'Wing flaps failed' on Spain jet

i do believe that the accident was caused by this - the return to the stand to check on the heating behaviour of the RATS probe caused a flight delay - delays cost money and since all managers pressure pilots to be as cheap as possible (don`t get me started about a certain uk based oranage airlines suggestion on fuel load for landing) they wanted the aircraft back in service asap - after they believed they had pre flighted the aircraft they took it back out , and just didn`t set flaps for TO , slats were either in `up` or mid sealed (although i doubt it) - so they started the roll , V1 and all was good so they rotated and it all went to hell - but i do ask , was there panic and failure of training when faced with a stall? it was still saveable at that point if they had gone by the book.

it was still saveable at that point if they had gone by the book.

I don't think so.
With a clean wing the stall speed will be much higher than with any given flaps setting on the MD80 (the slats having the greatest effect here).
So they started the takeoff roll with vspeeds for flaps 11 or so in mind and rotated at that speed.
Everything might have looked good until they left ground effect right into a stall, that slow with a clean wing there's no way to recover in time.
The only thing to do is attempt to put it back down on the ground, (if you are able to identify the problem in time).

Knowing that the MD80 can be a handful to handle getting on the slow side they probably never knew what hit them.

i`ve seen somewhere a pciture of the actualy crash it seems it bounced , once on the runway and twice more off to the right , and came down tail first (very much from a stall)

well leasons learnt (again) i think (

www.flightglobal.com...

This initial report into the 20 August accident states that the crew did deploy the flaps to an 11° position when the aircraft first left its gate at Madrid Barajas.

But after receiving departure clearance the crew opted to taxi back to the apron after reporting a technical fault with the ram air temperature probe. The probe had apparently heated to 105°C while the aircraft was still on the ground.

Electrical circuits normally supply heat to the probe only when the aircraft is airborne - this is determined by logic circuits using weight-on-wheels sensors in the nose-gear. The reason for the apparent logic mismatch remains under investigation.

Crucially the probe shares an electrical link with the configuration-warning system, as well as other functions on the aircraft, through a relay designated R2-5.

After the MD-82 returned to the apron to have the temperature probe checked, engineers reportedly disconnected a circuit-breaker in order to resolve the heating issue before clearing the flight to depart.

The ground crew disconnected the TOWS circuit breaker , also the same one for the RAT probe heater , which meant there couldn`t be any warning heard ; that and the aircrew FUBARD with the cockpit checks meaning flaps 0 instead of flaps 11

silly buggers to be polite.

reply to post by Harlequin


Harlequin...so right you are!

Playing around with circuit breakers (C/B)s....can result in unintended consequences.

An actual event, never made it to the news since no one was hurt, but it happened at my airline.

Somewhere over the Atlantic....in a B757...the Captain's A/S indicator failed. So, these guys decided to search the C/B panel and try to "fault search" on their own. They pulled a C/B labled in a way they thought was appropriate....had to do with N1 sensing....which triggered the deployment of the ADG (Air Driven Generator). This is a component designed to deploy in the event of a dual engine failure, on a B-757 or B-767.

Point is, the C/B they pulled told the system that there was a dual engine failure, when in fact, there was not....but the little 'propellor',,,,the HDG came out.....and added a vibration, of course....but diminished the range of the airplane as well. Indicating a stop, a refueling stop, before destination.

Very embarrassing, for the crew and the airline....but they are good at deflecting such bad publicity, if no one is hurt.

Found some new video of the Spanish Airplane disaster:

New Video footage of the crash itself

It just seems to drop from the runway as the wheels leave the ground.




[edit on 19-9-2008 by StarTraveller]

reply to post by StarTraveller


StarT, if you know anything about airplanes, and specificially about the MD-80 series.....then what you posted is pretty well conclusive.

The pilots, in a rush to take-off, missed an item on the checklist (the slats/flaps) and the built-in warning system (was referred to the TOWS, but that actually is pertinent to the 'ground mode'....)

Once airborne, however briefly...the CAWS took over....acronym for 'Crew Alerting Warning System'....it is a combination of 'verbal' (recorded, female voice) alerts, along with other sounds, including the 'stick shaker....common on most commercial jets. It can be quite loud, the 'stick shaker'.

A 'stick shaker' is designed to alert the pilots to an impending stall, due to an angle of attack not appropriate for the airspeed and wing configuration, at any given time. (It gets more complicated, but those are the basics).

In less sophisticated airplanes, say in a Cessna 172....a device in the leading edge of the wing would simply 'whistle', loud enough to be heard over the noise of the engine, as the airflow reached close to a stall situation.

Other manufacterures of small airplanes, such as BeechCraft (and, later, in high-performance Cessnas, such as the C206 or C210, and even the Cardinal, a Cessna product...) used a small vane, in the leading edge of the wing, which would actuate a micro-switch, as a stalling AOA was approached.

Modern high-performance jets are, obviously, more complicated.

I just used a few examples, in case some in the audience have learned to fly...small airplanes, but not big jets.