Spanair accident at Madrid
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: merseyside
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thrust reversers & Captain - First officer communication
N1005C BND PJ2 T-21
Just wanted to thank the above posters for taking out the time to reply to my querys about reverse thrusters .
I see that another very interesting post refering to the reverse thrust issue has been posted by GP7280-POC which quotes an El Pais Article ( A usually very reputable spanish newspaper) See below
Long rolling on the runway
A video of airport cameras, held under catch, shows according to the report that the airplane put a much back to long distance on the runway. Loud " El País" it drove 500 meters beyond the point recommended for the start. According to the report one of the engines could have turned - an attitude, which is made with landings for braking. Thus it explains itself that the airplane leaned immediately after taking off on the right side, reported " El País" with reference to a aviation engineer, whose name was not called
An engine turned
According to the newspaper the investigators discovered at the scene of the catastrophe that one of the engines was turned (reverse thrust). Unclear it was however whether this was already when starting the case or whether it took place via the crash .
Maybe the reverse thruster issue is a relevant one especially as the video evidence on take off seems to show no fire in any of the engines .
However Im interested in another issue Relating to the interaction of a Captain & first officer in relation to aborted Landings & take offs and i need to know if the information i have been given is in fact true ?
My friend ( ex pilot ) has told me that within his airline if an aircraft had a techincal fault after coming off stand which had to be repaired and that the initial take off had to be aborted then the Captain would be at the controls on the next attempt at take off - even if the first officer was due to fly that leg of the journey ? Is this standard procedure/ practice within other airlines ?
Im very curious because in this general conversation my friend said that he had known during his flying career of Captains having to take over the controls from First officers and vice versa at crucial times when landing / taking off etc & decididing to abort .
He said this would be a split second descision and may well account for tany descision to abort take off and it going drastically wrong . So this may be why the reverse thruster was deployed .
My interest in this aspect of communication between Captain & First officer has been more than aroused by the below post
Ignition Override If a pilot rushes and does not coordinate with the other pilot, they won't survive a mistake.
Especially when you consider The Tenerife disaster and read the air accident report which infers that the first officer was actually scared of questioning his Captains descisions even tho he was very uncomfortable about the situation that he found himself in ?
Just wanted to thank the above posters for taking out the time to reply to my querys about reverse thrusters .
I see that another very interesting post refering to the reverse thrust issue has been posted by GP7280-POC which quotes an El Pais Article ( A usually very reputable spanish newspaper) See below
Long rolling on the runway
A video of airport cameras, held under catch, shows according to the report that the airplane put a much back to long distance on the runway. Loud " El País" it drove 500 meters beyond the point recommended for the start. According to the report one of the engines could have turned - an attitude, which is made with landings for braking. Thus it explains itself that the airplane leaned immediately after taking off on the right side, reported " El País" with reference to a aviation engineer, whose name was not called
An engine turned
According to the newspaper the investigators discovered at the scene of the catastrophe that one of the engines was turned (reverse thrust). Unclear it was however whether this was already when starting the case or whether it took place via the crash .
Maybe the reverse thruster issue is a relevant one especially as the video evidence on take off seems to show no fire in any of the engines .
However Im interested in another issue Relating to the interaction of a Captain & first officer in relation to aborted Landings & take offs and i need to know if the information i have been given is in fact true ?
My friend ( ex pilot ) has told me that within his airline if an aircraft had a techincal fault after coming off stand which had to be repaired and that the initial take off had to be aborted then the Captain would be at the controls on the next attempt at take off - even if the first officer was due to fly that leg of the journey ? Is this standard procedure/ practice within other airlines ?
Im very curious because in this general conversation my friend said that he had known during his flying career of Captains having to take over the controls from First officers and vice versa at crucial times when landing / taking off etc & decididing to abort .
He said this would be a split second descision and may well account for tany descision to abort take off and it going drastically wrong . So this may be why the reverse thruster was deployed .
My interest in this aspect of communication between Captain & First officer has been more than aroused by the below post
Ignition Override If a pilot rushes and does not coordinate with the other pilot, they won't survive a mistake.
Especially when you consider The Tenerife disaster and read the air accident report which infers that the first officer was actually scared of questioning his Captains descisions even tho he was very uncomfortable about the situation that he found himself in ?
XPMorten,
didn´t you mix up local and zulu times here? I thought the accident happened and 14-something LOCAL?
didn´t you mix up local and zulu times here? I thought the accident happened and 14-something LOCAL?
METAR LEMD 201300Z 14004KT CAVOK 29/03 Q1018 NOSIG=
METAR LEMD 201230Z 18007KT 090V240 CAVOK 28/02 Q1018 NOSIG=
METAR LEMD 201200Z 35002KT CAVOK 28/06 Q1019 NOSIG=
METAR LEMD 201230Z 18007KT 090V240 CAVOK 28/02 Q1018 NOSIG=
METAR LEMD 201200Z 35002KT CAVOK 28/06 Q1019 NOSIG=
Keep in mind that spanish afternoon shows, as in more countries, is full of bull..it, but............
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Refering to the loud bang heard shortly after take off this might be consistent with a compresser stall due blanking of air flow to an engine if the aircraft was in a stall condition.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Subterranea
Age: 70
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dicksorchard:
With reference to my post #662 and this reference:
ASN Aircraft accident Fokker 100 PT-MRK São Paulo, SP
gives some additional information regarding a #2 uncommanded thrust reverser deployment and the consequences.
Regards,
Green-dot
With reference to my post #662 and this reference:
ASN Aircraft accident Fokker 100 PT-MRK São Paulo, SP
gives some additional information regarding a #2 uncommanded thrust reverser deployment and the consequences.
Regards,
Green-dot
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Both Emispheres
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Polemics already on the investigation
Spanish media reports that the investigating judge has finally taken vision of the video after much delay. To be honest he requested it only saturday.
He is also getting another video from TN Argentina that has apparently broadcast a piece with CVR extracts, said programme is not however on TN's website.
Reportedly from CVR, Cpt was PF, reported left engine trouble, then F/O took control.
From some statements, and the fact that no mention yet about FDR readability I'm worried there can be trouble that is not being disclosed now, but this is only a conjecture and I hope very much to be wrong.
He is also getting another video from TN Argentina that has apparently broadcast a piece with CVR extracts, said programme is not however on TN's website.
Reportedly from CVR, Cpt was PF, reported left engine trouble, then F/O took control.
From some statements, and the fact that no mention yet about FDR readability I'm worried there can be trouble that is not being disclosed now, but this is only a conjecture and I hope very much to be wrong.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: close
Posts: 592
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spicejetter: "Out of interest. The FA who survived. She was in seat 1E. An ordinary passenger seat. Is this common practice amongst cabin crew?
I beleive there were 6 cabin crew, for a 200 seater, meaning there are 2 more crew than required. Does the M82 only have 4 cabin crew stations?"
There were 4 operating cabin crew onboard and 3 positioning crew. So she was on board as a passenger to operate a flight later from Gran Canaria. That is why she was sitting in 1E. Very common practice.
I understand there was also a third pilot onboard. I think he was on a private travel. Maybe as an extra
I beleive there were 6 cabin crew, for a 200 seater, meaning there are 2 more crew than required. Does the M82 only have 4 cabin crew stations?"
There were 4 operating cabin crew onboard and 3 positioning crew. So she was on board as a passenger to operate a flight later from Gran Canaria. That is why she was sitting in 1E. Very common practice.
I understand there was also a third pilot onboard. I think he was on a private travel. Maybe as an extra
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
knowing how vital it is to get the gear up, douglas made a nice over ride button to press if the gear has to go up and the plane "thinks" its on the ground.
oddly enough, in my scenario, that button would have become flush with the instrument panel if the plane "thought it was in the sky"
it is obvious now to me that the RAT probe heating on the ground was the symptom of a bigger problem...that the plane ''thought'' it was airborne.
turning off the heater was simply taking care of a symptom...but the full diagnosis was misunderstood...again this is a theory.
oddly enough, in my scenario, that button would have become flush with the instrument panel if the plane "thought it was in the sky"
it is obvious now to me that the RAT probe heating on the ground was the symptom of a bigger problem...that the plane ''thought'' it was airborne.
turning off the heater was simply taking care of a symptom...but the full diagnosis was misunderstood...again this is a theory.
el #
I would like to examine this statement in more detail
What is TN Argentina?:
How could they possibly have access to the CVR? perhaps we are talking about ATC tapes?
I really don't see how the F/O could take control and have this known as a fact yet. The plane was so little in the air that you just can't hand it off can you
He is also getting another video from TN Argentina that has apparently broadcast a piece with CVR extracts, said programme is not however on TN's website.
Reportedly from CVR, Cpt was PF, reported left engine trouble, then F/O took control.
Reportedly from CVR, Cpt was PF, reported left engine trouble, then F/O took control.
What is TN Argentina?:
How could they possibly have access to the CVR? perhaps we are talking about ATC tapes?
I really don't see how the F/O could take control and have this known as a fact yet. The plane was so little in the air that you just can't hand it off can you
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Spain
Age: 58
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A word of Caution
Never intended to actually post here as I am not pilot nor in any other way connected to the airline industry. Nevertheless, as someone living in Spain and understanding the Spanish language (and culture) quite well, I believe I need to post the following:
A word of caution on the alleged CVR transript which TN Argentina claims to have. CadenaSer of Spain says (1) that they have contacted TN Argentina about this alleged CVR transcript. TN Argentina clarifies that they have not listened to the recording themselves but that some parts of it (the phrases "corta gas" ["cut throttle" or "I cut throttle"*], "rotate igual" ["rotate nevertheless"] and "dámelo" ["give it to me"] were given to them by their sources and that the transcript as a whole as presented by them should not be taken completely literally.
The TN Argentina clip, including a Spanish version of the alleged transcript, can been seen on Youtube (2). Below is my translated version. Perhaps user Justme69 (who has done an excellent job sofar in resuming the Spanish media in general and separating fiction from facts in particular) can correct me, if needed.
Alleged TN Argentina transcript [translated from Spanish]:
FO: THE LEFT ONE! ENGINE FIRE! CUTTING THROTTLE
CM: OK, I'VE GOT IT, I'VE GOT IT, ROTATE NEVERTHELESS
FO: POSITIVE CLIMB, OH GOD!
CM: I'M LOOSING IT, MORE PEDAL, GIVE ME MORE
SOUND: (EXPLOSION?)
CM: INSULT
FO: GIVE IT TO ME
SOUND: CRASH END
* While TN Argentina claims the phrase was "Corto Gas" (which means, "I cut throttle"), CadenaSer reports the phrase as "Corta Gas" which means "cut throttle" but as a command to someone else. It's only one single letter which differs but it makes a 'helluva' difference.
(1) El fiscal investigará la veracidad de la grabación de un canal argentino con la supuesta conversación de los pilotos en CADENASER.com
(2) YouTube - Accidente Barajas
A word of caution on the alleged CVR transript which TN Argentina claims to have. CadenaSer of Spain says (1) that they have contacted TN Argentina about this alleged CVR transcript. TN Argentina clarifies that they have not listened to the recording themselves but that some parts of it (the phrases "corta gas" ["cut throttle" or "I cut throttle"*], "rotate igual" ["rotate nevertheless"] and "dámelo" ["give it to me"] were given to them by their sources and that the transcript as a whole as presented by them should not be taken completely literally.
The TN Argentina clip, including a Spanish version of the alleged transcript, can been seen on Youtube (2). Below is my translated version. Perhaps user Justme69 (who has done an excellent job sofar in resuming the Spanish media in general and separating fiction from facts in particular) can correct me, if needed.
Alleged TN Argentina transcript [translated from Spanish]:
FO: THE LEFT ONE! ENGINE FIRE! CUTTING THROTTLE
CM: OK, I'VE GOT IT, I'VE GOT IT, ROTATE NEVERTHELESS
FO: POSITIVE CLIMB, OH GOD!
CM: I'M LOOSING IT, MORE PEDAL, GIVE ME MORE
SOUND: (EXPLOSION?)
CM: INSULT
FO: GIVE IT TO ME
SOUND: CRASH END
* While TN Argentina claims the phrase was "Corto Gas" (which means, "I cut throttle"), CadenaSer reports the phrase as "Corta Gas" which means "cut throttle" but as a command to someone else. It's only one single letter which differs but it makes a 'helluva' difference.
(1) El fiscal investigará la veracidad de la grabación de un canal argentino con la supuesta conversación de los pilotos en CADENASER.com
(2) YouTube - Accidente Barajas
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Switzerland
Age: 70
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TN Argentina
Hi,
TN Argentina:
TN.com.ar
Check the tab cessiones and internacional tab...
It's a video with extract CVR !!! ??? and the El Mundo animation...
Cheers.
TN Argentina:
TN.com.ar
Check the tab cessiones and internacional tab...
It's a video with extract CVR !!! ??? and the El Mundo animation...
Cheers.
dicksorchard;
It isn't standard procedure in my experience at one major carrier. If it was the F/O's leg, s/he took it unless the captain deemed otherwise - sharing legs has always been an informal process at the captain's discretion - that said, gaining experience is part of the "apprenticeship" so to speak. "Post MEL/maintenance work", the airplane is expected to be normal and so no accomodation would normally be expected. If it is and there is concern that "only the captain should fly", the decision to depart is itself, questionable.
Your friend is right about "split-second decision" etc. He is also correct about captains taking over at times from first officers. Although it is not always the case, captains are usually the more experienced of the two crew. Regardless, s/he is the commander of the aircraft and one does not normally take such action, not, at least, without extreme reason.
I know of no SOPs, airline operations manual or "informal, un-stated" arrangement where a First Officer would ever reject a takeoff or interfere with the controls in any way. That said, there is one situation of which I am aware which may apply and that is when a training captain is sitting in the First Officer's position (traditionally the right-seat) and a thorough briefing about who will do a rejected takeoff is undertaken beforehand.
In flight operations, unless the aircraft is in immediate danger and the captain was not appearing to do anything to mitigate the danger, I don't know of any circumstance where the F/O would take over from the captain. That is a very high-risk action with largely unpredictable consequences because both command of the airplane and communications are then in question and it is very difficult to re-establish order and cockpit discipline in a short period of time, personal relations and qualities, abilities, knowledge and experience of the F/O notwithstanding.
The words loudly and clearly spoken, "I have control" (or similar) are absolutely required so that all crew members know who is in command of the airplane. That mandates that the other crew member take over the radio work and, since such action would have almost certainly resulted from an abnormal or even emergency circumstance, provide the new PF, Pilot Flying, with basic situational awareness such as airspeed, pitch/roll attitudes, rate of climb/descent and acknowledge then cancel any aural/visual warnings associated with any system failures then standby for the call for drills.
Your friend is correct: taking over is a very serious operational decision and requires the utmost in coordination and re-established discipline.
My friend ( ex pilot ) has told me that within his airline if an aircraft had a techincal fault after coming off stand which had to be repaired and that the initial take off had to be aborted then the Captain would be at the controls on the next attempt at take off - even if the first officer was due to fly that leg of the journey ? Is this standard procedure/ practice within other airlines ?
Im very curious because in this general conversation my friend said that he had known during his flying career of Captains having to take over the controls from First officers and vice versa at crucial times when landing / taking off etc & decididing to abort .
He said this would be a split second descision and may well account for tany descision to abort take off and it going drastically wrong . So this may be why the reverse thruster was deployed .
My interest in this aspect of communication between Captain & First officer has been more than aroused by the below post
Im very curious because in this general conversation my friend said that he had known during his flying career of Captains having to take over the controls from First officers and vice versa at crucial times when landing / taking off etc & decididing to abort .
He said this would be a split second descision and may well account for tany descision to abort take off and it going drastically wrong . So this may be why the reverse thruster was deployed .
My interest in this aspect of communication between Captain & First officer has been more than aroused by the below post
Your friend is right about "split-second decision" etc. He is also correct about captains taking over at times from first officers. Although it is not always the case, captains are usually the more experienced of the two crew. Regardless, s/he is the commander of the aircraft and one does not normally take such action, not, at least, without extreme reason.
I know of no SOPs, airline operations manual or "informal, un-stated" arrangement where a First Officer would ever reject a takeoff or interfere with the controls in any way. That said, there is one situation of which I am aware which may apply and that is when a training captain is sitting in the First Officer's position (traditionally the right-seat) and a thorough briefing about who will do a rejected takeoff is undertaken beforehand.
In flight operations, unless the aircraft is in immediate danger and the captain was not appearing to do anything to mitigate the danger, I don't know of any circumstance where the F/O would take over from the captain. That is a very high-risk action with largely unpredictable consequences because both command of the airplane and communications are then in question and it is very difficult to re-establish order and cockpit discipline in a short period of time, personal relations and qualities, abilities, knowledge and experience of the F/O notwithstanding.
The words loudly and clearly spoken, "I have control" (or similar) are absolutely required so that all crew members know who is in command of the airplane. That mandates that the other crew member take over the radio work and, since such action would have almost certainly resulted from an abnormal or even emergency circumstance, provide the new PF, Pilot Flying, with basic situational awareness such as airspeed, pitch/roll attitudes, rate of climb/descent and acknowledge then cancel any aural/visual warnings associated with any system failures then standby for the call for drills.
Your friend is correct: taking over is a very serious operational decision and requires the utmost in coordination and re-established discipline.
Last edited by PJ2; 25th Aug 2008 at 18:25.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: BCN 015º/6NM
Age: 43
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I cannot believe that's the real CVR!! They say some words that a pilot from Spain would not use in an emergency situation, but if that was true seems like if they retarded to idle the engine running 
Anyway, I don't think that argentinian tv has the real CVR.
Anyway, I don't think that argentinian tv has the real CVR.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Brazil
Age: 52
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The CVR extract goes like this:
Note: Keep in mind that this is my free translation, I'm not a native spanish nor english speaker, so this isn't anywhere near an "official transtation", neither is confirmed that the TN news is real.
F/O: The Left! Engine Fire! Cut gas.
CPT: Ok. I got it, I got it, rotate anyway (Note: original is "Rotate Igual")
F/O: Positive climb. Oh god!
CPT: I'm losing it, more rudder (Note: Pedal), gime me more.. you
<noise (explosion?)>
CPT: <cursing>
F/O: Give it to me
<noise - crash end>
Note: Keep in mind that this is my free translation, I'm not a native spanish nor english speaker, so this isn't anywhere near an "official transtation", neither is confirmed that the TN news is real.
F/O: The Left! Engine Fire! Cut gas.
CPT: Ok. I got it, I got it, rotate anyway (Note: original is "Rotate Igual")
F/O: Positive climb. Oh god!
CPT: I'm losing it, more rudder (Note: Pedal), gime me more.. you
<noise (explosion?)>
CPT: <cursing>
F/O: Give it to me
<noise - crash end>
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: LEMD
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The video on TN Argentina is just too much. Absolutely rubbish 
. Posted on the net almost next day after the crash. It´s just unvelievable ...
Not even the investigators could have reached the recordings so fast.
JM
. Posted on the net almost next day after the crash. It´s just unvelievable ... Not even the investigators could have reached the recordings so fast.
JM
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: BCN 015º/6NM
Age: 43
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.xplanefreeware.net/morten/DOCS/TN.jpg
COP: The left! Engine fire! I retard throttle.
PIL: OK. I got it, I got it. Rotate anyway.
COP: Positive climb. Oh God!
PIL: I'm losing control. More rudder. Give me more...you
NOISE: (Explosion)
PIL: (insult)
COP:Give it to me.
NOISE: Crash end.
COP: The left! Engine fire! I retard throttle.
PIL: OK. I got it, I got it. Rotate anyway.
COP: Positive climb. Oh God!
PIL: I'm losing control. More rudder. Give me more...you
NOISE: (Explosion)
PIL: (insult)
COP:Give it to me.
NOISE: Crash end.