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 27th Aug 2008, 08:54
  #1041 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: back to the land of small pay and big bills
Age: 46
Posts: 1,057
thrust reverser deployed apparently..poor buggers
mattyj is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2008, 08:55
  #1042 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Europe
Posts: 12
EMAS

That's a good point, but could be mitigated by having some leeway on both sides of the runway before the system started. I'm not an engineer, and there's probably many issues that need to be addressed before such a system can be deemed completely safe and not adding to the total risk. I am questioning, however, why it's not being looked into, and why it is so easy to dismiss right away.

I've seen what the lack of such a system (at the end of the runway in that case) can do, and with my own eyes, not through TV, photos etc. I've seen what it does to families, rescue workers etc., and believe you me, all you want when you've seen something like that, is to make sure it NEVER happens again.

Maybe EMAS isn't the answer, but it is worth looking into. Maybe it couldn't have saved this aircraft (based on information from press conference), but it could save the next one.
AmeliaJane is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2008, 09:06
  #1043 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
Posts: 3,043
One thing I'd add is the question regarding the tail-cone. The CAIAIC confirmed that it is the entire section after the pressurized bulkhead which was separated.
I wouldn’t read too much into this as an indication of force of impact. I doubt if it is true. The very large tail cone is designed to detach and the Rear Pressure Bulkhead is forward of the cone attachment points

See HERE.
forget is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2008, 09:25
  #1044 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: spain
Posts: 33
Comments on Video transcript

Old Fokker wrote:
One tiny issue though which I understood differently: "it seems that the airplane first hit the ground outside of the landing strip, on the service route just adjacent to it" is what you wrote. I don't think the term 'service route' is accurate. I believe that what was stated is 'the strip of ground' adjacent to runway 36L. If that is commonly designated as 'service route' then I apologize but I believe it can be confused with the road which runs parallel to the runway.
Old Fokker,these are not my words but a quote of another forumite post. I fully agree with your view.


You also state:

...I'd add is the question regarding the tail-cone. The CAIAIC confirmed that it is the entire section after the pressurized bulkhead which was separated.
I agree that is what the board stated. They are however being imprecise. I am familiar with that airframe and:

It is the actual composite tailcone that the board was referring to as first detached, because:

The area of the fuselage aft of the pressure bulkhead comprises the main fin support bulkheads together with horizontal and vertical stabilizers. The latter can be observed lying next to the main crash site and could not therefore have detached from the airframe on first impact.

As to you having done the transcript work... that is what I was envisioning (and trying to avoid) when I stopped in the middle of watching the video and posted (#1012)

I am viewing it now and will report anything significant in English in about one hour.
Sorry it did not get to you in time, cos I know it was a time-consuming task!
blackboard is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2008, 09:44
  #1045 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: spain
Posts: 33
md80fanatic: NG track vs MG DOORS

It looks like there may be a slight bit of evidence of nose wheel contact. Look just left (and above) the two yellow jacketed fellows in the foreground, just inside the left main track. That is where I would expect the nose wheel to be, if it were making a track.
It looks like the track you are pointing out is actually dual (faint) parallel tracks that likewise parallel the MG tracks (in fact they go back almost as far as MLG first impact). In that case, such tracks cannot be the NLG, but surely point out to the open (why open?) MLG doors.

As a sidenote, the MLG retract sequence in the MD-80 is MLG door unlock, then open, then MG unlock & retract, then MLG door close&lock. Is that pointing out to something? ...or maybe just the impact unlocked the MG doors?

Now that I think of it, most likely a crew LG 'up' selection, or (-manual unlock and-) loss of hydraulic pressure (due to ruptured engine pylon lines???) or mechanical door mechanism failure would also be required for MG doors to open...someone with an MD-80 manual can confirm?

Last edited by blackboard; 27th Aug 2008 at 09:56.
blackboard is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2008, 09:48
  #1046 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
Posts: 3,043
For what it’s worth – an attempt to identify witness marks etc. Tell me where I’m wrong.

The nose wheel hit at point A and was forced up into its well.
The two parallel lines B, inside of the main gear marks, are caused by the sides of the (probably distorted) fuselage digging through the soil.
At point B the aircraft is pointing directly towards camera.
No 2 engine detached at C and its inertia took it into the ravine.
C is the relatively light intake of No 2 engine.( Sorry, it's the C on the right )
D is the detached Tail Cone.

[IMG][/IMG]

Last edited by forget; 27th Aug 2008 at 10:01.
forget is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2008, 10:11
  #1047 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: spain
Posts: 33
Witness markcs

The two parallel lines B, inside of the main gear marks, are caused by the sides of the (probably distorted) fuselage digging through the soil.
That would imply a major structural MLG failure and hence many more marks. The fact that they are parallel to the MLG tracks with the aircraft turning implies they are located at a similar FS (fuselage station) as the MLG. Such defined marks are surely the lower parts and/or skids of the (open) MLG doors.
blackboard is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2008, 10:30
  #1048 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
Posts: 3,043
Such defined marks are surely the lower parts and/or skids of the (open) MLG doors.
Perhaps, but I doubt it. I'd say fuselage.

[IMG][/IMG]
forget is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2008, 10:59
  #1049 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: spain
Posts: 33
Perhaps, but I doubt it. I'd say fuselage.
Can you ellaborate why?
blackboard is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2008, 11:14
  #1050 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
Posts: 3,043
..... but (the marks would) surely point out to the open (why open?) MLG doors.
Wrong.

Can you elaborate why?
Yes. As both main gears were intact the landing gear doors would leave no marks.

[IMG][/IMG]
forget is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2008, 11:15
  #1051 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: London
Posts: 5
Explanation picture from a spanish forum:

Se sale de pista un Spanair en Barajas - Página 46 - Foroaviones

whopper2 is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2008, 11:28
  #1052 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
Posts: 3,043
blackboard, I see now what you are getting at. If the Main Gear doors unlocked due to impact they may, indeed, leave the marks we see.

[IMG][/IMG]
forget is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2008, 11:30
  #1053 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: spain
Posts: 33
MLG Doors

We are talking INBOARD MLG doors (non-existant on 737 and A320, which may be confusing you), not the OBD ones visible in your (second to last) pic.

They are closed and thus not visible in your (second to last) picture above. Find a pic with them open and you will see what I mean.

Edit to say: just saw you did find a picture, thanks!
blackboard is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2008, 12:22
  #1054 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: England
Posts: 380
Notice that the two fainter parallel lines (perhaps MLG doors?) commence at exactly the same point that the broad straight mark (perhaps starboard engine detatching itself?)

Thus engine separates at the moment nose the wheel collapses.

Still unsure how the straight line exists - it suggests engine "follows" path of aircraft slightly behind it??
Fake Sealion is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2008, 13:10
  #1055 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Canary Islands, Spain
Posts: 240
Some of the proceedings of the judiciary investigation from the accident, have leaked to the press (as it was expected). It's 700 pages of documentation so far that the judge has put together.

-It shows that all 10 air traffic controller personnel declared not to have received further communication from the Spanair flight after all normal communications relevant to take-off maneuver (permission to take-off, weather, etc).

It's not stated, but it's implied in the article that they couldn't shed much light on the accident (i.e. everything seemed normal to them from the ground until they realised it had crashed). One traffic controller did take a look at the flight "briefly" and had the gut-feeling that it had some "difficulty to lift off".

-So far, the judge has interviewed 39 witnesses, including 6 of the survivors.

-So far, the crew's work schedules etc during the prior weeks seems normal and according to regulations. Same with the ground personnel.

-The accounts of witnesses all match that they felt "some weird movement" (i.e. roll), "some (small) vibration", and "little more" (i.e. everything else seemed normal). Some were interviewed for over 2 hours, mostly about what happened after they crashed and found themselves near (on) the creek.

-Most detailed account comes from the only crew survivor, the flight attendant that declared: "I felt like a vibration, like if the airplane didn't have enough power to go up". Her words match those of other witnesses.

-The security camera footage is brief (7 seconds). No indication of fire/smoke/explosions while the airplane was on the air. Wild estimation on the plane elevation obtained by the judge just from witnessing the tape: no more than 6 or 7 meters, although the angle of the recording is very wide (wide angle) and the airplane only shows in a corner from very far away (therefore, this is just preliminary "wild" speculation, but it tells the judge that it didn't go up too much). There is no audio in this airport recording. The "tape" is in the judge's hand.

-Judge has not had access yet to the air traffic control communications with the airplane, as they have not yet been "deciphered". He has requested a deciphered copy. He has requested the neccesary DVD/MP3 equipment to play them back from the company Seisa. The recording will include the crew's conversation with at least 3 controllers: ground, taxiing and take-off. From that point on, they'll be no more communications received. According to procedure, some 20 (or more) seconds later, ground control would've contacted the pilots to request the tune into Torrejon air control center, usually when the plane reached 300/400 feet (which the airplane, in any case, never reached). The pilot would've normally only contacted ground below that altitude if he had aborted T/O or was planning to go back (turn around) and land. It seems the pilot didn't have time. The plane went up and came back down in at most 7 seconds (other sources speak of no more than 6 seconds maximun since the wheels leave the ground until the plane touches the ground again). I guess we can assume, until more information is known, some 3-4 seconds going up and 3-4 seconds falling again.

-The judged also received the official statement from the technician that did the prior repairs.

-Police was ordered to guard the airplane remainings at the site for the duration of the investigation, allowing the technicial investigators to pick up or look at the pieces.

-Only both "black boxes" and both engines (fairly intact) have been transported from the crash site to other facilities. One clearly shows the reverser deployed.

Last edited by justme69; 27th Aug 2008 at 19:32.
justme69 is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2008, 13:20
  #1056 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: bath
Posts: 38
this is what i see...

using the picture in this post (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/3...ml#post4353744) as a reference, it looks like blackboard is correct about those tracks (marked A) being for the MLG doors. the lines are not as straight forward as the tracks known to be from the MLG and i would suggest these lines were caused by something which could move side to side (the doors?). the fact that they do not appear or disappear at the same point as the MLG itself could be due to differing terrain height and shock absorption from the suspension, not necessarily a nose gear collapse.

the high aspect photo provided by forget proves something i was suspecting a while back, none of the marks could come from the nose gear due to the width. a nose gear track will be approximately half the width of a main gear track.
theron is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2008, 13:40
  #1057 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: bern, switzerland
Age: 57
Posts: 59
just to try and put into perspective the picture, i have played a little with google earth. judging by the angle of the picture of the airplane skid marks and by how runway indicators are aligned. there should be over 500metres between the edge of the rwy and the side road/embankment

so the angle of the skidmarks is very compressed by the lenses used

gianmarko is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2008, 13:47
  #1058 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Tenerife - Spain
Age: 53
Posts: 5
The straight track surely cannot be the NOSE GEAR. Given the obvious MAIN GEAR track, it is purely geometry to know where the nose was at every moment, and it's path would also a curve; it can be easily deduced it cannot be the straight track of the image. (And never mind the possible drifting, of course).

If I knew how to attach an image I would post a somewhat approximate drawing

For me it's quite sure that the nose was up at that moment
jacilore is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2008, 13:56
  #1059 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: bern, switzerland
Age: 57
Posts: 59
"The straight track surely cannot be the NOSE GEAR"

it cannot be anything else. i can guarantee you from personal experience that it is perfectly possible for a tricycle airplane to skid laterally and leave that type of assymmetrical marks

YouTube - Very bumpy landing

do you really think this errmm.. "landing" left parallel, symmetrical skidmarks? :-)
gianmarko is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2008, 13:58
  #1060 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: what U.S. calls ´old Europe´
Posts: 934
If the Main Gear doors unlocked due to impact they may, indeed, leave the marks we see.
They may as well been open as the pilot commanded gear up, and the sequence starts with opening the doors, but never came far enough to unlock and retract the gear itself.
However, I would assume that the LDG doors would have been torn off if they plow the ground and leave such marks.
Volume is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

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