Click on the pic and then you can proceed to the other slides. I didn't translate the captions, but it looks as though they give a time line of the crash.
I'm confused. I thought they initially said it was the #2 engine, but the graphic in the slide show is the #1 engine.
All signs are pointing to low bidder, 2nd or third world maintenance/repaired parts.
1) it appears that virtally the entire length of the runway was utilized for the takeoff roll before rotating (???).
Great Circle distance: Madrid, Spain to Las Palmas, Canary Islands - 938 Nm
According to MD-80 series airplane characteristics at:MD-80 Document MDC J2904 (New, December 1989)
FAR 121.639 for FAA certification stipulates reserves sufficient for 200Nm to alternate. This would allow Santa Cruz, Canary Islands (@46 nm), El Aaiun, Western Sahara (@134Nm), or Madeira - Funchal, Portugual (@280Nm) as viable alternates to Las Palmas in Canary Islands.
According to the payload range charts for 1250Nm flight, 41,000# payload could be allotted to passangers & baggage (@238#/passenger). Operating empty weight is specified at 77,976#. This combines to 118,976#. This allows 4555 gal fuel to be taken on board, of which 67 gal reserved for taxi purposes, 97 gal for contingency purposes, and 671 gallons held in reserve. This leaves 3720 gal as pure get-there (or alternate) juice. I can't find specific fuel consumption fiingers for the MD-80, but for max cruise at FL270 @ 499kts fuel consumption is 4077kg/hr, and for cruise @FL350 @439kts FL350 fuel consumption is given at 2500kg/hr.
Generally power settings at takeoff are at 100%, climbout 85$, approach 30%, and idle at 7% (I'd guess cruise to be near 60% - probably nearer 50% for econo-cruise). So it looks like they could carry twice the fuel required (with given reserve) and remain within weight limits to reach their destination.
Madrid Barajas airport altitude is at almost 2000' MSL, and standard day temp (SDT) at altitutude is specified at 51.9o F. At SDT the rated FAR 121.639 takeoff runway requirement for MTOW departure at 2000' MSL is about 8500'. The data suggests an extra 500' takeoff roll for each +15 Co (~27 Fo) above SDT. It looks like the temp was 86o at departure. The aircraft easily should've departed after a 9000' takeoff roll. The windsock icon is intimating 7kts from the NE (slight headwind). I don't know if that would even qualify for an extra 500' takeoff roll even at MTOW.
It looks like they took off from 36R (14271'). There does appear to be a discrepency between the two clips though concerning precisely where they acutally departed the runway. The first clip shows them departing at about the 2/3 mark (~9500'), and the latter clearly shows them rotating pretty much on the touchdown zone for 18L and definitely after the last turnoff. However, in that clip the turnoff angle is incorrect. That last turnoff would only be correct if they departed from 18L (however, the video icon clearly indicates direction to be N (as does the runway orientation in the first clip suggest they departed 36N).
In any case, departing on the numbers @14271' is 58% more runway than would normally be expected for MTOW and SDT+15 Co
2) In the initial image its evident that the starboard elevator appears in full up position and port elevator appears near neutral - slightly down - position. Both of the elevator trim tabs appear to be equally and noticeably trimmed down; it would seem the tailplane appears trimmed for takeoff.
3) the rudder appears to be stuck full left. This implies the pilot flying was countering yaw to the right. In conjunction with the final right wing drop, a right wing stall seems plausible.
The position of starboard elevator suggests hydraulic failure of the tailplane elevator as a result of catastrophic explosive failure of #1 engine; its stuck in rotation departure position. Expected control inputs as part of stall recovery would put both elevators into a down position (to create pitch down moment).