P51 Guy:
There is a newspaper in Spain that would love to hear what you have to say.
elmundo.es. Líder de información en español

But be careful with them.

PJ2:
Sorry for "TAWS", i mean't TOWS, which is the name for such system in other airplanes (I never flew MacDonell Douglas)


Gobonastick:
Humans are humans. We have very good pros and quite a few cons to be considered.

¿Haven't you ever paid lip service to a checklist? When I mean never I mean never. I have, a few times. I was lucky because it never coincided with critical items and other "cheese slices". I think there are men who will very very rarely do it, but no one with experience who has never done it. In fact, in my case at least, my "automonitoring system" learns from experience so the lapses and mistakes I have commited in the past are like vaccinations that make repetition os such errors much more difficult.

Human errors occur, so the system and the procedures should be error tolerant. If you insert a GW 100 tons too light, the computer should suggest you to check the weight a second time, for instance. That is why we have the TOWS, the GPWS, the TCAS...

In this case there is a chain of cheese slices, one of which is a couple of stressed pilots in a hurry.

I reviewed the posts you mentioned and remember reading them a long time ago. I didn't think the anti collision light flashing was relevant because that is the flashing red light you turn on before engine start. The strobes however won't come on until nose oleo strut extends on takeoff. If the poster meant strobe lights flashing during refueling that comes off a different relay than R2-5. That would indicate the nose oleo switch was in air mode, not a failure of R2-5. The nose oleo strut switches control all the relays, not just R2-5. I had a fairly short taxi and was first for takeoff so probably the RAT heater didn't have time to get noticeably hot. Madrid is a much longer taxi for takeoff. I would have assumed they would have checked to see if on taxi out they were in approach idle, if transponder was on on the ground, FDR functions and other nose squat switch functions.

Third cockpit member
 

The Spanish newspaper Las Provincias has reported today that the judge hs released the name and status of the third person on the flight deck at the time of the accident. He was a Spanair electronic technician. The report, in Spanish, is here:
Un técnico de Spanair era el tercer ocupante de la cabina. Las Provincias

I believe we should focus one matter

The article states
"He was a Spanair electronic technician"

Wrong, he was an electronic technician working as a Flight Attendant for Spanair

Even knowing electronics more than a pilot, is pointless to raise concerns without knowing which are the procedures involved or the aircraft systems

Just my two cents, as the journalist are again pointing wrong conclusions...

Flight attendant - electronic technician
 

Was he on the flight deck at the time of the crash? If so, why?

He wouldn't be allowed on the flight deck for take off so would have been no help.

? Visitor-in-cockpit ?
 

From previous messages, & news story:From Tiennette on the 4th: Gees -- not again. Visitor-in-Cockpit ???

That factor isn't mentioned in CIAIAC's Interim Report A-032/2008. Guess we'll have to wait for their final AAR to get more details

According to that article he was, in fact, on the flight deck at the time of the crash.

IF--IF--what is in the article in 100% true and complete it is about to get very ugly in Spain.

Indeed.

Guys i think you find crew pax on Flight Deck in Spanish Airlines is a common practice, Spanish Union deal but i could be wrong :\

Is there a problem with carrying a crew member in the flight deck? Is there a problem with carrying a colleague in the flight deck? Please, let's not be silly as the politicians act.

Unluckily for everyone on that flight the extracrew member in the flight deck was a flight attendant instead of a pilot, as it many times happens.

Extra crew members have been proven, in courts of laws, to have aided in accidents and incidents more than the crew of the A/C (this is probably due to not having any duties on board; hence, being able to help).

Let's not get TOO excited about this - it is by no means uncommon (and legal in the UK, anyway) for approved airline crew to be carried on a cockpit jump seat.

That's not what makes this situation interesting.

First, according to the article he was not a FA. Whoever thinks that is just wrong. Nor was he a maintenance guy. He was one of their electronic specialists who was deadheading on the flight.

There a big difference there.

If you have one of the companies electronics specialists on the flight. And he's standing on the FD. And he's telling you that they maintenance guys screwed up the repair.

That's an interesting CRM issue, as I see it. It would not be the first time that someone deadheading on a flight has gone to the FD to be of assistance...and has in fact provided valuable assistance.

MountainBear, the article is there just to attract interest, believe me.
He was a Flight Attendant, with electronic studies... nothing more, no other position in the company

Look my answer #2665 in this thread

The point, surely, is not whether he was an FA, an electronic technician or Whistler's mother. The point is, was he in any way part of the scenario that caused the accident?

I don't think the third guy had anything to do with the accident. As I said before the R5 relay controlled by the nose oleo strut made the take off warning inop. It was probably overinflated. As I said it happened to me and by applying aggresive braking brought the strut back down so it returned to ground idle and the strobes shut off. I assume the same thing happened to them. Every MD80 pilot should be aware of this. In the daytime you can't see the strobes, but at night you can. If the strobes are flashing you have no take off warning. Compress the nose strut to put it back in ground mode.

Obviously he was part of the scenario as his voice is on the CVR during the crash sequence. The question is what role did he play, if any. And to that you have to look at why he was on the FD in the first place.


Obviously it's entirely possible that the paper is twisting facts to create a sensation. It happens. Yet your answer, if true, raises more questions than it answers.

I cannot recall either via experience or study a case of a deadheading FA going to the FD, unprompted, and offering advice to the flight crew in areas outside of their expertise. Maybe this happens all the time at SpanAir; I find it odd. Should the cabin crew be allowed to come and complain about instrument clutter on the flight deck because it offends their sense of decor. Should they be allowed to tell the flight crew how to fly the plane. Where does this stop?

When press reports first came out the third person was identified as a "commander" with the airline. Now we are finding out that he was deadheading CC roaming about on the loose... :=

I'm not trying to suggest that CC should never be on the FD. I'm not trying to suggest that this person contributed to the accident. However, safety is a process. You look at where the holes lined up and where you could do better. The fact that CC was on the FD is not a problem. But the fact that the CC was on the FD making comments beyond his official position and his professional qualifications...maybe that is a problem. It certainly doesn't seem to me like something a company would want to encourage.

Gents.

If any of you (and I include myself) take any one thing from this thread, let it be this:

If you need flaps/ slats for take off, use them. Go on, put them out!

All the rules and regs written into your books will not help you.

Never forget your PPL training. Never let all the BS get in your way.
You're on your own (you and the F/O) look after yourselves.

He who relies on the books alone, is a twit.

Pilots FORGOT Flaps/Slats -- No Distraction?
 

comment: Didn't the mishaps-pilots forget to do something?
True, maybe the VISITOR had no affect on the mishap-pilots' attention to detail during taxi-out, we don't yet know.

This Visitor-in-Cockpit was a recent factor in a military TU-154 mishap.

For in-flight upsets, the Visitor-in-Cockpit factor goes back to the deH86's upsets of the 1930's.
http://www.pprune.org/safety-crm-qa-...accidents.html

http://www.pprune.org/safety-crm-qa-...sekeeping.html

Just a couple of exemplars, with Visitor-in-Cockpit listed as a factor:

Delta Flight 1141 / 31Aug88, Dallas TX, B727 takeoff crash; pilots failed to set flap/slats during taxi-out. 13 killed. \\ Distraction-- AAR pg 92, Finding #4: “Extensive non-duty related conversations and the lengthy presence of the flight attendant in the cockpit reduced the flightcrew’s vigilance in ensuring that the aircraft was prepared for flight.”

Jet Link 2733 (Continental Express) / 29Apr93, Embraer EMB-120RT Brasilia (N27406), inflight upset at 1533 CDT ... near Pine Bluff Arkansas, visitor-in-cockpit (F/A). Upset in IMC, icing conditions, climbing through 17000 feet aircraft stalled, aircraft out of control (time 1533:16) -- entered inverted spin. Control regained at 5500 feet. .... Board blamed captain for failure to "maintain professional cockpit discipline, inattention to flight instruments and ice accretion." At the time of the upset, Captain with engaged in conversation with the F/A (noting snow on windscreen), and the F/O was busy with logbook duties and eating crew meal. AAR-94/02/SUM, pg 24+,

Sunnyjohn.

Agree.
Is the guy on the Cockpit Voice Recorder?
It's a yes/no.
If he's not, his input/influence is probably orders of magnitude down.

Unless the Spanish newspaper article is totally made up, the answer is yes.

The article reports that this extra person in the cockpit has been identified by his father listening to the recording of his voice. That voice recording can only be referring to the CVR (I don't think it is explicit in the article, but then I wouldn't know the Spanish for CVR if it is in there, however I don't see what other source there would be).