Up to 50 reported dead in Spain plane crash

[square]

Madrid Barajas airport details for 20 August 2008:

Active take-off runway: 36L
Runway length: 4,350m
Airfield elevation: 2,000ft
Weather details (METAR) around the time of the take-off:
Visibility more than 10km, no cloud surface wind varying from 180°/07kt to 140°/04kt air temperature 28-29°C

They took off downwind?

[Rockie]

That's not unusual. The tailwind limitation is probably 10 kts just like every other transport category jet. They were nowhere near MTOW and they would (should) have calculated takeoff performance numbers taking that into account. In normal circumstances that's a no brainer especially with a runway that long. I can't see that being a factor in this accident.

[square]

Yeah that sure is a long one, over 14,000 feet! Hard to believe you'd even have trouble on one engine.

That previous report someone posted though said "Heavy MD-82 [...] carrying a full load of 172 people, including 10 crew, four of whom were off duty."


In any case, I'm in no position to speculate, but hopefully we can learn something from this sometime later. My heart goes out to the victims & families.

[C23flyer]

This from wikipedia...

MD-82 (DC-9-82)
Originally the Super 82, variant for hot and high operations with 20,000 lb thrust JT8D-217 engines and increased maximum take off weight.

[Rockie]

For jets 2000 ft is not very high, and 29 degrees is not very hot. I don't know why the press is making an issue of this.

[2R]

Sometimes boring factual reports do not sell newspapers.Now if they print something lurid about the crews nocturnal activities that would sell more papers.

What i found interesting is that it was found to be servicable so quickly after a rejected take-off .Somewhere in those moments after the first rejection lies an answer that may prevent such an occurance again.In such a complex and reliable engine ?How could they have diagnosed and fixed the problem in such a short span of time ???How many people were involved in that thought process ?What other factors may have led to a quick maintenance release ?
These are questions that the others in the Star Alliance must answer if they want to continue the inter-line agreements without undue risk exposure.

[Rockie]

The press is reporting that whatever the "gauge" problem was, the plane was dispatched afterward in accordance with procedures which I can only guess is the MEL. If that's the case then it's not unusual. But first of all, nothing appearing in the press can be believed because they are completely uninformed people writing about something they know absolutely nothing about to sell newspapers. Secondly, whatever the initial problem was may have had everything to do with the accident, and it may have had nothing to do with the accident. For all we know he could have swallowed a couple of large birds in each engine as he was rotating.

We won't know until sometime after the accident investigators do.

[niss]

How do 19 people survive a crash in which the aircraft almost denigrated?

Thanks for the PM C23flyer.

Damn FireFox spellcheck, I meant disintegrated.

But have no fear, I am now clear, I looked up what denigrated means and I have officially decided that it is not the word I meant to use!

So to rephrase, How do 19 people survive a crash in which the aircraft almost disintegrated?

[Lost in Saigon]

Yeah that sure is a long one, over 14,000 feet! Hard to believe you'd even have trouble on one engine.

It is possible the length of this runway may have worked against them.

From the reports I have read, the aircraft got airborne and then appeared to try to land again. It then lost control during this possible attempted landing.

Landing an aircraft just after taking off is something you would only consider if you knew the runway was much, much longer than required.

[C23flyer]

How do 19 people survive a crash in which the aircraft almost disintegrated?

Understanding that the media tends to sensationalize, the Martinez story was particularly touching; the mother directing rescuers to her daughter, the father rescuing other children. Fate, luck, misfortune, the hand of Allah or God or god, or in scientific terms, the culmination of circumstances resulting in an outcome foreseeable only in hindsight (or something of that nature)...from the moment we're conceived to the moment we expire, our existence is predicated on the day to day avoidance of our demise. Some more than others choose to ignore that reality, and quite possibly live more pleasant lives as a result.

[jetflightinstructor]

Itek-Air crashed with its B737-200. This company has been forbiden to fly the europeenne union sky in july 2008 because of the saving cost on the maintenance Itek-Air was doing.
Almost all the passenger died. It happened today.

[Big Pratt]

You already figured out why it has crashed?

Are you some kind of a union monkey with an agenda?
Are you pissed off that your company layed you off and does it's heavy Mx in South America?
What's the deal with you?
Will you come here and blame every crash on cutbacks before you know any facts?

Was TACA 390 also caused by cheap Mx?
Was TAM 3054 also caused by cuts?
AtlasJet 4203?
OneTwoGo 269?
How about Air France 340 in YYZ? They gotta be on the EU no fly list, no? They destroyed a perfectly flyable plane! More than once in fact.
Or maybe Iberia in Quito, hey, the A340 must be a dangerous A/C! Ban it!

If you think that cutbacks cause crashes, how do you explain the fact that corporate aviation actually has a worse safety record than the airlines? I mean bizjet operators spare few expenses on their planes, esspecially on maintenance.

Get a life dude...

BP

[jetflightinstructor]

How about Air France 340 in YYZ? They gotta be on the EU no fly list, no? They destroyed a perfectly flyable plane!

How many pax died on this flight??? You compare apples and oranges.

If you think that cutbacks cause crashes, how do you explain the fact that corporate aviation actually has a worse safety record than the airlines? I mean bizjet operators spare few expenses on their planes, esspecially on maintenance.

Again, I dont know what you compare. The rules concerning the commercial airlines ar much more strict than for the corporate. There is much more staff working for an airline than for a corporate, speaking about the maintenance. So if the corporate aviation has a worse safety record than the airlines it makes sense. What you want to prove is not clear.

Would you say that cheap maintenance has no influence on the safety???

Because thats what concerns the company I mentioned above: Itek air. They have just been bannished from europe because of their poor maintenance one month ago. And that is a fact.

I am sure we have the same goal: safety. I just explain the facts, and wants to explain that whats happening now (biggest traffic we have ever seen in the sky, plus huge cost problems due to the fuel) is a safety issue.

[Rockie]

Jetflightinstructor

There are many things that can effect safety, and poor maintenance is obviously one of them. But cost cutting does not necessarily mean poor maintenance. Yet you are directly attributing the recent accidents to staff reductions and cost cutting which is grossly speculative since the investigators have barely begun their work.

If you were interested in preventing future accidents you would wait until the facts are known before standing on your podium. As it is now, you are just grinding an employment axe that may have nothing at all to do with these events.

While I can sympathize with you having been a casualty of economic times myself (who hasn't?), you're not helping your cause by this.

[jetflightinstructor]

While I can sympathize with you having been a casualty of economic times myself (who hasn't?), you're not helping your cause by this.

Right now I have a job, but it could change who knows.... truly thank you for sympathizing though.

I dont want to stand on a podium here. I just feel there is problem, and the last thing I want to hear again is a crash in the coming weeks or months. Everything should be done to prevent other crashes. I am not the only one feeling this problem here, I speak about that with my colleagues. But thats no politically correct to explain that openly on a pilot forum maybe, I apologize.
Concerning the investigation, they will look the details, the mistakes, the failures, which is fine, this is their job. But you will never read in an investigation that a crash occured because of a financial problem. Thats an other kind of analysis to be done at an other level, which doesnt really exist right now.

And if I am wrong and there is no relationship (but how to prove it...) between the financial situation and the crashes that are occuring, I will be more than happy, because it will mean that the crash series concerning the airlines having financial difficulties will stop here.

[square]

You're truly a brave pioneer of accident investigation analysis conclusion (on another level)-drawing.

[Captain_Canuck]

Jetflightinstructor....

I can not believe the verbal diarrhea coming out of your mouth! Are you kidding me when you say that these crashes we caused due to cutbacks? I do not see the correlation there at all. Am I missing something that your overly wild imagination has picked up on? Am I so clueless that I can not figure out the root cause of this crash hours after it has happened as you have? Please correct me if I am wrong here, but based on your statements in earlier posts, if a company such as British Airways lays off people and then has an incident, what your saying is it is directly related to the layoffs and nothing to do with anything else?

Things can happen in aviation for a ton of different reasons. An earlier poster made a suggestion that perhaps they ingested birds or perhaps there was a problem with an EPR probe; both of these could be a possibility but we dont know. If it is true and the aircraft did swallow up far too much runway for the conditions perhaps the engines were not producing enough power. Who knows? Only the raw and hard facts that come out of the investigation will be able to reveal the root cause of this tragic incident.

In closing jetflightinstructor, your opinions are not based on fact at all. At best they are pure entertainment for me and the rest of the readers here. Your arm chair like investigation tactics are classless and vile to say the least. For you to draw some unfounded conclusion between this incident and the layoffs the company had been planning to phase in is just..........lame. I cant think of a better word than lame. Cause you are lame. Perhaps you should take some time to read a few accident reports like the rest of us and actually try and learn something about air crash investigations before running your cake hole off on here.

Rant...over, going missed

[jetflightinstructor]

Rant...over, going missed

Dictionnary Rant definition:
A rant (also called harangue or declamation) is a monologue that does not present a well-researched and calm argument; rather, it is typically an attack on an idea, a person or an institution, and very often lacks proven claims.

I can not believe the verbal diarrhea coming out of your mouth!

Yes right clearly this is a RANT.
I dont believe that you would use the same language if you were facing me right now.

At best they are pure entertainment for me and the rest of the readers here

Why cannot you speak just for yourself, you feel you may lack credibility alone?

before running your cake hole off on here.

I feel you are the one doing that with your unpleasant manner and arrogance.

You said I have no facts? The company who crashed has been bannished by all Europe one month earlier because they were cuting on the maintenance. That is a fact, and an official one if you ask the europe aviation authority who took the decision. Dont be naive and think an investigation will ever say in their report that a crash has been the result of cost saving on maintenance. They will just explain the details of the failure.

Now I would say if you want to discuss with me as a gentleman about safety and crash you have to be more polite, but as you said yourself your rant (sure thats really what it is) is over.

[linecrew]

[Flying Nutcracker]

Cutting the wrong costs can possibly lead to an accident. As for the true cause of this one... we will know in 12-24 months.

Until then, let's not jump to conclusions and start a debate over a statement that has dug a hole it is impossible to get out of...

Where's my Keith's??? Awww, there you are !!!

[SeptRepair]

Why cannot you speak just for yourself, you feel you may lack credibility alone?

I think all the readers on this forum recognise who the real person is here that lacks credibility.

[Flying Nutcracker]

Read in a European newspaper that they are speculating that the crew forgot to set flaps for takeoff. A video apparently shows no fire prior to impact.

Interesting turn of speculations...

[DA900]

As Flying Nutcracker had mentioned the flap setting is being looked at now.

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

[CD]

US Pilots Admit To Same Oversight That Led To Spanair Accident

NAOMS Data Indicates Improper Takeoff Flap Settings Reported 55 Times Since 2000

The August 20 downing of a Spanair MD-82 on takeoff has cast the spotlight on a relatively mundane task for most pilots: setting proper flap positions.

And based on figures cited by USA Today... that may be a good thing. The national news journal says US pilots reported 55 incidents of improper flap and slat settings on takeoff to NASA's National Aviation Operations Monitoring System since 2000.

"This represents a disturbing trend," says Flight Safety Foundation president Bill Voss. "There are obvious human errors that are being made that take away ... layers of safety."

According to NAOMS responses, most reported cases of improper takeoff settings were caught by visual and aural cockpit warning systems, and corrected before the aircraft took off. Investigators into the Spanair crash -- which killed 154 people -- say those warning systems were inoperative onboard the accident aircraft.

Proper takeoff settings for flaps (and on larger aircraft, leading edge slats) are vital for all aircraft, especially for larger business jets and airliners. Both devices expand the available lifting surface of an airplane's wing, providing additional lift during the critical moments when the aircraft must climb out of ground effect, and establish a safe climb attitude at relatively slow airspeeds.

The NAOMS study lists an 2005 incident at Washington Reagan National Airport, in which the airliner took off without the devices deployed. According to the pilots' account of the incident, the airliner nearly plunged to the ground. Another flight crew reported to NAOMS they erred in failing to set flaps and slats during their October 2006 takeoff from Orlando.

"Event could have been catastrophic," the pilot said, "had it not been for (the) takeoff warning horn."

USA Today notes the reported incidents are nearly statistically irrelevant, compared with over 10 million airline operations per year... but as pilots know, it also only takes one time for a minor oversight to become tragic.

FMI: http://www.nasa.gov/news/reports/NAOMS_survey_data.html, http://www.flightsafety.org
http://aero-news.net

[CD]

Human error stubborn snag in airline safety
An incident in May 2005 at Washington Reagan National Airport,is similar to the crash last month in Madrid that killed 154 people.

By Alan Levin, USA TODAY

As the jet roared toward takeoff, it seemed "sluggish" and struggled to lift off, the captain said later. It climbed only 100 feet before the control column started shaking violently, a warning that the jet was on the verge of plummeting to the ground.

Only then did the crew of the Boeing 737-800 head off tragedy. The co-pilot pulled a lever to extend flaps and slats, critical devices that add lift to the wings and must be used on takeoff. The pilots had forgotten to set them, the captain said.

This incident in May 2005 at Reagan Washington National Airport, recounted in a NASA database of pilot reports, is eerily similar to a crash in August in Madrid that killed 154 people.

The pilots of a Spanair Boeing MD-80 filled with holiday travelers also did not extend the flaps, according to a preliminary report by Spanish investigators. The jet lifted off briefly before striking the ground tail-first and bursting into flames.

Just as in the Washington flight, the warning horn designed to prevent such accidents did not sound, according to the report. The captain on the Washington flight said a circuit breaker on the warning horn had tripped, preventing it from working.

Despite a string of fatal crashes because of failure to set flaps, including two in the USA in the late 1980s, such incidents continue, according to the NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System.

From 2000 to the present, pilots reported 55 cases in which they attempted to take off without properly extending the flaps, according to the data. In nearly all cases, the warning horn functioned normally and prevented tragedy. But pilots - many surprised that they made such a critical error - say that stress, fatigue or interruptions to their routines caused them to make big mistakes.

"The cause of this potentially dangerous situation was a breakdown in checklist discipline attributable to cockpit disruptions," said the captain in the Washington incident. Pilots and airlines are not identified in the reports.

Pilots thrown off track

Safety has improved dramatically in the airline industry in recent decades. But the human mind remains a stubborn impediment to wiping out crashes altogether.

"You'll do the same thing correctly 1 million times and then not do it correctly one time," says Ben Berman, a former National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigator who has studied human behavior for NASA. "Things like a moment of stress, a spike in workload, a change in routine - all these things can throw humans off track."

Distractions played a role in fatal accidents in Detroit and Dallas blamed on flaps and slats, the NTSB ruled. They were often cited in the NASA reports.

"It's a good reminder for crews to understand that you've got to be following your procedures," says Terry McVenes, an accident investigator, safety expert and airline pilot. "And if there are interruptions while you are doing your checklists, you've got to stop and be vigilant to make sure you don't miss anything."

Some specific cases

Distractions similar to those documented in previous accidents - including a handful of cases in which pilots also may have sidestepped procedures intentionally - dominated the cases in the NASA data:

* In September 2003, an airline pilot riding in a jet's passenger section noticed that the 737-200 did not have flaps extended as the jet reached the runway at Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport. Only when the jet accelerated toward takeoff did the flaps begin to come down, the pilot said.

"Obviously, the takeoff warning horn saved all aboard from a terrible mishap," the pilot said. "It's pretty difficult to believe an event like this would take place."

* In October 2000, a captain of a flight in St. Louis acknowledged forgetting to set the flaps until the warning horn sounded.

The captain said that issues with congestion at the airport, restarting an engine and dealing with an unruly passenger caused the crew to forget a checklist.

"It is very sobering to realize that only a small warning horn kept my flight from being a replay of the ... MD-80 crash (in Detroit in 1978)," the pilot said.

* In January 2007, a co-pilot recalled having to repeatedly shout at the captain before the senior pilot ordered flaps extended after they had reached the runway - a violation of the airline's procedures.

Full article here...