Go Back   Sports Car Forum - MotorWorld.net > General Discussion > General Chat

General Chat General chat about anything that doesn't fit in another section here



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-20-2008, 01:04 PM   #1
nthfinity
Regular User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Detroit
Posts: 9,929
Default 147 + dead in spanish plane crash

147 killed in plane crash at Madrid airport

By HAROLD HECKLE – 16 minutes ago
MADRID, Spain (AP) — A Spanish emergency rescue official says there are only 26 survivors after an airliner with 173 people aboard crashed on takeoff from Madrid's airport.
The official with the SAMUR municipal rescue service gave the toll after touring the site of Wednesday's crash.
The official told AP the rest of the people on the plane have been given up for dead. He spoke on condition of anonymity because of department rules that barred him from giving his name.
The Spanair jet was bound for the Canary Islands.
THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.
MADRID, Spain (AP) — A Spanish airliner bound for the Canary Islands swerved off the runway and caught fire during takeoff from the Madrid airport on Wednesday, killing at least 45 people, the Interior Ministry said.
Nineteen of the 173 people on board were seriously injured, according to statements from the airline and the ministry.
It is the height of the summer tourist season in Spain and Spanair flight JK5022 was bound for Las Palmas in the Canary Islands, a popular resort off West Africa, the company said.
Thick, white smoke rose above Barajas airport as helicopters and fire trucks dumped water on the plane, which ended up in a wooded area at the end of the runway at Terminal 4.
An official with the Madrid emergency rescue service SAMUR said crews were removing injured people and bodies from the MD-80, calling it a "catastrophe." The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to give his name.
The plane was an MD-82 carrying 173 people, Spanair said.
The newspaper El Pais said the plane was delayed an hour by technical problems. It managed to get slightly off the ground but crashed near the end of the runway, the paper said.

RIP ..... very sad
__________________
www.nthimage.com
Car photography website
nthfinity is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2008, 01:59 PM   #2
RC45
Regular User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Texas
Posts: 15,413
Default

The newspaper El Pais said the plane was delayed an hour by technical problems. It managed to get slightly off the ground but crashed near the end of the runway, the paper said.
No doubt the solution to the technical issue was brushed aside by managment who deternined they needed the income from the passangers and pressed the plane back into service.

Sad for the victims and their families, very sad
RC45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2008, 02:04 PM   #3
pagani
Regular User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Pagani Productions HQ
Posts: 6,237
Default

Originally Posted by RC45 View Post
No doubt the solution to the technical issue was brushed aside by managment who deternined they needed the income from the passangers and pressed the plane back into service.

Sad for the victims and their families, very sad
Profit over people
Rip people
pagani is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2008, 03:03 PM   #4
5vz-fe
Regular User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 6,167
Default

Rip...
__________________
5vz-fe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2008, 08:36 PM   #5
Mattk
Regular User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 6,610
Default

The death toll is now 153, which is massive. A very sad, and preventable event. People will complain about cancellations and long delays, but whilst not ideal, they save lives.
__________________
One stumble does not constitute total failure;
One victory does not constitute total success.
Mattk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2008, 09:29 PM   #6
Pokiou
Regular User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 1,451
Default

i dont care HOW long my flights are delayed.. as long as they fix the crap and get me home safely! then im a happy camper !
Pokiou is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2008, 02:57 AM   #7
styla21
Regular User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,744
Default

Why are you guys throwing stones at the planes maintenance integrity, when there's not much evidence to support the allegation yet?
It was an engine failure, right? There's quite a few variables that could contribute to what went wrong...
__________________
styla21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2008, 03:11 AM   #8
RC45
Regular User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Texas
Posts: 15,413
Default

Originally Posted by styla21 View Post
Why are you guys throwing stones at the planes maintenance integrity, when there's not much evidence to support the allegation yet?
It was an engine failure, right? There's quite a few variables that could contribute to what went wrong...
Why?

History.

Planes dont just "fail".
RC45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2008, 04:30 AM   #9
SinRS
Regular User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 31
Default

Originally Posted by styla21 View Post
Why are you guys throwing stones at the planes maintenance integrity, when there's not much evidence to support the allegation yet?
It was an engine failure, right? There's quite a few variables that could contribute to what went wrong...
Maintenance is an issue now when efficiency is being raised to the very maximum.
SinRS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2008, 08:42 AM   #10
Mattk
Regular User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 6,610
Default

It seems a pretty logical conclusion. Taking off is a fairly normal exercise which well-trained airline pilots should be able to perform in decent weather. The airline is not exactly going great guns, with its parent airline SAS recently announcing that it was offloading it. Bad publicity like grounded planes would have looked bad, and a technical fault is not what anyone needs. The pilots want to keep their jobs. So they take off. Oops.
__________________
One stumble does not constitute total failure;
One victory does not constitute total success.
Mattk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2008, 02:50 PM   #11
pitfield
Regular User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Mayfair/Brighton
Posts: 1,262
Default

153 r.i.p.
__________________
MINI MINI MINI MINI MINI MINI MINI MINI
pitfield is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2008, 04:10 PM   #12
philip
Regular User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Houston
Posts: 812
Default

As I understand it, supposedly there is something called V1 and V2. These are calculated by the pilot before take off. V2 is the takeoff speed V1 is the speed after half the runway is used up. I believe the V1 speed is calculated and if it is not achieved at mid point the takeoff is aborted. This apparently may have happened once on this flight, its hard to tell from the reports. They said they the people were told they might get a new plane, that didnt happen.

On the second time it appears there was an engine failure, I would assume after the V1 point. V2 would not have been achieved and therefore the plane stalled at takeoff.

With the plane full of fuel the end was horrific.

The news descriptions from the scene are terrible. My sympathy for those friends and loved ones left behind.

RIP
__________________
philip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2008, 10:13 PM   #13
Mattk
Regular User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 6,610
Default

^From what I know, VR (velocity revolution or something like that) is the take off speed. Obviously not achieved.
__________________
One stumble does not constitute total failure;
One victory does not constitute total success.
Mattk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2008, 10:28 PM   #14
RC45
Regular User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Texas
Posts: 15,413
Default

Originally Posted by Mattk View Post
^From what I know, VR (velocity revolution or something like that) is the take off speed. Obviously not achieved.
Well, based on various aviation authority and training definitions, V1 in a jet is essentially the speed at which yo umust have already decided to abort your take off... V2 is the minimum speed to achieve safe flight and Vr is the rotation velocity - the point at which you need to rotate your jet to the correct takeoff attitude. ( I am paraphrasing and trying to remember my littl ebit of "flight training" flying shotgun wth my dad and reading his training manuals as a kid)

Interestingly enouhg, an MD80/MD82 can, with the correct flight crew training and systems still being functional, execute a succesful take off with one engine.

This disaster I believe will prove to be a series of human errors piled on top of one another - and that early on the pivitol decision to "try make the flight" was driven by a desire to get the revenue fo rthe trip.

Last edited by RC45; 08-21-2008 at 10:39 PM.
RC45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2008, 11:46 AM   #15
enzoferrari
Regular User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Miami
Posts: 1,069
Default

R.i.p
__________________
Check out my photos at http://www.flickr.com/photos/am1988/:-)
enzoferrari is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump