Commercial airliner crashes on landing

[Checkmite]

In Sao Paulo, Brazil (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/07/17/brazil.plane.crash/index.html)

The statement did not say how many people were on board. There was no immediate word on survivors.

The plane apparently struck a building. Video footage from the scene showed visible flames at the crash site and a TAM sign visible on the building.

...

The airport's main runway was closed for several weeks at one point while it was repaired because of a problem with water collecting on the runway, Hennigan said. It was too early, however, to say whether that may have contributed to Tuesday's incident, he said.

Holy smoke. I hope this doesn't end too badly. :(

[This Guy]

Looks like they updated your link -

"A TAM Airlines Airbus 320 carrying 176 people crashed while attempting to land in heavy rain at Sao Paulo's Congonhas Airport, the airline said.

The Sao Paulo fire department said at least 200 people, including some on the ground, were dead at the scene."

Doesn't sound good :(

[Hutch]

Just looked at Google maps and Wikipedia...the longest runway at the airport is 6,315 feet, whichis barely enough for jets and the satellite image shows homes and businesses right across the street--for Americans, think Midway airport in Chicago.

For Google maps, put it CGH as the airport code.

Doesn't look good at all.

Saw this in the article...

A Brazilian court in February banned large jets at the busy airport because of safety concerns, The Associated Press reported.

But an appeals court overruled the ban, saying it would hurt business and that the safety problems did not warrant halting air traffic, according to AP.


Some appeals court justices are going to have some interesting timesthe next few days/weeks....

Tragic.

[Checkmite]

Witnesses said the plane skidded across a major road at rush hour. Reports that the plane struck a gas station could not be confirmed, but a massive fire broke out.

Yeah, it's worse than I thought. This is quite terrible.

[mhaze]

The specs on the A320 say 1550 meters for landing. But that's screetching to a halt on dry pavement. 6315 feet would be really scary...well the passengers would never know I guess.

In bad weather, to attempt 6315 feet...

No reason to continue that sentence.

[Luciana]

That airport is seriously scary, but most people love it because it's in the middle of the city, so you can get to a business appointment quickly.

When I go to São Paulo, that's where I want to land!!! The other airport is in a nearby town, and it's not uncommon that traffic jams in SP reach 200km.

On the 25th they'd do some "grooving" on the runway, that means they'd scratch the road to make it less susceptible to skidding (well, I learned this today, sorry if I stated the obvious).

Very, very sad. Until last year, Brazil was one of the safest skies in the world. Now, since the latest crash last year, in the Amazon, it's one "incident" after the other. Now this tragedy.

Everybody was so psyched about the Pan Am games in Rio, such a happy atmosphere... this crash was a major downer, the accusations will fly high, etc. Sucks sucks sucks. I only hope the victims had little to no time to realize what was happening.

[Luciana]

Worst accident in the history of Brazil's aviation, now confirmed. At least 25 people died in the building that the airplane crashed into.

Not only the airplane crossed a street, it ran over and dragged a BUS STOP and no one knows how many people happened to be standing there.

[WildCat]

Terrible news. :(

[UnrepentantSinner]

That airport is seriously scary, but most people love it because it's in the middle of the city, so you can get to a business appointment quickly.

When I go to São Paulo, that's where I want to land!!! The other airport is in a nearby town, and it's not uncommon that traffic jams in SP reach 200km.

I was just about to post and see if anyone had heard from you. Glad to know you didn't have any buisiness in SP tonight.

This is very sad in light of the A320 fire in Canada last year where everyone made it out alive.

[Caius Textor]

On top of that, we´re facing a year-long Air Traffic crisis. I´m not getting anywere near an airport these days. I´d rather face 16-hour-long bus rides.

Would anyone lend us 900 air traffic controllers?

[richardm]

The specs on the A320 say 1550 meters for landing. But that's screetching to a halt on dry pavement. 6315 feet would be really scary

... that's a 375 metre margin for error. Not much scope at 120+ mph.

I'm glad to see you posting here Luciana. I know that the chances of you being involved were tiny, but you can't help but worry!

[Beerina]

> ... that's a 375 metre margin for error. Not much scope at 120+ mph.

In a driving rainstorm at that.

When engineers calculate this stuff, presumably there are different values for wet and dry stops, and whether you use the brakes, reverse thrusters, or both.

+brakes +reverse thrusters -wet pavement -(pilot touched down a touch fast thanks to tailwind) -(pilot touched down a bit further down the runway than normal thanks to tailwind) -(pilot applied brakes a touch late thanks to having an itch in his crotch from that last stewardess he [engaged in consentual intercourse with])

[mhaze]

> ... that's a 375 metre margin for error. Not much scope at 120+ mph.

In a driving rainstorm at that.

When engineers calculate this stuff, presumably there are different values for wet and dry stops, and whether you use the brakes, reverse thrusters, or both.

+brakes +reverse thrusters -wet pavement -(pilot touched down a touch fast thanks to tailwind) -(pilot touched down a bit further down the runway than normal thanks to tailwind) -(pilot applied brakes a touch late thanks to having an itch in his crotch from that last stewardess he [engaged in consentual intercourse with])

These numbers, fudge factors and safety margins are in the pilots' handbooks. Safety margins in many countries are less than in the USA. At first glance, one would think that the pilot should have detoured to another airport. It is the pilot's responsibility to decide to land or not; the controllers are not in charge of that.

[DanishDynamite]

Sad news.

According to this article (http://jp.dk/udland/article1013744.ece) (in Danish) 4 planes have previously skided off the landing strip, this year alone. And in 1996, a similar accident at the same place cost 99 people their lives.

I think I'll avoid Congonhas Airport when I visit Brazil this November.

[Caius Textor]

According to this article (http://jp.dk/udland/article1013744.ece) (in Danish) 4 planes have previously skided off the landing strip, this year alone.

That´s right. The main airstrip didn´t have the required grooves, even though a major upgrading refurbish was just recently concluded. I just saw an interview with some high official (couple weeks old, maybe) saying that the grooves weren´t really necessary (!) and that it shouldn´t be dangerous because "it doesn´t rain in this time of the year". São Paulo´s nickname is something to the effect of "Rainy Land". It rains all year round. You have to be very stupid to say someting like that.

And in 1996, a similar accident at the same place cost 99 people their lives.

I think I'll avoid Congonhas Airport when I visit Brazil this November.

The 1996 accident was caused by a mechanical failure in a Fokker F100. Granted, it fell on the nearby houses.

You will most certainly land in Guarulhos (GRU) airport coming from abroad. If you really have to fly domestically here, go there too. A 25 minute bus ride will get you downtown.

-------

You know what makes me the most amazed/ashamed? No one was fired yet. I don´t care whose fault this is, but the major authorities should have been sacked the morning after.

[Cain]

How many Americans were on board?

[Luciana]

And in 1996, a similar accident at the same place cost 99 people their lives.

It was a different kind of accident. During take-off, the "reverse" mechanism, the one responsible for braking, opened itself and got stuck. It crashed a few seconds after take-off, right in the middle of a busy street. It was proved that it was caused by a mechanical defect in the airplane.

Caius - I prefer that no one is fired without certainty regarding responsibility. Knee-jerk reactions are often responsible for injustice or superficial and biased investigations.

Yes, there shouldn't be any impunity, but I don't agree that someone somewhere somehow should be fired. Let's establish the facts first.

[Caius Textor]

Caius - I prefer that no one is fired without certainty regarding responsibility. Knee-jerk reactions are often responsible for injustice or superficial and biased investigations.

Yes, there shouldn't be any impunity, but I don't agree that someone somewhere somehow should be fired. Let's establish the facts first.

It´s not someone sowhere somehow. It´s the minister of the air force, the president and board of Infraero (our civil aviation agency). They are the highest responsible officers and they have the responsibility to avoid this kind of thing from happening. They are appointed officials and their job relies on trust and confidence. This kind of thing breaks that trust.

That is a common practice world-wide. We don´t fire high officials because everyone here is afraid to take responsability of any kind.

They are Ceasars´ wives. And you know the thing with Ceasars´ wives. They can´t just BE honest...

[Luciana]

What if it's established that the crash was caused by a mechanical defect or a flawed decision by the pilot? What exactly do we know so far? Precious little.

What if, instead of a building, there was nothing but grass ahead? Whose fault is it that the city grew around the airport? Should we fire a guy now because for the past decades it's obvious that any accident in the runway would kill people on the streets?

I'm all for assigning responsibility, but not at the heat of the moment, otherwise the real culprits may evade penalty.

Once people are fired... then what? That certainly appeases the public, but what does that accomplish? Only when the real causes of the accident are established we can talk about assigning blame and fighting the root causes of the disaster.

[Caius Textor]

First of all, there is no "what if". There WAS a building, and people died.

Second, it´s not about public appeal. Regardless of the causes of this particular accident, there was an inadequate and slipery runway. It was Infraero´s job to lock the runway down. What do they say? "We weren´t informed of any planes skidding". What´s their job again?

I´m not saying this solves the problem. I´m saying it´s a minimum requirement. That is never met here.

[strathmeyer]

How many Americans were on board?

I thought they just had to be white and English speaking.

[Rob Lister]

view the airport

http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&hl=en&ll=-23.627186,-46.654558&spn=0.017103,0.029182&t=k&z=15&om=1

[Caius Textor]

For those not into the latest news:

The Defense Minister was sacked this morning and the new one is assuming office as I write(former Chief Justice Nelsom Jobim. [personal rant]a major crook involved in corruption scandals and of dubious ethical behaviour.[/personal rant])

The president of Infraero (the state agency responsible for air infrastructure, namely airports) was sacked and will be replaced sometime this week.

Changes are due in Civil Aviation Agency (Anac) as well.

Some companies aren´t selling tickets to that airport, but last I heard it was working as usuall, including the main runway.

[Caius Textor]

Double post will be used for cursing.

Cursing.

Major cursing.

Unspeakable cursing.

[DanishDynamite]

For those not into the latest news:

The Defense Minister was sacked this morning and the new one is assuming office as I write(former Chief Justice Nelsom Jobim. [personal rant]a major crook involved in corruption scandals and of dubious ethical behaviour.[/personal rant])

The president of Infraero (the state agency responsible for air infrastructure, namely airports) was sacked and will be replaced sometime this week.

Changes are due in Civil Aviation Agency (Anac) as well.

Some companies aren´t selling tickets to that airport, but last I heard it was working as usuall, including the main runway.
Why exactly was the Defense Minister sacked? What part of the scapegoat was he alloted?

[Darth Rotor]

First of all, there is no "what if". There WAS a building, and people died.

Second, it´s not about public appeal. Regardless of the causes of this particular accident, there was an inadequate and slipery runway. It was Infraero´s job to lock the runway down. What do they say? "We weren´t informed of any planes skidding". What´s their job again?

I´m not saying this solves the problem. I´m saying it´s a minimum requirement. That is never met here.
Hi, Caius, a pilot here.

Control towers and agencies rely on a thing called "pilot reports" to be alerted when braking action changes. Without pilots calling back and telling tower (good tower operators ask pilots for pilot reports when conditions change due to weather, as do good air controllers) the tower won't know that braking conditions have changed from "sufficient" to 'not so hot.'

RUnways get wet, but braking conditions on wet runways vary from "slightly worse" to "f[rule 8] me, I am ice skating out here! :jaw-dropp "

I often called back actual ceilings on cloudy days if they were different from forecast conditions.

Example: forecast ceiling was cloud bases at 700 feet. I call tower when I enter the clouds at 500 feet and report "ceiling observed at 500 feet." This might well induce tower to change its weather report so all other pilots know the ceiling is lower.

Likewise with braking conditions.

DR

[DanishDynamite]

....(good tower operators ask pilots for pilot reports when conditions change due to weather, as do good air controllers)....
A slight aside....what's the difference between a tower operator and an air controller?