Page started: June 18, 2025. Page edited: Augustus 11, 2025.
In the coming months I intend to work on this page.
Urban myth
A story or statement that is not true but is often repeated, and believed by many to be true.
dictionary.cambridge.org
Truth is the most valuable thing we have. Let us economize it.
Mark Twain
Windshear is not a cause (nor a contributing factor) of the Martinair crash in Faro. But, in public perception it still is.
About this page
After all these years (decades even) and information on the crash and its causes I never expected this page to be necessary.
After consulting several pages on the crash in June 2025 (also Wikipedia), I noticed that the untruth of (unexpected) windshear as cause of the crash still leads a tenacious life.
This poses the threat that generative artificial intelligence like ChatGPT will act as an amplifying echo chamber for this misinformation. Especially since a great number of users will not fact check AI-outcome with the primary source. If primary sources are mentioned at all.
With this page I hope to inform readers better and encourage web-administrators to amend their text.
Intended topics in this page:
Origin of the windshear-myth
– Martin Schröder, day after the crash in press-conference with Dutch Minister of Transport
– deliberate imagery to deflect from looking into real causes ?
From article in Dutch paper Reformatorisch Dagblad, 19 Dec. ’98
Text translated into English
‘Faro’ meets the scenario for a crash
Iceberg
Admittedly, with the wisdom of hindsight, it’s always easy to make the right decision [on preventing the crash].
However, the crew certainly did not lack alarming data during the approach to Faro.
The pilots knew much more than, for example, director Martin Schröder, who quickly stated that wind shear had led to the dramatic outcome of the flight.
Surely he should have realized that someone who names the cause 24 hours after such a disaster is always speaking out of turn.
People who have been in aviation for several decades know that a crash is almost always the result of a complex of factors. In this respect, ‘Faro’ fully meets the scenario applicable to dozens of aircraft accidents.
In such a complex, the crew is often just the tip of the iceberg.
In this case the company Martinair is responsible for a significant part of the iceberg that still exists to this day.
From the official investigation report (1994)
– probable causes and contributing factors
– letter of the NTSB
– page 32, 1 .6.2.3: no airworthiness directive for engine no. 3
– page 76, 1 .15.2: fire and alarm, 1 ½ minute before crash
– page 108, 2.2.3: passivity of captain throughout whole approach
Anglo Portuguese News, dec 21, 1995:
Dutch organisation alleges cover-up of cause of ’92 Faro air crash
Verdict court of The Hague (2020)
– analysis of verdict
– May 2021, Martin Schröder seems not to accept the court’s verdict on errors by his pilots
AvioConsult:
Report (2017) the last 80 seconds of flight MP495
Example from this report:
1.3. All Conclusions of This Analysis – Sectionalized
1.3.1 Application of Procedures
1.3.1.1 The CVR transcript proves that the airplane was not configured in-time for the approach and landing (§ 4.1.4). Landing gear extended, flaps and slats too late, approach speed not attained.
The crew did not follow the prescribed procedures.
1.3.1.2 The required calls for approach safety at altitudes 500 ft and 50 ft were not given by the captain and flight engineer, and not by the pilot-flying, the copilot, either.
In addition, other procedural and safety related calls were not given either.
The cockpit crew did not adhere to the AOM-prescribed crew coördination procedures. (§ 5.6.1 and § 5.12.5).