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??

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

Press, unconfirmed reports and or simple BS!

Yee I thought that was a bit of a coincidence.

Yep, from some unreliable tabloid called The Times:

Spanair pilots threatened strike an hour before crash - Times Online

Completely irrelevant to the discussion.

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.

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.

Survivors
 

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

Reuters 10.14pm tonight

Survivors were flung from the plane by the force of the impact and landed in a stream, saving them from more severe burns, Corral said.

Media in Australia is reporting eye witnesses in the terminal saying 100 metres AGL was achieved after take off.

Imagine...
 

:=:=:= Definately your imagination....!!

In the 1978 Toronto overrun accident, the runway is now 9697' and the a/c stopped at the bottom of the ravine with a good portion on the slope as did AF358. I had a good look at both hulls.

El Mundo's diagram shows 4.35 km from the end of the runway to the debris which is about 14,300' which leads me to suspect the a/c was in the air for a short distance.

reports were the right thrust reverser was out so don't think they were trying to continue the take off.

RatherBeFlying;
A minor correction if I may - aside from there being only one parallel runway on the south, (there are two on the south side and one on the north side now, and AF358 was on the south parallel of the two, the DC9 was on the original parallel which is now the north parallel of the two), in 1978 the ravine had a much sharper "cliff" edge to it. The aircraft left the grass surface at about 54kts, "flew" over the cliff edge and pancaked, breaking the fuselage in two places. The wings remained intact. Two passengers died, one who was not wearing his seatbelt. The ravine was later "filled in" so to speak, in the form of a sloped surface - still a deep ravine with a stream but not an abrupt cliff. The north parallel has the same overrun feature.

AF358 missed (short by about 30ft) the large cement pillars upon which the approach lights to 06R are mounted - so much for "frangible" towers...

http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/2245/af35820vd3.jpg

Marciovp
 

It is known in official Boeing doc's as the DC9-82 ;)

Strike Issue
 

I don't see how any strike issue could have anything to do with this. Such speculation is pure absurdity and I am surprised at such statements on this forum anyway.

Look at this photo of the tailplane, to me it appears there is damage
to the forward leading edge while the opposite appears to be less so...
Plane Crash in Madrid Leaves 153 Dead

Obviously it was torn off in the impact. It appears to be facing the
opposite way it would be on the aircraft..

Sorry, were you thinking of this kind of damage being a hint as to cause? Usually this kind of damage occurs during the break-up sequence and would be less "tell-tale" than, say, a collision sequence or in-flight break-up. Your second comment is more important because it relates to the question of why they're cleaning up the mess so early and quickly. Mapping wreckage as it lay is usually important to an investigation for many things including ruling out some causes such as pre-impact breakup. That's why post #156 should be set aside - the reversers may be planted but we can't assume that that is an indication that one or both were deployed - physical markings as well as the recorders need to be examined for such conclusions. The engines and the main gear tires are obviously key targets for initial investigation as will flight crew history and training records. Though I think human factors is a rich area of investigation, I agree with those posters who dismiss the industrial side of this.

I think the word you are looking for is "taste" not censored.

I have two questions. Early reports said the fire brigade could not get to the site quickly because the crash set the dry grass on fire. Surely this needs sorting IF true. As a layman I thought the idea of the fast response tenders was they could get to the site and try and keep the blazing side under control while escape was out the other.
Secondly what is the history of rear engined crashes like this compared with under wing engined aircraft. In a crash of this sort of level would the engines being right next to the fuselage be worse with fire breaking out?

RH Thrust Reverser????
 

Speculation, and potentially apples and oranges. I fly a similar type, and an open thrust reverser has been demonstrated to me in the sim. Very violent procedure, and the aircraft will yaw, and reduce speed at a stagering rate until the engine is shut down (if its identified as such). An F100 did come to a similar end i think with TAM a while ago with this sinario. I wonder if the apparent fire from the left engine was an overspeed to compensate from a reverser on the right.

Speculation, and the investigation will show, but just sharing what I know from a similar type.

Condolences to all involved and to the operation.

-27