Continuing on from the first two threads threads;

TAM Plane Crashed In CGH

and

TAM Plane Crashed In CGH Part 2

TAM Express flight 3054 carrying 170 passengers and six crew has crashed and burst into flames at Brazil's busiest airport, Congonhas CGH in the heart of Sao Paulo.

A passenger plane has crashed and burst into flames at Brazil's busiest airport, in the heart of Sao Paulo, killing up to 200 people.

Rescue crews said none of the 186 people on board the Airbus A320 could have survived, while more people were killed on the ground.

The TAM airliner skidded off the runway as it landed in wet weather, shot over a busy road and hit a fuel depot.

Aircraft was PR-MBK arriving from Porto Alegre POA as flight JJ3054.

Link to BBC News http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6903837.stm story

Link to BBC News http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6903837.stm#map location of accident

With over 300 replies those with dial up connections may have trouble downloading this so please continue the discussion here. Thank you

A plane crash is always sad news.
RIP

I wonder why it takes TAM nearly 2 days to figure 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.

Mario
LH526

[Edited 2007-07-19 12:17:02]

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.

Some ideas - the records of who was scheduled to work, who actually showed up to work and who did not were destroyed in the fire, the managers who schedule the shifts might be among the injured/ dead, the people in the hospital might not be able to identify themselves and might not be identifiable visually. Depending upon how and where personnel records are kept, there might not be sufficient records remaining. If they operate on a time clock system - it was probably destroyed - and many employees, management types, would not be logged into and out of the building.

If I were responsible for the task of identifying ground employees, I'd contact each person who worked in the building individually - even those on vacation or holiday, then find the family of each person not contacted. Even so, the number of missing people is most likely not going to match the number of injured and dead bodies.

I would insist upon resolving the discrepancies before releasing any names. My concern would be the people injured, their families and providing information to the families of those missing.

I would not be concerned with, or care about, providing information to the public until after the identity of each injured person was fully confirmed, each deceased was fully confirmed - probably will take weeks of DNA testing in many cases. And there will most likely be some bodies which are never found/ identified due to the length and intensity of the fire.

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. Can anybody confirm this?

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 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.

The video strongly indicates braking action was not poor - there was no braking action - the wheels/ tires were not in contact with the ground and the plane was in a full hydroplane skid. Now that's just a guess, but the video shows all the telltale signs.

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. Also even if the TR and spoilers did deploy - they cannot stop the aircraft on that runway if the brakes are not working.

I'm not saying this is the sequence - but it seems possible:

1. Normal approach, normal touchdown
2. The plane doesn't start slowing - why?
3. Standing on the brakes manually - no impact
4. Can't manually deploy reversers
5. How far down the runway are we?
6. We're going to crash off the runway at high speed - try to turn away from those big concrete towers at the end of the runway

If the aircraft braking and such do not start to slow the plane immediately - they have what - 20 to 25 seconds from touchdown to skidding off the end of the runway?

The speed in the video is not necessarily trying to go around.

Had the aircraft landed on an ice covered runway it could be going that fast 5,300 feet after touchdown. If, and it's a big if, the airplane was in a full hydroplane skid - it's just like ice with only aerodynamic drag to slow the plane.

There are some rather extensive studies of hydroplaning - and why one vehicle/ aircraft will have minor skids and another will have full skids in identical conditions on the same surface are interesting.

If I remember correctly, tire wear and grooving depth is important.

Another is that a cushion can be built between the tires and the surface making it impossible for the vehicle/ aircraft to break through and touch the surface.

Standing on the brakes/ heavy manual braking makes the skid worse and longer. You have to come off the brakes to establish tire rotation and ease back on the brakes.

That's why vehicles and aircraft have anti-skid braking - because a human can't apply, release, apply, release the brakes fast enough to stop the vehicle/ aircraft.

If this aircraft was in full anti-skid braking mode - it would take about 150% of normal dry stopping distance - 7,000 ft ?

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 - and by then it's too late - the plane's going off of the airport at high speed.

The airport is not inherently unsafe - it's just extremely options limited.

If anything goes wrong on touchdown - the crew has only four to ten seconds to identify and resolve the problem. If they had a 10,000 ft runway - that time grows significantly.

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.

It's like the government prohibiting guns "due to sooo many killings" .. it's always humans that make things dangerous or safe.
It's nothing but a panic decision trying to take all blame off the officials.
Congonhas is not unsafe, it's the human factor that led to the accicent. DON'T land at CGH in too heavy rain, finish the runway with the needed drainage grooves, after that you can get one of the most safe airports! Obey the NOTAMs, have the right persons in the tower and in the end better be safe than sorry! Divert to GRU and be angry about taking a cab to your home instead of not being able to worry anymore!

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

Right, so why is there no manual override?? A hatched panic switch where spoilers and TRs can be activated manualy?

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


Mario
LH526

[Edited 2007-07-19 13:02:23]

Reporting from the regional press (Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay)

1) Almost confirmed that the pilot tried to rotate when he realized he had no runway left to stop the plane.
2) The runway has a very poor drainage.
3) There are additional victims on the ground, not TAM employees but may be visitors to the facilities as well as pedestrians, final numbers might be given after the recovery operations are finished. (Same gruesome scenario as the LAPA crash in AEP, which BTW could have been worst)
4) Political fall out imminent, Brazil was having some chronic problems with their Air Transport System in general (Known as the Apagon Aereo), Mr. Julio Redecker representative for the opposition at the federal the congress for Río Grande do Sul died in the crash, and President Lula is beeing sourly criticized for not acting upon the system before this kind of tragedy happened.

My deep condolences to the families of the victims.

Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 6): If I remember correctly, tire wear and grooving depth is important.

It's tyre pressure that is the main effect of hydroplaning speed. Once below hydroplaning speed normal braking should resume. Which is why on a wet runway, a 'positive touchdown' and full braking/full spoilers are required. 9*SqRt of the tyre pressure measured in PSI will give you the hydroplaning speed in kts. And like you say, the aircraft slowing to below hydroplaning speed will depend on many things, particularly the depth of the contaminant.

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 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.

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.........

Even if the 'failsafes' prevented reverse thrust being used, the drag from the other things would have slowed the aeroplane down quite a lot in a mile's run along the runway.

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

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.

[Edited 2007-07-19 13:22:54]

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???

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 LH526 (Reply 7): Right, so why is there no manual override?? A hatched panic switch where spoilers and TRs can be activated manualy?

Others will have to provide more detail - but basically the systems prevent a pilot accidentally deploying the spoilers and TR while still in the air. Even with a manual override and deployment - the TR and spoilers cannot stop the plane on that runway - on that airport property. It's going off and down that embankment.

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

The plane would probably have gone off the airport within a couple hundred feet of the same place with maybe 10-20-30 kts less speed.

I don't know how much of the runway is in view in the video - but it appears to be 25-33%. Based on the timing of this aircraft - the plane was on the ground 15 to 20 seconds.

At that runway length, in those wet conditions - if something goes wrong in the first five or six seconds of touchdown - this type plane is not gong to be stopped on the airport property unless it hits something solid.

If the plane had been in contact with the ground sufficiently to break through the grass into the mud - it would have had braking action better on the runway. If it had been in the mud at those speeds - would the gear have stayed attached?

In 1964 a USAF T-39 set down in a plowed field near my home in a thunderstorm. The gear did not come off. The aircraft took over 4,000 feet to stop, plowing two to three foot deep furrows through the soft mud. That plane weighed less than 15,000 lbs.

The A320 weighted several times more. There simply is not enough airport to have stopped the TAM aircraft.

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!

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 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!

I am not an expert on Brazilian politics. But I can tell kneejerk politics when I see them.

< 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 >

One has to question the airport being open in heavy rain conditions to larger aircraft ops. With runways that had been so recently repaved that grooving couldn't be done yet (takes 30 days for curing), with such short runways, no run-off areas or arrestor systems and even close calls in recent weeks (as noted in other posts on this), it was a matter of time for such a tragedy to happen. Now over 200 people are dead.
I understand the pressure to keep the airport open due the economic and political pressures, but that shouldn't override safety. Perhaps a new San Paulo airport in an outlying area with the necessary runway length and buffer zones needs to be built, but that has it's own problems including costs, environmental issues and will probably take 20 years. Let us hope the government and the airport authority does take short term actions to suspend flights at CGH, especially in wet weather until the grooving is done as well as longer term actions including installing arrestor systems, examine maximum touchdown points and reducing the number of flights overall so better control of flights can be done.

Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 12): basically the systems prevent a pilot accidentally deploying the spoilers and TR while still in the air

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.

In connection with the subject of A320 controls - someone on one of the earlier threads gave details of the pilots. They were unusual in that BOTH of them had more than 10,000 hours, if I recall correctly. But one of them (presumably the guy acting as First Officer) was unfamiliar with the A320 and was therefore 'under training' to an extent. Can anyone recall who put that information on, and on which of the previous threads, so I can look it up? I have a feeling that the point may be relevant.

Quoting AAEXP (Reply 13): It must be interesting sitting on Greenland and be an expert on Brazilian politics!

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...

As for what he says, it's true. Politics tend to magnify everything, from one day to another it goes from safe to 'the most unsafe airport in the world'. That's not serious. However, it IS Lula's fault for not pushing the air force/INFRAERO around to do the modifications necessary for the airport to have the runway working along International Standards.

Yes, in Argentina we have a big problem - and we're approaching the same critical level as Brazil. This is because measures are not taken BEFORE anything happens. Our Governments are well behind the issues. Why do they have to act after anything has happened?

Simple, politics.

If the plane was overweight when landing, Airbus might say that if the plane was overweight when landing, then that could've caused the brakes to fail. Or something like that in case of a mechanical failure.

I sincerely hope that we get to the bottom of this and nail the person responsable for this.

Gastón - The MD11junkie

EDIT: Removed reference to user.

[Edited 2007-07-19 13:46:06]

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 >

No, they are reacting to the very understandable enormous public outrage.

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?

The way others have explained it - the risk of improper deployment is still too high to override the safety of requiring positive contact & wheel spin.

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.........

This discussion is not can the aircraft be stopped without braking - but can the aircraft be stopped on that runway in those conditions in the time/ distance left after the crew recognizes the problem and initiates manual actions.

From what I've seen and read - the answer is no - it cannot be stopped in that short of a distance.

Were this a 9,000 ft or 12,000 ft runway - no problem.

5,300 ft after a proper touchdown - big problem.

Now - slowing down vs trying to go around.

Obviously the choice the crew made was wrong if they tried to go around.

We don't know if they tried to go around. There has been no credible report from ATC or the FDR/CVR that the crew tried to go around. Only a person who would not identify himself.

But it is very apparent the crew had only two choices - both very bad:

(1) Skid off the airport into the street / city at high speed
(2) Try to fly again and clear the builidngs/ obstructions

Option 1 would have meant an impact at maybe half the speed of a go around attempt - and certainly high fatality count.

Option 2 is extremely risky, but the only option with a high survival possibility.

These pilots certainly know that survival of an aircraft crash requires people be able to extricate themselves and get off the plane in less than three minutes. Crashing into solid structures at 50 kts or higher makes survival extremely unlikely.

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.

You're both right.   Spoilers can be deployed in the air to function as air brakes. However, there is a limitation on the extent of deployment. Typically, only some of the panels extend only part of the way. Full deployment is reserved for ground use.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 10): Have to disagree there, at least to the extent that they could sure slow it down some!

On average only 30% of braking power comes from the reverse thrust, with a 70% reduction of braking ability, coupled with a very short runway, and a breaking coefficient which seems to be below 0.25, then you have a really difficult situation. Not to mention the very short stopway before a sheer drop.

Looking at the video of the plane crashing, the pilot must have been trying to make a go-around. Even with the difficult situation, 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.

I just saw that on one of the morning programs, Bom Dia Brasil or Mais Voce. What happened there?

Quoting Sevenair (Reply 24): I cannot see how a plane can be hurtling down the runway with such force.

Time, time is everything in this crash.

There was not enough time.

There probably wasn't enought time to spool up the engines for a go around. Even a short 1,000 - 2,000 foot hydroplane skid is going to send the plane into the video frame at a very high speed.

There is nothing inherently wrong with this airport - but it's size gives the pilots in an emergency have no options and no time to react.

Remember an ATR came very close to going off the airport on landing the day before.

It has taken you longer to read the last three posts than the crew had to identify there was a problem, decide on an action and execute the action.

Time, not enough time !!!

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.

It is very common for some pilots to decide to divert in the days right after an accident at an airport - especially one where an overrun occured.

Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 20): the risk of improper deployment is still too high to override the safety of requiring positive contact & wheel spin.

Thanks, RFields, understand where you're coming from now. A difficult balance to strike. Arguably, in this case, the risk of 'improper deployment' may have been overtaken by the certainty of an 'all killed' crash?

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.

Agree - but that doesn't account for the sheer speed that it was still travelling at when it ran out of runway. I still have the feeling, now that I've seen those videos, that - whether as part of an attempted go-around or for some other reason - it still had some forward thrust on when it piled in.

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!

My words exactly, welcome to my RR list!

Mario
LH526

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. The airport controllers stated that the landing speed appeared normal. On the video the first plane slows down while the second one appears to be accelerating. I say, we're being conned.

Quoting AAEXP (Reply 19): No, they are reacting to the very understandable enormous public outrage

  

A report in www.Clarin.com from Buenos Aires, "Piden el cierre inmediato del aeropuerto de San Pablo donde se despistó el avión, La medida fue impulsada a la Justicia por el Ministerio Público Federal de Brasil que exige la interrupción de las operaciones en la pista principal y auxiliar de la terminal."

Translating "A request is made to immediately close the city of Sao Pablo airport where the airplane (TAM on July 17, 2007) overshoot the runway.The measure is presented to the Justice by the Federal Public Ministry of Brazil ( I guess this is like the Attorney General) and it demands the full interruption of all operations in both runways of the terminal."

Political reactions to tragedies, can be predicted almost word by word, in any part of the world, very sad, as some one told me yesterday, either they are inept or irresponsible, or may be both.

Here is a good viedo of the aborted landing of the Fokker 100 moments ago:

http://g1.globo.com/Noticias/SaoPaulo/0,,MUL72945-5605,00.html

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...

Hehe. I am currently living in Connecticut. For those not up on geography, That's northeast of New York City.

Quoting AAEXP (Reply 19): No, they are reacting to the very understandable enormous public outrage.

Yes, but shouldn't they have ensured the airport was safe in the first place? Politicians are elected so that they can look after the long term well being of the people. Reacting to temporary public outrage without waiting for the results of the investigation does not further the goal. I would like my politicians to have a bit more spine than that. There's plenty of time to close the airport if the airport was "at fault". And you don't need an accident to decide if an airport is safe or not. Commercial aviation has been around for a while now and those regulators and operators have certification procedures down pretty good by now.

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." - Winston Churchill.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 33): Hehe. I am currently living in Connecticut. For those not up on geography, That's northeast of New York City.

Greenland or Connecticut doesn't make any difference in relation to my comment as the perceptive reader will have discovered by now.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 33): Reacting to temporary public outrage

This outrage is not temporary, it has been growing for almost a year now.

Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 6): 4. Can't manually deploy reversers

What would cause something like this to happen?

Quoting DeC (Reply 35): What would cause something like this to happen?

Because afaik you can't if the AIRGR switch deem the aircraft to not be on the ground.

SailorOrion

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?

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". 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. In other words, I'm not sure it's particularly likely that's what happened here... unless it was a different incident you were referring to.
.

Quoting AAEXP (Reply 19): No, they are reacting to the very understandable enormous public outrage.

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 DeC (Reply 35): What would cause something like this to happen?

As far as I know, DeC, the 'systems' make sure that the wheels are down and spinning before they 'allow' reverse thrust to deploy/operate, even if the pilots have selected it.

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 >

Agree. While we don't know for sure if the airport contributed to the crash yet, still, If they actually cared about it, they would close the airport before the crash since they were suspicions about its safety, not wait 'till 200 souls are lost and then come out in full make-believe and pseudo-austerity to close it down, after the worst has already been done. And yes i am sitting and judging from Greece.

Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 6): The airport is not inherently unsafe - it's just extremely options limited.

And the lack of options makes it inherently unsafe for commercial airliners..........

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 38):

I see. Thanks.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 33): Hehe. I am currently living in Connecticut. For those not up on geography, That's northeast of New York City.

Didn't you have a Welsh flag for a while? Now you live in my old stomping grounds!

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.

I completely agree with you - these devices will tell a lot. I wonder how fast the A320 was going when it exited the runway?

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.

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.

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.

Again I think it's going to come down to time - the crew didn't have enough time to take all the possible actions.

First things first: my heart and thoughts are with those who are left behind.

For the first time since a long time I'm posting again. I've read about everything in past 300 posts or so. In one way or another this accident attracts my attention more than others. Perhaps because I've flown to and from this airport a couple of times. Or because I have a (job-related) big interest in the policy behind the accident.

Anyway, there's a lot of suggesting going on in the previous posts. About how the accident could have happened, about what should happen to CGH. All of this is of course a very human thing to do. I'm about to start with it as well...

I just wonder why nobody seems to concentrate on the bigger picture? I mean, a lot has been happening in Brazilian aviation the past two years. RG decimated, the GOL accident, several ATC-strikes with huge delays and now this tragedy.

Something should change. Should the (larger) INFRAERO airports in Brazil be privatized, so the Brazilian government can invest in infrastructure, improvements for ATC and safety? Or am I missing a point here? I hope our Brazilian Anetters could tell some more about developments in this matter in aftermath of this accident.

BTW, I'm not looking for opinions on politicians...

[Edited 2007-07-19 14:32:01]

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

But they are certainly working hard at it!

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.

The Brazilian Government can't wait to blame the pilot for everything.....you will see.

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.

Watch this video though in spanish, it includes a very interesting graphic report, plus video form the security camera in at the airport at the moment of the tragedy.

http://www.infobae.com/contenidos/32...peor-tragedia-aérea-América-Latina

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.

I think it's the real one.

(1) The flare of something being struck right before the aircraft goes out of frame.
(2) The extremely late rotation, though I can't see for certain there is rotation (this woudl be very different in a normal takeoff)
(3) The orange flare of a large sudden fire to the left of the frame a couple seconds after the aircraft goes off
(4) The aircraft appears to be at or slightly below normal speed for a plane which has not braked (assuming due to no traction with the runway surface)

But most importantly - I don't think there is any government in the world skilled and competent enough at keeping secrets to pull something like this off and not have it leaked by someone on the inside with an axe to grind.

[Edited 2007-07-19 14:37:33]

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.

Yes, I mean that, previously, both main gears had to signal the aircraft was "down" but, after that incident, it was changed so that one gear would be sufficient.

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.

Agreed. My point was that, if the air-ground sensors didn't indicate it was on the ground, I don't think it would have been because of the problem cited in that earlier incident.

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".

That's the one, DavdL - I finally looked it up, some more detail on here:-

"The Airbus' right gear touched down 770m from the runway 11 threshold. The left gear touched down 9 seconds later, 1525m from the threshold. Only when the left gear touched the runway, automatic systems depending on oleo strut (shock absorber) compression unlocked the use of ground spoilers and engine thrust reversers. The wheel brakes, depending on wheel rotation being equivalent of circumfential speed of 72 knots began to operate after about 4 seconds."

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19930914-2

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.

We could probably have a lively discussion as to whether a system that stops a pilot using the spoilers, thrust reversers, and possibly even the brakes (the description isn't clear) for a full 9 seconds after touchdown can be rated as a 'failure' or not? But we'd better let it pass......  

[Edited 2007-07-19 14:46:09]

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.

Fair enough but if they have enough information to say CGH is too unsafe to operate, they must have had it before this accident, since no-one knows yet why this accident happened.

Quoting AAEXP (Reply 44): But they are certainly working hard at it!

Maybe, but it's a response to one particular statement, that's all.  

I don't know if this has been published before, but the Folha de Sao Paulo has linked a video from the cameras in Congonhas showing the accident. Chilly, to say the least. Compare the velocity of a normal landing with that of the airplane:

http://noticias.uol.com.br/uolnews/brasil/2007/07/18/ult2486u946.jhtm

(Sorry, only in Portuguese).

Alex

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......

No need - I'm not saying there was nothing wrong with the design, just that it wasn't a failure due to aquaplaning and that the anomaly was fixed. I.e. I'm fairly confident that's not what happened this time.