| Submit your comments on this article |
| Caribbean-Latin America |
| Colombian airliner crash in Venezuela - 152 passengers |
| 2005-08-16 |
| A Colombian airliner with 152 people on board has crashed in a remote north-western region of Venezuela. The West Caribbean Airways plane was reported to have been travelling between Panama and Martinica. Rescue workers are said to be on their way to the scene of the crash in the state of Zulia - it is not clear whether there are any survivors. A Venezuelan aviation official said the pilots had contacted air traffic control to report engine problems. Contact with the plane was then lost, Francisco Paz said. |
| Posted by:True German Ally |
| #38 Its Dubya's fault - tell Chavez to call in the Commie Airborne to save freedom-loving = freedom-removing/restricting laissez faire despots from America. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2005-08-16 23:06 |
| #37 hey! Ship ! that could be /overreacting |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-08-16 22:43 |
| #36 The SAS MD-80 went down because of ice ingestion. Additionally, a compressor stall gives off a loud boom or "barking" sound. |
| Posted by: tzsenator 2005-08-16 22:33 |
| #35 Let's beat up the Motorist Rodney King! |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-08-16 18:26 |
| #34 Bloomberg reports - Residents in the area said they heard a large explosion at 5 a.m., Chacon said. One witness told local radio the plane fell in a ball of fire, according to Agence France Presse. While eyewitnesses aren't always reliable, I'd say engine failure is not cut and dried. The media has a tendency to report other media speculation as fact, like the decompression of the Cyprus airliner. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2005-08-16 16:56 |
| #33 ...to the ground, I should've said. It's not a freakin' spaceship. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2005-08-16 16:34 |
| #32 That's a shame because the MD-80 series won my admiration after that Scandinavian MD-80 (SAS?) glided down to earth relatively safely after engine failure (both I think). |
| Posted by: Rafael 2005-08-16 16:32 |
| #31 The md-80 series has the nasty habit of forming clear ice on the wings after a long flight. The fuel becomes cold soaked and condensation forms and freezes in a patch on the wings forward of the engine inlets. After rotation the ice breaks off and is ingested by the engine. Depending on the severity of the damage, it may result in anything from a vibration to total failure of the engine. U.S operators must inspect this area before take off or have heater blankets/ice sensors in this area. |
| Posted by: tzsenator 2005-08-16 15:45 |
| #30 OK, I have to chime in on this... Boeing says there are 4 models of the MD-80 type: MD-81,-82,-83,-88. The term MD-80 is used a as a catch-all to refer to all four models. LOTR: Well that's two Three if you count the Italian ATR, four if you include the Air France Airbus. NOT a good month for aviation, and we're only half way through. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2005-08-16 14:17 |
| #29 Yup, lifesize has that effect on me, too. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-08-16 13:53 |
| #28 I'd say just right |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2005-08-16 13:49 |
| #27 Heh, actually I'm referring to #13 on this thread, lol. It is bigger, heh, don't you agree? |
| Posted by: .com 2005-08-16 13:45 |
| #26 I'm sure you meant your brain, .com, rrright? |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2005-08-16 13:38 |
| #25 Mine's bigger. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-08-16 13:34 |
| #24 Some times I like to visit the 'Burg just cause it makes me feel like perhaps I don't need anger management therapy after all. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-08-16 13:17 |
| #23 OK folks, chill. The Concorde had a damn good safety record too before one crashed in Paris. To answer the Venezuela question. The coast of Colombia and Venezuela would be on the flight route if you fly from Panama to Martinique. Many passengers were from Martinique, a French department with high prices. Panama is a shopping paradise. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2005-08-16 13:11 |
| #22 PR. Like I said earlier, you are an idiot. And since you do not seem to realize that I'll waste no more of my time or Freds' bandwidth on you. Enjoy your fantasy world. AR |
| Posted by: Analog Roam 2005-08-16 13:11 |
| #21 AR, There are three inconsistencies with your amatuerish rebuttals. I know fully well that MD-82/3/4 are post models from MD-80. Save the education for your little students at LGF. RB is where the big boys and girls live. 1. You never used the word "fatal" until #11. 2. The original BBC article link stated MD-80, not MD-82/3/4/5/6/7/8/9/10/11-999. 3. The NTSB crash database is very accurate. But, crash cause results by the NTSB, are sometimes politically motivated. If you click on the updated link now, the BBC has updated the number of dead. Also, the BBC also has updated the exact model number, which is a, MD-82. The NTSB database does show "fatal crashes" for the MD-82. But, not the MD-80. thread hijack /OFF |
| Posted by: Poison Reverse 2005-08-16 12:57 |
| #20 Gentlemen! You can't fight in here! This is |
| Posted by: Jackal 2005-08-16 12:50 |
| #19 PR: Here is an education in aircraft type designations straight from the factory that now has responsibility for the MD-80 series of aircraft. The Boeing MD-80, a quiet, fuel-efficient twinjet, was certified by the Federal Aviation Administration in August 1980 and entered airline service in October 1980. Its Pratt & Whitney JT8D-200 engines, combined with its efficient aerodynamic design, allow the MD-80 to meet all current noise regulations while producing operating costs among the lowest in commercial aviation. Four MD-80 models-the MD-81, MD-82, MD-83, and MD-88, are 147 feet, 10 inches (45.08 meters) long and accommodate a maximum of 172 passengers. The MD-87 is 130.4 feet (39.76 m) in length, with a maximum passenger capacity of 139. Wingspan for all models is 107 feet, 10 inches (32.88 m). The MD-80 was produced at the Long Beach Division of Boeing Commercial Airplanes until December 1999. AR |
| Posted by: Analog Roam 2005-08-16 12:39 |
| #18 Whaaaa! Cries Poison Reverse. An MD-82/3/4 etc. is an MD-80 with minor cosmetic changes. The airframes, engines and about 99% of the whole aircraft are the same. I did my research, and I used to work for McDonnell-Douglas, so I have the factory scoop. Why don't you just admit that your statement was in error? Nothing wrong with that. I would have thought that your time on RB would have educated you to the point where you would be suspicous of any information maintained by any govt. agency! Even the NTSB. You used the words "fatal crash" and I used "fatal crashes" implying that the aircraft type had been involved in numerous incidents. There is no fundamental difference in the concept being communicated. I suggest you invest in some remedial English lessons olde stick! AR |
| Posted by: Analog Roam 2005-08-16 12:23 |
| #17 Can't we all get along? |
| Posted by: Air Capt. Rodney King 2005-08-16 12:19 |
| #16 AR, "What is the difference between "fatal crash" and "fatal crashes"? Pinhead. "Fatal Crash" are the words that I used. You've used the word "crashes" in #9. The difference is that in a fatal crash, someone actually DIES. Pinhead. |
| Posted by: Poison Reverse 2005-08-16 12:09 |
| #15 AR, Hey moron. Why don't you open up the pdf's on your inaccurate link and do a search for MD-80? Did you find it? The so-called MD-80 crashes, on your inaccurate link is listed in the NTSB database as MD-82 and MD-83's, idiot. I did my research using source database. You've used 3rd party that links to my source database and you still can't get it right. Again, shut your pie hole, little boy, before you get ahead of your self. |
| Posted by: Poison Reverse 2005-08-16 12:03 |
| #14 "I said, "fatal crash," not crash(es). I said, "MD-80," not MD-83. Just admit that you are wrong and stop twisting words to save your ridiculous pride." You are an idiot. My ridiculous pride does not need saving, but judging from your use of projection I would say yours does. The MD-80 has been involved in a number of fatal accidents over the years, so have its naby variations. What is the difference between "fatal crash" and "fatal crashes"? Pinhead. AR |
| Posted by: Analog Roam 2005-08-16 11:47 |
| #13 Danielle, The article states that engine 1 and engine 2 went out, respectively. |
| Posted by: Poison Reverse 2005-08-16 11:42 |
| #12 Crap...screwed up the linky. www.airsafe.com/events/models/douglas.htm AR |
| Posted by: Analog Roam 2005-08-16 11:41 |
| #11 Okay...last follow up. Follow the link below for a list of fatal accidents involving the McDonnell-Douglas MD-8x. MD-8x Crashes AR |
| Posted by: Analog Roam 2005-08-16 11:40 |
| #10 AR, "I will leave that as an educational exercise for whomever is interested." You are the one who needs to be interested in a educational exercise, before blasting off your pie hole and before checking the facts. I said, "fatal crash," not crash(es). I said, "MD-80," not MD-83. Just admit that you are wrong and stop twisting words to save your ridiculous pride. |
| Posted by: Poison Reverse 2005-08-16 11:37 |
| #9 Followup: More to the point. The flight was Alaska Airlines Flt. 261. The aircraft was a MD-83. This is just a minor variation of the MD-80. In fact, some casual googling has turned up a number of crashes involving the DC-9/MD-8x aircraft. I will leave that as an educational exercise for whomever is interested. AR |
| Posted by: Analog Roam 2005-08-16 11:22 |
| #8 It was flying from Panama to the Caribbean island of Martinique with a Colombian crew. Why was it over Venezuela? It also reported engine problems but has twin engines. |
| Posted by: Danielle 2005-08-16 11:16 |
| #7 "Since 1962, the MD-80 does not one record of a fatal crash. This is one of the safest, if not the safest, models around." You need to recheck your facts. If I am not mistaken, the Alaska Airlines flight that crashed into the Pacific Ocean off the coast of California was a MD-80/DC-9 variant. The MD-80 is just a redesignated DC-9. This redesignation occured when McDonnell bought Douglas... and became the McDonnell-Douglas corporation. Which BTW, occured quite sometime after 1962. HTH AR |
| Posted by: Analog Roam 2005-08-16 11:16 |
| #6 Was there anyone on the plane Chavez had reason to dislike? |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-08-16 10:15 |
| #5 This crash really needs to investigated throughly. Why? This plane is a Mcdonald Douglas MD-80. So? Since 1962, the MD-80 does not one record of a fatal crash. This is one of the safest, if not the safest, models around. Here is the history on MD-80. (1.) Set Date Range from 1962 to present (2.) type in md-80 for Aircraft Model. Also, I didn't find a global defect recall on the MD-80. I believe crash is caused due to incompetence by the maintenance crew. |
| Posted by: Poison Reverse 2005-08-16 10:05 |
| #4 so when is Chavez gonna say that was a US invasion force and they shot it down? |
| Posted by: Thraing Hupoluper1864 2005-08-16 10:04 |
| #3 Latest report states that after Venezuelan military jets surveyed the area, it is unlikely there are any survivors. |
| Posted by: Desert Blondie 2005-08-16 09:46 |
| #2 That's why I put it on Page 3. I'm still not so sure about the Cypriot flight. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2005-08-16 09:04 |
| #1 Well that's two (the Cyrprus-Greece flight being the first). Don't these things come in threes? If the pilots were reporting engine problems then this will be much more mundane, though still tragic, than the weirdness of the Greek crash. |
| Posted by: Laurence of the Rats 2005-08-16 09:01 |