Spanair accident at Madrid

[Feathers McGraw]

Gents

I really hate to say this, but how do you all think that you can maintain the sanctity (assuming that is what you really want) of PPRUNE in the face of the increasing access that everyone has to virtual forums of this nature? If the nonsensical speculation doesn't appear here, it'll pop up elsewhere and still the press will seize on it and print it or air it to get their few moments of fame.

Many years ago, when Usenet news was limited to a very thin slice of society because access was hard to come by, it was a very useful place where the contributors were knowledgeable and would nearly always know the answers immediately. Once internet access became common, this state of affairs began to disappear, eventually reaching the point where it became necessary to trust people because you knew their style and decided on whether to take any notice of them. It's no different here, really.

Do you really think that clearing out the non-aviators (and I'm one, but still an engineering professional) will help? And do you really think that the majority of people tar all of you with the brush of the clueless that appear here?

Not at all, many of us read and learn and post rarely. It's in sad circumstances such as this that we all come in the hope that we'll learn things that the mainstream news organisations are simply unable to tell us.

You already have your company specific forums where proof of employment is needed to participate, please don't withdraw from engaging with those of us that celebrate the whole business of aviation even though through one reason or another we were unable to participate ourselves.

PPRUNE is an extraordinary place and is simply the first choice of anyone that is seeking information on aviation, and we're amazingly good at ignoring the unfounded speculation that appears in a thread such as this.

Thanks for listening.

[Munnyspinner]

Fireflybob - wings full of inflammable explosive

That'll be the problem then!

Last time I looked Jet A1 was not classed as an explosive. Perhaps fuel vapour mixed in the right ratio with air is potentailly explosive but, generally, one has to go to a fair amount of effort to get it to burn - that's what a gas turbine does!

In a catastrophic accident then spilt fuel does have a tendencey to ignite becuase it has been vapourised by force and there are numerous ignition sources.

If I find the fuellers have been filling my a/c with exlposive I will have to think twice about flying!

[airship]

Too many cooks (mods) spoil the broth...?!

PPRuNe Towers
Dep Chief PPRuNe Pilot
(IC Lavs & Dunnies) wrote:

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.

I believe the default setting is that there are 20 posts which appear on each page of every thread. Does this mean that the cooks (mods) miraculously conjured up another 17 posts? But hey, wouldn't it be fun to know that whilst 1 mod was deleting a post, another mod was reinstating it, another was censoring bits of them and another complaining to the EU's human rights commission - if you get my inference...?! Oooooh, a battle of the PPRuNe mods (I mean't cooks) - this should be fun (I can't remember the last time but I'm sure it's all happened before - but maybe only in JetBlast)...?!

[Caudillo]

For what it's worth, TVE - the Spanish equivalent of the BBC appears to have some pretty authoritative information on its website. In Spanish naturally.

The Transport Minister (roughly) Magdalena Alvarez has confirmed that the aircraft was airbourne, at 200ft when this happened.

TVE reports that the left engine fire and failure was uncontained. Cites sources from their CAA saying that debris from the left engine damaged the rudder and/or the right engine, causing uncontrollability, veering to the right and the crash.

[Dairyground]

Has the eyewitness account translated in post #202 been authoritatively discounted? The claim is that the aircraft was throwing up sand from off the left hand side of the runway and that the right wing then struck the ground, with the aircraft then disappearing off to the right.
This would seem to be consistent with an initial swing to the left on losing power from the port engine followed by an attempt at recovery that was hindered by impaired directional control.
If, as has been reported more recently, the aircraft became airborne, impaired yaw control may have indicated that an attempt to land on the remaining runway was the least worst option.
Perhaps those guys were just a few metres sideways from success.

[Flight Safety]

Caudillo, if true, there was probably nothing the pilots could have done.

[Frangible]

Apologies to mods and Danny.
I realise now how much crud you must be binning.

[PJ2]

wileydog3;

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

Precisely - I think Dekker's work has much to contribute generally in terms of how humans interpret the world and history, but in both accident prevention and investigation specifically. His 2nd latest, "The Field Guide to Understanding Human Error" 2nd ed, (his latest, "Just Culture: Balancing Safety and Accountability", January 2008) are both worth reading and not just for aviation professionals and accident investigators.

I would commend many of the contributors here to these books alone, for comprehension of the investigative process and a more thorough understanding of human nature, and not only in aviation.

If nothing else, Dekker makes clear the strong human motivation to re-write experience to be in accord with post-event learning, while those involved in the event are only faced with perhaps dozens of avenues in terms of choice and dozens of "cues" which afterwards assume are so clear.

[SeniorDispatcher]

I was driving crosstown back in the mid-1990s after adminstering an FAA exam, and news of TWA 800 broke on the radio. That it was TWA 800, JFK-Paris, and that the aircraft was down in the water off Long Island were all factual points, and it took less than 30 seconds of listening to get them, at which time I turned OFF the radio. I did so because I knew what would follow (in the absence of other "facts" yet to be determined) would be endless blathering and idiotic speculation and contradictory information in order to fill-up otherwise dead broadcast airtime, as is typical within he first 24-48 hours of any major aviation accident.

Like some others, I also wish there was an effective way to "turn off" PPRUNE from being a vehicle for such 99% nonsensical and speculative comments before the wreckage had even cooled, but I don't know what the answer is on how to best accomplish that.

Kudos to Danny, Duck, and the others who have taken the time to cull that kind of stuff from the thread.

[foresight]

Feathers McGraw

Really annoyed! I was mentally composing a post when I find that Feathers McGraw has stated my case far more eloquently than I could have done.

Any intelligent layman will be able to sort the wheat from the chaff. There is enormous value in providing access to information and opinion when the media let us down so badly. There are genuine non aviation people who want a feel for what it is all about. If a post annoys you, then stay professional and don't rise to the bait.

Incidentally I have 1200 hours on MD80's (long time ago) but feel no need to offer an opinion - there is simply not enough information to hand

[PJ2]

Flight Safety;
If I may,

Caudillo, if true, there was nothing the pilots could have done.

Quite possibly - we'll know in due time of course, assuming the recorders survived the fire. But I would like to offer the notion that many, many statements are tautologies in the sense that the conclusion "proves" the initial statement. I believe informed speculation is worthwhile, if not cathartic for a few, but we know that much will be settled when such speculation ends and the investigation begins, with data, possible video from airport cameras, the CVR and DFDR, (any FOQA equipment, if Spanair was doing a flight data program likely would not survive). It may indeed be the case that the situation deteriorated so rapidly that the crew was along for the ride - a number of legitimate scenarios have been posited (Northwest MD80 at Detroit, reverser unlocked, catastrophic engine failure accompanied by hydraulic system failure and loss of rudder power etc etc). It seems that the aircraft had lifted off by many reports which would explain, along with terrain characteristics, the nature of the break-up but I suspect these would all be after the initiating event.

foresight;

Any intelligent layman will be able to sort the wheat from the chaff. There is enormous value in providing access to information and opinion when the media let us down so badly. There are genuine non aviation people who want a feel for what it is all about. If a post annoys you, then stay professional and don't rise to the bait.

Very well stated. While difficult to endure at times I think keeping the forum wide open to all is best and what you say will happen. We're not going to solve this or any accident here but frank (sometimes very frank) professional discussion enlightens, educates, and provides comfort for some who may be casting about for anything that intelligently explains their experience. As for the punters, so far, it's a free forum and inappropriate posts can be ignored. The one issue is, it is abundantly clear that most who post statements that don't make sense have not read the thread carefully first and just shoot from the hip - tough to wade through.

FWIW...
PJ2

[ECAM_Actions]

FWIW, someone posted this over at the MD80.net forums:



They note that it is in the fully extended position.

ECAM Actions.

[dbee]

Awful; those few who escaped may still die from their injuries. From the pictures that I have seen, ( fuselage on its side) it would be virtually impossible or people to reach, let alone open, the emergency exits .............dbee

[WhatsaLizad?]

Feathers McGraw,

That is my point regarding this situation. At the moment, PPRUNE can't exclude every ignorant poster.

My suggestion is one thread for the endless naive questions and suggestions, and have another thread where those with relevant aviation experience that are requested to have their qualifications noted first on their posts.

That way those of us in aviation can ignore the undeducated thread and participate on the "experienced" thread about any incident.


Just a suggestion.

[crewcostundercontrol]

WhataLizard

I agree, I think PPRUNE is fantastic for those of us in the industry. If someone could start a new formum website for Pofessional pilots only, with some kind of vetting then I would sighn up today. This place is now full of armchair experts and spotters. I know it has been talked about before on here but it would be nice to have a CPL/ATPL only forum to cut out the crap.

[wileydog3]

PJ2. I would also recommend the book by R. K. Dismukes, B. A. Berman, & L. . Loukopoulos (2007) The Limits of Expertise: Rethinking Pilot Error and the Causes of Airline Accidents, Ashgate Publishing Company

Sometimes there just isn't a solution or if there is a solution, there may not be enough time to implement it. For example, Nick Warner and the 1994 A330 crash at Toulouse. (From talking to a few people, Warner was considered not only one of the best but one of the VERY best.)

[PJ2]

ECAM_Actions;

Thanks for posting this.

Whether the reverser was deployed before ground contact or during the breakup sequence can be determined in a number of ways - obviously the recorders, but also by traditional methods.

I haven't seen info on this..can any MD80 fleet type operators tell us if these engines are FADEC controlled? Tx...

[bookworm]

Don't know much about flying MD hardware but here are the Metars either side of departure time of 1425 (presumably Zulu)

No 1425 local, 1225Z:

LEMD 201030Z 12003KT CAVOK 25/10 Q1019 NOSIG=
LEMD 201100Z 17002KT CAVOK 26/09 Q1019 NOSIG=
LEMD 201130Z 16005KT CAVOK 27/08 Q1019 NOSIG=
LEMD 201200Z 35002KT CAVOK 28/06 Q1019 NOSIG=
LEMD 201230Z 18007KT 090V240 CAVOK 28/02 Q1018 NOSIG=
LEMD 201330Z 19007KT 110V240 CAVOK 30/01 Q1018 NOSIG=
LEMD 201400Z 24003KT CAVOK 30/02 Q1018 NOSIG=

Could cross wind component be approaches/exceeded in TO roll?

So it seems unlikely that wind was a factor -- though of course a METAR is just a snapshot and you can't be 100% sure what was happening between.

[PJ2]

wileydog3 - thanks, will pick it up; have recently ordered Just Culture. There is much here for airline managements as well as flight safety departments wrestling with limited resources and how best to focus them as SMS is implemented.
I always thought that CRM was as good for a marriage as it was for the cockpit... ;-)

Cheers,
PJ2

[bardos]

from the spanish newspaper "el mundo"

Los dirigentes de la aerolínea Scandinavian Airlines (SAS), a la que pertenece Spanair, han justificado el despegue del avión siniestrado ayer en una multitudinaria rueda de prensa celebrada en Madrid. No obstante, admitieron que el avión presentaba un problema de "calentamiento excesivo en una toma de aire", que fue "aislado" y, posteriormente, la nave "fue despachada para el vuelo".
Ante la pregunta sobre si aislar el problema significa solucionarlo, el subdirector general y director de producción de Spanair, Javier Mendoza, aseguró que hay distintas formas de tratar el problema y que, en esta ocasión, "se aisló el sistema quitando el interruptor que le da energía".
Mendoza afirmó que "ésta es una condición que es aceptable para el vuelo y es una práctica normal. Hay un documento que es la lista de equipos mínimos que refleja esta actuación". Por tanto, según estas explicaciones, la avería no fue totalmente reparada, sino "aislada".


In a massively heavily attended press conference in Madrid, the Management of Scandinavian Airlines (SAS), to which Spanair belongs, has justified the take-off of the crashed airplane. Nevertheless, they admitted that the airplane had a problem with “over-heating in an air-intake valve”, which was “cut-off” and then the airplane “was sent on its way”.

Faced with the question of whether cutting off the problem means fixing it, the assistant general manager and production manager of Spanair, Javier Mendoza, maintained that there are different ways of dealing with this problem and on this occasion “the system was cut off by turning off the switch which gives it power.”

Mendoza stated that “this is an acceptable flight condition and is normal industry procedure. There is a document which is a list of minimum equipment requirements which supports this action”. Therefore, according to these explanations, the breakdown was not completely repaired, it was “cut off”.