Tragedy in Brazil

[wsoul2k]

Something very strange happened when the A-320 landed

 

the video footage show it very fast after the land attenpt

 

another air plane took 13 secs to go for A point to B point ...the A-320 pass from A point to B point only in 3 secs this is clear in a video footage from a FIXED cam in the air port.

 

 

The A-320 skided or roll out only at the end off the runway and it is clear the PILOT was trying to take off again

 

The possible causes that are being investigated are:

1-The A-320 have skided off because the wet runway

2-Possible blow tire

3-Possible REVERSE failure in ONE engine forcing it out of the runway

4-Possible Brake failure

 

Some informations are being spawned saying the same A-320 have an reverse problem few days before in other air port but this information is not yet confirmed.

 

If this information is true the combination of:

WET runway without groove + possible reverse problem + short runway well you can figure it out

 

PS the groove was not ready because of recent maintence on the runway its implementation was scheduled to teh end of the month

[ECV 56 Gorrion]

My Condolences for the victims and Family's

[Force_Feedback]

Thank you for sharing the information with us, looking at different news sites is confusing, this is better.

The bbc said the thrust reversers were locked out. And yes the plane was going fast, probably a go around attempt.

A question: Are landings without thrust reversers allowed on very wet runways? I know the thrust reversers are a brake augmentation, not a substitute, but is it allowed per operations manual to land on rain/snow covered runways without thrust reversers?

[wsoul2k]

Thank you for sharing the information with us, looking at different news sites is confusing, this is better.

The bbc said the thrust reversers were locked out. And yes the plane was going fast, probably a go around attempt.

A question: Are landings without thrust reversers allowed on very wet runways? I know the thrust reversers are a brake augmentation, not a substitute, but is it allowed per operations manual to land on rain/snow covered runways without thrust reversers?

 

 

Yes ...the air plane can fly for ONLY 10 days with one reverse.

 

But other news are being discovered the SAME air plane hava a hidraulic problem few days before. The company (TAM) have said this problem was fixed and only the rigth reverse have a problem but this is not a NO GO situation

[LawnDart]

There are several factors in this accident and any equipment on the airplane that was INOP at the time, merely added to the chain of events leading to the accident. I find it very hard to believe any known and deferred equipment or lack of fully operational systems were the cause. It might have factored in, but only much later in the chain of events leading up to the accident...

 

Most equipment on a plane can be MEL'd, meaning continued ops are permitted for a set period of time depending on the type of item being MEL'd. Sometimes depending on the type of equipment being MEL'd, there are performance penalties and a revised ops procedure (either by the pilots, maint personnel or both) to continue safe operation of the airplane without the affected equipment. In the case of TR's, they can certainly be MEL'd and continued ops are permitted without any operational change on behalf of the crew. The performance data for takeoffs and landings should reflect the factored distances, but other than that - there's really no change in procedure for the pilots. Only reason an item like that has to be fixed within 10 days (or as per the MEL), is so that the airline can't postpone deferred items indefinitely.

 

Chances are that when you take your next commercial flight the airplane you get on may have some equipment MEL'd and deferred. Sometimes it can be a benign item such as a coffee maker, other times an engine TR, FMS, APU, pressurization auto controller etc... depending on the type, they have various lengths of time they can remain INOP before maintenance has to fix the item - but never will the airplane continue in service unless it's safe and the MEL procedures can be complied with by the crew and maintenance.

 

In the case of MEL'd engine TR's, it is safe to have only one operational and the factored landing distance should be revised on the release. The crew would have been aware of this and most certainly had their updated data, so anything you hear about a thrust reverser being INOP and causing this accident is purely coincidental and only made things worse in a chain of events that had already progressed too far for this accident to take place.

 

There were many factors leading up to this accident, but the most crucial will likely turn out to be pilot error with other factors adding to the grim results...