Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
 
DeC
Posts: 535
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2005 5:12 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 9:48 am

Quoting Mach4 (Reply 246):
A low frame rate doesn't imply the footage is slowed down or accelerated so it should be fine. Also on the TV you could see on the top left corner the time stamp for each frame so one could confirm that.

Yes but a low frame video doesn't show all the positions the plane was at every single moment as the speed of the aircraft is clearly higher than that of the camera. So how are you going to calculate the exact speed of the plane while there's actually some split-seconds of footage missing due to the low frame rate?
DEC
 
DeC
Posts: 535
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2005 5:12 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 9:51 am

Quoting BuyantUkhaa (Reply 249):
Quoting DeC (Reply 247):
Here's a low quality version of the video

Seems a long time between the initial flash and the glow from the big explosion.

Also, does anybody else get the impression that the speed of the plane seems to be significantly lower as it leaves the runway to the left in comparison with the initial stages of the video when it was running down the runway, or is it just me? 'Cause i got the impression that - at least towards the last stages of the landing - he was actually trying to slow it down and stop it. Who knows? Maybe he decided to take off then realized there was no way to do that and then finally decided to slow down and try to stop?
DEC
 
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 9:53 am

Spacecadet,

Actually this video on YTube has a lower quality than when seen on TV. On another video you can clearly see the water spray from the reverse.
"ad astra per aspera"
 
mach4
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 4:04 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 9:53 am

Quoting DeC (Reply 250):
Yes but a low frame video doesn't show all the positions the plane was at every single moment as the speed of the aircraft is clearly higher than that of the camera. So how are you going to calculate the exact speed of the plane while there's actually some split-seconds of footage missing due to the low frame rate?

If you were able to measure the difference in position of the plane between two frames you would have the average speed throughout that distance. There are about 10 frames where the airplane is visible so you could make 9 velocity measurements.
 
PPVRA
Posts: 8522
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 9:54 am

Quoting DeC (Reply 251):

Possible optical illusion as the plane gets further and further and at an angle away from the camera, I'd say.

[Edited 2007-07-19 02:57:52]
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
DeC
Posts: 535
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2005 5:12 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 9:58 am

Quoting S.P.A.S. (Reply 252):
Spacecadet,

Actually this video on YTube has a lower quality than when seen on TV. On another video you can clearly see the water spray from the reverse.

That's the other video:

DEC
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 20086
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 10:20 am

Quoting S.P.A.S. (Reply 252):
Actually this video on YTube has a lower quality than when seen on TV. On another video you can clearly see the water spray from the reverse.

From reverse or just from the tires?
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
PPVRA
Posts: 8522
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 10:24 am

http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/TAM_3054

Some interesting pics, and you can see what the TAM Express building looked like before and after.
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 20086
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 10:27 am

Hey, that Wikipedia article says one of the recorders has been found and sent to the US.

Uma das caixas pretas foi localizada e enviada aos Estados Unidos da América pela Aeronáutica para investigação[16].. I had no idea Portuguese was so easy for me to read.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
FMAL
Posts: 469
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2004 9:16 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 10:28 am

This website (portuguese only) has two videos:

http://g1.globo.com/Noticias/SaoPaulo/0,,MUL72763-5605,00.html

shocking footage, once you realize what happened right after that...
 
PPVRA
Posts: 8522
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 10:28 am

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 258):
I had no idea Portuguese was so easy for me to read.

LOL, but its true, it was found last night still.
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 20086
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 10:31 am

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 260):
uoting Starlionblue (Reply 258):
I had no idea Portuguese was so easy for me to read.

LOL, but its true, it was found last night still.

Do you know it was the DFDR or CVR?
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
spacecadet
Posts: 3570
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2001 3:36 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 10:32 am

Yeah, I see wash from the tires. Reverser wash is pretty obvious. This doesn't look like it to me.

Quoting Mach4 (Reply 253):
If you were able to measure the difference in position of the plane between two frames you would have the average speed throughout that distance.

Exactly. Say you have a frame rate of 1 frame per second. You know where the plane is one second, then you know where the plane is exactly one second later. You can easily determine from that how many feet the plane travelled in one second, meaning you know how fast the plane is going.

Whatever the frame rate actually is, the math still works. There could be two frames on this entire video and as long as both showed the plane, you could still calculate at least the average speed between those two points. This video has several more frames than that, so they should also be able to calculate whether the plane was accelerating or decelerating. My guess is he was accelerating - the angle of the camera only makes it appear the opposite. You're watching the plane as it's moving away from the camera.
I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
 
mach4
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 4:04 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 10:37 am

I did some very rough calculations using the distance of 60 meters between the lights on the runway (measured that on google earth).

I found the plane was going at approx. 215 km/h (about 80% of takeoff speed?)
 
fd728
Posts: 96
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 10:38 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 10:46 am

Very shocking videos.

In case you, Mach4, are correct with the 215 km/h, then at this speed and if the pilot actually had decided to take off again, wouldn't at least the nose be going up by the time the plane is at the end of the runway (assuming the sidestick was pulled)?
 
PPVRA
Posts: 8522
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 10:48 am

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 261):

Do you know it was the DFDR or CVR?

They don't distinguish, only call it a "black-box". It's apparently in good shape.

I'd imagine they have both, though. Preliminary examination in Brazil didn't really answer anything according to some sources, and its being shipped to the NTSB and a report (coming from a company, I presume the manufacturer) should be done within a month.

[Edited 2007-07-19 03:51:52]
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
mach4
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 4:04 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 10:52 am

Quoting FD728 (Reply 264):

In case you, Mach4, are correct with the 215 km/h, then at this speed and if the pilot actually had decided to take off again, wouldn't at least the nose be going up by the time the plane is at the end of the runway (assuming the sidestick was pulled)?

On the video with the wider angle you can see a flash underneath the plane as it gets to very end of the runway, maybe that is the tail hitting the ground?

It is very hard though to be accurate with the low resolution of these videos and other unknowns. My estimate could be factors off.
 
fd728
Posts: 96
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 10:38 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 10:52 am

I don't know about the reversers, but while looking at the footage again it seems like the spoilers are deployed. I assume the flight crew was either attempting to stop by any chance or trying to get airborne again and "forgetting" to retract the spoilers.
 
scrubbsywg
Posts: 1097
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 9:35 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 10:56 am

in the video posted by DeC, there is a short quick flash with about 9 or 10 seconds left. what is that? I'm sure this is far before the plane went off the runway, as the explosion is like 10 seconds after that.
 
DeC
Posts: 535
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2005 5:12 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 10:58 am

I don't know if this is genuine but it's just posted with this tag: "tam jet crash speak pilot and control comand"

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

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 10:59 am

Also, if you ignore the STUPID music those f%)%(s put on top, here's a better resolution version of the wide angle video:

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

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 11:00 am

Quoting DeC (Reply 269):
I don't know if this is genuine but it's just posted with this tag: "tam jet crash speak pilot and control comand"

Genuine but not the TAM flight. That was another flight and it shows the tower telling the pilot to be careful because the runway is slippery.
 
akizidy214
Posts: 258
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 1:10 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 11:02 am

DCA
 
fd728
Posts: 96
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 10:38 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 11:04 am

Quoting Mach4 (Reply 266):
On the video with the wider angle you can see a flash underneath the plane as it gets to very end of the runway, maybe that is the tail hitting the ground?

You're right, that's an interesting observation. It does seem like the fuselage is rotating.

Quoting ScrubbsYWG (Reply 268):
in the video posted by DeC, there is a short quick flash with about 9 or 10 seconds left. what is that? I'm sure this is far before the plane went off the runway, as the explosion is like 10 seconds after that.

At this point the plane might already be leaving the runway to the left and maybe the wheels are hitting the edge lights
 
mach4
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 4:04 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 11:18 am

Using the latest youtube video Dec posted I was able to establish that the security cameras were recording at exactly 5 frames per second. This much seems reasonably certain.

From that wider camera angle I got a speed of 180 km/h but again these are rough estimates.
 
rfields5421
Posts: 6272
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:45 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 11:31 am

Quoting FD728 (Reply 274):
On the video with the wider angle you can see a flash underneath the plane as it gets to very end of the runway, maybe that is the tail hitting the ground?

The flash looks like a light being struck and the arc before it extinguishes. Could be wrong, but there are plenty of lights near the end of the runway and such a flash could result from hitting a taxiway sign.

But that's just a guess because I can't tell for sure if he was still on the runway or to the left at that point.
Not all who wander are lost.
 
Pu752
Posts: 450
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 2:29 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:20 pm

Taminforma.com.br says that there are 5 missing employees at TAM express building, can anyone confirm that fellow a.net JJMNGR actually was working at the same building of TAM express where the A320 crashed?

[Edited 2007-07-19 05:21:45]
 
mach4
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 4:04 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:29 pm

For those that want to analyze the footage, here is a higher-res, downloadable version of video from all the camera angles (including landing)

http://mach.cdxi.googlepages.com/tam_congonhastv2_128.asf
 
DeC
Posts: 535
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2005 5:12 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:44 pm

Quoting Mach4 (Reply 277):

That's a pretty good find, thanks for sharing!
DEC
 
CRBM666
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Jan 21, 2007 12:18 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:47 pm

Thanks a lot Mach4! Very interesting video indeed.
 
n710ps
Posts: 1116
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2006 7:09 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:48 pm

The 320 was overweight for landing in those conditions. I worked many a flight in the last year before I went on to where I am now where CLT is a weight restricted airport for landing in light percipitation and or heavy precip. CLT has 10,000 feet in their longest runway. If 10,000 feet available landing distance is not enough for a fully loaded Airbus A-320 accounting for the fact that you have full function of your TR's as well as anti skid and no brakeing systems locked out with agrooved runway how do you expect that the same model airplane can do it on ungrooved, highly contaminated runways nearly half the length of the longest. I do not hold the manuals to the A-320 in hand nor do I own them but I have worked all models of the A-320 family minus the 318 and I did it at LGA which has 7,000 feet of useable. And to question my profession verses age. I have held rateings since high school and I think you can take a wild stab at who I work for without me saying names here as we all know exatly what can happen with the worlds new representation policies most companies have. And yes I work for my father. Bruzzone Ovair and Freight Forwarders International, Helicopters Internation al Shipping Services. Look it up if you are intrested in digging soo deep into what qualifies me to say what I say here. The bottom line is that something that should not have happened took place and minimum of 189 lives were lost and it should not have happened. Now the question becomes was there a NOTAM and was there operations up to par. This is not bodeing well for the company and their procedures need to be scrutinized greatly. I do not know the specifics on the METAR for the time or of PIREPS existed or what others were reporting for brakeing conditions either. I am baseing my information on experince with the type from a load control and operations standpoint. There is plenty in the BASIC details to support my theroy. For now I will bid good night and see the armchair CEO's and MSFS pilots tomorrow for another enjoyable day off from work mixed with the constant banter that is Airliners.net

Quoting BuyantUkhaa (Reply 235):
There is plenty of room for Gods animals, right next to the mashed potatoes!
 
PPSMA
Posts: 157
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2005 9:11 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:48 pm

I guess everyone is getting a bit nervous about JJMGR's whereabouts.

Felipe, any news on him?

Anyone?

Domenico
Aviation is my thing!
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:57 pm

Thanks to all who found and posted the videos.

Speculation, but to me they tend to explain one thing - the aircraft veering to the left. This appears to have happened at the very last minute. I suspect that the pilot saw the end of the runway looming up and just instinctively (i.e. the instinct of self-preservation) turned (presumably using the nosewheel steering) to try to follow the taxiway, rather then just piling off the runway end?

My other impression (provided that the videos were shot in normal time) is that the speed at the end was incredibly high. I don't see how the aeroplane, even if it was skidding in the wet, could POSSIBLY still have been travelling at that sort of speed if it had flaps, spoilers, reverse thrust, and brakes deployed all the way along a mile of runway. My own impression is that it HAD still to have some power on - the video looks more like a takeoff run than anything else.......

[Edited 2007-07-19 06:11:03]
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
mach4
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 4:04 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:59 pm

After a quick analysis of the multiple cameras it seems like the aircraft speed remained mostly unchanged at around 60 m/s or 216 km/h

It's also worth noting that calculating the average speed by dividing the distance traveled* by the total time the aircraft was on the runway yields a very similar result.

(* the plane landed at the 1000 foot marker according to the Brazilian air force)
 
User avatar
KPDX
Posts: 2487
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 10:04 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:02 pm

Quoting DeC (Reply 278):
That's a pretty good find, thanks for sharing!

Yea, but very sobering.  Sad

Of course you cant say ANYTHING yet, because of course, we dont know exactly what happened yet, but dont you think he could of tried to go around earlier? He looked to be going extremely fast already.
 
baron95
Posts: 1106
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 10:19 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:06 pm

All reports indicate that the plane touched down within the first 1000 ft of the runway, under control at apparently normal speed. I can't think about any reason why the pilot would have decided to add power and take off again. Even if the breaking action was very poor, he'd only find out about it after spoilers and TRs were deployed and breaking applied - at that point I can't think of any training that would allow for a go around on a 6000 ft runway. The only thing that would make sense would be an optical illusion that made them think there was an obstruction like another aircraft on the runway - even then a go around would not be the way to go.

It might have been just a failure of breaking agressively enough due to crew or mechanical problems, combined with poor runway conditions.
Killer Fleet: E190, 737-900ER, 777-300ER
 
khelmDTW
Posts: 204
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2007 1:55 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:10 pm

How can a Commercial Airport have such a short runway? Is that thing even a nautical mile?

Shut it down and start over.

May the victims RIP.
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration"
 
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 1:26 pm

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 285):
It might have been just a failure of breaking agressively enough due to crew or mechanical problems, combined with poor runway conditions.

By watching the video, I thought about that too. Is it possible that the breaks failed for some reason other than the water on the rwy? just break failure for some other reason?

regards
Carp aunque ganes o pierdas ...
 
ULMFlyer
Posts: 190
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 11:39 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:44 pm

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 285):
All reports indicate that the plane touched down within the first 1000 ft of the runway, under control at apparently normal speed. I can't think about any reason why the pilot would have decided to add power and take off again. Even if the breaking action was very poor, he'd only find out about it after spoilers and TRs were deployed and breaking applied - at that point I can't think of any training that would allow for a go around on a 6000 ft runway. The only thing that would make sense would be an optical illusion that made them think there was an obstruction like another aircraft on the runway - even then a go around would not be the way to go.

It might have been just a failure of breaking agressively enough due to crew or mechanical problems, combined with poor runway conditions.

Glad to read your sensible posts again, Baron95. I agree with everything you wrote.

Quoting N710PS (Reply 280):
The 320 was overweight for landing in those conditions. I worked many a flight in the last year before I went on to where I am now where CLT is a weight restricted airport for landing in light percipitation and or heavy precip. CLT has 10,000 feet in their longest runway.

Are you really saying that an A320 at MLW cannot stop in 10,000 ft???? That is definitely not substantiated by the post below. Read the document and come up with something better than "I know because I worked many flights." As a matter of fact, checking Boeing's specs (on its website) for the B744ERF, one can see that at her MLW (566,000 lb or 302,093 kg), and at a pressure altitude of 6,000 ft, with a WET runway she needs slightly less than 10,000 ft. And with a pressure altitude of 8,000 ft, she needs a little more than 10,500 ft.

Quoting A342 (Reply 198):
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



Edit for link above

[Edited 2007-07-19 06:49:45]
Let's go Pens!
 
mandala499
Posts: 6593
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:55 pm

N710PS,

Quoting N710PS (Reply 280):
The 320 was overweight for landing in those conditions. I worked many a flight in the last year before I went on to where I am now where CLT is a weight restricted airport for landing in light percipitation and or heavy precip. CLT has 10,000 feet in their longest runway.

I am sorry, but one does NOT have to be a pilot or a baggage loader or a licensed dispatcher to read the aircraft performance chart.
Before making claims and justifications of your qualifications and whatever else, at least have the courtesy to read the following link: http://www.content.airbusworld.com/S...a/docs/AC/DATA_CONSULT/AC_A320.pdf
Which was posted by a user in this topic (thank you A342).

Another bus performance charts I got show:
A320 IAE engines, 2000ft elevation, dry = unrestricted to an MLW of around 64 tons... An MLW landing at 2000ft elevation dry runway would require about 1600m... wet? Well if you allow a 15% increase it's 1840m, if out allow a 25% increase it's 2000m.

For most planes, a wet landing would constrict the landing weight requirement by about 15% for the same length. The above numbers takes into account the 300m (1000ft) touchdown from the threshold. However, those figures are based on OAT 15C.

Quoting N710PS (Reply 280):
If 10,000 feet available landing distance is not enough for a fully loaded Airbus A-320 accounting for the fact that you have full function of your TR's as well as anti skid and no brakeing systems locked out with agrooved runway how do you expect that the same model airplane can do it on ungrooved, highly contaminated runways nearly half the length of the longest.

I am sorry but trying to believe you that an A320 at MLW requires 10,000ft of runway on a normal dry or wet runway is simply a waste of my time. You also do not understand the certification requirements for an aircraft landing for a given weight... the reversers are NOT taken into account for those calculations... btw, the A320 may require an MLW landing field requirement of 10,000ft if you put no brakes, no reverse and maybe spoilers only.

Quoting N710PS (Reply 280):
I do not hold the manuals to the A-320 in hand nor do I own them

I suggest you get them before speaking in such a qualified tone.

Quoting N710PS (Reply 280):
For now I will bid good night and see the armchair CEO's and MSFS pilots tomorrow for another enjoyable day off from work mixed with the constant banter that is Airliners.net

Sleep well my fellow armchair CEO and MSFS pilot, Mr. N710PS... *grin*

Quoting N710PS (Reply 280):
The bottom line is that something that should not have happened took place and minimum of 189 lives were lost and it should not have happened.

This is probably the only statement that sounds right in your reply.

Mandala499
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
D L X
Posts: 12680
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:59 pm

Quoting KhelmDTW (Reply 286):
How can a Commercial Airport have such a short runway? Is that thing even a nautical mile?

Shut it down and start over.

May the victims RIP.

Dude, stop.

Washington National's longest runway is just as short, and planes larger than 320s land on it. They used to have scheduled A300s, a UA DC-10 has landed on it, and it frequently sees 757-200s and -300s today. Including in heavy rain.
again: http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e199/D_L_X/DCA%20Vortex/DSC_4127.jpg
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 20086
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 2:03 pm

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 282):
My other impression (provided that the videos were shot in normal time) is that the speed at the end was incredibly high. I don't see how the aeroplane, even if it was skidding in the wet, could POSSIBLY still have been travelling at that sort of speed if it had flaps, spoilers, reverse thrust, and brakes deployed all the way along a mile of runway.

Indeed.

Quoting KhelmDTW (Reply 286):
How can a Commercial Airport have such a short runway? Is that thing even a nautical mile?

I will chime in with DLX and say that the runway is plenty long enough for larger aircraft than the 320. And yes, it is longer than a nautical mile.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
plunaaircanada
Posts: 95
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:27 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 2:12 pm

Thats a lot of people, really sad.

plunaaircanada
 
mandala499
Posts: 6593
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 2:18 pm

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 291):
I will chime in with DLX and say that the runway is plenty long enough for larger aircraft than the 320. And yes, it is longer than a nautical mile.

Lo and behold... here are some numbers...
(N710PS, here's something I got from those who ARE qualified for the A320)...

Quote:
Autoland Landing Distance with Autobrake 62.7 Tons approx
Config FULL with Autobrakes MED distance WET = 5200ft approx
Altitude correction, 3%/1000 = 7.5% x 5200 = 5600 approximately
2 Reversers operative = 0% - no credit, no liability.
Minus Headwind of 8kts or so, (-3% approx) = 5600 - 3% = 5400ft approx

The tables take into account speed increments linked to headwind and autoland. Any further speed increment of 5 knots increases landing distance by 7% for all runways.

The Landing Distance Without Autobrake Config FULL is much shorter because of the landing technique assumed - hardly any flare, immediate maximum manual braking until stopped, no reverse accounted for:

62,000kg
Wet distance = 3760ft (compared to 2690ft DRY)
4%/1000ft ASL = 10% x 3760 = 4100ft approx
No credit for headwind
- 6% for 2 Reversers Operative = 4100ft - 6% = 3900ft approx.

Though these numbers do not answer everything, it does give us an indication that although the numbers are close to the limit on what is safely acceptable, it shows that it does not need a 10,000ft runway  Smile

Mandala499
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
Mir
Posts: 19491
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 2:28 pm

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 256):
From reverse or just from the tires?

In the second video (reply 255), I see reverser spray. It's too far away from the tires (and in front of them) to be from the tires only.

In the video in reply 270, I am less sure.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
n710ps
Posts: 1116
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2006 7:09 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 2:33 pm

Never said I was qualified on the 320. I know a little bit on it from my operations experince though. And I do know what circumstances I have encountered in the time I was there. So think as you may but I also know what circumstances I have seen as well. Explain any other reason why CLT might be a weight restricted airport for an A-320? I do however admit that information I have for the 320 may well be inaccurate, though it may be I also know a little bit about the realm here. If you would like me to go to detail with you feel free to PM me.
There is plenty of room for Gods animals, right next to the mashed potatoes!
 
buckfifty
Posts: 1278
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2001 4:05 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 2:50 pm

Quoting N710PS (Reply 280):
If 10,000 feet available landing distance is not enough for a fully loaded Airbus A-320 accounting for the fact that you have full function of your TR's as well as anti skid and no brakeing systems locked out with agrooved runway how do you expect that the same model airplane can do it on ungrooved, highly contaminated runways nearly half the length of the longest.

I seriously question your credentials, or your skills are definitely poor. 10000' landing distance not enough for a A320 in any operational contaminated runway condition is a statement that is totally out of line. I fly the A330, and at max landing weight, with 1/2 inch of water and LO autobrake only needs about 6500 feet of runway. I highly doubt the 320 will need more.
 
ULMFlyer
Posts: 190
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 11:39 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 2:51 pm

Quoting Mandala499 (Reply 293):
Lo and behold... here are some numbers...

Thanks for the numbers, Mandala. Particularly interesting to me was the difference between distances with and without Autobrakes.

Considering they landed around the 1,000 ft mark, one can see how close margins could be. Nevertheless, after watching the video, I have to agree with Baron95 that something else must have gone wrong for so much speed to be present at the end of the runway.
Let's go Pens!
 
buckfifty
Posts: 1278
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2001 4:05 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 3:18 pm

Quoting ULMFlyer (Reply 297):
Thanks for the numbers, Mandala. Particularly interesting to me was the difference between distances with and without Autobrakes.

Manual braking usually generates shorter touchdown distances, because there is a slight delay with autobrake actuation after touch down. I have read on another forum that manual braking is the preferred technique at Congonhas, but no one knows if this was the technique used in this case. In any event, all I know is that ungrooved surfaces are a significant factor on touchdown distances in the wet, as it will increase greatly the chances of aquaplaning.
 
n710ps
Posts: 1116
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2006 7:09 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 3:21 pm

Quoting BuckFifty (Reply 296):

Well, as I stated previously, I was not an A-320 pilot nor have I ever flown the Airbus and would not profess to do so but I can tell you that I have seen a weight restricted and by weight restricted landing limited airplane before to CLT from LGA in the time I was where I was. Now what and why I cannot tell you but I did from memory pull the release and look at the MEL's and there was nothing related to anti skid, brake systems being locked out, or any other issues. So in that point and mark I will leave it to be whatever it is to be and that is the end. I have seen it come up as well for the 321 and the 737-400 in the past as well with CLT. Now whether this is something in company guidelines or not I have no clue. I do understand as well the viw expressed by some but I do know what I saw as well. I unfortuneately do not have access to the information, manuals, company policy binders, etc etc... but I do recall the occurances which is what I base my statements off of. Now whether they hold water? Irrelevant I guess...
There is plenty of room for Gods animals, right next to the mashed potatoes!
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 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