As usual, some of this report on the spanish press doesn't seem, well, all the accurate one would want. Whenever there is a comment on my side, I will write in in parenthesis. Otherwise, is a verbatim translation. When it doesn't quite make sense or it is ambigous, it's because it was also so in the original text.
"The commander checked the equipment with his copilot and expressly said: 'slats flaps, ok' That means that he did check the position on the sustaining devices on the wings was the correct one for take off. The investigating commision has paid much attention to this fragment of the conversation extracted from the black box to find out if the pilot correctly configured the airplane.(Can't they figure this out cathegorically from the FDR?) The degree of inclination on the flaps requires a specific speed to take-off. Assuming the pilots didn't forget something as essential, investigators are wondering if the flaps could've failed. The mechanism activates from a switch (lever), if it fails there is a 'watch' (gauge) that indicates its real possition. A redundant system fires an alamr sound if the configuration is wrong. It would've whistled even before take-off and the pilot would've aborted the operation.
¿Could then the alarm system have also failed? It would be rare because when the plane took off it did work; two sound alarms warned on the impact against the ground and the lack of sustenability. (That's what it says)
It was 15 terrible seconds (previously reported as 7 seconds) that the comission is trying to bring light to. So far, the only evident thing is that the airplane didn't have the neccesary speed for take-off.
One research team in checking the possibility that the flaps failed and another failure on the engine reverser (singular but ambigous) that could've activated taking away thrust from the engines."
(This last sentence doesn't make perfect grammatical sense in spanish, it was probably meant to be that two different teams are looking into each scenario, rather than one team looking into both "failures")
And that's it for the translation. Now, on my own words, I'm just wondering who exactly wrote that piece of news, since if they were so close to the investigation's commision they would've certainly know by now, through the FDR, if the reverser deployed or not, what speed/thrust settings they were using, how long rotation took, etc.
Edit: It seems the information comes from a news piece by news agency atlas/efe, possibly from insights from the official college of pilots of Spain.
Also, FWIW, some more reviewed "wild" estimates by the press on the airplane height before going down: 10m
Some more tidbits:
-The maintenance technician that did the probe's heater "repair" went back in front of the judge to answer questions about the reverser (indeed locked out of service) and "some other even smaller malfunctions" that the plane had, all of them compatible with the fit-to-fly status.
-The only "direct" witness of the whole accident, a ground worker (those "follow me" car drivers) declares the usual "airplane taking a long time to take off", "briefly airborne rolling steeply left and right", "falling to the ground nearby losing its course", "dissapearing from his sight" (into terrain levels). He doesn't mention any "flashes" or "fires" or excessive yaw, etc on this news piece. But previously, he is quoted as saying (to the police, rather than to the judge) "I was next to Terminal 4S and saw the white MD rolling steeply, first to the right. The left engine caught in fire, spitting out some flashes. Then the airplane did some yaw, nose went up and fell down. Then some dust and finally an explosion."
This last piece of news goes on saying that the newspaper (La Razón) consulted specialist sources that wanted to say that those "flames" or "flashes" that the worker claims to have seen can be considered normal in this type of airplane during take-off with the engines working at high throttle.
-Police also wants to interview a truck driver that possibly witnessed the fall as well (he is outside of Spain for the time being).
Last edited by justme69; 4th Sep 2008 at 23:10.