Spanair accident at Madrid
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Europe
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
Posts: 3,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
See HERE.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: spain
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Comments on Video transcript
Old Fokker wrote:
Old Fokker,these are not my words but a quote of another forumite post. I fully agree with your view.
You also state:
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)
Sorry it did not get to you in time, cos I know it was a time-consuming task!
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: spain
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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 08:56.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
Posts: 3,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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]
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 09:01.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: spain
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
[/IMG]
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
Posts: 3,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
..... but (the marks would) surely point out to the open (why open?) MLG doors.
Can you elaborate why?
[IMG]
[/IMG]
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: London
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Explanation picture from a spanish forum:
Se sale de pista un Spanair en Barajas - Página 46 - Foroaviones
Se sale de pista un Spanair en Barajas - Página 46 - Foroaviones
[/IMG]
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: spain
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: England
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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??
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??
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Canary Islands, Spain
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
-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 18:32.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: bath
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: bern, switzerland
Age: 61
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
so the angle of the skidmarks is very compressed by the lenses used
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Tenerife - Spain
Age: 57
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: May 2007
Location: bern, switzerland
Age: 61
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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? :-)
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? :-)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: what U.S. calls ´old Europe´
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the Main Gear doors unlocked due to impact they may, indeed, leave the marks we see.
However, I would assume that the LDG doors would have been torn off if they plow the ground and leave such marks.