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 29th Aug 2008, 10:14
  #1221 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,045
At the large UK airline I work for, all types (which do not include the MD-80 series) select Flaps prior Taxi, and it is a QAR "event" if we do not. Only exception is when remote de-icing required...

The Safety dept would know how successful that is preventing (attempted) takeoffs without Flap... but I can only presume it is. Another issue is taking off with incorrect flap set - usually as a result of different intersections requiring different flap settings due performance software "optimising" for the last $0.01 rather than safety

NoD
NigelOnDraft is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2008, 10:33
  #1222 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
Posts: 3,043
Is it possible, from this, to estimate where the Stab Trim was set - assuming no movement from impacts.

[IMG][/IMG]
forget is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2008, 11:09
  #1223 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cotswolds
Age: 63
Posts: 1,259
posting 1237

looks more like a tail than a wing to me. I have not seen a wing picture yet
vanHorck is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2008, 11:13
  #1224 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 13
July 26th the airplane was taken back to maintenance area while taxiing to t/o from Palma de Mallorca because the pilot felt the front landing gear was making more noise than usual. Mechanics checked for 36min and didn't find anything wrong. The pilots and technicians agreed it was probably caused because the gear was too new (I guess it had recently been replaced/overhauled). Flight continued without incidents to Copenhagen. (Maybe the valve/sensor that feels the weight to indicate "ground mode" was involved?)
This could be relevent if the nose gear was incorrectly serviced causing it to be over extended, especially if coupled with a poor weight distribution with more weight down the back than usual. An over extended nose gear could mean that the nose gear WOW (weight on wheel) sensors were detecting a weight OFF wheels situation. I am not familiar with this type but have experienced this on other aircraft.
bonatti is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2008, 11:17
  #1225 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Canary Islands, Spain
Posts: 240
-The worker that supplied additional fuel (for a second time, I'm assuming to repost that lost on the original TO abort and return to gate) to the MD-82 before final take-off, declared that he thought it was very wierd that the airplane had the anti-collision lights turned on in both the upper and lower part of the plane, because "they are always off when you are refueling". He said that in 9 years of professional experience, he had never observed such a case.

It is against civil regulations to have just about any kind of lights on during refueling.

-The area the plane returned the first time it aborted TO to check the air temperature probe malfunction was parking 11.

-A fuse was removed to stop the intake heater from activating. The technician installed some sort of "precint" (maybe tape, label or similar).

-During the 33 minutes of repair, pilot addressed PAX to let them know they will probably not need to change airplanes and the repairs would allow them to continue shortly.

-Nonetheless, two busses were commanded to ground operations in case the PAX had to be moved out of the plane.

-Two passengers, according to survivors, were nervous because air conditioning was not (properly?) working and demanded the plane to "leave quickly".

-Judge has found no evidence of any PAX demanding to disembark, against some victims' families that claim otherwise.

-The worker refueling the plane (for the second time) spoke with the copilot, carried a normal conversation with him, and added 682kg of fuel. Was during this time that he realised the anti-collision lights were on (Possibly the airplane thinking it was in air mode? Are those lights turned on automatically?)

-After final refuelling the airplane should've had 11.551kg of fuel.

-Official National Metheorology Agency report for the area requested but still not in the hands of the judge.
justme69 is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2008, 11:24
  #1226 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Vienna
Age: 35
Posts: 29
The ACL or the beacon light are switched manually on about any airplane (please correct if I´m wrong). So seeing the lights on only means that the switch was on for whatever reason. I am in no way familiar with their SOPs to give an informed guess about why the crew left it on though.
Avionero is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2008, 11:24
  #1227 (permalink)  
The Reverend
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Possibly the airplane thinking it was in air mode? Are those lights turned on automatically?)
No, anti collision lights are turned on when needed and should be off when clear of the runway.
HotDog is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2008, 11:26
  #1228 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Vienna
Age: 35
Posts: 29
Actually they should be on, whenever an engine is running, so from startup to shut down.
Avionero is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2008, 11:41
  #1229 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Finland
Posts: 242
From a system design standpoint this discussion suggests the "A/c on ground" switch is such a critical component that it ought to have redundancy. Conceptually it would not be too difficult to implement either, as there are several other possible inputs besides the existing WoW switch. For example, airspeed below stall speed more than 1 minute, door open, engines off, or only slow movement in any direction detected by GPS. Granted, any single input may not give a bulletproof indication, but a simple computer program could presumably combine the inputs logically to give a highly reliable additional "on ground" indication. The question is, would the reduced risk be worth the implementation cost?
snowfalcon2 is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2008, 11:41
  #1230 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Canary Islands, Spain
Posts: 240
Thanks. I guess ACL on was then just another coincidence and not directly related to the accident.

More pictures:

interviu - portada

After the judge's main mission is over, it is expected that he will press charges against at least 18 people that made unauthorized recordings of the area with the intention to sell them to the press. One sold 20 pictures for 2.000€. It could constitute a criminal offense against the victim's honour according to the law.

Police has 18 recording devices (mostly cellphones) under custody. The judge authorized only the technical investigation commision to make recordings and prohibited anyone else to make them from the first moment he dispatched police to the scene. He has requested all available recordings of the accident to be presented to him.

Many have reached the press before the judge could see them.

The press has not been authorised to visit the area yet.

Recue workers have been warned that if any recordings are found to have been made by them and not properly handed over or had been done during the inmediate time of duty or after the police requested recordings to stop, they'll be fired.

Last edited by justme69; 29th Aug 2008 at 13:16.
justme69 is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2008, 11:47
  #1231 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Alabama
Age: 54
Posts: 343
ExSp33db1rd

If you expect TOTAL safety in any mechanical device operated by man, then stay in bed - where you will eventually die anyway, - sorry to sound callous but this is a real World governed, and not too badly in fact, but economics.

That's not trying to minimise the suffering, just being realistic.
Based on your statement crash investigations are not necessary, the thousand of hours spent in improving flight safety are not needed.
If TOTAL is not the target, what is acceptable 80%, 90% 95%?
Why not making an aircraft NO GO with a unserviceble TR if will be safer.
I should not discount so easly an issue that seems to be at least a casual factor in various crashes.

Finally a very silly question. If the aircrafts are certified without TR, why the manufacturer should bother to install them? To consume more fuel on landing?

Last but not least a question for the experts, only one TR operative while create asymetric breaking behaviour?

Thanks
AN
FrequentSLF is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2008, 11:50
  #1232 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 13
Again, i must point out that i am not familiar with this type ,but most large aircraft have a minimum of 6 WOW (weight on wheel) sensors.Usually 2 on the nose gear and 2 on each main gear. Some systems might only use the nose gear sensors to detect WOW, other systems may use the main gear sensors or both nose and main.
With regards to the anti collision lights(ACL) being on , i have known some A/C to have the beacon(red) manually switched and the ACL to be automatically switched of the WOW system.
bonatti is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2008, 12:02
  #1233 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Vienna
Age: 35
Posts: 29
After seeing the pictures from "interviu", posted by justme, I am tempted to believe that BOTH reversers were deployed. The deployed reverse in nr.4 of the interviu pictures doesn´t look the same to me as the one posted way earlier (too lazy to search now, the one with the fire engine in the background, you know).
Avionero is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2008, 12:23
  #1234 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: buenos aires
Age: 72
Posts: 17
wow

Wow is in the main landing gear.Ground sensing in in nose gear.The take off configuration warning depend on the ground sensing.This is a group off 15 relays energized when the nose gear is barely compresed. One off this relays disconect the Rat probe heater when is in ground condition.Other conect the TO conf.warning .The thrust reverser work in both condition but in ground is powered by the respective hydraulic system and in flight for a dedicated accumulator.Is a extremely safety devise all mecanical and hydraulic.In the Lauda and Tam accidents,the T. Rev. was electrically controled and in both the failure was basically electrical.
The investigator must to know what hapened. If TO whith slat up the hydraulic actuators must be retracted.
Yet whith over load ,bad trim ,low EPR, in a sach as long runway and no obstacle this plane should to flight while the slat is extended.
My vote is for a TO whith a no slat extended condition and a inop TO conf.warning
pichu17 is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2008, 12:31
  #1235 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: BRU
Posts: 63
Originally Posted by FrequentSLF
Based on your statement crash investigations are not necessary, the thousand of hours spent in improving flight safety are not needed.
If TOTAL is not the target, what is acceptable 80%, 90% 95%?
There is no total safety. And indeed, a decision needs to be made as to what the acceptable level is. However, your numbers are way off. We are talking about a current safety of 99.99999% (this is the percentage of flights without fatal accidents). There is a certain cost to increase this safety. To bring it to, say, 99.999995% might increase costs by 20%. Apparently, most passengers are not willing to pay this premium, otherwise such investments would be incurred. This is for example the reason why there is often only triple redundancy and not quadruple redundancy (according to your logic, we should aim for 100+ x redundancy).

Now, your suggestion regarding grounding a/c with inoperable T/R, this is the same issue. If the airline knows that more of their a/c will be on the ground because of inoperable T/R, it will have to buy more a/c to be on standby. This costs money. And passengers are not prepared to pay for it.

Ask yourself: When you bought a car, why did you go for the Golf, and not the high-security S-class Mercedes? Shouldn't you have if you aim for total security?

In a nutshell, the risk of flying is tiny, and a lot less than driving, cycling or just walking in a city.

So why are there accident investigations? To find about the causes of accidents. If there is a cheap way of making flying more secure, you can bet that it will be implemented. If it is expensive, it will only be implemented if the costs outweigh the benefits.
Profit Max is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2008, 12:32
  #1236 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Subterranea
Age: 65
Posts: 186
Avionero:

It is the same reverser, photo's were taken from a different angle.
The earlier photo was taken in the direction of the ravine where the aircraft came to rest. The latest photo published is taken in the opposite direction and you can see the higher, flat terrain in the background where the main gear tracks were photographed. If you compare the 2 pictures, look at the white marker tape and the bush it is tied to and you will notice it is the same bush.

Green-dot
Green-dot is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2008, 12:46
  #1237 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Alabama
Age: 54
Posts: 343
Profit Max

There is no total safety. And indeed, a decision needs to be made as to what the acceptable level is. However, your numbers are way off. We are talking about a current safety of 99.99999% (this is the percentage of flights without fatal accidents).
Thanks, I am aware of those figures, I replied to a post which discounted the TOTAL safety and suggested to stay in bed.

Now, your suggestion regarding grounding a/c with inoperable T/R, this is the same issue. If the airline knows that more of their a/c will be on the ground because of inoperable T/R, it will have to buy more a/c to be on standby. This costs money. And passengers are not prepared to pay for it.
Or the airline will better mantain the TR or the design will imply less failures...to keep the aircraft flying longer

Ask yourself: When you bought a car, why did you go for the Golf, and not the high-security S-class Mercedes? Shouldn't you have if you aim for total security?
Do I have such option when I buy an airline ticket?

In a nutshell, the risk of flying is tiny, and a lot less than driving, cycling or just walking in a city.
So forget about the crash investigation, the risk is tiny and therefore we shouldn't worry about anything.

So why are there accident investigations? To find about the causes of accidents. If there is a cheap way of making flying more secure, you can bet that it will be implemented. If it is expensive, it will only be implemented if the costs outweigh the benefits.
My understanding is that is not implemented if the safety is of 99.99999%, not because of costs outweighing the benefits. What you are saying could be considered professional negligence.

AN

edit to correct typing errors
FrequentSLF is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2008, 12:59
  #1238 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: bern, switzerland
Age: 57
Posts: 59
re costs and safety, why when a car hits a tree without apparent reason the blame is put onto a drunk or asleep driver and no investigation on mechanical failures is performed?
true, only a few people die in a car accident, but overall, the death rate is massively higher than on commercial aviation.

commercial aviation but not only is already subjected to a massive amount of regulations to enforce high levels of safety.

currently, the safety of commercial aviation is ridicolously high; on a liner you have more chances of dying of natural causes than of accident.

be aware that the search for total safety sparing no costs (like creating huge flat areas around runways) will ultimately decrease death rates statistically, when people will stop flying because they cannot afford it any more.
gianmarko is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2008, 13:07
  #1239 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: BRU
Posts: 63
Originally Posted by FrequentSLF
Ask yourself: When you bought a car, why did you go for the Golf, and not the high-security S-class Mercedes? Shouldn't you have if you aim for total security?
Do I have such option when I buy an airline ticket?
You had the option when you bought a car, and still you went for the less safe option. If most people act like you, you can imagine why an airline that has safety measures that people are not willing to pay for, will go out of business. Therefore, the option is not there because there is no market for it. If you think there is a market, please go ahead and start your own airline and see how well you do with policies like "no plane will ever depart without working T/R", and how many more people will choose your airline because of this.

Originally Posted by FrequentSLF
My understanding is that is not implemented if the safety is of 99.99999%, not because of costs outweighing the benefits. What you are saying could be considered professional negligence.
Any company that does not operate to the principle to weigh benefits against cost will go out of business eventually. "Professional negligence"? I suggest you stick to your dream world.
Profit Max is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2008, 13:07
  #1240 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Vienna
Age: 35
Posts: 29
green dot,
yes you are right! Sorry for bothering and thanks for clarifying
Avionero 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.