|
|
|
|
|
#1
08-01-2007, 05:13 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Spoiler
Crash tape relays Brazil pilots' terror
By MICHAEL ASTOR, Associated Press Writer Wed Aug 1, 2:03 PM ET RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil - The pilots of doomed TAM Airlines Flight 3054 screamed "slow down!" and "turn, turn, turn!" seconds before their Airbus A320 skidded off the runway in Sao Paulo and slammed into a building last month, flight recorder transcripts revealed Wednesday. According to transcripts read before a congressional commission investigating air safety in Brazil, the pilots were unable to activate the spoilers — aerodynamic brakes on the plane's wings — as it sped down the short, rain-slicked runway. "Spoiler nothing," one pilot says, giving the first indication that something is wrong. "Slow down, slow down, slow down." The other pilot replies: "I can't. Oh my God!" The last words heard in the cockpit were: "Turn, turn, turn! Oh no!" followed by screams and the sound of two explosions. The July 17 crash at Congonhas airport killed all 187 aboard the jetliner and 12 people on the ground in Brazil's deadliest air disaster. Brazilian daily Folha de S. Paulo reported that according to the flight data recorder, one of the plane's throttles was in the wrong position as it touched down, causing it to speed up instead of slow down. The congressional commission did not review the data recorder information publicly, but seemed to acknowledge the report's accuracy by discussing how the information was leaked. According to the cockpit transcript, one of the pilots asked about conditions on the runway shortly before landing and was told: "wet and slippery." Soon after the crash, some speculated that the runway, which is short and notoriously slick in rainy weather, contributed to the crash. But the airline also has acknowledged that one of the jet's thrust reversers, used for braking, was broken and had been deactivated prior to the crash. The flight recorder showed the pilots were aware they had only one functioning thrust reverser — something that is not usually a problem. Video footage of the plane landing showed it speeding down the runway more than three times faster than other planes. Folha speculated that an incorrect throttle position could have fooled the plane's computer system into anticipating that the pilot was trying to take off again, automatically disabling the spoilers. "There are signs that this happened," Brazilian aviation consultant Elias Gedeon said when asked about Folha's hypothesis. "But we can't say 100 percent this was the problem." A finding that pilot error or mechanical failure was responsible would likely ease criticism of the government, which has been widely accused of failing to address Brazil's aviation woes after a Gol jetliner went down in the Amazon last September, killing 154 people. That crash touched off months of work stoppages and slowdowns by air traffic controllers, who complained of dangerous working conditions. The runway at Congonhas had been shut earlier this year for renovations, but was opened before it could be grooved — a process that helps water run off and provides better traction in rain. 
|
|
#2
08-04-2007, 01:01 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
From the luddites corner, this is what freaks me out about getting comfortable with high tech. Sorta like the way we take bridges and the like for granted, other expensive capital investments are tapped for value past the point of practicality and eventually something breaks, breaks with hundreds, thousands of people calmly going about their business while fuel filled missiles are whizzing about in close proximity.
The bloom is off the rose for flying with me. Flew into Sea-Tac last night and I couldn't wait to get off that plane.
__________________
Te futueo et caballum tuum 1986 300SDL, 362K 1984 300D, 138K
|
|
#3
08-04-2007, 01:21 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
It seems to me that the architects & engineers of the early 20th century over-built for structural integrity. This is probably because so much of engineering back yonder was empirically based and had no rigorous theoretical support.
In the second-half of the 20th century physics and engineering made huge advances in theory. Also the materials sciences made tremendous advances. This has allowed architects & engineers too employ incredibly graceful designs that are usually much stronger than their over-built ancestors. These advances also allow designers to build closer to tolerances than ever vbefore. IMO there is NOTHING wrong with that. On the contrary it allows design and construction of structures barely dreamt of a half-century ago. There is a downside, as there always is. In this case, building closer to tolerances, it puts greater emphasis on QA/QC from beginning to end. This is in contrast to the previous century when over-engineering and over-building aided in structural integrity even when QA/QC and post-construction safety inspections may have been less demanding. To put it in engineering terms we are better acquainted with, I'll bet that the w123, w124, and w126 were probably Daimler's last largely empirically constructed cars. I'll bet the immediately following generations were more solidly grounded in engineering theory, allowing designers to push closer to tolerance limits than ever. This would mean that the subsequent cars would undoubtedly have more refined details and be more efficient in every way. The downside is that if anything screwed-up in the assembly QA/QC it would be far more likely to result in problems later as compared to older design models. Uh, ... I'm guessing. Not an engineer. B
|
|
#4
08-04-2007, 01:28 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
What worries me is the way we take these things for granted, as though it's a capital asset that we no longer need concern ourselves with. The underground infrastructure in NYC is now covered with massive investments that will make it far more difficult to update than it was to build originally.
And as many commentators have pointed out, it's a lot more sexy for Congress to bring home a new $$ bridge project than to allocate funds to repair or retrofit old ones.
__________________
Te futueo et caballum tuum 1986 300SDL, 362K 1984 300D, 138K
|
|
#5
08-04-2007, 01:36 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Thus in my perfect world, it is up to Minnesota to raise the money to build, inspect and maintain the bridge, but following federal interstate standards. It should be the NTSB's job to determine how and why the bridge failed. It should be up to the taxpayers of Minnesota to pay for clearing debris and rebuilding the structure to interstate standards. B
|
|
#6
08-04-2007, 01:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Short runway
Wet pavement Lack of runway grooves Throttle's not at idle. No spoilers One functional thrust reverser. Possible no reverse thrust whatsoever (wrong throttle position). Doesn't take a genius to figure out what's going to happen if you land under those conditions. The reason that you don't usually have such situations in the US with US carriers is precisely the result of the Federal government involvement and oversight.
|
|
#7
08-04-2007, 01:59 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#8
08-04-2007, 02:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
It's a very difficult system to run with total perfection. I find it amazing that the accident rate remains so low, considering all possible modes of catastrophe.
|
|
#9
08-04-2007, 02:08 PM
|
||||
|
||||
*** My kingdom for a tranquilizer dart and blow-gun... ***
You CPAs are going to hate me...
I believe stuff started turning to chit when the boardroom opened its doors to the Finance guy... I'm having to deal with decisions that weren't made by, and equipment that wasn't test by, the people that have work or repair the stuff on a day-to-day basis...it was purchased because someone decided that the stuff that was required was "too expensive" or "wasn't the value we we're looking for." Sounds like a CFO is stinking up the boardroom... A CEO needs to be able to talk to the people that have to deal with the whatever decision he's going to make, THEN tell the CFO to "come up with the cash to make it happen..." Not take a chicken-chit's way out and ask the CFO whether there's a better (read "cheaper") way to go. Any moron can tell you "Yep, I gots a brudder that sells these things on a street corner in downtown Manhattan, real cheap..." I'm sorry if you CPAs don't like what I'm saying...but the day when I can come into your office and tell you how to do your jobs, then I'll have no problem letting you make engineering decisions that could (and do) result in death, dismemberment and/or injury to everyone around... The only time I've seen (or really noticed) CFOs getting their a55es in a wringer is the ENRON and TYCO fiascos...and as I've pointed out, how many bodies are in those decisions' wakes? It's always the poor, small fry that have to pay the biggest price in stunts like these...and it's our legislators that write up and pass the laws that protect the idiots (campaign contributors). Stuff was overbuilt because (as Bot pointed out) most of the engineering principles hadn't been fine tuned... Now you have money-monkeys demanding POs for paper-clips, re-cycling bins in every office for the non-shreadables, toilet-paper so thin that you can read bible-print through it and coffee so weak that most employees buy their own at the local Skwishee-Marts before they come in in the morning... I swear, if anyone is ever hurt on any project I'm "supering" on, I'm comin' for the CFO that made it all possible... I'm not a happy camper in the executive world... Would somebody find a CEO that knows his a55 from a hole in the ground and is able to kick the money-monkey back into his office with the other 99 monkeys and their calculators? Better yet, let's start making the CEOs AND CFOs culpable in any investor-related lawsuits, any actions brought by victims of the CEOs'/CFOs' decisions and make the CEO's/CFO's property and finances subject to 110% (Yep, 110%) confiscation...put some teeth and pain into the punishment for cheap-a55 decisions that put people at risk... There...I feel better.... 
__________________
.  . M. G. Burg'10 - Dakota SXT - Daily Ride / ≈ 172.5K .'76 - 450SLC - 107.024.12 / < .89.20 K ..'77 - 280E - 123.033.12 / > 128.20 K ...'67 - El Camino - 283ci / > 207.00 K ....'75 - Yamaha - 650XS / < 21.00 K .....'87 - G20 Sportvan / > 206.00 K ......'85 - 4WINNS 160 I.O. / 140hp .......'74 - Honda CT70 / Real 125 . “I didn’t really say everything I said.” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ Yogi Berra ~
|
|
#10
08-04-2007, 02:20 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I heard one pilot on the radio describe it as sorta like landing on an aircraft carrier. I read where high speed trains in Europe are time competitive with airlines and use much less fuel per passenger. There would be a limit to being time competitive, of course -- shorter trips only, I imagine, say like SF to LA.
__________________
Te futueo et caballum tuum 1986 300SDL, 362K 1984 300D, 138K
|
|
#11
08-04-2007, 02:24 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
Te futueo et caballum tuum 1986 300SDL, 362K 1984 300D, 138K
|
|
#12
08-04-2007, 03:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I don't wish to tell you that cost is not of paramount importance in a corporation, but your opinion of how a CFO attends to his job is wildly off the mark.
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
