Spanair accident at Madrid
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
From: Spain
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.
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.
Last edited by agusaleale; 21st August 2008 at 23:40.
Joined: Apr 1999
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
From: UK
Originally Posted by ECAM Actions
Off the top of my head:
* Paris air crash (still can't decide which version of events is correct)
* 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.
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 556
Likes: 1
From: Germany
Originally Posted by ECAM_Actions
A330 under-going autopilot test flights (AP couldn't be disengaged after a go-around and it stalled).
- 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.
Bernd
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 77
Likes: 25
From: Heathrow
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...
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...
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
From: UK
What Paris crash?
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.
Joined: Apr 1999
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
From: UK
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.
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.
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 556
Likes: 1
From: Germany
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.
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
Psychophysiological entity
Joined: Jun 2001
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 3,383
Likes: 169
From: Walton on the Naze Essex.
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?
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?
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
From: Slaving away in front of multiple LCDs, somewhere in the USA
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.
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 144
Likes: 9
From: Australia
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.
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.
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
From: Curacao
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
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
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 4,236
Likes: 80
From: Just behind the back of beyond....
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.
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.
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
From: UK
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.
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.
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 5,896
Likes: 1
From: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
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.
AAR-87-01
As I recall, the POI for Midwest Express had never flown a jet, she was a Shorts pilot...
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
From: Metro
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.
Joined: Nov 1999
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
tire-related?
One probability/possibility, based upon the eye-witness account of flames from #1, is likely to be:
.
a. A tread-worn port main-gear tyre shredding at the point of rotation (Vrot) and being ingested into the port engine. During rotate, the engines are momentarily much closer to the ground and ingestion of point-of-rotate tyre debris becomes more likely.... partly due to the changed airflows over the slats/wings/TE flaps at rotation. Aircraft was at or near (or slightly in excess of?) max AUW for take-off (172 souls going on holiday with excess luggage). Who knows what the Spanish Regulator stipulates for average pax weights nowadays? The obesity epidemic is as prevalent in Spain as elsewhere in Western civilization. It was inevitable that there should eventually be an average pax-weight related jet crash equivalent to that Beech 1900's at Charlotte-Douglas. Think about the momentary "pivot-about-main-gear" effective weight increase pressure on the tyres at Vrot. V1 cuts have always been the main area of concern for engine failure and that is why these drills are emphasized in simulator training. If an operator is trying to save money on tyres and is using re-retreaded casings and also changing them very late in their wear-cycle, then they are increasingly liable to this type of "point-of-rotate" failure event for a heavily laden jet. A high-speed abort following a port tyre failure(s) would lead to directional control problems - notwithstanding what may have happened by way of debris ingestion.
.
On January 27, 2003 the FAA issued Notice N8400.40 requiring a number of operators of 10 to 19 passenger seat aircraft to validate the Weight and Balance Control Program to sample passenger weights, carry-on baggage weights, and checked baggage weights for part of their flights.
The survey showed that the average passenger weight was higher than the estimates by 20.63 pounds, carry-on bags were higher by 5.72 pounds and domestic checked bags by 3.81 pounds. Consequently, on May 12, the FAA reported it is adding 10 pounds to its estimate for passengers and five pounds to luggage (Notice 8300.112). This notice was cancelled by the publication of AC 120-27D August 11, 2004.
.
a. A tread-worn port main-gear tyre shredding at the point of rotation (Vrot) and being ingested into the port engine. During rotate, the engines are momentarily much closer to the ground and ingestion of point-of-rotate tyre debris becomes more likely.... partly due to the changed airflows over the slats/wings/TE flaps at rotation. Aircraft was at or near (or slightly in excess of?) max AUW for take-off (172 souls going on holiday with excess luggage). Who knows what the Spanish Regulator stipulates for average pax weights nowadays? The obesity epidemic is as prevalent in Spain as elsewhere in Western civilization. It was inevitable that there should eventually be an average pax-weight related jet crash equivalent to that Beech 1900's at Charlotte-Douglas. Think about the momentary "pivot-about-main-gear" effective weight increase pressure on the tyres at Vrot. V1 cuts have always been the main area of concern for engine failure and that is why these drills are emphasized in simulator training. If an operator is trying to save money on tyres and is using re-retreaded casings and also changing them very late in their wear-cycle, then they are increasingly liable to this type of "point-of-rotate" failure event for a heavily laden jet. A high-speed abort following a port tyre failure(s) would lead to directional control problems - notwithstanding what may have happened by way of debris ingestion.
.
On January 27, 2003 the FAA issued Notice N8400.40 requiring a number of operators of 10 to 19 passenger seat aircraft to validate the Weight and Balance Control Program to sample passenger weights, carry-on baggage weights, and checked baggage weights for part of their flights.
The survey showed that the average passenger weight was higher than the estimates by 20.63 pounds, carry-on bags were higher by 5.72 pounds and domestic checked bags by 3.81 pounds. Consequently, on May 12, the FAA reported it is adding 10 pounds to its estimate for passengers and five pounds to luggage (Notice 8300.112). This notice was cancelled by the publication of AC 120-27D August 11, 2004.
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
From: Hawaii
tire-related ?
1- Tires are more likely to fail when new or newly recapped.Less rotational mass as
they wear.
2-The MD-80 has deflectors on the landing gear to prevent this type of ingestion.
3-Where are the pictures of the rubber on the runway? The engine can't eat it all!!
they wear.
2-The MD-80 has deflectors on the landing gear to prevent this type of ingestion.
3-Where are the pictures of the rubber on the runway? The engine can't eat it all!!
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
From: Both Emispheres
El Pais reporting
From 22/08 edition main article on the accident:
- there is a video and is being examinated
- video shows a/c not reaching more than "few" meters above runway
- reportedly, no engine explosion is seen in the video
- a/c is seeing veering off r/w, rebounce and burst into flames while breaking up.
- FDRs have been rescued. One is damaged.
- A (probe ?) heater failure is reported to have been the cause for the initial return to ramp. This fault was on the same engine that then apparently failed.