that is 'clearly dangerous', s/he has no business in the cockpit or for that matter working in any capacity that involves making any decision where life is involved. And with an A320 you have to have 2 people in the cockpit who concede to 'management pressure' knowing the result may well be death if not at least severe injury and incapacitation. And if one of the DH crewmembers was in the cockpit, that is more than 2 people who are risking life and limb to keep a job.
My point.. no one knowingly attempts to land at a 'clearly dangerous' airport. One doesn't survive long doing that. Let me add, as an old guy with almost 40yrs in the cockpit, I have *NEVER* made an approach and landing to an airport I considered 'clearly dangerous' regardless of what management said. (note: comments meant for peacetime civilian ops and not military ops where all bets are off when it comes to some missions)
IF a 4-stripe knowingly flies into an airport that is 'clearly dangerous', s/he has no business in the cockpit or for that matter working in any capacity that involves making any decision where life is involved. And with an A320 you have to have 2 people in the cockpit who concede to 'management pressure' knowing the result may well be death if not at least severe injury and incapacitation. And if one of the DH crewmembers was in the cockpit, that is more than 2 people who are risking life and limb to keep a job.
My point.. no one knowingly attempts to land at a 'clearly dangerous' airport. One doesn't survive long doing that. Let me add, as an old guy with almost 40yrs in the cockpit, I have *NEVER* made an approach and landing to an airport I considered 'clearly dangerous' regardless of what management said. (note: comments meant for peacetime civilian ops and not military ops where all bets are off when it comes to some missions)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Ireland
Posts: 75
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!
Launched: 1998
In operation: 1,700
Operators include: British Airways; Air France; Air Canada; China Eastern Airlines; Iberia; United Airlines; Jet Blue Airways
In operation: 1,700
Operators include: British Airways; Air France; Air Canada; China Eastern Airlines; Iberia; United Airlines; Jet Blue Airways
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The runway seems, from what I've heard, about 100 ft higher than the freeway around the airport. I didn't hear anything of casulties on the freeway so it must have had some speed and a bit of lift to fly over the road and then sadly crashing into that building.
How quick will the engines respond for a GA after have them at idle for landing and does the wet rwy have any effect on this?
How quick will the engines respond for a GA after have them at idle for landing and does the wet rwy have any effect on this?
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In my head
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know what the decade has to do with it, Vapor, but this is the century after man safely landed six manned spacecraft on the moon, with no go arounds unless you count Apollos 8, 9 and 13.
wileydog3 is on the money with his thought-provoking observations here:
However, I think the jury has to be out on rational persons consciously making irrational decisions especially when politics and commercial interests dare them to differ, so I am less inclined to agree with the next quote:
I think they might survive for as long as their luck lasts.
I very much agree with
All is fair in love and war ... but that's the proviso that seems so easily to creep into peacetime civilian ops thesedays to keep stockholders happy.
I always feel very sad when I learn of lives lost of innocent victims of political will.
wileydog3 is on the money with his thought-provoking observations here:
Originally Posted by wileydog3
Every airline operates with an eye on three factors; safety, risks and economics.
If you want to be completely safe, you don't fly.
If you accept all risks, you are highly vulnerable to accidents/incidents.
If you don't acknowledge economics, you're out of business.
.... what kind of pilot would routinely fly in and out of a 'clearly dangerous' airport? For that to happen you have to assume a rational person is consciously making irrational decisions. Who does that on a continuing basis?
If you want to be completely safe, you don't fly.
If you accept all risks, you are highly vulnerable to accidents/incidents.
If you don't acknowledge economics, you're out of business.
.... what kind of pilot would routinely fly in and out of a 'clearly dangerous' airport? For that to happen you have to assume a rational person is consciously making irrational decisions. Who does that on a continuing basis?
Originally Posted by wileydog3
My point.. no one knowingly attempts to land at a 'clearly dangerous' airport. One doesn't survive long doing that.
I very much agree with
Originally Posted by wileydog3
(note: comments meant for peacetime civilian ops and not military ops where all bets are off when it comes to some missions)
I always feel very sad when I learn of lives lost of innocent victims of political will.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: united arab emirates
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear Wileydog
There is no professional pilot who would knowingly operate into a dangerous airport . Well thats debatable. However thats not my point , you have misunderstood. I am merely saying that economics and corruption often take precedent over safety. Its the world we live in. As pilots we are the final link in the chain but what I am saying is that the regulating authority where responsible need to share accountability. Let me give an example.
Airport "x" maintainance authorities discover huge rubber deposits on the only runway. The junior manager advises his superior who agrees. So the beraucratic procedure starts .ie getting permissions , the issuing of notams etc.Problem is that airport "x" will have to be closed for some time to allow for the said maintainance at great costs to the local operator. So it is agreed by some sort of a risk management model to contiue opps ( example its not the rainy season so we dont have to worry for now) ,( i.e. the rubber deposits when wet turn into a slippy blubber)
Now what happens is that your highly professional colleague in the flight deck who would never fly into an airport that is " obviously dangerous" happens to be the first to land after a surprise rain shower has moved through the field. And my Goodness an aquaplane and off the runway.
So what I am saying is that often " overruled your Honour" takes precedent over " thank you your honour we are onto it"
My condolenses to all concerned .
There is no professional pilot who would knowingly operate into a dangerous airport . Well thats debatable. However thats not my point , you have misunderstood. I am merely saying that economics and corruption often take precedent over safety. Its the world we live in. As pilots we are the final link in the chain but what I am saying is that the regulating authority where responsible need to share accountability. Let me give an example.
Airport "x" maintainance authorities discover huge rubber deposits on the only runway. The junior manager advises his superior who agrees. So the beraucratic procedure starts .ie getting permissions , the issuing of notams etc.Problem is that airport "x" will have to be closed for some time to allow for the said maintainance at great costs to the local operator. So it is agreed by some sort of a risk management model to contiue opps ( example its not the rainy season so we dont have to worry for now) ,( i.e. the rubber deposits when wet turn into a slippy blubber)
Now what happens is that your highly professional colleague in the flight deck who would never fly into an airport that is " obviously dangerous" happens to be the first to land after a surprise rain shower has moved through the field. And my Goodness an aquaplane and off the runway.
So what I am saying is that often " overruled your Honour" takes precedent over " thank you your honour we are onto it"
My condolenses to all concerned .
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UAE
Age: 45
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last report:
- Aircraft had 62.7 Tons at landing (maximum is 64.5 Tons for wet runway at CGH)
- Both pilots were captains (I appologize for my previous post). Master pilot had 13.000 TT and has been with TAM for 19 years and the other captain had 11.000 TT, 6 months with TAM (master = more senior)
- Aircraft had 62.7 Tons at landing (maximum is 64.5 Tons for wet runway at CGH)
- Both pilots were captains (I appologize for my previous post). Master pilot had 13.000 TT and has been with TAM for 19 years and the other captain had 11.000 TT, 6 months with TAM (master = more senior)
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To those of you quoting QRH Ldg Dists... In our Ops, these are for "non-normals" only... and for consultation "in flight". The Manual Land tables further state they assume "Max Manual Braking" and "Max Reverse" and are unfactored. They go on to say that an appropriate factor should be added, and that "50% is a conservative factor".
For planning purposes, there is a Performance Manual distance, and it is this distance that is amended by the MEL. I again state I believe that 1 Rev U/S would affect the "Wet" landing distance using the planning criteria.
For planning purposes, there is a Performance Manual distance, and it is this distance that is amended by the MEL. I again state I believe that 1 Rev U/S would affect the "Wet" landing distance using the planning criteria.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please forgive a silly question from SLF.
If the airport is tight and so unforgiving why is it the busiest airport in South America.?
Are the folks at Guarulhos sitting around wondering if it something someone said that keeps them all away?
If the airport is tight and so unforgiving why is it the busiest airport in South America.?
Are the folks at Guarulhos sitting around wondering if it something someone said that keeps them all away?
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
gnadirs: You really shouldn't introduce a posting with an arrogant title such as "performance lesson" and then produce incorrect information. a) it makes you look silly and b) it might mislead those wanting to learn.