Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

TAM A320 crash at Congonhas, Brazil

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

TAM A320 crash at Congonhas, Brazil

Old 19th Jul 2007, 15:51
  #181 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Zone of Alienation
Age: 79
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It seems the surveillance camera is aimed toward the departure end of the runway. If the airplane was going faster than others at that stage (although the clip of the slow airplane looks as if someone slowed the frame rate), either the aircraft wouldn't decelerate because of hydroplaning or technical failure, or they were attempting to fly again. Due to the fact that no reverse was available on the number #2 engine, the swing to the left could suggest the use of the #1 reverser which at that point is worth trying. What a tragedy in any case.
FIRESYSOK is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2007, 16:32
  #182 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Ireland
Age: 52
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Beanbag – I don’t think anyone here has made any conclusions or offered any theories about an attempted GA. Maybe the issue arose in discussion BEFORE we all had the retrospective advantage of seeing video of the landing roll??? Maybe making the quite reasonable assumption of what an experienced ATPL in a transport category aircraft might do (or consider doing) with failure to decelerate adequately (for whatever reason) with 2 to 3 thousand feet of runway remaining and a really bad situation at the end of that runway ??? Then taking that reasonable idea and asking here if anyone knows if it happened or not. Maybe we aren’t all present at press conferences?

Broadreach – disregard my previous comment about the flash at the end of the runway – I thought you were referring to something else.

The video appears to me to show spoilers up – I’m not 100% on AB hydraulics – so what are the chances of a more serious type failure on brakes with the A320?
theamrad is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2007, 16:34
  #183 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,569
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Something to keep in mind

High reverse eflux at moderate speeds pushes the water on the runway forward as moving waves (with the aircraft) of high thickness and troughs of low thickness. When a high thickness trough is intersected by the mains, there goes the braking.
lomapaseo is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2007, 16:51
  #184 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
theamrad - the 'g/a' thing started here around #35 and by #140 the media were running with it (possibly from here?) and it 'picked up' here again at #150. There is an interesting comment around the #40's about a 'tail strike'?
BOAC is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2007, 16:52
  #185 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: La Belle Province
Posts: 2,179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by wileydog3
Why is the NTSB involved? ...because they were invited due to their expertise, knowledge of the A320, and were available to render assistance?
Because it is their right under ICAO to be involved, given the engine certification.
Mad (Flt) Scientist is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2007, 17:40
  #186 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: East Molesey, Surrey, UK
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Navaids?

Any Conghonas aviators confirm approach aid details? Looks like NDB and VOR/DME but no ILS on any of the runways.

Might ILS have helped (assuming they had somewhere to put the localiser arrays)? The weather was dull and damp but scarcely on minimums, and presumably the PAPIs were working.

As usual the last thing we will learn is if there was an unexpected distraction or technical malfunction.
shortfinals is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2007, 17:40
  #187 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Ireland
Age: 52
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

theamrad - the 'g/a' thing started here around #35 and by #140 the media were running with it (possibly from here?)
BOAC - I thought it was the other way around – that it ended up here after a rumour in the media, with someone asking if it was true or not – but then isn’t that the problem with rumour – around and around it goes – where it started no-one knows!!

I thought before the video came out – the attempt at a GA might have been at least a possibility – but the video seems (obviously) to suggest otherwise – that is unless it went really badly, along the lines of Rainboe’s earlier thoughts.

Unfortunately the 'video screen speed measurements' have even reached RTE here now - with the necessary stating of the obvious - I suppose they did at least mention the important bit - the FDR being sent off for analysis.
theamrad is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2007, 17:45
  #188 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Down south, USA.
Posts: 1,594
Received 9 Likes on 1 Post
Arrow

PJ2:

True, those discussions can be very beneficial.

One potential hazard, at least with some other A-320 go-arounds/balked landings is that pilots sometimes fail to put the thrust levers all the way forward to the TOGA detent, and/or don't check the FMA on the PFD.
Not verifying modes on the Airbus PFD or on the B-757 resulted in serious problems.
One A-320 almost hit the ground after a go-around at LAS, due to various crew coordination issues.

Some confusing situations or incidents involved highly-experienced pilots who fly the A-330.
Ignition Override is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2007, 17:45
  #189 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Rio
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Guys....
I used to be a Shuttle service capt for over 10 years flying both the 737/300 an A319 between Rio and Sao Paulo.I have at least 2000 landings on that runway under my belt.I cannot offer any conclusion on what might have happened,but that runway IS slippery.And more so that it has been recentely resurfaced,the rain kept pouring down,sometimes quite heavily during the day in question,with not a single sunny spell all day long i.e the water kept soaking the runway.Add to that the fact that almost 80% of landings in CGH are performed in the southerly direction with rubber accumulation at the end of the A320´s landing roll and there you have iterfect condition for an accident to take place.Bear in mind that our eyes and minds are expecting the aircraft to be a lot slower than it was,it doesn´t seem accurate to say it actually had the speed to take off at that point.It was fast,but maybe it was at,let´s say 90 kt,when it was expected to be at 30 or 40...still not enough to fly...Who knows...
Maybe that glare at the end was caused by eng.stall...Who knows...Aquaplaning combined with darkness and a 1or 2 second late decision to go around...Who in hell knows...Not having any other data available,to me at least,it´s quite evident that the runway has indeed played a big part in this terrible event...No other conclusion is yet possible.Best regards.
Johnbr is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2007, 17:47
  #190 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Rio
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Shortfinals,yes ILS on both ends...
Johnbr is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2007, 17:58
  #191 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: MAN
Posts: 803
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
One question...

It would appear that once you start to hydro/aquaplane, you are not likely to stop, hense the reason why one aircraft could appear to stop normally and another slide of the end??

Is the rather old fashioned idea of "land firmly laddy... to break the surface tension" still good advice? Or just B/S
Dogma is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2007, 18:01
  #192 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts


the video:

http://playervideo.globo.com/webmedia/GMCMidiaASX?midiaId=703185|banda=N|ext.asx
steve_austin is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2007, 18:07
  #193 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Somewhere in the Tropics UTC+7 to 9
Posts: 450
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Might ILS have helped (assuming they had somewhere to put the localiser arrays)? The weather was dull and damp but scarcely on minimums, and presumably the PAPIs were working.
On huge pylons at runway level on the extended centerline... and err... if you overrun, you don't want to hit that while airborne and freefalling either...
PK-KAR is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2007, 18:10
  #194 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
steve_austin is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2007, 18:35
  #195 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Irkytsk.

I am ordinary Canadian PAX speaking Russian.
Reading www.avia.ru discussions, I noted some similarities with last year Irkutsk incident. Brief description of that story:

A-310 (not A-320) made normal landing at Irkutsk. Reverser (#1?) was deactivated several days before (INOP in MEL at accident time). Crew used single working reverser after landing and then started to switch reverser off. According to black box, IN THE SAME TIME as switching reverser off, engine (or both?) went a full forward power. With full pedal breaks all the way, the plane overrun the strip and hit concrete structure and car garages at 190 km/h. Explosion, fire, many deaths.

Official version (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S7_Airlines_Flight_778) is that (allegedly tiered, deep night 4 am landing) crew unwillingly pushed main gears in the same motion as disengaging of reverser. This unusual hand kinetics was disputed by pilots during discussions. Alternative version – something wrong in engine(s) control that caused SYNHRONEOUS stepwise command (i) reverser off (ii) forward thrust on. Inappropriate locking procedure of INOP reverser several days before incident was blamed in such malfunction (in alternative version).

Although far fetched guess, unexpected forward thrust while landing may explain high speed while reverser still working. This theory has a chance if TAM black boxes reveal that crew did NOT attempt to go-around…
canpax is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2007, 18:59
  #196 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I am not suggesting "long landing" / "go around at/prior touchdown" were factors in this accident, but they have been mentioned by some. An interesting analysis of these factors is available at http://amelia.db.erau.edu/reports/ntsb/aar/AAR77-01.pdf re an AA 727 at St Thomas, also with a tragic outcome...
NigelOnDraft is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2007, 20:18
  #197 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Valley Where the Thames Runs Softly
Age: 77
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Here's a post from a man who knows a bit

This caught my attention today, especially when I heard it was an A320 landing on a rain slickened, short runway, which is something I do on a regular basis. As a matter of fact, two runways I land on (routinely) are shorter than this accident runway in Brazil. It is easy to be an armchair expert discussing tragedies such as these, but when I heard about this fiery crash, I remembered a little statement printed on page 256 of the airline's A319/320 Pilot Manual:


WARNING
Do not attempt a go around once the aircraft is on the runway
and reverse thrust is initiated. Up to five seconds are required
for a reverser to close in the forward thrust position. Also, there
is a possibility that the reverser will not stow in the forward thrust
position during a go around attempt.

Uh oh...
Unwell_Raptor is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2007, 21:10
  #198 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Ireland
Age: 52
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Just with respect to the official agenda which our Brazilian colleagues complained of earlier. I must suspend the usual general derision with which I treat some of the media (and for which some have criticised me in the past). While in this neck of the woods: BBC, RTE, and C4 news have continued to pedal the ‘official’ version, the ‘video screen speed measurements’ and (to varying degrees) suggestions that the pilots were landing with excessive speed/nothing wrong with the runway.
ITV news seems to have done some journalistic work and come up trumps. The main thrust of their story this evening was the suggestion that officials produced video clips in such a way as to suggest the pilots were in error, and that they(officialdom) were trying to deflect attention from the whole runway issue. They mentioned a couple of skids in previous days also, and that the runway condition had been a concern before the accident. ITV even had a simple (if very brief) description of touchdown zone and how a pilot can go around – without speculating that this had been attempted in this case. The story ended with what is obvious to us – either way – the truth will come out with the FDR data. So for me at least – full marks for ITV tonight.
Maybe ease up on criticism of me in the future guys if I’m on a rant about the media – I’ll definitely give credit where it’s due.

Dogma -
It would appear that once you start to hydro/aquaplane, you are not likely to stop, hence the reason why one aircraft could appear to stop normally and another slide of the end??
Whether it was at play here or not, time will tell – but when it does happen, it’s likely to continue and considerably effect the distance required. For example, Qantas B744 at Bangkok – even after full manual braking applied, the crew noticed no appreciable deceleration – aquaplaning – you can check the Boeing brochure for a brief description
http://www.smartcockpit.com/pdf/flightops/safety/0022/. But suffice to say in that instance, it did continue and effective deceleration didn't occur until within 1,000 feet of the runway end.

Unwell_Raptor - it's been said a few times already pages back.
theamrad is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2007, 21:25
  #199 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: MA
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
There has been a huge amount of attention paid to this newly paved runway with heavy rain and no runway grooving carried out as yet. But all the other flights previous to this one landed safely including a TAM A320 immediately prior to the accident flight. The key to learning from this tragedy is to understand what was different about this flight than all the other flights that landed safely that night. You can see in the video that the accident airplane is in a completely different state (far more speed) than other planes of the same type landing just prior to the accident. Something caused that to happen to this airplane, and not to others. Aquaplaning does not happen to one plane of a certain type at a certain weight going a certain speed and not to another plane of the same type, same weight going the same speed. Something was different about this flight that was unrelated to the runway.

Hydroplaning was initially blamed as the cause of the AF A340 accident at YYZ. Eventually, it was determined that that aircraft landed hopelessly long and fast. My speculation is that we will eventually learn that this plane's landing profile was out of the normal envelope, and then the co-factors (wet, slippery runway, hydroplaning, lack of reverse) all come into play.
RobertS975 is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2007, 21:35
  #200 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: EGNX
Posts: 1,208
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
But what doesn't make sense is that the pilots (both captains I understand) were based at Congonhas and very experienced on type and at the airport. They would have surely landed there hundreds of times in the past, thereby knowing the exact performance of the aircraft in relation to the runway.

My guess is that they hydroplaned sometime after the initial touchdown and tried to GA out of it. The reason for this is that they knew that they wouldn't stop in time and thereofore head over the cliff edge. Hence my previous comment about an EMAS.
Doors to Automatic is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.