View Full Version : Flying in Brazil can be dangerous to your health
geetrue
07-18-07, 12:25 PM
Another air crash in Brazil ... this is the second major crash in less than a year.
http://www.topix.net/content/ap/2007/07/195-feared-dead-in-brazil-plane-crash (http://www.topix.net/content/ap/2007/07/195-feared-dead-in-brazil-plane-crash)
Remember the other one last September when the small business jet colided with the 737 killing all on board the commerical passenger plane. Here's an article about that crash.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/06/23/america/LA-GEN-South-America-Scary-Air.php (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/06/23/america/LA-GEN-South-America-Scary-Air.php)
Did you know what happened to the two pilots on the business jet?
They finally got to come home, but they are refusing to go back for the trial. Can you blame them?
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/879-full.html (http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/879-full.html)
Officerpuppy
07-18-07, 12:36 PM
Dangerous to drive too lest you want to get sticked up inside your car by gangs :p
If you watch the movie City of God, there is a small documentry about the police and gangs out there, the cops out there carry MG's as standard equipment, and I'm not even talking about like SWAT or ESU, but regular cops.
The Avon Lady
07-18-07, 12:49 PM
Everything I'm reading points to short runways at this airport.
Terrible tragedy. :oops:
waste gate
07-18-07, 01:05 PM
Every airline captain has the option to refuse landing, and for that matter any, instruction issued by ATC while the aircraft is airborne.
I'd be interested in the reports, if any, from other airplanes that landed on that RWY. I understand that at the time of the accident it was raining (heavily).
The two most useless things in aviation as they say: Runway that's behind you, and fuel that you didn't put in the tanks.
Sounds like a classic case of a wet runway of marginal length, and possibly the runway surface unable to cope with and sufficiently drain water. The runway in question is one that is well known in the world of commercial flying as being slightly dodgy, along with a few others around the world such as Las Palmas and Mexico City, to name but a couple.
When a runway at a regional airport in the UK was resurfaced last year and a couple of pilots complained about the surface being bad, it was redone the following week, but I guess in countries where civil aviation is notoriously underfunded, that's not an option.
Although it is true that the pilot has the option to divert and should legally have an alternate designated on his flight plan plus 45 minutes worth of fuel, in practice there is tremendous pressure from a pilot's employees for him not to do this kind of thing. Budget carriers being the worst afflicted in this respect, since their margins are small and their bosses want to get maximum hours out of their airframes without what they deem to be 'unecessary' positioning flights.
:D Chock
The runway had recently been resurfaced and was awaiting grooving.Runway is short,relatively high elevation and aircraft was near max landing weight.
An approach and landing on 17R can be seen here:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZ77mPgJ_Sk
The crash occurred on landing in other direction.
This is an approach and landing in a 737 in the 35 direction:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZ77mPgJ_Sk
Chock what is wrong with Las Palmas?I have been going there for years and never had a problem.
Subman will be along in a minute to say it wouldn't have happened if it was a Boeing!!:damn::damn::damn::damn:
Skybird
07-18-07, 03:27 PM
Boeing 737s and other airplanes of that size are prophibited to land there. Airliners alltogether were prohibited to land there, but economical pressure made the court partially lifting the ban. I think here the major responsibility needs to be searched for. The runway received new tarmac, but is way too short for safe operation of airplanes of that size, and the grooves (?) still were not added, so it was smooth tarmac - and it was set under water by heavy rain. Other airplanes who landed before just had warned everybody over radio that the surface was slippery like grease. On TV they said, one plane just shortly before just escaped an accident by a hair's breadth.
Due to the short length and location (city centre, trees and plenty of higher building nearby), the airport has a very bad reputation amongst pilots of being a high risk approach. The carrier and the A320 both stand beyond doubt: the carrier has a solid reputation, and the A320 had no technical problems whatsoever, the company says. It is possible though, that the pilot touched the runway a bit too late, due to the weather conditions, they said: strong winds and heavy rain.
The gooves are cut to allow water to drain.
Skybird
07-18-07, 03:36 PM
I did not question you - I was not sure if I had picked the right word! ;)
Wording was spot on.Did you look at the youtube clips?That airport is right in the middle of a very urban area.The radar altimeter call outs on the 320 clip can be heard going down and the back up due to the uneven terrain.
Re: Las Palmas, that was me making a mistake/typo, of course I meant Los Rodeos, which is dodgy for obvious reasons, notably the fog which caused the big Pan Am/KLM collision there (well that and the KLM P1 being an asshat).
:D Chock
waste gate
07-18-07, 06:21 PM
Re: Las Palmas, that was me making a mistake/typo, of course I meant Los Rodeos, which is dodgy for obvious reasons, notably the fog which caused the big Pan Am/KLM collision there (well that and the KLM P1 being an asshat).
:D Chock
Los Rodeos, Tenerife collision had nothing to do with the RWY and everything to do with an impatient captain who wouldn't listen to the SIC. Since then, and as a result of that tragedy, CRM is in place.
Los Rodeos, Tenerife collision had nothing to do with the RWY and everything to do with an impatient captain who wouldn't listen to the SIC. Since then, and as a result of that tragedy, CRM is in place.
I know that, KLM Captain Van Zanten's impatience was the main cause of the accident, which I pointed out in my original post if you read it.
I was merely pointing out that Los Rodeos is an airfield which is noted for being dodgy because of its propensity to become suddenly shrouded in clouds. This being a contributing factor to the Los Rodeos collision, because its altitude makes it subject to clouds rolling over the field from the surrounding hills, a phenomenon which occurred at the time of the crash. Consequently this made the Pan Am crew unaware that the KLM aircraft had throttled up for a take off run despite not having clearance to do so, because they were not clear of the runway, nor had they announced this either.
I often fly from airfields where this weather phenomenon occurs, and you can trust me on this, it is a contributing factor to safety, if one is not careful.
In the Los Rodeos collision, the problem was exacerbated by the fact that the airport was overloaded with dense traffic, owing to a terrorist threat from ETA forcing many aircraft to divert there, which in turn forced the airport staff to use the runway to backtrack taxi aircraft into position because the number of aircraft meant that there wasn't adequate wingtip clearance for 747s to get past all the parked up aircraft, which the airport was not designed to handle. This is what the Pan Am jet was doing when the KLM aircraft set off toward it.
:D Chock
geetrue
07-18-07, 08:16 PM
Have you ever taken off from the airport in the Azores?
I use to fly back and forth in the US Navy when we changed blue crew for the gold crew on a FBM submarine. We were stationed out of Rota, Spain.
We would fly from Spain to Rhode Island, but if the DC super 8 didn't have enough fuel we would land in Goose Bay Harbor, Newfoundland on the way for more fuel.
This particular trip they landed in the Azores first to keep from having to land in Newfoundland.
Nice little airport the people all looked at us funny in our dress blues, but we boarded the plane again to take off. I was on the window side just looking down at the run way as we took off. I didn't feel any lift of the plane or anything and all of a sudden I'm looking at the clifts and the Atlantic Ocean.
It's just the top of a mountain and we were air born ... Scared me for sure.:yep:
Heibges
07-18-07, 08:49 PM
The two most useless things in aviation as they say: Runway that's behind you, and fuel that you didn't put in the tanks.:D Chock
Great! Great! Great!
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
Didn't know we had so many aviation experts here. :cool:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=dSgqCafZfBc
That's a very fast landing....brake problems?
Another link with different viewpoints, is that smoke from the front wheel?
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=HHDOxrGq0Hg&NR=1
Skybird
07-19-07, 06:21 AM
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=dSgqCafZfBc
That's a very fast landing....brake problems?
Another link with different viewpoints, is that smoke from the front wheel?
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=HHDOxrGq0Hg&NR=1
german media say that the pilot tried to brake off the landing and thus pushed the throttle and tried to get airborne again - thus the acceleration at the end, but it was too late. Due to the slippery surface, the wheels lost grip, the plane ran into a skid, overshot the runway, and in a wide left turn slammed into the building to the side, crossing the highway first.
The Avon Lady
07-19-07, 06:25 AM
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=dSgqCafZfBc
That's a very fast landing....brake problems?
Isn't that taken by a secuirty camera? Doesn't the framerate makes it faster than realtime?
Another link with different viewpoints, is that smoke from the front wheel?
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=HHDOxrGq0Hg&NR=1
Brakes+water?
TteFAboB
07-19-07, 07:14 AM
The length of the runway would be sufficient if it were properly maintained. If you think this one's short, check Santos Dumont in Rio de Janeiro, no such record of accidents there (http://www.brasilazul.com.br/imagensBAZ/aeroportosantosdumont.jpg). When the main runway was closed for resurfacing the traffic diverted to the auxiliary runway, thinner and about 2,000ft shorter, as is the case now as the runway has been closed again for the investigations.
Yes, it was raining severely, and yes the grooving had not been made.
The day before (!) an ATR42 slid off the runway quite dramatically while landing, notice the skid marks: http://oglobo.globo.com/sp/mat/2007/07/16/296802845.asp
On March 22nd, 2006 a 737 stopped just in time, sliding off while landing aswell: http://www.picarelli.com.br/novas_imagens/1021719.jpg.
In June 2006 a 737 bumped an A320/1 gently causing light damage while taxiing in heavy rain.
On October 6th, 2006 another 737 slid off the runway when landing: http://oglobo.globo.com/sp/mat/2006/10/06/286006094.asp
On January 2007 a 737 had to smash the brakes to stop but didn't slide.
Back in 2003 a Citation fell off the taxiway after exiting the runway a bit too fast in heavy rain conditions. I could only find this crappy link so scroll down a bit untill you see the citation: http://www.aerolex.com.br/2003.htm
I found this from 1991 while searching for the others but have no idea what caused it. In dry conditions, scroll down a bunch: http://www.desastresaereos.net/acidentes_tam2.htm
The runway was opened with the claim that since it was winter, the weather should be dry and have no rain, thus grooving was unecessary. So the runway remained open during the day and closed after midnight for the grooving work to be done.
The Tower warned the pilot to land short because the condition was very slippery. 5 minutes before the plane landed the Tower received the results of a water-level measurement it had requested: the result was Ok (!).
Witnesses report they didn't see the engines going into reversion, so the crew must have started aborting very early. The video Oberon posted is of the stage where the Pilot is heard saying "turn! turn! turn!" over the radio. It's unclear why he would say that. Turning intentionally would be best to the other side where there's more room and the terrain slopes down.
Some pilots raised suspicion over the computer system of the plane, wondering if it could've prevented the pilot from maneuvering more aggressively, but only the black box can tell if such a thing happened, if the crew deactivated the restrictions or none of the above.
EDIT: Some more tid bits: the plane touched down before the 1,000ft mark, so the Tower even cleared a plane holding-short for take-off. Rules established after the accidents I posted here require the runway to be closed under such conditions. On that day the request was denied.
Hmmm, that does make sense Skybird, and the 'smoke' I noted could well have been the wheels locking up and the beginning of the skid, or as AL said, spray from the water, but that is a lot of spray, so the runway would have to have a lot of standing water...
Strange he didn't turn right instead of left, but I guess it was dark and in the moment he must of gone for the left option, which happened to involve a fuel storage depot :cry:
TteFAboB
07-19-07, 08:37 AM
The left turn is really odd. The only reason I can imagine for an intentional left turn would be to avoid gliding into these towers: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:AeroportoCongonhas_ALS2.jpg
You may be able to notice that the terrain goes down from right to left. The right side, from the plane, is definitely the side to turn intentionally. Even if you're going to crash, you'll crash on grass and then roll to the highway. Bad, but better than smashing into a building.
EDIT: I just learned how the pilots call the runway when it's raining: Holiday on Ice.
Also, waste gate mentioned Pilots refusing to land if so they wish. This has happened on the same day of the accident, during the day, with a plane from the same company that aborted the landing just before touching down because he thought the runway was too wet.
Some pilots raised suspicion over the computer system of the plane, wondering if it could've prevented the pilot from maneuvering more aggressively, but only the black box can tell if such a thing happened, if the crew deactivated the restrictions or none of the above.
If the pilots had decided to abort the landing and take off again (and it does look very much like that from the terminal footage of the aircraft speeding along the runway) they would presumably have engaged the TOGA (take off/go around) mode on the throttles. Doing this should automatically throttle up the engines to take off thrust and configure the aircraft for a go around. So, unless they didn't do that, it would seem unlikely that the flight control systems would be limiting the aircraft's manoeuverability. They could have just rammed the throttles forward manually in a panic (which would be understandable) and in theory this would have worked if they had retracted the flaps from the landing configuration to the take off configuration, but there are two problems with doing it that way:
The first is that jet engines spool up slowly. Even if you've never piloted an a multi-engined aircraft, it is likely you've flown on one, in which case you will probably have noticed that the pilots do not simply 'firewall' the throttles all the way forward while at a standstill, they advance them smoothly forward in several stages to prevent the possibility of one engine spooling up to full power faster than the other. This is to avoid the possibility of asymmetric thrust initiating a swing to one side, which would be difficult to correct while there is not much airflow over the rudder. So if the pilots in this tragedy had panicked and rammed the throttle forward and it had initiated a swing, this might explain the turn the aircraft made and the difficulties they got into.
The second, is that in addition to increasing lift, the flaps also increase drag (which slows the aircraft down on its approach descent) but on a take-off roll, this drag would be undesirable, so minimal flap settings are the order of the day on take off, with anywhere between about 5 and 20 degrees of flap usually being the case for a take off, the less the better if you have enough runway length. Flaps do not retract instantaneously , they take time to come in, and while they are deployed, they cause a lot of both aerodynamic and form drag. Both of which would inhibit the aircraft's ability to accelerate to a safe lift off speed.
Of course on an approach to an airstrip with such a reputation as this one has, it should be the case that the crew conduct a thorough pre-landing briefing on what exactly they will do in all eventualities, including an abort on the landing roll out. Given the circumstances, and if they did in fact carry out such a briefing, things should have gone better than they did. But...
It is easy to be judgemental about pilots decisions in such events, and if in a panic the crew had differed on what to do, it would certainly not be the first time this had happened. Numerous crashes of this nature have occurred when the pilot and co-pilot were literally arguing about whether to continue braking, or to go around. On some occasions in the past, this has even involved pilots fighting over whether to press the TOGA lever or not, with it being switched on and off by both the pilots as the aircraft careered down the runway!
Having had an emergency on landing in real life whilst piloting an aircraft, I would like to say that I coolly handled it with no panic whatsoever. But the truth is that on that occasion, I was scared, and I actually 'froze up' for about two seconds (seemed a lot longer at the time - almost like one of those slo-mo bits in a movie) before snapping out of it and then doing the right things, which fortunately meant that I was able to land okay. I was lucky in that most aeroplanes will quite happily fly themselves for a few seconds on such occasions! This is what pilots jokingly refer to as 'the Jesus manouever', as in: 'Okay Jesus, you have control!'.
So I am rarely judgemental about decisions from pilots in circumstances such as these, because I know that things like that can happen. But you will notice from the quote above that it is rare for pilots to admit to this kind of fallability in their profession, and so the first thing most pilots would claim is that 'the plane wouldn't let me do this', when what they really mean is 'the plane couldn't do that because I had the systems set up incorrectly'. This is understandable because it is a favourite of air accident investigators and aeroplane manufacturers to blame pilots who die in crashes for the cause, and then quietly fix the real issue a few months later. So naturally pilots get a bit defensive on such matters.
I guess we will find out what happened if and when the flight data recorders remained intact and were working properly.
:D Chock
Skybird
07-19-07, 10:36 AM
I think it is easier - touch down a bit too late on the already short runway, slippery surface, no grip and thus no braking effect, running out of runway, trying to take off again with the aircraft already in a skid and with not sufficient runway remaining, and so ...
the carrier company seem to have a good reputation, which should reflect in the training level of the pilots, then. that unlucky fellow was in command when him and 200 people died, so I would be hesitent blaming him for having made a mistake before the blackbox shows that he did. that that airport was still operating, was reopened due to economical pressure only, although the technical anaylssis found it bo be a highly unsafe location for airplans of that size, and that it even was not clsoed with a smooth new tarmas although the place was practically flooded - that is the scanal here, I guess. Short before the crashed flight, another plane was escapting accident by hair'S breadth only - then at the latest the facility should haven been closed for heavy traffic. Like even a busy hub like Frankfurt is shutting down for some hours if there is more snow than they can handle, for example.
the fire is reported to have produced temperatures in excess of 1000°C - does a flight recorder survive such a heat?
TteFAboB
07-19-07, 11:40 AM
It is easy to be judgemental about pilots decisions in such events...
The pilots are the weakest link. Back in the case with the A-10s in Iraq it all fell down on the pilots. In the other accident 10 months ago, pilots again. Let's bet. I'll give you 1,000 posts if the pilots don't get most of the blame on this one. Of course they may have some blame for not being able to go around succesfully, but they wouldn't have to abort a landing at all in the first place if the runway had been closed and their flight diverted elsewhere.
As far as I'm aware the flight recorders are already on their way to the US, but I'm not sure on what condition.
A possible piece of evidence could corroborate the possibility raised by Chock about throttles being rammed forward. Back to the video:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=dSgqCafZfBc
Pay attention to the 11-12 second or to the 30-31 second. There's a flash of light coming out of the left engine. Is it some sort of optical illusion or could it be fire from the excessive fuel suddenly being dumped in the engine? That would change everything. That's a pretty late point to ram the throttle forward.
The Avon Lady
07-19-07, 11:55 AM
I assume that planes do not have anti-locking brake systems (ABS) on them. Is it just good for cars but not for planes? I came up empty googling for this.
Skybird
07-19-07, 12:16 PM
Brazilian state attorney will close down the airport - forever, main TV news just reported.
Pay attention to the 11-12 second or to the 30-31 second. There's a flash of light coming out of the left engine. Is it some sort of optical illusion or could it be fire from the excessive fuel suddenly being dumped in the engine? That would change everything. That's a pretty late point to ram the throttle forward.
Having a close look at the footage from that camera, I think Chock and TteFAboB are right, that's a flash of fire, presumably from the engine, which would indicate some sort of extreme throttle movement.
Perhaps the throttle was on forward to try and regain takeoff speed, but when it was clear that they were going to run out of runway first, perhaps he rammed the throttle into reverse to try and decrease the impact speed, which perhaps meant the port engine got into reverse first (perhaps creating the flames) and swung the plane to port.
Here's some stills:
Still 1:
http://img68.imageshack.us/img68/2246/plane1fo7.jpg
Still 2:
http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/6522/plane2oe3.jpg
You can just about make out the glare of the light on the wet runway creating that downward spike. It's a pretty large flame, if that is what it is.
SUBMAN1
07-19-07, 02:37 PM
The two most useless things in aviation as they say: Runway that's behind you, and fuel that you didn't put in the tanks.
:D Chock
That is not what they say, but it works for me in this case. The real saying - Replace what you said about fuel in the tanks and change it with altitude above you.
-S
What amazes me of this all is that someone placed fuel bunkers at the end of a landing runway :-?
SUBMAN1
07-19-07, 07:11 PM
What amazes me of this all is that someone placed fuel bunkers at the end of a landing runway :-?
Whats wrong with that? Its sort of like a cushion for aircraft going off the end! :D
I think it is easier - touch down a bit too late on the already short runway, slippery surface, no grip and thus no braking effect, running out of runway, trying to take off again with the aircraft already in a skid and with not sufficient runway remaining, and so ...
the carrier company seem to have a good reputation, which should reflect in the training level of the pilots, then. that unlucky fellow was in command when him and 200 people died, so I would be hesitent blaming him for having made a mistake before the blackbox shows that he did. that that airport was still operating, was reopened due to economical pressure only, although the technical anaylssis found it bo be a highly unsafe location for airplans of that size, and that it even was not clsoed with a smooth new tarmas although the place was practically flooded - that is the scanal here, I guess. Short before the crashed flight, another plane was escapting accident by hair'S breadth only - then at the latest the facility should haven been closed for heavy traffic.
That jives with what a Brazilian friend of mine has been saying.
BTW the pilot had over 14,000 hours and was considered by his fellow pilots to be highly skilled.
The Avon Lady
07-20-07, 06:49 AM
Still confused down in Brazil (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070720/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/brazil_plane_crash;_ylt=AkRX3rbJqUdHr8LODhL0v9_MWM 0F).
So now it looks like thy are thinking that one of the thrust reversers might have had a problem.
:D Chock
geetrue
07-20-07, 12:28 PM
Someone should develop software that could be used with MS FSX to train people what to do in an emergency like this.
All of the major accidents could be covered.
Quite easy to do I would think.
Just script and code and such and then use the FSX modeling to work out the problems of what to do in a hurry.
Pilots are very special to me ... I see why some of them drink.
SUBMAN1
07-20-07, 03:44 PM
Someone should develop software that could be used with MS FSX to train people what to do in an emergency like this.
All of the major accidents could be covered.
Quite easy to do I would think.
Just script and code and such and then use the FSX modeling to work out the problems of what to do in a hurry.
Pilots are very special to me ... I see why some of them drink.
They go through training like that in the US. I've flown the 747 simulator at Boeing, and the instructor was able to throw up any problem he would like at any time. This can be some fomr of failure as may be the case here, and can even be traffic related. AN example, just as I'm pushing the throttles forward on the runway, he popped a DC-10 taxing out and taking off right in front of me (I need to go kick that pilot!)! It was very entertaining to fly, but very expensive.
-S
Skybird
07-20-07, 04:32 PM
Someone should develop software that could be used with MS FSX to train people what to do in an emergency like this.
All of the major accidents could be covered.
Quite easy to do I would think.
Just script and code and such and then use the FSX modeling to work out the problems of what to do in a hurry.
Pilots are very special to me ... I see why some of them drink.
That was a speciality of the old 767 PIC for FS2000/2002 - emergency simulation, instrument, system and machine failure. It costed me plenty of nerves and a lot of sweat back then. Although I have the sucessor to that module for FS9 ( http://www.avsim.com/pages/0505/lvld_767/lds767.html ), I only peacefully operate it now, and have not even checked if it allows such failure simulations anymore. But I think so.
Lots of PC-based simulations can simulate this kind of thing, but the problem is the same as it is with first person shooters, in real life there is no reset button, and nobody truly knows how they will handle situations when the pressure of it all being real is weighing down on their shoulders. Sure I can kick ass on ARMA and Operation Flashpoint etc, but if anyone was really shooting at me like they do in those games, I'd be hiding behind a wall crapping myself and calling in an airstrike.
I have had one or two emergencies and dodgy situations when at the controls of aircraft, and fortunately mostly done okay (sort of obvious since I am still here in one piece, as are all the aircraft I flew, well apart from one that someone subsequently crashed). But that doesn't mean that at some point in the future I won't screw it all up and dig a hole in the ground. Nevertheless...
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that home simulators do indeed hone your real world skills in terms of making certain reactions automatic. And it is interesting to note that whereas five years ago, very few real world pilots would have owned up to being into PC-based flight sims, but these days you'll find a lot of them not in the least bit shy about mentioning their interest in such things, since PC-based sims are reaching a level of sophistication whereby there is little that they don't in fact simulate, and therefore treated with more respect by people who fly the real thing.
Most professional pilots are mandated to take check rides in sophisticated simulators on a regular basis as part of their currency on a type of aeroplane, which usually involves the training captain throwing some emergencies at them, but if pilots are willing to do this of their own accord too, and have the affordable means to do it at home on a PC, it can only serve to sharpen their skills and decision-making.
Sadly, since it is now looking like the cause may well have been a thrust reverser issue combined with a poorly judged reluctance to close the runway in poor weather, some of the above is of course a moot point. As the pilots and passengers on board a Lauda Air B-767 found out over Thailand some years ago, when the thrust reversers go wrong, it is generally fairly catastrophic.
:D Chock
geetrue
07-20-07, 05:06 PM
They go through training like that in the US. I've flown the 747 simulator at Boeing, and the instructor was able to throw up any problem he would like at any time. This can be some fomr of failure as may be the case here, and can even be traffic related. AN example, just as I'm pushing the throttles forward on the runway, he popped a DC-10 taxing out and taking off right in front of me (I need to go kick that pilot!)! It was very entertaining to fly, but very expensive.
-S
I didn't know this ... thank you Subman.
I always wanted to build a flight sim for the arcade parlor's to fly for a quarter, but now they have LAN rooms.
I still think it's a great idea, but how do you get the cost down? That's the problem ... I know FSX can LAN though.
TteFAboB
07-20-07, 06:00 PM
I have to correct myself. I said the plane had landed before the 1,000ft mark but there are indeed reports of it landing past it. More than that, a magazine interviewed the pilot from the plane that had landed just before and he said that the ILS had been shut down because of malfunction. So the pilot may have overshot the mark indeed due to coming in too high.
Also, I mentioned a plane that had decided to go around because he also approached poorly and thought the runway to be too wet. He did go around but to land in the auxiliary runway which has the grooving.
The problem with the reverser was an oil leak in the hydraulic system that moves the thing back and forth. The plane's manual tells to lock the thing in the closed position when such a thing happens, which was done, and do maintenance in 10 days (besides from not landing in soaked slicky runways). A source from the government claims that landing without the two reversers prevents water from being pushed away from the landing gears by the air from the engines, making braking harder. Others say that's irrelevant and the plane should've been able to come to a halt had the main runway been grooved like the auxiliary runway.
The black boxes survived, at least apparently, and the analysis should begin soon enough.
http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/7195/20070721tam09sc2.jpg
The A320 cant go from reverse thrust to "go around power" in that distance and time. It just aint possible.
I assume that planes do not have anti-locking brake systems (ABS) on them. Is it just good for cars but not for planes? I came up empty googling for this.
Aircraft (or at least expensive aircraft such as airliners) have several things to assist in braking. They are usually fitted with anti-skid (ABS-style) braking systems, like a lot of things that develop for aircraft, they usually end up on cars.
Then they have an automatic braking system with several settings (usually about four or five that range from RTO through 1, 2, 3, 4 and Maximum, terminology is differnt but broadly similar regardless of manufacturer), this is normally set to RTO (Rejected take off) when on a take off roll (i.e. RTO is the 'oh crap we are running out of runway setting'), but on landing it is generally the pilot's decision on what setting to select. It's only on about the 3 setting upwards that passengers would notice the brakes kicking in, and most pilots would put it on 1 or 2 for a landing, and then take over manually with the brake pedals when the speed dropped to about 60 knots on the landing roll. Usually, the autobraking system will disengage if you touch the brakes yourself or open the throttles. Airlines generally recommend the use of autobrakes, since they have been shown to produce less wear on the brakes than manual braking does.
Modern aircraft, such as the latest Airbus and Boeings, have a more sophisticated autobraking system, where the pilot can enter runway length and condition and an appropriate setting will automatically be set on the autobrakes (bear in mind that in this sense, the system might choose to 'autobrake' not using the brakes at all, but using thrust reversers instead). On the A320, the official Airbus Standard Operating Procedures state that Auto Brakes should be set 'As required' and the manual also says 'If necessary, press firmly the appropriate pushbutton for the runway length and condition. Check that the related ON light comes on. The use of MAX mode is not recommended for landing'
Aircraft also have spoilers on the wings which you might have seen briefly deploy in flight occasionally if you were sat near the wing (they lift up from a flat position on the top surface of the wing). These are used to dump lift by making the low pressure airflow over the wing inefficient, and though they will cause some drag, they are more about increasing the rate of descent upon final approach, and keeping the thing down upon landing than slowing it down. They are usually armed on the landing approach and deploy automatically when weight on the wheels is detected.
Finally, aircraft also have 'thrust reversers'. On older aircraft and some military ones too, these usually take the form of clamshell 'buckets' at the back of the engine which expand and deflect the thrust backwards, but on modern airliners with high bypass turbofans, more air actually bypasses the engines than goes through it, this goes around the engine and it expelled to provide additional thrust (this is what gives more modern airliners their characteristic growling engine noise, rather than the whine of a turbojet). To reverse the thrust on one of these turbofans, the engine fairing usually splits about halfway along its length and slides backwards, enabling thrust to be directed forwards. Either method throws a lot of spray up, and on a poorly prepared runway surface with a lot of standing water, this can contribute to aquaplaning, making the brakes less efficient.
I have scanned some relevant pages from my copy of the Standard Operating Procedures for the A320, keep in mind that SOPs like this are normally an airline-specific publication, with the preferred techniques of the airline appearing in them as opposed to what Airbus recommends, however, it is fair to say that most airline SOPs are generally based on what the aircraft manufacturer says is best. Notice that point 7 on the last page of these four is the catch-all get out of jail free statement that allows the judgement of 'pilot error' to be attributed to pretty much any accident of this type :down:
http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j105/AlanBradbury/SOPscan.jpg
http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j105/AlanBradbury/SOPscan2.jpg
http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j105/AlanBradbury/SOPscan3.jpg
http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j105/AlanBradbury/SOPscan4.jpg
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.