Well done, Sandbank.
Tell the investigators to go home since you seem to have done their job for them.

A repair, component replacement or maintenance procedure does not mean that the following flight is a test flight.
By your reasoning, every flight is a test flight to see if all components are still functioning properly.

faa_cpl_h;
Absolutely true. However, the point being made was, "why wasn't a test flight carried out first?" Would you agree that a test flight is required for MEL items? Are we placing passengers "at risk" by departing thus?

My historical posts are absolutely clear on flight safety and organizational issues including profit-before-safety issues. However, the challenge from sandbank was as stated above and it is a misconception of how a mechanical is handled. The comments are not only not harsh, they are largely, though not wholly, instructive.

PJ2, I accept your posts have been informative as opposed to harse but there have been several posts where people take exception to someone posting who clearly has a limited understanding of the industry.

If journos do post on here for info for their articles maybe clear informative feedback will encourage them to get their facts right instead of making one post and then giving up and leaving the bunfight behind.....

SandBank, finally we see someone who knows what they are talking about.

An aircraft that has to abort a take-off due to an engine fault is a serious issue.

Maintenance then carried out to correct this would then require a test flight, not a revenue flight.

For a pilot or engineer to release/accept the aircraft under such circumstances without carrying out a test flight dependent upon what the circumstance was would be classed as negligence.

May i remind you all that accepting commercial pressure is classed as negligence. The engineer releasing the aircraft makes the call as to whether the aircraft will require a test flight or not, the company has no right to over rule this decision.

Think about that people.

I wish i had never said anything now! Does anyone know if the MD82 OAT system is and MEL item. I can't believe that the OAT isn't a no go item but i would be interested to know for sure.

Back on Subject
 

Might I suggest that we get this thread back on topic?

I don't know the specifics of whether the OAT/TAT is a go/no go item. It doesn't really matter. The plane returned to gate, and the issue was looked at by the engineers.

WHAT ON EARTH DOES A TAT PROBLEM HAVE TO DO WITH TEST FLYING???


:ugh:

XXX where did you get your information from about the aborted T/O due to an engine problem? Just that the information on here previously was talking about a OAT sensor/gauge problem.

faa_cpl_h;
I am a strong advocate of teaching/learning especially when it is taken to heart. Initially, there are no stupid questions. However, if learning doesnt' take place and a point continues to be pressed by someone who isn't an airline pilot they either see something none of us see or have another agenda not associated with learning and contributing. Thanks for your kind response.

xxxchopperpilot;
The judgement as to the nature of the mechanical issue is, as you would know (just from your handle) is in the hands of those examining the issue and the relevant documentation. We dont' know what the problem was with the airplane so we can't judge the outcome. I've had plenty of engine faults where I've returned to the gate and either had parts replaced while passengers waited on board or the fault cleared in the ACARS/AIMS system. Sometimes a test run-up is done to test for fuel or oil leaks if those systems have been worked on. I've had FADEC faults, reverser faults and so on but none would require a test flight and I and the crew have always been 100% happy before we depart. More than one occasion the park brake is set and the aircraft stays at the gate until we're happy. When we tell the passengers that, in exactly those terms, nobody complains and when the air is clear about our intentions, things happen.

VL

Nothing to do with test flying at all which is just as well because just in case you are not aware this thread is not about test flying.
Perhaps somebody who has some knowledge can answer my question since it is directly related to the matter in hand, ie the tragic event at Madrid.

I just read a post where a pilot who was at Barajas in that moment says that it ressembles to an old accident, the one with Binter in Málaga. Gotcha?

Speculations;

Several eyewitness reports state the aircraft was airborne before crashing.
If this was the case, at that point, most pilots in most situations would
not attempt to land and do a G/A.
Now lets assume the pilots did everything by the book, which means
a normal loss of an engine can be ruled out since they are well trained for this.

So, this leaves us with the plane for some reason got "unflyable".
We had reports that there were engine problems before the flight,
also that one ore more thrust reversers were deployed on the wreck.
Could it be that one thrust reverser buckets self deployed at rotate
or later?

XPM

whartonp;
The thread was indeed about test flying for a moment but that dealt with, I think it's back on track...

I suspect the OAT (TAT & SAT indications, ADIRS info for the Airbus, ADC for the MD80?) would be an MEL item depending upon the availability of a second probe, (usually the case). Not sure if both probes are u/s. Anyone?

PJ2,
May i remind you that "Until we're happy" is a statement that you will NEVER find in any Aircraft Maintenance Manual. I think, recalling to memory you may find this statement in a "Complacency" Manual. If the manual says do a test flight, then you actually do a test flight. A test flight under no circumstances will involve commercial passengers. I hope i never board an aircraft that you are in command of, as i don't think that you are up to the job. If you truly are a professional pilot then have a GOOD think about what you are about to write.

There is a very steep gully at this point, difficult for a lot of vehicles to cope with.
Madrid in the summer = hot and dry, fire would have spread very quickly. In the TV news shots here helicopters could be seen dumping water to attempt to put the fire out.
Brush fires and the use of helicopters are common things all over Spain.

Possible scenario:

Tech problem, aircraft returns to gate - delay, duty time, industrial situation distracting crew etc etc...

Fault in aircraft warning systems but departure allowed.

Taxy out for second attempt, rushed procedures, before takeoff check not performed, aircraft attempts take-off with slats and flaps retracted...

Unlikely? It's happened before - Northwest MD82 N312RC Detroit 16th August 1987.

Sorry don't know how to post a link to the NTSB report for the above.

Does any one know if any of the crew survived?

XXX, this is our point totally and we are in agreement. Read manual (MEL etc) and if it says do X to repair. You do X. If it says don't have to repair as long as conditions Y are met, you make sure conditions Y are met, aircraft is signed of and then you go flying.
If anywhere it said test flight is required one would be carried out. If none required it will go straight back into service.
Assuming you are a heli pilot and perhaps you have to test fly after lots of snags but on modern airliners most problems either cause the aicraft to be grounded or continue to fly in accordance to the MEL. As long as MEL conditions are met we take it.
This is what the previous comment about being happy will be. Not just a case of I reckon it will be ok but a case of being happy that all the legal requirements are met!

Also if the aircraft is grounded and repairs carried out, once it has been signed off the aircraft is then flown on a commercial flight with passangers on. Why, because thats legal and safe. No test flight required (in most cases).
Ground runs are often carried out for many engine snags. Engine performance satisfactory and it is signed back into service. Very very few cases actually require a test flight by a test pilot. Why do you think most airlines only have a handful of guys signed off to test fly? Its quite an uncommon occurance. If a test flight is required though it will be done.

PJ2 is totally correct and sounds like he knows what he is talking about. I would be happy to fly with the chap!!! When he's happy I would be happy!

Totally off topic.
 

Totally off topic and I know it but....

All I saw were pictures and video from the "media" without a time line but.

The amount of ambulances scrambled to the incident was amazing, the emergency services really responded!

As to the helicopters dumping water/retardent on the grass fire... Did they practice that or was that some really good situational awareness by the authorities?

I know the discussion on here will be aircraft related, but from what I saw the emergency services at Madrid were text book!

WIth regard to the El Mundo Images (I'm not even going to comment on their insensitivity to the injured and bereaved!) a couple of points that seem obvious to me, but have not been commented on:-

1. In picture 1, There appears to be a section of main wing in the foreground with the tailplane in the background resting on the downslope of the gully (note, this assumes we are seeing the image from the rear i.e. point of arrival). Would I be right in thinking that this would suggest that the aircraft broke up before it reached the gully, rather than from the impact of the sudden descent (assuming, of course that some other factor didn't move the wing-section)?

http://estaticos03.cache.el-mundo.ne..._albumes_0.jpg

2. In picture 2, aparet from the fuselage section being removed by crane (which would seem questionable in itself, as per previous posts) all of the debris seems to be in very small pieces - not what I recall having seen from other t/o crash images, where fuselage (and wing sections etc) remains largely intact, if broken and burned. Would this not support the probability of a high-speed, or very violent impact, rather than a "pancake" or "slide".. If so, this would seem to support the previous suggestion that the a/c got airborne and was not in the process of an RTO.

http://estaticos03.cache.el-mundo.ne..._albumes_0.jpg

Speculation I know, but from what is evident rather than witness accounts.

A sad day for all.

Found a MMEL here.

I found no mention of OAT or TAT-indications, but RAT and SAT are mentioned:

...and...

"best" seats
 

I raised this point yesterday, and saw it was questioned again in #255. Its a SLF view on things and I think the answer is the one I have always believed in: there are no "best" seats in the case of crashes. Its all about luck (none in this crash), and if lucky then its about following proper evacuation protocols (e.g. BA38).

The facts emerging are that the survivors (who mostly seem to be in desperate conditions) were seated in rows 14-17 - as per El Mundo who have no doubt checked this against the manifest.

Info on the graphic sequence here:
Gráficos | elmundo.es
(click "comenzar", ignore graphics themselves which are clearly suppositions, the one with the survivor seats is at the end)

“The organised chaos in which the company exists can’t continue,” said the Spanish pilots’ union Sepla.

Council Regulation (EEC) No 2407/92 of 23 July 1992 on licensing of air carriers
in order to ensure dependable and adequate service it is necessary to ensure that an air carrier is at all times operating at sound economic levels;

Airborne or Not?
 

Think this could easily be find out as (most probably) ATC has a legal recording of their SMR (Surface Movement Radar) and ASR (Airborne Survailance Radar) including altitudes and G/S.

Focus
 

The only confirmed facts so far:
1. A/c became airborne before crashing.
2. Witnesses reported engine fire on the runway.
3. Full pax load but well below MTOW on this sector.
4. CAVOK wx conditions.
5. Gate return due tech problem.

Based on this very few "established" facts so far it looks like loss of control due failure.
An engine fire even though dramatic can be a less contributing factor for control loss (compared to engine fail/severe damage) as the engine does not loose thrust instantly in a normal fire scenario. A turbine/compressor disc separation is another but very, very unlikely case even though to an outsider it might look as a fire. On a tail eng mount the yaw is even less pronounced than on a wing mount.
I personally have not flown this type but I presume a thrust reduction t/o must have been performed in this combination of wx/TOW conditions. Which further reduces the impact of yaw on directional control in any eng fail situation.
I would not speculate on the gate return until Spanair or the authorities release the techlog data. For sure it must have increased workload/stress for the flight crew.
So IMHO unless it has been a catastrophic compound failure e. g. an eng turbine/compressor disc separation resulting in flight controls major damage this accident should have been quite manageable.
But we would only know for sure when the FDR, CVR and trajectory data are published with the final report from the competent authorities.
:(

It's amazing how so many are going on about how "current procedures are safe" and "we are happy to take it with this snag or that" but did I miss something or didn't an aircraft following those procedures just crash and kill 153 people?

Yes Vortex, but how many aircraft 'following those procedures' are departing and getting back to terra firma without any serious issues?? We're human and not everything is perfect... think about it

Vortex what...ouch! - the only thing missing is the facts. Maybe they followed procedures, and on the other hand, maybe they didn't. In fact it would not be the first time that following procedures caused an accident. Time will tell. Be patient.

Silly comment Vortex. (Not the only one on this thread though)

Flight crew following Standard Operating Procedures enhances safety; it does not guarantee absolute safety. Catastrophic turbine failure rupturing fuel/hydraulic lines, as an example, can cause immediate loss of control. No amount of slavish adherence to SOP's can avoid that.

I wish non-pro pilots would keep off this site. Their comments are almost always unhelpful. The internet is vast; there must be other sites they can go to and speculate at will. As for education of these individuals, again there are many good websites to visit. It is abundantly clear that some posters here have not a clue about handling big jets, MEL's, test flights, SOP's, Engineers' responsibilities, weather, runway surfaces, or aviation in general.

Engineers and pro-pilots only please.

Vortex
 

How on earth do you know if procedures where followed in this case ? Every human loss is obviously tragic but the only way to avert them is to act rationally and cold minded. Please stop your rubbish - it doesn't help a bit !

Vortex
 

You are aware of the Swiss Cheese theory? It is rarely a single component, error or failure that causes a catastophe like this. If you are professional aircrew you will know this and also understand the requriement of MEL and deferals in maintenance.

In an ideal world we could all fly 100% servicable AC at all times - But we live in the real world.

I await the official report and my thoughts and parayers are with all those involved.

RIX

Vortex - you need to separate the sciolists from the professionals (a bit hard to do at times I admit). But you do seem to be over reacting. Do you have a personal involvement?

To reply to Limp Leek, I'm told by a forensic pathologist friend that the systems in place for a major catastrophe are very much better in Madrid than anything we have in place in the UK, as shown by the response to the train bombings. She apparently asked a colleague there what he thought they could have had done differently afterwards, and the reply was "Nothing".

I'm not familiar with this aircraft but it is being reported that the EGT / TGT gauge was the reason why the aircraft returned to the gate. I know that this is a no-go item for the majority of aircraft and I find it hard to believe that it would be allowed for the MD82.

If this is true and the crew departed with the gauge in-op this would be a serious error of judgement. Madrid is alot hotter and higher than most airports in Europe. The monitoring of gas temperatures is critical at any airport but to a greater degree at Airfields such as Madrid. I hope this is not the case.

Spanair Press Conference Coming Up
 

The company's press conference will be starting shortly - probably it will be shown live on Sky and relayed on Radio Five Live.

Some contributors here may not have seen that Spain's Transport Minister Magdalena Alvarez said the plane had taken off, but plunged back to the ground.

I would caution drawing any significant conclusions from many of the reports, since many are translations from one language to another or perhaps more. Much meaning can be lost in the process.

If the take-off was rejected, there would be assymetric thrust reverse on the operative side, which would create a tendancy for the aircraft to veer right if the left engine was inoperative.

How did the fire services respond, and were they able to reach the stricken aircraft? In the case of fire, seconds are vital to the survivability of any accident.

A great tragedy, much sympathy to those involved and their comrades.

Hi,
I'm not sure if this has allready been mentioned before, but if you look at the first picture you seem to be looking at the leading edge section of the wing and it seems that the slats are retracted. I'm not sure about the certified takeoff configurations of a MD80, but this might be somehow a factor in the accident(could anybody provide more info if the MD80 is certified for a No Slats/Flaps only takeoff?). On the other hand it might ofcourse be possible that the Slat retracted after loss of hydraulic power after impact-so pure speculation, but does anybody know if the slats are held in position by hydraulic or just pushed to position by hydraulic and hydraulic power then removed on the MD80 series?

I have only ever flown jets with under wing mounted engines. My question is, how significant is the adverse yaw on the MD82. I found it strange that the left engine failed, yet the A/C went off to the right of the runway. Is it possible to miss identify a failed engine and input the incorrect contol? (its been done before).

In response to your question about the MD taking off without slats:

No can do -. as soon as as move the flap/slat lever into the first slot, the slats come out. The second slot selects slats/flaps 11, which would be the standard TO configuration.