Tutti
← Back to Squawk list
Danish Investigators Probing TAP A320 Inflight Reverser-Deployment
A TAP Air Portugal Airbus A320 had three thrust reverser doors deploy during a go-around at Copenhagen earlier in April, forcing the crew to declare an emergency before safely landing the aircraft on a subsequent attempt, a preliminary Danish Accident Investigation Board report said. The April 8... (aviationweek.com) Altro...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
DH, the correct term for an ILS, is a gaslight of you haven't a clue either, so, yes it was more than obvious that they were below mins. if they were doin' anything other than a CAT111 ILS and had the required visuals and were committed to a landing!
Absolute last second aborts usually mean that the captain knew something that we don't, like, OMG, this runway was longer last time! Who knows? In time the DAIB will tell us that they do. You may critique them as well.
Absolute last second aborts usually mean that the captain knew something that we don't, like, OMG, this runway was longer last time! Who knows? In time the DAIB will tell us that they do. You may critique them as well.
This has developed into a trend since FlightAware was purchased last year. Would not be surprised in one bit if this click-bait/paywall business model is not a key part of its revenue stream.
Just more annoyance when coupled with part-time amateur contributors and editors (are there any?). Little enjoyment when Fridays are now spent editing poor reporting and questionable business practices.
Sad. Another sandbox for enthusiasts is disappearing before our eyes.
How about a statement from the editorial board? How about a statement by Collins? Be straight with your audience.
Just more annoyance when coupled with part-time amateur contributors and editors (are there any?). Little enjoyment when Fridays are now spent editing poor reporting and questionable business practices.
Sad. Another sandbox for enthusiasts is disappearing before our eyes.
How about a statement from the editorial board? How about a statement by Collins? Be straight with your audience.
The poster didn't realize the link was paywalled. He's commented with a free source to correct it
...I guess the 320 didn't want to do the 'go around'...
How is this even possible? I thought this system was mechanically locked out so a electrical issue could never cause this. They never touched ground even?
I believe that I read somewhere that they actually did make ground contact. True or not I can't say. the TR system is protected from inadvertent deployment by multiple systems, WOW, ground prox. or target type switches, whatever you wish to call them. Their purpose in part is to unlock the TR mechanical locks so the TR's can deploy. The throttles must be at idle as well! the impossible is always possible when the stars align for 'That can't happen"!
You confirm my conjecture of a unsettled-undecided landing, one of the gears already in full ground contact before go-around was initiated. This might have deactivated the safety interlock(s)? According to some report, the engine in question was at idle trust at the time the trust reversers (3 of 4) were deployed. I doubt that the engine could have been at 'go-around' trust at the time of the 'aborted' landing.
Both mains must have the prox. switches made to unlock the TR's in any normal deployment. However, a go around decision after a partial TR deploy could well have left an in transit TR in limbo. The left engine with the partially deployed diverter doors, (3 of 4) was at 'IDLE' for the entire go around or the airplane would have wound up on its back and an entirely different story. DAIB prelim. below.
https://samchui.com/2022/04/21/serious-incident-tap-a320-thrust-reverser-deploys-during-go-around/
At any rate, well beyond abnormal or 'Red Box' in any QRH.
https://samchui.com/2022/04/21/serious-incident-tap-a320-thrust-reverser-deploys-during-go-around/
At any rate, well beyond abnormal or 'Red Box' in any QRH.
We are not told why they decided to GA but if ground observers think they have already touched down wouldn't that mean they were below decision altitude? (200'?) It's hard to belive people can't differentiate an aircaft at Above 200' and think it has already contacted the ground.
So why did they decide to abort? Cows on runway?
Btw the Lauda crash resulted in lots of mods on TR systems to prevent in flight deployment. So I think it's probably a mechanical failure (as in broken locking parts?) rather than uncommanded deployment.