Brazil Jet Disaster

[STeeLy]

All 186 people on board the Airbus 320 are believed dead, as well as many as 15 people on the ground.


Tam Airlines Flight 3054 from the southern city of Porto Alegre landed at Congonhas airport in driving rain.

The plane skidded across a crowded road before it crashed into a fuel depot and warehouse and exploded.

Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6904478.stm

[arsenal]

That's sad. And it all could have been avoided.

In February, a local judge banned the use of the airport by Fokker 100, Boeing 737-800 and Boeing 737-700 jets, but this was overturned by an appeals court.

First mistake. While it would be devestating for an airport to loose these types of planes, safety has to be a concern. It doesn't say why the judge banned these planes. I am guessing it had to do with the size of the planes and the proximity to the city center of the runway, and and condition of the runway.

However, questions remain about whether the runway had been sufficiently grooved to drain water in heavy rains.
A day before Tuesday's accident, another plane skidded off the airport's runway.

Mistakes 2 and 3.

If a plane skids off the runway, you have to second guess the safety of that runway.


Completely avoidable accident. I guess that's why its called an accident though.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by arsenal

Completely avoidable accident. I guess that's why its called an accident though.

Actually, that's why many people are no longer calling these accidents; as they could have been avoided. At some point somebody said "If you keep landing those big planes there, pretty soon one will crash." And then one did.

[Sylvanfan]

Sao Paulo is just one big urban mess. I imagine when they first built this airport that it was more than adequate for the planes that flew at the time. But as planes became larger it was no longer very viable. Plus they probably built 3 and 4 story buildings all around the airport in the mean time. But with the main airport Garujus or however it's spelled being so far away from the city center the location of Congolhos becomes very attractive for bussiness travellers. Sad story that should have been avoided.

[RedHot25]

I have heard (sorry, no link) that the runways are not long enough.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by arsenal

That's sad. And it all could have been avoided.

First mistake. While it would be devestating for an airport to loose these types of planes, safety has to be a concern. It doesn't say why the judge banned these planes. I am guessing it had to do with the size of the planes and the proximity to the city center of the runway, and and condition of the runway.

It doesnt mention the type of plane in the accident as being banned (A320). Most likely was due to noice concerns as the Fokker is a much smaller plane than a 737 and the CFM56 are slightly louder (few dB - 5max) than the IAE used on the Airbus ones.

The runway length is suficient enough for the 737NG version, seems on the short end for an A32X - simple fact is runway was wet as well as no anti-slip grooves in place and pilot likely overshot runway slightly and then was to slow in reacting to getting it back airborne.

Not blaming the pilots but there are procedures for a wet runway. Landing on such happens on an almost daily bassis world wide. Same type of accident as the Southwest one at Chicago Midway a while back.

MYK

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by fotze

They should put a dog-doo stick at the end of the runway, not a fuel depot.

Great point, I cant think of an aiport at least in Western Canada where this is a fuel depot at the end of the runway, suburbs maybe but no fueld depot - YEG, YYC, YXE, YQR, YLW etc.

Not enough details are known but I am guessing the plane likely veered off the str8 path of the runway to hit the depot - very strange in deed. Or it is just classic news reporting about airlines, there wouldnt have been alot of fuel left but enough (500L+) for a good explosion.

Very tragic. TAM was one of the airlines in SA that wasnt actually doing not that bad. Wouldnt be surprised to see them go under or bought up in the next 6-18 months.

MYK

[Slava]

Any one know of any reports of Canadians on this flight?

[arsenal]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

The runway length is suficient enough for the 737NG version, seems on the short end for an A32X - simple fact is runway was wet as well as no anti-slip grooves in place and pilot likely overshot runway slightly and then was to slow in reacting to getting it back airborne.
MYK

The A320-200 is right smack in the middle of the 737NG's as far as size goes. So if one is banned based on size, why wouldn't the other one be?

Yes, there are procedures for landing in rain. If a plane slides off the runway the day before, because of wet conditions, wouldn't that make you think? Or would you assume pilot error?

[arsenal]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Not enough details are known but I am guessing the plane likely veered off the str8 path of the runway to hit the depot - very strange in deed. Or it is just classic news reporting about airlines, there wouldnt have been alot of fuel left but enough (500L+) for a good explosion.

If you look at the article, it gives a map. The end of the runway is an incline, a freeway and on the other side of the freeway is a fuel depot.
Judging from the map, it's about 100-200 meters from the end of the runway to the fuel depot.

[Ryan Coke]

I heard that the banning of larger airplanes was a judge who found landing distances on the internet, and decided that the runway couldn't take those planes. Obviously a judge who knew nothing about flying, as those numbers are based on gross weight and some general conditions, whereas actual performance is based on very specific numbers based on the actual conditions. I heard 6300' is the length of the runway--not long, but certainly sufficient most of the time for 737/A320 type aircraft. Sounds like flawed logic that led to the closure.

The runway condition, on the hand, sounds like a legitimate issue. They had just re-surfaced, but hadn't yet grooved the runway. This sounds like the much bigger issue, based on the limited info I've heard.

Either way very tragic.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

[quote=mykalberta;945098]Great point, I cant think of an aiport at least in Western Canada where this is a fuel depot at the end of the runway, suburbs maybe but no fueld depot - YEG, YYC, YXE, YQR, YLW etc.[/quote}

As far as Eastern Canada goes, neither YHZ nor YQY have fuel tanks at the end of the runways. Unfortuntely along awith YQM are the only airports I've
flown out of out here. And I don't recall where the fuel tanks are at YQM, I doubt at the end of the runway though.

[ken0042]

Isn't there a Mohawk station right at the southern end of Calgary's runway?

[STeeLy]

There is nothing but McKnight and a golf course off the end of runway 16.

However, there is an Esso to the east of it and a mohawk and superior propane to the west of it.

[ken0042]

Right, and what I am saying is that a plane skidding off the runway might not travel in a perfectly straight line.

[STeeLy]

no, but those things are actually on the side of the run way... or close to it.

For an airplane to skid and hit the Esso, it has to skid across a couple aprons and the aerospace museum.

For an airplane to hit mohawk, its only got a couple aprons to skid across.

However, with runway 16/34 being that length, 737NGs use maybe just a little more than half that runway to land, so even if it does skid off the run way, it has plenty of room to stop, most likely won't hit either gas station.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by arsenal

The A320-200 is right smack in the middle of the 737NG's as far as size goes. So if one is banned based on size, why wouldn't the other one be?

Yes, there are procedures for landing in rain. If a plane slides off the runway the day before, because of wet conditions, wouldn't that make you think? Or would you assume pilot error?

Thats why I questioned whether it was banned on size because of the Fokker mentioned. To me that would indicate more of a noise complaint from NIMBYs rather than aircraft size because any model of Fokker that would still be flying today is no where near the size of a 738/A32X but is very loud.

The 320 is the same size as the 738 but since it wasnt mentioned in the article (which is very peculiar) there must have been another reason for it or it was just shotty reporting.

Also, if a plane slips off a runway and its not a mechanical error, the pilot has to take some responsibility - not all but some. Flying is the same as driving, you have to fly for the conditions, if the road is icey I dont go 130 up Qe2, if the runway is slippery, you make a short approach and you know you window of error. All planes have reserve fuel to get to alternate aiports for just that kind of situation.

MYK

[arsenal]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Also, if a plane slips off a runway and its not a mechanical error, the pilot has to take some responsibility - not all but some. Flying is the same as driving, you have to fly for the conditions, if the road is icey I dont go 130 up Qe2, if the runway is slippery, you make a short approach and you know you window of error. All planes have reserve fuel to get to alternate aiports for just that kind of situation.

But you also have to assume that the runway has been kept up to code. From what it sounds like, it wasn't as it was questionable as to if the water drainage system was sufficient.
If the pilot is making the assumption that the runway is functioning as expect for all conditions, then it is a normal approach.
If the runway isn't up to code, then they need to tell the pilot in order for him to make adjustments. From the article, it doesn't mention either or. And we may not know until the black box is recovered.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by arsenal

If you look at the article, it gives a map. The end of the runway is an incline, a freeway and on the other side of the freeway is a fuel depot.
Judging from the map, it's about 100-200 meters from the end of the runway to the fuel depot.

According to the map the plane veered left to the station, a straight line off the runway would take it into heart of the freeway interchange.

Also, I would suspect the the phrase "fuel depot" is used liberally there. If not then that is the strangest fuel depot at an ariport I have ever seen. Looks more like office buildings. PLC in Calgary/Edmonton ect are exposed tanks that look more like a commercial fuel station for semis/farm equipment etc.



MYK

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by arsenal

But you also have to assume that the runway has been kept up to code. From what it sounds like, it wasn't as it was questionable as to if the water drainage system was sufficient.
If the pilot is making the assumption that the runway is functioning as expect for all conditions, then it is a normal approach.
If the runway isn't up to code, then they need to tell the pilot in order for him to make adjustments. From the article, it doesn't mention either or. And we may not know until the black box is recovered.

Those types of things are relayed to a pilot by the ops at the airline or the preflight breifing at least in NA. Example the Comair crash in Lexington KY.

Also, I would highly doubt that this is the pilots first time flying into the airport since it had been paved.

That said, the question should be why the pilot after getting clear warnings from the ATC about the conditions didnt either divert to the alternate or follow touch and go procedures. The first is fairly obvious for any airline - cost. The second is the one that is strange and will only been known when more details are released.

MYK