Well, I only know two people in Brazil, and they both know each other. Just would like a check in to make sure all is OK There.
Not sure of all the details, but a TAM Airbus with 170 over shot the runway, and skidded into a gas station, and bursted into flames. Our thoughts go out to the passengers, and their families. Just hopping that the two Brazilians on the forums will check in.
Sadly but true. A TAM A320 aircraft crashed a few hours ago in São Paulo CGH (domestic and busiest airport in south america) after landing. MAybe the pilot tryed to go-around and crashed in a TAM warehouse outside the airport atfer flying thru one of the most important São Paulo road.
This airport is located in São Paulo downtown area and landing there is like landing in a aircraft carrier with the city beeing the sea.
The building is on still fire and all brazilians are very sad about it.
I live in caxias do Sul located only 130 km from Porto Alegre, where the airplane departed to São Paulo. I also lived in Porto Alegre 4 yrs. I recall once Yuri told me he had been there for a while but I´m not sure about that.
I got an e-mail from Celso today and I suppose he is in Goiânia, far from here.
Anyway I do not like to fly TAM and beeing on their airplanes is very rare.
__________________ To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
This airport is located in Săo Paulo downtown area and landing there is like landing in a aircraft carrier with the city beeing the sea.
The reports I've seen say the FAA has recommended several times the airport should be closed for commercial landings but Brazil claims it would not be economically viable.
Bet the families of those on this flight would disagree....
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
___________________________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I remember a crash in Tawau during the early 80s when a F-50 overrun the runway and crashed into some squatter houses. Now Tawau is using a new airport about 45km away.
__________________ Air Asia - NOT everyone can fly
My collection at: To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
No idea, I just saw reference to this twice tonight on 2 different news channels.
Something about the runways being to short for commercial traffic.
Don't believe everything you hear on the news. When it comes to aviation related items, you need to be particularly weary. They frequently intentionally "get it wrong" to sell the catastrophe.
For instance, they are babbling on about the runway being too short. OK, so if CGH is such a dangerously short runway at 6,300 ft, we should immediately close down SNA (Orange County Airport) which is 5,700 ft long. An airport in which A310s and 757s use on a regular basis!
__________________
TO MAKE THE FLEET "ALMOST" COMPLETE!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Don't believe everything you hear on the news. When it comes to aviation related items, you need to be particularly weary. They frequently intentionally "get it wrong" to sell the catastrophe.
For instance, they are babbling on about the runway being too short. OK, so if CGH is such a dangerously short runway at 6,300 ft, we should immediately close down SNA (Orange County Airport) which is 5,700 ft long. An airport in which A310s and 757s use on a regular basis!
With Noise Abatement throttle-back and 28-degree angle of attack....
The situation sounds like the LUV snowskid at MDW.
"not-long" runway + bad conditions = thresholds exceeded.
But not a reason to close the field permanently.
6300ft for an A320 or 737 at sea level should be well within scope.
In good weather.
For a country the size of Brazil, the incident rate is still very low,
regardless of the cause of yesterday's tragedy.
Now, the GOL/corporate mid-air... that is a different story.....
The TAM A320 landed in the middle of the runaway, too far from the usual touchdown area. Here you can see a video where there is a TAM A320 landing and just after its successfull landing you´re gonna see the aircraft involved in the accident. The first plane took 11 seconds to cover the runaway while the other one took only 3 seconds to cover the same runaway. See, the aircraft was very very fast.
Thanks for the link, O! From the simulated video, the A320 had about 2000 ft of runway to stop, based on the fixed-distance markings, touchdown zone and threshold marking.
Are you familiar with the airport? I wonder if the casualties would be less if the aircraft had not skidded to the left (crashing into the gas station) and went straight beyond the displaced threshold. From the Google Earth image, it looks like there is tall building/structure just before the road, based on the shadow. Do you know what it is?
The thrust reverser of the A320 was out of service since previous friday! Landing in CGh that is an aircraft carrier in São Paulo downtown, in a short runaway, in a rainy day with full load of pax can be very very dangerous. I am not an aviation speciallist but...
Back in 1999 TAM had another accident at the same airport when a F100 crashed after take-off killing all aboard and some on the ground. Again the cause of this accident was a problem on the thrust reverser...
__________________ To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
The thrust reverser of the A320 was out of service since previous friday! Landing in CGh that is an aircraft carrier in Săo Paulo downtown, in a short runaway, in a rainy day with full load of pax can be very very dangerous. I am not an aviation speciallist but...
Back in 1999 TAM had another accident at the same airport when a F100 crashed after take-off killing all aboard and some on the ground. Again the cause of this accident was a problem on the thrust reverser...
I heard something about a known thrust reverser trouble too but I'm not sure if it was one or both. Anyway it would be crazy to land on such a runway with rain knowing your thrust reverser won't work ! Whether they thought it has been fixed but it wasn't, or if they knew it was out, they could have diverted to a safer airport. Still many questions...
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"Open your eyes, because the revolution won't be televised"
Still looking for following 1/400 models :
AIR FRANCE Concorde F-BVFC & F-BVFD
AIR FRANCE 747 delivery colors F-BPVH
The thrust reverser of the A320 was out of service since previous friday!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystčre
I heard something about a known thrust reverser trouble too but I'm not sure if it was one or both.
The latest I read is one of the thrust reversers was not working. I am interested in knowing which one and if that could be the reason it skidded left at the end of the runway. It could have gone straight or skidded right. But why left and crashed right into the gas station?
The latest I read is one of the thrust reversers was not working. I am interested in knowing which one and if that could be the reason it skidded left at the end of the runway. It could have gone straight or skidded right. But why left and crashed right into the gas station?
The reverse that was off wss the right (engine #2).
I suppose the pilot turned left was to avoid building in front of the runaway. To the left side there isn´t any building, only small buildings.
I had lunch with my cousin that is Emirates FO on the 773 and flew for EVA AIR MD-11s and for VARIG 737 / 767 / MD-11. He told me the TAM aircraft is able to land on CGH even with full load of pax in a rainy day with its thrust reversers off (both!).
__________________ To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
The reverse that was off wss the right (engine #2).
That's what I needed to know. Thanks, O! See, if the thrust reverser in engine no. 2 was off, it would be producing more forward thrust than engine no. 1, thus veering the aircraft to the left. Perhaps it could be the reason it skidded left. I'm not saying that I know more than you or anyone else on this but it's just my explanation based on what I have read and from the video you provided a link to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Santos
I suppose the pilot turned left was to avoid building in front of the runaway. To the left side there isn´t any building, only small buildings.
Say, if the pilot had a choice, what would happened if he 'turned' right? Do you know if there are major structures in that diection?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Santos
I had lunch with my cousin that is Emirates FO on the 773 and flew for EVA AIR MD-11s and for VARIG 737 / 767 / MD-11. He told me the TAM aircraft is able to land on CGH even with full load of pax in a rainy day with its thrust reversers off (both!).
I don't doubt that since I am not a pilot but the A320 that crashed touched down beyond the runway mid-point though, leaving the pilot with about 2000 ft to stop completely. My question is, would 2000 ft be sufficient?
That's what I needed to know. Thanks, O! See, if the thrust reverser in engine no. 2 was off, it would be producing more forward thrust than engine no. 1, thus veering the aircraft to the left. Perhaps it could be the reason it skidded left. I'm not saying that I know more than you or anyone else on this but it's just my explanation based on what I have read and from the video you provided a link to.
Say, if the pilot had a choice, what would happened if he 'turned' right? Do you know if there are major structures in that diection?
I don't doubt that since I am not a pilot but the A320 that crashed touched down beyond the runway mid-point though, leaving the pilot with about 2000 ft to stop completely. My question is, would 2000 ft be sufficient?
I am not a pilot and my job has nothing to do with aviation but IMHO you´re absolutely RIGHT. Maybe the thrust reverser would be the difference...maybe...
Around Congonhas there is buildings, many buildings. CGH is an aircraft carrier and the city is the sea. Note that CGH was built in the beggining of the 20th century and later the city gets near the airport. The brazilian gov. decided that in 60 days no charter flight will use the airport, the airliners won´t connect thru CHG (this airport will not be a hub anymore) and all the flights to / from this airport would be point to point. No connection anymore.
__________________ To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I don't doubt that since I am not a pilot but the A320 that crashed touched down beyond the runway mid-point though, leaving the pilot with about 2000 ft to stop completely. My question is, would 2000 ft be sufficient?
I don´t think so. The aircraft must stop using up to 60% of the runaway otherwise the plane won´t land on this particular airport.
__________________ To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
The reverse that was off wss the right (engine #2).
I suppose the pilot turned left was to avoid building in front of the runaway. To the left side there isn´t any building, only small buildings.
I had lunch with my cousin that is Emirates FO on the 773 and flew for EVA AIR MD-11s and for VARIG 737 / 767 / MD-11. He told me the TAM aircraft is able to land on CGH even with full load of pax in a rainy day with its thrust reversers off (both!).
The sad truth is that this would probably have never happened with the Electras. I have been in a 747 that stopped in less than 3000 feet and i have seen 707s and DC8s perform some miracles. All these aircraft had payload, i.e not empty so with no payload, the stopping distancewould have been less. I thought a LH Cargo 747 was going to run off the runway one night. He still had thrust reversers on when he vacated at the end of the runway. The difference here was a full payload and a 1-2 knot tailwind. On another forum, i recounted a C-17 almost running off the runway due to an inop thrust reverser, and that is almost a STOL transport.
There is more pressure these days to put unsuitable aircraft into unsuitable airports, . In the 1980's, there was a spate of widebody charter aircraft over running (an A300 at Bristol, and a TriStar at Leeds) runways, plus a 707 at Bristol that took some runway lights with it. There was an issue this year at Bristol where the runway was resurfaced but not grooved either correctly or not completely. Eventually, all the airlines except the small commuters and, bizarrely, Continental, who operate a 757 to Newark, NJ (from a less than 7000' runway) elected to route services from other airports until the runway was regrooved. There are others too, even here at BHX, we have limitations on certain types, such as older 777s with the lower powered engines (PW4077) and lower take-off weights. The PW4090 powered aircraft are less restricted.
Doesnt bring them back, sadly.
(off topic, Otavio, I have met a few Brazilian Emirates pilots, I may have met your cousin.)
Santos- Can we get a OK Check in?
But once again don't listen to what TV channels say, they have no idea what they're talking about ! 
Whether they thought it has been fixed but it wasn't, or if they knew it was out, they could have diverted to a safer airport. Still many questions...
Your Privacy Choices
