Talk:TAM Airlines Flight 3054/Archive 1

Incorrect information

The article is saying the plane hit a gas station, which is incorrect; as one can see clearly on TV, and as reported by several news sources, it hit TAM's cargo unit's (TAM Express) building, which is next to a gas station. --cesarb 23:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The Associated Press reports in the IHT reference that the plane "slammed into a gas station." If you can provide a source for the TAM Express you are welcome to add it, but please keep in mind that very little is known about the crash at the moment. I would suggest stating that the plane hit either a gas station (IHT reference) or a TAM Express warehouse (other reference). Aecis^Brievenbus 00:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

We can see it live on TV; that's no gas station. I'm trying to find a better source in English. For now, all the sources with the correct information I've seen are in Portuguese, and all the sources with the wrong information are in English. --cesarb 00:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Urgh, every time an accident like that happens conflicting informations abound. The best online information source I could find so far is Agência Brasil; see for instance [1] (mentions the cargo terminal; no mention of the gas station at all, the gas station thing must have been just an early rumour) and [2] (mentions 170 passengers plus 8 crew). Annoyingly, just now TV globo mentioned 175 people on board. The math doesn't match. --cesarb 00:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

What do the Portuguese sources say? – Zntrip 00:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The language of the sources doesn't matter. That's what we have language=Portuguese in the references for. So if you could add a Portuguese source for the warehouse, that would be very helpful. Aecis^Brievenbus 00:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. – Zntrip 00:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Folha Online says the plane hit a warehouse, in portuguese: "depósito". - TheUnpluggedGuy 00:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

This one from Reuters Brazil seems the best so far; mentions the fact that the building is next to a gas station. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CesarB (talk • contribs)

I have added the information about the warehouse to the article. I have kept the gas station in place for the moment, since AP qualifies as a reliable and authoritative source. If what the plane hit was not a gas station, it will reach the international media eventually, in which case the gas station bit can be removed from the article. For now, I suggest erring on the side of caution and listing both options given in media coverage. Aecis^Brievenbus 00:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it's better now (though since I saw the news as they developed on the recent Flight 1907 accident, I don't trust the news sources as much. They tend to pass random people's speculation as fact too often). The fact that it was quite near a gas station was probably what ended up mangled as "it hit a gas station". The best news source would be ANAC or TAM, but neither have anything on the accident yet. --cesarb 00:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

How about the {{dubious}} tag? The either/or wording suggests that there are conflicting reports, that there is no certainty at the moment and that some of it may turn out not to be true. I believe that the tag is redundant, in the current wording. Any thoughts? Aecis^Brievenbus 00:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed and removed. Presenting both versions solves the dispute. --cesarb 00:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Depósito ou galpão de carga da própria TAM.--OS2Warp 00:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

IT was a the place where is the TAM express (im brazzilian) and 13 people were helped now , and 3 are dead at hospitals , there was about 176 people in the plane.Lucas

Warehouse , no gas station. I know warehouse.--OS2Warp 00:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Warehouse TAM Express.--OS2Warp 00:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

COnfirmed , 170 passagers in the plane , and the warehouse of TAM is at red alert because it can collpase and destroy everthing , and the chance of a explosion of infalamable things warehouse.Lucas

A part of the building collapsed now , only a small part , it almsot confirm that all bulding going to collapse.Lucas

Here is a map of the crash site on Google maps. [3]

Warehouse clearly visible here. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

BLP note: Apparently the Brazilian Chamber of Deputies' Minority Leader was on board. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Begs the point that he's no longer living, and therefore no longer under WP:BLP.--Dali-Llama 05:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

More context images:

• view from over the airport looking towards the crash site: here (at the end of the line of blue lights, right-center moving up and left, which demarcate the outer edge of the taxiway area).
• road overview of the end of the taxiway, the embankment, the road, and the burning warehouse, from the roof of the second building up the road.

FYI. Georgewilliamherbert 01:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Speculation...

THIS IS ORIGINAL RESEARCH DON'T PUT IT IN THE ARTICLE

Start looking for coverage indicating that the jet may have accidentally landed on the taxiway rather than Runway 35. The warehouse is directly in line with the end of the taxiway, and the taxiway isn't going to have a grooved surface to assist aircraft braking on wet surfaces (and there are signs of rain in the photos of the area). It would have had to have changed direction significantly to reach the warehouse from Runway 35, but going straight from the taxiway at any speed would have hopped right off the raised airport level, gone airborne over the sharp slope and concrete retaining walls, and landed somewhere in the road or the building... Georgewilliamherbert 00:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it was the runway. That runway was being repaired to fix problems with the grooved surface you just mentioned; there had been several cases of airplanes skidding outside of the runway when it's raining (and yeah, it was raining...), see for instance [4] and [5]. --cesarb 01:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

CNN says: "The airport is notorious for having short, slippery runways, CNN's Miles O'Brien reported. The runway was recently resurfaced but the cutting of grooves to channel rainwater off the pavement had not been completed, he said." [6] Not sure where to put this in the article. Maybe in a new section, "Cause of crash#Initial speculation", later to be followed by the investigation report. The problem is that O'Brien is not speculating about the cause. Aecis^Brievenbus 01:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit too soon for that. I can't say I support an "Initial speculation" section this soon — it's been 4 hours, folks. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Apparently the plane couldn't stop on the rwy, so the pilot tried to takeoff again, without enough power, causing a stall and falling and crashing in the TAM Express building. Rescbr 01:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a long ways off the Runway 35 centerline... possible, but this all looks very strange right now. Georgewilliamherbert 01:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

There aren't 200 victims, the news that says such thing is in a figurative way of speech. carloshmd 01:13, 18 July 2007 (GMT)

I wonder if the pilots tried a maneuver similar to that of BRA's 737 in March last year, veering to the left to enter the taxiway at the end of the runway. Its nose overhanged the Washington Luiz Avenue. And the "Turn, turn, turn" on the frequency that governor Serra and a general aviation pilot reported on Globo TV might have been from a fellow pilot in another plane who, witnessing the speedy TAM, picked the mike and urged them to aim at that taxyway.Aldo L 05:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Where did the coordinates come from in the link to Google Maps? There is this link provided at the after the one to Google, but it will not display anything for me. – Zntrip 04:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not particularly sure what you mean, but I've added the proper geolink to the article. You can find it in the upper-right corner of the article, and it should take you to the correct location in Google Maps (as does the very same link you provided).--Dali-Llama 05:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

There are two questions:

• What sources do we have for the coordinates?
• What is this link and why is it in the article? The link doesn't completely display on my computer. – Zntrip 05:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Both the site that you linked to and a couple of others referenced that's the location of the crash. It's a well-known route to Congonhas airport. But being Wikipedia, here's another source for it. You need Flash installed in your computer to access it, which also answers the second question (they're both infographs depicting the crash site on a map).--Dali-Llama 05:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, for some reason the Flash file or whatever it is (since I do have Flash on my computer) will not display for the link I provided. In any case, at thanks for your help. – Zntrip 05:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I provided the Google Maps coordinates because news sources may change quickly. My original source was the broken link you saw (still referenced here) but the correct link (at least for now) is this one -- an animation showing the path of the plane and the impact point. --HYC 07:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

They changed the link again; now it is [7] (the id# in the URL was 232, then 233, now 237). If they change the link one more time, I give up. --HYC 08:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

BBC News website also has cordinates and speculates plane's path

Great job everyone

Great job everyone putting together this article in such a short time with so many good references; it is better than many other aviation accident articles already. Comments like "This is definitely pilot error" are of course very premature, and "You guys are serious morons" I'll assuming is just trolling, but again, to the rest of you, great job! Lipsticked Pig 06:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment, and I extend it to everyone else as well. On a side note, I'm pleasantly shocked at everyone using the proper "ref" tags and not just straight up links. Maybe I'm mal-accustomed. Also, I recommend anyone interested in longer-term involvement with this article to check out the Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907--we pulled that one to "Good Article" status and I hope we can do it with this one as well.--Dali-Llama 06:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It may have something to do with the fact that many of the sources are Portugese and the people who add them are therefore more used to using ref tags to specify the source is Portugese to reduce complaints. Nil Einne 07:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Gas station

On this point, note the Shell sign in the middle of the picture. - Banyan Tree 08:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is a picture of the gas station hit by the plane -- I can see the Shell logo on the broken pump. Arguably, the plane only exploded when it hit the TAM Express warehouse building, but it wrecked the gas station before that. I don't see reasons for deleting all references to the gas station in the article; it sits just next to the warehouse. This Jornal da Tarde article (in Portuguese) also says the gas station was hit first. --HYC 07:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

However, you can also see (if you enlarge the picture) that all of the fueling stands still appear to be intact (though one end of the station inself is certainly demolished) — which might argue against the gas station being the cause of the explosion. Here in the UK, we're hearing that TAM had a fuel depot near the warehouse (See BBC story) which was hit and that that caused the fire. Although why you'd put a fuel depot at the end of a runway is beyond me! MeegsC | Talk 08:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

There's also a BBC piece to camera (available from here) that says rescue workers were hampered by an explosion at a nearby gas station — so the gas station was definitely involved at some level.

Today's O Globo (how come the article on one of Brazil's major newspapers is still a stub?) says the gas station was also hit (it also has a picture showing where the gas station is; it and the warehouse are right one next to the other). --cesarb 09:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It probably comes down to either the gas station structure was clipped by the aircraft (which went over the road and probably right over the gas station, before hitting the four storey TAM building), or, more likely in my opinion, the initial and subsequent explosions of the aircraft and fuel depot damaged the gas station. Have a look at this map. It shows that the fuel depot is not directly at the end of the runway, so you have to have pretty drastic skidding to get an aircraft to hit the fuel depot. Someone speculated above that the aircraft was landing on the taxiway to the left of the runway, but if the BBC have got their dotted line right, the aircraft skidded drastically at the end of the runway. Someone also speculated that the aircraft was desperately trying to take off, but had lost too much speed by that point and stalled (though eyewitnesses say it still going very fast). The same "take-off" effect might be seen from the aircraft shooting off the steep slope and falling into the building across the road. Either way, it was definitely airborne again at the point it hit the TAM building across the road. The investigators would need eyewitness reports to find out whether it shot off the runway and fell into the building, or whether it tried to take off, veering left, stalled, and fell into the building. My speculation would be that it couldn't glide across that distance (ie. it flew). If there is a black box that will say whether the pilot tried to take off again. I'm also wondering how much control a pilot can have over a skidding aircraft. Would he have been able to steer right (looks safer, but then maybe there were airport buildings over there), or keep the aircraft going straight. All speculation, but what are the emergency procedures? Is one if those to abort the landing and take-off - at what point is that possible? Oh, don't put any answers in the article unless its from a source talking about this specific incident, as this is all speculation still at this early stage. Carcharoth 10:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Desperately trying to take off? Surely it's not that hard for the people involved to work out whether the plane was landing or taking off (given that it was coming from another airport to the airport where it crashed, it seems unlikely it was trying to take off). Or do you mean it may have aborted the landing? Nil Einne 11:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

By "desperately trying to take off" I do mean "aborting the landing", though I recall you have to abort before you actually land (or at least before the plane's brakes and engine reverse thrust kicks in) to have any chance of success in taking off again. Carcharoth 14:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The exact trajectory of the plane may only become clear when the investigation report is released. Until that moment, we may not find out whether the plane hit the gas station or whether the gas station was damaged by debris of the warehouse. What we do know is that the gas station has suffered substantial damage as a result of the crash. I think this should be mentioned in the article. Cows fly kites (Aecis) ^{Rule/Contributions} 11:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

According to this New York Times article, Serra said the Brazilian FAA told him the pilot apparently realized he wasn't going to stop in time and tried to take off again. That would also explain eyewitness accounts which said the plane went over the road... MeegsC | Talk 12:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Though there is a report somewhere about someone in a taxi who said the wheel of the aircraft just missed them and hit the road. Though whether that was after the wheel detached from the aircraft (ie. after the explosion) or as the aircraft passed overhead, wasn't clear. Carcharoth 14:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

A fair statement would be that the aircraft crashed into the warehouse, and the explosion damaged a gas station. The gas station's damage could have been caused by the explosion itself, not the crash (high-velocity debris, overpressure, etc.). So, I think given the relatively minimum damage done to the gas station, and the fact it could be secondary to the main explosion at the warehouse, it makes more sense. And remember, just because you have a source that says it impacted a gas station doesn't necessarily make it true: At first they said the aircraft hit a TAM hangar, then it was a fuel farm for aircraft, then it was a TAM refueling station... you know where this goes.--Dali-Llama 16:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Gas station, revisited

Now that the dust has settled, I think it is now undeniable that the gas station has been directly damaged by the airplane (as over against a secondary damage), for the following reasons:

1. The impact of the fuselage occurred on the southern wing of the TAM Express building, where the cabin of the plane was found (that is, on the left hand side of someone looking from the street).
2. The gas station was located in front of the south wing of the TAM Express building.
3. The space between the gas station structure and the building's center block was only 10 meters (as measured through Google Earth's measuring tool), not enough for an Airbus A320, with its wingspan of 34.1 meters, to squeeze through. This makes it extremely unlikely that the plane could have avoided the gas station altogether before hitting the building. (See this sketch on the article: the size of the buildings and the airplane are drawn to scale.)
4. It is true that the plane was airborne when it crossed Washington Luís Avenue, but only barely -- it was flying so low that it touched the roof of several passing vehicles, according to many witnesses. [8] [9] It was losing altitude, not gaining altitude. (Note that the runway is on much higher ground than the street level, which explains why the plane was airborne; it wasn't taking off.)
5. Finally, Brazilian newspapers continue to repeat the information that the gas station was hit by the plane.

Therefore it is only fair to put the information back on the article. To avoid any misunderstandings it should be added that only the surface structure of the gas station was hit; the underground fuel tanks were not affected, and were not the cause of the explosion or the subsequent fire. --HYC 08:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

A fair, to my view undeniable statement given the pictures, is that the gas station was damaged by the crash and subsequent explosion. A speculative statement is saying that the airplane impacted against the gas station in addition to the warehouse (or that it didn't, for that matter). The article as is, I believe, gives an appropriate statement ("...crashed at high speed into a TAM Express warehouse adjacent to a gas station and exploded.") . Otherwise, we'll be speculating all night long. Neither one of us has evidence (video or an engineering report of the damage) to say that a reliable source has stated the aircraft impacted the gas station directly. My point is: while that may very well be true, it is still speculation and original research in the absence of a reliable source.--Dali-Llama 15:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Cause of crash speculation

In #Speculation..., I brought up the possibility of creating a section for initial speculation as to the cause of the crash, or rather a "Cause of the crash" section with to subsections: "Initial speculation" and "Investigation report". Fvasconcellos (talk · contribs) discarded it as "a bit too soon for that." Some time has passed since (admittedly, not much), and it seems that there are now two main lines of speculation: the media tend to focus on the runway as the cause of the crash and the possibility of hydroplaning, while the Brazilian army IIRC suggests that the crash may be due to a braking failure in the plane itself. Because of this, I want to repropose creating this section. Obviously only well-referenced speculation from reliable and relevant sources should be included. Cows fly kites (Aecis) ^{Rule/Contributions} 10:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. See Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907 for how we handled this last time. CENIPA will release a preliminary factual report soon, from which we'll take the facts. It's important to keep Wikipedia in that "Just the facts" fashion. The plane ran off the runway and crashed. That's a fact. If the brakes failed, if he tried to take off again or not--all of this is speculation. Wikipedia is still an encyclopedia, and we need to keep speculation down to an absolute minimal.--Dali-Llama 16:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm still opposed to such a section; the second paragraph of "Safety concerns at Congonhas" is still dangerously under-referenced. A "Recovery efforts" or "Initial response" section might be warranted, though. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Runway length

There is a fair bit in the article commenting on the short length of the runway and certain aircraft types that were banned from there at one point. I do find this strange as at my local airport in Aberdeen, Scotland which only has a runway 6004ft long there are numerous daily flights using Boeing 737-300,400,500,600,700 & 800 series aircraft, also Fokker 100's, Boeing 757-200's and all the single isle Airbuses. This airport also suffers from heavy rain all year round and generally a few months of snow in winter and these aircraft are on sectors as far as Tenerife and Turkey (so heavy) yet it is only recently that a runway extension was approved to facilitate Houston flights in particular. Maybe due to the hot and high nature of the Sau Paulo airport that this was an issue?

Maybe because Congonhas is in the middle of a city, the usable length of the airstrip is far less than the nominal length. That is, the pilots only can approach the landing area after the airplane cleared up the buildings. Believe, here in Brazil that's the way it works, and we have some more airports in the middle of highly populated areas. 200.142.114.24 14:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like you've hit the nail on the head. Carcharoth 14:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Number of people on the plane

This is currently internally inconsistent. In one place it says 186, another 180. It may have to do with double counting of TAM employees in the 186 figure, since that includes 18 TAM employees. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 16:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

According to TAM, there were 162 "passengers" (i.e. not employees), 18 employee passengers and 6 crew on board. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll update the box. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 17:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of box, the FDR has apparently been sent to the NTSB for analysis — probably worth mentioning. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

This list of passengers, also published by Folha, shows 181 passengers (including 14 TAM employees) and 6 crew members, so 187 people on board the plane. Aecis^Brievenbus 18:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

That list (compiled from manifest?) includes the crew as passengers (passengers 165 through 170). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected. The six names at the bottom are not the crew members but TAM Express employees in the warehouse. They are missing and are probably presumed dead. Aecis^Brievenbus 19:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Photo of the plane

Airliners.net has two photos of PR-MBK. I'd be surprised if one of those photographers wasn't willing to let us use the photo. -- Plutor ^talk 16:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I have tried before for other articles but told the photo authors that they would have to release the photo into the public domain. Is there a way to have them grant permission for use only in this article? Lipsticked Pig 00:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately not. Photos that grant Wikipedia-only or other xxx-only use permissions are speedied. This is because one of the fundamental philosophies at Wikipedia is we want our readers to be able to use the content themselves for their own uses, even commercial ones, without running afoul the copyright laws. AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh well. It's still worth a try, but I was turned down when I've tried in the past. Any given photographer might feel different though. Lipsticked Pig 00:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

As one of the photographers on Airliners.net and a frequent contributor of my images to Commons, I'd suggest going ahead and approaching the photographers whose images you interested in having here. They don't have to grant Public Domanin rights, they can grant GFDL and/or Creative Commons licenses, even attribution-required licenses, and upload them to Commons. That would make it possible.AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Cite web and cite news

I know it really doesn’t matter, but my reasoning for using “cite web” is that the language of the source is shown in grey, making it easier to tell the language of sources in a list. Are there any objections to me changing the reference templates? – Zntrip 20:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I reverted you when you first changed the references to cite web, but on second thought I have no objections. Both versions contain the same information, they simply show it in a different order. Aecis^Brievenbus 21:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Gossip worth investigation

In a interview, yesterday night, gave to Radio Tupi, Rio de Janeiro, a jet pilot made a brief comment, saying the TAM A320 that crashed in Sao Paulo, had left Porto Alegre with one of his reversors in fault condition. He said he got the information from another friend pilot, who sent a e-mail to him, from Porto Alegre. May be gossip. But came from a profissional jet pilot who knows the field. TAM has a bad history on maintenace of his aircrafts. Just research cases of Fokkers model 100 landing in a farm, because empty fuel tanks due to a broken pipe to a turbine; front door opening and being thorn out of the 100, just after take-off from Congonhas airport, in Sao Paulo; The 100 that crashed in Sao Paulo, because the reverse opened during take-off, with the plane just lifting from the runway; Blade of RR turbine seizing the fan, broking window of the plane, at cruising altitude, and sucking passenger out of cabin, due depressurization. Gossips that run for years also tell that TAM management force crews to not relate faults in cabin log books, to get good rates bt the safety inspetors. Who refuses, is fired. Gossips. But gossips, in Brazil, are the major of the real versions of this country. Cláudio Pereira —Preceding unsigned comment added by Claudio Pereira (talk • contribs)

The problem is that such rumours, gossips, allegations and insinuations are unverifiable. Aecis^Brievenbus 22:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I've just watched on TV (online coverage in Portuguese here: http://oglobo.globo.com/sp/mat/2007/07/19/296872509.asp) that this rumour has proved itself right. The reversor was faulty, but TAM now says that it could be used for more 10 days without any security risk.

Crash Site Pic

Can someone see if they can get this pic a proper copyright tag? It's a good pic of the site prior to crash. You can see the TAM Express and the gas station in good view. http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagem:Tamexpress.jpg --Bangabalunga 23:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

Felipe, I've reverted your mourning pictures and the other ones since it does not add any information or context to the article directly relating to the accident. That picture would be fine for WikiNews to demonstrate the reaction of the government, but I think we're trying to reduce the number of pictures in the article. At the same time, we don't want to restrict the access to the pictures, which is why we put the Commons link at the bottom. So, in order to balance 1)the number of pictures and the layout/readability of the article and 2)the relevancy of images to the facts of the accident, then I think its presence in the commons should suffice. Maybe when the article has expanded and includes a section on "World Reaction" or something along those lines, we'll have space for it. This is what we did for the Gol accident some time ago.--Dali-Llama 01:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like at a later point to see the flightpath and the diagram of the aircraft's path off the runway put back in; but yes, there were too many images in relation to the text. The article will expand though, and they can be put back in (was that very nice runway diagram was taken out because it was too much speculation?) Lipsticked Pig 02:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure if the diagram is OK right now. There seems to be new photos on Veja Magazine (brazilian) showing tire marks on the grass strip between the main runway and the taxiway. That excursion over the grass could be relevant to the investigation.Aldo L 02:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It is in fact incorrect now. I'll ping the author for a new version.--Dali-Llama 03:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Grêmio and Congonhas

I think the article should mention that Grêmio players escaped the crash because they were transferred to another plane shortly before the TAM airline took off in Porto Alegre. Check this link in English and this link in Portuguese. --Carioca 04:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It could fall under WP:TRIVIA. What do others think?--Dali-Llama 05:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I have seen this in at least one instance, see Pan Am Flight 103, not that this means we have to do the same thing or even that it's right in that instance (it's not a FA). Also, in this instance, things are slightly different since there are various conspiracy theories and the fact that several diplomats and other people from various governments allegedly missed the flight is sometimes considered to point to this. The mention of celebrities who missed the flight perhaps arises from the research and speculation about the diplomats. There may have been at least one other instance but I can't find it. I did come across this article Air Florida Flight 90 which appears to be an example of something to avoid. The titles are structure more in the book/case report style then encylopaedia Nil Einne 09:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep it in mind. It depends whether it becomes an important part of the story. Right now, I'd say leave it out; but that may change if the story of the Gremio players' lucky transfer starts to become a major part of the story. --Jaysweet 15:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Surveillance Video

I've added two videos of the crash, as released to the press. The first video has been released by Agência Brasil under a Creative Commons license. The second one the copyright is uncertain. It has been released to the press and has seen multiple distribution points (this one I took from Estadao.com.br), but it's clearly also from Infraero. Can anyone who's more versed in Commons and file uploading help me resolve the copyright status of the second one? I can't even find an e-mail address for the press secretary for Infraero to send an OTRS!--Dali-Llama 07:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I admire the initiative but I think your reading of the copyright situation is off. The videos were taken by a surveillance camera, for copyright purposes considered an employee of Infraero. The applicable licensing is that of Infraero, not Agência Brasil. There are no indications that Infraero licenses its products under a GFDL-compatible license, and Agência Brasil can't change Infraero's license by broadcasting the video itself. I will start a deletion discussion for both videos. - BanyanTree 08:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I noticed from the second video there appears to have been two explosions. I guess this is not really that surprising but was any info on how many explosions there was released? Nil Einne 09:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems the 1st explosion was caused after the shock between the airplane and the warehouse. The 2nd explosion, much bigger, was caused by the shock of the debris of the 1st explosion against the gas station facility. 201.19.174.116 12:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Because of the copyright issues, I am commenting out the videos for now. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 15:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't happen to notice that about 4.5 seconds before the "boom" into the warehouse there was a flash of light. I am wondering what this could be. The plane breaking through a fence at the end of the runway or the regular landing light strobe. It looked like something electrical though. Wxweenie91 15:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It is definitely not the normal strobe. It appears to me that it struck something, and either that thing was an electrical light and it flashed, or else the impact caused something on the plane to flash. It was really moving at that point, and that would be about where it left the runway and entered the taxiway, so not too surprising that it hit something and made a flash. --Jaysweet 16:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The right way to address the copyright is to discuss it when it has been proposed for deletion (as we're doing right now). There's no need to comment the media out. At the very least the media will be re-uploaded to Wikipedia where it can absolutely fall under fair use doctrine--but the discussion right now is at the Commons.--Dali-Llama 17:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Pending sucessful resolution of an OTRS request at commons the videos' release under a free license, I've added them back on a fair use basis.--Dali-Llama 22:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Did anyone notice that there was an explosion visible on the side of the airplane shortly before it reached the end of the runway? The Reuters Quickcut video shows it clearly.Matt agl 16:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

There is speculation on PPRuNe this flash is the No.1 engine flaming out - either from striking/ingesting an obstacle ... or possibly moving from reverse thrust to TOGA caused a compressor stall. This is complete speculation; however, the loss of the No.1 would explain the sudden change in track.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.159.240.131 (talk • contribs) 19:47, July 23, 2007 (UTC)

"At least 200" -> "Nearly 200"

At the immediately after accident, CNN reported "at least 200" people were killed [10]. But, the report seems to have been based on a view of only one firefighter [11]. Originally, I think only CNN used the expression "At least 200", though I was looking at the report of Brazil. After gradually clarified of the situation, CNN changed his report slightly as "nearly 200" [12]. Therefore, I changed the description of this article about the rough number of the victims. --Morio 13:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The official data from the São Paulo State Secretary of Security is 188 confirmed dead so far. [13].

Four charity workers named as killed on board

See http://www.soschildrensvillages.org.uk/charity-news/2007-07-19.htm --BozMo talk 14:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Apagão Aéreo (Brazilian Aviation Crisis)

I think the article should mention the current crisis in Brazil's commercial aviation system. It's been more than 10 months (since Gol's accident) that it's been happening, and it's an important political issue, nowadays. In fact, it think there should be an specific article about that. 200.194.209.250 15:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

I've been following this quite closely and found it vandalized just now, and must of clicked to undo it at the exact same time someone else did...hope the page is as it should be. 69.21.161.6 22:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thrust reverser

Just heard on TV Globo that the plane had a problem with the right thrust reverser. It might be good to try to find an online source for it; it looks very interesting. --cesarb 23:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

That would explain why it veered left... 206.188.141.244 23:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

See the 'Gossip worth investigation' above and this link in Portuguese: http://oglobo.globo.com/sp/mat/2007/07/19/296872509.asp

Here you go, the thrust reversers were turned off one week prior to crash. The plane almost crashed one day before it crashed landing with no thrust reversers. It seemed braking on a soaked runway caused it to go left or maybe one thrust reverser turned on at last minute to help them stop. Both reversers were off. Here is a Reuters link for you: http://today.reuters.com/news/articleinvesting.aspx?type=bondsNews&storyID=2007-07-20T011829Z_01_N19425884_RTRIDST_0_BRAZIL-CRASH-UPDATE-3-PICTURE.XML --Bangabalunga 02:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thrust reversers are a redundant braking aid. In order to be certified, aircraft must establish their braking distance without using the reversers. If the A320 was certified to land at CGH, it must have proved that it could successfully land and come to a full stop within the boundaries of the runway without using thrust reversers or emergency brakes. The wet and slippery conditions of the runway surely change the picture, but at this moment, we can't really say if the aircraft was actually faulty. - Antiuser 16:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Aircraft MX Concerns

These sort of events definitely make you want to reconsider your South American getaway. Why would you let a bad thrust reverser go unmaintained? If the reversers were indeed "off" due to the one being faulted, then the plane may have not crashed had both reversers been operational and ON. This in addition to the fact they were landing aircraft on a wet, incompleted runway with limited water grooving. It is unfortunate that poor maintenance and neglect had to be the cause--yet again--of 186+ deaths. Airlines like this need to go out of business.75.112.129.242 10:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not the place for such commentary. Also, while the runway/airport appears to be an issue, it's not 100% clear whether the thrust reverse issue is considered unstandard & unsafe practice or whether it my actually be fairly normal. Potentially new recommendations about thrust reverser maintence may come out of this Nil Einne 11:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Nil, I want to know if you would take an airplaine with a faulty thrust reverser, knowing that you would land in a wet airstrip. I bet you'll be a little nervous if you received that information in middle air. More, until now the faulty reverser isn't guilty only because TAM said so. I would like to read the Airbus manual, and would love to know the truth: if indeed the manual allows an airplaine to fly 10 days with a broken reverser, and, more important,if the reverser in question was indeed broken only for a few days. Given TAM past actions, that is, "poor maintenance and neglect", I don't doubt the company is lying to defend itself. 201.19.154.60 11:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes I would take such a plane IF it's properly maintained it's not violating safety protocols. I have little idea about aircraft design or maintence so I would much rather trust the actual designers and maintainers and the people who set the standards then anonymous wikipedians who from my experience usually don't know what they're talking. And you seem to be missing the point. So far, we have no idea if TAM violated safety protocols or even what they did is unusual in the world. Whether or not TAM has a poor safety record is somewhat irrelevant if what they did in this particular instance is normal practice. Also, lying in this instance is pretty pointless since if what they're saying is not true, people would have noticed that already and reports will soon appear that in fact it is not acceptable practice. (Doctoring records is a different matter since it's not something that is immedietly obvious). What we do know is that an investigation is going to be carried out so it's pretty silly for people who have no idea what they're talking about (i.e. you and me) to speculate and also that it isn't uncommon that what are fairly normal practices at the time sometimes turn out to be bad practices. In any case, this not the place to discuss such matters so I will not be responding any furtherNil Einne 12:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I can tell you that none of the online newspapers I've read wrote about the fault without surprise. It could mean two things: they haven't an expert to write about the subject or TAM was obviously negligent. I go with the last option.

I know I said I wasn't going to reply but I just realised the whole lying issue is under false premises. Rereading the sources, in fact TAM did NOT say anything about 10 days. It was other sources which said according to Airbus guidelines the fault should have been checked in 10 days. Clearly this 10 day thing did not emerge from TAM but other experts. As I said above, there was no chance in hell that TAM was going to lie about the 10 days thing precisely because they would so easily be caught out (heck Airbus is likely to respond directly if someone is claiming they recommend a practice which is unsafe). I don't know about Brazilian reports but both the English sources we use don't express 'surprise' about the fault. However it's rather usual that press reports all over the world sensationalise things and don't bother to get the opinion of experts. Nil Einne 22:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Note also from Thrust reversal "Regulations dictate, however, that a plane must be able to land on a runway without the use of thrust reversers in order to be certified to land there as part of scheduled airline service." Nil Einne 22:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

"touched down" and "heavy rain" ?

According to TAM Linhas Aéreas Flight 3054#Crash, the aircraft touched down on the runway but failed to decelerate normally in the heavy rain, but :

Do we have video records or evidence showing that the wheels actually touched the runway ?

There is a consensus that the runway was wet and that it was raining, but do we have evidence, or meteorological records showing that this rain was a "heavy" one ?

Teofilo talk 12:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes it touched the ground according to video material(..). And yes it was terribly wet on the strip, because a shower of water 20 mtr high results from it speeding over it(according the same video). It would be incredibly easy to show the company flew defect planes, by checking how many flights it had still scheduled, and what came in the way of repair (a nr of flights by tam presumably). There is one strange detail, why did the pilot try to fly the plane again instead of parking it in the most promising lot of grasland? And why did it not work?

It can't have been landing at 4 times required speed , cus it would have easily lifted again at that speed,(i think 1.25 times or 1.5 times usual speed would alredi make that possible) This means the pilot was possibly very sure(once on the strip) he could not perform an emergency landing without a complete crash. That again tells us the mechanical faultiness as experienced in the cockpit must have been more severe then a shut-off reverse thruster and that either the speeding/braking system or the indices on the controls have not been functioning properly. Apparently also the restart was influenced by these technicalities, at least is my impression. Lastly i think it is peculiar that a main opposition representative was onboard, but a football team got evacuated just ahead. If you have the choice, one might sabotage something with a recent record of faults, (like this plane) before a completely unblemished thing, it would be less suspect.77.248.56.242 13:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I went back and looked up some data for that airport and found none.. So.. I went to a station that is about 15 miles from the crash site and found these records..

18:35 60.0 °F / 15.6 °C 54.8 °F / 12.7 °C 30.04in / 1017.2hPa NNW 3mph / 4.8km/h 4mph / 6.4km/h 83% 0.00in / 0.0mm OVC080 (Overcast, Clouds at 8,000 ft.)

19:09 59.5 °F / 15.3 °C 54.7 °F / 12.6 °C 30.04in / 1017.2hPa Calm 4mph / 6.4km/h 84% 0.00in / 0.0mm OVC080 (Overcast, Clouds at 8,000 ft.)

There are 2 sites that I found.. [14] [15]

Of course it cold of rain in between.. It says that that staion picked up .34" of rain that day. Wxweenie91 14:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I have found this account : Contrary to many reports, it was not raining heavily at the time of the accident -- merely drizzling. Brazil: Troubled Skies and a Troubled Government, July 18, 2007 22 21 GMT Stratfor Teofilo talk 14:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Or this one It had been raining heavily for most of Tuesday in Sao Paulo, and witnesses at the scene described the runway as "slippy and greasy" Independent.co.uk, and "most of Tuesday" does not necessarily mean right at the time of the accident. Teofilo talk 14:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. It doesn't matter what was happening at that precise moment. Given the runway was apparently not constructed/designed well enough to clear/channel water properly, it seems likely that if it had been raining heavily the whole day and had just stopped 5 minutes or so ago, the runway would still be very saturated. Nil Einne 22:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The airport authority has a different opinion : But Armando Schneider Filho, director of engineering for Infraero, denied the runway was to blame for the crash.``I can confirm that there was no possibility of skidding on this runway, he said. ``Twenty minutes before the accident, Infraero performed a visual inspection of the runway and detected no problems. It was wet, but there was no accumulation of water. Guardian.co.uk. To avoid accidents Congonhas usually forbids all landings and take offs when the water reaches 3 mm. How high was the water when the accident occurred? brazzilmag.com. Aircraft manufacturers classify rain-soaked runways in two categories: a wet runway, where the waterlogging is less than 3 mm; and a contaminated runway, where it is over 3 mm. "On a dry day, an A320 landing at 200 kmph would need only 4,500 feet of runway to land safely. But on a wet runway, the pilot would need 30% more of length, that is 6,200 feet. A contaminated runway would mean 200% more, that is 13,000 feet to safely land," says Capt Mohan Ranganathan indiatimes.com During rains, when visibility drops below the permissible limit, no pilot is allowed to land. Air traffic control (ATC) tells them when the water level on the runway falls below the 3 mm benchmark. Hindustan Times Teofilo talk 07:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Who removed my messages?

So who is the jackass who removes my posts from a discussion page?. Just because you didnt like what i said gave you no right to remove it. Besides it turned out i was correct.. MMMkay have a good day —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.51.77 (talk • contribs)

This post was originally added to #"touched down" and "heavy rain" ?. I have moved it out, to avoid confusion in that discussion. Aecis^Brievenbus 16:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe I am the "jackass" who removed it. [16] If you read the box at the top of the page, you will note that this page is for discussion related to improving the article. Regardless of whether I agree with your analysis, I felt that your comments were pure speculation and removed them as this is not a forum. If you disagree, put them back; they're in the history. However, I suggest that you read WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. And please remember to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). And please also put new threads at the bottom of the page. Clicking that little + sign in the tabs at the top of the page will allow you to start a new discussion in the correct place. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 19:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

"Stealth" number changes?

A couple of anonymous IPs have been increasing the number of passengers on the plane -- and the number of people killed by the crash. While this may indeed be correct, the references those numbers point to are still showing the original numbers. I can't find anything that shows those numbers increasing; can anybody else, or should those changes be reverted? MeegsC | Talk 21:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I haven't looked, but 180 pax + 6 crew=186 on the plane plus around 15 on the ground = ~ 200 total. The references cited don't bear the higher figures. I'll revert until new sources are found. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 21:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I left a note for the Anon, and s/he seems to be stepping to the plate with a couple of refs. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 21:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Article about crisis

There's a aviation crisis since the Gol airplane crash in Brazil referred as "Apagão Aéreo", skyline controllers arrested and airports chaos. This is stated and supported worldwide in the press [17] [18] [19] [20]. What you think an article about, 354 deaths is a lot.

A few people have pitched that article. My experience in Wikipedia has been that the hardest thing to do is to start an article from scratch. I'm sure there are a bunch of us (myself included) who would absolutely contribute to such an article were someone to start it.--Dali-Llama 22:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Brazil 2006-2007 aviation crisis. A.Z. 23:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Numbers don't add up

includes 15 people on the ground; 192 confirmed)

If 187 were on the plane and 15 on the ground, how did someone come up with an estimated toll of 205 instead of 202? And looking at the references, I can't find any reference to any of the claims. Either the 205 estimated or the 15 on the ground or the 192 confirmed (one is in Portugese but numbers are numbers) Nil Einne 19:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW, both references used for the above seem to quote the number of people on the plane as 186, 162 passengers, 18 employees, 6 crew. Nil Einne 20:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind I see a Portugese reference used for the 187 bit seems to support the idea that there were 187 people on board with an updated TAM confirmation. Nil Einne 20:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

TAM3054 could have been saved if drag chutes were present

Airliners.net says:

"I remember in 1963 when the new teminal at Oslo airport opened - I'm now talking about Fornebu, a SUD Caravelle came in to land on rwy01, deployed the braking parachute and stopped elegantly with less than 100m to go in the north end of the runway. Then taxied in to its parkingspace in front of the tower. A US Navy Neptune was not as lucky, it could not stop and rolled down an embankement and hit an old wooden hangar left over from the German occupation. Unfortunately it also flattened a Braathens S.A.F.E. Heron in the process, but luckily no fatalities. Bye, Scooter"

"A drag chute would be very useful to any aircraft trying to stop as quickly as possible in an emergency. Especially in the case of hydraulic failure where the use of your brakes and antiskid might be compromised. The Dassault Falcon 20 aircraft have chutes fitted as evidenced by the white tipped cones at the end of the rear fuselage. Normal touch down speeds for these aircraft are in the order of 125knots and a significant retartadion effect can be felt when the chute is pulled. Ferrypilot"

"In the mid-1970s while being stationed in the Soviet Union, I flew the Tu-104 a number of times between LED and Moscow. They all had chutes and when they deployed the pull was remarkable. If you know Soviet aircraft, the back of the seats were on hinges and the ones without passengers all fell forward causing many oohs and aahs amongst the passengers. There was a shack at the end of the runway from which a brave soul emerged, fought the jet wash and unbuckled the chute from the tail of the plane. Then he disappeared back into the hut, presumably to repack it. RIXrat"

The lack of braking parachutes on contemporary commercial airliners is killing lot of passangers in airstrip overruns each year and this controversy should not be consored! 82.131.210.162 16:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

One of Wikipedia's policies is "no original research". Unfortunately, that's highly speculative, and cannot be included in the article.--Dali-Llama 16:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

If the trust reversers weren't working due to bad maintenance, can you really assume the parachutes would have been packed properly, or even installed at all? - BillCJ 16:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Parachutes are very simple, in canister and a steel able to pull them open, that"s all. Thrust reversers, disc brakes and flaps work by high-pressure hydraulics and are prone to many errors. Parachute canisters are sealed boxes with long shelf-life and are reloaded by specialists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.210.162 (talk • contribs)

This speculation doesn't just violate WP:OR. Secondly, there is a conceptual error in it. You're saying that the absence of parachutes caused the crash. It may have failed to prevent it, but failing to prevent something does not equal causing something. Aecis^Brievenbus 18:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Impossible. What I quted above was written by actual airliner pilots on aviation.net, with many of them having 25-30 years experience behind the stick.

If two trains collide because there are no signalling systems to support the rail network, then the cause of disaster is lack of safety systems installed and you cannot blame lack of attention on part of train drivers. Damn hell, look how many people are dying in air crashes lately, the very good trend that went on for almost 5 years between end of 2001 and 2006 is totally reversed and yet you are busy basing safety initiatives. Low-cost airlines will turn people into dogfood. Air travel should be safe, rather than cheap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.210.162 (talk • contribs)

I agree with Dalil here and the flaws in your arguments helps demonstrate why no OR is a good idea. If there is absolutely no signal 'system' then there is likely a fatal flaw in the design of the railnetwork so obviously the drivers were not at fault. But there are a other possibilities. For example, perhaps it is a low traffic dual lane track and drivers are expected to communicate manually to find out if the track is clear. If one driver forgets or is misleading in their communication or whatever then it is the driver at fault, not the lack of a electronic signalling system. At best, you could say it was a contributing factor but even this is dubious IMHO. More correctly, you could say an electronic signalling system would have made the accident less likely but the risk reduction needs to be compared to the cost outlay. Parachutes are not necessary for a plane to land under normal or even most abnormal circumstances. There is a built in margin of error so even if things go wrong the plane should be able to land safely. For some reason the circumstances exceed that, perhaps because of poor runway design and that one of the non-essential safety features (thrust reversers) was not operating. Whatever the case, clearly while a parachute may have increased the margin of error you can't say the lack of the parachutes caused the crash. You might as well say that all runways should be 100x the needed length and the shortness of the runway caused the crash. (Or the examples JATO mentioned). BTW, here is what the US FAA recommends [21] (I'm guessing the Brazilian airport meets neither recommendation) Nil Einne 21:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Look, I'm a pilot and I actually agree with the theory that parachutes could've stopped the tragedy if deployed early enough in the landing roll--but that's not my point. My point is that Wikipedia is not the place for original research or discussions on what may have been. JATO could've also allowed the plane to perform a late go-around or arrestor cables at the end of the runway could've stopped it--we could go on and on until the cows come home. My point is that this is not the place for this discussion. Airliners.net and the forums are. Wikipedia is not.--Dali-Llama 20:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Guys, before we digress into oblivion, let's keep in mind that this talk page exists to discuss the article, not the subject of the article. Aecis^Brievenbus 22:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Precisely my point.--Dali-Llama 22:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I probably got a bit carried away (as I'm want to do), my point was to try and convince 82. that there is a very good reason why we don't like OR and the flaws in his/her arguments illustrate it. We already tried ignoring once [22] but it didn't seem to work very well. However looking at the user's talk page and contrib history, it seems nothing helps much. In any case, I have no intention of continious the discussion Nil Einne 22:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Similar accident?

Philippines Air Lines Flight PR137 has some striking resemblance to TAM JJ3054, including an inoperative thrust reverser, a lateral drift off the runway, the elevated airfield, a jump over obstacles (a small river in this case) and even the pictures of the sorrounding area. Check:http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19980322-0 Aldo L 23:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

That's quite a dramatic find Aldo. We had a similar "finding" with the Gol accident, where one of the editors found an airworthiness directive which could potentially cause the transponder to be shut down inadvertently. Honeywell later stated that the AD did not apply to the serial number of the transponder in the Legacy. Given that if I recall, there was a computer malfunction which prevented the pilots from cutting the engine, it could be that the malfunction was already repaired in the TAM aircraft and did not apply--but nonetheless, one could always write a blurb about how this accident is similar to the Flight 137 one. Feel free to do so and we'll chip in with our NPOV and OR edits as needed.--Dali-Llama 00:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit more reluctant about this. Firstly, the investigation is ongoing, so we don't yet know exactly what happened, what for instance the role of the thrust reverser in the crash was. Secondly, I don't see how a similarity in geographic circumstances (elevated airfield, jump over obstacles, pictures of the surrounding area) is relevant for this article. Having said that, Philippine Airlines Flight 137 could be added to the See Also section of this article, pending the outcome of the investigation. Aecis^Brievenbus 00:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Aecis, that's what I was thinking when I meant a blurb should be included. Just like Gol 1907 has "see alsos" on other mid-air collisions. By no means should we start speculation in the articles, but I think something along the lines of "* Philippine Airlines Flight 137, another incident involving an A320 runway overrun." should sidestep any NPOV/OR issues we may have.--Dali-Llama 01:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Leader of the brazilian investigation is requesting data from the philippine authorities. He says boths accidents have similar characteristics. In portuguese: http://www.estadao.com.br/cidades/not_cid26070,0.htm Aldo L 07:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Investigation section

I have started a very basic section. I translated "Centro de Investigação e Prevenção de Acidentes Aeronáuticos" as "Centre for the Investigation and Prevention of Aeronautical Accidents" based on my (limited) knowledge of Portuguese. Please correct it as necessary. Some parts already in the article, such as the Thrust reverser, could be moved here. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 18:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The translation is correct. Regards. 201.69.110.107 20:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree in posting Veja Magazine's version of the details. It is too early, and the fact that it is not an official statement may look odd for Wikipedia. However, I recomend posting the declaration of the head of the brazilian investigation that this accident has similar characteristics to the one with Philippine Air Lines PR 137, his request for cooperation with the philippine authorities, and may be a brief summary of that accident. Please note that the English Wikipedia version of the philippine accident is different from the one posted on Aviation Safety Network.Aldo L 01:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Aldo and I've removed the Veja information. The Veja piece is part speculation, part "leaked" information. We need to have a higher standard of inclusion for this article, just like we had for the Gol 1907 article. Try to use primary sources, not hearsay and speculation. As you can see from the contents of this talk page, everyone loves to speculate about the cause of the accident or what may have happened. So far we didn't really suppress it because people were keeping it on the talk page-- it is NOT okay for article inclusion. Aircraft accident articles have a singular feature which is both a benefit and a defect: primary information, such as black boxes and investigation reports are often made public, removing the need for speculation or secondary sources or original research. The defect is that it takes some times for that information to come out. Let's try to keep the information, especially about the cause of the crash, originating from CENIPA, NTSB and like agencies.--Dali-Llama 05:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Go-around

I've removed what is now speculation as to what actually happened. Initially people thought he tried a go-around. Now there's a report by a politician that the black box reveals that the pilot attempted to brake, with the FAB quickly refuting those claims. Per the precedent of the Gol Flight 1907 article, we should NOT put in speculation or "leaks" about the crash. Only official information by the CENIPA or Air Force should be included. There were many "leaks" and speculations about the Gol flight which proved to be wrong. He crossed the runway at high speed--that's undeniable fact based on the video. Whether he tried a go around and did not achieve Vr speed until the crash or whether he was standing on the brakes trying to stop is pure speculation. Until an official report or press release is issued by the competent authorities, we should not include it in the article.--Dali-Llama 21:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't the fact that the aircraft lifted off again show that he tried a go-around? Surely he didn't avoid the street just to strike the warehouse. I guess the aircraft rolling on the runway makes it a poor use of the phrase anyway. - Psyno 08:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The runway and the altitude of the airport is higher than of the surrounding terrain, at least on that edge of the airport, as I understand. The plane could have become airborne strictly because of that, in combination with its speed while rolling on the ground. I think this point should be made more explicit in the article and backed up by appopriate graphics/pictures. Could the locals help in this, please? --Mareklug ^talk 08:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Your point is correct--that's what the "lift-off" was about--just like when a fighter is catapulted off a carrier, it just ran off an elevated point and impacted at a lower point. Unfortunately the TAM flight did not have enough airspeed to maintain control and climb. It was, in practice, a glider for a few brief seconds. What pictures and diagrams can be created to illustrate the point, don't know.--Dali-Llama 14:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, for starters, adding this image as an external link: [23]. I found it on PPRuNe in post #450 of the thread: [24]. It dramatically shows the heights involved, and another TAM A320 to boot for context/scale. And you can see the TAM Express complex and the roof of the Shell gas station (and make out the Shell sign). The PPRuNe post tells more as to where exactly the aircraft left the taxiway relative to the image features, and contains other images, including the broken little wall at the edge of runway with safety investigators photographing it. --Mareklug ^talk 11:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a great picture showing the elevation of the runway. I clarified the crash description with this edit. Hopefully that makes it clearer how the aircraft cleared the road. Carcharoth 22:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

New airport in Sao Paulo

The article on pt:, pt:Vôo TAM 3054, has some possibly worthwhile information. I don't know the specifics of the case, so maybe a Brazilian user could have a look at this, to see whether it's relevant and worth mentioning: "No dia 20 de Julho de 2007, o governo confirmou a construção de um novo aeroporto na Grande São Paulo. O presidente prometeu divulgar em um prazo de 90 dias o local do novo terminal que será construído." If I understand it correctly, the Brazilian government has announced three days after the crash that Sao Paulo will get a new airport. What is not mentioned, is what the effect of this crash on the construction plans for the new airport is. Aecis^Brievenbus 21:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

That information is in the article (though somewhat indirectly) through Dilma Roussef's statement. It is also covered in the Brazil's 2006-2007 aviation crisis article to the extent that information has been made available--which is practically nothing, really. I saw an interview with Dilma Roussef where she said the release on the location of the airport would be delayed as much as possible to prevent real-estate speculation.--Dali-Llama 21:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

They forgot the right thrust reverser was turned off and gave full throtle to right engine

If it is possible, then the right and left turbines were providing thrust to opposite directions, causing the plane to drift left and to keep its speed... --189.18.86.62 00:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but my understanding is that when one thrust reverser is malfunctioning, both are deactivated. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 16:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Flyguy, when an equipment in an airplane is malfunctioning but not part of the minimum equipment list, it is "flagged" or locked into position. See here. In this case, the thrust reverser was deactivated and locked into place, but that does not prevent the use of the other. It may be against operating procedure to use only one in case of malfunction of the other, but the procedure is to disable only one, not both, per the source I've given you.--Dali-Llama 17:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I stand (well, sit actually) corrected! Thanks, DL. I'm sure this will be apparent when they go through the FDRs. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 16:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Further to this, I have added some information from this story to the "Faulty part" and "Investigation" sections. It is currently listed as ref 24. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 17:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

This seems like the most logical explanation to date and one I was going to add as well. Applying more power to the reversers is a legitimate way to slow down on a slippery runway, AFAIK. While I know very little about the operational parameters of thrust reversal, I suspect that the engines can produce only a fraction of thrust in reverse than they do in the normal direction. Hitting full throttle on each engine probably resulted in net forward thrust (forward on the right minus reverse on the left) along with counterclockwise torque on the fuselage.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but it sounds to me a lot like the Filipino crash referenced above Nil Einne 11:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

CVR transcript

Falas de pilotos gravadas pela caixa-preta mostram dificuldade de frear aeronave, Agência Brasil. --cesarb 22:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Just saw more about it on TV Globo, and there is one important point: that transcript is a translation to Portuguese of the English translation of the CVR transcript. They also said that the FDR says both throttle controls were opposite (the right one accelerating). I will try to find online sources for both points. --cesarb 23:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Caixa-preta indica erro em manete, mas Aeronáutica não descarta falha mecânica. Now, if none of the more experienced editors has any opposition to it (or beats me to it), I will try to integrate the new information to the article in a few hours. --cesarb 23:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The complete transcript is not necessary. Perhaps just a note describing its existence. We can't really provide analysis of its contents (Original Research), but a line that the pilots discuss that they have only one working thrust reverser prior to landing and express surprise that the aircraft is not decelerating might be ok. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 03:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

BBC has excerpts of the CVR transcript in English. [25] Jumping cheese 03:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I've added some of the info from the Flight International article on the CVR (ref name="flight-aug02") and a link to an English translation of the CVR (ref name="cvr"). -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 14:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

While the full transcript is not appropriate to an overview article such as this, if the transcript is free of any copyright restrictions, it would probably be most appropriate for inclusion in Wikisource, with a link provided in this article. Transcript excerpts that are used to specifically illustrate a critical point in the incident, however, would be appropriate. Keep in mind the purpose: short exerpts that make the events clearer to readers are helpful, full transcripts provided as a matter of record are not. AKRadecki^Speaketh 14:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the edit to reflect the transcript was very good as of this revision. The transcript is a work of the NTSB, an agency of the US Federal Government. It should therefore be in the public domain. I'll see how I can go about adding it to Wikisource.--Dali-Llama 17:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Do we need such a big "Safety concerns at Congonhas" section ?

Or shouldn't this text be moved to Congonhas-São Paulo International Airport instead ? Teofilo talk 10:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Most of this section is probably better suited to the Airport's article, with a small summary here. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 16:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The section outgrew its original intention, which was due to the theory that the runway was a deciding factor in the accident. Considering it can now be said that at the most it will be considered a contributing factor, I agree we should trim it down (though not necessarily remove it, as it may still prove to be a contributing factor), especially quotes and the like.--Dali-Llama 17:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)