Maybe this could give some clues for this tragic accident. Just add all these factors:
Airline pressure
A pilot in training
Marginal weather
Non-precision approach
High landing weight
A reported brake action poor runway
One deactivated reverser
AND
Airbus A319 A320 A321
Temporary Revision N 924-4 – Jun06
Subject: DEGRADED BRAKING EFFICIENCE DURING LANDING
SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ISSUES – Issues 1 to 3
A few cases of degraded braking efficiency occurred during landing, while the aircraft was at low speed (approx. 60 Kt), and in AUTOBRAKE mode.
……………………………………………………………………………………….
REASON FOR ISSUE 4
Pending decertification of above-mentioned tires, this TR is reissued to specify that:
- Some of reported cases reveled that, when a landing is initiated whit the AUTOBRAKE, degraded braking efficiency may continue even after the flight crew changes to manual braking by using the pedals.
- In the event of a lack in braking efficiency, the “LOSS OF BRAKING” procedure (FCOM 3.02.32) applies.

From BBC website:

Quote

But Jose Carlos Pereira, the head of the nation's airport authority Infraero, told AP that closing the airport - one of Brazil's busiest - was unjustified.

"It's not a matter of shutting down the airport or opening indiscriminately. We have operated thousands of times under heavy rain and nothing has happened," Mr Pereira said

Unquote.


More arse covering rubbish from those involved. I'd say the number of overrun incidents including recent events hardly constitutes "nothing".
A worrying symptom of the crisis in Brazilian aviation safety in the light of recent events (incl Gol mid-air) has been the way in which those in authority have done everything to protect their respective backsides and little to foster objective cooperation in finding solutions. Not surprising I suppose when the first reaction of the government after any accident seems to be to look for someone to prosecute. In Brazil, incidentally, members of the government are themselves immune from prosecution which sets a fine example!

Hi TopBunk;

I've seen that occur a few times on both 320 and 340 fleet types. Usually it's a non-issue with a quick disconnect of the autopilot and autothrust, a regaining of the stabilized descent and re-engagement but it can be a real surprise for a crew new to the Airbus - not the case here. Going around and sorting it out is the other option.

PJ2
I was thinking of this post, suggesting that the trainee might be new to the A320.

One of the insidious things about the non-moving thrust levers and managed speed is that the engine instrument scan becomes degraded. It can take a couple of seconds to realise what has happened (longer if you don't know what has happened:rolleyes: if new on type) and to react by disconnecting the Autothrust system. In the meantime, the aircraft has accelerated possibly 25 kts, agreed possibly only 10 kts if experienced on type. So, without wishing to say this DID happen, it is easy to envisage that an approach could be unhelpfully destabilised in such a way resulting in excess speed at threshold.

Yes, of course a GA could/should be the order of the in such circumstances, but sometimes the training value by quick intervention doesn't happen.

Again, not saying that this is what happened here.

My guess is its when they've taken out one of the runway edge lights.

Report from Aviation Week at http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...s/TAM07187.xml
My bolding, illustrates the difficulty in knowing what goes on until all the facts are in (eg recorder read outs).

TAM Accident Highlights Congonhas Concerns
Jul 18, 2007
By Luis Zalamea
The July 17 incident involving a TAM airliner has put the spotlight on operational concerns about Congonhas Airport, with its location in the thick of downtown Sao Paulo and runways that become hazardous when wet.
An Airbus A320 belonging to Tam Brazil crashed into a compound of Tam warehouses and fuel deposits after skidding off the runway in the rain at Sao Paulo Congonhas, with the resulting explosion killing all on board and some people on the ground. Initial investigations suggest the pilot apparently overshot the short runway and tried to take off again, then aborted, moves which led to skidding and crash into Tam's compound.
Congonhas has had chronic trouble with flooded runways during the severe rain season, trouble that prompted frequent closings of the airport and required extensive repairs in runways and drainage canals. In the past month five aircraft experienced problems with skidding, but none had fatal consequences. The runway involved in the Tam accident had been in fact repaired and returned to use late in June but without grooving or surface lining with furrows that would have prevented skidding, reported Brazil's O Globo.
The length of the airport's runway also has previously come under fire from pilots.
Tuesday's disaster will certainly exacerbate the nationwide debate in Brazil about safety in the air. President Luiz Inazio Lula da Silva called an emergency meeting of aviation regulators and airlines to again review the state of air safety, and order a "serious" investigation of the crash. He also declared three days of national mourning for its victims.
No official figure on the number of casualties has been released, but airport firefighters and rescuers from Brazil's Airport Police on the scene estimated those killed on board, plus fatalities on the ground, might total as high as 200.
TAM reported 186 passengers and crew members aboard. Unofficial estimates by rescuers allege 20 ground workers and innocent bystanders were also killed, which would make this the deadliest air accident in Brazilian history. So far 158 bodies have been recovered but not all identified.

If it be that they attempted an over shoot then aborted could the spoilers be dis armed as with QF at BKK? (assuming the throttles had been closed at some point before the overshoot decision)

I must apologize for the information, that is not correct. Actually, both pilots were Captains, one with 19 years working for TAM (and related airlines). The other one was new to the airline (6 months), although an experienced, former Transbrasil 767 captain.
Working for TAM for the past two years, I have not seen an approach being conducted in selected speed. Normally, corrections are applied on the perf. page of the FMCG and managed speed is used.
I had to go to the airport today, and saw the accident site...after almost 48 hrs, it was still burning (isolated fire). What a horrible site....
The flash: might by a tire burst, compressor stall, runway edge light, taxiway light, etc...too many possiblities.

Doors To Automatic:

That is an interesting question about both pilots' experience landing there.

I could be mistaken, but the tragedy which involved the Southwest B-737 and Chicago Midway (MDW) involved highly-experienced pilots who had probably been in and out of Midway numerous times, possibly with snow falling.
Maybe constant repetition, despite the snow on the ground, lulled those pilots into believing that with operative anti-skid, autospoilers and thrust reversers, the landing should have been no problem? It is even more tragic to remember that Chicago O'Hare has several much longer runways, with only about 10 minutes required to fly from MDW to ORD.

My question is whether those very experienced pilots (with that very short runway) in Brasil could have believed that they could deal with normal weather conditions, no matter how often it rains on that runway?

Years ago after a Lufthansa A-320 First Officer died after a (hydroplaning) landing on a wet runway in Poland, Airbus modified the software which links wheel spin-up to thrust reversers, autospoilers and the anti-skid.

This link shows multiple cameras of the accident, take a look:
http://noticias.uol.com.br/uolnews/b...t2486u946.jhtm
(They also show other planes landing, "velocidade normal" means standard speed, so it is not the plane that crashed... but the other one is)

I'm brazilian (non pilot, flight simulator only) and the press is delighted with the rev-2 problem that was kept out of the media for the last days and is now the big hit... The public is SURELY gonna think that the plane was DAMAGED and THAT caused the accident, therefore putting all responsability to TAM. (so the government will again be free of any charge). It's even worse because everyone remebers the TAM-402 flight accident in 1996 that was caused by a reverse deployment just after take-off in the very same city/airport (killing 99 people). So reverse-problem is surely gonna be the blame for a while...

If the rev-2 was inop + bad weather + small runway + almost on weight limit + no groovings = why not divert to SBGR in the VERY SAME city ? SBGR (Guarulhos) has big runways (3700m/3000m). Congonhas (SBSP) has only 1940m/1435m.

Is there any big penalty on the pilot if he chooses to divert the landing to a near airport (on the very same city) ??

TopBunk;

Yes, understand fully.

Somewhere on this thread someone made a comment about manual braking being preferred to auto braking due to the delay of application, personally my preference is MED auto brake, delay is almost non existent.

Dutch news sources are now reporting that TAM has admitted to dispatching the aircraft with one of the reversers INOP.

:ouch:

And?????????

There are probably between 50 and 100 Airbus a/c operating today with a reverser locked-out. Not a stopper, so to speak!

RH - perhaps you can give me an answer, since I have not had one yet. What is a 'typical' AB MEL restriction in that config for slippery/contam? As I said earlier, 737 'forbids' dispatch, presumably on the basis that up to 50% of the retardation is lost in the event of aquaplaning etc.

RoyHudd- And????? Probably not to this airport in these conditions.
From the beeb: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6907704.stm

@BOAC

Same for A320, in my company. But I'm pretty sure you know that....;)

Are there many airports that have a over run as unforgiving as this? From http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/6903885.stm
http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m...ham227/TAM.jpg

Leeds R14 comes to mind and a while back, but I think Bilbao landing south easterly for starters. Not forgetting Jersey R 27:)

GUR 27 in a 737, wet, BKN 400, southerly 25G30...pucker factor high!

20 at Southampton (UK) must be a contender also. 1700M runway used by a/c up to mini-bus/757 size, small RESA, then a fence and 6 lane Motorway.

A Citation over-ran and ended up on it in the wet some years ago.