Stagger - SKY is coming out with the same inference ('appears to show' etc,etc) - shouldn't really be surprising. If you remember how the Bristol airport issue was reported by the bulk of the media last year. Despite some of them coming to PPRUNE for information concerning the real situation - the majority continued to spout the content of a certain Directors PR exercise. The public thought that certain operators (the ones who stopped landing there) were 'nervous flyers' and believed that the previous overrun events were due to 'windy' conditions - but NOT a SLIPPERY runway! . I'd love to hear a statement from the said Director now about how last years Bristol situation doesn't relate to this accident.

Rainboe - I know its heading into the realms of speculation at this point, but I can't help agree with that scenario as a possibility. I guess we'll have to wait for the FDR data for confirmation of whether there was an attempt at acceleration or not.

An article in today's Estado de Sao Paulo (http://txt1.estado.com.br/editorias/...70719.83.1.xml) states that the TAM aircraft did swing left onto the grass and that the undercarriage did hit the low (about 15") wall at the edge of the taxiway.

It also states that 30 seconds elapsed between touchdown and crash.

Listening to the press conferences yesterday, and looking at the images that were released I got the distinct impression that spin control is in full flow and that every effort is being made to pin this on the crew.

The first film released showed the aircraft at a "higher than normal" speed for that portion of the runway, especially as they very carefully compared the images to a previous landing. It is travelling faster, but was that because the crew had already started to go-around?

Of much more importance is the image from the other end, which has just been obtained by TV stations here. That shows an apparently normal touchdown, a situation backed up by the comments of Brig-Gen Saito and the testimony of the tower controller on duty.

Why was the more important video not released at the same time? Probably to allow the idea of a "higher than normal" speed to sink into the public consciousness and so cast doubt on the crew, rather than the runway surface.

Both videos clearly show water present, both on the ramp and, from the spray generated by the aircraft, on the runway. We don't know the actually level of water, but the presence of water contradicts the impression left by the press conference yesterday.

Colonel Ferreira, probably the most respected aviation expert in Brazil, has publicly rebuffed the official line and commented about both videos on TV this morning. He left no doubt as to his views of why the first video was released, and why the second was not widely publicised.

I had originally included my views on why we are seeing the spin doctors in action, but on reflection decided that this is not the place for that. This forum is for factual information, or at least informed opinion, not wild speculation.

ab

>It also states that 30 seconds elapsed between touchdown and crash.

This would fit with the video footage. the straight line distance between runway 35L treshold and the crash site is 2km (from GoogleEarth). 30 seconds would mean an average speed of 240km/h, equal to 130kts. Approach speed for A320 (62t, 2500ft, conf full) is about 130 to 135 knots.
The 30 seconds are surely no exact time (+/- 5), as is the distance (+/- 200), but it looks like the aircraft was rather fast (for a landing).

"I'd like to think a go around was being attempted at that stage - unless the 320 thought otherwise of course..."

What exactly do you mean by that statement Paxman?

I don't think introducing fictitious old wives tales to this thred is helpful.

Weather at CGH:

It was raining, yes, but it was not a TS or +RA, more like a -RA or DZ for the past days. The runway was not contaminated; Sao Paulo tower does not allow ops at CGH with contaminated runway (there is a team from INFRAERO, the local airport manager, which measures the amount of water on the runway / standing water to determine the runway condition). So I find it hard to believe that the runway was contaminated. Due to the new surface, the runway gets slippery when wet, so extra caution is required. I personally think that my colleague had some other problem, such as loss of braking, flat tire, etc... All TAM pilots (or Brasilian airline pilots) are very experienced in landing at CGH, once it is a major airport, in terms of passenger volume and airline flights. I personally have 332 landing at CGH (all of them on B737 efis / NG or A319 / 320) in all kind of weather and never had a problem...never had a system failure also during the landing roll, so that's why I believe that he had some kind of severe failure, as mentioned before.
I consulted the Airbus MEL, and it says that no reversers are required for normal ops (only 2 rev required for ops at SDU – SBRJ airport) and the only operational item is to "not use the inop reverse during landing roll" - do not command rev. on that engine.

I recall a 737-200 crashed in Canada when landing in a snow storm. The aircraft had just touched down when a snow-plough appeared out of the murk in front of the 737. The pilot had initiated reverse on both engines but quickly cancelled reverse and at the same time lifted the aircraft over the snow-plough. Due to slightly different stow speeds on the actuated reversers and the fact the landing gear oleo extension cut off the hydraulic power to the reversers as the pilot hauled off the deck, one reverser stowed but the other did not. As the aircraft climbed, the throttle closed sharply on the reverser that had not quite shut and the open reverser doors were forced open by increasing airspeed. The pilot broke his thumb when it was trapped by the split throttles and the aircraft banked steeply under asymmetric thrust and an open reverser door and crashed with loss of lives.

Rippa - the 737 MELs I am used to would preclude landing on a 'slippery runway' with a T/R u/s. - yours does not?

Hi folks! This is my first post.
First I’d like to add that is too early to speculated about “the probably causes”. Let’s say a prayer for all those poor souls.
I remember when we operated L188 in Shuttle Service back in the 80`s. (Those are the day when the sex was safe and the aviation dangerous…). You could stop a L188 using only the revs… 30 years and no a single accident… No auto brake, no antiskid, no spoilers, no EFIS, no GPS, no fly by wire, only the old stick and rudder and basic T…
Then came the new high-tech jets, and the “wall” becomes higher and narrow… Special type rating for landing in SDU (the CGH`s counter part in Rio de Janeiro), restrictions for F/o operation, a more restrictive MEL…
The deregulation stats a fierce battle for the shuttle service easy money.
They called this progress…
Please, allow me some opinions:
1. The airlines will continue to operate in CGH BECAUSE passengers want to arrive in downtown, BECAUSE, São Paulo, like any others large cities in Brazil lack of an efficient and safe mass transportation linking the main airport and downtown, BECAUSE the “authorities” understand isn’t your problem, BECAUSE the people that elected the “authorities” do not give a dam….
2. I’ve been a “Boeing Field Boy” since I left L188`s, and I knew that the best airplane is that one that pays your bills, but now flying A320`s is it the first time that I see a performance table that takes the revs in account for landing distance calculation. YOU CAN LAND A 777 WITH A VREF LOWER THAN A A321.
3. That tragedy has been announced for long time…
4. It will not be the last.
Ps. Who knows the guy in charge for measure the 3mm water layer on the runway?

Fully agree with Alemaobaiano re spin-doctoring.

On another forum, commenting on the video clips released by Infraero, someone pointed out that at 18:51:38:453, just prior to the aircraft leaving the runway, there appears to be a small explosion.

Rippa

Have tests been carried out to determine the contamination level of the new surface? I can't find anything about that in publicly available material, and Infraero haven't said anything about that in recent days, letting the 3mm figure continue to be reported.

The 3mm standing water limit applied to the old surface, not the new one. A new surface would have different characteristics to the old one, and it follows that the old limits would no longer apply.

ab

Why is the NTSB involved? ...because they were invited due to their expertise, knowledge of the A320, and were available to render assistance?

On the video showing the TAM A320 crossing from right to left, just before the A320 exits the frame, there seems to be a white flash -- might it have hit something with either the MLG or the engine as it swerved off the runway? What is there to hit beside a runway that could cause such a flash?

alemaobaiano - very often how the issue of how safety and regulatory matters play out is influenced so some degree or other by ‘political’ or economic interests. I don’t think there’s any harm in bringing that into the discussion here, if, as you believe, there is an agenda at work. While most people here probably would rather not engage in wild speculation in the absence of known facts – It’s probably useful for the rest of us to know about it – especially if an agenda is at work at an official level – as opposed to general sensationalism/incompetence demonstrated by SOME of the media which many have come to expect as routine.

Rippa – you’ve mentioned about depth measurements being taken – do you know about the status of friction measurements – esp in consideration of the new surface and possible deposit build-up?

Broadreach – I noticed the same thing on the video – but I had thought it was more likely to have been the initial impact off the runway – followed a little later by the larger fire.

Centaurus – therein lies the logic of Mr. B’s advice – but then imminent contact with a hard object previously unseen………

BOAC,

Can't really remember, I have been flying the bus for the past two years, so I do not recall anything about the 737 MEL. What I can tell you is that there is all kind of 737's operating at CGH (GOL, VARIG, BRA), brand new ones and some old ones...don't believe that the rev are required for that airport / slippery runway.
Don't know hot to insert images here...I could show the relevant MEL pages...

Firstly, my deep and sincere commiserations to all those involved in this incident.

I departed Sao Paulo (GRU) the evening before this incident, and I would assess the rainfall that was falling most of Monday as moderate and occasionally bordering of heavy - I got quite wet doing the walkround!

Now I am not commenting on the cause of the incident, but I can confirm that the landings on the Monday were to the south as seen from crew hotel, so the aircraft would have been depositing rubber at the northerly end of the runway.

I have personal experience on landing on newly resurfaced runways (LHR etc) prior to grooving and can confirm that the stopping characteristics are much poorer than normal, and can easily equate to those experienced on contaminated runways.

[Trying to be factual]

Spagiola, it appears to be the moment the undercarriage struck the low wall at the edge of the taxiway.

Re 'was a go-around attempted?' - it seems to me there are only two ways that people could come to this conclusion in the absence of any survivors and before the FDR is found. Either the captain told the tower he was going around - unlikely since surely that would have been disclosed at one of the press conferences - or someone inferred that from what they saw and heard. And to Joe Schmoe on the ground wouldn't max reverse sound a lot like take-off thrust? So as I see it there's no evidence in favour of the g/a theory, and a bit of evidence against from the video.

Security video
 

Security cam video of TAM airbus final moments. As A320 passes terminal and heads out of view, a huge glow of light from the impact.


http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b78_1184812783

ChristiaanJ, as with every accident there will have been a series of events leading up to the tragic end, and there is very rarely a single causal factor. That is what accident investigations are for, to establish all of the factors involved and to prevent such incidents from happening again.

What concerns me about this incident is the unseemly haste with which the authorities are trying to absolve the runway of any involvement, without the slightest proof one way or the other. Was the runway condition a contributory factor? Was the inoperative reverser? Two captains on the flight deck? At this point, we don't know, and neither do the authorities, for sure. The CVR and FDR data will clarify the events, as will the tapes from ATC, but at the moment they haven't been analysed.

We saw a similar rush to apportion blame with the GOL 1907 incident, when the authorities were adamant that there was nothing wrong with the air transport system in Brazil and that the only cause was two American pilots fooling around in the sky. We now know that it wasn't like that at all, that there were multiple factors involved, any one of which in isolation would have been harmless, but which combined to cause a tragic accident, and consequently caused chaos with the air transport system here.

I don't think anyone is fixated on the runway per se, but on the reaction of the authorities to any suggestion that it might be a factor.

ab

It seems the surveillance camera is aimed toward the departure end of the runway. If the airplane was going faster than others at that stage (although the clip of the slow airplane looks as if someone slowed the frame rate), either the aircraft wouldn't decelerate because of hydroplaning or technical failure, or they were attempting to fly again. Due to the fact that no reverse was available on the number #2 engine, the swing to the left could suggest the use of the #1 reverser which at that point is worth trying. What a tragedy in any case.

Beanbag – I don’t think anyone here has made any conclusions or offered any theories about an attempted GA. Maybe the issue arose in discussion BEFORE we all had the retrospective advantage of seeing video of the landing roll??? Maybe making the quite reasonable assumption of what an experienced ATPL in a transport category aircraft might do (or consider doing) with failure to decelerate adequately (for whatever reason) with 2 to 3 thousand feet of runway remaining and a really bad situation at the end of that runway ??? Then taking that reasonable idea and asking here if anyone knows if it happened or not. Maybe we aren’t all present at press conferences?

Broadreach – disregard my previous comment about the flash at the end of the runway – I thought you were referring to something else.

The video appears to me to show spoilers up – I’m not 100% on AB hydraulics – so what are the chances of a more serious type failure on brakes with the A320?

Something to keep in mind

High reverse eflux at moderate speeds pushes the water on the runway forward as moving waves (with the aircraft) of high thickness and troughs of low thickness. When a high thickness trough is intersected by the mains, there goes the braking.

theamrad - the 'g/a' thing started here around #35 and by #140 the media were running with it (possibly from here?) and it 'picked up' here again at #150. There is an interesting comment around the #40's about a 'tail strike'?

Because it is their right under ICAO to be involved, given the engine certification.

Navaids?
 

Any Conghonas aviators confirm approach aid details? Looks like NDB and VOR/DME but no ILS on any of the runways.

Might ILS have helped (assuming they had somewhere to put the localiser arrays)? The weather was dull and damp but scarcely on minimums, and presumably the PAPIs were working.

As usual the last thing we will learn is if there was an unexpected distraction or technical malfunction.

I thought before the video came out – the attempt at a GA might have been at least a possibility – but the video seems (obviously) to suggest otherwise – that is unless it went really badly, along the lines of Rainboe’s earlier thoughts.

PJ2:

True, those discussions can be very beneficial.

One potential hazard, at least with some other A-320 go-arounds/balked landings is that pilots sometimes fail to put the thrust levers all the way forward to the TOGA detent, and/or don't check the FMA on the PFD.
Not verifying modes on the Airbus PFD or on the B-757 resulted in serious problems.
One A-320 almost hit the ground after a go-around at LAS, due to various crew coordination issues.

Some confusing situations or incidents involved highly-experienced pilots who fly the A-330.

Guys....
I used to be a Shuttle service capt for over 10 years flying both the 737/300 an A319 between Rio and Sao Paulo.I have at least 2000 landings on that runway under my belt.I cannot offer any conclusion on what might have happened,but that runway IS slippery.And more so that it has been recentely resurfaced,the rain kept pouring down,sometimes quite heavily during the day in question,with not a single sunny spell all day long i.e the water kept soaking the runway.Add to that the fact that almost 80% of landings in CGH are performed in the southerly direction with rubber accumulation at the end of the A320´s landing roll and there you have it:perfect condition for an accident to take place.Bear in mind that our eyes and minds are expecting the aircraft to be a lot slower than it was,it doesn´t seem accurate to say it actually had the speed to take off at that point.It was fast,but maybe it was at,let´s say 90 kt,when it was expected to be at 30 or 40...still not enough to fly...Who knows...
Maybe that glare at the end was caused by eng.stall...Who knows...Aquaplaning combined with darkness and a 1or 2 second late decision to go around...Who in hell knows...Not having any other data available,to me at least,it´s quite evident that the runway has indeed played a big part in this terrible event...No other conclusion is yet possible.Best regards.

Shortfinals,yes ILS on both ends...

One question...

It would appear that once you start to hydro/aquaplane, you are not likely to stop, hense the reason why one aircraft could appear to stop normally and another slide of the end??

Is the rather old fashioned idea of "land firmly laddy... to break the surface tension" still good advice? Or just B/S

http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/5047/tamdk6.jpg

the video:

http://playervideo.globo.com/webmedia/GMCMidiaASX?midiaId=703185|banda=N|ext.asx

On huge pylons at runway level on the extended centerline... and err... if you overrun, you don't want to hit that while airborne and freefalling either...

Irkytsk.
 

I am ordinary Canadian PAX speaking Russian.
Reading www.avia.ru discussions, I noted some similarities with last year Irkutsk incident. Brief description of that story:

A-310 (not A-320) made normal landing at Irkutsk. Reverser (#1?) was deactivated several days before (INOP in MEL at accident time). Crew used single working reverser after landing and then started to switch reverser off. According to black box, IN THE SAME TIME as switching reverser off, engine (or both?) went a full forward power. With full pedal breaks all the way, the plane overrun the strip and hit concrete structure and car garages at 190 km/h. Explosion, fire, many deaths.

Official version (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S7_Airlines_Flight_778) is that (allegedly tiered, deep night 4 am landing) crew unwillingly pushed main gears in the same motion as disengaging of reverser. This unusual hand kinetics was disputed by pilots during discussions. Alternative version – something wrong in engine(s) control that caused SYNHRONEOUS stepwise command (i) reverser off (ii) forward thrust on. Inappropriate locking procedure of INOP reverser several days before incident was blamed in such malfunction (in alternative version).

Although far fetched guess, unexpected forward thrust while landing may explain high speed while reverser still working. This theory has a chance if TAM black boxes reveal that crew did NOT attempt to go-around…

I am not suggesting "long landing" / "go around at/prior touchdown" were factors in this accident, but they have been mentioned by some. An interesting analysis of these factors is available at http://amelia.db.erau.edu/reports/ntsb/aar/AAR77-01.pdf re an AA 727 at St Thomas, also with a tragic outcome...

Here's a post from a man who knows a bit

This caught my attention today, especially when I heard it was an A320 landing on a rain slickened, short runway, which is something I do on a regular basis. As a matter of fact, two runways I land on (routinely) are shorter than this accident runway in Brazil. It is easy to be an armchair expert discussing tragedies such as these, but when I heard about this fiery crash, I remembered a little statement printed on page 256 of the airline's A319/320 Pilot Manual:


WARNING
Do not attempt a go around once the aircraft is on the runway
and reverse thrust is initiated. Up to five seconds are required
for a reverser to close in the forward thrust position. Also, there
is a possibility that the reverser will not stow in the forward thrust
position during a go around attempt.

Uh oh...

Just with respect to the official agenda which our Brazilian colleagues complained of earlier. I must suspend the usual general derision with which I treat some of the media (and for which some have criticised me in the past). While in this neck of the woods: BBC, RTE, and C4 news have continued to pedal the ‘official’ version, the ‘video screen speed measurements’ and (to varying degrees) suggestions that the pilots were landing with excessive speed/nothing wrong with the runway.
ITV news seems to have done some journalistic work and come up trumps. The main thrust of their story this evening was the suggestion that officials produced video clips in such a way as to suggest the pilots were in error, and that they(officialdom) were trying to deflect attention from the whole runway issue. They mentioned a couple of skids in previous days also, and that the runway condition had been a concern before the accident. ITV even had a simple (if very brief) description of touchdown zone and how a pilot can go around – without speculating that this had been attempted in this case. The story ended with what is obvious to us – either way – the truth will come out with the FDR data. So for me at least – full marks for ITV tonight.
Maybe ease up on criticism of me in the future guys if I’m on a rant about the media – I’ll definitely give credit where it’s due.

Dogma -

Quote:

---

It would appear that once you start to hydro/aquaplane, you are not likely to stop, hence the reason why one aircraft could appear to stop normally and another slide of the end??

---

Whether it was at play here or not, time will tell – but when it does happen, it’s likely to continue and considerably effect the distance required. For example, Qantas B744 at Bangkok – even after full manual braking applied, the crew noticed no appreciable deceleration – aquaplaning – you can check the Boeing brochure for a brief description http://www.smartcockpit.com/pdf/flightops/safety/0022/. But suffice to say in that instance, it did continue and effective deceleration didn't occur until within 1,000 feet of the runway end.

Unwell_Raptor - it's been said a few times already pages back.

There has been a huge amount of attention paid to this newly paved runway with heavy rain and no runway grooving carried out as yet. But all the other flights previous to this one landed safely including a TAM A320 immediately prior to the accident flight. The key to learning from this tragedy is to understand what was different about this flight than all the other flights that landed safely that night. You can see in the video that the accident airplane is in a completely different state (far more speed) than other planes of the same type landing just prior to the accident. Something caused that to happen to this airplane, and not to others. Aquaplaning does not happen to one plane of a certain type at a certain weight going a certain speed and not to another plane of the same type, same weight going the same speed. Something was different about this flight that was unrelated to the runway.

Hydroplaning was initially blamed as the cause of the AF A340 accident at YYZ. Eventually, it was determined that that aircraft landed hopelessly long and fast. My speculation is that we will eventually learn that this plane's landing profile was out of the normal envelope, and then the co-factors (wet, slippery runway, hydroplaning, lack of reverse) all come into play.

But what doesn't make sense is that the pilots (both captains I understand) were based at Congonhas and very experienced on type and at the airport. They would have surely landed there hundreds of times in the past, thereby knowing the exact performance of the aircraft in relation to the runway.

My guess is that they hydroplaned sometime after the initial touchdown and tried to GA out of it. The reason for this is that they knew that they wouldn't stop in time and thereofore head over the cliff edge. Hence my previous comment about an EMAS.