Turkish MD-83 Crash
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Non-pilot speaking...
I was also puzzled about the missing front fuselage. Seeing the Milliyet pictures (http://www.airdisaster.com/forums/sh...5&page=4&pp=25) it seems to me that
-due to the impact at the hill the rear fuselage got broken (this must be a very flat impact, the tail don't had a direct contact to the ground, like the wingbox-middle fuselage, so the forces are not distributed downwards in a large area but at the cross section of the fuselage where it goes upwards and thins, surely the same thing with the youtube video) maybe separating directly on the impact or a fraction of second later as
-the plane continues a ballistic trajectory (due to the very flat impact there was no big change of direction), but without the tail and engines it goes nose down, impacting where it comes to stop (I saw at Hurriyet www-site pictures of an engine, I don't know the position, but I think it should be near the tail)
-The front of the plane absorbed almost all of the energy as it failed/desintegrated (you can see debris scattered in a "star" display in the front of the "intact" section, also a big piece of fuselage near the left wing, showing the orange colored insulation).
-The mid section comes down "softly" because of this and maybe the wings. I think the damage was mostly due to the first impact on the hill. Also almost no slide.
In another matter, in a video there was a reporter lifting a piece of material to show it and let it fall again, how can this be possible?!!! I hope he was the only one doing that...
I was also puzzled about the missing front fuselage. Seeing the Milliyet pictures (http://www.airdisaster.com/forums/sh...5&page=4&pp=25) it seems to me that
-due to the impact at the hill the rear fuselage got broken (this must be a very flat impact, the tail don't had a direct contact to the ground, like the wingbox-middle fuselage, so the forces are not distributed downwards in a large area but at the cross section of the fuselage where it goes upwards and thins, surely the same thing with the youtube video) maybe separating directly on the impact or a fraction of second later as
-the plane continues a ballistic trajectory (due to the very flat impact there was no big change of direction), but without the tail and engines it goes nose down, impacting where it comes to stop (I saw at Hurriyet www-site pictures of an engine, I don't know the position, but I think it should be near the tail)
-The front of the plane absorbed almost all of the energy as it failed/desintegrated (you can see debris scattered in a "star" display in the front of the "intact" section, also a big piece of fuselage near the left wing, showing the orange colored insulation).
-The mid section comes down "softly" because of this and maybe the wings. I think the damage was mostly due to the first impact on the hill. Also almost no slide.
In another matter, in a video there was a reporter lifting a piece of material to show it and let it fall again, how can this be possible?!!! I hope he was the only one doing that...
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: LPPT
Age: 58
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mauersegler, exactly my thoughts, word for word!
It seems logical that the crew must have seen the danger at the very last second and tried to clear the hill top, hence the flat impact at the wing box point; a spare couple of feet would probably have made their day.
From then on, tail snaps off and the rest keeps going by inertia, helped a little by the remainder of aerodynamic forces still in effect.
It seems logical that the crew must have seen the danger at the very last second and tried to clear the hill top, hence the flat impact at the wing box point; a spare couple of feet would probably have made their day.
From then on, tail snaps off and the rest keeps going by inertia, helped a little by the remainder of aerodynamic forces still in effect.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: los angeleezzz
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BARIT ever heard of RTFQ let's change this for now and call it READ THE F..STATISTIC's Not so long ago some us pilot's took of from the wrong runway? God have their souls but check your fact's buddy and the USA is the aviation country per say right?
FINPILOT hehe thank you for the suggestion for the blue pill but you would be amazed with what I can do without it. And by the way I'm not going to enter a childish debate with you about some other stories I heard about finnish man
And by the way you went there probably as a cadet and paid for your rating right and now you are throwing **** at these guys with your statemen't's because non of your great finnish airlines would give you a chance...dude no more words for you
Guys please you act as if the western countries are that much better. I call this ignorance and arragonce. This accident should not have happened but I don't think these guys in the cockpit did it on purpose did they?
Alot of off topic bs, sorry to clutter the thread.
FINPILOT hehe thank you for the suggestion for the blue pill but you would be amazed with what I can do without it. And by the way I'm not going to enter a childish debate with you about some other stories I heard about finnish man
And by the way you went there probably as a cadet and paid for your rating right and now you are throwing **** at these guys with your statemen't's because non of your great finnish airlines would give you a chance...dude no more words for youGuys please you act as if the western countries are that much better. I call this ignorance and arragonce. This accident should not have happened but I don't think these guys in the cockpit did it on purpose did they?
Alot of off topic bs, sorry to clutter the thread.
Last edited by SUNTURK 69; 4th Dec 2007 at 11:34.
crash trajectory
From the pictures shown on this thread it is not a confirmed fact that the aircraft hit first where the skid marks are visible on the hill. Maybe it hit first at a location not shown and bounced off into the hill shown on the fotos, shedding its tail at the first strike which then travelled a bit further.
It would also be helpful to know the day-time these heli pictures where taken, because the shadows would give a clue to the impact track of the aircraft.
It would also be helpful to know the day-time these heli pictures where taken, because the shadows would give a clue to the impact track of the aircraft.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SUNTURK69:
I know that I´m lucky since I haven´t had to pay my rating ever...And if I would had to done that Turkey would be the last place on earth I would do it!
Who has said that this was done purpose by the cockpit crew? That is not what we are talking about here
Like you said, lot of BS, especially from you mate
I know that I´m lucky since I haven´t had to pay my rating ever...And if I would had to done that Turkey would be the last place on earth I would do it!
Who has said that this was done purpose by the cockpit crew? That is not what we are talking about here
Like you said, lot of BS, especially from you mate
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Confusio Helvetica
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PBL:
Well, there are now more photos available. Yes, you can see an area to the rear-right of the aircraft with knocked-down trees, debris, and the rest, but not enough to suggest the thing came sliding through.
But, since we have a little more information, here's what I see:
If that "impact mark" is indeed an impact mark, then it hit wings level, so that the "loss of control" would have to be a fairly straightforward stall. At that point, we would be arguing over the distance covered and the degree of damage sustained. The distance covered is considerable, most of the aircraft disintegrated, and the debris field is some distance from the "impact mark".
If you want some speculation, I'll throw this out:
the aircraft hit, and hit hard on a rising slope. It had enough forward momentum that it was likely flying and not stalled. I have not seen any photos of the engines, but there is no indication of double-engine failure at this time. The impact was severe enough that only the structurally hardest segments (tail and wing area) stayed intact for long. The wing section presumably went airborne, spraying debris, landed and slid a small distance. The "nose" -- actually more than half of the fuselage on an MD-80, and, given the number of souls on board, probably had the majority of passengers -- disintegrated from the force of the impact and the subsequent dynamics.
CFIT remains the most likely suspect. But who knows what the other factors will be?
Well, there are now more photos available. Yes, you can see an area to the rear-right of the aircraft with knocked-down trees, debris, and the rest, but not enough to suggest the thing came sliding through.
But, since we have a little more information, here's what I see:
If that "impact mark" is indeed an impact mark, then it hit wings level, so that the "loss of control" would have to be a fairly straightforward stall. At that point, we would be arguing over the distance covered and the degree of damage sustained. The distance covered is considerable, most of the aircraft disintegrated, and the debris field is some distance from the "impact mark".
If you want some speculation, I'll throw this out:
the aircraft hit, and hit hard on a rising slope. It had enough forward momentum that it was likely flying and not stalled. I have not seen any photos of the engines, but there is no indication of double-engine failure at this time. The impact was severe enough that only the structurally hardest segments (tail and wing area) stayed intact for long. The wing section presumably went airborne, spraying debris, landed and slid a small distance. The "nose" -- actually more than half of the fuselage on an MD-80, and, given the number of souls on board, probably had the majority of passengers -- disintegrated from the force of the impact and the subsequent dynamics.
CFIT remains the most likely suspect. But who knows what the other factors will be?
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DingerX: CFIT remains the most likely suspect. But who knows what the other factors will be?
The crew did not followed published procedures, either did not wanted to or did not know how to!
The crew did not followed published procedures, either did not wanted to or did not know how to!
Last edited by FINpilot; 5th Dec 2007 at 13:12.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engine and tail section?
in this cnn-turk video at 00:40 is something like a piece of tail, maybe an engine too? And at 04:40 you could see an engine. Sadly I don't understand turkish, maybe there is another cue.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucKa4O05YQQ
And the MD-80 video is here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3SVvtJcPJY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucKa4O05YQQ
And the MD-80 video is here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3SVvtJcPJY
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: LHR
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is reported that many passengers were found in their seats which had detached from the mountings. The seats attachments are stressed to a little beyond the crash G tolerance of the human body. Whilst portions of the fuselage appear intact the fractured seats bear witness to the forces involved. The crash was patently not survivable.
I am however intrigued by the resting place of the tail section. Harsh pilot handling has contributed to separation of the empennage in the past... perhaps here also ?
I am however intrigued by the resting place of the tail section. Harsh pilot handling has contributed to separation of the empennage in the past... perhaps here also ?
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: FL, USA
Posts: 357
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Magplug: no. At normal approach speeds (and I feel this 80 was in a slower flt regime at the time, due to the large amount of nose-up stab exhibited by the fin), there is simply not enough control authority or pitch-rate in the '80 to overstress it to failure. It has manual flt controls via tabs, and flies very sluggishly on approach compared to more modern PFCU-type aircraft. I don't believe this a/c broke up prior to ground impact. The aircraft would be more likely to depart if you pulled very hard at approach speed (thru' the pusher) than break up.
Clean min. manvr speed and above - different story.
Clean min. manvr speed and above - different story.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Trinidad and Tobago
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Turkish MD-83 crash
Regarding Turkish Aviation Culture....
First of all my deep sympathies for all concerned.
As long as we see ex military pilots who have problems in adapting to civil aviation combined with crooks running disorganized and unsafe airlines in this country, we will continue to experience such sad accidents.
The problem is not that these guys do not know how to fly, on the contrary. It is their mentality.Turkey boasts some of the worst safety records in the western world.
With the exception of the DC-10 crash in Paris (1970s) every tragedy has been the result of human error, or better said mentality error. Despite all that over the years Turkey has made considerable progress in civil aviation even becoming a JAA member state. However they still have some potential criminals in their airline industry which need to be cleaned out. It is high time the Turkish CAA and the JAA take strong action against these.
First of all my deep sympathies for all concerned.
As long as we see ex military pilots who have problems in adapting to civil aviation combined with crooks running disorganized and unsafe airlines in this country, we will continue to experience such sad accidents.
The problem is not that these guys do not know how to fly, on the contrary. It is their mentality.Turkey boasts some of the worst safety records in the western world.
With the exception of the DC-10 crash in Paris (1970s) every tragedy has been the result of human error, or better said mentality error. Despite all that over the years Turkey has made considerable progress in civil aviation even becoming a JAA member state. However they still have some potential criminals in their airline industry which need to be cleaned out. It is high time the Turkish CAA and the JAA take strong action against these.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Bielefeld, Germany
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Following my invitation, Dinger speculates:
OK, but where is that debris from the forward fuselage? I have been looking for it in the photos too and haven't seen it. Things don't shatter so much as to become invisible. There is a debris field somewhere that we have not seen yet. Either that, or I have become selectively blind.
PBL
Originally Posted by DingerX
the aircraft hit, and hit hard on a rising slope. ............ The impact was severe enough that only the structurally hardest segments (tail and wing area) stayed intact for long. The wing section presumably went airborne, spraying debris, landed and slid a small distance. The "nose" -- actually more than half of the fuselage on an MD-80, and, given the number of souls on board, probably had the majority of passengers -- disintegrated from the force of the impact and the subsequent dynamics.
PBL
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
looking at the pictures that I don't wanted to look before, I ellaborated my thoughts a litle:
As the plane touched the terrain it did it at a flat angle, the end of the middle section taking the most of the forces, making a lever system (a long but lighter section in the front, a heavy and short section at the rear) the wing box-middle section withstands the forces and at the point between the front section and the wing box , due to the distances, the force was not as much as at the rear (this would result in lesser damage to the front section). Like sitting in the front of a long bus, you will feel a irregularity of the road (as a vertical acceleration) as the front wheels impact this, but almost nothing as the rear wheels do.
Like the test MD-80 in video, were the force surely was not so big, the tail got detached (from the pictures it looks the same way). Due to the bigger forces and direct damage to the structure (no landing gear here), the engines and further tail section detached also.
The middle section was badly deformed (flattened and fractured). The plane continues gliding due to inertia and aerodynamics (thanks GearDown&Locked!). It goes nose down because of the missing heavy tail/engines, the front section beeing then fully destroyed in an almost explosive way as it touches the ground. This reduces the impact to the middle section. It looks like the bodies of the passangers lied in the area directly around the middle section and in the middle section(the rescue teams collected them to two sites ca. 15 m from the plane in the front and rear areas and there are blue seats in the area). If the front section was badly damaged at the first impact they would have beeing scattered in the path. It would be also improbable that the middle section ends pointing forward and right side up (due to aerodynamical instability). In pictures of the middle section taked direclty from the front it seems that the seats are pointing forwards (but the forces at the first impact would be almost vertical, otherwise the nose would have impacted the ground there), also the right side of the fuselage looks like bursted away (and is free of tree-debris or soil, not likely crushed directly with the surface). See pictures B205_108143_0007 and B205_108143_0004 at http://www.photoshot.com/imageset.js...501&gid=&cid=1
OK, but where is that debris from the forward fuselage? I have been looking for it in the photos too and haven't seen it. Things don't shatter so much as to become invisible. There is a debris field somewhere that we have not seen yet. Either that, or I have become selectively blind.
PBL
Hmmm, if the plane touched ground at say 45 degrees, could the floor of the front section have beeing ripped off and laid under the middle section? and the debris that we see are only the walls/ceiling of it?
#######added######
Looking at the pictures, there could be a debris field at the rear of the middle section ( at 5 o'clock), it is not easy to tell if this is snow or white plane fuselage portions.
As the plane touched the terrain it did it at a flat angle, the end of the middle section taking the most of the forces, making a lever system (a long but lighter section in the front, a heavy and short section at the rear) the wing box-middle section withstands the forces and at the point between the front section and the wing box , due to the distances, the force was not as much as at the rear (this would result in lesser damage to the front section). Like sitting in the front of a long bus, you will feel a irregularity of the road (as a vertical acceleration) as the front wheels impact this, but almost nothing as the rear wheels do.
Like the test MD-80 in video, were the force surely was not so big, the tail got detached (from the pictures it looks the same way). Due to the bigger forces and direct damage to the structure (no landing gear here), the engines and further tail section detached also.
The middle section was badly deformed (flattened and fractured). The plane continues gliding due to inertia and aerodynamics (thanks GearDown&Locked!). It goes nose down because of the missing heavy tail/engines, the front section beeing then fully destroyed in an almost explosive way as it touches the ground. This reduces the impact to the middle section. It looks like the bodies of the passangers lied in the area directly around the middle section and in the middle section(the rescue teams collected them to two sites ca. 15 m from the plane in the front and rear areas and there are blue seats in the area). If the front section was badly damaged at the first impact they would have beeing scattered in the path. It would be also improbable that the middle section ends pointing forward and right side up (due to aerodynamical instability). In pictures of the middle section taked direclty from the front it seems that the seats are pointing forwards (but the forces at the first impact would be almost vertical, otherwise the nose would have impacted the ground there), also the right side of the fuselage looks like bursted away (and is free of tree-debris or soil, not likely crushed directly with the surface). See pictures B205_108143_0007 and B205_108143_0004 at http://www.photoshot.com/imageset.js...501&gid=&cid=1
OK, but where is that debris from the forward fuselage? I have been looking for it in the photos too and haven't seen it. Things don't shatter so much as to become invisible. There is a debris field somewhere that we have not seen yet. Either that, or I have become selectively blind.
PBL
Hmmm, if the plane touched ground at say 45 degrees, could the floor of the front section have beeing ripped off and laid under the middle section? and the debris that we see are only the walls/ceiling of it?
#######added######
Looking at the pictures, there could be a debris field at the rear of the middle section ( at 5 o'clock), it is not easy to tell if this is snow or white plane fuselage portions.
Last edited by Mauersegler; 5th Dec 2007 at 07:14.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Vancouver,Canada
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just some clarification here;
BoeingMEL;It seems you are the "know all" guy here, I was questioning the possible causes, and not determining any conclusions.
1. An engine flame out or engine stall is more likely to happen to a rear engined a/c's, It is the fact and If you are a pilot you should know that!
2. The normal speed on approach is about 1.3 of your stall speed, so one can say that you don't have much margin for error.
3. About impossibility of stalling where your MOCA is 2000 feet above mountains, gives you a very limited time to recover. Some crew even had problem to recover it from more than 30000 feet high (check out the West Carribean MD-82 flight 708 crash in Venezuela)
4. Looks also like CFIT etc, but let's not bragg about everyone's comments and assumptions at the pickpoint.
So, let's be observant and not nasty shall we???
BoeingMEL;It seems you are the "know all" guy here, I was questioning the possible causes, and not determining any conclusions.
1. An engine flame out or engine stall is more likely to happen to a rear engined a/c's, It is the fact and If you are a pilot you should know that!
2. The normal speed on approach is about 1.3 of your stall speed, so one can say that you don't have much margin for error.
3. About impossibility of stalling where your MOCA is 2000 feet above mountains, gives you a very limited time to recover. Some crew even had problem to recover it from more than 30000 feet high (check out the West Carribean MD-82 flight 708 crash in Venezuela)
4. Looks also like CFIT etc, but let's not bragg about everyone's comments and assumptions at the pickpoint.
So, let's be observant and not nasty shall we???
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: LHR
Age: 75
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe I've missed it amongst all the posts etc but can any one tell me the the basic information about the crash :-
*What is the elevation of the initial impact point
*What are the coordinates of the impact point
*What heading does the acft appear to have been on at impact
*What part of the approach was it on at impact - was it still arriving inbound to the IPT VOR or was it, as reported in some sources, flying the final part of a VOR/DME app to rwy 05.
I can't see how there can be so many posts speculating on what may have happened without even this basic factual information, which should certainly have been established by now.
*What is the elevation of the initial impact point
*What are the coordinates of the impact point
*What heading does the acft appear to have been on at impact
*What part of the approach was it on at impact - was it still arriving inbound to the IPT VOR or was it, as reported in some sources, flying the final part of a VOR/DME app to rwy 05.
I can't see how there can be so many posts speculating on what may have happened without even this basic factual information, which should certainly have been established by now.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
skydrol leak...
you mention that rear engine planes are more likely to have engine stalls
I'd like to remind you that a certain near CFIT disaster near Hartford (with an MD80) Connecticut. The rear mounted engines probably kept the plane flying, as below the wing engines would likely have sucked in enough trees to make them stop working.
you mention that rear engine planes are more likely to have engine stalls
I'd like to remind you that a certain near CFIT disaster near Hartford (with an MD80) Connecticut. The rear mounted engines probably kept the plane flying, as below the wing engines would likely have sucked in enough trees to make them stop working.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Bielefeld, Germany
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by MrNosy2
I can't see how there can be so many posts speculating on what may have happened without even this basic factual information, which should certainly have been established by now.
The airport is at 2827 ft, the MDA at 3750, the procedure turn to final at DME 12 at 7000 ft, and the step down to DME 5 at 4,500 ft. The 4,000 ft contour WSW of the airport at DME 5 is some 3.5 nm NW from the final approach track, as is the 4000 ft contour on the other side. However, the terrain rises steeply NW of DME 5 on the final approach path from 4000 ft to a peak at 6073 ft in 2.5 nm.
If you have trouble understanding the discussion, observe that the physics and phenomenology of impact is invariant with respect to geographical location and altitude, although obviously not invariant with respect to the immediately surrounding terrain.
P.S. to others: we are still missing the front fuselage. I can't see that it wouldn't be visible in the photos, and it is certainly not under the other wreckage that we can see!
PBL
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Germany's BFU expected to analyse crashed MD-83 recorders
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...recorders.html
PBL, I don't see anything more in those pictures, are other places we don't have seen then?
Sadly the resolution of the area in google earth is very coarse, but maybe we could localize the place there, I will try later.
PBL, I don't see anything more in those pictures, are other places we don't have seen then?
Sadly the resolution of the area in google earth is very coarse, but maybe we could localize the place there, I will try later.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: EFHK (Finland)
Age: 62
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
*What is the elevation of the initial impact point
*What are the coordinates of the impact point
*What heading does the acft appear to have been on at impact
*What part of the approach was it on at impact - was it still arriving inbound to the IPT VOR or was it, as reported in some sources, flying the final part of a VOR/DME app to rwy 05.
*What are the coordinates of the impact point
*What heading does the acft appear to have been on at impact
*What part of the approach was it on at impact - was it still arriving inbound to the IPT VOR or was it, as reported in some sources, flying the final part of a VOR/DME app to rwy 05.
http://www.md80.net/yabbse/index.php?topic=4007.0
Turkish pilot sources, as well as Turkish press, say that the Atlas (or actually World Focus) crew reported "overhead IPT VOR" 18 mins before last transmission, even though they were not nearly at the VOR entering their racetrack. By doing so they allegedly bought themselves space to move around in the sector west of the airport on an improvised visual shortcut to final 05 via left base. This would be supported by the fact that the aircraft crashed in landing configuration.
The other possibility is that the racetrack was flown, but for some reason it went wrong, bringing the aircraft far left of extended rwy centerline 05.
If people familiar with ops into Isparta could enlighten if a SE heading DCT IPT VOR is likely as depicted in post #99 it would be helpful.