TAM A320 crash at Congonhas, Brazil
 

Local news is reporting that a TAM aircraft has overrun the runway and crashed into a petrol station at Congonhas.
Infraero has confirmed that there are casualties, but no details on the flight number or origin.
ab

local news saying TAM flight 3054 from Porto Alegre with 170 people on board.
Several people still on elevators inside the building. Doesn´t look good at all.

Is this the same incident as reported in another thread or a separate one?

What type?

looks like another incident. 170 people on an ATR?

different thing. This is an A320 from TAM.

July 18 2007 at 12:46AM Sao Paulo - A passenger plane with 170 people on board crashed into a fuel tank and started a fire after skidding on a wet runway at Congonhas airport in Sao Paulo, local media reported on Tuesday.

The plane belonged to Brazil's Tam airline, and there were no reports so far of casualties from either firefighters or Infraero, the company managing the airport, said TV Globo.

Sky News reporting it's an A320 with at least 150 on board. Coverage on CNN and the pictures look grave to say the least. Hope it's not as bad as it looks.

Sbsp 172200z 35008kt 7000 -ra Bkn008 Ovc070 15/14 Q1018
Sbsp 172100z 34008kt 6000 -ra Bkn009 Ovc070 16/14 Q1018
Sbsp 172030z 32009kt 7000 -ra Bkn013 Ovc080 16/14 Q1018
Sbsp 172000z 31012kt 8000 -ra Bkn016 Ovc080 17/14 Q1018
Sbsp 171900z 34009kt 9999 -ra Bkn016 Bkn080 18/15 Q1017

Looks like the resurfaced but ungrooved runway has claimed its second victim in as many days.

I have been to that area several times, there is a gas station right next to the building that the plane hit. Not sure if it got impacted or not, but I´m guessing so.

I was on this exact flight two weeks ago.

correct fuel store nearby`
 

Main fusalage looks intact from live wire however flames seem to be all over from the rear ..Hope All got out safley

Two casualties recovered so far, one unfortunately fatal. Both thought to be from the buildings hit by the aircraft.

ab

Flying rabbit - any idea where this building is in relation to the runway?

There is much confusion on CNN at the moment as to whether is is on or off the airfield.

Doors, the buildings are off the airfield, over Avenida Washington Luis, which at that time of the day is packed with traffic. Distance about 150m from the end of the runway, which is 30m above the street.

ab

Oh sh*t - looks like an overrun then. From the various videos on Youtube it looks like a runway on a plateau not dissimilar from Funchal although at 5700ft a lot shorter. There are very steep drop-offs at either end. Totally unforgiving in a situation like this.

DtA, building is right accross the street from the runway, but not in a straight line. Plane would have to go to the left from the runway to hit that building.

There´s a lot of conflicting reports about casualties right now, 8 people already admitted in hospitals but no news if they´re passengers or were on the building or on the street.

Local news now saying fire is getting worse, spreading to other buildings, some in danger of collapsing.

Actually, the building is abeam the runway end (runway in use was 35), about 150mts, right across one of the main avenues of Sao Paulo.
I have been working for TAM the last 2 years, can say the company is OK (safety wise), but the airport is operating way above maximum capacity...runway has no grooving, slippery when wet, 1880mts LDA, 2450 ft airport elevation...
Another very sad day for Brasilian Aviation...

As per thread here Pantanal ATR 42 off runway at Congonhas and here B737-800 skids off the Runway Cochin India.

Three this week wont help the stats!

Managing the Threats and Errors during Approach and Landing. N.B. Slide 26
FSF ALAR Tool Kit, sect 8.1 onwards.
Safety aspects of aircraft performance on wet and contaminated runways
When a Runway is Not Long Enough to Land On
Quote From the ref. "In the unlikely event that you do run out of runway, let us hope that you do not run out of luck!"
Luck is not aided by failure to learn lessons from previous events.

I'm guessing it is the big "T" shaped building at the end of 17R (plane landing on 35L). See google earth.

I'd also guess that unable to stop the pilot attempted to turn the plane onto the taxiway at high speed and it skidded - there was a similar incident involving, I believe, an F100 a while back but on this occasion they managed to turn the aircraft and keep it within the confines of the field.

They must have been going at a fair speed to make it down the hill, across that road and into the building!

Informed speculation at this point though.

I'm watching live news right now. It looks very bad, I'm afraid. For the aircraft to cross the road and enter the TAM cargo reception depot it must have been going at a hell of a clip. The road is about 80m wide and, at that point, some 10m below the surface of the runway. Very close to the same point a BRA 737 skidded to some six months ago.

DtA, there were two incidents shortly before the runway was closed for resurfacing, and there was a wet weather restriction placed on some heavier types landing.

However, as was noted in the ATR thread, and this one too, the main runway has recently reopened after resurfacing to reduce aquaplaning incidents. It was reopened without the planned grooves, due to pressure over delays in air travel, and has seen two incidents in as many days.

ab

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mrJgr-4K0M

I think it is the building at 0:42 into this film. Note the short length of the runway and the immediate substantial drop in terrain.

That is the EXACT building..

You can watch the live tv coverage of the accident on:
http://video.globo.com/Videos/Player...O+VIVO,00.html

does anyone know if this runway slopes downhill?

I would like all information people have in order to make sure that worldwide news organizations are reporting as truthfully as possible

For those of you with Google Earth, the TAM cargo depot can be seen at
23-37-10-77S, 46-39-44-18W.
The cargo depot is the L-shaped building; immediately south of it is a Shell station which did not catch fire (writing at 21:00LT).
TAM are holding the pax list back until families informed.
Runway re-grooving, by the way, is scheduled to begin on 25 July when the surface is cured.
The runway does not slope downhill.
Doors to Automatic, spot on.

TAM just informed 175 SOB. 155 pax, 6 crew, 14 TAM deadheading.

The runway is slightlly down hill...not very noticeble / significant.
The building is the one in a T shape....

For runway 35L (Longest one):
- Landing distance 1880 mts
- Downslope

http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/7...tledmg9.th.jpg

Is it now safe to say:

the plane was landing towards the north, on the longest runway about 6365feet in length.

the runway was recently resurfaced, with regrooving planned for july 25 after the surface has cured.

the runway was wet from light rain

that once off the runway, the terrain drops about 30feet

that the building hit is a cargo depot and not a gas/petrol station

Bomarc, that's pretty much it, except that the impact was on the left side of the building, which is next to the gas station. Local fire crews are reporting serious concerns about the gasoline stored there, but have that part of the fire under control.

ab

Bomarc, correct. It might be useful to note that it's been raining since yesterday morning, heavily at times.

The gas station is south of the cargo depot. If you've looked at the Google image the building immediately south of the upright part of the "L" is a TAM garage where you can drop your car off and pick it up on return.

Eyewitness accounts, unreliable as they may be, say the aircraft did attempt to take off again. The aircraft had sufficient airspeed not to simply drop straight down onto the road - a taxi passenger describes it as having passed overhead, left wing having hit the TAM cargo buiding and exploding.

ramp employee at the airport now saying the pilot tried a go-around after plane touched the runway.

TAM updated SOB to 176

plane is PT-MBK

local news report no survivors

Please note I'm not a pilot, others might respond differently. But it's been blustery since Sunday evening, with constant rain and it's an aircraft-carrier runway so the winds at either end can be funny. But that would not have been the problem; they didn't get near the end, and if the accident started with aquaplaning - as with the Pantanal ATR 42 yesterday - who knows what direction they would have been pointing when they decided on a GA.

At 22:40LT, fire inside the cargo depot still out of control and a high plume of smoke. News services are now cautiously saying survivors unlikely and several casualties in the the TAM building.

Airlines have, apparently off their own bat, retouted CGH flights to GRU and Viracopos.

"there is a notam indicating "down currents" near approach end runway 17...could this have helped bring the plane down as it went over that end while taking off again?"

Actually, the air is turbulent around the airport because it is surrounded by buildings...it is a very central airport, right in the middle of Sao Paulo. Nickname is "airplane carrier" and the usual briefing between the pilots is "touch down maximum at 1000ft runway marks or go-around". Very marginal operation for this airplane in this weather.

From an update on Globo news:




"The plane was skidding, it looked like it was taxiing, I never saw something so ugly" said Luís Santos, working for CTS Security, who was in a black Volkswagen at the gas station during the accident. The siding of the vehicle was marked by debris from the plane. "I could hear the increasing roar of the turbine and the plane kept growing. He passed 'liking' right about where the street electric wires are. When it hit [the building?], everything exploded", added Santos.





"O avião vinha derrapando, parecia que ele estava taxiando, nunca vi um negócio tão feio", disse Luís Santos, da empresa CTS de vigilância e segurança, que estava em um gol preto no posto na hora do acidente. A lateral do veículo ficou marcada por estilhaços da fuselagem do avião.
"Dava para ouvir o barulho da turbina aumentando e o avião crescendo. Ele passou 'lambendo' bem na altura dos fios. Na hora que deu a pancada, explodiu tudo", acrescentou Santos.

As FlyingRabbit mentioned, the authorities are stating there are no survivors (a colonel in the fire brigade is quoted as saying there are numerous casualties on the ground as well). From www.folha.com.br

If that is true, with the deaths aboard the plane alone it will be the worst crash in Brazilian history.

This photo shows the drop-off at the end of the taxiway turnoff and runway above Avenida Washington Luis.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...d/07198157.jpg

Here's an aerial view.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...ador_aviao.jpg

Very sad day in Brazilian aviation.

THANK YOU ALL FOR HELPING ME UNDERSTAND WHAT WAS GOING ON IN BRAZIL TODAY DURING THIS GREAT TRAGEDY.

I think it is now fair to say that a fully loaded TAM AIR Airbus 320 over ran runway 35 left, some 6365 feet long during a rainy evening hitting a cargo structure and perhaps a gas/petrol station.

That the runway was awaiting grooving after repaving...that rain had been continuous since yesterday

that the airport had a similiar incident yesterday involving an ATR 42 turboprop airport

that this airport had been notorious for problems of this nature, so bad that a JUDGE had ordered restrictions on this airport, but he was over ridden by a higher court.

a marginal situation costing the lives of up to 200 people (176 on the plane, more on the ground)

It is possible that the plane was attempting to takeoff again after touchdown.

that winds near the airport are affected by the nearby buildings.

that with wet runway conditions, the airbus 320 at max landing weights is a marginal situation on this length of runway

Bomarc, the restrictions applied before the resurfacing, and that work was intended to overcome those problems. The earlier restrictions are irrelevant to this incident due to the new surface, which supposedly has a better grip co-efficient than the earlier runway. There have been no moves to re-impose restrictions since the runway reopened, probably because this is the first rain we have had since then.

Also, an A320 wouldn't be at maximum landing weight for this airport, even on a bright sunny day.

ab

Also, MLW for the A320 is 66,000kgs or less (not the max. weight indicated on the chart). As AB said, I highly doubt it was anywhere close to that.