TAM Crash In Sao Paulo

[regionaltard]

Different video footage of the aircraft as it lands, from airport cameras:

http://mach.cdxi.googlepages.com/tam_congonhastv2_128.asf

Looks like they maxed out their bandwith for a while. Here's some spooky video.

 

[venr122]

For the airbus drivers out there, knowing we know almost nothing about this accident. Could the flight protection envelope thing (don't know what its called) have inhibited a max effort rejected landing? (over temping engines, pulling to the shaker etc) just curious.

Either way...on face value this sure seemed like an accident waiting to happen.

 

[StaySeated]

Once you lower the gear, most of the "protections" are inhibited. Upon touchdown, the bus acts like every other aircraft out there, with the exception of the trim-able horizontal stab, which resets itself to zero. The brakes are just like every other antiskid system. The auto brakes have a few oddities, but I would be very suprised if both guys weren't standing on the brakes manually. Reverse thrust is reverse thrust, nothing special. This could have been a 737 or a douglas or a fokker or a rj, standing water on an ungrooved surface is bad news.

 

[Say Again Over]

Thrust reverser 2 inop, why would they even attempt it?

 

[DO328-JET FO]

Short, wet runway with a thrust reverser inop, surely they have some sort of performance/landing limitation that would prevent them from even attempting to land in those conditions.

 

[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.