Madrid Tragedy

Moderator Message

Thanks for updating us, Newforest.

Any further discussion on a new thread, please.

Thanks

GA

Human error and a technical fault are the conclusions of the official investigation into the Madrid crash.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1207462/Human-error-technical-fault-blamed-Spanair-crash-killed-154.html

If I started shouting and dinging the cabin crew call button during taxiing I’d probably get either restrained or ignored!

If you’re on the ground they’d probably kick you off the flight, at which point you explain why you reacted in such an extreme way. If you potentially saved the flight from going down I can’t imagine you’d be in trouble for long!

Paul

In the back jump seats, as flight attendant you can´t see the wings, nor in the front ones. Passengers simply don´t pay attention to that point, in case they do, they would probably think the captain had´nt deployed them for any reasonable explanation.

Only another pilot, or working in aviation or safety could realize about it. And what could we do if we see it?. :confused:

I’ve often wondered how it would play out if I was in the position described above.

Whenever possible I try and get a window seat near the wing and I like to watch what’s going on, e.g. the control surfaces testing and the flap/slat extension. If we were taxiing out towards the runway and I noticed that the flaps were retracted, how likely is it that I’d be able to successfully get my concerns to the flight deck before they start the takeoff roll? If I started shouting and dinging the cabin crew call button during taxiing I’d probably get either restrained or ignored!

Ian

One would wonder whether any of the cabin crew could have noticed that the flaps had not been deployed?:confused:

http://news.theage.com.au/world/faulty-flaps-caused-spanair-plane-crash-20081010-4xtn.html

That would probably be logical, but would the cabin crew be seated in an appropriate seat to do so? I’m not familiar with the MD80 series but I assume that the crew would have their seats at the front & rear gallies and I know that their windows are quite often small & difficult to see the wing from.

Confirming Super Nimrod’s post, non operation of the flaps together with the lack of an audible warning of their non-operation was the cause of the accident although the official report will not be issued for many months.

One would wonder whether any of the cabin crew could have noticed that the flaps had not been deployed?:confused:

http://news.theage.com.au/world/faulty-flaps-caused-spanair-plane-crash-20081010-4xtn.html

Here is a longer version,you can see the aircraft dropping to the ground……………..
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a44_1221765160

Video quickly removed but the BBC news site today carried some clips

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7624405.stm

A leak….the video of the crash has been sent to the media

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmfmAGbFIE0

Huge scandal as the Ministry of Transport is leaking important information to the press before conclussions are final. The pilots from the Pilots Trade Unions who were participating in the comission has withdrawn considering that this is not serious for a civilized country.

Is it possible that there may have been some confusion between the captain and the first officer. One of them wanted to abort again, but the other disagreed as is would only distress passengers even more. So perhaps the one that wanted to abort second time attempted it, by putting the right engine in reverse thrust. Then the one that wanted to continue possibly continued on with departure and rotated. Seconds later the aircraft would have stalled?

This is just my theory, im sure we will no the truth when the black boxes are revealed and when national geographic make an eposide of air crash investigation

Josh

Hmm… I really can’t imagine that scenario working in any way! Firstly, the ultimate decision to do anything lies with the Captain, and for an F/O to go against his decision probably wouldn’t be a good thing (athough I’m more than willing to be corrected on that by some of you people who actually do fly these things). Secondly, even I, with my meagre knowledge, know that applying reverse thrust to just one engine on an MD-80 during the takeoff roll while the other is at takeoff thrust won’t do anything other than create a situation that isn’t entirely desirable. Surely the people actually flying the aircraft know that as well?!

Paul

The Times are saying that they didn’t deploy the flaps as well. Wasn’t there a serious DC9 incident many years ago that was very similar, that led to various warning systems being fittted ?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4685414.ece

Latest. A mobile on could have caused the electric malfunction, which made the alarms, didn´t sound. So, the first crash caused by a mobile?. Sounds really disturbing.

Iberia is not using MD88 any longer after the crash. Spanair planes, are checked by Iberia, whose maintenance is simply perfect.

More cancelations. A groups of passengers rioted in Spanish Salamanca Airport after the B737-800 from Air Europa, had a minor technical problem. After negotiations the airline used a A330 to take them to the destination.

Media is mixing MD series aircraft with other Boeing models. I am feeling a little bit more uneased about flying.

A little piece in the Wall Street Journal

http://blogs.wsj.com/middleseat/2008/09/04/spanair-crash-probe-centers-on-flaps-possible-electrical-malfunction/

Only the reverser. Something wrong was going on from the very beginning. One of the survivors, a flight attendant, was sitting next to a A320 captain. In the investigation she told the commission, that the captain had told her, on starting the take off, that something weird was going on.

So, the reverser deployment was not the prime reason for the crash. Why did the plane fail to have the right speed?. We have an paranoid situation over here. Yesterday, a group of passengers decided not to get on a A330 Iberwold plane, as it suffered problems with the undercarriage, after take off. While back on the airport, they tried to get a document signed by the company assuring the plane won´t crash. How could some passengers be so stupid?. They reported the media, they plane seemed too old for flying. A A330 OLD FOR FLYING 😮

Then some of them demanded a full report for not flying, and got it 😮 And then more horror stories of near misses, emergencies here and there. Media stuff all over.

It’s the same with the UK media after an air crash. Every bit of mild turbulence on following flights are plunges and dives. Every knock or bump is an explosion, and every landing is an emergency.

Only the reverser. Something wrong was going on from the very beginning. One of the survivors, a flight attendant, was sitting next to a A320 captain. In the investigation she told the commission, that the captain had told her, on starting the take off, that something weird was going on.

So, the reverser deployment was not the prime reason for the crash. Why did the plane fail to have the right speed?. We have an paranoid situation over here. Yesterday, a group of passengers decided not to get on a A330 Iberwold plane, as it suffered problems with the undercarriage, after take off. While back on the airport, they tried to get a document signed by the company assuring the plane won´t crash. How could some passengers be so stupid?. They reported the media, they plane seemed too old for flying. A A330 OLD FOR FLYING 😮

Then some of them demanded a full report for not flying, and got it 😮 And then more horror stories of near misses, emergencies here and there. Media stuff all over.

Is it possible that there may have been some confusion between the captain and the first officer. One of them wanted to abort again, but the other disagreed as is would only distress passengers even more. So perhaps the one that wanted to abort second time attempted it, by putting the right engine in reverse thrust. Then the one that wanted to continue possibly continued on with departure and rotated.
Josh

I highly doubt that scenario. If you’re going to retard the engines, it should be very easy (and normal) to move BOTH at once (see: http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=0442098 for a picture of the throttle quadrant on this type of aircraft).

Ryan

Crash plane ‘was almost swapped’

The airline involved in the Madrid plane crash had considered switching aircraft at the last minute, a Spanish government minister said.

Spanair flight JK 5022 was delayed for about an hour because of a problem with an air temperature gauge.

The aircraft crashed on 20 August, just after take-off, killing 154 people.

Magdalena Alvarez told a parliamentary panel that Spanair had “indicated to the airport the possibility of replacing the plane with another”.

Ms Alvarez, the Spanish development minister, said Spanair “told the airport control centre that it had decided to continue with the plane… which is the one that crashed”.

She was summoned before the Spanish Congress to testify on Spain’s air safety procedures in the wake of the accident.

Spanair has not spoken publicly about having considered changing planes. A spokesman said the company could not discuss what had happened to the aircraft, because the accident was under judicial investigation.

However, it has previously insisted that the gauge problem had nothing to do with the crash.

The Spanish government has promised a full investigation into the crash, which is the country’s worst air accident in 25 years.

Sources close to the investigation, quoted by the newspaper El Pais, say the plane may have lacked sufficient engine power during take-off.

Video footage showed the plane travelled much further along the runway than normal before getting airborne, the paper reported.

Hindsight…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7589113.stm

Really going out on a limb there Josh! Whatever happened to CRM? I thought that the last words of the pilot had been reported in a newspaper, but I haven’t read that yet.

Is it possible that there may have been some confusion between the captain and the first officer. One of them wanted to abort again, but the other disagreed as is would only distress passengers even more. So perhaps the one that wanted to abort second time attempted it, by putting the right engine in reverse thrust. Then the one that wanted to continue possibly continued on with departure and rotated. Seconds later the aircraft would have stalled?

This is just my theory, im sure we will no the truth when the black boxes are revealed and when national geographic make an eposide of air crash investigation

Josh