At Last some Facts
 

At a press conference held this afternoon, the CIAIAC (in spanish Comisión de Investigación de Accidentes e Incidentes de Aviación Civil) gives the first preliminary data about the accident:

- The aircraft first contact with the ground was with the tail, that detached (not clear from the statement if all the tail cone) from the fuselage.
- No skid marks on the runway, nor any sign of impact of other parts of the aircraft in the runway.
- The aircraft bounced three times, as it encountered different terrain level off the runway.

In spanish, newspaper El Mundo :
El avión accidentado impactó primero en el suelo con la cola y ya estaba fuera de pista | elmundo.es

JM

PS: @Snowfalcon2,we were almost posting at same time, according to the news, the first contact was with the tail, then skidded 1,200 meters.

there are a few other odd things about the picture:

1. It seems the plane landed slightly earlier/heavier on the left (see initial indentation size as opposed to right gear)

2. Whatever made the straight trajectory (3rd mark), which starts with a serious ground scorching, seems to have dragged on in a straight line, not the tumbling you would expect of an engine

The new article makes these points of interest:

-The tail hit the ground first outside of the landing strip, breaking/detaching itself.
-The plane continued another 1200m after this, not on a "straight line", but bouncing 3 times (due to the shape of the terrain) and sustaining more and more damage each time.

This is official information from the technical secretary of the comission for civil air accidents.

This ends the question on trying to control it or taking off again after the first fall and obviously means that the first fall was more off-course and more severe than previously reported. Also, that it wasn't the wing that hit the ground (first), but the tail.

As reported previously, flight recorders are in England to have the information extracted/recovered.

They expect to have a preliminary report stating only known facts (not speculating on probable causes) in about 1 month.

Both engines are in reasonable good condition and are being analysed.

They didn't "put" a "bloody great hole" there... it was already there ;)

So what "clear flat area" do you think MAD has established? My quick measurements show ~250m in the area this aircraft left... and for much of the MAD 36L/R construction, somewhat more (and some less). What do you measure it as to that fence? If it is ~250m, and you wanted 300m, given those tyre tracks I reckon the result would have been the same?

LHR fails to meet the 300m in quite a few areas? As I am sure do may others...

NoD

Nigel, problem is not even with the ravine, or river, whatever.
Problem is: an area exists within an airport perimeter (airport property) which fire truck has difficulty accessing. Some sort of a common sense says that I want fire cover in the airport, and now comes a nasty surprise that although the equipment is damn close, they cannot reach me (in time).

Flat Terrain around LEMD R36L is...
 

...4500 by 300 m as posted by myself in post #563.

See Spanish AIP AD2-LEMD

justme69,

Is it possible that you can clarify the literal translation re the tail assembly please ? I ask as the translation engines in Google and the like tend to lose
the nuances of the original.

I ask as the initial impact marks and the tracks in the field adjacent to the runway are not consistent with the suggestion that the tail section was separated from the airframe.

Much obliged for your help.

Eagle402.

New Article - I don't think they mean the tail plane/fin detached itself. The item marked is the cone for the tail escape slide - I think. To my mind that's the bit 'they' refer to as the tail. Or is this obvious?

[IMG]http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b270/cumpas/mad3.jpg[/IMG]

Tailcone
 

The detachable tailcone is what the comission refers to as having detached upon first contact with the ground.

They also refer to this as the first airframe part to contact the ground after T/O.

Forget,

I suspect that, as ever, you are spot on and the report does indeed refer to the cone, as per your kind graphic.

Regards,

Yeah, as usual, different newspaper reporters say ever so slightly different things like if it was all the same.

The all say the tail hit the ground first.

Some say the tail broke/detached itself from the rest of the plane.

Some say the back part of the tail broke/detached itself from the rest.

I think it's safe to assume it was the tail cone, but then again, the whole tail is one of the larger pieces found "intact" and slightly away from the rest of the plane, but this could've happened later.

A second survivor was discharged (the female doctor). 16 remain hospitalised. 1 has gotten worse. 1 is not believed to be able to recover from the coma. 1 remains very serious condition.

PJ2:

Well, if that's the case then you wouldn't be getting airborne again, would you? Combined with such a drag force, a stall would make your nosewheel come down closer to the ground leaving a deeper mark and possibly a gear collapse...

I am just trying to visualize the force diagram at the moment the plane touched the ground... Maybe I am getting old but what I see from those marks is what would be left off on the runway if you would be applying the "crab technique".

I just saw "first hand" parts of the secretary for the accident commission press conference on TV.

-By their regulations, they are required to present a preliminary, factual report (no conclusions or probable causes, just the facts stated), in aprox. 1 month. Actual investigation thought to last several months.

-It's confirmed that the voice recordings and the fly data have been extracted in the UK facility it was sent. They are now being enhanced (voice clarity, etc), recovered & verified.

-He hasn't witness the airport video footage of the accident, but it is part of the investigation and others have seen it.

-Based on marks on the ground, it seems that the airplane first hit the ground outside of the landing strip, on the service route just adjacent to it, touching the ground first with the tail, tail cone coming off.

-Plane kept tumbling ahead for 1200m, bouncing 3 times (matching unlevel terrain marks).

Skidmarks,

I support the theory that:
- acf is in a severe slip to the right when it hits the grass
- tail hit's first (small trail closest to rwy), cone falls off
- left main gear hits ground.
- raight main hits.
- Nose gear hits
- acf straightens its path.
- ...

If there had been a burning engine falling off at this point,
why did the dry grass not catch fire here as it did further down the track? And why didn't it stop in this area like the cone did?

There has been significant LATERAL forces in play here judging
by the rwy exit angle. Rudder use or asymetric thrust.

M

Given the latest reports about the plane "bouncing" doesn't anyone else question how the perfect skid marks in the images recently posted could tally with such a deduction? Or did the bouncing happen after the dip into the ravine. (all this assumes the images are genuine of course).

XPMorten/PassengerDan
 

to me it seems there is some burnt area right at the start of the "third major trail", possibly caused by some fuel leak at engine break off,

The engine is not visible in this picture so if i m right it continued it s track past the ditch next to the road

As Madrid is hot and dry, depending how hard the ground is, there would have been only minimal deceleration when the plane touched down on the grass, so if the drops are several towards the gully, it is not surprising the planed "hopped" several times untill speed had been lost sufficiently for no more lift to occur.

To the pilots based in Spain: Thank you for keeping us updated!

FDR data quality
 

Let me just add to Justme's posting that the comission's secretary also stated that the FDR data quality was better in some channels than others, implying (my own deduction) that data integrity could be compromised in some channels.

I hope this partial lack of integrity does not hamper the investigation significantly.

Investigation Board Report
 

For Spanish speakers, the full 73-minute Investigation Board report in today's press conference can be found here:

rtve.es/noticias - Vídeos - Rueda de prensa Comisión de Investigación del accidente de Barajas

Thanks, but unfortunately the RTVE videos don't load. Anyone else having the same problem outside of Spain?

Same here, the RTVE videos do not load.