TAM A320 crash at Congonhas, Brazil

[UNCTUOUS]

A Logical Explanation?

Risking Rainboe's toxic wrath, it would appear that the consolidated wisdom would be that there is:
.
A logical Explanation for the TAM A320 Accident's Observed Runway Events at Congonhas
.
To be crystal clear, we'll start off with the conclusion (that's based upon the histories and observations at the links accessible from within the link provided below):
.
a. It would appear that TAM Flt JJ3054 did land a little far in and a little hot.
.
b. Once established with the left-hand engine in reverse and spoilers deployed, it then became apparent to the handling pilot that a (typical Ibiza style) A320 wheel-braking failure had occurred (i.e. the never totally resolved BSCU failure mode).
.
c. Both recognizing and resolving this situation can be a very runway- (and time-) consuming affair (see link to 03 Aug 2003 accident to A320 regn C-FTDF at http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources/C-FTDF.pdf ), so the captain, being very much (and understandably) aware of the lethal lack of an overrun, decided to apply power and go-round.
.
d. The A320 Thrust reverser can take up to 5 secs to re-stow, so the application of TOGA power caused a predictable compressor surge on the LH engine well after the RH engine had gained full power, thus causing the first flash seen on the video and the divergence (due to the thrust asymmetry) well left of the centerline.
.
e. Thus it's probably not a lot to do with the lack of runway grooving, but is possibly directly related to the runway length and abysmal lack of a usable RESA (Runway End Safety Area).... and the resulting pilot apprehension.
.
.
background supporting detail is at this link

[theamrad]

engine fan reversing the blades direction from clockwise to counterclockwise! Really good explanation.. Some times I just feel like jumping into the TV

Another Classic!! – like "the TRAIN driver held onto the STEERING WHEEL" from SKY and others – I know that feeling so well.

Downin3green – at least we can see Bomarc is here – what about the creep brigade sneaking around – it’s amazing how some of them can actually manage to pick the accurate/informed bits of discussion off PPRUNE – but haven’t even got the mental ability to quote it verbatim – maybe they should try using parrots?? Oh - and then there are the ones who do quote verbatim - but are just as likely to pick information from a spotter as from a pro

BOAC – interesting about that previous event if true – I suppose could have gone unreported at the time (like MOR type) – and if there’s a Bristol type ‘nothing wrong here’ agenda at work – it’s even less likely to be confirmed now.

[theamrad]

background supporting detail is at this link

UNCTUOUS – I think it’s very likely that Rainboe is justifiably going to vent some toxic wrath in your direction for the speculative input – not to mention stating what has been said already.

Aside from that (and strangely after my comments directly above!)– the background information which you link to seems to contain nothing pertinent to THIS accident other than that which has been COPIED and PASTED DIRECTLY off this PPRUNE forum thread. I notice with great interest that I have been quoted verbatim – and content here from others has also been copied. Are you the author of that page?

BOAC - it would seem like a commercial site it making use of PPRUNE content directly yet again - with no mention of source

[Doors to Automatic]

Where is the evidence that the plane "did land a little far in and a little hot"?

[sky9]

We all complain about journalists speculating, then start doing the same ourselves.
I presume that the flight data recorder and voice recorder will be recovered. Lets stop trying to second guess what happened and wait for the report.

[Dream Land]

A320 landing at 17R of Săo Paulo Congonhas airport: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZ77mPgJ_Sk

[flt_lt_w_mitty]

OK - folk are coming out of the woodwork with 'theories' now while the FDR/CVR is still being looked at, so,

My cards on the table:

Let us lay this mis-information about

a) Tire Tread - various folk have said the 'tread' don't matter on a tire. We call that Bull. Anyone who knows ANYTHING about aquaplaning knows that circumferential grooves VASTLY increase tire contact in aquaplaning conditions. I believe there was an excellent film a few years ago ('Dunlop'?) which showed this clearly and I would suggest all take a look at it - get your safety officer to get a copy. You only need to watch the Indy on slicks in the wet to see it too. A tire almost 'worn to canvas' (still legal) will aquaplane far more readily than a new one with grooves.

b) Reversers - oh boy can they make a difference! If anyone has landed and found Braking Action 'Nil' as I have will know that. Only Reverse saved me, as brakes were ineffective and there was not enough runway left. I am quite frankly stunned that the TAM MEL calls for only a blanket 55m increase in LDR with one inop!!! What runway conditions - all? Let's face it, on a normal landing with autobrake a u/s reverser (or two) makes NO difference to LDR. On a slippery runway with very poor BA? If it is only 55m why on earth did Airbus fit the godamned things in the first place with all the weight, expense and maintenance? There seems also to be some confusion over the effect of 'contaminated' - which can actually help stopping.

c) Someone says spoilers operate automatically - yes, on a NORMAL system.

d) Whether or not touchdown was fast or long and/or whether a g/a was attempted - we will only know from the FDR. There are, sadly, no survivors. It is pointless folk 'guessing' here. Touchdown time, the time trace from there to impact and Ground Speed will enable a pretty accurate definition of 'where','how' and 'if'. All that is certain is that the video shows something wildly wrong in terms of speed. I confess to a shudder when I saw the crash airplane on that video. We also await news of any other tech defects which may or may not have been present - if the report of a previous 'exciting' stop are true, who knows, apart from the inquiry team?

As far as my operation is concerned, and I am making NO judgement on this accident - just my 'philosophy':

1) I would not wish to operate a heavyish airplane onto a shortish highish pretty 'slippery' runway (at night too), with a possible NPA in rain and lowish cloud, one reverse u/s - oh yes, a training flight too................

I would be talking to my boss on my mobile from another airfield explaining why I was not where I should have been.

[Dream Land]

1) I would not wish to operate a heavyish airplane onto a shortish highish pretty 'slippery' runway (at night too), with a possible NPA in rain and lowish cloud, one reverse u/s - oh yes, a training flight too................

How many tragic accidents like this (completely avoidable) have to happen before we all start thinking like this?

[Rainboe]

Unctious, you are making excessive use of speculation here. Let's stick to definite facts that can be supported rather than accuse the dead pilots of things they may be quite innocent of! At this stage, this is rubbish:

a. It would appear that TAM Flt JJ3054 did land a little far in and a little hot.
.
b. Once established with the left-hand engine in reverse and spoilers deployed, it then became apparent to the handling pilot that a (typical Ibiza style) A320 wheel-braking failure had occurred (i.e. the never totally resolved BSCU failure mode).
.
c. Both recognizing and resolving this situation can be a very runway- (and time-) consuming affair (see link to 03 Aug 2003 accident to A320 regn C-FTDF at http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources/C-FTDF.pdf ), so the captain, being very much (and understandably) aware of the lethal lack of an overrun, decided to apply power and go-round.
.
d. The A320 Thrust reverser can take up to 5 secs to re-stow, so the application of TOGA power caused a predictable compressor surge on the LH engine well after the RH engine had gained full power, thus causing the first flash seen on the video and the divergence (due to the thrust asymmetry) well left of the centerline.

You really have no justification of bringing this up at his stage pending release of CVR and FDR evidence! It smacks of the dreadful Kenyan 737 thread where all sorts of idiots were desperately trying to stake their claim first for any of what could have been the most peculiar causes!

[EFHF]

Originally Posted by Dream Land

1) I would not wish to operate a heavyish airplane onto a shortish highish pretty 'slippery' runway (at night too), with a possible NPA in rain and lowish cloud, one reverse u/s - oh yes, a training flight too................

How many tragic accidents like this (completely avoidable) have to happen before we all start thinking like this?

It also appears the RLD exceeded the LDA (5900 ft) even with the wet runway max braking calculation, which yields 3900 ft ALD / 0,6 + 180 (for the 1 rev inop) = 6680 ft.

So even if the aircraft was, in good condition, capable of stopping in the distance available, it appears that the (FAR/JAR) 66 % safety factor was not met. Whether the flight was under a similar Brazilian regulation requirement is for someone else to comment on.

[theamrad]

Does anyone actually know the status on FDR and CVR. I know the FDR was removed, etc. But any reports on whether or not they're being read already?

[broadreach]

Theamrad,
They're both in the US. No word yet on readability.

[wileydog3]

Wiley I think that the article you refer to (post #258) is “How good pilots make bad decisions: a model for understanding and teaching failure management to pilots“;

Thanks, Yes that is the one. Swauger is on target and this pdf should be required reading for all pilots.

Good to see you posting here.

[Broomstick Flier]

Anyway, the Brazilian government has asked the NTSB to keep the content of both the FDR/CVR undisclosed.

[wileydog3]

Interesting that the BRA 737 also opted to veer left at the end of the runway - is that an attempt to reach the taxiway, or to avoid the ILS gantry off the end of the deck?

A while back I spoke with a pilot familiar with the Burbank 737 accident. He said that had the pilot elected to continue braking straight ahead rather than trying to turn, they would have stopped. The individual had considerable information because of his involvement with the post investigation. His observation was that once the pilot elected to try and turn, that contributed to breaking traction and losing almost all braking.

[bomarc]

Theamrad and Downinthreegreen:

There seems to be one difference in what I am doing and what other press people may or may not be doing.

I am as well qualified a pilot as the two tragic figures flying the TAM plane.

I don't talke everything at face value on the PPRUNE thread, and contrary to popular belief, my reporter friend did mention PPRUNE by name and it is on the record/transcript.

Did I know the airport had problems before this crash? yes.

Did I know the runway had just been resurfaced? NO, and I didn't report it just from PPRUNE, I checked another source.

Did I know the number two TR was MEL'd? nope...but before I passed it on I got another source.


I received a very kind message from a poster here supporting my efforts...you all complain about the press and how it handles the aviation world...tell me what better thing than a well qualified pilot who knows how to gather information, double checks it and then sends it on to a very competent reporter who is also a pilot?


When my reporter friend used a YOU TUBE shot of a landing at the airport in question, HE TOLD PEOPLE THAT IT WAS SHOT DURING A LANDING IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION (17r). NBC used the same images and swore it was exactly what the TAM pilots saw...EVEN THOUGH THE IMAGE HAS THE SYMBOLS 17R ON IT.

Was it the pilots making a mistake, the runway surface too slick, difficulties due to inop TR? Combination of things...or did the pilots suffer a stroke on short final, or a myriad of unknown things at this time?

It is important to raise the questions in an intelligent and informed manner to set the agenda to make things safer. Already the President of Brazil has promised to build a new airport to replace the present one...that is because of all the attention the world's presses are making.

[theamrad]

Bomarc -
1. Read the relevant post - my remarks weren't referring to you - that should be clear from the way I made that statement. "at least we can see Bomarc is here" should be seen more along the lines of being complementary, in so far as I don't have an opinion one way or the other about YOUR behaviour that I've seen, except to say that you were honest and completely open about what your purpose was - unlike others (who I refer to) who are far from honest about how they source information.
2.

There seems to be one difference in what I am doing

And I will give you credit there - there is a difference between what you and others (such as I refer to) do/are doing.
3.

It is important to raise the questions in an intelligent and informed manner to set the agenda to make things safer.

I agree completely.
4.

my reporter friend did mention PPRUNE by name

You and the moderator seem to have a disagreement on that point. All I can say is that you may be a victim of the reporter not saying it clearly? I didn't have access to that report, so I'm not in a position to take sides.
5. Personally, my comments are not just about certain elements of the press, but also other creeps using material quoted from here for their own private commercial agendas - as in the, as yet, unfounded, baseless and speculative rubbish posted earlier today.

[Rippa]

oh yes, a training flight too................

Once again, I am sorry for the previous information posted by me. To clarify, this was not a training flight. Both captains were TR on the bus and well experienced (flight time).
About the media: best news I saw until now was from CNN, pretty accurate and straight forward. Brasilian media is about selling blood at any means, so at this moment, ANYTHING on the TV or newspaper is BS and tendentious.
Can say once again that landing in CGH for TAM pilots (and every other Brasilian airline pilot) in a normal procedure and a routine, so I believe they were prepared for a slippery runway. And that is why I think some other thing went wrong on this accident. Taking off from CGH today, I saw some tire markings (braking marks) on the end of runway 35L (I was on 35R), about 45 degrees with the runway centerline. Hope some Day we can see the truth about this terrible accident.

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

... the runway was wet ... I doubt any 'skid marks' you observed were from the accident aircraft!

[bubbers44]

The press reads all of the posts here and prints the speculative ones along with the factual ones. I think having someone interested in the truth with the experience and know how to sort it out is a benefit, especially when he can then get that information to the press. Since the Brazilian officials want the US to keep the CVR and FDR data quiet, according to a previous post, it may be a while before the facts are known so the press will go with what ever they have.