Back to Squawk list
  • 26

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... ( More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

Roger Anderson 18
I just realized this is a paywall site. Another source
Chris Muncy 4
Thanks Roger.
D Chambers 1
I don’t think I pay for this site. Just sign up for the email newsletters….
Em Fairley 1
He means the site he linked to in the squawk
bentwing60 15
TR deployment in flight is one of the Top of the list OMG fails, especially with a wing mounted twin, and in my history of Sim. flight training (multiple types, multiple recurrent events) it has never been stressed in the curriculum, probably because it is such a rare event.

To occur during a missed approach IMHO is a worst case scenario and this crew apparently did Everything by the QRH. Kudos to the right folks in the right place at the right time! And there is still room for a little Luck or Amen in any game.
avionik99 4
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?
David Beattie 7
Not the first time a plane crashed or almost crashed when something impossible happened! Good argument for having a human on every flight.
D Chambers 3
Self-driving cars too
bentwing60 2
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"!
Rene Kunz 1
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.
bentwing60 1
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.

At any rate, well beyond abnormal or 'Red Box' in any QRH.
David Loh 1
The fact that only 3 of 4 doors deployed on 1 eng seems to me it's a purely mechanical failure rather than an uncommanded deployment. A pilot would normally grab both TR levers together to actuate.

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.
bentwing60 1
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.
Dave Mathes 1
...I guess the 320 didn't want to do the 'go around'...
Dan Chiasson -2
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.
Em Fairley 2
The poster didn't realize the link was paywalled. He's commented with a free source to correct it
Torsten Hoff -6
I can't wait for MH370 to elucidate this incident...

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

bob elmar 5
Oh really A-hole? What about this? On May 26, 1991, Lauda Air Flight 004 from Bangkok, Thailand to Vienna, Austria entered an uncontrolled dive and broke up mid-air after the thrust reverser on the Boeing 767’s no 1 engine deployed uncommanded in flight. All 213 passengers and 10 crew died.


Don't have an account? Register now (free) for customized features, flight alerts, and more!
Did you know that FlightAware flight tracking is supported by advertising?
You can help us keep FlightAware free by allowing ads from We work hard to keep our advertising relevant and unobtrusive to create a great experience. It's quick and easy to whitelist ads on FlightAware or please consider our premium accounts.