Brazilian airliner crashes; At least 200 killed

[Brent]

Appears to have overshot the runway during a landing and crashed into a gas station. Belongs to TAM Airways.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19815779/

Some victims taken to hospitals, the plane is on fire now.

176 on the plane, at least 15(probably more) on the ground killed.

[alan1961]

Appears to have overshot the runway during a landing and crashed into a gas station. Belongs to TAM Airways.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19815779/

Some victims taken to hospitals, the plane is on fire now.

3 dead so far

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,, ... 64,00.html

[flwxwatcher]

Looks like 200 dead including some on the ground

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/ ... index.html

[ohiostorm]

Sad day in the aerospace world. RIP to all the victims. This is a good reason why we have strict rules for inclimate weather.

[HURAKAN]

There is a lot to say about the airport, weather was just part of the tragedy. It seems the landing path is in critical conditions for such a large airplane. A disaster that could have bee prevented.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TAM_Linhas ... _Congonhas

[Category 5]

The saddest part is that this disaster could have so easily been prevented.

[artist]

I heard that the runway was re opened just 2 1/2 wks. ago due to economic reasons. What a lousy excuse when they knew it had problems! I hope there are a number of people held responsible. I also heard this morning that it slid past the gas station and into the cargo building of the airline. They said that normally at that time of day there are around 300 employees at work there. IF that is true this tragedy could be even worse than it already is, if that is possible.

[Hurricaneman]

I wonder what idiot built a gas station next to a runway in the first place

[ohiostorm]

I wonder what idiot built a gas station next to a runway in the first place

Well it shouldn't be a problem if the runway was built right. The gas station wasn't directly in the path of the runway either, it was to the side quite a bit. The plane had to make a drastic left turn off the runway.

[vbhoutex]

I think the question is what idiot overruled shutting down the runway because it had been proven to be too short for the planes landing on it, especially in bad weather?? And if I remember correctly they were still in the process of grooving the pavement to help the water flow off of it better too. Simple fact is the runway should not have been used imo.

[ohiostorm]

I think the question is what idiot overruled shutting down the runway because it had been proven to be too short for the planes landing on it, especially in bad weather?? And if I remember correctly they were still in the process of grooving the pavement to help the water flow off of it better too. Simple fact is the runway should not have been used imo.

Just another reason why the US has such a good aircraft record. And I hope this doesn't jinx it. KNOCK ON WOOD!!

[gtalum]

The runway was renovated, but they hadn't finished putting grooves in it yet. There was likely pilot error, though of course it's far too early to tell for sure. Most likely the pilot touched down too far down the runway (they are supposed to go around if they will touch down more than 1000 feet beyond the threshhold). Also likely, he didn't apply enough reverse thruster, and instead relied too much on the brakes, which in rain causes skidding. I've seen reports that he tried to take off again, and lost control, which explains how he hit the gas station which was well to the left of the line of the runway.

Further, don't get too smug about US air safety. In just the last month there have been several "near misses" where airplanes have come within 300 feet of contact with each other during runway incursions. In one incident, a landing Delta Airlines jet narrowly missed, by less than 100 feet, a United Airlines jet that missed a turnoff and wandered into the runway. Additionally, at least one US airport (John Wayne International in Orange County California) has a much shorter runway than this one in Sao Paolo.

Lastly, don't forget the Southwest Airlines jet that just a few years ago overran the runway in Burbank, CA and just barely missed a gas station across the street.

[tropicana]

...and these things happen here in Canada too:-

Air France 358 on August 2 2005
The accident occurred on August 2, 2005 20:03 UTC (16:03 EDT). Air France Flight 358, an Airbus A340-313X with 297 passengers and 12 crew, overshot the end of runway 24L at Toronto Pearson International Airport (in Mississauga, Ontario) and came to rest in a small ravine 200 metres past the end of the runway. All passengers and crew evacuated successfully. There were 43 minor injuries and no fatalities. The aircraft was destroyed by a post-crash fire.

The flight landed during reports of exceptionally bad weather — severe winds, heavy rain, and localized thunderstorms near the airport and touched down further along the runway than usual. Some passengers report that the plane was rocking from side to side before landing, possibly due to turbulence and gusting winds associated with the storm systems.

The plane was cleared to land at 16:04 EDT on Runway 24L, which at 9,000 feet (2,743 m) in length, (considerably longer than the one at the site of the crash in Brazil on July 17, 2007 6,362 feet) was the shortest runway at Pearson Airport. After touchdown, the aircraft did not stop before the end of the runway, but continued for 200 meters until it slid into the Etobicoke Creek ravine, on the western edge of the airport near the interchange of Dixie Road and Highway 401. The fire began in the middle of the plane, blocking some of the emergency exits, but the plane was evacuated within the regulated 90 second evacuation time. Emergency response teams responded to the incident and were on site within 52 seconds of the crash occurring .

A METAR (weather observation) for the Pearson Airport was released almost exactly at the time of the accident. It stated that the weather at 20:04 UTC (16:04 EDT) consisted of winds from 340° true (north-northwest) at 24 knots (44 km/h) gusting to 33 knots (61 km/h), with 1 1/4 statute miles (2 km) visibility in heavy thunderstorms and rain. The ceiling was overcast at 4,500 feet (1,400 m) above ground level with towering cumulus cloud. The temperature was 23 °C (74 °F). According to the Canada Air Pilot, runway 24L has a heading of 227° true (237° magnetic), and the minima for the ILS approach are ceiling 250 feet (75 m) above ground level and visibility 1 statute mile (1.6 km) runway visual range (RVR). The METAR for 21:00 UTC (17:00 EDT), nearly an hour after the accident, shows wind backing to the south and improving conditions generally, but includes in its remarks "FU ALF" to indicate smoke aloft from the burning plane.

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation reported that the crash occurred two hours after a ground stop was declared the airport because of severe thunderstorms in the area ("red alert" status, where, for safety reasons, halts all ground activity on the apron and gate area. Aircraft can still land, and take off if still in queue). Visibility at the time of the accident was reported to be very poor. There was lightning, strong gusty winds, and hail at the time and the rain just began as the plane was landing. Within two hours the winds increased from 5 to 30 km/h (3 to 20 mph) and the temperature dropped from 30 to 23 °C (86 to 74°F). A severe thunderstorm warning was in effect since 11:30 a.m. and all outbound flights and ground servicing operations had been canceled but landings were still permitted.

-justin-

[wxmann_91]

Runway incidents happen all the time.

Yet another example, occurred the same day as the Brazil crash...
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/col ... 65381.html

[wxmann_91]

Some video

http://www.elpais.com/videos/internacio ... int_4/Ves/

[nystate]

First of all, to clear up some misconceptions that the media is fueling-

1.) The ban on certain airliners landing at this airport would not have made any difference in this accident. The aircraft that crashed, an Airbus A320, was not covered under the ban. Even if the ban had remained in place, this flight still would have been allowed to land at this airport and the crash probably still would have happened.

2.) The grooves on the runway can't be installed for weeks after it is repaved; the runway must have time to harden before the grooves can be applied.

3.) This crash could very well be due to mechanical error. There could have been problems with the aircraft's spoilers, brakes, and/or reverse thrust which may have caused the aircraft not to be able to stop.

Most likely the pilot touched down too far down the runway (they are supposed to go around if they will touch down more than 1000 feet beyond the threshhold).

Actually, everything I have seen so far leads me to believe that the pilot touched down right where he was supposed to. Just, for some unknown reason, the aircraft didn't slow properly upon touchdown.

Also likely, he didn't apply enough reverse thruster, and instead relied too much on the brakes, which in rain causes skidding. I've seen reports that he tried to take off again, and lost control, which explains how he hit the gas station which was well to the left of the line of the runway.

I doubt that reverse thrust was used; there is a cardinal rule among airline pilots that once reverse thrust is deployed then a go-around becomes out of the question. It takes too long to get the engines up to take-off power again. Once reverse thrust is applied, the pilot is committed to staying on the ground.

[gtalum]

I doubt that reverse thrust was used; there is a cardinal rule among airline pilots that once reverse thrust is deployed then a go-around becomes out of the question. It takes too long to get the engines up to take-off power again. Once reverse thrust is applied, the pilot is committed to staying on the ground.

On a short runway in the rain, they always use thrust reversers. Perhaps, as you suspect, the reversers didn't deploy as intended, but the pilot would have tried to use them.

[nystate]

I doubt that reverse thrust was used; there is a cardinal rule among airline pilots that once reverse thrust is deployed then a go-around becomes out of the question. It takes too long to get the engines up to take-off power again. Once reverse thrust is applied, the pilot is committed to staying on the ground.

On a short runway in the rain, they always use thrust reversers. Perhaps, as you suspect, the reversers didn't deploy as intended, but the pilot would have tried to use them.

CNN is reporting this morning that one of the two thrust reversers failed to operate-
[url]
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/ ... index.html[/url]

[alicia-w]

because it had been disabled by maintenance.

[Nimbus]

The effect is like hitting the gas pedal when you are trying to push on the brake in a car.