Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
WSJ: Judge Bans 737s And F100s From Sao Paulo  
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6483 posts, RR: 3
Posted (7 years 5 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 6462 times:

Brief fair use excerpt from The Wall Street Journal:

Quote:
SAO PAULO (Dow Jones)--A Brazilian judge banned Fokker 100, Boeing 737-700 and Boeing 737-800 planes from taking off and landing at Sao Paulo's Congonhas airport starting Thursday because of safety concerns, according to a court spokeswoman Tuesday.

The injunction, signed by Federal Judge Ronald de Carvalho Filho, will potentially cause chaos at airports, forcing airlines to divert a large number of flights from Congonhas domestic airport, Brazil's largest. Gol Linhas Aereas Inteligentes (GOL) would potentially be the worst hit company, since it uses planes made by Boeing Co. (BA) for its domestic and international flights.

The judge upheld a case brought by federal prosecutors that questioned the safety of the main runway at the airport. Excess water on the runway has caused a couple of planes to slip onto the grass at the airport in recent months. The federal prosecutors also questioned whether the runway was long enough.

[...]

Source: Brazil Judge Bans Boeing, Fokker Jets From Sao Paulo Airport

[Edited 2007-02-07 01:35:11]


When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
12 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineYWG From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 1145 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (7 years 5 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 6393 times:

Quoting N328KF (Thread starter):
Thursday because of safety concerns, according to a court spokeswoman Tuesday.

Sounds like an airbus conspiracy Big grin

In reality, they should stiffen up the Reg's on the maintenance of their aircraft first, before banning aircraft that seem to fly normally without a problem in every other part of the world.



Contact Winnipeg center now on 134.4, good day.
User currently offlineWN230 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 341 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (7 years 5 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 6293 times:

Quoting N328KF (Thread starter):
The judge upheld a case brought by federal prosecutors that questioned the safety of the main runway at the airport. Excess water on the runway has caused a couple of planes to slip onto the grass at the airport in recent months. The federal prosecutors also questioned whether the runway was long enough.

For the first part, so what?!?!? Its damn water that did nothing to aide in the planes sliding off the runway and onto the grass. That was pilot error because they weren't able to stop the planes in time.

For the second part, if the runway wasn't long enough, then how the hell have the planes been able to take off and land every other day before this decision was made?!?!?

The planes are safe, its not the condition of the weather, its the people servicing and piloting the planes that are unsafe. This ban, IMHO, is total bullsh*t.

WN230



Judas Priest North American tour in '08 . . . cannot wait!!!
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21456 posts, RR: 60
Reply 3, posted (7 years 5 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 6248 times:

737-100-600, 737-900, all DC9s, MD80s and A320s are safe though? I'd love to see the "science" behind this court decision...  Wink


Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineLaxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24707 posts, RR: 46
Reply 4, posted (7 years 5 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 6133 times:

Topic already being discussed.
http://www.airliners.net/discussions...general_aviation/read.main/3241977

[Edited 2007-02-07 02:45:42]


From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineJrosa From Brazil, joined Jun 2005, 367 posts, RR: 11
Reply 5, posted (7 years 5 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 6109 times:

Quoting WN230 (Reply 2):
For the first part, so what?!?!? Its damn water that did nothing to aide in the planes sliding off the runway and onto the grass. That was pilot error because they weren't able to stop the planes in time.

For the second part, if the runway wasn't long enough, then how the hell have the planes been able to take off and land every other day before this decision was made?!?!?

The planes are safe, its not the condition of the weather, its the people servicing and piloting the planes that are unsafe. This ban, IMHO, is total bullsh*t.

I do not agree with your statement, I believe it was not an informed opinion.

Please be aware that it is confirmed by engineering analysis that there are very serious engineering problems in the runway and the lawsuit request was to suspend all the operations in CGH. There is a NOTAM in place alerting to the danger to land in wet conditions and there is also a determination from the Brazilian Civil Aviation Agency determining that the airport shall be closed when there is more than 3.5mm of water in the runway.

There were no pilot errors involved in the incidents that happened lately in CGH, all incidents were investigated and the authorities confirmed that the runway conditions were the main reason for the slip.

I read today the initial filing of this lawsuit and the original request was to suspend all the operations in the main runway of CGH until the end of the construction repair services that should be done in CGH. However, the judge decided to vet only the operations of B73G, B738 and F100. This was not the aim of the lawsuit and I believe the vetting decision will be overruled shortly.

Regards,

Jose Carlos


User currently offlineWN230 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 341 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (7 years 5 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 5921 times:

Quoting Jrosa (Reply 5):
I do not agree with your statement

Excuse me then, sorry I was on a rant. Not the time and place I guess.  sigh 

WN230



Judas Priest North American tour in '08 . . . cannot wait!!!
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21456 posts, RR: 60
Reply 7, posted (7 years 5 months 5 days ago) and read 5641 times:

Quoting Jrosa (Reply 5):
However, the judge decided to vet only the operations of B73G, B738 and F100. This was not the aim of the lawsuit and I believe the vetting decision will be overruled shortly.

That's what I figured. It sounds as if the judge has no real understanding of aviation and, like many judges do in the USA, made a non-sensical ruling that made him feel self important. Just an outside perspective.

After all, how can you ban the 73G and 738 but not the 739 and 736?



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlinePEET7G From Hungary, joined Jan 2007, 695 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (7 years 5 months 5 days ago) and read 5566 times:

It really amazes me how stupid people can get... the original lawsuit that I can understand - the judge's decision, that I can not. I hope the decision will be overruled and if necessary then it will be implemented in it's original form. After all, ok ,he banned the F100s, 73Gs and 738s, but if the runway is really that unsafe all the others coming in on other equipment are at risk...

Quoting YWG (Reply 1):
Sounds like an airbus conspiracy

Well, not exactly an Airbus conspiracy, but I can imagine some money involved in the decision, from certain airline operating a certain equipment into CGH that is not on the list  stirthepot 
After all, corruption is not an unknown thing in Brazil...  Smile



Peet7G
User currently offlineSSTsomeday From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 1276 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (7 years 5 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 5489 times:

The more I hear about how aviation cases are handled in Brazil, the more it feels like a police state, without proper due process of the law. These reactionary or nationalist judges making ridiculous judgements to avoid Brazilian government accountability; first the midair crash fiasco (taking the American pilots' passports, contrary to International protocol, not taking responsibility for Air Traffic Control equipment and procedural shortcomings, etc.) and now this. What gives? Does the Brazilian system not ensure the separation of the government and the judiciary?


I come in peace
User currently offlineJrosa From Brazil, joined Jun 2005, 367 posts, RR: 11
Reply 10, posted (7 years 5 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 5170 times:

Quoting WN230 (Reply 6):
Excuse me then, sorry I was on a rant. Not the time and place I guess.

Not a problem!  bigthumbsup 

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 7):
That's what I figured. It sounds as if the judge has no real understanding of aviation and, like many judges do in the USA, made a non-sensical ruling that made him feel self important. Just an outside perspective.

After all, how can you ban the 73G and 738 but not the 739 and 736?

You are right. A non informed decision, lacking expert analysis and information. It allowed the A319 but voided the B73G, it allowed A320 but voided the B738. The decision referred to the F100 as a heavy aircraft and allowed the operations of all B733.

Quoting PEET7G (Reply 8):
It really amazes me how stupid people can get... the original lawsuit that I can understand - the judge's decision, that I can not. I hope the decision will be overruled and if necessary then it will be implemented in it's original form. After all, ok ,he banned the F100s, 73Gs and 738s, but if the runway is really that unsafe all the others coming in on other equipment are at risk...

You are right, all four incidents that already happened involved 3 B733 and 1 B734.

Just for the records, the pilots who operate in CGH refer to the main runway as "Holiday on Ice". I heard cases of aircraft slipping when taxing at speeds as low as 30knts.

Quoting PEET7G (Reply 8):
Well, not exactly an Airbus conspiracy, but I can imagine some money involved in the decision, from certain airline operating a certain equipment into CGH that is not on the list
After all, corruption is not an unknown thing in Brazil...

Maybe a Red Magic Carpet thing, but I prefer to believe that the judge considered himself more important than he really is and issued that stupid ruling out of the blue. Remember that the original request of the lawsuit was to close the main runway for any and all aircraft.

Unfortunately you are correct when you say "corruption is not an unknown thing in Brazil..."

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 9):
The more I hear about how aviation cases are handled in Brazil, the more it feels like a police state, without proper due process of the law. These reactionary or nationalist judges making ridiculous judgements to avoid Brazilian government accountability; first the midair crash fiasco (taking the American pilots' passports, contrary to International protocol, not taking responsibility for Air Traffic Control equipment and procedural shortcomings, etc.) and now this. What gives? Does the Brazilian system not ensure the separation of the government and the judiciary?

It is that shameful federal government that is trying hard to destroy this country. Yes, we do have a system that is structured to ensure the separation of powers.


User currently offlineWesternA318 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 5647 posts, RR: 24
Reply 11, posted (7 years 5 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 5123 times:

Quoting Jrosa (Reply 10):
decision referred to the F100 as a heavy aircraft and allowed the operations of all B733.

Wait a sec...isnt the F100 a SMALLER plane than the rest of the banned aircraft?



Next trip: SLC-LAX-JFK-LAX-SLC on AA, gotta say goodbye to my beloved 762!
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8924 posts, RR: 40
Reply 12, posted (7 years 5 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 4535 times:

Quoting WesternA318 (Reply 11):

Wait a sec...isnt the F100 a SMALLER plane than the rest of the banned aircraft?

Don't try to make sense out of it. You'll drive yourself crazy  Wink

The ban was for aircraft that use more than 80% of the [currently very slippery] runway.

Let's move to this thread guys (lots more info):

Judge In Brazil Restricts All GOL Flts From CGH (by Airbrasil Feb 6 2007 in Civil Aviation)



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Fly From Sao Paulo(gru) To Sao Paulo(cgh) posted Thu Aug 15 2002 14:36:34 by Aguimar01464
Air China To Madrid And Sao Paulo? posted Wed Oct 11 2006 18:54:54 by 777way
BA - Calgary Confirmed. Extra Sao Paulo and JFK posted Wed Jul 5 2006 13:05:22 by AceFreighter
Emirates Confirms Sao Paulo Nonstop posted Sun Dec 31 2006 21:36:28 by Behramjee
Highest Altitude Airport Seeing 737s And Up posted Tue Nov 28 2006 06:28:39 by Starstream707
Confirmed: Air China Starts Sao Paulo Flight posted Fri Oct 20 2006 16:33:33 by Dellatorre
New Taag Angola 737s And 777s posted Tue Sep 19 2006 03:56:44 by Teneriffe77
What Airline And Plane From Palmero To Lampedusa? posted Wed Jul 19 2006 16:48:13 by Hydargos
Qatar Airways, Direct Doha-Sao Paulo Flight posted Sun May 28 2006 19:41:31 by QatarA340
B737-400 Overruns RWY In Sao Paulo posted Thu Mar 23 2006 00:56:32 by PPSMA