PJ2:
The graphic posted by justme69 is concordant with the declaration of the captain from Iberia whose statement I copied in post #549

Rescue crews speak of most survivors being confined to a specific area where many "soft landed" on a small creek (with shallow water/mud). One survivor speaks of how it was the water that woke her up. One rescue worker speaks of difficulty walking through the mud to assist. A handfull were conscience, even a few mostly mobile, but most with fractures and unable to move or unconscience.

barrymung;

Post discussing cockpit video recorders

agusaleale;
I understand that very well. But the animation is not data-driven. It is only an interpretation by a non-aviation person of another's account, in this case an highly-experienced aviation observer. Eye-witness reports, especially by those who are experts, are helpful to investigators in pointing to ways in which the accident may have begun or to ways in which if unfolded. That said, you will know that eyewitness reports, even by experts, are far less accurate than the data available from the recorders. That is the only standard by which both initialization of, and sequence of the subsquent accident, can be determined. All else is second-hand speculation.

Still, I do know what you mean and know that such responses by the media are seen as "legitimate" by the viewing, curious public who are hungry for information. The thing is, that information can be wrong and lead to all kinds of harmful conclusions. The basis for such animations is not "accurate information" but mere curiosity and, unfortunately, legal interests.

XPMORTEN:

Just been reading an article on the Madrid crash in the "Sunday Times" which suggests that the crew may have failed to select the slats/flaps before commencing their T/O run. Highly unlikely, I know, but if this did happen, how much more runway would have been required for an MD80 to reach a safe T/O velocity?

Why not weigh the aircraft before departure? Doable, nowadays
 

These days it's possible to build a scale that would fit under the wheel contact area and handle the range of weight expected -- all solid state, no springs or balance levers. Why not have a little square cut out of the pavement at each aircraft gate on which the wheels of the various sized aircraft will rest, instrumented, to measure the weight on that area? Turn on the ones for the specific aircraft, make sure it's parked within the painted lines, sum the total weight. Ding! Why (rolls eyes) I can't imagine why any airline wouldn't want this information .... Wrong topic, just mentioning it's doable nowadays. The rocketeers must do this, they really need to know exactly what their rockets weigh before they launch them.

Wonder what happened in those 9 minutes.
Were they rushed or distracted?
Any timepressure on them for the schedule?

My money is on a configuration error, but then again, 9 minutes is short but not too short.... 3 minutes for startup and 6 for taxi.

I guess it must be relatively easy for the investigators to rule out.

Ankh,

if you spend time reading pprune and other venues of discussion, you will easily learn one simple truth:

The aviation industry at large is very against any change, unless they can bring an immediate economic return (and in some cases, not even if so eg, flying more direct routes).

There are thousand of methods and techniques that would improve safety. Many, actually even make sense. Still, they are not adopted.
The reason can be given to you in various forms:
"studies have already proved ..."
"an interesting suggestion, unfortunately ..."
that we can all resume as:
"it's not so useful, beside it costs money".

Since the overall safety record of air travel appears satisfying to most, status quo will remain.
Accept that, or fight like Don Quixote.

Just to answer a couple of points raised by previous posters (a couple of pages back in this fast evolving thread!) about RAF ops. Just about every RAF airfield (I can't think of one that doesn't) has distance to go marker boards (in thousands of feet) along the sides. The Tornado force doesn't time the take-off roll, but we do an acceleration check, looking for 100kts by the time you cross the approach end arrestor cable, about 1200ft from the start of the take-off roll. Additionally, during the landing roll, we check that our groundspeed is less than double the distance to go (eg 100kts at 5000ft to go board), braking/rev thrust as appropriate if it is not.

Additionally, as a minor difference from commercial ops, in the event of a loss of thrust post decision (we don't call it V1, just simple, straightforward decision speed), we select COMBAT thrust (equivalent to TOGA) as a matter of course, rather than leaving thrust as set unless satisfactory performance is not being achieved. Our Vmca is well below our stall speed so lateral control is not an issue.

Fin

PJ2
Rubbish there are many ways an animation can be produced. I would suggest the relatives might be anguished by people telling them that the situation is a 'disgrace', when in fact, it is no more than human curiosity.

How do you know, as a fact and not an assumption, that whoever made the animation did not have someone who witnessed the video to help them?

I suppose a pilot telling the media how to do their jobs, is a bit like the media trying to explain how the pilot flew the doomed aircraft

"Thankfully, this accident was recorded in video, so a few scenarios can be dissmissed off-hand such as any large visual explosions or large visual fires on any of the engines before the plane hitting the grown."

There is a large gap between a normal running engine and one displaying large fire and explosions. Engine issues (even twin failures) cannot yet be fully discounted.

SpacePilot;
I know that. I've already stated that graphics can be manufactured using a number of standard animation software programs. In terms of calling such work a disgrace it depends upon how accurately one wishes to know what happened. I've learned that in spite of the fact that investigations take a very long time to determine what happened and why, over the long run next-of-kin want the truth.

I have also discussed eye-witness accounts in the construction of animations, in terms of their relative reliability and I have also acknowledged that they are viewed as "legitimate" media responses by many. But let us be clear - what such amateur animations may tell us (and by virtue of that fact, what most people "know" about the accident"), and what a thorough safety investigation by trained and experienced accident investigators tell us can be wildly different. Though painful in the extreme, waiting for truth is, in my experience, what most prefer. That's my only point. Clearly, one cannot stop tides nor should one be able to!... ;-)

best,
PJ2

PS; justme60, B2N2, SpacePilot, just for the record, I would like to ensure that I do not doubt your entries here - what I am being "stringent" about, (perhaps) is the methods, not the actual portrayals of flight paths, wreckage parts, etc. I clearly have strong thoughts on the use of partial or eye-witness information. I know such is valuable as part of the investigation but it is only by very strict rules of evidence, including what's shown as "possibilities", that the truth can be arrived at. I am all for informed speculation so long as "judgement is suspended in favour of curiosity" until at least the recorders are read. That is the intent of all my posts - my apologies if the initial entry sounded a bit direct.

I am not saying that was the reason of the accident but I am sure the JK5022 was overloaded same as more than 50% of the actual flights. I find this post very interesting on the theme:
http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/31510...hemselves.html
Edit to specify overloaded from the loadsheet values

Thrown from Plane?
 

I've read reports that some of the surviving pax... Does anyone know if:

• They weren't wearing seatbelts (I hope this wasn't the case),
• Their seatbelts failed,
• Their entire seats were ejected with them,
• An entire floor section of the plane finished in the stream,
• Or if this report is a bit exaggerated.

It occurred to me as I was checking seatbelts in a cabin this morning.

I feel very sorry for everyone involved.

ankh
 

Also please consider that only the passenger weights are unknown; weights of the empty airplane, the fuel and cargo are already available with high precision. Passenger weight is on the order of 25-30% of the airplane's total weight.

Weighing the fully loaded airplane pre-takeoff, assuming a 2% accuracy, is therefore about equally accurate as obtaining the passenger weight with about 7% accuracy. Evidently the present system works well enough so that the proposed airplane scales would not be a cost effective improvement.

Nobody dismisses the possibility of one or both engines malfunction at all. Actually, it would be a likely scenario to explain the accident. Just the possibility of any large visually intense malfunction such as a large explossion, large fire or other indications (i.e. smoke, etc). Of course, some other malfunctions, even internal catastrophic malfunctions that were well contained, are possible, as are birds etc hitting an engine, etc.

We don't know how clear the angles and resolution of the video recordings are. We can assume it was carefully viewed more than once by a couple of pilot advisors besides the politicians and they agreed they couldn't see anything off-hand that indicated any problems with the engines and only and apparent lack of enough "power" to carry on the maneuver successfully was appreciated, erratic behaviour very soon after airbone, and "fall or attempt to land".

They insisted that no fire whatsoever could be observed until after the airplane hit the ground and "bounced around". That's what they claim to have observed. This, of course, doesn't mean that there wasn't a prior fire, just that it wasn't apparent in the video and therefore it couldn't have been too large externally since smoke would've likely been noticed earlier.

Every possible scenario opens, except those discarded by the tape, such as an engine falling off or large explosions.

Also, nobody dismisses the value to the general public of non-exact simulation graphics, but the media is to blame for a lot of incorrect information being presented as facts on big letters and flashy graphics EVEN AFTER OTHER FACTS INVALIDATE THEIR ACCOUNTS, or at least put them in doubt. A few HOURS after the accident, a 3D graphics showing an engine explosion and crash was repeated ad-naseum on spanish TV (can't remember what channel). If you talk to just about anyone in Spain on the street, after seeing the footage they automatically will tell you the accident was due to an explosion in the engine and the airplane crashing to the side.

Even DAYS after this seems unlikely, public image is still that of the first 3D recreated account. Of course, each news channel´s and each newpaper´s graphics, 3D animations or charts on what happened was slightly different. The media routinely chooses flashy headlines, changing small but important details in favour of more flashy sentences (like talking about "deactivated heat probe" instead of "probe's heating device") and attractive graphics over truth and precautory restrain. They are in the bussiness to sell audience even if that means playing with people's expectations and the hard truth.

Guys/Girls ... wait until the initial finding are released ... this level of hypothesis is not really helping anyone, all you are doing is helping some elements of the media turn personal tragedy into a circus.... people are without sons daughters fathers and mothers.. this is not a microsoft game, people died.

Very sad for everyone involved in this.

The word "fall" has been used by me many times because it's unclear what those I'm quoting meant. Some speak of "fall", some of "coming down", some of "landing". But in spanish it becomes ambigous enough, plus those speaking are often not experts, but newscasters using their own words to convey information gathered by non-expert witneses or officials.

I have heard first hands 3 officials, 2 of which direct witnesses of the airport video recording of the accident and one that had it explained to him by another politician first hand. But most of the other reports I have not seen/watched/heard directly, but instead I have seen the words of a news reporter to whom those accounts were explained. Technically, about 80% of what I've been reporting is already 3rd hand information. Once you read my words, it becomes 4th hand information. Not good for a not-clear-cut event.

I have the feeling that nobody will be able to come up with the real cause(s) of the accident until after the (damaged) data recorder information is analysed, as way too many scenarios, most of them equally unlikely, could have happened and likely it wasn't the result of a single, major cause.

We all care about the victims and their families (my own 16yo daughter was by herself on a MD-82 Spanair flight between the Canary Islands and Madrid about a week ago), but we are in this board because our way of dealing with the accident is to try to find the truth or, at least, when not enough facts are available to find it, to try to find out what factors or events are more likely than others as the cause of the accident using whatever expertise in the subject each may have (I've never been a pilot, traffic controller, airport/airline personel or airplane hobbyst, but I speak spanish, some english and know my physics).

Rat probe heater fail.
 

Mi quest is how the pilot detected this fail. No light,no ammeter current because this heater dont have power in ground.
Secont: the mecanic disconect the heater: HOW? .If pull the respectic CB let the TRP without power.
May be the opposite:the pilot detected current in the ammeter, but is improbable because this check is before start engine.Some is wrong in this information.

This post doesn't address this incident specifically because what occurred, or didn't occur, isn't known as of right now.

Comments on flying and aircraft configuration have been asked. Some comments -

1. An a/c without flaps will accelerate faster because a clean wing(no LE slats/TE flaps) creates less drag while accelerating on the runway.

2. Post #733 shows the stall speed/configuration/wts graph. LE slats typically lower stall speed on commercial jets approx. 30-40 KIAS while ALL the TE flaps reduce the stall speed approx 20-30 KIAS(airspeed to non-pilots). For this case it looks like a clean wing would stall approx. 40 KIAS faster than a Flaps 5 T.O. configuration.

3. Someone asked how far it would take to accelerate to a safe speed without slats/flaps? Answers based on Post #733 data - You would have to accelerate approx. 48 KIAS(40 KIAS + 20%) to have the same safety margin that a typical takeoff has.

4. In ground effect(basically within one wingspan of the ground) a/c will be able to fly at speeds lower than stall speeds out of ground effect PROVIDED precise AOA(angle of attack) control is used. Trying to increase AOA(ie typical rotation after liftoff) or exiting ground effect can make an a/c that was once flying completely unflyable. Doing both, AOA increase and exiting ground effect, compounds the problem. Air Florida 737 KDCA and NW DC-9 KDTW crashes are examples of a/c that 'fly' but can't stay airborne due to AOA/ground effect problems.

5. V2 or V2+10 is typically very close to clean stall speeds. Should this situation(inproper T.O. configuration) occur staying 'on the deck' and acclerating on the runway, or in ground effect, can be a lifesaver. (sim experience from reenacting DL 727 KDFW T.O. crash and NW DC-9 KDTW crash, both with no slats/flaps extended)

Again this is not commenting on this incident since the facts aren't known at this time.