Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Turkish airliner crashes at Schiphol

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Turkish airliner crashes at Schiphol

Old 21st Aug 2009, 02:10
  #2381 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Here, there, and everywhere
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes on 5 Posts
Here is how it is supposed to be done.

"A09W0160: The WestJet Boeing 737-700, registration C-FWAQ, operating as flight 229, was on the approach to runway 16 at Calgary in VMC conditions. The first officer was the pilot flying (PF) and through 1000 feet he disengaged the autopilot to hand fly the approach. His left hand was on the thrust levers as required by WestJet SOPs and at approximately 150 feet above ground he felt the thrust levers retarding to the idle position. The airspeed was observed to be slightly below the target airspeed of 133 knots and the Flight Mode Annunciator (FMA) was commanding RETARD on the N1 display. The PF disengaged the autothrottle and applied additional thrust to correct the low energy state, and the aircrft landed without further incident. Flight data was downloaded from the aircraft by the operator and Boeing was asked to provide assistance in reviewing the data. The operator provided the following information to the TSB after the data review: 1. The #1 RAD ALT indicated -6 feet at approximately 147feet AGL. The #2 RAD ALT indicated between 88feet-136feet at this time. 2. The autothrottle commanded RETARD as displayed on the FMC at approximately 94feet AGL. A reduction in Thrust Lever Angle is noted at approximately 77feet AGL. For approaches flown in VNAV or V/S, the A/T will retard the throttles at 27 feet RA. On all 737s, the autothrottle logic uses left radio altimeter data if left radio altitude is being displayed, regardless of the autopilot selected. On the 737NG, if the left RA failure flag is displayed, the autothrottle will use the right RA data. No failures of the RAD ALT system were recorded in the FDR data. It appears that the #1 RAD ALT displayed erroneous indications which was not recognized as a system failure. The RA failure flag did not display which would have enabled the autothrottle system to default to RAD ALT #2. The autothrottle continued to respond to the incorrect data provided from RAD ALT #1 and initiated a thrust RETARD command. The #1 RAD ALT was removed from the aircraft and sent to the vendor for teardown and investigation."
punkalouver is offline  
Old 21st Aug 2009, 02:25
  #2382 (permalink)  
PJ2
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: BC
Age: 76
Posts: 2,482
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
punkalouver;

Thanks. Essentially a non-event, just like many here said it should be. Fly the aircraft.

So what happened at AMS and why?
PJ2 is offline  
Old 2nd Sep 2009, 12:52
  #2383 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Bonair
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hey guys, I'm sorry but I didn't read all the posts but I would like to share something with you about this accident that changed my mind. One more experience for the record.
I was flying my A320 inbound AMS just arriving to the TOD when I was informed by maas ctrl that AMS apt was closed for 2 hours and asked me for intentions... I was one of the many who diverted to BRU.
Now, I don't know what you guys think about it but for me going to an apt with so many rwys like ams used to be confortable. Now I see that it's the same thing as having just one.
In my company we used to say... it's ok, if one rwys is blocked whe have the other 6. It's not really like that is it?

Regards

Overheat..
Overheat is offline  
Old 2nd Sep 2009, 12:57
  #2384 (permalink)  
Pegase Driver
 
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 73
Posts: 3,645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I am not an AMS nor a 7 runways expert , but could it be that all the Fire & rescue services were avail in one place for that period ?
That would make sense to me .
ATC Watcher is offline  
Old 2nd Sep 2009, 13:03
  #2385 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
when I was informed by maas ctrl that AMS apt was closed for 2 hours and asked me for intentions...
As you say, you still have 5 other RWs at AMS to land on. If you have the fuel - divert. If you don't, Mayday and land at AMS - with or without their consent

NoD
NigelOnDraft is offline  
Old 2nd Sep 2009, 13:26
  #2386 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Netherlands
Age: 42
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I've seen a firesquad on standby close to the threshold rwy 24 during the accident. I was later told this was to satisfy response requirements for other landing aircrafts. There was atleast one more aircraft inbound with a 'vos' situation after the turkish airliner came down.
djanello is offline  
Old 2nd Sep 2009, 13:47
  #2387 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: _
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
What is a "VOS situation" ??? I regularly operate in and out of AMS and don't know what you're talking about...
dontdoit is offline  
Old 2nd Sep 2009, 22:44
  #2388 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Overtheristan
Age: 54
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
VOS at Schiphol

If the crew of an aircraft indicate that there is a problem, the Airside Operations Manager can issue a VOS alarm (VOS referring to an Aircraft Accident at Schiphol). VOS 1 is the lowest alarm status and VOS 7 is the highest.


VOS overview The following table provides an overview of the types of alarm used at A.A.S.:

Alarm type When
VOS 1 A pan-pan call issued by an airborne aircraft;
A small incident involving an aircraft going to or from a (ground)
handling position;
A small incident with an aircraft in a handling position.

VOS 2 A mayday call issued by an aircraft with 1 - 50 passengers plus
crew on board;
An accident involving an aircraft with 1 - 50 passengers plus crew
on board in a handling position;
A mayday call issued by a cargo aircraft.

VOS 3 A mayday call issued by an aircraft with 50 - 250 passengers plus
crew on board;
An accident involving an aircraft with 50 250 passengers plus
crew on board in a handling position.

VOS 4 A mayday call issued by an aircraft with more than 250 passengers
plus crew on board;
An accident involving an aircraft with more than 250 passengers
plus crew on board in a handling area.

VOS 5 A crash involving an aircraft with 1- 50 passengers plus crew on
board;
An accident involving an aircraft with 1- 50 passengers plus crew
on board on its way to or from a handling area;
A crash involving a cargo aircraft.

VOS 6 A crash involving an aircraft with 50 - 250 passengers plus crew on
board;
An accident involving an aircraft with 50 - 250 passengers plus
crew on board on its way to or from a handling area.

VOS 7 A crash involving an aircraft with more than 250 passengers plus
crew on board;
An accident involving an aircraft with more than 250 passengers
plus crew on board on its way to or from a handling area.


Rgds
emjanssen
emjanssen is offline  
Old 10th Sep 2009, 01:14
  #2389 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Seattle
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
$20,000,000 Per PAX?

Dutch lawyers have big eyes on Boeing's pocket book. I wonder if they know that Boeing didn't build the LRRA.
Here's the the scoop: Crash survivors reportedly plan to sue Boeing
repariit is offline  
Old 10th Sep 2009, 06:44
  #2390 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: netherlands
Posts: 299
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I think you will find that they are not dutch lawyers but american ones. They descended like vultures upon holland after the crash. Crash victims were advised not to flock to them. Obviously a lot of them did.
sleeper is offline  
Old 10th Sep 2009, 15:19
  #2391 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Seattle
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
sleeper,

The report names a Dutch law firm, AKD Prinsen Van Wijmen (AKD) as initiating the action. Clearly if the claim is filed in the USA, US attorneys will be involved to satisfy the court rules.
repariit is offline  
Old 10th Sep 2009, 23:21
  #2392 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: EU
Posts: 641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Repariit,

I clearly remember that the day after the incident (!) American lawyers had already flown in trying to get in contact with survivors.
Thius is what I posted in post 489:
Another thing today mentioned on interviews with survivors on dutch TV: they are already contacted by American (sic!) lawyers to be "represented".
Sueing is not so common here.
golfyankeesierra is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2009, 19:26
  #2393 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: EHAA
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I was flying my A320 inbound AMS just arriving to the TOD when I was informed by maas ctrl that AMS apt was closed for 2 hours and asked me for intentions... I was one of the many who diverted to BRU.
Now, I don't know what you guys think about it but for me going to an apt with so many rwys like ams used to be confortable. Now I see that it's the same thing as having just one.
In my company we used to say... it's ok, if one rwys is blocked whe have the other 6. It's not really like that is it?
At that time not enough Emergency-vehicles on the field to respond to another possible Mayday or Pan-call (Due to the scale of the emergency (VOS-state)). After 2 hours the field opened again, just in time to have it's second emergency that day.
Surferboy is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2009, 14:58
  #2394 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SoCalif
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Dutch lawyers have big eyes on Boeing's pocket book. I wonder if they know that Boeing didn't build the LRRA.
The LRRA mfr bears responsibility for false altitude with no warning flag. However, the likelihood of a defect in the installation or maintenance shifts at least some of that responsibility to Boeing and/or Turkish.

Boeing is also solely responsible for how the output of the LRRA is used; in this case, depending on a single signal to trip the Retard.

GB
Graybeard is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2009, 18:19
  #2395 (permalink)  
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Maximum pressure will be on to prove Boeing produced 'a defective aircraft'. It did nothing of the sort. The system worked as it was designed to work. There was a fault in the system. It is beyond human capability to produce a 100% reliable system. You put humans there whose function is to fly the aeroplane AND to take over when the system goes wrong. When the system goes wrong, you simply have an aeroplane with idle power. That your trained humans cannot take over an aeroplane in this state is beyond comprehension. The deepest pockets are the makers, the negligence is on the human airline side. Such faults and events happen every day- power being unpredictably reduced. At the time of design, it was the best that could be produced. I see no failure on Boeing's part. If 3 pilots cannot prevent an aeroplane from crashing because of a minor failure of an automatic system, then they should not have been on the flightdeck, and nowhere near passenger flying!

Where does it end If on an automatic landing the flare system fails and the aeroplane crashes, should the manufacturer be liable because of a faulty system, or the pilots because they did not carry out their function of flying the aeroplane to a safe landing, automatic or otherwise? These pilots had a function to fly the aeroplane, making use of automatics as an aid to human control. They appear to have used automatics as the sole pilot on board! It is time responsibility was accepted where it belongs, not simply where the pockets are deepest!
Rainboe is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2009, 20:08
  #2396 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: EU
Posts: 641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
There was a fault in the system. It is beyond human capability to produce a 100% reliable system.
It has been a while, and I don't have time to reread the thread, but I understand (correct me if I am wrong) that the defect is caused by corrosion in a sensor.
Boeing was already aware of that problem before the crash, and investigating it and the whole issue will probably center on whether Boeing should have acted earlier on the facts known at the time.
I have no knowledge of US law, but if there is a jury involved as there often is over there(?) I imagine it can go any way.
golfyankeesierra is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2009, 21:36
  #2397 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
forum non conveniens

Before anyone gets too excited about the prospect of anybody other than US citizens bringing suit in the United States, they should aquaint themselves with a legal process for dismissing forum shopping in a more generous jurisdiction. This was an accident to an american built aircraft operated by a Turkish airline and occuring in Holland. The majority of the potential litigants would be Dutch or Turkish nationals. The defendants to a suit would almost certainly co-operate and surrender to the jurisdiction of the claimants, thereby making the use of a dismissal under a motion of forum non conveniens very likely in the case of the non US nationals.

Read Piper v. Reyno for a US supreme court ruling that illustrates the point.

Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 (1981): American law students usually read and argue about this case. A Piper Aztec airplane crashed in Scotland, en route from Blackpool to Perth, and all six people on board were killed. The pilot and passengers were all Scottish, and the wreckage of the airplane ended up in a hangar at Farnsborough, England, so British authorities could examine it. The owner and operator of the airplane, as well as the pilot's estate, were sued in a British court. It appeared that mechanical failure caused the crash, and either the airframe (made by Piper Aircraft in Pennsylvania) or the propeller (made by Hartzell Propeller in Ohio) was responsible. A court in California agreed to appoint a legal secretary, Ms. Reyno, to represent the estates of the passengers, and she sued Piper and Hartzell in the U.S. They had the case dismissed on forum non conveniens, but a Court of Appeals ruled that the case should proceed in American court because Scottish law would be less favorable to Reyno (specifically, they don't have the same rule of strict liability there). The Supreme Court decided this was an invalid reason for keeping the case in America and overruled the Court of Appeals, establishing that choice of law is not a valid criterion for supporting or defeating a forum non conveniens dismissal.
Bealzebub is offline  
Old 21st Sep 2009, 03:49
  #2398 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: US
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I don't doubt that the investigative report is likely to return the probable cause of the accident as pilot error. Which a plain reading of the facts established would seem to indicate they should. But it will be interesting to see if they also go on to list the RA failure and the way the RA is configured within the AT system of the 737NG, as a significant contributing factor. I suspect they will and that this may well cause problems for Boeing and its lawyers. It is certainly something that needs to be fixed.
MU3001A is offline  
Old 21st Sep 2009, 04:14
  #2399 (permalink)  
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I don't think it should be 'fixed' because it is doing what it is designed to do! A failure of an automatic system should not be the cause of an aeroplane crashing. Pilots are there to ultimately handle the aeroplane. People forget that automatics are merely an aid to assist the pilot. The pilot should ensure the automatics work as required and any failure of the automatics is handled correctly. It is beyond human ability to create a system as complex as aeroplane automatics that is not subject to a myriad of possible failures. In the final analysis, no pilot should be unable to contend with a failure of any part of the automatics. This was unforgivable, negligence in the extreme. These failures happen everyday, all the time. Sometimes the automatics don't behave as planned or expected. So? You are still there to fly the plane.....aviate!

There is a tendency nowadays to keep the automatics in, even when the response is not as anticipated. You are criticised in the sim or on checks if you disconnect when the behaviour of the automatics is unexpected. I come from a generation of pilots where automatics were unreliable- we don't have a lot of patience when they go wrong and hit the disconnect button and aviate manually. A lot of younger pilots sit there with the aeroplane behaving odd and mumble 'what's it doing now?', and just watch a situation develop. I have to jog them sometimes with a discrete hint: 'why don't you just disconnect the damn thing and FLY IT? Who cares a flying f what it's doing- it's not doing what YOU WANT, mate!' As automatics become more complex, the 'paralysis' of watching, in a sort of cobra-like trance, automatics misbehave without actually doing anything about it is getting more of a problem.
Rainboe is offline  
Old 21st Sep 2009, 05:00
  #2400 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: US
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I'm with you on most of what you say.

But I think perhaps it's more practical to train pilots to retard their own throttles at 27' than it is to run the risk of having what is essentially a convenience item completely ruin your day and that of everyone riding with you. Having Bitchin Betty announce "retard" like on the bus would seem to about cover it and at significantly less risk, given the proven ability of pilots to ignore nuisance warnings should the system malfunction.

Whatever the culpability of the Turkish crew and the level of negligence and incompetence they displayed in allowing the aircraft to stall on approach. I keep coming back to the fact that it's likely the aircraft would have been recoverable and would not have crashed and those who perished would have survived the encounter, if the PL's had not retarded a second time after the crew had moved them forward as part of the recovery procedure they initiated.

Last edited by MU3001A; 21st Sep 2009 at 05:34.
MU3001A is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.