Sabadell Closed
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sabadell Closed (update)
After a light aircraft accident Sabadell Aerodrome, just out side Barcelona, is closed to ALL traffic for the foreseeable future. Check NOTAMS for LELL.........
Accident caused by light aircraft hitting an unmarked crane shortly after takeoff.
News link:
http://www.barcelonareporter.com/ind...near_sabadell/
Story:
The mayoress of Sant Quirze del Vallès, Elisabet Oliveras, has denied that the 35m high crane against which a small aircraft crashed on Monday, resulting in the deaths of all four people onboard, was illegal. She based her comments on the fact that the crane was situated outside of the airport’s flight path and that authorities based at the airport in Sabadell were aware of the installation of the crane locally. ‘The only thing lacking was acknowledgement from [the Spanish airports authority] AENA and the Ministerio de Fomento’, assured Oliveras.
She reiterated that despite contacting the Ministerio de Fomento for permits, it is commonplace that the department ‘though asked, never responds’. Oliveras explained that ‘it is bad central government practice not to give a reply’. She added that the airport in Sabadell always received notifications of new cranes being installed locally.
The Aeroclub de Sabadell has said that it intends to complain to the local city council, the Ajuntament, if ‘irregularities exist in the permits’. Aeroclub spokesperson Lluís Oliva said ‘the aeroplane did not fall. It collided against an unmarked crane’. The crane was painted in blue, and not in red and white, as the regulations say it should have been.
The local authority of Sant Quirze del Vallès in return state that the small aircraft ‘was flying 50 metres below what it should have been’
Accident caused by light aircraft hitting an unmarked crane shortly after takeoff.
News link:
http://www.barcelonareporter.com/ind...near_sabadell/
Story:
The mayoress of Sant Quirze del Vallès, Elisabet Oliveras, has denied that the 35m high crane against which a small aircraft crashed on Monday, resulting in the deaths of all four people onboard, was illegal. She based her comments on the fact that the crane was situated outside of the airport’s flight path and that authorities based at the airport in Sabadell were aware of the installation of the crane locally. ‘The only thing lacking was acknowledgement from [the Spanish airports authority] AENA and the Ministerio de Fomento’, assured Oliveras.
She reiterated that despite contacting the Ministerio de Fomento for permits, it is commonplace that the department ‘though asked, never responds’. Oliveras explained that ‘it is bad central government practice not to give a reply’. She added that the airport in Sabadell always received notifications of new cranes being installed locally.
The Aeroclub de Sabadell has said that it intends to complain to the local city council, the Ajuntament, if ‘irregularities exist in the permits’. Aeroclub spokesperson Lluís Oliva said ‘the aeroplane did not fall. It collided against an unmarked crane’. The crane was painted in blue, and not in red and white, as the regulations say it should have been.
The local authority of Sant Quirze del Vallès in return state that the small aircraft ‘was flying 50 metres below what it should have been’
Last edited by Hangar3; 28th Oct 2005 at 09:23.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm fortunate enough to be able to borrow an aeroplane that resides at Sabadell.
I must admit that the idea of an EFATO there was even less appealing than at many other aerodromes because it is so heavily built up.
Nice place, nice restaurant on the field.
Stik
I must admit that the idea of an EFATO there was even less appealing than at many other aerodromes because it is so heavily built up.
Nice place, nice restaurant on the field.
Stik
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The local authority of Sant Quirze del Vallès in return state that the small aircraft ‘was flying 50 metres below what it should have been’
Are there published departures that state rate of climb limits?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would be interested to know how the authorities knew what height it should be at on a climb out. Are they suggesting that it was performance-limited in some way?
What you do is check the obstacle limitation surfaces against where the crane is. If it is below the surfaces then the aircraft should have cleared it by whatever the standard minimum climb gradient acheives at that point. Note - most aircraft climb far quicker than that.
If the crane is higher than the obstacle limitation surfaces then it should have been NOTAMed. However this aside, it is very easy to get the aircraft flight manual, calculate the climb gradient and reduce it by a factor (net performance) and one has the height at which the aircraft should have been at that position.
There are minimum rates of climb for every category of aircraft. Even permit to fly aircraft have to demonstrate a minimum rate of climb.
Pilots are often unaware of or ignore the standard obstacle limitation surfaces - see other topic regarding landing distances - and as I said some time ago in that topic - when something happens, your ass is on the line if the authorities (or the insurance company) can show that you did not keep the required separation from those obstacle surfaces!
Regards,
DFC
What you do is check the obstacle limitation surfaces against where the crane is. If it is below the surfaces then the aircraft should have cleared it by whatever the standard minimum climb gradient acheives at that point. Note - most aircraft climb far quicker than that.
If the crane is higher than the obstacle limitation surfaces then it should have been NOTAMed. However this aside, it is very easy to get the aircraft flight manual, calculate the climb gradient and reduce it by a factor (net performance) and one has the height at which the aircraft should have been at that position.
There are minimum rates of climb for every category of aircraft. Even permit to fly aircraft have to demonstrate a minimum rate of climb.
Pilots are often unaware of or ignore the standard obstacle limitation surfaces - see other topic regarding landing distances - and as I said some time ago in that topic - when something happens, your ass is on the line if the authorities (or the insurance company) can show that you did not keep the required separation from those obstacle surfaces!
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spain can have a cavalier attitude to safety. At one small airfield I've been to there were fence posts hidden in the grass, just high enough to hit a wing during taxi. One has to be very careful, even more than here.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Italy
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just checked with a spanish friend that bases his Seneca there.
Sabadell is open to traffic
rwy 900m 31-13
AVGAS 100 available
VOR DME 112.00 - NDB 367 - twr 120.80
elevation 476 ft - circuit height at least 1700 ft for noise abatement
AE
Sabadell is open to traffic
rwy 900m 31-13
AVGAS 100 available
VOR DME 112.00 - NDB 367 - twr 120.80
elevation 476 ft - circuit height at least 1700 ft for noise abatement
AE
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Abroad
Posts: 1,172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by NG708
Would be interested to know how the authorities knew what height it should be at on a climb out. Are they suggesting that it was performance-limited in some way?
The conclusion he seemed to imply was that, as well as there being failures in the preventative front, pilot error was a determining factor. He claims he was a friend of the pilot.
Please note that I'm only relaying what was said to me during a casual conversation with some unknown person. You should take the above as the rumour it is.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Madrid, SPAIN
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have also heard the C172 was over its MTOW, and it seems to be true, but we can't assure anything until the official inform is released.
What is true and confirmed is that the crane was not authorized by DGAC (equivalent to CAA in UK) and it was higher than the obstacle limitation surfaces.
What is true and confirmed is that the crane was not authorized by DGAC (equivalent to CAA in UK) and it was higher than the obstacle limitation surfaces.
