The death of hundreds on TAM 3054 could be considered an unnecessary and an avoidable accident. Investigators will make their determination but why it happened is known.

The crash of Flight 3054 in São Paulo, Brazil on July 17,2007 was shocking and could have been prevented. It was a recipe for disaster. Combined ingredients included a short runway in a large city center, inclement weather and gusty winds. Large rubber deposits had accumulated on the runway from repeated aircraft landings and as such, it was little wonder that the large commercial jet went down. It was a tragic accident with a large loss of life. This is actual video of what the approach would have looked like to that fateful crew.

The wreckage is still smoldering in Brazil but once again we have an accident that has all the earmarks of an avoidable situation. It has hardly been four months since the world dealt with the overshoot Garuda accident.

The Airport Runway

Unlike Garuda flight GA-200, TAM 3054 had much more going against it. The runway was much shorter and at a higher altitude. It was soaked with rain and surrounded by buildings just outside the runway area. According to Brazilian pilots, rubber deposits on the runway’s touchdown zone were “uncomfortably” thick and “caused hydroplaning on a good day.” Congonhas Airport, Sao Paulo, Brazil has a runway Length of only 6,362 feet. In “The World's Dangerous Airports” you can see the significance of these airport and runway differences.

The Weather

It is important to understand the effects of atmospheric conditions on aircraft and how pilots deal with those effects when aviating. In the Garuda windshear article it is explained how pilots must increase their speed to prevent the windshear (a rapid change in wind direction and speed)from causing the aircraft to literally fall out of the sky.

In previous articles it is evident that this increased speed also has the effect of requiring an increased landing distance for the aircraft to stop. It becomes the classicKobayashi Maru(a no-win scenario from TV's Star Trek) that modern airline pilot’s face when landing on a short, wet runway. The pilot must increase the speed to remain in the air but run off the end of the runway, or leave the speed low so as to stop in the available runway distance; however, crash short of the runway because of windshear.

Whatever the final report will state, this accident has happened before and we know what caused it. The technical aspects (how much increased speed, was there a shear and how strong, what amount of hydroplaning occurred and why,) may vary but none the less these weather factors will be there.

Pilot Error

Some reports say the pilots attempted to get airborneafter they initially landed and that may have contributed to the accident. Whether that is found to be true or not it is irrelevant to this accident! If the pilots attempted to do so then the fact they were going to run off the runway was a foregone conclusion to them. Pilots know that aborting a landing after touch down is an extremely difficult and risky maneuver. Therefore, it must be understood that for the pilots to attempt this they felt they were going to absolutely run off the runway anyway.

Prevention

Accident investigators have developed what is called the Swiss cheese modelIn order for an accident to occur all the holes in the cheese must align. If at any point circumstances or individuals block the hole, the accident will be avoided.

There are a number of things that could have prevented this accident. If only one of them had not been present the probability of the accident would have been logarithmically lowered. Had there been no rain in Sao Paulo when flight 3054 was flying? Had there been fewer people on the flight? Had the runway been cleared of built-up rubber deposits? Had the crash building not been where it was? Had the runway been longer? Any single one of these events would have blocked the path and there would have been a far different outcome.

Safety and Agendas

Now that the accident did occur, there will be an outcry by those groups with agendas. Most will rally around the flag of airline safety but for a personal or organizational goal. Usually the complete model is ignored or minimized.

Airlines will cry for tort reform to minimize liability from aircraft accidents that have nature as a contributing factor. Unions will cry for higher pay and better working conditions. Fingers will be pointed at the exodus of skilled aviators leaving the country. Safety experts will cry for “crushable concrete,” overshoots and protected clearways at the ends of runways. Weather forecasters will cry for better forecasting tools and updated radar. Air Traffic Controllers will cry for better work schedules, equipment and pay. Consumer advocates will point at low cost airlines and government will demand answers!

All of these points are definitely possible factors, but no accident exists in a vacuum. If the whole model is not examined, factors put into order of significance and agendas are placed aside in lieu of correctable action; then rest assured this accident will happen again.

The public wants cheap and accessible airline transportation as do the airlines and government. Only rarely are the hard decisions made that can and do save lives when examining accidents like this tragedy. What are those hard decisions? Change the recipe above!

• NTSB 1 June 1999, “Runway Overrun During Landing - American Airlines Flt 1420" 19 July 2007

• HFACS. February 2000, “The “Swiss cheese” model of accident causation” 19 July 2007

To Read More Aviation Facts see:

World's Dangerous Airports

Airport's Treacherous Problems

Garuda Flight GA-200 and Windshear

Garuda Flight GA-200 Crashes