Airbus A320 Reverse Thrust Trend
Filed under: The Blurbs
What’s the deal with the Airbus A320 Reverse Thrust? I am not a pilot, nor am I very educated with the specifications or history of the Airbus A320. However, as a columnist, when I write an article about the Toncontin International Airport and soon discover a little history about the airport, it doesn’t take me long to put 2 + 2 together.
In the published article, I ventured out to find more sources so that I could add to it. I wanted to find out more information about the hill was bulldozed during the early 1990’s to help aid in landing larger commercial jet liners at the Toncontin International Airport. Upon finding an excellent article for me to use in adding more substance to my newly written article, I discovered one paragraph that caught my eye in relation to the new tragic Airbus A320 crash in Brazil. Below is a quote from the archived article written which I believe to have been published on July of 2006.
“The most recent accident occurred on February 3, 2001. Fortunately no one on board was injured or killed. The TACA Airbus A320, N465(PA/TA), suffered from a reverse thrust malfunction once on the ground. The pilots are to be considered the heroes. Had they not turned the airplane onto the closest taxiway to the end of the runway, they may have gone over the cliff, which is found only 100 ft (30 m) from the end of the runway. The runway here in TGU is very short compared with many runways in other countries. It is the second smallest international airport in the world. The actual length of the runway is 6,132 feet (1869 m).”
What strikes me as a little odd is the potential similarity in the situation with the February 3rd, 2001 Airbus A320 incident at Toncontin International Airport with the July 17th, 2007 Airbus A320 incident in Sao Paulo at the Congonhas airport. With the new July 17th 2007 incident it is reported that the Airbus A320 did not have full function of the reverse thrusters. Only one engine was capable while the other was not.
While I am not holding the reverse thrust failure as the only contributing factor to the tragic event that took place on July 17th, 2007… because there are many other elements that I believe played an active roll in the “Big Picture” of events; I am actually more focused on this failure itself and discovering if there are previous trends in this particular failure in the airplane itself. Furthermore, I can’t understand why an airline or the manufacture would allow an acceptance or an approval on operating an airplane, such as the Airbus A320 with such a failure. Regarding the Sao Paulo Airbus A320, the reverse thrust failure was actually known and documented prior to the crash. The airline knew about the failure before hand. So to me, I don’t understand why this problem wasn’t correct prior?
Is there a trend with reverse thrust failure in the Airbus A320? I don’t know. I know that there are many elements that each contribute towards the accident. One thing I would like to know more about is the break system in relation to the wet runway. If you look back on Lufthansa Flight #2904 on Sept. 14th, 1993 where sensors prevented the breaking systems from being activated where Airbus discovered that the accident could have been prevented and the A320 got equipped with new sensors.
Lufthansa Flight #2904
The main cause of this accident is the delayed effectiveness of the braking system. It turned out to be caused by a failure in the landing-logic of the aircraft’s software. Airbus discovered that the accident could have been prevented, if the logic had been reworked. But instead of modifying the logic, Airbus only exchanged the chassis sensors. Therefore the A320 got a new chassis, with a sensor that triggered at a pressure of 2 tons instead of 12 tons.
I am interested to see what the final reports are on TAM Linhas Aéreas Flight 3054. As it stands the report is that the aircraft was flying with a fault. The plane’s right thrust reverser, a mechanical device to help slow it down on landing, was jammed, but TAM said in a statement that a fault in a reverser “does not jeopardize landings”. In the same statement TAM also said “no mechanical problem had been recorded on July 16″ (the day before the accident).” However, it has been reported that the plane had difficulty braking on the same runway only one day prior to the fatal accident .
What is your take on the crash? Could it have been prevented? If so, how? Do you think the pilots were in error, or do you think preventing the accident was out of their control?
Comments
5 Comments on Airbus A320 Reverse Thrust Trend
-
Ben Lega on
Tue, 24th Jul 2007 3:41 pm
-
Mauricio Castro on
Sat, 4th Aug 2007 2:05 am
-
Mladen on
Sun, 26th Aug 2007 1:43 am
-
Jim Smith on
Sun, 26th Aug 2007 2:19 pm
-
NELSON on
Wed, 4th Jun 2008 1:49 pm
I work for Air Canada as a Lead Mechanic and I do work On A320. The Trust reverser was said to be disconnected by TAM Airlines and this is not a rare occurence. It is known in aviation that an aircraft can land with only one trust reverser working and is “Usualy authorized” with a “M.E.L.” (Minimum Equip.List) Authorisation by Official Co. or authority Maintenance control staff and proper procedure…
One of the minimum condition that has to be present is a sufficient (Read also minimum) lenght of runway to accomodate the reduced braking capabilities of the aircraft and I think this is what was missing…The authorities and the pilots had to know about this…
On CNN. News they said this runway name was refered to as the “Aircraft Carrier” runway…And I think this explains a lot.
They purely and simply ran out of ground to land on to and they paid with their life. Pretty sad!
B.L. Making the skies safer is what we do at ACTS Maintenance.
Hello Ben,
Why an operator would be in the situation of disconecting one thrust reverser only?.
Regarding TAM A320 accident, recently the conversation of the pilots was published wish I have in spanish. When they were 2 miles away from the airport they said that thay had only one thrust reverser in operating conditions. Once they touch the runway, thay did not were able to activate spoilers, so there is a second fact. Other fact, I read in the newspaper washat the aircraft land at 220 km/h and that the crash was at 175, so they were not able to slow down very much.
Anyhow, we wil have to wait until investigation will be finished and officially published.
Cheers
I have seen the full report of the facts from Airbus. All Airbus operators got reminded of the MEL requirements, and the OPS procedure in case of being dispatch with REV U/S. Pilot Error.
Tegucigalpa Airport Toncontin TGU is a rather dangerous airport indeed. There were plans from 20 years back to build a new airport on the ouutskirts of the Honduran capital but alas, this is HONDURAS and this airport has never been built to my knowledge. An American military plane crashed there some years ago and I believe it landed too far down this short runway and failed to complete a touch and go. The national airline TAN_SAHSA had a 737 or 727 crash on the outskirts of the hilly capital ending that carrier. Planes on the taxiway pick up speed as they taxi out to the runway for take off. As you turn onto the runway you are already picking up speed for takeoff. At one time there was a road at one end of the airport that has a stop light to stop traffic so the planes will not it vehicles. I still believe the airport has NO LIGHTS on the runways and hence all flights are completed during the day. (Tegucigalpa is nearing 1 MILLION in population mind you!) It is a third world airport in a very third world country!
HOW ABOUT THE CRASH A COUPLE OF DAYS AGO IN TEGUCIGALPA!!!! A TACA A320 OVERSHOT THE RUNWAY 6 PEOPLE WERE KILLED!!! THEY CLOSED THE AIRPORT AND DIVERTED BIG PLANES TO A NEARBY MILITARY BASE. I THINK THIS TIME THEY’LL DEFINITELY BUILD A NEW AIRPORT. THIS IS A PUBLIC SAFETY MATTER, IM PRETTY SURE THEY WONT GET AWAY WITH THIS ONE. LANDING AT TONCONTIN IS QUITE CHALLENGING AND KINDA FUN!! BUT SAFETY COMES FIRST.
Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!
