Madrid Plane Crash.....

Over 150 killed after a plane crashed at Madrid Airport.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7572643.stm

Poor buggers. From what i've read didn't really stand a chance.

Ok. I think we can do without all of that and start again.

Tragic accident it has to be said. RIP all those involved. Can only hazard a guess at what happened. Based on what I've seen on the news it was either an uncontained engine failure, which damaged the hydraulics at the rear of the aircraft, or the crew didn't react properly to the failure.

Either way the MD-80s are old aircraft.

Ok. I think we can do without all of that and start again.

 

Tragic accident it has to be said. RIP all those involved. Can only hazard a guess at what happened. Based on what I've seen on the news it was either an uncontained engine failure, which damaged the hydraulics at the rear of the aircraft, or the crew didn't react properly to the failure.

 

Either way the MD-80s are old aircraft.

Awful, awful accident, as these things always are. RIP to all involved.

Isn't the MD-80 series a development of the old DC-9..? The DC-9 was pretty much ok, and if I have my memory right, was developed into the MD-80. This was an MD-82, but a 15 year old one. I would have thought we have a case of pilot error in extreme circumstances.

Now if we were talking about a DC-10..?

BTW, doesn't SpanishAir fly out of Eastleigh. Normally an excellent safety record I hear.

What happened in the hour between the first attempted take off and the fateful second attempt would seem to be critical.

Awful, awful accident, as these things always are. RIP to all involved.

 

Isn't the MD-80 series a development of the old DC-9..? The DC-9 was pretty much ok, and if I have my memory right, was developed into the MD-80. This was an MD-82, but a 15 year old one. I would have thought we have a case of pilot error in extreme circumstances.

 

Now if we were talking about a DC-10..?

 

BTW, doesn't SpanishAir fly out of Eastleigh. Normally an excellent safety record I hear.

Yep. The MD-80 is just a modified DC-9. Trouble is these modifications were made in the late 70's and the aircraft which crashed was 15 years old. Even so it's probably one of the youngest MD-80s in existance.

According to reports it was the left engine that failed, which would have produced a fairly small yaw to the left, yet this aircraft came down a fair bit to the right of the runway, which would suggest there is more to it than just an engine failure. I guess we'll have to wait for the report to know what exactly.

The DC-10 crashed a lot in the 70's, but has been fairly reliable since. The last accident I can recall was a Swissair MD-11 which crashed off the coast of Nova Scotia in '98 I think. All on board killed because the in flight entertainment overheated and killed the pilots. Tragic. Even so the DC-10s/MD-11s left are getting very long in the tooth.

The MD-80 series is a development of the DC-9 but no real reason to slate it for old technology. Over 1,000 were built and most are still flying. Thay have been involved in 56 notable incidents and 23 hull losses. 1,056 fatal casualties. A lot of the crashes are because many MD-80s are owned by crappy airlines in Africa etc.

They are being withdrawn quickly now but that's mainly because of their poor fuel economy. A Flybe Dash-8 turboprop can achieve 30% more efficiency on the same short-medium haul flights. But American Airlines still has over 200 MD-82s.

RIP to all.

The MD-80 series is a development of the DC-9 but no real reason to slate it for old technology. Over 1,000 were built and most are still flying. Thay have been involved in 56 notable incidents and 23 hull losses. 1,056 fatal casualties. A lot of the crashes are because many MD-80s are owned by crappy airlines in Africa etc.

 

They are being withdrawn quickly now but that's mainly because of their poor fuel economy. A Flybe Dash-8 turboprop can achieve 30% more efficiency on the same short-medium haul flights. But American Airlines still has over 200 MD-82s.

Not slating old technology, just old aeroplanes. The MD80 was very good in its day. Trouble is it's day was in the 80s. Aircraft this old invariably have maintenance issuses, not to mention design flaws which have been engineered out of more modern aircraft.

The MD80 does have quite a poor safety record compared to most modern aircraft. Spannair, NorthWest, Alaskan, SAS and American have all had fatal crashes, not just the Asian/African carriers. Compare this to only 5 fatal accidents ever involving western opperated Airbus'.

P.S. American Airlines is on it's a*se.

 

P.S. American Airlines is on it's a*se.

Yep. Chapter 11 recently etc. They'll be flying MD-80s until they are banned from the sky for emissions purposes.

Yep. Chapter 11 recently etc. They'll be flying MD-80s until they are banned from the sky for emissions purposes.

According to wiki, AA also has 58 MD-83s, which would bring the grand total to 300. They'll end up being dragged kicking and screaming out of service in about 10 years I reckon. Much like the 30 year old 727s which were still in the fleet until just after 9/11. F**k me we you trust a 30 year old plane....

The DC-10 crashed a lot in the 70's, but has been fairly reliable since. The last accident I can recall was a Swissair MD-11 which crashed off the coast of Nova Scotia in '98 I think. All on board killed because the in flight entertainment overheated and killed the pilots. Tragic. Even so the DC-10s/MD-11s left are getting very long in the tooth.

One of the things I check whenever I fly to a destination is what the carrier's aircraft is. 99% of the time there's no problem, but back in the early 1990s I flew to southern France and back in a Lockheed Tristar L-1011. The alternative carrier used DC-10s and were cheaper. I paid the extra money.

And I've not forgotten that if a piece of DC-10 hadn't fallen off onto a runway in France, then Concorde might still be flying.

According to wiki, AA also has 58 MD-83s, which would bring the grand total to 300. They'll end up being dragged kicking and screaming out of service in about 10 years I reckon. Much like the 30 year old 727s which were still in the fleet until just after 9/11. F**k me we you trust a 30 year old plane....

It's most probable that MD-80 series planes will leave the skies in larger numbers when aviation emissions trading schemes kick in as they will become too expensive for airlines to operate. The EU scheme is schedululed for 2012 so that should see the end of the ones operated here by likes of SAS and Alitalia mainly.

US is a different kettle of fish entirely as I doubt that they will get an emissions trading scheme going this side of 2020.

BTW, doesn't SpanishAir fly out of Eastleigh. Normally an excellent safety record I hear.

Used to, but not anymore I don't believe, although not working there anymore I couldn't say for certain. Not seen one overhead for years though.

Difficult to add much without any official comment, but the only additional piece of speculation I heard was that they were trying to make an emergency landing in that field, hence why they were on that side of the runway despite the port engine allegedly being the one which failed, but I really wouldn't like to much more without any more info.

Sadly, this kind of thing focuses attention on aircraft and listening to a radio show today with some extremely uninformed opinions was disappointing... it seemed the show was only interested in generating talking points and controversy rather than dealing with fact, although to be fair, they can't predict what callers are going to say. Even so I expected better from a BBC programme.

According to wiki, AA also has 58 MD-83s, which would bring the grand total to 300. They'll end up being dragged kicking and screaming out of service in about 10 years I reckon. Much like the 30 year old 727s which were still in the fleet until just after 9/11. F**k me we you trust a 30 year old plane....

Well, strangely, yes I would actually... flown on a few infact myself... but only if I am happy that the airline has a solid safety and maintenance record. You know only too well the stringent procedures in place with all the different 'exams' aircraft go through... but that said, there is no doubt that I feel a lot happier on newer aircraft, especially some of the latest generation which continually improve on things.

Well, strangely, yes I would actually... flown on a few infact myself... but only if I am happy that the airline has a solid safety and maintenance record. You know only too well the stringent procedures in place with all the different 'exams' aircraft go through... but that said, there is no doubt that I feel a lot happier on newer aircraft, especially some of the latest generation which continually improve on things.

A well maintained plane is fair enough, but I think 30 years old is really pushing it.

The trouble is an older aircraft invariably gets less reliable, no matter how well maintained they are. They develop faults regularly and it can be only a matter of time before something serious happens.

A well maintained plane is fair enough, but I think 30 years old is really pushing it.

 

The trouble is an older aircraft invariably gets less reliable, no matter how well maintained they are. They develop faults regularly and it can be only a matter of time before something serious happens.

They still fly a few 707s commercially in Iran. Last place in the world apparently.

They still fly a few 707s commercially in Iran. Last place in the world apparently.

Iran have a lot of trade restrictions which prevent them buying new aircraft. I think it's just the one 707, not sure.

One of my worst fears a plane crash, I hope Easyjet don't use 30 year old planes on September 6th!

Yesterday's crash sounded horrific. Apparently most of those who survived only did so having been thrown into a stream by the impact! Scary stuff.

The last accident I can recall was a Swissair MD-11 which crashed off the coast of Nova Scotia in '98 I think. All on board killed because the in flight entertainment overheated and killed the pilots. Tragic. Even so the DC-10s/MD-11s left are getting very long in the tooth.

Wow, I don't remember that one but had a good read over lunch...shocking

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swissair_Flight_111

This was the last plane I flew on, back in June, it was old, like a minibus, and was absolutely BRILLIANT

Yesterday's crash sounded horrific. Apparently most of those who survived only did so having been thrown into a stream by the impact! Scary stuff.

 

 

 

Wow, I don't remember that one but had a good read over lunch...shocking

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swissair_Flight_111

 

This was the last plane I flew on, back in June, it was old, like a minibus, and was absolutely BRILLIANT

 

I flew on one of them to Alderney.

Frightened the shiitt out of me

Yesterday's crash sounded horrific. Apparently most of those who survived only did so having been thrown into a stream by the impact! Scary stuff.

 

 

 

Wow, I don't remember that one but had a good read over lunch...shocking

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swissair_Flight_111

 

This was the last plane I flew on, back in June, it was old, like a minibus, and was absolutely BRILLIANT

 

The Brittern Norman Trislander. Production ceased in '83 according to wiki, so that's at least 25 years old, possibly older. 72 produced and (touch wood) no accidents to date.

I flew on one of them to Alderney.

Frightened the shiitt out of me

Yup, that's where I was headed! Great fun!

Flew from London City to Madrid in a rather small plane last summer and we endured an aborted landing at Madrid...also rather exciting although it only dawned on me just how to close we were to landing later on...apparently the Spanish ATC had not noticed the other plane on the landing strip!! It seemed like we were literally only a few feet from touching down...eeek! :smt120

One of my worst fears a plane crash, I hope Easyjet don't use 30 year old planes on September 6th!

No worries there. The Easyjet fleet is one of the most modern in Europe. They are also calling (along with Flybe) for the EU to ban all planes that are older than 15 years from EU skies by 2012. Obviously it is also to the commercial advantage of both airlines should that happen as none of their planes are that old but many competitors would not be able to afford or take delivery of newer replacements in that time period.

The MD80/2 shouldn't really be taken out of service now, I remember when SAS first came into Birmingham airport a few years ago, for a huge airline I was shocked at the condition of their fleet that came. Although, their attitude to safety was spot on but the MD's are of a bygone era and I agree with the likes of Flybe and Easyjet. Then again, a lot of these airlines are all members of star alliance so I don't know if that would have any bearing on if they were told to take them out of service.

I always remember the SH6 that I used to use between BHX and Exeter, I think it was affectionately known as the Shoebox, now that was an odd aircraft. I think it had a baggage compartment in the nose of the aircraft and had to be loaded nose first or it could tip.

I read in the Times today that the bodies were so hot that they burnerd the rescuers when touching them. Sounds rough to me!

The MD80/2 shouldn't really be taken out of service now, I remember when SAS first came into Birmingham airport a few years ago, for a huge airline I was shocked at the condition of their fleet that came. Although, their attitude to safety was spot on but the MD's are of a bygone era and I agree with the likes of Flybe and Easyjet. Then again, a lot of these airlines are all members of star alliance so I don't know if that would have any bearing on if they were told to take them out of service.

It would make no difference at all as EU legislation covers all EU skies regardless of operator.

The more tricky aspect that will likely be tested in the courts eventually if the EU Emissions Trading Scheme is introduced in 2012 is whether non-EU airlines should be subject to the tax. Funds raised from the tax will be put into modernising EU air facilities, particularly a project called Single European Sky (SES) that intends to unify the current 58 EU ATC zones into one pan-EU system that would mean less zig-zagging about for planes in EU skies as currently happens. So less fuel used and less emissions. But the US airlines in particular are kicking off about it and threatening to use airports such as Dubai rather than Heathrow or Charles de Gaulle as change hubs for long haul flights to Asia. So BAA etc also has concerns.

Yep. The MD-80 is just a modified DC-9. Trouble is these modifications were made in the late 70's and the aircraft which crashed was 15 years old. Even so it's probably one of the youngest MD-80s in existance.

Last year, in South America, I flew on a MD80 and this was in excellent condition and very well looked after.

Yesterday's crash was made worse for any rescue attempt because the field the plane came down in was so dry that the vegetation caught fire and impeded the passage of people trying to get to the scene.

St Landrew mentioned the DC10. I flew on one of those to the States a few years ago and was surprised that a US carrier was operating such an elderly aircraft. It was as rough as hell and the jet noise as the engines throttled up on take off was the loudest I have ever heard and it wasn't the most comfortable plane I have ever flown on, but I once flew on a Boeing 727 which was even rougher.

Last year, in South America, I flew on a MD80 and this was in excellent condition and very well looked after.

Yesterday's crash was made worse for any rescue attempt because the field the plane came down in was so dry that the vegetation caught fire and impeded the passage of people trying to get to the scene.

 

St Landrew mentioned the DC10. I flew on one of those to the States a few years ago and was surprised that a US carrier was operating such an elderly aircraft. It was as rough as hell and the jet noise as the engines throttled up on take off was the loudest I have ever heard and it wasn't the most comfortable plane I have ever flown on, but I once flew on a Boeing 727 which was even rougher.

AA, Delta and North West are all in the poop cash wise so they continue to fly older aircraft like the DC-10 and early version 747s. As well as MD-80s on regional routes. I wrote an article for a US enviro mag last year that assessed how to cross the pond from an enviro point of view. Delta's long haul average fleet age is something like 17 years, Air France by comparison is only seven years. BA was about 11 I think.

One of the things I check whenever I fly to a destination is what the carrier's aircraft is. 99% of the time there's no problem, but back in the early 1990s I flew to southern France and back in a Lockheed Tristar L-1011. The alternative carrier used DC-10s and were cheaper. I paid the extra money.

 

And I've not forgotten that if a piece of DC-10 hadn't fallen off onto a runway in France, then Concorde might still be flying.

**** safety, these are some of the only proper planes flying anymore, I'd pay more to fly on them.

Luckily we get to see the RAF Tristar every so often (and the VC-10..another beauty) when they fly in here for wargames practices.

Yesterday's crash sounded horrific. Apparently most of those who survived only did so having been thrown into a stream by the impact! Scary stuff.

 

 

 

Wow, I don't remember that one but had a good read over lunch...shocking

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swissair_Flight_111

 

This was the last plane I flew on, back in June, it was old, like a minibus, and was absolutely BRILLIANT

 

Flew on one of those to Alderney *cough*26*cough* years ago. Weighed us all before we got on and i ended up sat next to the mail bag.

Coming back i sat next to the pilot who made me sit on my hands the whole flight back. Never happen nowadays of course.

Back on thread topic, i would hope that they never knew what hit them. Bloody awfull.

Col.

AA, Delta and North West are all in the poop cash wise so they continue to fly older aircraft like the DC-10 and early version 747s..

Not sure there are any major US airlines flying MD-11s let alone DC-10s? (...or old 747s)

This thread is turning into a real nerdfest! :cool:

Not sure there are any major US airlines flying MD-11s let alone DC-10s? (...or old 747s)

 

This thread is turning into a real nerdfest! :cool:

Lol. None of them fly DC-10s by choice now although there are still quite a few on their books. AA has 20, North West has 30 and Continental have 20. **** knows why.

Not sure about MD-11s but by and large they are more modern than MD-80s.

Quite a few veteran 747s still about and you can also add into the elderly active planes list some of the older 757/767s that are used regularly. US Airways has a quite large fleet of early 80s 757s in active service for example.

Lol. None of them fly DC-10s by choice now although there are still quite a few on their books. AA has 20, North West has 30 and Continental have 20. **** knows why.

 

Not sure about MD-11s but by and large they are more modern than MD-80s.

 

Quite a few veteran 747s still about and you can also add into the elderly active planes list some of the older 757/767s that are used regularly. US Airways has a quite large fleet of early 80s 757s in active service for example.

Sure I remember reading NW retired the passenger DC-10 in service worldwide, last year. Even the MD-11s have been sold off, mostly to cargo airlines. Aeroflot cargo opperate a fair number of both types. I can see them taking off from my bedroom window quite regularly. When they are empty they climb like a missile.

Sure I remember reading NW retired the passenger DC-10 in service worldwide, last year. Even the MD-11s have been sold off, mostly to cargo airlines. Aeroflot cargo opperate a fair number of both types. I can see them taking off from my bedroom window quite regularly. When they are empty they climb like a missile.

Yeah, the US DC-10s are stored but I imagine a number of them have air worthy certificates kept up in the hope that they can be flogged to cargo operators rather than just scrapped. I suppose certain elements can be cannibalised also such as engine parts.

US Airways has a quite large fleet of early 80s 757s in active service for example.

Had a British pilot who's chief pilot with America West (US Airways) who flies the 757 come into where I used to work a lot (GeminiJets models). Always had something negative to say about the age and crapiness of the planes....and airline in general!

US Airways has a quite large fleet of early 80s 757s in active service for example.

Jeez, time bloody well flies quicker than the aircraft. Ive always thought 757s/767s were a product of the 90s. Now I realise I've been thinking about 777s all the time.

Well it's an easy mistake to make. I haven't been an aircraft nerd for donkey's years..! :confused:

From what has been said in the news on this, and previous incidents I reckon this crash must have something to do with a reverse thruster activation. Whether something sheered off the left engine and wrecked the hydralics systems causing automatic activation of reverse thrusters, or the pilots tried to put it down after V1 and poured on the reverse thrusters (thus pulling to the right as left engine malfunctioning). Though obviously there are so many other things that could have caused the crash, and its normally a series of faults that leads to such events. My heart goes out to those on board and their relatives/friends. A truely awful thing to happen.

Did the pilot/co-pilot survive the crash does anyone know?

From what has been said in the news on this, and previous incidents I reckon this crash must have something to do with a reverse thruster activation. Whether something sheered off the left engine and wrecked the hydralics systems causing automatic activation of reverse thrusters, or the pilots tried to put it down after V1 and poured on the reverse thrusters (thus pulling to the right as left engine malfunctioning). Though obviously there are so many other things that could have caused the crash, and its normally a series of faults that leads to such events. My heart goes out to those on board and their relatives/friends. A truely awful thing to happen.

Very unlikely IMO. Loss of hydraulic pressure wouldn't cause reverse thrusters to deploy. If it did the reversers would open as soon as the engines were shut down on the ground, which they don't. It is also unlikely that asymetric reverse thrust would cause the aircraft to veer off to the side upon landing. Yes it would cause a yawing moment to one side, but the pilots should be able to correct that, or at the very least close the reverser if they can't.

Very unlikely IMO. Loss of hydraulic pressure wouldn't cause reverse thrusters to deploy. If it did the reversers would open as soon as the engines were shut down on the ground, which they don't. It is also unlikely that asymetric reverse thrust would cause the aircraft to veer off to the side upon landing. Yes it would cause a yawing moment to one side, but the pilots should be able to correct that, or at the very least close the reverser if they can't.

Fair point, though I thought a few crashes had been attributed to unexpected deployment of a reverse thruster?

Fair point, though I thought a few crashes had been attributed to unexpected deployment of a reverse thruster?

There was a Lauda Air 767 which went down somewhere in Asia in the '90s when one TR deployed and and the ac broke appart in flight. There was another aircraft which had a TR deploy on take-off. May even have been an MD-80, can't remember who, when or where.

It is possible, but witness' reported seing flames from the left hand engine. Not something that would occur if the reverser opened. Even if it did, the aircraft would pull to the left very sharply, whereas the Madrid plane came down to the right of the runway.

Sounds like you guys need to check out my favourite internet resource...

http://www.planecrashinfo.com

There was a Lauda Air 767 which went down somewhere in Asia in the '90s when one TR deployed and and the ac broke appart in flight. There was another aircraft which had a TR deploy on take-off. May even have been an MD-80, can't remember who, when or where.

 

It is possible, but witness' reported seing flames from the left hand engine. Not something that would occur if the reverser opened. Even if it did, the aircraft would pull to the left very sharply, whereas the Madrid plane came down to the right of the runway.

Yeah, that was one that I was thinking about. Not sure if I explained myself correctly, I meant to say that either the right rt deployed due to a fault, or that the pilots were trying to stop the plane and both rts were deployed, but because the left engine was on fire it wouldn't produce the reverse thrust, but the right engine would, hence pulling it to the right. There probably are a few scenarios that could have caused this awful accident, hopefully they can work out what went wrong so the knowledge can be used to prevent it from occuring again.