Quoting N710PS (Reply 154): 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.

Quoting N710PS (Reply 169): Again, this is Brazil though. A land where inept ATC and systems issues is enough to blame American for something.

First of all, your comments are ridiculous. Whether or not this runway was safe enough to operate on in wet weather due to the recent resurfacing / lack of grooves / suspected company mismanagement, how do you get off calling all of Brazils ATC's and "systems" (whatever that's supposed to mean) inept? And where's the American part in all of this? The airplane, if it was at all at fault, was European. No one has been blaming the US for anything. I'm highly confused at what your point is.

Plus, your first statement, that the bottom line is that the plane should not have been at that airport [at all, ever], is equally ridiculous. Maybe you missed the previous postings where runway lengths were discussed and how DCA and Midway and other short runways service A320s, 737s, and even larger planes on a daily constant basis. CGH has been landing and departing A320s for years now. There are pictures of A300s at CGH during the 90s. Landing weight with fuel restrictions comes into play with almost any aircraft at any airport. Its a fact of aviations that pilots understand and calculate before all flights.

The more this story unfolds, the less likely it seems thast the pilot had any idea that he wasn't going to be able to stop his airplane when he was on final. I wasn't the first person to say that the AF A340 in YYZ should probably have diverted because of the *severe* thunderstorms going on at the time, but this doesn't seem to be the case in this scenario. My money is on a lack of a grooved surface and a wet runway, coupled with an attempt to go around that went horrifically wrong.

Quoting Irobertson (Reply 200): Landing weight with fuel restrictions comes into play with almost any aircraft at any airport. Its a fact of aviations that pilots understand and calculate before all flights.

And this cannot be overemphasized. A shorter runway is different, but not inherently dangerous.

I really hope JJMNGR is OK. I don't know him but it would make this tragic event even more tragic if we lost one of our own from a.net.

Andy S

" A fire department spokesman said that the airplane cleared the perimeter fence and a busy highway. Failing to gain enough height, it collided with a concrete building, bursting into flames. "

from aviation-safety.net

Quoting Irobertson (Reply 200): Plus, your first statement, that the bottom line is that the plane should not have been at that airport [at all, ever], is equally ridiculous. Maybe you missed the previous postings where runway lengths were discussed and how DCA and Midway and other short runways service A320s, 737s, and even larger planes on a daily constant basis. CGH has been landing and departing A320s for years now. There are pictures of A300s at CGH during the 90s. Landing weight with fuel restrictions comes into play with almost any aircraft at any airport. Its a fact of aviations that pilots understand and calculate before all flights.

Look geinious, I said fully loaded, ungrated, in a contaminated condition. Do not question my knowladge, I did load planning for a major US airline that flew the Airbus 319 through 321 and am a commercial pilot that makes my Mcdonalds moolah doing so.. I know very well the conditions and operating peramiters of the Airbus. I al so deal with South America on a professional level in my second career where I am a freight forwarder in my dad's corperation. I know the show dow there pretty well. And to answer your first question I was addressing corruption in goverment organizations aviation related in Brazil. The refrence was to the Embraer crash and I am well aware that the Airbus is French made. I have been to the factory as a youth. The airplane has nothing to do with my statement except for the operations peramiters of the Airbus which I know well..             So now have a good afternoon sir!

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 201): A shorter runway is different, but not inherently dangerous.

Not "dangerous", but "less safe", perhaps? A shorter runway gives you a smaller safety margin, therefore it's less safe than a longer runway would be under identical circumstances. But not necessarily unsafe.

Perhaps "less safe" becomes "unsafe" when the margin is regularly below that dictated by aircraft (frame, not just type), weather, surface, pilot experience, etc. (This isn't intended as a comment on any specific plane, pilot or field, much less the specific ones involved here.) Even then, it's not the runway that's unsafe, rather the combination of runway, pilot, weather, ATC, this plane, other planes nearby....

Semantics, I know.  

Hi all,

Quoting Mach4 (Reply 184): 5. There were no reported problems with the aircraft, and the reverser issue was denied (TAM press conf.)

even if the #2 reverser was inop, doesn't this mean that BOTH thrust reverser are set inop (also blocking both closed)? This is what I've seen in some Citations and Boeings...

  

Fabrizio

Quoting Kaitak (Reply 179): 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.

Well the AF 340 that went off the end in Toronto is one for sure...

Quoting Bio (Reply 206): even if the #2 reverser was inop, doesn't this mean that BOTH thrust reverser are set inop (also blocking both closed)?

No it doesn't.

pAnmAn

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 186): 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.

Maybe this was actually somebody else talking into the ATC frequency...maybe even a controller. Its a possibility, but nothing will be sure before the analysis of the data recorders

Quoting Bio (Reply 206): Quoting Mach4 (Reply 184): 5. There were no reported problems with the aircraft, and the reverser issue was denied (TAM press conf.) even if the #2 reverser was inop, doesn't this mean that BOTH thrust reverser are set inop (also blocking both closed)? This is what I've seen in some Citations and Boeings...

I'm gonna take back that the reverser issue was denied. That is what I understood when I watched the press conference buut I read on pprune that exactly the opposite was said so I'm not sure anymore.

Quoting N710PS (Reply 204): Do not question my knowladge [sic]

Slow down man...

We don't know you from Adam here. If your knowledge is superior, put it into your argument, and explain why you are right. Don't rest your case on your expertise, which is unproven to us.

Quoting EMA747 (Reply 202): I really hope JJMNGR is OK. I don't know him but it would make this tragic event even more tragic if we lost one of our own from a.net.

From the recent press conference:

"A respeito dos funcionários da TAM Express, o presidente da TAM anunciou que há três vítimas fatais, cinco desaparecidos e 11 hospitalizados. "

"Regarding the TAM Express employees, the president of TAM announced that there were 3 fatalities, 5 still missing, and 11 hospitalized"

Does JJMNGR actually work for TAM Express, or simply in the vicinity of the accident?

Just in case I missed some info above...

here the info http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/pr-mbk/photo.shtml

RIP to the unluck ones  

Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 180): 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.

Exactly. I clearly remember the first reports after JJ 402 crashed on takeoff at CGH stating that the last thing heard from the pilots was "Let's avoid the school!" Although the plane did crash next to a school, there was no way in the middle of everything that was going on in the cockpit they'd be able to identify a school, and then press the PTT to make that transmission, as was proved in the CVR.

Quoting N710PS (Reply 204): The refrence was to the Embraer crash and I am well aware that the Airbus is French made. I have been to the factory as a youth.

Although I agree with you on how corrupt the government is, how the ATC system is crumbling and how badly the Gol-Legacy midair was handled, if you are going to continue to claim, in the face of contradictory evidence, that the A320 was overweight, please provide us with some hard facts or sources, not just your opinion. Moreover, a post with so many typos does nothing to increase your credibility.

I have a qustion. And sorry if it has been covered already. However, I myself just got out of the hospital and still trying to piece this all together.

As per CNN this morning they were saying that the TAM aircraft was a Widebody aircraft? 2) A former AA pilot was saying that airport can not handle any type of large aircraft when it is raining either on take off or landings because the runway is to short?

Again Sorry if this has been covered already. But, you don't get much info. in the hospital.

Chuck
May all of our Prayers go out to those who have lost loved ones.

Quoting DTWAGENT (Reply 215): As per CNN this morning they were saying that the TAM aircraft was a Widebody aircraft?

A320 = narrow-body

Quoting DTWAGENT (Reply 215): 2) A former AA pilot was saying that airport can not handle any type of large aircraft when it is raining either on take off or landings because the runway is to short?

It has in the past, but it's been years since any wide-body ops. There was a proposed "ban" on 737s and F-100s, but did not include the A320, for a while, but it never went into effect. The ban would only have lasted until the runway was repaved, which was just recently completed. However, apparently, the grooving has to wait several weeks to be done after re-pavement is complete.

[Edited 2007-07-18 23:53:21]

Quoting Hiflyer (Reply 52): In another forum it has been discussed that the same aircraft had a deferral for #2 reverser inop the day before but it was unknown if still in effect. Souls onboard has climbed from 168+6crew to 162 pax-18NRSA-6 crew. If 186 is the number then would this aircraft be near max LGW with even minimum baggage onboard? UAL and JetBlue operated the aircraft at 156 with B6 now decreasing to 150 for various reasons including crew cost saving, increased legroom, and less weight for better range performance. Now the TAM website says that their A320 fleet is config for 168 seats....utilizing both cockpit jumpseats could get you to 176 total onboard....10 less than what is now being reported.

Quoting BuyantUkhaa (Reply 70): In any case, 195 persons on board an A320 is not possible ... even on Easy Jet Who mentioned 195? The officially released number is 186, which makes perfect sense. And is of course tragic, because the number of casualties onboard literally couldn't be higher...

How does 186 make sense? As mentioned above, TAM's A320 seat chart shows 168 seats. Plus 6 crew makes 174. If there were a total of 186 aboard, which TAM's press release confirms (162 regular passengers, 6 crew, and 18 other employee passengers), I fail to see where the other 12 passengers above the 168 seats plus 6 crew (total 174) were sitting. Each of the 4 flight attendants would be using the 4 jumpseats for takeoff/landing. The extra 12 people certainly weren't all in the cockpit.

The only way I can see that many people on an A320 with 168 seats is if the 162 revenue passengers included an unusually large number of infants travelling on an adult's lap without a booked seat. If everyone was over 2 years of age, the 186 total quoted by the media and TAM can't be correct.

[Edited 2007-07-18 23:53:47]

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 217): the 186 total quoted by the media and TAM can't be correct.

It seems to be, Here's how TAM's CEO explained (remember that there were a total of 18 non-rev employees on board):

174 pax in the main cabin + 4 F/A + 2 flight crew = 180
1 lap child ==> 181
2 cockpit jumpseats ==> 183
Now, according to him you can add a max of 4 "additional" seats, similar to crew (F/A?) seats (to be honest, I have no clue what these are). And 3 of these were added, bringing the total to 186.

Hi all,

Just saw TAM's president making an statement about yesterday's accident on national TV and he sounded SOOOOOOO FORMAL, COLD, SELF CONTROLED I was shocked. It was such a contrast to Mr Constantino Junior, GOL's president, appearence on TV when GOL's 737-800 crasehd last year.

This gentleman should be reminded that this is a avery,very sad moment and the he should have tried and showed some emotion when talking about the accident. Also, TAM should be made aware that their safety record is probably one of the worst in the world ( apart form yesterday's accident, they've had 4 accidents in the past 11 years involving F-100 aircraft).

Talk about safety!

Cheers

tam express building seen from an A320 landing on 35R

Quoting ULMFlyer (Reply 218):

2 cockpit jump seats? If they weren't off-duty crew or something, i honestly can't even think what horrendous last moments they had seeing it all unfolding before their eyes!

Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 156): 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.

That reminded me of the following LH A320 accident at WAW in 1993.
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19930914-2

The spoilers and thrust reversers didn't deploy immediately since one main gear didn't touch down until 9 seconds after the other due to windshear. The aircraft ran off the end, struck an embankment and caught fire, with 2 fatalities. A320 design features that delayed use of braking systems were considered as a contributing factor in the cause, along with incorrect decisions of the crew. It was also raining heavily.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 221): Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 156): 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. That reminded me of the following LH A320 accident at WAW in 1993. http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19930914-2 The spoilers and thrust reversers didn't deploy immediately since one main gear didn't touch down until 9 seconds after the other due to windshear. The aircraft ran off the end, struck an embankment and caught fire, with 2 fatalities. A320 design features that delayed use of braking systems were considered as a contributing factor in the cause, along with incorrect decisions of the crew. It was also raining heavily.

Can't the crew deploy them manually in such case when initially and properly armed but not deployed due to ice / aquaplaning etc etc?

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 221): That reminded me of the following LH A320 accident at WAW in 1993.

Very relevant. Thanks for posting.

These are some of the recommendations found in this accident report:

Quote: 4.2 For A320 aircraft manufacturer 4.2.1 Possibility should be analysed to introduce the emergency use of ground spoilers and thrust reversers independently of meeting the criteria imposed by aircraft logics. 4.2.2 The possibility should be considered to modify the thrust reverser system to enable use of more than 71% N1 in the emergency.

Does anybody know whether Airbus implemented any of these?

Quoting PPSMA (Reply 219):

You're quite a GOL fan, EH?

Any word from JJMNGR yet?

Gus

I'm presuming the aircraft did not break the aquaplane between the wheels and the runway, and thus continued to slide.

Quoting PPSMA (Reply 219): tam express building seen from an A320 landing on 35R

Well, there's the problem. Your A-320 has a yoke and Boeing grab-handles above the windshield.

Quoting BeechNut (Reply 193): Could it be that the go-around was balked, the aircraft overrotated, and then stalled, with a wing drop-off to the left?

I would think that the FBW software would prevent overrotation, stalling, and wing-dropping, though it of course can't overcome the laws of physics.

Quoting FMAL (Reply 209): Quoting SEPilot (Reply 186): 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. Maybe this was actually somebody else talking into the ATC frequency...maybe even a controller.

Controllers have been known to yell over the frequency when they see an accident developing. Unfortunately, it's generally too late at that point.

-Mir

Brazilian TV just showed the video of the accident recorded by airport cameras. Should be online (youtube, etc) soon and make for interesting analysis.

Quoting Mach4 (Reply 229): Brazilian TV just showed the video of the accident recorded by airport cameras. Should be online (youtube, etc) soon and make for interesting analysis.

Already? What does it show?

Quoting DeC (Reply 230): Quoting Mach4 (Reply 229): Brazilian TV just showed the video of the accident recorded by airport cameras. Should be online (youtube, etc) soon and make for interesting analysis. Already? What does it show?

Unfortunately the video was dark, low frame rate and grainy but it showed the end of runway and you could see the aircraft was going quite fast and nowhere near close to stopping. The video was only showed once but it seemed to me the plane was going reasonably straight and along the center of the runaway up to its very end, then you can't see the rest because it's out of frame. So you can't see the actual crash but you can see the edge of the resulting explosion. I assume it started turning left immediately after it went out of frame.

By the way, I'm not sure why it's only been shown in one TV network so far and only once. It might not have been authorized so maybe it was the only chance to see it. Hopefully someone recorded it. (it was on Bandeirantes, Jornal da Band)

[Edited 2007-07-19 01:37:24]

Hey guys,

Quote: AAEXP (reply 224) You're quite a GOL fan, EH?

You bet! I am a big fan of GOL mainly because they managed to break into the so-called legacy carriers hegemony and take a big chunk of the market using a lot of creativity!

Quote: SlamClick (reply 227) Well, there's the problem. Your A-320 has a yoke and Boeing grab-handles above the windshield.

Yeah, I was so focused on writing the what I'd seen on TV I totally missed the detail of the photo...

Cheers!

Quoting Mach4 (Reply 231):

Thanks man. It's not on either youtube, liveleak or the etc's yet but i am sure it will be soon. Does that brazilian tv have a website perhaps? with the video inside? i doubt it but you never know...

As reported by the largest TV News show in Brazil a few minutes ago:

1 - Runway was re-opened for service last month after law-suit trigered repairs.
2 - Runway grooving had not yet been done. Infraero person in charge was shown in an interview last month stating that "Because it is the dry season, we have some time to do the grooving".
3 - Radio transmissions from the past couple of days show pilots and controlers reporting "Use causiton, runway extremely slipery".
4 - TAM flight yesterday told control tower "We got scared, runway is very slipery".
5 - Investigators debrief of 5 ATC personel from control shows that they all thought that approach, altitude, speed, touch down, etc for the TAM accident aircraft was normal.
6 - Day before the accident a turboprob airplane skidded off the rain covered runway.
7 - Heavy rain reported in the 3 hours piror to accident.
8 - Just prior to the accident, the runway was briefly closed down for inspection. Infraero determined that there wa
9 - Plane had 186 ppl on board. TAM officials in a press conference provided the estimated landing weight for the plane, and said it was below the maximum landing weight for CGH in wet conditions.
10 - Aircraft was delivered (I believe) in Dec/2006 - I'm not sure if I heard it right - it could be the last heavy maintenance date.
11 - 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.

I SPECULATE that the runway condition (lack of grooving, drainage, asphalt friction, etc) played a role in this accident. However, unless the plane/crew touched down too fast, too far down the runway or decided to take-off again or had a massive break/spoilers/reverse trust failure or failure in aplication, there is just no way it could have exited the airport boundary at such high speed.

So as usual, multiple causes in the chain. In the end it may be: Approach slightly too high, slightly too fast, delay in break application, delay in TR application, standing water on an ungrooved runway, etc that cause the plane to exit the airport boundary at 50+ kts.

Sad.

Now we just need to hear the Brazilian ministry of defese to como on the TV in the next 3 days to announce that Infraero/ATC had no role in the accident and it was all caused by some foreign entity like he did in the GOL-Legacy case.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 217): How does 186 make sense? As mentioned above, TAM's A320 seat chart shows 168 seats.

As quoted earlier, some were changed to a 180 pax config.

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 137): The wreckage's heading is over 45 degrees off centerline, I think that is what really matters in terms of understanding the trajectory

As said before, if it would have started spinning, there would have been little relation between the heading and the trajectory.

Quoting PYP757 (Reply 148): People have been talking of speed of 100 kt at the end of the runway - what's the evidence? Given the high embankment, even at slow speed the plane could have become airborne briefly again, overflown the cars on the highway, and gained enough speed to cause the destruction it did.

I tried the following (and this is very inaccurate I know): imagine first that the plane had no lift (it had; I'll get back to that) and that it started falling ballistically (ie no external forces acting on it) the moment the main landing gear left the embankment, and hit the ground and the building at the same time. That gives, as very rough estimation, 75m of "free fall" until impact with the building. Using G Earth data and looking at the photo, I think the drop is 8 metres only.

With Z=0.5gt^2 you get that it crossed the gap in 1.2649 seconds meaning 213km/h. If the drop was higher, the speed would be lower. Now back to lift, any lift would have made the plane stay in the air longer, also meaning that the speed could be lower; this means that the speed would have been (much) less than 213km/h but not more. Is that speed sufficient for take-off?

Could it be that they took off on ground effect and then lost it once they went over the edge?

Quoting N710PS (Reply 204): Do not question my knowladge, I did load planning for a major US airline that flew the Airbus 319 through 321 and am a commercial pilot that makes my Mcdonalds moolah doing so.. I know very well the conditions and operating peramiters of the Airbus. I al so deal with South America on a professional level in my second career where I am a freight forwarder in my dad's corperation

Quote: Username: N710PS Age: 21-25

[Edited 2007-07-19 02:15:02]

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 234):

Thanks a lot for all those details my friend, they're more than useful. Any links for the video? As soon as someone has it, please share with us.

Just saw the video on Band News (local news network) and it's really shocking!

You can see the A320 going real fast past a couple of parked airplanes and as it reaches the end of the runway you can see a small explosion apparently when it hits something before departing the runway. The plane then disappears from the screen - then you see the first of two huge explosions!

So sad!

Quoting BuyantUkhaa (Reply 235): Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 217): How does 186 make sense? As mentioned above, TAM's A320 seat chart shows 168 seats. As quoted earlier, some were changed to a 180 pax config.

Sounds like TAM has a few different configurations other than the 168 mentioned in their website. One news item said this aircraft had 174 seats. If that is correct, with one infant reportedly among the passengers, it would mean 5 of the other TAM employees on jumpseats (in addition to the 4 flight attendants).

Video can be found on this page: http://g1.globo.com/Noticias/SaoPaulo/0,,MUL72788-5605,00.html

By the way, does anyone know the distance between the lights on the ground so that we could perhaps approximately calculate the speed of the aircraft? (Maybe it's even possible just with the length of the aircraft?)

Quoting Mach4 (Reply 239):

Thanks! Pretty shocking and sad, look at how fast it's going!

Although they cut it just before the explosions.

Quoting Mach4 (Reply 240):

Can it be done with such low frame rate?

Quoting PPSMA (Reply 237): Just saw the video on Band News (local news network) and it's really shocking!

Indeed, really terrible.  

Quoting 6YJJK (Reply 205): Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 201): A shorter runway is different, but not inherently dangerous. Not "dangerous", but "less safe", perhaps? A shorter runway gives you a smaller safety margin, therefore it's less safe than a longer runway would be under identical circumstances. But not necessarily unsafe.

We're getting down to semantics.   But with added risk factors added precautions are taken.

Quoting Yellowtail (Reply 207): Well the AF 340 that went off the end in Toronto is one for sure...

Indeed. There have been hull losses with the 340s. Just no fatalities. And as mentioned before no ("proven") fatalities or hull losses on any FBW Airbus due to aircraft malfunction.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 217): How does 186 make sense? As mentioned above, TAM's A320 seat chart shows 168 seats. Plus 6 crew makes 174. If there were a total of 186 aboard, which TAM's press release confirms (162 regular passengers, 6 crew, and 18 other employee passengers), I fail to see where the other 12 passengers above the 168 seats plus 6 crew (total 174) were sitting. Each of the 4 flight attendants would be using the 4 jumpseats for takeoff/landing. The extra 12 people certainly weren't all in the cockpit.

As mentioned, several were reconfigured to 180 pax.

Quoting PPSMA (Reply 219): Just saw TAM's president making an statement about yesterday's accident on national TV and he sounded SOOOOOOO FORMAL, COLD, SELF CONTROLED I was shocked. It was such a contrast to Mr Constantino Junior, GOL's president, appearence on TV when GOL's 737-800 crasehd last year. This gentleman should be reminded that this is a avery,very sad moment and the he should have tried and showed some emotion when talking about the accident. Also, TAM should be made aware that their safety record is probably one of the worst in the world ( apart form yesterday's accident, they've had 4 accidents in the past 11 years involving F-100 aircraft).

People react differently to pressure. Also there are cultural issues. I don't know the "expected" tone in Brazil at all.

Quoting Mir (Reply 228): Quoting BeechNut (Reply 193): Could it be that the go-around was balked, the aircraft overrotated, and then stalled, with a wing drop-off to the left? I would think that the FBW software would prevent overrotation, stalling, and wing-dropping, though it of course can't overcome the laws of physics.

Indeed. The scenarios BeechNut mentions are exceedingly unlikely. The FBW software would have prevented overrotation, stalling and wing dropping. FBW Airbi don't stall. If there is not enough power, they add power (with some exceptions. If power is not available (or not available fast enough) they sink in a controlled fashion.

Having said that, if the landing gear or wing were to actually strike something I'm sure all bets are off.

Quoting DeC (Reply 241): Thanks! Pretty shocking and sad, look at how fast it's going! Although they cut it just before the explosions.

Yes that is a shorter video than the one I originally saw. I believe there is also unreleased footage from two other cameras, one that shows the touchdown point.

Quoting DeC (Reply 242): Can it be done with such low frame rate?

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.

Here's a low quality version of the video

Quoting Mach4 (Reply 240): By the way, does anyone know the distance between the lights on the ground so that we could perhaps approximately calculate the speed of the aircraft? (Maybe it's even possible just with the length of the aircraft?)

Not without also knowing the angle of the camera. You could do it with the distance between the lights, but not just by the length of the plane.

It doesn't seem from watching the video like he was trying to stop at that point in the roll. I don't see any reverser wash, and he's obviously going at a pretty high rate of speed. Seems like he may have been trying to take off, as has been reported.

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.