Spanair accident at Madrid
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
regarding setting flaps while on ground...I mentioned doing it with a mechanic doing a visual check.
our airline does extend takeoff flaps/slats as the plane first moves forward under its own power...why? one reason is to stop the takeoff configuration warning from blowing while the power is advanced. the other is to protect the engines from FOD while taxiing.
I just wanted to add the component of having a human being looking at the flaps/slats and signaling OK.
even if the takeoff warning system was removed fromt the airplane, it is up to the pilots to make sure the slats/flaps are extended for takeoff.
Because this plane is so quiet in the cockpit, one can hear the slats popping into position, a pleaseant sound I assure you. One could also open the DV window and look back at the wing to make sure...plus the cockpit light for slats and gauges for flap position.
our airline does extend takeoff flaps/slats as the plane first moves forward under its own power...why? one reason is to stop the takeoff configuration warning from blowing while the power is advanced. the other is to protect the engines from FOD while taxiing.
I just wanted to add the component of having a human being looking at the flaps/slats and signaling OK.
even if the takeoff warning system was removed fromt the airplane, it is up to the pilots to make sure the slats/flaps are extended for takeoff.
Because this plane is so quiet in the cockpit, one can hear the slats popping into position, a pleaseant sound I assure you. One could also open the DV window and look back at the wing to make sure...plus the cockpit light for slats and gauges for flap position.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some very nice last minute feedback from bonatti.
I managed to dig this up...Like I said I know next to nothing about the Mad Dog and I think this thread needed more contributions from type-rated pilots.
POS/STROBE lights switch.
OFF - Forward and aft position lights and strobe lights are off.
POS - Turns on forward and aft position lights only.
BOTH - Turns on the forward and aft position lights and strobe lights. Strobe lights will come on when the nosewheel is off the ground.
First fuelling done with switch OFF.Second refuel done after aircraft returned to gate,switch probably left in BOTH,hence refueller's report.
This becomes second piece of evidence of an air/ground system malfunction.
I managed to dig this up...Like I said I know next to nothing about the Mad Dog and I think this thread needed more contributions from type-rated pilots.
POS/STROBE lights switch.
OFF - Forward and aft position lights and strobe lights are off.
POS - Turns on forward and aft position lights only.
BOTH - Turns on the forward and aft position lights and strobe lights. Strobe lights will come on when the nosewheel is off the ground.
First fuelling done with switch OFF.Second refuel done after aircraft returned to gate,switch probably left in BOTH,hence refueller's report.
This becomes second piece of evidence of an air/ground system malfunction.
Last edited by Rananim; 29th Aug 2008 at 13:47.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: btw SAMAR and TOSPA
Posts: 566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sitting next to 1C seat of crew survivor flight attendant Antonia Martinez was another Spanair pilot, an airbus commander. The flight attendant couldn't hear anything from the cabin (she never was there) but she recalls the comments of her partner sitting right next to her (the airbus pilot) as soon as take-off commenced: "Something weird is happening here" (referring to the way he perceived the take-off maneuver).
Because this plane is so quiet in the cockpit, one can hear the slats popping into position, a pleaseant sound I assure you.
First fuelling done with switch OFF.Second refuel done after aircraft returned to gate,switch probably left in BOTH,hence refueller's report.
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".
ROTATING BEACON ............... OFF ????
If so, it appears this list was not read when returning to parking spot 11 to service the malfunction.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Both Emispheres
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a line of thinking emerging here and I think is well founded.
- serviced nose gear
- fault develops in ground / air switch, it manifest intermittently.
- Cpt notices something on first taxing and goes back for checks
- switch is not diagnosed, instead probe heater is excluded.
- another clue: strobe lights on
- at some point, flaps up.
- a/g goes. Checklist ? (we will know by CVR), no configuration warning, takeoff with flaps retracted.
- none of other conditions (weight, trip, wind, t/o thrust set, calculated Vr ) was favorable for a no flaps t/o
- stalls, and cannot be fully recovered.
One come to terms with the fact that human factors are decisive in the above scenario.
- serviced nose gear
- fault develops in ground / air switch, it manifest intermittently.
- Cpt notices something on first taxing and goes back for checks
- switch is not diagnosed, instead probe heater is excluded.
- another clue: strobe lights on
- at some point, flaps up.
- a/g goes. Checklist ? (we will know by CVR), no configuration warning, takeoff with flaps retracted.
- none of other conditions (weight, trip, wind, t/o thrust set, calculated Vr ) was favorable for a no flaps t/o
- stalls, and cannot be fully recovered.
One come to terms with the fact that human factors are decisive in the above scenario.
Last edited by el #; 29th Aug 2008 at 14:18.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
there is confusion in my mind.
are we speaking of the flashing strobe lights being ON while on the ground
or are we speaking of the red rotaing beacon?
most every airline I've worked for (3 small, one huge) uses this protocol:
when electric power is on the plane, the nav or position lights are on (we never turn them off without unusual circumstance)
when engine start is imminent, rotating beacon on.
now, certainly the pilots could have forgotten to turn off the beacon on return to the gate.
are we speaking of the flashing strobe lights being ON while on the ground
or are we speaking of the red rotaing beacon?
most every airline I've worked for (3 small, one huge) uses this protocol:
when electric power is on the plane, the nav or position lights are on (we never turn them off without unusual circumstance)
when engine start is imminent, rotating beacon on.
now, certainly the pilots could have forgotten to turn off the beacon on return to the gate.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Found in Toronto
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it possible, from this, to estimate where the Stab Trim was set - assuming no movement from impacts.
Often there are markings on the vertical stabilizer which would indicated the Stab Trim simply by the leading edge position of the horizontal stabilizer.
It is possible that someone familiar with this aircraft could tell by the photo (even without the markings) what the Stab Trim might have been.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Both Emispheres
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TN "clarifies"
Just for the record of how certain journalism operates in some places.
Argentinian news channel telenoticias posted a "clarifying statement" about the CVR transcript they broadcast the day following the accident, when the box was still likely buried in debris.
The annoying part is that the statement (that I don't report here, but is on TN.com.ar) is obscure to the point of having no definite meaning in Spanish.
It actually appears to have been worded to comply with a due act after propagating a fake, but without clearly admitting that it was. Only a very convoluted reference to "military sources" and that something , (not clear what), is "lamentable".
Pitful.
Argentinian news channel telenoticias posted a "clarifying statement" about the CVR transcript they broadcast the day following the accident, when the box was still likely buried in debris.
The annoying part is that the statement (that I don't report here, but is on TN.com.ar) is obscure to the point of having no definite meaning in Spanish.
It actually appears to have been worded to comply with a due act after propagating a fake, but without clearly admitting that it was. Only a very convoluted reference to "military sources" and that something , (not clear what), is "lamentable".
Pitful.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Canary Islands, Spain
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The CVR was recovered even before the civil air investigation comission personel arrived (it took them about 1.5h to get to the site). Police at the scene handed it over to them. Later the same afternoon, the civil air accident investigators found the FDR.
Still, it took a couple of days to have them sent to England to get the data retrieved. Because they weren't in that good of a shape, it was deemed that the UK air accident facilities were the ones with the highest probability to successfully recover them.
The ($%&·) argentinian news channel just made the whole thing up about having the transcript of the last words of the pilot.
Still, it took a couple of days to have them sent to England to get the data retrieved. Because they weren't in that good of a shape, it was deemed that the UK air accident facilities were the ones with the highest probability to successfully recover them.
The ($%&·) argentinian news channel just made the whole thing up about having the transcript of the last words of the pilot.
Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult
Join Date: May 2007
Location: On the western edge of The Moor
Age: 67
Posts: 1,100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a though
If the aircraft "thought" it was in the air
Would there not have been a set of warnings when both engines were shut down?
I accept that one can be shut down in flight but would the aircraft systems accept both shut down without some warning
If the aircraft "thought" it was in the air
Would there not have been a set of warnings when both engines were shut down?
I accept that one can be shut down in flight but would the aircraft systems accept both shut down without some warning
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: btw SAMAR and TOSPA
Posts: 566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess the assumption should be that there are 15 relays associated to air/ground sensing on the nose gear, but only the one responsible for the probe heater was not opening on ground. This would not have affected much more than that.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: north
Posts: 319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speeds
justme69
According to my charts that gives for flap 15;
V1 - 138 kts
Vr - 142 kts
V2+10 - 159 kts
Stall speed zero flap/slat - 166 kts
Runway required 8250 ft (2500 m)
Target attitude 1 engine INOP 13 deg
XPM
The weight of the airplane according to ground papers was 64.263kg.
V1 - 138 kts
Vr - 142 kts
V2+10 - 159 kts
Stall speed zero flap/slat - 166 kts
Runway required 8250 ft (2500 m)
Target attitude 1 engine INOP 13 deg
XPM
Last edited by XPMorten; 29th Aug 2008 at 15:00.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Alabama
Age: 58
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Profit Max
I never said that no plane will ever depart without working T/R. I said that if the safety would be less than 99.99999 the relevant authorities shall look at the problem. Airlines today are fined because they are cutting corners on safety and is not up to the airlines to judge if the benefits outweight the costs. What is making flight travel safe is because the same set of regulation applies to all airlines, and fortunately they cannot cut corners for the sake of money.
Better in my dream world that in jail 
Anyway we are off topic, if you wish to continue the discussion you can PM me
AN
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.
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.
Anyway we are off topic, if you wish to continue the discussion you can PM me
AN
Profit Max
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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
Quote:
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?
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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
Quote:
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?
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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
The answer is not in how many but in the process of getting as many as possible to stay on.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was taxiing out in an MD80 one night and couldn't get the thrust below flight idle, also the strobe lights came on on the ground. Thinking it was an overserviced nosewheel strut causing the problems I used solid braking to bring the nosewheel strut lower and the problems went away. During their day operation they wouldn't have noticed the strobe lights but should have noticed the power was above normal. I assume the 82 is the same system as the 80.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: buenos aires
Age: 77
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The same relay, the R2-5 ,is responsable for both,the rat probe heating and the TO configuration warning. If only this relay is faulty the rest ground sensing system remains ok .Remember the plane return for a problem in the Rat sensor heating.The heater must work only in flight. If is heated in ground, the Rat indicated is extremely high and the computed TO EPR too low. Is in my opinion the reason for the first frustated T.O. .The mecanic disconnect the heater, opening a CB ( posible the RAM AIR TEM.& PROBE HEATER.) but this moreover feed the TRP (thrust rating panel). But this accion is only for TO .After this ,the pilot can reconected.In this condition the Auto throtle is inop for TO.and not is a problematic condition. The TO EPR is obtener from the data chart.
If the LEFT GND CONT. RELAYS circuit breaker was open, a relays group change to flight condition but is not too mach evidet for crew.
The strobe light is the only asociated to ground sensing .
If the LEFT GND CONT. RELAYS circuit breaker was open, a relays group change to flight condition but is not too mach evidet for crew.
The strobe light is the only asociated to ground sensing .
lomapaseo;
Precisely.
Another "expert" who knows nothing about flight safey or what it takes to do it and who arrogantly dismisses frank and honest responses from those who really know. Clearly not a listener. A million scenarios all preceded by "yeah...but!...", and a million answers but no learning. This kind of duel is a waste of time and bandwidth.
The thread's run it's course when this kind of disrespect for those who do the work is taken seriously and engaged.
This is the wrong thread to be discussing how many angels can fit on a needle point.
The answer is not in how many but in the process of getting as many as possible to stay on.
The answer is not in how many but in the process of getting as many as possible to stay on.
Another "expert" who knows nothing about flight safey or what it takes to do it and who arrogantly dismisses frank and honest responses from those who really know. Clearly not a listener. A million scenarios all preceded by "yeah...but!...", and a million answers but no learning. This kind of duel is a waste of time and bandwidth.
The thread's run it's course when this kind of disrespect for those who do the work is taken seriously and engaged.
Last edited by PJ2; 29th Aug 2008 at 16:13.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The thread's run it's course when this kind of disrespect for those who do the work is taken seriously and engaged.
I have learned a lot from watching discussions from the pros and what they do to avoid these sorts of mistakes. So I will incorporate a final critical items check even after running through the checklist, esp. if I have a long taxi or unexpected interruption. I have a good buddy who buys time on my aircraft and we often fly together, so we will coach each other into improving our procedures.
I can separate the wheat from the chaff easily enough with a bit of scrolling and recognizing the IDs of the reputable posters as I scroll past. Thanks for your contributions, hope it will continue.