Posted on 07/20/2007 10:28:41 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
A thrust reverser on the plane which crashed in Brazil, killing some 200 people, had been deactivated during maintenance checks, the airline says. The reversers can be used to help jets slow down on landing but Tam Airlines insisted the deactivation was in accordance with proper procedures.
The Tam Airlines' Airbus 320 overshot the runway at Sao Paulo's Congonhas airport, hit buildings and exploded. There has been intense speculation but no confirmation on the crash's cause. But the crash has brought mounting calls for Congonhas airport to close.
Brazilian President Luis Inacio Lula da Silva, who has been criticised by opponents for his low profile since the crash, will address the nation on Friday and is expected to announce new measures on air safety.
'Higher speed' Tam Airlines said the right thrust reverser was "deactivated" at the time of the accident "in conditions stipulated by the maintenance of the manufacturer Airbus and approved by [Brazil's] National Civil Aviation Agency".
Tam Airlines' comments came after Brazil's Globo TV said a problem with the right thrust reverser had emerged four days before the crash. Tam said Airbus's own manual says an inspection can be done up to 10 days after it is first detected and that the plane can continue to operate in the meantime.
Globo TV also reported that the same plane had problems landing at Congonhas the day before the crash.
The channel said the plane only managed to stop at the limit of the runway. The pilot told air traffic controllers it was very slippery but did not mention any other problems, the report said. The crash occurred in wet conditions on a recently resurfaced runway that has been criticised as being too short. New video footage shows some of the final moments of the Tam Airlines flight from the southern city of Porto Alegre, and another similar plane that had arrived earlier. It appears to show the Tam plane travelling along one section of the runway at higher than normal speed.
It shows the first aircraft apparently taking 11 seconds to travel along the visible section, while the plane that crashed covers the same distance in three. The Airbus 320 jet appears to continue speeding along the runway without slowing, before disappearing out of view. The flash of an explosion can be seen a short time later. According to Globo TV, the Brazilian air force, which oversees the country's air traffic control system, believes the footage shows the plane was travelling at excessive speed. As the plane careered towards the busy road nearby, one theory is that the pilot tried to take off again. The aircraft crossed the road and ploughed into a Tam Airlines building.
"That he jumped over the avenue was an indication he tried to take off. If he didn't [try to take off] he would have gone nose down at the end of the runway," Brig Jorge Kersul Filho, director of the Air Force's Centre for Investigation and Prevention of Air Accidents, said. Some 180 bodies have been recovered from the burnt wreckage, says fire chief Nilton Miranda, adding another 20 bodies are expected to be found. Most of the passengers and crew on board the flight were Brazilian.
|
They are not hard to find, when they are just off the runway. Besides they “try” to tell searchers where they are.
Much harder when they are under water, or in a dense jungle, etc.
What is the procedure for a touch and go? If the pilot didn’t think he would be able to stop, he could have taken off again. You sure don’t want RT for that.
Possibly. Can’t tell from the info we’ve got here.
Could the pilot have taken off again during the landing, as in the film “Air Force One”?
If he'd made that realization/decision soon enough to get back to flying airspeed before the end of the runway.
DAMHIK.
He could if he made the go-around decision early enough to get to flying airspeed before he got to the end of the runway.
With one, at least he would have crashed on the airport. The turning moment from one TR on a wing-mounted engine would be hard to overcome.
On the A320, there’s a special “touch-and-go” mode that you engage - and pray. :-P
Ran this past a commercial pilot and his opinion: Hard opposite rudder, pull the the other engine back to idle or shut it down entirely. Difficult, but by no means impossible. He’d had to do it on a 737 when one TR decided to quit on rollout.
With Airbus, don't you have to pray first?
Coming from France,...it’s a secular airplane,...no prayers allowed.....LOL1
The thrust reversers do not actually help all that much. Maybe 5% of the braking force in the dry, maybe 10% in the wet and more on snow/ice. The brakes always do the majority of the stopping.
It’s common not to even use the reversers anymore because of the risk of FOD and maintenance concerns.
Lack of reversers should not have been a problem.
Good post. As you stated, reverse thrust is most effective at higher speeds. Usually, you start reducing reverser use at 100 kts, with reversers stowed around 80 kts (94mph). In a two engine aircraft, you have to be very careful using reverse thrust with a reverser deactived as you may have control problems due to the asymetrical thrust, and limits on nose wheel steering to counteract the inevitable move towards the edge of the runway.
The problem here is that the pilot tried to land a somewhat heavy aircraft on a relativly short WET runway with no reverse thrust. Aircraft braking on a wet runway can be marginal due to hydroplaning, and with no reverse, you only have brakes to stop the aircraft. You can apply all the braking you want, but you are just along for the ride—a very uncomfortable feeling.
If he was trying to execute a go-around, then having the thrust-reversers off would be the correct action.
It is not crazy. The plane should be ready to make a go-around/touch and go in case of a need, and the thrust reversers should be off for that reason.
That picture looks like it's showing the nose and cockpit of the plane. It must have been horrific to be on board.
If you want on or off this aerospace ping list, please contact Paleo Conservative or phantomworker by Freep mail.
Good grief. Was he drunk?
Aren’t aircraft interiors supposed to be nominally flame-retardent?
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.