Turkish MD-83 Crash
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hope that someone makes a graphic of where the plane was and where it should have been.
my thoughts take me to the almost disaster at Hartford,CT USA (KBDL) in which an American Airlines MD80 hit trees on a non precision night approach...barometric altimeter issues...trees at a height not accounted for in chart due to growth.
They made it by their whiskers.
I am also concerned that perhaps the crew were victims of a night/mountainous area visual miscue.
don't know if the plane had EGPWS
So sad...non precision, still a killer, especially night/mountains...etc
my thoughts take me to the almost disaster at Hartford,CT USA (KBDL) in which an American Airlines MD80 hit trees on a non precision night approach...barometric altimeter issues...trees at a height not accounted for in chart due to growth.
They made it by their whiskers.
I am also concerned that perhaps the crew were victims of a night/mountainous area visual miscue.
don't know if the plane had EGPWS
So sad...non precision, still a killer, especially night/mountains...etc
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: FL, USA
Posts: 357
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe the a/c had GPWS...it was an ex-Reno jet. Don't think they had modified to EGPWS standard when the a/c were released by AA. I think they had dual-FMS, though, so with map display it is odd if they were miles off course, as some have suggested. Time will tell...
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Small dot in the Caribbean
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has anyone else noticed how little there has been on the news about this crash. I sudgest if this had happened here or anywhere in northern Europe it would be still frontline news. Shame
arguably if FMS equipped over reliance on glass and both heads down is a real contributory possibility. I'd argue the scenario is easier to slip into than in a clockwork environment where for the need of a better word alertness comes easier.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Bielefeld, Germany
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think Skydrol Leak's comment was pretty astute.
Look at the IHT photo of part of the wreckage at
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/11/30/europe/plane.php
If heshe turns out to be right, I hope those who trashed himher for the brief observation will have the grace to apologise.
PBL
Look at the IHT photo of part of the wreckage at
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/11/30/europe/plane.php
If heshe turns out to be right, I hope those who trashed himher for the brief observation will have the grace to apologise.
PBL
Rotate on this!
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Aberdeen
Age: 64
Posts: 403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One thing noticeable from PBLs link is that the a/c appears to have slid sideways into it's resting position. There is undisturbed vegetation, (to my eyes), directly behind.
Not sure what this says about the speed/profile of the a/c upon impact but that added to the fact it has come to rest on a downslope, (again, to my eyes), seems unusual.
Not sure what this says about the speed/profile of the a/c upon impact but that added to the fact it has come to rest on a downslope, (again, to my eyes), seems unusual.
I think Skydrol Leak's comment was pretty astute.
Look at the IHT photo of part of the wreckage at
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/11/30/europe/plane.php
If he she turns out to be right, I hope those who trashed himher for the brief observation will have the grace to apologise.
PBL
Look at the IHT photo of part of the wreckage at
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/11/30/europe/plane.php
If he she turns out to be right, I hope those who trashed himher for the brief observation will have the grace to apologise.
PBL
Well up till now I hadn't even bothered to read Skydrols post. But since you didn't quote it I think that what I quoted below might be what you are referring.
According to the pictures from crash site ,looks like a slow speed impact, maybe stall due to engine out while on final or some kind of troubleclose to the ground. Definately low altitude thing....any news on crew reporting any difficulties during final???
Discussion of said rumors and news is also fine with me and pretty much anything goes. However, opinions expressed are also subject to minute vetting and on this subject Skydrol deserves his time in the barrel of fish.
IMO we should not be instigating a popularity poll regarding who got what right and when.
Guesses are one thing and regardless of who says them I can read right by them. Guesses backed up by reasoning are what I spend more time about and I believe that the reasoning (not necessarily the conclusion) is worth a discussion. So for me I vote for no points for a guess right or wrong. For credible reasoning we don't even have to wait for the final report to judge that.
I am a strong believer that if one jumps to a conclusion on an accident cause without passing through 2 or more probable layers of things that went wrong then I call it a guess and not worthy of discussion or any kind of vote of confidence in the poster.
I do however support postulations followed by questioning of supporting facts, and this I believe was included at end in Skydrols post.
I also have no problem with an initial comment about it looks like low/high speed impact, for that is just and opinion observation of a visual fact.
However his interpretation of his visual observations pointing to an engine failure and a stall condition leading to the crash itself stuns me as being without any further support and in my view is a WAG be it right or wrong
G-ARPI didn't scrape aluminum across the ground for half a mile spreading atomized fuel everywhere.
or do the investigators have to drain them before they can start moving the wreckage? Looks to me like the area of the wing with the paint pattern on the top of the wing is intact
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: the City by the Bay
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
quote:
1: The loss of an engine in an MD83 on final approach would cause little more than mild disappointment - I know from personal experience.
unquote:
Thats as it should be , however, some crews don't handle one engine out very well as per following write off:
http://aviation-safety.net/database/...?id=19931025-2
luckily no fatalities in this FAT md82 crash
1: The loss of an engine in an MD83 on final approach would cause little more than mild disappointment - I know from personal experience.
unquote:
Thats as it should be , however, some crews don't handle one engine out very well as per following write off:
http://aviation-safety.net/database/...?id=19931025-2
luckily no fatalities in this FAT md82 crash
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Hadlow
Age: 60
Posts: 597
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wikipedia has a page on the crash http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlasjet_Flight_4203 - interesting to see what is said about the location of the two areas of wreckage.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Bielefeld, Germany
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lomapaseo,
thank you for your detailed and finegrained suggestions on what is OK to say and how, and what not.
I don't share your view.
From what I can see from the pics and videos, the vegetation uphill of the fuselage-wing part is also largely undisturbed. If that is correct, it means he went in underside-first and not nose-first. That in turn would mean it is not CFIT, but a stall-in. But I could be wrong.
Is that enough reasoning to qualify as an acceptable post?
BoeingMEL,
in contrast to my suggestion, you seem certain that the aircraft did not stall in. Any reasons for that?
charterguy,
you imagine that the box data might be made public? Maybe; maybe not.
Does anyone know who has the boxes and where they are being read?
PBL
thank you for your detailed and finegrained suggestions on what is OK to say and how, and what not.
I don't share your view.
From what I can see from the pics and videos, the vegetation uphill of the fuselage-wing part is also largely undisturbed. If that is correct, it means he went in underside-first and not nose-first. That in turn would mean it is not CFIT, but a stall-in. But I could be wrong.
Is that enough reasoning to qualify as an acceptable post?
BoeingMEL,
in contrast to my suggestion, you seem certain that the aircraft did not stall in. Any reasons for that?
charterguy,
you imagine that the box data might be made public? Maybe; maybe not.
Does anyone know who has the boxes and where they are being read?
PBL
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Near sheep!
Posts: 915
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With the MD-83 being a 'non-glass' flight deck, there is plenty of potential for crew disorientation.
But more importantly, something I think we have missed on this one........thought's go out to all the families...
But more importantly, something I think we have missed on this one........thought's go out to all the families...
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: france
Age: 62
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PBL Wrote :
From what I can see from the pics and videos, the vegetation uphill of the fuselage-wing part is also largely undisturbed. If that is correct, it means he went in underside-first and not nose-first. That in turn would mean it is not CFIT, but a stall-in. But I could be wrong.
It is important to notice that what we have seen on the photos until now is only a relatively small part of the plane.
It has been written in some press releases that the tail of the plane possibly hit the summit of a hill first. That could explain what we see : the center of the fuselage broke apart and falling like a dead leaf on the ground, for example.
From what I can see from the pics and videos, the vegetation uphill of the fuselage-wing part is also largely undisturbed. If that is correct, it means he went in underside-first and not nose-first. That in turn would mean it is not CFIT, but a stall-in. But I could be wrong.
It is important to notice that what we have seen on the photos until now is only a relatively small part of the plane.
It has been written in some press releases that the tail of the plane possibly hit the summit of a hill first. That could explain what we see : the center of the fuselage broke apart and falling like a dead leaf on the ground, for example.
Non pilot speaking.
PBL,
Just a personal observation regarding your post. It doesn't need to be a stall. If it was in it's final approach configuration it would have been in a nose up attitude and would thus have impacted terrain tail first.
Again, with that typical nose up attitude it is conceivable that the crew would have an unobstructed view of the runway. Wasn't the Avianca B747 accident at Madrid such a case?
PBL,
Just a personal observation regarding your post. It doesn't need to be a stall. If it was in it's final approach configuration it would have been in a nose up attitude and would thus have impacted terrain tail first.
Again, with that typical nose up attitude it is conceivable that the crew would have an unobstructed view of the runway. Wasn't the Avianca B747 accident at Madrid such a case?
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Bielefeld, Germany
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Charles and Avman,
Certainly worth thinking about.
The craft has some considerable forward momentum at 140 kts (nose up or not). If the tail hits, the nose comes down. And stays, and slides. You don't lose 140 kts forward by converting it suddenly into rotation.
The pictures of the wing-box/rump from behind show the trees and no sliding trace, so assuming a tail strike at 140 kts airspeed this part would have had to have bounced into the air from this initial impact and come down again. I don't quite picture that. My intuition still tells me that with a tail strike and 140kts forward and still flying there is going to be a lengthy trace on the ground; which there isn't.
PBL
Originally Posted by Charles
..... the tail of the plane possibly hit the summit of a hill first. That could explain what we see : the center of the fuselage broke apart and falling like a dead leaf on the ground, for example.
Originally Posted by Avman
If it was in it's [sic] final approach configuration it would have been in a nose up attitude and would thus have impacted terrain tail first.
The craft has some considerable forward momentum at 140 kts (nose up or not). If the tail hits, the nose comes down. And stays, and slides. You don't lose 140 kts forward by converting it suddenly into rotation.
The pictures of the wing-box/rump from behind show the trees and no sliding trace, so assuming a tail strike at 140 kts airspeed this part would have had to have bounced into the air from this initial impact and come down again. I don't quite picture that. My intuition still tells me that with a tail strike and 140kts forward and still flying there is going to be a lengthy trace on the ground; which there isn't.
PBL
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: flightdeck/earlyhours commute
Posts: 199
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Without getting into a blame exercise...
The crash site has been suggested ot be located about 7miles NW of the field.
The Sector safe in that area is 10000', but on the Pelil star, inside of 6 miles(pelil) is 8000', and the VOR procedure starts at 8000', descending to 7000' downwind, and then 4500' (which is about 7miles from the threshold) to the final descent point, south west.
The actual terrain in the area west to north west of the field ranges from 4000-6000'.
At 7miles inbound it would be expected that an aircraft on a NPA would be partially configured, and slow, (and posssibly with a fairly low descent rate).
It would be a simple error to not appreciate the levels associated with the procedure. A crew made a similar error going into alicante (i think) about a year or so ago, and got a pull up alert (heard over the radio), when they accepted a self position to final, and descended a little too early.
All conjecture at this point.
The crash site has been suggested ot be located about 7miles NW of the field.
The Sector safe in that area is 10000', but on the Pelil star, inside of 6 miles(pelil) is 8000', and the VOR procedure starts at 8000', descending to 7000' downwind, and then 4500' (which is about 7miles from the threshold) to the final descent point, south west.
The actual terrain in the area west to north west of the field ranges from 4000-6000'.
At 7miles inbound it would be expected that an aircraft on a NPA would be partially configured, and slow, (and posssibly with a fairly low descent rate).
It would be a simple error to not appreciate the levels associated with the procedure. A crew made a similar error going into alicante (i think) about a year or so ago, and got a pull up alert (heard over the radio), when they accepted a self position to final, and descended a little too early.
All conjecture at this point.
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Charles and PBL, you won't take the hint! Stop this stupid speculation based on zero information. This is getting like the Kenyan thread. It takes trained investigators looking at scratches and gouges to work out what the aeroplane was doing. Analysing the post ground contact movements is not really at all productive, we are really after why the collision took place in the first place, not your musings. There seems to be a competition with every accident to be the first to come up with the cause- it's getting embarrassing. Why do you think people want to hear your idle, inexperienced speculation? Most experienced pilots will have a fairly good suspicion as to why and how the event took place, but until further details are released, better to hold their peace, as they are- leaving it to enthusiastic aviation fans with a computer and absolutely no training or experience (or understanding!) to bombard us with garbage!
So far, we have had verbal diarrhea from someone saying the accident looks survivable! Not to me Jose- I suppose really careless of the victims to succumb.
Can we please wait for news to be released, and any pertinent comments from someone who knows what they are talking about?
So far, we have had verbal diarrhea from someone saying the accident looks survivable! Not to me Jose- I suppose really careless of the victims to succumb.
Can we please wait for news to be released, and any pertinent comments from someone who knows what they are talking about?
Last edited by Rainboe; 1st Dec 2007 at 11:54.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With the MD-83 being a 'non-glass' flight deck, there is plenty of potential for crew disorientation.
Maybe it is time to restrict the 'non-informed' access to this august site...
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The idiots are taking over again! It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic.
The problem is Pprune needs the 'hits' (for revenue). The other problem is that airline pilots need hard information, not daft speculation from people who don't know what they are talking about, but having a computer in front of them makes them an instant expert.
Why can't these people just keep off one forum? This one! It does say at the top 'affects OUR lives....as professional pilots' Any idiot with a computer seems to think that means them.
The problem is Pprune needs the 'hits' (for revenue). The other problem is that airline pilots need hard information, not daft speculation from people who don't know what they are talking about, but having a computer in front of them makes them an instant expert.
Why can't these people just keep off one forum? This one! It does say at the top 'affects OUR lives....as professional pilots' Any idiot with a computer seems to think that means them.