Turkish MD-83 Crash
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If anyone reading this is familiar with flying in the next valley parallel to and to the West of Isparta (that's the valley that contains Cardak airfield and the town of Basmakci) could they say at what minimum altitudes an aircraft flying overhead, say Basmakci, could be expected to receive useable radio transmissions from Isparta VOR (IPT 117.50) or Isparta NDB (IPT 349)?
Nick
Nick
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Choroni, sometimes
Posts: 1,974
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@post 264 by Max
What does this picture say?
- is it a guess by journalists?
- is it a radar plot?
- if so, did radar coverage stop after the aeroplane entered mountaneous terrain or after the crash?
Thx
What does this picture say?
- is it a guess by journalists?
- is it a radar plot?
- if so, did radar coverage stop after the aeroplane entered mountaneous terrain or after the crash?
Thx
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Bielefeld, Germany
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The pictures from airporthaber.com are not necessarily that helpful. The first one shows the approach with a direct entry into holding from the northwest. The second shows an approximation to the actual track, with the annotation that the DFDR will give the exact data (hetfield: that is what it says).
They are the only representation I have seen that suggest the aircraft approaching IPT from the northwest. The EKSIN 1C arrival from UA-18 from the Afyon VOR comes in to IPT from the East, from intersection EKSIN on a heading of 258° on the 078° radial of IPT; the PELIL 1C arrival from CARDAK (CRD) on a heading of 080° on the CARDAK radial 080 and then the 260 radial of IPT from PELIL. There is no arrival from the northwest. If they had flow Afyon direct Isparta, as suggested by SeattlePilot, then they would have come in from the north heading about 184°, because that is where Afyon is. The magnetic variation at IPT is 3.2°E. One can see all that from the en-route chart snippet uploaded by MachacA, and the arrival and approach plates to which the links have been given in this forum.
The best info comes from the article from Hurriyet on 12 December, included by Machaca. It doesn't say where the aircraft came from, but it does say that they came in at 8,000 ft. After passing the VOR they followed a track of 253° until 12 nm out, then turned right. They also didn't stop at the inbound heading of 043°, but went a further 50° around to 093°. Then they hit Türbutepe at about the 1,500 m mark. There was a GPWS warning. At the "pull up" warning, they did indeed pull up and put in power, but the power application pitched the aircraft up and the tail struck.
Hurriyet says that this information comes from preliminary analysis of the FDR and CVR, and that these have been sent to Germany for further analysis.
So it looks as if it was CFIT, as many have thought.
The question here is: why 253°? The following was suggested to me in PM (by a participant who is a little fed up with certain participants chewing others out for not being professional pilots). This is close enough to the 258° heading required for the EKSIN 1C arrival. Perhaps they had loaded the heading for the EKSIN 1C arrival at or before Afyon, and then after they were cleared direct switched to that instrument upon station passage at IPT, without remembering or checking that this was the arrival heading they had loaded and not the outbound heading for the VOR/DME 05 approach. This is pure speculation, though.
Thanks very much to my student Tülay Inci who translated the text for me today in conversation.
PBL
They are the only representation I have seen that suggest the aircraft approaching IPT from the northwest. The EKSIN 1C arrival from UA-18 from the Afyon VOR comes in to IPT from the East, from intersection EKSIN on a heading of 258° on the 078° radial of IPT; the PELIL 1C arrival from CARDAK (CRD) on a heading of 080° on the CARDAK radial 080 and then the 260 radial of IPT from PELIL. There is no arrival from the northwest. If they had flow Afyon direct Isparta, as suggested by SeattlePilot, then they would have come in from the north heading about 184°, because that is where Afyon is. The magnetic variation at IPT is 3.2°E. One can see all that from the en-route chart snippet uploaded by MachacA, and the arrival and approach plates to which the links have been given in this forum.
The best info comes from the article from Hurriyet on 12 December, included by Machaca. It doesn't say where the aircraft came from, but it does say that they came in at 8,000 ft. After passing the VOR they followed a track of 253° until 12 nm out, then turned right. They also didn't stop at the inbound heading of 043°, but went a further 50° around to 093°. Then they hit Türbutepe at about the 1,500 m mark. There was a GPWS warning. At the "pull up" warning, they did indeed pull up and put in power, but the power application pitched the aircraft up and the tail struck.
Hurriyet says that this information comes from preliminary analysis of the FDR and CVR, and that these have been sent to Germany for further analysis.
So it looks as if it was CFIT, as many have thought.
The question here is: why 253°? The following was suggested to me in PM (by a participant who is a little fed up with certain participants chewing others out for not being professional pilots). This is close enough to the 258° heading required for the EKSIN 1C arrival. Perhaps they had loaded the heading for the EKSIN 1C arrival at or before Afyon, and then after they were cleared direct switched to that instrument upon station passage at IPT, without remembering or checking that this was the arrival heading they had loaded and not the outbound heading for the VOR/DME 05 approach. This is pure speculation, though.
Thanks very much to my student Tülay Inci who translated the text for me today in conversation.
PBL
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: istanbul
Age: 38
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This accident showed us that the Turkish government is still inadequate about solving these kind of disasters..ı m a Turkish citizen and ı can watch what our authorized people r doing here..this is the 3. plane crash in Turkey since 1998,and in all accidents the reason of the crashes were explained on the day of event but in this case noone can explain and ı still cant find out why?ı m not an aviation authority but its not just a pilot fault,there r missing parts..first they said the CVR was empty and now they say CVR is being solved(?)There were 6 Turkish nuclear physicians aboard from Boğaziçi University and Doğuş University-going to Isparta to a symposium-they were working on a material named torium,when these element is used in Turkey in nuclear stations than our country will never need petrol oil,and while our external debt is 450 billion $,with the usage of this element our country would have 70 trillion $ source...With this invent our country would be one of the most biggest energy source but somehow it was stopped(!) the cause of this accident cant be just because of pilot fault...
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: istanbul
Age: 38
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ı hope this accident can be explained as soon as possible..it was pilots first flight to Isparta which means that they didnt know the area(thats why therer r landing charts but ı guess the crew trusted themselves a lot..)
-AL@FT-
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: VA, USA
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
- It is a clear night
- "Runway in sight" reported
These are the established facts that I have drawn out from various posts here...
Now if that's the case how would they end up in those mountains as there is no limitation for the pilots to see the runway after assuming their crash heading? They would be following the runway as they were making the turn to complete the racetrack one thinks...
As far as I understood from what's plotted on the charts on MaxBlow's post, they indeed flew on the 223 heading but then, for some unknown reason, instead of turning to 43 another heading was chosen which is <43 degrees and from the plots you could see the path flown is not a 180 degree right turn.
Based on these I would personally assume that from their entrance point to the racetrack (which should be <223 degrees) took them over to the mountains on the magnetic S. Having this fact in mind, they then extended their turn in order to cut runway centerline assuming still flying on the lake. Thus confidently they started the descent but ended up unfortunately in the mountains.
I am looking the charts and see the crash site between 4000 and 5000'. Looking at D5 IPT, it shows 4560'. Maybe a longshot for many but for me it is mind bothering...
However there is a major flaw in this theory: If it was possible to follow the runway lights as there was clear skies, one would definitely observe the deviations and take corrective/evasive actions. This I can't explain...
- "Runway in sight" reported
These are the established facts that I have drawn out from various posts here...
Now if that's the case how would they end up in those mountains as there is no limitation for the pilots to see the runway after assuming their crash heading? They would be following the runway as they were making the turn to complete the racetrack one thinks...
As far as I understood from what's plotted on the charts on MaxBlow's post, they indeed flew on the 223 heading but then, for some unknown reason, instead of turning to 43 another heading was chosen which is <43 degrees and from the plots you could see the path flown is not a 180 degree right turn.
Based on these I would personally assume that from their entrance point to the racetrack (which should be <223 degrees) took them over to the mountains on the magnetic S. Having this fact in mind, they then extended their turn in order to cut runway centerline assuming still flying on the lake. Thus confidently they started the descent but ended up unfortunately in the mountains.
I am looking the charts and see the crash site between 4000 and 5000'. Looking at D5 IPT, it shows 4560'. Maybe a longshot for many but for me it is mind bothering...
However there is a major flaw in this theory: If it was possible to follow the runway lights as there was clear skies, one would definitely observe the deviations and take corrective/evasive actions. This I can't explain...
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Obvious
Age: 78
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Near Side of any Dark Hill....
An initial investigation showed that pilot error caused the Nov. 30 crash of an Atlasjet MD83 that killed all 57 people on board, Turkish news media reported Tuesday. The wreckage was found seven miles from the airport, on a mountain around 5,000 feet high.
.
Reflect upon the "black hole" effect and the near side of intervening hills. It is possible to be seeing quite clearly the runway lights from 0.7 to 77+ miles away on a night with good visibility. However, very much "unseen" is the unlit hill between you and the airfield that increasingly juts blackly up into your flight-path. Airplanes don't necessarily go where they're pointed...... an into wind or underpowered flight path can often fall parabolically short (which enables the dark unseen intermediate terrain to claim its victims). It's nothing to do with "spatial consciousness", it's all to do with unseen hazards and the perils inherent in eye-balled descents and NPA's (non-precision approaches).
.
So, all the evidence thus far would seem to indicate that the crew declared themselves to be "visual" with the airfield - and that they simply flew into the near-side of a darkened mount - as their too-steep/insufficiently powered arcing descent took them latterly beneath their visual sight-line. The only chance one ever has of seeing that very subtle development happening is if there are lights very obvious in the foreground disappearing as they are subtly obliterated by the darkened hill. However such lights can easily become: out of sight/out of mind and those very final developments can be quite sudden. It would be careless in the extreme ever to rely upon a night visual approach and discard any requirement to observe Minimum Sector Safe Altitudes just because you can see a distant destination airfields lights clearly in the distance.
.
Reflect upon the "black hole" effect and the near side of intervening hills. It is possible to be seeing quite clearly the runway lights from 0.7 to 77+ miles away on a night with good visibility. However, very much "unseen" is the unlit hill between you and the airfield that increasingly juts blackly up into your flight-path. Airplanes don't necessarily go where they're pointed...... an into wind or underpowered flight path can often fall parabolically short (which enables the dark unseen intermediate terrain to claim its victims). It's nothing to do with "spatial consciousness", it's all to do with unseen hazards and the perils inherent in eye-balled descents and NPA's (non-precision approaches).
.
So, all the evidence thus far would seem to indicate that the crew declared themselves to be "visual" with the airfield - and that they simply flew into the near-side of a darkened mount - as their too-steep/insufficiently powered arcing descent took them latterly beneath their visual sight-line. The only chance one ever has of seeing that very subtle development happening is if there are lights very obvious in the foreground disappearing as they are subtly obliterated by the darkened hill. However such lights can easily become: out of sight/out of mind and those very final developments can be quite sudden. It would be careless in the extreme ever to rely upon a night visual approach and discard any requirement to observe Minimum Sector Safe Altitudes just because you can see a distant destination airfields lights clearly in the distance.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Bielefeld, Germany
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LuckyStrike,
Please read my post concerning the Hurriyet article. I don't believe the chart with track to which you referred is an accurate rendition. They apparently flew 253° outbound, not 223°.
Aircraft don't have rear view mirrors. You can't see runway lights away from which you are flying.
BTW, it occurs to me that this progression of errors shows the value of the appropriate procedures: a parallel or teardrop entry to the holding pattern (depending on the exact direction from which they approached IPT) and *then* flying the 12 nm outbound leg of the approach from holding. The holding pattern is well protected and you get a chance to reconfirm outbound and inbound headings for the approach itself.
PBL
Originally Posted by LuckyStrike
As far as I understood from what's plotted on the charts on MaxBlow's post, they indeed flew on the 223 heading but then, for some unknown reason, instead of turning to 43 another heading was chosen which is <43 degrees and from the plots you could see the path flown is not a 180 degree right turn.
Originally Posted by LuckyStrike
However there is a major flaw in this theory: If it was possible to follow the runway lights as there was clear skies, one would definitely observe the deviations and take corrective/evasive actions. This I can't explain...
BTW, it occurs to me that this progression of errors shows the value of the appropriate procedures: a parallel or teardrop entry to the holding pattern (depending on the exact direction from which they approached IPT) and *then* flying the 12 nm outbound leg of the approach from holding. The holding pattern is well protected and you get a chance to reconfirm outbound and inbound headings for the approach itself.
PBL
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Choroni, sometimes
Posts: 1,974
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The plane disappeared from radar screens shortly before it was due to land at Isparta
Was it Antalya Radar?
Did the plane disappear after it entered mountaneous terrain or after the crash?
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Bielefeld, Germany
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by hetfield
The plane disappeared from radar screens shortly before it was due to land at Isparta ........
Was it Antalya Radar?
Did the plane disappear after it entered mountaneous terrain or after the crash?
Was it Antalya Radar?
Did the plane disappear after it entered mountaneous terrain or after the crash?
Since people seem to be thinking about the chart from airporthaber.com, it may be worth while to be specific about why it is likely to be misleading.
First, we do not know for sure that the aircraft approached Isparta direct from Afyon. Indeed, MachacA's chart snippet showed it on UW91, departing UW91 shortly before CRD to fly direct. So the airporthaber.com chart would be consistent with this direction of approaching Isparta.
But then the chart has him turning on the outbound course *before station passage*. Now, one supposes the runway lights were on so these might act as a reference point to anticipate the turn, but why would you anticipate the turn? You're going to have to pull a 180° procedure turn at the other end, so why do something that will misalign you on final?
But let's say he does that, and proceeds outbound on the inbound track as airporthaber.com shows. He then pulls a procedure turn to the *right* to get on the inbound track, and ends up 7nm or so away. We know he was 7 nm away from the inbound course.
Now, at 185kts max (as per the approach plate), let's say he was going 180 kts, 3nm per minute. Pulling a 180° turn takes you a minute, and you have gone half way around a circle. The circumference of your circle is two minutes in time; 6 nm. Let's say 6.28.. i.e. 2 times pi. Then your radius is about 1 nm and your diameter 2 nm, so you are 2 nm left of inbound course. How on earth could you get 7 nm away, even if you are sloppy with the turn?
So that's why I am more inclined to go with Hurriyet's 253°. But that explanation does have them coming from Afyon, not on UW91.
PBL
-AL@FT-
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: VA, USA
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PBL,
Agreed on the explanations that you have given quoting my reply... In the first part I was also trying to stress that what is plotted on the charts just can't be reflecting what happened.
And just to clarify, I am well aware of no mirror situation.
However I was referring to the inbound leg not the outbound; so you should be seeing the airport lights. (i.e. flying at 0<x<43°)
Well anyway FDR will solve the many questions in my mind...
Agreed on the explanations that you have given quoting my reply... In the first part I was also trying to stress that what is plotted on the charts just can't be reflecting what happened.
And just to clarify, I am well aware of no mirror situation.
However I was referring to the inbound leg not the outbound; so you should be seeing the airport lights. (i.e. flying at 0<x<43°)Well anyway FDR will solve the many questions in my mind...
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Bielefeld, Germany
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LuckyStrike,
understood; thanks for the clarification.
This emphasises the point about proper procedures. Even if they had some wrong heading set, if they had entered holding first with a one-minute outbound after station passage and then a turn back inbound, as one is supposed to do, then they would have noticed visually that they were not aligned with the HIALS, which is almost aligned with the inbound course. At that point they likely would have been prompted to check and correct.
Still speculation, not confirmed by definitive course data, but looking likelier based on indirect info.
PBL
understood; thanks for the clarification.
This emphasises the point about proper procedures. Even if they had some wrong heading set, if they had entered holding first with a one-minute outbound after station passage and then a turn back inbound, as one is supposed to do, then they would have noticed visually that they were not aligned with the HIALS, which is almost aligned with the inbound course. At that point they likely would have been prompted to check and correct.
Still speculation, not confirmed by definitive course data, but looking likelier based on indirect info.
PBL
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: usa
Age: 79
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sometimes it can be useful to take a theory and review it. If found to violate a known fact, it can then be eliminated as a possibility.
With that in mind, I'll take up the supposition that the outbound leg was flown in error at heading 253 instead of the correct 223.
In the graphic below I have moved the graphics from the chart, rotated 30 degrees to the 253 heading and scaled to the google image. Another copy of the raceway is then overlaid at the turn-back position with the correct heading shown.
We might now consider what the crew expected to see near the end of the turn. Some time has passed since the outbound error was made, and a referral to the chart may have induced the crew to pull out of the turn at the chart heading of 043. They would have expected to see the runway dead ahead.
On a heading of 043, the town of Keciborlu is straight ahead at about 12 miles. The 05 runway is 30 degrees right at 12 miles. As the turn is completed, if lights at Keciborlu are visible they will be seen before the lights at the runway.
A closer look at the line of sight to these two points might be helpful. There is also the possibility that some mist has formed over the higher elevations at this time of night. Though general conditions are clear, a low line of sight over peaks may be less than perfect.
In the graphic below I show the two lines of sight that I will profile.
The profile below is that to the 05 runway. A grid was selected for vertical and horizontal scale. The ground line was taken from google earth data along a line with 1 mile way-points shown. The descent profile from the chart was imported and scaled to the graphic. The descent profile was refined from the data and shown as a light blue line.
Note that the line of site from the point of turnback is just over a ridge about 3 miles from the runway. The runway will be seen from an angle, not straight on, and very early in the descent they will be lost completely, as seen by the red line.
The profile from the turnback to the town of Keciborlu is a bit more interesting. Once again the lights are seen over the tops of peaks though any mist that was there. High ground near the town blocked sight of the left part of town and created a hard straight edge to the lights on that side. Lower ground slightly to the right of profile allowed some of the lights to be seen. Once again as descent progressed, all the lights would have been lost (red line). Note also the crash site suggested by Machaca lies only 0.6 mile left of this profile and the way a standard descent pattern might intersect the ground line near this point if the crew tried to pull out. This scenario would also be compatible with my earlier conclusion that the heading at impact was NE and likely close to the chart heading for final.
The question now becomes, is there a known fact that would eliminate this possibility. If not, one must remember that there may well be other possibilities that also would fit the facts now known.
With that in mind, I'll take up the supposition that the outbound leg was flown in error at heading 253 instead of the correct 223.
In the graphic below I have moved the graphics from the chart, rotated 30 degrees to the 253 heading and scaled to the google image. Another copy of the raceway is then overlaid at the turn-back position with the correct heading shown.
We might now consider what the crew expected to see near the end of the turn. Some time has passed since the outbound error was made, and a referral to the chart may have induced the crew to pull out of the turn at the chart heading of 043. They would have expected to see the runway dead ahead.
On a heading of 043, the town of Keciborlu is straight ahead at about 12 miles. The 05 runway is 30 degrees right at 12 miles. As the turn is completed, if lights at Keciborlu are visible they will be seen before the lights at the runway.
A closer look at the line of sight to these two points might be helpful. There is also the possibility that some mist has formed over the higher elevations at this time of night. Though general conditions are clear, a low line of sight over peaks may be less than perfect.
In the graphic below I show the two lines of sight that I will profile.
The profile below is that to the 05 runway. A grid was selected for vertical and horizontal scale. The ground line was taken from google earth data along a line with 1 mile way-points shown. The descent profile from the chart was imported and scaled to the graphic. The descent profile was refined from the data and shown as a light blue line.
Note that the line of site from the point of turnback is just over a ridge about 3 miles from the runway. The runway will be seen from an angle, not straight on, and very early in the descent they will be lost completely, as seen by the red line.
The profile from the turnback to the town of Keciborlu is a bit more interesting. Once again the lights are seen over the tops of peaks though any mist that was there. High ground near the town blocked sight of the left part of town and created a hard straight edge to the lights on that side. Lower ground slightly to the right of profile allowed some of the lights to be seen. Once again as descent progressed, all the lights would have been lost (red line). Note also the crash site suggested by Machaca lies only 0.6 mile left of this profile and the way a standard descent pattern might intersect the ground line near this point if the crew tried to pull out. This scenario would also be compatible with my earlier conclusion that the heading at impact was NE and likely close to the chart heading for final.
The question now becomes, is there a known fact that would eliminate this possibility. If not, one must remember that there may well be other possibilities that also would fit the facts now known.
-AL@FT-
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: VA, USA
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please check the aerial photo and use hybrid setting
pls8xx, that's real good piece of work you have done. However I can't hold myself down from asking this question:
After turn to final, Keciborlu lies straight ahead and along the line are 6 villages (Cukuroren, Kuyucak, Yesilyurt, Yenitepe, Senir, Kozluca together with the runway and also Keciborlu). Now, if you examine the aerial photo from a distance and the chart, you'll see that on the final leg you shouldn't be encountering any kind of light as you are flying over the lake. However if you fly the path to Keciborlu you'll be encountering more than one village with lights. That would give you a hint that you are not over the lake of course assuming no mist, no fog clear skies. At least to the co-pilot who was ex-AF...
Still, I must say I find your theory reasonably well organised.
pls8xx, that's real good piece of work you have done. However I can't hold myself down from asking this question:
After turn to final, Keciborlu lies straight ahead and along the line are 6 villages (Cukuroren, Kuyucak, Yesilyurt, Yenitepe, Senir, Kozluca together with the runway and also Keciborlu). Now, if you examine the aerial photo from a distance and the chart, you'll see that on the final leg you shouldn't be encountering any kind of light as you are flying over the lake. However if you fly the path to Keciborlu you'll be encountering more than one village with lights. That would give you a hint that you are not over the lake of course assuming no mist, no fog clear skies. At least to the co-pilot who was ex-AF...
Still, I must say I find your theory reasonably well organised.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: usa
Age: 79
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LuckyStrike, you make a very good point about lights where there should only be black water. I would think this would apply even more so on the outbound leg. Could be the outbound on 253 is plain wrong. Still, I believe it was stated the pilots were new to the area?, and the villages appear to be small. I wonder how many lights there would be at that time of night. Then there is some water where you will see the light from a boat. A pilot's past experience might dictate whether an occasional light over what he thought to be water would raise a red flag or not.
A long day, late night, and the last runway in sight. Sometimes the mind just seems to shut down.
A long day, late night, and the last runway in sight. Sometimes the mind just seems to shut down.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lights from boat?
Doubtful if there would be any boats out on that lake, especially at night. Lake Burdur is alkaline and I don't think has much in the way of fish in it. Its not the tourist season and anyway this is not a particularly tourist area so there are unlikely to be any pleasure boats out either.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: here and there
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CVR u/s
German investigators confirmed that the CVR was u/s.
After the first techlog entry it should have been repaired within 72hrs / 3 sectors but has been flying for 9 days like this.
After the first techlog entry it should have been repaired within 72hrs / 3 sectors but has been flying for 9 days like this.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Towerman
Can anyone confirm whether the Turkish authorities have introduced an age restriction on aircraft coming onto the Turkish register or operating from Turkey?
You should rather think about MaxBlow post above.
Last edited by Green Guard; 1st Jan 2008 at 23:55.