View Full Version : Turkish Airlines RJ100 Crash

8th Jan 2003, 18:04
Just heard on Radio 4 that a Turkish airliner has crashed, location type or casualties not known at this time

8th Jan 2003, 18:10
Crashed near Diyarbakir in the Sout East of Turkey with 72 on board.
News still coming in

8th Jan 2003, 18:13
UPDATE 1-Turkish airliner crashes with over 70 on board (Adds details of crash, location)
DIYARBAKIR, Turkey, Jan 8 (Reuters) – A Turkish Airlines passenger plane carrying more than 70 people crashed in southeast Turkey on Wednesday, officials and witnesses said.
There were no immediate reports on the number of casualties.
An Istanbul airport official said the plane had been flying from Istanbul to the southeastern city of Diyarbakir when it crashed on landing.
“The plane crashed two miles from Diyarbakir airport during landing,” the official said. He could give no details of casualties or how many people were onboard.
Anatolian news agency said it was carrying 72 people and five crew, though other media put the number of passengers at 71.
“I saw many ambulances rushing towards the tarmac and a new wave of police have come in and they are trying to calm people down,” a taxi driver at the airport told Reuters.
The cause of the crash was not immediately clear but witnesses said there was heavy fog at Diyarbakir airport.
Diyarbakir airport is a wide expanse of land shared between military and civil air traffic. Civilian flights land more than a kilometre from the main terminal and passengers are carried to and from their flights by buses.
“Police have emptied the terminal building but there are a lot of yelling and screaming people,” said Sahin Aykut, a taxi driver waiting at the rank outside the terminal.

8th Jan 2003, 18:22
Latest info from BBC, 72 on board the aircraft which crashed on landing
here's the link (http://www.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2640467.stm)

8th Jan 2003, 18:38

8th Jan 2003, 18:56
Type reported as RJ-100:

Associated Press Writer

ISTANBUL, Turkey (AP) — A Turkish Airlines flight with 76 people on board crashed Wednesday in heavy fog as it tried to land at an airport in southeastern Turkey, news reports said. There were reports of at least four survivors.

The RJ-100 passenger aircraft, which was on its way from Istanbul, crashed in a military area near the Diyarbakir airport, and soldiers were helping to evacuate the injured, CNN-Turk television reported.

There were 71 passengers and five crew aboard, the semiofficial Anatolia news agency reported.

Four of the injured were evacuated to nearby Diyarbakir hospital, Anatolia reported. CNN-Turk television said the injured were in shock but had no life-threatening injuries.

Doctors in the area were called to the city's main hospital to deal with the injured, Anatolia reported. It was not clear if there were additional injured people who were being evacuated to the hospital.

The plane crashed as it landed in heavy fog, private NTV television reported

8th Jan 2003, 19:03
another sad day for aviation....2 in a row today....

fyi....wx at station
LTCC 081950Z 11002KT 0100 R34/0150D +FG VV001 03/02 Q1021 NOSIG=
LTCC 081850Z 26002KT 4500 BR FEW040 SCT100 04/03 Q1021 NOSIG=
LTCC 081750Z 00000KT 3500 R34/3500D BR FEW040 SCT100 05/03 Q1021 NOSI
LTCC 081650Z 32003KT 5000 BR FEW040 SCT100 05/03 Q1021 NOSIG=
LTCC 081550Z 28006KT 4500 BR SCT040 BKN100 06/05 Q1021 NOSIG=
LTCC 081450Z 27005KT 3000 R34/3000D BR SCT040 BKN100 07/05 Q1021 NOSI

8th Jan 2003, 19:58
:( Oh s@@t, here we go for another time today:( My thoughts are with all those concerned. Regards SOPS

8th Jan 2003, 20:43
reuters now says only 5 survived?

8th Jan 2003, 21:12
2 miles short of runways and a little offset of the runway extended centreline reminds problems other than fog or an approach error. News says the plane was in a VOR approach. But this is such a great error that I normally do not expect from THY pilots. There should be another problem.

8th Jan 2003, 23:59
Anyone familiar with Diyarbakir?

Some commentators on Turkish TV suggested lack of ILS equipment there.

9th Jan 2003, 01:54
It's a sad day for aviation, my thoughts and prayers are with the families of the crew and passengers who have lost their lives.

ILS problems?? VOR approach, surely the weather precluded a VOR approach??

9th Jan 2003, 07:45
Thats 4 ARJ hull losses now, 3 of them TK (the other was the LX at ZRH which also crashed during an Non-Precision Approach in poor Wx).

Haven't counted the Mesaba one that rammed the Airbridge (at Memphis, I think), as not sure if that's a loss or not.

Very sad.

9th Jan 2003, 11:09
Just heard on SBS (Australian TV station) that two military planes have also crashed in Turkey, apparently in the same area.

More info here (http://pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=77565) and here (http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/breaking_news/4907559.htm)

Frosty Hoar
9th Jan 2003, 13:05
CNN reported/speculated today that the aircraft suffered a mid air explosion and that the the black boxes had been recovered.

Capn Bloggs
9th Jan 2003, 13:22
Did they have the MDA or the Missed Approach Final Altitude in the Alt Sel?

White Knight
9th Jan 2003, 15:55
Capn Bloggs- I'm sure I've heard this before from you after Crossair lost one at zrh. However with 150m RVR there would have been an approach ban in force for non-precision approach. Unlike the stock 146, the RJ is Cat 111B autoland so would imagine that that is what they would be doing in those conditions.

With an ILS approach, the procedure on the RJ is to set go-around alt on the MCP with GS*.

9th Jan 2003, 17:46
My question is, does anyone know if an ILS was available. On the BBC World Service last night, reporter and obviously "aviation expert" Mr Johnny Dymond was already telling the world, "There is no doubt that the thick fog caused the crash" (intimating that aircraft/pilots are unable to land in "thick fog"). This morning he was at it again, saying that "there was no Automatic Landing System available at the airport, although these systems only cost $1 million"

Is there an ILS available (I assume that is the Automatic Landing System that was reffered to)?:(

9th Jan 2003, 20:22
My question is, does anyone know if an ILS was available.
Apparently not. There's a link to the Diyarbakir approach charts here (http://aviation-safety.net/database/2003/030108-1.htm) .

9th Jan 2003, 20:43
Spag, thanks for the info, the METARS also seem to indicate there was no "thick fog". Or was there fog that was not forcast?

9th Jan 2003, 22:36
A terrible accident.

Just watched an interview with one of the survivors from her hospital bed. She said, quite matter of factly, something along the lines of - Just before we landed, I was thinking about unbuckling my seatbelt.

Kaptin M
10th Jan 2003, 12:16
One BBC report I saw cited the reason for the crash as "natural causes" because of the heavy fog..

According to BBC (again), the female survivor - I would guess to be probably the same one Rollingthunder saw interviewed - apparently survived because she was "thrown clear" during the crash, and ended up in a snow embankment.
She also reported hearing a "BANG" prior to impact - however, I understand that this is a fairly common phenomenom with crash victims.

Back in the US, early findings at the crash site of the B1900 appear to indicate that the aircraft reached a pitch attitude of 52 degrees ANU!!

Worldwide, a bad start for aviation safety for the new year.

Capn Bloggs
10th Jan 2003, 13:29
Medieval Warrior,

Thanks for that. FYI, I do have a bit of an idea about how to drive RJs. I asked my question because the available evidence on other websites indicated that there wasn't an ILS on the runway used.

Your "approach ban" statement brings back memories: in Oz we had "operational control" up until a few years ago, where ATC would not permit approaches if the weather was bad. That system, while a bit obtrusive, would have prevented many crashes around the world where crews pressed on and on in ridculously bad WX until they pranged. Anyway, some red-neck G/A enthusiastic amateur forced the safety authority to stop that system and leave it all up to the PIC to decide what the WX was like at the MDA/DA...

Cheers, B

10th Jan 2003, 20:11
Can´t agree more...and White Knight...there is no RJ which is CAT III B, it is IIIA and may have some Company internal B or whatsoever, but in terms of approach category it is "only" certified for CATIIIA. For CATIIIB there is a bit more required than just an autoland capability.

Few Cloudy
11th Jan 2003, 07:36
He doesnt play cricket - he plays croquet - RTFQ!

There has been a magnificent PA job done on this crash by someone - every paper and TV report in Europe comes out with the amazing statement that the crash was "caused by the fog".

Are the media really this naïve? Do they learn nothing from previous contact with experts? I know very little about nuclear power or finance but I am dependent upon my newsmedia for information - God help us!

Load Toad
11th Jan 2003, 07:46
This is copied from 'Janes'....I don't know if this helps you lot out or not...less sensationalist though than other sources...

09 January 2003

More crashes in Turkish air accident black spots

By Philip Butterworth-Hayes

Accident investigators looking into the crash of a Turkish Airlines Avro RJ100, which killed 72 passengers on 8 January, will be concentrating on what information was available to the pilot from precision-approach landing systems and air traffic controllers. The aircraft crashed when it landed 30m short of the runway at Diyarbakir airport in heavy fog.

Five people are believed to have survived the crash.

Although early Turkish press reports have commented on the lack of automated landing aids at the airport, new state-of-the art voice communications systems, supplied by US firm Litton-Denro, were only recently installed there. It is not yet known whether the runway was equipped with a fully functioning instrument landing system (ILS), although the runway on which the aircraft was attempting to land is located in the military sector of the airport.

The aircraft should also have been equipped with a ground proximity warning system, which would have warned the pilots of approaching terrain; with four engines it is unlikely the aircraft would have crashed because of an engine failure.

One of the two flight recorders has been recovered from the crash site and is being flown to the UK where its data will be analysed.

Poor weather was also being cited as the probable cause of a mid-air collision between two Turkish F-4 fighters in the southeastern province of Malatya, just a few hours after the RJ-100 airliner crash. All four crew were reported to have been killed in the accident, which occurred during a training flight.

251 of 389 words [End of non-subscriber extract.]

Kaptin M
11th Jan 2003, 08:53
Nice post Croquette-er.
And touche, FC RTFQ - "direct your energies to improving your cricket.." :D
You Poms really are NO match any more, for the Aussies.

But I digress. Even Janes appear to be afflicted by the mis-information bug, eg., The aircraft should also have been equipped with a ground proximity warning system, which would have warned the pilots of approaching terrain;
Once the gear has been selected down, and the aircraft configured for landing, and in a stabilised descent, this (terrain) warning is effectively inhibited.
Such an oversight, by a respected publisher of Janes standing is a little worrying.

From previous reports, it would appear that the aircraft MAY have been ececuting a VOR (/DME) approach - and "Yes", with the missed approach altitude set, there would be no aural alert, and no auto-pilot intervention (if engaged), (as opposed to having the MDA set.).
However SOP's then come into the equation...."Approaching minimums.....minimums"

What does not appear to have received too much "exposure", was the fact that there is apparently a military field in very close proximity - if not adjacent - to the civil airport.

For NON-pilots reading this thread, fog is a weather phenomenom for which professional pilots are trained.
However, having said that, the visual illusions created by the water droplets which comprise fog play amazing "tricks" at times. I have seen a vasis (the lights we use for the very last part of our landing phase) simultaneously indicating full fly UP , AND full fly DOWN in shallow fog conditions.

Okay FC go polish your bat and balls - Croquette, try the D&G forum if you feel like a bit of Aussie bashing - it's a close runner to Jet Blast!! :D

Hotel Mode
11th Jan 2003, 11:44
There are CAT 3B RJ's. Don't know what kind of mod it is, but all ours go to CAT 3B limits.

11th Jan 2003, 15:20
I would like to try and correct a few misconceptions which are creeping in. First the Avro RJ Autoland capability. It depends on your definition of Cat 3A/B. However the RJ system is fail passive and hence is unlikely to be approved for minima below 50ft DH and 150 m Touchdown RVR for landing (Public Transport, JAR - OPS 1 Subpart E). In terms of certification to achieve capability below those minima the system must be fail operational which the Avro RJ is not.Next ,the Diyirbakir accident. The only published civilian procedures are non precision approaches. However there were PAR minima published in FLIP documents- unfortunately I don't have the latest edition to confirm.There is one runway ( 16/34) on this joint military/civil airfield. This means that military and civilian aircraft land and take off on the same runway. On the ground they use their own dedicated facilities. There is no other published civilian approach information nor is it yet clear exactly what type of approach was flown. This will only be known with certainty when the ATC tapes are replayed and the aircraft CVR is recovered and replayed,together with the FDR.

11th Jan 2003, 17:47
Kaptain M, or etal, I'm kind of directing this question your way because you seem to have placed things in an organized perspective.

I thought that I had read that the surviving female passenger stated that the pilot was in the middle of talking to the passengers when he was cutoff by the crash.

Wouldn't this be indicative that they were not completely configured for landing and more possibly a CFIT?

Kaptin M
11th Jan 2003, 19:33
Thank you for your kind words, lomapaseo. Sorry to say that I did not hear that particular part of the survivor's interview, however it would be "unusual" if either of the cockpit crew were doing anything other than giving their full attention to the approach, at that point in time, ie esp. below 1,000' agl, at night, and in low visibility conditions - it would have been a work-intensive period for both pilots.

The handful of survivors would, I imagine, be suffering from major post-accident traumatic stress, and consequently events prior to and including the crash are usually often chronologically scrambled for some time, hence making their initial accounts often unreliable.

Few Cloudy
12th Jan 2003, 10:36

It was an attempt at humour - or 'Hoomer' as they say in Norfolk. However, since the very rude preceding post (Fosters fuelled presumably) has been removed, there is no play on words any more. (PS. the balls are shiny but I exchanged a bat for skis way back...)

- As regards Janes - they also fall into the "caused by fog" trap, when mentioning the mil. crash.

- As regards Cat 111A or Cat 111B - non of that helps if a VOR
APP is in use of course.

14th Jan 2003, 18:26
As usual with crashes that don't involve large numbers of Europeans or Americans, this crash seems to have vanished in a news void. Anyone heard anything new on the investigation?

14th Jan 2003, 19:00
Recent news (CVR records) says they were flying below MDA on a VOR approach and slightly left of the path. GPWS warning sound heard on CVR but they insisted on flying below MDA. Also heard is the question of the tower whether the RWY in sight or not. The response from the pilot was negative.

Source: "Hurriyet" daily newspaper headline.

15th Jan 2003, 20:28
Recent News (Source: Hurriyet newspaper):

Pilots confused the runway lights with the fence lighting (As the airport is within the military zone, it looks like the airport is fenced). Some pilots subscribe this idea, some do not. Newspaper says that the pilot has confused the lights and started to descend 20 meters left (Off-set) of the runway extended centreline. While he made a steep right turn, the crash has happened.

However, it does not seem reasonable to me. The RWY approach lights are (As far as I know) VASI which is almost impossible to be confused with ordinary lighting (Like street lights) to illuminate the fences.

Whichever the situation is, I think it is almost clear that they have flown below the MDA prior to having the runway in sight.

21st Jan 2003, 08:02
Thks Ogel. keep us posted.
Going below MDA (if they did so) somehow reminds me of an almost similar accident THY had a few years back in Samsung (same acft type).
I know THY has a state of the art training facility but once again
it looks like they faced some CRM problems.
This is not to blame the THY military club but if it´s true some should review the CRM training that their pilots have to go thru.