Spanair MD-80 Incident At LPL
Guest
Posts: n/a
Not so MightyGem, though you would think so wouldn't you.
There are many differences between FAA & CAA figures. You frequently find that under FAA rules the max Mach number is a higher figure than under CAA rules, with wet runway performance the CAA assume that a reverser is inoperative whereas the FAA don't, tailwind limits often vary.......that is why I raised the matter.
There are many differences between FAA & CAA figures. You frequently find that under FAA rules the max Mach number is a higher figure than under CAA rules, with wet runway performance the CAA assume that a reverser is inoperative whereas the FAA don't, tailwind limits often vary.......that is why I raised the matter.
Guest
Posts: n/a
There are a number of people on this site who get quite offended when anyone proffers a possible reason for a reported accident (e.g. Big Red L and Gorilla). Be advised there are many others who contribute to this site who have a lot of experience and can provide valid possibilities for causes to an accident. We have heard that the crew elected to make an approach with a tailwind out of limits to a fairly short runway. Furthermore it was a practice cat II approach (even more restricted tailwind limits), the wind given by the tower is the surface wind (it would be stronger further up the approach) and the crew were not familiar with Liverpool. I think we can make a reasoned conclusion that the crew exercised fairly poor judgement.
Now hit me.
Now hit me.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Gorilla, Mighty Gem,
Not only are there certification differences based on where the aircraft is registered, there are also differences based on different airlines desired SCN's. For example, under the FAA system an airline may have a 10 kt tailwind limit, or they may decided to PURCHASE the option to increase this to 15 kts.
This can also apply to takeoff thrust, 5 minutes is the norm, but for an additional fee you can get 10 minutes.
===========
I dont know if this applies to Spanair or the MD80, but before anyone decides to blame the pilot for busting limits, i think that you better have a look at his AFM.
Mutt.
Not only are there certification differences based on where the aircraft is registered, there are also differences based on different airlines desired SCN's. For example, under the FAA system an airline may have a 10 kt tailwind limit, or they may decided to PURCHASE the option to increase this to 15 kts.
This can also apply to takeoff thrust, 5 minutes is the norm, but for an additional fee you can get 10 minutes.
===========
I dont know if this applies to Spanair or the MD80, but before anyone decides to blame the pilot for busting limits, i think that you better have a look at his AFM.
Mutt.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I have to agree with Flap 5, one of the best uses of this site is the immediate discussion and dissemination of info about incidents. The professional pilots amongst us can hopefully filter out the wheat from the chaff and build up a picture of what possibly happened – subject of course to any official report many months down the line.
It is crazy for contributors to get wound up about the speculations of others on what we all know to be an anonymous bulletin board whose membership is not confined to pilots. You have to take the good with the bad and use your own judgement about what to believe here. If you don’t like it, log off.
As if to prove my point about good & bad, Liverpool (EGGP) is not short by any means at LDA 7300ft for RW09 & 7500ft for RW27.
S & L
It is crazy for contributors to get wound up about the speculations of others on what we all know to be an anonymous bulletin board whose membership is not confined to pilots. You have to take the good with the bad and use your own judgement about what to believe here. If you don’t like it, log off.
As if to prove my point about good & bad, Liverpool (EGGP) is not short by any means at LDA 7300ft for RW09 & 7500ft for RW27.
S & L
Guest
Posts: n/a
A bit of info...some are near facts and this info does not come from any official source
1.- EC-FXI was performing a normal approach (see icliverpool.co.uk news May 11 2001)
2.- A/C was not "high and hot" over the threshold (inside source).
3.- A/C stopped within 2/3 of available runway (got the picture)
4.- A/C remained almost in center line (got the picture)
5.- Pictures show Right MLG collapsed and folded aft parallel to fuselage.
6.- Crew was VERY familiar with liverpool
(know that for a fact if you want to take my word for it)
Other facts that may be interesting to consider:
MD83 with 50 Pax and 8000lbs of fuel at landing:
Estimated LW 105Klbs
Vref about 120 Kts
Max T/W 10Kts (AFM)
LDistance @105KLbs 10Kts T/W: 3000feet
LDistance @105KLbs 0 Wind : 2700feet
LDistance @MLW 139.5KLBS 10Kts T/W: 3600feet
LDistance @MLW 139.5KLbs 0 Wind : 3200feet
LDA Liverpool: 7200 feet
Not very much to make a report with but maybe tailwind had nothing to do with the incident
Happy landings
1.- EC-FXI was performing a normal approach (see icliverpool.co.uk news May 11 2001)
2.- A/C was not "high and hot" over the threshold (inside source).
3.- A/C stopped within 2/3 of available runway (got the picture)
4.- A/C remained almost in center line (got the picture)
5.- Pictures show Right MLG collapsed and folded aft parallel to fuselage.
6.- Crew was VERY familiar with liverpool
(know that for a fact if you want to take my word for it)
Other facts that may be interesting to consider:
MD83 with 50 Pax and 8000lbs of fuel at landing:
Estimated LW 105Klbs
Vref about 120 Kts
Max T/W 10Kts (AFM)
LDistance @105KLbs 10Kts T/W: 3000feet
LDistance @105KLbs 0 Wind : 2700feet
LDistance @MLW 139.5KLBS 10Kts T/W: 3600feet
LDistance @MLW 139.5KLbs 0 Wind : 3200feet
LDA Liverpool: 7200 feet
Not very much to make a report with but maybe tailwind had nothing to do with the incident
Happy landings
Guest
Posts: n/a
Critical Mach
I can confirm the position of the starboard under carriage as u describe as I was at the scene and saw it in situ before it was removed.
(For those wondering why I was there we brought in the Spanair guys from MAN and replacement wheels plus jacking equipment to the scene)
P.S. We were also on Airline tonite as well !
I can confirm the position of the starboard under carriage as u describe as I was at the scene and saw it in situ before it was removed.
(For those wondering why I was there we brought in the Spanair guys from MAN and replacement wheels plus jacking equipment to the scene)
P.S. We were also on Airline tonite as well !
Guest
Posts: n/a
As one who attempts to keep order in the skies above Liverpool; 2 things:
1) The inbound Spanair crew specifically requested a practice CAT II approach to 27, they knew about the windspeed/direction but elected to continue....... whoops.
2) The runway in use IS the runway in use. Any crew requesting the opposite end will only get it if it suits us AND Manch. There are NO PREFERENCES given to particular carriers ( you know who I mean!!) Just ask and ye may well receive.
PS Having taken part in the sims. at Manch for new Liv. Approach Procedures, at 35 IFR's an hour you can whistle for an opposite end approach/departure...................!!!!!
1) The inbound Spanair crew specifically requested a practice CAT II approach to 27, they knew about the windspeed/direction but elected to continue....... whoops.
2) The runway in use IS the runway in use. Any crew requesting the opposite end will only get it if it suits us AND Manch. There are NO PREFERENCES given to particular carriers ( you know who I mean!!) Just ask and ye may well receive.
PS Having taken part in the sims. at Manch for new Liv. Approach Procedures, at 35 IFR's an hour you can whistle for an opposite end approach/departure...................!!!!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Squibbler
When Liverpool call the MACC sector with the message "It'll be 09 for the XXX", how is that taking into account whether it suits us ?!
To be honest, it makes very little difference to the operation of the sector if you do decide to slip one in on the non-duty runway.
HOWEVER, what makes us all look totally unprofessional is when the runway is chopped and changed.
I understand you're trying to be expeditious for the traffic (as we all are), but to take yesterday morning's EZY flight into EGGP from EGAA, his runway for landing was changed 5 (yes, FIVE) times in the time it took him to fly from the IOM to WAL.
Having been told it was 09, we'd got him down to 3,500ft before WAL, only to be then told there was a WAL dep coming off 27 and that he would be landing on 27 afterall.
I'm not mud-slinging here, but trying to be constructive.
To my mind (and I'm not trying to teach my grandmother to suck eggs), it seems better to delay the outbound for a couple of minutes seeing as the inbound had been descended and vectored towards 09, with about 15nm to run. Instead, the inbound found himself down at 3500ft with an extra 35 miles of track, low and slow.....and the pilot's tone of voice made it very clear what he thought about it ( It's not our fault guv, honest !)
Another question: how soon after start-up is EGGP approach told by the tower of an impending departure ? I wonder if this may have been a factor in the occurrence described above.
The sims were fun weren't they !!
Cheers
When Liverpool call the MACC sector with the message "It'll be 09 for the XXX", how is that taking into account whether it suits us ?!
To be honest, it makes very little difference to the operation of the sector if you do decide to slip one in on the non-duty runway.
HOWEVER, what makes us all look totally unprofessional is when the runway is chopped and changed.
I understand you're trying to be expeditious for the traffic (as we all are), but to take yesterday morning's EZY flight into EGGP from EGAA, his runway for landing was changed 5 (yes, FIVE) times in the time it took him to fly from the IOM to WAL.
Having been told it was 09, we'd got him down to 3,500ft before WAL, only to be then told there was a WAL dep coming off 27 and that he would be landing on 27 afterall.
I'm not mud-slinging here, but trying to be constructive.
To my mind (and I'm not trying to teach my grandmother to suck eggs), it seems better to delay the outbound for a couple of minutes seeing as the inbound had been descended and vectored towards 09, with about 15nm to run. Instead, the inbound found himself down at 3500ft with an extra 35 miles of track, low and slow.....and the pilot's tone of voice made it very clear what he thought about it ( It's not our fault guv, honest !)
Another question: how soon after start-up is EGGP approach told by the tower of an impending departure ? I wonder if this may have been a factor in the occurrence described above.
The sims were fun weren't they !!
Cheers
Guest
Posts: n/a
160to4DME
Scenario: RW 09 in use at EGGP, wind 070/3 kts. ABC 123 calls for push & start for EGNS (WAL 2V) and requests 27 (WAL 2T). No inbounds due for 30 minutes, Tower calls Radar "09 for the ABC 123?" , Radar says "Fine with me", Tower approves 27 for the ABC 123 and clears for push & start. Tower rings MACC West with est. a/b time and the SID, highlighting that this departure will be off 27. MACC say ok and issue squawk.
In my experience they have never come back and said "that will cause problems he'll have to go off 09". Feel free to knock us back if it's gonna mess u about, we can take it, the ABC 123 will just have to lump it!!
Not guilty squire, I was on yesterday afternoon!!
You do have a point regarding the inbound EZY from EGAA, that just seems like poor deciscion making, maybe there was some training in progress...........( always a good excuse!).
Regarding inbounds in general, it's very rare for an ATCO to offer the opposite end, we like a simple life. The inbound will almost always ask for the other end on box 2 well in advance. The usual response is "We'll see, subject to traffic, let u know via Manch".
Ultimately it's down to the skill and judgement of the radar and tower persons on duty as to whether or not it's feasible. Sometimes, as you described, it all goes tits up and we all look stupid.
Personally, I only do opposite end approaches if I know that it will all work ok and nobody will be mucked about as a result, and those cases are few and far between. As far as I'm concerned the runway in use IS the runway in use and base my ATC craft around that.
Some ATCO's however are at times trying to be too flexible and you end up with the scenario you descibed above, but that's certainly not specific to EGGP ATC. Trust me, I have worked at other units...........!!!!
Answer to your question: The radar man has the tower frequency selected on low volume so he should be aware of an impending departure be it when he calls for start or taxi. It is not procedure at the moment for the tower to call radar with notification of an outbound starting, although perhaps it should be. Sometimes you are only aware of the outbound when tower call for a release. It's not ideal but were working towards fine tuning our procedures........hopefully to the point where cheer up can cheer up!!
Ta
------------------
No, you can't have 09!
Scenario: RW 09 in use at EGGP, wind 070/3 kts. ABC 123 calls for push & start for EGNS (WAL 2V) and requests 27 (WAL 2T). No inbounds due for 30 minutes, Tower calls Radar "09 for the ABC 123?" , Radar says "Fine with me", Tower approves 27 for the ABC 123 and clears for push & start. Tower rings MACC West with est. a/b time and the SID, highlighting that this departure will be off 27. MACC say ok and issue squawk.
In my experience they have never come back and said "that will cause problems he'll have to go off 09". Feel free to knock us back if it's gonna mess u about, we can take it, the ABC 123 will just have to lump it!!
Not guilty squire, I was on yesterday afternoon!!
You do have a point regarding the inbound EZY from EGAA, that just seems like poor deciscion making, maybe there was some training in progress...........( always a good excuse!).
Regarding inbounds in general, it's very rare for an ATCO to offer the opposite end, we like a simple life. The inbound will almost always ask for the other end on box 2 well in advance. The usual response is "We'll see, subject to traffic, let u know via Manch".
Ultimately it's down to the skill and judgement of the radar and tower persons on duty as to whether or not it's feasible. Sometimes, as you described, it all goes tits up and we all look stupid.
Personally, I only do opposite end approaches if I know that it will all work ok and nobody will be mucked about as a result, and those cases are few and far between. As far as I'm concerned the runway in use IS the runway in use and base my ATC craft around that.
Some ATCO's however are at times trying to be too flexible and you end up with the scenario you descibed above, but that's certainly not specific to EGGP ATC. Trust me, I have worked at other units...........!!!!
Answer to your question: The radar man has the tower frequency selected on low volume so he should be aware of an impending departure be it when he calls for start or taxi. It is not procedure at the moment for the tower to call radar with notification of an outbound starting, although perhaps it should be. Sometimes you are only aware of the outbound when tower call for a release. It's not ideal but were working towards fine tuning our procedures........hopefully to the point where cheer up can cheer up!!
Ta
------------------
No, you can't have 09!
Guest
Posts: n/a
160to4DME & Manky
Just a thought, if you are referring to the first inbound EZY of the day from EGAA then that would be the night shift doing the decision making re. the runway. Our nights finish at 7:00am & the EZY usuall pitches up just before then.
In defence of my colleagues that could be a factor.................!!
------------------
No, you can't have 09!
Just a thought, if you are referring to the first inbound EZY of the day from EGAA then that would be the night shift doing the decision making re. the runway. Our nights finish at 7:00am & the EZY usuall pitches up just before then.
In defence of my colleagues that could be a factor.................!!
------------------
No, you can't have 09!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Flap 5 I made the point after only the 3rd post regarding this incident. At that time, no-one knew what had really happened. I wasn't offended as you put it, just a bit pissed off that someone was making accusations about the crew without knowing the full story. How many times have we seen this happen. If you had an incident like this (god hope you don't), you wouldn't be too pleased to see that kind of post would you.? I know i wouldn't be happy.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Airline news at www.justplanes.com is saying that "subsequent examination has revealed evidence of a fatigue crack in main landing gear strut". There is however, no source quoted for this information.