Jump to content

Talk:TAM Airlines Flight 3054

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleTAM 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 so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 8, 2007Good article nomineeListed
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 17, 2009, July 17, 2010, July 17, 2019, and July 17, 2023.

September 5 Edits

[edit]

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)[reply]

Wrong term used

[edit]

I believe the proper term to describe the deviation from the runway course sould be "veering left" and not "bearing left". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.100.180.20 (talk) 18:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nomination

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

No, it probably doesn't - it could easily be integrated into the Crash section. The Rambling Man 10:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or we could figure out what could be included to improve it.--Dali-Llama 15:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

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)[reply]

crash cause

[edit]

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)[reply]

The crash happened because the plane was not equipped with a braking parachute (drag chute). Nowadays aircraft manufacturers and airlines ignore this important safety feature in the name of weight reduction (i.e. profit allmighty), even though the drag chute is the only braking device to work independent of runway conditions and aircraft system conditions (even with total loss of hydraulics and electricity). Drag chute can also be used to exit a flat spin, it is designed to tear away at 300km/h airspeed but the moment moment helps orient the plane. The highly efficient drag chute of the Tu-104 saved the life of hundreds of people during landings during torrent rain/snowstorm and with poor soviet wheel-brakes. 87.97.110.223 (talk) 20:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]


The basic idea of the crash explanation is "The left engine was left at idle, since it could not reverse thrust. Also, it was set to climb, but idle. The pilots assumed the other engines would reverse thrust, but with one engine set to climb, there reverse thrust did not automatically occur. When the pilots increased thrust from other engines , aiming to increase reverse thrust, they increased speed , and differential thrust occured because the left engine was left at idle. Different thrust is a form of steering. With the plane increasing speed above suitable landing speeds, the wheels ,flaps and rudder steering and braking systems became ineffective. The steering caused by differential thrust steered the airplane off the runway, and a severe crash occurred as it ran into airport related buildings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.92.33.42 (talk) 01:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

Hydroplaned?

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Official investigation report

[edit]

The Official Report into the accident has been released. It is in Portuguese only. Mjroots (talk) 06:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archives of BEA releases

[edit]

WhisperToMe (talk) 01:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on TAM Airlines Flight 3054. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hope, that I am allowed to ask the following question.

[edit]

In Mayday S11E01, Deadly Reputation a.k.a. Reputation's disaster, they mentioned, that the old way of reverse-throttling, which is: first working reverse thrust to full rev, then malfunctioning one to ilde, is more efficient tham pulling both thrust leavers to the back. What does cause that? They did not explain that in mayday. --87.165.105.227 (talk) 19:56, 22 July 2016 (UTC)ß (written on OTG+Bluetooth OTG keyboard]].[reply]

Is this true?

[edit]

On the Finnish/Suomi page and when I translate it, it said that there was two French nationals, and one each from Argentina, Portugal, and Peru. Is that true or is it a unreliable source? 73.87.74.115 (talk) 13:15, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on TAM Airlines Flight 3054. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Poor grammar and syntax; please revise

[edit]

As marked in boldface: "For federal prosecutors, the former director of ANAC Denise Abreu and then flight safety officer of the company, Marco Aurelio dos Santos de Miranda, should be convicted of attempt on air transport security in willful mode. [...] The investigation of the Airbus TAM accident, which killed 199 people in Congonhas, revealed that in February 2007, the São Paulo federal judge Cecilia Marcondes, who saw action restricting the landing planes in Congonhas on rainy days, received Denise Abreu one of ANAC document like a standard," Autodidact1 (talk) 02:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Requested move 20 July 2021

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of this discussion was: Not moved per clear consensus since no votes were made in support of a move. (non-admin closure) Aviationwikiflight (talk) 07:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{subst:requested move/end multiple=yes |current1=TAM Airlines Flight 3054|new1=TAM Linhas Aéreas Flight 3054|current2=TAM Flight 9755|new2=TAM Linhas Aéreas Flight 9755|}}

– These two pages should be renamed to these titles because it would simply make a lot more sense to the Brazilian wikipedians as in not letting the names mix up. It would be consistent with other articles such as Gol Linhas Aéreas Flight 1907 or TAM Transportes Aéreos Regionais Flight 402. I doubt that TAM Airlines was what the airline was called so. I don't think it was called so until LATAM Airlines came into play. Even ASN mentions it is TAM Linhas Aéreas. This is why I think it should be called so. Username006 (talk) 06:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC) Username006 (talk) 06:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - This is not Brazilian wikipedia so we use the common names in English MilborneOne (talk) 13:56, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, the airline was branded as "TAM Airlines" in English-speaking markets, and authoritative English-language sources such as The New York Times use the TAM Airlines name. Carguychris (talk) 14:05, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The English Wikipedia title should be searchable in English. The properly accented Brazilian title should be redirected and listed after the English title in the lede. Dhaluza (talk) 02:40, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MilborneOne: Then why are the other accidents named in Brazilian? Shouldn't those also be named with the same ones? Username006 (talk) 14:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The airline names should reflect the article name of the airline in English Wikipedia. MilborneOne (talk) 15:19, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with rationale above.Andrewgprout (talk) 07:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dhaluza: But like I said, the other accident is given where the Portuguese title is first and then the English title is redirected which is quite awkward and none of these are even having a consistent name.Username006 (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Carguychris: The final report in English: https://reports.aviation-safety.net/2007/20070717-0_A320_PR-MBK.pdf states that the airline was TAM Linhas Aereas.Username006 (talk) 14:48, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Probably because the Brazillian produced report was written by a Portuguese speaker. 16:33, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Beat me to it... the report is an obvious and sometimes awkward translation (e.g. The TAM Express building sustained structural damages that determined its demolition) produced by a government agency that does not normally use English, thus I would argue that it is not a definitive English-language source. Carguychris (talk) 16:56, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dhaluza: Sorry but I didn't understand what you mean to say. Username006 (talk) 17:33, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Carguychris: This source also mentions it as TAM Linhas Aéreas Flight 3054: https://www.google.com/books/edition/AIR_CRASH_INVESTIGATIONS_FAILING_BRAKES/uTkbBAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0 Also, Planespotters.net, jetphotos.com and airhistory.net all refer to it as TAM Linhas Aéreas. Username006 (talk) 17:33, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt that TAM Linhas Aéreas is the proper legal entity name that you would put on a lawsuit in the U.S. But a native English speaker is unlikely to use that name, so we should use the name that a native English speaker would use, as found in the majority of English language RS. Dhaluza (talk) 12:14, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dhaluza: But every other South American airline aircraft accident is used with their Brazilian title but this page and TAM Flight 9755 are the only exceptions. 223.229.236.177 (talk) 13:49, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The current airline page title is LATAM Brasil. I see from the edit history of that article that it started as just TAM in 2002 and in February 2008 it was moved from TAM Linhas Aéreas to TAM Brazilian Airlines, then to just TAM Airlines. We should use the common name from 2001 when the incident occurred, so I would still go with TAM. Dhaluza (talk) 14:59, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also see [this] Reuter's article showing at the time of the takeover in 2008 an English RS called it TAM. Dhaluza (talk) 15:08, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dhaluza: ch.aviation mentions it as TAM Linhas Aéreas here: [1] Username006 (talk) 08:52, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dhaluza: So does this book: [2] Username006 (talk) 09:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm waiting for a response.Username006 (talk) 04:49, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]



I'm waiting for a response please respond! Username006 (talk) 04:05, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 21 January 2022

[edit]

– February 21, 1961 (as Táxi Aéreo Marília) November 11, 1975 (as TAM – Transportes Aéreos Regionais S/A) May 15, 1990 (as TAM Linhas Aéreas) May 5, 2016 (as LATAM Airlines)

There's no TAM Airlines name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 使用者名前0006 (talk • contribs) 07:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The 402 original name was TAM – Transportes Aéreos Regionais 402, wasn't an English title too, and not like Copa Airlines, so I think is necessary to move the titles name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 使用者名前0006 (talk • contribs) 07:29, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ex:Austral Líneas Aéreas Flight 2553 Sol Líneas Aéreas Flight 5428 Austral Líneas Aéreas Flight 046 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 使用者名前0006 (talk • contribs) 07:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See the above discussion. There was a consensus not to move the page. Poxy4 (talk) 13:17, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 23 June 2023

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 20:03, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TAM Airlines Flight 3054 → TAM Flight 3054 – We require a consistent title amongst airline accident pages. Noting the controversy above, and since we already do have TAM Flight 9755, I believe this page should be renamed to TAM Flight 3054 which is currently at a redirect. The Portuguese Wikipedia quoted above also has its title as simply TAM Flight 3054: [3], therefore I believe this is the right way forward. Idmsdmsalescaleneiviq (talk) 16:43, 23 June 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. – MaterialWorks 17:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 18:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose I believe this is the correctly named article and that TAM Flight 9755 should be renamed TAM Airlines Flight 9755. "TAM Flight" is used but is not the WP:COMMONNAME per my source search. KLM is the full common name of the company and Trans World Airlines' common name was TWA, so I do not think they count. SportingFlyer T·C 00:16, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Something to note: I looked up 'TAM Flight 9755' and 'TAM Airlines Flight 9755'. The 'TAM Airlines' convention only brought me 81,000 results: [4] while the 'TAM' convention brought me 221,000 results: [5].
This gap is less in the Flight 3054 accident but the 'TAM' convention still seems to hold superior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idmsdmsalescaleneiviq (talk • contribs) 02:21, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because you didn't search with quotations on. The TAM convention you searched therefore included all "TAM Airlines" results. With quotations the "TAM Airlines" option is clearly more popular for the more popular Wikipedia article (3054) and just a little below on 9755. SportingFlyer T·C 08:50, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Runway

[edit]

so the entire article is written in a way that makes the reader assume that the condition of the runway and negligence caused this entire accident, dwelling at length on the drainage issues and resurfacing. Yet when we get to the actual crash it turns out that it was actually caused by pilot error, and never explains anywhere how the "unsafe runway" contributed to the crash. What, if they had better drainage it wouldn't have mattered if a pilot accidentally landed with one engine on full thrust and one working thrust reverse, everyone would have been fine? They were negligent for not completely closing the airport for another month to all traffic just in case a pilot tried to land in these conditions? Is there some political goal at work here that makes this emphasis necessary? Because as far as I can tell that deserves a small additional paragraph pointing out that the safety of the runway was marginal and needed to be improved to provide a margin of potential safety against gross pilot errors life this, but that it didn't directly contribute to the crash.

If the runway did somehow cause the crash to happen, and normally a plane could land safely in this condition, maybe explain that clearly instead of just implying it?


Idumea47b (talk) 23:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:TAM_Airlines_Flight_3054&oldid=1242911044"