Ricardo's Blog

apples to oranges...

Reagan in DC is only 6869 ft.

Midway in Chicago is
4L/22R 5,507 ft
4R/22L 6,446 ft
13C/31C 6,522 ft
13L/31R 5,141 ft
13R/31L 3,589 ft

all old airports still remaining inside cities have very short runways

JRC,

Thanks for adding your perspective to this. It is very helpful. Please note that I placed the lenght of the MAIN runway for each airport and not the secondary runways, which in many cases are used to move the planes in the field.

The reason why I chose the airports in the list was beacuse they are all national hubs, as Congonhas is. I think the airport should be used for point to point flights for the most critical business routes. Flights on conection and to destinations that are mostly pleasure could leave out of Guarulhos, which has plenty of space to add a couple of terminals.

The runways mentioned by Ricardo also serve B-747 aircraft and others weighing up to 800,000 lb (363,00 kg)and the A380 which will weigh over 1,000,000 punds (450,000 kg). The accident aircraft (A320)weighs approx 67,000 Kg(maximum takeoff weight and less for landing) or 147,000 lb and is designed to serve airfields with shorter runways. The fact that the thrust reverser may have been inoperative is significant but aircraft landing performance is not predicated on use of the thrust reverser. Professional pilots are required to possess judgment and ability to operate an aircraft within limits. No pilot likes runways of this length but this is what the professional is paid for.

Layman's view: As I see it,both Congonhas and its sister,Santos Dumont in downtown Rio, grew from propellers to jets without increasing much? the runways. It seems that to win orders manufacturers will do most anything to say their planes will land on such or other runway. As I remember, when they decided to do away with the turboprop Electras between the cities, the twin jet Boeings couldn't fit the airports - so they put in more powerful engines(to clear Sugar Loaf mountain in Rio)and bigger brakes, and they took over the market. But whenever I travel between the airports the hard part is the landing - the plane has to hit(really) the runway hard, slam on the brakes immediately, and scream the engines in reverse, and then you can take a deep breath - you made it. Rio is a good bit safer than Congonhas because there is a safety net at both ends of the runway which is the Bay of Guanabara which is 2 or 3 meters below - actually a plane did a small ditch some years ago. At Congonhas which is a razed hill, there is no such thing, at the ends of the runway there are only buildings. I suppose that if one were to compare lengths of runways as safety factors, it would be necessary to consider also the level empty land at the runway ends. A point to ponder is that in the early days the length necessary to land would be the natural deceleration of the air friction on the plane body and considering a tail wind. Today I suppose they consider the flaps, air brakes,engine reverse and what else - they'll tell you they can stop on a dime. So if something goes wrong you're eating up your safety factor, and when 2 or more things go wrong start praying. The fact is the planes in use: 737s and A320s among others could not be using these airports as they are too big and heavy, so much that the government is just imposing a weight limit from now on - short T.O. & Landing, jets and turboprops should only be allowed. I have just started to read a new book which states that unacceptable risks do happen: 9/11, plane crashes when your wife or children are on board, fatal heart attacks(the doctors say they have to follow the guidlines - they're not dying) and of course asteroids. The author points out that "Black Swans" although statistically neglible are devastating - and should be treat as. Obs: Just starting to read the book.PS I think rain treaded tyres could be a consideration for bad weather - even small grooves could help - who wants aquaplaning anyway?

You need to get out of the one track mind syndrome. There are some very obvious human errors that contributed to this accident.

1. TAM flying a plane into an airport in which there have apparently been many complaints related to the short runways yet they did so in a rainstorm and with one reverse thruster broken. How incompetent is that?

2. The runway was recently repaved but still awaiting grooves being added to allow it to drain properly. Why was this runway being used in a rainstorm in this condition and why would the airlines allow their planes to use? Obviously there is lots of blame to go around here and the short runway which I agree is not ideal I think is not the cause here. This is the result of incompetance and probably some pilot error too because other planes before and after this accident had no problems. One should also consider the incredibly high traffic rate at this airport and to give credit where credit is due, they have not had an serious accident related with the infrastructure of this airport.

"Why was this runway being used in a rainstorm in this condition and why would the airlines allow their planes to use?" The answers to this question are always the same in Brazil, greed, ignorance, corruption, incompetence on the part of all players, and the basic Brazilian character trait of "tudo bem" which means: I am too much of a coward to complain or take action so, therefore, I dance.

Rosemary Alexander, your ignorance apalls me. The same exact things can be said for America, which is the epitome of greed and cowardice on the part of politicians and business people. How about doing some research before you decide to get personal about another country, and look at the state that your own country is in. It's thinking like yours that's sending this "great" country of yours down the crapper, because everyone else is NOT inferior to you.
P.S. Maybe if your country learned the "tudo bem" and how to dance, the national deficit wouldn't be so terrible and the brave troops wouldn't be dying for someone's greed, cowardice, and ignorance.