Talk:TAM Airlines Flight 3054/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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  and . --cesarb 01:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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."  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. AecisBrievenbus 01:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Speculation...

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: They changed the link again; now it is  (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)
thread_title: Coordinates

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Great job everyone

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Gas station

message: 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:
# 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).
# The gas station was located in front of the south wing of the TAM Express building.
# 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.)
# 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.    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.)
# 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Gas station, revisited

message: 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".  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Cause of crash speculation

message: 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)
replies: text: That sounds like you've hit the nail on the head. Carcharoth 14:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Runway length

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Ok, I'll update the box. Flyguy649 talk contribs 17:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. AecisBrievenbus 18:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That list (compiled from manifest?) includes the crew as passengers (passengers 165 through 170). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. AecisBrievenbus 19:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of people on the plane

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 00:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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.AKRadeckiSpeaketh 00:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo of the plane

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. AecisBrievenbus 21:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cite web and cite news

message: 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)
thread_title: Crash Site Pic

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: It could fall under WP:TRIVIA. What do others think?--Dali-Llama 05:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Grêmio and Congonhas

message: See http://www.soschildrensvillages.org.uk/charity-news/2007-07-19.htm  --BozMo talk 14:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Four charity workers named as killed on board 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Apagão Aéreo (Brazilian Aviation Crisis) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Thrust reverser 

message: 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. AecisBrievenbus 16:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe I am the "jackass" who removed it.  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)
thread_title:  Who removed my messages? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Stealth" number changes? 

message: 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    . 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)
replies: text: Brazil 2006-2007 aviation crisis. A.Z. 23:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article about crisis 

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Numbers don't add up 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. AecisBrievenbus 00:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Similar accident? 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Investigation section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Well, for starters, adding this image as an external link: . I found it on PPRuNe in post #450 of the thread: . 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)
thread_title:  Go-around 

message: 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. AecisBrievenbus 21:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  New airport in Sao Paulo 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: BBC has excerpts of the CVR transcript in English.  Jumping  cheese 03:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 14:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CVR transcript 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Do we need such a big "Safety concerns at Congonhas" section ?