Spanair accident at Madrid
it has two flaws...bad piloting and bad maintenance.
The DC9 was called the last "pilot's airliner".
If you point at the md80 crashes by the third world airlines, see the above
The DC9 was called the last "pilot's airliner".
If you point at the md80 crashes by the third world airlines, see the above
But the bad maintenance is not restricted to third world countries.
Alaska Airlines Flight 261 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Curacao
Age: 47
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Something else.....
Hi all,
I've taken the time to read 20 pages of posts. Some more "apt" than others to be sure i don't kick in open doors or appear to be a quick poster.
Here are some reasons why I'm leaning more and more to extraordinary circumstances in the emergency phase of this flight.
Here a few facts about the MD-80 and this particular situation. Some haven't been mentioned before, some have.
1. Contrary to some posts and article the MD80 is a VERY safe plane. Especially in this scenario because,
2. Together with the MD-11, (dunno about the DC-10), the MD-80 is one of the very few aircraft equipped with the "dial a flap" system allowing the optimum use of ANY flap setting for a specific runway (e.g. Flaps 3.8°). Meaning that at the long runway, that particular flight wold have had a VERY high rotation speed because of very low flaps settings. Maybe even less than 5°!. This system of course must be used by the airline. The high speed does not bode well in case of an RTO due to extra mass, but the high speed and low flaps are invaluable in an N-1 situation and airborne.
3. The MD80 has conventional controls, and were the rudder to lose hydraulic pressure (in this case due to damage, as the rudder receives hydraulic pressure from thr #2 system) it would automatically revert to a control tab setup. The high rotation speed in this scenario would benefit the control tab operation.
4. The MD80 has 2 independant hydraulic systems, one AUX pump in the #2 system (because of the importance of the rudder), PLUS a transfer pump that is able to trasfer hydraulic pressure from one sytem to the other.
5. The MD80, contrary to some erroneous articles is highly dependant and highly redundant as can be seen from point 4. This model was newer than some A320 even, throwing away the notion that old planes are unsafe. Remember the 777 engine shutdown problems? The A320 flight control computer woes in the late 80's and early 90's? The MD80 had nothing of the kind. The AA MD80 grounding was because they neglected to perform an AD note that had been issues for at LEAST one year.
6. A system on the MD80 automatically reduces rudder movement with increasing speed, helping the pilots in eliminating the need to pay extra attention to rudder overuse.
7. A reverser deployment between V1 and V2 I think is indeed one of the most horrific scenrios a well trained crew can face. But the obvious mention of and explosion and/or fire rules that out "in my opinion".
No, in my opinion there must be something else we don't know yet (actually we don't know jack sh*t). It may have been an uncontained explosion severing important control cable to the rudder. It may also be incorrect procedures followed for this situation. One other thing the crews did have going against them "probably" was the fact that being a long runway, they would have been derating the engines. On the MD80, when you derate, you lose the Automatic Reserve Thrust feature. Of course this, together with runway length, temps, any MEL items, winds and more, are automatically taken into account in the load sheet software and runway analysis/takeoff speeds and weights. But it's still a small tool they could have had. Even so, there's another system called the ATR (automatic Thrust Restoration) which "should" have set the thrust of the remaining engine at least to G/A thrust in this particular scenatio.
Other than that, the only thing I can see as working against the crews that fatefull afternoon, was if MAYBE the RAT sensor was measuring errouneously and this sending false data to the thrust rating computer. But it's a wild assumption (as is most of what I'm saying as we simply don't know yet). Lastly, the MD80 is loooong. Small elevators, swept wings and a very narrow wheel base. She's NOT an easy plane to fly.
Lastly I want to point out that my post is intended as information to those interested in a more technical view and not those fed by newspapers. It's not my view of what must have happened. I'm an airline pilot and in any case deeply mourn the loss of life and know that no matter how many times you enter a sim, life throws curves at you. My conelences to those affected, and let's at least hope we can all learn from this devastating situation.
Xander
I've taken the time to read 20 pages of posts. Some more "apt" than others to be sure i don't kick in open doors or appear to be a quick poster.
Here are some reasons why I'm leaning more and more to extraordinary circumstances in the emergency phase of this flight.
Here a few facts about the MD-80 and this particular situation. Some haven't been mentioned before, some have.
1. Contrary to some posts and article the MD80 is a VERY safe plane. Especially in this scenario because,
2. Together with the MD-11, (dunno about the DC-10), the MD-80 is one of the very few aircraft equipped with the "dial a flap" system allowing the optimum use of ANY flap setting for a specific runway (e.g. Flaps 3.8°). Meaning that at the long runway, that particular flight wold have had a VERY high rotation speed because of very low flaps settings. Maybe even less than 5°!. This system of course must be used by the airline. The high speed does not bode well in case of an RTO due to extra mass, but the high speed and low flaps are invaluable in an N-1 situation and airborne.
3. The MD80 has conventional controls, and were the rudder to lose hydraulic pressure (in this case due to damage, as the rudder receives hydraulic pressure from thr #2 system) it would automatically revert to a control tab setup. The high rotation speed in this scenario would benefit the control tab operation.
4. The MD80 has 2 independant hydraulic systems, one AUX pump in the #2 system (because of the importance of the rudder), PLUS a transfer pump that is able to trasfer hydraulic pressure from one sytem to the other.
5. The MD80, contrary to some erroneous articles is highly dependant and highly redundant as can be seen from point 4. This model was newer than some A320 even, throwing away the notion that old planes are unsafe. Remember the 777 engine shutdown problems? The A320 flight control computer woes in the late 80's and early 90's? The MD80 had nothing of the kind. The AA MD80 grounding was because they neglected to perform an AD note that had been issues for at LEAST one year.
6. A system on the MD80 automatically reduces rudder movement with increasing speed, helping the pilots in eliminating the need to pay extra attention to rudder overuse.
7. A reverser deployment between V1 and V2 I think is indeed one of the most horrific scenrios a well trained crew can face. But the obvious mention of and explosion and/or fire rules that out "in my opinion".
No, in my opinion there must be something else we don't know yet (actually we don't know jack sh*t). It may have been an uncontained explosion severing important control cable to the rudder. It may also be incorrect procedures followed for this situation. One other thing the crews did have going against them "probably" was the fact that being a long runway, they would have been derating the engines. On the MD80, when you derate, you lose the Automatic Reserve Thrust feature. Of course this, together with runway length, temps, any MEL items, winds and more, are automatically taken into account in the load sheet software and runway analysis/takeoff speeds and weights. But it's still a small tool they could have had. Even so, there's another system called the ATR (automatic Thrust Restoration) which "should" have set the thrust of the remaining engine at least to G/A thrust in this particular scenatio.
Other than that, the only thing I can see as working against the crews that fatefull afternoon, was if MAYBE the RAT sensor was measuring errouneously and this sending false data to the thrust rating computer. But it's a wild assumption (as is most of what I'm saying as we simply don't know yet). Lastly, the MD80 is loooong. Small elevators, swept wings and a very narrow wheel base. She's NOT an easy plane to fly.
Lastly I want to point out that my post is intended as information to those interested in a more technical view and not those fed by newspapers. It's not my view of what must have happened. I'm an airline pilot and in any case deeply mourn the loss of life and know that no matter how many times you enter a sim, life throws curves at you. My conelences to those affected, and let's at least hope we can all learn from this devastating situation.
Xander
Join Date: Jan 1997
Location: UK
Posts: 7,737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Depending on your personal settings most of you will see 20 posts on the first page of this thread.
However we can see 37, an indication of how the 4 mods working this forum yesterday were cutting away the breathless pack.
Additionally we spent much of the evening and again today briefing journalists contacting us. There aren't any excuses for them not being able to write without speaking to current pilots who can excise the nonsense.
Rob
However we can see 37, an indication of how the 4 mods working this forum yesterday were cutting away the breathless pack.
Additionally we spent much of the evening and again today briefing journalists contacting us. There aren't any excuses for them not being able to write without speaking to current pilots who can excise the nonsense.
Rob
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: No one's home...
Posts: 416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EFANAS
So you believe the pilots would not have any reservations about someone 'pencil whipping' a potentially serious problem?
And try to explain, please, why the crew would have 'gethereitis' when they are departing for an station that is not a domicile. Generally 'getthereitis' is associated with trying to get HOME, not trying to get away from home.
looks like a pencilwhip regarding the temp. probe; OPS pulls the same old number over there too, he; if they would have looked the engine over a little better, which you would expect after a taxiback, nothing would have happened; never flown a DC 9, but friends tell me the plane can be a squirly handful low and slow; to me fatal getthereritis got them
And try to explain, please, why the crew would have 'gethereitis' when they are departing for an station that is not a domicile. Generally 'getthereitis' is associated with trying to get HOME, not trying to get away from home.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Argentina
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1.
In md80 (jt8d-200series engine) for takeoff, first you have to acelerate to 1.4 EPR, let both engines stabilize and then aply full power. That is because the engines take its time to accelerate and it happens frecuently ( depenending on bleed configuration and other stuff), sometime one engine spools up faster than the other and if you aply full power could yaw the aircraft. Another fact is that you have to check parameters at 1.4 EPR (all shoud be ok to proceed). Another fact is that at 60 kts the autothrottle uncluth (clump) and no longer control the throttles lever, so if you dont reach take off power at 60 kts, the autothrottle just leave the power it reaches at 60 kts, so lets suppose one engine reach takeoff power, the other just spooling, airplane starts to move, a moderate headwind, the airplane reaches 60 kts and only one engine reaches T/O power, the other less power, then engine failure of first engine.....
2. the md80 is one of the safest, strong plane, most of the accident involve md were pilot or mnt problems.
3. the md has 1 rat probe, and give information to the TRP (thrust rating panel) which tells the different max EPR for different cnfig (t/o, clb, etc), but you always have a t/o card that tells EPR T/O and have to match the EPR T/O on TRP, if it doesnt something is wrong.
4.Someone said it is difficult to control yaw in V1cut in md80, that is not true, you even need less rudder pedal than 737 and a little aileron.
5. just wait what CVR and FDR say.
You apply a certain amount of power, since the time taken to accelerate a jet engine from idle is not only significant, but varies between engines... Once you have the engines "stable" at a mid power setting, it takes far less time, and less variable between engines, to takeoff power...
In practice, this means if you just pushed the throttles forward form idle, one may well start producing significant thrust well before the other, and the aircraft turn - all rather embarrassing
In practice, this means if you just pushed the throttles forward form idle, one may well start producing significant thrust well before the other, and the aircraft turn - all rather embarrassing
2. the md80 is one of the safest, strong plane, most of the accident involve md were pilot or mnt problems.
3. the md has 1 rat probe, and give information to the TRP (thrust rating panel) which tells the different max EPR for different cnfig (t/o, clb, etc), but you always have a t/o card that tells EPR T/O and have to match the EPR T/O on TRP, if it doesnt something is wrong.
4.Someone said it is difficult to control yaw in V1cut in md80, that is not true, you even need less rudder pedal than 737 and a little aileron.
5. just wait what CVR and FDR say.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Europe
Age: 14
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First post on this thread
Fellows,
A couple of questions.
What has a fixed TAT probe to do with loss of control of an aircraft?
What has a malfunctioning bleed air valve to do with loss of control?
Why didn't the plane fly earlier in the day?
What is a 'overheat in an air intake valve'?
Why did it return to the gate in the first place?
Why is there no follow up on the picture of a deployed thrust reverser which in itself, when deployed in flight, caused other aircraft to loose control? No pilot in his right mind will EVER deploy a thrust reverser in flight.
I am an airline captain. Flying MD aircraft. So, please, only professional responses to these questions.
Anyone has any information regarding the aircraft techlog?
Steve
A couple of questions.
What has a fixed TAT probe to do with loss of control of an aircraft?
What has a malfunctioning bleed air valve to do with loss of control?
Why didn't the plane fly earlier in the day?
What is a 'overheat in an air intake valve'?
Why did it return to the gate in the first place?
Why is there no follow up on the picture of a deployed thrust reverser which in itself, when deployed in flight, caused other aircraft to loose control? No pilot in his right mind will EVER deploy a thrust reverser in flight.
I am an airline captain. Flying MD aircraft. So, please, only professional responses to these questions.
Anyone has any information regarding the aircraft techlog?
Steve
Hardly Never Not Unwilling
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know what happened and am not speculating, but the thought occurred to me that if a reverser deployed at or around rotation, or at least after V1, there would be very little time to recover, if recovery is indeed possible at all.
Such an instance might be an exception to the 'go' decision after V1 where the pilot considers the aircraft incapable of flight.
A deployed reverser would possibly account for the erratic flight path at Madrid and the loss of control.
Again, this is an idle thought and I have no evidence that it pertains to the Madrid accident.
On another topic, even though MD-8x engines are near centerline, the yaw caused by asymmetrical thrust is exacerbated by the aft moment of the engines. The leverage is probably greater than an outboard engine on a four engine aircraft. As on the Lear mentioned earlier, you can't be too judicious with the application of rudder. It takes a full foot down, and conscious holding of that foot to the degree necessary to maintain track.
We used to deploy reversers in flight on the DC-8, though I never met anyone who liked doing it. The 8 had no inflight speed brakes.
Such an instance might be an exception to the 'go' decision after V1 where the pilot considers the aircraft incapable of flight.
A deployed reverser would possibly account for the erratic flight path at Madrid and the loss of control.
Again, this is an idle thought and I have no evidence that it pertains to the Madrid accident.
On another topic, even though MD-8x engines are near centerline, the yaw caused by asymmetrical thrust is exacerbated by the aft moment of the engines. The leverage is probably greater than an outboard engine on a four engine aircraft. As on the Lear mentioned earlier, you can't be too judicious with the application of rudder. It takes a full foot down, and conscious holding of that foot to the degree necessary to maintain track.
We used to deploy reversers in flight on the DC-8, though I never met anyone who liked doing it. The 8 had no inflight speed brakes.
Last edited by BenThere; 21st Aug 2008 at 14:50.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: moving around
Age: 47
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
one theory we were discussing at work last night....
IF the P2 probe was faulty on the right hand engine.... lh engine experienced a compressor breach(theory only) and engine fire.
as the P2 probe is faulty the RH is not producing enough thrust to get in the air.
as i am told spanair SOP for a fire in the engine is to keep thrust on even with engine on fire.. get in the air and then address the engine fire.
if there had been a catastrophic engine failure of the LH engine then ,it would not have been producing thrust anymore, coupled with the probe problem on RH engine to cause the crash
a collegue( licenced engineer, on MD80 but not current) was 1 of the 1st on the scene... he said that the TR camshell was stuck in the grass and completely seperated form the aircraft. in his opinion they were trying to stop the take off. he also witnessed skid marks on the tarmac.(i know that this is his opinion but i am sure the accident investigators will be looking for his account of what he witnessed)
although i am not familiar with the MD80 MEL, from info here, it seems as the P2 probe is a go item... but for me there must have been another event that brought the bird down
IF the P2 probe was faulty on the right hand engine.... lh engine experienced a compressor breach(theory only) and engine fire.
as the P2 probe is faulty the RH is not producing enough thrust to get in the air.
as i am told spanair SOP for a fire in the engine is to keep thrust on even with engine on fire.. get in the air and then address the engine fire.
if there had been a catastrophic engine failure of the LH engine then ,it would not have been producing thrust anymore, coupled with the probe problem on RH engine to cause the crash
a collegue( licenced engineer, on MD80 but not current) was 1 of the 1st on the scene... he said that the TR camshell was stuck in the grass and completely seperated form the aircraft. in his opinion they were trying to stop the take off. he also witnessed skid marks on the tarmac.(i know that this is his opinion but i am sure the accident investigators will be looking for his account of what he witnessed)
although i am not familiar with the MD80 MEL, from info here, it seems as the P2 probe is a go item... but for me there must have been another event that brought the bird down
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Wet Coast
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
just wait what CVR and FDR say.
Airborne or not.
Engine failure/fire/UEF.
Reverse selected.
Aileron inputs.
Rudder inputs.
An engine out at or after V1 should not result in loss of control providing the correct procedures are followed. Something clearly exceptional occurred here. Eye witnesses and the media do not know what that was and neither does anyone here.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Kildare, Ireland
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What do they mean by this?
There were reports that pilots had complained of strong winds on the runway. Experts suggested that a powerful gust could have forced the pilot to put too much pressure on the engine during take-off, making it burst into flames.
Madrid plane crash: ‘Everything is burnt. It is the closest thing to Hell’ - Times Online
There were reports that pilots had complained of strong winds on the runway. Experts suggested that a powerful gust could have forced the pilot to put too much pressure on the engine during take-off, making it burst into flames.
Madrid plane crash: ‘Everything is burnt. It is the closest thing to Hell’ - Times Online
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: north of london
Age: 53
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a licenced engineer i find it very sad and somewhat laughable that some people would suggest that any engineer would allow an aircraft with a serious defect to leave the gate knowingly. There are strict guidelines which govern whether an aircraft is despatchable or not..... On a daily basis engineers carry the burden of responsibilty and always have safety as their number one consideration... Nobody wants to see this type of thing happen.
My best wishes and thoughts go out to all involved in this tragic accident.
My best wishes and thoughts go out to all involved in this tragic accident.
I Have Control
Join Date: May 2004
Location: North-West England
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Change Needed Now
This site MUST be re-named....to say the Aviation Rumours Network, or the like....simply to avoid any of the media confusing educated professional opinion with general public outcry, however well-meaning it may be.
There is such an abundance of ill-informed material on this thread alone, it makes me shudder to think that the Times, Sky, BBC, or others may be attributing this to Professional Pilots, as per the title of the web-site.
As a professional pilot, who has subscribed to this once-excellent website, I believe the time has come for us pros to dissociate ourselves from this vehicle of rumour-mongering, in order to ensure our reputation as a professional body is not further damaged. That is not to level criticism at the moderators, who are excellent. This has nevertheless become a circus.
And as regards this nasty accident, no-one yet has the slightest clue as to what caused it. Just theories, without all the facts to hand.
There is such an abundance of ill-informed material on this thread alone, it makes me shudder to think that the Times, Sky, BBC, or others may be attributing this to Professional Pilots, as per the title of the web-site.
As a professional pilot, who has subscribed to this once-excellent website, I believe the time has come for us pros to dissociate ourselves from this vehicle of rumour-mongering, in order to ensure our reputation as a professional body is not further damaged. That is not to level criticism at the moderators, who are excellent. This has nevertheless become a circus.
And as regards this nasty accident, no-one yet has the slightest clue as to what caused it. Just theories, without all the facts to hand.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Wet Coast
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What do they mean by this?
There were reports that pilots had complained of strong winds on the runway. Experts suggested that a powerful gust could have forced the pilot to put too much pressure on the engine during take-off, making it burst into flames.
There were reports that pilots had complained of strong winds on the runway. Experts suggested that a powerful gust could have forced the pilot to put too much pressure on the engine during take-off, making it burst into flames.
The only conceivable interpretation I could put on this is the possibility of a compressor stall due to airflow blanking in a crosswind. Not a viable "cause" I think.
24 hours later and we are well into 11 pages of mostly useless conjecture and although well intentioned, many rather naive questions from interested from posters that never have participated on this forum until a sensational tragedy.
At the moment 99% of the posts here are just useless noise.
Perhaps in the future when we have these inevitable events, PPRUNE can have two threads on the event.
One thread could be reserved for open questions/conjecture/rumours/newbies/journos/uneducated theories and questions.
Another thread could be reserved for posters who identify their pilot/flight ops/engineering/technical and airline management backgrounds, before they comment on events like this.
Just a thought for future events.
My thoughts are with those affected by this accident. It's sad when it happens to a large carrier as it's happened at mine, even worse with a small tight group who knows everyone.
At the moment 99% of the posts here are just useless noise.
Perhaps in the future when we have these inevitable events, PPRUNE can have two threads on the event.
One thread could be reserved for open questions/conjecture/rumours/newbies/journos/uneducated theories and questions.
Another thread could be reserved for posters who identify their pilot/flight ops/engineering/technical and airline management backgrounds, before they comment on events like this.
Just a thought for future events.
My thoughts are with those affected by this accident. It's sad when it happens to a large carrier as it's happened at mine, even worse with a small tight group who knows everyone.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Change Needed Now
I so agree with RoyHudd. This site is now contaminated by 'wannabe' pilots, and folk who clearly don't know one end of an aeroplane from the other.
Can we either move to a new site, with stricter rules for membership, or keep this site but weed out the non-pros?
I, too, shudder at the thought of media people thinking this thread is authoritative.
Can we either move to a new site, with stricter rules for membership, or keep this site but weed out the non-pros?
I, too, shudder at the thought of media people thinking this thread is authoritative.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: what U.S. calls ´old Europe´
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An interviewed aviation expert also said that probably the exploding engine severed hydraulic lines to the tail control services, preventing the pilots from continuing the departure on a single engine.
On the other hand, how high is the risk of losing an elevator tab due to an uncontained engine failure? Will one Elevator be enough to control the aircraft?
Roy Hudd;
Oh God, how I agree with you. I am ashamed to think that any of the unadulterated crap that has appeared on this and other forums could possibly be attributed to us professional aviators by the media or anyone else for that matter. It simply makes me cringe.
We desperately need to get pprune back to being a respectable website or else, we rename the website as you suggest.
Somehow or other we have to get rid of the postings from the promising and not-so-promising hysterics that are all too prevalent nowadays.
This is like having The Guvnor back but with a thousand assistants!
Oh God, how I agree with you. I am ashamed to think that any of the unadulterated crap that has appeared on this and other forums could possibly be attributed to us professional aviators by the media or anyone else for that matter. It simply makes me cringe.
We desperately need to get pprune back to being a respectable website or else, we rename the website as you suggest.
Somehow or other we have to get rid of the postings from the promising and not-so-promising hysterics that are all too prevalent nowadays.
This is like having The Guvnor back but with a thousand assistants!
xxxchopperpilot;
The phrase "until we're happy" means exactly what you've written. If a test flight is required by the maintenance manual, then of course it is done, without question, and with no passengers. But read the thread and my response more carefully - the original comment was, why wasn't a test flight done?, and you know very well yourself that test flights aren't done after signing off every MEL item - that's all that was being conveyed. As for choosing aircraft upon which you will and will not travel based upon one post in an anonymous forum doesn't make any sense so I assume it's intended as a personal remark against a fellow aviator. Is that what you intend or can we carry on this dialogue in a civil and professional manner? Over to you.
May i remind you that "Until we're happy" is a statement that you will NEVER find in any Aircraft Maintenance Manual. I think, recalling to memory you may find this statement in a "Complacency" Manual. If the manual says do a test flight, then you actually do a test flight. A test flight under no circumstances will involve commercial passengers. I hope i never board an aircraft that you are in command of, as i don't think that you are up to the job. If you truly are a professional pilot then have a GOOD think about what you are about to write.
Last edited by PJ2; 21st Aug 2008 at 15:32.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't know much about flying MD hardware but here are the Metars either side of departure time of 1425 (presumably Zulu):
METAR LEMD 201500Z 26005G16KT CAVOK 30/01 Q1017 NOSIG= METAR LEMD 201430Z 24006G19KT 170V340 CAVOK 30/02 Q1017 NOSIG= METAR LEMD 201400Z 24003KT CAVOK 30/02 Q1018 NOSIG= METAR LEMD 201330Z 19007KT 110V240 CAVOK 30/01 Q1018 NOSIG= METAR LEMD 201300Z 14004KT CAVOK 29/03 Q1018 NOSIG=
Its interesting to note that although mean speeds remain below 10Kts, there is a marked increase in gusts and also a 50 deg veer in direction. Could cross wind component be approaches/exceeded in TO roll?
METAR LEMD 201500Z 26005G16KT CAVOK 30/01 Q1017 NOSIG= METAR LEMD 201430Z 24006G19KT 170V340 CAVOK 30/02 Q1017 NOSIG= METAR LEMD 201400Z 24003KT CAVOK 30/02 Q1018 NOSIG= METAR LEMD 201330Z 19007KT 110V240 CAVOK 30/01 Q1018 NOSIG= METAR LEMD 201300Z 14004KT CAVOK 29/03 Q1018 NOSIG=
Its interesting to note that although mean speeds remain below 10Kts, there is a marked increase in gusts and also a 50 deg veer in direction. Could cross wind component be approaches/exceeded in TO roll?
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: No one's home...
Posts: 416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Onepost only
You make a point but then we have more things to explore. If there was an over-rotation, they would be getting a stick shaker normally at what? 1.15Vso? It's been a while since I had the privilege of flying the -80 so I don't remember what the shaker was calibrated for.
But again, some of the posts suggest the suspension of reality and the inherent and desire for self-preservation. The crew did not intend to crash and thus we have to begin asking why they acted/reacted as they did.
I may have posted this but I like Dekker's comment that cause is not found, it is constructed and to even construct a plausible cause, we have to get inside the 'tube' to try and ascertain what the crew was seeing, what the crew was thinking and how they were responding to the events.
No doubt, some one will come along and say they should have 'connected the dots' but that short changes the process and is afforded the bright light of hindsight. I also like the observation that during the evolution of an event, the process is fairly opaque and afterwards starkly evident.
wileydog3, it doesn't sound like they tried to land back though. I don't think it was a case of not following procedure and landing back (after V1, passing V2, sub V2, or whatever speed/phase they were at!!) more than losing control after a serious failure(s). All this from reports on here though, but it doesn't sound like a re-land attempt. The talk of “rolling” and “one wing tip striking the ground” etc etc. Sure they were doing their best to follow procedure and get it into the air!
But again, some of the posts suggest the suspension of reality and the inherent and desire for self-preservation. The crew did not intend to crash and thus we have to begin asking why they acted/reacted as they did.
I may have posted this but I like Dekker's comment that cause is not found, it is constructed and to even construct a plausible cause, we have to get inside the 'tube' to try and ascertain what the crew was seeing, what the crew was thinking and how they were responding to the events.
No doubt, some one will come along and say they should have 'connected the dots' but that short changes the process and is afforded the bright light of hindsight. I also like the observation that during the evolution of an event, the process is fairly opaque and afterwards starkly evident.