Turkish airliner crashes at Schiphol
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: 'An Airfield Somewhere in England'
Posts: 1,094
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
catplaystation - totally agree. It is clearly ludicrous to listen to the hideous lawyers charming the birds out the trees with 'proof' that night is day and black is white. Clearly, the performance of the pilots was the single biggest factor in this terrible accident. Nonetheless, given their dismal performance it would have been great to avoid a stall if technicaly possible!
EMIT - I do, of course, agree with you that the pilots are absolutely critical to a successful outcome. As you rightly pointed out through the A320 accident in Bangalore, if you have complete buffoons in the flight deck who choose to fly a totally serviceable aircraft into the ground there is only so much you can do to stop them! Nonetheless,a 'triangle of protection' can be identified - pilot performance (through screening at selection, knowledge, training, experience etc), company culture and aircraft capability. If all three are attacked then there is a way out of these types of accidents. I do accept that the A320 series is not perfect, but it is nonetheless a genuinely 'smart' machine which provides significant, but not foolproof, protections against pilot mishandling.
EMIT - I do, of course, agree with you that the pilots are absolutely critical to a successful outcome. As you rightly pointed out through the A320 accident in Bangalore, if you have complete buffoons in the flight deck who choose to fly a totally serviceable aircraft into the ground there is only so much you can do to stop them! Nonetheless,a 'triangle of protection' can be identified - pilot performance (through screening at selection, knowledge, training, experience etc), company culture and aircraft capability. If all three are attacked then there is a way out of these types of accidents. I do accept that the A320 series is not perfect, but it is nonetheless a genuinely 'smart' machine which provides significant, but not foolproof, protections against pilot mishandling.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Norm, in defense of Boeing, reference, an A320 wouldn't have allowed this accident to happen, The A320 that crashed a year ago at Sao Paulo wouldn't have happened if it was the B737 with manual speed brakes and less automation. Their safety records are about the same but the crew flying has to fly the aircraft properly.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bubbers,
I agree entirely about the crew having to fly the aircraft.
And I'm not even so certain about an A320 in this case. Alpha-Floor protection is inhibited below 100ft RA. Which radio altimeter feeds it? What does it do when it gets "eight feet under"?
If automatic TOGA thrust were inhibited, it would still develop a high sinkrate at very high angle of attack. It may have hit the ground, tail first, just as badly, even if not technically "stalled". As Feynman said, "You can't fool nature", and the low-energy state of the aircraft will remain thoroughly unimpressed by computers.
The only thing that will impress it is to convert some chemical energy (fuel) into kinetic energy (speed).
Here as at Habsheim, that happened too late and/or too little.
On the other hand, B737s also had runway overruns at Sao Paulo, just not as catastrophic.
It is dangerous and complacent to say "This accident couldn't have happened in Aircraft type X".
Bernd
I agree entirely about the crew having to fly the aircraft.
And I'm not even so certain about an A320 in this case. Alpha-Floor protection is inhibited below 100ft RA. Which radio altimeter feeds it? What does it do when it gets "eight feet under"?
If automatic TOGA thrust were inhibited, it would still develop a high sinkrate at very high angle of attack. It may have hit the ground, tail first, just as badly, even if not technically "stalled". As Feynman said, "You can't fool nature", and the low-energy state of the aircraft will remain thoroughly unimpressed by computers.
The only thing that will impress it is to convert some chemical energy (fuel) into kinetic energy (speed).
Here as at Habsheim, that happened too late and/or too little.
On the other hand, B737s also had runway overruns at Sao Paulo, just not as catastrophic.
It is dangerous and complacent to say "This accident couldn't have happened in Aircraft type X".
Bernd
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fireflybob made some cogent remarks in post #1871 re situational awareness. There are those seemingly trying to discredit the NASA study, but it still holds water.
Last edited by barit1; 22nd Mar 2009 at 15:26.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: S23W046
Age: 73
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New Definition of Pilots error
"Sterns said the Turkish pilots had no fault in the accident, as evidenced by the nonexistence of any fire or explosion."
So this is the new definition for pilot's error?
Regarding SOP for Stall Recovery my AOM indicated as first actions:
- ck A/P & A/T off
- ck G/A power established
- ck Spoiler retracted
All of this to be monitored by PNF
If you'd hit a wall with your car, can you blame the car producer for not writing "You must apply brakes in order to not hit an obstacle." into the cars manual?
So this is the new definition for pilot's error?
Regarding SOP for Stall Recovery my AOM indicated as first actions:
- ck A/P & A/T off
- ck G/A power established
- ck Spoiler retracted
All of this to be monitored by PNF
If you'd hit a wall with your car, can you blame the car producer for not writing "You must apply brakes in order to not hit an obstacle." into the cars manual?
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: London
Age: 54
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite, as mentioned.
Full power. Selected via G/A and or manual. Always confirmed via manual backup.
Airbrakes. Closed.
Decend / Level flight.
Increase speed, stall recovered. Climb. Climb. Climb.
Problem was, this happend at such low alt. Was there enough time for any of this to happen.
They got full power, they didn't have level flight.
The problem was noticed at a very late time, a time which was clearly too late to recover.
Big shame.
Full power. Selected via G/A and or manual. Always confirmed via manual backup.
Airbrakes. Closed.
Decend / Level flight.
Increase speed, stall recovered. Climb. Climb. Climb.
Problem was, this happend at such low alt. Was there enough time for any of this to happen.
They got full power, they didn't have level flight.
The problem was noticed at a very late time, a time which was clearly too late to recover.
Big shame.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Herts, UK
Posts: 748
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They got full power, they didn't have level flight.
The problem was noticed at a very late time, a time which was clearly too late to recover.
The problem was noticed at a very late time, a time which was clearly too late to recover.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some comments to the last few posts,
@ Towerdog, the high stress environment I was refering to was not the approach in good weather, but the stickshaker going off (completely unexpected) at low alt combined with several warnings (AP disconnect, GPWS etc). We can discuss that in all length, but to me that would be high stress.
@ BOAC, You are right, you're recovery procedure is the same as in my FCOM, Setting full power by the PF, to be monitored by the PM. If the AT subsequently pulls the PL's back to idle, you obviously haven't set full power. I agree with that!!
However, I can imagine that the lawyers will have a field day with it . PM me if you want, I'm willing to wage a small bet that once the dust has settled and law suits have been completed that boeing will quietly come out with a small amendment to the stall recovery procedure in the FCOM.
@ Flying heavy, Strangely enough there seems to be some differences in FCOM's. Mine doesn't say in the stall recovery to disconnect the AP, AT. Just to apply full thrust. It even has a note stating that if the AP is on to leave it on and allow the airplane to return to normal speed, followed by a second note that if AP response is unacceptable to disconnect the AP.
Just to be sure, I don't fly a A/C with the book in my lap, common sense is implied, just pointing out what the book says, because that's what the lawyers will do.
In my account of what happened I made a small mistake, I said the A/C intercepted the gs, the gear was lowered and flaps lowered, then the RA fault. This was wrong, the gs was intercepted and then the fault occured or the gear warning wouldn't have happened, my mistake.
I still think a stall warning at low alt is very stressfull, almost all emergencies, faults etc can be programmed. An unexpected stall cannot ( at least I think it cannot, I can be corrected though) Windshear at low alt, engine failures, RA's even unusual attitudes (had a scenario in the sim were we encountered wake turbulence wich threw the ac nearly inverted). Stall cannot be programmed though. I can still see how the FO pushed the PL full forward (with the NG that's all it takes) and pushed the yoke forward, the captain taking over at that moment (can't fault him for that, I think every captain would take over), him fighting the yoke monitoring the attitude display with all the bells and whistles going off in the background and the AT pulling the pl's back again.
Once again, I think there's nothing wrong with the automatics design, I don't think it was a high workload/stress situation. However the crew allowed it to became a high stress situation. Most pilots would have never allowed to get that far, but I wonder how many guys, once they got to the unexpected stall at low altitude would have made the same mistake. It's not a subtle hint that most guys would have made the same mistake, I only wonder how many guys would have.
@ Towerdog, the high stress environment I was refering to was not the approach in good weather, but the stickshaker going off (completely unexpected) at low alt combined with several warnings (AP disconnect, GPWS etc). We can discuss that in all length, but to me that would be high stress.
@ BOAC, You are right, you're recovery procedure is the same as in my FCOM, Setting full power by the PF, to be monitored by the PM. If the AT subsequently pulls the PL's back to idle, you obviously haven't set full power. I agree with that!!
However, I can imagine that the lawyers will have a field day with it . PM me if you want, I'm willing to wage a small bet that once the dust has settled and law suits have been completed that boeing will quietly come out with a small amendment to the stall recovery procedure in the FCOM.
@ Flying heavy, Strangely enough there seems to be some differences in FCOM's. Mine doesn't say in the stall recovery to disconnect the AP, AT. Just to apply full thrust. It even has a note stating that if the AP is on to leave it on and allow the airplane to return to normal speed, followed by a second note that if AP response is unacceptable to disconnect the AP.
Just to be sure, I don't fly a A/C with the book in my lap, common sense is implied, just pointing out what the book says, because that's what the lawyers will do.
In my account of what happened I made a small mistake, I said the A/C intercepted the gs, the gear was lowered and flaps lowered, then the RA fault. This was wrong, the gs was intercepted and then the fault occured or the gear warning wouldn't have happened, my mistake.
I still think a stall warning at low alt is very stressfull, almost all emergencies, faults etc can be programmed. An unexpected stall cannot ( at least I think it cannot, I can be corrected though) Windshear at low alt, engine failures, RA's even unusual attitudes (had a scenario in the sim were we encountered wake turbulence wich threw the ac nearly inverted). Stall cannot be programmed though. I can still see how the FO pushed the PL full forward (with the NG that's all it takes) and pushed the yoke forward, the captain taking over at that moment (can't fault him for that, I think every captain would take over), him fighting the yoke monitoring the attitude display with all the bells and whistles going off in the background and the AT pulling the pl's back again.
Once again, I think there's nothing wrong with the automatics design, I don't think it was a high workload/stress situation. However the crew allowed it to became a high stress situation. Most pilots would have never allowed to get that far, but I wonder how many guys, once they got to the unexpected stall at low altitude would have made the same mistake. It's not a subtle hint that most guys would have made the same mistake, I only wonder how many guys would have.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 76
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
German AOL...
AOL puts up little snippets of news on the home page (I think it is called) you get when you log on to select e-mail.
There is an article running now about this crash, really addressing the very different ways it is being viewed back in Turkey and around the world. They don't mention PPRuNe by name but I wouldn't be surprised if they are watching which way the comments run.
They even brought up the way Turkish comments have dragged Islam into it by mentioning the way an animal was sacrificed on an airport ramp back in the home country, as if to say that the ground engineers were all bumpkins. Turns out that wasn't Turkish Airlines at all but never mind that now...
I really, really think that it is a good idea to skip this morbid guessing game every time there is a high-profile crash.
Once the cause is known, by all means publicise that so that we can all profit by learning from the mistakes of others but this jumping in with wild guesses about everything from fuel exhaustion to wake turbulence to pilot error; what good does that do? In fact, I think it really damages the image of the profession to show some of us putting the boot in before the facts are known.
There is an article running now about this crash, really addressing the very different ways it is being viewed back in Turkey and around the world. They don't mention PPRuNe by name but I wouldn't be surprised if they are watching which way the comments run.
They even brought up the way Turkish comments have dragged Islam into it by mentioning the way an animal was sacrificed on an airport ramp back in the home country, as if to say that the ground engineers were all bumpkins. Turns out that wasn't Turkish Airlines at all but never mind that now...
I really, really think that it is a good idea to skip this morbid guessing game every time there is a high-profile crash.
Once the cause is known, by all means publicise that so that we can all profit by learning from the mistakes of others but this jumping in with wild guesses about everything from fuel exhaustion to wake turbulence to pilot error; what good does that do? In fact, I think it really damages the image of the profession to show some of us putting the boot in before the facts are known.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by fb
I'm willing to wage a small bet that once the dust has settled
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SoCalif
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think speculation about the causes and circumstances of accidents are good. They inspire one to think about all the possibilities, tricks and traps.
One person cannot know as much as everyone put together.
GB
One person cannot know as much as everyone put together.
GB
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 76
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't agree...
Whenever I look at these threads it always reminds me of that stupid, funny Hollywood movie about the police, "Police Story," I think the title is, the one with Leslie Nielsen and O.J. Simpson when he was still taken to be a nice guy.
There is a scene in the movie where Nordberg has been shot and Lt. Drebbin is speculating about the possible motive for his shooting in earshot of his wife. We are watching her reactions to his "thinking out loud" as he says something like, "perhaps it was a jealous boyfriend..." Funny in a funny movie, seeing someone play an insensitive total clot, perhaps not so funny in real life, especially for the survivors of an accident.
Here you often get people making total fools of themselves by showing that their expertise stems from Microsoft Flight Simulator or else just taking some W.A.G. and running it into the ground without any relevant facts to go on except that, yes, an aircraft has crashed in somewhat unknown circumstances.
There's always a lag between the event and the report, about a year to a year and-a-half, the time it takes for the event to be researched, the results analysed, the report to be written, reviewed, approved and published. This final report is what we really need to pay attention to, though, not the scuttlebutt we hear or generate around the coffee machine!
I remember very well one high-profile crash when I had inside information about what had happened, that they lost their hydraulics and went in out of control. My informant knew the guy who had snagged the aircraft, the crew who had refused to fly it and the guy who then took it on its fatal flight. All very, very interesting and totally wrong! The airplane went in having been mishandled, with nothing technically wrong that would contribute to the crash. All that rumour-mongering was just us chasing a red herring!
This stuff, to me, is very like the "rubber-neckers" who drive past a nasty crash gawking at the wreckage, indulging some morbid urge. There's almost nothing of value in it if you think, as I do, that the final report is the only thing that really matters to most of us.
Just think about all the people who, to this day, pontificate about that Swissair crew and their adherence to a checklist when they should have... blah, blah, blah. Read the report to see that they were basically doomed for technical reasons, that their actions did not cause the accident. There you have people just unthinkingly condemning a crew when they really do not know what they are talking about and cannot be bothered to learn the rather boring facts.
This one at Schiphol, how many people had already nailed their colours to the mast by telling us the cause of the accident when almost nothing was known. Turks are lousy pilots! No, they ran out of fuel! No, it was wake turbulence! Poor maintenance. Politics. Religion, even... You really think this is useful? I don't.
Don't let me stop you in this playing "Crash Investigator," of course. What do I know, really? I have got to that unhappy state of "the more I learn, the less I know!"
There is a scene in the movie where Nordberg has been shot and Lt. Drebbin is speculating about the possible motive for his shooting in earshot of his wife. We are watching her reactions to his "thinking out loud" as he says something like, "perhaps it was a jealous boyfriend..." Funny in a funny movie, seeing someone play an insensitive total clot, perhaps not so funny in real life, especially for the survivors of an accident.
Here you often get people making total fools of themselves by showing that their expertise stems from Microsoft Flight Simulator or else just taking some W.A.G. and running it into the ground without any relevant facts to go on except that, yes, an aircraft has crashed in somewhat unknown circumstances.
There's always a lag between the event and the report, about a year to a year and-a-half, the time it takes for the event to be researched, the results analysed, the report to be written, reviewed, approved and published. This final report is what we really need to pay attention to, though, not the scuttlebutt we hear or generate around the coffee machine!
I remember very well one high-profile crash when I had inside information about what had happened, that they lost their hydraulics and went in out of control. My informant knew the guy who had snagged the aircraft, the crew who had refused to fly it and the guy who then took it on its fatal flight. All very, very interesting and totally wrong! The airplane went in having been mishandled, with nothing technically wrong that would contribute to the crash. All that rumour-mongering was just us chasing a red herring!
This stuff, to me, is very like the "rubber-neckers" who drive past a nasty crash gawking at the wreckage, indulging some morbid urge. There's almost nothing of value in it if you think, as I do, that the final report is the only thing that really matters to most of us.
Just think about all the people who, to this day, pontificate about that Swissair crew and their adherence to a checklist when they should have... blah, blah, blah. Read the report to see that they were basically doomed for technical reasons, that their actions did not cause the accident. There you have people just unthinkingly condemning a crew when they really do not know what they are talking about and cannot be bothered to learn the rather boring facts.
This one at Schiphol, how many people had already nailed their colours to the mast by telling us the cause of the accident when almost nothing was known. Turks are lousy pilots! No, they ran out of fuel! No, it was wake turbulence! Poor maintenance. Politics. Religion, even... You really think this is useful? I don't.
Don't let me stop you in this playing "Crash Investigator," of course. What do I know, really? I have got to that unhappy state of "the more I learn, the less I know!"
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: LPPT
Age: 58
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, allow me some surfing on the off-thread wave for a little while.
I just can't understand some people here…
Just as long as your reading abilities aren’t impaired by any circumstance and your brain is still able to filter the information that suits your curiosity from the background noise, and if it’s not too difficult to read all the posts in the thread, what is really the problem?
I can dispense some reading techniques for those who have trouble in finding the right answers to their questions, but basically it all comes down to find that half-a-dozen long time ppruners with excellent credibility (proven along their pprune existence over the years) in between the surrounding clutter, but allowing the eye to drift for those posts belonging to unknown users, or those whose participation is scarce, because sometimes there is good and sensible information there. Others are just silly and make you laugh. All the rest is bypassed or ignored.
All in all it takes minimal effort to do this type of positive filtering, with the bonus hard work of the mods, cleaning after a lot of poo-poo posts. So what’s the big deal!
These people could criticize Leo Tolstoy about the length of War & Peace. Ah bless ‘em.
GD&L
I just can't understand some people here…
Just as long as your reading abilities aren’t impaired by any circumstance and your brain is still able to filter the information that suits your curiosity from the background noise, and if it’s not too difficult to read all the posts in the thread, what is really the problem?
I can dispense some reading techniques for those who have trouble in finding the right answers to their questions, but basically it all comes down to find that half-a-dozen long time ppruners with excellent credibility (proven along their pprune existence over the years) in between the surrounding clutter, but allowing the eye to drift for those posts belonging to unknown users, or those whose participation is scarce, because sometimes there is good and sensible information there. Others are just silly and make you laugh. All the rest is bypassed or ignored.
All in all it takes minimal effort to do this type of positive filtering, with the bonus hard work of the mods, cleaning after a lot of poo-poo posts. So what’s the big deal!
These people could criticize Leo Tolstoy about the length of War & Peace. Ah bless ‘em.
GD&L
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 76
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is Chuks, actually...
Only one "c" because it is short for something African and much longer. Never mind that now, though!
An alert reader asks "Why am I here?" Good question, well put. Check back just a few posts and you will see that I passed along the reaction to this sort of thing, all this speculation and mud-flinging, even, on AOL Deutschland. That is about it, really.
I am an avid reader of accident reports, often getting something from them that I can use, going by that maxim that we should learn from the mistakes of others because we will never have the chance to make them all ourselves. Well, that or it might be that many mistakes are deadly, with the mistake-maker ending up dying as a consequence!
I enjoy a bit of dialogue, discussion, whatever but this post-accident stuff often starts as rumour-mongering and narrow-minded argument from preconceptions and then somehow manages to go downhill from there!
This is "thread drift" so that I shall now gather up my petticoats and disappear before I get chucked out, leaving you all to the dissection of this accident. Perhaps we should get together sometime in 2010 to see what the official report says.
An alert reader asks "Why am I here?" Good question, well put. Check back just a few posts and you will see that I passed along the reaction to this sort of thing, all this speculation and mud-flinging, even, on AOL Deutschland. That is about it, really.
I am an avid reader of accident reports, often getting something from them that I can use, going by that maxim that we should learn from the mistakes of others because we will never have the chance to make them all ourselves. Well, that or it might be that many mistakes are deadly, with the mistake-maker ending up dying as a consequence!
I enjoy a bit of dialogue, discussion, whatever but this post-accident stuff often starts as rumour-mongering and narrow-minded argument from preconceptions and then somehow manages to go downhill from there!
This is "thread drift" so that I shall now gather up my petticoats and disappear before I get chucked out, leaving you all to the dissection of this accident. Perhaps we should get together sometime in 2010 to see what the official report says.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Turkey
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Something to read
Just something to read:
Aircraft Emergency Management During Approach
This is from Airbus, but still gives some ideas.
Aircraft Emergency Management During Approach
This is from Airbus, but still gives some ideas.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That was my thought early on, but what little hard evidence we have so far seems to say T/L's were at idle, and engines running (stabilized?) at idle, for 100 sec. before recovery was attempted. Isn't that inconsistent w/ fuel starvation?