Tragedy in Brazil, or What Happens When...

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
Of course. So how long should the runway be?
That's surprisingly hard to determine. Pilots tend to use whatever runway is available. I used to fly a small plane into a 1600 foot runway. A sharp pilot can land that particular aircraft in half that distance in normal conditions. A so-so pilot can land in the full runway. But pilots still run out of runway there. They invariably say, after crashing into the fence at the end, "how long is this damn runway, anyway?" The correct length is marked on the FCC maps which they are required to have in the cockpit. In the aviation biz, there is no excuse for ignorance; it causes crashes.

Actually no it’s not, well at least in theory! Such requirements are laid down by aircraft manufacturers. Naturally, variables apply; weather, altitude, load etc and these are factored in on a movement by movement basis. What can’t be so easily factored in is pilot performance and as you say, plain ignorance.

But let’s first differentiate between GA and ATP. While there are many overlaps, GA is subject to different rules and required levels of competence and I’m not discussing GA issues below.

A nearby field has a 4000 foot runway. Sure enough, pilots still manage to run off the end. The point - it doesn't matter if the runway is 1600 or 4000 feet long - the factors which cause pilots to run out of tarmac have nothing to do with the actual length of the runway. There is nothing in everyday experience which would give anyone the "common sense" to realize that. Anyone who knows flip about flying knows it, though.

Yes, such things happen. I agree with you that the length of the runway isn’t necessarily in itself the cause of an aircraft leaving it unintentionally, but dismissing runway length as irrelevant is risky because it may be a factor in what caused the aircraft to depart or overrun the runway - reduced braking performance due to aquaplaning for example or it may not - ground steering failure, tyre bursts leading to loss of control, side wind gusts etc.

All aspects of safe flight demand close attention. That's why your typical Airline Transport Pilot has more on-the-job training than your typical brain surgeon.

That’s a given, at least for me. But if one wants to resort to pedantry I should then have said landing an aircraft on soaked runway in a rainstorm requires close attention over and above the already high level required for doing so in good conditions.

The airline industry is not viable if "mere finanacial concerns" are neglected. If all runways were required to be fifteen miles long, there would be about five airports in the entire world, all of them in places nobody would ever dream of flying to. And I have no doubt that pilots would still manage to run off the ends.

Of course, and while financial concerns must be taken into consideration there is no shortage of evidence of the tragic results when such considerations have compromised safety to an unreasonable degree; this is systemic within the airline (and other) industry(ies) of course and nothing new, but that doesn't mean we should be complacent about it. Nor does it specifically relate to runway lengths, it relates to maintenance, training and other issues - Alaska Airlines springs to mind as an example on the maintenance issue.

In this case, the runway apparently ends at a bluff overlooking a busy highway, with developed urban areas beyond. Simply "lengthening the runway" doesn't sound so simple. If it really has to be longer, that airport would probably have to be abandoned, or limited to aircraft with shorter landing distances. <...> In the Brazilian case, adding a "soft" stretch of runway would necessarily shorten the extent of good runway - not a step in the right direction.

I wasn&#8217;t seeking to address the specifics of this instance exclusively, but at this airfield with a pattern of such incidents being established specialist knowledge is not really required to deduce this may have been a factor in this accident. It would therefore be reasonable (if not necessarily correct) to deduce there may be a problem with physical (runway design, length, surface, approach paths, Navaids etc) or human elements (approach training for cockpit crew and/or ATC for example) or a combination of these and others.

Lengthening the runway in this case may well not be possible, so I agree that this should mean type restrictions are imposed. Ironically this was done but subsequently overruled; the reasons were most likely financial though that&#8217;s supposition of course. This is what I was referring to by &#8216;mere financial concerns&#8217; overriding safety where such a risk had been clearly established. See later for more on that...

It is the pilot's responsibility to know the capabilities of his aircraft. No exceptions! All aircraft have operator's manuals which give takeoff and landing distances as functions of aircraft weight, airport pressure altitude, and weather conditions. These manuals are supplied by the aircraft manufacturers, and were determined after long and expensive testing programs. If the pilot believes that a runway length is inadequate for the aircraft weight and conditions, it is his responsibility to request that air traffic control send him to another runway or, if necessary, to another airport. So that ATC can send him to another airport, the pilot is required to have a half-hour's flying time of fuel when he reaches his destination airport. (In the US, at least. Not all countries follow US rules, though most do.) ATC is then able to send him to an airport a half-hour away in perfect safety. This is taken seriously in the industry - pilots have been cashiered for having only 28 minutes worth of fuel.

Absolutely, the buck stops with the captain who should exercise good judgement in such matters, regardless of cost. The reality is that commercial pressures can and do, override good judgement, that&#8217;s undeniable. &#8216;Reserve&#8217; fuel carried for such considerations has been cut back over recent years so a decision to divert to another field with for example a longer runway may increase the risk rather than reduce it, or rather it may introduce a different, additional one.

It is just silly to blame politics for what was almost certainly the pilot's error. That has, of course, not yet been determined. The politics of establishing pilot error are another matter altogether, but never conducted in the public domain.

It would be, but then I didn&#8217;t say that.

As you say the cause of the accident has yet to be determined so what follows is speculation (as is your own pre-assessment).

A little background information:

The A320 has a minimum landing field length requirement of ~ 4750 feet. The runway lengths at Congonhas are 6,365 feet on 17/35R and 4,708 feet on 17/35L. The longer runway was extended by 1275 feet under a court order to meet requirements for aircraft such as the A320.

There had already been a court order issued in February 2007 banning landings by some aircraft (types such as B737 and Fokker 100) at Congonhas because of poor grooving and water pooling problems. This ruling was later overturned by another judge but before that happened the airport had been closed no less than 18 times due to waterlogged runways.

Taking the above into consideration pilot error may be the sole cause or it may (most likely) be merely one factor. The clear history of such incidents suggests at Congonhas may suggest the pilot exercised poor judgement in attempting a landing in the prevailing conditions. I read he attempted to abort the landing, alternatively he may have had no knowledge of them, or been (mis)informed the runway problems had been resolved by the (as it appears now, uncompleted) improvements.

I suspect the truth will never fully be known.
 

B_big dirigible

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Posts
2,672
Media
0
Likes
12
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
There had already been a court order issued in February 2007 banning landings by some aircraft (types such as B737 and Fokker 100) at Congonhas because of poor grooving and water pooling problems. This ruling was later overturned by another judge but before that happened the airport had been closed no less than 18 times due to waterlogged runways.

That implies that the airport was handling the situation correctly. When the hardware isn't adequate for the immediate job, it isn't used. That's much better than landing on an inadequate runway. In this case it doesn't seem to have been closed - either because somebody on the ground screwed up, or because the runway was, in fact, believed to be adequate for those conditions.
alternatively he may have had no knowledge of them, or been (mis)informed the runway problems had been resolved by the (as it appears now, uncompleted) improvements.
There's a mechanism to account for that. A publication called "Notices to Airmen" gives conditions at all airports. This accounts for runway repairs, taxiway construction, changes of tower radio frequencies, condition of equipment at the airport (lights, various communication and navigtional aids, etc.) If the NOTAMS isn't up to date, that wouldn't be pilot error. The charts are also revised regularly. When they're three months old, they can't be sold any more, as they're considered obsolete. The charts - in the US, the "sectionals" and the "TCA" charts - show the available runways, their lengths and altitudes, radio towers and tall buildings, radio beacons (VORs and VORTACs), aids to visual navigation (stadiums, highways, rivers, malls with large parking lots). These things can change at short notice (particularly ratio towers). That's why the pilot is responsible for having up-to-date documentation in the cockpit with him. I don't know what they have in Brazil but it must be something very similar, or they'd be having crashes daily, rather than at rare intervals.
 

ManlyBanisters

Sexy Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Posts
12,253
Media
0
Likes
58
Points
183
You are hypothesizing that my posts are merely fast Google work?

:lmao:

An even better theory is that I just make it all up as I go. Though that one won't likely fly, either.

I dunno - Brain the size of a planet - nobody listens to me - and I have this terrible pain in all the diodes down my left side...

I've worked it out big, you can't fool me any more - you are Marvin the Paranoid Android!

(I never said 'Google' - I said 'research' - if you equate the two that closely then I fear all hope may be lost for this world - I also said 'may')
 

B_big dirigible

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Posts
2,672
Media
0
Likes
12
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
(I never said 'Google' - I said 'research' - if you equate the two that closely then I fear all hope may be lost for this world - I also said 'may')
That's what I was asking. Many people do equate the two; in my view, incorrectly.

One of my brothers, a professor of something-or-other in England, recently told me that that is indeed what passes for "research" among undergraduates nowadays. The situation is grim.
 

ManlyBanisters

Sexy Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Posts
12,253
Media
0
Likes
58
Points
183
That's what I was asking. Many people do equate the two; in my view, incorrectly.

One of my brothers, a professor of something-or-other in England, recently told me that that is indeed what passes for "research" among undergraduates nowadays. The situation is grim.

Well there you have my full and complete agreement. It's worse again when they quote wiki pages as if it the fucking bible of whatever it is they are banging on about. I'm guilty of linking to wikipedia a little too much myself - makes me feel kinda dirty.

So you really do have the brain the size of a planet then, do you? :wink:
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
That implies that the airport was handling the situation correctly. When the hardware isn't adequate for the immediate job, it isn't used. That's much better than landing on an inadequate runway. In this case it doesn't seem to have been closed - either because somebody on the ground screwed up, or because the runway was, in fact, believed to be adequate for those conditions.

Well yes. It also assumes that aliens don't swoop down and spirit the aircraft away...despite the allegations, I think that's rare.:rolleyes:

There's a mechanism to account for that. A publication called "Notices to Airmen" gives conditions at all airports. This accounts for runway repairs, taxiway construction, changes of tower radio frequencies, condition of equipment at the airport (lights, various communication and navigtional aids, etc.) If the NOTAMS isn't up to date, that wouldn't be pilot error. The charts are also revised regularly. When they're three months old, they can't be sold any more, as they're considered obsolete. The charts - in the US, the "sectionals" and the "TCA" charts - show the available runways, their lengths and altitudes, radio towers and tall buildings, radio beacons (VORs and VORTACs), aids to visual navigation (stadiums, highways, rivers, malls with large parking lots). These things can change at short notice (particularly ratio towers). That's why the pilot is responsible for having up-to-date documentation in the cockpit with him. I don't know what they have in Brazil but it must be something very similar, or they'd be having crashes daily, rather than at rare intervals.

I know, I receive them quite regularly although in recent years they're of purely academic interest. The same situation with charts etc exists in the UK, though I don't keep copies up to date charts, I have no current need and they're not cheap!

Like you I don't know what the situation in Brazil is. International aircrew would be up to speed, purely domestic crew 'may' not be, sometimes tending (wrongly) to scan NOTAMS and rely on more intimate knowledge of the fields to guide them. Bad practice, certainly but I know it happens.

I was just speculating, given the history, it seems highly unlikely that the situation wasn't well know to the crew.

Such awareness is predicated on flight crews reading and understanding the information they receive, and that it's correct. It's possible they simply got it wrong, it's hardly unknown.