TAM A320 crash at Congonhas, Brazil
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Ireland
Age: 52
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stagger - SKY is coming out with the same inference ('appears to show' etc,etc) - shouldn't really be surprising. If you remember how the Bristol airport issue was reported by the bulk of the media last year. Despite some of them coming to PPRUNE for information concerning the real situation - the majority continued to spout the content of a certain Directors PR exercise. The public thought that certain operators (the ones who stopped landing there) were 'nervous flyers' and believed that the previous overrun events were due to 'windy' conditions - but NOT a SLIPPERY runway! . I'd love to hear a statement from the said Director now about how last years Bristol situation doesn't relate to this accident.
Rainboe - I know its heading into the realms of speculation at this point, but I can't help agree with that scenario as a possibility. I guess we'll have to wait for the FDR data for confirmation of whether there was an attempt at acceleration or not.
Rainboe - I know its heading into the realms of speculation at this point, but I can't help agree with that scenario as a possibility. I guess we'll have to wait for the FDR data for confirmation of whether there was an attempt at acceleration or not.
An article in today's Estado de Sao Paulo (http://txt1.estado.com.br/editorias/...70719.83.1.xml) states that the TAM aircraft did swing left onto the grass and that the undercarriage did hit the low (about 15") wall at the edge of the taxiway.
It also states that 30 seconds elapsed between touchdown and crash.
It also states that 30 seconds elapsed between touchdown and crash.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Brasil
Posts: 351
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Listening to the press conferences yesterday, and looking at the images that were released I got the distinct impression that spin control is in full flow and that every effort is being made to pin this on the crew.
The first film released showed the aircraft at a "higher than normal" speed for that portion of the runway, especially as they very carefully compared the images to a previous landing. It is travelling faster, but was that because the crew had already started to go-around?
Of much more importance is the image from the other end, which has just been obtained by TV stations here. That shows an apparently normal touchdown, a situation backed up by the comments of Brig-Gen Saito and the testimony of the tower controller on duty.
Why was the more important video not released at the same time? Probably to allow the idea of a "higher than normal" speed to sink into the public consciousness and so cast doubt on the crew, rather than the runway surface.
Both videos clearly show water present, both on the ramp and, from the spray generated by the aircraft, on the runway. We don't know the actually level of water, but the presence of water contradicts the impression left by the press conference yesterday.
Colonel Ferreira, probably the most respected aviation expert in Brazil, has publicly rebuffed the official line and commented about both videos on TV this morning. He left no doubt as to his views of why the first video was released, and why the second was not widely publicised.
I had originally included my views on why we are seeing the spin doctors in action, but on reflection decided that this is not the place for that. This forum is for factual information, or at least informed opinion, not wild speculation.
ab
The first film released showed the aircraft at a "higher than normal" speed for that portion of the runway, especially as they very carefully compared the images to a previous landing. It is travelling faster, but was that because the crew had already started to go-around?
Of much more importance is the image from the other end, which has just been obtained by TV stations here. That shows an apparently normal touchdown, a situation backed up by the comments of Brig-Gen Saito and the testimony of the tower controller on duty.
Why was the more important video not released at the same time? Probably to allow the idea of a "higher than normal" speed to sink into the public consciousness and so cast doubt on the crew, rather than the runway surface.
Both videos clearly show water present, both on the ramp and, from the spray generated by the aircraft, on the runway. We don't know the actually level of water, but the presence of water contradicts the impression left by the press conference yesterday.
Colonel Ferreira, probably the most respected aviation expert in Brazil, has publicly rebuffed the official line and commented about both videos on TV this morning. He left no doubt as to his views of why the first video was released, and why the second was not widely publicised.
I had originally included my views on why we are seeing the spin doctors in action, but on reflection decided that this is not the place for that. This forum is for factual information, or at least informed opinion, not wild speculation.
ab
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Age: 44
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>It also states that 30 seconds elapsed between touchdown and crash.
This would fit with the video footage. the straight line distance between runway 35L treshold and the crash site is 2km (from GoogleEarth). 30 seconds would mean an average speed of 240km/h, equal to 130kts. Approach speed for A320 (62t, 2500ft, conf full) is about 130 to 135 knots.
The 30 seconds are surely no exact time (+/- 5), as is the distance (+/- 200), but it looks like the aircraft was rather fast (for a landing).
This would fit with the video footage. the straight line distance between runway 35L treshold and the crash site is 2km (from GoogleEarth). 30 seconds would mean an average speed of 240km/h, equal to 130kts. Approach speed for A320 (62t, 2500ft, conf full) is about 130 to 135 knots.
The 30 seconds are surely no exact time (+/- 5), as is the distance (+/- 200), but it looks like the aircraft was rather fast (for a landing).
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I'd like to think a go around was being attempted at that stage - unless the 320 thought otherwise of course..."
What exactly do you mean by that statement Paxman?
I don't think introducing fictitious old wives tales to this thred is helpful.
What exactly do you mean by that statement Paxman?
I don't think introducing fictitious old wives tales to this thred is helpful.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UAE
Age: 45
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Weather at CGH:
It was raining, yes, but it was not a TS or +RA, more like a -RA or DZ for the past days. The runway was not contaminated; Sao Paulo tower does not allow ops at CGH with contaminated runway (there is a team from INFRAERO, the local airport manager, which measures the amount of water on the runway / standing water to determine the runway condition). So I find it hard to believe that the runway was contaminated. Due to the new surface, the runway gets slippery when wet, so extra caution is required. I personally think that my colleague had some other problem, such as loss of braking, flat tire, etc... All TAM pilots (or Brasilian airline pilots) are very experienced in landing at CGH, once it is a major airport, in terms of passenger volume and airline flights. I personally have 332 landing at CGH (all of them on B737 efis / NG or A319 / 320) in all kind of weather and never had a problem...never had a system failure also during the landing roll, so that's why I believe that he had some kind of severe failure, as mentioned before.
I consulted the Airbus MEL, and it says that no reversers are required for normal ops (only 2 rev required for ops at SDU – SBRJ airport) and the only operational item is to "not use the inop reverse during landing roll" - do not command rev. on that engine.
It was raining, yes, but it was not a TS or +RA, more like a -RA or DZ for the past days. The runway was not contaminated; Sao Paulo tower does not allow ops at CGH with contaminated runway (there is a team from INFRAERO, the local airport manager, which measures the amount of water on the runway / standing water to determine the runway condition). So I find it hard to believe that the runway was contaminated. Due to the new surface, the runway gets slippery when wet, so extra caution is required. I personally think that my colleague had some other problem, such as loss of braking, flat tire, etc... All TAM pilots (or Brasilian airline pilots) are very experienced in landing at CGH, once it is a major airport, in terms of passenger volume and airline flights. I personally have 332 landing at CGH (all of them on B737 efis / NG or A319 / 320) in all kind of weather and never had a problem...never had a system failure also during the landing roll, so that's why I believe that he had some kind of severe failure, as mentioned before.
I consulted the Airbus MEL, and it says that no reversers are required for normal ops (only 2 rev required for ops at SDU – SBRJ airport) and the only operational item is to "not use the inop reverse during landing roll" - do not command rev. on that engine.
It follows (737) that g/a thrust cannot be applied until the reversers are both stowed
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Macau - SAR
Age: 64
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi folks! This is my first post.
First I’d like to add that is too early to speculated about “the probably causes”. Let’s say a prayer for all those poor souls.
I remember when we operated L188 in Shuttle Service back in the 80`s. (Those are the day when the sex was safe and the aviation dangerous…). You could stop a L188 using only the revs… 30 years and no a single accident… No auto brake, no antiskid, no spoilers, no EFIS, no GPS, no fly by wire, only the old stick and rudder and basic T…
Then came the new high-tech jets, and the “wall” becomes higher and narrow… Special type rating for landing in SDU (the CGH`s counter part in Rio de Janeiro), restrictions for F/o operation, a more restrictive MEL…
The deregulation stats a fierce battle for the shuttle service easy money.
They called this progress…
Please, allow me some opinions:
1. The airlines will continue to operate in CGH BECAUSE passengers want to arrive in downtown, BECAUSE, Săo Paulo, like any others large cities in Brazil lack of an efficient and safe mass transportation linking the main airport and downtown, BECAUSE the “authorities” understand isn’t your problem, BECAUSE the people that elected the “authorities” do not give a dam….
2. I’ve been a “Boeing Field Boy” since I left L188`s, and I knew that the best airplane is that one that pays your bills, but now flying A320`s is it the first time that I see a performance table that takes the revs in account for landing distance calculation. YOU CAN LAND A 777 WITH A VREF LOWER THAN A A321.
3. That tragedy has been announced for long time…
4. It will not be the last.
Ps. Who knows the guy in charge for measure the 3mm water layer on the runway?
First I’d like to add that is too early to speculated about “the probably causes”. Let’s say a prayer for all those poor souls.
I remember when we operated L188 in Shuttle Service back in the 80`s. (Those are the day when the sex was safe and the aviation dangerous…). You could stop a L188 using only the revs… 30 years and no a single accident… No auto brake, no antiskid, no spoilers, no EFIS, no GPS, no fly by wire, only the old stick and rudder and basic T…
Then came the new high-tech jets, and the “wall” becomes higher and narrow… Special type rating for landing in SDU (the CGH`s counter part in Rio de Janeiro), restrictions for F/o operation, a more restrictive MEL…
The deregulation stats a fierce battle for the shuttle service easy money.
They called this progress…
Please, allow me some opinions:
1. The airlines will continue to operate in CGH BECAUSE passengers want to arrive in downtown, BECAUSE, Săo Paulo, like any others large cities in Brazil lack of an efficient and safe mass transportation linking the main airport and downtown, BECAUSE the “authorities” understand isn’t your problem, BECAUSE the people that elected the “authorities” do not give a dam….
2. I’ve been a “Boeing Field Boy” since I left L188`s, and I knew that the best airplane is that one that pays your bills, but now flying A320`s is it the first time that I see a performance table that takes the revs in account for landing distance calculation. YOU CAN LAND A 777 WITH A VREF LOWER THAN A A321.
3. That tragedy has been announced for long time…
4. It will not be the last.
Ps. Who knows the guy in charge for measure the 3mm water layer on the runway?
Fully agree with Alemaobaiano re spin-doctoring.
On another forum, commenting on the video clips released by Infraero, someone pointed out that at 18:51:38:453, just prior to the aircraft leaving the runway, there appears to be a small explosion.
On another forum, commenting on the video clips released by Infraero, someone pointed out that at 18:51:38:453, just prior to the aircraft leaving the runway, there appears to be a small explosion.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Brasil
Posts: 351
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rippa
Have tests been carried out to determine the contamination level of the new surface? I can't find anything about that in publicly available material, and Infraero haven't said anything about that in recent days, letting the 3mm figure continue to be reported.
The 3mm standing water limit applied to the old surface, not the new one. A new surface would have different characteristics to the old one, and it follows that the old limits would no longer apply.
ab
Have tests been carried out to determine the contamination level of the new surface? I can't find anything about that in publicly available material, and Infraero haven't said anything about that in recent days, letting the 3mm figure continue to be reported.
The 3mm standing water limit applied to the old surface, not the new one. A new surface would have different characteristics to the old one, and it follows that the old limits would no longer apply.
ab
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: US
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the video showing the TAM A320 crossing from right to left, just before the A320 exits the frame, there seems to be a white flash -- might it have hit something with either the MLG or the engine as it swerved off the runway? What is there to hit beside a runway that could cause such a flash?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Ireland
Age: 52
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
alemaobaiano - very often how the issue of how safety and regulatory matters play out is influenced so some degree or other by ‘political’ or economic interests. I don’t think there’s any harm in bringing that into the discussion here, if, as you believe, there is an agenda at work. While most people here probably would rather not engage in wild speculation in the absence of known facts – It’s probably useful for the rest of us to know about it – especially if an agenda is at work at an official level – as opposed to general sensationalism/incompetence demonstrated by SOME of the media which many have come to expect as routine.
Rippa – you’ve mentioned about depth measurements being taken – do you know about the status of friction measurements – esp in consideration of the new surface and possible deposit build-up?
Broadreach – I noticed the same thing on the video – but I had thought it was more likely to have been the initial impact off the runway – followed a little later by the larger fire.
Centaurus – therein lies the logic of Mr. B’s advice – but then imminent contact with a hard object previously unseen………
Rippa – you’ve mentioned about depth measurements being taken – do you know about the status of friction measurements – esp in consideration of the new surface and possible deposit build-up?
Broadreach – I noticed the same thing on the video – but I had thought it was more likely to have been the initial impact off the runway – followed a little later by the larger fire.
Centaurus – therein lies the logic of Mr. B’s advice – but then imminent contact with a hard object previously unseen………
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UAE
Age: 45
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC,
Can't really remember, I have been flying the bus for the past two years, so I do not recall anything about the 737 MEL. What I can tell you is that there is all kind of 737's operating at CGH (GOL, VARIG, BRA), brand new ones and some old ones...don't believe that the rev are required for that airport / slippery runway.
Don't know hot to insert images here...I could show the relevant MEL pages...
Can't really remember, I have been flying the bus for the past two years, so I do not recall anything about the 737 MEL. What I can tell you is that there is all kind of 737's operating at CGH (GOL, VARIG, BRA), brand new ones and some old ones...don't believe that the rev are required for that airport / slippery runway.
Don't know hot to insert images here...I could show the relevant MEL pages...
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was raining, yes, but it was not a TS or +RA, more like a -RA or DZ for the past days
I departed Sao Paulo (GRU) the evening before this incident, and I would assess the rainfall that was falling most of Monday as moderate and occasionally bordering of heavy - I got quite wet doing the walkround!
Now I am not commenting on the cause of the incident, but I can confirm that the landings on the Monday were to the south as seen from crew hotel, so the aircraft would have been depositing rubber at the northerly end of the runway.
I have personal experience on landing on newly resurfaced runways (LHR etc) prior to grooving and can confirm that the stopping characteristics are much poorer than normal, and can easily equate to those experienced on contaminated runways.
[Trying to be factual]
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re 'was a go-around attempted?' - it seems to me there are only two ways that people could come to this conclusion in the absence of any survivors and before the FDR is found. Either the captain told the tower he was going around - unlikely since surely that would have been disclosed at one of the press conferences - or someone inferred that from what they saw and heard. And to Joe Schmoe on the ground wouldn't max reverse sound a lot like take-off thrust? So as I see it there's no evidence in favour of the g/a theory, and a bit of evidence against from the video.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: toronto
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Security video
Security cam video of TAM airbus final moments. As A320 passes terminal and heads out of view, a huge glow of light from the impact.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b78_1184812783
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b78_1184812783
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Brasil
Posts: 351
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ChristiaanJ, as with every accident there will have been a series of events leading up to the tragic end, and there is very rarely a single causal factor. That is what accident investigations are for, to establish all of the factors involved and to prevent such incidents from happening again.
What concerns me about this incident is the unseemly haste with which the authorities are trying to absolve the runway of any involvement, without the slightest proof one way or the other. Was the runway condition a contributory factor? Was the inoperative reverser? Two captains on the flight deck? At this point, we don't know, and neither do the authorities, for sure. The CVR and FDR data will clarify the events, as will the tapes from ATC, but at the moment they haven't been analysed.
We saw a similar rush to apportion blame with the GOL 1907 incident, when the authorities were adamant that there was nothing wrong with the air transport system in Brazil and that the only cause was two American pilots fooling around in the sky. We now know that it wasn't like that at all, that there were multiple factors involved, any one of which in isolation would have been harmless, but which combined to cause a tragic accident, and consequently caused chaos with the air transport system here.
I don't think anyone is fixated on the runway per se, but on the reaction of the authorities to any suggestion that it might be a factor.
ab
What concerns me about this incident is the unseemly haste with which the authorities are trying to absolve the runway of any involvement, without the slightest proof one way or the other. Was the runway condition a contributory factor? Was the inoperative reverser? Two captains on the flight deck? At this point, we don't know, and neither do the authorities, for sure. The CVR and FDR data will clarify the events, as will the tapes from ATC, but at the moment they haven't been analysed.
We saw a similar rush to apportion blame with the GOL 1907 incident, when the authorities were adamant that there was nothing wrong with the air transport system in Brazil and that the only cause was two American pilots fooling around in the sky. We now know that it wasn't like that at all, that there were multiple factors involved, any one of which in isolation would have been harmless, but which combined to cause a tragic accident, and consequently caused chaos with the air transport system here.
I don't think anyone is fixated on the runway per se, but on the reaction of the authorities to any suggestion that it might be a factor.
ab
Last edited by alemaobaiano; 19th Jul 2007 at 16:01.