fake_sealion's suggestion: 'Is it now time to install a high quality CCTV system which records each and every departure at major airports.' sounds like a good idea, after all we spend thousands (millions?) a year filming drunks on a fri/sat night in our major cities. Wouldn't take much to extend the existing security systems at most airports to achieve this.

The incredible numbers browsing the site, more than I have ever seen for a crash here, have not been rewarded, with some exceptions, with the usual level of informed opinion (e.g. BA 038). There has been far too much flaming of the media and of ill-advised posters who should have been filtered out. And why not simply delete most of the first 4 or 5 pages when nobody knew anything at all, and try and concentrate on what people believe to be credible rumours and make informed and responsible speculation?

For my tuppence worth, what about a stall of the right wing? The eye-witness driver is unlikely to have been wrong about seeing the wing hit the ground. If the wing was stalling, would that cause it to veer right? Maybe if a hydraulic failure caused the leading edge slats to retract (or is there mechanical lock-out?). It still leaves open the question of what was going on with the good engine. Aspects of this crash recall the DC-10 at Chicago 1979.

From seeing the el Mundo pictures it also seems that the aircraft fire started a brush-fire, which would explain the white smoke and the water-bombing helo and the large area of blackened ground around the emergency vehicles.

Runway survellance
 

Is it now time to install a high quality CCTV system which records each and every departure at major airports. Such unambiguous evidence would surely permit in some cases, the AAIB teams to reach important conclusions very quickly and set in motion remedial action to enhance safety.

Absolutely ! When I was last at Barajas the same thought occurred to me. There are many parts of the airfield that are out of sight from the tower. Trouble is you'd need a lot of cameras.

Still, I agree with what you suggest - although bean-counters will (as ever) say - how many crashes occur ? How many times would camera produce useful results ?

Location is always a problem. Remember the Britannia 757 crash at GRN a few years ago ? Admitedly at night and in a severe thunderstorm, but it took over an hour to locate the aircraft, which was so near the terminal building that some survivors had already arrived there on foot.

R

Crew
 

Captain: Antonio Garcia Luna
F/O: Fco Javier Mulet Pujol
C/C: Lourdes Romero Florez
C/C: Sonsoles Lorenzo Simarro
C/C: Sonia Rodriguez del Castillo
C/C: Susana Marin Ramos
C/C: Raquel Perez Sanchez
C/C: Gabriel Guerrero Duran
C/C: Antonia Martinez Jimenez

The only one known to be alive is Antonia
Last 3 were flying as pax.

Post # 29 ( long way back - sorry ! )
.

Pilotinmydreams - I really don't like being rude, but are you from another planet ? What do you think has been happening following every accident since the Wright brothers ? You're in the same box as sandbank, absolutely no idea of what the aviation industry is about, I wouldn't dream of trying to tell you how to do your job - whatever it is - so keep out of ours.

Despite all the learning, all the experience, all the practice, there is often the unexpected ' next time ' and one does the best one can at that time.

I have absolutely no idea what caused this disaster, and at the moment neither does anyone else, but we all will - eventually, and it will be filed in our personal RAM for future reference.

Guess you'd ban LVP Ops as well then :{

Might be a good idea, if (and only if), it turns out the accident investigation is hindered by lack of such cameras... But I do not recall any (?) Accident Reports recommending such cameras, and I'd rather go with their suggestions than pPrune posters wanting instant answers ;)

NoD

Fire Fighting in Spain
 

AmeliaJane wrote: Am amazed at the emergency efforts, including helicopters to douse the fire. They may have made the difference for those few who did escape (or got thrown out). I'm not sure the brush being on fire could cause emergency efforts to be slowed, but the gully/ravine is another issue. I'm not familiar with the airport in question, so don't know whether emergency vehicles would have been able to get close, or if they'd have to aid from up high/at a distance?


Living here in Catalunia (Spain) I can tell you fire-fighting helicopters and other aircraft are stationed everywhere. As in, it's rare not to have a week pass by without training flights or infra-red scans of powerlines from helicopters. And roadside/railside fires nearly always are dealt with from the air, let alone the terrible scrub/forest fires we get when the Tramontana is blowing.

Our local drop-zone (Empuriabrava - LEAP) has had four yellow amphibian water-dropping aircraft stationed there all summer and the nearest fire-fighting helicopter base is on the road to Girona, about 15 miles south.

Every community here has large water resevoirs for the choppers to dip into (they used to use swimming pools but owners objected !) and when it gets really bad the big Bombadier's arrive with water plus supressant foam.

I can't speak for the rest of Spain although I suspect it's the same, but aerial fire-fighting in Catalunia is very well organised.

(especially for farrell): A number of cameras tasked automatically by the ground surveillance radar?

Sorry - I wasn't meaning to be demeaning. I highly respect you all as professionals doing a job which I could only dream about. I was just interested to learn how you as pilots learn more as a result of tragedy like this. My apologies if I offended anyone - it wasn't the intention.

Video cameras
 

As a non-flyer I hesitate to intrude into such a thread, but every time I see reports of an aircraft accident and the resulting confusion I wonder why cameras are not routinely installed.
I get 1 hour of 640*480 video on a 2gb memory card so surely the cost of recording is not a major problem.
You could probably cover all runways in an airport in good detail with about 20 cameras.
As the aircraft tailplanes seem to survive most accidents, perhaps cameras could also be mounted there which would show engine condition, flap and thrust reverser deployment, etc.
Apologies if this causes any offence to other posters.

The practical value of video runway surveillance at airports has been known for decades and has been (pretty sure about that) recommended by crash investigators. Even if it hasn't, the benefits are still pretty obvious. A few cameras on the control tower would do it, with infra-red for nighttime. It could be used by airlines to monitor landings, enable analysis of RTOs and go-arounds, minor collisions on the ramp, etc. etc. And that is before stating the obvious value in a crash investigation on or near the airport (about 70% IIRC of crashes are within a mile of the tower). And in the US there is a lot of worry about land and hold short, and about potentially disastrous on-ground collisions and runway incursions. Video would help analyse all that.

The reason they are not installed is because if any such images became public it would be bad PR for the airport and the airline.

Now I read that another MD 82 had to make a emergency landing at Gran Canaria just recently following trouble with both engines on a flight from Lanzarote to Madrid. Just posting what I have read as reported......

The Guardian is reporting there was a problem with a Spanair plane's engines at the weekend:

"Spanair confirmed an MD-82 was forced to make an emergency landing last Saturday on a flight from Lanzarote in the Canary Islands to Madrid because of problems with both of its engines. The plane landed in the nearby island of Gran Canaria, the destination of yesterday's flight.
A company official said he did not know if the same plane was involved in both cases."

If said official "did not know", I would have thought it quite easy for him to check if it was the same aircraft.

Sky News just reporting that the aircraft experienced "overheating in the air intake valve"

Pilotinmydreams, A professional aviation accident report is a work of art. The UK's AAIB is up there with the world's best. Take a look at THIS example and let me know of anything they missed.

Video camaras (regular and infrared) viewing runways and taxiways at airports, with recorders, is an outstanding idea for many many reasons. Can't imagine why it hasn't been done before now. Compared to the costs of most airport infrastructure, as cheap as dirt. Heck, even Walmart does it.

To the relavent authorities, make a decision, get it done.

A US newsaper reports the following:

Spanair says the plane that crashed in Madrid experienced overheating in an air intake valve prior to a first attempt at takeoff. It is not clear if this had anything to do with the crash that killed 153 of the 172 people aboard.
Company spokesman Javier Mendoza says the device, called an air intake probe, was reporting overheating in the front of the plane under the cockpit.
He said Thursday that technicians corrected the problem by ''de-energizing'' the probe, or turning it off. He says this is standard procedure.
Spanair says the plane was cleared by company technicians after the problem was fixed

looks like a pencilwhip regarding the temp. probe; OPS pulls the same old number over there too, he; if they would have looked the engine over a little better, which you would expect after a taxiback, nothing would have happened; never flown a DC 9, but friends tell me the plane can be a squirly handful low and slow; to me fatal getthereritis got them
Ciao