• 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7
 
User avatar
BNE
Topic Author
Posts: 2921
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2000 9:37 pm

TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Wed Jul 18, 2007 9:05 pm

Continuation of the original thread TAM Plane Crashed In CGH (by LipeGIG Jul 18 2007 in Civil Aviation)

TAM Express flight 3054 carrying 170 passengers and six crew has crashed and burst into flames at Brazil's busiest airport, Congonhas CGH in the heart of Sao Paulo.

Link to BBC news http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6903837.stm

Rescue crews said none of the 176 people on board the Airbus A320 could have survived, while more people were killed on the ground.

The TAM airliner skidded off the runway as it landed in wet weather, shot over a busy road and hit a fuel depot.

There had been persistent, heavy downpours in the two hours before the accident.

TAM Express flight 3054 was carrying 170 passengers and six crew when it attempted to land at Congonhas airport, which is mainly used for regional flights from other parts of Brazil and South America.

Aircraft was PR-MBK arriving from Porto Alegre POA as flight JJ3054.
Why fly non stop when you can connect
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17097
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Wed Jul 18, 2007 9:25 pm

Thanks BNE for taking care of the logistics.

May I say that we owe it to the dead not to draw hasty conclusions. Speculation is fine and healthy, as long as it is clearly labeled as speculation. Saying things like "the airport is unsafe because of x" as if it is fact is disrespectful. I repeat that the dead deserve the truth to come to light, whatever that truth may be or however uncomfortobla.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
lmpinto
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 2:03 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Wed Jul 18, 2007 9:40 pm

Tam confirms 186 on board: 162 passengers, 18 employees and 6 crew.
( http://www.taminforma.com.br/noticia.aspx?id=1436 )

[Edited 2007-07-18 14:41:40]
 
miamiair
Posts: 4249
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 9:42 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Wed Jul 18, 2007 9:45 pm

Quoting BNE (Thread starter):

How long is RWY 35L?
Molon Labe - Proud member of SMASH
 
RobertS975
Posts: 758
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 2:17 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Wed Jul 18, 2007 9:45 pm

This type of over-run accident is reasonably common, although the results are usually far more lucky for the pax and crew:

AF A340 at YYZ
WN at MDW (one fatality in a hit car)
WN at BUR
The Indonesian 737 recently (fatalities in post-crash fire)

There are some reprots that the plane was attempting to take off again. If this is true, then the factor of added speed at the time of the accident becomes paramount.
 
SailorOrion
Posts: 1959
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2001 5:56 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Wed Jul 18, 2007 9:49 pm

Quoting Miamiair (Reply 3):
How long is RWY 35L?

35L has an LDA of 1879m [6165ft], an elevation of 2628ft [801m], a slope of -0.5° and a width of 45m [147ft].

SailorOrion
 
User avatar
WildcatYXU
Posts: 2607
Joined: Sat May 06, 2006 2:05 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Wed Jul 18, 2007 10:08 pm

Quoting RobertS975 (Reply 4):

There was the S7 crash in Irkutsk...not too lucky either...

Question to active pilots:

How much time after touchdown the PIC has to find out that the brake action is insufficient and call/initiate a go around?
310, 319, 320, 321, 333, 343, 345, 346, 732, 735, 73G, 738, 744, 752, 762, 763, 77L, 77W, 788, AT4, AT7, BEH, CR2, CRA, CR9, DH1, DH3, DH4, E75, E90, E95, F28, F50, F100, Saab 340, YAK40
 
EZEIZA
Posts: 4421
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2004 12:09 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Wed Jul 18, 2007 10:14 pm

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 1):
Saying things like "the airport is unsafe because of x" as if it is fact is disrespectful

I disgree (sort of). It is pretty much established that the airport has problems. What is disrespectul is to say that those problems are what caused the crash.
Regarding the left over of what you posted in the other thread before it was locked, of course money has to be put in many things, but I don't think commercial avition should be the last thing to considee just because it's got pretty good safety record. Especially concerning an airport that hs been criticised before and where incidents are apparently fairly common.
just my .02

regards
Carp aunque ganes o pierdas ...
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17097
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Wed Jul 18, 2007 10:19 pm

Quoting WildcatYXU (Reply 6):
How much time after touchdown the PIC has to find out that the brake action is insufficient and call/initiate a go around?

Unless it's a dire emergency you are pretty much committed to landing once you have started braking and spoilers are deployed. Mir or others can clarify but deciding to go around after you have started braking is not a decision to be taken lightly.

Runway length is of course also a factor. If you have 3km in front of you lots of options open up.



The condition of the runway should be known to the pilots way before the wheels touch the ground.

[Edited 2007-07-18 15:20:01]
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
slider
Posts: 6806
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 11:42 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Wed Jul 18, 2007 10:23 pm

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 8):
The condition of the runway should be known to the pilots way before the wheels touch the ground.

The problem is that often that is anecdotal...based on radio calls from prior A/C landing.

"Braking action fair."

Well, that might be true when it's snowing, you've got 10,000 feet on runway and it was a DC-9 that landed ahead of you, but how does that impact your decision maknig paradigm based on landing weight, a/c type, etc?

I wish runway conditions were a more finite factor.
 
Timmytour
Posts: 79
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 8:52 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Wed Jul 18, 2007 10:24 pm

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 1):
May I say that we owe it to the dead not to draw hasty conclusions.

I am very sorry for the families of those bereaved, but to say "we owe" anything to the dead is pretty nonsensical in my book. This is a forum that talks about aviation. We're not the official investigators nor (ought we to be) the official source of anyone who might want some information regarding the loss that is pertinent to the relative of the deceased.

If anyone wants to speculate away I say let them. Their credibility might well come into question but I can't see how it shows any disrespect to the dead, nor why anyone should see it that way. I can't for the life of me see how anyone prepared to at least discuss what might have happened and the reasons for it can be said to show any less respect for the dead then the huge majority of the population at large who will hear the news but then not give it a second thought.
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Wed Jul 18, 2007 10:28 pm

One bit of information on our evening TV News that surprised me. They had an interview with a lady who was in a cab on the highway, who said that one of the aircraft's wheels 'clipped' the cab roof.

Apart from thinking how lucky she and the cab driver were, it occurred to me that the aeroplane must still have been airborne as it crossed the highway. The lack of any evidence of wrecked vehicles in the TV newscasts and other pictures rather confirms that impression.

Even allowing for the drop at the airport boundary, how could the aircraft have been braking all the way along the runway, with engines idling and spoilers out, and still have enough airspeed to fly across quite a wide highway at above vehicle height and (as also suggested by the news pictures) hit the upper part of the TAM building? Strongly suggests that it still had some power on, and/or that a 'go around' was being attempted?
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17097
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Wed Jul 18, 2007 10:29 pm

Quoting Timmytour (Reply 10):
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 1):
May I say that we owe it to the dead not to draw hasty conclusions.

I am very sorry for the families of those bereaved, but to say "we owe" anything to the dead is pretty nonsensical in my book. This is a forum that talks about aviation. We're not the official investigators nor (ought we to be) the official source of anyone who might want some information regarding the loss that is pertinent to the relative of the deceased.

If anyone wants to speculate away I say let them. Their credibility might well come into question but I can't see how it shows any disrespect to the dead, nor why anyone should see it that way. I can't for the life of me see how anyone prepared to at least discuss what might have happened and the reasons for it can be said to show any less respect for the dead then the huge majority of the population at large who will hear the news but then not give it a second thought.

I explicitly said that we SHOULD speculate, as long as we note it as such.

And I will add that "we" also owe it to the living who might be getting on a plane at this or other airports to figure out what happened without coming to hasty conclusions not based on fact. It also muddles the discussion.

Quoting EZEIZA (Reply 7):
I disgree (sort of). It is pretty much established that the airport has problems. What is disrespectul is to say that those problems are what caused the crash.

Agreed. Although we may speculate, making declarative statements is unwise.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11002
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Wed Jul 18, 2007 10:32 pm

What seems odd to me about this accident is the airplane's speed when it left the runway. Even with a 6165' LDA, the speed of the aircraft should have slowed significantly. But, here it seems the A-320 still had a significant amount of speed when it left the runway. The DFDR and DCVR should give good evidence here.

Is 35L an asphalt or concrete runway?
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Wed Jul 18, 2007 10:38 pm

(Newly-laid) asphalt, KC135TopBoom. Our questions coincide somewhat, see #11 above.
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
srilankan_340
Posts: 202
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2002 11:42 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Wed Jul 18, 2007 10:41 pm

May the departed souls rest in peace. My thought are with their family and friends.

A very sad day for Brazilian aviation. It's also a sad day and a big blow for TAM as they have also lost more of their excellent crew (due to repositioning crew on board) in this one tragedy.


l flew out to SDU with TAM from there only last month (14th June) and even then there were a lot of maintenance work being carried out on the runway and taxiway. It's really popular as it is so close to the city. I was visiting Serasa and was surprised as to how close the airport was to their offices!

Here's a link to a video from the cockpit of an A320 coming into land at CGH. You can see how built up the surrounding are is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZ77mPgJ_Sk
People are often unreasonable, illogical and self- centered: Forgive them anyway - Mother Theresa
 
Thorben
Posts: 2713
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 10:29 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Wed Jul 18, 2007 10:44 pm

What a black day for aviation. I'm really sad.




From what I read the runway was missing small gouges where the water can flow away. Other planes had trouble, too. And why is there a gas station right after the end of the runway? What kind of construction laws do they have there? That is just silliness, and it just costed the lives of 200 people.  Angry
France 1789; Eastern Germany 1989; Tunisia 2011; Egypt 2011
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17097
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Wed Jul 18, 2007 10:45 pm

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 11):
One bit of information on our evening TV News that surprised me. They had an interview with a lady who was in a cab on the highway, who said that one of the aircraft's wheels 'clipped' the cab roof.

Apart from thinking how lucky she and the cab driver were, it occurred to me that the aeroplane must still have been airborne as it crossed the highway. The lack of any evidence of wrecked vehicles in the TV newscasts and other pictures rather confirms that impression.

Even allowing for the drop at the airport boundary, how could the aircraft have been braking all the way along the runway, with engines idling and spoilers out, and still have enough airspeed to fly across quite a wide highway at above vehicle height and (as also suggested by the news pictures) hit the upper part of the TAM building? Strongly suggests that it still had some power on, and/or that a 'go around' was being attempted?

Interesting indeed.

< speculation >
If we assume that the aircraft had enough lift to more or less clear the highway it must have been moving at north of 100 knots. Not the speed you want to be at that far down the runway unless you are going around.

Also, no matter how little traction, the aircraft would still have been able to brake quite a bit with spoilers and reversers, unless these were all malfunctioning. Did the aircraft touch down too late?

In cars and aircraft, indecision will kill you. That's why they call it "decision height" for example. You need to make a decision and stick to it unless there is a very good reason.

I predict that this accident will affect how we think of short runways and decision making in the approach/landing phase.
< /speculation >
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
by188b
Posts: 549
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 10:46 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Wed Jul 18, 2007 10:47 pm

it is indeed odd the speed of the aircraft when it left the runway. There have been a few incidents involving the failure of the A320 family braking system. One was a leisure international A320 in Ibiza 1998 which overran the runway and the other notable one was a recent incident involving a Alitalia A321 in Naples where the aircraft landed and couldnt stop and had to do a 180 degree turn whilst landing fast.
next flights : BD LHR-TXL J, FR SXF-STN Y, SN BRU-LHR Y, MA LHR-BUD Y, BA BUD-LHR J, BA LCY-SNN-JFK J, BA JFK-LHR J, BA
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Wed Jul 18, 2007 10:47 pm

Link to interview re the 'clipped cab' below (top item):-

http://www.abc.net.au/news/world/default.htm
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
barney captain
Posts: 1409
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2001 5:47 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Wed Jul 18, 2007 10:47 pm

Quoting WildcatYXU (Reply 6):
How much time after touchdown the PIC has to find out that the brake action is insufficient and call/initiate a go around?

As part of our training, go arounds are now practiced in the sim up to the point of T/R deployment. Once you deploy the thrust reverser's, you're committed. Up until that point, a go around for conditions such as braking action less than reported / vehicle on on the runway etc is a fairly straight forward procedure.

My sincerest condolences to those affected by this tragedy.
Southeast Of Disorder
 
FlySSC
Posts: 5183
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2003 1:38 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Wed Jul 18, 2007 10:51 pm

Quoting RobertS975 (Reply 4):
This type of over-run accident is reasonably common, although the results are usually far more lucky for the pax and crew:

AF A340 at YYZ
WN at MDW (one fatality in a hit car)
WN at BUR
The Indonesian 737 recently (fatalities in post-crash fire

Lufthansa A320 D-AIPN in WAW (Sept.1993)
Qantas B744 VH-OJA in BKK (Sept. 1999)
Air France B732 F-GBYA in BIQ (Mar.1999)
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17097
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Wed Jul 18, 2007 10:54 pm

Quoting Barney Captain (Reply 20):

As part of our training, go arounds are now practiced in the sim up to the point of T/R deployment. Once you deploy the thrust reverser's, you're committed. Up until that point, a go around for conditions such as braking action less than reported / vehicle on on the runway etc is a fairly straight forward procedure.

Wow. Could you do us a favor and list the decision criteria for initiating a "late go around"?
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
LipeGIG
Posts: 5050
Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 7:33 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Wed Jul 18, 2007 10:56 pm

I'm still trying to reach JJMNGR...

Quoting RobertS975 (Reply 4):
This type of over-run accident is reasonably common, although the results are usually far more lucky for the pax and crew:

When talking about CGH, without space after runway, lucky is something hard to find out.

Quoting BNE" class=quote target=_blank>BNE (Thread starter):
TAM Express flight 3054

BNE, it's just TAM 3054. Express is only the name of their fast-cargo service.


Felipe
New York + Rio de Janeiro = One of the best combinations !
 
RobertS975
Posts: 758
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 2:17 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Wed Jul 18, 2007 10:58 pm

Recall the AA ERJ that actually scaped its aluminum butt on a BOS runway when they realized no landing gear, and actually succeeded in a GA. Later manually lowered the hear and landed without much incident.
 
miamiair
Posts: 4249
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 9:42 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Wed Jul 18, 2007 10:59 pm

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 22):
Wow. Could you do us a favor and list the decision criteria for initiating a "late go around"?

Like a runway incusrion???
Molon Labe - Proud member of SMASH
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17097
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Wed Jul 18, 2007 11:02 pm

Quoting LipeGIG (Reply 23):
When talking about CGH, without space after runway, lucky is something hard to find out.

Sure. But there are well established procedures for landing on any size runway. These procedures do leave plenty of margin for error. For example, if you "need" 1500m to stop as per "the book" in conditions x, the aircraft is actually able to stop in less than 1000m. Quite a large safety factor.

In this case there are no overrun areas, but it is never assumed that the aircraft should use 100% of the runway. With absolutely max braking, the aircraft will in theory use much less. This of course assume that the pilot plonks her down in the touchdown zone.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
scouseflyer
Posts: 2165
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2006 7:02 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Wed Jul 18, 2007 11:11 pm

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 26):
This of course assume that the pilot plonks her down in the touchdown zone.

Wasn't that the problem with the AF A343?
 
FlySSC
Posts: 5183
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2003 1:38 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Wed Jul 18, 2007 11:15 pm

Quoting LipeGIG (Reply 23):
When talking about CGH, without space after runway, lucky is something hard to find out.

Correct.
Hence the polemic between many Pilots Unions/aasociations and Aiports/Aviation Authorities after the AF A340 accident in Toronto 2 years ago, when they declared YYZ "unsafe" because of the gully at the end of the runway where F-GLZQ finished its "landing".

A lot of Pilots Unions have been requesting for years now, that ends of Runways should be equipped with "protection"areas to avoid that a "simple" overrun turns into a such terrible tragedy
 
Mir
Posts: 19093
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Wed Jul 18, 2007 11:16 pm

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 8):
Mir or others can clarify but deciding to go around after you have started braking is not a decision to be taken lightly.

I remember several threads in Tech/Ops where it was stated that once the reversers are deployed, that's it, since they takes a while to get the engine out of reverse and up to go around power. I say a while - it's probably about eight or ten seconds, but you can eat up a lot of runway in that time when you're going 110-130kts. Go arounds that are initiated after touchdown are extremely rare in airliners, and for good reason: the transition from rolling to flying (and vice versa) is one of the most dangerous parts of a flight - why would you want to turn one landing into a landing, a takeoff, and then another landing once you've gone around and come back to the airport?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 13):
What seems odd to me about this accident is the airplane's speed when it left the runway. Even with a 6165' LDA, the speed of the aircraft should have slowed significantly. But, here it seems the A-320 still had a significant amount of speed when it left the runway.

I can see two possible reasons for this. First, the pilot did try to go around, but didn't have the runway to do it in. In light airplanes, one of the philosophies for dealing with engine failures right after takeoff (and one that I subscribe to) is that even if there is insufficient runway remaining to land the plane and stop it, it's better to put the plane down on that runway, brake as hard as you can, and accept the fact that you'll roll off the end and into whatever lies beyond, but that you'll do it fairly slowly and under control, as opposed to taking your chances with your gliding distance and running the risk of a low altitude stall (those rarely end well). An airliner on a runway with insufficient stopping distance presents a similar situation - either stay on the ground and roll off the end, or try and get the airplane back into the air, likely at a speed below what a normal takeoff would be. If the pilot had not tried to go around and simply hit the brakes for all they were worth and accepted a slow overrun, might we be talking about a less severe accident? Perhaps. Or perhaps not - the airport is very enclosed by development, and it's likely that any sort of overrun would take it into the buildings. We'll never know for sure. In terms of minimizing the damage from overruns, however, EMAS systems are very good at stopping airplanes quickly, and I wonder if CGH has them. If it doesn't, it should.

The second possibility, one which would completely throw out everything I just mentioned, is that there simply was no traction to slow the airplane down. Somehow I think this is more likely, since from the animations I saw, the plane didn't go off the end of the runway, it went off the side (so even if there was an EMAS it wouldn't have done anything), which would seem to indicate some sort of skid.

All that is of course speculation - if the black boxes are intact, it should be fairly easy for the investigators to put together what went wrong.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
miamiair
Posts: 4249
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 9:42 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Wed Jul 18, 2007 11:16 pm

There are too many things that contribute to this accident and it is too early to point fingers.

Here's a couple of things I thought of:
---Was there wind shear reported? Maybe the aircraft was was carrying a margin over V-ref?
--Was the aircraft on a stabilized approach?
--Did the aircraft touchdown in the proper area?
--Did the aircraft touchdown at an acceptable speed?
--Did the spoilers deploy properly?
--Was AUTO BRAKES selected?
--If so, did they operate properly?
--Was there standing water on the runway?


Hydroplaning is a terrific hazard, as it does not provide traction and the standing water provides drag, that can become an issue if a late go-around was initiated after touchdown and spoiler deployment.
Molon Labe - Proud member of SMASH
 
D L X
Posts: 11655
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Wed Jul 18, 2007 11:17 pm

From the other thread, I read someone say that the Tower confirmed that the plane landed on the correct portion of the runway. From another news source (AP), I read that planes have to land in the first 1000' of the runway, or go around.

To me, that would exacerbate the situation because the pilot would have to confirm that they touched down in the right place before applying brakes. (Because, once you apply brakes, you're not going around.) If that's the case, doesn't that *lower* the margin of error, not raise it at this airport?

And why is it that 6363' is so short in Brazil, but works fine at DCA?

http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e199/D_L_X/DCA%20Vortex/DSC_4127.jpg

Yes, that is short final -- look at the wind sock. This plane landed without incident.

[Edited 2007-07-18 16:19:15]

[Edited 2007-07-18 16:21:37]
 
2travel2know
Posts: 2236
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 7:05 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Wed Jul 18, 2007 11:18 pm

Had that gas station not been there, would some passengers had survived the crash?
Everytime I'm in Sâo Paulo and have to drive pass by that area at least twice per day, I often wonder why CGH operations aren't as restricted as SDU.
I don't work for COPA Airlines!
 
EDICHC
Posts: 1545
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 9:38 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Wed Jul 18, 2007 11:20 pm

Quoting FlySSC (Reply 21):
This type of over-run accident is reasonably common, although the results are usually far more lucky for the pax and crew:

AF A340 at YYZ
WN at MDW (one fatality in a hit car)
WN at BUR
The Indonesian 737 recently (fatalities in post-crash fire

Lufthansa A320 D-AIPN in WAW (Sept.1993)
Qantas B744 VH-OJA in BKK (Sept. 1999)
Air France B732 F-GBYA in BIQ (Mar.1999)

PR A320 at Bacolod
A300/319/320/346 ATR72 B722/732/3/4/5/6/8/742/4/752/762/3/772/3 BAC111 BAe146 C172 DHC1/6/8 HS121 MD80 PA28
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17097
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Wed Jul 18, 2007 11:23 pm

Quoting D L X (Reply 31):
And why is it that 6363' is so short in Brazil, but works fine at DCA?

Indeed. Shorter runway -> more restrictive decision making criteria. It's a simple process that works fine all over the world.

The short runway is of course a factor, but it's not a danger in and of itself.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
aaexp
Posts: 56
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2005 5:36 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Wed Jul 18, 2007 11:29 pm

Oglobo is just reporting, citing sources that have had access to the video of the runway at the time of touch-down, that the plane touched down at the right point, but then an unexplained acceleration occoured. Normally it would take 16 seconds for a landing plan to exit the camera angle, in this case it to 3 seconds! The same sources did say that it looks like the plane tried to brake, indicating that there was a lot of "foam" around the planes' tires.

I am absolutely not an aviation expert, but this could indicate that the pilot tried to take off again. But then what about the "foam" indicating a braking attempt?
 
Mir
Posts: 19093
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Wed Jul 18, 2007 11:33 pm

Quoting D L X (Reply 31):
From another news source (AP), I read that planes have to land in the first 1000' of the runway, or go around.

I would doubt that, since the touchdown zone markings are 1,000 feet from the threshold, and that's what the pilots aim for (some land shorter, some land longer). It may be the first third of the runway that they have to touch down in.

Quoting D L X (Reply 31):
(Because, once you apply brakes, you're not going around.)

As BarneyCaptain mentioned, braking is not a commitment to staying on the ground - they can be released very quickly. Same thing with speedbrakes.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
mandala499
Posts: 6458
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Wed Jul 18, 2007 11:34 pm

Quoting D L X (Reply 31):
And why is it that 6363' is so short in Brazil, but works fine at DCA?

Err... 2500-2600ft of airport elevation??? U want short for a 737, go to Santos Dumont.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 11):
Apart from thinking how lucky she and the cab driver were, it occurred to me that the aeroplane must still have been airborne as it crossed the highway. The lack of any evidence of wrecked vehicles in the TV newscasts and other pictures rather confirms that impression.



Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 17):
< speculation >
If we assume that the aircraft had enough lift to more or less clear the highway it must have been moving at north of 100 knots. Not the speed you want to be at that far down the runway unless you are going around.

Also, no matter how little traction, the aircraft would still have been able to brake quite a bit with spoilers and reversers, unless these were all malfunctioning. Did the aircraft touch down too late?

OK, in the previous topic, it was reported that the aircraft touched down within the TDZ...

and...

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Zaza - Contato Radar



you do not need 100kts to clear the road... it's a good 50ft drop from that taxiway to the crash site! Run your motorbike off the taxiway at 90km/h (50kts) with homemade wings is enough to throw you into the gas station!

Quoting Miamiair (Reply 30):
Here's a couple of things I thought of:
---Was there wind shear reported? Maybe the aircraft was was carrying a margin over V-ref?
--Was the aircraft on a stabilized approach?
--Did the aircraft touchdown in the proper area?
--Did the aircraft touchdown at an acceptable speed?
--Did the spoilers deploy properly?
--Was AUTO BRAKES selected?
--If so, did they operate properly?
--Was there standing water on the runway?

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

Although possible, I would think that aquaplaning is very likely. I gotto check the books, but a lack of wheelspin would have created havoc on Congonhas given the length... and whether the bus need the squat switch & the wheelspin to be detected before allowing reversers and/or spoilers and/or autobrakes....

Not much is known for now...

Mandala499
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
md80fanatic
Posts: 2365
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 11:29 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Wed Jul 18, 2007 11:34 pm

From the A320 landing video in reply 15, it appears the plane took the last right exit....even on dry pavement. Final approach speed seemed to be awfully fast too.
 
mrocktor
Posts: 1390
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 12:57 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Wed Jul 18, 2007 11:35 pm

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 11):
Apart from thinking how lucky she and the cab driver were, it occurred to me that the aeroplane must still have been airborne as it crossed the highway.

Not necessarily. The runway is a good 50-100ft above street level.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 17):
f we assume that the aircraft had enough lift to more or less clear the highway it must have been moving at north of 100 knots. Not the speed you want to be at that far down the runway unless you are going around.

Reportedly they did try to go around (re-take off describes it better), which would have them at high speed. 100kt is probably a bit high, but they were fast enough to shoot off the "cliff" at the end of the runway and clear the avenue. They also apparently intentionally veered off from the centerline, which is NOT consistent with an attempt to become airborne. At this point, I'm not sure what actually happened after they discovered they had insufficient braking effectiveness.

If they had any real lift, they would have fallen on buildings, not crashed into the side of the first building in their path.

[Edited 2007-07-18 16:37:37]
 
User avatar
chrisnh
Posts: 3351
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 1999 3:59 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Wed Jul 18, 2007 11:36 pm

I know we all love to laugh at the media when it comes to aviation, but The Drudge Report is saying that 195 (!!!) were aboard that A320. That can't be true, can it?

Chris in NH
 
egnr
Posts: 408
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2004 8:31 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Wed Jul 18, 2007 11:37 pm

Firstly, my condolences to all of those affected by this tragic event.

Secondly, all of the talk regarding the reported lack of grooves in the runway surface reminds me of the situation with BRS airport early in 2007. The runway was in the process fo being re-surfaced during the evenings, but operational during the day. A number of airlines (EZY, EIN, XLA, TOM and BAW) cancelled their operations into BRS citing the poor braking action available on the new surface becasue the grooves had not yet been cut. BBC news story about BRS

"Easyjet spokesman Toby Nicol said safety was the company's first priority: "The airport has been laying a new runway and what they have not had a chance to do is cut grooves into the surface.

"We have found that this is having an effect on braking distances on the runway in wet weather."


One airline pilot reported: ""I've landed in wet weather, put the brakes on and come to the bit that is being re-surfaced, and just skated across it - we actually speeded up. When it is wet, you have no grip."

There are a number of follow up stories about BRS linked from the BBC link in this post, including this one where they talk of grooves being cut into the 'temporary runway surface' in January, despite the re-surfacing work being scheduled to run into March.
7late7, A3latey, Sukhoi Superlate... what's going on?
 
spacecadet
Posts: 2793
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2001 3:36 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Wed Jul 18, 2007 11:38 pm

Quoting 2travel2know (Reply 32):
Had that gas station not been there, would some passengers had survived the crash?

One official was quoted in the NY Times as saying the plane didn't actually hit the gas station head-on or the accident would have been even worse. So I would say no, the gas station probably had nothing to do with it.

(That said, yesterday I almost wrote "how long until the Brazilian authorities place blame on the gas station for being in the way?" but then I thought better of it.)

Another official (or maybe the same one) was quoted as saying the pilots did try to take off again. So that appears to be their working theory, anyway, and would explain the excessive speed.

Actually, here's a link to the article, the quotes are at the end: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/18/wo...nd-brazil.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17097
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Wed Jul 18, 2007 11:39 pm

Quoting Mandala499 (Reply 37):
you do not need 100kts to clear the road... it's a good 50ft drop from that taxiway to the crash site! Run your motorbike off the taxiway at 90km/h (50kts) with homemade wings is enough to throw you into the gas station!

Good point. But I'd rather do it in the Volvo. It has airbags.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
D L X
Posts: 11655
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Wed Jul 18, 2007 11:39 pm

Quoting Mandala499 (Reply 37):
Err... 2500-2600ft of airport elevation???

Interesting. What effect does elevation have on landings? Is a 6300' runway near sea level (DCA) different than a 6300' runway at 6000' in elevation?

Quoting Mandala499 (Reply 37):
it's a good 50ft drop from that taxiway to the crash site!

Also interesting. Do you think the airplane may have been in the air when it hit the building, or did it slide on the ground into the building?
 
aaexp
Posts: 56
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2005 5:36 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Wed Jul 18, 2007 11:43 pm

This is a good time to remember the Brazilian Tourism minister, Martha Suplicy's infamous words to the passengers about the Brazilian aviation crisis: "relaxa e goza"

It translates into something like, relax and enjoy! What a jerk....
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Wed Jul 18, 2007 11:44 pm

Quoting AAEXP (Reply 35):
the plane touched down at the right point, but then an unexplained acceleration occoured. Normally it would take 16 seconds for a landing plan to exit the camera angle, in this case it to 3 seconds! The same sources did say that it looks like the plane tried to brake, indicating that there was a lot of "foam" around the planes' tires.

Thanks, AAEXP, interesting again.

Any jet pilots, what is the actual procedure for applying reverse thrust? I would presume that you select it, and then push the throttle levers forward? COULD it happen that the selection was bungled, or alternatively that the reversers just didn't deploy in this case, and that therefore the result was (unwanted) forward thrust instead?
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
cedars747
Posts: 2584
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 8:04 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Wed Jul 18, 2007 11:46 pm

I would like to extend my deepest and sincerest condolences to everyone affected with this tragedy


Alex!!!
Tengo una pasion por la aviacion !لدي شغف للطيران !I have a passion for aviation !Jeg har en lidenskap for luftfart!j'ai
 
aaexp
Posts: 56
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2005 5:36 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Wed Jul 18, 2007 11:47 pm

TAM now confirms that there were 186 people on board.
 
PPVRA
Posts: 7878
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Wed Jul 18, 2007 11:49 pm

For those wondering how high CGH's runway is at that end, check out www.folha.com.br . They keep changing the pics on their main page, but the current one has a good point of view.
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7