Faro 1992 New Documentary

[Winnerhofer]

http://www.timefornews.nl/170468_disaster-unit-faro-departed-under-pressure-martinair#.VppnUljW5tI.twitter

Binnenland :: ‘Martinair-ramptoestel Faro onder druk goedgekeurd’ (http://binnenland.eenvandaag.nl/index.php/tv-items/64469/_martinair_ramptoestel_faro_onder_druk_goedgekeurd_)

Martinair crash Faro keeps the Dutch busy (http://airheadsfly.com/2016/01/16/martinair-crash-faro-keeps-the-dutch-busy/)

[BedakSrewet]

The 'self appointed' expert / CEO of MARTINAIR, Martin Schroder reported within 24 hours of the crash that the cause was windshear, and still ( after 23+ years ) doesn't have 'the balls' to admit that his statement was way too premature.



If he is a man, he should deeply bend his head in shame.


If MARTINAIR was a Japanese company, the CEO would already have stepped off the roof of the Amsterdam Hilton...

[Ambient Sheep]

From that last link:

Parts of the investigation documents have been classified by the Netherlands and will first be open to the public by the year 2073.

Say what, now?

[despegue]

The Dutch Accident Investigation Board is full of incompetent " investigators" who have their own agenda.

Just look at the MH investigation, where they refuse to take into account any Russian data and eat out of the hands of the Ukrainians.

[Global_Global]

Just look at the MH investigation, where they refuse to take into account any Russian data and eat out of the hands of the Ukrainians.

No, really these are Russian on soldiers who are only on holiday in the Ukraine... Really... :rolleyes:

Now back on topic: yes a CEO stating what the "facts" are so quickly normally only happens in places like Indonesia or let's say Russia (Pun intended...) :=

[PENKO]

The only thing that surprises me is the secrecy of the documents, archives not to be opened till 2073...what can be so secret about a windshear encounter?

[OEM]

The Dutch Accident Investigation Board is full of incompetent " investigators" who have their own agenda.

The Dutch Accident Investigation Board (whatever the current incarnation is called) has one and only one goal: to protect the financial interests of the dutch aviation industry. Until 1998 this was known as the RLD-KLM-Schiphol triangle, whereby the RLD was corrupt to the bone. Everything remotely negative was kept hidden, to protect the growth of KLM and Schiphol.

Hell, I guess that if a dutch pilot takes off without clearance they will try to find a way to blame somebody else.... oh wait.

Also in that respect is the premature reaction of Martin Schroder not a surprise, how disturbing it may be.

[Gridl0k]

Diplomatic bags?

[Winnerhofer]

*'Martinair bood ons zwijggeld'|Binnenland| Telegraaf.nl (http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/20253363/____Martinair_bood_ons_zwijggeld___.html)

"Martinair offered us hush money '
Martinair has put pressure on relatives of the Faro-ramp to stop their own research or ask critical questions. With money and houses the airline put the survivors to silence.
According to a family in Maassluis, who says eighteen years to be busy all the facts of the plane crash in Faro in 1992 to get into the open, a year after the disaster was a contact Martinair at the door with the offer of "five tons guilders 'or a' spacious house.
"We are there when not addressed, because we just wanted the truth and uncovering it," said Iem Vroombout in the AD. "We said we only wanted to hear the truth. When the man stood again within five minutes outside."
The incident occurred after a television appearance of Vroombout in 1993 in which he told about his experiences in Faro. Corrie and Iem lost in the disaster their 14 year old daughter and myself decided to investigate the facts. That led to a new, critical report on the crash, which was published yesterday in the AD.
According to the new research caused Forecasting errors by the crew of the fatal plane crash in which 56 people were killed.

[Lookleft]

OEM there are some conspiracy theorist nut cases who think the same thing about the ATSB. You might like to check them out.

[Machinbird]

It is really annoying to be discussing an accident from the past without at least having an accident report to review. The original report was published in Portuguese, but there is an unofficial English version here: http://www.vliegrampfaro.nl/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Faro_MP495_accident-report-English.pdf

There appears to be a lot in common here with the MD-11 rollover accidents.:confused:

[fizz57]

That report makes very interesting reading.


Since the flight crew survived the accident (the Captain with only minor injuries) and presumably talked to the airline's management, I do not think a statement within 24 hours is "premature". Also the report makes it quite clear that the accident was at least initiated by windshear, although compounded by crew actions.


I find particularly interesting the statement that the PF probably applied insufficient nose-up input due to an unrecognized "mode change" (from CWS to manual) caused by "dual inputs" by the Captain and FO in response to aircraft roll.

[mary meagher]

Whether or not even experienced first officers get enough practice landing in bad conditions, it would seem that a stabilized approach had not been achieved by one thousand feet....

A very very wet runway at Faro, torrential and gusty CB showers....a heavy aircraft with possible engine thrust reversers u/s.... reading the entire report, basically, the braking conditions exceeded the LDA.....

[Winnerhofer]

Dutch Authorities Covered Up Cause of 1992 Martinair DC-10 Crash in Portugal: Report (http://www.nycaviation.com/2011/02/dutch-authorities-covered-up-cause-of-1992-martinair-dc-10-crash-in-portugal-report/#.VpyoVIgrI-U)

[Winnerhofer]

National Transportation Safety Boar d
October 26, 1994
Mr . Luis Alberto Figueira Lima Da Silv a Investigator-in-Charge, Avn Inspection Div . Directorate of Civil Aviation
Rua B Edificio G
1700 Aeroporto Lisboa, PORTUGA L
Dear Luis Alberto Figueira Lima Da ,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the confidential draft repor t concerning the landing accident at Faro, Portugal involving a Martinai r DC-10-30 on December 21 . 1992.
It appears that the airplane and autoflight systems worked properly . Information from the quick access recorder indicates that the speed error (which is one of the parameters controlling the autothrottle computer an d
translates how hard the computer wants to push the throttles forward) suddenly increases when the throttles were reduced to idle at 150 feet radio
altitude, rather than at 50 feet when the normal autothrottle retard mod e would have been in effect . The report contradicts itself when on page B- 5 it indicates the above information, but later, on the last sentence on pag e D-3, it states "The power was reduced at 150 ft instead of at 50 ft b y autothrottle action." Consideration might be given to changing the latter sentence to indicate manual intervention by the crew .
Washington, D .C. 20594
Martinair's Flight Crew Operating Manual (FCOM) dated March 1, 198 9 states on page 05-60-09 of Volume II, approach precautions for windshea r procedures. It appears from the report that the following procedures wer e not followed :
Achieve a stabilized approach no later than 1000 feet AGL
Avoid large thrust reductions or trim changes in response to sudde n airspeed increases as these may be followed by airspeed decreases .
Consider using the recommended flap setting . (Recommended landing flap setting is minimum flap setting authorized for normal landing
configuration .)
Use the autopilot and autothrottles for the approach to provide more monitoring and recognition time . If using the autothrottles, manually back - up the throttles to prevent excessive power reduction during an increasin g performance shear .
During the approach . use of flaps 50, the low airspeed, and throttl e
movement to idle, minimized the flight crews options for recovery and increased the recovery time required . Once the autopilot was disengaged ,
CWS with ATS remained : functions which were inappropriately used by the flightcrew .
If the commission feels that windshear was present during the approac h then consideration should be given to recommending implementation o r review of crew training for windshear recovery .
Sincerely ,
Alfred W . Dickinson U.S . Accredited Rep

[Winnerhofer]

1.17.1.4 - DC-10 Aircraft Operation Manual:

Section 3 - Paragraph 3.1.17 Procedures of operation with unserviceable thrust engine reverse:

Thrust reversers: a fan thrust reverser:

· aircraft shall not depart an airport/ station where repair or replacement can be made,
· the unserviceable fan thrust reverser is secured and stowed according to MAI78-00-01,
· when dispatching from a wet or contaminated runway, the thrust used for take-off shall not be less than full A rating.

[Winnerhofer]

http://www.vliegrampfaro.nl/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Fire-and-alarm-before-crash-flight-MP495-Faro-Martinair.pdf

http://www.vliegrampfaro.nl/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/meteorological-flight-preparation-MP495-Faro-Martinair.pdf

Rechtszitting slachtoffers Faro tegen Martinair en de Staat (http://www.usa-advocaten.nl/rechtszitting-slachtoffers-faro-tegen-martinair-en-de-staat/)

https://twitter.com/USAadvocaten

[JammedStab]

Dutch Authorities Covered Up Cause of 1992 Martinair DC-10 Crash in Portugal: Report (http://www.nycaviation.com/2011/02/dutch-authorities-covered-up-cause-of-1992-martinair-dc-10-crash-in-portugal-report/#.VpyoVIgrI-U)

"But some contributing factors in the official report also pointed towards possible crew errors, although they were not considered to be one of the leading causes of the crash. Among those were the premature power reduction, an incorrect evaluation by the crew of runway conditions and the delayed action of the crew in increasing power."

I suspect none of this would have happened if the held until the thunderstorm was gone.

[jvr]

Top secret until 2073 is no less than a cover up.
One sure wonders what it is that is so embarrasing/frightening that it has to be kept hidden until there is nobody left alive that can take an interest.
It must have been a major ****up not directly related to the accident itself.
I guess a major part of the civil servants got there hands dirty to an extent that, if it were to become public, all hell would have broken loose.

Things were quite smelly back in the days of the RLD, the competent authority.
There are things with a heavy odour right now with the successor, ILENT, as my recent dealings with them confirmed.

[etudiant]

It would be instructive to know on what basis the documents were sealed.
It is not anything military and with McDD out of the picture, there is no manufacturer's reputation to protect.
Does Dutch law allow such arbitrary deep-sixing of the results of inquiries?

[Machinbird]

One question needing an answer:
If the accident was investigated by Portugal, in what way did the Dutch manage to mis-direct the investigation?

Winnerhofer???

[peekay4]

Top secret until 2073 is no less than a cover up.
One sure wonders what it is that is so embarrasing/frightening that it has to be kept hidden until there is nobody left alive that can take an interest.
Not necessarily.

In this case I don't know what has been sealed, but often a long timeframe relates to privacy laws, e.g., raw CVR recordings, health / toxicology records of the crew, etc.

From what I've seen, everything alleged to have been "covered up" (e.g., crew actions) were actually covered in detail in the official Portuguese (and English translated) accident report.

[A-FLOOR]

Not necessarily.

In this case I don't know what has been sealed, but often a long timeframe relates to privacy laws, e.g., raw CVR recordings, health / toxicology records of the crew, etc.

From what I've seen, everything alleged to have been "covered up" (e.g., crew actions) were actually covered in detail in the official Portuguese (and English translated) accident report.The sealed documents primarily concern the internal dealings and archives of the "Raad voor de Luchtvaart" regarding the crash, or rather the predecessor of the current Dutch TSB. These documents might explain the discrepancies between the Dutch and the Portuguese report. A possible reason why these documents might be sealed, is that at the time of the crash the aircraft in question was owned by the RNLAF and leased to Martinair before its planned conversion to a KDC-10 tanker transport.

There was a TV interview with a ground engineer who was apparently pressured into requesting a third reprieve for a scheduled landing gear exchange (which was approved by the RLD) and a lot of people are now looking into whether this could be the reason so many people lost their lives, but when you look at the FDR data it is clear that this was another typical DC10/MD11 rollover. Touchdown of >2.0G with a slight angle of bank, which causes the rear spar of the low wing to shear as the MLG is apparently bolted directly to the wing box. Because the aircraft is still travelling at high forward speed, the wing on this side is just folded over by its own lift while releasing the contents of the onside main fuel tank, and the rest of the aircraft is then rolled upside down by lift generated the other wing. A critical and unforgivable design flaw in this type, imho.

Whether this hard landing was caused by windshear/microburst or mishandling by the crew is up for debate, but I can't help noticing this is all coming out just months after the last passenger MD11 has left the KLM fleet (Martinair still has a few freighters).

[Discorde]

One of the potential holes in the Swiss cheese was lack of ILS. Many pilots had been complaining about this shortcoming at a major airport for many years. A coupled approach to minima might have led to a successful landing.

[RAT 5]

As there is no 'national security' issue (that cloud which the USA so often hides in) then why could not an application under 'freedom of information' challenge this 2073 blockage? Surely, under the philosophy of 'everyone can learn from others mistakes' the true causes should be fully investigated and published. There have been some crashes, e.g. Concorde, whereby there are still people dissatisfied and in disagreement with the official report, but to my knowledge there was nothing locked away for this & the next few generations.
By doing so it adds credence to 'cover-up' claims.

[mary meagher]

Peekay4 is probably correct about the aircrew health records being kept confidential for 81 years, as they may still live until 2073. Lufthansa/Germanwings kept the medical records of Andreas Lubitz all too private when disclosure might have been more appropriate.

As for McDonnell-Douglas, now swallowed up by Boeing, are any of the Douglas aircraft still flying passengers? A-FLOOR points out that the breakup and inversion of the fuselage after the hard touchdown and failure of the undercarriage was due to "a critical and unforgivable design flaw"...if any of these machines are still flying, they must be difficult to insure.

[Linktrained]

Medical Records

I wonder which other "advanced countries" have similar Medical confidentialities where Air Crew Licences are concerned. An aircrew member may be responsible for many peoples lives.

Several decades ago a Doctor told his patient ( a U.K. based pilot ) not to fly until he had been checked again by the Central Medical Board, for whatever the Doctor had found.

This was a responsable action. And perhaps different to that which may have led to the GERMANAIR accident.

( The Pilot lost his Licence. )

NO LIVES WERE LOST... OR even put at risk.

LT

[JanetFlight]

Germanair accident!!????

[Winnerhofer]

Politiek :: PvdA: maak onderzoek Faro openbaar (http://politiek.eenvandaag.nl/index.php/blogs-politiek/64521/pvda_maak_onderzoek_faro_openbaar)

2016-01-19
PvdA: make public research Faro
MP Jacques Monasch (PvdA) wants all research data about the plane crash in 1992 at Faro public. He demanded today by Secretary Dijksma during question time in the Lower House.
Saturday showed a EenVandaag broadcast that documents on the air disaster lying in the archives until 2073 remain secret. Monasch finds that survivors are now entitled to. But according Dijksma can not disclose because of the privacy of those heard.
The CDA cried after the broadcast of Saturday to make public all documents on all of the Faro disaster.
Saturday also showed that the aircraft had to contend with defects. A technical controller told pressured to have put his signature under a document certifying the necessary replacement of the landing gear of the disaster handset to date was postponed three times. This is normally only permitted twice.
Look below the broadcast of Saturday again.

[Harry Spotter]

It is really annoying to be discussing an accident from the past without at least having an accident report to review. The original report was published in Portuguese, but there is an unofficial English version here: http://www.vliegrampfaro.nl/wp-conte...rt-English.pdf

There appears to be a lot in common here with the MD-11 rollover accidents.


My thought exactly.

I can see the politicians feel a need to follow some peoples opinions to make some points and show engagement and not at least get there own name up on, in this case, a big accident - even from 20 something years ago but : don't the people trust the Portugese investigation or so ?

[Linktrained]

JanetFlight #28

Thanks for correction ... It should have been "... GERMAN Air accident. "

I blame the old keyboard, of course !

LT

[PDR1]

I blame the old keyboard, of course !


We'll hold an investigation, but the keyboard's health records will have to remain sealed until 2073, of course.

PDR

[Winnerhofer]

http://portugalresident.com/plane-that-crash-landed-in-faro-in-1992-“never-should-have-left-amsterdam”

[wingview]

@Winnerhofer
When the article starts with a "Martinair Boeing 707" I stop reading :)

@mary meagher
There is no more pax MD11 since over a year. KLM was the last one. As far as I know there is also no commercial airliner flying pax DC-10.

Anyway, new or old gear wouldn't have changed this accident. For both it exceeded the structural limitations of the gear.

Further more, who's to blame? If they made a GA it probably didn't end up like it did, but the same for the wind shear, if that didn't occur they probably landed save.

This accident is similar to the CI MD11 accident although they ignored the max crosswind component. The other similar landing accidents were bouncers.

[daikilo]

Linktrained:


Are you refering to the Germanwings accident in 2015?

[PrivtPilotRadarTech]

"this was another typical DC10/MD11 rollover. Touchdown of >2.0G with a slight angle of bank, which causes the rear spar of the low wing to shear as the MLG is apparently bolted directly to the wing box. Because the aircraft is still traveling at high forward speed, the wing on this side is just folded over by its own lift while releasing the contents of the onside main fuel tank, and the rest of the aircraft is then rolled upside down by lift generated the other wing."

Bravo, A-FLOOR. Excellent description of the mechanics of the structural failure. Most interesting.