Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Quoting LH526 (Reply 2): I wonder why it takes TAM nearly 2 days to find out wich employees worked in the TAM Express Bldg at the given impact time ... Sure they have more important stuff to do, but a quick headcount of one manager plus checking the hospitals should do the job. |
Quoting McSteve (Reply 4): just saw on a dutch news site, that the federal government has demanded closure of the CGH. Since they state that the safety of the airport is to low to continue operating |
Quoting Baron95 (Reply 285): 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. |
Quoting McSteve (Reply 4):
just saw on a dutch news site, that the federal government has demanded closure of the CGH. Since they state that the safety of the airport is to low to continue operating. |
Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 6):
As noted from several posts - the autobrake, thrust reversers and spoilers would NOT engage because the sensors would tell the systems the aircraft was not on the ground |
Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 6): If I remember correctly, tire wear and grooving depth is important. |
Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 6):
As noted from several posts - the autobrake, thrust reversers and spoilers would NOT engage because the sensors would tell the systems the aircraft was not on the ground. |
Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 6):
Also even if the TR and spoilers did deploy - they cannot stop the aircraft on that runway if the brakes are not working. |
Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 6):
I strongly suspect when the CVR and FDR are analyzed - we're going to find the crew took 5 to 10 seconds to try and figure out what was happening |
Quoting Juventus (Reply 5): Quoting McSteve (Reply 4): just saw on a dutch news site, that the federal government has demanded closure of the CGH. Since they state that the safety of the airport is to low to continue operating Its perfectly safe for turbo-props and corporate jets. Instead of closing the airport, why not just banned anything above a certain weight??? |
Quoting LH526 (Reply 7): Right, so why is there no manual override?? A hatched panic switch where spoilers and TRs can be activated manualy? |
Quoting LH526 (Reply 7): I wonder what would have been the outcome if the pilots decided to steer the plane off the runway and into the gravel beside the runway? A slightly more thrust on enginge #1, and soon you will be stuck in the wet gras, some injuries, W/O plane .. best scenario |
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 11): Gotta love the politics. It was safe the other day, and now all of a sudden it's unsafe, based on one accident with an unknown cause. For all we know it could have been the plane malfunctioning or the pilot being suicidal. But nooooo. Let's all jerk our knees together! Can you say "populism"! All together now! |
Quoting AAEXP (Reply 13): Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 11): Gotta love the politics. It was safe the other day, and now all of a sudden it's unsafe, based on one accident with an unknown cause. For all we know it could have been the plane malfunctioning or the pilot being suicidal. But nooooo. Let's all jerk our knees together! Can you say "populism"! All together now! It must be interesting sitting on Greenland and be an expert on Brazilian politics! |
Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 12): basically the systems prevent a pilot accidentally deploying the spoilers and TR while still in the air |
Quoting AAEXP (Reply 13):
It must be interesting sitting on Greenland and be an expert on Brazilian politics! |
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 15): < rant > If the airport is unsafe (not saying whether it is or not) it should have been prohibited from operating way before a plane crash. Politicians demanding the closure of an airport immediately after an accident (and before the investigation is copmplete) is the worst kind of politics. Politicians are not experts on the matter. They should let the relevant regulatory agency do its job. Such politicians do not deserve your confidence. They are simply reacting to events (and trying to get some votes) instead of acting for the long term good of the people. < /rant > |
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 10): but understood that the problem was recognised, and was presumably addressed by Airbus with modifications etc.. Do you mean that it can still happen? |
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 10): Have to disagree there, at least to the extent that they could sure slow it down some! Agreed, aquaplaning could reduce or even eliminate the effect of braking - but the brakes are the only part of an airliner's stopping 'mechanism' that require contact with the ground. If the aeroplane was properly configured for landing it would have had the gear and flaps down, the spoilers deployed, and full reverse thrust operating. If you actuated that lot on an airliner it would practically stop dead in a short distance even if it was still in the AIR, leave alone on the ground......... |
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 17): RFields, I'd be very surprised if the spoilers can't be deployed in the air. They're needed in flight occasionally (admittedly with care, and for short periods) in any sort of aeroplane I've ever been associated with. |
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 10): Have to disagree there, at least to the extent that they could sure slow it down some! |
Quoting AAEXP (Reply 14): And we have just had a TAM Fokker 100 aborting landing at CGH. Aparently coming in too high. Ended up landing in GRU, why? Plane was landing from the Marginal Pinheiros side, which is the opposite way of the crashed plane. |
Quoting Sevenair (Reply 24): I cannot see how a plane can be hurtling down the runway with such force. |
Quoting AAEXP (Reply 14): And we have just had a TAM Fokker 100 aborting landing at CGH. Aparently coming in too high. Ended up landing in GRU, why? Plane was landing from the Marginal Pinheiros side, which is the opposite way of the crashed plane. |
Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 20): the risk of improper deployment is still too high to override the safety of requiring positive contact & wheel spin. |
Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 20): From what I've seen and read - the answer is no - it cannot be stopped in that short of a distance. |
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 11): Gotta love the politics. It was safe the other day, and now all of a sudden it's unsafe, based on one accident with an unknown cause. For all we know it could have been the plane malfunctioning or the pilot being suicidal. But nooooo. Let's all jerk our knees together! Can you say "populism"! All together now! |
Quoting AAEXP (Reply 19): No, they are reacting to the very understandable enormous public outrage |
Quoting MD11junkie (Reply 18): How do you know Starlionblue is in Greenland? Just because of his flag? I could put the Chilean flag in my profile... does that mean I'm chilean or in Chile? No... |
Quoting AAEXP (Reply 19): No, they are reacting to the very understandable enormous public outrage. |
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 33): Hehe. I am currently living in Connecticut. For those not up on geography, That's northeast of New York City. |
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 33): Reacting to temporary public outrage |
Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 6): 4. Can't manually deploy reversers |
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 10): Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 6): As noted from several posts - the autobrake, thrust reversers and spoilers would NOT engage because the sensors would tell the systems the aircraft was not on the ground. RFields, I know that that is thought to have happened a long time ago with an Airbus (A320 or A340?) that only had one wheel down - but understood that the problem was recognised, and was presumably addressed by Airbus with modifications etc.. Do you mean that it can still happen? |
Quoting AAEXP (Reply 19): No, they are reacting to the very understandable enormous public outrage. |
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 15): < rant > If the airport is unsafe (not saying whether it is or not) it should have been prohibited from operating way before a plane crash. Politicians demanding the closure of an airport immediately after an accident (and before the investigation is copmplete) is the worst kind of politics. Politicians are not experts on the matter. They should let the relevant regulatory agency do its job. Such politicians do not deserve your confidence. They are simply reacting to events (and trying to get some votes) instead of acting for the long term good of the people. < /rant > |
Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 6): The airport is not inherently unsafe - it's just extremely options limited. |
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 33): Hehe. I am currently living in Connecticut. For those not up on geography, That's northeast of New York City. |
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 10): Agree entirely that the FDR and CVR will help - but we have to hope that they survived the fire undamaged. With the aircraft completely destroyed, those devices are just about the only hope of finding out for sure what actually happened on the flightdeck in the last desperate seconds. |
Quoting David L (Reply 37): in that it did what it was designed to do, but in the design, which, I believe, was subsequently changed. |
Quoting David L (Reply 37): I think you'll also find that the original comment didn't suggest the Brazilian government is more guilty of knee-jerk reactions than any other |
Quoting David L (Reply 37): But without knowing the cause(s) - that's a classic knee-jerk reaction in my book. I think you'll also find that the original comment didn't suggest the Brazilian government is more guilty of knee-jerk reactions than any other, just that their spokesman seems to have reacted that way this time. I believe it was a "typical government" comment and not a "typical Brazilian" comment. |
Quoting ComeAndGo (Reply 30):
I bet the video is actually showing a TAM plane taking off and the press just put this video on the air without knowing what it is. |
Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 43): I'ts my understanding that the design was changed to ALLOW the crew to manually deploy when one wheel set was spinning and the other not. |
Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 43): But if, and again pure speculation, this TAM aircraft hydroplaned - both wheels would not be spinning in the crucial very few seconds the crew had to resolve the problem. |
Quoting David L (Reply 37):
You might be thinking of the incident where one wheel was grounded much later than the other, due to a crosswind. Apparently the system at that time required ground sense from both main gear units before deciding it was "down". |
Quoting David L (Reply 37):
It wasn't a failure of the system, in that it did what it was designed to do, but in the design, which, I believe, was subsequently changed. |
Quoting AAEXP (Reply 44): The public outrage in Brazilian is related to the genral state of civil aviation in Brazil. This accident is just one more drop in an already very full glass. It's been filling for years, getting really full in the last 12 months since the GOL disaster. |
Quoting AAEXP (Reply 44): But they are certainly working hard at it! |
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 46): We could probably have a lively discussion as to whether a system that stops a pilot using the spoilers, thrust reversers, or brakes for a full 9 seconds after touchdown can be rated as a 'failure' or not? But we'd better let it pass...... |