Spanair accident at Madrid
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In my head
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I didn't start it, Sir
I am no expert on high speed upsets but I've watched racing motorcyclists sliding along tarmac at high speeds when they tumble, then seen them brush themselves down and walk away, and I have watched enough other racing incidents to know that if you can allow something to slide uniformly after it falls without further sudden decelerations in any plane, then chances are it will come to a halt largely in one piece.
That much isn't rocket science.
Formula 1 race circuit designers generally wouldn't permit a 70 foot gully between straights to be left as a likely final resting point for any of their people, so why should modern airport designers permit themselves to think differently?
As I implied before, Spain has spent billions levelling mountains and ravines in the last five years and built beautifully smooth wide motorways that generally link all these newly envigorated airports effortlessly. A few more days work with 360 degree excavators, pipelayers and graders would transform terrain like this into level survivable energy dissipating surfaces.
Sioux City had some horrible initial decelerative forces but if my memory serves correctly, people primarily self-evacuated from the large pieces after they slid to a halt. I am not sure that level access for the fire services was a significant survival factor on that one, just lots of level space to decelerate uniformly in one plane...maybe it was a bit of both, but the passengers fared proportionately so much better than in this one, I think?
Have never flown the MD but would have thought their performance would be based on an improved climb with much higher V-speeds. Even if the performance was calculated incorrectly the chance of the aircraft being at an unsafe speed (for this reason only) seems unlikely.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"A light came on - but the pilot didn't know what it meant"
The Daily Telegraph reports one survivor as saying that captain, Antonio Garcia Luna, had warned passengers: "A light has come on, but I don't know what it means."
Ligia Palomino, 41, speaking from her hospital bed, told Spanish radio: "He said a light had come on but he didn't know what it meant." She described the moment the plane came down, saying: "Suddenly the plane started to shake, it was going from one side to the other untilit fell. Later I just remember people on the ground, smoke, explosions, and then I lost consciousness. I was saved by the paramedics. It's thanks to them that I'm alive. I feel like I've been born again."
The MD-82 crashed at its second attempt at take-off.The 164 passengers remained on board for 90 minutes while a fault was was repaired. Mechanics spent 40 minutes fixing the fault and the pilot signed paperwork saying he was happy with the inspection.At 14.23 it returned to runway 36-L and attempted to take off.
Ligia Palomino, 41, speaking from her hospital bed, told Spanish radio: "He said a light had come on but he didn't know what it meant." She described the moment the plane came down, saying: "Suddenly the plane started to shake, it was going from one side to the other untilit fell. Later I just remember people on the ground, smoke, explosions, and then I lost consciousness. I was saved by the paramedics. It's thanks to them that I'm alive. I feel like I've been born again."
The MD-82 crashed at its second attempt at take-off.The 164 passengers remained on board for 90 minutes while a fault was was repaired. Mechanics spent 40 minutes fixing the fault and the pilot signed paperwork saying he was happy with the inspection.At 14.23 it returned to runway 36-L and attempted to take off.
Psychophysiological entity
DozyWannabe post 507
I'm curious to know just what on earth the point of your post was. You seemed be doing almost exactly what you were pontificating posters should not do. i.e. wast bandwidth.
Since my post, which I confess was somewhat lateral in its logic, the captain that I was alluding to has been kind enough to PM me, and furthermore, other posters have mentioned what is obviously a reference to his decision making. Getting back on the ground can sometimes be the best action. V1 is not cast in stone.
No, we haven't got all the facts. If we had, there would be only about 30% of this discussion that would be of any point.
There have been some astonishing statements above. Tire marks indicating a flat-ish 'landing'. Astonishing if they are indeed belonging to this aircraft, especially since the failure sounded big enough to detach the tail.
Witnessed un-contained engine failure. There's another. The years that I spent on high tail 2 and 3 engine aircraft, the one thing nagging in the back of my minds was a chaotic disassembly of those close proximity parts. Hydraulic motors to Whipple Trees. They all spell disaster when a bit of hot engine schrapnel goes through their space.
Was there any prior warning of a pending engine failure? An exact relationship between the return to the pan and the ensuing failure. The link seems so vague.
After 45 years around aircraft, I accept the occasional horror story. What I'm primarily concerned with is the reduction of future accidents. Nothing more than swinging the statistics. They have never been better, let's keep improving the odds.
I would suggest that every professional on the forum has the same goal. Please, please let the Wannabees STOP telling us to wait until the official reports are out. This has been covered sooooooooo many times.
I'm curious to know just what on earth the point of your post was. You seemed be doing almost exactly what you were pontificating posters should not do. i.e. wast bandwidth.
Since my post, which I confess was somewhat lateral in its logic, the captain that I was alluding to has been kind enough to PM me, and furthermore, other posters have mentioned what is obviously a reference to his decision making. Getting back on the ground can sometimes be the best action. V1 is not cast in stone.
No, we haven't got all the facts. If we had, there would be only about 30% of this discussion that would be of any point.
There have been some astonishing statements above. Tire marks indicating a flat-ish 'landing'. Astonishing if they are indeed belonging to this aircraft, especially since the failure sounded big enough to detach the tail.
Witnessed un-contained engine failure. There's another. The years that I spent on high tail 2 and 3 engine aircraft, the one thing nagging in the back of my minds was a chaotic disassembly of those close proximity parts. Hydraulic motors to Whipple Trees. They all spell disaster when a bit of hot engine schrapnel goes through their space.
Was there any prior warning of a pending engine failure? An exact relationship between the return to the pan and the ensuing failure. The link seems so vague.
After 45 years around aircraft, I accept the occasional horror story. What I'm primarily concerned with is the reduction of future accidents. Nothing more than swinging the statistics. They have never been better, let's keep improving the odds.
I would suggest that every professional on the forum has the same goal. Please, please let the Wannabees STOP telling us to wait until the official reports are out. This has been covered sooooooooo many times.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Moscow
Age: 42
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
new video
What is the new video you guys are talking about which "sheds some new light"? Is it available anywhere in the web? I've been reading this thread from the very beginning but still might have missed the video everybody's talking about.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Canary Islands, Spain
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The account above in the Daily Telegraph is a bit "off context".
The survivor is first talking about the first aborted take-off when it refers to the captain saying "a red light has turned on" and he didn't know what it was. Later, it seems, he informed the passengers it was a "heat senso alarm" and "was repaired by the technician" during the aprox. 1 hour it took to go back to gate, bring in the technician, do the "repairs" (confirmed to have been some sort of "switch-off" or bypass) and get ready for take-off again.
The later part of her statements do refer to the accident during the "second" take-off, when the accident happened.
Not sure if you are referring to the Aena Barajas airport security cameras pointing to the airstrip, which recorded the accident. The footage is not available, but at least one spanish newspapers has cited sources within the investigation that has viewed the footage and describes it as, basically, there was no explosion or (big) engine fire during "take off", the front wheels (at least) left the ground (possibly back wheels as well, but not openly stated), a wing touched the floor whle coming down again, no (big, visible) fire started at least until the plane was fully on the ground ("hard" landed, bounced around, etc).
Sorry to be so vague, but that's what the (major) newspaper reporter has said and therefore other accounts are more speculative. My personal take is that it briefly took off without visible problems and few seconds after full ascend commenced something, either a mechanical fault/accidental damage/stall or a pilot decission, made it come down again and attempt to "land", resulting in problems that led to lack of control, damage (reportedly wing hitting the ground) and runing-off the side (not the end) of the airstrip at high speed into enviromental obstacles which caused brekage and fire.
But only a the facts stated above are "confirmed" (as reported through a newspaper citing footage viewer, which as we know, may also be innacurate). My account is totally speculative.
Windshear or bad atmospheric conditions seemed unlikely. Other than low wind low air density and high ambient temperature, conditions seemed good enough.
The survivor is first talking about the first aborted take-off when it refers to the captain saying "a red light has turned on" and he didn't know what it was. Later, it seems, he informed the passengers it was a "heat senso alarm" and "was repaired by the technician" during the aprox. 1 hour it took to go back to gate, bring in the technician, do the "repairs" (confirmed to have been some sort of "switch-off" or bypass) and get ready for take-off again.
The later part of her statements do refer to the accident during the "second" take-off, when the accident happened.
Not sure if you are referring to the Aena Barajas airport security cameras pointing to the airstrip, which recorded the accident. The footage is not available, but at least one spanish newspapers has cited sources within the investigation that has viewed the footage and describes it as, basically, there was no explosion or (big) engine fire during "take off", the front wheels (at least) left the ground (possibly back wheels as well, but not openly stated), a wing touched the floor whle coming down again, no (big, visible) fire started at least until the plane was fully on the ground ("hard" landed, bounced around, etc).
Sorry to be so vague, but that's what the (major) newspaper reporter has said and therefore other accounts are more speculative. My personal take is that it briefly took off without visible problems and few seconds after full ascend commenced something, either a mechanical fault/accidental damage/stall or a pilot decission, made it come down again and attempt to "land", resulting in problems that led to lack of control, damage (reportedly wing hitting the ground) and runing-off the side (not the end) of the airstrip at high speed into enviromental obstacles which caused brekage and fire.
But only a the facts stated above are "confirmed" (as reported through a newspaper citing footage viewer, which as we know, may also be innacurate). My account is totally speculative.
Windshear or bad atmospheric conditions seemed unlikely. Other than low wind low air density and high ambient temperature, conditions seemed good enough.
Last edited by justme69; 23rd Aug 2008 at 02:23.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: La Belle Province
Posts: 2,179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whereas, as mentioned, a manual "firewall" of the engines will generate thrust potentially far in excess of rated power - causing economic damage to the engines, but potentially saving the airframe. On a hot day, such as the accident, the engine rated thrust will be restricted by engine temperature considerations, and there will be considerable mechanical scope to increase fan and core speeds. As a complete WAG, there could be 20% or more thrust available, albeit for a limited time. Of course, in the OEI case it's generally NOT a smart move, because all your VMC numbers are also predicated on rated/ATTCS thrust levels.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: london
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Justme69 seems to have written an exact description of the current state of knowledge can further posters confine themselves to either responding to the data, or to introducing new data.
This is an interesting event and discussions about how air travel would be safer if the entire world was converted into one flat runway are obvious and uninteresting
This is an interesting event and discussions about how air travel would be safer if the entire world was converted into one flat runway are obvious and uninteresting
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: CARIBE
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wileydog3
naaaahh; well, i don't know who you fly for, but pencilwhips happen usually not with consent of the flight crew; they happen between dispatch ops, maintainance ops and the mechanic working the plane; getthereitis is the desire to accomplish the mission, mainly desire of the crew to get to the hotel, looked the other way by all ops for obvious reasons; thats why unions are such a nice thing...
Last edited by efatnas; 23rd Aug 2008 at 02:21. Reason: addressing the right person
It is fair to say that they were probably in a bit of a hurry. I'd certainly want to know the flaps and slats were configured. In fact, its the first thing that came to my mind after sadly hearing about this. I see somebody has just mentioned this.
As most people here are aware a Northwest MD-82 was lost this was after the loss of the CAWS failing to alert the crew of their error.
As most people here are aware a Northwest MD-82 was lost this was after the loss of the CAWS failing to alert the crew of their error.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: isle of man
Age: 77
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
review this thread
having read this subject from start to date, I'm amazed that intelligent people can be so wild in their guesses and theories. Why do you people who normally only deal maths and facts suddenly leap to speculative ideas which in reality until the official information is released is always guesswork. You complain about the media, but if you review this thread the posts are worse than than the guesses they make. Sorry but this thread just covers every possibilty that could go wrong in that situation. There's seems to be as lot of pseudo posturing about who is best at technical knowledge.
Read the thread again and see what you have all suggested.
Read the thread again and see what you have all suggested.
The question is appopriate for the on-scene investigators and possibly any close up photos of Leading edge devices and flaps. But I fear greatly that we will be inunadated with analysis of fuzzy stuff like vertical stabilizers etc. just because it looks like a wing.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Both Emispheres
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
390cruise, the airport video, like the FDR and CVR are in possession of Spain's judiciary now.
Nothing else is known about video content beside the little reported in previous posts.
I guess they want the boxes fully decoded before making any strong statement based on the video only.
Nothing else is known about video content beside the little reported in previous posts.
I guess they want the boxes fully decoded before making any strong statement based on the video only.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Ireland
Age: 52
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
justme69
bad summary ?? Personally, I think it's not bad at all - I find it useful to see a collection of what's known so far - even if the reason for 're-landing' is a mystery at this point.
bad summary ?? Personally, I think it's not bad at all - I find it useful to see a collection of what's known so far - even if the reason for 're-landing' is a mystery at this point.
Don't feel the need to apologise either - I think your welcome here as a non-expert, unlike the several morons posting rubbish (especially earlier in the thread), and especially the few masquerading as 'us'/'we' pilots - while referring to the 'relanding' of a transport category jet as if it were a cessna 182 heading for the fence with a flaming cylinder head. No offence to those who do fly cessnas - for they know we're dealing with different performance regimes, OEI climb gradient - or lack of!?!? etc.
For the most part, posts referring to playing with throttle levers, the flap lever, circuit breakers, or anything else while between Vr and 400AGL(the regulatory minimum) with an alleged engine fire/failure, are a bit of a giveaway.
For the most part, posts referring to playing with throttle levers, the flap lever, circuit breakers, or anything else while between Vr and 400AGL(the regulatory minimum) with an alleged engine fire/failure, are a bit of a giveaway.
This is an interesting event and discussions about how air travel would be safer if the entire world was converted into one flat runway are obvious and uninteresting
I agree, As is the mention of EMAS, since the aircraft went no-where near the END of the runway.
You complain about the media, but if you review this thread the posts are worse than than the guesses they make.
Actually usually, I complain about the media. In this case I think you're correct. In general, I don't think the media did as badly as in the past. The exception for me was the TIMES - quoting posts from PPRUNE verbatim (with anonymous contributors) is totally ridiculous and inexcusable. However, I found some of SKY's presenters references to the 'air intake valve overheat' with such authoritative tone to be hilarious - as if they knew what they were talking about and that it had to be an intrinsic causal factor in the accident! All the more so, because I was clueless to what the hell they meant - bleed air? air conditioning?, what VALVE?.
Since no-one knows yet (other than investigators) whether or not the return onto terra firma was 'involuntary', or deliberate pilot action, anything else is pointless speculation. If it turns out to be deliberate, then I guess the PF felt (whether justified or not) she was 'unable to fly' in the spirit of the V1 definition.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lomapaseo,
thank you. I've been reading my MD80 manuals. I was, and am, aware of ART (automatic reserve thrust) and ATR (automatic thrust restoration). Both features have previously been mentioned and put in context by xkoote in post 568 (permalink). Thanks a lot for that.
Here's what the Manual says about various takeoff power settings:
Reduced thrust (FLEX T.O.): ART off
Normal thrust: ART on
Maximum thrust: ART off
Autothrottles can be used in all three cases.
So, ART can be only be used for "normal" takeoff thrust. The other mechanism, ATR, is always available.
I don't know which thrust setting was used here. A very long runway might indicate FLEX, but high weight, altitude and temperature might have dictated normal thrust.
When the ART system detects a 30% N1 difference, invalid N1 or some other conditions, it actuates, and directly opens a solenoid-operated fuel valve, giving maximum thrust, regardless of thrust lever position.
ATR has different actuation conditions, and if triggered, advanced autothrottles to the Go-Around EPR limit.
Bernd
thank you. I've been reading my MD80 manuals. I was, and am, aware of ART (automatic reserve thrust) and ATR (automatic thrust restoration). Both features have previously been mentioned and put in context by xkoote in post 568 (permalink). Thanks a lot for that.
Here's what the Manual says about various takeoff power settings:
Reduced thrust (FLEX T.O.): ART off
Normal thrust: ART on
Maximum thrust: ART off
Autothrottles can be used in all three cases.
So, ART can be only be used for "normal" takeoff thrust. The other mechanism, ATR, is always available.
I don't know which thrust setting was used here. A very long runway might indicate FLEX, but high weight, altitude and temperature might have dictated normal thrust.
When the ART system detects a 30% N1 difference, invalid N1 or some other conditions, it actuates, and directly opens a solenoid-operated fuel valve, giving maximum thrust, regardless of thrust lever position.
ATR has different actuation conditions, and if triggered, advanced autothrottles to the Go-Around EPR limit.
Bernd
Bsieker
are you sure about the 30% number? Thats an awful lot of thrust loss (29% N1) to handle on a takeoff by the plane alone. I thought it was more like 10-15% for it to trigger.
When the ART system detects a 30% N1 difference, ....
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
400' agl
funny, some airlines use the 400' agl rule to start action
ours uses 1000' afe to start clean up and actions...one could cancel a fire bell earlier, but we don't start shutting anything down till 1000'
ours uses 1000' afe to start clean up and actions...one could cancel a fire bell earlier, but we don't start shutting anything down till 1000'