Airbus A320 Reverse Thrust Trend
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?
