Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Wed Jul 18, 2007 11:52 pm

Quoting D L X (Reply 44):
Interesting. What effect does elevation have on landings?

Has a lot of effect on a prop - you can't use 'mixture full rich,' you'd lose a lot of engine power. Don't suppose that applies to jets, though.
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
avianca707359b
Posts: 162
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2005 10:59 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Wed Jul 18, 2007 11:52 pm

My condolences to the families and friends of the victims, as well as to the Brazilian people who are all facing a terrible tragedy. May the victims themselves rest in peace.

Through my many travels, I have flown in and out of Congonhas on several occasions (in the 80's and 90's) and each time I found the approach or departure to be stunning events, and this from someone who grew up spiralling in and out of Olaya Herrera (Medellin) in Boeing 707's.

I was looking through the database trying to stir up some memories of aircraft I might have seen during those times, and I found these:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Vito Cedrini
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © André Duailibi



Cam you imagine A-300's there today?
In Memory of HK-1402 "Sucre" & HK-1410 "Bolivar"
 
hiflyer
Posts: 1274
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2004 1:38 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Wed Jul 18, 2007 11:52 pm

In another forum it has been discussed that the same aircraft had a deferral for #2 reverser inop the day before but it was unknown if still in effect.

Souls onboard has climbed from 168+6crew to 162 pax-18NRSA-6 crew. If 186 is the number then would this aircraft be near max LGW with even minimum baggage onboard? UAL and JetBlue operated the aircraft at 156 with B6 now decreasing to 150 for various reasons including crew cost saving, increased legroom, and less weight for better range performance. Now the TAM website says that their A320 fleet is config for 168 seats....utilizing both cockpit jumpseats could get you to 176 total onboard....10 less than what is now being reported.

http://www.tam.com.br/b2c/html/cadastroEsquema_A320.htm
 
EDICHC
Posts: 1545
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 9:38 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Wed Jul 18, 2007 11:53 pm

In all honesty from the excellent picture of the crash site in part one of this thread, I would have thought if the crew had attmpted to take off again, they would have impacted a good deal further away from the end of the runway. Recovery of the FDR should confirm this, but this appears like a tragic but straight forward over-run.

Quoting EGNR (Reply 41):
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.

Quite! I think easyJet was unfairly criticised at the time.


RIP to all the lost souls.
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
 
FlySSC
Posts: 5334
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2003 1:38 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Wed Jul 18, 2007 11:55 pm

Quoting ChrisNH (Reply 40):
The Drudge Report is saying that 195 (!!!) were aboard that A320.

 no 

Maximum number of seats allowed in an A320 = 180 (I believe TAM has 165 seats in its A320)
 
User avatar
s.p.a.s.
Posts: 944
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2001 2:04 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Wed Jul 18, 2007 11:57 pm

Mandala499

Just a small insight. I work at CGH and my office has a vantage view over the 35L/35R thresholds. While I wasn't at the airport at the crash time, since Monday we had this -RA/RA condition and runway 35L, newly surfaced, has no grooving made on it yet, so, one can assume that, despite a light rain condition, the water was not being drained properly.

What I can tell you from what I saw this last days is:
- All landing traffic on 35L was landing way earlier than normal, this was very noticeable judging by the THR crossing height, so to maximize the runway available for stopping.

- The intensity of the water spray during take-off and landing, due the engine blast, was HUGE

- Many pilots (and this was even made public by the press) were reporting to the tower that the runway was very slippery, one if them I heard myself ("errr tower, this is xxx-xxxx please note that this landing was a difficult one and the runway gave us a lot of work here, very slippery indeed")

- After the Pantanal ATR42 went off-road (this time I was working and listening to the TWR) he reported "We are all fine, we just aqua-planned and lost the runway axis, we had no control whatsoever"

I don't want to point fingers at this stage, but the runway's condition must have played a big part on this tragedy, and I would not be surprised if both the A320 and ATR42 events are somehow linked.

Sad event all in all... may all RIP

Salz
"ad astra per aspera"
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 20089
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Wed Jul 18, 2007 11:57 pm

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 46):

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?

Bungling is always possible. However, you never move the levers forward for reverse. They are always moved back, presumably to make the whole thing more intuitive.

On Boeings: Use the reverse levers mounted on the "main" thrust levers and move these back. The reverse levers are the smaller ones "on top" of the main levers:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Daniel Wojdylo



On FBW Airbi: Move the thrust levers back beyond the idle detent.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ismael Jorda

"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
Timmytour
Posts: 79
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 8:52 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Wed Jul 18, 2007 11:58 pm

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 12):
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.

I said "speculate away" when I meant to really say that if "anyone wants to draw hasty conclusions..."

Speculation is, as you said fine and healthy. But what I meant to convey is that even those who decide to reach premature conclusions do not show disrepect to anyone in my book. Sure their own credibility may come into question, but you've got to be careful not to confuse such people with those who actually do show disrespect to the dead. We need to keep a sense of proportion here. This is a discussion forum, not the official inquiry. Pompous statements trying to confer upon it a sense of gravitas way beyond what it actually represents look ridiculous in my opinion.
 
LipeGIG
Posts: 5063
Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 7:33 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Wed Jul 18, 2007 11:59 pm

There's an Austrian citizen on the victims list. All others are Brazilians from POA, SAO, RIO, VIX, SSA, NAT, BVB and others.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 26):
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.

Right, but the problem is just when something goes wrong.

And something from IFALPA:

"
IFALPA says that Sao Paulo overrun once again underlines the need for RESAs that meet ICAO’s minimum recommendation

Yesterday’s tragic accident at Sao Paulo Congonhas Airport (SBSP) demonstrates once again the need for Runway End Safety Areas (RESA) to be established at airports with airline operations. The International Federation of Airline Pilots’ Associations (IFALPA) has been warning of the dangers of insufficient runway overrun areas for more than 20 years, arguing that runways at airports with airline operations should have, as a minimum, a RESA 240 metres long by at least twice the runway width delivering a total safety area of 300m to allow for overruns and also ease access for rescue and fire fighting equipment. When the surroundings of Congonhas Airport are taken into consideration it is clear that what is required is an enhanced RESA rather than one which is only marginally compliant with ICAO standards at best.

At some airports, Congonhas Airport being a prime example, the restrictions of the airport’s surrounding topography will not allow a sufficient RESA. In this event, IFALPA argues that an arrestor bed such as an engineered materials arrester system (EMAS) be installed to provide a similar or better level of safety to a 300m safety area. At airports where they have been installed EMAS have proven that they provide an effective means of bringing an overrunning aircraft to a halt. Clearly this would significantly improve passenger and crew safety.

The Federation would like to stress that it would be an error to focus on Brazil as being in any way alone in failing to meet with ICAO recommendations for RESAs. This is a world wide problem with thousands of runways used in airline operations failing to comply with the recommendations set out in ICAO Annex 14 which sets out standards and recommendations for airports. Since the one of the most common types of accident in airline operations is the runway excursion event, with an average of just under four a month (indeed there have been three such events in the last week alone), it is of vital importance that either 240m RESAs are established or EMAS alternatives that deliver a similar level safety are installed.

Naturally, IFALPA does not comment on individual accidents while the investigation into their cause is underway. As such, IFALPA will not comment on the specifics of this accident other than to offer its condolences to the families of those who lost their lives in the accident and its sympathy and wishes for a speedy recovery to those injured in the accident.
"
Felipe
New York + Rio de Janeiro = One of the best combinations !
 
digao
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 10:11 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:00 am

I heard yesterday at CBN radio here in São Paulo the testimonial of an eyewitness that was passing by the freeway. He said that the A320 flew over his car about 20 feet high and then crashed into the building hitting the ground with the tail section first.
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:00 am

Thanks for #56, Starlionblue, clears that point up.

[Edited 2007-07-18 17:03:15]
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
irelayer
Posts: 1128
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:34 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:01 am

My deepest condolences to the families of those who were killed. Such a tragedy. Although I have never been to CGH (or Brazil), I do fly in and out of SAN quite a bit, so I understand the short runway in a built-up area scenario (first timers are always surprised to see close skyscrapers on approach) and that the approach into CGH must be equally harrowing. And yes, why was there a gas station right at the end of the runway? I remember when WN overran BUR (was it WN?) that one time they closed the gas station that was across the street (am I remembering correctly?).

-IR
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 20089
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:01 am

Quoting Timmytour (Reply 57):
Speculation is, as you said fine and healthy. But what I meant to convey is that even those who decide to reach premature conclusions do not show disrepect to anyone in my book. Sure their own credibility may come into question, but you've got to be careful not to confuse such people with those who actually do show disrespect to the dead. We need to keep a sense of proportion here. This is a discussion forum, not the official inquiry. Pompous statements trying to confer upon it a sense of gravitas way beyond what it actually represents look ridiculous in my opinion.

Fair and well argued. I think we more or less agree actually. We just come at the discussion from different angles.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
digao
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 10:11 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:07 am

Quoting FlySSC (Reply 54):
Maximum number of seats allowed in an A320 = 180 (I believe TAM has 165 seats in its A320)

TAM has increased the number of rows last year for A320s. I think they have both configuration: 168 seats (28 rows) and 180 seats (30 rows).

Rodrigo
 
FMAL
Posts: 469
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2004 9:16 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:10 am

Listening to the radio on my way to work today (stuck on a traffic jam for 1:30 hrs on a usually 30 min. drive), authorities were saying that the pilot had touched down further away on the rwy...I immediately thought to myself "here they go, starting to put blame on everybody else but themselves".

Of course its still to early to assume anything, but my opinion is that the accident happened mainly due to the negligence of INFRAERO, who chose not to worsen the political factor of delays and the chaos that has taken over Brazilian domestic aviation in detriment of the overall safety of operations at CGH. Its too much coincidence to have, on the very first day of rains in SP since the reopening of the rwy, a ATR sliding off the runway and then the tragedy.....

Let's just hope something changes in this country, at least after this.
 
dellatorre
Posts: 865
Joined: Sat May 13, 2000 2:50 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:11 am

Two things to consider:

Should the pilot try not to take off again, and simply land regardless of how much runway he had left, probably the aircraft would still go through airport perimeter, but at much slower speed.
Also, if the same pilot did not make a left turn, the plane would fall strait ahead, in a area that has less buildings, which could prevent an imediate collision like the one that happened.

From what the factors are being told, the pilot could not have had the best "reaction" towards the inevitable crash, lowering the chance of anyone coming off alive.

What are the common precedures that should a pilot take in these kinds of situations??
 
mrocktor
Posts: 1391
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 12:57 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:13 am

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 49):
the current one has a good point of view

This is the image from Folha:
 
Arrow
Posts: 2325
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2002 7:44 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:15 am

Quoting Mir (Reply 29):
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.

Many years ago (and my fuzzy memory might be off) a Pacific Western Airlines 737-200 tried to abort a landing on a snowy runway in Cranbrook, B.C. -- there was a snowplow on the runway. Pilot initiated go-round after thrust reversers were deployed. He might have made it, but as he was climbing out, he selected gear-up. That bled hydraulic power away from the thrust reverser buckets, and the left bucket was therefore not fully stowed. It re-deployed from airflow, and created an assymetrical drag the pilot could not overcome. Can't remember how many people died, but there were a few survivors in the back of the plane.

I think that accident prompted significant changes in the "book" on go-rounds, in particular a proviso that once thrust reversers were deployed -- don't do it. I'm not sure if this applies just to that model of 737 (with the bucket reversers) or if it is a general rule now for all landings. Maybe a pilot can clear that up.

Very tragic accident in Brazil, but it does appear that the pilot was attempting a go-round, based on the superficial evidence out so far.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
 
FlySSC
Posts: 5334
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2003 1:38 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:15 am

Quoting Digao (Reply 63):
TAM has increased the number of rows last year for A320s. I think they have both configuration: 168 seats (28 rows) and 180 seats (30 rows).

The media report 186 persons on board the aircraft : 180 PAX + Crew of 6 ( 2 Pilots + 4 F/A).

In any case, 195 persons on board an A320 is not possible ... even on Easy Jet
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 20089
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:21 am

Quoting Dellatorre (Reply 65):

Should the pilot try not to take off again, and simply land regardless of how much runway he had left, probably the aircraft would still go through airport perimeter, but at much slower speed.
Also, if the same pilot did not make a left turn, the plane would fall strait ahead, in a area that has less buildings, which could prevent an imediate collision like the one that happened.

From what the factors are being told, the pilot could not have had the best "reaction" towards the inevitable crash, lowering the chance of anyone coming off alive.

What are the common precedures that should a pilot take in these kinds of situations??

Note that the below is mostly speculation and hypothetical reasoning.

An old pilot saying goes "Use your superior piloting skills to stay out of situations where you might need them." Applying this, and making some assumptions about what happened: If you are on the runway and there is no traction, you are way behind in the decision process. You should have decided not to land in the first place and thus not put the aircraft in a situation that might be difficult or impossible to recover from.

In other words, the "common procedure" is not to touch down at all. The pilot should be able to assume that it is safe to land. This of course assumes conditions are properly measured and reported. And that's another hornet's nest right there.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
User avatar
Buyantukhaa
Posts: 2328
Joined: Thu May 13, 2004 5:33 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:26 am

Quoting FlySSC (Reply 68):
Quoting Digao (Reply 63):
TAM has increased the number of rows last year for A320s. I think they have both configuration: 168 seats (28 rows) and 180 seats (30 rows).

The media report 186 persons on board the aircraft : 180 PAX + Crew of 6 ( 2 Pilots + 4 F/A).

In any case, 195 persons on board an A320 is not possible ... even on Easy Jet

Who mentioned 195? The officially released number is 186, which makes perfect sense. And is of course tragic, because the number of casualties onboard literally couldn't be higher...
I scratch my head, therefore I am.
 
hiflyer
Posts: 1274
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2004 1:38 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:28 am

Mrocktor thanks very much for that image from Folha....that daylight shot clearly shows the severe drop off at the end and left/right side of the runway as well as how much to the left of centerline the aircraft went. First impression is that an aircraft would not have to be traveling anywhere near V1 to follow the apparent trajectory of this flight and could very well have left the runway well under 100kts.

Diago...thanks for the update on configs....180 seats definitely pushes the aircraft much closer to max lgw regardless of fuel remaining.
 
irobertson
Posts: 409
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 11:35 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:32 am

Quoting Mir (Reply 29):
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.

That Youtube video of the TAM A320 landing in sunny daytime conditions shows that if, as the reports speculate, the plane landed within the right touchdown zone, even wet runway should have let it stop in time (though this curiosity about the grooves has me concerned). Surely there were other planes landing before this one and they didn't all go off the end. It sounds like there may have been a go-around initiated in order to coincide with the speed of the aircraft off the end of the runway.

What were the winds like? tail, cross, heavy, light? Could the plane have started lifting off again (from the sounds of it, it was if it "clipped a taxi") and caught a windshear?
 
incitatus
Posts: 3378
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 1:49 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:35 am

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 1):
Speculation is fine and healthy, as long as it is clearly labeled as speculation.

A lot of this forum is made of speculation. I rather consider the opposite: if not clearly labeled as reliable information with a source, then it may be speculation. In this case, many people have been following the state of affairs at CGH for years if not decades and I'd be paying attention to what they post even if no reasnable legal disclosures about their statements have been made.

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

Pavement, altitude, weather conditions, pilot training, surrounds.
I do not consume Murdoch products including the Wall Street Journal
 
FlySSC
Posts: 5334
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2003 1:38 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:40 am

Quoting BuyantUkhaa (Reply 70):
Who mentioned 195?

Answer :

Quoting ChrisNH (Reply 40):
The Drudge Report is saying that 195 (!!!) were aboard that A320. That can't be true, can it?
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:42 am

Quoting Dellatorre (Reply 65):
From what the factors are being told, the pilot could not have had the best "reaction" towards the inevitable crash

In fairness to the pilots, it should perhaps be pointed out that the normal landing speed of an airliner with gear and flaps down is about 160 statute miles per hour.The runway in this case, minus the threshold, is only about one mile long. Therefore the pilot(s) will likely have had no more than perhaps 25 seconds, from touchdown to crash, in which to identify any problems and decide on appropriate remedial action; indeed, far less time than that, given the time needed for any heavy aeroplane moving at that sort of speed to respond to any control inputs.

I think most of us on here, from time to time, tend to under-estimate the incredibly-high standards of skill, alertness, and powers of decision that we ask of airline pilots, every time we fly.
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
NIKV69
Posts: 13548
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 4:27 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:43 am

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 1):
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.

The airport is not unsafe, the way it is being used is. This is just like Midway in Chicago. If you just keep adding more and more flights and the pressure to get in and out on time these events are bound happen. Which we see proved over and over.

R.I.P.
I am the Googlizer!!!
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 20089
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:47 am

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 75):

In fairness to the pilots, it should perhaps be pointed out that the normal landing speed of an airliner with gear and flaps down is about 160 statute miles per hour.The runway in this case, minus the threshold, is only about one mile long. Therefore the pilot(s) will likely have had no more than perhaps 25 seconds, from touchdown to crash, in which to identify any problems and decide on appropriate remedial action; indeed, far less time than that, given the time needed for any heavy aeroplane moving at that sort of speed to respond to any control inputs.

Good point. To add to that calculation, we can assume perhaps 7-10 seconds for the engines to spool from reverse or idle to full forward thrust. So we're left with 15-18 seconds. Human "instinctive" decision times are perhaps 1-2 seconds. Down to 13-16. I am assuming the pilot flying had his hand on the thrust levers. And we also need to detract 2-3 seconds from touchdown to brake start. So 10-14 seconds left. Not a lot of time to do much of anything.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 75):
I think most of us on here, from time to time, tend to under-estimate the incredibly-high standards of skill, alertness, and powers of decision that we ask of airline pilots, every time we fly.

Very true.

I will speculate that information is key in this one. Information about current traction, that is. Landing on a 4000m runway in an RJ can be unsafe if you think the runway is dry while in reality there is pack ice and dancing penguins.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
aaexp
Posts: 61
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2005 5:36 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:48 am

TAM confirms 186 on board:

162 passengers
6 crew
18 company employees
 
mandala499
Posts: 6593
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:48 am

Quoting D L X (Reply 44):
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?

Your indicated approach speed on the Indicated AirSpeed is the same, but, this would result in a higher true airspeed at a higher altitude (less air as you go higher)... So, this results in... higher ground speed on approach... ie: longer to slow down...

Further effects are:
Engine performance limits (on the reversers or positive) are lower at a higher altitude... Hence, should your landing speed calculations go haywire and you decide to bung on the reversers to max, the max allowed reverse will be less than if you're at sea level.

Approach climb limits are affected too... but that's for a different discussions.

So, how limiting is the altitude factor?
Assume 6000ft runway, at sea level, 2000ft, 3000ft, 6000ft... dry runway...
for let's say a 733 at Flap40... the landing weight limits you got are:
Sea Level = 138.7klbs
1000 = 136.5klbs
2000 = 134.3klbs
3000 = 132.3klbs
4000 = 129.8klbs
5000 = 128.0klbs
6000 = 126.0klbs

So, you can also carry less into the airport if it's higher for a given lenfth.

Quoting D L X (Reply 44):
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?

Have a look at:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Renato Viani



It could have just simply been a fast run off the runway, onto the taxiway, and then... *sigh* No need for complicated accidents to make this happen.

Quoting S.p.a.s. (Reply 55):
- All landing traffic on 35L was landing way earlier than normal, this was very noticeable judging by the THR crossing height, so to maximize the runway available for stopping.
- The intensity of the water spray during take-off and landing, due the engine blast, was HUGE
- Many pilots (and this was even made public by the press) were reporting to the tower that the runway was very slippery, one if them I heard myself ("errr tower, this is xxx-xxxx please note that this landing was a difficult one and the runway gave us a lot of work here, very slippery indeed")
- After the Pantanal ATR42 went off-road (this time I was working and listening to the TWR) he reported "We are all fine, we just aqua-planned and lost the runway axis, we had no control whatsoever"

Well, is this the first time heavy rains have hit the resurfaced runway35L ?
A little skid/slip can make a lot of of difference on a "short" runway...
So, if the runway's current poor drainage is found to be the cause, I would not be surprised...

mandala499
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5635
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:51 am

Quoting FMAL (Reply 64):
Listening to the radio on my way to work today (stuck on a traffic jam for 1:30 hrs on a usually 30 min. drive), authorities were saying that the pilot had touched down further away on the rwy...I immediately thought to myself "here they go, starting to put blame on everybody else but themselves".

Unfortunately the ultimate responsibility for safe operation of any flight rests with the pilot, and therefore the blame if something goes wrong starts there. The pilot apparently was warned of slippery conditions, but human nature and job pressure being what they are must have assumed that he could still land safely. From what I have read on this thread it appears that a go-around once the plane actually touched down and thrust reversers were deployed would have been a chancy thing at best; whether or not they tried to do it is unclear at this point. Certainly a failed go-around would be far more disastrous than a simple overrun would be; from the pictures and descriptions it would be my guess that that is what happened. What makes no sense to me at all is why, if this report is correct, the pilot tried to turn left. Turning right looks like it would have been less disastrous; even going straight looks better. As to what should be done to prevent such disasters, I would certainly endorse "slowdown" patches at the end of runways that don't have sufficient overrun areas, and perhaps even on those that do. I don't believe they're all that expensive, and one life saved would make them worthwhile. Rather than point fingers let's all just do what we can to try and get these installed.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 20089
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:58 am

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 76):
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 1):
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.

The airport is not unsafe, the way it is being used is. This is just like Midway in Chicago. If you just keep adding more and more flights and the pressure to get in and out on time these events are bound happen. Which we see proved over and over.

Please don't quote me out of context. What I said has been totally distorted.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
C010T3
Posts: 1956
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2006 5:48 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:01 am

Quoting AAEXP (Reply 78):
TAM confirms 186 on board:

162 passengers
6 crew
18 company employees

It's been reported that at least three people died on the ground, including a man who was in his car parked in the gas station. There are many injured, most of them TAM Express employees.
 
addd
Posts: 83
Joined: Wed May 09, 2007 8:47 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:02 am

What about the Irkutsk scenario (see below)? Very similar conditions - wet runway, etc., and very similar outcome...

By the way, after that crash, there were persistent speculations that, in fact, it was not a pilot who "inadvertently touched the no.1 power lever, increasing engine thrust" but a software glitch that caused the engine go back to full thrust effectively pushing the aircraft off the end of the runway... any possibility that that was a factor at CGH?

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20060709-0

Status: Final
Date: 09 JUL 2006
Time: ca 07:50
Type: Airbus A.310-324
Operator: S7 Airlines
Registration: F-OGYP
C/n / msn: 442
First flight: 1987-04-03
Engines: 2 Pratt & Whitney PW4152
Crew: Fatalities: 5 / Occupants: 8
Passengers: Fatalities: 120 / Occupants: 195
Total: Fatalities: 125 / Occupants: 203
Airplane damage: Written off
Location: Irkutsk Airport (IKT) (Russia)
Phase: Landing
Nature: Domestic Scheduled Passenger
Departure airport: Moskva-Domodedovo Airport (DME/UUDD), Russia
Destination airport: Irkutsk Airport (IKT/UIII), Russia
Flightnumber: 778
Narrative:

Sibir flight 778 departed Domodeovo (DME) at night for a flight to Irkutsk (IKT). Weather at Irkutsk was poor. It was raining, overcast clouds at 600 feet and a thunderstorm in the area. The Airbus landed on runway 30 (concrete, 3165 m / 10343 feet long). Since the no.1 engine thrust reverser on the airplane was de-activated, this engine's thrust was brought back to idle. The no.2 engine thrust reversers were deployed normally. While handling the throttles, the pilot inadvertently touched the no.1 power lever, increasing engine thrust. The co-pilot did not adequately monitor the engine parameters and failed to note the lack of decelleration. At a speed of approx. 80 km/h the Airbus overran the runway. It collided with a concrete barrier and burst into flames.

Weather around the time of the accident (23:00 UTC / 08:00 local) was: UIII 082300Z 28005MPS 3500 -SHRA OVC006CB 11/09 Q1002 NOSIG RMK QBB190 QFE707/0943 30290250= (Wind 280 degrees at 5m/sec visibility 3500m, light rain showers, 8 oktas overcast cloud at 600ft with thunder clouds, temperature 11C dewpoint 9C, QNH 1002hPa no significant weather)
 
rfields5421
Posts: 6272
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:45 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:06 am

Departure off the runway centerline is very consistent with hydroplaning or significantly diminished traction due to wet runways.

Very seldom do aircraft or vehicles proceed completely straight when they hydroplane. Spins are very common in vehicles.

It only takes a few milliseconds more traction on one side of the aircraft than the other to turn it.

We don't know exactly what happened to one of our squadron A-3 Skywarriors which landed at Cubi Point in 1973 in a very heavy rain. They don't carry FDRs. All we know is that the pilot reported loss of directional control shortly after touchdown and the aircraft came to a stop on a parallel taxiway - with the drag chute draped over the nose.

Depending upon the amount of rain falling at the airport when this A320 went down - the pilots may not have even known they were off the centerline.

It does appear from the very limited/ almost non-existant factual information they were trying to go around.
Not all who wander are lost.
 
dellatorre
Posts: 865
Joined: Sat May 13, 2000 2:50 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:08 am

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 75):
In fairness to the pilots, it should perhaps be pointed out that the normal landing speed of an airliner with gear and flaps down is about 160 statute miles per hour.The runway in this case, minus the threshold, is only about one mile long. Therefore the pilot(s) will likely have had no more than perhaps 25 seconds, from touchdown to crash, in which to identify any problems and decide on appropriate remedial action; indeed, far less time than that, given the time needed for any heavy aeroplane moving at that sort of speed to respond to any control inputs.

I think most of us on here, from time to time, tend to under-estimate the incredibly-high standards of skill, alertness, and powers of decision that we ask of airline pilots, every time we fly.



Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 77):
Good point. To add to that calculation, we can assume perhaps 7-10 seconds for the engines to spool from reverse or idle to full forward thrust. So we're left with 15-18 seconds. Human "instinctive" decision times are perhaps 1-2 seconds. Down to 13-16. I am assuming the pilot flying had his hand on the thrust levers. And we also need to detract 2-3 seconds from touchdown to brake start. So 10-14 seconds left. Not a lot of time to do much of anything.



Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 77):
Very true.

I will speculate that information is key in this one. Information about current traction, that is. Landing on a 4000m runway in an RJ can be unsafe if you think the runway is dry while in reality there is pack ice and dancing penguins.

I'm not saying the pilot should be blamed or anything. I'm assuming that giving the critical situation, what led the pilot to "aim" the aircraft directly towards buildings that were not in the precise path of the runway, and not just go straight!

If the plane skid off and turned because off that is one thing, now turning due the pilots maneuver is another one completely different.

Nevertheless, the runway conditions point out to the sole cause of this accident.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 20089
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:19 am

Quoting Dellatorre (Reply 85):

Nevertheless, the runway conditions point out to the sole cause of this accident.

Eh. no. There is no way of knowing that. The runway may have been fine and the pilot slipped on the rudder pedal. There may have been something wrong with the aircraft. A meteor may have flown in through the windshield and killed the pilots. While the runway is a favorite right now, nothing factual tells us it is actually a cause of the accident.

It is very very rare for there only to be one cause for a serious airliner accident.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
Thorben
Posts: 2713
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 10:29 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:21 am

Here is a picture that shows the way it looks there. The aircraft must have gone downhill and picked up even more speed doing so.

http://www.planepictures.net/netshow.php?id=649737
France 1789; Eastern Germany 1989; Tunisia 2011; Egypt 2011
 
md94
Posts: 105
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 8:23 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:23 am

CNN is now reporting the pilot aborted the landing after overshooting the runway, so I guess he was trying to get it off the ground when it crashed, which explains why it was going so fast at impact.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americ...7/18/brazil.plane.crash/index.html
72?, 732/3/7/8/9, 763/4, 772/3, 744, 787, MD88/90, F100, 319/20/21, E145/135/175/195, CRJ200/700, B206, 152/72/8
 
FMAL
Posts: 469
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2004 9:16 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:26 am

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 80):
Unfortunately the ultimate responsibility for safe operation of any flight rests with the pilot, and therefore the blame if something goes wrong starts there. The pilot apparently was warned of slippery conditions, but human nature and job pressure being what they are must have assumed that he could still land safely. From what I have read on this thread it appears that a go-around once the plane actually touched down and thrust reversers were deployed would have been a chancy thing at best; whether or not they tried to do it is unclear at this point. Certainly a failed go-around would be far more disastrous than a simple overrun would be; from the pictures and descriptions it would be my guess that that is what happened. What makes no sense to me at all is why, if this report is correct, the pilot tried to turn left. Turning right looks like it would have been less disastrous; even going straight looks better. As to what should be done to prevent such disasters, I would certainly endorse "slowdown" patches at the end of runways that don't have sufficient overrun areas, and perhaps even on those that do. I don't believe they're all that expensive, and one life saved would make them worthwhile. Rather than point fingers let's all just do what we can to try and get these installed.

SEPilot, I fully agree with you.

Unfortunately, our country has many problems, and one is the proven fact that our authorities do not take the necessary actions to prevent such accidents as this one. This was announced, as this problem had occurred in the past, but still nothing changed.

Indeed its too early to point out the cause of the accident, it very well may be the bad conditions of the rwy as well as the human factor, the pilot deciding to land despite notice of wet rwy. But, one must also take into account that these problems have become a common thing in Brazilian aviation (from what my friends in the business tell me), and thus it might have been (on the pilot's mind) just another "cautious landing at CGH". Who knows?

I really hope that this is seriously investigated and, should such investigation point to INFRAERO to any extent, that those responsible really face Justice. Unfortunately, the overwhelming examples of all out impunity in this country point to, once again, nothing happening after this disaster....
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:29 am

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 86):
It is very very rare for there only to be one cause for a serious airliner accident.

Sadly, though, always provided that the pilots are dead, 'pilot error' usually turns out to be the most convenient 'primary cause' from the viewpoints of all the other agencies involved.

Including governments who run the airports; manufacturers who build the aeroplanes; airlines that make a living out of keeping airliners in the air; regulators who would risk unpopularity if they grounded too many types for urgent modifications; even pilots' associations who need to keep their members in the air and earning money.

I've learned, from scrutinising accident reports, largely to skip the first 'probable cause' ('pilot error') and look more closely at the long lists of 'contributing causes' and 'recommendations' that usually follow........
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
rabenschlag
Posts: 1027
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2000 10:28 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:32 am

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 80):
What makes no sense to me at all is why, if this report is correct, the pilot tried to turn left. Turning right looks like it would have been less disastrous; even going straight looks better.

A little skidding to the left resulting in one wheel on the presumably soft grass would ultimately cause a forceful left movement.
 
miamiair
Posts: 4249
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 9:42 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:37 am

Quoting Dellatorre (Reply 85):
Nevertheless, the runway conditions point out to the sole cause of this accident.

This statement is premature if it was the cause.

You are drawing your conclusion on what?
Molon Labe - Proud member of SMASH
 
DeC
Posts: 535
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2005 5:12 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:38 am

This video is very interesting. If i am not mistaken, where these people are standing should be at the level where the plane today crashed (only a bit more to their right). This a320 shown here in the video lands facing on the opposite direction to which the crashed a320 was facing when landing last night.



And this video here shows another landing on the same as above - opposite direction to the crashed plane. On the right , from 00.00 to 00.06, you can see the TAM building in which the a320 crashed.

DEC
 
rfields5421
Posts: 6272
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:45 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:39 am

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 90):
Including governments who run the airports; manufacturers who build the aeroplanes; airlines that make a living out of keeping airliners in the air; regulators who would risk unpopularity if they grounded too many types for urgent modifications; even pilots' associations who need to keep their members in the air and earning money.

I've learned, from scrutinising accident reports, largely to skip the first 'probable cause' ('pilot error') and look more closely at the long lists of 'contributing causes' and 'recommendations' that usually follow........

The system should work to avoid putting pilots into situations where there is no margin for error. Everyone makes mistakes. Most we recover from and continue one.

Instead the system works to push pilots as close to the limits as possible. It's no surprise disasters like this happen.

I fully expect to hear stories today about how many aircaft made successful landings with "no problems" right before this accident. The implication will be - if the other pilot got away with landing - these pilots should have been able to do so.

Of course the definition of "no problems" is one thing to a report / government or airport official - and completely different to a pilot.
Not all who wander are lost.
 
Kempa
Posts: 364
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2003 2:47 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:43 am

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 86):
I'm assuming that giving the critical situation, what led the pilot to "aim" the aircraft directly towards buildings that were not in the precise path of the runway, and not just go straight!

Buildings to the front and right of the runway are taller. There were reports that the pilot might have said "turn, turn" before the aircraft colided with the building. He might have tried to direct the plane toward the lower buildings on the left. I have stayed at a hotel about half a mile from the end of the runway where you can look down at the airport.
 
David L
Posts: 8551
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:55 am

Quoting Kempa (Reply 95):
There were reports that the pilot might have said "turn, turn" before the aircraft colided with the building. He might have tried to direct the plane toward the lower buildings on the left.

And maybe he meant to turn back on to the runway heading. We don't know.

Incidentally, Starlionblue didn't say what you quoted - you clicked the wrong "Quote selected text" button.  Smile
 
LAXspotter
Posts: 3227
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 4:16 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:57 am

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 34):
The short runway is of course a factor, but it's not a danger in and of itself.

Try telling that to the News outlets, sheesh, theyre all bent on just saying "Runway was dangerously short". I really hate speculating, but my feeling is that the pilot landed beyond the touchdown zone.
"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel" Samuel Johnson
 
cubastar
Posts: 314
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 11:48 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:58 am

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 80):
Unfortunately the ultimate responsibility for safe operation of any flight rests with the pilot, and therefore the blame if something goes wrong starts there. The pilot apparently was warned of slippery conditions, but human nature and job pressure being what they are must have assumed that he could still land safely. From what I have read on this thread it appears that a go-around once the plane actually touched down and thrust reversers were deployed would have been a chancy thing at best; whether or not they tried to do it is unclear at this point. Certainly a failed go-around would be far more disastrous than a simple overrun would be; from the pictures and descriptions it would be my guess that that is what happened. What makes no sense to me at all is why, if this report is correct, the pilot tried to turn left. Turning right looks like it would have been less disastrous; even going straight looks better. As to what should be done to prevent such disasters, I would certainly endorse "slowdown" patches at the end of runways that don't have sufficient overrun areas, and perhaps even on those that do. I don't believe they're all that expensive, and one life saved would make them worthwhile. Rather than point fingers let's all just do what we can to try and get these installed.

In my humble opinion......This is by far the best summation of a very tragic accident at this time. Listen to this man.

As to his turning to the left; perhaps a skid or skewing developed while trying to stop OR perhaps a skid or skewing developed while attempting a go around with one engine spooling up slower that the other, etc.
 
User avatar
Buyantukhaa
Posts: 2328
Joined: Thu May 13, 2004 5:33 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:58 am

I scratch my head, therefore I am.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos