Talk:TAM Airlines Flight 3054

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Remember that article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement only, and are not for engaging in discussion of off-topic matters not related to the main article. User talk pages are more appropriate for non-article-related discussion topics. Please do not use this page as a discussion forum for off-topic matters. See talk page guidelines.

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Disaster management This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. Aviation WikiProject     (Rated GA-Class) This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. Additional information and associated projects or task forces: Aviation accident task force WikiProject Brazil      (Rated GA-Class) Portal TAM Airlines Flight 3054 is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Brazil and Brazil-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. GA This article has been rated as GA-class on the quality scale. Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale. To-do list for Brazil: This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

	TAM Airlines Flight 3054 has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
September 8, 2007 Good article nominee Listed

Archives

/Archive 1

Contents 1 September 5 Edits 2 Good article nomination 3 You tube link removal. 4 crash cause 5 Anynobody's models for the Gol 1907 and TAM 3054 planes 6 Hydroplaned?

[edit] September 5 Edits

In addition to other changes, I should point out I added info on the FDR. I was careful to phrase in a way that says that the FDR "recorded" the TL's position as such, and that the spoilers did not deploy (but not saying that that's what caused the crash). I am looking, however, for a graph that's roaming around depicting the effect of spoilers in the braking run of an A320--showing how most of the braking action during the first few seconds of the landing run is almost exclusively a result of aerodynamic forces, and that only below 80 or so knots that the mechanical breaking (wheels) take over most of the braking.--Dali-Llama 01:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good article nomination

This article reads quite well, but there are two problems:

• The lead suggests that 6 people on the ground died, but the infobox summary suggests that the number was 12; please clarify.

• These two references seem strange. What is the capitalised text at the end for? Please fix.

Marcos Chagas and Aloisio Milani (2007-07-17). Listas de nomes divulgada pela TAM ultrapassam previsão oficial de 176 passageiros (Portuguese). Agência Brasil. Retrieved on 2007-07-18. “71.JULIO CESAR REDECKER”

Marcos Chagas and Aloisio Milani (2007-07-17). Listas de nomes divulgada pela TAM ultrapassam previsão oficial de 176 passageiros (Portuguese). Agência Brasil. Retrieved on 2007-07-18. “106.PAULO ROGERIO AMORETTY SOUZA”

I'm putting this article on hold as the article is close to GA status, however the issues noted above must be dealt with before GA status can be awarded. I hope that this can be addressed within the seven days allowed by on hold, and wish you all the best with your editing... -- Johnfos 10:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Johnfos. Once again, thank you for the help. I fixed the first issue and I took a look at those two sources. The caps are the actual quotes from the source (IE: the source itself uses caps). If if you feel it should be changed to lowercase for this article, let me know.--Dali-Llama 12:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that... yes, I think lowercase would be better... Johnfos 08:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. The Rambling Man 10:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks... GA awarded... Johnfos 11:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if flight chronology currently deserves its own section. Epbr123 10:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it probably doesn't - it could easily be integrated into the Crash section. The Rambling Man 10:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Or we could figure out what could be included to improve it.--Dali-Llama 15:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You tube link removal.

1 link removed - CCTV footage - No indication from clip information or uploader profile that uploader has rights to footage concerned is conected to the production entity responsible for it. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] crash cause

I read the Crash section twice - I still don't understand why the plane crashed. 85.227.226.235 (talk) 23:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

That's because the cause of the crash has not been fully investigated. The best we can do is provide a narrative based on the FDR data. But off-the-record, it seems pretty clear from reading the crash section: The plane landed with the computer recording one thrust lever in the "Climb" position, which upon the disconnection of the autothrottle on touchdown, meant that the right engine accelerated while the left engine entered reverse thrust. As one lever was in "Climb" the automatic spoilers did not deploy, and the plane did not slow down (as the wheel brakes are useless at that point). The open question is why the thrust lever was at that "Climb" position (or perhaps why did the computer record the thrust lever as being in that position). A secondary question, somewhat answered, is why the pilot chose to continue the landing as opposed to take off again, which can be attributed to pilots' general reluctance to reject a landing once a thrust reverser is deployed (in case it won't re-stow on throttle-up). Again, this is my explanation to you--the article for the meantime has to stick to a narration of facts.--Dali-Llama (talk) 00:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

While I thank you for trying to explain it to me, that doesn't solve the bigger problem: the article is inpenetrable to the average reader, and turning to the talk page should not be needed to understand the article. This is not a page on rocket science - there is no reason to not provide the text in plain english, such as "The current theory is that the crash was caused by one engine going forward, the other backwards" or similar. Please at least consider adding an intro to the cause section explaining "the cause of the crash has not been fully investigated. Here follows some technical gobbledygook in the meanwhile" or similar, as well as possibly having your "technobabble detector" undergo maintenance for the future! :-) 85.227.226.235 (talk) 15:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anynobody's models for the Gol 1907 and TAM 3054 planes

Here are Anynobody's models for the planes: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Anypreview.png WhisperToMe (talk) 06:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hydroplaned?

Did Flight 3054 hydroplane? The article mentions no runway grooves had been added, and this accident looks just like Lufthansa Flight 2904. Same type plane, also on a wet runway. Anynobody 04:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

As always, the final report has not been released so no conclusions can be made with 100% of certainty, but it's reasonable to say that hydroplaning was not the cause for the accident, and if anything, a minor contributing factor. The plane never slowed down to a point where the wheelbrakes would have been effective on either dry or wet runways.--Dali-Llama (talk) 14:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that in and of itself hydroplaning would be a minor factor, however one of the things that went wrong on the Lufthansa flight was a quirk in the A320's conditions for deploying the spoilers. The computer would deploy them if a certain amount of weight was detected by compression of shock absorbers within each main gear strut, which caused one of the struts not to register correctly when the wheels it was attached to were hydroplaning. In that case, had the spoilers deployed I doubt the outcome would've been a crash. I guess my question is more did Airbus remove that prerequisite from preventing deploying the spoilers. We'll have to wait for the report I suppose. Anynobody 05:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Generally the sensor requiring the weight of the aircraft to be on the wheels, aptly called the "Weight on Wheels" sensor, needs to be triggered for automatic spoiler deployment. Because of the risk of automatic spoiler deployment if the throttles are idled while the plane is in the air during descent, it's incredibly unlikely that the "prerequisite" would be removed. I'm not familiar with Airbuses too much, but in most Boeing widebodies, thrust reversers are used until 80 knots, along with braking, and then stowed after 80 kts as they don't do any more good afterwards. I would imagine that in this case the failure to deploy the thrust reversers for whatever reason was a lot more influential than the lack of spoiler deployment. But, I suppose that's completely speculation on my part. -Shortspecialbus (talk) 05:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)