have we considered an aft cg, failure of the "out of trim" warning due to same reason as RAT probe heated?

the plane would over rotate, perhaps even rotate too early.

Milo??? It's a wing for goodness sake.
 

Take a good look at the curvature of the leading edge. Now look at the curvature of the leading edge of the known stabilizer.....see any difference?
That section of the wing is the bottom side, looking at the junction between the aileron and the outboard flap (which appears to be missing).

Simply put, there are no 4x6 inch (wide open no doubt) access holes in the leading edge of any wing, unless there is a slat placed purposefully in front of them.

With what we know now....The last moments of 5022 were spent trying to stop....and selecting flaps/slats would not be the smartest way to get the most weight on the wheels. I think very much that these wings were correctly configured for TO.

That was initiated by a cargo fire in the hold though was it not ?

Graham

As SLF I like to time T/O from application of T/O power. In a 747 if it's much over 45 secs you know you're really heavy.

On one occasion on a Saturday, a Lufthansa flight about 9:30 from Heathrow to Frankfurt, mainly business pax with little luggage (just carry-ons) I swear it was *12* seconds. And I'd always though A320s weren't fitted with the most powerful engines.

PJ2, it's difficult to say if it's impact forces that have opened the buckets.

I know that if i for any reason didn't think that the aicraft would fly i would use any means to get it down on the ground and to limit the loss.
That includes use of full reverse thrust.

Which Engine?
 

Which brings us back to the problem that we can't identify which engine is which. Some reports have said that it was the #2 TR which was deactivated. Don't know how credible these reports are but, of correct, it must have been the #1 TR deployed, requested or otherwise, which would have turned the A/C to the left not right?

The observation that the deployed thrust reverser extends below the fuselage is very interesting re. the picture of the wheel tracks in Post 962.

There is a faint track at the very top of the grass area, before the wheel marks, which may be the track of the tail as it struck the ground first. But no marks that would suggest a reverser bucket ground contact at that point, either left or right. That could be an indication that the reversers were stowed, but again this is armchair investigation so best not to count 100% on it.

Edit: Some photos of an MD-82 touching down.
http://i376.photobucket.com/albums/o..._touchdown.jpg http://i376.photobucket.com/albums/o...in_transit.jpg http://i376.photobucket.com/albums/o...2_reverser.jpg

Confused -
 

So what is this picture?

And what dug the hole?

Looks to me like the grooves in the mud and the damage to the lighting point were from the gear. There is plenty of mud splattered on the fuselage that appeard to be from reverse jet eflux and I think this has caused the hole itself. I cannot see any evidence of mud on the bucket which I would expect if it dug in.

TH

md80fanatic:

Please look more carefully - it is not a wing. It is a small rear piece/flap from the starboard stabiliser, outboard of that photographed still attached to the tail assembly. The "leading edge" is simply its hinge, hidden normally inside the stabiliser. It looks larger than it is. Milo is absolutely correct.

GreenDot, PJ2,

I agree that the lower bucket hit the ground. I however believe
that this happened on the RWY during rotate!
Deployed buckets

I noticed that during the simulator tests that over-rotation is very likely if the reverser is deployed.

This would also cause a rain of SPARKS which might explain some
observations of an engine catching fire/explosion.

XPM

That's, as previously mentioned, from THIS MD-80 accident. There only to show intact reversers. Obviously not from Spanair.

Also.. If the reversers were intentionally deployed by the pilot,
he would offcourse never do so in the air! So, in either case we would
not expect bucket marks on the ground at the beginning of the skid marks.

XPM

I believe it was a leaking T/R valve, actuating T/R on one side.

Hasn't it already been stated that the runways are EMAS equipped ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enginee...rrestor_system

Sorry, don't buy it....
 

Please look more carefully - it is not a wing.

.... and there is nothing you can say to change that.

The reverser doors are attached to the engines which are much higher than the bottom of the fuselage. Any scrapes on the runway would likely be from the fuselage

lomapaseo,

Wrong..., on rotate with reverser
buckets deployed, they would hit ground before the tail.

XPM

if you deploy reversers with the nosewheel in the air, you are likely to scrape the reversers on the runway.

all MD80 operators admonish their pilots to never deploy reversers with nosewheel in the air

Not true unless you have at least 8 degrees of nose up - which CAN happen, but you really have to land slow and flare like a mofo for that.

At typical weights and flaps 40, you will not scrape a bucket. However, in the interest of training to the lowest common denominator and standardization, it is true that most if not all 80 operators require nosewheel contact before deploying.