Posted on 07/19/2007 8:28:18 PM PDT by gpapa
SÃO PAULO, Brazil - Officials struggled Thursday to determine why a jetliner raced down a runway before crashing in a fireball that killed at least 189 people — an accident that set off a fierce debate over whether to close Brazil's busiest airport.
Security video released by the air force showed TAM Flight 3054 from Porto Alegre speeding down the tarmac more than four times as fast as other planes landing around the same time.
The Airbus-320 skidded off the main runway in a heavy rain, jumped over a highway and slammed into a building Tuesday night, killing all 186 people aboard and at least three people on the ground.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
One thing certain, that the very last recording listed at the link cited is quite strange (all your explanations notwithstanding).
Not four times as fast as other aircraft. If you believe that statement. That would be fast enough to rip the landing gear off. Maybe the spoilers and flaps could not be deployed, thus forcing the aircraft to fly fast to maintain lift.
sounds like your ball-park of ping list.
spoilers
If you read the story at the link, which I should have done before my previous post, it's also possible that he was hydroplaning. The runway had been resurfaced, but the grooves that allow water to drain away before building up, had not yet been cut. Still lack of braking is not generally that much of a problem, if the runway is reasonably long, you just use reverse thrust and hold the nose up to get additional aerodynamic drag.
As is usual in these cases, it was probably more than one factor.
A plane would have to go in nose first to "land" at that speed.
It’s a good idea to read at least the first two sentences of an article before posting a response.
General opinion here is aborted landing.
Yup. That’s what I get for trying to post before reading the whole piece.
=smacks forehead=
Well, it was a big pretty plane, with curtains and windows, wheels and looked like a big Tylenol.
And a big thingy that made it go up and down.
Either that maybe or the reverse thrusters didn’t deploy, which would speed the plane up even more. Who knows.
Hey, I didn’t read the article. Too busy noticing the big ad for the sale at Penney’s.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b78_1184812783
There’s the link to the video. I bet what happened was they wanted to do a go-around, and the crappy A320 software glitched or wasn’t set just right. These Airbus planes tend to either fall apart or have rotten software problems way too often.
Even that is not consistent with "four times" the usual landing speed. Unless one means 4X the speed at that point on the runway during a landing in that same direction.
Given that runway, and the weather, I'd think they'd want to land with as much power on they could, for the same reason the Navy lands/traps that way, in case you have to go around, the engines are already spooled up.
Which was? I didn't see any recording listed.
You didn’t click the link then.
Absent other information, I think you assessment is accurate. As far as scary airports, try Queenstown, New Zealand.
That was out over the open ocean.
This was in a dense city.
Big difference.
Yes I did and I don’t see one think about a transmission. I didn’t realize it was so hard to copy and paste.
Do you realize that the blue border around the image intimates that it is a “link”? If you put your mouse over that image what happens?
O.k., we’re almost there: “did you see what the plane did?”
Good thing you’re NOT a pilot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.