NTSB ?

American brand aircraft.!

Normal procedure me thinks....

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.

The age of an aircraft matter a lot.

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

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.

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

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.

What a load of C - - P
 

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

Smug
 

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.

peter_we on old aircraft
 

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..

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

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

Beech

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

"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.

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.

Peter We:

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

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

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

EXAMPLE OF PREVIOUS POST.

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 .

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

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".

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.

Old v New
 

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:

factual data please
 

Can anybody give any confirmed details, such as:

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

Thx, highly appreciated.

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

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

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

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

MD-80 survivability
 

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.

My thoughts are with the victims and their families.

The People
 

Span Air have announced the list of people on board.

Spanair

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

jeff64,

there were 3 passive cabin crew

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.

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?

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.

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.

direct witness
 

'Vimos una bola de fuego al final de la pista' | elmundo.es
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"

"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

the weather at madrid at these time was good.

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