Pegasus accident in SAW; just reported

[spammers1]

Third runway excursion for pgs.this time in SAW . Hope everyone ok

[dcoded]

Looks like the AC broke up in two pieces.
See video below


https://twitter.com/i/status/1225081220326940675

[TBSC]

Seems serious. It would be a miracle not to have casualties.
https://twitter.com/Hsn_Erydn/status/1225078909898821637

[tubby linton]

New notamLTFJ-A0743/20 *** NEW ***From: 05/02/2020 15:31 UTC
To: 05/02/2020 17:30 UTCRWY 06/24 CLSD.
-DUE TO AIRCRAFT CRASH-

[xanda_man]

Not so much an excursion, more of a crash. Not looking good to the folks up front.

[SerGue99]

Third runway excursion for pgs.this time in SAW . Hope everyone ok
2 nd one in SAW. First impression is like a hard landing. There is wind and rain, but not severe..

[CEJM]

Aircraft broken in 3 pieces. Supposedly carrying 177 people, not sure if that includes the crew.

[AucT]

metar: ltfj 051550z 27013kt 240v300 9999 -shra bkn030 bkn070 10/08 q0993 retsra nosig rmk rwy24 27017g27kt

[Willie Everlearn]

Pegasus again!!
???

[Modular Halil]

Third runway excursion for pgs.this time in SAW . Hope everyone ok
beat me to it, reports say bad weather made it skid and split into two halves nothing further yet.

[gearlever]

Pegasus again!!
???
Last one JAN 07th, same airport, same RWY 06.

[Less Hair]

Hope everyone in fact got out unharmed.

[A320LGW]

landing with a 24kt tailwind that's gusting, anyone seriously surprised by the result!?

[Doors to Automatic]

That looks suspiciously like a localiser behind the aircraft suggesting an overrun. Looking at the weather and the aircraft type (737-800) it also looks suspiciously like a typical incident for that type. Flaps 30, carrying excess speed for the wind conditions plus a bit more for grandma (my guess would be 160kts). Slightly high, excessive float, deep touchdown and off the end she sails.

Edit: A320LGW - the wind was from 270 and they landed on 24 right? That would be a headwind with a fairly hefty (but not illegal) crosswind component.

[Modular Halil]

Seems serious. It would be a miracle not to have casualties.
https://twitter.com/Hsn_Erydn/status/1225078909898821637
translation is just saying 'hope no ones died'

[A320LGW]

That looks suspiciously like a localiser behind the aircraft suggesting an overrun. Looking at the weather and the aircraft type (737-800) it also looks suspiciously like a typical incident for that type. Flaps 30, carrying excess speed for the wind conditions plus a bit more for grandma (my guess would be 160kts). Slightly high, excessive float, deep touchdown and off the end she sails.

Edit: A320LGW - the wind was from 270 and they landed on 24 right? That would be a headwind with a fairly hefty (but not illegal) crosswind component.

From Avherald:

"According to Mode-S data transmitted by the aircraft the aircraft overran the end of the runway at about 63 knots over ground veering slightly to the left, probably hit the localizer antenna runway 06, went over an airport road and impacted the airport perimeter wall."

Hence my comment, it's quite shocking really, i do hope I/Avherald is wrong though ...

[EXCIN]

Last one JAN 07th, same airport, same RWY 06.

And another one one January, 13, 2018 in Trabzon. The famous picture with the 7373 off the cliff

[slfool]

From https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/plane-crash-istanbul-turkey-airport-landing
https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/931x506/turkey_plane_getty_7629aea8a07b13c00addd54064f157f1c1f7f68e. jpg

[AviatorDave]

Last one JAN 07th, same airport, same RWY 06.

Is Runway 06 confirmed? With that METAR and a 737-800, how could they even think of using this runway?

[boerdet]

landing with a 24kt tailwind that's gusting, anyone seriously surprised by the result!?

sa 05/02/2020 16:20->metar ltfj 051620z 26005kt 230v300 9999 -shra bkn030 bkn070 10/08 q0994 nosig= sa 05/02/2020 15:50->metar ltfj 051550z 27013kt 240v300 9999 -shra bkn030 bkn070 10/08 q0993 retsra nosig= sp 05/02/2020 15:37->speci ltfj 051537z 29018kt 9999 -shra few025cb bkn036 bkn070 10/08 q0992 retsra nosig= sa 05/02/2020 15:20->metar ltfj 051520z 29022g37kt 240v330 7000 -tsra few017cb bkn025 bkn070 11/09 q0992 reshra nosig= sa 05/02/2020 14:50->metar ltfj 051450z vrb08g18kt 9999 -shra few025cb bkn036 bkn070 12/09 q0990 nosig= sa 05/02/2020 14:20->metar ltfj 051420z 32018kt 290v350 7000 -shra few025cb bkn036 bkn080 13/10 q0989 nosig= sp 05/02/2020 14:04->speci ltfj 051404z 33013kt 300v360 9999 -shra bkn036 bkn080 13/10 q0988 nosig= sa 05/02/2020 13:50->metar ltfj 051350z 01011kt 9999 bkn040 bkn080 14/11 q0987 nosig= sa 05/02/2020 13:20->metar ltfj 051320z 06007kt 020v090 9999 sct040 bkn090 16/10 q0987 reshra becmg 23012kt=

[Rarife]

Is Runway 06 confirmed? With that METAR and a 737-800, how could they even think of using this runway?
Well, FlightRadar24 shows whole flight pretty nicely. I can not imagine it being so wrong that it would mess this up. Probably weather east of airport forced them to use 06.

[seven3heaven]

S**tty day with a potentially 27kt tailwind. Sound decision making all round🤦🏼‍♂️🤦🏼‍♂️. Having worked in this part of the world, I’m hardly surprised unfortunately. Still would have gone for the “greaser” no doubt.

[AGalb]

Someone on twitter has linked to live Turkish news showing ongoing rescue efforts so I don't think we can know for certain if there are fatalities yet.

[ZFT]

Pegasus again!!
???

Airframe broke in 3 pieces again !!!

[turker339]

Reported 171 SLF, 6 crew. 52 injured, no fatalities but also reporting no contact with cockpit crew. Some saying hard landing and overrun,

[EDLB]

Hello,

why did tower clear them to land with 17kt gusting 27kt tailwind on 06? There is no way you make it with such a bird.

[Airbubba]

Is Runway 06 confirmed? With that METAR and a 737-800, how could they even think of using this runway?

Sounds like 06 was in use, right before the crash ground said there would be a runway change, wind was given as 270 degrees at 25 knots. After the mishap comms switched to Turkish on the LiveATC.Net tape.

Here's the recording: https://archive-server.liveatc.net/ltfj/LTFJ-Feb-05-2020-1500Z.mp3

The crash occurs about 20 minutes into the recording.

[Icanseeclearly]

Are we seriously suggesting they landed with a tailwind of that strength and a wet runway?

if so what on earth were they thinking, absolute clowns.

if that is the case their AOC must now be pulled after 3 similar events in the last couple of years.

[discorules]

For what it's worth, looks as if the THY90B from MUC went around just before PGT87R landed.

[sonicbum]

Hello,

why did tower clear them to land with 17kt gusting 27kt tailwind on 06? There is no way you make it with such a bird.

It’s not the Tower’s problem if You want to land well outside your aircraft (and common sense) limits. There should be a couple of guys upfront taking care of it.

[FLEXJET]

Landed 1520Z Runway 06. Notam issued 1531Z.

METAR LTFJ 051520Z 29022G37KT 240V330 7000 -TSRA FEW017CB BKN025 BKN070 11/09 Q0992 RESHRA NOSIG=

We don't have exact wind measurement at touchdown yet, but which insurance company will be willing to do business with Pegasus still?

[Airbubba]

From FR24 and Google Earth the last data point looks like it is probably accurate. From the ADS-B data they were still airborne past intersection G-M, more than halfway down the 9843 foot runway.

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1530x1036/pgs_9456e36fd2b7e4cf8b02c816c1986e460d8f24f3.jpg

[turker339]

It’s not the Tower’s problem if You want to land well outside your aircraft (and common sense) limits. There should be a couple of guys upfront taking care of it.
According to LiveATC record, tower notified crew previous two acft performed GA due to tailwind.

[Thrust Augmentation]

Another 3 part NG...

[ballyctid]

Definitely 06, worked in THY Technics for 5 months last year and passed the exact spot twice a day....

[Airbubba]

Here's the FlightRadar24 blog post with the granular dataset:

https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/pegasus-airlines-flight-2193-overruns-runway-in-istanbul/

[cub71]

My guess would be low on fuel after holding leaving no options. I always take an obscene amount of extra when TS is on the menu.

[AviatorDave]

Well, FlightRadar24 shows whole flight pretty nicely. I can not imagine it being so wrong that it would mess this up. Probably weather east of airport forced them to use 06.

Really? Was there an emergency that mandated getting down immediately? Otherwise, I would have suggested a diversion.

[Rarife]

Really? Was there an emergency that mandated getting down immediately? Otherwise, I would have suggested a diversion.
Where did I say that? I just said that according to FR24 they were for 06 which is obviously true. And they probably were not the only going for this RWY in this weather. Maybe there was something in arrival/approach for 24. I was just commenting the decision for 06.

[Kirks gusset]

The Trabzon incident was caused by the Captain overriding the FO whom had elected to go around due to vis being below the required minima. The aircraft landed deep with one reverser locked out and slewed off to the left. The crew tried to cover the mess up by claiming the trust levers advanced, which is possible if the aircraft lands in TOGA mode..which i did, real issue is the decision to continue to land. The last skid off at SAW was clearly pilot error, wet runway, landing with rudder applied and over controlling. This latest fiasco is yet another example of the gung- ho attitude and commercial pressures on the crews. I've landed at SAW hundreds of times, it's not unusual to have a tail wind whilst descending on the 06 ILS, especially above 400 AGL. If the TWC is out of limits, which it apparently may have been, the correct action must be taken, as demonstrated by previous aircraft. I know may PGS crews, they are not all cowboys and in fairness the management did mark some cards after the Trabzon incident, seems some slipped through the net!

[Admiral346]

According to Mode-S data transmitted by the aircraft the aircraft landed long and hot, 1500 meters before the runway threshold the aircraft was descending through 950 feet MSL (corrected for local pressure, actual Mode-S reading 1500 feet)/661 feet AGL at 194 knots over ground, touched down about abeam taxiways T/F (about 1950 meters/6400 feet past the threshold, about 1000 meters/3300 feet before the runway end) at about 130 knots over ground, overran the end of the runway at about 63 knots over ground veering slightly to the left (last transponder transmission), hit the localizer antenna runway 06, went over an airport road and a cliff and impacted the airport perimeter wall.


from Aviation Herald

If that is true, this was a criminal negligence case,

[AviatorDave]

Where did I say that? I just said that according to FR24 they were for 06 which is obviously true. And they probably were not the only going for this RWY in this weather. Maybe there was something in arrival/approach for 24. I was just commenting the decision for 06.
Not attacking you. Chill. Just wondering about their decision making.

[lederhosen]

On first contact with the tower he called established ILS 06 and was told wind 300/11 kts so basically fully cross. He was then cleared to land and given a wind 270/25 knots which he seems to have missed. I have known tower controllers prompt with a query like, can you accept? The actual tailwind component is not absolutely reliably displayed on the 737 for various reasons. You can have the pilot non flying call it out from the FMC but there are caveats as to its accuracy. So the tower wind is the deciding factor. If you don't process the information and then fail to go-around when you miss the touchdown zone (which I see as just as big an issue as the tailwind) then this is what happens.

[turker339]

The Trabzon incident was caused by the Captain overriding the FO whom had elected to go around due to vis being below the required minima. The aircraft landed deep with one reverser locked out and slewed off to the left. The crew tried to cover the mess up by claiming the trust levers advanced, which is possible if the aircraft lands in TOGA mode..which i did, real issue is the decision to continue to land.
Not exactly what I heard about LTCG. But the final question you have is still valid, even if your version is not entirely correct according to what I heard.

[Timmy Tomkins]

If Pegasus have done this 3 times; where are the regulators with their oversight of their operation?

[skiver]

Yet again!!!

Another 737-800 fuselage breaking up in exactly the same places!

As predicted and warned by the Boeing whistleblowers in 2010... see video on YouTube ‘People and Power - On a wing and a prayer’.

How has Boeing got away with this time after time?

[PENKO]

On first contact with the tower he called established ILS 06 and was told wind 300/11 kts so basically fully cross. He was then cleared to land and given a wind 270/25 knots which he seems to have missed. I have known tower controllers prompt with a query like, can you accept? The actual tailwind component is not absolutely reliably displayed on the 737 for various reasons. You can have the pilot non flying call it out from the FMC but there are caveats as to its accuracy. So the tower wind is the deciding factor. If you don't process the information and then fail to go-around when you miss the touchdown zone (which I see as just as big an issue as the tailwind) then this is what happens.
300/11 is not fully cross but already a significant tailwind on 06.

[DaveReidUK]

Here's the FlightRadar24 blog post with the granular dataset:

Interestingly, the granular data includes a 6-second segment of the landing rollout showing no discernable deceleration, covering about 900' at approximately 85 kts.

[safetypee]

radiosutch, #49, cabin breakup; there appears to some association, but this must not be used to assume 'cause'. Humans tend to find patterns everywhere we look.
However, this concern is worth pursuing because aircraft breakup and possibility of fire on the ground are high risk situations.
Similar thoughts arise from perceptions of the 737's likelihood of an overrun; see previous Pprune thread.

The high levels of safety in the industry reduce opportunity for large data bases for conventional analysis, thus perceptions become increasingly relevant.

Also, in this media rich world, public perception could be an influencing factor - see other threads re 'I wouldn't fly that aircraft'.

For the professionals, the better action is to consider the validated information about the contributing factors in this accident, learn from them, and apply lessons learnt in future operations.
Fuselages don't breakup if the aircraft stops on the runway after a normal landing.

[Ghostdancer]

Yet again!!!

Another 737-800 fuselage breaking up in exactly the same places!

As predicted and warned by the Boeing whistleblowers in 2010... see video on YouTube ‘People and Power - On a wing and a prayer’.

How has Boeing got away with this time after time?

I think the 737 is designed to break fore and aft of the wing section on high impact. The idea is it increases the chances of passenger survival. It’s called Crashworthiness. I know for a fact the B757 was designed to do do this, and that was proved in the Girona accident in 1998.

[ballyctid]

I assume the aircraft got airborne again as the incline at the 24 end is extremely steep, I would also assume that when it contacted terra firma again the tail contacted first hence the rear end split, I also assume that hitting the perimeter wall split the nose section... apologies for all the assumptions

[safetypee]

Goastdancer, #58, your thoughts are without justification or regulatory requirement. Designs aim to keep the aircraft intact, passengers retained in their 16g seats, and to minimise risk of fire.

Designing structural breaks, with fuel cross-feed or fuel feed to APU, hydraulics, electrics defies logical thought.

[WHBM]

If Pegasus have done this 3 times; where are the regulators with their oversight of their operation?
I would expect the insurers to move if the regulator doesn't. In this case it is thankfully only a hull.

[maxxer]

they havent even managed to get to the front bit , but already everyone is fine

[JanetFlight]

Video here... It's just me or it seems pretty low and normal speed...?

https://youtu.be/XEJM4Hcgd3M

Maybe he was trying to make any ground turn to avoid cliff...?

[one post only!]

It’s a low and normal speed for 1/2 way down that massive runway. Not as you run off the end. The low speed as they over run the runway absolutely doesn’t indicate a normal landing and roll out. In fact the total obvious. This low and normal speed should have taken place much earlier on.

i think at that point they probably weren’t doing anything other than standing on the brakes and shouting. They weren’t going to out turn the cliff. Not at that speed. The pooch was well and truly screwed before that moment.

[CurtainTwitcher]

On first contact with the tower he called established ILS 06 and was told wind 300/11 kts so basically fully cross. He was then cleared to land and given a wind 270/25 knots which he seems to have missed. I have known tower controllers prompt with a query like, can you accept? The actual tailwind component is not absolutely reliably displayed on the 737 for various reasons. You can have the pilot non flying call it out from the FMC but there are caveats as to its accuracy. So the tower wind is the deciding factor. If you don't process the information and then fail to go-around when you miss the touchdown zone (which I see as just as big an issue as the tailwind) then this is what happens.

I don't believe this is quite correct. The FMC derived headwind/tailwind component is actually quite accurate, although it does have an averaging function and thus not instantaneous. The crosswind component on the other hand is not reliable. There were other cues, GS, ROD, thrust levers back close to idle and the visual picture would have looked like a rocketship.
There is a good paper on this tha covers FMC wind component calculation: Safety aspects of tailwind operationsSafety aspects of tailwind operations Safety aspects of tailwind operations G.W.H. van Es and A.K. Karwal (https://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/1148.pdf)

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1246x1144/fms_wind_924385c8aa3cc45c1e0629a60458cb3e4b411b8f.png

[dead_pan]

Video here... It's just me or it seems pretty low and normal speed...?

It seems to moving at a fair rate as it goes over the slope. It'll be a miracle if everyone on board has indeed survived as is being reported.

Those folks driving up the motorway must have had a shock too. See them slowing down & bunching up after the event.

[Tetsuo]

1 reported dead by the health minister.

https://t24.com.tr/haber/sabiha-gokcen-de-yolcu-ucagi-iniste-parcalandi,859486

[4runner]

Pegasis was P2F. Their “graduates” weren’t as good as they told themselves.

[birdy340]

non stabilised approach.

[kontrolor]

my non-turkish sources report that cockpit resource managment in turkish airliners is far from desired

[towrope]

Hmmm... The locations of the fuselage breaks look very familiar. I wonder if they have anything in (Du)commun with the other NG breaks.

[IFLYyouBREATH]

The chance that the FO was coming from P2F is high, would it be possible to charge EagleJet for that accident? It would be nice for the community.

[stormin norman]

If there was a proper overrun area the damage would be minimal.Its a another new airport yet again poorly designed .

[maxxer]

think it is 20 years old or something ?
Wonder if Zaventem where i live nearby in Belgium has better overrun areas ?

[parkfell]

my non-turkish sources report that cockpit resource managment in turkish airliners is far from desired

Another avoidable accident. Rich in CRM failures unfortunately for junior birdmen to learn from.
Airport design also a critical factor.

[maxxer]

Another avoidable accident. Rich in CRM failures unfortunately for junior birdmen to learn from.
Airport design also a critical factor.
its their home base ...

[Duchess_Driver]

Nothing wrong with the airport. I’d suggest the unstable approach with a tailwind are more concerning. Further, what was the PF smoking? The picture would have looked so wrong and yet no go around? FFS.

My boss is on me if the trend vector goes outside the bug...

DD

[lederhosen]

Penko the tailwind at 270/11 was 5 knots (10 cross). Hand flying on short final I would see no reason to break off the approach in a 737 to a long runway with that reported wind. In many years as a captain on the 737 I favored having the FMC page open with the wind component but again for the reasons given in the excellent post above you treat it with caution particularly with regard to gusts. The problem came when they did not react to the rapidly changing reported wind and crucially in not going around when they missed the touchdown zone.

[Kirks gusset]

The "pilots union" are saying there was insufficient time for the runway water to be cleared.. new one on me.. anyway:

Hasn't the ground at the end of 06 (24 threshold) been shallowed ( thankfully) with the new tunnels? I recall it was much steeper at that end two years ago..

The aircraft departed Izmir Airport at 17:22 hours. At the time the flight arrived in the vicinity of Istanbul-Sabiha Gökçen Airport, a thunderstorm was passing. Runway in use was 06. About 18:17 the Tower controller cleared another flight for takeoff from runway 06, reporting wind 300 degrees at 11 knots, gusting to 21 knots. The subsequent arrival was flight 2193, which was cleared to land with wind information given as 270 degrees at 22 knots, gusting to 30 knots. This translates to a 19 knot tailwind.
Since the wind was shifting the controller reported to a flight on the ground that it was to expect a runway change for departure.
At 18:19 Pegasus 2193 touched down, but failed to come to a complete stop on the runway. It overran and went down an embankment, breaking in three. The aircraft came to rest about 20 m below runway elevation.
Data from flight tracking website Flightradar24 suggest that the aircraft was steered to the left at the end of the runway, likely as there was an antenna array just past the stopway. The last recorded ground speed was 63 knots as the aircraft crossed the perimeter road.

Runway 06 is a concrete runway with a Landing Distance Available (LDA) of 3000 m. At the runway end there is a 65 m long stopway, followed by antenna array, perimeter road and a downslope.

[tdracer]

Think about how an aircraft is built. The strongest bit is the wing box - by a considerable margin - for what should be obvious reasons. So if you over stress a fuselage to failure, it's not initially going to break at the strongest part - it'll fail fore and/or aft of the strongest part. So if a fuselage breaks into three parts, it's logical and perfectly understandable that it'll break for and aft of the wing.
It's not poor design or construction - it's basic physics.

[misd-agin]

Think about how an aircraft is built. The strongest bit is the wing box - by a considerable margin - for what should be obvious reasons. So if you over stress a fuselage to failure, it's not initially going to break at the strongest part - it'll fail fore and/or aft of the strongest part. So if a fuselage breaks into three parts, it's logical and perfectly understandable that it'll break for and aft of the wing.
It's not poor design or construction - it's basic physics.
Exactly. It has break somewhere. Otherwise it would be a tank. 757's buckle behind the nose gear when the nose is slammed on the ground. 767's buckle farther back. If they were built so they never buckled the plane would be too heavy to takeoff.

[turker339]

Transportation Minister 24 hours before the accident: "We have a runway at Sabiha Gokcen. This runway is very tired. At night when no flight are scheduled, almost every single night there is maintenance work on the runway"

[fox niner]

Whatever has happened, we will never know exactly. Turkey does not publish ANY accident reports.

[DaveReidUK]

Data from flight tracking website Flightradar24 suggest that the aircraft was steered to the left at the end of the runway, likely as there was an antenna array just past the stopway.

It's not clear from your post what source you are quoting, if any, in the brown coloured text.

All that the FR24 data shows is that the aircraft swung to the left. You can't tell from the data whether that was a result of a steering command or otherwise.

[Admiral346]

Where are you getting that from? As from the tower recording, the ATCO when clearing them to land passed the wind as 270/22G30 which on 06 is 19G26 TWC. According to the AVH the ADS-B data reported 194kts GS at roughly two miles out. They definitely weren't landing with 5 on the tail.

"1500 meters before the runway threshold the aircraft was descending through 950 feet MSL (corrected for local pressure, actual Mode-S reading 1500 feet)/661 feet AGL at 194 knots over ground,"

No, AVH reported them at 1500m out, and that is less than a mile, at194 knots. that is so far from a stabilized approach as I am from China right now.

[Lake1952]

I am mystified that when a B738 runs through a localizer antenna and then over a 20+ meter cliff at 60+ kts, people on this board are concerned at how the fuselage broke up!?

[DaveReidUK]

"1500 meters before the runway threshold the aircraft was descending through 950 feet MSL (corrected for local pressure, actual Mode-S reading 1500 feet)/661 feet AGL at 194 knots over ground,"

No, AVH reported them at 1500m out, and that is less than a mile, at 194 knots. that is so far from a stabilized approach as I am from China right now.

For avoidance of doubt, at 1500 m out from the THR the aircraft was at approximately 575' AMSL (275' AAL), based on ADS-B and reported QNH. I have no idea where Avherald got 950' AMSL/661' AGL from.

IAS would obviously have been somewhat less than the 194 kts groundspeed, based on the reported wind.

[Commuting Pilot]

I wonder how many of those “If it ain’t Boeing I’m not going” bumper stickers / T-shirts / beer mats they’re selling these days?

Training, training, training plus experience should become the top priority for all airlines when giving the reins of these complex jet aircraft to future commanders.

[fatbus]

Pushing a bad situation, avoidable. Repeat offence points to culture . Suspen AOC.

[vmandr]

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1443x673/pgt87r_05feb2020_ltfj_saw_854a6abadce8af51c412d37d959fff2e7a 28697b.jpg
from FR24 granular data ADS-B for PGT87R

the runway length is 3000m
the distance from threshold of 06 to the last blue marker is almost 2000m ! (2/3)

[Commuting Pilot]

Pushing a bad situation, avoidable. Repeat offence points to culture . Suspen AOC.

Completely and totally avoidable

[krismiler]

With a heavy thunderstorm over head, wind reports become unreliable as speed and direction can shift markedly within a few seconds. Use the reported wind as a guide to the intensity of the storm rather than a means of determining if it falls within limits as a 10kt headwind can soon become a 20kt tailwind. A rapid succession of differing wind reports from the tower should be ringing alarm bells on the flightdeck.

Aquaplaning may well have been a factor with such a high touch down speed.

I remember being told on my CPL ground school 30 years ago that if there was a thunderstorm overhead, "wait for half an hour", if you haven't got the fuel to do that then divert.

[ddd]

https://news.sky.com/story/plane-splits-in-two-after-skidding-off-istanbul-runway-11926970

[YRP]

I am mystified that when a B738 runs through a localizer antenna and then over a 20+ meter cliff at 60+ kts, people on this board are concerned at how the fuselage broke up!?

It is similar to the comments on how the Asiana 777 crash at SFO showed how strongly built the plane was... you know, apart from the tail breaking off.

[fdr]

I am mystified that when a B738 runs through a localizer antenna and then over a 20+ meter cliff at 60+ kts, people on this board are concerned at how the fuselage broke up!?

A pertinent observation.

[fdr]

It is similar to the comments on how the Asiana 777 crash at SFO showed how strongly built the plane was... you know, apart from the tail breaking off.

Irony is not a metal on the periodic table.

[andyjoy]

I am mystified that when a B738 runs through a localizer antenna and then over a 20+ meter cliff at 60+ kts, people on this board are concerned at how the fuselage broke up!?
sadly people can't stop trying to put the boot in on Boeing and link this as another failing

[tdracer]

It is similar to the comments on how the Asiana 777 crash at SFO showed how strongly built the plane was... you know, apart from the tail breaking off.

Lets see, the 777 tail breaks off after it hits a rock sea wall, a 737 fuselage breaks after it goes over a cliff and hits a brick wall.
Lousy design - obviously we need to design fuselages not to fail when they hit a brick wall :ugh:

[OldnGrounded]

the runway length is 3000m
the distance from threshold of 06 to the last blue marker is almost 2000m ! (2/3)

Wow. That is a really wild graphical presentation of what must have been a few really crazy moments of reality. What in the world . . .?

[OldnGrounded]

Lets see, the 777 tail breaks off after it hits a rock sea wall, a 737 fuselage breaks after it goes over a cliff and hits a brick wall.
Lousy design - obviously we need to design fuselages not to fail when they hit a brick wall :ugh:

If it weren't for needing to fly . . .

[George Glass]

tdracer , you’re doing the same thing you always do . Using extensive experience and deep knowledge to come to a rational conclusion. That’s not what this site is about!

[lomapaseo]

Once again many folks like to pick at technical point figuring that it's easy to design better (by brute force if necessary)

But what are we protecting? the aircraft for re-use or the passengers for re-use?. You see if you continue to beef up the aircraft you wind up saving only the non-functioning passenger bodies who can't take the G-loads generated by the forces. At high impact loads you actually aid the passengers by expectations of some breakup (fusing?) and in survivable event it also provides a access point or two.

The keys to risk in these events, are avoid trapped by fire or smoke and get out although cut and damaged. With a too strong aircraft you may have a lot more shock trauma (aortic collapse) and stay trapped longer awaiting the fire to take hold)

I vote to stay with what we got now, at least it sometimes work to some advantage.

[tdracer]

tdracer , you’re doing the same thing you always do . Using extensive experience and deep knowledge to come to a rational conclusion. That’s not what this site is about!
Yea, I know, I need to stop being so logical.
On a more serious note, maybe it's time for some airports to look into installing EMAS - it's saved a few aircraft (and likely some lives) on this side of the pond. I've heard that there isn't a single EMAS installation outside of North America - if true that's borderline criminal.

[Airbubba]

I've heard that there isn't a single EMAS installation outside of North America - if true that's borderline criminal.

I believe you've heard wrong on that one. On the ATC tape for yesterday's Air Canada B-763 incident at MAD the crew is briefed that there is EMAS on both ends of the runway. The Madrid EMAS was installed in 2007.

From Wikipedia:

Non U.S installationsOf the 15 Non-U.S. installations, 8 were provided by Zodiac Arresting Systems (2 in China, 2 in Madrid, 1 in Taiwan, 2 in Norway & 1 in Saudi Arabia), 6 were provided by RunwaySafe (1 in Switzerland, and 3 in overseas departments of France - 1 in Reunion Island (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%A9union), 2 in Mayotte (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayotte)), 1 in Japan and 1 in Germany. 1 provided by Hankge (China)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineered_materials_arrestor_system

[568]

Yea, I know, I need to stop being so logical.
On a more serious note, maybe it's time for some airports to look into installing EMAS - it's saved a few aircraft (and likely some lives) on this side of the pond. I've heard that there isn't a single EMAS installation outside of North America - if true that's borderline criminal.

It will be interesting to see what the crew calculated for their landing distance in view of known runway and weather conditions and if they factored in their maximum tail wind component for landing.
When a stable approach is flown and the touchdown made in the "touch down zone" then performance calculations should be such that the aircraft will remain "on the hard surface" (with all systems operating normally) at the end of the landing roll.
Local airport authorities are probably not going to install EMAS for cost or for other reasons, but some Air force bases in Greece do have "an arrestor system" for their fighters, such as Heraklion, I believe, and these airports are also used for domestic/charter flights.

The CVR transcript will highlight HF and SA performance, if it will be released.

[Double Back]

Interesting. In my B744 days I showed many a F/O, during X-wind landings, how the wind vector on the ND or PFD changed dramatically as soon as the PF decrabbed the beast, or when the A/P decrabbed it. I told them to stop reading the wind out loud as it only brought false info. As far as I can see here in the discussion the much newer systems still don't provide for side slip in calculating the actual wind.

[zlin77]

I doubt if many other current airliners would have fared much better, would an A320 still be substantially intact after a similar "rough landing"?

[Icelanta]

Interesting. In my B744 days I showed many a F/O, during X-wind landings, how the wind vector on the ND or PFD changed dramatically as soon as the PF decrabbed the beast, or when the A/P decrabbed it. I told them to stop reading the wind out loud as it only brought false info. As far as I can see here in the discussion the much newer systems still don't provide for side slip in calculating the actual wind.

that is because rudder inputs on the B744 do render the fmc wind reading invalid. No rudder input, and the fmc give valid winds and readouts are simply good airmanship in challenging conditions.

[tdracer]

I believe you've heard wrong on that one. On the ATC tape for yesterday's Air Canada B-763 incident at MAD the crew is briefed that there is EMAS on both ends of the runway. The Madrid EMAS was installed in 2007.


OK, fair enough - I stand corrected. However there are a whole lot of airports out there that could benefit from EMAS - it's a shame that it's use is not more widespread.

[FENA57]

Third runway excursion for pgs.this time in SAW . Hope everyone ok
3 fatalities

[SerGue99]

"Agile decision making" may not be easy, but is a must for a pilot.
It might be an early conclusion, but, I think Pegasus should concentrate on how to improve their cockpit resource management.
Taking into account the first runway excursion in TZX about a year ago, and last night's incidence, there is sufficient info that leads me think this way.

The one in SAW that occurred a couple of weeks ago may be a different case with different reasons behind it, though.
Of course, like in majority of incidences, there are multiple factors.

[Maxfli]

I doubt if many other current airliners would have fared much better, would an A320 still be substantially intact after a similar "rough landing"?

Yes as most A320 FMAs would have displayed.........

MAN TOGA | SRS | GA/TRK

[EDLB]

I am amazed that they did not go around. Coming in high and fast everything must have looked so wrong. If they had firewalled the throttles for TOGA even in the middle of the runway length they would have easy made it. You got two blokes with 4 eyes on row 0. Will be an interesting CVR to see how the decision making process went on. I think we do not need to discuss an additional dial which had indicated that they can’t make it. It is lack of basic airmanship.

[73qanda]

Is it just me or has the NG had more than it’s fair share of over-run events in the last decade? If I hear of an over-run I don’t think “A320 or 737?” I automatically assume it’s the 737. Is this accurate or some sort of bias seeing as I fly the 737?

[TheEdge]

Yes as most A320 FMAs would have displayed.........

MAN TOGA | SRS | GA/TRK

To say it all, at the time of landing performance calculation, Flysmart would have told you that you cannot calculate the F-LD because your TW was more than 10 kts...not that a competent pilot needed to be reminded, but better be clear

[73qanda]

-15kts is the limit on all the NG’s I’ve flown.

[PEBflyer]

Not many good pictures to judge from, but I do not see any spoilers extended.
Would they retract with a loss of hydraulic pressure?

[FlyingStone]

-15kts is the limit on all the NG’s I’ve flown.

15 kts is a customer option, a vanilla 737 comes out of factory with AFM data for only 10 kts.

[Ollie Onion]

I assume there was not a lot of fuel onboard as there was fire at the breakup but is seems to have extinguished itself which would suggest not too much fuel in the tanks which may have forced the issue of pushing on with such an tailwind.

[73qanda]

15 kts is a customer option, a vanilla 737 comes out of factory with AFM data for only 10 kts.
Thanks FlyingStone . I learn something every day :)

[bArt2]

Penko the tailwind at 270/11 was 5 knots (10 cross). Hand flying on short final I would see no reason to break off the approach in a 737 to a long runway with that reported wind. In many years as a captain on the 737 I favored having the FMC page open with the wind component but again for the reasons given in the excellent post above you treat it with caution particularly with regard to gusts. The problem came when they did not react to the rapidly changing reported wind and crucially in not going around when they missed the touchdown zone.

I've listened to the ATC audio fragment posted before, at landing clearance the tower reported wind 270 22G34 that's 19 knots tailwind if you take the mean wind strength and possibly 29 knots (gust).Maximum tailwind for the 737-800 is 15 knots (or 10 if you don't have the 15 knots option).

[fox niner]

A question I expect Boeing are starting to ask themselves is, is it good business sense to sell our products to airlines who are given to smashing them to pieces, putting them on front pages and giving regulators palpitations?
I would expect the EU/easa to put them on the black list within the next 24 hours. The Turkish regulator should pull their AOC, but they don’t dare, considering the brown envelopes. Brown, because of all the mud that has been flying around lately.

[DaveReidUK]

Is it just me or has the NG had more than it’s fair share of over-run events in the last decade? If I hear of an over-run I don’t think “A320 or 737?” I automatically assume it’s the 737. Is this accurate or some sort of bias seeing as I fly the 737?

There's a rather extended and facile debate on this topic in the Comments section of the Avherald report on the accident. Last time I looked, nobody had provided any non-anecdotal evidence to support the proposition that the 737 is more prone to overrun than the A320.

Accident: Pegasus B738 at Istanbul on Feb 5th 2020, overran runway, impacted wall, broke up (http://avherald.com/h?article=4d2e6a8d&opt=0)

[ProPax]

Lets see, the 777 tail breaks off after it hits a rock sea wall, a 737 fuselage breaks after it goes over a cliff and hits a brick wall.
Lousy design - obviously we need to design fuselages not to fail when they hit a brick wall :ugh:

Boeing 737 NG is a lousy design. It bloody wiggles its tail in turbulence!!! In 1997, ICE high-speed train at Eschede derailed at 200kph on a flat track, piled up, threw the pile-up into the bridge, collapsed it and killed 101 people injuring 80 more. In 1993, a much older TGV train derailed at 300kph due to a hole opening under the track, stayed upright, and produced one light injury. Which one was a better design?

[rog747]

Just seen a video of the landing and then 737 falls down the ravine at some speed and disappears from view - What I noticed was that a/c was very nose down during the landing run seen in the clip, Touch down was not on the clip.
Pax reported a very hard landing, so did they lose the nose gear?

[TheEdge]

Just seen a video of the landing and then 737 falls down the ravine at some speed and disappears from view - What I noticed was that a/c was very nose down during the landing run seen in the clip, Touch down was not on the clip.
Pax reported a very hard landing, so did they lose the nose gear?
Could you provide the link for the video ?

[Nige321]

Boeing 737 NG is a lousy design. It bloody wiggles its tail in turbulence!!! In 1997, ICE high-speed train at Eschede derailed at 200kph on a flat track, piled up, threw the pile-up into the bridge, collapsed it and killed 101 people injuring 80 more. In 1993, a much older TGV train derailed at 300kph due to a hole opening under the track, stayed upright, and produced one light injury. Which one was a better design?
What a ludicrous post - what's a couple of train crashes got to do with a 737...?? :ugh:

[lederhosen]

I think we can agree that the wind was varying pretty quickly. Shortly beforehand the tower cleared a Turkish flight for takeoff, giving a wind of 300/11 gusts 22, if I heard right. Listening to the recording again I must correct myself, the next wind is indeed well out of limits. The standard limit when I flew the 737 by the way was 10 knots tailwind.

These kind of accidents do seem to occur more frequently in certain cultures. I remember the debate we had about stabilised approaches with the Turkish 737 crash in Amsterdam over 10 years ago. My point (perhaps not terribly well made) was that with the varying wind conditions I could well imagine why he did not immediately go around. But obviously at some subsequent point he should have.

[TheEdge]

Could you provide the link for the video ?
just found this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoTOqEv4uNc

[Kirks gusset]

This relatively poor quality video clearly shows the aircraft porpoising, you can see the surface contamination. Having said that, it was avoidable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7ARMkcHnbA

Although SAW is often closed at night for "repairs" it appears nothing actually gets fixed, the airport stopped the heavy cargo aircraft for a while, but that didn't help much. In truth the runway needs digging up and completely re-laying.. just like Gaziantep, although hopefully quicker.

For Dave Reid https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20200205-0

[BDAttitude]

I doubt if many other current airliners would have fared much better, would an A320 still be substantially intact after a similar "rough landing"?
Given the three runovers in a relatively short time period I was about to comment, let's wait until PGS aquires some AB products then we shall see :E.
Then I learned that they have 38 B737 but 43 A32x in their fleet :}​​​​​​ ... :confused:​​​​​​.
​​​​​

[andyjoy]

A question I expect Boeing are starting to ask themselves is, is it good business sense to sell our products to airlines who are given to smashing them to pieces, putting them on front pages and giving regulators palpitations?
This frame 737 was ex Air Berlin and was 2nd hand and leased in by Pegasus so Boeing had nothing to do with with it.People are looking to tie Boeing into this because of the MAX you only have to look at some of the stupid comments further up this thread about being some fault because the fuselage split into 3 parts.I can't see the likes of Boeing/Airbus stopping sales to airlines because of an airlines record of running aircraft off the runway i think in this case they could look at it as a small victory in the safety of the 737 as most walked away from the crash.

[Kirks gusset]

https://www.airporthaber.com/pegasus-haberleri/ucagin-enkazi-gunduz-goruntulendi.html

Apologies the text is Turkish, the pictures are quite clear. Thankfully the construction of the new tunnels meant the ground is relatively soft mud, 3 years ago it was a rocky escarpment and the outcome would have been potentially much worse

[The Shovel]

I assume there was not a lot of fuel onboard as there was fire at the breakup but is seems to have extinguished itself which would suggest not too much fuel in the tanks which may have forced the issue of pushing on with such an tailwind.

Poor excuse or reasoning. New Istanbul Airport is 5min flying away with perpendicular Runways 16/34 direction.
METAR would have been valid for the entire flight, therefore the wind would have been appicable. Poor planning, poor decision making, poor CRM, take your pick. They had plenty of options. Even the old, yet still functioning Ataturk Airport would have taken them if required. A 180 dgree turn would have had them almost aligned with Runway 23 there.

[jmmoric]

The standard limit when I flew the 737 by the way was 10 knots tailwind.

I'm pretty sure it's greater than 10 knots tailwind, if you see the design limitation that is.... An Airbus 330 usually says stop at 16 knots, and the Dash 8 goes all the way up to 20 knots, and I've had 737's land with tailwind more than 10 knots.

I'm "just" the ATCO, I don't make the final decision, that responsibility lies in the cockpit.

But doesn't ICAO state that gusting wind shall only be given it more than 10 knots off the mean wind?

[nicolai]

It is similar to the comments on how the Asiana 777 crash at SFO showed how strongly built the plane was... you know, apart from the tail breaking off.
The Asiana pilots damn near cartwheeled the aircraft into the ground and the aircraft would have fragmented into many pieces if not so strongly built. I can't imagine any flying aircraft able to survive that sort of incident without serious damage, and the aircraft performed its most critical function - keeping most or all passengers alive - even well outside design parameters.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoTk5670rmQ

[Australopithecus]

The 737NG Airplane Flight Manual Limitation is 15 knots tailwind maximum.
Of course braking action is another factor, as is overshooting the touchdown zone.

[EDLB]

and I've had 737's land with tailwind more than 10 knots.

It is not, that you physical can not land with higher tail winds. The problem is that the ground speed is the tailwind component higher than your IAS (Which makes your airplane fly).
So the normal 3 degree slope will need to be less than 3 degrees and you run faster out of runway because your touch down speed is by the tailwind component higher. So you need a longer runway, the slope should be lower than 3 degrees which often terrain clearance, noise abatement, ILS slope and procedures do not allow for, and your touch down ground speed is higher, which might be limited by tire rating and breaking performance.

The theoretical lower than 3 degree slope needed for tail wind also mean, if you are high on a 3 degree slope with tail wind, forget it. You need much more runway with tail wind and if you touch down late...

[jmmoric]

It is not...etc...

Definately agree, I'm not arguing against it, and very well aware of the physics behind.

[judge11]

Not great video quality - but I don't see any spray being kicked up by the reversers.

[procede]

It is not, that you physical can not land with higher tail winds. The problem is that the ground speed is the tailwind component higher than your IAS (Which makes your airplane fly).
So the normal 3 degree slope will need to be less than 3 degrees and you run faster out of runway because your touch down speed is by the tailwind component higher. So you need a longer runway, the slope should be lower than 3 degrees which often terrain clearance, noise abatement, ILS slope and procedures do not allow for, and your touch down ground speed is higher, which might be limited by tire rating and breaking performance.

The theoretical lower than 3 degree slope needed for tail wind also mean, if you are high on a 3 degree slope with tail wind, forget it. You need much more runway with tail wind and if you touch down late...

Also, windshear will make your airspeed go up as you get closer tot the ground, increasing the ground effect and making it more difficult to get the aircraft on the ground...

[lederhosen]

To answer jmmoric the older NGs were definitely 10 knots. This airframe came from AirBerlin, originally D-ABKD and was relatively new (delivered 2009) so would probably have had the higher 15 knot tailwind limitation. When I listened to the ATC recording I don`t remember hearing anything from the tower about the runway being wet. It may have been in Turkish and therefore I missed it. But on the video it looks very wet and that would obviously be more limiting.

[EDML]

Given the LDA it would be interesting if full reverse and manual braking would have stopped it if they’d actually landed in 06’s TDZ rather than 24’s.

Anyone at work with access to 73 landing perf? 22-37kt TW, braking action good or medium to good, 3000m rwy, ZFW for 177 pax, probably <2T fuel.

There won‘t be distances in the manual for TW much higher than allowed.

However, with 3000m I am sure it would have worked using all of the runway. They left the runway with around 60kt. 500m more and they easily would have made it.

[jmmoric]

I don`t remember hearing anything from the tower about the runway being wet. It may have been in Turkish and therefore I missed it.

Thanks.

Could've been on the ATIS?

[fox niner]

Re: the 10 or 15 knot tailwind limit:
737NG: We had a 10 kt limit. Sometimes we lended an airframe to one of our sister airlines, which has a separate AOC. The plane wasn’t even painted over, just some paperwork was changed. Suddenly this same airplane was now allowed a 15 kt tailwind! That simple.

[sleeper]

It is not, that you physical can not land with higher tail winds. The problem is that the ground speed is the tailwind component higher than your IAS (Which makes your airplane fly).
So the normal 3 degree slope will need to be less than 3 degrees and you run faster out of runway because your touch down speed is by the tailwind component higher. So you need a longer runway, the slope should be lower than 3 degrees which often terrain clearance, noise abatement, ILS slope and procedures do not allow for, and your touch down ground speed is higher, which might be limited by tire rating and breaking performance.

The theoretical lower than 3 degree slope needed for tail wind also mean, if you are high on a 3 degree slope with tail wind, forget it. You need much more runway with tail wind and if you touch down late...

No. The glideslope remains the same as long as the throttles can stay above idle to prevent IAS from increasing. The only thing tailwind does is to increase the groundspeed at which you touch down and that higher groundspeed causes the longer landing distance required. Combine that with landing out of the touchdown zone (long) and the runway will quickly become too short.

[KRH270/12]

There won‘t be distances in the manual for TW much higher than allowed.

However, with 3000m I am sure it would have worked using all of the runway. They left the runway with around 60kt. 500m more and they easily would have made it.

Operational landing distance is 2539m acc. Boeing OPT (TALPA, 455m flare, +15%)

SAW, RWY06, BA medium, Max LDW, GND speed 174kts

[Fursty Ferret]

However, with 3000m I am sure it would have worked using all of the runway. They left the runway with around 60kt. 500m more and they easily would have made it.

Roughly 65% higher energy than the same landing with a 10kt headwind.

[ThorMos]

<snip>
In 1997, ICE high-speed train at Eschede derailed at 200kph on a flat track, piled up, threw the pile-up into the bridge, collapsed it and killed 101 people injuring 80 more. In 1993, a much older TGV train derailed at 300kph due to a hole opening under the track, stayed upright, and produced one light injury. Which one was a better design?

If i ever need an example for over-simplification, here it is. When the TGV derailed, was there as switch (point) on the track? Was there a bridge in the way?

[FlyingStone]

Anyone at work with access to 73 landing perf? 22-37kt TW, braking action good or medium to good, 3000m rwy, ZFW for 177 pax, probably <2T fuel.

I doubt you'll even get Boeing to calculate such landing performance for you, because it is extremely unlikely 737 was ever landed with 30kts tailwind during test programme.

Our AFM data is only up to 15kts.

[jmmoric]

Our AFM data is only up to 15kts.

There has to be some consideration... you can land with 15 kts reported wind, with gust up to 24 kts not reported.

And eventhough you get a mean wind of 15 kts reported, you will not be updated on the wind, unless the mean wind gets to 25 kts.... if you get the idea?

[Clandestino]

the trust levers advanced, which is possible if the aircraft lands in TOGA modeIt did. CM2 as PF innitiated go-around, CM1 took over and landed but never disengaged the autothrust. Not a whole lot of imagination is needed to realize what happens when reversers are stowed not quite at the same time.

If you have just joined the discussion, Kirk's gusset and I are referring to Jan 2018. TZX messup.

Airport design also a critical factor.How so?

Whatever has happened, we will never know exactly. Turkey does not publish ANY accident reports.That actually depends on the definition of "to publish". It's true the accidents investigations results are not made public. A few hardcopies are made and disseminated to parties including the airline, the manufacturer and the authority of the registry. I really, deeply don't like it but seemingly it satisfies the letter of ICAO rules.

On a more serious note, maybe it's time for some airports to look into installing EMASSabiha Gökcen has 3000x45 m runway built on a hill so steep decline at about 100m past THR24 is there because the last part of runway 06 is actually built on embankment. It's all very nice having an EMAS but personally I would prefer not getting runway shortened because of it.

Interesting. In my B744 days I showed many a F/O, during X-wind landings, how the wind vector on the ND or PFD changed dramatically as soon as the PF decrabbed the beast, or when the A/P decrabbed it. I told them to stop reading the wind out loud as it only brought false info. Wow. I am utterly impressed with your VSOP* technique of having both of you looking at ND wind display during landing flare. Being far lesser airman than you, I am reduced to arriving to 50 ft over the runway at proper place, with proper speed and proper thrust and relying on visual cues, e.g. touchdown zone fleeing away laterally and/or longitudinally from my aeroplane at an unacceptable rate, to judge whether to plonk it or to escape vertically, in the direction contrary to local gravity. Also I am so unaware that ND wind is false that I still try to use it as an assistance in possible windshear detection. I can only hope that, through experience, I'll become more like you.

*VSOP = Very Superior Old Pilot, an aeronautical being whose depth & breadth of knowledge of the matters pertaining to flight, acquired through experience, are of almost mythical proportions and who is only too happy to impart the aforementioned knowledge on any suitable target, main suitability criterium being position in the hearing range. He usually knows the cure for all our contemporary aeronautical ills, primarily consisting of returning to standards and procedures of the times when we lost the plot and working our way from there but in the right direction. Alas, for all their strength, his opinions are rarely taken into account and I'd daresay that's one of the major reasons we have the safety statistics the way we have them today.

Will be an interesting CVR to see how the decision making process went on. Chances of CVR ever making it to public are poor to nil.

Is it just me or has the NG had more than it’s fair share of over-run events in the last decade?Probably just a statistical glitch. I found 738 faster down the glide and more slippery than 320 but still well within "easily manageable" area.

A question I expect Boeing are starting to ask themselves is, is it good business sense to sell our products to airlines who are given to smashing them to pieces, putting them on front pages and giving regulators palpitations?That was already pre-empted by stopping the deliveries of MAX to any airline whose inferior pilots' performance might tarnish the reputation of Boeing's superior aeroplane.

I assume there was not a lot of fuel onboard as there was fire at the breakup but is seems to have extinguished itself which would suggest not too much fuel in the tanks which may have forced the issue of pushing on with such an tailwind.SAW was the destination, they absolutely needed to have at least alternate fuel plus half an hour in their tanks at landing. Dunno what was their alternate but LTFM accepted post-crash diversions pretty swiftly and efficiently. At that time Bursa was affected by the TS and quite unusable but Çorlu or Eskişehir are not far away either.

Although SAW is often closed at night for "repairs" it appears nothing actually gets fixed, the airport stopped the heavy cargo aircraft for a while, but that didn't help much. In truth the runway needs digging up and completely re-laying.. just like Gaziantep, although hopefully quicker.The problem with Sabiha is that, unlike GZT, ADB or ERZ, taxiway D is really a taxiway and can't be used as a runway while main one is being repaired. SAW has become a victim of its own success (mainly brought on by Pegasus) as the original plan called for far less movements than there were in a last decade so the runway is really beaten up. The new parallel runway is being built but I don't hold much hope for it to get operational this year. Anyway, all the unevenness of the runway and too much tire deposit in the TDZs, did not significantly affect the result of landing about 2 km into 3 km long, wet runway, with tailwind above limit.

[PJ2]

Do we know if the cockpit crew survived? I note that the first section of fuselage is upside down but essentially intact but for the underside/nosewheel area damage.

[sleeper]

Do we know if the cockpit crew survived? I note that the first section of fuselage is upside down but essentially intact but for the underside/nosewheel area damage.

copilot, dutch, is in hospital.

[PJ2]

Thank you, sleeper. Any word on the captain?

[RoyHudd]

The simple statistics for PGS alone need no embellishment. Other national airlines have contributed to the accident record. Reviewing the high frequency of accidents involving Turkish passenger carriers, one must conclude that there is an inherent problem.

The recent crashes have involved serviceable aircraft.
Weather conditions in Turkey are no better and no worse than most parts of the aviation world.
Turkish ATC is competent, and the airfields generally well-equipped.

Is it pure bad luck, or is there an issue to be solved to lessen the attrition rate?

[AuroraAustralis]

There's a rather extended and facile debate on this topic in the Comments section of the Avherald report on the accident. Last time I looked, nobody had provided any non-anecdotal evidence to support the proposition that the 737 is more prone to overrun than the A320.


As a person who is always interested in math and statistics, I've done some research on this question that was brought up repeatedly. Here are the comparison between the runway excursion rates of the B737NG vs. the A320 family. I'm not going to state any opinion, take these numbers and interpret as you wish:

Runway excursion hull losses in the past 2 years involving the B737NG (6700 built):
PGT8622: Jan 2018
CXA8667: Aug 2018
UTA579: Sep 2018
ANG73: Sep 2018
BSK293: May 2019
PGT2193: Feb 2020

Runway excursion hull losses in the past 2 years involving the A320 family (9200 built):
N/A

Since the discussion here is mainly around Pegasus Airlines and their training procedures, some have mentioned that if Pegasus had Airbus, they would also have runway excursions with that fleet too. I did some online research into their fleet type vs the accident rate of each type. Again, no opinion here, take the numbers as you wish.
Pegasus has 45 A320 family aircraft, 32 B737NG aircraft. (So about 60% A320, 40% B737). They've had 3 excursion incidents: Jan 2018 (737), Jan 2020 (737), and Feb 2020 (737).

These are some stats from a quick bit of research to answer this question that some of you brought up. Hopefully this helps. Condolences to the families and may the hurt have a speedy recovery.

[ManaAdaSystem]

NG 10 kts tailwind is standard, 15 kts is an option. You pay, you get it, and that is the way it has been since the NG was new.
I know, I have flown it since it came. End of that discussion.

The NG has not been prone to overruns, the -800 has. I don’t think any of those incident/accident aircraft was put on the runway in the touchdown zone at the correct speed. All came in high, hot, not configured, tailwind, flooded runway, any combination of. This accident is just another example on how not to do it.
The -800 will bite you when you do don’t fly it correctly.

[sleeper]

Thank you, sleeper. Any word on the captain?

our newsoutlets only report on the copilot, nothing on the captain yet.

[Airbubba]

our newsoutlets only report on the copilot, nothing on the captain yet.

This report on the pilots from a BBC article:

Transport Minister Mehmet Cahit Turhan said authorities had not yet been able to speak to the pilots, a Turkish national and a South Korean, who were believed to have been injured in the accident.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-51384667

[DaveReidUK]

copilot, dutch, is in hospital.

authorities had not yet been able to speak to the pilots, a Turkish national and a South Korean

Does that imply there were three crew on the flight deck ?

[cappt]

There has to be some consideration... you can land with 15 kts reported wind, with gust up to 24 kts not reported.

And eventhough you get a mean wind of 15 kts reported, you will not be updated on the wind, unless the mean wind gets to 25 kts.... if you get the idea?

Negative, that’s not how it works.
The max gust is always used for tailwind and x-wind calculations. Maybe it’s done differently at other airlines in different parts of the world?

[sleeper]

Does that imply there were three crew on the flight deck ?


There are a lot of turkish immigrants from decades ago in holland. Their children are born and raised there and are dutch. Because of their ancestory they also receive a turkish passport at birth and turkey sees them as turks. They even have to go into military service unless a monetary fee is payed. I would not be surprised if the F/O is a dutch national with a dual turkish passport.

[PJ2]

Thank you sleeper, Airbubba. DaveReidUK, re 3rd crew member, hard to say with present info but it would be unusual, no?

[fox niner]

There are a lot of turkish immigrants from decades ago in holland. Their children are born and raised there and are dutch. Because of their ancestory they also receive a turkish passport at birth and turkey sees them as turks. They even have to go into military service unless a monetary fee is payed. I would not be surprised if the F/O is a dutch national with a dual turkish passport.

Negative. This is not the case. I heard through the grapevine that he only holds a Dutch passport, and is not of Turkish ancestry.
South Korean? Where does he suddenly spring forth from?

[sleeper]

Negative. This is not the case. I heard through the grapevine that he only holds a Dutch passport, and is not of Turkish ancestry.
South Korean? Where does he suddenly spring forth from?

Ok, you seem to know more details. It is reported here that he is dutch. Then it is strange that another source claimes a turkish and a korean pilot. Not that it matters.

[Strumble Head]

Boeing 737 NG is a lousy design. It bloody wiggles its tail in turbulence!!! In 1997, ICE high-speed train at Eschede derailed at 200kph on a flat track, piled up, threw the pile-up into the bridge, collapsed it and killed 101 people injuring 80 more. In 1993, a much older TGV train derailed at 300kph due to a hole opening under the track, stayed upright, and produced one light injury. Which one was a better design?
Oh cor strewth! Clearly someone who has never been (or known someone who has flown and been ... ) at the back of a stretched DC-8 (Series 6x) in flight. Occasionally the back end lined up with the front - but only occasionally.
Thank heavens for the more informed posters who are pointing out that a truly robust and rigid aeroplane would be too flippin' heavy to lift off with any meaningful payload. Great for the accident stats, stuff-all use as an aerial transport platform.
Rant over ....

[viking767]

Is Pegasus a Pay to fly airline?

[Pistonprop]

PJ2,

Just for info, it's not all that unusual to have 3 crew up front if there's training or a check ride going on.

[Callsign Kilo]

Not sure why people are debating LDRs, disputing 10 or 15 knot airframe certifications or some belief that the -800 is susceptible to overruns?

I’m wanting to know what was going on in the flight deck and why they felt it was acceptable to land excessively deep into a rain soaked runway? Even if situational awareness was lost over the actual tailwind component or rapidly changing effects of the TS, the picture from the flight deck window combined with the pitch attitude, thrust inputs, IAS trends, descent rates alongside potential EGPWS cautions and warnings must’ve raised serious alarms with someone?

[Twitter]

According CNN flight deck crew alive - in hospital but to be prosecuted when released.

[CurtainTwitcher]

Not sure why people are debating LDRs, disputing 10 or 15 knot airframe certifications or some belief that the -800 is susceptible to overruns?

They are disproportionately represented in over-runs, and will be just because the the numerical number of takeoffs and landings they do, compared to almost every aircraft except the A32x.

The more interesting question is the relative rate of A32x vs B737-NG runway excursions. Eyeballing, wikipedia says about 7,900 A32x deliveries vs about 7000 B737-NG, so a very large sample size for both to make valid comparisons.

My understanding is the -800 is also significantly faster across the fence compared to the A32x, and even the 737-classic, so that would provide and extra margin for pilot error in the decision to land/go-around for deep landings and floats on marginal runways.

[tdracer]

The more interesting question is the relative rate of A32x vs B737-NG runway excursions. Eyeballing, wikipedia says about 7,900 A32x deliveries vs about 7000 B737-NG, so a very large sample size for both to make valid comparisons..

Hull loss rates for the 737NG and the A320 series are virtually the same (last numbers I found, the NG rate was slightly better, but I doubt it was enough to be statistically significant). Further, we're talking over 20 years worth of data, so the numbers should be reasonably immune from 'statistical flukes'.
So if - as claimed - 737NGs are going off the end more often relative to A32x, then the A32x is crashing more often for other reasons...
I'm not a pilot, but if you land 'hot', on a wet runway with a 25 knot tailwind, and touchdown over halfway down the runway, a happy outcome is pretty unlikely regardless of what you're flying...

[oceancrosser]

Oh cor strewth! Clearly someone who has never been (or known someone who has flown and been ... ) at the back of a stretched DC-8 (Series 6x) in flight. Occasionally the back end lined up with the front - but only occasionally.
Thank heavens for the more informed posters who are pointing out that a truly robust and rigid aeroplane would be too flippin' heavy to lift off with any meaningful payload. Great for the accident stats, stuff-all use as an aerial transport platform.
Rant over ....

Need a “like” button here!

[Lookleft]

I think its just a different version of "get-home-itis" Runway overruns are not new and not statistically relevant to aircraft type. There have been A340's, 747-400's all the way down to turboprops going off the end of the runway. What needs to be looked at is the decision making process that leads to an attempt in those conditions in the first place. Is it fuel policy, is it rostering practices where a four sector day has to be completed, is it experience levels and steep cockpit gradients or is it the corporate culture of airlines and their over zealous emphasis on driving down costs?. With all the technology available such as flysmart and whatever the Boeing equivalent is then it should be obvious from the ATIS if there is enough runway. I know that in the bar at the end of the day every pilot will categorically state that none of the other stuff comes into it but something is going on in those flight decks that push the crew to persist with a bad situation.

[giggitygiggity]

The more interesting question is the relative rate of A32x vs B737-NG runway excursions. Eyeballing, wikipedia says about 7,900 A32x deliveries vs about 7000 B737-NG, so a very large sample size for both to make valid comparisons.

But a rough calculation wouldn't put any weight on which aircraft is more frequently used in various parts of the globe (west vs east to put it bluntly). This isn't an assumption or a guess - just a hypothetical - but what if the 737 is more popular outside the first world than the Airbus due to its age. How would you weight that factor in your rough eyeballing survey?

[George Glass]

High frequency short haul operations in a B737NG / A320 are by definition high risk operations. Multiple sectors in difficult weather plus an operator with fuel policy run by accountants who have contempt for Pilots , throw in a regulator that dumbs down experience requirements and training requirements and BINGO! , its the Pilots fault. It’s nothing to do with the B737NG. What’s amazing is that it doesn’t happen more often.

[chuboy]

High frequency short haul operations in a B737NG / A320 are by definition high risk operations. Multiple sectors in difficult weather plus an operator with fuel policy run by accountants who have contempt for Pilots , throw in a regulator that dumbs down experience requirements and training requirements and BINGO! , its the Pilots fault. It’s nothing to do with the B737NG. What’s amazing is that it doesn’t happen more often.
If that were entirely correct we would expect to see a number of serious incidents involving Ryanair every year. But we don't.

[CurtainTwitcher]

Plenty of NG over-runs in the US/West, Burbank, Jacksonville, a very close near miss in Christchurch recently come to mind, AA in Kingston back in 2009.
Anyone continuing an approach in such report conditions as this accident, unless so low on fuel that they are unable to go-around will struggle to get a defence from me.

If you really want to compare, EASA did a study and concluded the rates of runway excursion in the EU was very similar and representative of the rest of the world (p14). Runway Excursions study: European perspective (http://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/2069.pdf)


3.2 COMPARISON BETWEEN EUROPE AND THE REST OF THE WORLD An important part of the present study is to compare runway excursions that occurred in Europe to the rest of the world. In Table 1 an overview is given of the frequency of occurrence of the different types of runway excursions for the different flight phases for both Europe and the rest of the world. This table shows that there are only small (statistically not significant) differences in the frequencies in Europe compared to the rest of the world. For both Europe and the rest of the world runway excursions occurred most often during the landing phase with a more or less equal division between landing overruns and veeroffs.

[Callsign Kilo]

My understanding is the -800 is also significantly faster across the fence compared to the A32x, and even the 737-classic, so that would provide and extra margin for pilot error in the decision to land/go-around for deep landings and floats on marginal runways

yes, the -800 has a higher average ref speed. It has been referred to as being ‘slippery’ however with over 8K hours on type I can say with a reasonable amount of conviction that this is due to it being mishandled/mismanaged. Regardless of aircraft type, there is no excuse for landing any aircraft almost 2/3rds into a 3km runway in wet conditions with a tailwind component that’s well beyond certification limitations (unless you were on fire or had a thimble full of fuel remaining). If that’s what has happened then this is regrettably another case of an avoidable runway excursion that has led to fatalities.

[George Glass]

chubby , Ryanair must be doing something right mustn’t they ? The point I was trying to make is that every shorthaul Pilot has been in this predicament. How you resolve it is down to the quality of the person in the left hand seat. Being able to operate independently of airline management is one of the great privileges and equally great responsibilities of being an airline Captain.

[PJ2]

PJ2,

Just for info, it's not all that unusual to have 3 crew up front if there's training or a check ride going on.
Thanks Pistonprop, yes, I'm aware of the arrangement, btdt etc. I recall that there were 3 up front on the Turkish 738 into AMS.

Whatever else is behind this accident, for me this has the scent of CRM issues to it.

[nicolai]

Regardless of aircraft type, there is no excuse for landing any aircraft almost 2/3rds into a 3km runway in wet conditions with a tailwind component that’s well beyond certification limitations (unless you were on fire or had a thimble full of fuel remaining). If that’s what has happened then this is regrettably another case of an avoidable runway excursion that has led to fatalities.

That is the nub of the entire problem here.

Why isn't Ryanair pranging the slippery high-speed beast off the end of the runway on a daily basis? Because they don't fly like this!

[samca]

What was the experience of the pilots? Anybody knows?

[Maninthebar]

That is the nub of the entire problem here.

Why isn't Ryanair pranging the slippery high-speed beast off the end of the runway on a daily basis? Because they don't fly like this!

And, interestingly, this gives the lie to the blanket condemnation of "beancounters" as the fons et origo of all ills. Here is a business run with fanatic dedication to cost control and maximisation of revenue and yet with an effective safety culture as measured by results.

There may be learning that other organisations can gain.

[parkfell]

In my youth I worked for British Aerospace. As a junior pilot I recall on a ‘Black Flag’ day sitting in the crew room when an old hand came out with a saying which has stuck with me ever since...

IF YOU THINK TRAINING IS EXPENSIVE WAIT UNTIL YOU ARE AN ACCIDENT

In this particular case, the Swiss Cheese model springs to mind. You do wonder just what CRM training took place, and just how robust the whole process was......

They need to engage with an independent EASA CRM provider(s) who will look at the whole organisation root and branch. National cultures are of course the basic ingredients which need to be moulded into a safe secure organisation.

Even now it is difficult to understand how the crew fell into this trap given previous well publicised worldwide events....I know it is easy to sit in an armchair and pontificate......however comma this is a fundamental gross error given that no evidence has yet to emerge of aircraft unserviceable items.

[Fursty Ferret]

But a rough calculation wouldn't put any weight on which aircraft is more frequently used in various parts of the globe (west vs east to put it bluntly). This isn't an assumption or a guess - just a hypothetical - but what if the 737 is more popular outside the first world than the Airbus due to its age. How would you weight that factor in your rough eyeballing survey?

Comparing apples and oranges here. Autothrust on the A320 series is pretty good at keeping Vapp, whereas the tendency with manual thrust is to sit just about Vapp and frequently to apply a burst of power just before touch-down. Boeing technique seems to be to set the pitch attitude and gently bleed off power in the flare; in general with the Airbus the thrust levers are closed simultaneously with the flare commencing.

[tigerinthenight]

I'm not going to state any opinion, take these numbers and interpret as you wish:

Runway excursion hull losses in the past 2 years involving the B737NG (6700 built):
PGT8622: Jan 2018
CXA8667: Aug 2018
UTA579: Sep 2018
ANG73: Sep 2018
BSK293: May 2019
PGT2193: Feb 2020

Runway excursion hull losses in the past 2 years involving the A320 family (9200 built):
N/A


My takeaway from those statistics is that Pegasus, with only 24 737NGs have made up 33% of 737NG hull losses due to runway excursion in the last tow years, whereas Ryanair and Southwest with >1000 NGs between them have made up 0%.

[KRH270/12]

They are disproportionately represented in over-runs, and will be just because the the numerical number of takeoffs and landings they do, compared to almost every aircraft except the A32x.

The more interesting question is the relative rate of A32x vs B737-NG runway excursions. Eyeballing, wikipedia says about 7,900 A32x deliveries vs about 7000 B737-NG, so a very large sample size for both to make valid comparisons.

My understanding is the -800 is also significantly faster across the fence compared to the A32x, and even the 737-classic, so that would provide and extra margin for pilot error in the decision to land/go-around for deep landings and floats on marginal runways.


According to my information the accident airframe had the SFP (short field Performance) option.

But that doesn‘t matter, because the Aircraft is only a minor(if any) contributing factor.

Unstabilized high energy approaches produce overruns!

[fab777]

According to my information the accident airframe had the SFP (short field Performance) option.


SFP option is irrelevant for landing perfs. It only affects the slats position at TO settings.

[1+F]

Look at the wx, look at the landing runway selected.

Unless it was on fire, they're clowns.

Pull the bloody AOC.

I think I am going to be judgemental here and agree because this is not an isolated incident for this operator.
This crew pushed on when they were high and long and the wind was 22G37KTS almost all tail on a wet runway.

[FlyingStone]

SFP option is irrelevant for landing perfs. It only affects the slats position at TO settings.

That's just not true. It affects the landing performance significantly, particularly when paired with the optional 2-position tail skid.

Flight Controls (http://www.b737.org.uk/flightcontrols.htm#Short-field_Performance_Enhancement_Program)

[Pirrex]

That's just not true. It affects the landing performance significantly, particularly when paired with the optional 2-position tail skid.

Flight Controls (http://www.b737.org.uk/flightcontrols.htm#Short-field_Performance_Enhancement_Program)

Especially on approach, the SFP ones really don't like slowing down even with "normal" tailwind, let alone 30+kts.

[RetiredBA/BY]

Some advice for these overrun airlines:

You SHOULD be established , ie configured, on speed, on glide slop and localiser established or visual equivalents. BUT
MUST be established by 500 feet OR its a mandatory go around,
Works!

[Airbubba]

MUST be established by 500 feet OR its a mandatory go around,
Works!

Many U.S. airlines require the plane to be stable and fully configured by 1000 feet. However, on some carriers the rule appears to be by 80 knots on rollout. ;)

[gearlever]

Many U.S. airlines require the plane to be stable and fully configured by 1000 feet. However, on some carriers the rule appears to be by 80 knots on rollout. ;)
Good one;)

ROFL

[Havingwings4ever]

Seems like another 'broken GA button/mindset' case...

[KRH270/12]

SFP option is irrelevant for landing perfs. It only affects the slats position at TO settings.

That statement is wrong.

[turker339]

I heard of two pilots on the deck, the Turkish Captain is fine while Dutch FO was injured and required surgery. I don't think PGS has any South Korean pilots.

That being said, Pegasus is not P2F. At least not for the last 7 years I have been flying airlines in Turkey.

[568]

Many U.S. airlines require the plane to be stable and fully configured by 1000 feet. However, on some carriers the rule appears to be by 80 knots on rollout. ;)

Some operators require:

1000 feet: Stable on instrument approach(s)
500 feet: Stable on visual approach
Land in touchdown zone

Stable criteria:
In general (varies from operator to operator) +10/-5 knots VREF speed and no more than FOM quoted ILS glide slope and LOC deflections, along with VNAV lateral and vertical approach tolerances for example.
Visual approach: No more than the speed variance above and no greater than 1000 FPM descent rate, unless corrections are made to be within limits at the 500 feet gate height.

If you aren't going to be stable or land in the touchdown zone, then a GA will be carried out and either pilot can call "Go around".

Seems straight forward, but I am surprised to see different performances during simulator training and the inability of PM to call "GA". In the real world, situations like this occur to experienced crews for one thing or another but typically fatigue or inexperience is also the issue.

[Citation2]

I wonder how it is possible to stay on a 3.5• glide slope with such a wind.

Either rate of descent in excess of 1000 ft/min
or above the glide slope

[Judd]

A couple of years ago I remember talking to a former Turkish Airlines first officer who said the two years he had with that airline was the worst time of his career. His words (not mine) was captains had slapped his face, thrown paperwork at him, verbally abused him and generally acted like arrogant military trained cowboys. He said it made first officers scared of speaking up on final approach if the aircraft was clearly unstable as any suggestion that the captain's flying was outside published tolerances could mean there was a risk the first officer would be sacked for insubordination or a trumped up reason.

It is all too easy to say this is an extreme case of second or third hand generalisation. Maybe it is. But that is to ignore the facts and the type accidents as described where first officer verbal input to the captain may have resulted in a safer operation.

The military train their people very harshly in Turkey. Instant obedience to orders without questioning. Invariably Turkish airline captains were formerly military trained and their attitude to those of lesser rank flows down to the flight deck. The chap I talked to is now with another Middle Eastern airline and is happy with the flight deck atmosphere.

From his experience with two years in Turkish operated cockpits, the chap I talked to opined it is a courageous decision (as per Yes Minister TV series) for any first officer to make any SOP call-out that could reflect on the perceived professionalism of the captain. . Of course this does not apply to every Turkish cockpit but on the other hand the sort of accidents which seem to be prevalent cannot simply be swept under the carpet.

Lets not be coy or PC about these sort accidents. In the eyes of some culture driven captains the first officers are there to select flaps and pull up the gear and shut up. In so many airlines around the world ethnic culture overrules flight safety mores every time. That will never change. Lip service a plenty comes from management of these airlines but that is about all.

[Foxy737]

A couple of years ago I remember talking to a former Turkish Airlines first oTfficer who said the two years he had with that airline was the worst time of his career. His words (not mine) was captains had slapped his face, thrown paperwork at him, verbally abused him and generally acted like arrogant military trained cowboys. He said it made first officers scared of speaking up on final approach if the aircraft was clearly unstable as any suggestion that the captain's flying was outside published tolerances could mean there was a risk the first officer would be sacked for insubordination or a trumped up reason.

It is all too easy to say this is an extreme case of second or third hand generalisation. Maybe it is. But that is to ignore the facts and the type accidents as described where first officer verbal input to the captain may have resulted in a safer operation.

The military train their people very harshly in Turkey. Instant obedience to orders without questioning. Invariably Turkish airline captains were formerly military trained and their attitude to those of lesser rank flows down to the flight deck. The chap I talked to is now with another Middle Eastern airline and is happy with the flight deck atmosphere.

From his experience with two years in Turkish operated cockpits, the chap I talked to opined it is a courageous decision (as per Yes Minister TV series) for any first officer to make any SOP call-out that could reflect on the perceived professionalism of the captain. . Of course this does not apply to every Turkish cockpit but on the other hand the sort of accidents which seem to be prevalent cannot simply be swept under the carpet.

Lets not be coy or PC about these sort accidents. In the eyes of some culture driven captains the first officers are there to select flaps and pull up the gear and shut up. In so many airlines around the world ethnic culture overrules flight safety mores every time. That will never change. Lip service a plenty comes from management of these airlines but that is about all.
The core reason why Turkish aviation has some of the worst safety records in the western industry is cultural and mentality wise.
To change that is very difficult and we may continue to read sad headlines in the future. Hopefully not. While there are many well trained professionals with the right attitudes in Turkey, unfortunately they constantly run against the walls. Many of their airlines are notoriously badly managed. Profits are more important than flight safety for them. Flight crews are subject to a lot of indirect pressure to “be flexible” in everything from maintenance issues to duty time limits, in some cases loosing their jobs for diverting to alternates in bad weather because of the resulting costs. Training, flight deck standardization, CRM etc. too often leave a lot to be desired for. Long story short it is a very difficult environment to work in if you whish to do your job properly.

Best Regards
Foxy737

[fox niner]

Re: Gear up, Flaps up, Shut up....
Can someone with knowledge of the Turkish culture explain the essence of the word Hocam. I can look it up of course on google translate. But is was used on the turkish amsterdam accident on the flight deck. (training situation)
Who would call who Hocam and why, in a steep crm gradient cockpit? Or in Turkish society in general?

[vilas]

B737 800 approach speeds are definitely higher than A320 and A320 Neos are even less by 5kts than A320 Ceos. So B737 landing distance should be marginally longer. Even in India the two carriers who fly 737 800s are having maximum excursions. But it's not only landing distance issue. According to me Airbus FBW which is flight path stable with automatic trim is an easier aircraft to handle, control and guide thanB737. So in challenging circumstances less gifted or poorly trained pilots are pushed to limit leading to these incidents.

[MaxthePax]

Re: Gear up, Flaps up, Shut up....
Can someone with knowledge of the Turkish culture explain the essence of the word Hocam. I can look it up of course on google translate. But is was used on the turkish amsterdam accident on the flight deck. (training situation)
Who would call who Hocam and why, in a steep crm gradient cockpit? Or in Turkish society in general?

Translates to “my master”, usually refers to up in the hierarchy.. One of colloquial means of addressing someone with respect.

[olster]

Ryanair have a zero tolerance to unstabilzed approaches. An extant letter to the flight crews highlight this signed by the chief executive. Ignore this at your peril and you will be fired end of. They are not kidding. Fair play to Ryanair: the experience as a passenger can be excruciating but their operational standards are of the highest backed up by rigorous sops and excellent training.

[Stuart Sutcliffe]

In my B744 days I showed many a F/O, during X-wind landings, how the wind vector on the ND or PFD changed dramatically as soon as the PF decrabbed the beast, or when the A/P decrabbed it.
Yes, if you manouevre the aircraft from it's own stable, balanced state, the crosswind portion of the wind vector on the ND begins to become meaningless.

For example, if steadily tracking the localiser of an ILS towards landing, with a notable crosswind component, the wind vector will be shown accurately, as the aircraft will have drift angle into the crosswind, whilst remaining on the ILS centreline. However, should you then decide shortly before landing that you wish to conduct the landing using the wing-into-wind technique i.e. the upwind wing lowered with aileron to stop drift off centreline, then whilst the fore-and-aft axis of the aircraft is aligned with the runway using some opposite rudder, the nav computer cannot 'sense' the drift i.e. it cannot determine the crosswind component.

Consequently, in this now slightly cross-controlled situation, with the aircraft heading the same as runway alignment, maintaining the ILS centreline, and the nav computer not detecting any drift, the ND wind vector will only display the applicable head or tailwind component, and display it as exactly that - a wind vector aligned with the aircraft heading, which itself is aligned with the runway!

[Peter H]

There's a paragraph about that in Sidney Dekker's human factors analysis that was recently published. Too lazy to look it up now, but he didn't think it was much of a big deal.

Looks like p104 in https://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/nl/media/inline/2020/1/21/human_factors_report_s_dekker.pdf

[Capn Bloggs]

Thanks Peter H. What a fascinating report. :ok:

[ea200]

F9, Hocam (pronounced Ho-jam) is a term of respect. Normally used when referring to someone with respected qualifications and probably but not necessarily older. Doctors, professors, religious clerics and the like are often addressed that way. On the flight deck I would guess that a training captain might be addressed that way but whether it is more widely used I couldn't say. Info from Mrs EA who is a native Turkish speaker but with no aviation background.

[Clandestino]

Who would call who Hocam and why"Hocam" literally means "my teacher" so it is quite appropriate to call one's instructor that. However, "hoca" is quite similar to Hebrew "rabbi", meaning "teacher" but traditionally far more often used to denote priest. In contemporary general use , "hocam" is a honorific liberally bestowed on the senior people.

Now, the idea that we should "not be coy or PC about these sort accidents" has some merit in it but all to often it boils down to racist BS, based on severe ignorance of what HF people wrote and meant when analyzing cultural factors. Before we go on let's clear up a few things.

First, there is no such a thing as an American, Turkish, Soviet, Roman-Catholic, AfD or any other culturally affected aerodynamics, aircraft performance or similar. Yes, engineering solutions are culturally affected but in order to be successful, they can differ in details only. The aeroplane is a machine, it can't care at all about pilot's: political beliefs, religious affiliation, gender, age, social status, experience... just name it. It just demands to be flown properly here and now. There are few ways to do that but the crew has some leeway how to get to them.

Second, there are some cultural traits that are really not compatible with high risk activities like flying, e.g. avoiding face loss, so flying in some countries really entails greater culture-related risk. Aplenty of folks try to interpret it negatively; if there are worse cultures then there must be better ones and then overextend it into idea then there must be best and really go over the top with the notion that the best culture is perfect. Idea that one's own culture is the best is actually basic human trait. Unfortunately, even the societies whose cultural norms are best adjusted to the business of flying have their issues that have to be dealt with. It's all so nice to concentrate just on the last crash and think "How nice if the local mores allowed the first officer to be more assertive" but assertiveness comes at a cost; it is a trait associated with high individualism and self-reliance. As a downside, the societies promoting these can easily produce selfish and reckless individuals, caring only about themselves and those who perceives as his social group (e.g. his company, in the meaning of the business entity). Such a culture may result in, for example, designer bureau covering their aeroplane's shortcomings with potentially lethal crutch and then bullying the certifying authorities and airlines into accepting everything is actually all right. Legal boilerplate: I'm not claiming such a thing actually happened, I'm just warning what may happen if we consider our nation god's gift to aviation and every other aviationally challenged while failing to check what our aeroplane makers and aviation authority are actually doing.

Third: jump from realizing that our culture actually fares better than others when flight safety is considered to getting an idea that we need to graft our weltanschaaung onto everyone to improve safety requires a lot of magical (EK Gann would say: medieval) thinking. It's not very damaging and I find it mildly amusing when such ideas are posted on anonymous forum but quite misjudged when actually tried. Yes, there was attempt at that and well-meaning folks that took part in it are still baffled why it didn't work and why those Far Eastern people rejected their enlightened teachings as soon as they left, after all they unambiguously pointed out what was done wrong and how to fix it. Culture is changeable but it has a lot of inertia. For all the talk about steep cockpit authority gradient that overrides even F/Os self-preservation instinct, the captain that plonked his fuel starved DC-8 into the woods didn't go by the surname Brumoğlu but rather McBroom. Even better, take "Fate is the Hunter". Read just the dedication. Heavy stuff, isn't it? So, if Americans came from there to here, it is doable but not overnight and needs careful adjusting instead of attempting to make a clear break. No matter what the aviation people believe in privately, while discharging their professional functions they need to believe that worldly life of the people who fly is something precious and has to be protected by all means available. I don't think anyone would be able to find contemporary culture whose basic tenets would be at odds with that, issue is with the ways of knowing and performing the aforementioned means at the proper time.

Now, without any prejudice about whether the story is true or its location, regarding the "captain landed from unstabilized approach and F/O didn't dare to say a thing" it is not even a half of the story. The real issue is what happened to captain after the FDM discovered transgression. If the incident got buried, or worse; if the captain was commended for salvaging the difficult approach, the message the F/O gets is that stabilized approach criteria, no matter how often written in OMs or mentioned at refreshers & CBTs, are merely there as a rule to satisfy the bureaucrats and not realize they are a tool to save one's head.

Regarding the non-supporting company, personally, I am in far better luck now than previously but it still didn't change my long ago conceived plan of performing my flights in the way that would allow me too keep my job, my licence and my life at the end of each, in ascending order of importance. So far, it has served me well.

[Tetsuo]

Unfortunately the culture has not much tolerance for speaking against authority, and it has been increasing with the current political climate. Today’s news. Pegasus fired training pilot who criticized the government on live TV while talking about the reasons for the Pegasus crash. This one is highly visible. Considering these events the systematic pressure on individual pilots must be enormous.

https://www.turkishminute.com/2020/02/07/beleaguered-pegasus-airlines-fires-former-military-pilot-who-criticized-turkish-govt/

[A37575]

According to Mode-S data transmitted by the aircraft the aircraft landed long and hot, 1500 meters before the runway threshold the aircraft was descending through 950 feet MSL (corrected for local pressure, actual Mode-S reading 1500 feet)/661 feet AGL at 194 knots over ground, touched down about abeam taxiways T/F (about 1950 meters/6400 feet past the threshold, about 1000 meters/3300 feet before the runway end) at about 130 knots over ground, overran the end of the runway at about 63 knots over ground veering slightly to the left (last transponder transmission), hit the localizer antenna runway 06, went over an airport road and a cliff and impacted the airport perimeter wall.

A few minor issues to be discussed before your next landing, Bloggs. For example CRM, MCC, TEM. They are all examination subjects. Any others you can think of?

[PJ2]

The aeroplane is a machine, it can't care at all about pilot's: political beliefs, religious affiliation, gender, age, social status, experience... just name it. It just demands to be flown properly here and now. , and from Feynman, "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled."

It is as astonishing as it is disappointing that this simple reality must be constantly reinforced.

Now, without any prejudice about whether the story is true or its location, regarding the "captain landed from unstabilized approach and F/O didn't dare to say a thing" it is not even a half of the story. The real issue is what happened to captain after the FDM discovered transgression. If the incident got buried, or worse; if the captain was commended for salvaging the difficult approach, the message the F/O gets is that stabilized approach criteria, no matter how often written in OMs or mentioned at refreshers & CBTs, are merely there as a rule to satisfy the bureaucrats and not realize they are a tool to save one's head.
+1.

[568]

I wonder how it is possible to stay on a 3.5• glide slope with such a wind.

Either rate of descent in excess of 1000 ft/min
or above the glide slope

Without FDR data I wouldn't like to guess but given the wind conditions and where the aircraft touched down, then the glide slope was probably never captured properly.
If we ever get to see the recorded data it would be very interesting reading and lessons to us all.

[PJ2]

That statement is wrong.
I've been waiting for your other shoe to drop by way of explaining to others why it's wrong. If so, please say why. We fly 800s with the package and I can't find anything in the FCTM, the FCOM or the QRH performance section except data on the pitch-roll angles at which various extremities of the airframe are at risk or not depending upon whether an SFP package is installed.

The only information I am able to find online is from non-Boeing sites which in itself points to another issue regarding getting information for operators from Boeing, but I'll leave that aside.

Here is what B737.org has to say, as linked to previously:The Short Field Performance improvement package was developed in 2005/6 to allow GOL airlines to operate their 737-800s into the 1,465m (4,800ft) Santos Dumont airport. The modifications enable weight increases of approx 4,700kg (10,000lbs) for landing and 1,700kg (3,750lbs) for take-off from short runways. It includes the following changes:

Flight spoilers are capable of 60 degree deflection on touchdown by addition of increased stroke actuators. This compares to the current 33/38 degrees and reduces stopping distances by improving braking capability.
Slats are sealed for take-off to flap position 15 (compared to the current 10) to allow the wing to generate more lift at lower rotation angles.
Slats only travel to Full Ext when TE flaps are beyond 25 (compared to the current 5). Autoslat function available from flap 1 to 25.
Flap load relief function active from flap 10 or greater.
Two-position tailskid that extends an extra 127mm (5ins) for landing protection. This allows greater angles of attack to be safely flown thereby reducing Vref and hence landing distance.
Main gear camber (splay) reduced by 1 degree to increase uniformity of braking across all MLG tyres.
Reduction of engine idle-thrust delay time from 5s to 2s to shorten landing roll.
FMC & FCC software revisions.

[gearlever]

I heard of two pilots on the deck, the Turkish Captain is fine while Dutch FO was injured and required surgery. I don't think PGS has any South Korean pilots.

That being said, Pegasus is not P2F. At least not for the last 7 years I have been flying airlines in Turkey.
This site is showing name and photo of a Korean CoPilot, also of the Turkish CPT

Here are the photos (https://www.news1.news/2020/02/here-are-the-photos-of-the-pegasus-plane-pilots-who-crashed.html)

[grizzled]

Re Clandestino's post (#213):

Best post of a general nature regarding culture and safety in a very long time. Should be mandatory reading for those heading off on their first foray into a culture different from their own.

Grizz

[Airbubba]

This site is showing name and photo of a Korean CoPilot, also of the Turkish CPT

Here are the photos (https://www.news1.news/2020/02/here-are-the-photos-of-the-pegasus-plane-pilots-who-crashed.html)

The FO's name looks Indonesian to me. Would this make sense if he was Korean? I've met Dutch military pilots of Indonesian ancestry in the past.

[XPMorten]

Without FDR data I wouldn't like to guess but given the wind conditions and where the aircraft touched down, then the glide slope was probably never captured properly.
If we ever get to see the recorded data it would be very interesting reading and lessons to us all.

According to ADS-B data playback, they looked pretty much on glideslope until short final.
(But as usual ADS-B data are not always reliable)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aXLUwwZ6gA

[ATC Watcher]

XPMorten (https://www.pprune.org/members/105068-xpmorten) on G/S perhaps but this animation shows IAS 190 KTS above threshold out at 500 Ft . How realistic is that ? once again perhaps people should stop treating FR24 like if it is the Bible, Great tool for today-day ops but it is not an accident investigation tool..

[XPMorten]

XPMorten (https://www.pprune.org/members/105068-xpmorten) on G/S perhaps but this animation shows IAS 190 KTS above threshold out at 500 Ft . How realistic is that ? once again perhaps people should stop treating FR24 like if it is the Bible, Great tool for today-day ops but it is not an accident investigation tool..

FR24 speeds are usually given as ground speed from what I know. So the instrument should have been labeled GS. Altitude is calibrated altitude. Like I said, it is what it is...

[ManaAdaSystem]

I've been waiting for your other shoe to drop by way of explaining to others why it's wrong. If so, please say why. We fly 800s with the package and I can't find anything in the FCTM, the FCOM or the QRH performance section except data on the pitch-roll angles at which various extremities of the airframe are at risk or not depending upon whether an SFP package is installed.

The only information I am able to find online is from non-Boeing sites which in itself points to another issue regarding getting information for operators from Boeing, but I'll leave that aside.

Here is what B737.org has to say, as linked to previously:


I’m confused. Are you saying the short field package does not affect landing performance/distance, and then you post information that shows it does exactly that?
I fly both versions, and I don’t need a book to tell me this package reduces landing distance. I can feel it. We fly these versions into airports with short runways, and it makes a big difference.
The challenge is you only get full leading edges when flaps extends beyond 25. That makes tailwind approaches a challenge, more so if the GS angle is more than 3 degrees. Early speed reduction and the use of landing gear to slow down is common.

[DaveReidUK]

According to ADS-B data playback, they looked pretty much on glideslope until short final.

Hmmm.

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/771x372/pc2193_chart_2_438ec395ba5539a21ebe96b60959b7393949a14c.jpg

[gearlever]

The FO's name looks Indonesian to me. Would this make sense if he was Korean? I've met Dutch military pilots of Indonesian ancestry in the past.
According linkedin, trained in NL, Dutch native speaker, basic knowledge of Indonesian.

[PJ2]

ManaAdaSystem, I'm saying nothing of the sort. I'm trying to understand the SFP, (I don't fly the B737 at all), and a previous comment made by another contributor regarding SFP who was claiming what had been said earlier in the thread "..was wrong.".

Kindly re-read my post carefully, and the earlier post to which I referred.
Thank you.
PJ2

[73qanda]

PJ2.
Your statement about SFP was straight out wrong. The reason there has been a bit of reaction to it is that like many posts on the internet now days it was made as a statement of fact with an air of authority about it. This kind of confident posting of inaccurate information is rife and frustrates many.
There are many differences between SFP and non-SFP. One difference that I notice is that the thrust reduces to idle in two seconds if you quickly close the thrust levers rather than five seconds on the non-SFP. It’s much nicer on the SFP than the non-SFP as you can more accurately control the point of touch-down in gusty conditions. Also, if you accurately set your Vref it is slower than on the non-SFP aircraft by a knot or two.
Hope that helps, Cheers

[PJ2]

PJ2.
Your statement about SFP was straight out wrong. The reason there has been a bit of reaction to it is that like many posts on the internet now days it was made as a statement of fact with an air of authority about it. This kind of confident posting of inaccurate information is rife and frustrates many.
There are many differences between SFP and non-SFP. One difference that I notice is that the thrust reduces to idle in two seconds if you quickly close the thrust levers rather than five seconds on the non-SFP. It’s much nicer on the SFP than the non-SFP as you can more accurately control the point of touch-down in gusty conditions. Also, if you accurately set your Vref it is slower than on the non-SFP aircraft by a knot or two.
Hope that helps, CheersNot my statement, 73qanda, it is from fab777 (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/629449-pegasus-accident-saw-just-reported-10.html#post10681832) who was simply providing a link to B737.org.

You're the second poster who has lept in before reading the post carefully and mistaking the authorship of the info on SFP.

Please read the post before characterizing another contributor's writing as "inaccurate". Make sure you're addressing the correct author, otherwise you're doing exactly what you have accused another of doing.

In my post, here (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/629449-pegasus-accident-saw-just-reported-11.html#post10682701), I said: Here is what B737.org has to say, as linked to previously:

Thank you.
PJ2

[73qanda]

You’re dead right PJ2.
Sorry about that.
I’ll have a self-enforced break I think.
Cheers.

[CBSITCB]

Dave's graph with glideslope added.
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/775x375/gs_fd86eb0eced53b96226a70948bc220535d6ed27f.png

[Timmy Tomkins]

Thanks for that, most enightening. So, never established in a stable approach and in stark contrast to the professionalism we witnessed yesterday, it was press on itis.

[His dudeness]

Thanks for that, most enightening. So, never established in a stable approach and in stark contrast to the professionalism we witnessed yesterday, it was press on itis.

Case closed. Neat analysis on solid, fully verified data. Great.

[DaveReidUK]

Case closed. Neat analysis on solid, fully verified data. Great.

Well I wouldn't go quite that far.

Oh, I see what you mean ...

[His dudeness]

Oh, I see what you mean ...

Good. And it wasn´t aimed at you at all.

[FlightDetent]

In the light of about 9 coherent datapoints at 1000' AFE marked within the 2.0-2.2 NM range, and the continuation to land by the crew from there, perhaps we can cut some slack to a fast typing poster. Although from an HF viewpoint the two situations actually don't link together.

The -800 can take a lot of beating before being pushed into the over-run. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4epFkTuj79E.



Yes, I've been wrong about ADS-B readings in the LGW / Pence overrun. Those were false zeroes taken at face value, though.

[XPMorten]

..and 50' added to TDZ...

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/771x372/hight_8be2bda1aa4cd240751cdfcb6478bb3c50833cf9.jpg

[DaveReidUK]

Yes, I've been wrong about ADS-B readings in the LGW / Pence overrun.

The folks at Gatwick kept that quiet. :O

[Timmy Tomkins]

Case closed. Neat analysis on solid, fully verified data. Great.

A fair point & perhaps poorly expressed, but:If I were an insurer, or more to the point, potential PAX, then I would look at the record and worry that there was a cultural probllem in this company. If it walks like a duck.....
Let's hope I am proven wrong.

[rog747]

FYI Pegasus, along with Futura in Spain were both set up with alot of assistance and IIRC £££ from Aer Lingus.........

[4runner]

I’m confused. Are you saying the short field package does not affect landing performance/distance, and then you post information that shows it does exactly that?
I fly both versions, and I don’t need a book to tell me this package reduces landing distance. I can feel it. We fly these versions into airports with short runways, and it makes a big difference.
The challenge is you only get full leading edges when flaps extends beyond 25. That makes tailwind approaches a challenge, more so if the GS angle is more than 3 degrees. Early speed reduction and the use of landing gear to slow down is common.

the SFP package always makes my landings look bad when the spoilers pop up and a greaser becomes a “ass fell out of it” landing. Then I remember I’m in a -800.

[4runner]

FYI Pegasus, along with Futura in Spain were both set up with alot of assistance and IIRC £££ from Aer Lingus.........

ive flown with astronauts from boff these “airlines”. The Thpanith are “special”. Adios amigos. They all promoted themselves to check airmen and Capitanos at RwandAir. They took away commuting from non Spanish pilots, came back from their commuting with nonsense instructor certificates and promoted themselves without shame. They were chased home, sometimes under threat of incarceration and diplomatic action. Ricardo Naval and Arturo Medina come to mind. Putos. The screaming, slapping Man fight in the arrivals hall of Kigali international airport, at bourbon coffee whilst in uniform was spectacular.

[Timmy Tomkins]

Hearing from escapees from Pegasus, 5 or so years ago they took on quite a few Western expat captains and it looked like the operating culture might align more with European standards ... but it seems most or all expats ran away very quickly when fed an endless diet of lies, broken promises, and supposed EASA style rules (eg FTLs) only applied as a very rough "guideline", and only when they felt like it.
Interesting background, thanks. Sadly the more capable & reliable aircraft become the more the ill informed or greedy set up operations only paying lip service to the regulations; and so I suspect cavalier attitudes and corruption will find its way into this industry as it has in so many thers.

[Kirks gusset]

SFP OPTION:

• A reduced idle thrust transition delay

between approach- and ground-idle speeds, which improves stopping distances and in- creases field-length-limited landing weight.

• Increased flight-spoiler deflection from 30 degrees to 60 degrees, which aids brake performance when landing.

• A two-position tailskid at the rear of the aircraft. The tailskid protects longer- bodied 737-800s and -900ERs against inad- vertent tailstrikes during landing, which al- lows higher aircraft approach attitudes and lower landing speeds.

It wouldn't have mattered if they had parachutes!, they die was cast once they decided to land.. or rather didn't elect for a missed approach like the preceding 2 aircraft.

[poitiers]

Re Clandestino's post (#213):

Best post of a general nature regarding culture and safety in a very long time. Should be mandatory reading for those heading off on their first foray into a culture different from their own.

Grizz

We had this cultural problem in Air France, leading to 2000/2009 period and series of accidents.
Things were under control till recently, seems arrogance and negligence are back ...

[Callsign Kilo]

It wouldn't have mattered if they had parachutes!, they die was cast once they decided to land.. or rather didn't elect for a missed approach like the preceding 2 aircraft.

Exactly, you could’ve thrown the anchor of the QE2 from the back, you’d still be hoping for the best. Arguing for or against the stopping capabilities of a SFP vs a conventional-800 is totally pointless. The rules of flying and the basis of notecs seem to have been well and truly bypassed on this one. If the facts behind this overrun are as they have been presented then it’s very sad to see the apparent risks that people are prepared to take.

[Capi_Cafre']

Looks like p104 in https://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/nl/media/inline/2020/1/21/human_factors_report_s_dekker.pdf
Reading that for the first time within the context of the recent Max accidents is sobering to say the least. It's no wonder that Boeing and the NTSB are circling the wagons in response to renewed Dutch interest.

[4runner]

I don't believe this is quite correct. The FMC derived headwind/tailwind component is actually quite accurate, although it does have an averaging function and thus not instantaneous. The crosswind component on the other hand is not reliable. There were other cues, GS, ROD, thrust levers back close to idle and the visual picture would have looked like a rocketship.
There is a good paper on this tha covers FMC wind component calculation: Safety aspects of tailwind operationsSafety aspects of tailwind operations Safety aspects of tailwind operations G.W.H. van Es and A.K. Karwal (https://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/1148.pdf)

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1246x1144/fms_wind_924385c8aa3cc45c1e0629a60458cb3e4b411b8f.png

it’s the best when FO’s are heads down, on approach, calling out the wind component and parroting the radar altimeter.

[Double Back]

Not even W/V measuring units along a RWY can be trusted. I remember a long discussion with a MET chap (whose position was on a mayor airport) who noted bizarre wind values, even on quiet days. He found out the units could pick up vortices from departing A/C's wake.
Normally the MET observers would discard the readings as "spurious" signals, but later those values were auto-inserted in reports like ATIS.
When reporting that to his superiors he was told to shut up because in that time the MET service wanted to go fully automatic w/o any human intervention anymore.... and said that if the readings were like they were, the pilots needed to be warned for that......

[42go]

"then maybe one should take a minute to self critic and reread how to land a 737...." - relevant to any particular post, or just cast to the wind?

[de facto]

Vilas, you got your private license yet?

[gearlever]

Another PEGASUS mishap.

Pegasus EVAC DUS (https://www.spiegel.de/panorama/flugzeug-nach-landung-in-duesseldorf-evakuiert-a-81e86fb6-4881-46fc-b120-c6dee4f9add4#)

[gearlever]

Plenty of bags, trolleys...
https://twitter.com/i/status/1228707948752515073

[Roti Canai]

https://simpleflying.com/pegasus-737-dusseldorf-evacuation/

[KRH270/12]

I've been waiting for your other shoe to drop by way of explaining to others why it's wrong. If so, please say why. We fly 800s with the package and I can't find anything in the FCTM, the FCOM or the QRH performance section except data on the pitch-roll angles at which various extremities of the airframe are at risk or not depending upon whether an SFP package is installed.

The only information I am able to find online is from non-Boeing sites which in itself points to another issue regarding getting information for operators from Boeing, but I'll leave that aside.

Here is what B737.org has to say, as linked to previously:


Because the SFP was designed to do just that, using the features posted in this thread a couple of times now.

As the name sais, it increases performance on short fields, for takeoffs and landings.

If you calculate the incident at SAW with the BOEING OPT the difference of operational ldg. distance between the two Aircraft options is about 10% or 250m.

So the statement that SFP does not affect landperf is simply wrong, and thats what i said.

[PJ2]

Thanks for the comeback KRH, appreciated. - PJ2

[KingAir1978]

I'm not a 737 pilot, but aren't the Flaps supposed to be down during an evacuation? To allow pax to use the overwing exits?

[Jump Complete]

I'm not a 737 pilot, but aren't the Flaps supposed to be down during an evacuation? To allow pax to use the overwing exits?

Yes, part of the evacuation checklist is to set flaps to 40, before the engine start levers are set to ‘cut-off’ if the situation allows. But that presupposes an orderly stop, still on the undercarriage, engines running, and a still functioning cockpit crew. Not to mention the flap lever still connected to the flaps.