Comments:Over one hundred die in Madrid plane crash

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

• Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
• Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
• You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading

Click here to add a new comment · Add onto existing comments

This sucks.--66.229.12.186 16:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Julian Bray Aviation Expert comments:

Julian Bray Aviation expert comments: The Madrid Air incident, involves a 15 year old MD-82 one of over 30 leased to Spanair, Spains second largest airline on a code sharing flight with Lufhansa ie passengers would come from both Spanish national and German national sources with the rest of the passengers from interline sources.

The MD series is currently fully technically supported by Boeing who acquired the McDonnell Douglas Company in 1997, at the time it was said to be a merger but in reality it was an acquisition and soon afterwards plans to drop the MD aircraft types were publicly surfacing as sales of Boeing aircraft types were being affected by the MD acquisition.

An engine fire from the port or left JT8D-200 series turbofan is unusual as the engines have very efficient on board fire fighting systems and can usually deal with such incidents. Aviation fuel is carried in the two wings of the aircraft, well away from the rear mounted engines and in any exceptional incident the fuel supply would have been cut leaving only the fuel currently ignited in the superfan system. If the locus of the flame ignition point is at the wing area and inter alia the wing mounted tanks it is extremely unlikely that ignition from the rear mounted engine(s) could be the cause unless the wing filler caps was malfunctioning and leaking fuel onto the rear mounted engine but this is an extreme and highly remote possibility.

It is highly unlikely to be a birdstrike, due to the extreme rear positioning of the engines and the air deflection properties of the forward mid mounted wings. Such a catastrophic failure suggests a sudden loss of power in one engine but the aircraft type is specifically designed to complete a take off and landing procedure on just one engine, so speculation has to be that a secondary failure or incident prevented the full operation of the remaining engine.

External factors such as deliberate sabotage or incomplete technical checks need to be considered and will in any event be fully investigated by the authorities and the Boeing Company. At the time of writing the MD80 series has not been grounded and on similar set of circumstances seems to have been logged or debated in aviation circles. The narrow bodied plane has multiple fire exits and the seating plan namely two on one side and three on the other with an offset central aisle means that no passenger is very far from an exit.

The popular MD-80 series is a stretched and improved development of the narrow bodied McDonnell Douglas DC-9.

The origins of the MD-80 lie in 1975 where a standard DC-9 was fitted with improved, more efficient, higher bypass ratio JT8D-200 series turbofans. Instead MDC developed the DC-9 Super 80 (or DC-9-80), combining the new engines with a further stretched fuselage, increased span wing and several other improvements.

The Super 80 first flew on October 18 1979 after three years testing. Certification for the initial Super 80 model, the 81, was granted in July 1981. The first customer delivery was to Swissair in September 1980 and Alitalia shortly after.

McDonnell Douglas renamed the DC-9-80 the MD-80 in 1983. The MD-80 designation however is generic for the series and does not apply to a single model type. The specific MD-80 models are the initial MD-81, the MD-82 with more powerful JT8D-217s, the extended range MD-83 with extra fuel and more efficient JT8D-219s, and the MD-88 - first flight August 1987- with the JT8D-219s of the MD-83 with an EFIS flight deck and redesigned cabin interior.

Initial sales of the Super 80 were slow until American Airlines placed an initial order for 67 MD-82s (with options on a further 100) in early 1984 (American now operates a fleet of around 260 MD-80s), generating what went on to become a highly successful programme - the 1000th MD-80 being delivered in March 1992.

Following the 1997 merger of Boeing and McDonnell Douglas the future of the Douglas airliners were reviewed. In December 1997 Boeing announced its decision to drop the MD-80 and MD-90 once current orders were fulfilled. An April 1998 TWA order for 24 MD-83s would have seen the MD-80 remain in production until January 2000.

The aircraft routinely carries ‘black box’ flight recorders and flightdeck conversation loop wire recorders. Generally it has to be said that air travel is safe, although from time to time incidents such as this do happen. The race is now on to find out exactly what did happen to flight JK5022, experts will be working around the clock to achieve this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.209.30 (talk) 18:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

disaster after disaster

why do aircraft crash so often? ground staff never check aircraft well. airlines do not replace faulty parts and are more worried about costs. iata and icao should take greater steps towards aviation safety —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.243.253.111 (talk) 07:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)