TAM A320 crash at Congonhas, Brazil
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Post #391:
This pilot is easy to identify. The enquiry MUST ask why an 'incorrect' landing technique was applied by this crew ('they touched down at the 500ft mark'). Why? What did they know or anticipate? Had they not, they would probably have over-run by 500' and we would be looking at a different accident.
Can we please stop all this discussion of '1390m' runways etc? None of it is relevant unless runway condition and LDM's are known. Boeing quote an 'at best' LDR of around 1000m for the 737NG. What IS relevant is what happened to this a/c both on 15 July and 17 July.
Originally Posted by broadreach
Slippery? A captain who flew the accident aircraft BHZ-CGH on Sunday evening (15 Jul, date of the first rain after the new surface was laid),
Can we please stop all this discussion of '1390m' runways etc? None of it is relevant unless runway condition and LDM's are known. Boeing quote an 'at best' LDR of around 1000m for the 737NG. What IS relevant is what happened to this a/c both on 15 July and 17 July.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Confusio Helvetica
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's probably a FAQ somewhere that points out that "Wait for the Report" is a ridiculous thing to write here.
As with the Legacy/Gol crash, this accident is the beginning of a long soap opera. The report will be the season finale (but not always the end of the show).
The problem is that most people only tune in for the premiere.
From what I've seen, all of the sources of information also have a strong, vested interest in the outcome of the investigation. But the "accident report" does not determine that outcome; popular opinion, legislation and executive action will serve as the measure.
The sources then release what they can, but with a specific interpretation in mind. Don't just release the video of the crash -- release a comparison with a normal plane at the end of the landing roll, so that news sources such as CNN will state:
The president wants a new airport, presumably because it's so expensive and time-consuming that it can be dropped when the horror of the current accident fades. The mayor wants a runway extension. The airport wants it not to be their fault, and has anyone heard from the judge who ruled the place safe for operations? All these groups want something, and they'll all get media time with their explanations for the accident, using every dirty trick they know. And it will be their voices that shape aviation in Brasil. They might even shape the vaunted "accident report".
Journalists are trolling here, and they're here for two reasons: to gather information (which, without verifying sources, even journos consider sleazy), and to gather context for the information they already have. Would you rather they get that context from the other groups with an interest in the outcome?
Heck, I'm annoyed by the "flash" discussion too, but I'd rather hear a journo stating that the "flash shows the accident already in progress", rather than "the video shows they landed too fast and too far down the runway".
The real problem is the mentality involved, though. When the airport head says the place is safe, because, in those conditions, they've had thousands of landings (and only one accident and a few incidents), someone needs to point out that those odds are not acceptable.
As with the Legacy/Gol crash, this accident is the beginning of a long soap opera. The report will be the season finale (but not always the end of the show).
The problem is that most people only tune in for the premiere.
From what I've seen, all of the sources of information also have a strong, vested interest in the outcome of the investigation. But the "accident report" does not determine that outcome; popular opinion, legislation and executive action will serve as the measure.
The sources then release what they can, but with a specific interpretation in mind. Don't just release the video of the crash -- release a comparison with a normal plane at the end of the landing roll, so that news sources such as CNN will state:
Security video released by the air force showed TAM Flight 3054 speeding down the tarmac more than four times as fast as other planes landing around the same time. That raised the possibility of pilot or mechanical error instead of a slick and short runway widely cited as a likely cause.
Journalists are trolling here, and they're here for two reasons: to gather information (which, without verifying sources, even journos consider sleazy), and to gather context for the information they already have. Would you rather they get that context from the other groups with an interest in the outcome?
Heck, I'm annoyed by the "flash" discussion too, but I'd rather hear a journo stating that the "flash shows the accident already in progress", rather than "the video shows they landed too fast and too far down the runway".
The real problem is the mentality involved, though. When the airport head says the place is safe, because, in those conditions, they've had thousands of landings (and only one accident and a few incidents), someone needs to point out that those odds are not acceptable.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Here
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TAM 3054, spoilers NOT deployed it seems
Here is what can be seen from the video cameras (approximate time) :
TAM 3054 appears to be landing uneventully, on or near the landing markings.
18:51:34:640
TAM 3054 appears to be in full? reverse as per water spray pattern around the IAE engine number 1, which is different from the main gear spray.
The wing appears to be clean, spoilers possibly armed but seem definitely NOT deployed.
18:51:36:048
TAM 3054 still in reverse
18:51:38:453
Flash on the left side of TAM 3054, big enough almost to engulf the rear end of the aircraft.
There is no known obstacle at that point of runway 35L.
18:51:46:046 TAM 3054 hits TAM Express building
There seem to be no hint of a Go Around attempt at this point. Retracted spoilers could mean that, but at the same time we still have the reverse active, so it does not match the logic for either side of the coin.
Nor there seem to be any hint of a directional control loss on the roll out.
On the other hand, spoilers deployment could have been inhibited (along with the autobrake?) but to tell the reason why that might have happened is premature at the moment.
What any of you are thinking of the above events?
Did anyone had such an event with the spoilers and/or braking system on a wet/contaminated rwy?
TAM 3054 appears to be landing uneventully, on or near the landing markings.
18:51:34:640
TAM 3054 appears to be in full? reverse as per water spray pattern around the IAE engine number 1, which is different from the main gear spray.
The wing appears to be clean, spoilers possibly armed but seem definitely NOT deployed.
18:51:36:048
TAM 3054 still in reverse
18:51:38:453
Flash on the left side of TAM 3054, big enough almost to engulf the rear end of the aircraft.
There is no known obstacle at that point of runway 35L.
18:51:46:046 TAM 3054 hits TAM Express building
There seem to be no hint of a Go Around attempt at this point. Retracted spoilers could mean that, but at the same time we still have the reverse active, so it does not match the logic for either side of the coin.
Nor there seem to be any hint of a directional control loss on the roll out.
On the other hand, spoilers deployment could have been inhibited (along with the autobrake?) but to tell the reason why that might have happened is premature at the moment.
What any of you are thinking of the above events?
Did anyone had such an event with the spoilers and/or braking system on a wet/contaminated rwy?
aka Capt PPRuNe
Join Date: May 1995
Location: UK
Posts: 4,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The quality of that video would appear to preclude a definitive answer as to whether the spoilers were or were not extended. Very little doubt about the No1 engine in reverse thrust mode.
Just because you can't make out the spoilers doesn't mean that they weren't extended. Too much extrapolation. Why not base suppositions based on what we CAN see.
Just because you can't make out the spoilers doesn't mean that they weren't extended. Too much extrapolation. Why not base suppositions based on what we CAN see.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Config Full
- are we looking at different 'videos'? There is no point in 'reading' something in that you cannot verify. Where are the 'landing markings' please? Did it land 500' short as on the 15th, on target or maybe 500'ft long?
The quality of the video is not sufficiently high to confirm spoiler position.
TAM 3054 appears to be landing uneventully, on or near the landing markings.
The quality of the video is not sufficiently high to confirm spoiler position.
I'm in one of those moods
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: SFC to A085
Posts: 759
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
... previous removed (the data is not new 
)
.
... the vid that includes the touchdown .... To me, it does not 'look' overly fast (at touchdown) given the weight profered in here ... one thing I did pick up from the link in post #201 (the close up section) .... the thrust induced water plume from a V2500 at TOGA (with that much water present) would most certainly be visible .... no 2 is benign in this regard .... I doubt they went for TOGA!
.
The 'close up' might give further cause to suspect the spoilers .... still inconclusive though!
).
... the vid that includes the touchdown .... To me, it does not 'look' overly fast (at touchdown) given the weight profered in here ... one thing I did pick up from the link in post #201 (the close up section) .... the thrust induced water plume from a V2500 at TOGA (with that much water present) would most certainly be visible .... no 2 is benign in this regard .... I doubt they went for TOGA!
.
The 'close up' might give further cause to suspect the spoilers .... still inconclusive though!
Last edited by Scurvy.D.Dog; 23rd Jul 2007 at 14:44. Reason: irrelevant to the discussion
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Here
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My post was not affirmative, I just said that it appears, which is very different.
As for the spoilers you can look at a picture of TAM 3054 rolling out and compare with even more blurred pictures of other A320s from the same perspective.
But as always, it "appears..." and I agree with you, it's too early to tell, I am not here to extrapolate.
As for the spoilers you can look at a picture of TAM 3054 rolling out and compare with even more blurred pictures of other A320s from the same perspective.
But as always, it "appears..." and I agree with you, it's too early to tell, I am not here to extrapolate.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Closer than you think
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Talk about speculation - that video is almost too fuzzy to give an estimate of the speed, let alone anything specific about thrust-reversers, spoilers and the like. 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Helsinki
Age: 47
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Config Full
My post was not affirmative, I just said that it appears, which is very different.
There also was a rumor of videos showing the JJ3054 touch down, but nobody has provided a link to that as of yet.
Last edited by EFHF; 23rd Jul 2007 at 12:51. Reason: Quote tags
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Here
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EFHF,
The Infraero video, the one they have released.
There are camera 16, then 13, 6, 10, and 6 again chronologically.
Time and camera numbers are on top of the video.
The recording starts approximately 18:51:15:640 and ends at 18:51:55, I personally saw it on youtube.
Infraero said that the aircraft landed on or near the markings, I am just repeating that assumption as is, but I have not seen any video of that.
The Infraero video, the one they have released.
There are camera 16, then 13, 6, 10, and 6 again chronologically.
Time and camera numbers are on top of the video.
The recording starts approximately 18:51:15:640 and ends at 18:51:55, I personally saw it on youtube.
Infraero said that the aircraft landed on or near the markings, I am just repeating that assumption as is, but I have not seen any video of that.
Last edited by Config Full; 23rd Jul 2007 at 13:22.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Helsinki
Age: 47
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Gigajoules
EFHF, try the link in post #201
I'm yet to see a properly encoded version of the video (at the very least 1 Mbit/s).
Last edited by EFHF; 23rd Jul 2007 at 13:20. Reason: Typos
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Bielefeld, Germany
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Right away, I'll say that I don't have much factual to add about the overrun. The left-veering track and the INOP #2 reverser have been noted. Much else will have to wait for the FDR and CVR. I hope the details will be made public. [Edit on 13 August: as indeed they now have been].
However, I was interviewed by email for Folhas de Sao Paolo at the weekend, through a reporter of theirs at Harvard who had attempted to read a scientific paper I published a decade ago about the A320 braking logic. It is not clear to me that the people in Sao Paolo actually understood all of what I said, so I would be grateful for feedback as to what actually appeared in Folhas.
As far as I know, spoilers and thrust reverse on landing on the A320 are controlled by the same state logic (they certainly were on the machine in the 1993 Lufthansa Warsaw overrun, but the logic has changed since then). So either one has spoilers *and* reverse, or neither. So if Danny thinks that port reverse is apparent, he must also conclude either that spoilers are activated or that there is an apparent technical fault [Edit on 13 August: this is faulty logic on my part. As we now know, TL#2 was not brought to idle.]
Aviation Safety Network, which one may regard as an authoritative source, lists 17 hull loss accidents to the A320 since service intro. Of these, five are flight-unrelated (three burnt in a hangar fire in Brussels, one a refueling accident when the truck drove away without disconnecting the hose, one with famous photos where maintenance people taxied the aircraft into the terminal at La Guardia), and one, at Tainan to a Transasia aircraft [Edit on 13 August: the report recently referenced here concerned the Transasi Taipei overrun, which was not a hull loss], concerned hitting a ground vehicle on the runway on landing (so obviously type-unrelated). This leaves 11 hull loss occurrences which are flight-related. Of these, four are runway-overrun accidents (I include going off the side as overrun): 1993 Lufthansa Warsaw, 1998 Philippine Airlines Bacolod, 2002 America West Phoenix, and 2007 TAM Sao Paolo Congonhas. However, they don't list 1998 Air UK Leisure at Ibiza [Edit to reflect the correct airline to which this occurred] which report is to be found on the compendium on my WWW site.
Looking at the four listed by ASN, one notes thrust-reverser issues.
At Bacolod as at Phoenix, the aircraft had reverse thrust on one, and forward thrust on the other, engine at some point in the landing role [Edit on 13 August: the Bacolod report may be found in the Compendium on our WWW site now; the very short Phoenix report on the NTSB WWW site]. At Phoenix, one reverser was known INOP, as at Congonhas. According to ASN and the short NTSB report, the CAP put both throttles into reverse, but then took the #1 out of reverse, and apparently moved it inadvertently to the TOGA position. He lost directional control. At Bacolod, "it appeared" that #1 remained on forward thrust after touchdown, but #2 went into reverse. No ground spoilers because #1 wasn't brought back to idle. PF set #2 to forward thrust to regain directional control and "went through the fence".
At Warsaw, reverse thrust/spoilers did not activate immediately because the squat switches on the main gear were not compressed. There was some evidence also of rubber reversion. There is some similarity to the Air France A340 overrun at Toronto. Both those accidents occurred on runways with a notoriously short overrun area, as at Congonhas.
EMAS is described in US FAA AC 150/5220-22A, dated 30 September, 2005. In response to earlier suggestions on this thread about EMAS, my guess from looking at the photos of the departure end of 35L is that there wouldn't be enough room for one. One has to set them back some way from the threshold, to allow for the possibility of someone landing short - you really don't want to touch down on an EMAS!
PBL
However, I was interviewed by email for Folhas de Sao Paolo at the weekend, through a reporter of theirs at Harvard who had attempted to read a scientific paper I published a decade ago about the A320 braking logic. It is not clear to me that the people in Sao Paolo actually understood all of what I said, so I would be grateful for feedback as to what actually appeared in Folhas.
As far as I know, spoilers and thrust reverse on landing on the A320 are controlled by the same state logic (they certainly were on the machine in the 1993 Lufthansa Warsaw overrun, but the logic has changed since then). So either one has spoilers *and* reverse, or neither. So if Danny thinks that port reverse is apparent, he must also conclude either that spoilers are activated or that there is an apparent technical fault [Edit on 13 August: this is faulty logic on my part. As we now know, TL#2 was not brought to idle.]
Aviation Safety Network, which one may regard as an authoritative source, lists 17 hull loss accidents to the A320 since service intro. Of these, five are flight-unrelated (three burnt in a hangar fire in Brussels, one a refueling accident when the truck drove away without disconnecting the hose, one with famous photos where maintenance people taxied the aircraft into the terminal at La Guardia), and one, at Tainan to a Transasia aircraft [Edit on 13 August: the report recently referenced here concerned the Transasi Taipei overrun, which was not a hull loss], concerned hitting a ground vehicle on the runway on landing (so obviously type-unrelated). This leaves 11 hull loss occurrences which are flight-related. Of these, four are runway-overrun accidents (I include going off the side as overrun): 1993 Lufthansa Warsaw, 1998 Philippine Airlines Bacolod, 2002 America West Phoenix, and 2007 TAM Sao Paolo Congonhas. However, they don't list 1998 Air UK Leisure at Ibiza [Edit to reflect the correct airline to which this occurred] which report is to be found on the compendium on my WWW site.
Looking at the four listed by ASN, one notes thrust-reverser issues.
At Bacolod as at Phoenix, the aircraft had reverse thrust on one, and forward thrust on the other, engine at some point in the landing role [Edit on 13 August: the Bacolod report may be found in the Compendium on our WWW site now; the very short Phoenix report on the NTSB WWW site]. At Phoenix, one reverser was known INOP, as at Congonhas. According to ASN and the short NTSB report, the CAP put both throttles into reverse, but then took the #1 out of reverse, and apparently moved it inadvertently to the TOGA position. He lost directional control. At Bacolod, "it appeared" that #1 remained on forward thrust after touchdown, but #2 went into reverse. No ground spoilers because #1 wasn't brought back to idle. PF set #2 to forward thrust to regain directional control and "went through the fence".
At Warsaw, reverse thrust/spoilers did not activate immediately because the squat switches on the main gear were not compressed. There was some evidence also of rubber reversion. There is some similarity to the Air France A340 overrun at Toronto. Both those accidents occurred on runways with a notoriously short overrun area, as at Congonhas.
EMAS is described in US FAA AC 150/5220-22A, dated 30 September, 2005. In response to earlier suggestions on this thread about EMAS, my guess from looking at the photos of the departure end of 35L is that there wouldn't be enough room for one. One has to set them back some way from the threshold, to allow for the possibility of someone landing short - you really don't want to touch down on an EMAS!
PBL
Last edited by PBL; 13th Aug 2007 at 11:05. Reason: To remedy an inaccuracy pointed out by armchairpilot94116
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting news in the Brazilian press today:
http://oglobo.globo.com/sp/mat/2007/07/22/296915827.asp
Apparently a recently constructed hotel has reduced the effective length of the runway when landing from 1940 to 1810 meters since the planes have to come in at a different angle. No time to do a full translation, but here are some highlights:
* Hotel is 50 meters high, located at 600 meters from the runway and not yet in use
* The construction of the hotel was approved by aviation authorities in May 2001 after having refused to approve it initially for 5 months.
* Landing safety was not mentioned in the approval, but the noise that would be caused to hotel guests was.
* The city government will investigate and if any irregularities are found then the demolition of the building will be considered
http://oglobo.globo.com/sp/mat/2007/07/22/296915827.asp
Apparently a recently constructed hotel has reduced the effective length of the runway when landing from 1940 to 1810 meters since the planes have to come in at a different angle. No time to do a full translation, but here are some highlights:
* Hotel is 50 meters high, located at 600 meters from the runway and not yet in use
* The construction of the hotel was approved by aviation authorities in May 2001 after having refused to approve it initially for 5 months.
* Landing safety was not mentioned in the approval, but the noise that would be caused to hotel guests was.
* The city government will investigate and if any irregularities are found then the demolition of the building will be considered
From the pictures above it really seems that the aircraft was still very much in contact with ground (given the deep marks in the grass), yet traveling at a very significant speed (to "fly" into the TAM building).
So clearly it was not about to take off again (assuming a possible go around attempt) nor to stop. Scary stuff...
alex
So clearly it was not about to take off again (assuming a possible go around attempt) nor to stop. Scary stuff...
alex
Thanks for the pics
Looks like both gear were on the ground coming off the runway. I can't see the nose wheel though (too light on wheels, or wore off from scrubbing
).
looks like the chatter marks in the tracks of the anti-skid brakes working.
Somewhere on another site I saw some pictures of a significant impact with the concrete wall at the end of the airport. Also showed a picture of an engine with some really beat up fan blades but little casing damage.
Hopefully somebody will leak the DFDR from Brazil, but I wouldn't hold my breath that we'll ever hear about the CVR
Looks like both gear were on the ground coming off the runway. I can't see the nose wheel though (too light on wheels, or wore off from scrubbing
).looks like the chatter marks in the tracks of the anti-skid brakes working.
Somewhere on another site I saw some pictures of a significant impact with the concrete wall at the end of the airport. Also showed a picture of an engine with some really beat up fan blades but little casing damage.
Hopefully somebody will leak the DFDR from Brazil, but I wouldn't hold my breath that we'll ever hear about the CVR