Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 20651
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 2:02 am

Quoting Kempa (Reply 95):
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.



Quoting David L (Reply 96):
Incidentally, Starlionblue didn't say what you quoted - you clicked the wrong "Quote selected text" button.

Thanks David.

Quoting LAXspotter (Reply 97):
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.

There's news? Seriously the footage is pretty much all the useful stuff I can get out of them. As a friend of mine used to say: "Aftonbladet (Swedish tabloid) reports it was a woman and Expressen (competing tabloid) reports it was a man. I am assuming they are both wrong."
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5723
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 2:05 am

Quoting FMAL (Reply 89):
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....

This is unfortunate. I regard the safety record of airlines in the US and Europe as being one of the most amazing achievements of this century. It was accomplished by careful and largely non-political examination of crashes and careful and reasoned measures taken based on those examinations. Where politics and corruption rule everything that is done it is just not possible to do this. I have never been in Brazil, but I sympathize with you if this is the case. It is very hard to change a system where corruption is rampant, but it can be done. It requires citizens being fed up with it and being willing to stand up en masse and demanding change; but whether or not this can happen in Brazil I do not know. There certainly are no easy solutions.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
bmacleod
Posts: 2990
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2001 3:10 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 2:07 am

I didn't realize an A320 could carry 180+ passengers. I thought the maximum was 140-50.
"What good are wings without the courage to fly?" - Atticus
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 20651
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 2:13 am

Quoting Bmacleod (Reply 102):
I didn't realize an A320 could carry 180+ passengers. I thought the maximum was 140-50.

180 is the max. Of course this is with a one class config.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 101):
This is unfortunate. I regard the safety record of airlines in the US and Europe as being one of the most amazing achievements of this century. It was accomplished by careful and largely non-political examination of crashes and careful and reasoned measures taken based on those examinations. Where politics and corruption rule everything that is done it is just not possible to do this. I have never been in Brazil, but I sympathize with you if this is the case. It is very hard to change a system where corruption is rampant, but it can be done. It requires citizens being fed up with it and being willing to stand up en masse and demanding change; but whether or not this can happen in Brazil I do not know. There certainly are no easy solutions.

Well sad. Impartial and non political investigations are critical. Figure out the truth no matter how uncomfortable, and then make the requisite changes to prevent a recurrence, no matter how uncomfortable. It is not about assigning blame (although there may be legal proceedings to do that). It is about preventing recurrence and engendering constant improvement and vigilance.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
User avatar
breiz
Posts: 1446
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:12 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 2:16 am

Quoting BNE (Thread starter):
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.

Here is the statement issued by Airbus:
http://www.airbus.com/crisis/index.html
Sad day.
 
mandala499
Posts: 6600
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 2:18 am

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 80):
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.

Going straight would look better? I disagree... It'll be equally disastrous...

The plane would have landed right where the two huge approach pylons are... and spread the wreckage from then on, spreading it allover the busy junction... the roadkill would be horrendeous, and might still have plouged into a building and spread the fire into the building.

Going to the right would put it into soft ground and unpaved surface, ie: braking not guaranteed. If you look at this:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Zaza - Contato Radar


Going to the right would have little effect, unless the landing gears collapse and the engines dig in to the mud...
But I doubt the crew had much low speed directional control. New things have come up at another forum saying that the #2 reverser was inop. Should that be true, I am not surprised the plane inevitably went left.
When one realizes the main wheels aren't gripping, you got two choices:
Go Around or you'd throw the reversers on and try to stop with whatever you got.

So far, there's no evidence that the pilot tried to abort the landing and go-around. Should they've gone around before they were in the landing roll deceleration phase, the flight would have been a small news item... and forgotten as just another near disaster.

Picture this 734, but still going at 50kts from the position in the photo... you'd probably have a near identical case.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Renato Viani


From that position, to hit the crash site from the airport, you don't need to be very fast, a little over 50kts is probably enough.

When one brakes, well into the deceleration phase where the reversers are normally deployed, even if you're on idle reverser, if you think you're not going to stop in the current effort, what do you do? You increase the effort, throw the reversers into full. If the #2 reversers were indeed Inop, you'd need a right rudder input to keep the plane straight, but as you slow down, your rudder becomes ineffective, hence, the plane went left and nothing you can do about it since its slippery.

When you loose traction, it may take you a hell of a long way to stop! Even if the crew tried to stop with all that they got, if we're talking aquaplaning, and the length of Congonhas, one could still go off the other end at well beyond taxying speed (as said above, 50kts is probably enough to throw the plane clear across that street and not hit any cars.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 80):
I would certainly endorse "slowdown" patches at the end of runways that don't have sufficient overrun areas,

No doubt about that, except for... where in Congonhas are you going to put it?

Nicely said post btw... sorry for my splitting hairs... *grin*

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

First, one needs to find an answer to: "Well, is this the first time heavy rains have hit the resurfaced runway35L ?"

Second, although it is highly likely that the runway condition is the most probable and significant cause to the accident, I would find it hard to believe that that alone, would cause the accident, otherwise, this accident would happen on a regular basis.

Mandala499

[Edited 2007-07-18 19:24:44]
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
spacecadet
Posts: 3582
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2001 3:36 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 2:22 am

Quoting Cubastar (Reply 98):
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.

Airplanes have a lot of mass and inertia. They don't turn in a skid unless something is making them turn. When traction is lost, the airplane will continue going in the exact same direction it was going previously; whether that's straight down the runway or 5 degrees off center and consequently off the runway.

Let's assume a couple possible scenarios:

1. Pilot landed, tried to take off again
2. Pilot landed and overshot, gave full brakes and reversers, slid off the runway at high speed anyway

In case #1, I can't see how asymmetrical thrust would have caused such a dramatic turn at high speed. I mean you have to assume that he was not off the runway before the end - we haven't heard of any tire marks in the grass, meaning that was a pretty quick turn if he was near takeoff speeds. That much asymmetry in thrust would cause big problems on any takeoff on a wet runway, not just this one. That would be a pretty drastic difference in thrust to overcome the plane's inertia so forcefully. So the pilot must have done something (like rudder) to cause this turn.

In case #2, an accidental turn would make a little more sense, as he may not have lost traction equally on all wheels. One side may still have had decent braking, which would pull the plane to one side or the other. Still, you would have expected the plane to be off the runway earlier in that case - there's still the problem of no tire marks (that we've heard about), meaning there was only that small amount of distance from the end of the runway to the "cliff" to make this turn. I don't think it's possible.

I think that the signs point to this being an intentional turn either way. The last taxiway is obviously going in that direction - I think it's possible if he was trying to stop that he intended to try to use this turn onto the last taxiway to bleed off speed. That may have initiated a skid in itself. If he was trying to take off, then I really don't know what he was doing, but it seems to me like a hard rudder deflection is the only thing that could cause a turn like this at high speed on the ground (or a tiller movement at lower speed).
I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
 
irobertson
Posts: 409
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 11:35 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 2:28 am

Has the black box been found yet?
 
ULMFlyer
Posts: 190
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 11:39 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 2:29 am

Quoting Hiflyer (Reply 52):
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.

Interesting piece of info.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 56):
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.

Forgive my ignorance Starlionblue, but I suppose there are then different detentes, in both cases, for settings from idle to max reverse. Is this correct?

Quoting Mandala499 (Reply 79):
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...

True. A simple rule of thumb is that TAS increases 2% from IAS per 1000 ft. It doesn't seem much, but on my first cross-country flight, on a Pelican Flyer, from SDIN (sea level) to Monte Verde, Brazil's highest airport at around 5000 ft, I was shocked by how much faster the plane seemed to be going during flare. Fortunately, I had been well briefed on what to expect by my CFI.

[Edited 2007-07-18 19:47:15]
Let's go Pens!
 
Bozo
Posts: 113
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 9:59 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 2:32 am

Virtus Et Honor - S.P.Q.R.
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5723
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 2:34 am

Quoting Mandala499 (Reply 105):
The plane would have landed right where the two huge approach pylons are... and spread the wreckage from then on, spreading it allover the busy junction... the roadkill would be horrendeous, and might still have plouged into a building and spread the fire into the building.

Good points; I had not noticed that from the previously posted pictures that I saw.

Quoting Mandala499 (Reply 105):

No doubt about that, except for... where in Congonhas are you going to put it?

It certainly is a difficult spot, but you could start at the displaced threshold and fill in the space between the end of the runway and the approach pylons. This would reduce the runway slightly for takeoffs, but I think the tradeoff would be worth it. It should give enough distance with energy absorbing materials to bring an airliner to a safe stop.
As to what the pilot was trying to do, on the previous thread I recall a post where the tower overheard something about a command to turn left. Earlier on this thread there was a quote from a witness that the plane went over them at about 50 feet; if they were only going 50 kts I don't believe they would have been in the air at all. Granted, the dropoff from the runway is quite dramatic and momentum would have carried the plane for a distance, but I don't believe it would have carried it across the road high enough not to wipe out any vehicles on the road. I did not notice any announcement about vehicles hit; if the plane went into the buildings on the ground I can't believe that there would have been no vehicles in the way. Anyone have any info?
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
BA787
Posts: 2381
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 9:40 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 2:36 am

Sad day, such a shame  Sad

May all those who perished rest in peace


BA787
 
digao
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 10:11 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 2:37 am

Quoting Irobertson (Reply 107):
Has the black box been found yet?

Yes. And according to Brazilian authorities it was already sent to NTSB in U.S. for analisys/transcription.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 20651
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 2:38 am

Quoting ULMFlyer (Reply 108):

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 56):
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.

Forgive my ignorance Stalionblue, but I suppose there are then different detentes, in both cases, for settings from idle to max reverse. Is this correct?

I am not sure. It would seem logical to have an idle thrust detent (this we know exists), a detent for idle reverse, then smooth sailing to the back stops for max reverse. I am sure the Airbus drivers can tell you.

Just to be clear by what I mean with detent. It's like a virtual "notch" with resistance so when you reach that point the force required to go beyond it is greater than what was required to get there. Like a balance knob on a stereo has a detent in the center so you know where to stop.

And I am not a Stallion.  Wink
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
fd728
Posts: 96
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 10:38 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 2:42 am

On CNN they said Congonhas is open for air traffic again. Can anyone confirm this?
 
rfields5421
Posts: 6374
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:45 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 2:43 am

Quoting Spacecadet (Reply 106):
I think that the signs point to this being an intentional turn either way. The last taxiway is obviously going in that direction - I think it's possible if he was trying to stop that he intended to try to use this turn onto the last taxiway to bleed off speed.

The last taxiway is a 90 degrees from the runway and not a high speed turn off.

The end of the runway taxiway makes a 180 degree turn in about 200 ft.

The plane ended up only about 180-200 feet off the runway centerline.
Not all who wander are lost.
 
AF086
Posts: 582
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 11:45 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 2:48 am

Quoting FD728 (Reply 114):
On CNN they said Congonhas is open for air traffic again. Can anyone confirm this?

Yes it is. The first plane to takeoff was a Pantanal ATR42 at around 7am.
Please insert a "smart" joke here.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 20651
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 2:50 am

CNN: "What appears to have happened is that he (the pilot) didn't manage to land and he tried to take off again," said Capt. Marcos, a fire department spokesman who would only identify himself by rank and first name in accordance with department guidelines.

Great. Now we have a fire department Captain commenting on the mechanics of a flight, and fueling the fire (no pun intended). Is it really that hard to say "I do not know at this time and in any case you would have to direct that question to someone else. I can tell you about the fire, though." Sheesh...
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
PPVRA
Posts: 8602
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 2:50 am

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 66):
This is the image from Folha:

Thanks for posting the pic. The computer I was using at the time wouldn't allow me to use the copy/paste function.

[Edited 2007-07-18 19:54:02] Ok, seems like it is opened according to Digao.

[Edited 2007-07-18 20:02:35]
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
ULMFlyer
Posts: 190
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 11:39 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 2:52 am

Quoting FD728 (Reply 114):
Just to be clear by what I mean with detent.

I know what you mean, though I'm not sure how it feels/works in the case of Boeings' reverse levers.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 113):
And I am not a Stallion.

Sorry! Fixed  Smile
Let's go Pens!
 
digao
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 10:11 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 2:53 am

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 118):
Auxiliary runway in use.



Quoting AF086 (Reply 116):
Yes it is. The first plane to takeoff was a Pantanal ATR42 at around 7am.

That's right. The shorter runway is being used. 17L/35R - 4,708 ft/1,435 m
 
rfields5421
Posts: 6374
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:45 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 2:55 am

Big version: Width: 809 Height: 704 File size: 144kb


Though off the centerline - it was only a few degrees off.
Not all who wander are lost.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 20651
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 2:59 am

Quoting ULMFlyer (Reply 119):

I know what you mean, though I'm not sure how it feels/works in the case of Boeings' reverse levers.

The reverse levers are mounted on the front of the thrust levers, folded up against them with the hinge towards the top of the thrust levers. To reverse, you grab the reverse levers and pull them up and back. The only detent I can recall from my brief time in a 767 sim is the "no reverse" position. But I couldn't tell you for sure.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
D L X
Posts: 12721
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 3:11 am

Quoting Incitatus (Reply 73):
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 think you can take out weather (see my photo, and note the water being blown through the engines just before touchdown), pilot training (i can't believe that pilots in Brazil are not trained as superbly as other world powers), and surroundings (because if you overrun at DCA, you're swimming).

As for pavement and altitude, I'm now understanding that those are major contributors. It never had occurred to me before just how important those little grooves in the runways are. I wonder why they don't put them on freeway roads in rainy climates?
 
rafaelyyz
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 3:01 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 3:13 am

Is it just me or do Airbus planes specifically have a problem with landing soon after heavy rain: Warsaw, Irkutsk, Toronto, and now CGH. What gives??
 
Pu752
Posts: 451
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 2:29 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 3:14 am

Im wondering about the pilots operating today at SBSP, how to operate like nothing happend?
 
teneriffe77
Posts: 385
Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2006 11:00 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 3:16 am

One fo the main differences between CGH and LGA(along with DCA) is that CGH is surrounded by a development and a sharp drop so that any overrun will mostly result in severe damge to the plane and/or death/injuries to the people on board. On the other hand DCA and LGA are mostly surrounded by water so an overrun would most likely result in some damage to the plane and minor injuries but not nearly as bad in terms of injuries/damage as would occur at CGH. What CGH needs to do is clear some of the structures at the ends of the runway and install something like the crushable concrete that's in use at JFK. Otherwise close it to large planes or this kind of thing will happen again.
 
PPVRA
Posts: 8602
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 3:16 am

Quoting PU752 (Reply 125):
Im wondering about the pilots operating today at SBSP, how to operate like nothing happend?

Quite sure its a very somber day.
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
User avatar
OA260
Posts: 25375
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:50 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 3:18 am

Sky News mentioned that the same plane slipped off the runway on Monday!!! Can anyone confirm this?? I cant see if it has been mentioned yet due to the volume of posts. Very tragic and its shocking to see this happen to TAM!!!
 
irobertson
Posts: 409
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 11:35 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 3:21 am

Quoting Rafaelyyz (Reply 124):
Is it just me or do Airbus planes specifically have a problem with landing soon after heavy rain: Warsaw, Irkutsk, Toronto, and now CGH. What gives??

It's you. An Embraer just did it at Simon Bolivar. I'm sure if I had the time, I could show you a half dozen Boeings, Tupolevs, and Bombardiers that have done the same thing. It has nothing to do with Airbus jets not being able to stop on wet runways.
 
bravogolf
Posts: 360
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 6:18 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 3:23 am

Has anyone heard from JJMNGR?? Is he OK?
 
irobertson
Posts: 409
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 11:35 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 3:23 am

Quoting Teneriffe77 (Reply 126):
One fo the main differences between CGH and LGA(along with DCA) is that CGH is surrounded by a development and a sharp drop so that any overrun will mostly result in severe damge to the plane and/or death/injuries to the people on board.

Wasn't there a crash in Indonesia like this with an A320 or 737 a few years back, went off the end of the runway, down an embankment, right into some poor housing district? There's a picture of it out there on airdisaster.com but I can't find it.
 
Lufthansa747
Posts: 2953
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 7:45 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 3:24 am

Quoting Irobertson (Reply 131):
Wasn't there a crash in Indonesia like this with an A320 or 737 a few years back, went off the end of the runway, down an embankment, right into some poor housing district? There's a picture of it out there on airdisaster.com but I can't find it.

Mandala B737-200 PK-RIM crashed into houses on takeoff from MES.
Air Asia Super Elite, Cebu Pacific Titanium
 
digao
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 10:11 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 3:26 am

Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 121):
Though off the centerline - it was only a few degrees off.

Just correcting... The actual impact point is marked in red.

Big version: Width: 809 Height: 704 File size: 122kb
 
addd
Posts: 83
Joined: Wed May 09, 2007 8:47 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 3:27 am

Quoting Irobertson (Reply 129):
could show you a half dozen Boeings, Tupolevs, and Bombardiers that have done the same thing. It has nothing to do with Airbus jets not being able to stop on wet runways.

May be true, but to me CGH looks too much like a carbon copy of Irkutsk (see my post above) not to wonder...
 
Pu752
Posts: 451
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 2:29 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 3:27 am

no news about JJMNGR? Its weird he didnt show up yet ...  Sad  Confused
 
rafaelyyz
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 3:01 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 3:30 am

Quoting Irobertson (Reply 129):
It has nothing to do with Airbus jets not being able to stop on wet runways.

I recall several changes have had to be made after the Warsaw crash. Hence I thought maybe the problem wasn't fully resolved. I stand corrected.
 
mrocktor
Posts: 1391
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 12:57 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 3:33 am

Quoting Mandala499 (Reply 105):
Going straight would look better? I disagree... It'll be equally disastrous...

Not necessarily so. Look at the top down picture in Reply 121, there is a lot more open ground going straight ahead or veering slightly right. Yes, more potential ground casualties but also a *significant* potential of saving the pax - even if he clipped the pillars.

Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 121):
Though off the centerline - it was only a few degrees off.

If you are not talking about its heading, "a few degrees off" depends entirely on which point of the centerline you are picking as your vertice. The wreckage's heading is over 45 degrees off centerline, I think that is what really matters in terms of understanding the trajectory.

[Edited 2007-07-18 20:34:16]
 
User avatar
breiz
Posts: 1446
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:12 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 3:40 am

Quoting Rafaelyyz (Reply 124):
Is it just me or do Airbus planes specifically have a problem with landing soon after heavy rain: Warsaw, Irkutsk, Toronto, and now CGH. What gives??

It's you. Although Warsaw highlighted some software problem among other factors, Irkutsk was due to reversers and Toronto was caused by landing too long down the runway.
The common factors were bad weather, very wet runway and no RESA. Warsaw A321 crashed in a wall, Irkutsk A310 crashed in airport buildings and Toronto A340 crashed in a ditch.
 
David L
Posts: 8551
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 3:43 am

Quoting Addd (Reply 134):
May be true, but to me CGH looks too much like a carbon copy of Irkutsk (see my post above) not to wonder...

It might be a carbon copy but you need to know the statistics for other types before you can say one's more prone to this sort of thing. There have been hundreds more overruns than just those two.  Smile
 
DeC
Posts: 535
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2005 5:12 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 3:43 am

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 137):
Not necessarily so. Look at the top down picture in Reply 121, there is a lot more open ground going straight ahead or veering slightly right. Yes, more potential ground casualties but also a *significant* potential of saving the pax - even if he clipped the pillars.

I agree as well. Are we serious that left is the best choice? Come on, Straight - or even to the right, pass those buildings, or even between them + there's a lot more open area before them - would clearly be a FAR better choice whereas left is FULL of residents and roads! Just look at the picture above in Reply 121, it speaks for itself and i feel dumb trying to actually explain this to people over 5 years of age. It's so obvious.

[Edited 2007-07-18 20:46:29]
DEC
 
PYP757
Posts: 120
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2007 5:57 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 3:46 am

Quoting Md94 (Reply 88):
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.

CNN is quoting a fire department spokesman. How reliable a source is that? Surely, only the analysis of the flight recorders will tell the answer. Attempting a go around in such conditions sounds so suicidal I can't believe the pilots would have attempted it. But that's just my humble opinion...
 
D L X
Posts: 12721
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 3:52 am

I wonder how effective that collapsable runway concrete would be at this airport, like they have at JFK, MSP, and a couple other airports. Seems like every effort possible should be taken to keep a plane from falling down the cliff off the end of the runway.
 
RIHNOSAUR
Posts: 336
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 5:05 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 3:53 am

My thoughts go out to all of those affected by this sad tragedy

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 8):
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.



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.

that is quite an amazing situation...

It seems to me ...I am totally speculating here....is that what ever the case was whether the pilot actually was able to put the aircraft back into a state of airlift , or not...the mere steep drop off in terrain at the end of the runway in combination with the sheer velocity (momentum) of the plane simply caused it remain "off the ground" before it collided with the buildings (or close to them). At least that would be consistent with the cab eye wittiness account

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 17):
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?



Quoting Mir (Reply 29):
We'll never know for sure.

shouldn't the data recorders (when and if recovered) provide exact information on the various aircraft system's states during the final moments...for example it seems that we should be able to find out what the brakes , spoilers and reverser's were doing pretty accurately as a function of time...right?? or am I terribly confused


Quoting Mir (Reply 29):
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.

OK could some of the pilots (some of who have kindly already posted) explain to me:

1. out the three braking sources I know of (reverses, spoilers, wheel brakes) what is the ranking order in terms of decelerating power...in other words out these, which one provides the MOST force of braking during a landing.

2. basically it seems to me that since both spoliers and reverses have NO dependence on traction (friction to the ground) why should rain fall affect the ability for the aircraft to stop......Unless of course all three are used equally (or mostly on wheel brakes) and stopping the plane actually relies on ground traction..???


cheers
particles and waves are the same thing, but who knows what that thing is...
 
Pu752
Posts: 451
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 2:29 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 3:57 am

Quoting PYP757 (Reply 141):
Attempting a go around in such conditions sounds so suicidal I can't believe the pilots would have attempted it. But that's just my humble opinion

Yes I agree, knowing how short the runway is, trying to go around in that situation is a huge risk, knowing that if you dont make to lift off, its impossible to survive. If this turns up to be what the pilots tried, investigators will state this was the main cause of the accident, then runway, weather,etc,etc.
 
christopherwoo
Posts: 92
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 4:14 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 4:00 am

Quoting DeC (Reply 140):
agree as well. Are we serious that left is the best choice? Come on, Straight - or even to the right, pass those buildings, or even between them + there's a lot more open area before them - would clearly be a FAR better choice whereas left is FULL of residents and roads! Just look at the picture above in Reply 121, it speaks for itself and i feel dumb trying to actually explain this to people over 5 years of age. It's so

To be fair on the pilots, didnt this crash take place at night time and in heavy rain? so the pilots not going to have very good visability, im sure his concentration was trying to increase altitude rather than steer right or straight on, if there was a xwind too it could have blown the aircraft to the left. All unknown factors. I doubt the pilot could really see where anything was in the pitch black with heavy rain aswell
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 20651
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 4:00 am

Quoting RIHNOSAUR (Reply 143):

shouldn't the data recorders (when and if recovered) provide exact information on the various aircraft system's states during the final moments...for example it seems that we should be able to find out what the brakes , spoilers and reverser's were doing pretty accurately as a function of time...right?? or am I terribly confused

Correct. Modern data recorders store a wide range of parameters and should tell us a lot.

Quoting RIHNOSAUR (Reply 143):

1. out the three braking sources I know of (reverses, spoilers, wheel brakes) what is the ranking order in terms of decelerating power...in other words out these, which one provides the MOST force of braking during a landing.

Wheel braking is the most powerful, and by a very large margin. Without wheel brakes I daresay most braking ability is gone. Following that are reversers and last are spoilers.

The primary function of the spoilers at touchdown is to "ruin" lift and thus ensure the aircraft does not float. This will lead to better ground contact and better braking. That's why they are set to deploy automatically on ground contact. They are often known as "lift dumpers".
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
cumulus
Posts: 1003
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 4:39 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 4:01 am

I had no idea the area is so built up.

Big version: Width: 1288 Height: 873 File size: 120kb
What Goes Up Must Come Down, Hopefully In One Piece!
 
PYP757
Posts: 120
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2007 5:57 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 4:04 am

Quoting DeC (Reply 140):
I agree as well. Are we serious that left is the best choice? Come on, Straight - or even to the right, pass those buildings, or even between them + there's a lot more open area before them - would clearly be a FAR better choice whereas left is FULL of residents and roads! Just look at the picture above in Reply 121, it speaks for itself and i feel dumb trying to actually explain this to people over 5 years of age. It's so obvious.

I agree too. Is it possible that the plane was going actually much slower than what has been speculated, and that the pilots were trying to veer it into the taxiway on the left? People have been talking of speed of 100 kt at the end of the runway - what's the evidence? Given the high embankment, even at slow speed the plane could have become airborne briefly again, overflown the cars on the highway, and gained enough speed to cause the destruction it did.
 
ULMFlyer
Posts: 190
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 11:39 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 4:04 am

Quoting Christopherwoo (Reply 145):
To be fair on the pilots, didnt this crash take place at night time and in heavy rain?

Night yes. But all the METARs around the time of the accident indicated LIGHT RAIN.
Let's go Pens!
  • 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