This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
TAM Airlines Flight 3054 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about TAM Airlines Flight 3054. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about TAM Airlines Flight 3054 at the Reference desk. |
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 so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
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. |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 23 June 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to TAM Flight 3054. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
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)
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)
This article reads quite well, but there are two problems:
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)
Thanks for that... yes, I think lowercase would be better... Johnfos 08:44, 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)
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)
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)
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)
Here are Anynobody's models for the planes: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Anypreview.png WhisperToMe ( talk) 06:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
The Official Report into the accident has been released. It is in Portuguese only. Mjroots ( talk) 06:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
WhisperToMe ( talk) 01:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
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]].
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)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.afavitam.com.br/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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
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)
{{subst:RM top|
The result of the move request was: result of the discussion."Dead page move discussion" Username006 ( talk) 04:14, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
{{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)
@ 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)
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)
@ Dhaluza: ch.aviation mentions it as TAM Linhas Aéreas here: [1] Username006 ( talk) 08:52, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
@ Dhaluza: So does this book: [2] Username006 ( talk) 09:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm waiting for a response. Username006 ( talk) 04:49, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm waiting for a response please respond!
Username006 (
talk)
04:05, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
– 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.
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.
Ex: Austral Líneas Aéreas Flight 2553 Sol Líneas Aéreas Flight 5428 Austral Líneas Aéreas Flight 046
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)
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)
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. – Material Works 17:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. CLYDE TALK TO ME/ STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 18:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
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)
Why do people do this?? is it like OoOh TAM Flight 3054 Is ThE DeAdLiEsT iN BrAzIl'S hIToRy STOP IT.. KNOCK IT OFF THE REAL DEADLIEST IN BRAZIL'S HISTORY IS FUCKING AIR FRANCE FLIGHT 447!!! 75.168.89.223 ( talk) 23:47, 29 June 2024 (UTC)