|
It is an approach that requires concentration from the crew, certainly, but it's very nature means that pilots know that a very high level of precision is required from them, and so they are likely to be even more "on the ball" than usual.
A sad day indeed. |
Early scenario very similar to AF at YYZ and WN at MDW except for the luck of those pax and crew. If this TAM aircraft was indeed attempting a go-around, then that may have added much more speed and energy to this accident. We will have to see if those reports of an attempted go-around are true.
|
yes roberts, thank you
does sound like air france toronto...also an airbus, but a 340 |
TAM A320 has a MLW of 64.500kg, and it is NOT unusual to land at CGH near that weight. I am not sure, but I think that there is no landing restriction on 35L / 17R even when wet (allowed weight is limited by MLW).
Passenger view of landing in CGH http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUdmkHP0wsE Pilot view...notice that the pilot vacates the runway at the last way out, after landing relatively short http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZ77m...elated&search= Interesting one...B 737 landing at 17R...notice the "glide slope...glide slope" and the PAPI 4 red lights http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjm90...elated&search= |
Re, "we must now think of possible mechanical problems...delays in spoiler deployment for example...delays in thrust reverser use...."
In Config FULL, neither spoiler deployment nor reverse thrust are available until the AIRGR switch is in the GROUND mode. This is not the case in Config 3. I suspect that given the runway length and contaminated runway conditions that this would likely have been a Config Full landing but we'll have to wait for the numbers. Also, it will be of interest to know if the CAS was managed or selected. In the Lufthansa overrun accident in Poland, the speed was in the "Selected" mode and there was a slight tailwind if I recall correctly, (I believe this is not the case here given the METAR info). The above scenario (spoilers/reverse unavailable) did however play a role in the accident. I believe this was one reason Lufthansa went to Config 3 landings but that's only hearsay. FYI, a go-around at/after a touchdown is a valid and approved Airbus maneuver so long as reverse has not been selected. CATII and III certification standards provide for a touchdown during any go-around maneuver. |
Conf FULL is mandatory at CGH (airline policy), and many times autobrake is not selected due to the dalay between touchdown and autobrake actuation...so manual "full" braking is more "popular" at CGH.
|
config 3 for landing
Also, it will be of interest to know if the CAS was managed or selected. In the Lufthansa overrun accident in Poland, the speed was in the "Selected" mode and there was a slight tailwind if I recall correctly, (I believe this is not the case here given the METAR info). The above scenario (spoilers/reverse unavailable) did however play a role in the accident. I believe this was one reason Lufthansa went to Config 3 landings but that's only hearsay.
sorry but DLH did not "go for config 3 landings " its up to the crew what flap setting is used and F Full is usually the standart setting... cheers lars |
Understand that it's up to the crew - always! :)
In fact, Config 3 is increasingly the "standard" landing config setting, mainly due to reduced fuel flow, although there is some information about increased roll stability... |
"on the ball"....well, they should be...but, the AA LIT accident involved fatigue (13+ hour CDD).
Fatigue causes degraded judgment/decision making abilities (similar to the affects of alcohol). KC |
'Many dead' in Brazil plane crash
Scores of people are feared dead after a passenger plane carrying 176 people crashed at Congonhas airport in Sao Paulo, Brazil, starting a major fire.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6903837.stm The state governor said the chances of finding survivors were "practically nil", while a fire official said more may have been killed on the ground. The TAM airlines Airbus A320 is thought to have slid off the end of the runway as it landed in very wet conditions. Concerns had been raised about the safety of the runway during heavy rain. There had been persistent, heavy rain in the two hours preceding the accident. On Monday afternoon, a smaller plane skidded off the runway onto the nearby grass in similar conditions. Major fire TAM Express flight 3054 was carrying 170 passengers and six crew when it attempted to land at Congonhas airport in the heart of Sao Paulo. The plane was travelling to the city from Porto Alegre in the south of the country. After touching down on the airport's main runway at 1850 (2150 GMT), the passenger jet skidded before sliding across a busy road in a residential area. It then struck a depot used by TAM for storing cargo and some fuel. Brazilian television showed pictures of a major fire at the scene and the emergency services arriving in large numbers to deal with the aftermath of the accident. An eyewitness, TAM employee Elias Rodrigues Jesus, said the plane had exploded after slamming into the depot. "All of a sudden I heard a loud explosion, and the ground beneath my feet shook," he told the Associated Press. "I looked up and I saw a huge ball of fire, and then I smelled the stench of kerosene and sulphur." A doctor at Sao Paulo's mortuary said 30 badly charred bodies had been brought in. Sao Paulo state Governor Jose Serra said: "I was told that the temperature inside the plane was 1,000 degrees [1,830 Fahrenheit], so the chances of there being any survivors are practically nil." President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva declared three days of national morning for the victims of the crash. Safety concerns The BBC's Gary Duffy in Sao Paolo says the weather has been bad for much of the day and there has been concern for some time about safety at Congonhas during heavy rain. In February, a judge briefly banned flights in and out of the airport, which is the busiest in Brazil Pilots had complained that water was pooling on the surface of the landing strip, making braking difficult and occasionally causing planes to skid out of control. Remedial work, including laying a new surface, has been carried out in recent months. However, a much smaller plane skidded off the runway before stopping on grass in similar weather conditions on Monday. No-one was injured in the incident. Air safety in Brazil has been a major issue since a crash last year when a passenger plane collided with an executive jet over the Amazon, our correspondent says. Some 154 people died in that incident, which was, at the time, the worst air crash in the country's history. :eek: |
According to dutch news website this was already the second attempt at landing.
"Tweede poging Een correspondent van het Radio 1-journaal meldde dat het vliegtuig eerder al een poging deed om te landen, maar er toen voor koos in de lucht te blijven. De tweede poging werd de piloot fataal." Second attempt A correspondent of the radio-1 newsbroadcast reported that the aircraft had already attemoted a landing but elected to remain airborne. A second attempt proved fatal. |
Just to be clear, the longer CGH runway seems a little longer than ABZ (?) We (BA) operate MLW 64.5T (I think?) A320s in there routinely with no special restrictions / rules, although naturally one takes more care / planning / briefing. In fact, I believe we have even tankered in there on occasion to MLW. We now have a F3 SOP for the 320/1 to save 2ps worth of fuel, but I doubt many would follow it at ABZ ;)
I have done a tough and go there due combination of gusty wind, managed speed + ATHR and incompetance ;) An A320 with 176 people on it by definition will be not far off MLW, unless they are all children without baggage... The pure runway length I would therefore think not the major issue. The state of the runway surface is, of course, a different matter completely, and I find the A320 series quite easy to skid/slide on a slippery surface - i.e. antiskid hammering away and little retardation. |
NOD
An earlier poster said that the elevation is 2450ft. So yes, about the same length as ABZ but 2250ft higher. That must impact on performance. SW |
SW - good point (thankfully I said 'seems' and used a '?' ;) ) it will affect it and certainly now make it "tighter" than ABZ in runway length terms...
|
With referenece to the Warsaw accident and Spoiler/Reverse. After this accident the air/ground logic was modified so that with one Main Landing Gear(MLG) compressed the spoilers would half deploy to assist in getting the other MLG down. Once this had occurred full spolier deployment would automatically happen. Additionally with one MLG compressed and REV selected, Spoilers will fully deploy. I think in the original Warsaw accident the aircraft travelled a considerable distance down the R/W with just one MLG compressed hence no spoiler.........
The fact this runway was ungrooved may have played a major part in this. If the crew realised the aircraft was aquaplaning (which would take some time for them to realise) and they then tried to go around it looks like they ran out of runway. Bristol Airport in the UK had a lot of problems last winter due to a new surface waiting to "cure" before grooving. After a couple of incidents of aircraft sliding off the side (most) major operators refused to operate into the airport ...... it was grooved PDQ! A4 |
A320 with 180 pax, Airbus OEW (normally too low) and some remaining fuel is ~60 tons, maximum MLW is 66 tons for several weight variants.
Landing Field Length requirement would be ~4000-4500ft for dry runway. The severeness of the impact implies that they attempted a go-around or at least had some extraordinary issues (compare A310 crash/overrun in Russia some time ago). Photos from Monsieur airliners.net Here a got shot of the place. You can see the building with "TAM" written on the side. http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1056400/L/ Here an overview to give an impression. Crash area is on the left side. http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0634881/L/ Here another one with a better view of the steep end of runway 35L/17R. http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0297560/L/ This looks like the place, but only the taxiway leading to it. http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0018003/L/ |
July 18 (Bloomberg) -- A Brazilian passenger plane crashed and burst into flames on landing at Sao Paulo's domestic airport late yesterday. At least 200 people may have been killed, in what would be the country's worst air disaster.
Survivors probably won't be found on the plane, which was carrying 176 people, Sao Paulo State Governor Jose Serra said at a news conference broadcast by Band News television. The plane, built by Airbus SAS and operated by TAM SA, the country's biggest airline, slid off the runway, crossed a highway and hit a gas station and a building. Twenty-five people were killed on the ground, Band reported. "This could be the worst plane crash ever in Brazil,'' Amaryllis Romano, an airline analyst at Tendencias Consultoria in Sao Paulo, said. "I'm numb. It's something that you always feared could happen but never really thought would.''......... The plane's fuselage came to a rest inside a three-story building and was engulfed in flames, making it impossible for rescue workers to reach it. Workers retrieved 27 bodies from the plane and another 25 on the ground, Douglas Ferrari, a doctor who took part in the rescue effort, told Band News. As many as 100 people may have been working in the building at the time of the crash, he said. Eight people have been rescued from the site and are being treated at local hospitals, according to a spokeswoman for Sao Paulo city public health department....... |
|
|
If ever there was a case for an EMAS arrestor system this must surely be it!
|
If ever there was a case for siting an airport somewhere else outside the city this must surely be it.
|
"we must now think of possible mechanical problems...delays in spoiler deployment for example...delays in thrust reverser use...." Is this right, or am I talking rubbish? |
Witnesses today saying that the planed touched the runway too late and when attempted to go around the tail hit the runway.
|
Good point sport. Just who is the 'we' in : "we must now think of possible mechanical problems..."?
Always a good idea to check your facts before apportioning blame on man or machine. And it's in the rule book for accident investigation: base first options of probable cause on facts & evidence...ect Facts - Wet runway, recently resurfaced without water run off grooving, commercial pressure to get run way open for summer Ops, possible tailwind component, prevous over run case in the past couple of weeks ect. -my first opinion would not be to suspect the A/C at this point, and as it turns out they attempted the TOGO their way out of it,it looks like the plane was functioning and serviceable. Bit too early to tell I'd say. |
Just got out my copy of "Handling the Big Jets" by D.P. Davies (3rd edition, reprinted 1997 c. CAA), he included a sub-chapter on aquaplaning and finised with the following summary:
"This sub-chapter on aquaplaning has been written rather forcibly - and for good reason. While some accidents are truly unavoidable and others the result of a most unusual chain of circumstances, aquaplaning accidents are nearly all avoidable. It is not the end of the world to stand off or divert occasionally. But it is asking for trouble to attempt a landing on a tight, very wet runway. Think well before you expose yourself to this kind of risk." This is no way is intended to pre-judge any accident investigation, but just a reminder to one and all that risks are involved in aviation. |
Not in anyway attempting to start a Boeing versus Airbus debate but, pro rata, have there been more cases of A320 overrun as opposed to B737 ?
|
Trainee Flight??
I was checking the list of the crew and it had Two Capt's on this flight no F/O, any chance this flight was a trainee flight???
|
Nice to see that the BBC have done a lot of ground work on the report, they have listed the carriers that the use the A320 as Operators include: TAM - Brazil; Nouvelair - Tunisia; Air Cairo - Egypt; Wizz Air - Hungar
Obviously the more well known airlines! |
Sallyann1234 says:
If ever there was a case for siting an airport somewhere else outside the city this must surely be it. What are the costs of buying up the vulnerable land off the ends of the runway, vs. the costs of an (I daresay predictable) accident such as this? |
Not......But....
Yeah Ok I believe you. Can this be a training flight?? Why start speculation like this. As the post above, first look probable major factor is runway/weather combination. Don't drag it to a 'Wouldn't happen to a Boeing' or training implication. |
WMG - don't think so. Both pilots are "comandantes" and in the rush of things the newspaper might not have been told which of the two was acting FO.
It's a very hard blow for TAM, who had 14 crew repositioning as passengers. The accident site is still smouldering. Rain has stopped and Congonhas is open. |
Originally Posted by Doors to Automatic"
If ever there was a case for an EMAS arrestor system this must surely be it!
Two notes: - from the pics it does not really look as if there is enough space at the end of the runway (about 200 ft would be needed at least); - an EMAS "gravel pit" is only about the width of the runway; both the ATR and the A320 slid off the side of the runway before they got to the end, so they would have missed the EMAS. |
If ever there was a case for an EMAS arrestor system this must surely be it! Edit: EMAS design spec is for 70K or less entry speed. By most accounts, I suspect this aircraft was doing considerably more than this. EMAS will also rely on "weight on wheels" to crush the material and retard the aircraft. If the aircraft was taking off again this would not necessarily be present... |
Witnesses may be saying that it touched down long, but Brig-Gen Saito, Chief of the Airforce has stated that the touchdown was at the normal point and in the normal attitude, however the aircraft failed to decelerate on landing.
ffb, at Congonhas there have been more Boeing incidents, this is the first involving an Airbus. Also, when restrictions were applied to the previous runway surface they applied to 2 Boeing 737 variants, and the Fokker 100. There were no prior concerns about the 319/320 landing at Congonhas, except for the general concerns about the location of the airport. ab |
Two new FACTS:
- One of the pilot's was on his way to the LHS, an therefore, that was a treinee flight. He was a experienced Captain and was on a horizontal move (upgrade) to the A320. I don't know the guys, but some friends told me that they had lot's of flight time (one was a former 767 captain) and great guys to work with. Can add that most part of TAM pilot's has previous experience on the A320 / 330 as F/O's and that CGH (SBSP - Congonhas airport) is the airline's main base of operations, just like LHR for BA...pilot's are familiar with the airport and landing there under nasty weather is not unusual. The airline does not "pressure" the pilot's to land at all cost in CGH under bad weather...it is up to the PIC to decide to land or divert (normaly to GRU - in the same city) - Chatting with very good friend of mine, he told me that he flew that same aircraft monday and that reverser #2 was INOP (on monday). Although required landing distance does not take into account reverser deployment, this could help to make things worse. |
- Chatting with very good friend of mine, he told me that he flew that same aircraft monday and that reverser #2 was INOP (on monday). Although required landing distance does not take into account reverser deployment, this could help to make things worse. |
Does anyone have sight of any notams regarding 35L at the time?
|
Dont have the airport landing analysis at hand, but QRH 04.04 (landing distance with autobrake) does not use REV in the formula...you must apply corrections to "2 rev operative".
|
WMG - I am not a pilot, but do know about aircraft performance, hence why I have the book - I did not say that the quote was related to the accident in any way, but that risks are involved. As for calling it a "stupid book" well perhaps others may disagree.
|
Congonhas was opened in 1936 and, at the time, all the surrounding area was farmland. However, it was built on the top of a hill and successive lengthenings increased the drop at either end. Urban sprawl gradually took over the farmland.
Up until 1985, when Guarulhos was opened, Congonhas was the city’s main airport, handling aircraft up to 727s; when four-engine jet service began they used Viracopos. This crash will reopen the debate about whether another airport should be built further south of São Paulo. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 10:54. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.