TAM A320 crash at Congonhas, Brazil
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Up to FL410
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just wondering what the requirements are regarding a reverser INOP? Obviously its allowable under the MEL but is the other one limited to reverse idle or can it be used normally? Is the asymmetric not an issue?
Is it true the spoilers will come up as soon as the throttles are moved into reverse in spite of spoiler lever position, or will they only do this in the armed mode on WOW switch?
I'm not going to join the non factual assuming all debate on the issue, I'm going to wait until the FDR comes out and the official report is written, but it did get me thinking about the items above (I'm currently doing my ATPL)
Thanks
Is it true the spoilers will come up as soon as the throttles are moved into reverse in spite of spoiler lever position, or will they only do this in the armed mode on WOW switch?
I'm not going to join the non factual assuming all debate on the issue, I'm going to wait until the FDR comes out and the official report is written, but it did get me thinking about the items above (I'm currently doing my ATPL)
Thanks
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Florida
Age: 71
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a weighty issue
A great deal has been said regarding other aircraft during the day having issues on the same approach and landing....but not on how close were they to their MLGW....???
Not much has been said about TAM adding at least 2 rows of seats to this aircraft from their original config....5 more rows than the revised B6 config....4 rows more than TED.....40 or more seats than the same aircraft in a typical North American 2 class config. The flight was full...NRSA's filled it.
I have read that TAM has tankered fuel into that airport in the past...I do not know if that was the case on this flight....and I have not seen any weight manifest for this aircraft regarding cargo and baggage...but in any case, just on pax count alone, I would think that this aircraft was close to its Max Landing Gross Weight and thereby make any landing attempt far more difficult...and then adding in no ILS, no grooves, no #2 reverser, known wind eddy problems from surrounding buildings, and rain with reduced visibility on a short runway.
Not much has been said about TAM adding at least 2 rows of seats to this aircraft from their original config....5 more rows than the revised B6 config....4 rows more than TED.....40 or more seats than the same aircraft in a typical North American 2 class config. The flight was full...NRSA's filled it.
I have read that TAM has tankered fuel into that airport in the past...I do not know if that was the case on this flight....and I have not seen any weight manifest for this aircraft regarding cargo and baggage...but in any case, just on pax count alone, I would think that this aircraft was close to its Max Landing Gross Weight and thereby make any landing attempt far more difficult...and then adding in no ILS, no grooves, no #2 reverser, known wind eddy problems from surrounding buildings, and rain with reduced visibility on a short runway.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UAE
Age: 45
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
... I doubt any 'skid marks' you observed were from the accident aircraft!
Landing weight was 62.7 Tons, 1.8 tons below MLW.
Last edited by Rippa; 21st Jul 2007 at 16:47.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rippa
So you now state that both pilots were rated on the 'bus. OK, forget that, whatever, I have looked through my Airbus manuals.
At 62.7 tonnes using Conf full [full flaps for non-A/B people]
On a WET runway, landing distance from 50ft is 1150 metres
Add 10% for 2500 ft amsl airfield elevation gives 1265 metres
If 5 kts faster than Vapp+5 add 8% gives 1366 metres
This is unfactored, ie test pilot performance, using maximum manual braking immediately on touchdown! A reasonable wet margin to add is 33% giving 1817 metres, I think you said the LDA on 35L was 1870 metres.
These are Airbus figures, and, may I add, are for in-flight and not pre-flight planning purposes.
If you add to this any braking deficiency encountered on landing (BSCU faulty etc) or a slippery runway or an extra few knots, then even if you touch down at the 1000ft point, you are very close, if not beyond, the demonstrated stopping capabilities of the aircraft.
A long landing will eat further into margins.
It may well have been under MLW (which would have probably added only 20 metres to those numbers), but it was operating at the limits of the envelope, and depending on the variables, may well have been beyong them.
So you now state that both pilots were rated on the 'bus. OK, forget that, whatever, I have looked through my Airbus manuals.
At 62.7 tonnes using Conf full [full flaps for non-A/B people]
On a WET runway, landing distance from 50ft is 1150 metres
Add 10% for 2500 ft amsl airfield elevation gives 1265 metres
If 5 kts faster than Vapp+5 add 8% gives 1366 metres
This is unfactored, ie test pilot performance, using maximum manual braking immediately on touchdown! A reasonable wet margin to add is 33% giving 1817 metres, I think you said the LDA on 35L was 1870 metres.
These are Airbus figures, and, may I add, are for in-flight and not pre-flight planning purposes.
If you add to this any braking deficiency encountered on landing (BSCU faulty etc) or a slippery runway or an extra few knots, then even if you touch down at the 1000ft point, you are very close, if not beyond, the demonstrated stopping capabilities of the aircraft.
A long landing will eat further into margins.
It may well have been under MLW (which would have probably added only 20 metres to those numbers), but it was operating at the limits of the envelope, and depending on the variables, may well have been beyong them.
Paxing All Over The World
non-pilot speaking.
The report by the BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6909629.stm on the statement by Brazilian President Lula da Silva has some gems in it.
It might make operating margins tight but that does not cause prangs.
Always good to have informed leadership. And I am mightily impressed that they can choose the best place for a new field in 90 days flat.
But it will be OK as long as no one listens to the politicians.
The report by the BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6909629.stm on the statement by Brazilian President Lula da Silva has some gems in it.
"Its biggest problem today is the excessive concentration of flight to Congonhas," the president said.
The president also gave airlines 60 days to stop using the airport as a hub for connecting flights, and said the location for a new city airport would be chosen within 90 days.
But it will be OK as long as no one listens to the politicians.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For a small twin like the A320, a wet/contaminated 6365' [elevation 2635'] pavement can be challenging only if improper landing techniques are factored, . . .such as touching down more than 1500' from the threshold of the runway, or flying faster than Vref+10kts. Reversers are always excluded from certificated stopping distances.
Many years ago I was often a passenger aboard Transbrasil B727s operating into CGH in wet weather without problems; the 72s being somewhat of a heavier airframe than the A320.
It's a pilot problem, not an airport problem. [I am a current pilot].
Many years ago I was often a passenger aboard Transbrasil B727s operating into CGH in wet weather without problems; the 72s being somewhat of a heavier airframe than the A320.
It's a pilot problem, not an airport problem. [I am a current pilot].
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glueball
I am still surprised at the weights of the Airbus vs Boeing aircraft.
I seem to recall the folowing:
I think that modern certification requirements for evac etc are more stringent, but that simulation of some things has reduced engineering safety factors in others, maybe including braking/stopping, in order not to impose financial penalties on operators.
This may be an incident that reaps the rewards
I am still surprised at the weights of the Airbus vs Boeing aircraft.
I seem to recall the folowing:
- B737-200 [120 pax]as having a basic weight of about 27 tonnes
- B737-400 [150 pax]about 34 tonnes
- A319 [130 pax] about 42 tonnes
- A320 [150 pax] about 44 tonnes
- I guess B727 [ 160? pax] about 45 tonnes
I think that modern certification requirements for evac etc are more stringent, but that simulation of some things has reduced engineering safety factors in others, maybe including braking/stopping, in order not to impose financial penalties on operators.
This may be an incident that reaps the rewards
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting video (in portuguese) with regards to the political fight going on in the background: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dai2DYOiu9U
The video shows a presidential advisor for foreign policy and his press secretary apparently being happy when learning from a TV broadcast that one of the reversers of the TAM aircraft was not operational, seeing an opportunity to move blame away from the government.
Here is a part from a Reuters article relating to this incident:
"Marco Aurelio Garcia, a foreign policy advisor to the president, was shown on national television on Thursday making obscene gestures after news that pointed to problems with the braking system of the doomed A320.
Garcia later apologized, saying the gestures were a private expression of indignation at attempts to blame the government for the accident.
The opposition Brazilian Social Democracy Party said Garcia's gesture was "an offense to the Brazilian people."
http://www.reuters.com/article/world...25570620070720
Although this obviously does not teach us anything about the accident itself I think it is good to keep this in the back of our mind as this story is developing.
The video shows a presidential advisor for foreign policy and his press secretary apparently being happy when learning from a TV broadcast that one of the reversers of the TAM aircraft was not operational, seeing an opportunity to move blame away from the government.
Here is a part from a Reuters article relating to this incident:
"Marco Aurelio Garcia, a foreign policy advisor to the president, was shown on national television on Thursday making obscene gestures after news that pointed to problems with the braking system of the doomed A320.
Garcia later apologized, saying the gestures were a private expression of indignation at attempts to blame the government for the accident.
The opposition Brazilian Social Democracy Party said Garcia's gesture was "an offense to the Brazilian people."
http://www.reuters.com/article/world...25570620070720
Although this obviously does not teach us anything about the accident itself I think it is good to keep this in the back of our mind as this story is developing.
TopBunk;
Hm, those look like operational empty weights...from a website:
727-200
Crew:
3
Passengers:
189
Max. landing weight:
70.080 – 73.028 kg
Advanced 727-200 - Operating empty 45,360kg
B737-400
Standard version operating empty 34,564kg
A320
A320-200 - Operating empty with V2500 engines 42,220kg
Hm, those look like operational empty weights...from a website:
727-200
Crew:
3
Passengers:
189
Max. landing weight:
70.080 – 73.028 kg
Advanced 727-200 - Operating empty 45,360kg
B737-400
Standard version operating empty 34,564kg
A320
A320-200 - Operating empty with V2500 engines 42,220kg
Correction re CVR/FDR
Don't know how the mixup occurred but an airforce communique published in today's news informed that one of the two boxes sent to NTSB was NOT the CVR. They confirm that the other was the FDR and that preliminary study indicates all data recoverable. The CVR was only found this morning (Sat 21 Jul) and will be sent to NTSB today.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
having a basic weight of about 27 tonnes
Add to the basic weight the operational numbers:
- payload [approx 100 kgs per pax incl bags]
- fuel inc taxi to destination
- contingency (min x minutes)
- div fuel to alternate
- 15 mins holding clean at 1500 ft agl
- etc
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UAE
Age: 45
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
These are Airbus figures, and, may I add, are for in-flight and not pre-flight planning purposes.
Airbus made a statement yesterday saying that the airplane was within envelope and that in the given conditions, there was a 200mts runway margin for landing. This happend after the press contacted Airbus for several times. Unfortunantly, I could not find a web link of that statement.
for how long was the crew on duty prior to the accident?
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Helsinki
Age: 47
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Rippa
Airbus made a statement yesterday saying that the airplane was within envelope and that in the given conditions, there was a 200mts runway margin for landing.
However, 200 m or 655 feet would be in the ballpark of the wet MED autobrake calculation done in the thread (that gave ca. 540 feet as the safety marging).
EFHF,
That is because, unfortunately, the political authorities are into spin and damage control for themselves rather than factual information. Wendel's post (±#351) provides a link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dai2DYOiu9U) to the true nature of the government's appreciation of the airline industry.
Apologies to mods for this being completely off-thread; the only relevance is to political authorities being in denial of the warning signs of infrastructure falling way behind demand. The measures announced last night - new Sao Paulo airport location to be identified in 90 days, CGH movements to be reduced from 48 to 33/hr, all chaff and, from my own dubious vantage point of maritime infrastructure, I see little indication of real improvement over the next few years.
It's not that there are not excellent people available to put things right. But, to recoin a phrase, "It's politics, stupid!".
Again, apologies.
That is because, unfortunately, the political authorities are into spin and damage control for themselves rather than factual information. Wendel's post (±#351) provides a link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dai2DYOiu9U) to the true nature of the government's appreciation of the airline industry.
Apologies to mods for this being completely off-thread; the only relevance is to political authorities being in denial of the warning signs of infrastructure falling way behind demand. The measures announced last night - new Sao Paulo airport location to be identified in 90 days, CGH movements to be reduced from 48 to 33/hr, all chaff and, from my own dubious vantage point of maritime infrastructure, I see little indication of real improvement over the next few years.
It's not that there are not excellent people available to put things right. But, to recoin a phrase, "It's politics, stupid!".
Again, apologies.
