Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Spanair accident at Madrid

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Spanair accident at Madrid

Old 25th Aug 2008, 09:33
  #841 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: JFK
Posts: 20
Nigel, if you are referring to NW 255 in Detroit on Aug 16, 87 your facts are incorrect.

From the NTSB accident brief:

NORTHWEST FLT 255 (NW255) CRASHED AFTER TAKEOFF FM RWY 3C AT DETROIT METRO AIRPORT. WITNESSES SAID NW255 ROTATED FOR TAKEOFF 1200-1500 FT FROM THE END AND LIFTED OFF NR THE END OF THE 8500 FT RWY. AFTER LIFTOFF, THE WINGS ROCKED LT AND RT AND THE ACFT FAILED TO CLIMB NORMALLY. 18 FEET OF THE LT WING SEPARATED WHEN THE WING CONTACTED A LIGHT POLE 2760 FT BEYOND THE RWY END. THE ACFT ROLLED STEEPLY TO THE LEFT AND STRUCK POLES, A BLDG, AND AUTOMOBILES BEFORE CRASHING INTO A RAILROAD EMBANKMENT. THE ACFT WAS DESTROYED. THE EVIDENCE INDICATED THAT THE FLAPS AND SLATS WERE IN THE UP/RETRACT POSITION AND HAD NOT BEEN DEPLOYED FOR TKOF. NEITHER PLT RECITED THE ITEMS OF THE TAXI CKLIST. STALL WARNINGS WERE ANNUNCIATED BUT AN AURAL TKOF WARNING WAS NOT ANNUNCIATED BY THE CENTRAL AURAL WARNING SYSTEM (CAWS). IT WAS CONFIRMED THAT 28 VOLT DC PWR WAS NOT PROVIDED TO THE CAWS PWR SUPPLY #2. THE REASON FOR THE LOSS OF ELECTRICAL PWR WAS TRACED TO A CIRCUIT BRKR BUT NO MALF OF THE CB WAS FND. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, SEE NTSB/AAR-88/05


So the airplane flew for 2,760 feet (1/2 mile) no higher than a light pole, not 4,000 feet as you said.
xaf2fe is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2008, 09:36
  #842 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: the world
Age: 44
Posts: 5
NoD,

yes, but your very elegant suggestion is valid when having enough remaning runway after VR, so as to continue accelerating the a/c at least to any minimum speed needed for that, maybe on that Madrid runway being long enough.

on that B737 accident in the past, runway was only 2000 mts long, by the time it happens what you say, you will be off the runway already...

rubbish is always what human beings never wanted to consider until it happens...
charangui742 is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2008, 10:39
  #843 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Curacao
Age: 43
Posts: 38
PJ2,

you are correct I am speaking utter nonsense, the drill I refer to is for when the system is stuck in the ground mode... .
However the reverser deployed theory has been covered extensively about 200-300 posts ago.

Xander
xkoote is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2008, 11:24
  #844 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,045
xaf2fe Apologies - I added the rotation point to impact - not airborne, so ~maybe 3000' airborne - although in fact it took 4.5s after liftoff until it passed the end of the runway which pushes it back to 4000' again Whatver, read the post I was responding to - a definitive statement that
??)...only if confirmed not lifted off the ground that theory of an incorrect or absent drill of the before take off checklist by the pilots could be brought up, otherwise flaps were selected correctly.
that if the aircraft got airborne, the flaps were selected correctly.

Again, reading the report - the MD-82 referred to "should have got airrborne" at 163KIS (V2+10), but actually got airborne at 169KIAS... so speed at liftoff / ground run used was not markedly different. What was different was the attitude required, and drag / wing-rock / stick shake / climb rate achievable.

I am not going to draw conclusions about Madrid. All I was doing was correcting a definitive, and provably incorrect statment I had read...

NoD
NigelOnDraft is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2008, 12:21
  #845 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Scotland
Posts: 286
Overthewing - post 802
Passenger evidence suggests the pilot saw a warning light displayed, but wasn't sure what it meant.


I'm sorry but if the fare paying public actually thinks any Pilot doesn't really understand what a warning light means - we have a problem. What the light means is usually obvious - what is causing the underlying problem is often not. That's why, as a precaution, the crew return to have things checked out. Often, the underlying causes are minor and irrelevant. Sometimes the warning requires more attention.

I have yet to see an A/c Commander agree to proceed with a flight if there is any doubt about servicability nor and engineer sign off a tech sheet without being staisfied that the fault has been cleared or that he is totally satisfied that there is nothing to concern the safety of the flight.
Munnyspinner is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2008, 12:59
  #846 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: buenos aires
Age: 73
Posts: 17
Especulation.

1) Part of the ground sensing ,change to flight condition.( A circuit breaker open or some wrong in relays or circuit)

2) Pilots, during first takeoff intention, notes the RAT increase and EPR reduction ( Rat probe was heated)

3) The mecanic not detected the condition and choice disconect the heater feeder wire ( the plane stay in flt condition)

4) In this condition the Take off configuration warning is inoperative.

5) The roll inestability is típical a stall condition because the wings d´not enter in this condition simultaneously.

6) when there are some problem ,the pilots atention is focused in this and rest is out of the loop.

PD : The flight recorder start in ground whith either fuel lever is open and parking brake is release. In flight ,the ground sensing, bypass this items

The voice recorder start when the plane is powered

The thrust reverser is operative in ground and flight (is prohibited used in flight)
pichu17 is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2008, 13:26
  #847 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Curacao
Age: 43
Posts: 38
Does someone remeber if there was metion of the time the aircraft stayed at eh blocks whilst the mechanics looked over the aircraft? I don't know if this is the procedure with all MD80 operators, but I have always been accustomed that the captain call for flaps and slats to be retracted during taxi in. Even if you decide to leave all checklist items as is so you can quickly start the delayed flight again, I think you have the tendency to call for flaps and slats retract even though the taxi in checklist was omitted. Does anyone agree that this could be an issue?

To those offended by endless dribble and nonsense, I'm sorry but with a major accident you will get more people posting. It is in any case MUCH more interesting to comment about a major accident, than to comment about MEL items in log books etc. So it is logical that these threads are MUCH more expansive. And to those who say that only facts need to be posted here. Than this page should have 2, maybe 3 posts. These posts would contain the same info you can find in any other news site. So grow up guys. Stop stroking those ego's. I'm an ATP and took the time to read through the WHOLE thread before posting. I didn't complain.
xkoote is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2008, 13:32
  #848 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: EDDFVnavZBAA
Posts: 18
Reverse thrust...

heute.de Nachrichten - Traurige Gewissheit: Familie aus Pullach unter Absturzopfern von Madrid
http:// 3w.heute.de/ZDFheute/inhalt/4/0,3672,7298052,00.html

Report:
Weak engine possibly a cause...
With the search for the causes for the tragedy the investigators in the meantime obviously assume an engine was too weak. The fact that the airplane on the runway rolled unusually for a long time, before it took off leaves the investigators on this possibility to close, reported the newspaper " El País" on Monday with reference to investigator circles at the police

Long rolling on the runway
A video of airport cameras, held under catch, shows according to the report that the airplane put a much back to long distance on the runway. Loud " El País" it drove 500 meters beyond the point recommended for the start. According to the report one of the engines could have turned - an attitude, which is made with landings for braking. Thus it explains itself that the airplane leaned immediately after taking off on the right side, reported " El País" with reference to a aviation engineer, whose name was not called

An engine turned
According to the newspaper the investigators discovered at the scene of the catastrophe that one of the engines was turned (reverse thrust). Unclear it was however whether this was already when starting the case or whether it took place via the crash. Loud " El País" the video shows besides that one of the bearing areas arose first on the ground and that the airplane six times struck the ground, before it exploded.

-end of report-
GP7280-POC is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2008, 13:45
  #849 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: YONDER
Posts: 13
Spanair accident @ Madrid

dicksorchard # 818


Lauda Air flt NG004 Boeing 767-300ER reg OE-LAV (VHHH) VTBD LOWW May 26, 1991
N1005C is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2008, 13:47
  #850 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
which pilot was PILOT FLYING?

does anyone know which pilot was making the takeoff?

do any other douglas operators practice takeoff stall recovery? firewall power flaps 15?

that would have saved the plane, if my theory is correct.

pichu 17 has the idea.
sevenstrokeroll is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2008, 14:07
  #851 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: No one's home...
Posts: 416
Exsp33db1rd said,
not a criticism, but I agree with NigelOnDraft, in operating 4 eng. heavies from 1958 to 1994, I also never even heard of timing to V1, but that doesn't mean it was never suggested,
we used a minimum acceleration check when I was in the USAF. Don't know if they still do but it was based on reach x velocity by the 1000ft or 2000ft marker. Very useful in the old KC-135 'water wagon'. We also computed a time.

Based on that previous practice, I began timing my takeoffs. I can't remember the exact numbers (now retired) but I think it was something like :30 seconds from application of takeoff thrust to rotation. IF it took more than :30 seconds you were heavy and if it took :45 seconds, you were very heavy.

Also, I seem to remember at least 80kts by 1000ft and about 120-125kt by the 2000ft point. I will have to begin timing my takeoffs again. It is not really relevant for my airplane now (C-II) as we don't operate off anything but long runways.
wileydog3 is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2008, 14:28
  #852 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,583
For Tubby:

As I see it, the aircraft had an MEL item entered which may or may not have caused a problem for the take-off.

The wind on 36L may have been a slight tailwind, but this is by no means uncommon and allowed for in airline ops and especially at LEMD. It rotated some distance down the runway (at present not defined, but SAID to be ???'longer than usual'???), appears to have climbed initially to around 30-60mtrs with no signs of engine fire, before descending, POSSIBLY wing-rocking, and it is thought the right wing struck the ground. It veered off the runway to the right, leaving initial debris to the right of the runway before traversing unfavourable terrain which caused it to break up and catch fire. One engine was found with T/R deployed which would be in complete accordance with an attempt to stop. An initial photograph APPEARS to show a clean wing detached from the fuselage. A video of dubious definition of the take-off was recorded somewhere and has been seen by the investigators. There are reports that the FDR is 'damaged' but the CVR is reported as ok.

That, as I see it, is that. Total. If there is more FACT, or some of the above is incorrect, I would be pleased to see it posted here. Everything else elsewhere.
BOAC is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2008, 14:29
  #853 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: inmysuitcase
Posts: 199
Whilst it is by no means certain that the circuit disconnected by the technician in this case also disabled the flaps/slats not configured for takeoff warning
Any MD8x driver willing/able to explain this system?
If that probe-heating was deactivated acc MEL, what would be the consequences?
Anybody willing to share a pic/diagram of the MD8x circuitbraker panel?
testpanel is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2008, 14:29
  #854 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 140
Out of interest. The FA who survived. She was in seat 1E. An ordinary passenger seat. Is this common practice amongst cabin crew?
See British woman survived Madrid plane inferno after being hurled into a stream by explosion| News | This is London

Meanwhile, details have emerged today about the only surviving member of the ten-strong crew of the Spanair flight - 27-year-old air hostess Antonia Martinez Jimenez. She remains in intensive care with bruises all over her body, a broken arm, a cracked vertebra, a broken breast bone and a stitched up head wound.
Doctors say the woman, who breathes through a mask, is out of danger and in a better condition than some of the other 18 survivors of the flight.
Ms Martinez, Toni to friends, told relatives at her bedside: 'I felt the plane judder violently to the left, and then right, before it went down.
'Then I felt a sharp blow in my chest that sent me flying several metres. I ended up in a ditch with water in it, which must have protected me from the flames.'
Toni, who lived in Castelldefels near Barcelona, emerged almost without burns and says she owes her life to being seated right at the front of the plane, by the window.
'Flight attendants usually sit at the rear of the plane, but I was right at the front, in seat 1E.
'That part of the plane was hardly burnt. It was a miracle.
'All around me I could hear people crying out for help. They were shouting and calling desperately but I couldn't move, I couldn't do anything.
'A few minutes later I heard the sirens of the rescue teams, I knew they were going to save me.'
As soon as she was carried into an ambulance she asked the nurse to call her parents.
She told them: 'Mama don't worry, I'm alright, a bit knocked about but fine.'
A number of the members of Spanair cabin crew travelling on this flight were "dead heading" (travelling as passengers) to Las Palmas for a return flight but I'm not clear if Ms Martinez is one of those so that this is the reason she was sitting in the front row. I expect someone here will know.
Capvermell is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2008, 14:55
  #855 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 5,248
Let's not forget that "if" the wings did stall (airflow separation) that the wake behind the wings will affect the engine inlets and also cause them to stall-surge-bang.

ala All the DC9 series including the -80 series that pranged in off the runway.

The confirmation of this will be had from the CVR and/or the DFDR, however of little significance to the investigation.
lomapaseo is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2008, 15:06
  #856 (permalink)  
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Why should the wings stall? Has there been any confirmation that flaps were retracted? Does this model have leading edge slats? Presumably there would have been TOCW warnings if the flaps were inadvertently not extended when they should have been.
There has been so much hang-up on the supposed 'left engine fire/failure' and this defect that they returned to stand for that the wood is not being seen for the trees, and I just cannot wade through 44 pages of amateur conjecture. The description of the aeroplane behaviour from what I can pick up bears similarity to previous inadvertent flapless take-offs and those tragic flights with iced wings that are just unable to maintain flight. The alleged vibration/wing rocking says stall as you said.
Rainboe is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2008, 15:11
  #857 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Alabama
Posts: 3
Yes the bang could have been the aircraft contacting the ground but little mention of possible intake stalling so far. Could anybody please post the Barajas weather actual at the time ?
Until the engines are inspected by the experts and the FDR data is evaluated, I believe a surge is a possibility. If there was a surge, it should be evident at least on the FDR data.
mlog is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2008, 15:44
  #858 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,583
Originally Posted by Rainboe
Presumably there would have been TOCW warnings if the flaps were inadvertently not extended when they should have been.
- somewhere back in the jungle there are suggestions that the TOCW could have been knackered by the MEL action???

Originally Posted by PaxBoy Post #799
boardingpass asks about this:
...owed their escape to being thrown from the plane into a stream, thereby avoiding severe burns .
One possibility is that, as they shot off the end of the slide - they landed in water.
- are you actually suggesting the slides were deployed?...........
BOAC is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2008, 15:55
  #859 (permalink)  
PJ2
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: BC
Age: 72
Posts: 2,429
Rainboe;
Does this model have leading edge slats?
The DC9/MD80/B717 model types have all had LEDs since the DC9-30 series built in the late '60's; The DC9-10 series had a hard wing, not sure of the -20 series.

The TOCW issue has been discussed at length in the thread as one of the potential (not determined!) issues surrounding the maintenance actions on the TAT probe (air-ground issue, forgotten checklist issue); Time will tell if the theory holds any water. The failed/exploding engine theory is set aside in some posts but the notion that either engine had a reverser deploy inadvertently or that either high angles of attack and/or disturbed airflow from partially-stalled wings was upsetting one or both engines is being discussed.

To date, nothing is known; there are only theories.

xander;
In an "air-ground switch" issue, the crew may not be able to retract the landing gear (had it happen in the '9 once - no gear up, no pressurization, etc - returned) but in the '8 if I recall, there was a manual way to release the locks (which was applied to the handle, not the landing gear, of course). Still, an airplane in "ground mode" wouldn't cause a rejected takeoff because the crew logically wouldn't know it was stuck there until they were in the air. QED.
PJ2 is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2008, 16:00
  #860 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: north
Posts: 318
Weather at LEMD August 20, 2008

METAR/SPECI from LEMD, Madrid / Barajas (Spain).

METAR LEMD 201800Z 20006G16KT CAVOK 30/00 Q1016 NOSIG=
METAR LEMD 201730Z 22005KT 150V290 CAVOK 31/00 Q1016 NOSIG=
METAR LEMD 201700Z 23006KT 150V280 CAVOK 31/00 Q1017 NOSIG=
METAR LEMD 201630Z 23003KT CAVOK 31/00 Q1017 NOSIG=
METAR LEMD 201600Z 23004KT CAVOK 31/M00 Q1017 NOSIG=
METAR LEMD 201530Z 23005KT 180V340 CAVOK 31/M01 Q1017 NOSIG=
METAR LEMD 201500Z 26005G16KT CAVOK 30/01 Q1017 NOSIG=
METAR LEMD 201430Z 24006G19KT 170V340 CAVOK 30/02 Q1017 NOSIG=
METAR LEMD 201400Z 24003KT CAVOK 30/02 Q1018 NOSIG=
METAR LEMD 201330Z 19007KT 110V240 CAVOK 30/01 Q1018 NOSIG=
METAR LEMD 201300Z 14004KT CAVOK 29/03 Q1018 NOSIG=
METAR LEMD 201230Z 18007KT 090V240 CAVOK 28/02 Q1018 NOSIG=
METAR LEMD 201200Z 35002KT CAVOK 28/06 Q1019 NOSIG=
METAR LEMD 201130Z 16005KT CAVOK 27/08 Q1019 NOSIG=
METAR LEMD 201100Z 17002KT CAVOK 26/09 Q1019 NOSIG=
METAR LEMD 201030Z 12003KT CAVOK 25/10 Q1019 NOSIG=
METAR LEMD 201000Z 21002KT CAVOK 24/10 Q1019 NOSIG=


short TAF from LEMD, Madrid / Barajas (Spain).

TAF LEMD 201700Z 201803 VRB04KT CAVOK=
TAF LEMD 201400Z 201524 25005KT CAVOK=
TAF LEMD 201100Z 201221 19005KT CAVOK=

large TAF from LEMD, Madrid / Barajas (Spain).

TAF LEMD 201700Z 210024 02005KT CAVOK
BECMG 1113 18010KT TX34/16Z TN17/06Z=
TAF LEMD 201100Z 201818 VRB03KT CAVOK
BECMG 1113 18010KT TX33/16Z TN17/06Z=

XPM

Last edited by XPMorten; 25th Aug 2008 at 16:20.
XPMorten is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.