TAM A320 crash at Congonhas, Brazil
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Switzerland, Singapore
Posts: 1,309
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TripleB, your if"s and when's and why's - you and PBL try to hide the un-nice cause behind all kind of nice words and theories.
This might be usful in a school lesson about logic and mathematical evidence. But we have here a case it couldn't be clearer.
Yes, you're darn right if you say that my reasoning is based on feelings. I feel that force of that engine (two of them) every day, and I know, that if they are not on idle, they pull me forward like crazy!!
Of course they would have been able to stop the aircraft on a longer runway. If their engine would have been in the TOGA detent, they might even have been able to stop it on 10 000m.
If you ask me, you don't see the wood for the trees. This case is so simple it can be: The thrust on engine 2 remained on 1.2-1.3 (PBL would give me 3 digits behind the dot - thaaaank you!), the runway was short and slippery. So what else do you need to discuss about?
Give it up with your far fetched theories. There is only one mistake they did, and that was that TL. Close that thread finally!
Dani <angry>
This might be usful in a school lesson about logic and mathematical evidence. But we have here a case it couldn't be clearer.
Yes, you're darn right if you say that my reasoning is based on feelings. I feel that force of that engine (two of them) every day, and I know, that if they are not on idle, they pull me forward like crazy!!
Of course they would have been able to stop the aircraft on a longer runway. If their engine would have been in the TOGA detent, they might even have been able to stop it on 10 000m.
If you ask me, you don't see the wood for the trees. This case is so simple it can be: The thrust on engine 2 remained on 1.2-1.3 (PBL would give me 3 digits behind the dot - thaaaank you!), the runway was short and slippery. So what else do you need to discuss about?
Give it up with your far fetched theories. There is only one mistake they did, and that was that TL. Close that thread finally!
Dani <angry>
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Bielefeld, Germany
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by lomapaseo
I sure hope that you can't find anything written to support the above.
your hope is justified. I was mistaken. The version of Annex 13 which is in force since 1 November 2001 says, concerning the format of the report, "3. Conclusions. List the findings and causes established in the investigation. The list of causes should include both the immediate and deeper systemic causes"
Originally Posted by lomapaseo
The problem that I have with a finding of Probable cause is that it attracts most of the attention to a single item that quite often does not lend itself to responding to a practical solution.
Originally Posted by lomapaseo
The idea behind investigating in the first place is to determine any holes in the swiss cheese
PBL
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Bielefeld, Germany
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dani,
I may be missing your point, but I am having a problem seeing anything constructive behind your interventions. You have fingered the cause of the accident, and apparently would prefer others not to discuss it further (your comments about closing the thread).
Supposing we appointed you to be the investigating committee, all by yourself. So you can write what your best judgement tells you. What safety recommendations would you come up with "for the purpose of accident prevention and any resultant corrective action"? And how could you persuade us they would work to aid safety?
PBL
I may be missing your point, but I am having a problem seeing anything constructive behind your interventions. You have fingered the cause of the accident, and apparently would prefer others not to discuss it further (your comments about closing the thread).
Supposing we appointed you to be the investigating committee, all by yourself. So you can write what your best judgement tells you. What safety recommendations would you come up with "for the purpose of accident prevention and any resultant corrective action"? And how could you persuade us they would work to aid safety?
PBL
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Switzerland, Singapore
Posts: 1,309
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PBL, I understand your fine irony, but finally you showed some emotion and they lead you on the correct way:
You as a specialist should ask *yourself* exactly that question you asked me:.
But, please!!!, stop all this endless reasoning about the causes, may it be primary, secondary, contributing, fitting a criterion or not.
Dani
You as a specialist should ask *yourself* exactly that question you asked me:.
- Recommendations how to detect such errors
- How to overcome such problems
- Corrective actions in training, cockpit design, CRM
aso
But, please!!!, stop all this endless reasoning about the causes, may it be primary, secondary, contributing, fitting a criterion or not.
Dani
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's space to extend the overrun by 500' across the road by building up the end zone and constructing a tunnel for the vehicular traffic. Additioanlly, the frangible rocks arresting system [already operationally proven at JFK] could be included in the extension.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Bielefeld, Germany
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Dani
* Recommendations how to detect such errors
* How to overcome such problems
* Corrective actions in training, cockpit design, CRM
aso
* How to overcome such problems
* Corrective actions in training, cockpit design, CRM
aso
You are also not going to be much help if you concentrate just on trying to get the pilots to not make that kind of error. For the best pilots in the world will screw up royally two or three times in their career, and flight safety means providing an environment which doesn't let those occasions develop into broken metal and broken bones.
You will find getting rid of that "and so on" a little harder than you think. That is why no one really concerned with learning from this accident will
Originally Posted by Dani
...... stop all this endless reasoning about the causes .......
(I might say that I find your idea of emotions a bit odd!)
PBL
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PBL
You can wrap it up any way that you wish, and yes there will be lessons learnt that will feed back into:
FI: on my fleet we are just completing recurrent training involving late go-arounds / balked landings (before reverse selection) / etc - and very rewarding it was too.
You can wrap it up any way that you wish, and yes there will be lessons learnt that will feed back into:
- manufacturers design considerations,
- airport operators/federal bodies requirements,
- operators/manufacturers limitations/operating procedures and indeed into
- recurrent training and information dissemination requirements
FI: on my fleet we are just completing recurrent training involving late go-arounds / balked landings (before reverse selection) / etc - and very rewarding it was too.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Bielefeld, Germany
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by TopBunk
in my view it is becoming indisputable that the first/primary/root cause of the problem in getting the aircraft stopped on the paved surface was ....
if you would respond to my questions about how you prioritise causes, I might be able to agree with you (or not).
But until you say how you prioritise causes, and can demonstrate conclusively to people that your characterisation follows from your criterion, I can propose from experience that there is not the slightest hope that your suggestion will become "indisputable" any time soon.
I can even guess who can and very likely will dispute it in public. TAM's insurance company.
PBL
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In my head
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by TopBunk
...becoming indisputable that the first/primary/root cause of the problem in getting the aircraft stopped on the paved surface was the failure to reduce the forward thrust by the inaction of the crew to retard the thrust levers, which everyone surely must agree is learnt in basic training?
I would agree that actions like
FI: on my fleet we are just completing recurrent training involving late go-arounds / balked landings (before reverse selection) / etc - and very rewarding it was too.
Last edited by slip and turn; 19th Aug 2007 at 19:22. Reason: typo
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
flyer145 / Lemurian /
I trust the criticisms you make of deceased pilots is made from 100% knowing this call is a TAM SOP requirement
That call is NOT an SOP in BA for instance...
What Lemurian said is quite correct. The autobrake was not providing the decleration that was set/required! You are also correct that the autobrake could have been working but because of a slippery runway could not provide the required deceleration. However the "NO DECEL" is a standard call and was missed out! Maybe the announcement of "No spoilers" & "No decel" would have woken the PF to the real reason or prompted him to go-around.
That call is NOT an SOP in BA for instance...
if you would respond to my questions about how you prioritise causes, I might be able to agree with you (or not).
But until you say how you prioritise causes, and can demonstrate conclusively to people that your characterisation follows from your criterion, I can propose from experience that there is not the slightest hope that your suggestion will become "indisputable" any time soon.
PBL
But until you say how you prioritise causes, and can demonstrate conclusively to people that your characterisation follows from your criterion, I can propose from experience that there is not the slightest hope that your suggestion will become "indisputable" any time soon.
PBL
I can even guess who can and very likely will dispute it in public. TAM's insurance company.
PBL
PBL
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understand they are planning to build a steel net in both ends of the runway in Congonhas. Also soft cement as a escape.
Maybe Congonhas could get their runway grooved?
And maybe the airlines flying into CGH could get their procedures sorted out?
And maybe there should be far more stringent restrictions on operation with one TR locked out?
Arrester barriers are for the military.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CJ
I'd agree with your post apart from this bit... It has been extensively discussed above that 1 T/R U/S has little effect on LDR, especially if you ignore contaminated runways - and then they are duly allowed for if required. Whilst the T/R Inop seems likely to be implicated @ CGH, it is as a side effect, not a performance issue...
As you say, the EMAS / barriers / overruns might help with the previous minor excursions. The TAM aircraft left the runway at nearly 100K
And maybe there should be far more stringent restrictions on operation with one TR locked out?
As you say, the EMAS / barriers / overruns might help with the previous minor excursions. The TAM aircraft left the runway at nearly 100K
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have again to take issue over the general question of reverser effectiveness. It seems that the 320 requires an increase of only 55m in LDR for all runway conditions according to the TAM MEL. I must therefore assume that the 320 reversers are almost ineffective. The Boeing 737-700 requires an additional 370m for braking action 'Poor' with 1 u/s and 970m for both, which is far from 'little effect'.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nigel,
I've read most of the 1900+ posts.
Shoot me down any time, but the way I read it all, it is as simple as this.
One TR locked out... rather unusual, but they have flown with that before.
Now, short, slippery runway.... oh sh!t.
What's the SOP about one TR inop? We won't get the same decel with one TR!
Oh, don't pull that engine into reverse, then.
.....
And somehow, instead of doing what should be ingrained: slamming both TLs to reverse, never mind if one TR is inop, they don't touch the #2 TL.
The rest is a sad history.
I've read most of the 1900+ posts.
Shoot me down any time, but the way I read it all, it is as simple as this.
One TR locked out... rather unusual, but they have flown with that before.
Now, short, slippery runway.... oh sh!t.
What's the SOP about one TR inop? We won't get the same decel with one TR!
Oh, don't pull that engine into reverse, then.
.....
And somehow, instead of doing what should be ingrained: slamming both TLs to reverse, never mind if one TR is inop, they don't touch the #2 TL.
The rest is a sad history.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC... I think you are either misunderstanding something, or using differently based data
BA QRH A320 IAE 2 Rev Operative, Max Manual Braking, improves LDR from 50' by 5% (Dry) to 24% Ice over no Rev.
NB there might still be issues between a 1980s modern certification rules aircraft, and a 1960s retread hiding under some Grandfather rules
BA QRH A320 IAE 2 Rev Operative, Max Manual Braking, improves LDR from 50' by 5% (Dry) to 24% Ice over no Rev.
NB there might still be issues between a 1980s modern certification rules aircraft, and a 1960s retread hiding under some Grandfather rules
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: washington,dc
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
christian j
<< And somehow, instead of doing what should be ingrained: slamming both TLs to reverse, never mind if one TR is inop, they don't touch the #2 TL.>>
did you mean slamming to idle? reverse woud have been icing on the cake.
<< And somehow, instead of doing what should be ingrained: slamming both TLs to reverse, never mind if one TR is inop, they don't touch the #2 TL.>>
did you mean slamming to idle? reverse woud have been icing on the cake.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CJ... Sorry - don't 100% understand your post...
That was the old MEL... hardly affects LDR. However, seems an "HF issue" meant that maybe this crew, and others, were led into not even selecting idle in this engine, and leaving it not far off Climb Power
Reason for the MEL advice was to avoid the "locked out" Eng slightly increasing Fwd Thrust as engine went to "Rev Idle" EPR / RPM - a little higher than "Ground Idle".
The new MEL, and unfortunately the change was prior CGH, but maybe too late in distribution / publication / understanding
It is, but nothing to do with "1 Rev U/S" performance IMHO. It seems an HF issue, now corrected I think...
What's the SOP about one TR inop? We won't get the same decel with one TR!
Oh, don't pull that engine into reverse, then.
Oh, don't pull that engine into reverse, then.
Reason for the MEL advice was to avoid the "locked out" Eng slightly increasing Fwd Thrust as engine went to "Rev Idle" EPR / RPM - a little higher than "Ground Idle".
And somehow, instead of doing what should be ingrained: slamming both TLs to reverse, never mind if one TR is inop
The rest is a sad history.
Paxing All Over The World
marciovp
Are the politicians still saying that they will find a new site for a new airport 'within 90 days', as they did within a week of the crash?
BOAC
(non pilot speaking) I wonder if that is based on 'idle reverse'?? I often see reference to that, as opposed to some level of increased thrust for reverse. It is possible that Airbus designed reverse to be used at idle, so as to keep noise levels down, something that has always been a key factor for them. Just a thought.
I understand they are planning to build a steel net in both ends of the runway in Congonhas. Also soft cement as a escape.
BOAC
It seems that the 320 requires an increase of only 55m in LDR for all runway conditions according to the TAM MEL. I must therefore assume that the 320 reversers are almost ineffective. The Boeing 737-700 requires an additional 370m for braking action 'Poor' with 1 u/s and 970m for both, which is far from 'little effect'.