Spanair Plane Crash

Tropheus

I've flown on the MD80s with SAS several times from Dublin to Copenhagen and always found them comfortable. SAS got rid of all their Dash 8s due to reliability problems so I'm sure they woudn't use the MD 80s if there were similar issues.

It's hard to understand what happened here. It was possibly a catastrophic engine failure that interferred with rudder/elevator function that caused the pilot to loose control. Not unlike the DC10 crash at Sioux city in the 80s.

Punchy07

Anyone know if the plane had actually gotten off the ground?If not I think the plane had probably passed V1 when the engine failed,pilot's should have gone around but probably panicked and tried to abort the take off,then again it's all guess work at this stage.Terrible tragedy

*Kol*

Punchy07 wrote: »

Anyone know if the plane had actually gotten off the ground?If not I think the plane had probably passed V1 when the engine failed,pilot's should have gone around but probably panicked and tried to abort the take off,then again it's all guess work at this stage.Terrible tragedy

I read somewhere earlier that the plane had gotten to about 300 feet before going down.

Punchy07

I see but alot of this might turn out to be rubbish.Lots of these eye witness reports are usually just people making stuff up to get on the paper.Like the BA 777 incident,some witnesses claimed it's engines were roaring louder than usual,others said it's engines were totally silent.We'll see soon enough anyway.Can't believe people are questioning the reliability of the MD-82 though,like most aircraft it's incredibly safe,having only 2 flaws..bad piloting and bad maintenace

DWCommuter

Davidth88 wrote: »

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.

It was one of Spanairs MDs. I can't recollect the model. The years were '99 and 2001, both flights from Dub to Tenerife and return. In 2001 seats were lose at the rear of the plane. (as in not bolted to the floor properly) Some people complained (including me) and were moved forward to thankfully vacant seats. There was a regular "shuddering/vibration" of the walls in the rear toilet and loose fittings. (again in 01) I mentioned this to the cabin crew, but they neither reassured me or told me it was normal. The engine noise seemed excessively noisey in comparison to my first flight in 99. Many passengers felt the same way on those flights and many of them had travelled spanair a lot more than me. Im a frequent flyer, and that plane didn't feel right. I mean Monarch are flying 25 year old Boeings and I'm on them from time to time. They look better maintained than the MD I was on back then.

Davidth88

If you are further back than row 15 or so the MD80s are noisy , and I mean NOISY ( I am shouting )

Interesting DWcommuter.

Mythago

I remember a few years ago (1997'ish) watching a MD-82 taking off on test flight from SNN when the pilot deliberately cut power on #1 ENG. A simultaneously scary and impressive sight as it climbed out (The Airline rep nearly $hit himself as we watched). Of course it wasn't fully laden...... so can't comment further on yesterdays accident. But most likely a combination of unfortunate events.

The biggest problem the MD has in todays world is that it's fuel efficiency is pretty appalling compared to the competition. If it were a fundamentally flawed or unsafe aircraft it wouldn't be flying!

With regards to DWcommuters loose seats, this does unfortunately happen from time to time on numerous airlines. As for the increased engine noise; your perception between 99 & 01 would have been affected by flying quieter newer aircraft in the interim. I find md's these days to be shockingly loud once aft of the wing! But it is a trait shared with all rear engined a/c

*Kol*

If you want loud fly in a stage II hushkitted B737-200. I was in one recently. It's like being in a fighter jet!!

Clytus

I think what most people would like to know is why the pilots lost control of the aircraft. The plane should still have been able to climb,circle and land on one engine if Im not mistaken....but something else must have happened to cause the plane to veer to the right (even though the left engine caught fire).

This vid shows how the 757 suffered a bird strike in its right engine,yet still made its climb circle and landing successfully.


http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=_tLF-3d3PJk

ImDave

Clytus wrote: »

This vid shows how the 757 suffered a bird strike in its right engine,yet still made its climb circle and landing successfully.

No doubt it should have been able to climb away if an engine failure was the only problem. Pilots must be re-certified on engine out procedures every so often. There is simply such a multitude of factors which could potentially have brought the aircraft down, there is simply no point in speculating.

Fabio

I flew on an MD-90 on a roundtrip from Stansted to Reykjavik (Keflavik). I was near the front on the way out and it was dead queit and very comfortable while we were very near the engines on the way back and it was noisy but not more so than being at the back of an EI A330...

shamwari

DWCommuter wrote: »

It was one of Spanairs MDs. I can't recollect the model. The years were '99 and 2001, both flights from Dub to Tenerife and return. In 2001 seats were lose at the rear of the plane. (as in not bolted to the floor properly) Some people complained (including me) and were moved forward to thankfully vacant seats. There was a regular "shuddering/vibration" of the walls in the rear toilet and loose fittings. (again in 01) I mentioned this to the cabin crew, but they neither reassured me or told me it was normal. The engine noise seemed excessively noisey in comparison to my first flight in 99. Many passengers felt the same way on those flights and many of them had travelled spanair a lot more than me. Im a frequent flyer, and that plane didn't feel right. I mean Monarch are flying 25 year old Boeings and I'm on them from time to time. They look better maintained than the MD I was on back then.

I flew to the Canaries on my honeymoon on a Spanair MD82 back in 1999. I had a stinker of a head cold and was stuck right at the back of the plane with two vibrarting and resonating engines. An utterly horrible experience :mad:. I too experienced the shuddering vibration around the rear toilet and galley area. When on the ground, there was a fumey smell of aviation juice in that area as well :eek: The APU perhaps? Funnily enough, if you were sat around the middle of the plane around the wing area, it was a more pleasent experience. I've flown on many different types of aircraft (usual 737's and Airbuses), but in my mind those MD 80's were not a great aircraft.

RIP those who passed away.

Clytus

Im just looking at the image posted earlier of the tail section of the spanair plane...does anyone else see the damage to the leading edge on the left side?









If there was an engine explosion and it damaged the left side of the tail section...would/could that result in the aircraft veering off to the right..even thought thrust remained full on the right side?

Mythago

Clytus wrote: »

Im just looking at the image posted earlier of the tail section of the spanair plane...does anyone else see the damage to the leading edge on the left side?




If there was an engine explosion and it damaged the left side of the tail section...would/could that result in the aircraft veering off to the right..even thought thrust remained full on the right side?

That's the right hand Horizontal stab with part of the leading edge missing (Pic is from above). TBH though, anything is possible...........

skybus

I happened to be operating out of madrid and flew over the crash site the day after the accident. It crashed approx 500 feet to the right of runway 36L in Madrid and about 8000ft down the runway. The aircraft was definately airborne before impact as I calculated when we got airborne that there was in the region of 4000 ft of runway left. From this it suggests it was a V1 or post V1 failure, i.e it occured after your critical decision point where stopping is not an option. There were no skid marks on the runway and there was a gap of at least 400 ft between the runway and first scorch marks from the fire. Runway 36L in Madrid is just over 12000 ft long for those unaware of it. I had a good look at the site and saw the stream that the survivors were thrown into. It's quite amazing actually as this stream was very small and had only a small amount of water in it. From what I saw of the site the majority of the remains of the aircraft were at the foot of a small hill which to me suggests it hit the base of it, bringing the aircraft to an abrupt halt possibly causing it to break in two.

As to the reasons, it's very unclear as to what happened. As someone suggested earlier, an engine failure in itself will not cause the aircraft to crash. Every individual pilot, whether you hold the rank of captain or First Officer in Europe individually has to demonstrate this very procedure every six months in the simulator to retain their licence, i.e an engine failure/fire at exactly V1 where you must continue and control the take off regardless of you still being on the runway. You are committed to take off at this point. For a failure of the left engine to occur you would expect the aircraft to have ended up on the left side of the runway, and not the right, as the aircraft will yaw and eventually roll if no input is put on the rudder pedals by the pilot flying to counteract the roll towards the failed engine. This suggests to me that whatever happened the engine, it ruptured hydraulic lines and caused the aircraft to become uncontrollable. I also believe that the left engine indeed was on fire but I have a very big suspicion that is it was still producing some thrust at the time of impact. This is just my own theory but I suspect it may be a factor but the failure of the hydraulics being the ultimate reason. I don't think the temperature sensor will have any connection to the crash although the media are having a field day with this suggestion.

What has become clear to me watching the coverage of it on television is that the media have become ravaging dogs prying on the distraught of the families. The impression I got was that they were more interested in describing the blood and guts element of the situation rather than the actual facts. It was disturbing to see them chase distraught family members through the terminal over in Las Palmas to get their reaction.

There will be alot of speculation but the recovery of the flight data recorder and voice recorder was crucial and will display a clear picture of the events to the invesitgation team.

Run_to_da_hills

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.

I would agree, The DC10 had a notorious reputation for falling out of the sky, and would hold this airctaft responsible for the fall of Freddy Laker. Now its the MD80's turn. Since this company is no longer in existence Boeing who bought them out should offer all airlines a generous "scrappage deal" to rid the world of them. A part from being a noisy aircraft these planes are guzzlers designed in the 70ies..

shamwari

We were having a chat about this accident in the canteen today. There are a lot of us in agreement with Skybus regarding the media conduct in reporting this tragedy. It does leave a lot to be desired, but then again this particular accident has struck a chord with anyone who has looked at the pictures on TV. It is horrific on a shocking scale.

Getting back to the canteen discussion, one of my colleagues profferred an alternative cause. Engine No1 is suspected of failing at or about the time they rotated. What if one of the pilots shut down the wrong engine (a lá Kegworth)? It might explain the sudden vere to the right as the craft came down..?

Anyway its only speculation....all will become clear when the black boxes are decoded.

shamwari

Just found this on the BBC news website. Apparently there is video footage which contradicts claims of engine failure.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7577536.stm

A "chain of faults" is being blamed

yaeger

My two cents....

If it was an explosion as the media usually dramatise there would have being bits of engine on the runway.....If it was an engine fire they would not have lost power immediately and would have had some power to climb away with.
The point mentioned above about shutting down the wrong engine as in kegworth is a non runner as both pilots would have been focussed on a safe climb out and stable aircraft, Primary actions would not have occurred till AT LEAST 400 agl, If they got the gear up and set Max thrust that would have been all they did in that time.
As with anything its a chain of events that leads to acidents...
I would say a power loss, possible fan blade seperation which may have effected hydraulic lines with maybe evidence on the runway to back that up but combined with.......... Overloading and hot and resonabley high conditions. The MD is super critical for loading more so then most other Commercial aircraft especially in the front Cargo hold one, My guess is wrong figures passed to the flight crew regards loading in cargo one and then way too much carry on by holiday bound pax and a full enough aircraft operating to canaries. The Runway would not have been limiting but id say a slightly out of trim aircraft with an engine problem and then the hot and relatively high conditions did not help.

Then again.....Fatigued crew and simple wrong boot of rudder on engine fail left them screwed ! !

Just a guess........

*Kol*

Spanair MD-82 struck terrain tail-first: investigators
David Kaminski-Morrow, London (28Aug08, 01:27 GMT, 280 words)
Spanish investigators have disclosed that the Spanair Boeing MD-82 which crashed on departure from Madrid Barajas last week descended and struck the ground tail-first while struggling to climb away.
The aircraft travelled for 1.2km, hitting terrain three times before coming to rest.
Spain's Comision de Investigacion de Accidentes e Incidentes de Aviacion Civil (CIAIAC) revealed the information in the first update on the inquiry's progress since the 20 August accident which killed 154 of the 172 on board the jet.
It says that no marks or debris from the aircraft were found on the runway. Initial impact marks have been discovered to the right of the runway, indicating that the aircraft struck tail-first and that a section of the tail - possibly the tail-cone, which can detach to aid evacuation - came away.
The investigation agency has not confirmed the angle of attack of the aircraft at the point of impact.
CIAIAC's Francisco Javier Soto states: "[The MD-82's] movement along the ground lasted approximately 1,200m."
There is no firm indication of the height the aircraft achieved before it descended.
Specialists in the UK are extracting information from the cockpit-voice and flight-data recorders retrieved from the aircraft.
The aircraft's Pratt & Whitney JT8D-217 engines, thrust-reversers and auxiliary power unit have been recovered and stored for examination, along with some of the MD-82's avionics.
No conclusions have yet been reached over the status of the aircraft's engines or other systems at the time of the accident. The investigators are still collating data from several sources, including video surveillance, airport radar, air traffic control and maintenance personnel.
CIAIAC says that it is required to produce an initial factual report on the accident within a month.

shamwari

The latest word on this tragedy seems to suggest that there was an issue with the configuration of the aircraft. There is talk that flaps (or perhaps the slats) were not extended properly prior to take off. In addition, if there are issues with these particular settings, some sort of audible warning device is supposed to alert the flight crew to the fact that the settings are not correct, yet this also appears not to have happened.

See http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0904/madrid.html

Biro

shamwari wrote: »

The latest word on this tragedy seems to suggest that there was an issue with the configuration of the aircraft. There is talk that flaps (or perhaps the slats) were not extended properly prior to take off. In addition, if there are issues with these particular settings, some sort of audible warning device is supposed to alert the flight crew to the fact that the settings are not correct, yet this also appears not to have happened.

See http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0904/madrid.html

This wouldn't cause it to veer to one side though.

wittymoniker

would if it stalled first.

highlydebased

For anyone who wants to know what the md80 aurals are like- http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=MpQejVs3ryc

*Kol*

Looks like a stall as mentioned above could be the cause..

Recovered flight data recorder from the Spanair MD-82 that crashed last month on takeoff from Madrid Barajas revealed that the flaps were not extended, according to The Wall Street Journal, which cited sources close the accident investigation. Investigators are examining why an automatic audible warning in the cockpit did not sound and are considering whether an electrical problem caused the alert to malfunction, according to the WSJ, which said preliminary FDR data indicated that both engines were operating normally and that there was no engine fire. The aircraft returned to the gate following an aborted first takeoff attempt owing to a malfunctioning air intake probe but was cleared for a second takeoff, during which it elevated only a few meters before crashing tail first into the runway and catching fire, killing 154 of 172 passengers and crew

Fratton Fred

Looks like it could have been the flaps not working properly.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7618627.stm

Foggy43

The Detroit incident was caused by the pilots failing to deploy the leading edge slats and trailing edge flaps to the take off position.
This may have happened again in Madrid or maybe the leading edge slats failed or partially failed to extend on one wing.

The media are saying the investigators have a video of the incident as the investigators in LHR also have of the B777 incident. We will probably never see these video's.

FlutterinBantam

BEA Trident crash in Staines all those years back as well..............

pclancy

I've always wondered why all airports arent forced by the ICAO or someone to have runway cameras installed at both ends for a number of purposes, would help answer a lot of questions relating to takeoff and landing incidents within the airport. They always seem to have to rely on grainy security cameras from some random warehouse within the airport...why not have decent cameras covering everywhere?

Davidth88

I've always wondered why all airports arent forced by the ICAO or someone to have runway cameras installed at both ends for a number of purposes, would help answer a lot of questions relating to takeoff and landing incidents within the airport. They always seem to have to rely on grainy security cameras from some random warehouse within the airport...why not have decent cameras covering everywhere?

You know what thats a good idea !