Faro 1992 New Documentary
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Not far from a big Lake
Age: 81
Posts: 1,454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One question needing an answer:
If the accident was investigated by Portugal, in what way did the Dutch manage to mis-direct the investigation?
Winnerhofer???
If the accident was investigated by Portugal, in what way did the Dutch manage to mis-direct the investigation?
Winnerhofer???
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Top secret until 2073 is no less than a cover up.
One sure wonders what it is that is so embarrasing/frightening that it has to be kept hidden until there is nobody left alive that can take an interest.
One sure wonders what it is that is so embarrasing/frightening that it has to be kept hidden until there is nobody left alive that can take an interest.
In this case I don't know what has been sealed, but often a long timeframe relates to privacy laws, e.g., raw CVR recordings, health / toxicology records of the crew, etc.
From what I've seen, everything alleged to have been "covered up" (e.g., crew actions) were actually covered in detail in the official Portuguese (and English translated) accident report.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The Attic
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not necessarily.
In this case I don't know what has been sealed, but often a long timeframe relates to privacy laws, e.g., raw CVR recordings, health / toxicology records of the crew, etc.
From what I've seen, everything alleged to have been "covered up" (e.g., crew actions) were actually covered in detail in the official Portuguese (and English translated) accident report.
In this case I don't know what has been sealed, but often a long timeframe relates to privacy laws, e.g., raw CVR recordings, health / toxicology records of the crew, etc.
From what I've seen, everything alleged to have been "covered up" (e.g., crew actions) were actually covered in detail in the official Portuguese (and English translated) accident report.
There was a TV interview with a ground engineer who was apparently pressured into requesting a third reprieve for a scheduled landing gear exchange (which was approved by the RLD) and a lot of people are now looking into whether this could be the reason so many people lost their lives, but when you look at the FDR data it is clear that this was another typical DC10/MD11 rollover. Touchdown of >2.0G with a slight angle of bank, which causes the rear spar of the low wing to shear as the MLG is apparently bolted directly to the wing box. Because the aircraft is still travelling at high forward speed, the wing on this side is just folded over by its own lift while releasing the contents of the onside main fuel tank, and the rest of the aircraft is then rolled upside down by lift generated the other wing. A critical and unforgivable design flaw in this type, imho.
Whether this hard landing was caused by windshear/microburst or mishandling by the crew is up for debate, but I can't help noticing this is all coming out just months after the last passenger MD11 has left the KLM fleet (Martinair still has a few freighters).
One of the potential holes in the Swiss cheese was lack of ILS. Many pilots had been complaining about this shortcoming at a major airport for many years. A coupled approach to minima might have led to a successful landing.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As there is no 'national security' issue (that cloud which the USA so often hides in) then why could not an application under 'freedom of information' challenge this 2073 blockage? Surely, under the philosophy of 'everyone can learn from others mistakes' the true causes should be fully investigated and published. There have been some crashes, e.g. Concorde, whereby there are still people dissatisfied and in disagreement with the official report, but to my knowledge there was nothing locked away for this & the next few generations.
By doing so it adds credence to 'cover-up' claims.
By doing so it adds credence to 'cover-up' claims.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Peekay4 is probably correct about the aircrew health records being kept confidential for 81 years, as they may still live until 2073. Lufthansa/Germanwings kept the medical records of Andreas Lubitz all too private when disclosure might have been more appropriate.
As for McDonnell-Douglas, now swallowed up by Boeing, are any of the Douglas aircraft still flying passengers? A-FLOOR points out that the breakup and inversion of the fuselage after the hard touchdown and failure of the undercarriage was due to "a critical and unforgivable design flaw"...if any of these machines are still flying, they must be difficult to insure.
As for McDonnell-Douglas, now swallowed up by Boeing, are any of the Douglas aircraft still flying passengers? A-FLOOR points out that the breakup and inversion of the fuselage after the hard touchdown and failure of the undercarriage was due to "a critical and unforgivable design flaw"...if any of these machines are still flying, they must be difficult to insure.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Devonshire
Age: 96
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Medical Records
I wonder which other "advanced countries" have similar Medical confidentialities where Air Crew Licences are concerned. An aircrew member may be responsible for many peoples lives.
Several decades ago a Doctor told his patient ( a U.K. based pilot ) not to fly until he had been checked again by the Central Medical Board, for whatever the Doctor had found.
This was a responsable action. And perhaps different to that which may have led to the GERMANAIR accident.
( The Pilot lost his Licence. )
NO LIVES WERE LOST... OR even put at risk.
LT
I wonder which other "advanced countries" have similar Medical confidentialities where Air Crew Licences are concerned. An aircrew member may be responsible for many peoples lives.
Several decades ago a Doctor told his patient ( a U.K. based pilot ) not to fly until he had been checked again by the Central Medical Board, for whatever the Doctor had found.
This was a responsable action. And perhaps different to that which may have led to the GERMANAIR accident.
( The Pilot lost his Licence. )
NO LIVES WERE LOST... OR even put at risk.
LT
Last edited by Linktrained; 19th Jan 2016 at 23:54. Reason: bits
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Wengen
Age: 53
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MP: Open MP495 Files!
Politiek :: PvdA: maak onderzoek Faro openbaar
2016-01-19
PvdA: make public research Faro
MP Jacques Monasch (PvdA) wants all research data about the plane crash in 1992 at Faro public. He demanded today by Secretary Dijksma during question time in the Lower House.
Saturday showed a EenVandaag broadcast that documents on the air disaster lying in the archives until 2073 remain secret. Monasch finds that survivors are now entitled to. But according Dijksma can not disclose because of the privacy of those heard.
The CDA cried after the broadcast of Saturday to make public all documents on all of the Faro disaster.
Saturday also showed that the aircraft had to contend with defects. A technical controller told pressured to have put his signature under a document certifying the necessary replacement of the landing gear of the disaster handset to date was postponed three times. This is normally only permitted twice.
Look below the broadcast of Saturday again.
2016-01-19
PvdA: make public research Faro
MP Jacques Monasch (PvdA) wants all research data about the plane crash in 1992 at Faro public. He demanded today by Secretary Dijksma during question time in the Lower House.
Saturday showed a EenVandaag broadcast that documents on the air disaster lying in the archives until 2073 remain secret. Monasch finds that survivors are now entitled to. But according Dijksma can not disclose because of the privacy of those heard.
The CDA cried after the broadcast of Saturday to make public all documents on all of the Faro disaster.
Saturday also showed that the aircraft had to contend with defects. A technical controller told pressured to have put his signature under a document certifying the necessary replacement of the landing gear of the disaster handset to date was postponed three times. This is normally only permitted twice.
Look below the broadcast of Saturday again.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is really annoying to be discussing an accident from the past without at least having an accident report to review. The original report was published in Portuguese, but there is an unofficial English version here: http://www.vliegrampfaro.nl/wp-conte...rt-English.pdf
There appears to be a lot in common here with the MD-11 rollover accidents.
There appears to be a lot in common here with the MD-11 rollover accidents.
I can see the politicians feel a need to follow some peoples opinions to make some points and show engagement and not at least get there own name up on, in this case, a big accident - even from 20 something years ago but : don't the people trust the Portugese investigation or so ?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Wengen
Age: 53
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Winnerhofer
When the article starts with a "Martinair Boeing 707" I stop reading
@mary meagher
There is no more pax MD11 since over a year. KLM was the last one. As far as I know there is also no commercial airliner flying pax DC-10.
Anyway, new or old gear wouldn't have changed this accident. For both it exceeded the structural limitations of the gear.
Further more, who's to blame? If they made a GA it probably didn't end up like it did, but the same for the wind shear, if that didn't occur they probably landed save.
This accident is similar to the CI MD11 accident although they ignored the max crosswind component. The other similar landing accidents were bouncers.
When the article starts with a "Martinair Boeing 707" I stop reading
@mary meagher
There is no more pax MD11 since over a year. KLM was the last one. As far as I know there is also no commercial airliner flying pax DC-10.
Anyway, new or old gear wouldn't have changed this accident. For both it exceeded the structural limitations of the gear.
Further more, who's to blame? If they made a GA it probably didn't end up like it did, but the same for the wind shear, if that didn't occur they probably landed save.
This accident is similar to the CI MD11 accident although they ignored the max crosswind component. The other similar landing accidents were bouncers.
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Santa Rosa, CA, USA
Age: 71
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"this was another typical DC10/MD11 rollover. Touchdown of >2.0G with a slight angle of bank, which causes the rear spar of the low wing to shear as the MLG is apparently bolted directly to the wing box. Because the aircraft is still traveling at high forward speed, the wing on this side is just folded over by its own lift while releasing the contents of the onside main fuel tank, and the rest of the aircraft is then rolled upside down by lift generated the other wing."
Bravo, A-FLOOR. Excellent description of the mechanics of the structural failure. Most interesting.
Bravo, A-FLOOR. Excellent description of the mechanics of the structural failure. Most interesting.
