Turkish A320 accident Istanbul

[trolleydolly737]

http://youtu.be/j9D-X918I8c

http://youtu.be/Sy-UtJG3uLU

Engine fire, gear collapse, runway excursion & evac.

[jaytee54]

That second video seems to show a collapse of the right main gear on touchdown, allowing the right engine pod to scrape the runway. There is no sign of fire until the engine scrapes the runway.

[plt radioman]

the first landing must of been a hard landing which eventually penetrated the right wing, and they went around, declared mayday stating they had an engine inoperative, no gear and flap retraction available.

voice recorded here on link
??TE O UÇU?UN SES KAYDI (http://www.airporthaber.com/havacilik-haberleri/iste-o-ucusun-ses-kaydi.html)

[SierraLimaFoxtrot]

Unless I'm seeing things, there is a lot more to it than collapse on landing. In the second video it looks like there is significant damage at the inboard section of the right wing prior to landing.... can also be seen in the close up toward the end of the landing 'roll'.

Check at the 14 second mark and compare to before touchdown?

[kumbaya]

Touchdown doesn't seem to be that rough ..... or ?

[tom775257]

Yeah agreed SLF - certainly looks (admittedly from a very grainy hard to see video) like a fair amount of damage to the inboard section of right wing and possibly body before landing. Looks almost like a section of wing upper surface is bent upwards. Again, difficult to see, but it looks like the gear strut comes up through the wing after a fairly smooth touchdown. Uncontained engine failure?

[SierraLimaFoxtrot]

Some easier to see in pics on Twitter

Post touchdown here

https://twitter.com/yenisafakEN/status/591890398039113728

[delorean79]

AirLive.net: BREAKING Turkish Airlines flight #TK1878 from Milan landed at Ataturk Airport, Istanbul with right engine in fire (http://www.airlive.net/2015/04/breaking-we-got-reports-of-plane-with.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&m=1)

right wing damage

[twentyyearstoolate]

I saw the incident after he was Airborne. Mixed reports but looked like he'd just taken off. He then came around for an approach, then aborted at about 500 feet and came around for a different runway. The fire was burning for a long time before it was extinguished.

[ExXB]

I'm not certain but the apparent 'damage' to the wing root could be the winglet you are seeing ...

Edited : Apologies, that is not a winglet - that aircraft doesn't have them!

[SierraLimaFoxtrot]

I did wonder about that, but between the 3 and 6 second mark the viewing angle is looking from the forward-right. You can see the artifact above the wing root, 'between' the right engine and the right gear (as it appears from that angle).


At that viewing angle you can clearly see the wing, wingtip and winglets and it's not those, they appear further aft.


The winglet moves across the area of the damage at about the 10 to 11 second mark.

[oceancrosser]

Major damage on right wing inboard trailing edge. Uncontained engine failure?

[flying mechanik]

pic of damage:


https://twitter.com/airlivenet/status/591922933087531009/photo/1

[SLFstu]

Good video here taken from further down the strip.
https://youtu.be/QEkKmzdiNfs

And good to see that the front slide deployed 15 seconds after AC came to a standstill, with the left rear soon after. But other still pics show deployment of overwing slide on the damaged side. Why would CC allow that after being airborne spectators to a burning engine for apparently several minutes prior? Passenger panic once stationary perhaps?
Anyway, definitely not the sort of publicity THY needed on ANZAC Day (or any day).

[RingwaySam]

Another photo of the damage

Photo: TC-JPE (CN: 2941) Turkish Airlines Airbus A320-232 by Ömür Sadikoglu Photoid: 8012938 - JetPhotos.Net (http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=8012938&nseq=0)

[PoppaJo]

Looks like they hit the deck pretty hard (then bounced?) on the Starboard side, the right wing appears to have been slammed on the runway, nearly pulling of the winglet.

[bubbers44]

Accident: THY A320 at Istanbul on Apr 25th 2015, hard landing, go-around, engine problem, gear problem, gear collapse, runway excursion (http://avherald.com/h?article=48546eb6&opt=0)

They lost control on first approach causing right gear, engine and wing damage when they went into steep right bank and impacted the runway then went around.

[Sea-man]

Some more photos here, including in flight.

Istanbul, atterraggio d'emergenza di un aereo Turkish Airlines partito da Milano - Repubblica.it (http://www.repubblica.it/esteri/2015/04/25/foto/istanbul_atterraggio_d_emergenza_di_un_aereo_turkish_airline s_partito_da_milano-112800234/1/?ref=HREC1-3#1)

[Meikleour]

The photo seems to show that the gear has been lowered by gravity since the gear doors are all open..........

[greggj]

Testament to the durability of A320's, altho I have a feeling that Turkish will 'leave' Star Alliance soon..
Someone should write up all the facts in actual chronological order - because this is becoming a mess of miss information now.

[BA46RJ]

LTBA 250750Z 20004KT 160V240 CAVOK 15/07 Q1020 NOSIG
LTBA 250720Z 17005KT 140V200 CAVOK 15/05 Q1020 NOSIG


If the separation to the preceeding heavy Azerbaijan 787 was just minimum, the light quatering tailwind for RWY 05 could explain some wake turbulence and a sudden right roll that could be difficult to correct so close to touch down

[Bigpants]

Rumours & News - PPRuNe Forums (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news-13/)

Has anyone noticed how often the words Airbus, Asia, Turky or Turkish appear on this page?

[Tinribs]

IF IF IF
this was wake turbulence.
We had a nasty at RAE Bedford in the 70s when a Hawk was close behind a large transport (Britannia).

It seemed the worst situation is a large mismatch between leading/following aircraft sizes? and a crosswind of about five knots. Instead of spreading outwards at about five knots as usual the upwind vortex is held at or about the runway giving a large rolling moment near the ground.

It may be the changed control laws of the Airbus near the ground complicate the handling in this situation

All said with the aim of spreading the word not stating what happened

[paokara]

Everyone needs to stop been an expert and let the real experts , accident investigation team do their job

[paparomeodelta]

Minimum or negative separation from heavy 787 caused right roll and damages, then excellent flying and smooth landing with no casualties. Interesting to see data from ATC.

[despegue]

To all the armchair pilots immediately blaming TK once more:

What is YOUR SOP for a bounced landing then?

No injuries, aircraft reuseable ( at least it looks like it).

[Calmcavok]

Are there no pilots left on PPRUNE? Why do you think they might have gone for 35L instead?

[jaytee54]

Calmcavok
maybe 05/23 contaminated with bits of A320?

From the metar I'd say 23 was more into-wind but I forget the details of IST.

[king surf]

I Landed just after this incident,the wind was 220/07kts

[Hotel Tango]

35L gave them an extra 1000 feet or so to play with. I also believe that it's a little wider.

[blimey]

Lets wait for the report.

One thing I do know after 30 years or so is that sometimes 15 degrees per second the bus gives you isn't quite enough. And did I mention how difficult it is to intervene when someone porks it. Boeing on the other hand.........

[Meikleour]

David: possibly but the nose wheel doors are also open!

[JammedStab]

Has there been any previous A318-21 cases where the main gear was damaged on a bounced landing go-around.

[casablanca]

I have on several occasions hit some very strong wake turbulence while following a 787( while flying in 777). While less likely so close to the runway as it should have dissipated quickly, I can see how you could quickly find yourself bouncing off the runway.
I seem to recall Jetblue had a similar incident in JFK....although they rolled 30 degrees while doing auto land they managed to go around prior to contact with ground.

[JanetFlight]

Its absolutely amazing in this video to see the right engine engulfed in violent flames flying over the city...Really a great and lucky outcome!

dumpert.nl - Vliegtuig met brandende motor (http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/6651774/b75c4567/vliegtuig_met_brandende_motor.html)

[pattern_is_full]

A real head-scratcher for me.

Clearly some excellent aviation skills at work getting this badly-injured bird back on the ground safely - but what caused the initial hard landing and damage in the first place?

I'll read the nitty-gritty detail with interest, when available.

[harrryw]

http://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/178.pdf
Recovery from a high bounce
In case of a more severe bounce, do not attempt to land, as the remaining runway
length might not be sufficient to stop the aircraft.
The following generic go-around technique can be applied:
• Maintain a normal landing pitch attitude;
• Initiate a go-around by triggering go-around levers and/or advancing throttle/thrust
levers to the go-around thrust position (depending on aircraft type);
• Ignore the takeoff configuration warning, if any;
• Maintain the landing gear and flaps configuration;
• Be ready for a possible second touchdown;
− Do not try to avoid a second touchdown during the go-around. Should this
happen, the second touchdown would be soft enough to prevent damage to the
aircraft, if pitch attitude is maintained;
• When safely established in the go-around and no risk of further touchdown exists
(i.e., with a steady positive climb), follow normal go-around procedures; and,

[CCA]

Some serious post bounce damage viewed from the cabin.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CDbugwjWEAAh0PE.png

[DaveReidUK]

possibly but the nose wheel doors are also open!Same considerations apply as to the MLG doors.

Besides, the link in post #8 contains an ATC recording. Don't you think we'd have heard by now if there had been problems reported lowering the gear prior to the first approach ?

[Miraculix]

My A320 FCOM says:
"After a bounce with an A320, the spoilers remain extended if you leave the thrust levers at idle. Idle is when the thrust levers are below 3 deg, and below 15 deg when the radio height is below 6 ft.

In case of a light bounce, maintain the current pitch and complete the ldg, while maintaining the thrust at idle. In case of a high bounce, initiate a go-around.
In either case do not try and soften the second touchdown by increasing the pitch attitude."

People that suggest otherwise, please contact Airbus and tell them you're well thought out procedure, so I can use them in the future :ok:

[Ian W]

There are some wind/atmospheric conditions in which a wake vortex does not dissipate as expected but remains in almost a stable state. The separations are based on the probability of dissipation and the following aircraft's susceptibility to the vortices from the previous aircraft. With a light cross wind a wake that would have dissipated safely to the side of the runway may instead be carried along the runway by the ambient wind. These conditions where vortices are more stable are when LIDAR based systems like WindTracer ( WindTracer® · Lockheed Martin (http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/windtracer.html) ) can be extremely useful.

[Bearcat]

Looks like some serious structural damage. Possible write off? The wake turb theory off the preceding 787 is very interesting. Irrespective of the reasons why, well done to the crew for getting the injured machine on terra firma safely.

[Busbert]

The photo seems to show that the gear has been lowered by gravity since the gear doors are all open..........

If the down lock signal is lost on one or more landing gear (e.g. RH MLG not detected as locked down by the LGCIU in command), the LGCIU will open the landing gear doors. When all gear detected as down locked, the doors will be commanded to close. So the fact that all the LDG doors were open does not necessarily mean the gear were extended using free-fall.

Considering the thrust (Eng2 in flames) and flap asymmetry (RH inboard flap and trailing edge false work hanging in tatters) and the apparent twist on the RH wing (funny angle of wing tip suggests rear spar damage at Rib 5?) the crew did will to control the aircraft - lateral/roll authority will have been rather compromised. It would be interesting to see how much rudder/aileron/spoiler it needed to fly straight. Aileron reversal could potentially occur if the wing box torsional stiffness was compromised. *Shudder!*

[Meikleour]

Busbert. : Thanks for that info - makes sense. So you are saying the doors would be opened hydraulically in that situation therefore I Presume the crew would also therefore have had a gear "unsafe" indication to add to their woes?

[D Bru]

??TE THY UÇA?ININ HAVADAK? GÖRÜNTÜLER? (http://www.airporthaber.com/havacilik-haberleri/iste-thy-ucaginin-havadaki-goruntuleri.html)

With the persisting fire just after GA shown in this vid (and the (likely structural) wing damage shown in some twitter pics from inside the A/C), its a miracle that it held flight for 20 more min. It took about about 12 min to line up for a second approach onto RWY 05 (after having passed and re-passed over central Istanbul), which was aborted in favour of re-positioning in approx another 8 min more for RWY 33.

[Chronus]

The chain of events reported are.
Tail strike, followed by stbd engine strike on attempted landing RNWY25, after go around in the hold for some time and declaring emergency with stbd engine fire, landed on RNWY35 where stbd gear collapsed on touchdown. Engine fire attributed to ground strike on attempted landing on RNWY25.

It would appear the crew were quick in shutting down engine and preventing an in flight fire from spreading.

The disturbing factor is an aircraft with engine fire, captured on video footage over a city with a population in excess of 15 million.

[Busbert]

Busbert. : Thanks for that info - makes sense. So you are saying the doors would be opened hydraulically in that situation therefore I Presume the crew would also therefore have had a gear "unsafe" indication to add to their woes?

In this situation there would be a 'L/G GEAR NOT DOWNLOCKED' ECAM warning with a red UNLK indication and no green arrow for the RH MLG on the landing gear indicator panel (i.e. 2 greens for the NLG and LH MLG).

[ZFT]

The disturbing factor is an aircraft with engine fire, captured on video footage over a city with a population in excess of 15 million.

So inconvenient (and unusual) having an airport located near a major city!

[PT6Driver]

Tail strike, followed by stbd engine strike on attempted landing RNWY25, after go around in the hold for some time and declaring emergency with stbd engine fire, landed on RNWY35 where stbd gear collapsed on touchdown. Engine fire attributed to ground strike on attempted landing on RNWY25.


I didn't think IST had a runway 25, no wonder they had so much damage!

[bsieker]

Chronus,

According to Flightradar24, the initial landing attempt was on 05, the final landing on 35L.

https://imgur.com/a/2c7hf#0

(There is no runway 25, but there is 35L and 35R.)

[Volume]

There are obviously some aircraft types around that produce very heavy wake vortices, although they are not soo big/heavy. The 757 is one example. Does the 787 have some similar "reputation"? How does the Boeing "raked wingtip" on the 777/787 behave with respect to vortices ?

After the bounce we have seen some real good airmanship here :ok:

[RAT 5]

The disturbing factor is an aircraft with engine fire, captured on video footage over a city with a population in excess of 15 million.

So inconvenient (and unusual) having an airport located near a major city!

I'm not familiar with IST, but the question that might be being asked is could the a/c have been vectored over water for most of its recovery routing?

[DaveReidUK]

There are obviously some aircraft types around that produce very heavy wake vortices, although they are not soo big/heavy. The 757 is one example. Does the 787 have some similar "reputation"?
For wake separation purposes, the 757 is classed as a Medium (based on weight), even though it produces vortices comparable to some Heavy types (in the UK it's classed as an Upper Medium for that reason, to differentiate it for wake separation purposes from 737s, A320s, etc).

The 787, on the other hand, already belongs in the Heavy category based on weight, so it gets the same separation behind it as any other Heavy.

[FlyingStone]

I'm not familiar with IST, but the question that might be being asked is could the a/c have been vectored over water for most of its recovery routing?

From the link above, most of its path was above water. Initial missed approach was over the city, since the city starts at DER 05 - I doubt they can change that...

[D Bru]

Obviously can't comment at this stage cause of the first landing attempt anomalies, but clearly the FD judged it sufficiently "hard" to initiate a GA, as per SOP.

Don't get though why, 12 min after GA, they subsequently risk aborting the 2nd approach on 05 for another 8 minutes to reposition for 35L. If not from the FD, surely from the cabin all indications of a persisting engine fire and (structural) wing damage, should have prompted the crew to land ASAP, no matter RWY width and length.

On turning tight and short for the 2nd 05-approach they may have been too high and fast. But why turning in so short for this second approach?

Given the state of the A/C, why not make a much more wide and gentle right 180° after GA and with another gentle more or less 90° right turn position directly for 35L?

Hindsight probably, I realise, but it raises at least some doubts about the awareness on the FD. Not to mention that after the aborted 2nd approach on 05 the A/C made another couple of very tight turns to reposition for 35L.

Risky, lucky.....

[Dash8100]

Looking at the picture in post 15 it seems the right landing gear is at an angle (damaged by the first hard touch down). Wouldn't this cause the right landing gear to be worn down to the metal, and causing the sparks and the final turn by the aircraft?

[Super VC-10]

Right LG was pushed up into the wing, hence the damage shown in the in-flight photo.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/04/25/13/27FA38DD00000578-3055050-image-a-8_1429963976022.jpg

[Kirks gusset]

Landing on 35 gives greater length with two parallel runways to go for, 05 is shorter. Vehicle access is better to 35 as you can use the parallel runway as a road, 05 is like walking in fog. As to the " cause" probably we will never know, but the 787 is " heavy" and the vortex could well have been a factor. If landing following a Heavy the FAA guidance for ATCs is:
2.8.1 Specific Procedures
2.8.1.1 Landing Behind a Larger Aircraft - Same Runway (Figure 2.8-1)
Stay at or above the larger aircraft’s final approach flightpath.
Note its touchdown point.
Land beyond the touchdown point, run- way length permitting.
If unable to land safely beyond the touch- down point, go around.
The tail wind may have effectively " contained" the vortex on the threshold.
Anyone who flys in Istanbul knows that in a " non normal" you have to paddle your own canoe, ATC will accommodate your requests, not make suggestions.
The engine with fire was still producing thrust and the crew followed the SOPs as far as we can see. In fact, they (ALL inc Cabin) did a good job, looking at a destroyed wing and an engine fire is not a comforting sight..

[Chronus]

Yes bSIEKER, you are quite correct, my mistake done in haste.
Apologies to all.

[Chronus]

"From the link above, most of its path was above water. Initial missed approach was over the city, since the city starts at DER 05 - I doubt they can change that..."

The sound track of the video footage (which was posted earlier in this thread) of the aircraft captured from a wittness on the ground records the anguished remarks of the cameraman speaking to his mother. It ends with the cameraman stating that he would contact the airport.

Perhaps he did do just that, and if he did so and in time, then ATC may have been alerted of an aircraft reportedly on fire above the city and on receipt of the MAYDAY call would have been in a position to take appropriate action. As things stood ATC were not aware of the aircraft`s distress and nature of emergency. With the MAYDAY call all that they were told was that the aircraft had lost an engine and 35 was requested for landing.

[Kirks gusset]

The sequence
1) Aborted/baulked landing with go-around.
2) Gear does not retract.. fly aircraft follow MAP
3) At this stage A/C is just declaring a go-around as there is no fire yet..
4) Ecam started several checklists plus cabin reports
5) Engine Fire starts, change priorities and start memory items
6) Decide on RW 35 as best option, declare May Day, rest is history..
In this time line 12 minutes is not long, the suggestion the aircraft was flying around for 20 minutes on fire is not accurate.

Old system Aviate, Naviagte, Communicate..

Ataturk is a swarming nest of aircraft with holding on arrival the norm. Even in CB activity it is difficult to get avoiding tracks due traffic density, so in this situation above ATC have no Idea what's going on until the Pilots tell them.

As for " vectoring over water" why? to avoid built up areas" crew took shortest route back to land, RW05 was not a good choice, they did well. ATC also did a good job in getting the diverts away

[Skyjob]

For wake separation purposes, the 757 is classed as a Medium (based on weight), even though it produces vortices comparable to some Heavy types (in the UK it's classed as an Upper Medium for that reason, to differentiate it for wake separation purposes from 737s, A320s, etc).
The above reason is why on APPROACH 757's should be treated as HEAVY for separation reasons, as it is in this configuration when their wake becomes troublesome to a following aircraft when classed as MEDIUM.

[Miraculix]

In Denmark the 757 is medium when behind and heavy when in front, end story.

[Una Due Tfc]

757 is heavy when being followed, medium when following. The U.K. Is an anomaly in this regard. This "upper medium" "lower medium" stuff doesn't exist in most places either.

[Stallspincrashburn]

Sorry, I'm a little lost. When cleared for take off, after the required separation, the crew did so. Your point is?

[andrasz]

Landing on 35 gives greater length with two parallel runways to go for

Currently 35R is torn up and is under complete reconstruction (on the landing video you can see earth-moving equipment in operation on 35R in foreground). With the accident IST was down to one operating runway till the evening, causing complete havoc. I was on one of the affected flights, by the time I got in at 10pm four hours late both 35L/17R was operational again, the accident aircraft was already moved.

[iceman50]

What about departure point on the runway, rotation point wind etc.

[Locked door]

de facto & lgw vulture

There is no restriction for a medium following a medium for T/O. On a high density runway like LGW/LHR take off clearance will be given and accepted as soon as the preceding aircrafts nose wheel has lifted. Perfectly normal and happens every day, to criticise the airline shows a lack of knowledge.

For landing the normal spacing is 2.5nm behind a medium and 5nm behind a heavy. LHR has recently switched to time based separation so the spacing can be reduced with strong headwinds, but the time remains constant.

[Avenger]

9F. Departures
9F.1 Wake turbulence separation minima on departure shall be applied by measuring airborne times between successive aircraft. Take-off clearance may be issued with an allowance for the anticipated take-off run on the runway; however, the airborne time interval shall reflect a difference of at least the required time separation.
9F.2 The wake turbulence separation minima in the table below shall be applied when aircraft are using:
(1) (2)
the same runway; or
parallel runways separated by less than 760 m; or
16 October 2014
Section 1: Chapter 3: Separation Standards - Page 13
CAP 493
Table 4:
(3) crossing runways if the projected flight path of the second aircraft will cross the projected flight path of the first aircraft at the same altitude or less than 1000 ft below; or
(4) parallel runways separated by 760 m or more, if the projected flight path of the second aircraft will cross the projected flight path of the first aircraft at the same altitude or less than 1000 ft below.
Leading Aircraft


Minimum Wake Turbulence Separation at the Time Aircraft are Airborne
Following Aircraft

A380-800

Departing from the same position
or
from a parallel runway separated by less than 760 m (2,500 ft)

No wake turbulence separation minima required
A380-800

Heavy

2 minutes

Medium (Upper and Lower) Small
Light
3 minutes
Heavy
Heavy

4 nm or time equivalent

Medium (Upper and Lower) Small
Light
2 minutes

Medium (Upper and Lower) or Small
Light
2 minutes
A380-800 (Full length take-off)

Departing from an intermediate point on the same runway
or
from an intermediate point of a parallel runway separated by less than 760
No wake turbulence separation minima required
A380-800

Heavy

3 minutes

Medium (Upper and Lower) Small
Light
4 minutes
Heavy (Full length take-off)

Heavy

4 nm or time equivalent
Medium (Upper and Lower) Small
Light
3 minutes
Medium or Small (Full length take-off)
Light
3 minutes
Note: ATC shall apply the minima as prescribed above, irrespective of any pilot request for reduced wake turbulence separation. ATC does not have the discretion to reduce wake turbulence separation minima.

[de facto]

Locked door,
Not sure where my post you were refering to is..(my posts seeem to disappear often recently...).but im quite sure i did not criticise BA crew.
I just mentionned the standard ICAO vortex separation..now if LHR has a reduced separation,it was obviously approved by the UK CAA and such difference notified to pilots operating there..i have never flown there myself.
LGW however I am quite familiar with and never had an issue with minimum ICAO time separation,just late landing clearances.
Now it is a fact that PIC have the right to accept or not such reduced separation,I wonder how many wake turbulence reports they get there on a monthly basis..oh hang on a minute...its always windy up there...maybe the reason for reduced separation and few reports..:E

[Microburst2002]

Looks like they had the very hard landing (the reason being unknown) most of it on the right main landing gear, which suffered great damage along with the engine.

They went around (most probably because they followed SOP or because they didn't think they would safely stop on the runway)

During the missed approach the extent of the damage must not have been apparent, or they would have returned immediately.

Once they learned of the status of the airplane (reports by cabin crew, ECAM, etc…) they decide to land on a longer runway and prepare for the worst, that is, to prepare for evacuation.

A man makes decisions with the info he has available. If he has time, he should use it to get to the best possible decision. When he learns he doesn't have the time, he will land with no delay. They did this, so it was ok, unless the first hard landing was a handling error, in which case they have a not so good score

[twentyyearstoolate]

Once they learned of the status of the airplane (reports by cabin crew, ECAM, etc…) they decide to land on a longer runway and prepare for the worst, that is, to prepare for evacuation.Not entirely correct. They were on approach to RW 05 (The shorter runway) at first. By this time they would have been well aware of their emergency situation, at the very least single engine after a fire.

I'll wait for the report, but I am wondering why on a single engine in calm weather conditions you would not come back on the longer runway first time!? I'll be very keen to find out if there was a reason.

Looked like he got to about 500 feet before going around and repositioning for 35L (Longer Runway).

[Dan Winterland]

Looking a the picture of the aircraft in flight, it's clear the rear section of the engine is missing. I suspect 05 wasn't available because of debris!

[twentyyearstoolate]

RW 05 is the shorter runway. Who cares whether it had debris or not.

Take the longer runway... It's not rocket science!

[ericthepilot]

Like with the Turkish airline crash in Amsterdam,

They inflicted the predicament upon themselves.
The Turkish Aviation Authority, like w the A'dam crash will label them as heroes.

Blame will be upon all others but the heroes.

[PT6Driver]

Eric

They inflicted the predicament upon themselves.

Please tell us exactly what the separation was to the aircraft in front. You obviously know without any shadow of a doubt that they deliberately got to close, don't you?:ugh:

There are a number of valid possibilities, including that the separation to a 787 needs to be bigger. At this stage we simply do not know with certainty.

[Kirks gusset]

Eric, judging by your previous "contributions" and you even poorer command of English I doubt very much you would have the skill or presence of mind to fly a crippled airliner through busy airspace and achieve a successful landing. Whatever the initial cause, the important issue is the successful outcome of saving lives.. remember that when being quick to judge with no facts to hand.

[twentyyearstoolate]

As for " vectoring over water" why? to avoid built up areas" crew took shortest route back to land, RW05 was not a good choice, they did well. ATC also did a good job in getting the diverts away

Kirks gusset, when you criticise others regarding commenting before the facts come out, you should really take your own advice. Your previous comments state facts that are incorrect too.

The crew did take RW05 initially (which I agree with you was not a good choice).

The crew did well?? Well, we'll wait to see the final report, but as my previous posts allure to, I can't for the life of me work out why they chose RW05 in the first place.

Success in the end for sure, but will be very interesting reading the final report when it becomes available.

[Fluke]

If the separation from the 787 needs to be greater then why not act right NOW and make it so. If the investigation later decides this was not a factor in the accident then we can always revert back.
:ugh:

[AirScotia]

The FR24 playback suggests that no flights landed on 05 (or 35) for half an hour or so after the THY's incident. This included the flight immediately following the A320. Presumably the A320 left debris which was immediately spotted, and had to be cleared away. Nothing landed on any runway until the 320 got down on 35.

I'd interpret this as saying that conditions made 05 optimum, the runway wasn't cleared by the time the A320 was making its second approach, and the state of the a/c prompted the crew to ask to get down quick, even on a non-optimum runway.

[twentyyearstoolate]

Jeez... some of you just don't seem to get it or don't look into it.

RW 35L was OPEN!

It was used for departures up until the time of the incident.

Therefore any debris would have been on RW05 after he did the hard landing (for want of a better phrase). RW 35L was clear...and Longer.

How in the hell is RW 05 optimum??? I'd love to hear your reasons AirScotia as to why a shorter runway with possible debris was more optimum than the longer runway which was clear in light wind CAVOK conditions?

You have obviously missinterpreted/misunderstood some info here.

[AirScotia]

Twentyyears, you're right. FR24 does indeed show that 35 was being used for departures, and continued to be used for that after 320 aborted the landing.

By 'optimum', what I meant was that 05 was the preferred runway for landing as far as ATC were concerned, before the incident occurred. It clearly wasn't optimum once it had bits of Airbus messing it up.

The playback shows that all the immediately following flights did not land, suggesting to me that ATC were alert to potential debris as soon as the landing was aborted. TK1878 looked to be turning onto the approach for 05 about 8 mins after the abort, by which time they perhaps expected the runway to have been OK-ed. It's presumably probable that ATC issued instructions to the crew about making another approach on 05, on the assumption that an inspection would show the runway to be clear. When the reports came in that there were worrying amounts of Airbus on the runway, plans perhaps had to be changed to get the a/c on the ground asap.

[twentyyearstoolate]

Thanks AirScotia, I hear what you are saying, and I know it's easy from my desk to point out errors with Hindsight.

Personally if I am single engine, especially with more problems further complicating things, I tell ATC which runway I'm landing on, not the other way around. ATC can then organise whatever they need to in order to "clear the way" for me.

Coming back onto RW05 involves more track miles, so it wasn't used to get back on the ground quicker, hence my great interest as to why they chose their course of action.

Maybe there is a good reason, and I'm blinded by my own ideas, but I'm yet to see it.

[ATC Watcher]

Gee , do I love this "FR24 " based accident investigations :E
Just some quotes in le last 5 posts or so :

"Maybe, with the checklists they had to run through and that kept piling up, they chose..."

" The playback shows that .......suggesting to me that ATC...."

"It's presumably probable that ATC issued instructions to the crew ..."

"plans perhaps had to be changed to get the a/c on the ground asap."
( I personally like that one :p)

FR24 gives a vague idea of what the flight did, not the details ,and in Aviation , the nasty parts are always in the details.

What I would really like to know is what cause the hard landing in the first instance . That would be some news.

[RoyHudd]

Turkish aviation accident statistics speak for themselves.

Safety is not a culture in TK land. Not as regards aviation.

[phiggsbroadband]

Surely the 787 wake turbulence would be more persistent with a Tailwind.
The more usual Headwind moves the wake further from the airfield.

[lambert]

As an aviation English teacher I am interested to see how quickly the language changed to Turkish - in fact it was ATC who initiated it. It is obiously more efficient for the two native Turkish speakers to revert to their own language in such a stressful situation, but I wonder how efficiently non-native speakers (especially different first languages) would have handled the situation. I have an English speaking friend who flies for Turkish Airlines - he would have been a bit flummoxed if he was sitting in the right hand seat and ATC switched to Turkish!

[RAT 5]

The more usual Headwind moves the wake further from the airfield.

Is it not a x-wind > 10kts that shifts wake vortex?

[ATC Watcher]

if he was sitting in the right hand seat and ATC switched to Turkish!
2 words would have fixed this situation : " English please !"
Most of the non-native English speaking world works like this. Not only in TK .Not a real issue ,

[phiggsbroadband]

Hi Rat5, If it is a Tailwind the turbulence moves towards the Glide-slope, not away from it....
See page 4 + 5 of ....
http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/media_gallery/files/safety_library_items/AirbusSafetyLib_-FLT_OPS-OPS_ENV-SEQ07.pdf

[anengineer]

Excuse me for being a bit thick here (if I am), but how long does it take to extinguish an engine fire ? I'm rather shocked at that clip of the engine clearly well ablaze for so long in flight. With the fuel shut off and both fire bottles discharged, surely it can't continue to burn like that ? What am I missing here ?

[fox niner]

Well, since the main gear strut went though the wing, it probably ripped open the fuel tank. All this fuel was probably leaking on hot engine parts and ignited. But we will never know, since the Turkish authorities never publish reports.

[vs69]

Its a fair question,even with the lp valve shut (if it has indeed shut properly,sometimes they dont) there is still a surprising amount of fuel in the plumbing,also if the cowls were ruptured then discharging the extinguisher means a lot will blow out of the gaps and not be contained under the cowls,smothering the fire.
Hence why lp fuel valve ops checks and cowling fire seals are scheduled inspections.

[TypeIV]

Couldn't it have been hydraulic fluid as well?

[phiggsbroadband]

I don't think this was an engine fire, just metal sparks from damaged turbine blades rubbing against each other... There is no smoke further downstream of the sparks, which would be the result if fuel was burning...


http://www.repstatic.it/content/nazionale/img/2015/04/25/111033329-cfd83366-ee13-40f3-82ce-608b76d80051.jpg

[Dan Winterland]

I concur. Having had a similar engine failure myself, we knew nothing about it until we shut the engine down and when it ran down to a stop in a couple of seconds. Someone showed us some video of the 'burning' engine and it had about 20ft of sparks/flames coming out the back for a long time. There were no indications on the flight deck.

[DirtyProp]

I concur. Having had a similar engine failure myself, we knew nothing about it until we shut the engine down and when it ran down to a stop in a couple of seconds. Someone showed us some video of the 'burning' engine and it had about 20ft of sparks/flames coming out the back for a long time. There were no indications on the flight deck.
What about other parameters?
Power fluctuations?

[D Bru]

Sorry, can't resist. You had a "similar engine failure", hope you don't mean as a result of smashing it really badly onto the RWY and GA ? Seriously, I assume your remarks are in context of previous messages on fuel and hydraulic lines being cut and blablabla, and particularly the one saying its "only sparks and no smoke" (so no fire....).

Please let's not start a discussion of what constitutes an engine fire. Wing seemed (potentially) structurally damaged, engine severely bumped (think of pilon-attachment damage) and seemed to malfunction (whether defined as fire or not), all in all not very handy to keep on flying around with, certainly not in such multiple tight turns as the F/C initiated after aborting the second approach to 05 and positioning for 35L.

[NOT ORANGE]

From what I hear it has nothing to do with wake turbulence but rather a dual input.Why did Airbus decide that a dual input that would double the input was a good idea?I have found after a number of years on the Bus that taking over whilst pressing the red thingy is not exactly instinctive.

[de facto]

If it is a dual input on roll and they just "forgot" to flare then maybe its time Airbus Operators start to hammer the "I have control,you have control" from day one.

[silverstrata]

You don't need to blame wake turbulence in this part of the world - carrier landings are the norm. Some right seaters make prayers before landing, which always puts me on high alert. A few were trained by the Joseph Bamford flying school.

This was another gear collapse, at Antalya. But you be pleased to know that the gear only collapsed because the landing was too smooth. Apparently there is a flaw with the 737 design, so that when you do a real greaser the gear always collapses..... ;)

http://www.airteamimages.com/pics/188/188317_800.jpg

[Fursty Ferret]

Why did Airbus decide that a dual input that would double the input was a good idea?I have found after a number of years on the Bus that taking over whilst pressing the red thingy is not exactly instinctive. Because in the worst case scenario where someone does something so mind-bogglingly stupid that an instinctive reaction from the other pilot happens without pushing the red button, the inputs are summed and go to zero, protecting the aircraft and giving a second or two to formally take control.

Equally, in say a GPWS or windshear situation, a tentative response from PF will rapidly become a full deflection input if PNF instinctively adds an input, safely giving the full performance capability of the AC (albeit in a messy way).

There's no alternative that "works". Making the Captain's sidestick always take priority in a dual-input scenario will only end in tears because the co-pilot that needs to intervene will be doing it instinctively to preserve his or her own life or the integrity of the aircraft, and will never push the take-over button. At my airline co-pilots aren't allowed to cover the controls so there's no chance of them getting their hand onto the sidestick AND pushing the red button.

[Dan Winterland]

I have found after a number of years on the Bus that taking over whilst pressing the red thingy is not exactly instinctive.

Not with me. As I get older, my reactions are slowing - except for my left thumb which is hypersensitive!

[porkflyer]

Turks are the best pilot in their world. Its Airbus and Boeing that can't make planes that can master such delusion. I suggest get real..before its too late.

[heidelberg]

Is 'fox niner' correct in stating the Turkish Authorities never publish reports?

[TypeIV]

hedelberg, yes that's true.

Another accident today, an A/C hitting a gate in HEL, and yesterday a technician died while working.

Edit: Technician killed by 777 flap, sounds like he was trapped between when the flap was operated.

https://twitter.com/jonk/status/599686821887418368/photo/1

[andrasz]

Another accident today, an A/C hitting a gate in HEL

The gate is of the fixed type, my bet is the guidance display was set for an A321 while the a/c was a 320 which went unnoticed by the crew as they taxied past the correct stop position, even though if functioning the taxi guidance display prominently shows the a/c type it is set for. (The crew would only be at no fault here if they were marshaled in to the stand, but I find it a bit hard for this to be misjudged by a pair of Mk1 eyeballs)