Spanair accident at Madrid
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 77
Likes: 25
From: Heathrow
Guys - Having skipped through some of the posts, and reading what has been said, I go back to what I asked around page 9 - Only Professionals need answer please.
If there was an explosive engine failiure (Fan piercing the engine casing), is there any chance it could of ruptured hydraulics for the control surfaces? I earlier brought up the United incident with the explosive engine failiure. Is there any chance something like this could have happened in this case? do the control systems run along the top or the bottom of the aircraft?
Look forward to what you guys have to say
If there was an explosive engine failiure (Fan piercing the engine casing), is there any chance it could of ruptured hydraulics for the control surfaces? I earlier brought up the United incident with the explosive engine failiure. Is there any chance something like this could have happened in this case? do the control systems run along the top or the bottom of the aircraft?
Look forward to what you guys have to say
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
From: East of the Sun & West of the Moon
Originally Posted by xxxchopperpilot, Aug 21 2008, 09:23
PJ2,
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.
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.
I wonder if you understand how truly offensive your remarks are, and the level of ignorance they betray both of the subject at hand and the individual you are addressing.
Since it's obvious that you are unaware, you may wish to know that PJ2 is a recently retired senior captain of a major airline who has exercised the responsibilities of command for a good many years, quite possibly more years than you've been alive. His contributions to the field of aviation safety are well know to many of us on this forum and others, and he has been actively making those contributions both as a part of professional discourse and in response to inquiries from interested non-professionals all the way back to the BBS days of AVSIG.
You, with your sum total of 7 posts in one month of membership on PPRuNe might not have understood the import of his response to you, so let's get things clear on a couple points:
- As a respected professional in this industry he was not suggesting to you that "until we're happy" was a substitute for the completion of required tests. In fact, just the reverse, "until we're happy" reflects a state of mind that is inclusive and sees the entire situation and ensures that all concerns are accounted for before we go flying, not just those that are enumerated in a maintenance manual. It's this approach to problems and exercise of judgement that marks a real captain, which he most definitely is.
- Because he's the gentleman that he is PJ2 has chosen to take the time to try and explain these concepts to sandbank, yourself, and others with similarly uninformed viewpoints on how the profession works. Frankly, most of the rest of the real professionals here are far less patient with such naiveté and if they respond to you at all it will be with a good deal less courtesy than PJ2 has shown you. That you were unable to discern the points that he was trying to make to you is no excuse for your appallingly rude and insulting response to him.
ELAC
Guest
Posts: n/a
This isn't speculation. I have no idea what happened!
Madrid is about 2000' elevation.
It was hot- 30C.
They must have been heavy. c. 175 pax + fuel for a long sector.
( Could have been unlucky with pax weight as they were prob using standard weights.)
Wind was flukey. could eaily have been still air or even a tailwind.
Everyone knows the 'Mad Dog' is powerful, but 'on one', in the above conditions, surely it will need very careful handling.
Even if only a 'straightforward' EFATO or Fire on t/o this could have been really challenging and might even have left them with an a/c that wouldn't- or would hardly climb- alright, that IS speculation.
I pray for the families of those who are dead.
A tragedy.
Madrid is about 2000' elevation.
It was hot- 30C.
They must have been heavy. c. 175 pax + fuel for a long sector.
( Could have been unlucky with pax weight as they were prob using standard weights.)
Wind was flukey. could eaily have been still air or even a tailwind.
Everyone knows the 'Mad Dog' is powerful, but 'on one', in the above conditions, surely it will need very careful handling.
Even if only a 'straightforward' EFATO or Fire on t/o this could have been really challenging and might even have left them with an a/c that wouldn't- or would hardly climb- alright, that IS speculation.
I pray for the families of those who are dead.
A tragedy.
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 887
Likes: 131
From: Location, Location
Risq,
In answer to your question (although not familiar with the type involved) YES an uncontained engine failure CAN rupture hydraulic lines.
This does not necessarily mean that you immediately lose all your hydraulic fluid though, or lose it all that quickly.
In answer to your question (although not familiar with the type involved) YES an uncontained engine failure CAN rupture hydraulic lines.
This does not necessarily mean that you immediately lose all your hydraulic fluid though, or lose it all that quickly.
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 420
Likes: 3
From: In the Old Folks' Home
How Do We Handle It?
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?
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
From: uk
The MD80 series is certainly a fine plane on which to be a passenger, silent & smooth. I use it weekly MAN-CPH. It does rotate differently than other types though. Regularly, especially when full, as it rotates the back end tends to drop slightly which tends to give you slight negative G loadings as it quickly arrests the drop and powers up. I think someone referred to it's tendency to do this when slightly over rotated in an earlier post. I always feel this when I'm in the overwing exit seat and the flight is full. It gives you a real pressure on the head pushing you in the seat for a couple of seconds. Never happens on other types. This particular flight was full and also on its way to a holiday destination. This implies significant luggage load. Specualtion of course but there is a possibility that the aircraft was at max t/o weight for the conditions, suffered an engine failure at the critical point of rotation. Possibly the take off calcualtions were eroneous due to the faulty OAT probe and the aircraft could not maintain flight (possibly Vr was too low). Pilot tries to put it back down as there's not enough power to sustain flight, reverser deployed, slews off runway, down ravine etc. There's always a chain of events with these accidents and it certainly won't put me off flying the MD82 next week. Fortunately these events are rare and lessons are learned from these tragedies.
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,569
Likes: 1
From: Florida
If there was an explosive engine failiure (Fan piercing the engine casing), is there any chance it could of ruptured hydraulics for the control surfaces? I earlier brought up the United incident with the explosive engine failiure. Is there any chance something like this could have happened in this case? do the control systems run along the top or the bottom of the aircraft?
Liklihood slim
I could go into this much deeper, but it would only fuel wasted speculation and discussion. Let's wait for a tidbit of additional facts from the investigators on-scene. We probably will hear something within 24 hours
PS I still feel that my word mininmize was properly used earlier, to wit, one mitigates the damage in order to minimize a specific consequence from occuring
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 556
Likes: 1
From: Germany
Contained and uncontained engines failures, hydraulics, cables, ...
Just a few remarks.
Modern turbofan engines need to show, as part of the certification, that their casing can contain the separation of a fan blade during a maximum power run. There are impressive videos of such "fan-blade-off tests" on Youtube.
What cannot usually be contained is the failure of a compressor or turbine disc. These will exit the case at unpredictable angles (though more or less perpendicular to the rotational axis) and at high momentums and energies. At least since the Sioux City accident, where fragments from the tail-mounted #2 engine of a DC-10 ruptured all three hydraulic lines, one of the design factors mitigating the effects of such occurrences is to route redundant systems through different physical locations, if possible.
Great care is taken that such failures do not occur. But they still do, very rarely.
The DC-9's control systems, including those of the -80 series (otherwise known as "MD80"), are mostly cable-mechanical. The cables, connected to the control wheels, and control columns, move tabs at the ailerons and the elevator, which in turn move the control surfaces themselves by aerodynamic forces. Roll-control is supported by hydraulically activated spoilers, and nose-down pitch control in a stall situation is also hydraulically assisted, if necessary.
Normal rudder operation is hydraulical, but in case of a hydraulic failure, or when decativated manually, rudder control is also mechanical via a tab.
I have no idea about what happened in Madrid, and I would also not offer an opinion as to whether hydraulics are more or less vulnerable to shrapnel than control cables. Both seems possible.
Bernd
Modern turbofan engines need to show, as part of the certification, that their casing can contain the separation of a fan blade during a maximum power run. There are impressive videos of such "fan-blade-off tests" on Youtube.
What cannot usually be contained is the failure of a compressor or turbine disc. These will exit the case at unpredictable angles (though more or less perpendicular to the rotational axis) and at high momentums and energies. At least since the Sioux City accident, where fragments from the tail-mounted #2 engine of a DC-10 ruptured all three hydraulic lines, one of the design factors mitigating the effects of such occurrences is to route redundant systems through different physical locations, if possible.
Great care is taken that such failures do not occur. But they still do, very rarely.
The DC-9's control systems, including those of the -80 series (otherwise known as "MD80"), are mostly cable-mechanical. The cables, connected to the control wheels, and control columns, move tabs at the ailerons and the elevator, which in turn move the control surfaces themselves by aerodynamic forces. Roll-control is supported by hydraulically activated spoilers, and nose-down pitch control in a stall situation is also hydraulically assisted, if necessary.
Normal rudder operation is hydraulical, but in case of a hydraulic failure, or when decativated manually, rudder control is also mechanical via a tab.
I have no idea about what happened in Madrid, and I would also not offer an opinion as to whether hydraulics are more or less vulnerable to shrapnel than control cables. Both seems possible.
Bernd
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 77
Likes: 25
From: Heathrow
Last thing I wanted was to speculate, I was just intrigued as more reports are indicating an explosion, but knowing what 99.9% of the media is like, it was much less dramatic. Obviously having seen the Southwest explosive fan failure ( The damage to the casing ) and the United incident, I thought it may be worth putting into the light.
So I take it the control systems run along the top of the plane?
I hope that the forums don't lock out us ethusiasts. I may not be a Captain, but the only time I post is when I feel something may be helpful.
I don't condone posts such as "maybe livestock onboard caused the crash" I mean, come on....
I really hope I can read the facts and the truths....the Media just makes me
- If I want the real answers, I come on here....
So I take it the control systems run along the top of the plane?
I hope that the forums don't lock out us ethusiasts. I may not be a Captain, but the only time I post is when I feel something may be helpful.
I don't condone posts such as "maybe livestock onboard caused the crash" I mean, come on....
I really hope I can read the facts and the truths....the Media just makes me
- If I want the real answers, I come on here....
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
From: fort sheridan, il
I can't find anything about control cables being compromise on any dc9/md80 type in an engine failure scenario.
a delta md88 blew an engine in pensacola and parts came through the fuselage and killed two seated in the rear most seats.
the rudder is hydraulically powered, but has full manual reversion through an aerodynamic tab.
the elevator is manual by way of aerodynamic tab...it has a hydraulic ram for nose down in an unusual scenario called a deep stall.
the ailerons are manual though tabs.
the spoilers are hydraulic.
failure of the complete and total hydraulic system leaves this plane completely controllable in all 3 axis of control.
the 737 does not have manual reversion on the rudder...many other planes don't either!
a delta md88 blew an engine in pensacola and parts came through the fuselage and killed two seated in the rear most seats.
the rudder is hydraulically powered, but has full manual reversion through an aerodynamic tab.
the elevator is manual by way of aerodynamic tab...it has a hydraulic ram for nose down in an unusual scenario called a deep stall.
the ailerons are manual though tabs.
the spoilers are hydraulic.
failure of the complete and total hydraulic system leaves this plane completely controllable in all 3 axis of control.
the 737 does not have manual reversion on the rudder...many other planes don't either!
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
From: UK
RiSq, I'm not 100% on this but I believe the control cables and hydraulic lines run through the floor. To the best of my limited knowledge the only aircraft that runs then through the ceiling is the 747 due to the position of the flight deck above the main passenger cabin.
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
From: Rome
Hi,
MD80 reverser can be opened in flight if the throttles are at idle.
One thing is sure, the reverser from one engine were deployed. The investigation will tell us if this was an attempted abort after rotation.
Regards
Gnazio
MD80 reverser can be opened in flight if the throttles are at idle.
One thing is sure, the reverser from one engine were deployed. The investigation will tell us if this was an attempted abort after rotation.
Regards
Gnazio
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
From: Surrey
Why not this?
It seems really odd that in an age where nearly every street in Britain is monitored by CCTV the runways on an airport as busy as this are not. I've watched this thread and its associated (poor) news coverage since the start. In particular the crap graphical cartoon representations of "what might have happened" offend.
Surely for the cost of two hard drive (security style, say three hour) video recorders and two cameras almost buried in the ground using long (telephoto) lenses at each end of the runway, we'd be able to see something of what really did occur?
Such a low cost solution to early answers ...............tell me where I'm going wrong?
Surely for the cost of two hard drive (security style, say three hour) video recorders and two cameras almost buried in the ground using long (telephoto) lenses at each end of the runway, we'd be able to see something of what really did occur?
Such a low cost solution to early answers ...............tell me where I'm going wrong?
Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Never flew this type but one engine out at WAT limit does require special handling on any type.The key is being gentle and good stick and rudder skills.Rotation should be slower and BA will be less,typically only 13 deg.Crews must remember that an engine on fire does produce thrust and so PF applies rudder as he retards the thrust lever.Slowly and in a coordinated fashion.If you're ham-fisted about it,you can get into trouble,like over-control and large bank angles near the deck.Bank,any bank,is your worst enemy at this critical time.
I dont know what happened in this awful tragedy but I do know that stick and rudder skills and airmanship are being sacrificed at the altar of political correctness,SOP overkill and computerized hi-tec aircraft.
I dont know what happened in this awful tragedy but I do know that stick and rudder skills and airmanship are being sacrificed at the altar of political correctness,SOP overkill and computerized hi-tec aircraft.
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 556
Likes: 1
From: Germany
Originally Posted by xkoote
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.
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.
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.
E. g., on the A320:
The three systems are called "blue", "green" and "yellow", blue is pressurized by an electric pump or the RAT (ram air turbine in this case), green by an engine-driven pump, yellow by an engine-driven pump or by an electric pump, or, for cargo door operation, by a hand-operated pump.
There is also a power transfer unit, through which the yellow system can pressurize the green system, or vice versa.
Each system has an accumulator to assist during high demands, and to operate the brakes during a failure.
Does that seem less redundant than the MD80's system?
Remember the 777 engine shutdown problems?
The A320 flight control computer woes in the late 80's and early 90's?
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.
Lastly, the MD80 is loooong. Small elevators, swept wings and a very narrow wheel base. She's NOT an easy plane to fly.
Bernd
Last edited by bsieker; 21st August 2008 at 23:00.
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 77
Likes: 25
From: Heathrow
Brittleware
What you state regarding the recording of take offs/ landings I'm sure has been brought up before. If anyone has seen the B2 footage from Guam, you'll notice that this was taken from a "Security Camera" at the base, that was watching the departure of the B2's. Although it doesn't answer all the questions, it can help. In the B2 instance, you can see something detach from the aircraft and its pitch for rotation is way too steep, which results in a stall and the left wing clipping the ground.
Like you say, video footage would have provided vital evidence.
Maybe someone more in the "know" will be able to explain why it hasn't been put into affect, but I know it has been suggested countless times before.
EDIT: Just see that someone has posted that such cameras were in use. I'm sure they will show some vital information. Are they now a requirement or "Advised" to have them?
What you state regarding the recording of take offs/ landings I'm sure has been brought up before. If anyone has seen the B2 footage from Guam, you'll notice that this was taken from a "Security Camera" at the base, that was watching the departure of the B2's. Although it doesn't answer all the questions, it can help. In the B2 instance, you can see something detach from the aircraft and its pitch for rotation is way too steep, which results in a stall and the left wing clipping the ground.
Like you say, video footage would have provided vital evidence.
Maybe someone more in the "know" will be able to explain why it hasn't been put into affect, but I know it has been suggested countless times before.
EDIT: Just see that someone has posted that such cameras were in use. I'm sure they will show some vital information. Are they now a requirement or "Advised" to have them?
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
From: UK
And these caused which accidents exactly? (And don't tell me Habsheim.)
* Paris air crash (still can't decide which version of events is correct)
* A330 under-going autopilot test flights (AP couldn't be disengaged after a go-around and it stalled).
* Incident with A320 making un-commanded pitch maneuvers on approach, but thankfully didn't crash.
Most other aircraft with which I am familiar have three independent hydraulic systems, of which a single one allows the aircraft to be flown and landed, albeit with reduced manoeuverability.
The DC-10 had three systems, but there were a couple of crashes where it didn't make any difference - all three lines were severed by a single event.
ECAM Actions.
Last edited by ECAM_Actions; 21st August 2008 at 23:14.
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
From: still in bed
EPR /FADEC issue
just some idea:
1) if they haven't rejected the T/O is because they reached V1 way down the runway. this is evident of un underpowered engines performances for some reason (FLEX temperature?) (FADEC? )
2) If they had lost engine 1 while airborne or after V1 why they were not able to fly on one engine? Is evident to me that also Eng.2 was not delivering 100% of its power.
3) what kind of warning make the CT to return to the gate? An outside temp failure gauge? (effecting the EPR computation?)
It looks tragically similar to the 737 incident that flew into the Potomac river soon after T/O because its TAT engine probe was blocked by ice.
I'm truly sorry for the vacationer that perish and I am very sorry for the workers that perished to carry them.
note:
I followed the incident reporting from CNN a soon it happened. It was disgusting how they were making a show asking perfect idiots like me incredibly stupid questions receiving never-ending and stupid answers to feed their stupid audience. Only BBC was reporting the tragic facts.
however CNN Richard Quest (ex BBC economic journalist turned into business traveler for CNN) become instantly an aviation expert (because he travel I suppose) When he quoted that MD80 rotate at 180-190 kt. (Concorde was 200...kt) He did gave me the different impression that expert. But I realized he was reading PPrune forum for his entertaining coverage source information . So Guys, is worth to keep more "professional" and lesss "rumors".
Regards .
ps :My written English is not easy to read (I know that) sorry.
1) if they haven't rejected the T/O is because they reached V1 way down the runway. this is evident of un underpowered engines performances for some reason (FLEX temperature?) (FADEC? )
2) If they had lost engine 1 while airborne or after V1 why they were not able to fly on one engine? Is evident to me that also Eng.2 was not delivering 100% of its power.
3) what kind of warning make the CT to return to the gate? An outside temp failure gauge? (effecting the EPR computation?)
It looks tragically similar to the 737 incident that flew into the Potomac river soon after T/O because its TAT engine probe was blocked by ice.
I'm truly sorry for the vacationer that perish and I am very sorry for the workers that perished to carry them.
note:
I followed the incident reporting from CNN a soon it happened. It was disgusting how they were making a show asking perfect idiots like me incredibly stupid questions receiving never-ending and stupid answers to feed their stupid audience. Only BBC was reporting the tragic facts.
however CNN Richard Quest (ex BBC economic journalist turned into business traveler for CNN) become instantly an aviation expert (because he travel I suppose) When he quoted that MD80 rotate at 180-190 kt. (Concorde was 200...kt) He did gave me the different impression that expert. But I realized he was reading PPrune forum for his entertaining coverage source information . So Guys, is worth to keep more "professional" and lesss "rumors".
Regards .
ps :My written English is not easy to read (I know that) sorry.
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,569
Likes: 1
From: Florida
A330driver
I have no idea where you got This from but it is all wrong
Just to add - th JT8D engine was originally certified before fan containment was required. Grandfather rights are in effect and are not required on derivatives.