Jump to content

Talk:Spanair Flight 5022

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wyup (talk | contribs) at 14:46, 7 September 2008 (→‎Airborne/ground sensor failure: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is all speculation!!

Fire on port engine ??? Crashed beacuse of airspeed ??

The pilot is DEAD and no one knows what happened. As a licensed pilot I can tell you this is just baseless speculation. There is no hard evidence of any issue with the engines yet, and even then, it is not clear if that could have lead to a stall. There are another zilion issues that could match this scenario.

Given that the hull suffered so massive damage it is clear we will not know the cause in a while. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.16.36.23 (talk) 17:28, 21 August 2008

Has the pilot been confirmed dead? 80.7.186.169 (talk) 02:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, both the captain and first officer. I know they recovered one of their bodies within only a few hours. Hopefully the CVR and DFDR yields some insight. 64.209.16.204 (talk) 05:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WARNING, Times online is WRONG!!

They have misunderstood the death toll number! it is only 45 confirmed by now, watching it live on Spanish TV...David (talk) 15:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Turn out they were right afterward. Dead count is now 153 and probably will raise as there are many injured with serious burns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.9.165.184 (talk) 22:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They were right, yes... but they were reporting 150 dead 30 minutes after the crash, when emergency services had only confirmed 50! A lot of speculation there... and sensationalism, not serious journalism. David (talk) 06:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed.. i only wanted to comment that they finally were right but only by chance, not justifying their "bet" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.9.164.139 (talk) 10:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fix history

Can an admin fix the history? We have two occurrences of this article. This article was redirected to Spanair Flight 22 after an edit history had been established. I don't care where the article lives, but we have two histories now. --Elliskev 15:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The admon neds to fix the page to be on Spanair Flight 22 to be inline with other articles eg United airlines flight 93 American Airlines Flight 11 and Pan Am Flight 103--Somali123 (talk) 15:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SAS Confirms

SAS has confirmed 166 passengers were on board and that 27 have survived 19 injured. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.163.135 (talk) 15:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

El Mundo

El Mundo are saying at least 140 dead. The Spanish Emergency services are saying 28 survived the crash but one of the survivors died on the way to hospital, there were 164 passengers aboard and nine crew. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.25.58 (talk) 16:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spanair confirms

Spanair confirms 164 passengers and 9 crew were on board —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.147.147 (talk) 16:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Spanair Flight 5022

This article should be moved to Spanair Flight 5022, but only an administrator can do so. – Zntrip 16:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please move. The wrong title is being aped on other Wikiepdias, so we're not helping... --Mareklug talk 19:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be quite happy to clear up this issue if I knew what was wrong with the current title. Please explain this. Adambro (talk) 19:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The aviation accident project guide says it should be <<airline>> Flight <<flight number>>, without the ICAO or IATA designator, please also refer to all the other accidents with a flight number. MilborneOne (talk) 19:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

citation needed

The Regional Authority in Madrid has so far confirmed that more than 100 people have been killed as a result of the crash. In addition, it has also been confirmed that there were 166 passengers - including two babies, and 6 crew members on board.

Can anyone provide the official statement from the Regional Authority or a news article to confirm this?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.116.60 (talk • contribs) 16:29, August 20, 2008 (UTC)

BBC news eyewitness

BBC 24 News report eyewitness account that the plain was airborne pas decision speed, rolled due to a left engine failure. The tail snapped on the ground and set a 1 Km2 patch of a ground a light. This prevented the emergency services to reach the plane for 15 to 20 minutes. reported at 17:42 Scubafish (talk) 16:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great journalism... if it was airborne by the laws of physics it would have to be past decision speed... but erhh.. rool due to engine failure?? Not likely, engine out on an md-80 does not cause excessive roll, nothing that is not coutnered byu rudder input. Lets not jump to conclusions on the causes of the crash but I doubt that engine out had much to do with the actual crashing, roll would have to be caused by other failures. Noserider (talk) 09:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other failures? The most likely causes are (1) engine out below V2 or (2) poor piloting. If the plane is below V2 then it is not controllable on only one engine. The plane will fly on two engines below V2 but not one. MD-80 or not. That the a/c rolled the other way it seems that the a/c was over V2 and the pilots overcontrolled. That's my bet, anyway. That there was some other mechanical cause at the same time as the engine failure is a little too unlikely. Paul Beardsell (talk) 08:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, if the engine *exploded* then perhaps that caused other systems to fail. Paul Beardsell (talk) 08:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

166 (164 plus two babies), not 164 passengers

There were 166 passengers, not 164, according to spanish media. [1]. The airplane had 15 years old (nine of them operating with Spanair). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jicosa (talk • contribs)

Airport history section not a good fit?

Seems like the 'airport history' stuff should be moved into the article on the airport itself instead of being a part of this article. This article is regarding a specific aircraft/incident/crash, so unrelated stuff like past crashes at the airport seems out of place here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.209.16.204 (talk) 17:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.. who added this? What good does add a history about how many planes crashed in Barajas ? I have reviewd many other crashes wikis and non has a "Airport fatalities" section. I think should be removed.. and/or moved to complement the wiki of Barajas international airport. If anyone wants to know about airplane accidents in Barajas then he/she should visit its wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.9.165.184 (talk) 18:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added the section to give a home to an existing piece of info about one of the 1983 accidents. Then I expanded it. Feel free to remove the section if you think it doesn't belong. --Elliskev 18:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to argue whether it fits or not, but it's wrong. The collision in 1983 occured while one plane was departing and another turned onto the runway. They weren't both landing at the same time (neither was landing.) Iberia 350 Boeing 727 and Aviaco 134 McDonell Douglas DC-9 Titaniumlegs (talk) 00:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image

I know nothing about image use. Can we use this? If so, what needs to be done? --Elliskev 18:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

nevermind. It's in the article now. --Elliskev 19:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section needed on emergency response

I think we could make a separate section on the emergency response for this article. Do any of the news articles cover this angle adequately? __meco (talk) 20:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Top image

Presumably that's not the specific plane. Shouldn't there be a note? zafiroblue05 | Talk 21:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supposedly, it is the same plane... --Hapsala (talk) 00:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The aircraft was wearing the Star Alliance livery. http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6269382&nseq=3 //\\ AirbusA346 //\\ (talk) 09:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this picture is wrong. I think it should be removed until a Star Alliance liveried plane can be put up. 89.132.124.3 (talk) 10:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image is of the exact plane involved in the crash, it isn't "wrong", it just happens not to show the exact livery that the aircraft was in yesterday. Whilst a more up to date photo would be nice, having a freely licensed photo of the exact plane at all is valuable. If a more up to date freely licensed photo can be found then by all means this can be replaced but if not then this remains very useful to our readers. Adambro (talk) 10:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Philippines Air

What's the relevance of the link to the Philippines Air crash? Bruxism (talk) 21:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't see a particular relevance between any of the 'See Also' section, the cause of the crash is unconfirmed (while runway overrun is a possibility, it has not been confirmed yet), the planes listed weren't even of the same type (They were Airbuses, this plane, although similar, was not) 84.45.134.188 (talk) 22:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not only that, but it appears to have crashed way before the end of the runway after getting airborne. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.108.249.161 (talk) 01:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move... again

Could someone move the article back to Spanair Flight 5022? – Zntrip 21:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- Arwel (talk) 21:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plane history

This airplane, registered EC-HFP was originally delivered to Korean Air in 1993 and it was registered HL7204 and HL7548. It was leased to Spanair in 1999. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.96.104.219 (talk) 01:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survivors between rows 14 and 17

Is it too soon to post to say that the survivors were between rows 14 and 17?

http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2008/graficos/ago/s3/t4_spanair.html

WhisperToMe (talk) 06:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions

I removed that section. Expressing condolences is a matter of courtesy and there's no need to mention each political leader who felt the urge to say something. --Matthiasb (talk) 10:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistencies

The article explains that the plan rolls to the left, but th picture shows that the plane rolled right. What is right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.113.82 (talk) 10:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also

We appear to have an expanding list in See also - none of which appear relevant until we know what the cause was. Should they all be deleted before somebody adds a link to Aircraft! MilborneOne (talk) 14:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects needed

Many millions of people know about this disaster. However, only a very small proportion of them know its flight number; a substantial proprotion do not know the company's name. As such, redirects from what those looking for this article are very likely to enter in the search box, to this article, are necessary. These need to include: August 2008 Madrid plane crash, Spanair plane crash.Werdnawerdna (talk) 15:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. It would help for those just doing a more general search.--Hourick (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Engine on fire or not?

I read on multiple news sites now that witnesses, including another captain in another plane landing when the Spanair took off, that there were no engine fire.

bbc.com

Pfez (talk) 13:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the spanish media the video shows that there weren´t a fire until the crash. 91.179.170.221 (talk) 17:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sources also includes the official airport surveillance video (by the airport authority, AENA) as well as what CNN is now reporting. So far, it appears the fire was a result of the crash rather than preceding the crash. 64.209.16.204 (talk) 05:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hull loss

"the 14th fatal accident and 24th hull loss involving MD-80 series aircraft..."

Someone needs to explain in the lede what hull loss means. -- Earle Martin [t/c] 14:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've linked it to wikt:hull loss for starters. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too many 'deadliest' events listed in the lead paragraph?

There's three different sentences regarding deadliest air disasters. While all three are factual and correct, it seems like it's a bit too long/much/repetitive and takes away focus from the main article content. The lead paragraph need to be a little 'tighter' in wording as well as avoiding risk of putting undue weight on any one single element.

My suggestion: just use a single sentence mentioning deadliest-since-xxx and a single event to compare against, instead of three different ways of looking at it. It doesn't matter to me which sentence stays, but honestly think two of them need to go. Anyone else's take on it? 64.209.16.204 (talk) 18:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have tweaked the lead to simplify it.MilborneOne (talk) 19:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check your maths

Guys, can someone please check their references for surivivors/no. of passengers/number dead? We have 162 passengers, but add up dead+survivors = 172.

+10 crew Fletcher (talk) 03:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Location off end of runway???

I think the crash was off the end of the runway - contrary to what is show in the ´map´. Please check. Ariconte (talk) 10:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
#There's no way to tell for sure yet. Let's wait until we get the results of the investigation before making a final call.

Thrust reversers

Thrust reversers are normally employed only while the plane is on the ground, specially just after
touching down in a landing to thus contribute to a shorter braking distance.

The second part of the sentence has recently been added, but I feel it distracts from the point I had tried to make when introducing the first half of it.

The fact that the reversers can usually only be employed on the ground means that either the yaw manoeuver started already before the plane got airborne (which seems to contradict the witness reports), or that it had nothing to do with the thrust reversers.

Does anybody mind if I restore the previous state with only the first half of the sentence? -- Syzygy (talk) 11:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree: thrust reverses are supposed to be employed on the ground but there is no intrinsic reason they have to be. I'm not sure what mechanisms are available to prevent in-flight deployment, so I'm not sure whether to ascribe it to pilot error or mechanical defect, but regardless, the fact that reversers are (obviously) not supposed to be deployed during takeoff does not mean it did not happen. Fletcher (talk) 14:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This followup http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/0,1518,574456,00.html explains that the thrust reverse can only be engaged while the main thrust levers are in a neutral position. (Ie you can only go in reverse when the engines are turned idle.) I have no idea how competent the Spiegel editors are, but it makes sense to me to have a mechanism in place which forbids the engagement of the reversers while airborne. -- Syzygy (talk) 14:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. -- I guess you're right, Fletcher: [[3]] seems to indicate a number of accidents which happened when thrust reversers became operational in flight, so it's either a common defect, or not that hard to engage them. -- Syzygy (talk) 14:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to add some few comments just to de-mistify some of the asseverations we were able to read at the press:
::1st:: Possibility of engine 'catastrophic failure' (note that 'catastrophic failure' in maintenance terminology does not actually mean a catastrophe like we see in movies, but a big failure that becomes the engine unserviceable, and normally are not spectacullar at all). There is always a possibility of a catastrophic failure during take-off due to an important amount of reasons, among them ingestion of strange objects (including birds), and normally they does not represent a high risk to the operation, specially when a rather small aircraft like this has more than 14300 ft of runway length. This kind of failure are rather normal and pilots are far well trained to handle it, actually this is a 'must' in every simulator training (that pilots have to pass every six months. Now they say that videos do not reveal an engine explosion. But an engine explosion not allways produce a lot of smoke, and a spectacular light. An engine failure where debris is exphelled from the engine causing subsequent damage can be quite unnoticeable from far away.
::2nd:: Possibility of uncontrolled activation of thrust reverser. Similarly to the previous stated possibility, this also is a normal practice during simulator training, and is not a cause for the crash. Actually there are about a minute or so to control this kind of failure. During take-off, with TOP (Take Off Power) applied, the uncommanded activation of a reverser won't cause the aircraft not to fly. There is a picture where one of the thrust reversers can be seen armed. First of all this does not mean that the pilot activated it intentionally. Its actuation could have been due to pilot intentional activation, a system failure, or due to impacts during the uncontrolled off-runway run.
::3rd:: Aircraft flying with one reverser inoperative. This is not the first time I've seen this kind of operation after a crash. Conincidientially, the TAM F-100 crashed in Brazil last year was flying also with a thrust reverser inoperative, since this device is not allways mandatory (it is not a NO-GO condition under certain circumstances). So it could be possible and safe to operate with a unserviceable reverser. What we don't know is if that 'isolation' of the malfunctioning system would avoid it to arm uncomandedly. The accidents that happened in the past involving such a failure happened because of subsequent damage due to reversers breakage when crew didn't react appropriately.
::4th:: Abnormal take-off run. Apparently nobody noticed this, but I am used to watch this aircraft taking off from 7000 ft.-long runways, using a rather low V1 and compensated runway criteria. They normally operate in that runways even with engine failure after V1. I still cannot understand how come this aircraft used 14300 ft. of take off run and was not able to get airborne (didn't reach enough speed). This would mean a low acceleration rate, something that already happened in other places.
::5th:: Connection of the accident with te previous take-off attempt. There was stated that the failure that caused the first take-off attempt interruption (aborted take-off), had nothing to do with this accident, and this is most probable to be true. But nobody said nothing about the influence that an aborted take-off could have in the next take-off attempt.
Normally, when an aborted take-off is produced a substantial ammount of energy is being dissipated by the brake system. Madrid-Barajas is an airport that requires quite an extensive use of brakes by the crews before take-off, after landing and subsequent taxi to ramp position. In this case, the aircraft taxied from apron to the runway. It is normal to use brakes during taxi, and it is normal that during taxi tyres get some temperature that is dissipated after take off, while flying at -50ºC. But in this case, instead of the normal flight, tyres were exposed to a high energy dissipation due to the aborted take-off, and subsequent taxi into apron. It won't surprise me if after this pneumatics pressure fuses were partially opened, and some of them could possibly result partially de-inflated. This could cause an important increase in drag during take-off run and could penalize take-off run.
It happened before. And that's why procedure after aborted-take-off require enough time to let tyres cool-down, and pneumatics pressure check before a new take-off attempt could be carried out. There are no clues about this. Obviously CIAIAC members know about this, and will be included in the investigation. But I think this fact should not be ignored.

Eugenio (talk) 19:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update for thrust reverser speculations

spiegel.de posted speculations that one of the thrust reversers was deactivated three days before the crash. http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/0,1518,574947,00.html 212.59.34.130 (talk) 05:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Quality Control 2008-08-29, 05:59 UTC[reply]

Airborne/ground sensor failure

According to an article appeared in spanish online newspaper El Mundo on Sept. 7, the airborne/ground sensor of the plane wasn't ground and so explains why the flaps alarm didn't sound, as well as the turning on of the de-icing system while on ground, which triggered the temperature gauge de-icing system as stated in the wikipedia article.

Thus it suggest a link between the de-icing sensor and the crash, because failure to sound the flaps alarm on cockpit prevented these from being deployed in take-off procedure, despite the failure of the crew to check out.

source: http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2008/09/06/espana/1220724555.htmlEl Mundo article

Thus the sentence: No link is known between this de-activation and the crash. should be checked-out in the article.

  1. ^ [4], [5]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spanair_Flight_5022&oldid=236869935"