Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
DeC
Posts: 535
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2005 5:12 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 4:05 am

Quoting Christopherwoo (Reply 145):
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

That's another issue. You have some valid points indeed but don't tell me the pilots didn't know what was left, straight on, or right, even in nightfall, they shouldn't need to actually see, i'd suppose they knew the airport well enough. But that's not my main point 'cause under such a stressed situation - as you pointed out - pilots would also have an irrational situational pressure and rapid decisions to face as well as stirring. I was replying to some people who actually suggested that going left was the right decision which sounds idiotic to me.
DEC
 
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 4:05 am

Quoting Christopherwoo (Reply 145):
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

Those runway lights are pretty bright. The pilots should have no problem following the centerline on account of the rain and night time. From all accounts the visibility wasn't THAT bad.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
rfields5421
Posts: 6272
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:45 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 4:08 am

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 137):
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.

The wreckage heading after hitting a building does not provide significant information about the path of the aircraft. But the photos I've seen show the tail structure apparently almost on the same heading as the runway. I'd like to see more information. The location of the vehicle supposedly struck by the gear would be extremely useful - as well as any information about tire marks in grass.

I haven't seen anything about any marks - so the assumption is that the aircraft was off the ground when it crossed the grass areas.

There seems to be a lot of assumption on this thread that the pilot made a concious decision to turn off the runway heading. Hydroplaning almost always turns the aircraft or vehicle because the loss of adhesion does not occur identically on all contact surfaces. Momentum will provide forward motion, but the angle of the motion will be changed by the amount of unequal traction.

This aircraft could be as little as three or four degrees off heading or as much as 45 depending upon where on the runway the turn started. The aircraft could have turned 45 degrees and continued to skid almost straight forward.

The assumption that the pilot made a sharp turn to a taxiway and went off the embankment at a 45 degree angle "choosing" where to go off the airport property implies an assumption that there was very good traction on the runway surface.

It's inconsistent with the witness reports of poor traction.

Yes, I know the vast majority of eyewitness reports are wrong - even of trained professionals.
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 4:09 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.

Had he cleared the building, he would be a hero. There are no tall buildings in that heading for miles. It is mostly one and two-story houses. Assuming he knew he would have to try to take off, he had very little time to think where he could try to go.

Open Google Earth and zoom out just a little more and look at the size of the shadows. You will see a cluster of very tall buildings slightly to the right of the runway, and one building straight ahead. The top of all these are above the runway. The building impacted is below the runway. The pylons and light towers are all at the runway level. Even if he could have gone to the right, he would have to turn left almost immediately to avoid the tall buildings, crossing the line of lights at runway level.

If he knew CGH well, he chose the right heading, just didn't have enough altitude to clear the building.
 
n710ps
Posts: 1116
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2006 7:09 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 4:14 am

I would like to point out that the A-320 is an airplane that as it is is a landing weight restricted airplane at CLT in uncontaminated conditions. Now lets toss the rain in and the ungrooved surface and the bottom line is that plane should not have been at that airport grooved or not in my opinion.
There is plenty of room for Gods animals, right next to the mashed potatoes!
 
Mir
Posts: 19491
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 4:15 am

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 80):
Certainly a failed go-around would be far more disastrous than a simple overrun would be

Certainly. But what about a successful go-around? Nobody deliberately executes a failed go-around. If the pilots did try to go around, it's because they thought that they could make it.

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

A few degress, sure, but at that distance that amounts to a lot off.

Quoting RIHNOSAUR (Reply 143):
basically it seems to me that since both spoliers and reverses have NO dependence on traction

Spoilers work by getting the plane's weight off the wings and onto the wheels, and thus their success is somewhat dependent on whether the wheels can get traction or not (though they can help a plane get better traction). Reversers are not dependent on runway friction.

Quoting RIHNOSAUR (Reply 143):
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.

I'd say braking, reversers, spoilers in decending order. Spoilers, as I mentioned, do little themselves to stop the plane - they aid the brakes.

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

Yes they should. My comment was to the effect that we'll never know for sure whether it would have been better for the pilots to stay on the ground.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
rfields5421
Posts: 6272
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:45 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 4:16 am

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 146):
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".

This is an A320 specific question - but what activates the spoilers?

I've seen reports of spoilers not activating upon touchdown because the wheels did not start rotating due to ice on a runway.
Not all who wander are lost.
 
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 4:16 am

Quoting N710PS (Reply 154):
I would like to point out that the A-320 is an airplane that as it is is a landing weight restricted airplane at CLT in uncontaminated conditions. Now lets toss the rain in and the ungrooved surface and the bottom line is that plane should not have been at that airport grooved or not in my opinion.

That may be so. But if the aircraft was above the legal landing weight the pilots should not even have started the approach. Wouldn't that be a bit of rookie mistake that would have been caught even before the aircraft took off?
"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 4:16 am

Quoting Cumulus (Reply 147):
I had no idea the area is so built up.

Yes, it is. Landing in CGH is sometimes very scary, specially due to the huge number of high-rise buildings that surrounds the airport... I've landed several times there and I remember one rainy and windy night coming from BSB on an A320. The pilot definitely passed the touchdown zone and had to break very very hard. He took the last exit at a considerable high speedy, making some people in the plane really scared.
 
User avatar
OA260
Posts: 24467
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:50 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 4:16 am

Quoting Cumulus (Reply 147):
I had no idea the area is so built up.

I thought it was one of the most built up cities in the world. They close some freeways on weekends so the public can use them as recreational areas. Dont know if this is still true today. On that basis its a miracle more people on the ground were not killed.

CNN and BBC say that crucial grooves in the runway were missing and that yesterday aircraft were skidding. I wonder why the runway wasnt shut if this was the case. This is very alarming.
 
mandala499
Posts: 6593
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 4:18 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.

You're the one who's supposed to be more familiar with the area than I am... *grin*

In the case of PK-GZC in March, according to flight data excerpts, the aircraft left the runway at 60kts and went on for 210m beyond the paved surface (over flat ground for 90m, then fell onto a road 18m wide, slammed into the embankment on the other side, and still went on for another 100m).

In the case of this 320 crash, it's about 100m from the place where it left the paved surface, free falling onto the building. The building contained the impact from going forward beyond it. Had it gone straight, it would hit the pylons 90m beyond th paved runway, freefalling onto it... Btw, what are those pillars made off? If it's concrete, hitting that you'd have more an impact into a structure, yet one where the breakup cannot be contained. There's a good chance wreckage would be spread mainly within a 100m radius from there... and burning... and some pieces could go for another 100m beyond... this is of course, assuming this aircraft went off and about 60kts... Whatever part travelled 200m beyond the pylons would not have much building impact (about 150m beyond the pylons), but it would be a messy scene indeed and if the road was packed, it could yield more deaths on the road and the airborne impact onto the pylon would have killed most of those on board...

The worst scenario in this case if it went between it's actual path and the pylon... 100m after leaving the taxiway, it would land in the middle of that road... Avenida Washington Luis... 100m from that, is more buildings... There's a large chance that it would have killed more if the road was packed.

I stand corrected however, in that seeing the google images, that had they gone right of the centerline, if the aircraft failed to cross Via Accesso Congonhas, the impact would have been largely contained by the road which was elevated above the immediately preceeding terrain. It could have had less ground casualty. However, if it crossed that road and broke up, the aircraft would not go beyond the bridge at Washington Luis, on the open ground. This would be the lowest casualty scenario. Unfortunately, we don't know whether veering right would have saved or cost more lives at the moment as we don't know the "speed of departure" from the last paved surface at the airport. If it was (significantly) faster than 60kts, then the actual situation fortunately, would appear to have been the least casualty scenario...

But then, if it was that slippery, and #2 reverser was INOP, left was inevitable  Sad
At least for the time being, these "what ifs" and the discussions here would comfort us in trying to find answers, instead of sitting in front of the TV wondering aimlessly...

I hope the blackboxes will yield quick information for the investigators... The victims deserves a proper investigation into what caused them to depart from our world!

Mandala499
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
addd
Posts: 83
Joined: Wed May 09, 2007 8:47 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 4:19 am

Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 156):
I've seen reports of spoilers not activating upon touchdown because the wheels did not start rotating due to ice on a runway.

Ooohh... can you recall where you have seen that and send a link?
 
RIHNOSAUR
Posts: 336
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 5:05 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 4:20 am

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 146):
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.

WOW!!! that is quite an interesting fact...at least to me it is. shoking I would have guessed that most braking power was from reversers.....Now of course the whole groove things makes more sense..

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 146):
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".

makes sense.......thanks Starlionblue....very informative...

Quoting PYP757 (Reply 148):
and gained enough speed to cause the destruction it did.

definitely a possibility see my post above alluding to this possibility also
particles and waves are the same thing, but who knows what that thing is...
 
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 4:21 am

Quoting Digao (Reply 158):
Quoting Cumulus (Reply 147):
Yes, it is. Landing in CGH is sometimes very scary, specially due to the huge number of high-rise buildings that surrounds the airport... I've landed several times there and I remember one rainy and windy night coming from BSB on an A320. The pilot definitely passed the touchdown zone and had to break very very hard. He took the last exit at a considerable high speedy, making some people in the plane really scared.

I don't want to diminish the difficulty of the approach, but Kai Tak operated for many years, with vicious crosswinds, lots of heavy rain, a visual turn at the last moment, skyscrapers and mountains all around the approach. The runway was longer but it also served heavies. The terrain around CMH makes life tricky, but does not make things dangerous in and of itself. There are accepted industry guidelines about what you can and cannot do. Were these followed? Time will tell.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
mrocktor
Posts: 1391
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 12:57 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 4:21 am

Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 152):
But the photos I've seen show the tail structure apparently almost on the same heading as the runway

Look at the red box in the picture on Reply 133. Now look at the impact site photograph. In the second you can see the tail is near perpendicular to the avenue. Which, if you look at the map, puts it WAY off heading.
 
irobertson
Posts: 409
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 11:35 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 4:22 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.

Which is why I don't think he intended to go left.

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

He may have tried to do it early on after touchdown but maybe the spoilers or the reversers stayed out..? Everyone is waiting with baited breath for that black box analysis.
 
mrocktor
Posts: 1391
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 12:57 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 4:27 am

Quoting Mandala499 (Reply 160):
At least for the time being, these "what ifs" and the discussions here would comfort us in trying to find answers, instead of sitting in front of the TV wondering aimlessly

Yes, thats all they are good for, but it helps in getting to the "acceptance" phase.

Quoting Irobertson (Reply 165):
Which is why I don't think he intended to go left.

Unless he was trying to turn onto the taxiway (which is inconsistent with an attempt to take off, though).
 
RIXrat
Posts: 674
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 10:20 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 4:27 am

Quoting Mandala499 (Reply 105):
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.

I was wondering about that myself. Earlier in this thread I read that the #2 reverser "may" have been inop which would have given the aircraft unbalanced braking ability and therefore pushed it to the left. If that is true, I think it may be an important clue, but it is too early to say at this stage before the documents are read.
 
rfields5421
Posts: 6272
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:45 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 4:34 am

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 164):
Now look at the impact site photograph.

Which photo?

The best I've seen was on Reuters. That shows the tail about 45 degrees off the heading of the front of the building where the TAM Express sign is located.

That puts the tail almost in line with the runway heading. However, this is highly suspect because recovery of wreckage has already begun.
Not all who wander are lost.
 
n710ps
Posts: 1116
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2006 7:09 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 4:37 am

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 157):
That may be so. But if the aircraft was above the legal landing weight the pilots should not even have started the approach. Wouldn't that be a bit of rookie mistake that would have been caught even before the aircraft took off?

It is Brazil and more importantly South America in general that it does not suprise me. I want to point out I do not fly the 320 nor any airbus family member. I do know specifics though on it and based on all of the information I have available along with my manuals and operations experince with them in previous times I can tell you that every last arrow points to no go and illegal landing. Again, this is Brazil though. A land where inept ATC and systems issues is enough to blame American for something.
There is plenty of room for Gods animals, right next to the mashed potatoes!
 
mrocktor
Posts: 1391
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 12:57 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 4:44 am

Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 168):
Which photo?

Can't really explain it any better. Last try:

The wreckage:
Big version: Width: 420 Height: 280 File size: 42kb

The yellow line is the wall beside the wreckage, the red arrow is its heading:
Big version: Width: 648 Height: 564 File size: 107kb


Of course the plane could be in a sideslip when it hit, but not much or the tail would have been sheared off on impact.
 
mandala499
Posts: 6593
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 4:44 am

The left or right issue was just answering someone questioning "why not go right"... If #2 reverser was INOP, a left bias was inevitable if wheel traction was as bad as we assume. It doesn't make much of a difference if he went left or right while trying to stop... getting off the airport area at the top in CGH would surely result in disaster no matter what, if you're at a speed where you can clear 100m before hitting the ground that is.

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 164):
Look at the red box in the picture on Reply 133. Now look at the impact site photograph. In the second you can see the tail is near perpendicular to the avenue. Which, if you look at the map, puts it WAY off heading.

A sliding impact? The perpendicular angle of the tailplane to the road as you said above could also be a result of change in heading as a result of a progressive impact into the building while it was in an effective slide.

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 166):
Unless he was trying to turn onto the taxiway (which is inconsistent with an attempt to take off, though).

I do wonder why this and the BRA734 near falling off CGH was to go to the left too... trying to make the taxiway? Coincidence? Or?

Quoting RIXrat (Reply 167):
If that is true, I think it may be an important clue, but it is too early to say at this stage before the documents are read.

We do not know whether this is true or not... but yes, if it is, it's an important clue... here's the part that I read on another place...

Quote:
Two new FACTS:
- One of the pilot's was on his way to the LHS, an therefore, that was a treinee flight. He was a experienced Captain and was on a horizontal move (upgrade) to the A320. I don't know the guys, but some friends told me that they had lot's of flight time (one was a former 767 captain) and great guys to work with. Can add that most part of TAM pilot's has previous experience on the A320 / 330 as F/O's and that CGH (SBSP - Congonhas airport) is the airline's main base of operations, just like LHR for BA...pilot's are familiar with the airport and landing there under nasty weather is not unusual. The airline does not "pressure" the pilot's to land at all cost in CGH under bad weather...it is up to the PIC to decide to land or divert (normaly to GRU - in the same city)
- Chatting with very good friend of mine, he told me that he flew that same aircraft monday and that reverser #2 was INOP (on monday). Although required landing distance does not take into account reverser deployment, this could help to make things worse.

A further update from that source"

Quote:
Last report:

- Aircraft had 62.7 Tons at landing (maximum is 64.5 Tons for wet runway at CGH)
- Both pilots were captains (I appologize for my previous post). Master pilot had 13.000 TT and has been with TAM for 19 years and the other captain had 11.000 TT, 6 months with TAM (master = more senior)

On the part on "trying to go around"... Again, this is the same as what's been reported in the case of PK-GZC (which also had one reverser INOP if I remember correctly)... In that particular case, the only "earwitnesses" that said "no go around attempted but we did hear reversers" were air force pilots on the airport... So until the FDR reveals that a go-around attempt was indeed made, I would not take the "trying to go around" claims seriously.

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 166):
Yes, thats all they are good for, but it helps in getting to the "acceptance" phase.

Indeed! Indeed!
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
rfields5421
Posts: 6272
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:45 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 4:49 am

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 170):
Of course the plane could be in a sideslip when it hit, but not much or the tail would have been sheared off on impact.

Or it could have crashed into a building and spun around.

Or it could have been moved since the right wing appears to not have struck the building.

Or you could be right.

That picture is part of a sequence on Reuters which shows the tail in several different positions.

In the photo you included - the area to the left of the tail has been cleared - which is why I said the picture is highly suspect as to the initial impact / resting place of wreckage.
Not all who wander are lost.
 
User avatar
s.p.a.s.
Posts: 944
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2001 2:04 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 4:53 am

Hi Mandala,

Quote:
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...

This winter has been rather dry and since the re-opening of 35L we had very few bad weather days, and when we had, they were mostly cloudy and humid/drizle, but hardly any heavy rain. I would say that yes, this was the first time after the re-opening that we had long lasting rain.

I'm not very fond from speculating, and I hope the air crash investigation is conducted on a serious and fair way, without pressures from any parties.

Cheers

Salz
"ad astra per aspera"
 
mrocktor
Posts: 1391
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 12:57 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 4:55 am

Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 172):
Or it could have crashed into a building and spun around.

The flat grey area immediately below the impact site on the map is the gas station's roofing. It is still standing. I'm positive the plane didn't come from there. It's a pretty tight "tunnel" to get the plane into that place without plowing a visible trail of wreckage (which is not there).

Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 172):
Or it could have been moved since the right wing appears to not have struck the building.

The tail was not moved significantly after the crash, if that is what you are speculating. I saw it live on TV in that position minutes after it happened. It was also attached to the fuselage (or a significant part of it), which subsequently burned.
 
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 4:58 am

Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 152):
There seems to be a lot of assumption on this thread that the pilot made a concious decision to turn off the runway heading.

On the earlier thread there was a report that ATC overheard someone in the cockpit saying to turn left.

Quoting Mir (Reply 155):
Certainly. But what about a successful go-around? Nobody deliberately executes a failed go-around. If the pilots did try to go around, it's because they thought that they could make it.

Agreed. If they tried a go-around they must have thought they could do it. Unfortunately they were wrong.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
6yjjk
Posts: 338
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 6:40 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 5:00 am

Quoting Breiz (Reply 104):
I disagree... It'll be equally disastrous... The plane would have landed right where the two huge approach pylons are...

Those are some scary-looking blocks.

*speculation*
If you knew you were going off the end, and you knew that the choice was between falling off the end and falling off the end into those bloody great things, what would you do? (Of course, that doesn't answer why they went left instead of right.)
*end speculation*

I thought everything on the approach was meant to be frangible. Going off-topic here, I know, but aren't there ICAO standards on this sort of thing?

How could they get away with building something that solid right there? I recall a recent AAIB report where a UK airport (LTN?) was found not to conform to aerodrome standards because of a *buried* lump of concrete.

Was it that these massive things are meant to afford some protection to people on the road in event of a low-speed overrun (by destroying the aircraft and its contents!)? Or that, landing from the other direction, hitting that upslope would be just as bad as hitting two concrete pillars anyway? I'd be interested to know how they came to be allowed there.
 
mandala499
Posts: 6593
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 5:01 am

Cheers for that info S.P.A.S... it answers a lot on my mind...
Speculation is for speculation only... let the investigators do it, and we're here just playing with our minds...  Smile

Mandala499
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
FMAL
Posts: 469
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2004 9:16 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 5:04 am

Hey, has anybody been able to reach JJMNGR yet?
 
kaitak
Posts: 9930
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 1999 5:49 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 5:08 am

Aviation Safety Network has the following in relation to the incident.

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20070717-0

It's the worst A320 crash ever and the worst in Brazil (last year's collision being the previous worst). However, I was wondering where this accident ranks in the overall list of worst Airbus crashes.

From memory (which is far from complete, so please correct), these are the worst:

1988 Iran Air A300 c 290 lost (USS Vincennes shoot-down)
1994 China AL A300-600 c 270 lost (Nagoya)
1997 Garuda A300B4 c 220 lost (Medan)
1992 PIA A300 c 220 lost (Kathmandu)
199? China AL A300-600 c 200 lost (Taipei)


As far as I can tell, there have been no such serious losses for the newer Airbus FBW widebodies (330/340), although I am sure there are other A300 losses which I am missing. However, the A320 crash yesterday is certainly among the worst suffered by any Airbus type.
 
rfields5421
Posts: 6272
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:45 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 5:09 am

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 174):
I saw it live on TV in that position minutes after it happened

Thanks - that's a lot clearer. However, the absence of the right wing damage to the front of the building would lead me to believe - unsubstantiated, that the aircraft slid into the final position influenced more by the solid structure than it's previous trajectory. But you have better access to more information than I do.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 175):
On the earlier thread there was a report that ATC overheard someone in the cockpit saying to turn left.

Not saying it had anything to do with this instance - but in past accidents similar reports have been determined to come from either other aircraft on the frequency or someone else in the tower. It's very seldom the ATC/tower hears anything from a crew in the middle of an emergency unless a mike is stuck in the open position.
Not all who wander are lost.
 
mrocktor
Posts: 1391
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 12:57 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 5:10 am

Here is a speculative trajectory, assuming the pilots tried to turn onto the taxiway, lost traction and sideslipped into the building. The right wing could have absorbed a lot of the impact, helping the tail cone stay attached instead of being sheared off when the rest of the fuselage hit the wall.



Red arrows: trajectory and heading.

Red stick-airplane: impact attitude

Yellow stick-airplane: final resting spot

[Edited 2007-07-18 22:11:54]
 
dellatorre
Posts: 865
Joined: Sat May 13, 2000 2:50 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 5:10 am

It has been reported by Infraero that cameras in the airport apron have recorded this accident, containing images of the landing. Unfortunately, these videos are held with the authorities for investigation together with the plane's black box and should not be released to the press until the investigations are concluded.
 
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 5:14 am

Quoting Kaitak (Reply 179):

It's the worst A320 crash ever and the worst in Brazil (last year's collision being the previous worst). However, I was wondering where this accident ranks in the overall list of worst Airbus crashes.

From memory (which is far from complete, so please correct), these are the worst:

1988 Iran Air A300 c 290 lost (USS Vincennes shoot-down)
1994 China AL A300-600 c 270 lost (Nagoya)
1997 Garuda A300B4 c 220 lost (Medan)
1992 PIA A300 c 220 lost (Kathmandu)
199? China AL A300-600 c 200 lost (Taipei)


As far as I can tell, there have been no such serious losses for the newer Airbus FBW widebodies (330/340), although I am sure there are other A300 losses which I am missing. However, the A320 crash yesterday is certainly among the worst suffered by any Airbus type.

In summary:
- No FBW Airbus (318 to 380) has been lost (or any lives lost) due to aircraft malfunction. If you want to nitpick you could add "proven aircraft malfunction as documented in the accident reports". There is plenty of discussion. There have been "human interface" issues though.
- No 340s have had fatal accidents, although there have been write-offs.
- The 330 has had one fatal accident during testing, but none in service.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
mach4
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 4:04 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 5:14 am

I'm not an aviation expert by any means but it's disappointing to see the amount of speculation here based on outdated or simply inaccurate facts. These are the latest interesting facts I've been able to gather, feel free to contribute: (please forgive me for not knowing the correct terminology)

1. Max landing weight for an A320 at CGH under those conditions 64.5 tons, airplane weight 62.7 tons (source: TAM press conference)
2. A video of the landing attempt shows the plane touched down in the correct area (first 1000 feet) but its speed throughout the runway (so not necessarily at the touchdown point) was significantly greater than normal. The numbers mentioned were that it traversed in only 3 seconds a distance that other aircraft in normal circumstances would take 11 to 14 seconds. (source: INFRAERO press conference)
3. The words "vira, vira, vira" ("turn, turn, turn") were heard on the radio. (source: the mayor of Sao Paulo and also a pilot that was taking off from CGH moments later)
4. TAM has had over 2000 A320 landings at CGH since the resurfaced runway was opened on Jun 29th, including over 100 in the last two days which have featured consistent rainfall. (source: TAM press conf.)
5. There were no reported problems with the aircraft, and the reverser issue was denied (TAM press conf.)
7. The aircraft had to refuel at CGH to be able to fly the next leg. The fuel load at take off was approx. 9000 (dont remember the units). (TAM press conf.)
 
User avatar
EZEIZA
Posts: 4421
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2004 12:09 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 5:15 am

Just found out one of the victims on board the plane had booked an appt. with the company where I work or this Saturday. A member of his family called to cancel the reservation  Sad
Carp aunque ganes o pierdas ...
 
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 5:15 am

Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 180):
It's very seldom the ATC/tower hears anything from a crew in the middle of an emergency unless a mike is stuck in the open position.

Good point; I was just taking it as a possibility. We really won't know anything for sure until the recorders get analyzed.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
SEAdomer787
Posts: 108
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2006 1:28 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 5:16 am

A lot of people have cited the lack of runway safety overrun areas as a contributing factor in the tragic outcome of this event. While I'm not one to fight anything that reduces loss of life even by a small percentage and I think they're a great idea, it seems to me that, even had these overrun areas existed at the end of 35L, there are many other contributing factors to this crash that could have resulted in the same outcome.

For example, if the studies prove that there was some "force" (whether it be hydroplaning, contact with the grass to the left of the runway, or a thrust reverser malfunction) that dragged the airplane to the left, the plane would have completely missed the overrun area altogether given the apparent path it took. The result would have been the same.

However, if it was the case that the pilot had complete control of the airplane and SELECTIVELY chose to veer the plane to the left, knowledge that the (hypothetical) overrun barrier existed would most likely have changed his decision, and the plane would have continued in a straight line. This, I am sure, would have been a best case scenario.

The reason I raise these points is again not to make light of safety overrun areas, but rather to show that we should not always be so quick to place blame or be critical of decisions made in the cockpit until we have all the facts.

May those we lost rest in peace.
 
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 5:17 am

Quoting Mach4 (Reply 184):
7. The aircraft had to refuel at CGH to be able to fly the next leg. The fuel load at take off was approx. 9000 (dont remember the units).

Nice info Mach4. It's probably safe to assume the unit of measure is kg.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
Morvious
Posts: 657
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2005 8:36 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 5:18 am

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 175):
Agreed. If they tried a go-around they must have thought they could do it. Unfortunately they were wrong.

For what I am concerened the pilots did not have any controll of the plane untill the truth comes out of the black boxes.

Standing water and a slipping airplane is the only thing I can blame right now, not the pilots!

May all involved R.I.P.

PS, any news on the fellow a.netter JJMNGR?
have a good day,

HereThen
 
OHLHD
Posts: 2903
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 6:02 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 5:19 am

Quoting LipeGIG (Reply 58):
There's an Austrian citizen on the victims list. All others are Brazilians from POA, SAO, RIO, VIX, SSA, NAT, BVB and others.

Yes it is confirmed by the Austrian press that he was a 43 year old man from Salzburg however he has been living several years in Brazil already and it was not known whether he still was an Austrian or not.

Quoting PU752 (Reply 135):
no news about JJMNGR? Its weird he didn't show up yet ...

I do hope he has the same situation just like me currently that he has no easy access to a computer!

I hope he is fine!


A very tragic event and may all people on board and on the ground Rest in Peace.


Brazil is having a bad time aviation wise currently! Let us hope it will become better soon!
 
Alessandro
Posts: 4961
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2001 3:13 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 5:22 am

Hindsight is always 20/20, but has it ever been suggested to over- build the roads and make it nto tunnels instead
to increase the area that the plane can run off the runway?
From New Yorqatar to Califarbia...
 
mrocktor
Posts: 1391
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 12:57 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 5:22 am

Quoting Mach4 (Reply 184):
airplane weight 62.7 tons (source: TAM press conference)

Minor correction: I understand that was its takeoff weight, not landing weight.
 
beechnut
Posts: 933
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 12:27 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 5:22 am

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

Not necessarily, IF the fuselage was able to go between the pylons. One technique for surviving a forced landing in a light aircraft when the field is too short, is to try to aim it between two trees. The trees (or in this case pylons) shear off the wings. This has two effects: 1), it absorbs energy from the crash in the wings and spar while keeping the fuselage relatively intact; this slows the fuselage down to a survivable speed before hitting any other obstacles; and 2) the fuel supply stays behind with the wings, lessening the chance of the post-crash fire claiming lives as the source of the fire is separated from the passenger-carrying portion. Of course, trying to aim a skidding Airbus between two pylons on a downslope is pretty much impossible without a huge dose of luck.

Also, over on pprune there is one post claiming an eyewitness report of a tailstrike on the attempted go-around. I only fly a light single (Beech Sundowner...hence my username!), but a stall or near stall significantly degrades aileron performance and lateral control. Could it be that the go-around was balked, the aircraft overrotated, and then stalled, with a wing drop-off to the left? This could be one explanation for the departure from centerline. Airbus drivers should be able to tell us how the A320 behaves near the stall and how the software compensates for it.

Beech
 
mach4
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 4:04 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 5:25 am

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 192):

On the press conference I saw the president of TAM (Bologna) said it was 62.7 tons at landing. He could have misspoken of course.
 
6yjjk
Posts: 338
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 6:40 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 5:26 am

Quoting EZEIZA (Reply 185):
Just found out one of the victims on board the plane had booked an appt. with the company where I work or this Saturday. A member of his family called to cancel the reservation  Sad

And that's when it becomes real, when it reaches out and touches you. People I've known and planes I've flown have both ended up in AAIB reports with "Fatal" and "Aircraft destroyed" in the summary. Suddenly it isn't so abstract any more.

I'm not one for overly mawkish reverence for those who are beyond help, but it's good to remind ourselves that this is a lot more than just another thread on a.net. Fortunately, the speculation here has been mostly free of the petty arguments and cheap shots at airline/manufacturer/country one might have expected.
 
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 5:34 am

Quoting Morvious (Reply 189):
Standing water and a slipping airplane is the only thing I can blame right now, not the pilots!

They are related. Compare to driving very fast on an icy road. If you end up in a ditch, is it your fault or the road's? In this case we can also add controllers and surface condition reporting to the mix.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
User avatar
EZEIZA
Posts: 4421
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2004 12:09 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 5:36 am

Quoting 6YJJK (Reply 195):
And that's when it becomes real, when it reaches out and touches you. People I've known and planes I've flown have both ended up in AAIB reports with "Fatal" and "Aircraft destroyed" in the summary. Suddenly it isn't so abstract any more.

100% agree
I have the reservation report in front of me and I was crossing the name with the list of victims provided by TAM and I see the name there as well ... it gives me the chills. And to make things worse, without having ever met the person, I know he is leaving behind a wife and two young kids. Shit this is sad ....
Carp aunque ganes o pierdas ...
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 5:38 am

Quoting N710PS (Reply 154):
I would like to point out that the A-320 is an airplane that as it is is a landing weight restricted airplane at CLT in uncontaminated conditions.

On a 3000m / 10000ft runway?

In this Airbus document, it says less than 1500m / 5000ft with max. landing weight and an airport elevation of 2000ft.

Page 49/50: http://www.content.airbusworld.com/S...a/docs/AC/DATA_CONSULT/AC_A320.pdf
Exceptions confirm the rule.
 
vbeltraJJ
Posts: 56
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 3:13 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 5:39 am

Quoting FMAL (Reply 178):



Quoting FMAL (Reply 178):
Hey, has anybody been able to reach JJMNGR yet?

Not yet, his company mail box is full and I don´t have his own phone number, just the number he used to have in cargo building that collapsed. We are working on that.

He is not among the people officially disappeared or dead.

Regards,

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