Spanair accident at Madrid
Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
sevenstrokeroll,
Let me get this straight.You're saying failure of air/gnd system?Surely there would be more indications of such a failure than just this probe heater warning?Like antiskid/RTO disabled,cant set parking brake...
Let me get this straight.You're saying failure of air/gnd system?Surely there would be more indications of such a failure than just this probe heater warning?Like antiskid/RTO disabled,cant set parking brake...
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
From: merseyside
thrust reversers ?
justme69 A photo of the wreckage seems to show one of the engine with the thrust reverser engaged and locked, indicating either an attempted abort during take-off (or forced landing, depending on how you look at it, as it seems to have happened seconds after airbone).
I am very curious about this statement my reasoning being that a very good friend
( ex monarch captain 17 years ) and i were having a discussion on the telephone about this accident yesterday .
I was talking about the fact that there was a lot of discussion on Pprune about the direction in which the aircraft veered off the runway versus the supposed engine failure and its position .
One of the first things he said was that it sounded more like an attempted abort & the thrust reverser had possibly been activated ? when i told him that the thrust reverser had been photographed and that it was engaged & locked he went very quiet .
I wanted to ask have there ever been any other accidents where a thrust reverser was engaged in error where an aircraft had crashed ? and have there ver been any incidence's where a thrust reverser engaged due to a mechanical fault of some kind ?
im not a journo just someone who is very interested in aviation & off corse my own personal safety . The more i learn the more informed i become .
thankyou
I am very curious about this statement my reasoning being that a very good friend
( ex monarch captain 17 years ) and i were having a discussion on the telephone about this accident yesterday .
I was talking about the fact that there was a lot of discussion on Pprune about the direction in which the aircraft veered off the runway versus the supposed engine failure and its position .
One of the first things he said was that it sounded more like an attempted abort & the thrust reverser had possibly been activated ? when i told him that the thrust reverser had been photographed and that it was engaged & locked he went very quiet .
I wanted to ask have there ever been any other accidents where a thrust reverser was engaged in error where an aircraft had crashed ? and have there ver been any incidence's where a thrust reverser engaged due to a mechanical fault of some kind ?
im not a journo just someone who is very interested in aviation & off corse my own personal safety . The more i learn the more informed i become .
thankyou
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
From: fort sheridan, il
rananim:
I've been in the cockpit flying the mighty 9 (earlier version...dc9)...just sitting at the gate reviewing takeoff info.
Checking what we call the rat / epr gauge/display, the takeoff epr was very very low.
this can't be...something doesn't make sense.
so, we looked around...called mx, and a wise old mechanic came out...said:
the plane thinks its in the air and the RAT probe is being heated on the ground when it shouldn't be. so the rat probe thinks the temperature for takeoff is about 50 degrees C. (much warmer than the 20c actual).
he showed us a circuit breaker (can't remember where) that had popped, reset it and a few seconds later the RAT probe cooled down and showed a normal epr for takeoff.
the other things you mention may or may not be present...but at slow speeds, the anti skid doesn't matter on the douglas etc.
I think those in charge of the investigation must be considering this scenario...or something close to it.
I've been in the cockpit flying the mighty 9 (earlier version...dc9)...just sitting at the gate reviewing takeoff info.
Checking what we call the rat / epr gauge/display, the takeoff epr was very very low.
this can't be...something doesn't make sense.
so, we looked around...called mx, and a wise old mechanic came out...said:
the plane thinks its in the air and the RAT probe is being heated on the ground when it shouldn't be. so the rat probe thinks the temperature for takeoff is about 50 degrees C. (much warmer than the 20c actual).
he showed us a circuit breaker (can't remember where) that had popped, reset it and a few seconds later the RAT probe cooled down and showed a normal epr for takeoff.
the other things you mention may or may not be present...but at slow speeds, the anti skid doesn't matter on the douglas etc.
I think those in charge of the investigation must be considering this scenario...or something close to it.
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
From: fort sheridan, il
did I see something about the flight data recorder not working right?
if so, I just checked my old DC9 manual ( I was on the 9-30, not the 80, but things should be simliar)
the flight data recorder would be affected by the ground shift mechanism.
also, the anti skid is not affected by ground shift according to my manual.
can someone confirm the FDR wasn't working right?
if so, I just checked my old DC9 manual ( I was on the 9-30, not the 80, but things should be simliar)
the flight data recorder would be affected by the ground shift mechanism.
also, the anti skid is not affected by ground shift according to my manual.
can someone confirm the FDR wasn't working right?
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
From: Bali, Indonesia
Engine Issues not conclusive on video?
It is a shame that full ground TO video WITH AUDIO is not available. Eye witnesses are notoriously unreliable but the reports of hearing a loud bang, also repeated by some of the survivors are intriguing. Also, the ground video, taken from Terminal 4, presumably only see the near/Port side of the aircarft on 36L, although this is not clear also. I am just wondering outloud if, after all the earlier speculation of possible failure of #1, that it might actually have been a problem with #2? Such failure, which may not necessarily have been accompanied by fire, but probably would have been accompanied by a loud bang, would have been out of the visual/audio capability of the video?
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 5,896
Likes: 1
From: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
-warning device-takeoff warning system may have been disabled without the crew realising-
Modern Boeings will not engage the autothrottles for takeoff with flaps up (so I'm told
), perhaps this came from the NW255 crash.
Last edited by Airbubba; 25th August 2008 at 02:56.
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
From: Canary Islands, Spain
At least 4 different people, two pilots and two politicians that have seen the footage plus an additional politician that had the events of the tape explained to him first hand by another viewer of said tape, have all stated, quite cathegorically, that no fire, smoke or large faults can be VISUALLY OBSERVED from the tape and sort of implied that the visual was good and that the plane looked perfectly "normal" until it started "hitting" the ground. One politician even goes as far as suggesting that "nothing about the cause of the accident can be directly observed by watching the tape" (i.e. everything looked pretty much normal to those who've seen it, except for that "apparent" lack of "power" to accomplish take-off and the erratic behaviour once airbone).
The Flight Data Recorder has been reported as "damaged" (rather than non-operative, not-working or broken, but implying that unlike the voicer recorder, this one can not have the information recovered "as-is" and perhaps some information could be lost).
One of the major newspapers in Spain ran a new article concentrating on the possibility of one of the reversers being accidentaly deployed, but mentions that the airplane didn't show any signs of having trouble keeping a straight line while taxing or rolling.
Here are the highlights from that article:
-They estimate the landing strip at 4.440m and 60m across, with the airplane leaving the ground about an estimated 500m over the recommended or usual run for the flight.
-Video shows that the airplane starts to go "off-course" (deviated from a straight line) after elevation, not before. After reaching "almost the end of the runaway", it goes up a few meters, during 6 seconds, and then falls "escorado" (not sure the term here, would be with one wing lower than the other) to the right. The first thing to touch the ground is the wing. It bounces no less than 6 times on the runaway (pavement) and then "explodes". That's what the article says, but probably not exactly how it happened, but close enough.
-One of the engines was recovered properly reversed.
-Tail wind again reported as 9knots. Meteo measurement at 14:30, about 7 minutes after the crash, was 7knots from south.
-174 on board, they estimate 15 tons including luggage plus around another 15 tons of fuel. The same plane was sometimes used for Canary Islands-Denmark flights, where weight is usually even higher.
-They say Barajas Airport is 610m above sea level. They quote temperature as being 28º (I've read 29º and 30º on different places).
-There is no communications with ground control from the moment they receive (and ack) autorization for T/O.
-Speaking about the prior return-to-gate, they say: "The pilot decided to turn around and request service when he realized the outside air temperature probe measurements were too high. It was found to be because the anti-ice heater was on. The mechanic disabled the heater." (Finally, a likely scenario and would account for the earlier reports of the pilot speaking of "overheated sensor").
-Spanair has reviewed all past historic maintenance data for the airplane and it was all according to regulations, with no inspections finding unusual problems with engines in the past, etc.
The Flight Data Recorder has been reported as "damaged" (rather than non-operative, not-working or broken, but implying that unlike the voicer recorder, this one can not have the information recovered "as-is" and perhaps some information could be lost).
One of the major newspapers in Spain ran a new article concentrating on the possibility of one of the reversers being accidentaly deployed, but mentions that the airplane didn't show any signs of having trouble keeping a straight line while taxing or rolling.
Here are the highlights from that article:
-They estimate the landing strip at 4.440m and 60m across, with the airplane leaving the ground about an estimated 500m over the recommended or usual run for the flight.
-Video shows that the airplane starts to go "off-course" (deviated from a straight line) after elevation, not before. After reaching "almost the end of the runaway", it goes up a few meters, during 6 seconds, and then falls "escorado" (not sure the term here, would be with one wing lower than the other) to the right. The first thing to touch the ground is the wing. It bounces no less than 6 times on the runaway (pavement) and then "explodes". That's what the article says, but probably not exactly how it happened, but close enough.
-One of the engines was recovered properly reversed.
-Tail wind again reported as 9knots. Meteo measurement at 14:30, about 7 minutes after the crash, was 7knots from south.
-174 on board, they estimate 15 tons including luggage plus around another 15 tons of fuel. The same plane was sometimes used for Canary Islands-Denmark flights, where weight is usually even higher.
-They say Barajas Airport is 610m above sea level. They quote temperature as being 28º (I've read 29º and 30º on different places).
-There is no communications with ground control from the moment they receive (and ack) autorization for T/O.
-Speaking about the prior return-to-gate, they say: "The pilot decided to turn around and request service when he realized the outside air temperature probe measurements were too high. It was found to be because the anti-ice heater was on. The mechanic disabled the heater." (Finally, a likely scenario and would account for the earlier reports of the pilot speaking of "overheated sensor").
-Spanair has reviewed all past historic maintenance data for the airplane and it was all according to regulations, with no inspections finding unusual problems with engines in the past, etc.
Last edited by justme69; 25th August 2008 at 04:04.
Joined: Mar 2003
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 2,558
Likes: 155
From: BC
sevenstrokeroll;
I think most DFDR's start with the anti-collision light being turned on and continue until it's shut off - I believe that's the way it worked with our '9's and '8's but that's going back about 30 - 35 years.
I think earlier in the thread it was mentioned that apparently there was some damage to the DFDR. - possibly heat damage.
the flight data recorder would be affected by the ground shift mechanism.
I think earlier in the thread it was mentioned that apparently there was some damage to the DFDR. - possibly heat damage.
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
From: Curacao
The FDR would still be operative. Remember, the only thing happening is that the plane "thinks" it's airborne and thus the FDR normally works when airborne.
Indeed if the RAT probe is heated on the ground, it could give high readings to the DFGC. But remember it was disabled, so it should not have been a problem for the subsequent TO.
I strongly beleive that they tried an RTO becuase the landing gear failed to retract. The gear will not retract if the plane arrived in this condition!
If the plane indeed was in airborne mode, remember my words. This is an item in the MD-80's Emergency Abnormal Checklist.
Xander
Indeed if the RAT probe is heated on the ground, it could give high readings to the DFGC. But remember it was disabled, so it should not have been a problem for the subsequent TO.
I strongly beleive that they tried an RTO becuase the landing gear failed to retract. The gear will not retract if the plane arrived in this condition!
If the plane indeed was in airborne mode, remember my words. This is an item in the MD-80's Emergency Abnormal Checklist.
Xander
Joined: Mar 2003
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 2,558
Likes: 155
From: BC
dicksorchard:
Try Pacific Western Airlines B737, Cranbrook, 1978
I wanted to ask have there ever been any other accidents where a thrust reverser was engaged in error where an aircraft had crashed ? and have there ver been any incidence's where a thrust reverser engaged due to a mechanical fault of some kind ?
Joined: Mar 2003
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 2,558
Likes: 155
From: BC
xander;
Nonsense. There isn't an airline crew in existence which would attempt an RTO if "the gear failed to retract". I know of no such drill in my 35 years' experience which would be included in any Emergency Abnormal Checklist. Logic alone precludes such an outlandish suggestion.
I strongly beleive that they tried an RTO becuase the landing gear failed to retract. The gear will not retract if the plane arrived in this condition!
If the plane indeed was in airborne mode, remember my words. This is an item in the MD-80's Emergency Abnormal Checklist.
If the plane indeed was in airborne mode, remember my words. This is an item in the MD-80's Emergency Abnormal Checklist.
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
From: Bali, Indonesia
Location of Engine
The earlier picture of an engine with TR engaged continues to confuse. The picture appears to show the engine at the END of a runway. I wonder if that was a genuine picture and, if so, how can that be?
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
From: Canary Islands, Spain
Not sure about the picture, but one engine was significantly (actually very) far away from the other. First debri from the plane is said to have been found some 150m off the runaway to the right (most of the rest was spreaded over 3-400m away, I think).
I think parts of the airplane were moved kind of early on during rescue and fire efforts, trying to find victims and survivors. One of the engines was picked-up much earlier than the other. The last two unaccounted victims couldn't be found until larger pieces were moved the following day.
I think parts of the airplane were moved kind of early on during rescue and fire efforts, trying to find victims and survivors. One of the engines was picked-up much earlier than the other. The last two unaccounted victims couldn't be found until larger pieces were moved the following day.
Last edited by justme69; 25th August 2008 at 04:05.
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 5,896
Likes: 1
From: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
I strongly beleive that they tried an RTO becuase the landing gear failed to retract. The gear will not retract if the plane arrived in this condition!
If the plane indeed was in airborne mode, remember my words. This is an item in the MD-80's Emergency Abnormal Checklist.
If the plane indeed was in airborne mode, remember my words. This is an item in the MD-80's Emergency Abnormal Checklist.
Somehow I don't think this is a likely scenario.
Joined: Oct 2002
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 1,556
Likes: 779
From: The Coal Face
I have the feeling that nobody will be able to come up with the real cause(s) of the accident until after the (damaged) data recorder information is analysed
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
From: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Airline Transport World report does not support engine fire speculation . . .
Spanair crash probe: Video of failed takeoff doesn't support engine fire theory
Monday August 25, 2008
Spanish investigators are backing away from blaming an engine fire for last week's Spanair MD-82 crash following emergence of a video of the failed takeoff that shows no signs of fire until after the aircraft, which elevated only a few meters off the ground, crashed back down on the runway.
Initial speculation following the accident that killed 153 passengers and crew centered on a possible engine fire (ATWOnline, Aug. 22), but investigators are finding little evidence to support that theory and believe there may have been multiple causes, El Pais reported. Civil Aviation Director General Manuel Batista told the newspaper that "more than one breakdown" likely caused the accident. "I'm not so sure the engine failed," he said. Even if it did, he explained, an engine failure would "not cause an accident" unless it combined with "other causes."
Despite initial eyewitness accounts that an explosion and fire were spotted as the aircraft ascended, an airport video of the attempted departure and crash reviewed by inspectors revealed that the fire-sparking explosion occurred "several seconds after" the MD-82 hit the runway, El Pais reported, citing sources close the investigation. The video also revealed that the aircraft fell to the right after its slight ascent.
Controversy continued to swirl around the decision of Spanair maintenance technicians to clear the aircraft for takeoff after it returned to the gate owing to a malfunctioning air intake probe. Jose Maria Delgado, president of the airline's mechanics union Assetma, said the technicians who worked on the plane disabled the probe and cleared the aircraft for takeoff. He said the maintenance manual for the MD-82 allows for it to fly for up to 10 days in that condition, adding that the device is more relevant in cold winter weather because its main purpose is to prevent ice from forming on engines. It is not important during the summer and its disablement is "not at all" relevant to the crash investigation, he told the paper.
But investigators reportedly are examining whether the cockpit warning light indicating that there was a problem with the air intake probe could have been indicating a more serious problem. "The pilot detected something" that caused him initially to abort a takeoff attempt, Bautista noted.
by Aaron Karp
Spanair crash probe: Video of failed takeoff doesn't support engine fire theory
Monday August 25, 2008
Spanish investigators are backing away from blaming an engine fire for last week's Spanair MD-82 crash following emergence of a video of the failed takeoff that shows no signs of fire until after the aircraft, which elevated only a few meters off the ground, crashed back down on the runway.
Initial speculation following the accident that killed 153 passengers and crew centered on a possible engine fire (ATWOnline, Aug. 22), but investigators are finding little evidence to support that theory and believe there may have been multiple causes, El Pais reported. Civil Aviation Director General Manuel Batista told the newspaper that "more than one breakdown" likely caused the accident. "I'm not so sure the engine failed," he said. Even if it did, he explained, an engine failure would "not cause an accident" unless it combined with "other causes."
Despite initial eyewitness accounts that an explosion and fire were spotted as the aircraft ascended, an airport video of the attempted departure and crash reviewed by inspectors revealed that the fire-sparking explosion occurred "several seconds after" the MD-82 hit the runway, El Pais reported, citing sources close the investigation. The video also revealed that the aircraft fell to the right after its slight ascent.
Controversy continued to swirl around the decision of Spanair maintenance technicians to clear the aircraft for takeoff after it returned to the gate owing to a malfunctioning air intake probe. Jose Maria Delgado, president of the airline's mechanics union Assetma, said the technicians who worked on the plane disabled the probe and cleared the aircraft for takeoff. He said the maintenance manual for the MD-82 allows for it to fly for up to 10 days in that condition, adding that the device is more relevant in cold winter weather because its main purpose is to prevent ice from forming on engines. It is not important during the summer and its disablement is "not at all" relevant to the crash investigation, he told the paper.
But investigators reportedly are examining whether the cockpit warning light indicating that there was a problem with the air intake probe could have been indicating a more serious problem. "The pilot detected something" that caused him initially to abort a takeoff attempt, Bautista noted.
by Aaron Karp
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 1,598
Likes: 11
From: Down south, USA.
PJ2:
As for uncommanded thrust reverser extensions, this happened decades ago during or soon after rotation to an Eastern Airlines' DC-9 crew.
They identified the 'bad' engine and kept the plane under control.
This is much worse than a simple engine flame-out as any pilot can imagine.
If a pilot rushes and does not coordinate with the other pilot, they won't survive a mistake.
As for uncommanded thrust reverser extensions, this happened decades ago during or soon after rotation to an Eastern Airlines' DC-9 crew.
They identified the 'bad' engine and kept the plane under control.
This is much worse than a simple engine flame-out as any pilot can imagine.
If a pilot rushes and does not coordinate with the other pilot, they won't survive a mistake.
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
From: AUCKLAND,NEW ZEALAND
Thrust Reverser
This is a serious problem. On 4 July 1966 an Air New Zealand DC 8 ZK>NZB was on a training flight in which simulated engine failure procedures were rehearsed.
The Check Captain rapidly retarded No.4 engine moments after lift off/rotation. This generated inertial forces that caused the associated brake thrust lever to rise and enter the reverse idle detent. Recovery was impossible before the aircraft impacted the ground about its starboard wingtip and cartwheeled several hundred metres along the Main taxiway , adjacent to the main runway, with a/c breaking up and catching fire in the process. Two of the five crew on board were killed. There were no passengers.
This accident highlighted a potentially fatal flaw in the DC8 throttle system not previously encountered during developmental or test flying, and led to subsequent modifications.
If a thrust reverser had been engaged at a critical moment in the rotation/lift off recovery may have been impossible.
The Check Captain rapidly retarded No.4 engine moments after lift off/rotation. This generated inertial forces that caused the associated brake thrust lever to rise and enter the reverse idle detent. Recovery was impossible before the aircraft impacted the ground about its starboard wingtip and cartwheeled several hundred metres along the Main taxiway , adjacent to the main runway, with a/c breaking up and catching fire in the process. Two of the five crew on board were killed. There were no passengers.
This accident highlighted a potentially fatal flaw in the DC8 throttle system not previously encountered during developmental or test flying, and led to subsequent modifications.
If a thrust reverser had been engaged at a critical moment in the rotation/lift off recovery may have been impossible.