Spanair accident at Madrid

[ECAM_Actions]

And these caused which accidents exactly? (And don't tell me Habsheim.)

Off the top of my head:

* 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.

Maybe it's a weight issue? Exec jets tend to only have two systems, I know the Fokker 70/100 has only two systems. It doesn't make them "less safe". The A380 only has two hydraulic systems (5000 psi systems), with electric backup!!

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.

[ZAGORFLY]

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.

[Aeromar27]

Oh well, apparently the crisis committee has already watched the CCTV tape and investigations are being based on the hypothesis that whatever happened to the engine did in fact damage control surfaces of the aircraft.

Someone mentioned something about the certification of the JT8D not requiring fan containment, i would like to know details about that, and how it has been adapted to the new certification criteria. Have no tests been conducted at all... bird or hail ingestion?


EDIT: mentioning how useless this post is, makes it even more useless. There are a couple people here trying to share useful information so that we all learn something from this. So, considering that people have already stopped repeating what they hear on the news, lets try not to state how useless their comments were over and over again.

[lomapaseo]

A330driver

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.

I have no idea where you got This from but it is all wrong

[agusaleale]

A fact is that the plane was in the air, between 40 and 50 mts (160 feet).

At the moment of the take off, one of the survivors (Ligia Palomino) explained that the plane was shakiing from one side to the other.

[Carnage Matey!]

Originally Posted by ECAM Actions

Off the top of my head:

* Paris air crash (still can't decide which version of events is correct)

What Paris crash?

* A330 under-going autopilot test flights (AP couldn't be disengaged after a go-around and it stalled).

Not even close to the truth there.

* Incident with A320 making un-commanded pitch maneuvers on approach, but thankfully didn't crash.

More details please. Off the top of my head it seems you are a little confused.

[bsieker]

Originally Posted by ECAM_Actions

A330 under-going autopilot test flights (AP couldn't be disengaged after a go-around and it stalled).

- That is inaccurate. The autopilot was left engaged for a very long time intentionally to be able to analyse the problem better after the flight. It could have been disengaged earlier.

- It was not an A320

- It was the autopilot, not the flight control (fly-by-wire) software. The MD80 also has an autopilot, which is computer software.

- It was a test flight.

See also the entry in our compendium.

Paris air crash (still can't decide which version of events is correct)

Incident with A320 making un-commanded pitch maneuvers on approach, but thankfully didn't crash.

This was caused by an intermittent fault in the THS actuator system. Nothing to do with software.


Bernd

[RiSq]

Aeromar Wrote:

Oh well, apparently the crisis committee has already watched the CCTV tape and investigations are being based on the hypothesis that whatever happened to the engine did in fact damage control surfaces of the aircraft


Is this confirmed Aeromar? Where did you source the information? interesting if it was proven that they are looking into this, especially after the last few posts regarding it.

Or was there some sarcasm there that I missed...

[ECAM_Actions]

What Paris crash?

My bad - the Paris airshow - the one where it went into the trees after doing a 100 ft fly-by.

Regarding the A330 - Oops. 1994 A330 test flight crash - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

DC-10 - I'm not confused there. There were a couple of accidents whereby the #2 disintegrated and took out all the hydraulic lines.

ECAM Actions.

[Carnage Matey!]

Paris airshow? You mean Habsheim, which is not Paris, and which somebody previously told you not to mention because it's entirely irrelevant.

If you are getting your info on the A330 crash from Wikipedia then I'd suggest you really aren't qualified to be discussing the subject.

[bsieker]

Originally Posted by ECAM_Actions

My bad - the Paris airshow - the one where it went into the trees after doing a 100 ft fly-by.

Oh dear. Here we go again. That was Habsheim, which is a long way from Paris, and it has been discussed to death.

The ultra-short version:

- Idle-power low-flyby at local airshow at small aerodrome with grass strip
- Planned for 100ft
- Executed at 30-50ft
- At this height agl, the alpha-floor-protection (TOGA thrust) is inhibited
- alpha-floor-protection was permenently disabled for this flight by Captain
- Captain realised critical situation too late
- engines took their usual 6 seconds to spool up from idle
- engines ingested trees
- wings and fuselage impacted trees
- aircraft came to rest in trees, caught fire. Three people died.


It was not caused by the flight control software in any way.

See also the latest pages in the BA 038 thread.


Bernd

[Loose rivets]

So, if we have a loud bang and masses of vibration, on or just after V1, how many people would elect to abandon rather than carry a obviously physically damaged aircraft into the air?

Or conversely, how many people think they can look out of the window and assess whether they have enough concrete left wherever the V1 call was?

[SeniorDispatcher]

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.

As a former QH-er, I think you'll find that was an EPR sensor...

[Willoz269]

An interesting snippet....I was watching satellite news when this happened, and 2 witnesses at the end of the runway, not far from the crash, said unequivocally one engine exploded..."you can see it, one engine is over there (pointing to one side of the runway) and the other is in the wreckage, barely visible in the rubble)". I am usually the first to listen to witness statements with a grain of salt, particularly as adrenaline immediately after the accident accentuates things you see or perceive, but the clincher was him saying he saw the explosion and is pointing the engines out to the cameras. Maybe he thought he saw it, not sure, but an uncontained failure is possible.

I am of the opinion the probe had nothing to do with it, I have been in cockpit rides with good friends cursing about having to nudge the throttles in an MD80 up and down to get stable readings, we land, the engineers unscrew the probe and water comes gushing out...screws back on, and away it goes....and behold, the readings are fine.

[xkoote]

To bsieker

bsieker,

I was pointing the general fact that the MD80 is not an unsafe plane as many articles would have us beleive. Unfortunately I have NO idea whatsoever who you are, nor do I understand your need to defend the A320. Just want to inform you about the idea of taking off with as little flaps as possible as runway permits. Other types are limited to the flaps selector. You'll takeoff with less runway, but with less airspeed and more drag. That's the principle of the dial-a-flap. It's just enough flaps to get airborne. The more energy you have going airborne the better. You may not think it's significant enough, but MDC definitely thought so. And I'm more inclined to believe them.

As for defending the A320, I don't exactly know why as I wasn't attacking other planes as your post suggests. I know the A320 systems good enough, I know all planes have the same characteristics to make them safe. Hence the question that may be you can answer. Why does the media blame the MD as being a plane with a dubious safety record ? ?

Take a chill pill my friend, I'm just an MD80 pilot explaining to the non-pro's in the thread the particulars of the MD80 system. And don't fret, I won't mention the habsheim incident..........nor the A340 incident over the atlantic

Regards,

Xander

[Jackonicko]

I am a journalist and a UAS-trained PPL, and I make no apology for reading this thread from start to finish. Civil air transport isn't my usual beat, but I am inevitably asked for my opinion and it's useful to have some 'fibre' to go with my stock protestation that it's too early to say, and that we don't know which parts of what we're seeing are facts, and which parts are speculation.

I'm only human, too, and I'm honest enough to admit that (outside what I might write) I'm privately interested in what may have taken two of my fellow pilots.

And privately, it's starting to sound like a catastrophic engine failure, and one wonders whether the aircraft was then mishandled - one of the higher value PPRuNers pointed out that there could be "a disastrous combination if the engine fails at TO, causing wing-to-wing amplitudes that take some sorting out." This might explain the right wingtip hitting the ground, I guess? Or could we have had the lethal combination of a failure of the left hand engine, followed by extension of the RH thrust reverser? Whatever the truth, it's plainly still too speculative to write about - but not too speculative to think about!

I've refrained from posting until now, but I have just seen an interview with one of the Spanish fire-people which throws some light on the survival aspects. He stated that most of the survivors came from the section of fuselage that ended up "in the river", who were able to extricate themselves from the wreckage "unaided". It sounded as though others survived the impact, but were unable to extricate themselves..... Tragic and awful stuff.

[sevenstrokeroll]

I do think that checking the accident in 1985, location, Milwaukee, WI, USA of a DC9 flown by Midwest Express airlines may , (MAY) shed some light on this span air crash.

[DozyWannabe]

Loose rivets - at this point we don't know whether the vibrations were felt before, at, or after V1 and the only human beings that could confirm that are dead. So despite our natural inquisitiveness and desire to solve the problem, we're basically fumbling in the dark until we get some kind of preliminary bulletin or press release.

So I think if we're not angling to make fools out of ourselves we should keep our powder dry and our minds open. That means cutting the personal cr*p and the pet theories and only contributing if it helps, whether a professional, an interested layman or just someone browsing though.

Come on people, right now all we have to go on is conjecture. The MD-80 series is derived from an old design, but it's a type just like any other. Pilots who fly the type know its idiosyncrasies just as pilots who fly other types know their idiosyncrasies. As such, comparison to A320/737/whatever is pointless and unhelpful.

Until we know, we can't really compare this incident to anything.

[Airbubba]

I do think that checking the accident in 1985, location, Milwaukee, WI, USA of a DC9 flown by Midwest Express airlines may , (MAY) shed some light on this span air crash.

Definitely some similarities in the accident profile. It was a baby -9, no slats, the PF botched the control inputs according to the NTSB:

AAR-87-01

As I recall, the POI for Midwest Express had never flown a jet, she was a Shorts pilot...

[The Dude2]

OK enough. In every airline incident there is always a number of factors which lead to the inevidable. First, an engine failure, not a catastrofic event by itself. The crew should have taken it into the air and returned to Madrid. As it happened, they did get airbourne, that was the safest place for them. They tried to place the aircraft back on the runway which unless they popped the 2nd engine was a death call. List one incident in aviation history where this was successful. There are none. The inquiry will list a multitude of factors in this crash including not only mechanical, but crew failure to follow simple SOP'S and deal with the problem in the air. The fact that the reverser was found deployed can only be attributed to weigth on weels and reverse was selected. This incident although not initially the crews fault will ultimately be blamed on them. Sad but true.