Spanair Plane Crash

Shamanic

Some reports say at least 100 people have perished - this has not been confirmed.

Journalist with the respected national daily El Pais Kelly Ramundo has told Sky News that the latest figure from the interior ministry puts the number of dead at 20 to 25.

"Everybody is pretty shaken up over here. It's the holiday season so it's very surprising, very sad," she said.

An official with the Madrid emergency rescue service SAMUR says crews are removing injured people and bodies from the plane.

"It is certain catastrophe," a SAMUR official said on condition of anonymity, because he was not authorised to give his name.

TV images show a column of smoke rising over the Barajas airport.

Reports say the accident happened as the craft was taking off from the airport's Terminal Four, bound for Gran Canaria.

The Madrid daily newspaper El Mundo said the aircraft broke into two as it crashed off the runway.

It added that the plane's left engine caught fire during take-off.

Other reports said the accident occurred when the plane was making a second attempt at take-off.

It is understood there were 163 people on board the Spanair MD-82 plane.


Local journalist Bill Bond said Spanair was a major Spanish airline that has been running for 20 years.

"It flies throughout Spain and internationally and has a good accident record," he said.

Aviation expert Professor Joseph Lampel has told Sky News: "It appears at the moment to have been some sort of engine problem.

"It's rare, but not unheard of. The focus will now be on engine maintenance."

Malcolm Ginsberg, editor of Air and Business Travel, said: "It appears to have been a normal sort of day, so I can only imagine there must have been some sort of mechanical problem."


http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Spain-Plane-Shoots-Off-Madrid-Airport-Runway/Article/200808315083058?lpos=World%2BNews_0&lid=ARTICLE_15083058_Spain%253A%2BPlane%2BShoots%2BOff%2BMadrid%2BAirport%2BRunway

SRFC90

Just watching it on Sky News now, dreadful stuff.

Going on holidays on Sunday to Portugal, this won't help the nerves of my friends who hate flying:eek:

RIP to those who have perished.

The Black Oil

Sounds awful.

The death toll has now risen to 45. RIP.

Shamanic

emergency services reported that only 25 of the 163 on board survived but its unconfirmed

Tabnabs

At least 45 people have been killed and 40 hurt after a plane skidded off the runway and crashed at Madrid-Barajas airport.

There are conflicting reports about the number of fatalities with some estimates putting the death toll over 150.

The Spanair JK 5022 flight, which was bound for Las Palmas in the Canary Islands, with 164 passengers and nine crew on board.

It is understood the aircraft crashed while attempting an emergency landing shortly after takeoff. The MD-82 aircraft skidded off Madrid-Barajas Runway 4 and caught fire.

Eleven fire trucks remain at the scene.

Spanair is Spain's second biggest airline after Iberia and is a subsidiary of Scandinavian carrier SAS.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0820/madrid.html

Images of crash scene here:
http://www.elpais.com/articulo/espana/25/muertos/accidente/aereo/Barajas/elpepuesp/20080820elpepunac_11/Tes

Run_to_da_hills

150 according to the UK Times. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4573696.ece

Shamanic

according to El Mundo, they can confirm that 140 passengers died, 27 in critical condition and most are not expected to make it. Among the passengers 2 babies and german and british officials

vigos

it was its second attempt at take off according to elmundo.es it had to abandon it first take off attempt

mike65

Was watching the various news programmes, RTEs correspondent claiming the model had an "exellent" safety record when clearly it does not.

Mike

Shamanic

according to sky they have officially confirmed that there is in fact only 27 survivors, 19 of which are in critical condition.

RIP

staker

Terrible terrible tragedy,especially after the first failed take off attempt, if reports are true...RIP

Captain Slow IRL

vigos wrote: »

it was its second attempt at take off according to elmundo.es it had to abandon it first take off attempt

Why did it have to abandon it's first attempt?

Fishtits

Latest, unconfirmed, is that it took off, returned due to tech issues. Attempted to take off again, had engine problems, attempted to abort & crashed before lifting off. Asymmetric thrust seems to be a major factor

All above unconfirmed/speculation.

Thoughts are with the deceased and their families. Sad day. RIP.

mumhaabu

Those old McDonnel Douglas planes have no place in todays modern aviation world. Scrap every one of them, America has had several accidents with them also. Give me a well maintained Airbus or Boeing anyday. RIP to those affected, you are still safer flying than behind the wheel of your car on the way to the airport.

*Kol*

Fishtits wrote: »

Latest, unconfirmed, is that it took off, returned due to tech issues. Attempted to take off again, had engine problems, attempted to abort & crashed before lifting off. Asymmetric thrust seems to be a major factor

All above unconfirmed/speculation.

Given the position of the engines on an MD-82 asymmetrical thrust wouldn't be an issue like on an aircraft with wing mounted engines. It will be interesting to hear the cause.

*Kol*

mumhaabu wrote: »

Those old McDonnel Douglas planes have no place in todays modern aviation world. Scrap every one of them, America has had several accidents with them also. Give me a well maintained Airbus or Boeing anyday. RIP to those affected, you are still safer flying than behind the wheel of your car on the way to the airport.

That aircraft was only 15-20 years old. There are plenty of older aircraft of all types flying commercially.

DWCommuter

This was a terrible tradegy. What really slams it home to me, is the fact that its an airline Ive flown with out of Dublin on charters. Obviously, the exact cause is unknown at the moment. While Im no aviation expert (just an air crash investigation fanatic) I had christened this airline "Spannerair" such was my experience with them. Having only flown on their MDs, I was often shocked at the condition of the aircraft. In my opinion, I agree that the MDs are not the safest of planes anyway. A quick spin on google will demonstrate ongoing problems with them. I never had a fear of flying, until I flew in an MD. Now I get very anxious.

But until the cause is revealed, Im only pontificating, but saddened by this aviation disaster.

Biro

DWCommuter wrote: »

This was a terrible tradegy. What really slams it home to me, is the fact that its an airline Ive flown with out of Dublin on charters. Obviously, the exact cause is unknown at the moment. While Im no aviation expert (just an air crash investigation fanatic) I had christened this airline "Spannerair" such was my experience with them. Having only flown on their MDs, I was often shocked at the condition of the aircraft. In my opinion, I agree that the MDs are not the safest of planes anyway. A quick spin on google will demonstrate ongoing problems with them. I never had a fear of flying, until I flew in an MD. Now I get very anxious.

But until the cause is revealed, Im only pontificating, but saddened by this aviation disaster.

If you look hard enough you'll find problems with all aircraft type. The 737's had that rudder problem, and they're the most popular aircraft out there. You can't really judge the condition of the plane by the inside alone.
Terrible tragedy for all involved, hope they get to the bottom of it soon.

The Black Oil

Pretty damn scary, that.

fricatus

*Kol* wrote: »

Given the position of the engines on an MD-82 asymmetrical thrust wouldn't be an issue like on an aircraft with wing mounted engines. It will be interesting to hear the cause.

What would asymmetric thrust have to do with it anyway? Twin-engined jets are certified to take off on one engine. In those circumstances, rudder needs to be applied, so as to counter the yawing action and keep the plane flying straight, but the aircraft should fly more or less normally, albeit on reduced power. An aircraft type has to pass this test in order to receive its certification.

Check out the Thomsonfly video of a 757 taking off from Manchester a year or two ago (it's on YouTube) for an example of an engine failure on takeoff. Thankfully it was handled in textbook fashion by the crew and ATC.

highlydebased

fricatus wrote: »

Check out the Thomsonfly video of a 757 taking off from Manchester a year or two ago (it's on YouTube) for an example of an engine failure on takeoff. Thankfully it was handled in textbook fashion by the crew and ATC.

It actually had a bird strike but anyway

As a general rule aircraft have at least 30 years in them if not more

It has been proven that the MD82 is one of the safest aircraft built to-date

Aer Lingus' A330's were delivered from 1994 onwards- the oldest of which is now 15 years old with more than average amount of cycles, they have many more tech problems and snags than any MD82. And I bet mumhaabu, you would still have no problem going across the Atlantic in a said A330 :rolleyes:

donvito99

my dad told me that this md is basically thee original md with 8-10 metres added to it , doesn't seem very safe

*Kol*

donvito99 wrote: »

my dad told me that this md is basically thee original md with 8-10 metres added to it , doesn't seem very safe

No offense but that's a ridiculous statement to make. Because it's longer it's not safe? Can the same be said about the A340-600 or countless other stretched models of aircraft?

highlydebased

*Kol* wrote: »

No offense but that's a ridiculous statement to make. Because it's longer it's not safe? Can the same be said about the A340-600 or countless other stretched models of aircraft?

+1

Clytus

Of course this is all guess work...but if an engine exploded,lets say,could there have been serious damage to the evelvator/rudder assembly?

I have to say at this point,I find it rather annoying when sky news interview " aviation experts",who refer to takoff and landing as the most "dangerous" parts of flight.

Takeoff and landing would be the points in time when the aircraft mechanically and crew mentally are subjected to the most stress...but its hardly be described as the the "most dangerous times".

Fratton Fred

Clytus wrote: »

Takeoff and landing would be the points in time when the aircraft mechanically and crew mentally are subjected to the most stress...but its hardly be described as the the "most dangerous times".

Statistically though, I thought the first 7 minutes of a flight was when you were mostly likely to have an accident. So that's not an unreasonable statement for them to make.

Foggy43

The Boeing MD-9, 80 series airplanes are as safe as any others flying today. Did a few years on them myself. Yes! We all remember the Air Alaska incident and that was down to maintenance companies cutting corners.

As a certain TV channel tells us, yesterdays incident will be down to a chain of events and not one single item. Lets wait and see.

*Kol*

Clytus wrote: »

Of course this is all guess work...but if an engine exploded,lets say,could there have been serious damage to the evelvator/rudder assembly?

I have to say at this point,I find it rather annoying when sky news interview " aviation experts",who refer to takoff and landing as the most "dangerous" parts of flight.

Takeoff and landing would be the points in time when the aircraft mechanically and crew mentally are subjected to the most stress...but its hardly be described as the the "most dangerous times".

If you look at the other phases of the flight they are very uneventful. Duing landing and takeff there is more likely to be an accident. I guess that's what they mean when they refer to these phases as the most dangerous.

Biro

donvito99 wrote: »

my dad told me that this md is basically thee original md with 8-10 metres added to it , doesn't seem very safe

Probably in the same way that the 737-900 is basically the same as the 737-100 from the late 60's.

Clytus

.....I think maybe the word "dangerous" is too stong a word?!? I noticed on RTE news this morning their expert used the word "critical" in describing the takeoff phase of a flight.

But a truely shocking,horrific incident...all my sympathies to the families of the victims.

Davidth88

The MD80 series is based off the DC9 , which was flying in the 70's . To compare a MD82 with a early DC9 however would be like comparing a new ford fiesta with one of the orginals..... there is a family resmablance thats all.

I have flown on MD80s a lot from Rome/Milan to CAG and other places and I have always thought them to be really comfortable and if near the front quiet.

DWCommuter , got any more details on the state of the aircraft you flew on , when was that ?

I hope they get to the bottom of this crash quickly , my thoughts are with all the families involved.