TAM Crash In Sao Paulo

[shiznitobam]

TOLD TOLD TOLD TOLD TOLD!!! What a tragedy!

A question to those who fly a plane twin-engine (non-fuselage mounted) with reversers: If one reverser is inop do you not use the reversers or do you use the remaining reverser? What about if the engines are mounted on the fuselage? How long after deploying the reversers to get the engine back to positive thrust? Just for curious. 6,000ft ain't much space to try to jam on the brakes then decide to abort.

 

[trip]

How long after deploying the reversers to get the engine back to positive thrust? Just for curious. 6,000ft ain't much space to try to jam on the brakes then decide to abort.

What?? Go on home junior.

 

[shiznitobam]

What?? Go on home junior.

Thanks for the advice, I'm glad you jumped all over that one.

 

[sligo1]

Reversers don't come into play with landing performance numbers. Yes they do help but the numbers are not predicated on reversers. The non-grooved runway probally had more to do with the hydro planning. Who knows being a Monday morning quaterback is always easy.

God Bless the crew and pax

 

[CA1900]

Reversers don't come into play with landing performance numbers. Yes they do help but the numbers are not predicated on reversers.

You positive on that? Serious question -- I don't know the A320, but I recall the SWA 737-700 in Chicago did factor the reversers into the landing data. Just wondering if the A320 is the same way, or if it depends on the operator.

 

[shiznitobam]

Reversers don't come into play with landing performance numbers. Yes they do help but the numbers are not predicated on reversers. The non-grooved runway probally had more to do with the hydro planning. Who knows being a Monday morning quaterback is always easy.

God Bless the crew and pax

Wow, who would have thought that someone could actually answer a question instead of trying to reprimand someone for a perceived lack of experience.

Thanks for the answer. My condolences to the families of the crew and passengers.

 

[sligo1]

I am positive that all landing data is not predicated on the use of reversers. The numbers are factory data in a new airplane with test pilots flying the aircraft. Now is it practical-I don't have that answer. The SWA accident at MDW might have been more a contaminated runway issue, but I'm not sure. Once again sitting home at my computer is just not the same as flying that approach that night. I can only hope for the crew and pax

 

[sligo1]

CA 1900 just look at the numbers on your Simuflite or Flight Safety checklist- they don't predicate the landing distance with reversers.

I am certainly not an expert, but check it out


Good luck at NetJets and Fly Safe

 

[CA1900]

CA 1900 just look at the numbers on your Simuflite or Flight Safety checklist- they don't predicate the landing distance with reversers.

Yeah, in my plane they actually do. (Not on the abbreviated checklists--that's just dry data--but in the full AFM behind us.)

The Excel AFM has three landing distance tables: Dry, Contaminated without TR's, and Contaminated with TRs, along with various corrections for standing water, etc. That's why I was curious if the A320 had TR credit in any of its charts.

Good luck at NetJets and Fly Safe

Thanks, you too!

 

[sligo1]

Key point 1900 CA, but contaminated runway is the key. Was it contaminated runway criteria? I don't know. Just fly safe brother.

 

[sligo1]

By the way I fly a 560 as well. I am pretty sure we would be fine with low REF speeds. The A-320 probally abot 130-140 a totally different game.


Keep the right side up bro

 

[IAHERJ]

I would be really surprised if that aircraft had the #'s to land on that runway in those conditions with a reverser inoped. I agree that most generic landing performance numbers do not include the use of reverse thrust however most airlines contaminated runway numbers as given on an acuload do include the use of reverse thrust. Rejected takeoff data normally does as well.

IAHERJ

 

[sligo1]

That is the key Contaminated Runway. There are no numbers as pertains to Rejected Take-off. Was it 1/8 inch rain or slush on the runway at the time of landing. Probally but who know's due to no groove's, on the runway it's just a guess.

We can all second guess, but we weren't there

 

[bubbers44]

The TR being locked out would not have been a problem if they landed in the TDZ on speed unless the runway was slick with poor braking. I think they landed long and hot and tried to go around judging by the security camera speed and might have made it but they probably went into reverse on the left engine before going around so the left one didn't have time to spool up. Two captains were flying so the check airman probably was letting the captain go too far before the go around attempt. Sad event.

 

[Say Again Over]

I am positive that all landing data is not predicated on the use of T/R's

My understanding also, BUT, this airport is very short under the best of conditions, remember it wasn't too long ago that a 737 came within a few feet of going over that wall, add to that, I think an ATR went off the day before. Any time your landing at an airport with no drainage shortly after or during rain, how do know how much water is standing on the runway. In this condition (speculation) trying to grease the airplane on can delay spoiler deployment which then will delay auto brakes. Remembering that there is NO overrun at this airport, my technique would be to fly the airplane into the ground (go for the numbers), and I like medium auto brake, if I didn't get good deceleration I would be outa there, once you deploy reverses, you are now committed. RIP

 

[sligo1]

Not that this is relavent to the accident, but if things are not right ( speed, glide slope, runway conditions) GO AROUND LIVE TO PLAY ANOTHER DAY.

Good Luck to all and say a prayer for the people on board.

 

[sligo1]

This accident should be a lesson to all of us. Please don't paint yourself into a box that you cannot escape. I really don't want to read about brother pilots on this board in an inncident.

God Bless

 

[sligo1]

Say Again Over

Thank you but the runway is longer than MDW which has no problem with 737-700,800 and 757-300 all day long. I agree with you plant it no time for smooth landings.

 

[igneousy2]

Thank you but the runway is longer than MDW which has no problem with 737-700,800 and 757-300 all day long. I agree with you plant it no time for smooth landings.

How soon we forget.

http://www.airliners.net/open.file?...g Nveyvarf%') BEQRE OL ivrjf QRFP&photo_nr=1

 

[sligo1]

NoI did not forget , but look at the conditions that night?