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 31st Aug 2008, 00:28
  #1341 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Subterranea
Age: 66
Posts: 186
xkoote,

Another thing that I find very important. If the MD80 touched down with it's tail first. There MUST be heavy scrapes in the dirt where the MD came down if the reverser was deployed. When the reversers are deployed, they will hit the ground before the tail does. So for me it all reverts back to the no slat takeoff scenario.
Referring to the 4th picture of the link below, showing a deployed reverser:

interviu - portada

What i find peculiar is that only one reverser bucket is warped and wrinkled as if the forward lower edge has been digging in the dirt and is deformed. The other bucket seems rather unscathed. I know it is impossible to draw any definitive conclusions from a single picture but i'm sure the investigators will look into this.


Green-dot
Green-dot is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2008, 00:30
  #1342 (permalink)  
PJ2
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: BC
Age: 72
Posts: 2,410
xander - a sad sight indeed...

Green-dot;

Interesting..., I think we ended up on the same page!

Capt. Inop;
I think that the answer to this tragic accident lies elsewhere than an open reverse bucket.
If you examine the (other) photo of the reverser pictured earlier with the fire engine in the background, you can conclude that one bucket, almost certainly the "lower" one, hit something while the "top" one is pristine, (relatively speaking). The fairly uniform crumpling pattern would lead one to conclude (on this flimsy evidence, I know), that this reverser hit the ground. There are abrasion marks parallel to the direction of aircraft travel before breakup which still may be discerned through the poor quality, "guassed" jpeg image (which has been re-sampled like crazy).

Here is the photo, turned vertically so as to possibly (not "properly" as earlier stated) relate to the ground when in position on the aircraft. We dont' know if this is the right orientation but it is more likely than the alternative. The photo earlier in the thread of just two reversers and a lot of ground dug out shows that deployed reversers will strike the ground before the tail on this fleet type, (ergo, the tail in the "wheel-tracks" photo, perhaps?).



We can't really tell if this is the left or right engine. I've tried looking at all kinds of images, angles, marks but though we have images of both engines, you can't tell which is which from the available photos.

Last edited by PJ2; 31st Aug 2008 at 01:20.
PJ2 is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2008, 01:20
  #1343 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,070
Extending slat can give you '0' flaps, or less than Flaps 11 via the 'dial a flap'(don't recall the formal name) system.

I've seen 6 degrees used a lot in hvy, hot, conditions.

If the slats are found extended it doens't mean they were extended at rotation. That's for the investigators to resolve.
misd-agin is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2008, 01:38
  #1344 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
have we considered an aft cg, failure of the "out of trim" warning due to same reason as RAT probe heated?

the plane would over rotate, perhaps even rotate too early.
sevenstrokeroll is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2008, 02:17
  #1345 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: San Antonio, TX USA
Age: 57
Posts: 139
Milo??? It's a wing for goodness sake.

Take a good look at the curvature of the leading edge. Now look at the curvature of the leading edge of the known stabilizer.....see any difference?
That section of the wing is the bottom side, looking at the junction between the aileron and the outboard flap (which appears to be missing).

Simply put, there are no 4x6 inch (wide open no doubt) access holes in the leading edge of any wing, unless there is a slat placed purposefully in front of them.

With what we know now....The last moments of 5022 were spent trying to stop....and selecting flaps/slats would not be the smartest way to get the most weight on the wheels. I think very much that these wings were correctly configured for TO.
md80fanatic is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2008, 02:42
  #1346 (permalink)  
pasoundman
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
N1005C
Spanair accident @ Madrid
dicksorchard # 818
Lauda Air flt NG004 Boeing 767-300ER reg OE-LAV (VHHH) VTBD LOWW May 26, 1991
That was initiated by a cargo fire in the hold though was it not ?

Graham
 
Old 31st Aug 2008, 02:54
  #1347 (permalink)  
pasoundman
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
wileydog3
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.

As SLF I like to time T/O from application of T/O power. In a 747 if it's much over 45 secs you know you're really heavy.

On one occasion on a Saturday, a Lufthansa flight about 9:30 from Heathrow to Frankfurt, mainly business pax with little luggage (just carry-ons) I swear it was *12* seconds. And I'd always though A320s weren't fitted with the most powerful engines.
 
Old 31st Aug 2008, 03:50
  #1348 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Amsterdam
Age: 66
Posts: 159
PJ2, it's difficult to say if it's impact forces that have opened the buckets.

I know that if i for any reason didn't think that the aicraft would fly i would use any means to get it down on the ground and to limit the loss.
That includes use of full reverse thrust.
Capt. Inop is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2008, 07:43
  #1349 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Bali, Indonesia
Posts: 264
Which Engine?

That includes use of full reverse thrust.
Which brings us back to the problem that we can't identify which engine is which. Some reports have said that it was the #2 TR which was deactivated. Don't know how credible these reports are but, of correct, it must have been the #1 TR deployed, requested or otherwise, which would have turned the A/C to the left not right?
philipat is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2008, 07:47
  #1350 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Finland
Posts: 242
The observation that the deployed thrust reverser extends below the fuselage is very interesting re. the picture of the wheel tracks in Post 962.

There is a faint track at the very top of the grass area, before the wheel marks, which may be the track of the tail as it struck the ground first. But no marks that would suggest a reverser bucket ground contact at that point, either left or right. That could be an indication that the reversers were stowed, but again this is armchair investigation so best not to count 100% on it.

Edit: Some photos of an MD-82 touching down.

Last edited by snowfalcon2; 31st Aug 2008 at 08:17.
snowfalcon2 is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2008, 09:01
  #1351 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 117
Confused -

So what is this picture?

And what dug the hole?
Rightbase is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2008, 09:43
  #1352 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 186
So what is this picture?

And what dug the hole?
Looks to me like the grooves in the mud and the damage to the lighting point were from the gear. There is plenty of mud splattered on the fuselage that appeard to be from reverse jet eflux and I think this has caused the hole itself. I cannot see any evidence of mud on the bucket which I would expect if it dug in.

TH
Trash Hauler is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2008, 09:56
  #1353 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: london
Posts: 44
md80fanatic:

Please look more carefully - it is not a wing. It is a small rear piece/flap from the starboard stabiliser, outboard of that photographed still attached to the tail assembly. The "leading edge" is simply its hinge, hidden normally inside the stabiliser. It looks larger than it is. Milo is absolutely correct.
fg32 is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2008, 10:21
  #1354 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 313
GreenDot, PJ2,

Bucket
What i find peculiar is that only one reverser bucket is warped and wrinkled as if the forward lower edge has been digging in the dirt and is deformed. The other bucket seems rather unscathed. I know it is impossible to draw any definitive conclusions from a single picture but i'm sure the investigators will look into this.
I agree that the lower bucket hit the ground. I however believe
that this happened on the RWY during rotate!
Deployed buckets

I noticed that during the simulator tests that over-rotation is very likely if the reverser is deployed.

This would also cause a rain of SPARKS which might explain some
observations of an engine catching fire/explosion.

XPM
XPMorten is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2008, 10:43
  #1355 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
Posts: 3,043
Confused - So what is this picture? And what dug the hole?
That's, as previously mentioned, from THIS MD-80 accident. There only to show intact reversers. Obviously not from Spanair.
forget is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2008, 10:55
  #1356 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 313
Also.. If the reversers were intentionally deployed by the pilot,
he would offcourse never do so in the air! So, in either case we would
not expect bucket marks on the ground at the beginning of the skid marks.

XPM
XPMorten is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2008, 11:11
  #1357 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Sweden
Age: 73
Posts: 37
N1005C
Spanair accident @ Madrid
dicksorchard # 818
Lauda Air flt NG004 Boeing 767-300ER reg OE-LAV (VHHH) VTBD LOWW May 26, 1991
That was initiated by a cargo fire in the hold though was it not ?

Graham
I believe it was a leaking T/R valve, actuating T/R on one side.
Tjosan is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2008, 11:22
  #1358 (permalink)  
pasoundman
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
OverRun
Maybe we need to extend the RESA of this already very long runway
Hasn't it already been stated that the runways are EMAS equipped ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enginee...rrestor_system
 
Old 31st Aug 2008, 14:05
  #1359 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: San Antonio, TX USA
Age: 57
Posts: 139
Sorry, don't buy it....

Please look more carefully - it is not a wing.

.... and there is nothing you can say to change that.
md80fanatic is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2008, 14:17
  #1360 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 5,158
The reverser doors are attached to the engines which are much higher than the bottom of the fuselage. Any scrapes on the runway would likely be from the fuselage
lomapaseo is online now  

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.