Spanair MD-80 Incident At LPL
Guest
Posts: n/a
Firstly, thankfully no one was hurt.
Secondly it is clearly amateurish and unprofessional to aportion blame before the outcome of an inevitable investigation is known. So in the mean time......button it!
10kts tail wind limit? Is this solely for CAA/JAR Aircraft or does it also apply to FAA Aircraft. There is often a difference and the Spaniards used to operate American constructed aircraft under FAA rules. Perhaps things have changed since JAR but please be wary about aportioning blame too soon!
There was also the incident concerning a British Charter MD 83 a few years ago which had a gear collapse on taxi in at Manchester. Put down to metal fatigue I think.
Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up!
Secondly it is clearly amateurish and unprofessional to aportion blame before the outcome of an inevitable investigation is known. So in the mean time......button it!
10kts tail wind limit? Is this solely for CAA/JAR Aircraft or does it also apply to FAA Aircraft. There is often a difference and the Spaniards used to operate American constructed aircraft under FAA rules. Perhaps things have changed since JAR but please be wary about aportioning blame too soon!
There was also the incident concerning a British Charter MD 83 a few years ago which had a gear collapse on taxi in at Manchester. Put down to metal fatigue I think.
Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Wonder whose sector it was?
According to the BBC news this was a complete surprise. If it was expected (ie Bae ATP !) the Captain would land the aircraft.
Having said that, the BBC reported that the Pilot "did a good job"....So I guess spanair operate these aircraft single crew!
Journos ! I ask ya.
According to the BBC news this was a complete surprise. If it was expected (ie Bae ATP !) the Captain would land the aircraft.
Having said that, the BBC reported that the Pilot "did a good job"....So I guess spanair operate these aircraft single crew!
Journos ! I ask ya.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Just to clarify a couple of points. The Orange Brigade were at the holding point for 09 when this aircraft slid to a stop having landed on 27.The surface wind was Easterly, direction and speed unknown as I was out of sight of the windsock, & the ATIS in the ops room is acessed via the telephone, & was not on at the time. The subject aircraft attracted our attention because of the louder than normal reverse thrust. It was still travelling fast as it passed out of sight to the west of the tower. The remark passed was,"He landed rather long. did'nt he"?. About three minutes later it became evident that he was not going to taxy off the runway. The terminal remained busy but calm & Glory Be, nobody blamed Easy at all! So leave us out of this one fellows.Remember if you have the pole, you have the vote, you can refuse a runway allocation. Mind you Malaga also think that the wind has less effect if it is blowing on the thin bit at the back
Guest
Posts: n/a
Well done Kipper. There are some real idiots on these forums. Funny how the man from the "flying telephone number" gives the most sensible post on the subject so far.
Half of you lot should be working out of Farnborough with your obvious knack for AI.
Funny how the green monster rears it's ugly head when Orange is mentioned
Half of you lot should be working out of Farnborough with your obvious knack for AI.
Funny how the green monster rears it's ugly head when Orange is mentioned
Guest
Posts: n/a
The report into the airtours MD80 at EGCC can be found at http://www.aaib.detr.gov.uk/formal/gdevr/gdevr.htm
Guest
Posts: n/a
Herb
With respect, your profile says you're from DFW, so please let those who work around EGGP continue with their thoughts and debate.
I can't find anything yet on this thread which is idiotic.
The fact has been discussed that the runway in use at Liverpool is often a mystery, but the most common factor does seem to be what direction some operators aircraft are coming from or going to.
Had I said something like "Seems EZY control ATC and the runway in use at EGGP", then I would expect to be accused of being flippant, or even slanderous, but that was not the case.
All I suggested was the trend that Liverpool do chop and change the runway in use, and that perhaps there is a safety case to be answered there.
And I'm sure every EZY skipper will agree that coming from EGAA, most of them DO ask for 09 even when 27 is in use.
So, it was a reasoned suggestion, but it's your prerogative if you wish to take it personally and lower the debate to mud slinging and insults.
Having had a night to mull it over, I now wonder why a foreign carrier was given the non-duty runway for landing. He must have routed through either Whitegate or up A25, so it wouldn't really have made much difference to his track distance had he been brought round for 09.
In my experience, I have never had a Spanair crew ask for anything other than the duty runway.
So the question needs to be asked why he was vectored for 27 when the wind definitely favoured 09.
KipperFleet, adding to the mystery is the fact that you were waiting at the hold for departure off 09.
I have to hand it to EGGP ATCOs that they are normally red hot at getting traffic off the ground and not delaying them (by example, how many times inbound has the non-duty runway been denied you because they've had departure traffic coming off the duty runway?).
Just one other thing from your post Kipper, was the windsock out of view because of your location at the time, or is it also out of sight once lined up on 09 ? I recall this used to be a problem at EGCC on 06 until a 2nd sock was installed.
SPIT, you've just blown my argument out of the sky about reasoned and sensible posts.
This incident made it to the BBC1 afternoon news, SkyNews, BBC & local ITV news and also Channel 5. I don't think the location of an accident has any bearing on the press coverage. Oh, and ps., it's also bad netiquette TO SHOUT !!
With respect, your profile says you're from DFW, so please let those who work around EGGP continue with their thoughts and debate.
I can't find anything yet on this thread which is idiotic.
The fact has been discussed that the runway in use at Liverpool is often a mystery, but the most common factor does seem to be what direction some operators aircraft are coming from or going to.
Had I said something like "Seems EZY control ATC and the runway in use at EGGP", then I would expect to be accused of being flippant, or even slanderous, but that was not the case.
All I suggested was the trend that Liverpool do chop and change the runway in use, and that perhaps there is a safety case to be answered there.
And I'm sure every EZY skipper will agree that coming from EGAA, most of them DO ask for 09 even when 27 is in use.
So, it was a reasoned suggestion, but it's your prerogative if you wish to take it personally and lower the debate to mud slinging and insults.
Having had a night to mull it over, I now wonder why a foreign carrier was given the non-duty runway for landing. He must have routed through either Whitegate or up A25, so it wouldn't really have made much difference to his track distance had he been brought round for 09.
In my experience, I have never had a Spanair crew ask for anything other than the duty runway.
So the question needs to be asked why he was vectored for 27 when the wind definitely favoured 09.
KipperFleet, adding to the mystery is the fact that you were waiting at the hold for departure off 09.
I have to hand it to EGGP ATCOs that they are normally red hot at getting traffic off the ground and not delaying them (by example, how many times inbound has the non-duty runway been denied you because they've had departure traffic coming off the duty runway?).
Just one other thing from your post Kipper, was the windsock out of view because of your location at the time, or is it also out of sight once lined up on 09 ? I recall this used to be a problem at EGCC on 06 until a 2nd sock was installed.
SPIT, you've just blown my argument out of the sky about reasoned and sensible posts.
This incident made it to the BBC1 afternoon news, SkyNews, BBC & local ITV news and also Channel 5. I don't think the location of an accident has any bearing on the press coverage. Oh, and ps., it's also bad netiquette TO SHOUT !!
Guest
Posts: n/a
CURIOUS ONE -
If I'm reading the posts correctly, it appears that a tire burst, resulting in an overloaded landing gear, which then collapsed.
It rather sounds as though the actual tailwind component could have been legal.
It's early, relative to known details. This could be one of those 'pure' accidents with no one particularly at fault, except for driving to the airport on the wrong day.
If I'm reading the posts correctly, it appears that a tire burst, resulting in an overloaded landing gear, which then collapsed.
It rather sounds as though the actual tailwind component could have been legal.
It's early, relative to known details. This could be one of those 'pure' accidents with no one particularly at fault, except for driving to the airport on the wrong day.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Being based in Malaga for the past 8 months, I have had some experience with Spanair. I have always found them professional and customer oriented, much more so than Iberia.
Having said that, we were landing in Malaga last week, Rwy 14, with the wind advertised 300/8. Turning final the INS was showing 25-30 kt tailwind and a GS over 170kts.
The F/O was monitoring the winds and I was having an increasingly hard time maintaing speed and glide.
We discussed several times about the reason for using 14 instead of 32. At about 800' AGL the tower gave the wind as 300/14. That was enough for me. We executed a missed approach and the tower didnīt even question the reason. They immediately offered a visual to Rwy 32, which we accepted.
The B-727 also has a 10 kt tailwind component, but another thing to consider is the tire speed rating. Sometimes we have 225 MPH tires, and sometimes 170 MPH tires.
Over the fence on bug at 135 KTS with 10 or 12 KTS tailwind puts you pretty close to the limit of a 170 MPH tire. Wonder what kind of tires Spanair had?
Iīm not familiar with the layout at LPL, but if a tailwind is a factor, itīs the PIC that has the final say.
Having said that, we were landing in Malaga last week, Rwy 14, with the wind advertised 300/8. Turning final the INS was showing 25-30 kt tailwind and a GS over 170kts.
The F/O was monitoring the winds and I was having an increasingly hard time maintaing speed and glide.
We discussed several times about the reason for using 14 instead of 32. At about 800' AGL the tower gave the wind as 300/14. That was enough for me. We executed a missed approach and the tower didnīt even question the reason. They immediately offered a visual to Rwy 32, which we accepted.
The B-727 also has a 10 kt tailwind component, but another thing to consider is the tire speed rating. Sometimes we have 225 MPH tires, and sometimes 170 MPH tires.
Over the fence on bug at 135 KTS with 10 or 12 KTS tailwind puts you pretty close to the limit of a 170 MPH tire. Wonder what kind of tires Spanair had?
Iīm not familiar with the layout at LPL, but if a tailwind is a factor, itīs the PIC that has the final say.
Guest
Posts: n/a
The MD80-tires I fly on (SK) has a max. groundspeed of 195 kts. As I understand the Spanairflight only carried approx. 50 pax and with a "normal" landingfuel of some 3-4 tons (at the most) the Vref should have been somewhere in the neighbourhood of 130 kts, so even landing with an above limit tailwind of 15 kts shouldn`t give a problem with regard to max. certified tirespeed.
Spanair might use some other kind of tires, though ??? Glad everybody got away o.k.
Spanair might use some other kind of tires, though ??? Glad everybody got away o.k.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Firstly it should be said that thankfully no one was badly hurt in this incident.
Secondly well done to the crew and the emergency services.
Thirdly ATC decide the runway in use, NOT the airlines. Granting landings/take offs on the non duty runway surely cannot be unique to Liverpool and every effort is made to accommodate requests subject traffic and other operational reasons.
Why has Ezy been dragged into this thread when clearly it has nothing to do with them? Although they are the major passenger carrier, there are other passenger and freight carriers operating at Liverpool and, in my experience, all requests for expeditious arr/deps on the non duty runway are treated equally.
If the use of the non duty runway creates a safety case then this should be addressed to ATC management.
Secondly well done to the crew and the emergency services.
Thirdly ATC decide the runway in use, NOT the airlines. Granting landings/take offs on the non duty runway surely cannot be unique to Liverpool and every effort is made to accommodate requests subject traffic and other operational reasons.
Why has Ezy been dragged into this thread when clearly it has nothing to do with them? Although they are the major passenger carrier, there are other passenger and freight carriers operating at Liverpool and, in my experience, all requests for expeditious arr/deps on the non duty runway are treated equally.
If the use of the non duty runway creates a safety case then this should be addressed to ATC management.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I watched this particular aircraft's approach and landing. I must admit that compared to other jet aircraft approach profiles, it was travelling very fast and it did land long.
This is just my personal observation and I am not to sure whether it was a contributary factor.
Glad everyone was OK, pilot did a good job of keeping her straight.
This is just my personal observation and I am not to sure whether it was a contributary factor.
Glad everyone was OK, pilot did a good job of keeping her straight.
Guest
Posts: n/a
The runway was closed for several hours while LPL waited for the accident investigators to come up from the south. This has also delayed reopening at MAN for hours in the past. Shouldn't there be a regional office or a regional investigator who can do the necessary and then get things back to normal much quicker? This is not an insensitive point-like others say lets be thankful there were no casualties.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Practice Cat II ( properly done )- would normally add ten knots to your speed, Vref plus ten until visual is the sop with my outfit. Visual at 100ft means over the threshold, . Max tailwind limit for a cat II approach is normally 5kts.
One other thing, if a tire bursts, the undercarriage shouldn't collapse - despite what may have been some poor airmanship if what we read here is true, the end result does not seem to have been caused by anything the crew did.
------------------
"How can we soar like eagles when we're surrounded by turkeys"
One other thing, if a tire bursts, the undercarriage shouldn't collapse - despite what may have been some poor airmanship if what we read here is true, the end result does not seem to have been caused by anything the crew did.
------------------
"How can we soar like eagles when we're surrounded by turkeys"