This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Spanair Flight 5022 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article was nominated for deletion on 20 August 2008. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
A news item involving Spanair Flight 5022 was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 20 August 2008. |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on August 20, 2010, August 20, 2012, August 20, 2020, and August 20, 2023. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This article should be moved to Spanair Flight 5022, but only an administrator can do so. – Zntrip 16:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
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
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)
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)
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)
Of course, if the engine *exploded* then perhaps that caused other systems to fail. Paul Beardsell ( talk) 08:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I know nothing about image use. Can we use this? If so, what needs to be done? -- Elliskev 18:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
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)
Presumably that's not the specific plane. Shouldn't there be a note? zafiroblue05 | Talk 21:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
What's the relevance of the link to the Philippines Air crash? Bruxism ( talk) 21:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Could someone move the article back to Spanair Flight 5022? – Zntrip 21:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
Pfez ( talk) 13:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Someone needs to explain in the lede what hull loss means. — Hex (❝?!❞) 14:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
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)
Guys, can someone please check their references for surivivors/no. of passengers/number dead? We have 162 passengers, but add up dead+survivors = 172.
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)
#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 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)
Eugenio ( talk) 19:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Some statements in this section that need more clarification:
The correct aviation nomenclature is "deployed," not "employed."
Again, not correct nomenclature. When on the ground, a plane may (for various reasons) fail to track the runway centerline during takeoff or landing. It may even swerve off the side of the runway. But, if that happens it is not properly referred to as a "yaw." A yaw is a movement of the airplane about its vertical axis. In flight, the plane yaws when the tail moves to the right or left, to the same degree as the nose of the plane moves in the opposite direction. That can only occur in flight. On the ground, the plane's wheels prevent any yaw about that vertical axis because of the strong friction contact with the runway. To yaw on the ground, the nose wheel would have to move sideways and that would most likely cause that nose gear to collapse and it would also most likely cause one or more main gear tires to blow out, due to severe side loads on them.
For the planes that are designed so that they cannot deploy in flight, there are several layers of safety devices to prevent that from happening. The reason is simple: It could cause almost immediate loss of control by the pilot and that usually means a crash. Some planes (like the DC-8) can deploy reversers inflight, as a form of speed brake. The design on those planes is such that they too have safety devices to prevent inadvertent deployment. The pilot on those planes is allowed to use inflight reversing only within certain strict parameters, so it is still important that inadvertent deployment be prevented by safety designs, on those planes too.
As to possible pilot error causing a deployment of a reverser in flight, that would only happen in a suicide situation. I doubt that the reverser can be deployed in flight on the MD-82, but assuming it was possible, the pilot would have to pull the thrust lever all the way back to the idle position and then reach for the thrust reverse lever, which is located on the front side of that forward thrust lever, and pull it all the way up. No pilot would ever do something like that unless he was intent on committing suicide.
The Spiegal editors apparently don't know much! There is no such thing as a "neutral" position of the thrust levers. Although the thrust is greatly reduced, when the thrust levers are at the idle position, the engines are still developing forward thrust, and that is why thrust reversers are deployed on the ground----to eliminate that forward thrust, which helps to shorten the stopping distance during the landing sequence.
That is not what that article indicates at all. Crashes caused by inflight deployment of reversers, are extremely rare----almost non-existent, in comparison to all other causes. Three of the crashes mentioned in that article are not relevant to the issue of how likely it is that there was an inadvertent deployment in the Spanair crash. The case of the DC-8 in Japan has no relevance because it is normal for the pilot to be able to deploy DC-8 reversers in flight, as a means of causing drag so that the plane can be slowed very rapidly. That is the speed brake system on the DC-8. But, that Captain was mentally ill and determined to deliberately crash that airplane and the method he used was to deploy the reversers in flight, at a time when the airpseed was only at about 130 percent of the stall speed. By deploying the reversers at that critical time (low altitude, just above the runway approach lighting system), the plane's speed was reduced to below the stall speed so fast that the First Office was not able to intervene fast enough to save the plane. That deliberate suicide attempt by the Captain, was the cause of that crash.
Two other accidents mentioned too, are also not relevant: The SWA plane that ran off the end of the snow-covered runway at Chicago Midway airport and the Air France flight that ran off the end of the runway at Toronto. In the former, there was a delay in getting the reversers deployed on the ground after touchdown, but that says nothing about how easy or likely that inadvertent deployment is in flight. And, the Air France reversers were deployed late too, but that was because the plane was landed too fast and too far down the runway in the first place. Again, that accident gives no evidence whatsoever that inadvertent deployment in flight is a "common defect," or that it's "...not that hard to engage them."
No, not accurate. Catastrophic engine failure is not normal and in fact is extremely rare. Engine failures on the modern jets are very rare to begin with and most of those failures are not catastrophic in nature.
As to pilot training, they only have to go to simulator training once a year, for many of the world's major airlines. Various engine failure scenarios are included in that recurrent curriculum, but most of those simulated failures are not catastrophic in nature, and the pilots do not have to take extraordinary measures, in their checklist procedures, most of the time. The main focus of most of the engine failure scenarios, which pilots must deal with successfully in the simulators, has to do with ensuring the pilot can still fly the airplane with one engine failing at the most critical time.
Dead wrong on all points. Pilots are not trained in simulator to deal with an inadvertent reverser deployment during takeoff, or for any other regime of flight, for that matter. If an engine goes into reverse, shortly after the plane lifts off the ground, and while takeoff thrust is being generated, it will crash----PERIOD! There is nothing the pilot could do to stop the crash, if that kind of mechanical failure occurred at such a critical time. The 767 Lauda Air crash was caused by a mechanical failure that caused one of the reversers to deploy, when they were more than 20,000 ft. up. The engines were only generating climb thrust at that point, which is considerably less than max Takeoff thrust. Yet, the pilots quickly lost control of the plane, it happened so fast. If a reverser was to deploy inadvertently on just about any modern airliner, right after the plane lifts off the ground, the plane will immediately roll and stall. It will happen so quick that the pilot will be unable to do anything to save the plane.
Wrong again. Show me an accident report that says anything like that. The Lauda Air crash happened because one reverser inadvertently deployed and the pilots lost control of the plane almost immediately and they were not able to recover. They were never trained for a situation like that (how to recover if a reverser deploys while the engines are producing high thrust). No pilots have that kind of training. They do know, that if that happens, and they somehow have the time to figure out what happened, before they lose control, then of course they would shut the offending engine down. But, if much thrust is present, then such an inadvertent deployment of one reverser will usually lead to almost instantaneous loss of control. When the plane suddenly rolls upside down and goes into a dive, it might be very hard to read the engine gauges while they are struggling to pull out of that dive.
Again, also dead wrong. Overheat fuses, if triggered from tire heat going too high, cause the tires to go totally and completely flat, very rapidly. There is no such thing as partial deflation, if the fuse melts. And, after an abort, the pilots have to refer to a flight manual table that calculates how long they must wait, to attempt a subsequent takeoff. That table incorporates many factors, such as OAT, the top speed obtained before the abort was initiated, and how much the plane weighed at the time, etc.
EditorASC ( talk) 12:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
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
According to an article appeared in spanish online newspaper El Mundo on Sept. 7, the airborne/ground sensor of the plane wasn't working well and so it'd explain why the flaps alarm did not 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 suggests 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: El Mundo article
The sentence: No link is known between this de-activation and the crash. should be checked-out then...
--
wyup (
talk)
14:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
According to October 27 news on ElPais.com, a ground worker declared to judge Javier Pérez that the aircraft's anti-collission lights were on at the moment of refuelling while the plane was parked. The source affirms that this would be a sign that the plane was incorrectly in flight mode, so that would add to the de-icing RAT probe and the TOWS malfunction, wich are all governed by the ground/flight sensor.
According to the preliminary report by the Comisión_de_Investigación_de_Accidentes_e_Incidentes_de_Aviación_Civil published by the media and source #45, the Take-Off Warning System alarm (TOWS, a part of CAWS is controlled and activated in ground-mode by the relay R2-5, which also activates the de-icing system in flight-mode as well as other systems) didn't sound in the cabin during take-off as indicated by the Cockpit_voice_recorder.
source: El Pais.com article
Preliminary Report source (in spanish): Comission Preliminary Report
-- wyup ( talk) 17:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
The Spanish Spanair stuff seems to be down at the moment:
I do not know why they don't seem to work WhisperToMe ( talk) 04:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Major media news about SF5022, already Slashdotted:
Blame Windows once again. 82.131.131.147 ( talk) 17:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
These are listed for archival reasons WhisperToMe ( talk) 15:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
After creating the table I realised that it was hard to create one because, first of all the "survivors" had to be defined if they survived the crash/and died on route to hospital, or if they survived completely? I need some help with this :) Bezuidenhout ( talk) 20:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Nationality citation needed | Killed in crash | Survivors | Total | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Passengers | Crew | |||
Spanish | 121 | 10 | 131 | |
German | 5 | – | – | 5 |
Brazilian | 2 | – | – | 2 |
French | 2 | – | – | 2 |
Mauritanian | 1 | – | – | 1 |
Turkish | 1 | – | – | 1 |
Bulgarian | 1 | – | – | 1 |
Gambian | 1 | – | – | 1 |
Italian | 1 | – | – | 1 |
Indonesian | 1 | – | – | 1 |
Bolivian | – | – | 1 | 1 |
Finnish | – | – | 1 | 1 |
Swedish | – | – | 1 | 1 |
Other | – | – | 22 | 22 |
Total | 136 | 10 | 26 | 172 |
There are a number of inaccuracies in this table:
While the table is clearly wrong according to the final report (section 1.2 refers), the report doesn't contain the level of detail needed to correct it. It is better to omit this table entirely rather than have such errors in the article, so I have moved it here until it can be fixed.
82.1.57.194 ( talk) 12:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Spanish/English webpages:
English documents:
Spanish documents:
WhisperToMe ( talk) 03:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Also the report has been posted to http://www.abc.es/gestordocumental/uploads/nacional/informeSpanair.pdf WhisperToMe ( talk) 00:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
By Kriendler & Kriendler LLP
WhisperToMe ( talk) 08:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Spanair Flight 5022. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 6 external links on
Spanair Flight 5022. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Some sources point to the activation of the No. 1 thrust reverser as a possibility, not the No. 2 thrust reverser. MattChatt18 ( talk) 10:39, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Nationality | Passengers | Crew | Dead | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|
Spain | 129 | 6 | 131 | 145 |
Germany | 5 | 0 | 5 | 5 |
France | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
Mauritania | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
Turkey | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
Bulgaria | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
Gambia | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
Italy | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
Indonesia | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
Brazil | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
Sweden | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Finland | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Bolivia | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
United Kingdom | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Total | 166 | 6 | 154 | 172 |
73.87.74.115 ( talk) 15:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
https://24.sapo.pt/PaginaInicial/Internacional/Interior.aspx?content_id=982578 73.87.74.115 ( talk) 19:06, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/aug/22/spain.theairlineindustry1
http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/591535/DNA-tests-to-identify-Madrid-air-crash-victims How about these?
TrueLightningStriker (
talk)
22:04, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Several odd wording choices such as "The stall warning horn activated as well as the synthetic voice" and "The first officer called in interrogative tone an engine failure and reduced power on both engines, specially on the right one" aswell as several typos. The sections are badly merged together, with "Accident" and "crash sequence" being redundant. Aircraft and accident descriptions should also be separated. Someone put a "needs clean up" flag here if possible 178.159.87.149 ( talk) 19:25, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Just for the record: " Deadmau5 discussed barely missing this flight on H3h3Productions podcast in an interview on YouTube [1] [2]" Apparently this has been removed from the article "many times before". Obviously the missed flight is entirely trivial with regards to the accident itself. But many aviation accident articles have these mentions? Thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 13:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
References