Spanair accident at Madrid [Archive]

alexss

20th Aug 2008, 14:05

Latest news report on elmundo.es (below) is at least 50 dead and the number is rising. one of the left engines caught fire, hence the plane couldn't take off and went off the runway. Aircraft has split in two. At least 20 people have got out so far.

MADRID.- El número de víctimas sigue subiendo. Al menos 50 personas han fallecido en el accidente que ha sufrido un avión de la compañía Spanair al despegar en la T-4 del aeropuerto de Barajas (Madrid). Viajaba con 160 pasajeros a bordo y cubría la ruta Madrid-Gran Canaria. La nave está ardiendo y ha producido una enorme columna de humo, por lo que se sospecha que podría haber más víctimas en su interior.

El avión, el vuelo AJK 5022, viajaba con 160 pasajeros a bordo y cubría la ruta Madrid-Gran Canaria.

Según las primeras hipótesis, se habría incendiado uno de los motores izquierdos de la nave, lo que le impidió despegar y provocó que se saliese de pista y se incendiase.

Fuentes del Samur informan de que hay 20 heridos.

Los servicios de la Comunidad de Madrid y 11 camiones de bomberos trabajan en estos momentos en la zona. Al menos 20 personas han conseguido salir ya de la nave, que se ha partido en dos.

Fuentes de Spanair han confirmado a elmundo.es que la dirección de la aerolínea ya está reunida, se ha activado un protocolo de emergencia y están tratando de esclarecer las identidades de los pasajeros.

El alcalde de Madrid, Alberto Ruiz-Gallardón, ha salido hacia el aeropuerto nada más conocer el suceso para seguir en persona todos los detalles de lo ocurrido.

Defruiter

20th Aug 2008, 14:05

According to BBC, Spanish Government have confirmed deaths, but no numbers yet. :(

G-STAW

20th Aug 2008, 14:07

el mundo now reports 50 dead, at least 20 been found alive

GhostofCain

20th Aug 2008, 14:11

At least 20 dead according to El País.

G-STAW

20th Aug 2008, 14:13

emergency services now saying at least 21 dead, 50 hurt

ortwell

20th Aug 2008, 14:15

el mundo has just confirmed 50 fatalities. the wrekage looks to be very spreadout on the footage they are posting on thier website.

Defruiter

20th Aug 2008, 14:15

Reports now that the aircraft made an RTO earlier, went back to the gate for inspection then went out again for another attempt...

One9iner

20th Aug 2008, 14:16

Journo speaking to BBC from Madrid saying that the plane aborted first attempt at take off - returned for mechanical check.. on the second attempt reports of an explosion, aircraft has come to rest between two runways..

Pilotinmydreams

20th Aug 2008, 14:24

Dreadful news to hear of this tragedy. As someone not involved in aviation in any way, so not in the know at all, do you as pilots receive information when events such as this happen to enable you to try and avoid similar incidents? Not wanting to remove from the tragedy involved, I would have thought it a good learning experience for you as professionals.

TioMatt

20th Aug 2008, 14:26

Madrid government has confirmed 7 deads.

TV reports:
Flight Spanair JK5022, destination Las Palmas (GCLP).
After rejected take-off plane was inspected by TMA and during second attempt, engine #1 starts firing and plane crashed near runway.

GhostofCain

20th Aug 2008, 14:27

25 dead, 57 injured according to the latest reports.

oversteer

20th Aug 2008, 14:27

As always in the early stages the witnesses are of varying reliability and have varying language capabilities.

The only people who know what's really going on are probably a bit busy onsite right now.

StainesFS

20th Aug 2008, 14:33

Journalist on BBC just stated that a/c took off at 14:35. Flight Stats quote runway departure as 14:14 and gate departure as 13:09. 14:35 was possibly the second, disasterous take off and 14:14 the first, aborted attempt. The interval between gate departure and the first take off attempt seems a long time, or is this typical at Madrid? Alternatively, does it suggest problems even before the first take off attempt?

SFS

GhostofCain

20th Aug 2008, 14:34

At least 25 dead according to official sources.

co22

20th Aug 2008, 14:35

Is it just my imagination but do the MD-8x range seem to be involved in more accidents than other types of aircraft?

Terrible news to read.

Defruiter

20th Aug 2008, 14:35

BBC said it was delayed for over an hour before the first take off - They said no idea why.

Desertia

20th Aug 2008, 14:39

Latest figure 148 fatalities.:sad:

One9iner

20th Aug 2008, 14:39

BBC no stating from reuters via an emergency services source -

ALL but 25 people of 175 are feared dead...

Defruiter

20th Aug 2008, 14:39

Reuters reporting all but 25 died now

the grim repa

20th Aug 2008, 14:41

flight international reporting iminent spanair industrial action due to imminent job losses.wonder if this was a contributing factor to the pilots and staff state of mind.

LARS DORDERS

20th Aug 2008, 14:41

JK5022 left the gate 5mins late at 1305LT, subsequently returned to ramp
at 1342 and new ETD set at 1425LT. Delay due to 'technical defects'

westie

20th Aug 2008, 14:42

I agree with previous posts. The Media are a disgrace at the moment with what they are reporting. Mindless garbage is a phrase that comes to mind. One report actually mentioned the fact the a/c didn't have the chance even to 'dump fuel' over the Atlantic. That's just sensationalist as this a/c cannot dump fuel.

In answer to a previous question.... yes we discuss all previous accident reports and try to learn from them.

My thoughts are with the families of those on board. This is so sad.

GhostofCain

20th Aug 2008, 14:45

46 dead according to CNN+ Spain.

Defruiter

20th Aug 2008, 14:45

45 confirmed dead by the Government

Froglet

20th Aug 2008, 14:46

Tragic in whatever circumstances.

However, why do ill informed people on here keep regurtitating so called "facts" that they have lifted from even less well informed media sources?

Unless you have concrete and accurate information, why post anything?

Rant over.

F

B747-800

20th Aug 2008, 14:47

BBC reports 150 people dead! Is that true?

Tyres O'Flaherty

20th Aug 2008, 14:53

''it just my imagination but do the MD-8x range seem to be involved in more accidents than other types of aircraft?''

yes it is your imagination I think, the Dc/Md 9/80 series has an respectable safety record,easily comparable with anything similar.

You may be mistaking the fact that it is still a very widely used a/c.

GhostofCain

20th Aug 2008, 14:53

A Red Cross representative is reporting 45 dead, but this will probably not be the final number of casualties.

cal900

20th Aug 2008, 14:54

"flight international reporting iminent spanair industrial action due to imminent job losses.wonder if this was a contributing factor to the pilots and staff state of mind."

What are you trying to say? :confused:

Defruiter

20th Aug 2008, 14:55

Statement from Spanair

Spanair regrets to confirm that its flight number JK 5022, from Madrid to Las Palmas de Gran Canarias was involved in an incident at Madrid, at 14.45 hrs local time today.
JK is a code share* flight with Lufthansa LH 2554
Spanair is doing everything possible to assist the Spanish authorities at this difficult time, and has established a local help-line number for relatives or friends of those who may have been on board.
The number is. +34 800 400 200
Spanair will provide further information as soon as it becomes available.

davidash

20th Aug 2008, 14:57

Spanish Govt saying 45 dead with 19 serious injuries - at this stage. The other extreme is only 25 survivours which would leave about 150 fatalities. Terrible news.

OFSO

20th Aug 2008, 14:58

Spanish TV currently saying 45 dead.
Catalan TV saying 20 dead.

One is too many. God rest their souls.

skytrax

20th Aug 2008, 14:59

reuters says that only 25 ppl alive.

jewitts

20th Aug 2008, 15:03

Danish press reports (Berlingske Tidende) saying that only 25 out of 175 survived the crash. Headlines say 148 dead.

JM340

20th Aug 2008, 15:05

Hi all,

Sad day at LEMD. First departures now , RWY 36R is now open for departures. RWY36L closed ufn. The crash site is in between both runways. Emergency equipment and helicopters are still working the area, evacuating wounded and extinguising fire on the ground.

JM

PassengerDan

20th Aug 2008, 15:05

It isn't new. Someone else can provide exact details but as the MD87 and 88 are in service I think it's safe to conclude that the 82 is "fairly" old.

captainspeaking

20th Aug 2008, 15:06

This is the only 100% reliable information so far since its comes direct from a Press Release. I have the same release from SAS and from Spanair themselves. When the next official release arrives on my desk I'll post it.

fearnot

20th Aug 2008, 15:06

for this being a Lufthansa code share flight, Lufthanse really takes a VERY long time to respond.

Checking the Lufthansa flight number on their website (LH 2554) reports that the flight has been canceld.

B747-800

20th Aug 2008, 15:07

EuroInvestor.co.uk - SAS: Regarding Spanair flight JK 5022 (http://www.euroinvestor.co.uk/news/shownewsstory.aspx?storyid=9938106)

SAS: Regarding Spanair flight JK 502220/08/2008 - 14:59
Regarding Spanair flight JK 5022

SAS Group regrets to confirm that one of its Spanair aircraft, anMD-80, with flight number JK 5022 from Madrid to Las Palmas was involved in an accident at Madrid Barajas Airport.

No further details of the accident are available at the moment. SAS is doing everything possible to help passengers and next-of-kin and to assist Spanish authorities at this difficult time.

A special phone number for next-of-kin will be released as soon as possible. SAS will provide further information as soon as it becomes available, see www.flysas.com

The media information center can be contacted at the following number: +46 8 797 29 44

SAS Group Corporate Communications

Lauderdale

20th Aug 2008, 15:07

If it is EC-HFP:

C/N 2072MSN 53148MD-82EC-HFPexKorean Air (http://www.ch-aviation.ch/airlinepage.php?code1=KE)HL7548Korean Air (http://www.ch-aviation.ch/airlinepage.php?code1=KE)

geoffreper

20th Aug 2008, 15:08

Latest reports sugests that 45 are now dead through engine fire

jotape

20th Aug 2008, 15:16

sorry to bear bad news and yes its "only" the press
although El Mundo seems to have been accurate on the (awful) details of this crash ahead of all other news outlets
they must have their sources

what they are saying is that only about 20 survivors, rest died in the aircraft fire - specific reports from emergency service personnels entering the shell of the plane after fire died down and seeing only carbonised bodies

as a veteran SLF, would like to know where the survivors were sitting - instinctively would assume in the front as MD engines are in the back

captainspeaking

20th Aug 2008, 15:22

Statement on Accident JK 5022 Routed Madrid – Las Palmas
SAS Group can confirm that a Spanair flight JK 5022, was involved in an accident at Madrid Barajas Airport today.

The aircraft, an MD-82, was en route from Madrid to Las Palmas when the accident occurred, at 14:23 hrs local time. We can confirm that there were 166 passengers and six (6) crew onboard.

JK 5022 is a code- share* flight with Lufthansa flight number LH255.

Information about possible casualties is not yet available, however SAS is doing everything possible to help passengers and next-of-kin and to assist Spanish authorities at this difficult time. A team of specially-trained SAS Group personel is being assembled in Madrid.
The names of the passengers and crew on board will not be released until the next-of-kin have been notified.

Spanair has a direct phone number to attend passengers' family of the flight JK 5022: +34 800 400 200. At the moment this telephone number is only working within Spain.

Also see SAS Group homepage for information: www.sasgroup.net (http://www.sasgroup.net/)

* Code- share- When two or more airlines state their flight number in the timetable for
the same flight, while only one of the airlines operates the flight.

SAS Group Corporate Communications

Note to editors: We ask journalists not to call the passenger phone number, as a separate media center has been established. The media information center can be contacted at the following numbers: +46 8 797 2081, 797 48 93, 797 12 92

B747-800

20th Aug 2008, 15:27

The spokes women of SAS - mother company of SPANAIR - is excellent. She does not FUEL speculations despite being pushed by BBC reporters.

Great handling from her end of this case!

RunwayBlueOne

20th Aug 2008, 15:27

This is really horrible. Is Barajas closed indefinitely?

bonfire

20th Aug 2008, 15:27

For those of a strong disposition, canarias7 have a picture of a badly-burned survivor on their main page. From the looks of it, the burns would show that most people did not stand a chance.

curi

20th Aug 2008, 15:29

Barajas continue operating, remember have 2 runways for take off and 2 for land

kpod

20th Aug 2008, 15:30

An MD-82 landed safely after an engine fire which affected hydraulics last september in Louisiana.

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/294092-engine-fire-st-louis-plane-evacuated.html

(i realize it's a very common aircraft so i'm not saying there's a connection but it is a very similar incident)

thcrozier

20th Aug 2008, 15:32

The Spanish newspaper El Mundo is reporting that only 28 people were evacuated alive. Souls on board 166 passengers, 6 crew.

XPMorten

20th Aug 2008, 15:33

If EC-HFP is the aircraft involved, first flight was 01.11.1993.
First delivered to Korean Air as HL7204 18.11.1993
Serial number 53148 LN:2072.

M

ChristiaanJ

20th Aug 2008, 15:35

El Mundo, 17:22 CET
"MADRID.- El avión JKK 5022 viajaba con 178 personas a bordo, entre pasajeros y tripulantes. Sólo 27 personas han podido ser evacuadas de la nave con vida. Se encuentran en estado crítico y uno de ellos ha fallecido durante el traslado al hospital."
178 people on board. Only 27 people escaped, some in a critical state. One died on the way to hospital.

Video shows lots of white smoke, presumably from burning dry grass and brush (mentioned in another Spanish news item), which must have made access even more difficult....

tom de luxe

20th Aug 2008, 15:36

elmundo.es quotes rescue teams who describe the plane as being "full of charred bodies", and the survivors as "critically wounded". According to the report, the fire crews couldn't enter the hull for some time because of the heat generated by the fire, and had to summon a fire brigade helicopter to extinguish the flames.
:uhoh:

oliver2002

20th Aug 2008, 15:42

Full details on EC-HFP are here: Spanair EC-HFP (McDonnell Douglas MD-80/90) (Ex HL7204 HL7548 ) - Airfleets (http://www.airfleets.net/ficheapp/plane-md80-53148.htm)

BestWasGod

20th Aug 2008, 15:44

Just for your info. There is a regulation on arrivals running until 2300 utc at a rate of 20 per hour, giving 12000 mins delay, with up to 250 mins per flight. They are using a contingency departure procedure to try to manage the airfield, and departures are suffering no ATC delays. But the situation from the point of view of delays is really insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

Archimedes

20th Aug 2008, 15:45

The spokes women of SAS - mother company of SPANAIR - is excellent. She does not FUEL speculations despite being pushed by BBC reporters.

Great handling from her end of this case!

Agreed. She didn't take any BS from the BBC news anchor.

If further illustration of how it might be an idea if the 24 hour media waited a bit before causing confusion were needed, the dear old Beeb, having fuelled speculation of dozens dead, about two minutes ago switched to running a ticker saying 'Reports suggests dozens walked away unhurt'.

captainspeaking

20th Aug 2008, 15:46

http://www.pprune.org/cid:http://www.waymaker.se/logos/spanairlogga.gif
Regarding flight number JK 5022
Spanair regrets to confirm that 164 passengers and 9 crew were on board its flight JK5022, which was involved in an accident in Madrid today.

The accident occurred at 14:45 local time during take off, aircraft type MD-82.

The names of the passengers and crew on board the aircraft will not be released until all family have been notified, and a special help-line number has been established for relatives and friends seeking information about those who may have been on board. The number is +34 800 400 200. A team of specially trained Spanair personnel is being assembled in Palma de Mallorca, and will fly to Madrid later today to provide support and assistance at the scene.

Information on the number of people involved is not yet available, but Spanair is doing everything possible to help the Spanish authorities at this difficult time.

Spanair will provide further information as soon as it becomes available and will hold a press conference at 17:30 local time at the Meliá Avenida de America hotel in Madrid.

Also see Spanair homepage for information at: www.spanair.com (http://www.spanair.com/)

OpusFRA

20th Aug 2008, 15:50

The Spanair departure ex FRA to MAD has now got an approved slot of 2007z against a sked dep of 1550z - so looks like the field is open but barely functioning, as one would expect.

cargoflyer

20th Aug 2008, 15:51

sad news indeed...
might just want to remind everyone that an Iberia "mad-dogs" had an engine failure/blown tyre about 2 weeks ago on a flight out of Vienna (LOWW)... circled for some time to burn of fuel and landed successfully. Hate to see a "deja-vu" effect on this one...

updated: correct airline to Iberia and not JKK being involved in the LOWW incident :ugh:

thcrozier

20th Aug 2008, 15:52

From El Mundo: "Según su relato, tan sólo 28 de los pasajeros del avión pudieron salir con vida y se encuentran en estado crítico. "El resto, todos muertos"

"According to his (an airport official's) report, only 28 people were able to exit the airplane alive, all in critical condition. 'The rest, all dead'."

oliver2002

20th Aug 2008, 15:58

The arrival and departures are pretty decent considering one RWY closed: (MAD) Barajas Airport Departures, Arrivals, and Information (http://www.flightstats.com/go/Airport/airportDetails.do?airportCode=MAD)

kwick

20th Aug 2008, 15:59

Scores feared dead in Madrid plane crash

Reports say up to 150 people killed when airliner swerved off runway at Barajas airport

<LI class=byline>David Batty (http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/davidbatty) and James Sturcke (http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/jamessturcke) <LI class=publication>guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/),
Wednesday August 20 2008 16:27 BST
Article history
Link to this video (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2008/aug/20/madridplanecrash)
Video of the crash scene Up to 150 people are feared dead after a plane overshot the runway at Madrid's Barajas airport, according to Spanish media reports.
Only 25 people of the 173 passengers survived when the Spanair flight JK 5022 crashed after swerving off the runway near the airport's terminal four, according to the Reuters news agency.
Spanish national radio and the El País (http://www.elpais.com/) newspaper reported that 45 people had been confirmed dead, citing the Spanish government as the source. Another 19 were said to be in a critical condition, with 25 suffering from lighter wounds.
Spanair, the country's second largest carrier, said the crash happened at 2.45pm (1.45pm BST). The flight was bound for Las Palmas, in Gran Canaria. Among the passengers on board the rear-engined MD82 plane were two children.
The flight had a code-sharing arrangement with the Lufthansa flight LH255, indicating there may have been many Germans on board.
Reports suggested the incident happened after the plane attempted to take off for a second time. Some observers said one of the left engines caught fire as the plane accelerated, causing it to swing off track. The plane reportedly broke in two.
The airport has been closed, with arriving passengers being turned away. Reporters at the scene said the terminal building had filled up with people either looking for information about relatives on the flight or caught up in the travel disruption.
Unconfirmed reports said the flight had been due to take off at 1pm and left the departure gate at 1.05pm, but returned just over half an hour later.
An official with the Madrid emergency rescue service, Samur, said crews were removing injured people and bodies from the plane. "It is certain catastrophe," the official said on condition of anonymity. Eleven fire engines were reportedly at the scene.
The Spanish prime minister, José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, broke off his holiday to return to Madrid.
Madrid's terminal four was designed by the British architect Richard Rogers (http://www.richardrogers.co.uk/render.aspx?siteID=1&navIDs=1,6,12,1189) and opened to the public in 2006. It carries many of the European and long-haul flights and is a stopover for thousands of passengers travelling within Spain and to South America.
Around 60 million passengers use Barajas airport, which is located about 10 miles north-east of central Madrid.
An emergency telephone number was launched for relatives of people on the flights. Spanish radio said it was being inundated by calls from people complaining that the number was permanently engaged.

Duck Rogers

20th Aug 2008, 15:59

Folks.

Can you please stop posting variations on the 'XXX dead. XX survivors' theme? Just about every permutation of the numbers has been given earlier in the thread.

The fact that some of you see fit to create new personae for this purpose is somewhat bemusing.

Duck

moley

20th Aug 2008, 16:00

Really sorry to hear about this, lets all remember though that the press'll be all over this thread asking 'could it be?/'what do you think' questions that will be put into the tabloids so less of the stupid comments by some please..

OpusFRA

20th Aug 2008, 16:03

"The flight had a code-sharing arrangement with the Lufthansa flight LH255, indicating there may have been many Germans on board".

That's not really how codeshares work is it now ? Just because it has a codeshare flightnumber doesn't mean it is going to be packed with nationals of that country. God the press can be annoying sometimes...

marciovp

20th Aug 2008, 16:06

MD-82. Isn´t this plane the refurbished and stretched old Douglas DC-9?

Re-Heat

20th Aug 2008, 16:10

Not refurbished, new. Just as the 737-800 is derived from the 737-100

captainspeaking

20th Aug 2008, 16:11

In the good old days (i.e. when I was young) all newspapers as well as the broadcast media has an "Air Correspondent". Usually ex-service pilotsand/or engineers, they knew what they were talking about and were invariably extremely sensitive when there was a fatal accident to report on. These days, seems that the first available bod gets the job, with the dismal results that we've all seen and heard over the past few days.

StephenD

20th Aug 2008, 16:14

jotape

20th Aug 2008, 16:16

sorry not meaning to contradict the moderator, but perhaps its useful to summarise the two facts that seem to stand out, mainly because enough time has passed now:

SAS spokesperson (who we all seem to agree is very reliable) said 172 souls on board

consistent local reports saying only 28 evacuated (its the same number in all Spanish media at the moment, as is based on confirmed hospital reports), again should be reliable at this stage, one of whom died

therefore do the maths: = 145 dead

the rest of speculation is due to crappy reporting, as well as the standard practise of announcing the number of dead according to actual bodies recovered

again as a SLF I am interested to know which section the survivors came from (one post about it being safer at the back sound like nonsense to me given thats where the engines are !)

vanHorck

20th Aug 2008, 16:19

be carefull, there s also an emergency hospital at the airport, could be more survivors, so lets wait!

Duck Rogers

20th Aug 2008, 16:19

jo

You've not seen how many posts we've had to delete because they were either irrelevent, inappropriate or (as I said above) from people merely logging in to quote some numbers they just heard without even bothering to read the rest of the thread. It clouds the subject for those seeking genuine information.

Duck

OpusFRA

20th Aug 2008, 16:23

Spanair doesn't operate FRA-MAD-LPA - they have 3 FRA-MAD flights per day feeding onto all other JK MAD departures throughout the JK system. The LPA flight only has an LH codeshare because Spanair is a Star Alliance member. It is more than possible that German nationals were onboard but there are a lot of direct FRA-LPA flights in summer so I dont think it would be a large number.

Antman

20th Aug 2008, 16:24

This is very sad.
What gets me it looks like over running has lead the airplane to crash off an elevated runway end which I'm sure is responsible for the seriousness of this accident.
When are ICAO EASA etc going to mandate Engineered Material Arresting Systems at the end of all runways. If this was in place in Madrid then this would be a serious incident not a fatal accident.
Airports are making record profits but refuse to spend money on these safety features and should be held accountable.
http://www.alpa.org/DesktopModules/ALPA_Documents/ALPA_DocumentsView.aspx?itemid=4255&ModuleId=2156&Tabid=256

Roger Sofarover

20th Aug 2008, 16:27

jotape

I am interested to know which section the survivors came from (one post about it being safer at the back sound like nonsense to me given thats where the engines are !)

Exactly! there isn't one. Which is why i find an 'expert' going on the BBC and stating that there is, constitutes shear stupidity. Saying sit on top of the 'black box' is a bit of a red herring, and a sure fire way to panic the public. The crash at Souix city where the aircraft did cartwheels at 200 mph saw the guys from the front walk away. Many on the media and indeed this forum should learn to be a little more considerate and brief with their words following an accident.

Max Stryker

20th Aug 2008, 16:29

Fully aware that it is too early for speculation, and with due respect to the tragedy of the event, a few points raised here have caught my attention.

As an MD-80 pilot myself, I have noticed that some guys tend to rotate the aircraft too quickly, establishing the 18-ish degree ANU a little too rapidly for their own good. Add to that the length of the airplane and the large moments involved during engine loss, and you might have a disastrous combination if the engine fails at TO, causing wing-to-wing amplitudes that take some sorting out. I have seen it on the simulator, more than once. Seeing how someone wrote that the airplane hit the ground with the wing (if that came from a reliable source)...

Not trying to assign blame based on nothing, just trying to share what I have seen before.

****ty fracking day.:(

jotape

20th Aug 2008, 16:29

of course - just thought it would be useful to summarise the hard numbers

thanks as always for your masterful moderating

MigG

20th Aug 2008, 16:30

Dear me ... Spanish TV is currently showing footage of the terrible 1977 Tenerife disaster ... what possible relevance can that have?

ChristiaanJ

20th Aug 2008, 16:41

Antman,
Re: EMAS.
So far only the very first news reports mention an 'overrun'. The aircraft seems to have ended up between the runways. So 'EMAS' is irrelevant for the moment. Let's keep this on topic?

jotape

20th Aug 2008, 16:44

although MAD seems to be blessed by a lot of space (as compared to my home airport LHR...), since the expansion I can't help thinking that the runways are designed a little strangely and somewhat not reassuringly

I mean just imagine if this flight was taking off in the other direction, or going east-west from one of the older runways - we would be talking not only Spanair but also crash into terminals and/or parked aircraft

ADDED DETAIL:

crash took place on 36L, but same runway other way round (18R) would mean crashing into parked aircraft (if in straight line), hangars, and even pax terminals if veered of straight line

same potential issue if taking off from 33L or 15L

note: this is because of the rather peculiar way of constructing the new terminal/satellite pretty much at the end of the older runways - not really the way most new or updated airports are built !!

xolodenko

20th Aug 2008, 16:44

Looks like the deadliest ever involving a MD-8X?

Duck Rogers

20th Aug 2008, 16:48

kwick.

If you're going to quote me please do so properly. I did not write that casualty figures were irrelevant. Kindly correct your post or acknowledge its inaccuracy.

As I just explained to someone who (politely) enquired via PM the moderators have deleted dozens of posts from people simply logging in to post some numbers they got from the media (similar numbers already having been posted several times before). The very same media that dozens of others have logged in to berate. Anyone else see the irony here?

On some pages these superfluous posts would have outnumbered the pertinent ones had they been left unmoderated. Most members here would prefer not to have to wade through such verbiage.

Duck

wileydog3

20th Aug 2008, 16:48

Thanks, Duck.. keep weeding out the 'weeds' in this thread.

alexmcfire

20th Aug 2008, 16:48

Xolo, I doubt it, here´s the list of all MD-8x accidents,
Aviation Safety Network > ASN Aviation Safety Database > Aircraft type index > McDonnell Douglas MD-80 (http://aviation-safety.net/database/type/type.php?type=351-8)

BestWasGod

20th Aug 2008, 16:53

Just a quick update on the current situation at Barajas. The landing rate is now 25/60, and the total delay is 15600 mins. Most a/c experiencing approx 120 mins. Departures not regulated, and running at about 25/60 also.

Hiflyer1757

20th Aug 2008, 17:01

Best I can figure out going thru the thread a few times:

Statement on Accident JK 5022 Routed Madrid – Las Palmas
SAS Group can confirm that a Spanair flight JK 5022, was involved in an accident at Madrid Barajas Airport today.

The aircraft, an MD-82, was en route from Madrid to Las Palmas when the accident occurred. We can confirm that there were 166 passengers and six (6) crew onboard.

The accident occurred at 14:45 local time during take off, aircraft type MD-82.

JK 5022 is a code- share* flight with Lufthansa flight number LH255.
----------------------------------------
JK5022 left the gate 5mins late at 1305LT, subsequently returned to ramp
at 1342 and new ETD set at 1425LT. Delay due to 'technical defects
---------------------------------------------
EC-HFP C/N 2072MSN 53148MD-82EC-HFPexKorean AirHL7548Korean Air

-----------------------------------------------------------
From the news and videos
Aircraft veered off runway
There was a fire
The hull is broken apart

Additions??

The Bartender

20th Aug 2008, 17:02

Looks like the deadliest ever involving a MD-8X?No, it ranks as third deadliest, if the reported numbers are valid...

1. Inex Adria Aviopromet, 1981, 180 fatalities. (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19811201-1)
2. West Caribbean Airways, 2005, 160 fatalities. (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20050816-0)
3. Spanair, 2008, 140+ fatalities. (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20080820-0)

OpusFRA

20th Aug 2008, 17:04

Again not wanting to upset anyone, but in reference to the last post - Spanish press are reporting 164 passengers/2 Infants and 9 crew (which seems a lot) for total of 175. Otherwise all looks pretty concise.

bobwi

20th Aug 2008, 17:05

Jotape, in Madrid there are never take offs in the direction of the terminal. Take offs are either from runway 36, or runway 15, always away from the terminal.

I was at the airport today and it was very impressive. Very sad. I have flown many times with Spanair and I know people who work there.

And there are still many family members who don't know what happened to their loved ones.

It is all very sad.....

On a animation on local television here they show that the complete tail broke off. But that is just animation off course.

Christodoulidesd

20th Aug 2008, 17:11

nonemmet

20th Aug 2008, 17:15

The METAR history leading up to the accident (1245z) as follows:

LEMD 201300Z 14004KT CAVOK 29/03 Q1018 NOSIG=
LEMD 201230Z 18007KT 090V240 CAVOK 28/02 Q1018 NOSIG=
LEMD 201200Z 35002KT CAVOK 28/06 Q1019 NOSIG=
LEMD 201130Z 16005KT CAVOK 27/08 Q1019 NOSIG=
LEMD 201100Z 17002KT CAVOK 26/09 Q1019 NOSIG=

The news video footage suggests a 15L/R departure, can anyone confirm?

Red_Dwarf

20th Aug 2008, 17:17

The accident was near Terminal 4, so I guess it was a northerly departure.

ChristiaanJ

20th Aug 2008, 17:25

The METAR history leading up to the accident...Thanks for the info. Put it in the dossier, even if we already knew weather was not really an issue.
CJ

armchairpilot94116

20th Aug 2008, 17:26

147 killed in plane crash at Madrid airport - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080820/ap_on_re_eu/spain_airport_accident)

coineach

20th Aug 2008, 17:30

I just wonder if the engine problem was similar to the British Airways 737-200 at Manchester several years ago? That was caused, as far as I remember by a ruptured combustion chamber and had been 'checked' by engineers prior to the flight. The 737-200 and MD-82 has the same type of engines.

Red_Dwarf

20th Aug 2008, 17:32

Quote:
Originally Posted by nonemmet
The METAR history leading up to the accident...

Thanks for the info. Put it in the dossier, even if we already knew weather was not really an issue.
-

I think he was enquiring as to which runway was in use.

drivez

20th Aug 2008, 17:34

Sky news now reporting the MD-80 series to have a poor safety record?:confused:

The Bartender

20th Aug 2008, 17:36

Here's some details.

DOJK5022
* OPERATIONAL FLIGHT INFO * JK5022 0 WE 20AUG
CITY INFO HOUR (LOCAL)
MAD LEFT THE GATE 1305
AIRCRAFT RETURNED TO RAMP 1342
ESTIMATED TIME OF DEPARTURE 1425
DELAY AIRCRAFT DEFECTS

* 1A PLANNED FLIGHT INFO * JK5022 0 WE 20AUG
APT ARR DY DEP DY CLASS/MEAL EQP GRND EFT TTL
MAD 1300 WE CDJZY/H UB/G M82 2:55
MHQVLTWKESG/G
N/G
LPA 1455 WE 2:55

Dairyground

20th Aug 2008, 17:37

Given the apparent intensity of the cabin fire, is the chemical-reaction-based emergency oxygen system likely to have made it worse than it might have been? The other side of the Quantas escaping bottle debate.

For those whose interests lie that way, I note that there is already a thread in "Passengers and SLF" dealing with the safest place to sit (on the floor at home?).

Util BUS

20th Aug 2008, 17:40

con-pilot

20th Aug 2008, 17:44

A couple of questions.

Does anyone know the speed the aircraft reached on the first aborted takeoff?

Time period between the abort and second takeoff?

Thank you.

wileydog3

20th Aug 2008, 17:45

The 737-200 and MD-82 has the same type of engines.

No, not really. The 737-200 used the straight JT8D with variants of the -7, -9 and -15 engines. The MD-80 uses the JT8D-200 series specifically the -217 and -219 variants.

I've shut down a number of the earlier engines but none of the -200 series JT8Ds

JT8D / JT8D-200, JT8D-217, JT8D-219 (http://www.deagel.com/Turbofan-Engines/JT8D_a001746001.aspx)

Max Stryker

20th Aug 2008, 17:45

MigG

20th Aug 2008, 17:46

From careful analysis of the footage here in Spain, it seems that the aircraft came to rest in a deep gully/riverline below runway level (hence not viewable by news crews), and beyond the displaced threshold of runway 18R. It appears to be a little to the right of the extended centreline of 36L.

Wirelock

20th Aug 2008, 17:50

how does an ex-iberia pilot know what things are like in Spanair.. really Iberia pilots should worry about their own standards like the air nostrum pilot who 'forgot' to extend his landing gear when landing in BCN not so long ago.

On the topic of the crash... (i start with a capital IF) IF this flight already had a rejected takeoff then there must be some questions on how the aircraft was released at all.... surely if MX had peformed a high powered engine run the fault would have reappeared. then maybe the engine might have been destroyed but nobody would have died... just my thoughts

The Bartender

20th Aug 2008, 17:50

Time period between the abort and second takeoff?

Apparently 1:20, according to the two departure-times...

SAS-Group CEO attending a televised pressconference in Copenhagen now.

wileydog3

20th Aug 2008, 17:50

From what I have heard Spanair have a bit of a cowboy reputation in Spain.

Didn't Spanair recently pass an IATA inspection?

Red_Dwarf

20th Aug 2008, 17:56

Someone was asking what runway it was. Based on what I saw (north configuration, a/c went off to the left, seems to have ended up between runways), I would say 36R. Seems to be the one we're always using.

Thoughts?

You could be right, but I reckon it was 36L, as on some of the news reports you could see some departures (an EZY and a Air Europa) in the background, maybe from 36R?

cdie

20th Aug 2008, 17:59

I know, a minor detail, but the LH codeshare number for this flight is LH2554 (LH255 is a domestic Berlin-Dusseldorf flight).

skytrax

20th Aug 2008, 18:02

update
146 dead ppl
26 injured
3 missing

164 pax on board+ 2 infants
9 crew members

Max Stryker

20th Aug 2008, 18:03

You could be right, which begs the question: how did the a/c go off to the right if the left engine failed?

Guess we'll have more details in a while.

Bridge Builder

20th Aug 2008, 18:20

Good point Antman. It takes big accidents for ICAO to wake up and do anything. That’s why it took the Uberlingen tragedy for ICAO to sort out the TCAS confusion, despite several nasty near misses. ICAO don’t listen to the warning signs until something major happens.

assymetricdrift

20th Aug 2008, 18:23

Without meaning to speculate on this any further than is necessary:

The maps and footage appear to show that the aircraft has veered to the right of the runway that was being used at Madrid. Previous eyewitness reports and media reports have mentioned a "failure" or "problem" with the number 1 engine.

If it was the number 1 engine, then according to a basic knowledge of moments and couples, I would have suspected that the aircraft would have backed to the left hand side of the runway and not to the right?

I suspect that unfortunately, we are all going to have to wade through rivers of sensationalistic journalist reporting on this accident. The fact is that this is a terrible tragedy and all my condolences go to the families involved.

bobwi

20th Aug 2008, 18:24

It was a take off from runway 36L en the wreckage is between the runway 36L and 36 R at the end. (most northerly part of airport)

west lakes

20th Aug 2008, 18:25

The one point made by the BBC eyewitness is interesting, he says he talked to a Spanair employee that had been at the scene.
The report suggests that the initial crash sparked a major grass fire that "may" have prevented emergency vehicles reaching the aircraft, also claims to have seen helicopters dropping water to stem the grass fire. News shot does show a very large area of open land has been ob fire

DC9gti

20th Aug 2008, 18:29

There was no aborted take off, they got airborne and landed back at MAD due to a technical problem. The total time of the turnaround was about 45 minutes. I hope it´s not añother case of "checked on ground, OK"

wileydog3

20th Aug 2008, 18:31

I'm not a pilot so could someone tell me what happens when you're going down the runway and just as your reach this point, something happens to the aircraft. A talking head on TV said you'd take off, go round and land again.

Before takeoff you compute a number of speeds including V1, VR and V2 among them

V1 is the Velocity at which you can stop in the remaining runway or lose an engine and takeoff in the remaining runway. V1 is computed a number of different ways so Airline A may not have the same V1 for the same airplane with same conditions.

We generally break the takeoff into calls with a call coming around 80kts. This affords the crew the chance to compare information and to see that all systems are operating correctly. If there is a problem, the crew can reject. The 80kt call also is the point between a low speed and a high speed reject. Below 80, a problem is cause for reject. Above 80kts, you reject only for engine fire or engine failure.

At V1, you go. A 2 engine airplane will get airborne (according to data) and will fly on one engine. Crews are trained to go after V1, solve the problem and then land.

The likelihood that you will be able to stop the airplane on the runway after V1 becomes increasindly small. If I remember the numbers correctly, near V1, the airplane is accelerating at around 10kts/sec so any delay means less runway to stop on and more mass to arrest.

The Vr speed is the velocity at which you begin pulling the nose up (rotate) and V2 is the minimum safety speed once you get in the air.

toro11

20th Aug 2008, 18:48

To say that Spanair has a "cowboy reputation " 2 hours after the crash is an absolute disgrace.

If you just can wait for your r****t coments just after the investigation is on its way, it would be highly appreciated.

my condolences to all involved in the tragedy.

By the way, Spanair had no major incidents so far, don´t push me to give examples of other "good reputation" airlines major accidents.

Whiskey Papa

20th Aug 2008, 18:55

Sky News now quoting PPRUNE! 1945Z. Be careful, chaps.

Stuck_in_an_ATR

20th Aug 2008, 18:57

Re. the fire helicopter - one of the videos in the news showed a helo with a bambi bucket underneath. I think it's rather unusual to use them to anything other than forrest fires, which hints that a large area around caught fire, making access to the wreckage impossible...

Checkboard

20th Aug 2008, 19:00

I believe that informed speculation is well within the remit of these forums. I believe that doing so here is appropriate before any official reports are published.

Having said that, comments in the media about engines being sighted "on fire, according to eye witnesses" should definitely be taken with a grain of salt. Witnesses assume that a fiery crash is preceded by an engine on fire, and thus "remember" that as the case. There is not enough information to assume this is an engine failure accident yet.

Given that, any possible engine failure is not particularly relevant. The aircraft crashed because it lost directional control, and that is the "cause" of the crash, so any speculation should focus on why the aircraft lost directional control.

The aircraft appears to have left the side of the runway about three quarters of the way along it - easily enough to get airborne, but there is no information on how much deceleration it managed on the runway. From the information then it is still impossible to tell if the aircraft lost directional control in the air or on the ground.

So - simply too early to begin informed speculation then.

md80fanatic

20th Aug 2008, 19:05

A video "grab" from the Daily Mail....caption states "smoke pouring from the left engine"

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/08/20/article-1047380-025BA4D500000578-742_468x243.jpg

Clearly not an expert, but it does not look that abnormal to me. Perhaps this is not the aircraft in question.

alexmcfire

20th Aug 2008, 19:05

Swedish media claim that one Swedish lady is among the survivors, another Swede is missing. 4 Germans, 1 Dutch and Danish, Norwegian and Spanish citizens are reported to been onboard.

VAFFPAX

20th Aug 2008, 19:06

The reason the Spanish TV channel showed footage of the Tenerife disaster is simple. After Tenerife 1 (KLM/PanAm), this is the worst air accident yet on Spanish soil. Tenerife 2 (DanAir), Bilbão and Mejorada have all been around the 140 pax mark.

S.

repapips

20th Aug 2008, 19:06

Just out a few minutes ago...

149 dead in plane crash at Madrid airport - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080820/ap_on_re_eu/spain_airport_accident)

speedbirdconcorde

20th Aug 2008, 19:13

The previous image appears to be taken from the following and has nothing to do with the incident...

sigh...

http://www.airplane-pictures.net/images/uploaded-images/2006-9/799.jpg

BenThere

20th Aug 2008, 19:15

I don't think how old an aircraft is matters that much.

I know there are quite a few KC-135s, 747 Classics, Lear 20s and 30s, DC-9s (older than any MD-8x or 9x), B-52's...all the way back to DC-3s. All these aircraft fly safely every day, amounting to thousands of trouble-free hours. What pilot would take off an aircraft of which he questions the airworthiness?

When the aircraft go through heavy checks, they come out ready to fly for a long time, stripped clean of corrosion, wiring intact, etc. In fact, I would rather take an old DC-8, overbuilt to a fault, through a thunderstorm before I would an A320 built last year to the exacting engineering specs of today's CAD/CAM.

We don't know what happened in Madrid yet, and must wait for the investigation to find out.

I'm so sorry for the families of the deceased, the people of Spanair, the crew and all others involved. This is a devastating event. As an airline pilot, I know the potential is always there for tragedy, but I comfort myself in the probabilities.

Over 100,000 airplanes flew today. One crashed.

Diver-BR

20th Aug 2008, 19:15

Canarias7 is quoting an official source saying that none of the crew members survived.

Canarias 7. Sucesos. Director de Samur Madrid: "Hay muchos niños entre los fallecidos y toda la tripulación murió" (http://www.canarias7.com/articulo.cfm?id=106708)

A witness told El País that the aircraft climbed aprox. 200ft before going down.

Golf Charlie Charlie

20th Aug 2008, 19:17

VAFFPAX, sorry, you forgot the Avianca 747 - 180-odd. Sorry for the off-topic.

Andy Rylance

20th Aug 2008, 19:21

Question reference investigation process following accident:

I have just seen on BBC News a photo sent in by a "Madrid airport" worker where he was clearly standing right on or by the skid marks left by the aircraft on this incident.

Surely the runway is complete off limits to anyone while they investigate any material that may have come off the aircraft, or more importantly, any debris indicating something dropped from a previous aircraft that may be relevant to the investigation?

Why was someone allowed to wander around taking pictures?

VAFFPAX

20th Aug 2008, 19:23

Golf Charlie Charlie - That's Mejorada. You're right though...that makes Spanair the third-worst disaster ever.

S.

ChristiaanJ

20th Aug 2008, 19:28

e. the fire helicopter - one of the videos in the news showed a helo with a bambi bucket underneath. I think it's rather unusual to use them to anything other than forrest fires, which hints that a large area around caught fire, making access to the wreckage impossible...Both the videos (white smoke) and earlier Spanish news items seem to confirm this.

OntimeexceptACARS

20th Aug 2008, 19:43

No its not the aircraft in question. It was repainted in Star Alliance colours over last winter, and was painted as such today when it went down.

As a former dispatcher, I dispatched many JKK flights and found the crews to be professional, and the aircraft in good condition visually (obviously I'm not an engineer or airframe expert but I know a gash airframe when I see one). Only thing that the type seemed to suffer from was the passenger door seemed to regularly look a bit tatty and ill fitting, but I guess being a plug type it all tightened up in the air.

I shot the frame itself in Madrid last year, before its repaint. It looked in good nick, no oil leaks or loads of brake dust around the gear, no Fokker 100 or CRJ stylee soot marks around the tail. May have just had a paint or a wash, though.

God rest them.

OTEA

harrogate

20th Aug 2008, 19:48

MSF

20th Aug 2008, 19:50

On my way home I heard Malcolm Ginsberg on Irish radio/Today FM, laying the blame on a 'rogue engine'.

I cannot believe that any radio station would allow that kind of an idiotic statement to be issued .

Wirelock

20th Aug 2008, 19:50

i've had some information from 1 of the 1st people on the scene.
in his opinion the aircraft didnt leave the runway(take off). there was visible skid marks from the aircraft in the ground. also the thrust reversers were seperated from the rest of the aircraft, and stuck in the ground which means they were deployed so the crew were trying to abort the take off.

the aircraft returned to stand because of a false reading on the engine instruments(ram air temperature), which(speculation follws).... could have caused the good engine to not have enough thrust to take off.

the procedure as i am told for this engine is if you have an engine fire you keep thrust applied... take off reach a flight level and then enact the engine fire procedure... fire handle, fire bottles ... etc... then you try to land... in this case it seems not to have happenend

satpak77

20th Aug 2008, 19:58

any similarity between this and the AA engine failure on takeoff in New York a few weeks ago?

LaGuardia flight lands after engine failure -- Newsday.com (http://www.newsday.com/ny-liair0805,0,2837895.story)

Farrell

20th Aug 2008, 19:58

Have been informed that aircraft returned to stand at MAD due engine problem and was checked by an engineer on the ground.

7574ever

20th Aug 2008, 20:04

I don't know if someone already noticed this, but the NTSB has already sent an investigation team to Madrid, so I guess they might think it has something to do with the AA incident. Or maybe they always do it, not really sure.

forget

20th Aug 2008, 20:06

US built airframe and engines - NTSB will attend.

eif

20th Aug 2008, 20:08

the team always consists of local, operator, engine manufacturer, plane manufacturer representatives and agencies.

hetfield

20th Aug 2008, 20:08

NTSB ?

American brand aircraft.!

Normal procedure me thinks....

pee

20th Aug 2008, 20:09

After the accident, Swedish news agencies have already expressed their fears about the impact this accident might have on SAS Group's reputation for safety. Obviously, on their failing economy as well. Last week, when SAS presented its interim report, Spanair appeared as the biggest economic problem and a heavy financial burden for them. The situation can deteriorate even further now.

peter we

20th Aug 2008, 20:17

I don't think how old an aircraft is matters that much.

I know there are quite a few KC-135s, 747 Classics, Lear 20s and 30s, DC-9s (older than any MD-8x or 9x), B-52's...all the way back to DC-3s. All these aircraft fly safely every day, amounting to thousands of trouble-free hours. What pilot would take off an aircraft of which he questions the airworthiness?

When the aircraft go through heavy checks, they come out ready to fly for a long time, stripped clean of corrosion, wiring intact, etc. In fact, I would rather take an old DC-8, overbuilt to a fault, through a thunderstorm before I would an A320 built last year to the exacting engineering specs of today's CAD/CAM.

The age of an aircraft matter a lot.

Older aircraft crash more and suffer from more issues due to age and design features.

redout

20th Aug 2008, 20:21

CNN+ here in Madrid are just at to playing there computer generated reenactment of what they are reporting happened.The reenactment showed aircraft taking off on 36L climbing somewhat, explosion then veers off to the right. Hits the ground and continues on a few hundred metres at about 45 degrees from the runway centreline and comes to a rest.

Carnage Matey!

20th Aug 2008, 20:25

...................and is probably 100% fabricated based on unreliable eye witness information and some flight sim enthusiasts imagination.

virginpaul

20th Aug 2008, 20:25

ontimeexceptACARS
QUOTE
"I shot the frame itself in Madrid last year, before its repaint. It looked in good nick, no oil leaks or loads of brake dust around the gear, no Fokker 100 or CRJ stylee soot marks around the tail. May have just had a paint or a wash, though."
UNQUOTE

I stand agast at some of the comments I read on these topics. When on earth did an oil leak (and you know it's a leak and not an overspill during last top up do you?), excessive brake dust (what do you think happens to the brake pad segments when the brakes are applied??) and sooty marks around an engine's exhausts signify a badly maintained airframe??
Some I work are filthy - but are the safest things I've been near - they just desperatly need a good wash (and would get one if not for the tight flying schedule).

Please; conjecture is the greatest enemy of the truth. Lets keep it both professional and informed here if we can.

An Engineer.

AES

20th Aug 2008, 20:26

From Post No. 166:
QUOTE: Older aircraft crash more and suffer from more issues due to age and design features.
UNQUOTE:

Like many here I've seen more than my fair share of idiotic, generalised, sweeping statements on this net. But this one probably deserves an award for downright stupidity, never mind "Crass of the Year"!!!!

Obviously this poster has never heard of "Grandfather's Axe - more's the pity, but perhaps I can use it on his person if I ever meet him.

(Yes, this net is called "Rumours" - but it's also called "Professional"! The above comment was IMHO everything else other than "professional).

Rant over

tocamak

20th Aug 2008, 20:32

From what I have heard Spanair have a bit of a cowboy reputation in Spain.

Was on a TRI course in Madrid last month and in the words of an ex-Iberia pilot "Spanair are an accident waiting to happen."

His views were mainly based on the company culture rather than anything specific. Sorry to see his words come true in such short time, and I can only hope that new ICAO legislation coming into effect 2009 regarding Quality and Safety systems continues to improve aviation in the future.

Some people seem to relish spouting this pious @rap at every opportunity and no doubt pontificate on all subjects. No doubt the relatives will be relieved to learn their loved ones didn't perish in his well run airline. One hopes that pride doesn't go before a fall in this case.

PlankBlender

20th Aug 2008, 20:32

I'm not sure where you're getting your information, but the sweeping statement that older aircraft crash more often is not sustainable IMHO.

Older, well-maintained aircraft are no less safe than new models, given comparable avionics and other systems.

It may be the case that globally older aircraft crash more, but I would throw the argument into the ring that when one looks at age in conjunction with operator and country of operation, one will find that a significant number of old machines fly in countries where aviation oversight and maintenance standards are lower than in the rest of the world..

As to the events in question, I wonder why the machine veered off the runway with what seems like useable runway ahead.. surely one-engine take-off training would drill it into the pilots to keep it on the straight and narrow first of all..

BeechNut

20th Aug 2008, 20:33

No, it ranks as third deadliest, if the reported numbers are valid...

1. Inex Adria Aviopromet, 1981, 180 fatalities.
2. West Caribbean Airways, 2005, 160 fatalities.
3. Spanair, 2008, 140+ fatalities.

That would in fact make it the 4th deadliest (a bit ghoulish I know, this sort of "contest").

Third would be Northwest 255, Detroit, 1987, 154 fatalities on board, 2 on the ground. Cause of accident was failure of the crew to set flaps/slats for takeoff, and a few other holes in the swiss cheese that lined up to get them there.

That said, I was quite taken aback by this headline:

"Accident History Of MD-80 Series: The MD-82 plane that crashed in Madrid is part of an aircraft series that has a history blighted with accidents. "

from Sky News (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Madrid-Plane-Crash-MD-80-Series-Accident-History/Article/200808315083166?lpos=World%2BNews_1&lid=ARTICLE_15083166_Madrid%2BPlane%2BCrash%253A%2BMD-80%2BSeries%2BAccident%2BHistory)

I guess it wouldn't do for a reporter to actually look up the facts before sensationalizing...

Fatal event rate per million flights:

Boeing (!) MD80/90 0.24
CRJ 0.24
737 all models 0.37
737NG 0.14
A320 series 0.15
737-300/400/500 (contemporary to the MD80) 0.20
Fokker 70/100 0.46
757 0.32
767 0.41
747 0.79

As at the end of 2006; I doubt the stats have changed radically since then.

just to give a random pick. The MD80 series thus compares well with its contemporaries. Source: Airsafe.com (http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/rate_mod.htm)

Beech

BFountain

20th Aug 2008, 20:42

Since the end of 2006, there have been three further total loss crashes involving MD-80 series, including today.

mercurydancer

20th Aug 2008, 20:44

"Older aircraft crash more " I'm not being flippant at all but surely they crash only once. Common logic states that the longer any type of aircraft is in service the greater the accidents that type of aircraft sustains. Another factor would obviously be the number of that type entering service.

wileydog3

20th Aug 2008, 20:50

"Accident History Of MD-80 Series: The MD-82 plane that crashed in Madrid is part of an aircraft series that has a history blighted with accidents. "

from Sky News

I guess it wouldn't do for a reporter to actually look up the facts before sensationalizing...

One has to look just beyond the immediate numbers which means it has to be researched. For example, before the crash at CDG, Concorde had the best safety record and after the crash, the worst based on hours flown.

The news and the truth are not necessarily the same and you often have to wait for the latter.

Sunfish

20th Aug 2008, 20:50

Peter We:

Older aircraft crash more and suffer from more issues due to age and design features.

Utter rubbish. You are confusing "Old" with "Badly maintained", and if anything, new aircraft have less tolerance to bad maintenance than older models.

mercurydancer

20th Aug 2008, 20:54

Just seen the photos sky news. There appears to be a blackened area on one photo that appears to have the sooty characteristics of a hydrocarbon fire but the fire the helicopter is trying to put out has white smoke, which isnt normally hydocarbon, so probably vegetation which has ignited. I seem to recall that Spain has had an unusually long dry hot spell recently that would provide the conditions for vegetation fire

forget

20th Aug 2008, 20:59

For FS mercurydancer - read previous posts before you decide to tell us what really happened.

EXAMPLE OF PREVIOUS POST.

Various Press stating that the field in which the A/C came to a halt was filled with dry straw/hay, so as flaming fuselage came past, sets alot of it on fire. Firecrews had to put out the burning plants before any access to the A/C was made, took a while.

lomapaseo

20th Aug 2008, 21:04

only a handfull of professional posts so far, but at least they are worth reading:ok:

It's useless to discuss engine failures and/or maintenance/dispatch so early with so few facts.

The aircraft is quite capable of safe takeoff with the loss of a single engine. A more significant failure would typically leave debris on the runway.

Engine fire reports should not be taken as indicative of a primary failure condition. They are just as often associated with secondary effects after the aircraft gets into trouble.

If there are any links to close up pictures please post .

green granite

20th Aug 2008, 21:05

Older aircraft crash more and suffer from more issues due to age and design features.

Possibly true before metal fatigue was understood and good corrosion inhibiting practices were used, but not nowadays.

barrymung

20th Aug 2008, 21:11

QUOTE: "Older aircraft crash more and suffer from more issues due to age and design features."

I don't think the actual age of the aircraft is really a factor; the number of flight hours maybe (Maybe not).

As regards brake dust/soot etc on the bodywork, well, all that indicates is that a plane hasn't been washed in a while! It's certainly "normal".

Midland63

20th Aug 2008, 21:20

Just an SLF here but I heard an "expert" (name of Gleave, Grieve???) on the BBC saying (something like) "we've all been on an aircraft and you hear the engines power up a bit before going to full power to take-off - that's the pilots testing they're going to respond correctly before commencing take-off"

Is that correct?

I always thought it was to do with running the engines up gently to avoid excessive wear by "firewalling" them.

But I'm a retired lawyer so what do I know? Please correct me as necessary. Thanks.

Ballymoss

20th Aug 2008, 21:25

Older aircraft crash more and suffer from more issues due to age and design features

I'm sorry, but that is complete and utter horsesh*t! Old, well maintained aircraft earn their crust alongside the latest 'Boebus' technology. New does not equal safe by any stretch! Simple example, I bought a tyre 6 months ago, failed after 3 weeks, scared me at the time.(apparently poor manufacture!)
That can happen with anything, be it your 'Dyson' or 'B787'

Rgds
The Moss:ok:

TvB

20th Aug 2008, 21:25

Can anybody give any confirmed details, such as:

runway used, wx at time of accident, registration of ac?

Thx, highly appreciated.

Sky Wave

20th Aug 2008, 21:28

Midland

It's to ensure that both engines spool up at the same time. If one engine spools up to full power before the other does, direction control can be interesting to say the least.

FF

bellend

20th Aug 2008, 21:30

Midland 63 you are correct, beeb ex-spurt has made a fool of himself today more than once, jet engines are run up to a mid power setting to allow the engines to stabilise before the take off thrust is set

NigelOnDraft

20th Aug 2008, 21:31

M63...

You apply a certain amount of power, since the time taken to accelerate a jet engine from idle is not only significant, but varies between engines... Once you have the engines "stable" at a mid power setting, it takes far less time, and less variable between engines, to takeoff power...

In practice, this means if you just pushed the throttles forward form idle, one may well start producing significant thrust well before the other, and the aircraft turn - all rather embarrassing :eek:

Without causing extensive and unnecessary speculation, my info seems to indicate that all MAD runways now open, whereas in the hours after the accident, one or even 2 (?) runways were closed. If significant debris were left on a runway (the takeoff runway of the affected aircraft?) maybe one would expect that runway left closed for accident investigation purposes and debris recovery in slow(ish) time?

NoD

chiglet

20th Aug 2008, 21:40

Slight thread drift, whilst watching thr Sky "Breaking News" at work, I noticed at least one a/c depart. What level of fire cover was there for "other" a/c movements? Reason for asking, at an AGI which turned into an A/c Accident at Manchester, the airport was closed due to lack of fire cover.
Condolencies to all the Families and Friends

InvestigateUdom

20th Aug 2008, 21:42

FOXPRESIDENT

20th Aug 2008, 21:42

Span Air have announced the list of people on board.

Spanair (http://www.spanair.com/web/en-gb/DSite/Listing-of-passengers/)

jeff64

20th Aug 2008, 21:43

lc_461

20th Aug 2008, 21:52

Sadly news !

Just a question. The number of 9 Crew members seems very important for an MD82.

Normal crew should be 6 (4 cabin crew for 200 pax and 2 cockpit crew).

I don't think a third pilot on a such leg is needed, and even we are in a very high loaded period, 3 more flight attendants seems very important.

Anyone has an idea ?

ninemsn in Australia is reporting that 4 crew were travelling as passengers on the flight... Also reporting 4 Lufthansa pax and 2 Swiss Citizens.

153 die in Madrid jet crash disaster (http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=618207)

EA_cabincrew

20th Aug 2008, 21:52

jeff64,

there were 3 passive cabin crew

sevenstrokeroll

20th Aug 2008, 21:52

as far as MD80 exits vs more modern planes, I would like to point out that the MD80/DC9 series has more exits than some planes in its class.

In the cockpit, the two DV windows are an escape route for the pilots and anyone else in that area...there is even a trap door down into the electrical compartment with a way to the ground after that...but let's not talk about that one shall we?

there are two cabin doors forward. 4 over wing exits, a tail cone exit slide (famous obama) and a door near the left engine. that's 4 (correction)slide equipped doors.

a 737 has only 2 over wing exits, 4 door type exits, plus DV windows...no tail escape route.

I understand from one report that runway 36 right was used for takeoff.

Could one thrust reverser have accidently deployed? We train for that in the sim.

I understand that the plane went into a ravine...perhaps this is somewhat like the AF *air france* Toronto crash. (ravine...not phase of flight)

does anyone have a picture of the engines?

my prayers go out to those harmed.

Albert Square

20th Aug 2008, 21:55

Very interesting post from Wirelock (Post 156) who suggests debris indicates thrust reversers deployed.
I had originally thought the plane must have departed 36 R and assymetric thrust on failure of port engine would have caused the plane to veer left.

But the plane veered right on36 L.

So if the plane abandoned takeoff using thrust reversers, with an inoperative port engine, would the plane veer right?

BAe 146-100

20th Aug 2008, 22:02

Could the combination of high OAT, high pax load and high elevation of the airport played a part in the crash with the apparent faulted engine on the takeoff roll and subsequent crash?

Ex Cargo Clown

20th Aug 2008, 22:07

Could the combination of high OAT, high pax load and high elevation of the airport played a part in the crash with the apparent faulted engine on the takeoff roll and subsequent crash?

Absolutely not, all of these factors are in performance calculations.

sevenstrokeroll

20th Aug 2008, 22:11

I'd like to agree with the person who indicates he would rather fly an older well maintained plane than a newer cad/cam lightweight plane. People talking about aircraft age seem to be wrong...now a brand new jet vs. a poorly maintained older plane is different!

The computer annimation is not by CNN, it is by telemadrid...though cnn has used it...so let's get that straight.

IT IS very interesting (post 156) if there are skid marks from this crash on the runway...if indeed the plane didn't get airborne, this is vital to investigators.

if the plane had problems with the left (port) engine and rejected the takeoff and used full reverse on the right (starboard) engine, it might "veer" to the right...but pilots are trained to use thrust reverse and maintain directional control.

I will look up the runway length, but if someone has all the data for this airport, please post.

agusaleale

20th Aug 2008, 22:14

'Vimos una bola de fuego al final de la pista' | elmundo.es (http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2008/08/20/espana/1219249445.html)
'Vimos una bola de fuego al final de la pista' | elmundo.es (http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2008/08/20/espana/1219249445.html)
Manuel Muela Mata, un conductor que se desplaza diariamente por la R2, ha narrado así el impacto: "Regresaba a casa y en la salida de Fuente el Saz- Paracuellos del Jarama me he encontrado la visión directa de un avión, que pensé que aterrizaba. Pero, visto de lado, me llamo la atención que se levantó una nube de arena inmensa al pasar. Luego comprendí que se salió hacia la izquierda de la pista y me impresionó. Reduje la velocidad y paré, cuando el avión, bruscamente, cambio de dirección hacia la derecha y pegó el ala derecha al suelo, y vi como se partía y una gran explosión en una parte de él".
(http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2008/08/20/espana/1219249445.html)
Manuel Muela Mata, a driver that daily catches R2, narrates the impact: "I was returning home and at the exit to Fuente el Saz-Paracuellos I saw directly to a plane, thinking it was landing. But seeing it by the side, it caught my attention when a great sand storm rose. Then I understood that it got out the left side of the runway and it impressed me. Then I reduced and stopped, when the plane, suddenly changed the direction towards the right and hit the ground with the right wing, seeing that it torned away and a big explosion happened on a part of it"

vonbag

20th Aug 2008, 22:16

"only a handfull of professional posts so far"

Sarcastic speaking, "methinks".

P.S. I have been in a grossly-remotely similar situation.
Just an incident ours, fotunately for us, 4 hours of delay for all of us passengers; pilot flying 737-800 opened TO power whilst aligninging with runway 22L (I think he think he had still about 30 degrees to go, but maybe wrong) -- a mistake.
I and at leat other 50 other passengers can wittness this -- not only after my posthumous explanations on the spot-- fully loaded,at San Giusto, Pisa... something went wrong with starboard main undercarriage -- a very loud thump --, I heard it, the very loud thump on the right side of the undercarriage-- the flying crew did as well, and aborted take-off well before 60 knots -- I can count those, easily, ... just like the hundreds of meters (thus not feet) THEY REGULARLY go off, ahead, the TDZE.
I was too tired to open a topic reagrding this incident, also because Ryanair took well care of us (substitute plane sent from Dublin to help us, got there in three hours, in fact).

PLease pardon my "French".

I do not like the MD-8X ...

JUST my personal opinion.

That said, I hope we will read some *relevant technical* news (which I might have missed at the moment) about this tragic accident,... especially ragarding dynamics.

All the best, Paolo

josemarb

20th Aug 2008, 22:32

the weather at madrid at these time was good.

Smilin_Ed

20th Aug 2008, 22:50

...it is quite possible that deploying thrust reversers on both engines with the left inoperable could swing it to the right (physics, people).

Agree. Scenario: Number 1 fails, crew tries to stop with reverse. With number 2 the only operating engine, differential reverse thrust causes aircraft to turn to the right. :8

Wirelock

20th Aug 2008, 23:04

pictures of aftermath here!

pilotosdeiberia.com :: Ver tema - Accidente Barajas (http://www.pilotosdeiberia.com/foro/viewtopic.php?t=7018&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=90)

TioPablo

20th Aug 2008, 23:05

Spanish TVE reports only 19 survivors from which 11 are fighting for their lives at this moment. :(

liffy2A

20th Aug 2008, 23:14

Aeromar27

20th Aug 2008, 23:15

flightcaptain

20th Aug 2008, 23:20

I'm spanish and your's is just the most accurate translation of these words of the car driver of the new from El Mundo newspaper.
Only remember all of you that this guy is a car driver seeing the thigs from one side of the runways and with zero knowledgement of aviation and how to carry succesfully an emergency during take off.
Now all the "clever" reporters in Spain are trying to shine in the news with the most astonishing version. Only a retired captain of Iberia, invited in a TV show has told the truth: «Wait for the investigation, but an engine failure or fire is not enough to fall down a plane.» Nor a MD8X that seems not like to somebody.
Requiescant In Pace

elfinknight

20th Aug 2008, 23:23

Just to correct a previous poster ( no disrespect meant) the o/wing exits on the MD-80s do not have slides. To my memory, they use escape ropes to facilitate exit.
But I do think that the MD-80 is a stronger built than many others in it's category.
My thoughts and condolences to the families involved. RIP

737forever

20th Aug 2008, 23:31

Have been watching news on Television and internet the last five to six hours.Most of the Media seems to describe the maddog as an unsafe plane with a long accident list.There have been built nearly 1200 of them,and they have been around for 28 years.The MD80 accident rate (Fatal) was for many years approximatly the same as the A320 series and newer versions of 737,s.Since many of the maddogs are getting older,they are sold to operators with perhaps a less safety standard in the third world.But still an safety record of 0,24 accident in one million flights is still very impressive.
Should the media get away with this bull****,scaring millions of air travellers away from an aircraft which still will be in use for several years by major airlines?Since the hole industrie is suffering,and only a few makes money,this media made problem can get very serious.

wileydog3

20th Aug 2008, 23:31

Would it be fair to say that a catastrophic MD-80 crash might be less survivable than a more modern aircraft? Specifically, I'm referring to the accessibility of exit doors and the lack of fire suppression systems.

You term it a 'catastrophic' crash and in that case, all bets are off. And if there is enough force to break the fuselage, there is also probably enough force to rupture the fuel tanks. And with 30-40,000lbs of fuel, the fire as well as smoke and fumes diminishes any chance for survival. Also with enough force to break up the fuselage, there is the possibility of blunt force injuries.

Remember that accidents are the exception and each one has a high number of unique factors. So, is the -80 less survivable? I don't think anyone can make the argument.

wileydog3

20th Aug 2008, 23:40

I have read that VR can be as high 150kts, with the days conditions as seen on tv ( dont know the performance of the a/c) V1 I guess, wouldnt be greatly less.I'm wondering could anyone say how much Rudder input would be needed for directional control with a failure after V1 on the MD82?

It takes whatever it takes, not to be flippant. Rudder would depend on thrust and whether the crew was using MAX thrust or a reduced or FLEX thrust. And also at what speed the failure occurs as the rudder becomes more effective at higher speeds.

You put in enough rudder to keep the plane going straight. One point no one has mentioned with the possibility of the airplane getting airborne is a failure at V2. From my time instructing in the simulator, V2 cuts were much uglier and more difficult than the V1 cuts.

With a V1 cut, you still have a tri-cycle but with a V2 cut, there is a tendency among some pilots to use a fair amount of aileron and then they begin a rudder dance of putting in inputs and taking them out. And the nose is in the air and if the crew over-rotates, it only compounds the problem for handling.

vapilot2004

20th Aug 2008, 23:40

In the photos linked above to a Spanish forum, am I to understand the local authorities are already craning out debris? This could be a hindrance to a proper investigation.

PJ2

20th Aug 2008, 23:48

vapilot2004:
Re craning out debris, I wondered about that as well. I wonder what the urgency is, as I understand the wreckage is not obstructing traffic. Certainly seems a rush to me - mapping and labeling all take time as does mapping skid marks, metal scrapes, gouges in the dirt etc - All that evidence is being compromised. The NTSB would only assist and wouldn't have the IIC but it certainly seems premature. I wonder too if they've found the boxes?

Unless one has first-hand knowledge (been there, not heard it 2nd hand), re thrust reversers and skid marks from post 156 - I think it's premature to draw conclusions about flight phases in such a catastrophic break-up.

Sleeping Freight Dog

20th Aug 2008, 23:51

Here is a sequence of photos from El Mundo
Terrible accidente aéreo en Barajas | elmundo.es (http://www.elmundo.es/albumes/2008/08/20/accidente_spanair_barajas/index.html)

VAFFPAX

20th Aug 2008, 23:55

wileydog3, add to that a what appears to be significant drop from the runway to the rocky terrain (see pic from Spanish forum, see satellite imagery on Google Maps). There are two creeks that cross the terrain too, so there is some elevation between the runways and the natural terrain...

It is possible that the terrain may have had an impact on the rupture of the wings/fuselage.

S.

RiSq

20th Aug 2008, 23:57

I was thinking the exact same thing regarding the crane removing wreckage. Obviously there's a few reasons that they might lift it up, one would be to ensure there is no persons / bodies underneath I'd presume. Another less likely would be that they already have a good idea of the cause and are now trying to piece together the chain that led to the outcome...who knows, but it does seem odd....

Is there any reports on whether the Pilots survived, as it seems that the majority of the damage is to the rear, so I presume the few survivors are towards the front of the plane.

Here's one for the experts....Where do the avionics for the control systems run on an MD-82? I was just wondering if an explosive engine failiure could have resulted in control surfaces being severed, much like the United Flight some years back......

I don't know much, and won't pretend I do. Just thinking aloud and waiting to hear what the experts around here think..

Trojan1981

20th Aug 2008, 23:58

They might have been trying to recover possible survivors or even casualties.? There is a perception in the community (justified or otherwise) that the MD-8x series is unsafe, just like there was with the DC-10. I don't necessarily agree.

My condolences to the families of the pax and crew involved. Lets at least wait for the initial release of factual information from the authorities before speculating as to cause.

liffy2A

21st Aug 2008, 00:01

Thanks Wileydog, yes I know the more airspeed you have in this situation the better, This is the avenue I was thinking about, say a a huge engine failure and failure around V2 which would give you zero thrust. Also would an MD82 have an RTOW on this Runway? as the plane was quiet full.

Vaffpax the area of the departure has a Zone that has been calculated usually 5 degrees either side of the centre line that allows for something like a veer after an engine failure. if there is an obstacle in this area, performance is factored either a turn away from it after departure or a Reduced Takeoff weight RTOW so the aircraft can climb at a better rate clearing it. What I have said is a rough guide I'm not a performace expert.

RiSq

21st Aug 2008, 00:04

Just a note to some - a couple of those El Mundo photo's are quite graphic and a little insensitive, just a warning in case you have a look etc. But I guess the spanish news system isn't as censored as here in the UK. I'm referring to picture 9, where it looks like someone has been subjected to some horrendous heat and burns...

If these are the "lucky" ones to survive, I beg to differ with those injuries..

BYALPHAINDIA

21st Aug 2008, 00:07

I have this SAD feeling that this Accident could be the end for Spanair.

As it has already been said, The SAS group have said that Spanair has been a 'Burden' on the group's finances & the potential strike.

And now today.

I hope not.

Long live Spanair.

LynxDriver

21st Aug 2008, 00:13

Long Live Spanair?

What a totally vacuous thing to say. :=

BYALPHAINDIA

21st Aug 2008, 00:17

What??

It wasn't meant as that.

Lost in Saigon

21st Aug 2008, 00:22

I was thinking about, say a a huge engine failure and failure around V2 which would give you zero thrust. Also would an MD82 have an RTOW on this Runway? as the plane was quiet full.

Any transport category aircraft HAS to be able to takeoff, or reject a takeoff, safely at any airport it operates from, given the conditions at the time. If it is too heavy, or the runway is too short, or the wind is not favourable, or ???.... , you do not takeoff until you remedy the situation.

Very simple and that why Airline travel is so safe today.

wileydog3

21st Aug 2008, 00:29

Thanks Wileydog, yes I know the more airspeed you have in this situation the better, This is the avenue I was thinking about, say a a huge engine failure and failure around V2 which would give you zero thrust.

More speed gives you more control but it also gives you more mass that has to be stopped in an RTO.

And we have not determined what type of engine failure it was. A jet engine can continue producing a lot of thrust while it guts itself and with an engine fire, it is still producing thrust, just that fire is somewhere it is not normally found. And it does not appear to be a catastrophic seizure because no one has said anything about the engine being detached from the airplane.

The question I ponder is what caused the airplane to depart the runway and not continue along the runway. Often a high speed reject will have a runway over-run but this was a runway *departure*.

Capvermell

21st Aug 2008, 00:29

I have this SAD feeling that this Accident could be the end for Spanair.Given the already extremely precarious financial state of this airline then it may well be much less able to withstand the sudden downturn in passenger bookings and numbers that will inevitably immediately follow on from an event of this kind. Also a very high percentage of routes operated by Spanair also have competitor services from Iberia (or Click Air on its behalf) and Air Europa thus the ability for passengers to rebook on competitor airlines for domestic flights is higher than on internal domestic flights in many other EU countries. Also many of these competitor flights are not flying anywhere near full (except during these few summer holiday season weeks) but might suddenly become so if no one wants to book with Spanair.

Much will depend on whether the fault for this crash lies with the airline's pilots or its maintenance standards or instead relates to some other hidden catastrophic design failure in the aircraft or its engines, unrelated to poor maintenance or poor piloting, that could have hit any MD82.

If the crash is the result of pilot error or substandard maintenance or other negligence then it will at a minimum be essential to rebrand it as something else. In theory both Iberia and Air Europa could expand their operational activities if Spanair goes in to liquidation to cover most of the routes and acquire a substantial proportion of the existing aircraft to fly them under their colours.

wileydog3

21st Aug 2008, 00:33

There is a perception in the community (justified or otherwise) that the MD-8x series is unsafe, just like there was with the DC-10.

What community?

I flew the -80 for a while and I don't fly unsafe airplanes.

The -10 did have some problems but before you classify it as an unsafe airplane, you may want to run that by a lot of the 'freight dogs' (said with utmost respect for those guys) who haul freight worldwide in -10s.

ILoadMyself

21st Aug 2008, 00:35

Notwithstanding the tragedy that occurred in Madrid, my sympathies are with Danny, PPRuNe Towers and Duck who are moderating floods of errant tosh on this thread.

Respect to you, buddies!

sevenstrokeroll

21st Aug 2008, 00:41

perception in the community that the md80 is a bad plane...BULL****!

the DC9/MD80/MD90 series is one of the finest, strongest planes built. It is a joy to fly if you are a good stick and rudder pilot. It has few computers and the pilot is directly in charge of just about everything.

it has two flaws...bad piloting and bad maintenance.

The DC9 was called the last "pilot's airliner".

If you point at the md80 crashes by the third world airlines, see the above.

sevenstrokeroll

21st Aug 2008, 00:47

sorry for any confusion, I did not mean to imply that the MD80 over wing exits have slides...one slides down the partially extended flaps to the ground.

two forward main cabin doors, one galley service door near the left engine and the tailcone exit have slides.

NG_Kaptain

21st Aug 2008, 00:54

[QUOTE]perception in the community that the md80 is a bad plane...BULL****!

the DC9/MD80/MD90 series is one of the finest, strongest planes built. It is a joy to fly if you are a good stick and rudder pilot. It has few computers and the pilot is directly in charge of just about everything.

it has two flaws...bad piloting and bad maintenance.

The DC9 was called the last "pilot's airliner".

If you point at the md80 crashes by the third world airlines, see the above.
/QUOTE]

I concur with the above. Current on the A340, flown Boeing, Lockheed, Hawker Siddley and the one I would gladly go back to is the DC9/MD83. Engine failures can be a challenge as the rudder input is rather heavy and can be mishandled.

theron

21st Aug 2008, 00:57

sorry if this was already mentioned already i have read all this thread i may have missed it - i will delete if this is the case.

its been mentioned that the left engine failed and also reverse thrust was engaged. if this is the case could it account for why the plane veered to the right, despite that being the side with forward thrust?

md80fanatic

21st Aug 2008, 01:04

Rob Bamber

21st Aug 2008, 01:06

This graphic purports to show where it ended up relative to the runways:
Gráficos en ELPAÍS.com (http://www.elpais.com/graficos/sociedad/Tragedia/Barajas/elpgra/20080820elpepusoc_1/Ges/)

You need to PULSE PARA CONTINUAR.

sevenstrokeroll

21st Aug 2008, 01:12

of all the plane crashes, this is one that comes to mind with regard to spanair today:

On 6 September 1985, Midwest Express Flight 105 crashed upon takeoff from Milwaukee. As of 2008 this is Midwest's first and only fatal accident. The accident happened when a Douglas DC-9 of the airline crashed while taking off from Milwaukee, bound for Atlanta's Hartsfield International Airport. According to NTSB reports, the crash was caused by improper pilot reaction when the plane's right engine failed due to stress corrosion cracking. The improper flight control inputs caused an uncommanded roll and accelerated stall. The 31 people on board died.

bubbers44

21st Aug 2008, 01:13

Probably, but with braking and rudder and nose wheel steering reverse thrust on right side only wouldn't cause an aircraft to go off the runway unless hydraulic problems occured. Having landed with only R thrust reverser several times it is a non event.

transilvana

21st Aug 2008, 01:13

My condolences for our collegues. I know many pilots flying on Spanair, some of them good friends. Spanair is going lo lay off 1.200 people within the next weeks trying to get rid of all the old MD fleet (105 pilots), closing 7 main bases including his main base at Palma de mallorca. The company is not in its best moment but the crews receive really good training.

Normally one accident is the concurrence of several mistakes, not only one. We all pilots know that one engine failure after V1 guarantees a safe take off (Thomson 757 engine failure on rotation video). Even at Madrid you have plenty of runway, aircraft was not all that heavy and weather was ok.

Now let´s wait until the investigation ends, unfortunately we learn of others mistakes, let´s learn about this one so it doesn´t happen to any of us who are day by day earning our way of life.

BYALPHAINDIA

21st Aug 2008, 01:14

Spanair have enough experience to operate the MD80's safely.

After all they have over 25 of them, And they have had no problems before yesterday.

Spanair have had enough MD80's over the years.

I would should think the problem was in the engine.

But we shall find out in due course.

NVpilot

21st Aug 2008, 01:14

BBC reporting the aircraft did become airborne and the pilot then attempted to land on the remaining runway. :ooh:

ZQA297/30

21st Aug 2008, 01:16

DC9/MD80.
Rugged simple reliable.
Had EFTO in the rotate on MD-83 (duck ingestion), and it was no problem-much easier than the sim.

Like NG_Kapt I have flown NGs, L-1011, L-188, and the McDiesel series hold their own.
So lets wait for the experts to finish their investigations before we rush to judgement.

curi

21st Aug 2008, 01:33

In my opinon, the aircraft was fire but not of the engine. Is posible a tire explosion of landing gear. The airplane when was taxing, returned to parking because have problems with Outisde and RAM sensor, but is´nt problem for GO, the difference is what are use the tables and calculate the effective EPR.

sevenstrokeroll

21st Aug 2008, 01:39

I would like to know the status of the tires...if one had ruptured, the pieces could have been ingested into the engine. still not enough to bring it down under most conditions.

wileydog3

21st Aug 2008, 01:43

I have read much about the MD-8X series and what was mentioned again and again by people claiming to be pilots of this plane is that during the early moments of climbout (high AOA), and particularly at high TOW, the plane is very sensitive to aileron input.....and that rudder should be used instead to keep wings level until airspeed increases. Does that sound anywhere near correct?

Rudder is the primary control to keep the aircraft from yawing and it is yaw that is the primary problem in an engine failure. You can actually perform a V1 cut and NEVER use ailerons and keep the wings level and the nose going straight.
IF however, the pilot begins using lots of aileron, it can and often does compound the control challenge.

You have to make yourself make the correct input and not relax and reduce that input. Doing so begins a dance that can result in losing control. To get an appreciation for the control surfaces, look at the rudder. It is the largest control surface on the airplane and with proper rudder input, a V1 and V2 failure can be dealt with.

PJ2

21st Aug 2008, 01:45

curi;
Is posible a tire explosion of landing gear. The airplane when was taxing, returned to parking because have problems with Outisde and RAM sensor, but is´nt problem for GO, the difference is what are use the tables and calculate the effective EPR.
The tire doesn't explode but yes, it is possible the tire shed some tread and it is possible that it went into the engine. This has happened before on airplanes with engines at the rear and it has caused engine damage.

The RAM sensor usually does not have anything to do with the engines. I am not familiar with the MD82 MEL but likely it would be a "GO" item. The engines have their own sensors as you know.

sevenstrokeroll;

The tires are immediately suspect in this model; not so much the 72'. I agree with you - it has happened before but without result except for loss of engine power. I am familiar with the DC9 accident at Toronto in June, 1978 in which an overrun resulted from a rejected takeoff right at V1 - the right tire shed the re-cap, (it remained inflated), caused the engine to falter and also put the right gear unsafe light on (tore out the switch & shorted the warning). The aircraft overran into the same gulley Air France 258 overran into but unlike AF, the '9 didn't burn, thankfully - it was at MGTOW, 108,000lbs.

wileydog2:
You can actually perform a V1 cut and NEVER use ailerons and keep the wings level and the nose going straight.
Good explanation.

In fact, that's how it was taught in the DC9 sim, esp. for someone who was having a bit of trouble keeping his/her hands off the control wheel and using a lot of aileron, which one never, ever should do for the reasons you give. At rotation, with the 15deg or so attitude established, the engine would be cut and the candidate would have to put his/her hands down beside them and control yaw using rudder alone. It was a great teaching technique and an even better confidence builder. Works for all aircraft, even the 'bus ;-)

PJ2

BYALPHAINDIA

21st Aug 2008, 02:01

What will happen now at Spanair??

Will they carry on immediately or suspend all services.

Or will it depend on the SAS Group's decision.

What will happen to tomorrows flights??

BYALPHAINDIA

21st Aug 2008, 02:34

Reports also say that the 2 pilots in the Accident, Were supposed to go on strike an hour before.:confused:

B747-800

21st Aug 2008, 02:38

Reports also say that the 2 pilots in the Accident, Were supposed to go on strike an hour before.

Press, unconfirmed reports and or simple BS!

BYALPHAINDIA

21st Aug 2008, 02:43

Yee I thought that was a bit of a coincidence.

Airbubba

21st Aug 2008, 02:51

Yep, from some unreliable tabloid called The Times:

From The Times

August 21, 2008

Spanair pilots threatened strike an hour before crash

Carl Mortished, World Business Editor

Pilots at Spanair had threatened to go on strike only an hour before yesterday’s crash.

Threatened with job cuts, they had accused the carrier – which has run up large losses for its parent, the Scandinavian airline SAS – of “organised chaos” and failing to have a proper business plan...

Spanair pilots threatened strike an hour before crash - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4576775.ece)

wileydog3

21st Aug 2008, 02:51

Reports also say that the 2 pilots in the Accident, Were supposed to go on strike an hour before

Completely irrelevant to the discussion.

ExSp33db1rd

21st Aug 2008, 03:43

Assymetric thrust.

Would an assymetric thrust reverser on engines so close to the normal thrust line, cause such a swing ? Dunno, but it isn't like being an outboard engine on a 747.

wileydog3

21st Aug 2008, 03:48

Would an assymetric thrust reverser on engines so close to the normal thrust line, cause such a swing ? Dunno, but it isn't like being an outboard engine on a 747.

Look at a Learjet. Engines look very close to centerline, right? When I flew and instructed on the early Learjets including the 23, the advice was to go all the way to the stops with the rudder and just possibly you could reduce the input slightly. Anything less than FULL rudder was an invitation to more problems.

They may look like they are close but you will use a full leg of rudder on the -80 with an engine failure. As for the 747, look at the size of the vertical fin and the rudder.