RH Thrust Reverser????
 

Speculation, and potentially apples and oranges. I fly a similar type, and an open thrust reverser has been demonstrated to me in the sim. Very violent procedure, and the aircraft will yaw, and reduce speed at a stagering rate until the engine is shut down (if its identified as such). An F100 did come to a similar end i think with TAM a while ago with this sinario. I wonder if the apparent fire from the left engine was an overspeed to compensate from a reverser on the right.

Speculation, and the investigation will show, but just sharing what I know from a similar type.

Condolences to all involved and to the operation.

-27

Dear Danny,

Many thanks for your article in today's Torygraph - can you please replace all these aviation "experts" that are wheeled out on the news?

It was reprted on one of the news channels late last night that the A/C had returned to stand due to a problem with an OAT sensor/gauge (not sure which). I don't know much about the MD80 but is the OAT gauge an MEL item?
If OAT is not correctly applied to performance calculations and something unrelated occurres leading to loss of engine power after v1 i would think that there would potentially be some real control issues. It is easy given the position of the A/C to see how it could have stalled & "toppled" to the right.

Why Take The Passengers On A Test Flight?
 

It seems that :-

The aircraft had returned to the gate because of technical trouble - (insufficient power?).
A repair had been carried out (hastily?).
The repair had been signed off - (presumably?)

...What I can't understand is why the passengers were aboard when the aircraft was subsequently cleared to fly on what was essentially a test flight.

This wasn't a case of an airliner suffering some trifling technical problem in some remote location and having to be repaired in the field this was Madrid for heaven's sake!

I doubt if this airline will survive this crash - and I'm sure all airlines will surely have to revise their procedures and, after any repairs, test fly all their aircraft empty before being cleared to embark passengers again.

sandbank;

May I ask what aircraft you're on?

Sandbank, you have a very interesting notion of how A/C maintenance should be carried out. A/C are very often attended to by an Engineer at the gate and subsequently cleared for flight. If your proposal was ever imposed i think it most unlikely that the industry would survive.

Passenger survival should take priority.

The aircraft should be tested and proved to be safe before taking passengers aboard - that's all.

...Surely you are not arguing the contrary?.

sandybank clearly isn't aircrew - at least I hope not since he obviously doesn't understand what an MEL is or does.:ugh:

really sandbank, no-one has ever thought of that idea before, you are a genius, quick write to all the airlines worldwide to let them know your thinking!! Sheesh.......

Test flights after repairs are surely basic common sense.

But we all know that no one in the industry would want to do it - this has to be imposed by Governments.

Only now had a chance to watch yesterday evening's news reports. Considering the silence of some airlines after incidents I'm impressed with the speed and frankness of the statement from the Spanair managing director Marcus Hedblom... reminded me of Michael Bishop's rapid and honest statement in the hours after Kegworth.

????
 

Sandbank, have you got any idea what you are talking about here....?????

:D

Yes. Procedures which would have saved 153 lives

Taxi2Parking;
That's why I asked. Always the benefit of the doubt... ;-)

sandbank,
No, we're not arguing the contrary. The absence of your expected response does not prove your case. Besides sir...we are "first"...

A sign-off and departure is no more a "test flight" than the next flight you happen to take is - aircraft are operating under MEL (Minimum Equipment List) deferrals all the time. Is your car perfect every time you back out of the driveway? Would you take your car for a "test drive" after a bulb change? While there is very little opportunity to park, there is also a huge and unnecessary economic penalty for what you suggest. Now if you would like to triple your airfare and those of all other passengers, we will do a test flight first...

Most mechanical items on airliners can, with set conditions, be "deferred" for repair. There is a time limit and usually operational limits. It is authorized by both the manufacturer and the country's Transportation ministry. I hope this helps allay your fears.

Had to post... Sandbank you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.. :ugh:

sandbank, the comments directed to you are a little harse; what people are trying to point out to you that the aviation industry is not driven by safety; it is run as a commercial operation where profits are put ahead of true safety. If you do not believe this, look into how most official crash investigations end in recommendations on how to improve safety as opposed to directives to ensure safety.

NOLAND3;
Sometimes there are serious misconceptions about what we do including within the media obviously. We'll see by the next response from sandbank if a little patience and information helped - we may collectively assure him/her that the MEL process is a satisfactory dispatch tool. If we don't need the item, we depart and when/if it is needed, regardless of the MEL we set the park brake and order the item to be fixed, period. It's the captain's ship.

What are you guys talking about? If the plane returned to the gate due to a TAT probe (or the like) problem, applied the MEL (which probably allows them to go), and then went back out to take off - what is the problem?

That is the way the system works?????

:confused:

Sandbank, how many time does an aircraft return to stand with a snag, engineer attends. Fixes problem or defers in accordance with the MEL. Aircraft is fit and SAFE to fly. It is not a test flight!!!

Crew arrive at aircraft in morning. APU fails to start. Test flight required!?!?!?!?!?!?

Sandbank are you posting so that later on someone from the media can refer to a "pilots website" where someone has got "proof" the airline were not carrying out maintenance and the aircraft was actually on a test flight?????

I do not normally post but Sandbanks post has got me going,

A test flight for every mainetnance action is just impossible, there would only be empty aircraft flying ! A test flight is normally only required if there have been changes to flying control systems. For engine work (Including replacement) an engine ground run is performed as per the manufacturers instructions, with a level based on the work performed.
Any maintenance tasks performed to aircraft 'critical' systems require a duplicate inspection of the work completed by two independent Engineers

Just my thoughts.