Geizistgeil From Germany, joined Apr 2004, 148 posts, RR: 0 Posted (8 years 9 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 4219 times:
News just reported that a Spanair on its way to the runway in CGN caught fire and pax were evacuated with slides.
Seems, that there were no injuries! The a/c was going to PMI.
No infos what caused the fire or which type.
Bad start for a holiday!
MS
[Edited 2004-08-20 11:36:48]
"If the Wright brothers were alive today. Wilbur would have to fire Orville to reduce costs" (H. Kelleher)
Geizistgeil From Germany, joined Apr 2004, 148 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (8 years 9 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 4128 times:
update:
it was a McD-83 with 168 pax (7 of them got minor injuries).
"Durch einen Hydraulikschaden ist Öl auf das heiße Triebwerk getropft. Das hat zu einer starken Rauchentwicklung geführt" sagte die Flughafensprecherin.
"Due to a damage hydraulic liquid pour on the engine which caused heavy smoke" a spokeswoman of the airport said.
Seems not that bad - luckily it happend during taxi.
Waiting for the first pictures....
[Edited 2004-08-20 11:54:26]
"If the Wright brothers were alive today. Wilbur would have to fire Orville to reduce costs" (H. Kelleher)
AirTrader From Netherlands, joined Jun 2004, 40 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (8 years 9 months 6 days ago) and read 3948 times:
7 people were affected by smoke inhalation and were taken to hospital. Smoke started in the cockpit and must of the wounded were crew. plane was an md83
Turbulence From Spain, joined Nov 1999, 963 posts, RR: 24 Reply 4, posted (8 years 9 months 6 days ago) and read 3812 times:
Yeah, Catatonic, that's your word. Very wise description of yourself, boy... Almost as wise as your comment.
The incident occured during taxi, and as soon as the crew noticed the smoke (NOT the fire) the taxi was stopped and the aircraft evacuated. The only injuries (physicakl ones) were two people who suffered of light burbings on their hands due to having scratched them.
Everybody on board has been driven to a hospital as mandatory by air safety regulations, but nothing surprising is expected after the examinations.
The aircraft is going to remain grounded at Köln until further technical inspections have been carried.
Catatonic From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 1155 posts, RR: 3 Reply 5, posted (8 years 9 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3802 times:
Peter, spanair are cursed with minor incidents, look it up in the search under spanair and incidents. Stuck in the mud at glasgow, damaged door in stockholm, skidded off the runway in munich and there was a recent incident at liverpool and now this. All this in the last 4 years, more than the average airline of similar fleet size experiences dont you think?
Catatonic From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 1155 posts, RR: 3 Reply 6, posted (8 years 9 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3771 times:
Turbulence - Thankyou for your cheap insult, my comments were backed up with evidence provided, please read. Should you feel the need to make further hissy little comments please feel free to do so, the majority of those who possess a degree of intellect just disregard as I have done.
Turbulence From Spain, joined Nov 1999, 963 posts, RR: 24 Reply 8, posted (8 years 9 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3736 times:
"Turbulence - Thankyou for your cheap insult, my comments were backed up with evidence provided, please read."
Sorry, pal, not at the moment I wrote. Your evidence was posted later, after someone asked you (more politely than me, I must accept) what were you meaning.
"just disregard as I have done."
I disagree: as you answered it seems that you did not disregard.
(above text edited after having read Mr Catatonic's further better explained reply)
OK, that's quite a better explanation of your "feelings"...
My most sincere apologies.
Anyway, as you say, they are minor incidents. I'm not trying to justify anything, but in any case, incidents, not accidents. It can have been bad luck, too. Skid unpon landing under heavy rain, for example. Having a door damaged by a jetbridge is not company's responsability.
Anyway... five incidents in four years, can't judge how good or bad average it is.
If you want another one, I flew BCN-PMI round three weeks ago, and the flight was 2 hours late because teh pressurization system of "my" M83 was not working properly.
Catatonic From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 1155 posts, RR: 3 Reply 9, posted (8 years 9 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3706 times:
I think all of the incidents with spanair have just been bad luck, that is what I'm trying to say, it could happen to any airline no matter how good their maintenance is or how good their pilots are, its just that spanair have been unlucky. I would have no hesitation in flying with them I think their safety record is as good as the rest and better than most, better than britannia (Just thought I'd throw that in)!
Turbulence From Spain, joined Nov 1999, 963 posts, RR: 24 Reply 16, posted (8 years 9 months 5 days ago) and read 1569 times:
OK, let's see...
If you read all the replies in the correct chonological order (now not totally possible, since what was originally reply #2 by Catatonic has been deleted (I wonder why ), you'll all see that:
When I initially posted my first reply (now #4) the only comment by Catatonic was "Spanair, it's always Spanair", with no further comments. My replay was to give some light from a Spanish Agency (not necessarily meaning more accurated, but at least supposedly spoke directly with Spanair) and I added an ironic commentary about silly useless comment, now deleted. That's why Maersk737's reply (#3)makes no sense: it quotes a sentence that cannot be found.
Afer that, Catatonic wrote a more satisfactory and self-explanatory reply (#5) and replied to me also (#6)
Finally, I wrote message #8, got reply #9, and everything seemed solved.
But there comes Mr. 7LBAC111 and accuses me of "becoming personal" just because I ironized on a now deleted meaningless sentence. Well, maybe 7LBAC111 became personal on me just because the flag that appears next-to my name is the same that appears next-to Spanair's planes registration.
Pal, I cannot "reread" a reply BEFORE it is posted. That simple.
My "attack" towards Catatonic was written when he had just written a useless reply, and only AFTER my words he posted a better explanation of what he meant. When I posted my first post, there was no observation made to be read.
Hope evereything has been clarified. Should Catatonic have posted first his explanatiry reply, I would have never ironized on him. That's all.
Catatonic From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 1155 posts, RR: 3 Reply 17, posted (8 years 9 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1523 times:
Turbulence - So childish, why cant u just drop the subject. For a start you should have at least waited for me to reply to Maersk737's question before jumping down my throat, by the way:
Turbulence From Spain, joined Nov 1999, 963 posts, RR: 24 Reply 18, posted (8 years 9 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1377 times:
I dropped down the question, at least in front of you, when things seemed resolved and understood. That past.
My last post was not adressed to you, but to 7LBAC111 just to clarify the order in which things happened. I do not like to be accused for no reason. That fair.
About your answer to Maersk737, you just could have given your explained answer first, and nothing of this would have never occured. That easy.
As for the deletion of your reply, and because sometimes it happens what I wrote above, that some replies remain meaningless after, I do not suggest deletions. That clear.
7LBAC111 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2004, 2566 posts, RR: 43 Reply 19, posted (8 years 9 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1353 times:
Turbulence,
The flag before your name has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on why I responded to what appeared to be an unnecessary personal attack on Catatonic. Why you feel it necessary to mention that is beyond me, and I imagine most people reading this topic.
Your response was quite clearly Yeah, Catatonic, that's your word. Very wise description of yourself, boy.
That is derogatory, derisory and sarcastic, and it is for that reason that I do suggest deletions.
Turbulence, this is a discussion forum, we will all agree and disagree with each other from time to time. Posts like yours above are not beneficial to any of us.
Debate is what you put on de hook when you want to catch de fish.
Turbulence From Spain, joined Nov 1999, 963 posts, RR: 24 Reply 20, posted (8 years 9 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1244 times:
Hi Mark, (and everyone else)
Look, let's stop all this. It has become nonsense. You write about "posts like yours are not beneficial to any of us". OK, maybe I ironized on Catatonic, but from my first post I explained what I knew. On the opposite hand, Catatonic had just written a nonsense sentence.
That "Catatonic is dead right" is possible for me to see, also. As everybody has read, he explained more logical things, to what I answered with my apologies. He went also further adding that these events could be just bad luck.
The posts that "are not beneficial to any of ours" is the first plain simple useless now deleted "Spanair, it's always Spanair" that originated all this misunderstanding.
I hope everything is clear and have no intention to come back to this topic. It is plain clear that I ironized on an initial useless comment, not on any explained knowledge, and that after an explanation I offered my apologies.
Sponsor Message: 
From Germany, joined Apr 2004, 148 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Jun 2004, 40 posts, 
From Denmark, joined Feb 2004, 632 posts, 
From Spain, joined Nov 1999, 963 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 1155 posts, 
the 20th June 2004 in which a Boeing 738 EC-HKR skidded of the runway 26R getting out in fast taxiway A6.
Printer friendly format 
