One of TAM´s A320s crashed after landing in Sao Paulo:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/07/17/brazil.plane.crash.ap/index.html

 Apparently and ATR slid off the same runway a week or so ago. it has only just finished a refurbishment

Follow this link to a picture featured in Air Team Images for a view of a TAM A320 at the end of the runway at Sao Paulo that gives an insight into the accident;

http://www.airteamimages.com/43972.html

Thanks to ATI for permission to link to this picture.

AWA

 Sweet Jesus!

I have never been into that airport but to be fair what were they thinking? lets put a great big fuel dump at the bottom of a hill with nothing but a couple of bollards to stop an airliner coming through. I would have thought that coming into St Martin knocking sunhats off would be hairy enough. Does anyone know of other airports where coming in would be a bit on the scary side? 

 Airwolf, back in 2000 a 737 went off the end of the runway in Burbank, it ran across a road and came to rest just short of a petrol station. Oddly enough they decided to move the petrol station after that.

Details here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Airlines_Flight_1455 

which runway did it come down on?

Seems to be a spate of these accidents/incidents of late. Here's another one that happened yesterday in Colombia.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-07/18/content_6392643.htm

Chipmunker:

which runway did it come down on?

The aircraft landed on 35L and ran off of the far end.  The runway is 1,940m long.

Airwolf:

lets put a great big fuel dump at the bottom of a hill with nothing but a couple of bollards to stop an airliner coming through.

To be fair, if you look at an overhead shot of the runways and the surrounding layout, the gas station that the A320 ended up being buried in is not directly at the end of 35L - it's off to the left.  Looking down the extended runway centreline, it's located at around the 10 'o clock position.

Titch

Dragon Lady:

Seems to be a spate of these accidents/incidents of late. Here's another one that happened yesterday in Colombia.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-07/18/content_6392643.htm

here's flight's report and another image from the other direction:

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/07/18/215569/picture-aerorepublica-e-190-skids-off-runway-in-colombia.html

A press release has been issued by TAM stating that the aircraft was actually carrying 186 people, not 176 as previously reported. There were 6 crew, 162 passengers and 18 employees aboard.

For what it's worth, there is extended coverage of the final seconds of the roll-out and (ultimately) the explosion of PR-MBK at the following link: http://noticias.uol.com.br/uolnews/brasil/2007/07/18/ult2486u946.jhtm

Compare the footage of the aircraft that landed right before it and look at the difference in speed.

I seriously doubt that the crew were opting for a go-around - looks to me like that A320 was aquaplaning.  If that turns out to be the case, there was no way anybody was going to stop it hurtling off the end of 35L.

Plus, you've gotta wonder that if the crew did decide to go-around, why the hell did the aircraft end up leaving the runway at a 45 degree angle to the centreline before it got to the end?

Titch

 Thats some very good footage. I cant get over the speed of the thing, I think you're right the aircraft hit a shedload of water way too fast and just carried on.

I think it was also aquaplaning!

According to TAM, the RH Thrust Reverser was de-activated. Therefore, when the crew realised what was happening tried to slow the aircraft down using the reversers, probably forgetting the RH was de-activated.

Thus, only the LH reverser would have deployed, causing the aircraft to veer or 'pull' to the left. The rest is history as they say!

Infraero are now insisting that the aircraft did not aquaplane because "the surface water depth [on the runway] would not have exceeded 3mm".

Hmmmm.  I'm calling B.S. on this one.

Look at the footage again.  Now, I'm no meteoroligist but with the amount of spray that the aircraft was kicking up during its final 15 - 20 seconds suggests to me that there was a a lot more water on that runway surface than the authorities are admitting to.

For argument's sake, let's say that the aircraft didn't aquaplane.  Why then did it take until the final 5 seconds of its roll for the operative thrust reverser on the port engine to kick in?  If the crew had realised that there was a problem in bringing the aircraft to a halt within safe limits, surely they would have rolled off of the runway centreline well before they got to the end of 35L, immediately after the reverser had first engaged?

My theory is that the aircraft did aquaplane and there was a vast quantity of surface water over the majority of that runway's length. 

There was a quote on one of the Brazilian news sites yesterday (19/07/2007) alleging that rain water measurements had been taken on the runway shortly before PR-MBK made its final approach.  Who is to say that these measurements had been taken the entire length of the runway?  Maybe whoever was in charge of doing it took measurements from the ends of the runway, instead of mid-field?  If that turns out to be the case, I believe that what you're seeing on the footage which was posted yesterday (where the aircraft appears to swerve off to the left) might turn out to be the only section of the runway where the A320 was able to obtain any friction with the surface; positive contact with the runway surface plus the effects of reverse thrust on the port engine means that the aircraft is going to unexpectedly swing to the left......

I'll be reserving judgement on this until I actually read the transcript of the CVR (assuming that the data on it is useable), but I'm loathe to trust anything that is said in the press in the days after a major incident like this.

Just my $0.02.

Titch

 I would have to agree with titch, there is no way that there was less than 3mm of water on that runway it was honking it down to start with. In addition to that i am not sure what the deal with the south american authorities is but the FAA for example do not specify a safety margin for a landing in wet conditions as typical landing data is a model based on dry conditions for certification, they leave that to the flightcrew to determine. So did the authorities tell the flight crew the conditions and in fact tell porkies

"you cant aquaplane as its less than 3mm of water" but you can actually as its about a foot deep 

or did they take measurements that were about as much use as an ashtray on a motorbike as titch suggests. Either way the thing was tanking it but maybe the pilot thought he could stop - ok "emergency of course" if he was informed theres only 3mm of water

who knows 

Would they allow an airplane to be operated with one thrust reverser selectable?

I would have thought they would have inhibited both if one was unserviceable.

pedro68:

Would they allow an airplane to be operated with one thrust reverser selectable?

Sure.  Why not?

pedro68:

I would have thought they would have inhibited both if one was unserviceable.

It's all dependant on specific company regulations.  Under normal circumstances, if one reverser is inoperative the aircraft should be able to stop using the other operative one - of course, there will be some yawing but this can be countered by using various means.

Titch

Now that the fires have died down following the crash and explosion of the TAM A320 last week, here's a picture of the charred remains of the gas station at the end of the runway - at the bottom of a small hill onto a busy road.

Perhaps aviation authorities around the world will take note and stamp their feet a little more loudly when there are designs on constructing an airport and its runways near a bustling town.

Orville:

Perhaps aviation authorities around the world will take note and stamp their feet a little more loudly when there are designs on constructing an airport and its runways near a bustling town.

And there speaks the voice of a true NIMBY 

Seriously, which do you think was there first - the suburbs or the airport?  My money is on the airport.....

Titch

Hello Titch

Like I said: "Perhaps aviation authorities around the world will take note and stamp their feet a little more loudly when there are designs on constructing an airport and its runways near a bustling town." Surely aviation authorities have a say ....

And neither would I like a runway inmy back yard!

Orville:

here's a picture of the charred remains of the gas station at the end of the runway

seems to have continued going left once it went over the edge of the bank.

possible evidence of the power not being right in one of the engines?

did hear a rumour that the reverse thrust had been disable in one engine (can't remember what one) for the flight.

TAM reckoned it was the right hand thrust reverser

Orville,

The point I was making was that when Congonhas was actually opened in 1936, I'd hazard a guess at there not being near as many buildings around the airfield as there are now.

Sure, Sao Paulo was probably a 'bustling town' back then, but I'm also pretty sure that whoever granted permission for the airport to be constructed was confident that the city wouldn't encroach on its boundaries as quickly as it did.  The airport was there long before the extra growth from the city appeared; obviously the planners didn't foresee the effects of Sao Paulo's population boom in the 1960's.....

Chipmunker:

did hear a rumour that the reverse thrust had been disable in one engine (can't remember what one) for the flight.

Chipmunker,

Reply 12 by Gazza and the replies after that cover everything you need to know about the thrust reversers.

Titch

The NIMBY comment reminds me of many arguments I have had with local people living near regional airports and RAF bases that I have worked at.   Buying a house based on final approach to an RAF base when knowing that the RAF base has been there since the 1930’s and then complaining that their windows get covered in a film and that the noise is unbearable… well sod off and buy a house somewhere else is what I say….

Then…. When the RAF base is closed due to the MoD’s ‘consolidation’ (a different discussion to be had here) the same people complain that their village no longer exists and that the local facilities are no longer supported.

The truth is, all airports need an infrastructure and the infrastructure needs the airport.  If the petrol station can be destroyed by an aircraft at that angle in relation to the runway, it can be considered a danger anywhere around the airport under different circumstances.  However, they are necessity; as are fuel farms, fuel browsers, and other buildings in general.

Has anybody heard more about if the runway had been grooved or not?  I know that initial reports said that the resurfaced runway had not yet been grooved and therefore was likely to be wetter.

I think that this airport should have crushable concrete zones around the areas considered most dangerous.