TAM A320 crash at Congonhas, Brazil
Admiral346;
"Line - swine"...LOL, and I most assuredly belong in that grand class - no test pilot talking here. Absolutely I get what you mean.
One item though...these charts aren't meant for line operations but are created as a baseline upon which factors emerging from abnormals are calculated. They represent the best the airplane can do and no I don't think I could slam an airplane on, not, at least, intentionally, as good as a test pilot who did it for a living. But, in contrast to previous manuals in my experience anyway, the information is there and not absent as it was from so many previous FCOMs and AOMs.
NigelOnDraft, yes, ok, and understand - thanks.
"Line - swine"...LOL, and I most assuredly belong in that grand class - no test pilot talking here. Absolutely I get what you mean.
One item though...these charts aren't meant for line operations but are created as a baseline upon which factors emerging from abnormals are calculated. They represent the best the airplane can do and no I don't think I could slam an airplane on, not, at least, intentionally, as good as a test pilot who did it for a living. But, in contrast to previous manuals in my experience anyway, the information is there and not absent as it was from so many previous FCOMs and AOMs.
NigelOnDraft, yes, ok, and understand - thanks.
Going back to Rippa's earlier report of the press conference, how can an aircraft with inop thrust reverser (if that is so) be described as "in perfect condition of maintenance"?
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
Because reversers are not 'required'. They are available as a useful addition to retardation only, but not essential. No doubt the aeroplane was very well maintained. Most airliners are flying around with various items going unserviceable almost by each leg. It's a fact of life, and no big deal. A reverser U/S is just one of those things.
Until further information comes in, I suggest we don't go blaming this aspect. The important thing at the moment is to just establish exactly what happened with none of that daft speculation that took place with the Kenyan accident!
Until further information comes in, I suggest we don't go blaming this aspect. The important thing at the moment is to just establish exactly what happened with none of that daft speculation that took place with the Kenyan accident!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Ireland
Age: 52
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UTV news this evening stated definitively that the accident was caused by a “faulty runway” continuing to be used. – Great – who needs details – better still who needs investigators, their (usually) extensive experience base in piloting, engineering, aircraft status/performance, regulations, human factors, etc etc.; not to mention weeks or months (sometimes years) of work – We’ve got UTV.
Seriously, does anyone know about the touchdown (in ‘normal’ box for CGH or late) or the rumour about an attempted GA ‘on the ground’ – is it true or false? Was the runway contaminated or ‘just’ wet?
I can’t imagine the horror for relatives of the victims – especially those who witnessed it or the immediate aftermath – my thoughts are with them.
Seriously, does anyone know about the touchdown (in ‘normal’ box for CGH or late) or the rumour about an attempted GA ‘on the ground’ – is it true or false? Was the runway contaminated or ‘just’ wet?
I can’t imagine the horror for relatives of the victims – especially those who witnessed it or the immediate aftermath – my thoughts are with them.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UAE
Age: 45
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Runway was wet. Sao Paulo tower has a policy of "closing" the airport when the runway is contaminated (takeoff and landings are suspended). I had to divert sometimes becouse of that...The rain last days has been constant, but light, just like a cold winter day.
An observation regarding standing water at Congonhas.
The rain began on Sunday 15th and only let up this afternoon, the 18th. Prior to that, and throughout most of the time the main runway at CGH was being resurfaced, there was a long dry spell, no rain other than the very occasional drizzle. The runway was reopened around the end of June or a fortnight ago and this was the first real rainfall the new surface had seen. Presumably also the first opportunity to measure standing water.
On any new flat surface of that area, there are going to be places where the runoff is slower than others, and which the people who go out and measure depth will need a few heavy rainfalls to learn about and pay special attention to. Apparently, standing water was being measured regularly during this last rainy spell; I just wonder how thoroughly a team can actually take measurements between takoffs and landings at a very busy airport, and whether there might not have been deeper patches in spots they hadn't had time to check.
Added to which, the gunk of rubber accumulating for a few weeks on new, dry concrete and then loosened up by rain. According to the media there were numerous reports by crews to the tower at CGH that the surface was especially slippery. Rippa might be able to corroborate this or say the reports were nothing out of the normal griping.
As background, I live and work 2.8 miles southwest of CGH, at the top of a building from which I can see the runway and which gets pretty much the same weather. The roof leaks in heavy rain and the small pool does when over a certain level so I keep a very close eye on rainfall. Between Sunday and today there’s been about 60mm but I can’t recall any time during the three days of rain when the terrace was really splashy drenched. Granted, it’s drained but there’s hardly any slope. So I wonder how thorough that measuring really is and whether there are places it puddles but that haven’t yet been identified.
The rain began on Sunday 15th and only let up this afternoon, the 18th. Prior to that, and throughout most of the time the main runway at CGH was being resurfaced, there was a long dry spell, no rain other than the very occasional drizzle. The runway was reopened around the end of June or a fortnight ago and this was the first real rainfall the new surface had seen. Presumably also the first opportunity to measure standing water.
On any new flat surface of that area, there are going to be places where the runoff is slower than others, and which the people who go out and measure depth will need a few heavy rainfalls to learn about and pay special attention to. Apparently, standing water was being measured regularly during this last rainy spell; I just wonder how thoroughly a team can actually take measurements between takoffs and landings at a very busy airport, and whether there might not have been deeper patches in spots they hadn't had time to check.
Added to which, the gunk of rubber accumulating for a few weeks on new, dry concrete and then loosened up by rain. According to the media there were numerous reports by crews to the tower at CGH that the surface was especially slippery. Rippa might be able to corroborate this or say the reports were nothing out of the normal griping.
As background, I live and work 2.8 miles southwest of CGH, at the top of a building from which I can see the runway and which gets pretty much the same weather. The roof leaks in heavy rain and the small pool does when over a certain level so I keep a very close eye on rainfall. Between Sunday and today there’s been about 60mm but I can’t recall any time during the three days of rain when the terrace was really splashy drenched. Granted, it’s drained but there’s hardly any slope. So I wonder how thorough that measuring really is and whether there are places it puddles but that haven’t yet been identified.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Ireland
Age: 52
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the rain info gentlemen.
The comments on last years B734 overrun thread seem so much more prophetic now in the aftermath of this tragedy.
Interesting about the close for the contaminated case, but then as broadreach intimates concerning newly laid surface, long dry spell and expected build up of rubber deposits - followed by first rain........at least has the potential to be very nasty.
The comments on last years B734 overrun thread seem so much more prophetic now in the aftermath of this tragedy.
Interesting about the close for the contaminated case, but then as broadreach intimates concerning newly laid surface, long dry spell and expected build up of rubber deposits - followed by first rain........at least has the potential to be very nasty.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UAE
Age: 45
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the many evening news brought a video of the accident, aperantly a surveillance camera from the operational side of the airport. The video shows two landings (first nomal landing and the second was the accident). I could see that the second Airbus was faster than the first one...and a explosion.
It will soon be at youtube I belive...
It will soon be at youtube I belive...
Rainboe: My point is that for anyone (let alone the airline head) to state without qualification that the aircraft was in "perfect condition of maintenance" is premature pending the investigation. If indeed TAM have also agreed that there was u/s thrust reverse, "adequate" might already be a more sensitive description of the aircraft's condition, particularly when an aircraft has suffered an overrun accident of this nature. Even better, why can't these people just say that every aspect of the operation will be investigated and leave it at that.
Incidentally, your own assertion that "no doubt the aeroplane was very well maintained" also seems to evidence the very speculation which you seek to discourage, unless your location is somewhere more relevant than Hampshire.
Incidentally, your own assertion that "no doubt the aeroplane was very well maintained" also seems to evidence the very speculation which you seek to discourage, unless your location is somewhere more relevant than Hampshire.
Last edited by Max Tow; 19th Jul 2007 at 00:27.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UAE
Age: 45
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: maastricht
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Press release from IFATCA
18 July 2007
PRESS RELEASE
Air Safety Compromised in Brazil
IFATCA offers its condolences to the families of this tragic accident involving TAM, which
happened in Congonhas Airport in Sao Paolo. We received the news of this accident with horror,
but not total disbelief.
Following the mid-air collision in September 2006, this is yet another disastrous civil aviation
accident in Brazil in a short period. In both cases numerous warning signs, multiple risks and
safety relevant reports were ignored.
IFATCA has condemned the stance of the Brazilian Government to let the military FAB introduce
its so called Plan B. This plan was to jail leaders of the air traffic controllers’ association and
replace highly skilled and trained ATCOs by military air defense personnel who are neither
trained, nor qualified to control civilian traffic.
"How many more people will be killed before the Brazilian governments stops the FAB's live
experiments on the traveling public's safety?" says the President of IFATCA, Mr. Marc
Baumgartner. The Brazilian government has focused much energy in chasing scapegoats
instead of re-engineering the necessary safety oversight and risk assessment to prevent
Brazilian civil aviation from falling into deeper chaos. By delegating safety oversight, safety
management and safety provision to the FAB, the Brazilian government is endangering the lives
of the traveling public in Brazil. Warnings on the conditions at the airport in Congonhas have
repeatedly been ignored by the authorities.
"IFATCA urges the government of Brazil to stop the current repressive organizations of Air
Traffic Control and civil aviation in Brazil. Air safety is currently compromised and is a danger to
the traveling public, the Brazilian economy and the credibility of the Brazilian state as a great
nation of this world. Continuing to ignore internationally agreed standards on Air Traffic
Management and Airport design (layout) will only lead to further hardship and possibly more
accidents", warns the President of IFATCA.
18 July 2007
PRESS RELEASE
Air Safety Compromised in Brazil
IFATCA offers its condolences to the families of this tragic accident involving TAM, which
happened in Congonhas Airport in Sao Paolo. We received the news of this accident with horror,
but not total disbelief.
Following the mid-air collision in September 2006, this is yet another disastrous civil aviation
accident in Brazil in a short period. In both cases numerous warning signs, multiple risks and
safety relevant reports were ignored.
IFATCA has condemned the stance of the Brazilian Government to let the military FAB introduce
its so called Plan B. This plan was to jail leaders of the air traffic controllers’ association and
replace highly skilled and trained ATCOs by military air defense personnel who are neither
trained, nor qualified to control civilian traffic.
"How many more people will be killed before the Brazilian governments stops the FAB's live
experiments on the traveling public's safety?" says the President of IFATCA, Mr. Marc
Baumgartner. The Brazilian government has focused much energy in chasing scapegoats
instead of re-engineering the necessary safety oversight and risk assessment to prevent
Brazilian civil aviation from falling into deeper chaos. By delegating safety oversight, safety
management and safety provision to the FAB, the Brazilian government is endangering the lives
of the traveling public in Brazil. Warnings on the conditions at the airport in Congonhas have
repeatedly been ignored by the authorities.
"IFATCA urges the government of Brazil to stop the current repressive organizations of Air
Traffic Control and civil aviation in Brazil. Air safety is currently compromised and is a danger to
the traveling public, the Brazilian economy and the credibility of the Brazilian state as a great
nation of this world. Continuing to ignore internationally agreed standards on Air Traffic
Management and Airport design (layout) will only lead to further hardship and possibly more
accidents", warns the President of IFATCA.
Not available in stores.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Eye of the Storm
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rippa, I believe the second video here may be the one you referred to. The first one shows the explosion just off the left side of the screen, but it clearly lights up the sky.
http://g1.globo.com/Noticias/SaoPaul...4-5605,00.html
BTW, a slight correction to some earlier information here -- reg was PR-MBK, not PT-MBK. Previously it was N454TA with TACA and VN-A168 with Pacific Airlines.
http://g1.globo.com/Noticias/SaoPaul...4-5605,00.html
BTW, a slight correction to some earlier information here -- reg was PR-MBK, not PT-MBK. Previously it was N454TA with TACA and VN-A168 with Pacific Airlines.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UAE
Age: 45
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep, that the video...
TAM also lands at SDU (SBRJ - Rio de Janeiro) with the A319. The runway is shorter (1390 mts X 45 mts), but at sea level and has a great breaking action.
TAM also lands at SDU (SBRJ - Rio de Janeiro) with the A319. The runway is shorter (1390 mts X 45 mts), but at sea level and has a great breaking action.
the comparison between the two videos doesn't really show a touchdown speed but it appears to show a substantial difference in the amount of water thrown forward by the wheels and/or thrust reverse.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UAE
Age: 45
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the second video, there are 2 different landings. Note that the first Airbus is already at taxi speed and clearing the runway, but the second one seems to be at full reverse, way faster and sliding to the left, into the taxiway F.
The first video is the accident in slow motion and closer (zoom).
The first video is the accident in slow motion and closer (zoom).
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Salvador - Brazil
Age: 45
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's another video showing multiple cameras of the accident:
http://noticias.uol.com.br/uolnews/b...t2486u946.jhtm
(First they show a standard landing, and later the accident plane landing)
I'm from Brazil and the only thing I fly is flight simulator, but ísn't there a big difference in speed in the video ? It seems to me that the plane was at high speed (about +-80kias) at the end of the runway...
I know the 2nd reverser wasn't working (as stated here by Rippa, and reported by TAM in they press report). I also know that the runway didn't have the "grooves". But would the plane end the runway at high speed even without the 2nd reverser and the grooves ?
What may have caused this accident ? Certanly the pilot knew the plane was going too fast and wouldn't be able to stop, did he try to take off again ? Why didn't it work ?
I know I'm just speculating on this, but at first I thought that the plane was trying to stop and somehow wasn't able (because of many factors, including 2nd reversor, wealther conditions, weight, and many more). But after seeing this video it's clear to me that the pilot KNEW that the plane would not be able to stop a long time before ending the runway...
http://noticias.uol.com.br/uolnews/b...t2486u946.jhtm
(First they show a standard landing, and later the accident plane landing)
I'm from Brazil and the only thing I fly is flight simulator, but ísn't there a big difference in speed in the video ? It seems to me that the plane was at high speed (about +-80kias) at the end of the runway...
I know the 2nd reverser wasn't working (as stated here by Rippa, and reported by TAM in they press report). I also know that the runway didn't have the "grooves". But would the plane end the runway at high speed even without the 2nd reverser and the grooves ?
What may have caused this accident ? Certanly the pilot knew the plane was going too fast and wouldn't be able to stop, did he try to take off again ? Why didn't it work ?
I know I'm just speculating on this, but at first I thought that the plane was trying to stop and somehow wasn't able (because of many factors, including 2nd reversor, wealther conditions, weight, and many more). But after seeing this video it's clear to me that the pilot KNEW that the plane would not be able to stop a long time before ending the runway...
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: long island
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why is the NTSB going to involve themself in a South American airline crashing at a South American airport, flown presumably by a South American pilot flying a European jet?
There was a lot of debate about whether a given jet has certain penalties on wet runways, whether with spoilers, reversers or whatever.
I don't see the point of such debate, unless the Captain used less than conservative judgement (ignored major penalties in the MEL) when he/she accepted the aircraft for the flight, given awareness of the very short runway, the status of thrust reversers, autospoilers, anti-skid etc, or should he have delayed the approach, possibly finding a nearby alternate airport (within fuel range) with a longer runway? When the landing gear are extended on many planes, an antiskid light is sometimes displayed, telling you that you need to go fairly easy on the brakes. No sweat with a long runway if you land in the touchdown zone.
About two winters ago, I told Dispatch that we would only operate with part of the flight release 'tanker fuel' (for cost) to an airport in the 'remote Midwest' with short runways (less than 8,000'). There were scattered patches of melting snow.
National Public Radio (US) today stated that the flying pilot tried to attempt a takeoff just after the landing. The press might have received totally inaccurate information. Few members of the press have a Private Pilot's license, and not many understand the factors involved with any takeoff or landing.
I don't see the point of such debate, unless the Captain used less than conservative judgement (ignored major penalties in the MEL) when he/she accepted the aircraft for the flight, given awareness of the very short runway, the status of thrust reversers, autospoilers, anti-skid etc, or should he have delayed the approach, possibly finding a nearby alternate airport (within fuel range) with a longer runway? When the landing gear are extended on many planes, an antiskid light is sometimes displayed, telling you that you need to go fairly easy on the brakes. No sweat with a long runway if you land in the touchdown zone.
About two winters ago, I told Dispatch that we would only operate with part of the flight release 'tanker fuel' (for cost) to an airport in the 'remote Midwest' with short runways (less than 8,000'). There were scattered patches of melting snow.
National Public Radio (US) today stated that the flying pilot tried to attempt a takeoff just after the landing. The press might have received totally inaccurate information. Few members of the press have a Private Pilot's license, and not many understand the factors involved with any takeoff or landing.