Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Spanair accident at Madrid

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Spanair accident at Madrid

Old 21st Aug 2008, 13:09
  #361 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Somewhere between MSL and the Stratosphere
Posts: 225
Its being done already fellas........!!! You just dont know bout it.....nor will u ever.THATS the whole purpose.Self utilisation and internal use only!! SCARY.........
The cameras on the runways and taxiways that is........

Last edited by boeingdream787; 21st Aug 2008 at 13:19.
boeingdream787 is offline  
Old 21st Aug 2008, 13:14
  #362 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Found in Toronto
Posts: 609
Originally Posted by Kyunghee View Post
A US newsaper reports the following:

Spanair says the plane that crashed in Madrid experienced overheating in an air intake valve prior to a first attempt at takeoff. It is not clear if this had anything to do with the crash that killed 153 of the 172 people aboard.
Company spokesman Javier Mendoza says the device, called an air intake probe, was reporting overheating in the front of the plane under the cockpit.
He said Thursday that technicians corrected the problem by ''de-energizing'' the probe, or turning it off. He says this is standard procedure.
Spanair says the plane was cleared by company technicians after the problem was fixed
So which is it? Is it a valve or a probe? That is an example of why you can't put much faith in these types of reports.
Lost in Saigon is offline  
Old 21st Aug 2008, 13:26
  #363 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Northern Europe
Age: 41
Posts: 132
It says the probe reported overheating in the valve... ...so it's both...
The Bartender is offline  
Old 21st Aug 2008, 13:31
  #364 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 100
I imagine they mean Bleed Air Overheat.
Airbus Unplugged is offline  
Old 21st Aug 2008, 13:36
  #365 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Age: 70
Posts: 12
It's not much use speculating as to which bit failed.After the failure the a/c was either unflyable or the guys were unable to fly it. The recorders should reveal which.
X-37 is offline  
Old 21st Aug 2008, 13:37
  #366 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Ireland
Posts: 94
This is actually my first day on this forum. I have joined other 'pilots forums' but have made a policy of not posting. I am not a pilot and not qualified in any aspect of aeronautics. Therefore I do not feel I have any right to comment on dreadful accidents such as this. However, I have a deep love of flying and aviation, that is why I visit these forums.
I agree with a few other comments on this and other threads that 'non-aviators' should not post on 'professional' forums. However, (as much as I agree) how can such a 'read only' policy be properly policed.

All I can say is that there are some pretty silly statements being made since yesterdays accident, some of them by the gutter media such as Sky News. It makes my blood boil when I see 'tabloid types' attempting to look convincing when using techical jargon of which they have absolutley no understanding. I also believe that journalists are posing on websites such as this in order to 'stir it up' and get someone to react by making potentially damaging responses, but tasty news.
AOB9 is offline  
Old 21st Aug 2008, 13:43
  #367 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 11
Air temperature probe or TAT probe

Total Air Temperature probe is the correct terminology. It is energized and provides heat to dispel any water or ice or precipitation that may occur. It, in my opinion had nothing to do with the crash. As far as reporting, the correct terminology may have been given to a reporter but then the reporter bastardizes the info or it gets lost in translation.
skyken is offline  
Old 21st Aug 2008, 13:56
  #368 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 206
Possibly a total red-herring, like the Concorde reverser work at CDG before the accident.
JamesT73J is offline  
Old 21st Aug 2008, 13:57
  #369 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 3,950
Any loss of life is a tragedy but you have to face the fact that life is a bit risky! But perhaps the media should concentrate on the 3,500 people who die on British roads every year (not to mention countless others who suffer serious injury) but this isn't headline news because it's "just" a few every day.

If you are going to pack scores of fragile people into narrow tubes and shoot them through the air at circa 600 miles per hour supported on wings full of inflammable explosive then maybe you shouldnt be surprised when things, very occasionally, go wrong. By any yardstick modern avaition is outstandingly safe. This is not a reason for complacency. Everyone who is involved in our exciting industry knows that the price of "failure" is high. The media (and to some extent all of us) are looking for instant answers in an age when speed is the essence. But accident investigation is a painstaking task which can take months if not years in certain cases.

I feel for the friends colleagues and family of all that have perished at Madrid. There is a comradeship in aviation which spreads worldwide - my prayers and thoughts are with those kindred spirits who were doing the challenging task which so many have now come to regard as "routine". We should remind ourselves that aviation is a miracle of the age we live in but the stakes can be high.
fireflybob is offline  
Old 21st Aug 2008, 13:59
  #370 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: .
Posts: 306
I've just seen this posted elsewhere:
I got a friend that work's on barajas tower i've asked him about what happens he said:

JKK5022 was at 36L ready to go and the crew request to return to the parking area because they reported something about technical issues.

It was being authorized to go to remote parking area 12 where it stays not much time.

New taxi to 36L this time.

Once it starts to take off...
- Rotated well but once on air the motor 2 started to burn V1 ok but not reached V2 then the plane started to bank right probably in a stall... goes down.

The plan of this plane was go from madrid to canarias it means at least 80%++ fuel, so the plane was probably full or so... so you know what this means.
I think he has a little bit of confusion going on in that text, but I felt it might still be useful to post here. Make of it what you will.
Nemrytter is offline  
Old 21st Aug 2008, 14:03
  #371 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Dublin
Posts: 1,806
4 of the cabin crew were MAD based.
4 more were BCN based positioning down to operate a flight the following day. Spanair bases are relatively small so everyone tends to know everyone within their base. So needless to say the entire airline is in a serious sense of shock and to have two base sets of crew involved is almost like a double knocking.
apaddyinuk is offline  
Old 21st Aug 2008, 14:28
  #372 (permalink)  
Stercus Accidit
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Swimming with bowlegged women
Posts: 262
Sky News just reporting that the aircraft experienced "overheating in the air intake valve"
This was translated in teh biggest Dutch newspaper as "problems with the air supply of the heating systems"...

Darn journalists....
Capt.KAOS is offline  
Old 21st Aug 2008, 14:29
  #373 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
errors in translation? who knows...but if the fire loop was "turned off" because it was detecting a hot air or BLEED air leek...maybe something else going on in the engine??

the DC9 has a RAT (ram air temp) does the MD80 have a TAT or A RAT (not ram air turbine in this case)
sevenstrokeroll is offline  
Old 21st Aug 2008, 14:36
  #374 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 103
Times Online

Apologies if this has been mentioned earlier in the thread but I'm not prepared to go though every post as most of this thread is utter dross especially the initial tit-for-tat 'updates'.

Putting that aside, I have noticed that the Times Online website is using selected posts from PPRuNe and heading them as "from the respected pilot's website, PPRuNe.org". Interesting use of the apostrophe suggests that that the pilots themselves are respected and not the website, which , considering the drivel posted by many of the contributors, is remarkably accurate.
Eagle402 is offline  
Old 21st Aug 2008, 14:41
  #375 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In my head
Posts: 683
@Frangible: Have a heart for the moderators on this one . I happened to be watching the news when it first happened and your suggestion of deleting a goodly proportion of the first few pages indeed happened. You can see from the first post when the news first hit the international headlines. Well I can tell you that in the first hour after that I saw Duck Rogers had very concisely and properly cut at least three pages down to two, despite it growing like Topsy with some chaoticly conflicting reports from very respected news agencies like Reuters, and attempts by some to follow every turn in the numbers (I reported one reversal myself so as not to raise false hopes too long when some said 2, some said none, some said 7 fatalities). But no-one in the first hour or two of tv reporting could have foreseen the scale of the disaster from the limited video available except dear old Chris Yates actually, who was rather put on the spot albeit being paid for it you might argue, and actually cautioned gently that it looked serious when he first saw the smoking aftermath in that long range El Mundo video). He did allow himself to hope on hope as we all did for a period after that when Reuters and one other had 'confirmed' no fatalities, but he is only human.

We might not enjoy his ums and ers but he was trying his best to be sensitive first and foremost to the needs of worried friends and relatives I think as the scant news hit the airwaves. And actually that was the priority and remains the priority, as SAS's CEO went to pains to say this morning.

Sadly, despite a brief twenty minutes or so yesterday of 100% false hope, this was not a BA038 'alls well that ends well on the day'. That's why it feels much different I guess just 24 hours in.

I think the mods have worked their socks off. From what I have seen, they were extremely quickly on to it like the PPRuNe emergency it was. They know that PPRuNe on such a day acts as a kind of repository for all the news as it breaks, and as such I think they have edited it admirably in the first cuts, and no doubt once they catch their breath, it will continue into the weeks ahead in some further tidied guise as a thread which commands the gravity it and this website deserve on all the major issues...

Last edited by slip and turn; 21st Aug 2008 at 15:15. Reason: ...not the best structured last sentence ... maybe still isn't ... but you probably know what I mean.
slip and turn is offline  
Old 21st Aug 2008, 14:47
  #376 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: No one's home...
Posts: 416
I am a strong advocate of teaching/learning especially when it is taken to heart. Initially, there are no stupid questions.
Yes, initially a novice can use that defense for questions but once the question is answered by those who know, it is no longer a learning situation.

Those who fly and who know about MELs and CDLs and systems have tried to explain that test flights for minor systems problems is not warranted anymore than a test drive in your car after replacing the knob on your radio. But some persist... and therein is the problem.

NO ONE knowingly takes an an airplane, car, bicycle, skates, horse that they think is defective and will cause injury and/or death once they attempt to use it. Often there seems to be some suspension of reality when it comes to applying normal human consideration and reasoning when it comes to airlines, pilots and flying. It is as if pilots and mechanics, who do this stuff everyday, have no understanding of consequence. Rubbish! and silly rubbish at that.
wileydog3 is offline  
Old 21st Aug 2008, 15:02
  #377 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: No one's home...
Posts: 416
what people are trying to point out to you that the aviation industry is not driven by safety; it is run as a commercial operation where profits are put ahead of true safety. If you do not believe this
Safety is merely one of the drivers and it competes with resources. You can be completely safe if you never fly but that will not make any money. There is no single factor and to say that any industry is driven solely for profit is not a correct summary.

Safety, reliability, efficiency are all in the formula and they are in conflict. So one has to decide what risks can be accepted. For example, many US carriers have stopped doing NDB approaches because the potential rewards do not justify the risks. Same with circling approaches.

There is no silver bullet, magic wand or single driver.
wileydog3 is offline  
Old 21st Aug 2008, 15:02
  #378 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Andalucia
Posts: 715
Post 382

The MD 80 has a single RAT probe, anti ice heated of course, and three outputs CADC #1 & #2 and Flight Deck instrument or System Display Panel which will depend on airframe age and instrument fit.
Wodrick is offline  
Old 21st Aug 2008, 15:02
  #379 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: OXF
Posts: 428
AmeliaJane, you echo the concern I raised last night (about a drop in elevation between the runway and its runoff beyond the end) and the strip of 'nothing' between the runway and its parallel counterpart. Even on Google Maps you can see that it is relatively rocky terrain with one map by a Spanish site showing the two streams that cross it. One apparently saved some of the passengers flung out of the plane.

As OFSO also points out, any major city with an airport in countries with very dry weather (where grass can suddenly go up in flames purely thanks to a shard of glass) will have some sort of well-planned emergency response to a major brush/bush fire. South Africa for example is also very well-prepared for this, especially considering that in winter there is generally no rain to speak of and high-speed winds can tear across the countryside, carrying fire very quickly across a very large expanse of terrain.

So the response by Madrid emergency authorities was well-executed.

S.
VAFFPAX is offline  
Old 21st Aug 2008, 15:06
  #380 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: No one's home...
Posts: 416
Vortex
It's amazing how so many are going on about how "current procedures are safe" and "we are happy to take it with this snag or that" but did I miss something or didn't an aircraft following those procedures just crash and kill 153 people?
The airplane was airborne and thus beyond V2. So no, procedures were not followed and that poses the question. Why?

No one trains to abort the takeoff after V1 and especially after getting airborne. You may remember a -1011 at JFK a few years ago when the crew got a false stick shaker warning and put the airplane back on the runway after getting airborne, again with negative consequences.

So, yes, you did miss something.
wileydog3 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.