• 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 3:24 pm

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 291):
Indeed.

Glad we agree, Starlionblue. As I said, the other thing we learned from the videos is that the pilot(s) managed to keep the aeroplane on the runway all the way to the end. I'd previously had a 'mind-picture' of it gradually veering left, because of where it finished up.

Must admit that I'm tending mentally to relegate the wet runway to a 'contributing cause' - on the visual evidence, it certainly wasn't the SOLE cause, given the fact that the aeroplane went 'all the way' virtually at landing speed. Whatever problems that runway may have presented, it wasn't covered with a sheet of ice.

If that view is right, it brings human error or some sort of mechanical malfunction - or a combination of both - squarely 'into the speculative frame.'

[Edited 2007-07-19 08:28:22]
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
dan2002
Posts: 2024
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2002 7:11 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 3:28 pm

Quoting Mach4 (Reply 277):
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...8.asf

Looks like your bandwidth limit has been reached.
A guy asks 'What's Punk?'. I kick over a trash can and its punk. He knocks over a trash can and its trendy.
 
mandala499
Posts: 6592
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 3:29 pm

Quoting N710PS (Reply 295):
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

Relax, the information you received are not ENTIRELY wrong... it depends on the context.
Companies sometimes DO reduce the stated performance and constrict the limitations it imposes on the aircraft for various reasons, to reduce wear and tear, increase safety margins for lower risks. One must be careful into deciding what is the company limit and what is the certified limit when it comes to performance limitations. The airlines are not wrong in doing so, as long as the aim is to increase safety, and they may tell you that the numbers they have IS the limit, it is because they're the ones who are paying (channeling the money from the customers to its staff), and they don't want their workforce to start playing with various differences in the company and certified limits because to certain limitations (such as CAT 3 operations) require additional training.

Sorry if the previous posts sounds harsh, but it's to try and open one's eyes before one goes on the credibility stance. What you said may be correct with regards to company specific limitations, but manufacturer and other company limitations MAY/CAN differ... but the certification limit is the maximum one can push the aircraft.

Sleep easy... we all learn a new thing everyday... and that makes life interesting  Smile

Mandala499
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
buckfifty
Posts: 1278
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2001 4:05 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 3:53 pm

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 300):
Must admit that I'm tending mentally to relegate the wet runway to a 'contributing cause' - on the visual evidence, it certainly wasn't the SOLE cause, given the fact that the aeroplane went 'all the way' virtually at landing speed. Whatever problems that runway may have presented, it wasn't covered with a sheet of ice.

If the eyewitness reports suggesting that a rotation was attempted are true, then the speed issue could be explained. The image in my head suggests that they attempted to go-around after selecting reverse, which will significantly delay the reselection of TOGA thrust. That's why our ops manual determines that we're commited to the landing once reverse is selected.

In any case, whatever is the actual outcome of the accident report, you're right, it seems that there must have been more than one contributory factor to this accident.
 
YVRLTN
Posts: 2344
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 1:49 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 4:05 pm

Quoting FMAL (Reply 89):
should such investigation point to INFRAERO to any extent, that those responsible really face Justice

This is a genuine question. What options do they have? Close the runway whenever raining for the next 30-45 days until it is suitable to have the grooves made? This would surely cause chaos as such a busy airport. Should they ban all A32S / 737 size aircraft while raining? It was an ATR, a plane the third of the size, which had the mishap the previous day. From other posts, they or ATC evidently put out warnings about the slippery surface. Its the pilots responsibility to act on these warnings and make the decision to land there or not. It seems there were no pilots however - from any airline - avoiding CGH and diverting elswhere, so the warnings were evidently not considered serious enough by anyone to warrant diversion.

Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 94):
I fully expect to hear stories today about how many aircaft made successful landings with "no problems" right before this accident. The implication will be - if the other pilot got away with landing - these pilots should have been able to do so.



Quoting Baron95 (Reply 234):
Airforce just release a video of two TAM A320 landing withing minutes of each other from an airport camera. First plane (normal landing) takes 11 seconds to cross right to left on the field of view. Second plane (accident aircraft) takes 3 seconds. Un unbelieveble and visible difference. There was LOTS, LOTS of water spray from the accident aircraft. Video is of good quality.

Unfortunately with the current limited information available, it wont take much creativity to make such a story - an identical aircraft from the same airline, so the crew should be following same procedures, received same training etc etc, made it down safely in exactly the same circumstances just minutes previously. It was evening, so A32S and 737 series aircraft would have been landing there all day in the same conditions - it almost goes without saying the water volume would increase if the rain didnt stop of course, though from other posts it seems there was light rain as opposed to monsoon downpours which would hardly make drastic differencesover a relatively short period of time. IMO, its a given the condition of the runway and the fact the plane was fully laden are exacerbating factors - but there is undeniably something specific with this airplane and its crew, as every other A320 or 738 didnt end up off the runway. If there had been several instances of this nearly happening during the day, Im sure diversion procedures would have been put into place, even if only in the form of a diversion advisory for the pilot to make the decision, despite whatever corruption and other goings on are evidently prevailent in Brazil.

Quoting Mandala499 (Reply 105):
New things have come up at another forum saying that the #2 reverser was inop.

Again a genuine question as Im pretty clueless when it comes to piloting and aircraft systems - would this come up in the pre-flight check, either visually or electronically? Or would there be a warning system in the aircraft if something happened once airborn to notify the crew of this? I cant believe there would be neither. So, if - and this is an if of speculation - the crew did know about an inop reverser....well, all I will say is from what I have learnt of this runway & CGH from these posts, it looks way down near the bottom of my options list where to put the plane down. On the other hand, if there is no warning and no way of telling from a visual check - surely that should be something for Airbus to fix, if it is found to be a contributory factor into the loss of 200 lives.
Follow me on twitter for YVR movements @vernonYVR
 
SailorOrion
Posts: 1960
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2001 5:56 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 5:15 pm

Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 156):
This is an A320 specific question - but what activates the spoilers?

From what I know (please correct me if I'm wrong):

In "FULL" configuration (maximum flaps), the spoilers are extended when one AIRGR switch deems the aircraft to have ground contact. Prior to WAW, I think both AIRGR switches were needed.

The WAW problem in brief was: No "ground contact" detected, thus no reversers and no spoilers, thus no sufficient force on the wheels, thus no sufficient wheel braking on a runway covered with water. All in all, no considerable breaking action for 900m.

Options?
1) Close the airport altogether
2) Buy some real estate and extend the runways
3) Use smaller planes, and especially don't carry excessive fuel for the next leg!!! (Has this been confirmed btw?)
4) Build a maglev from downtown Rio to downtown Sao Paolo, which can make the distance in about 50 minutes.

SailorOrion
 
mandala499
Posts: 6592
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 5:18 pm

The reversers being inoped, the crew would/should know about it...
But, should they realize they were skidding, they could go around or stop with whatever they got. We don't know if going around was a choice as we weren't in the cockpit at the time... BUT, should one choose stop with whatever he/she got, you can bet the reversers would be used, 1 reverser is better than none... in this case, the major concern was stopping, not staying on the runway...
This... is not the first time such a thing happened. But whether this is what happened... we don't know...

Mandala499
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
ehho
Posts: 769
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 3:26 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 5:20 pm

The official telex from Airbus that was circulated here at EASA:

AIRBUS FLIGHT SAFETY DEPARTMENT TOULOUSE

ACCIDENT INFORMATION TELEX - ACCIDENT INFORMATION TELEX

SUBJECT: TAM LINEAS AREAS FLIGHT JJ3054 ACCIDENT AT Macedonian Airlines (Greece)">IN SAO PAULO, BRAZIL
OUR REF.: TAM JJ3054 DATED 17 JULY 2007

AIRBUS REGRETS TO CONFIRM THAT AN A320 AIRCRAFT OPERATED BY TAM LINEAS
AREAS WAS INVOLVED AT Macedonian Airlines (Greece)">IN AN ACCIDENT DURING LANDING PHASE AT SAO PAULO
CONGONHAS AIRPORT - BRAZIL THE 17TH JULY 2007 AT 06:30 PM LOCAL TIME.

THE AIRCRAFT WAS OPERATING A SCHEDULED FLIGHT JJ3054 FROM PORTO ALEGRE
TO SAO PAULO CONGONHAS AIRPORTS.

THE AIRCRAFT INVOLVED AT Macedonian Airlines (Greece)">IN THE ACCIDENT, REGISTRATION NUMBER PR-MBK
BEARING MSN 0789 WAS DELIVERED TO TACA INTERNATIONAL FROM THE
PRODUCTION LINE AT Macedonian Airlines (Greece)">IN FEBRUARY 1998 AND HAD LOGGED OVER 20.000 FLIGHT HOURS
AND 9.300 LANDINGS. AND Irtysh-Avia (Kazakhstan)">IT WAS POWERED BY IAE ENGINES.

PRELIMINARY REPORT INDICATES THAT THE AIRCRAFT OVERRUN THE RUNWAY,
CROSSED A HIGHWAY AND HIT A BUILDING.

ACCORDING TO AVAILABLE INFORMATION, THERE WERE 170 PASSENGERS AND 6
CREW MEMBERS ON BOARD . AT THIS STAGE, THE TOTAL NUMBER OF CASUALTIES IS
NOT YET KNOWN.

AT Macedonian Airlines (Greece)">IN LINE WITH INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ICAO ANNEX 13, AIRBUS HAS OFFERED
FULL TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO THE BEA (BUREAU D'ENQUETES ET ANALYSES) AND
THE AUTHORITIES OF BRAZIL WHO WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INVESTIGATION
INTO THE ACIDENT. FOR THIS PURPOSE, AIRBUS IS PRESENTLY DISPATCHING A TEAM
OF 5 SPECIALISTS TO ASSIST THE AUTHORITIES.

FURTHER UPDATE WILL BE PROVIDED AS SOON AS VALUABLE INFORMATION IS
AVAILABLE.

YANNICK MALINGE
VICE PRESIDENT FLIGHT SAFETY
AIRBUS
"Get your facts first. Then you may distort them as much as you please" -- Mark Twain
 
OldProfessor
Posts: 8
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 8:02 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 5:25 pm

Quoting N710PS (Reply 295):
Explain any other reason why CLT might be a weight restricted airport for an A-320?

Perhaps you are misunderstanding the reason for the weight restriction you witnessed.

In my experience a weight restriction is usually imposed to prevent the aircraft from LANDING too heavy (i.e. above its maximum gross landing weight).

Just speculating: On a normal day a full A-320 from LGA to CLT should be light enough to takeoff, burn its fuel in cruise and land below MGLW. But if you throw in extra fuel for delays, holding and a planned alternate airport - the aircraft may be light enough to takeff fully loaded safely, but too heavy to land at CLT below MGLW. That could be why that flight sometimes had a weight restriction.

Anyhow, landing too heavy is a structural issue and completely unrelated to having the required landing distance for a safe landing.


There are situations where a weight restriction could be imposed because a runway is too short, but I doubt this would be the case on a flight to CLT (as others have pointed out with actual data from Airbus Manuals).

I could see landing distance being a limting factor on a snowy day in LGA, DCA or MDW...

[Edited 2007-07-19 10:36:36]

[Edited 2007-07-19 10:44:02]
 
EBGflyer
Posts: 637
Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2006 5:05 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 5:45 pm

This is pure speculation, but wasn't on board computers being discussed back when the AF 340 crashed in Toronto?

Was just wondering whether the fly-by-wire computer could somehow prevent the plane from braking (brakes or thrust reversers) due to not having registered the wheels touching the runway flooded with a layer of water.
Future flights: CPH-BOS; CPH-SVG; CPH-PVG-HKG-MNL-DVO; CPH-CDG; CPH-NRT; CPH-MIA; CPH-PVG
 
SailorOrion
Posts: 1960
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2001 5:56 pm

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 5:47 pm

Quoting EBGflyer (Reply 309):
This is pure speculation, but wasn't on board computers being discussed back when the AF 340 crashed in Toronto?

Was just wondering whether the fly-by-wire computer could somehow prevent the plane from braking (brakes or thrust reversers) due to not having registered the wheels touching the runway flooded with a layer of water.

See reply 305  Smile

SailorOrion
 
User avatar
PanAm_DC10
Community Manager
Posts: 4061
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2000 7:37 am

RE: TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

Thu Jul 19, 2007 6:25 pm

Those with dial up connections will be having problems accessing this thread, please continue the discussion at the following link

TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 3

Thank you
Ask the impossible to achieve the best possible
  • 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