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 6th May 2010, 19:56
  #2721 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: A border town
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
BOAC,
"Out of interest, why is the report published with deletions etc still showing?"

Am I mistaken or are you referring to the "comments" section?

I guess it can be rather interesting and even important WHO commented on WHAT and thus WHY the draft version has been changed, that can even be important, are we talking just about a common translation error correction or could some lobby have been involved?
Borderer is offline  
Old 6th May 2010, 21:42
  #2722 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Yes - the 'Remarks' section. It is unusual in my experience to have a released report with all the amended/deleted text left in place. It is however interesting to see the way changes were called and it is possible the depiction was chosen to deliberately display differences? The way it is presented has all the appearance of a draft.
BOAC is offline  
Old 6th May 2010, 22:10
  #2723 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: A border town
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Well, it was a draft which was commented on, and I guess that this will be a great help to historians studying the evolution of crash report, and gives the student of this crash quite some insight the evolution of this report. Makes it a sort of transparant report, it reports on itself.

I may well be mistaken, but I had the feeling that this might have something to do with lawsuits, in some way or another...
Borderer is offline  
Old 7th May 2010, 00:19
  #2724 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Aviate, navigate, communicate.

Three pilots in the cockpit somehow could not manage the first of these; and what will you wager that THY mgmt is focusing more on RA maintenance than on airmanship.
barit1 is offline  
Old 7th May 2010, 03:30
  #2725 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Western Pacific
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From another thread -

Article published in a UK magazine. Relevant to the subject of the opening post on the Kenya Airlines B737-800 crash.



George Has Control - or has he?
Once known as ‘George’ the autopilot has come a long way since the first one flew in 1912. But has an over-reliance on automatic systems degraded many pilots’ basic handling skills? .

. The Jeppesen ILS approach chart was for Noumea Runway 11, New Caledonia, ICAO designation NWWW. The MSA to the north-east is 7000 ft and to the south 5500 ft. An NDB, callsign NW, is on the extended centerline 8 miles from touchdown along with another NDB and VOR at the airfield. Following the recommended procedures published in the Boeing flight crew training manual, the crew made full use of the automatic pilot systems. As the aircraft turned to final approach a fault occurred with the No 1 engine thrust lever clutch motor. Thus, when the automatics commanded a thrust increase to maintain a set airspeed, the throttle lever of that engine would not move from the last setting prior to actuation of the fault. The last setting was throttles closed idle thrust. Manual throttle operation was not affected.



The autopilot was programmed to descend the aircraft to 1800 ft until intercepting the glide path. The captain called for the flaps to be extended to slow the aircraft to approach speed and the first officer set the correct speed for the flap setting into the autothrottle mode control panel. As drag from the landing gear and flap extension took effect the autothrottle system increased power to maintain the demanded airspeed but because of the autothrottle defect only one throttle moved to increase power.

With a large split between the throttles, the autopilot tried to compensate by using a combination of aileron and spoiler controls to maintain directional control. At this point both pilots were concentrating solely on monitoring the autopilot mode status, unaware of the asymmetric thrust and the steadily increasing control wheel angle. The landing check list was being read when the automatic pilot suddenly disconnected accompanied by the aural disconnect warning. Unconstrained by the autopilot, the aircraft rolled rapidly beyond 45 degrees, and losing height below the glide slope. By now the GPWS below glide-slope warning sounded and it was then for the first time the crew saw the marked difference between the throttle settings.

Observing the No 1 (left) throttle was against the idle stop and wrongly assuming the engine had flamed out, the captain called for the engine failure and shut down checklist. The first officer hurriedly reached down to locate the Quick Reference Handbook (QRH). Still scrabbling to find the right page, he never saw his attitude direction indicator (ADI) hard over beyond 60 degrees of bank and the altimeter winding down in a blur. In real life, a searching helicopter would have located wreckage at a position five miles from the airport and a quarter of a mile to the north of the ILS inbound track. There would have been no survivors. At the time of estimated impact the simulator made a loud graunching noise and the windscreen turned red with simulated blood (a macabre modification by the technicians to the windscreen view to signify Heaven’s open door. So great was the impact, a re-boot of the simulator was necessary.
Modern airliners are equipped with superbly reliable automatic flight control and navigation systems. And certainly the remarkable reduction in CFIT over the years, attest to this. Yet there is a downside. One sage pilot described this perfectly when he said that automation robs situational awareness through absence of physical/sensory cues of flying the machine and as a result atrophies flying and thinking skills. He added that when automation degrades it can overwhelm even a highly competent well-trained crew. Other than that, automation used as intended - and not as an aircraft babysitter - was a tool for accuracy, predictability and timeliness of action.

Automatic throttle control systems have featured in several fatal crashes. In 1992, a China Airlines Boeing 737-300 crashed 15 miles from its destination. During the visual approach, with the autopilot and autothrottle engaged, the left thrust lever advanced while the right one remained at the idle position. The crew apparently failed to notice this asymmetrical power condition and allowed the aircraft to roll into a spiral dive.

Three years later in 1995, an Airbus A310 crashed in a steep nose-down attitude three minutes after take off. According to the accident report, the crash apparently resulted from a malfunction in the aircraft’s autothrottle system when power was reduced from takeoff to climb thrust. Mechanical jamming of the right throttle resulted in this engine remaining at full-power setting, causing an asymmetrical thrust condition that led to loss of control. The crew was slow to recognize the malfunction, which occurred over a period of about 40 seconds beginning when the aircraft had reached 2000 ft and continuing after it was cleared by ATC for a left turn. During this turn, the left bank steepened, with the Airbus over-banking into an 80 degree spiral dive and 290 knots before impact. Recommendations issued by the French Director General of Aviation in the wake of this accident, included the careful monitoring of throttle behaviour when the autothrottle is engaged, and its immediate disconnection and reversion to manual control if a malfunction occurs. Of course that was only saying the bleeding obvious, but crashes due to crew mishandling still occur.

In 1998 another Airbus crashed. This time at Taiwan, during a go-around from a high approach. Instead of disconnecting the autopilot when it was apparent that it was not coping quickly enough with thrust changes, the crew persisted with autopilot operation only to stall the aircraft due to an excessive out of trim situation, killing all aboard. Four years earlier an almost identical crash had occurred at Nagoya, Japan where investigators determined an extreme out of trim condition caused the aircraft to pitch up uncontrollably until it stalled.

In 1985, a China Air Boeing 747 flying at 41,000 feet over the Pacific in cloud and in moderate turbulence, experienced an autothrottle defect that caused one throttle to stay at idle thrust. Initially, there was no action taken to turn off the autothrottle system and adjust the power manually. In spite of having several minutes to act, the pilot failed to control the yawing moment and the 747 rolled inverted into a spiral dive. It reached Mach 1.0 and 5g, losing 30,000 feet before recovery was made below cloud at 9000 feet. .

Fast forward to 2009 where a Flight International headline reported Thomsonfly stall pinned on autothrottle.. No one was hurt when in September 2007 the Boeing 737-300 came close to stalling during a night ILS approach to Bournemouth airport, UK. The autopilot and autothrottle had been engaged at the start of the approach. However, an undetected malfunction caused both thrust levers to stay closed instead of holding approach power with flaps down. The crew did not notice the subsequent loss in airspeed as the autopilot tried to hold the ILS glide slope. The captain conducted a belated go-around with the aircraft reaching a pitch attitude of 33 degrees and speed of 82 knots before he was able to get the situation under control.

Not so fortunate, was Turkish Airlines Boeing 737-800 Flight 1951 that crashed in February 2009 during an ILS approach to Amsterdam. A defective radio altimeter fed wrong information to the autothrottle system causing the throttles to close to idle thrust. Like the Bournemouth incident, the autopilot tried to maintain the ILS glide slope by pitching up and trimming back. For over a minute the crew noticed the throttles were closed yet apparently failed to take corrective action until too late to prevent the aircraft stalling into a field, killing several passengers and crew members.

In most of the cases mentioned, prompt action by the crew to notice the worsening situation followed by immediate action to disconnect the automatic pilot system and fly the aircraft manually, may well have prevented each accident. As one pilot warned “Do you control the automated cockpit or does it dominate you?” While aircraft manufacturers encourage full use of automation, it is surely with the unspoken caveat that if automation is distracting your flight operation, early intervention should prevent things from getting out of hand. The Boeing 737 flight crew training manual covers this by recommending reduction of the level of automation as far as manual flight, to ensure proper control of the aircraft is maintained.

That last paragraph,” reducing the level of automation as far as manual flight” reveals the importance placed by manufacturers - and indeed airline operators, on the flight safety value of auto flight systems. Yet, the countervailing argument that manual flight skills are just as essential as automation is rarely mentioned in official manuals.

Perhaps a similar misguided philosophy led to the death of all 112 on board when an Adam Air Boeing 737-400 crashed into the Makassas Straits off Selawisi Island, Indonesia. The accident summary said the cause of the accident was failure of the pilots to monitor their flight instruments while trouble-shooting the navigation system. While in cloud, the automatic pilot disconnected as the crew were engaged in discussion of an apparent defect in the inertial navigation system. Unnoticed by either pilot, the 737 gradually entered a steep spiral dive. When the penny dropped, and the captain realized his aircraft was rapidly getting out of control, he made matters worse by pulling back hard on the control column instead of using the correct procedure for recovery from an unusual attitude. The aircraft broke up in the air.

We need a happy ending for a change, so you are invited to contrast the actions of the ill-fated Adam Air crew with those of a Mystere 20 Falcon crew faced with an unexpected runaway stabilizer electric trim on short final to runway 16 at Sydney, NSW, Australia. This is an edited extract from the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation of the incident. Keep in mind, the aircraft was flying over built up areas immediately surrounding the airport because this report will make your hair stand on end. The captain had 14,100 flying hours experience while the copilot had 8000 hours.

Following a normal flight the aircraft was established on final approach for landing. At about 140 feet above the ground, the approach angle flattened and the nose pitched up. The co-pilot, who was flying the aircraft, believed that a wind-shear situation had been encountered, and he initiated a go-around. As full power was applied the nose pitched up violently. The crew did not observe any cockpit indications as to the reason for this reaction.

The pilot in command took control of the aircraft and initiated a rolling turn. This had the effect of reducing the pitch angle, and by manipulating power levers and rolling, the pilot was able to regain control of the aircraft at about 6500 feet. A safe landing was subsequently carried out. Witnesses later reported that they observed the aircraft had reached pitch and bank angles of 60 and 40 degrees respectively. Because there had been no indication of the cause of the initial pitch up, the crew had difficulty in determining the appropriate course of action. Although the investigation revealed the initiating factor was probably a full nose-up trim situation, the crew believed the problem was caused by a structural failure or a thrust reverser malfunction

This brief official description of the incident did not tell the full story, however. In his report, the pilot stated (edited for brevity): At 140 feet above runway 16 the copilot stated that things were wrong and he was going around. Power was applied and loss of pitch control followed immediately. I took over control of the aircraft and I can still recall the IAS drop below 107 knots. I had both hands holding the control column fully forward trying to limit the rearing of the body angle. My concern was that we were going over on our back which would have been the end, as this manoeuvre started at about 80-90 feet AGL. In my mind was that the vertical lift of the aircraft had to be minimized so I rolled it to the left in a very steep turn and had the copilot close the throttles to assist me in getting the nose of the aircraft to come below the horizon. This turned out to be successful and we recovered prior to ground contact. As power was restored the nose pitch attitude reached again the 60 to 80 degrees (as some witnesses in the control tower claimed)

During the first go-around the flaps and gear were retracted and we did a series of the above manoeuvres, using roll and power off and an application technique as described above, each time gaining some height above ground level although we had very limited heading control. We did this for about 5 or 6 times and obtained about 6500 feet AMSL During this time I was unable to take either hand off the control column or relax the force required to limit the rear of the body angle. The copilot was completely occupied with the closing and opening of the throttles to help me semi-control the nose position. The aircraft eventually flew out of the problem and returned to normal operation with no further input from the crew.

Once the first recovery had been achieved I knew that I could control the aircraft to a certain extent whilst the fuel lasted. This could not have been possible without the excellent crew co-ordination between PF and PNF. A help to me was the knowledge of aerodynamics instilled by instructors during my early training on Tiger Moths.

During the technical investigation of the incident no fault could be found in the stabilizer actuator although another fault which was considered responsible may have been intermittent in nature. The captain of the Mystere Falcon exhibited superb airmanship in recovering the aircraft from a deadly situation and if a military pilot would no doubt have been recommended for the award of the Air Force Cross. This was pure flying skill at its best.

But all that happened many years ago. The game has changed since then, and now we have the situation almost world-wide where low cost airlines recruit low experience pilots as second in command of large airliners. While this may be partly due to a perceived shortage of experienced pilots, it is more likely aimed at cost-cutting where pilots are willing to pay for their own training on passenger jets. It is common to see newly graduated commercial pilots self funding a type rating on a Boeing or Airbus. Next thing is to find an airline happy to offer them a first officer position. No problem there, with agencies keen to place them (at a price, of course) with an airline willing to hire them in the right hand seat for six months. Captains are expected to look after the new boy or girl by giving them take off’s and landings in fair weather as the youngsters build up their jet hours to qualify for full-time jobs.

Because of the low experience of many new first officers, it is with some relief their mentors can plug in the automatics from take off to landing and sit back and relax while the first officer merely monitors the automatic pilot on his leg. With airline policy dictating the full use of automatics during revenue flying the exposure to the real world of manual flying for skill retention, is neatly side-stepped.

In this article we have read of fatal accidents caused by crew mis-handling the automatic systems – particularly while flying at night or in IMC. Statistics reveal Loss of Control as the new major cause of aircraft fatal accidents. This was highlighted during a recent Asia Pacific Airline Training Symposium held in Hong Kong where the Airbus representative urged the aviation industry to confront the issue of how to ensure long-haul pilots maintain basic flying skills in the face of ever-increasing aircraft reliability and cockpit automation. “I think that at a certain point in time we need to bring back a little bit of handling”. He advocated more simulator time for pilots to hone their basic skills. “We put people into our training today who have forgotten how to fly, basically” That would surely be the understatement of the year.
Of course not all pilots have forgotten how to fly. But consider this true story of a 2000 hour newly recruited first officer at the controls (on automatics, of course!) of a Boeing 737. With the airport in sight at 15 miles, the captain suggested it would be a good opportunity for his Number One to disconnect the automatics and fly by hand. This perfectly reasonable suggestion was met with a shocked look and shaking of the tousled head as the first officer said no way was she going to hand-fly when the automatics did a better job – passenger comfort and all that jazz. Now it was the captain’s turn for the shocked look and shaking of head. Another time, a keen first officer asked his captain if he (the first officer) could turn off his flight director during a VMC climb so he could practice raw data manual flying. The captain refused; saying, leave that to the simulator.

While some of the more enlightened operators permit manual flying in appropriate airspace and weather conditions, others discourage it. A regional operator in Australia flying turbo-prop commuter aircraft insists crews use full automation from after lift-off to short final even in CAVOK conditions, leading to the ridiculous situation where furious knob twiddling of the autopilot takes place as the aircraft tracks from downwind to base and final in the circuit area. These are the same crews that eventually move up the food chain to fly the big jets. The regulator doesn’t mind one bit as long as rules are not broken. .

The reality is that manufacturers and airline operators will not venture from their comfort zone and encourage pilots to hand fly at their discretion. Some captains will quietly encourage a spot of manual flying here and there – flight directors on, of course. No point in stretching the friendship too far, they say. One captain interviewed observed that automation complacency is so well entrenched that many pilots politely decline his suggestion they hand fly on raw data occasionally –even if a recurrent simulator session is getting close. A few months ago, a Boeing Company check pilot talked to pilots of a major Hong Kong-based airline. In his travels, he noted that some airline pilots tended to avoid the opportunity to practice hand flying skills until the very last minute before a simulator session. This was a waste of time, he said – because manual flying skills had to be maintained throughout the year and that a hand flown ILS in good weather after months on autopilots, did nothing for basic flying skills.

Following the UK report on the near stall of the Thomsonfly Boeing 737-300 mentioned earlier, Flight International quoted a CAA observation that: Pilots familiar with operating older aircraft, which had more variable reliability, are nearing the end of their careers, and there is a generation of pilots whose only experience is of operating aircraft with highly reliable automated systems.” The writer maintained that exercises mandated in recurrent training programmes have scarcely changed since the days of the Super Constellation. So training no longer represents what crews are likely to have to deal with today.

The solution is change the mind-set of regulators and operations departments. While Loss of Control accidents will never be eradicated, training departments should learn the lessons of past accidents and apply them to more realistic simulator training. Normally in recurrent simulator training, each crew member can expect two hours per session as pilot flying. Over a 12 month period this amounts to at least eight hours of handling per year depending on the number of sessions scheduled. Most of these sessions in the simulator will be on automatic pilot, with occasional manual flying to meet regulatory requirements. One engine inoperative flying forms a good proportion of each simulator session and much of that is on automatic pilot. This does not leave much time for practicing raw data pure flying skills. That policy must change if airlines are serious about learning the hard earned lessons from past accidents.

While LOFT exercises are valuable for practicing CRM skills, they rarely provide manual handling practice. Valuable simulator time is sometimes wasted in lengthy LOFT scenarios that require complex checklist use and associated crew discussion. Often the pilot finds he has done only two landings by the end of the session. To ensure a high standard of manual flying skills are maintained throughout the year (not an unreasonable expectation), simulator sessions should be scheduled to allow equal time between automatics and raw data manual flying. If that is a problem then additional time should be scheduled. Simulator training might be expensive but peanuts compared to the cost of a crash such as those described above.

Pilots should be given the opportunity to practice raw data hand flying in sequences covering high and very low altitude stall recovery, circuits and landings in strong crosswinds, unusual attitude recoveries, GPWS pull up manoeuvres, bad weather low level circuits, forced landings following loss of both engines, flight on standby flight instruments, instrument approaches general and all flaps up landings on limiting length runways. Additional sequences could include black-hole approaches over terrain devoid of ground lighting, and slippery runway short field landings. For the purpose of all these exercises, the automatic pilot, autothrottle and flight directors should be left off. To keep these pure flying sessions within reasonable time limits, the instructor should use the freeze and re-positioning facility of the simulator as well as common-sense reduction of QRH and checklist reading. Keep in mind the aim is to allow the pilot the opportunity to practice basic handling skills within the time constraints of simulator scheduling.

Earlier, mention was made of the superb skill and airmanship displayed by the captain of the Mystere 20 Falcon at Sydney, in recovering from a series of extreme attitudes caused by a stabilizer trim malfunction. He attributed this skill to lessons instilled into him by his instructors on Tiger Moths. Who knows that one day in the future, a pilot recovering from a one in a million jet upset in a highly automated airliner will thank his simulator instructor for teaching him the art of pure flying.
Oakape is offline  
Old 7th May 2010, 04:50
  #2726 (permalink)  
PJ2
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: BC
Age: 76
Posts: 2,486
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Good article and worth both the bandwidth and the read. It will, however, be mostly foreign or old-fashioned to many operations managers and perhaps some younger pilots who have never flown manually, (MPLs, who can't even legally rent a C-150).

Many here have foreseen what is now occuring: Accidents resulting from inexperience and/or lack of thorough training and systems knowledge and not from mechanical/navigation/ATC or weather causes. Such views seem to be somehow justified by the impression that automation means the airplane can "decide" as opposed to merely performing highly accurate flight. Automation is absolutely by far a safer system but it requires engagement of the crew to work.
PJ2 is offline  
Old 7th May 2010, 06:53
  #2727 (permalink)  
Pegase Driver
 
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,737
Received 19 Likes on 11 Posts
Oakape : excellent article, well worth the time to read it . Thanks for posting it.
But isn't it ironinc that , back to the TK AMS report, that it was the less experienced FO that applied the correct basic flying skill procedure when approaching the stall (at stick shaker) , and it is the more experience Capt/instructor that , by taking over, sealed the issue ?
ATC Watcher is offline  
Old 7th May 2010, 08:01
  #2728 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
[QUOTE]and what will you wager that THY mgmt is focusing more on RA maintenance than on airmanship/QUOTE]

I think you are missing the point. Aviation is a team game and each member of the team needs to be on top of his game i.e. professional

Better airmanship MAY have avoided this accident but a serviceable RA WOULD have avoided this accident.

I would hope all affected parties are doing all they can to ensure it doesn't happen again.
Safety Concerns is offline  
Old 7th May 2010, 09:12
  #2729 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: world
Posts: 78
Received 4 Likes on 1 Post
You would think that the airlines would try and hire the most experienced pilots available. The answer is not so. Beancounters rule.
If you look at the recruitment at major low cost airlines they take very inerperienced pilots who can just barely handfly, but can operate the automation. These pilots get upgraded to Captain/training positions.
This has resulted in a generation of captains who write the manuals/sops that encourage the use of automation and ban handflying.
I know of many unemployed pilots age 50 and older with 10000+hrs unable to get a job due to the cost cutting of many airlines.
Hiring these pilots would cut down the handling type of accident. Most have flown in aircraft not as reliable as the modern jets and have superior handling skills and most important are not complacent.
Automatic flight controls are great when working but a killer when they malfunction. It could be said that some autoflight systems are far too complicated in relation to failure modes,some of which are not even known about until an incident/crash.
Crews must be able to disconnect everything and handfly just like the days of the DC-3. Hand flying is a skill learned through practise not by watching the autopilot.
icarus sun is offline  
Old 7th May 2010, 10:47
  #2730 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 857
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by ATC Watcher
But isn't it ironinc that , back to the TK AMS report, that it was the less experienced FO that applied the correct basic flying skill procedure when approaching the stall (at stick shaker) , and it is the more experience Capt/instructor that , by taking over, sealed the issue ?
The report also notes that the THY capt., who took over the recovery and then failed to move the throttles, had not had approach-to-stall training for a considerable time. The FO was effectively better trained and qualified to handle the recovery - and the evidence is that he was doing so correctly.

It is maybe more ironic when you compare with BA38 who were in a similar situation but without the benefit of working engines. Capt. Burkill left the PF flying and focused on problem solving and took one action (flaps) which proved to be decisive, yet he was roundly criticised for it in some quarters, including here, with allegations that he did nothing or "froze".

This crash (IMO) is a textbook example of why Pete Burkill did exactly the right thing by not taking control.


Also, where before I'd be agreeing with "the crew messed up", I'm now starting to feel sorry for the FO. He's on a training flight with two senior guys watching him, he's got a problem with the plane that he doesn't fully understand (causing issues setting AP etc.), he's been put on a tight approach forcing a glide slope intercept from above, and ending up (maybe inevitably) unstable. He doesn't have the authority (THY SOP) to call the go around, and the capt. won't (for whatever reason), so he's stuck with the unstable approach. Then all threee crew miss the speed decay, the FO gets stick shaker, reacts correctly, but the **** captain takes control off him and crashes the plane.
infrequentflyer789 is offline  
Old 7th May 2010, 14:17
  #2731 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Whereever I lay my hat
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
So the SOP is the ultimate authority now?

He doesn't have the authority (THY SOP) to call the go around, and the capt. won't (for whatever reason), so he's stuck with the unstable approach
I think common sense should have prevailed, not blind obedience to the SOPs.

The FO's (or any other pilot's) ultimate goal should have been to fly/land the plane safely. If an SOP risks bringing you into a dangerous situation I don't think it would be wise to adhere to it!
KiloMikePapa is offline  
Old 7th May 2010, 14:22
  #2732 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Sealed / Secure Cockpit Doors on THY 737

I haven't read the report, but am just wondering if there is any reference to the problem whereby the pilots were trapped inside the cockpit due to the inability of the emergency services to gain access through the secure cockpit door
Herc708 is offline  
Old 7th May 2010, 15:08
  #2733 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 857
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Herc708
I haven't read the report, but am just wondering if there is any reference to the problem whereby the pilots were trapped inside the cockpit due to the inability of the emergency services to gain access through the secure cockpit door
In a word, No, or at least not that I can find.

The report is light on survivability, although as Appendix E states this is an ideal study case as evidence was not destroyed by fire.

It appears from what Appendix E says, that separate survivability study(s) may be being undertaken - which would explain the low level of info in the report.

Looking at the crash damage and the injury / fatality distribution that is in the report, my feeling is that anyone in the cockpit experienced the highest g forces and was extremely unlikely to survive, whether promptly reached or not. Any "problem" with the secure cockpit door would appear to still have the status of rumour rather than confirmed fact.
infrequentflyer789 is offline  
Old 7th May 2010, 15:37
  #2734 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by iff789
This crash (IMO) is a textbook example of why Pete Burkill did exactly the right thing by not taking control.
- you need to remember two things:-
1) The F/O with Peter was pretty (more?) experienced on type I recall
2) The F/O with THY was under training - making a totally different decision process for a training captain.
BOAC is offline  
Old 7th May 2010, 20:15
  #2735 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hotel Sheets, Downtown Plunketville
Age: 77
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
At long last we now have a detailed account of how it happened. If we are asked to explain to laymen who will need to have a very simple and short answer then all I think I can say is pilot error. However the interesting aspect of the report is to be found in Appendix B , the respones of the interested parties. This is where the future battle ground lies, where ATC says there was nothing unusual about a short intercept above the glide, THY says the crew did it all by the book and they did not need to know about rad-alt glitches and the manufacturers say the crew should have known better how to engage the AFS.
I am of the opinion that the Dutch have acted admirably in publishing the full text of these so called responses. No one can now blame them of any undue influence.
The part I think is best descriptive of the whole sad affair is the THY response :

“At Turkish Airlines, the automatic flight system is used as much as possible.”
“to reduce workload, enhance flight safety, situational awareness and fuel economy” should
be added to the end of this sentence to avoid any negative connotations

There seems to be a increase in the trend of air accidents involving automation, which raises questions as to the validity of the claim of enhancing flight safety through reduction of work load. It therefore raises the question whether the another gain in automation is more cost savings through increase in what otherwise would be a reduction in crew duty hours. The old saying is hard work never killed anybody. For situational awareness see the MD83 ATLAS JET Isparta crash.
Chronus is offline  
Old 8th May 2010, 00:35
  #2736 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Istanbul
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The FO was an ex-air force guy.

Given the Captain's age, and flight hours, he was 99% likely to be an ex air force guy as well.

Now, you don't touch to the controls when your senior take over the contols, period.

That's why he couldn't itervene. His hands were tied.

This isn't the first ocurance of a this kind of accident in TK's history, and it won't be the last.
CptCaveman is offline  
Old 8th May 2010, 00:57
  #2737 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Safety Concerns:

Better airmanship MAY have avoided this accident but a serviceable RA WOULD have avoided this accident.
I am very disturbed by this statement. Wasn't #2 RA operating? Two ASI's were operating. Weren't manual thrust levers still available? The failure of one RA is a mere irritant, and the THY culture regarded it as such by their failure to snag it on previous flights.

CRM or no, how did THREE aviators fail to aviate? Let's not allow the spotlight to wander from its proper focus.
barit1 is offline  
Old 8th May 2010, 05:23
  #2738 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The whole flying thing is teamwork. Concentrating solely on airmanship will never eliminate all accidents because humans are fallible. With the best will and training in the world humans will still continue to make errors.

That is not a statement saying ignore airmanship issues but it is a statement saying that you ignore other clear indicators at your peril.

And yes I cannot understand any pilot who ignores any defect with a radio altimeter system which only interacts with other systems below 2,500 feet. i.e. very close to the ground and during a critical phase of flight.

This unfortunate accident as with Spanair is not just about airmanship. There are other significant factors.

The failure of one radio altimeter is not a mere irritant as the consequences can be enormous hence an MEL procedure which de-activates a faulty system. Contributing to this accident was the fact that the system should have been de-activated prior to that fateful flight.

We can never eliminate all mistakes but we all have a duty to maintain the highest levels of professionalism. That includes the logging of defect which we all know isn't just a Turkish airlines culture.
Safety Concerns is offline  
Old 8th May 2010, 14:02
  #2739 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Please do not let undue emphasis be given to "intercepting the G/S from above." In years gone by this was not uncommon. Agreed ATC should not do it; usually it is LOC & G/S together. Some airfields were expert at that, whilst asking for min clean as well. Interesting if medium length finals. If ATC was going to give an above interept, and I was based at AMS for many years, they should ask first if you ready and able to accept a shortened turn in. On an EFIS a/c there is so much information to agree/disagree such an offer. When self-positioning to expedite an arrival it was quite common to turn in and intercept G/S at OM. It took good judgement, and the A/P could be used to good effect if necessary. Manually was no big deal either; depended if you were VMC or not.
In doing so, intercepting from above, it heightened your situational awareness and made you MORE alert, not less. This is the mystery to me. I've not yet read the report and wonder if the CVR gives us a clue.
What will be interesting to see, considering this, and the Buffalo crash, is the response of the authorities and airlines to manual flying skills and tests. I know of airlines, where due to their large number of sectors each month, the general expectation of our colleagues is that those pilots must be skilled in manual handling, short rwys, numerous circlings, NPA's and visual circuits. Due to the emphasis and encouragement of using automatics, and an active discouragement of visual approaches, the opposite is true. "Use of automtics make for a safer opertaion". They even get nervous landing on Rwys with no G/S references. What ever happended to basic parameters and Mk.1 eyeball?
I still say that the pilots are the last insurance policy for the company & pax. Use of the automatics for all reasons stated, safety, fuel, comfort, is fine. The insurance is needed when they muck up. If they, the crew, are not fit for purpose when needed then something sure ain't right; even worse if it is the mis-handling of those safety enhancing automatics that started the cataclysmic chain of events.
RAT 5 is offline  
Old 8th May 2010, 18:18
  #2740 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
To ME it's really simple. Up, under or level picking up the GS, THY SOP is to be estabished at 1000ft. They weren't but if they were, they had 2 spooled up engines and the possibility to get out off the stall without any problem. The report says nothing about the consequences of not being established. If the report would have mentioned this, THY management never could have said that they (crew) has done everything they could.
What also wanders me is that, according to the CVR, they went from flap 15 all the way to 40???
Other question. It seems that THY SOP is also to make Auto Land only?! Why and doesn't this maybe make you less alert because of this?
wingview 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.