Spanair accident at Madrid
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now that this has quietened down a little, I thought I might make some observations on the media and its relationship to aviation accidents, and to pprune. I have played both sides of the street, having been a newsdesk executive on several Fleet Street newspapers as well as being a pilot. I have never been a commercial pilot, but have worked as a helicopter instructor.
It is no use railing at the foolishness of the media, or expecting it not to speculate on the causes of accidents. With precious few exceptions, broadcast and print media are profoundly ignorant not just of aviation, but of all specialist subjects. The halcyon days of the air correspondent gave way in the 1960s and 70s to the ‘aviation correspondent’ whose brief was largely to cover the emerging package holiday industry; a survey in the mid 1990s showed that not a single aviation correspondent in Fleet Street could fly a plane.
Newspapers must be filled, and broadcast journalists must avoid the nightmare of ‘dead air’. A major incident is meat and drink; in 35 years in the business I can remember only one instance in a newsroom where journalists were personally affected by the story they were writing, and that was Dunblane. The media will go mob-handed to the scene, it will trawl the cuttings library for previous similar events, and it will speculate. Every hack has a contacts book of honest-to-goodness experts who will stand up on their hind legs at a moment’s notice and pronounce on any given subject, not always for money. As a rule of thumb, whenever you read the word ‘expert’ in a newspaper or hear it on TV, reach for your revolver.
There are honourable exceptions, but few. Everyone in Fleet Street has David Learmount’s number. He does an excellent job of fulfilling the requirement for a talking head while avoiding speculation and leaving few hostages to fortune. It’s a difficult tightrope to walk, but if he were not on air, they would find someone less qualified. If you really want to improve matters, then you need good to drive out bad; I’ve often thought BALPA might provide such a service, having someone with media savvy to satisfy the cravings of the beast, while making it plain that the only certainty in an aircraft accident is that the initial speculation will be wrong.
Those who want the media to ‘clean up its act’ must first reflect on the difficulty of cleaning up pprune. After the media, the prattling poster is the target in most accident threads. Much can be done here. I think the lumping together of ‘rumours’ and ‘news’ is unconscionable. You can’t expect newspapers to separate the two when pprune blatantly treats them as one. I also believe that anonymity is a profound mistake. There may be occasional instances where it is justified, but they are few and far between. Anonymity encourages those who know least but have most to say. Every one of us can take action to improve pprune on that score.
It is no use railing at the foolishness of the media, or expecting it not to speculate on the causes of accidents. With precious few exceptions, broadcast and print media are profoundly ignorant not just of aviation, but of all specialist subjects. The halcyon days of the air correspondent gave way in the 1960s and 70s to the ‘aviation correspondent’ whose brief was largely to cover the emerging package holiday industry; a survey in the mid 1990s showed that not a single aviation correspondent in Fleet Street could fly a plane.
Newspapers must be filled, and broadcast journalists must avoid the nightmare of ‘dead air’. A major incident is meat and drink; in 35 years in the business I can remember only one instance in a newsroom where journalists were personally affected by the story they were writing, and that was Dunblane. The media will go mob-handed to the scene, it will trawl the cuttings library for previous similar events, and it will speculate. Every hack has a contacts book of honest-to-goodness experts who will stand up on their hind legs at a moment’s notice and pronounce on any given subject, not always for money. As a rule of thumb, whenever you read the word ‘expert’ in a newspaper or hear it on TV, reach for your revolver.
There are honourable exceptions, but few. Everyone in Fleet Street has David Learmount’s number. He does an excellent job of fulfilling the requirement for a talking head while avoiding speculation and leaving few hostages to fortune. It’s a difficult tightrope to walk, but if he were not on air, they would find someone less qualified. If you really want to improve matters, then you need good to drive out bad; I’ve often thought BALPA might provide such a service, having someone with media savvy to satisfy the cravings of the beast, while making it plain that the only certainty in an aircraft accident is that the initial speculation will be wrong.
Those who want the media to ‘clean up its act’ must first reflect on the difficulty of cleaning up pprune. After the media, the prattling poster is the target in most accident threads. Much can be done here. I think the lumping together of ‘rumours’ and ‘news’ is unconscionable. You can’t expect newspapers to separate the two when pprune blatantly treats them as one. I also believe that anonymity is a profound mistake. There may be occasional instances where it is justified, but they are few and far between. Anonymity encourages those who know least but have most to say. Every one of us can take action to improve pprune on that score.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: EFHK (Finland)
Age: 62
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm a non-pro. I addition to that, I am a journalist. For 13 years I have run an MD-80 forum on the web, largely at my own expense. Over time, I have got 400 pilots on board. I have seen them use my web facilities to compile an impressive knowledge base about things you don't find in manufacturer's manuals. I have seen them advertise themselves and pick up jobs, paid far beyond what I'll ever earn; not a dime nor thank you coming my way.
Every major MD-80 accident or incident has been a professional challenge for me as an information worker; Venezuela, Phuket, belly landing Istanbul, Atlas, Alaska 262 ... to compile what bits of information there are to be put together for the orientation of people who know far more than I do.
Now then, Spanair 5022. MD-82, they say on the news. "One of mine". Couldn't make me roll up my sleeves and do it again, tired of this pro arrogance you'll have to expect every time.
So, inform yourselves. Show me how to do it.
Every major MD-80 accident or incident has been a professional challenge for me as an information worker; Venezuela, Phuket, belly landing Istanbul, Atlas, Alaska 262 ... to compile what bits of information there are to be put together for the orientation of people who know far more than I do.
Now then, Spanair 5022. MD-82, they say on the news. "One of mine". Couldn't make me roll up my sleeves and do it again, tired of this pro arrogance you'll have to expect every time.
So, inform yourselves. Show me how to do it.
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!
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!
Unfortunately, I fear that we may lose in the end if we attempt to curtial postings by newbies. Thus it took me two hours today just to read through the chaff before I post this single reply. In spite of this we can choose either to ignore the drivel or to counter it with advised replies.
I fear that we can never do anything to ensure that the casual reader gets the correct message, but at least we can help the more advised reader to understand.
I am reminded that at this time we still have no confirmation that an engine failure was involved in this accident. so all discussions to date are assumptive in this matter. We can go further with this if and when the official investigators comment
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.
If it was an uncontained engine failure, then it is luck, not aircraft design that makes an event either an incident or accident. It matters not, whether the control surfaces are hydraulically or mechanically actuated. If a piece of engine decides to pass through a hydraulic pipe(pipes) or cut a control cable(cables), the result is the same, reduced or no control. Put that at or around V1, Vr or climb, then it is down if the pilot flying to use every ounce of their training and experience to attempt to recover the situation.
Passenger aircraft are not designed to contain within its systems and controls, an uncontained engine failure. Thought and design goes into system redundancy, but you do not fire bits of hot engines at airframes and see what happens if?! You cannot predict which bit of engine will not be contained and where it is going to travel after it has left the engine casing and cowl. That is why engines are designed and tested to contain engine failures.
Passenger aircraft are not designed to contain within its systems and controls, an uncontained engine failure. Thought and design goes into system redundancy, but you do not fire bits of hot engines at airframes and see what happens if?! You cannot predict which bit of engine will not be contained and where it is going to travel after it has left the engine casing and cowl. That is why engines are designed and tested to contain engine failures.
Containment/non-containment are addressed both at the engine level and at the aircraft level. All part 25 aircraft including the MD80 series have been designed to minimize the catastrophic effects of any uncontained engine failure. They meet this expectation by certified tried and true designs that apply the principals of redundancy, shielding and separation of critical aircraft control systems.
There is little sense in speculating further along this line until the investigators have had a chance to determine if:
did an engine actually fail?
was there an uncontainment?:
was there significant resulting damage to the aircraft?
I'm still awaiting any new facts such as close up photos or press releases by the investigating team.
Please continue to post along these lines.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: kansas City, MO
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There has been understandable question why the loss of left engine thrust resulted in an accident site to the right of the takeoff runway. A possible explanation is that the right wing tip accidentally touched the ground during the moments immediately after departure from the ground, which possibly could have diverted the flight path to the right . If the pilot either perceived or anticipated the beginning of a right wing up roll velocity resulting from the pronounced right wing up roll moment caused by left yaw he may have overcorrected with aileron.
I have not read all of the many posts. So please forgive me is this reply is useless.
I have not read all of the many posts. So please forgive me is this reply is useless.
Moderator
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From a moderating standpoint, one of the obvious facts concerning this thread is that the subject is a major news event. As such it attracts a very high level of interest from all quarters. Anybody with any insight into aviation realises that when a tragic event such as this occurs, the search for the cause takes far more time than the normal "shelf life" of a newsworthy item, which is obviously frustrating and is partially satisfied by all spectrums of speculation from the wildly ignorant, through the uninformed, to the informed, to the guesswork and collateral knowledge of those with some expertise in the various arenas.
On television news channels, the event draws an increasingly large audience who are not held by a 3 minute report and the statement that further accurate information may slowly come to the fore in a few days or weeks or months. They (we) tune in for the up to the minute pictures, commentary, speculation, eyewitness reports, "expert" comment. Most of the time it is perfectly obvious that those reporting have little information but are nevertheless required to "keep talking, you are live on air" because that is what is drawing and holding the audience. That is the nature of that media.
Here this is an open site normally populated and primarilly targeted at Pilots and other aviation professionals. However it isn't and never has been the exclusive domain of those groups and as such draws interest from anybody with a contribution, question, comment, observation, opinion, statement, or simply non contributory perusal of the threads. The nature of this media (internet) of accessible discussion forums, is that anybody can take part, and of course anybody does. This site has a high number of moderators assigned to various forums to trim away the wilder excesses that are often seen on other popular open sites, however the format still attempts to encourage a wide cross section of contribution from a similarly wide cross section of interested contibutors.
This particular event and single thread, at its current stage of newsworthiness is drawing between 1000 and 2000 on line readers for most of the day. In turn this is attracting an unusually high level of contribution from not only the regular contributors, but also a high proportion of new and infrequent subscribers. The result is that a lot of moderation is being applied to the subject, not to curtail the discussion, speculation or comment, but to stop the thread being an even more unwieldly mess of "RIP, condolences, thoughts are with...." comments. The unmoderated script is a much longer tome of all the usual breathless excitement, willy waving, pointless nonsense, spelling police, tantrums, and other non relevant detrius.
whilst trying to remain as impartial as possible, we also roll our eyes at some of the posts we still allow to remain in the thread. That is a case of not trying to censor or drive opinion whilst still trying to balance a need to prevent unnecessary repetition and maintain the rules of conduct that apply elsewhere on the site. At the moment this thread is very busy, but it will settle down to normal levels of discussion and moderation in due course.
On television news channels, the event draws an increasingly large audience who are not held by a 3 minute report and the statement that further accurate information may slowly come to the fore in a few days or weeks or months. They (we) tune in for the up to the minute pictures, commentary, speculation, eyewitness reports, "expert" comment. Most of the time it is perfectly obvious that those reporting have little information but are nevertheless required to "keep talking, you are live on air" because that is what is drawing and holding the audience. That is the nature of that media.
Here this is an open site normally populated and primarilly targeted at Pilots and other aviation professionals. However it isn't and never has been the exclusive domain of those groups and as such draws interest from anybody with a contribution, question, comment, observation, opinion, statement, or simply non contributory perusal of the threads. The nature of this media (internet) of accessible discussion forums, is that anybody can take part, and of course anybody does. This site has a high number of moderators assigned to various forums to trim away the wilder excesses that are often seen on other popular open sites, however the format still attempts to encourage a wide cross section of contribution from a similarly wide cross section of interested contibutors.
This particular event and single thread, at its current stage of newsworthiness is drawing between 1000 and 2000 on line readers for most of the day. In turn this is attracting an unusually high level of contribution from not only the regular contributors, but also a high proportion of new and infrequent subscribers. The result is that a lot of moderation is being applied to the subject, not to curtail the discussion, speculation or comment, but to stop the thread being an even more unwieldly mess of "RIP, condolences, thoughts are with...." comments. The unmoderated script is a much longer tome of all the usual breathless excitement, willy waving, pointless nonsense, spelling police, tantrums, and other non relevant detrius.
whilst trying to remain as impartial as possible, we also roll our eyes at some of the posts we still allow to remain in the thread. That is a case of not trying to censor or drive opinion whilst still trying to balance a need to prevent unnecessary repetition and maintain the rules of conduct that apply elsewhere on the site. At the moment this thread is very busy, but it will settle down to normal levels of discussion and moderation in due course.
Just returned an hour ago from Las Palmas after a couple of days. The atmosphere is pretty sombre over there and Gando is eerily quiet, apart from the squads of TV crews hogging both arrivals and departures.
I am sure this information is of little use to anyone, but this is "Rumours and News" after all
The commonly held belief there, based on the information going around, is that that after a catastrophic failure of an engine at around 40m, the tailplane assembly seperated from the aircraft and the whole thing plummeted in a right arc, into the barranco.
Like I said, this is the version of events from Las Palmas.
I am sure this information is of little use to anyone, but this is "Rumours and News" after all
The commonly held belief there, based on the information going around, is that that after a catastrophic failure of an engine at around 40m, the tailplane assembly seperated from the aircraft and the whole thing plummeted in a right arc, into the barranco.
Like I said, this is the version of events from Las Palmas.
PJ2
The FADEC sic (Full Authority Digital Engine Control) controls the engine not the aircraft and its reverser system. The FADEC does use inputs from the aircraft systems and in the event of an uncommanded deployment in-flight it will command the engine to be reduced in thrust to flight idle. Unfortunately, in the case of Lauda etal. the aircraft upset occurred before the engine could fully spool down.
In order for the Lauda reverser to deploy it needed to have a malfunctioning stow/deploy valve as well as weight on wheels (two degrees of protection failed).
All reverser designs had a degree of suceptibility as incident data has confirmed
Newer designs now require a third degree of protection (a positive mechanical lock).
...and we know of the Lauda Air B767 accident which was apparently a FADEC fault. Most fleet types have an emergency drill (memorized...) for reverse deployment in the air. The drill usually involves appropriate rudder input, (foot/rudder pedal in the kitchen and then some), ensuring directional control, and shutting the engine down. FADEC-controlled engine designs on the Airbus (CFM56 installations and likely others) command IDLE thrust if a reverser-deployed signal is sensed in the air.
In order for the Lauda reverser to deploy it needed to have a malfunctioning stow/deploy valve as well as weight on wheels (two degrees of protection failed).
All reverser designs had a degree of suceptibility as incident data has confirmed
Newer designs now require a third degree of protection (a positive mechanical lock).
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: London
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I write this as a retired 23000hr airline pilot, but reading this thread, regardless of whatever the technical reasons for the crash, surely a large part of the blame for this enormous loss of life must be down to the airport authorities and their governments.
By this I refer to what has already been referred to by other posters and that is the terrain at the side and ends of runways ie gully's,ravines and just plain rocks. Said authorities may be able to construct some beautifully smooth runways and taxiways but stray from these in an emergency and you are in deep poo!
How many airports are absolute death traps and lets face it the performance figures in the event of a rejected T/O close to V1 - especially in the wet - you are not guaranteed a stop within the confines of the runway. Let alone circumstances similar to the TAM A320 at CGH.
ANC, Bilbao, NRT, even BRU as in the Kalitta 747F and many many more, they spend millions on beautiful Terminals and shopping malls, they should spend more on smoothing out the terrain around these runways or at least installing that material ( the name of which I cannot recall) that slows the aircraft down without causing it to break up.
Just how much cost compared to yesterdays tragic loss of life?
By this I refer to what has already been referred to by other posters and that is the terrain at the side and ends of runways ie gully's,ravines and just plain rocks. Said authorities may be able to construct some beautifully smooth runways and taxiways but stray from these in an emergency and you are in deep poo!
How many airports are absolute death traps and lets face it the performance figures in the event of a rejected T/O close to V1 - especially in the wet - you are not guaranteed a stop within the confines of the runway. Let alone circumstances similar to the TAM A320 at CGH.
ANC, Bilbao, NRT, even BRU as in the Kalitta 747F and many many more, they spend millions on beautiful Terminals and shopping malls, they should spend more on smoothing out the terrain around these runways or at least installing that material ( the name of which I cannot recall) that slows the aircraft down without causing it to break up.
Just how much cost compared to yesterdays tragic loss of life?
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dear el griffo!
sir: I saw an animated representation of the crash and it is as you described...something I find very hard to believe.
HOWEVER, stranger things have happened.
having an engine problem and having it knock the tail off is very serious business...no pilot on earth could handle that.
I do hope we find out soon if this is the case...it would change the way we fly or at least inspect and maintain a plane.
HOWEVER, stranger things have happened.
having an engine problem and having it knock the tail off is very serious business...no pilot on earth could handle that.
I do hope we find out soon if this is the case...it would change the way we fly or at least inspect and maintain a plane.
lomapaseo:
For clarification, yes, I understand that, especially the fact that FADEC does not control the aircraft - sorry if that impression was left from my post. On FADEC and the reverser system, I only know and am experienced with Airbus 319/320/330/340 fleet types' FADEC systems and FADEC does control reverse, (we knew this from the TAM thread):
From the A340 AOM:
The FADEC sic (Full Authority Digital Engine Control) controls the engine not the aircraft and its reverser system.
From the A340 AOM:
The thrust reverser system is independently controlled for each engine by the associated FADEC. It is
controlled and monitored by each FADEC channel.
The thrust reverser system on each engine includes :
– 4 actuators
– 4 latches
– door position switches
– A shut off valve which allows the hydraulic pressure to the HCU.
– a Hydraulic Control Unit (HCU) which :
• pressurizes the thrust reverser hydraulic system
• regulates the blocker doors speed
• supplies actuators with hydraulic power
Each pivoting door moves independently (no synchronization). The total actuation time is less than 2
seconds.
ACTUATION LOGIC:
Deployment requires :
– one FADEC channel operating with its associated throttle reverse signal
– aircraft on ground from at least one LGCIU
– TLA reverse signal from PRIM 1 (FLT CTL PRIMARY COMPUTER 1) or associated PRIM
– switch reverse signal from associated EIU
Before the transit completion of the blocker doors, the FADEC sets reverse idle thrust.
IDLE PROTECTION:
The FADEC will automatically select idle thrust if the reverse thrust is not selected and one of three
following conditions occurs :
– 4 doors are unstowed or,
– at least one door is unstowed and the thrust reverser system is pressurized, or
– the thrust reverser position is not determined and the reverser system is pressurized.
controlled and monitored by each FADEC channel.
The thrust reverser system on each engine includes :
– 4 actuators
– 4 latches
– door position switches
– A shut off valve which allows the hydraulic pressure to the HCU.
– a Hydraulic Control Unit (HCU) which :
• pressurizes the thrust reverser hydraulic system
• regulates the blocker doors speed
• supplies actuators with hydraulic power
Each pivoting door moves independently (no synchronization). The total actuation time is less than 2
seconds.
ACTUATION LOGIC:
Deployment requires :
– one FADEC channel operating with its associated throttle reverse signal
– aircraft on ground from at least one LGCIU
– TLA reverse signal from PRIM 1 (FLT CTL PRIMARY COMPUTER 1) or associated PRIM
– switch reverse signal from associated EIU
Before the transit completion of the blocker doors, the FADEC sets reverse idle thrust.
IDLE PROTECTION:
The FADEC will automatically select idle thrust if the reverse thrust is not selected and one of three
following conditions occurs :
– 4 doors are unstowed or,
– at least one door is unstowed and the thrust reverser system is pressurized, or
– the thrust reverser position is not determined and the reverser system is pressurized.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lomapaseo,
I would credit the general public with a little more common sense. They would have just witnessed an accident where peoples lives have been lost, but they were certainly still getting on aircraft this morning as far as I could see.
Aircraft designers do not try to design dangerous aircraft. History has shown us that a bit of metal on a runway, or a microscopic fault within a component of an engine can cause disaster. People watch the discovery channel and see Seconds From Disaster, because it is entertaining and the probability of it happening to them is minute.
You smoke a fag, have a drink or drive a car and you have an understanding of the risk involved. Flying is the same. It feels unnatural but it is safe.
I would credit the general public with a little more common sense. They would have just witnessed an accident where peoples lives have been lost, but they were certainly still getting on aircraft this morning as far as I could see.
Aircraft designers do not try to design dangerous aircraft. History has shown us that a bit of metal on a runway, or a microscopic fault within a component of an engine can cause disaster. People watch the discovery channel and see Seconds From Disaster, because it is entertaining and the probability of it happening to them is minute.
You smoke a fag, have a drink or drive a car and you have an understanding of the risk involved. Flying is the same. It feels unnatural but it is safe.
...and pilots are not looking to have accidents.
Aircraft designers do not try to design dangerous aircraft.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the dc9 series 30 can (but is not authorized to) deploy the thrust reversers in flight. just pull throttles aft, and pull reverse levers up and back.
NOW, again YOU ARE NOT AUTHORIZED to do this!
We train for uncommanded thrust reverser deployment in the sim. if unable to stow the reverser, you shut down the engine and fly on the remaining engine.
I've asked if the reverser in the span air crash case deployed in flight, but I have no data to think that it has happend in this case.
The douglas dc9 series of planes have demonstrated inflight thrust reverser deployment and the ability to fly the plane.
boeings do it with mathematical models and theory.
NOW, again YOU ARE NOT AUTHORIZED to do this!
We train for uncommanded thrust reverser deployment in the sim. if unable to stow the reverser, you shut down the engine and fly on the remaining engine.
I've asked if the reverser in the span air crash case deployed in flight, but I have no data to think that it has happend in this case.
The douglas dc9 series of planes have demonstrated inflight thrust reverser deployment and the ability to fly the plane.
boeings do it with mathematical models and theory.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Wet Coast
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by lomapaseo
All part 25 aircraft including the MD80 series have been designed to minimize the catastrophic effects of any uncontained engine failure.
A Delta MD88 had a UEF on the ground which killed passengers by shrapnel. And the 767 that was actually destroyed by one, on the ground. Depending on the failure mode, there really is no predicting where the bits will go and what damage they will do. Pods are designed to withstand a certain level of explosive force, but I wouldn't say they do so to a minimum.
If indeed this was a UEF.
its taken me all afternoon to trawl and poodle through 24 pages of the pprune rumour post on the awful spanair accident...
i have been away from this site for many months as it was pathetic to often read what so-called pro's started to rant about, howver i popped in back today.
frankly i was amazed that the toys didnt start being thrown out of the pram until quite along way through the pages,
possibly the more childish pro's and non-pro's are on their summer hols hence the more restrained comments,
i had 30 years aviation industry in ops and latter in safety and am not a flying pro and am retired now.
out of these 24 pages with my safety cap on and only having seen the press clips like most of you (one or two of you state you have friends in informed places) i have paid attention to TWO things,
1, a witness ( was it two?) states aircraft leaving runway in clouds of dust and sand (possibly not getting airborne?) and crashing into the lower field areas beyond the end and right of the runway.
IF, it got airborne then did it do so purely because the ground ran out and it shot off the end and plunged into the field further along.
i dont see any debris trail from the runway to the crash site.
2, a photo of the back part of the engine with the reverser assembly open.
(i dont see any fire damage so could this be from the RH engine, the LH engine was seen to be on fire>?)
these points are the only things that concern me that the pilots for whatever reason decided to try to stop and not 'go'
has anybody (pro) considered this too...?
we know that all v ref's speeds temps weights etc would indicate you must 'go' and you should safely C/O and be able to return,
this is only a slight concern i have to reading what a 'witness has told one of you and seeing that photo.
any investigator would feel the same to include this notion at the beginning then eliminate it as quickly as possible upon more detailed findings.
i am amazed that this crash has left survivors, it looks totally non-survivable to me,
a high speed uncontrolled crash similar in phase to the md-87 of SAS at Milan some years ago at the same phase of t/o, that left no survivors,
so for survivors to occur here at MAD is amazing but i'm sorry to learn of a such a nasty fiery accident to a respected airline at a very modern airport.
i have been away from this site for many months as it was pathetic to often read what so-called pro's started to rant about, howver i popped in back today.
frankly i was amazed that the toys didnt start being thrown out of the pram until quite along way through the pages,
possibly the more childish pro's and non-pro's are on their summer hols hence the more restrained comments,
i had 30 years aviation industry in ops and latter in safety and am not a flying pro and am retired now.
out of these 24 pages with my safety cap on and only having seen the press clips like most of you (one or two of you state you have friends in informed places) i have paid attention to TWO things,
1, a witness ( was it two?) states aircraft leaving runway in clouds of dust and sand (possibly not getting airborne?) and crashing into the lower field areas beyond the end and right of the runway.
IF, it got airborne then did it do so purely because the ground ran out and it shot off the end and plunged into the field further along.
i dont see any debris trail from the runway to the crash site.
2, a photo of the back part of the engine with the reverser assembly open.
(i dont see any fire damage so could this be from the RH engine, the LH engine was seen to be on fire>?)
these points are the only things that concern me that the pilots for whatever reason decided to try to stop and not 'go'
has anybody (pro) considered this too...?
we know that all v ref's speeds temps weights etc would indicate you must 'go' and you should safely C/O and be able to return,
this is only a slight concern i have to reading what a 'witness has told one of you and seeing that photo.
any investigator would feel the same to include this notion at the beginning then eliminate it as quickly as possible upon more detailed findings.
i am amazed that this crash has left survivors, it looks totally non-survivable to me,
a high speed uncontrolled crash similar in phase to the md-87 of SAS at Milan some years ago at the same phase of t/o, that left no survivors,
so for survivors to occur here at MAD is amazing but i'm sorry to learn of a such a nasty fiery accident to a respected airline at a very modern airport.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
golf yankee one one
I'm just a voyeur who turns to pprune when I want to know more about an aviation incident, but I have been involved with the investigation and classification of adverse events in a healthcare setting for 20 years. We have been persuaded in recent years that we should model our risk management on the aviation industry because you are so successful at establishing and maintaining very high safety standards. Please consider this before you restrict access to you site; if we can learn from you ......
None of us can avoid speculation, and the two things that strike me most forcibly about the Madrid crash are the return to the gate and the gully or ravine; very few of the posts seem to have tried to illuminate these aspects of the tragedy.
None of us can avoid speculation, and the two things that strike me most forcibly about the Madrid crash are the return to the gate and the gully or ravine; very few of the posts seem to have tried to illuminate these aspects of the tragedy.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lomapaseo (and PJ2):
In order for the Lauda reverser to deploy it needed to have a malfunctioning stow/deploy valve as well as weight on wheels (two degrees of protection failed).
In order for the Lauda reverser to deploy it needed to have a malfunctioning stow/deploy valve as well as weight on wheels (two degrees of protection failed).
Again, regarding the calls to restrict R&N to pilots only - while I can understand it and sympathise completely with the poor moderators, you'd be preventing people who've made massive and timely contributions to these threads in the past, like PBL, bsieker and VnV2178B - and I still think there'd be a vast amount of dross in the immediate wake of incidents and accidents.
Of course, there's a degree of self-interest here as well - but I, as well as many other genuine enthusiasts try to keep to the background unless we're pretty sure we've got something to contribute, and it's a privilege and an honour to be allowed to. I for one would really hate to lose it.
In this case I think the lack of concrete information is allowing all kinds of rubbish to fill the vacuum and I hope that as proper, corroborated data is released some of the fancier theories will fall by the wayside. Those holding the BA038 thread up as an example seem to forget that the first few days were a free-for-all, with theories of computer failure, UFOs and even Gordon Brown's Death Ray doing the rounds until the dust had cleared.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: london
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A terrible accident and my prayers are for those who lost their lives and to those left behind... As an outsider looking in to the avation industry, what effect does this crash have on pilots flying the same type of aircraft? Is there now a loss of confidence in the plane you are flying or maybe there is a "there for the grace of God" attitude. How do you deal with something like this?
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Madrid (Spain)
Age: 41
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the dc9 series 30 can (but is not authorized to) deploy the thrust reversers in flight. just pull throttles aft, and pull reverse levers up and back.
NOW, again YOU ARE NOT AUTHORIZED to do this!
We train for uncommanded thrust reverser deployment in the sim. if unable to stow the reverser, you shut down the engine and fly on the remaining engine.
I've asked if the reverser in the span air crash case deployed in flight, but I have no data to think that it has happend in this case.
The douglas dc9 series of planes have demonstrated inflight thrust reverser deployment and the ability to fly the plane.
boeings do it with mathematical models and theory.
NOW, again YOU ARE NOT AUTHORIZED to do this!
We train for uncommanded thrust reverser deployment in the sim. if unable to stow the reverser, you shut down the engine and fly on the remaining engine.
I've asked if the reverser in the span air crash case deployed in flight, but I have no data to think that it has happend in this case.
The douglas dc9 series of planes have demonstrated inflight thrust reverser deployment and the ability to fly the plane.
boeings do it with mathematical models and theory.
prohibited."