Spanair accident at Madrid
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Espania
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Article in today's Torygraph. Madrid plane crash survivors tell of miracle - Telegraph
Support for the "exploding" engine theory?
I heard a horrible noise as we were taking off and the next thing I remember was being flung from the aircraft. I must have passed out but woke when there was a loud explosion.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One would imagine that in the event of an evacuation first class seats would be much more desireable. Trying to squeeze out of the can of sardines that is economy class when there is a fire raging sounds like one of the worst possible ways to go.
The front of an aircraft (where first and club class are) is usually one of the worst places to be in a major crash since the front of the aircraft frequently takes most of the impact when the aircraft hits something. All of the small number of survivors on the Japanese Air Lines 747 crash where over 500 died for instance were in the very rear of the aircraft. The same thing on the Korean air lines 747 that crashed in Guam.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In my head
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The questions about prior maintenance/fault diagnosis are obviously a horrible thing to have to contemplate - there's a suggestion being aired at the moment that an aircraft from this fleet suffered some kind of engine problem or query whilst in the Canaries at the weekend. Not known if it was the same one. We must all be careful not to second guess these things. The engineers must already be feeling absolutely awful without implying that they were actually personally negligent so early in the investigation. It just isn't fair to even hint at it without absolute evidence.
However, I do think from lessons that might be learned from a number of accidents now, we can conclude that a good new airport is not one measured by whether it has a terminal building designed by Foster or Rogers, pleasant though that may be, but one which has 360 degree level uncluttered surfaces throughout the airport, between and alongside runways and way beyond those actives.
If money can be found to buy and build car parks and motorway links, then surely it can be found to just buy scrubland and scrape it level?
However, I do think from lessons that might be learned from a number of accidents now, we can conclude that a good new airport is not one measured by whether it has a terminal building designed by Foster or Rogers, pleasant though that may be, but one which has 360 degree level uncluttered surfaces throughout the airport, between and alongside runways and way beyond those actives.
If money can be found to buy and build car parks and motorway links, then surely it can be found to just buy scrubland and scrape it level?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: London
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Left engine fire but right turn!?
I think there is something very odd. If indeed the eye witness accounts are correct that the no.1 engine was on fire why did it yaw right and crash?
I cant help but wonder if there maybe 2 scenarios here.
Maybe it was the classic sim nightmare scenario of engine fire on one engine and engine failure on the other and they delt with the fire first and closed that thrust lever without noticing the no2 engine had failed there by leaving them with not enough thrust to fly but enough thrust from no1 to cause a right yaw?
Or maybe they shut down the wrong engine. It has been done before and no matter how aware of that you are us pilots are human at the end of the day. It may have been identified correctly and wrong thrust lever closed or maybe mis identified and the wrong engine shut down.
Some eye witnesses (normally unreliable) say the no1 engine separated. If that happened and it took out the left hand side of the tail plane lift will still have been produced on the right hand side turning the a/c to the left plus the no1 engine would have forced the aircraft to the left if it was running!
Now before anyone gets offended that omg how can he say its pilot error and get their knickers in a twist i would like to make 2 points.
1)Pilots love to speculate in situations like this, with and without all the facts, right or wrongly (just like we love to moan).
2)The fact is i really hope it was not pilot error that led to the final hole in the swiss cheese but facts are facts and in most cases pilot error is the biggest cause of crashes, we are the last link in the error chain and if we get it wrong then there is no escape!
My thoughts go out to the crew and pax of the flight and their families that are left behind.
I cant help but wonder if there maybe 2 scenarios here.
Maybe it was the classic sim nightmare scenario of engine fire on one engine and engine failure on the other and they delt with the fire first and closed that thrust lever without noticing the no2 engine had failed there by leaving them with not enough thrust to fly but enough thrust from no1 to cause a right yaw?
Or maybe they shut down the wrong engine. It has been done before and no matter how aware of that you are us pilots are human at the end of the day. It may have been identified correctly and wrong thrust lever closed or maybe mis identified and the wrong engine shut down.
Some eye witnesses (normally unreliable) say the no1 engine separated. If that happened and it took out the left hand side of the tail plane lift will still have been produced on the right hand side turning the a/c to the left plus the no1 engine would have forced the aircraft to the left if it was running!
Now before anyone gets offended that omg how can he say its pilot error and get their knickers in a twist i would like to make 2 points.
1)Pilots love to speculate in situations like this, with and without all the facts, right or wrongly (just like we love to moan).
2)The fact is i really hope it was not pilot error that led to the final hole in the swiss cheese but facts are facts and in most cases pilot error is the biggest cause of crashes, we are the last link in the error chain and if we get it wrong then there is no escape!
My thoughts go out to the crew and pax of the flight and their families that are left behind.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: bored
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
French television report that the pilot reported the problem on the initial RTO to company ops, and asked for further advice. Company Ops told them to go.
An interviewed aviation expert also said that probably the exploding engine severed hydraulic lines to the tail control services, preventing the pilots from continuing the departure on a single engine.
An interviewed aviation expert also said that probably the exploding engine severed hydraulic lines to the tail control services, preventing the pilots from continuing the departure on a single engine.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: W Sussex
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Todays Times online - Expert opinion
From todays Times on line:
'Experts suggested that a powerful gust could have forced the pilot to put too much pressure on the engine during take-off, making it burst into flames.'
Expert scmexpert
'Experts suggested that a powerful gust could have forced the pilot to put too much pressure on the engine during take-off, making it burst into flames.'
Expert scmexpert
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: London
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Namelesswonder page 16 Pics
Just looking at the pics posted by Namelesswonder on page 16, on the first pic looking at the tail there is damage to the righthand side of the tail!
All witness accounts state the left hand engine being the problem.
If there was a disintergrating engine those pics would suggest it was no2 not no1 therefore explaining the right yaw, which leads to the point if that was the case maybe loss of all hydraulics caused by debris of the disintergrating which led to a totally unflyable a/c!?
All witness accounts state the left hand engine being the problem.
If there was a disintergrating engine those pics would suggest it was no2 not no1 therefore explaining the right yaw, which leads to the point if that was the case maybe loss of all hydraulics caused by debris of the disintergrating which led to a totally unflyable a/c!?
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Here
Posts: 1,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looking at an acars search the last time the aeroplane appears to have flown apart from yesterday was on the Monday night (18th August) on a flight from Malaga to Madrid. It appears that the aircraft did not fly on the following day (Tuesday) at all. Whether the crew of that flight reported a problem therefore the a/c was to be taken out of action on Tuesday remains to be seen.
Interesting though.
Interesting though.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Effin' Limbo
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Company ops shouldn't be able to tell them anything. If they tell me to go with a broken plane, I'll kindly tell them where they can go.
And as for the expert's comment on the exploding engine severing hydraulic lines - I think that an uncontained failure is highly unlikely, and even if the hydraulics have been affected, the MD still flies on cables, bless its conventional soul.
Like I said before - my two cents would be riding on either a reverser opening (and possibly starting to produce thrust), or a failure exactly at rotation (compounding a fast pull during the same), and overusing the ailerons during the initial response to the failure, causing the plane to start oscillating wing-to-wing.
I don't know about the bus or the 73, but the MD is prone to that, should you be overzealous on the initial response to the yaw. Like someone here already said - a lot of rudder (and you will need all of it in the MD, on TO thrust), and minimum bank (up to 5 degrees) to maintain directional control.
And as for the expert's comment on the exploding engine severing hydraulic lines - I think that an uncontained failure is highly unlikely, and even if the hydraulics have been affected, the MD still flies on cables, bless its conventional soul.
Like I said before - my two cents would be riding on either a reverser opening (and possibly starting to produce thrust), or a failure exactly at rotation (compounding a fast pull during the same), and overusing the ailerons during the initial response to the failure, causing the plane to start oscillating wing-to-wing.
I don't know about the bus or the 73, but the MD is prone to that, should you be overzealous on the initial response to the yaw. Like someone here already said - a lot of rudder (and you will need all of it in the MD, on TO thrust), and minimum bank (up to 5 degrees) to maintain directional control.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: England
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having followed this thread from early on in this tragic incident I have been aware of the numerous uses of the word reported
Reported engine fire
Reported explosion
Reported smoke from engine
and so on.....
Is it now time to install a high quality CCTV system which records each and every departure at major airports. Such unambiguous evidence would surely permit in some cases, the AAIB teams to reach important conclusions very quickly and set in motion remedial action to enhance safety.
For example if a component is seen detaching itself from the aircraft this will form an immediate and crucial part of the post incident investigation permitting structural checks on similiar aircraft to take place in days rather than months.....maybe avoiding more loss of life?
Reported engine fire
Reported explosion
Reported smoke from engine
and so on.....
Is it now time to install a high quality CCTV system which records each and every departure at major airports. Such unambiguous evidence would surely permit in some cases, the AAIB teams to reach important conclusions very quickly and set in motion remedial action to enhance safety.
For example if a component is seen detaching itself from the aircraft this will form an immediate and crucial part of the post incident investigation permitting structural checks on similiar aircraft to take place in days rather than months.....maybe avoiding more loss of life?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maverick,
Your quote :- "If that happened and it took out the left hand side of the tail plane lift will still have been produced on the right hand side turning the a/c to the left"
Sorry Maverick, but the tailplane does not produce upward lift but download; the cg of all commercial aircraft being forward of the centre of lift. That being the case, it would have rolled t'other way.
Let's wait (im)patiently for the report shall we?
Your quote :- "If that happened and it took out the left hand side of the tail plane lift will still have been produced on the right hand side turning the a/c to the left"
Sorry Maverick, but the tailplane does not produce upward lift but download; the cg of all commercial aircraft being forward of the centre of lift. That being the case, it would have rolled t'other way.
Let's wait (im)patiently for the report shall we?
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 2,175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
as a veteran SLF, would like to know where the survivors were sitting - instinctively would assume in the front as MD engines are in the back
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bury St. Edmunds
Age: 64
Posts: 539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Madrid Crash Response
This is a tragic accident and IMHO it is too early and inappropriate to speculate as to the cause. From the photos I would say that it was a miracle than anyone got out alive from this.
I also believe that the crash response by the various Spanish agiencies was first class and that lives have no doubt been saved as a result. It makes me question though what kind of response one might expect to an accident of this magnitude in most countries of the world - including the UK.
Bambi buckets from helos in the UK - I don't think so! The fire and medical first responders looked like they had also trained for this and knew what to do. Well done. The fact that flying ops continued on other runways (at a reduced capacity) was quite impressive too. If this had happened in the UK I think there would have been mass diversions and delays.....
Via con Dios.
MB
I also believe that the crash response by the various Spanish agiencies was first class and that lives have no doubt been saved as a result. It makes me question though what kind of response one might expect to an accident of this magnitude in most countries of the world - including the UK.
Bambi buckets from helos in the UK - I don't think so! The fire and medical first responders looked like they had also trained for this and knew what to do. Well done. The fact that flying ops continued on other runways (at a reduced capacity) was quite impressive too. If this had happened in the UK I think there would have been mass diversions and delays.....
Via con Dios.
MB
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: -
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maverick 1
IF the decision is to go no recall items take place below 400agl
I presume the flight crew didnt touch the throttles or fire bottles.they were probably struggling to control the bugger and raise landing gear with positive rate.
thats my opinion
I presume the flight crew didnt touch the throttles or fire bottles.they were probably struggling to control the bugger and raise landing gear with positive rate.
thats my opinion
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the reason for the aircraft crashing off to the right despite it having a fire on its left engine may be because its right wing touched the ground first, as eye witness reports state. Surely this would mean it cartwheeling off to the right?
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Madbob
You may wish to ask exactly how much fire cover was available to cater for the incoming after the accident, was it sufficient, or reduced, should all ops have been stopped?
Don't be too ready to knock the UK response from emergency services, when it is an emergency they are second to none.
Don't be too ready to knock the UK response from emergency services, when it is an emergency they are second to none.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Europe
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gully/ravine
Seeing the pictures takes me back to the 2006 Atlantic Airways accident (Only 16 people onboard, of which 4 were killed). I went to the crash site as part of my job before the aircraft was removed. I don't like to speculate about the causes of accidents, holding off any judgement until the NTSB etc. return with their findings. They are much more qualified to determine the cause than I am.
Normally I would therefore refrain from commenting on an accident that's under investigation, but I guess this one hit a little to close to home, bringing back images I had hoped would be more blurred by now. And I only saw the wreck, met some next of kin, and a few of the survivors once they were out of hospital. I do not envy the rescue workers at either accident site, the images must be nightmarish.
The pictures show the plane having ending up in something like a gully/ravine. The reason I'm reminded of the 2006 accident is because that aircraft went over the edge of the runway, and broke apart, then engine fire and explosion. Pictures are eerily similar, and I remember thinking then how fortunate it was the plane was almost empty.
I've seen it mentioned in the thread about a large area of grass/brush being on fire, which is of course highly likely (burst fuel tank, leak, fire). The brush caught fire in that 2006 accident, and some survivors got burned after leaving the aircraft. What happened to the four inside, I don't know, and would prefer not to think about.
Am amazed at the emergency efforts, including helicopters to douse the fire. They may have made the difference for those few who did escape (or got thrown out). I'm not sure the brush being on fire could cause emergency efforts to be slowed, but the gully/ravine is another issue. I'm not familiar with the airport in question, so don't know whether emergency vehicles would have been able to get close, or if they'd have to aid from up high/at a distance?
Normally I would therefore refrain from commenting on an accident that's under investigation, but I guess this one hit a little to close to home, bringing back images I had hoped would be more blurred by now. And I only saw the wreck, met some next of kin, and a few of the survivors once they were out of hospital. I do not envy the rescue workers at either accident site, the images must be nightmarish.
The pictures show the plane having ending up in something like a gully/ravine. The reason I'm reminded of the 2006 accident is because that aircraft went over the edge of the runway, and broke apart, then engine fire and explosion. Pictures are eerily similar, and I remember thinking then how fortunate it was the plane was almost empty.
I've seen it mentioned in the thread about a large area of grass/brush being on fire, which is of course highly likely (burst fuel tank, leak, fire). The brush caught fire in that 2006 accident, and some survivors got burned after leaving the aircraft. What happened to the four inside, I don't know, and would prefer not to think about.
Am amazed at the emergency efforts, including helicopters to douse the fire. They may have made the difference for those few who did escape (or got thrown out). I'm not sure the brush being on fire could cause emergency efforts to be slowed, but the gully/ravine is another issue. I'm not familiar with the airport in question, so don't know whether emergency vehicles would have been able to get close, or if they'd have to aid from up high/at a distance?