Airbus

  • | | |

    Could It Be The Brakes

    SAO PAULO Widespread claims of a faulty runway, potential pilot error or failure of the plane’s brakes? That is the question

    Many officials and aviation experts blamed the rain-soaked runway where the plane skidded before crashing and exploding.

    A video of the landing suggests other factors.

    Footage shows the TAM Linhas Aereas plane accelerating instead of braking. Speculation is that the pilot was trying to lift off again.

    “The government will try to convince public opinion that the runway at Congonhas is not at fault,” said Elnio Borges, president of the Varig Pilots’ Association. “They’re going to do everything they can to blame the pilot.”

    Only 18 bodies have been identified. Four badly injured victims died in hospitals. At the TAM cargo building hit by the plane, eight people are missing.

    The landing strip had not been grooved to drain rainwater.

    “Why was Congonhas reopened in that state?” asked Paulo Sampaio, an aviation consultant at Multiplan Consultora in Rio de Janeiro. “It’s a crime.”

    Infraero’s Pereira said “We have to clarify why the plane accelerated again,” he added. “Only the black box can tell us that.”

    Air traffic controllers, fearing to be made scapegoats for that accident, have staged periodic work slowdowns to protest against deficient radar and radio equipment poor pay and hours. Delays and cancellations are routine. Passengers occasionally storm the airfields.

  • | | |

    Anger Mounts

    Cezar Britto, president of The Order of Lawyers of Brazil said it was “a tragedy waiting to happen,” echoing public opinion. “What exploded in Cagonhas was not just the TAM airbus and almost 200 victims but the credibility of the Brazilian aviation system.”

    Cagonhas is notorious for its short, dangerous runway.

    “The runway was as slippery as soap,” a pilot confessed.

    Rescuers pulled 181 bodies from the twisted metal wreckage and rubble. Five people are listed as missing. 11 are hospitalized. No passengers survived.

    Relatives gathered to identify the remains amid calls for authorities to improve airport safety.

    The crash is the latest of a series of airline disasters. The main runway had been resurfaced last month, but more work was scheduled to allow for better water drainage.

    “Control tower operators had warned the runway should be closed,” said Sergio Olivera, who heads the Federation of Air Controllers.

    Footage of landing showed the aircraft travelling at high speed–the Airbus took only three seconds as opposed to the usual 11 to traverse the runway then disappeared after skidding off the left side of the runway. Then a ball of flame filled the sky.

    An investigation has been ordered. One of the black boxes has been recovered.

    President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva declared three days of national mourning. Pope Benedict XVI expressed his sorrow.

    In February a judge banned Fokker 100, Boeing 737-800 and Boeing 737/700 jetliners from the airport but the ruling was overturned in appeals.

  • | | |

    Prosecutors calling for closure of Sao Paulo airport

    Brazilian prosecutors call for the immediate closure of Sao Paulo’s airport today after the country’s worst air disaster in its history.

    Governor Jose Serra declared that the volume of air traffic at Congonhas must to be drastically. A plane belonging to Brazil’s TAM airlinehit a nearby warehouse and exploded, killing 186 people on board and three on the ground.

    Footage shows Flight 3054 accelerating as it hit the short runway. Authorities believe the pilot tried to abort his landing and take off again.

    Rescue workers suspended the search for victims when the building at the crash scene threatened collapse. 4 Europeans, three from France and one from Portugal, were on board.

    Pilots are instructed to touch down within the first 1,000ft (300m), or pull up and circle round again. Yesterday, another TAM airline jet was rerouted after coming in at an unsafe angle.

    The official statement is that it is necessary to temporarily paralyze the activities at the Congonhas Airport in Sao Paulo until a complete renovation of both of its runways can be completed and there is certainty that they are fully secure for full operations.

    The senate leader of the Social Democratic Party (PSDB), Arthur Virgilio – whose colleague, the opposition leader Julio Redecker, was killed in the crash – said President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, needed to “act, not to talk…Otherwise his term will be marked by the suffering and pain of so many Brazilians who could still be alive.”

  • | | |

    Brazil’s Call for Change: A320 Crash

    One day after a TAM Airlines Airbus A320 crashed in Brazil, killing at least 189 people, the International Federation of Air Line Pilots’ Associations chimed in on Wednesday, “Runways around the world have inadequate overrun areas.”

    The airbus was trying to land on a wet runway at Sao Paulo Cagonhas Airport, and when they were unable to stop, they took off again.

    The airbus managed to clear the airport fence and a highway. However it crashed into a gas station and a building then exploded into flame.

    IFALPA said, Runway-end safety areas should be established at all airports with airline operations, with an overrun space at least 800 feet long or an arrestor system that could halt an errant aircraft.

    The 6,362-foot runway in question has often been criticized as being too short.

  • | | |

    BRAZIL’S WORST-EVER AIR DISASTER


    Click to view full size photo at Airliners.net
    Contact Photographer Alan Olivieri

    BRAZIL’S WORST-EVER AIR DISASTER
    200 Feared Dead in Sao Paulo Crash

    At least 195 people were killed in Brazil’s worst plane crash, a product of a country with an inadequate air travel network that has been plagued by havoc.

    Witness Paulo Carol imagined he was at the set of a Hollywood disaster film when right in front of his taxi, an airplane crossed six lanes of the Avenida Washington Luis. He and his passengers fled on foot.

    Airbus A-320 operated by the Brazilian airline TAM, skidded off the runway after touching down and collided with cars and through a gas station before slamming into a TAM maintenance building. 180 deaths were passengers on the Airbus jet. Fifteen more deaths included Tam employees in the building.
    tos)

    Luiz Santos who barely escaped the explosion, said “The airplane was coming right at me. I could hear the sound of the engines and then it exploded.” His windows and the back end of his truck were shattered, but Santos and his passenger escaped.

    Flight JJ 3054 left Porto Alegre at 5:16 p.m. and landed at Congonhas two hours later. The plane apparently touched down too far down the runway.

    Accidents have made flying in South America dangerous to contemplate. Flight controllers are overworked, underpaid and untrained, and rely on aging and defective radar technology in the Amazon.

    In September, a Gol airlines Boeing 737 collided with a private jet over the Amazon, killing 154. That investigation is ongoing.

    The country’s air travel infrastructure has been unable to keep up with Brazil’s fast economic growth.

  • | | |

    Brazilian Crash Prompts Probe on Airport Work

    Projects intended To Improve Runway

    BUENOS AIRES, July 18 — Brazil is planning to investigate if recent construction projects intended to improve runways at Congonhas contributed to the TAM crash, which killed at least 189.

    Officials emphasized that it is too soon to determine a specific cause but the world’s worst air crash in five years, is the source of sadness and outrage in Brazil. Critics of Congonhas airport have long predicted an accident like Tuesday’s.

    The Airbus 320, touched down and when the pilot realized he could not stop, he attempted to take off again, narrowly clearing an elevated roadway before crashing into a fuel station and cargo office. The capacity of the plane was 185 adults. The 186 people on board included a baby. The weight of the plane was within approved safety ranges. One day before the crash a small turboprop plane harmlessly slid off the same wet runway.

    Rescue crews continued recovering bodies. Authorities confirmed all 186 fatalities aboard the plane. The number could rise. The “black box” recorder has been delivered to the United States for analysis.

    The 6,362-foot runway at Congonhas is 500 feet shorter than the runway at Reagan National Airport, which is considered too short for large jet landings during rain. The newly repaved runway was scheduled to be grooved to channel rain. as standing water has caused delays in the past.

    A congressional panel is already probing Brazil’s aviation security system. Accusations have been made that airport authorities have taken bribes. Federal police are investigating the airport construction projects.

    The Sao Paulo attorney general’s office closed Congonhas runway to large jets. “The runway needs to be extended by 1,275 feet to provide adequate space to accommodate jetliners…The airport put at risk the lives of passengers, crew members and those living in the surrounding area due to the constant skidding caused by the inefficient drainage system.”

    Responding to objections from airport and airline authorities, an appeals judge lifted the ban. The Airbus 320 was not among those planes that had been restricted from landing.

    In Sao Paulo, South America’s largest city with a population of about 20 million, Congonhas airport is surrounded by densely populated commercial and residential neighborhoods. In 1996, a TAM flight crashed a mile from the runway, missing an elementary school.

    Gideon Ewers said, “Runway excursions account for something like a quarter of accidents. Anytime you run off the runway and are confronted with a steep slope, a sheer drop, a four-lane highway and buildings, it’s not good.” Ewers is with the International Federation of Air Line Pilots’ Associations. The International Federation of Air Line Pilots’ Associations represents pilots from over 90 countries.

    The federation urges authorities to add safety-strip extensions to the ends of runways or install “arrestor beds.”

    Since 2000, there have been seven accidents in Sao Paulo resulting major damage to aircraft. Six occurred upon landing. A Gol Airlines jet collided with a small private plane over the Amazon rain forest, killing all 154 people abpard just ten months ago, but Tuesday’s crash is the deadliest in Brazil’s history.

    A U.S. National Transportation Safety Board has an investigator at the scene to assist in the crash probe. Authorities will be combing the site, checking the runway slickness and the possiblility of pilot error. Former NTSB investigator Ron Schleede said. “Most runway-overrun accidents involve slick surfaces or planes going too fast to stop.” A Miami-based lawyer representing the families of 30 victims of the Gol crash, Ricardo Martinez-Cid said he has been contacted by attorneys for families in Tuesday’s disaster. Court actions could be filed after more evidence has been collected.

  • | |

    Almost 200 Feared Dead in Air Crash

    Brazilian officials now fear at least 195 people are dead from Tuesday night’s jetliner crash in Sao Paulo. The TAM airlines Airbus-320 was on a domestic flight to Sao Paulo from the southern city of Porto Alegre when it skidded off the end of the rain-slicked runway, crashed into a gas station and a building and burst into flames.

  • | |

    S7 Airlines Flight 778 Disaster


    Click to view full size photo at Airliners.net
    Contact photographer

    What: S7 Airlines Flight 778 Airbus A310 en route from Moscow to Irkutsk
    Where: Irkutsk International Airport in Siberia
    When: July 9 2006
    Who: 193 passengers and 10 crew
    Why: The plane failed to decelerate on landing and crashed into the barrier.

    124 died.

    The investigation showed that as the pilot slowed with wheel braking, he deployed the right thrust reverser. The crew was unaware that the left engine thrust lever was (accidentally?)advanced. This prevented the plane from decelerating normally.

  • | | | |

    American Airlines flight 587


    Click to view full size photo at Airliners.net
    Contact Photographer Gerard Helmer

    What: American Airlines flight 587, an Airbus Industrie A300-605R en route from JFK to Las Americas International Airport, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic
    Where: Belle Harbor, New York,
    When: November 12, 2001
    Who: 2 flight crewmembers, 7 flight attendants, and 251 passengers
    Why: The airplane’s vertical stabilizer and rudder separated in flight.

    NTSB report has been added to this incident:

    NTSB Identification: DCA02MA001.
    The docket is stored in the Docket Management System (DMS). Please contact Records Management Division
    Scheduled 14 CFR AMERICAN AIRLINES INC
    Accident occurred Monday, November 12, 2001 in Belle Harbor, NY
    Probable Cause Approval Date: 4/14/2005
    Aircraft: Airbus Industrie A300B4-605R, registration: N14053
    Injuries: 265 Fatal.
    The Board’s full report is available at http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/publictn.htm.

    On November 12, 2001, about 0916:15 eastern standard time, American Airlines flight 587, an Airbus Industrie A300-605R, N14053, crashed into a residential area of Belle Harbor, New York, shortly after takeoff from John F. Kennedy International Airport, Jamaica, New York. Flight 587 was a regularly scheduled passenger flight to Las Americas International Airport, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, with 2 flight crewmembers, 7 flight attendants, and 251 passengers aboard the airplane. The airplane’s vertical stabilizer and rudder separated in flight and were found in Jamaica Bay, about 1 mile north of the main wreckage site. The airplane’s engines subsequently separated in flight and were found several blocks north and east of the main wreckage site. All 260 people aboard the airplane and 5 people on the ground were killed, and the airplane was destroyed by impact forces and a postcrash fire. Flight 587 was operating under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 121 on an instrument flight rules flight plan. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the accident.
    The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
    the in-flight separation of the vertical stabilizer as a result of the loads beyond ultimate design that were created by the first officer’s unnecessary and excessive rudder pedal inputs. Contributing to these rudder pedal inputs were characteristics of the Airbus A300-600 rudder system design and elements of the American Airlines Advanced Aircraft Maneuvering Program.

    FULL REPORT

    DCA02MA001

    The Board’s full report is available at http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/publictn.htm.

    On November 12, 2001, about 0916:15 eastern standard time, American Airlines flight 587, an Airbus Industrie A300-605R, N14053, crashed into a residential area of Belle Harbor, New York, shortly after takeoff from John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK), Jamaica, New York. Flight 587 was a regularly scheduled passenger flight to Las Americas International Airport, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, with 2 flight crewmembers, 7 flight attendants, and 251 passengers aboard the airplane. The airplane’s vertical stabilizer and rudder separated in flight and were found in Jamaica Bay, about 1 mile north of the main wreckage site. The airplane’s engines subsequently separated in flight and were found several blocks north and east of the main wreckage site. All 260 people aboard the airplane and 5 people on the ground were killed, and the airplane was destroyed by impact forces and a postcrash fire. Flight 587 was operating under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 121 on an instrument flight rules flight plan. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the accident.

    The accident airplane arrived at JFK about 2231 on the night before the accident. The airplane had been flown from San Jose, Costa Rica, to JFK with an intermediate stop in Miami International Airport, Miami, Florida. During postaccident interviews, the pilots of the flight leg from MIA to JFK indicated that the flight was smooth and uneventful.

    Flight 587 was the first leg of a 1-day roundtrip sequence for the flight crew. American Airlines records indicated that the captain checked in for the flight about 0614 and that the first officer checked in about 0630. The gate agent working the flight arrived at the departure gate about 0645. She stated that the flight attendants were already aboard the airplane at that time and that the captain and the first officer arrived at the gate about 0700.

    About 0710, the airplane fueling process began. The airplane fueler indicated that, during the fueling process, he saw one of the pilots perform an exterior inspection of the airplane. He finished the fueling process about 0745 and stated that he saw nothing unusual regarding the airplane.

    Statements provided to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Police Department by American Airlines maintenance and avionics personnel indicated that, sometime between 0730 and 0800, the captain reported that the number 2 pitch trim and yaw damper system would not engage. Two avionics technicians were sent to the airplane to investigate the problem. They performed an auto flight system (AFS) check, which indicated a fault with the number 2 flight augmentation computer. The circuit breaker was then reset, another AFS check was performed, and no fault was detected. In addition, an autoland system check was performed, and that test also did not detect a fault. The avionics technicians estimated that they were in the cockpit for 5 to 7 minutes.

    The cockpit voice recorder (CVR) recording began about 0845:35. The CVR indicated that, about 0859:58, the airplane was cleared to push back from the gate. About 0901:33, the ground controller provided the flight crew with taxi instructions to runway 31L, and the first officer acknowledged these instructions. About 0902:05, the captain told the first officer, “your leg, you check the rudders.” (The first officer was the flying pilot, and the captain was the nonflying pilot.) Data from the flight data recorder (FDR) showed that, about 0902:07, the rudder pedal check began. The FDR data also showed that a maximum right rudder pedal deflection of about 3.7 inches was recorded about 0902:11 and that a maximum left rudder pedal deflection of 3.6 inches was recorded about 0902:19. About 0902:23, the first officer responded, “rudders check.” The FDR data showed that the rudder pedals returned to their neutral position about 0902:25.

    About 0906:53, the ground controller provided the pilots of Japan Air Lines flight 47, a Boeing 747-400, with taxi instructions to runway 31L. About 0908:01, the ground controller instructed the Japan Air Lines pilots to contact the local (tower) controller. About 0908:58, the ground controller instructed the flight 587 pilots to follow the Japan Air Lines airplane and to contact the local controller. The first officer acknowledged this instruction.

    About 0911:08, the local controller cleared the Japan Air Lines airplane for takeoff. About 0911:36, the local controller cautioned the flight 587 pilots about wake turbulence and instructed the pilots to taxi into position and hold for runway 31L. The first officer acknowledged the instruction. About 0913:05, the local controller instructed the Japan Air Lines pilots to fly the bridge climb and to contact the departure controller at the New York Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON). About 0913:21, the flight 587 captain said to the first officer, “you have the airplane.”

    About 0913:28, the local controller cleared flight 587 for takeoff, and the captain acknowledged the clearance. About 0913:35, the first officer asked the captain, “you happy with that [separation] distance?” About 3 seconds later, the captain replied, “we’ll be all right once we get rollin’. He’s supposed to be five miles by the time we’re airborne, that’s the idea.” About 0913:46, the first officer said, “so you’re happy.”

    The National Transportation Safety Board’s airplane performance study for this accident0 determined that flight 587 started its takeoff roll about 0913:51 and lifted off about 0914:29, which was about 1 minute 40 seconds after the Japan Air Lines airplane. About 0914:43, the local controller instructed the flight 587 pilots to turn left, fly the bridge climb, and contact the New York TRACON departure controller. About 5 seconds later, the captain acknowledged this instruction. Radar data indicated that the airplane climbed to 500 feet above mean sea level (msl) and then entered a climbing left turn to a heading of 220º. About 0915:00, the captain made initial contact with the departure controller, informing him that the airplane was at 1,300 feet msl and climbing to 5,000 feet msl. About 0915:05, the departure controller instructed flight 587 to climb to and maintain 13,000 feet msl, and the captain acknowledged this instruction about 5 seconds later. About 0915:29, the CVR recorded the captain’s statement “clean machine,” indicating that the gear, flaps, and slats had all been retracted.

    About 0915:35, flight 587 was climbing through 1,700 feet msl with its wings approximately level. About 1 second later, the departure controller instructed flight 587 to turn left and proceed direct to the WAVEY navigation intersection (located about 30 miles southeast of JFK). About 0915:41, the captain acknowledged the instruction. The controller did not receive any further transmissions from flight 587.

    FDR data indicated that, about 0915:36, the airplane experienced a 0.04 G drop in longitudinal load factor, a 0.07 G shift to the left in lateral load factor, and about a 0.3 G drop in normal (vertical) load factor. The airplane performance study found that these excursions were consistent with a wake turbulence encounter. Between 0915:36 and 0915:41, the FDR recorded movement of the control column, control wheel, and rudder pedals. Specifically, the control column moved from approximately 0º (neutral) to 2º nose up, 2º nose down, and back to 0º; the control wheel moved a total of seven times, with peaks at 18º right, 30º left, 37º right, 34º left, 5º left, 21º left, and 23º right, before moving to between 5º and 6º left; and the rudder pedals moved from about 0.1 inch left (the starting point for the pedals) to about 0.1 inch right and 0.2 inch left before moving to 0.1 inch left. The airplane performance study indicated that, during this time, the rudder moved from 0º (neutral) to about 2º left, about 0.6º right, and back to 0º.

    During the wake turbulence encounter, the airplane’s pitch angle increased from 9º to 11.5º, decreased to about 10º, and increased again to 11º. The airplane’s bank angle moved from 0º (wings level) to 17º left wing down, which was consistent with the turn to
    the WAVEY navigation intersection.

    At 0915:44.7, the captain stated, “little wake turbulence, huh?” to which the first officer replied, at 0915:45.6, “yeah.” At 0915:48.2, the first officer indicated that he wanted the airspeed set to 250 knots, which was the maximum speed for flight below 10,000 feet msl. At that point, the airplane was at an altitude of about 2,300 feet msl.

    FDR data indicated that, about 0915:51, the load factors began excursions that were similar to those that occurred about 0915:36: the longitudinal load factor dropped from 0.20 to 0.14 G, the lateral load factor shifted 0.05 G to the left, and the normal load factor dropped from 1.0 to 0.6 G. The airplane performance study found that these excursions were also consistent with a wake turbulence encounter. According to the FDR, the airplane’s bank angle moved from 23º to 25º left wing down at 0915:51.5, the control wheel moved to 64º right at 0915:51.5, and the rudder pedals moved to 1.7 inches right at 0915:51.9.

    At 0915:51.8, 0915:52.3, and 0915:52.9, the CVR recorded the sound of a thump, a click, and two thumps, respectively. At 0915:54.2, the first officer stated, in a strained voice, “max power.” At that point, the airplane was traveling at 240 knots. About 0915:55, the captain asked, “you all right?” to which the first officer replied, “yeah, I’m fine.” One second later, the captain stated, “hang onto it. Hang onto it.” The CVR recorded the sound of a snap at 0915:56.6, the first officer’s statement “let’s go for power please” at 0915:57.5, and the sound of a loud thump at 0915:57.7. According to the airplane performance study, the vertical stabilizer’s right rear main attachment fitting fractured at 0915:58.4, and the vertical stabilizer separated from the airplane immediately afterward. At 0915:58.5, the CVR recorded the sound of a loud bang. At that time, the airplane was traveling at an airspeed of about 251 knots.

    According to the FDR, the rudder pedals moved from 1.7 inches right to 1.7 inches left, 1.7 inches right, 2.0 inches right, 2.4 inches left, and 1.3 inches right between 0915:52 and 0915:58.5. Also, the FDR showed that the control wheel moved 64º to the right at 0915:51.5, 78º (full) to the left at 0915:53.5, 64º to the right at 0915:55.5, and 78º to the left at 0915:56.5.

    The airplane performance study estimated that, at 0915:53.2, the rudder was deflected 11º to the left, and the sideslip angle at the airplane’s center of gravity (cg) was about 4º to the left (after peaking temporarily at 5º to the left).21 At 0915:56.8, the rudder was deflected 10.2º to the left, and the sideslip angle was about 7º to the left. At 0915:58.4 (the time that the right rear main attachment fitting fractured), the rudder was deflected between 10º and 11º to the right, the sideslip angle was between 11º and 12º to the right, and the airplane experienced a 0.2 G shift to the right in lateral load factor.

    The CVR recorded, at 0916:00.0, a sound similar to a grunt and, 1 second later, the first officer’s statement, “holy [expletive].” At 0916:04.4, the CVR recorded a sound similar to a stall warning repetitive chime, which lasted for 1.9 seconds. At 0916:07.5, the first officer stated, “what the hell are we into…we’re stuck in it.” At 0916:12.8, the captain stated, “get out of it, get out of it.” The CVR recording ended 2 seconds later. The airplane was located at 40º 34′ 37.59″ north latitude and 73º 51′ 01.31″ west longitude. The accident occurred during the hours of daylight.

    For more information, look here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_587
    http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2004/AAR0404.pdf
    http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20011130X02321&key=1

  • | | | |

    Airbus: The Gulf Air Tragedy


    Gulf Air A4O-EH .The one in the crash was A40-EK
    Click to view full size photo at Airliners.net
    Contact photographer Gerard Helmer

    What: Gulf Air Airbus A320-212 en route from Cairo
    Where: Muharraq, Bahrain
    When: August 23, 2000
    Who: 2 pilots, 6 flight attendants, and 135 passengers
    Why: On August 23, 2000, Gulf Air flight 72, Airbus A320-212 crashed in the Arabian Gulf near Muharraq, Bahrain. Flight 72 departed from Cairo International Airport, with 2 pilots, 6 flight attendants, and 135 passengers on board. Cleared to land on runway 12 at Bahrain International Airport, Muharraq, Bahrain, it crashed during a go-around. destroyed by impact forces. All aboard were fatalities. The flight exceeded flap overspeed limits while climbing during the go-around followed by a pitch down and several alerts from the Ground Proximity Warning System before the airplane impacted the water. Cause: pilot error, spatial disorientation