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.