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

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?

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.

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

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


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

Didn't Spanair recently pass an IATA inspection?

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?

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

update
146 dead ppl
26 injured
3 missing

164 pax on board+ 2 infants
9 crew members

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.

Wake Up ICAO
 

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.

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.

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)

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

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"

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.

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.

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

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...

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.

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

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/...42_468x243.jpg

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

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.

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.

Just out a few minutes ago...

149 dead in plane crash at Madrid airport - Yahoo! News

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

sigh...

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

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.

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"

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

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

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?

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

S.

Both the videos (white smoke) and earlier Spanish news items seem to confirm this.

Daily Mail video grab
 

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

The picture in question is clearly taken from a distance on an apron area, and the 'skid marks' look completely unrelated to the crash.

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 .

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

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

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

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.

US built airframe and engines - NTSB will attend.

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