Plane crashes on takeoff in madrid, spain - "146+ Dead"

Figures have risen to 157 now.
R.I.P

reply to post by C0bzz

---

i must disagree with that list - Concorde had 1 accident in 27 years , and that was a direct cause of bits falling off the preceding aircraft (a continental dc-10) which several employees are facing manslaughter charges for failing to maintain that aircraft correctly;

numbers can`t give a clear picture of how `safe` an aircraft is (


on to the topic

from pprune



other info , which is sad - the fire brigade counldn`t get close because the fuel was burning with such heat - the survivors are in in a critical condition from burns and a firefighter witnessed `rows upon orws of charred bodies` - the poor souls had no chance of escape.

edit: that `list` about accidents is from sky news

also on pprune the pilots are talking about the fact that 1 thrust reverser was fully deployed coupled with a damaged engine and partial hydrolic failure would indeed cause this crash.

speculation though

[edit on 21/8/08 by Harlequin]

No doubt.

Almost all accidents have had nothing to do with the aircraft, but also the causes have since been removed - so it's impossble for most accidents to re-occur. Take the Md-11 for example, once they fixed LSAS issues & changed pilot training the safety record was on par with the 777 / A340.

Either way, past or present, the MD-80 has had an exellent record & criticism for past accidents & a single jackscrew do not hold any water.


AFAIK, Hydraulics on the Md-80 are used only the the t/r's, spoilers, & for full elevator down in event of a stall. Otherwise, the controls are flown mechanically by small trim-tabs... therefore if this rumor is true it must of been T/Rs deploying were part of the crash.

For nonquals here's a link:
www.pprune.org...

[edit on 21/8/2008 by C0bzz]

reply to post by C0bzz

---

The same thing can be said about the entire DC-10 and the freight door issue;

that is - a spate of accidnts mar the type , no matter how many are made , when a number fall out of the sky within a few years, percieved confidence in the type collapses.

reply to post by C0bzz

---

I fully agree with you. However, one cannot expect everyone to know everything about aircrafts and at the same time expect them not to express their fears based on faulty reports from the news media.

I have been an active aircraft maintenance engineer for about 18 years and am of the firm belief (as with all aircraft engineers) that air travel is the safest mode of transportation next only to the “bullock cart”! It was a common saying among the engineers that “anything that flies and has wings is 100% safe”, believe me, it is.

Any air crash is a sad event: for the people who were traveling in the plane as well as for the aviation industry. Most of the crashes could have been avoided.

Irrespective of the findings of the investigation of the crash (black box and voice recorder evidences) which will follow this crash, the cause of the crash will inevitably be “human error”: error by negligence, over confidence and failure to enforce regulations laid down in CAA and/or FAA, which are quite comprehensive. There is no point blaming the aircraft, its design or its manufacturer. If the operating airlines are more responsible, air crashes can be totally avoided. When will we see that day?

it seems the aircraft was at a go at V1 rotated at Vr and failed around V2 but before climb out at around 400 feet agl and came down on its right wing , the survivors were in rows 14>17 apparantly

the `discussion elsewhere` is of a catastropic engine failure on the climb out power settings - including thrust reverse bucket being deployed on 1 engine

edit:

with 166 + 6 crew onboard they are right on there space for pax ,given that 2 class its 152 and 1 class its 172 , and with a long flight they would be heavy on fuel as well for the trip to las palmas - in a straight line its 1100 miles and aircraft don`t fly straight lines so would say its 1400+ for the flight

[edit on 21/8/08 by Harlequin]

Timesonline.co.uk

Pilot error caused this? Or not.... we will most likely never find out.

one of the engines

aviation-safety.net...

Listed as the 4th worst accident to happen to a MD-80

Link has several different news videos of accident

reply to post by Harlequin

---

Harlequin.....I must take a bit of issue with the comment about the Continental DC-10

YES, a piece of the cowling seems to have fallen off, during it's take-off. Minor, random things like that can happen, and when they aren't critical to THAT airplane, then that airplane continues on....the piots don't know, the mechanics (at departure airport) don't know. AND, by the way....not every airline has their own employees working maintenance at every airport they operate in and out of. It's called 'contracting'.....guess today they say 'outsourcing'...

Here's the thing.....the Captain of that Concorde declined an offer to have the runway checked, before his take-off. A few minutes, while airport workers in their vehicles look for 'FOD'.....this Captain decided he didn't want to wait. See???? One decision, of many.....and catastrophe.

So, where does the onus really lie?

reply to post by weedwhacker

---

John Taylor, a Continental mechanic
Stanley Ford, a Continental maintenance manager
Henri Perrier of Aerospatiale
Claude Frantzen, a former employee of the French airline regulator

are the people charged with manslaughter -

further the `minor` detail was a piece of titanium , 4 cm wide x 50cm long - and was unauthorised fitment to the thrust reverser of the DC-10 and against the FAA air worthiness certificate and a vilolation of the manufacturers own rules on fitment of third party equipment.

this hit the number 2 tyre at V1 causing the tyre to shred at high speed - that being Vr and the tyre disingtatrated upwards into the wheel well and fuel tank at speeds over 300 mph , at that speed even rubber becomes like a bullet - this then punctured the fuel tank and electrical wiring inside the wheel well which started the fire


you don`t reject a take off at V1 or after , there simply isn`t enough runway left to stop in safely , hands off the levers and get it into the air for a go around , which is what they tried , but with failing hydrolics and only power from 2 engines , it was doomed.

reply to post by Harlequin

---

Allright, Harlequin.....

I remember the case....still ongoing, of course.

SO....I get it....an unauthorized and illegal modification to an engine nacelle/cowling. Bad judgement?? Yes....but, let's look at the Corporate Culture of the time, rather than the people involved....the 'scapegoats'

Back to my point.....the Captain (rest his soul) certainly knew his airplane well, and likely knew it's flaws and 'Achilles heel'.....or, maybe not.

We are taught that AFTER the call of 'V1' we are committed to the take-off. TOO many rejected take-offs, after V1, resulting in substantial damage to the airplane, and possibly deaths to passengers and crew when, after being looked at as a 'Monday Morning Quarterback' led to this Mantra....

THERE is, however, always the proviso.....if you pass V1, and you KNOW that there is a problem that would preclude continuing the take-off, you abort. If the airplane is not flyable, you don't want to fly. Stay on the ground, and accept those consequences.

Of course, being human, means we make a decision, and a quick decision isn't always the correct way to go....plus, humans need time, even a few seconds (or four or five) at 150 or 170 knots means a lot of ground gets eaten up.

At my airline....we 'bugged' V1 on the A/S indicator, of course....and V2....the 'internal bug'

Pilots 'call-out' things, to verify to each other....the V1 call is, of course...mandatory. We were taught to 'call out' V1 a few moments before we actually got there....thinking is, it takes time to say the words, it takes time....and everything is accelerating very quickly.

The worst possible time to have something 'bad' happen during a take-off is near V1.....it is literally "GO/NO-GO"

Well below V1, is simple....abort. Once 'V1' is called, and seen by whoever is flying....then, training says..."GO"....

The Concorde Captain should have taken the few minutes needed for a 'FOD' check of the runway. He was in too much of a hurry....NEVER a good thing, in the flying business. A three minute delay? Even five minutes? 'Priceless'

FOD can come from many sources.....

(V2 is simply a speed that provides best climb, in the event of an engine failure)

reply to post by C0bzz

---

An informative post and ok, the MD-80 is safer than I was informed by TV. Seems shabby journalism strikes again. Good thing I am not an aircraft safety inspector...

BUT I do have one qualm with your post though, you're linking to statistics of 2004, so while I agree that the overall ranking might not have changed much, it would be nice to have more accurate numbers. Also your list is about fatalities so it would not count the number of accidents without fatalities. It might skew the numbers for the MD-80 a bit.

And I also agree with the principle that in aircraft the fact that human beings operate them is the weak link when it comes to safety.

You've somewhat got me more at ease as to the safety of the type, but I'm still looking at it with some caution and distrust.

reply to post by weedwhacker

---

i must concur about the corporate culture - if the `rumours` are true then some airlines flying nowsdays (orange writing and all) operate in `interesting` crewing requirements...


and yes the ones getting the weight of the law are the scapegoats - not those in the ivory towers who made the call in teh first instance;

as for high speed rejects too many recently have resulted in the aircraft written off 2 recent 742F comes to mind - as for concorde , i do think even if they had shut it all down blown the chute and stood on teh brakes it sadly would have been the same result but on the runway

reply to post by pmexplorer

---

Very weird accident, since the plane had already aborted a takeoff due to technical problems. Seems to me, at first glance, that the crew where coerced by the company to get the plane in the air...

That is the price you sometimes pay for flying "low cost"...

reply to post by NorthWolfe CND

---

NorthWolfe.....could you care to (edit) read my earlier posts, abut the 'V' Speeds, before a jump to a conculusiion......even BEFORE the investigation has been bugun, not (edit) to mention, not been close to being concluded!!??


People are dead! Have some compassion!!!

EDIT....I hate this keyboard!! Will now fix typos....


[edit on 8/21/0808 by weedwhacker]

www.canada.com...

Hope this helps.

[edit on 22/8/2008 by C0bzz]

reply to post by C0bzz

---

Not really, since Boeing absorbed MD, the guy can be legitimately accused of bias... But ok, I concede the type is safer than I had been lead to believe.

reply to post by Zepherian

---

Well, even with up to date information, if you find out the percentages of Md-80s involved in hull-loss incidents, it turns out favourably against 737, 747, 707, 727, A300, & A310...

reply to post by NorthWolfe CND

---

Yes and that's why Ryanair which is the cheapest of all low cost carriers has never had a single accident.(1 cent flights anyone)
I don't get why people batter low costs so much.. Just cause you pay 10000£ for First class doesn't mean that the mechanics will do a better job.