[psmith2.0]

I saw this about half an hour ago, and they were saying "possibly 45 deaths". 15 minutes ago, CNN "sources" put the number at "around 90". And just now, word is that most of the 172 on the plane...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe...rid/index.html

A big fire, and the plane broke in two. It was a second take-off attempt, I'm hearing. It was flying from Madrid to the Canary Islands. Got up in the air, veered to the left, crashed...



EDIT: Only 26 survivors, I now read.

[Moogs]

Not good...

The silver lining for sure is that there were any survivors at all. I am still amazed when I think about the United Airlines DC10 that crashed in Sioux City IA (I think) a dozen or more years ago... to see that fireball on landing and still have people survive. That's where I start to believe in miracles...

[Mugge]

Apparently the fire didn't catch on immediately after the crash, but people where trapped inside the plane. Hence the low initial death toll.

Awful way to die.

[Moogs]

Truly. I'm thinking if it took a while for fire to engulf the plane WhereTF is the big airport fire trucks you see at American airports?



You'd think within 20 seconds of impact the fire house would've been notified by the tower and within 60 seconds of that the truck on its way... guess we'll have to wait for more info.

[alcimedes]

Not sure how much good water does if you ignite jet fuel. I would guess once that starts burning you're SOL.

[psmith2.0]

Was this flying out of the Madrid airport (a major facility, I would assume?) or a smaller, more out-of-the-way (and lower-staffed) airport?

If it's the latter, there's your answer. If it's the former, then I don't know...that's pretty unfortunate because you're right: any time there's any sort of trouble on the runway or, worse, a crash here in the U.S. at any of our major airports, there are about 25 emergency vehicles on-scene instantly. We've all seen the clips and footage over the years...DC, LAX, etc.

I think those airport fire departments and rescue squads are primed to go 24/7. They'd have to be, to be of any real use or do any good, right? If it takes them 10-15 minutes to arrive, why bother even having them...the regular county or city trucks/units could probably beat that.



Interesting. Was there news of a delay in rescue/fire equipment reaching this place? Or did it just go up so quickly that it didn't really matter?

[Moogs]

AFAIK it was the major Madrid airport... and Alci.. you may be right about that.

[AWR]

Definitely the major Madrid airport.

Seems to me that there was a decent run of no accidents over the past year or more or so. Could be wrong though.

[Fahrenheit]

Scates, where did you get the info that the fire engines were too slow, or is that just conjecture?

When I saw it break on BBC News channel, they had reports and video of helicopters dropping water onto the plane and said fire engines were immediately on the scene.

Just cos the fire burned out of control, that is in no way a sign of a late response.

[psmith2.0]

That wasn't me...that was Moogs who brought it up (his post above with the yellow firetruck photo).



I asked him if that was a known bit of info. I haven't heard. But I simply based my response on his post, assuming that there was some sort of delay and that trucks weren't there soon. So, yeah...conjecture based on an assumed (but wrong?) situation. Sorry.

If the crews got there immediately, and things were just too much, that's different.

My initial question was one of airports...was it a big one or smaller one, and if that might've had something. I've not been able to follow any live coverage.

[Dorian Gray]

It was a major airport and a major airline with a good safety record. It happens to the best of them occasionally. Thankfully not very often, considering the astonishing number of flights these days.

Originally Posted by AWR Seems to me that there was a decent run of no accidents over the past year or more or so. Could be wrong though.

There have been a fair few, with a couple of really major ones just over a year ago. Some notable ones:

5 May 2007 - Kenya Airways Flight 507: 114 killed
17 July 2007 - TAM Airlines Flight 3054: 199 killed (worst aviation accident in South America)
9 August 2007 - Air Moorea flight: 20 killed
16 September 2007 - One-Two-GO Airlines Flight 269: 90 killed
4 October 2007 - Africa One flight: 50+ killed
30 November 2007 - Atlasjet Flight 4203: 57 killed
4 January 2008 - Tranaven flight: 14 killed
21 February 2008 - Santa Barbara Airlines Flight 518: 46 killed
3 April 2008 - Blue Wing Airlines flight: 19 killed
15 April 2008 - Hewa Bora Airways flight: 40 killed
10 June 2008 - Sudan Airways Flight 109: 30+ killed

With the exception of the TAM Airlines disaster last year, these have been nothing more than a blip on the major news sites for a few hours or maybe a day. They end the lives of dozens of people and change the lives of thousands more forever, but of course it's understandable that the rest of the world is less interested. Tragic all the same.

[psmith2.0]

They're talking about a faulty external temperature monitor(?). An engine caught fire, and the crew had concerns about it beforehand. They were told by control all was okay.

[Moogs]

Originally Posted by Farenheit Just cos the fire burned out of control, that is in no way a sign of a late response.

That was me not Scates... but notice the last few words of my post. I wasn't sure, just speculating / wondering why they wouldn't have been able to put out the fire if the big engines were on the scene and (apparently?) the plane wasn't spontaneously burning upon impact, etc.

[Moogs]

Looks like we can rule out bombings / sabotage for now... and it certainly looks like there was a lot of rescue vehicles on the scene. Guess it was just not something that could be stopped in time, assuming most of the victims were burn victims and not losing their life on impact.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7572643.stm

[DMBand0026]

Originally Posted by alcimedes Not sure how much good water does if you ignite jet fuel. I would guess once that starts burning you're SOL.

Not that this is really relevant to the final outcome of this horrible situation, but you're only half right.

Water on a fuel fire will only serve to make the fire worse, no matter how much water you have, it's only getting worse until the fuel is burned off. Most of the time "foam" is used in fighting flammable liquid fires. The most common type is called AFFF, aquius film forming foam. It creates a smothering blanket of foam over the fire which starves it of oxygen and causes it to burn itself out. It's extremely effective on almost any kind of liquid fire, but it's tricky to use.

[Dorian Gray]

Did either of the pilots survive? If so it might be easier to piece together what caused the crash.

Airline crashes are usually caused by a chain of human error - flying a plane and everything that goes with that is so safety orientated that one or two errors usually don't cause a crash, but a series of errors can overwhelm the redundancy systems.

[AWR]

Thanks for the list, DG. True those crashes don't make headlines for long (or at all). That said, I can't remember anything these days so that might explain part of it.

[curiousuburb]

BBC are reporting a fireman who rescued a baby saying that 'the only survivors were in a part of the plane that landed in a river ditch', protecting them from the fire to varying degrees.
He said some walked out, others were still in seats. People trapped in the rest of the plane had no chance.

The pilots were apparently not among the survivors. The passenger manifest has been released, but only 40 dead have been identified so far.

Speculation that a financially struggling airline might have shaved margins on safety is getting weak denials from Spanair, IMO from the clips I've seen of today's press conference.

Various reports seem to agree:
The plane returned to the terminal after an aborted takeoff attempt.
A temperature sensor for one of the engines was either reporting fault or faulty itself.
A technician 'disabled the sensor' and the tower subsequently cleared them.
Some passengers were apparently asking to leave after the fault and delay, but the crew apparently refused. (Luggage would have to come off, etc.)

Many reports suggest one of the engines was on fire before the crash. (Not confirmed, to my knowledge, if it was the same engine as the sensor)
Rather than rolling towards the side with the failed engine as would be expected, apparently the other wing hit the ground.

At the end of the day, the pilot 'signs' for the aircraft and has final authority and responsibility. Captain of ship, ditto.
While an airline might apply pressure to meet schedules or have ground crew fudge maintenance logs, if the pilot declares an emergency or says no-go, the ground is required to comply.

Modern multi-engine jets are designed to survive single engine failure on takeoff (birdstrike, etc).
Unless there was something else mechanical (second engine failure, or the airworthiness certificate was faked, etc...), this will be probably end up tagged as pilot error. Overcompensation on stick, or whatever.