Turkish airliner crashes at Schiphol
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
From: Denmark
Anti bird screens....
RiSq,
Check the following link for some info regarding the subject.
Comment: Why we can't stop birds downing aircraft - tech - 16 January 2009 - New Scientist
brgds
Check the following link for some info regarding the subject.
Comment: Why we can't stop birds downing aircraft - tech - 16 January 2009 - New Scientist
brgds
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
From: Europe
For crying out loud, stop with the expert opinions and speculation rubbish. PPRUNE has a very narrow readership. This is the crap the rest of the world listens to BBC NEWS | Europe | Eyewitness describes plane crash. Move on and ignore that which is rubbish and if you have something worthwhile to contribute, do so. Those that can, will recognise it. 
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 3,349
Likes: 1
From: FUBAR
First of all my condolences. . . . . . to the mods 
of all the accidents in the last 8 months ( regretably quite a few ) this one takes the prize for the most inane comments, and greatest number thereof, in the least amount of time.
For chrissakes it's only 12 hrs since it happened and we are only missing the " it was shot down by aliens theory" . . . . WELL WERE THEY ? to complete the collection.
I find it rather insulting to suggest that a crew from a respected flag carrier are likely to have run out of gas, but maybe I am too sensitive.
It is well past the time to have some sort of vetting on who posts here, it is truly such a pain in the ass to have to wade through 17 pages of absolute drivel / edited to say culled to 14, thanks
to find the 20% of posts with any meaningful comment or observation.
For
SAKE . . . "PROFESSIONAL PILOTS rumour network", isn't there a clue there somewhere for all the useless dunderheeds that absolutely have to stuff their uselesss contributions in every time some accident occurs.
Please Sod off
, before I have to REALLY be rude.
Oh BTW, as speculation seems to be obligatory nowadays, my speculation is that this COULD turn out to be the 3rd double engine failure due to feathered friends in recent months.
of all the accidents in the last 8 months ( regretably quite a few ) this one takes the prize for the most inane comments, and greatest number thereof, in the least amount of time.For chrissakes it's only 12 hrs since it happened and we are only missing the " it was shot down by aliens theory" . . . . WELL WERE THEY ? to complete the collection.
I find it rather insulting to suggest that a crew from a respected flag carrier are likely to have run out of gas, but maybe I am too sensitive.
It is well past the time to have some sort of vetting on who posts here, it is truly such a pain in the ass to have to wade through 17 pages of absolute drivel / edited to say culled to 14, thanks
to find the 20% of posts with any meaningful comment or observation.For
SAKE . . . "PROFESSIONAL PILOTS rumour network", isn't there a clue there somewhere for all the useless dunderheeds that absolutely have to stuff their uselesss contributions in every time some accident occurs. Please Sod off
, before I have to REALLY be rude.Oh BTW, as speculation seems to be obligatory nowadays, my speculation is that this COULD turn out to be the 3rd double engine failure due to feathered friends in recent months.
Last edited by captplaystation; 25th February 2009 at 20:45.
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 691
Likes: 0
From: gate 67 JFK
First off i operate into AMS on a 737 at least half a dozen times a month and have done so for 10+ years.
This tragic incident will come down to 1 of 2 things either
Loss of power on both engines, due to bird strike < less than 5%
Pilot error
This was a modern aircraft flying into one of the world best airports on a day when weather wasn't an issue,it appears to be either a line check or early line training sector with jump seat safety pilot.
AMS atc is very switched on and flows beautifly if your up to speed, but in early line traing sectors it can be too much for some and 170knts on final is the norm, but you need to get configured quickly thereafter and you should be stable by 1000ft aal (about 3.3miles) and must be by 500ft aal (1.7miles) otherwise you must go around, this went badly wrong inside 5 miles.
Forget all the bollocks on sky & the well intended but still duff stuff on here, Turkish is sound airline and i would happily sit in the back of one tomorrow, its probably no more than a tragic error in which thankfully most lived
RIP Guys/Girls
This tragic incident will come down to 1 of 2 things either
Loss of power on both engines, due to bird strike < less than 5%
Pilot error
This was a modern aircraft flying into one of the world best airports on a day when weather wasn't an issue,it appears to be either a line check or early line training sector with jump seat safety pilot.
AMS atc is very switched on and flows beautifly if your up to speed, but in early line traing sectors it can be too much for some and 170knts on final is the norm, but you need to get configured quickly thereafter and you should be stable by 1000ft aal (about 3.3miles) and must be by 500ft aal (1.7miles) otherwise you must go around, this went badly wrong inside 5 miles.
Forget all the bollocks on sky & the well intended but still duff stuff on here, Turkish is sound airline and i would happily sit in the back of one tomorrow, its probably no more than a tragic error in which thankfully most lived
RIP Guys/Girls
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
From: Florida
Wake?
The 757 has been examined over the years for producing wing tip vortice wakes that are apparently larger than was expected. Interesting article here
Wake Turbulence -- An Invisible Enemy
that includes an incident in California re a bizjet behind a 752 on final. Since it has been discussed that a 752 possibly was the preceding aircraft this may be one factor...
Wake Turbulence -- An Invisible Enemy
that includes an incident in California re a bizjet behind a 752 on final. Since it has been discussed that a 752 possibly was the preceding aircraft this may be one factor...
Joined: Jul 2004
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 637
Likes: 17
From: Found in Toronto
It may give some comfort to think that it was a "well done crash landing".
But the fact is they should have been able to keep the aircraft under control, and do an engine out controlled landing just as the British Airways 777 or the US Air 320 did. Both of those incidents had no loss of life.
You can also go back to the Air Canada B767 "Gimli Glider" or Air Transat A330 which both were able to glide to a controlled landing. Again no loss of life.
But the fact is they should have been able to keep the aircraft under control, and do an engine out controlled landing just as the British Airways 777 or the US Air 320 did. Both of those incidents had no loss of life.
You can also go back to the Air Canada B767 "Gimli Glider" or Air Transat A330 which both were able to glide to a controlled landing. Again no loss of life.
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 303
Likes: 56
From: Europe
Originally Posted by Lost in Saigon
It may give some comfort to think that it was a "well done crash landing".
But the fact is they should have been able to keep the aircraft under control, and do an engine out controlled landing just as the British Airways 777 or the US Air 320 did. Both of those incidents had no loss of life.
But the fact is they should have been able to keep the aircraft under control, and do an engine out controlled landing just as the British Airways 777 or the US Air 320 did. Both of those incidents had no loss of life.
Joined: Jul 2004
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 637
Likes: 17
From: Found in Toronto
No, the only FACT is that no one even knows whether the engines were running or not. To say that "they should have been able to keep the aircraft under control" without having any factual knowledge as to what may have caused this mishap is utterly stupid. That too is a fact.
These pilots did not maintain their airspeed. They LOST CONTROL of their aircraft. It doesn't matter what caused the loss of airspeed. They should have been able to maintain a flyable airspeed and then land on the flat ground before them.
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,569
Likes: 1
From: Florida
One thing that can be taken to the bank.
The Dutch aviation authorities as well as the NTSB team are well qualified to answer all questions relating to engine power and/or bird ingestion etc. at and before impact.
I expect that those on scene already know this part of the answer so why try to outguess them.
The issue has already moved on to why are they seeing what they do.
The Dutch aviation authorities as well as the NTSB team are well qualified to answer all questions relating to engine power and/or bird ingestion etc. at and before impact.
I expect that those on scene already know this part of the answer so why try to outguess them.
The issue has already moved on to why are they seeing what they do.
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 479
Likes: 27
From: at the edge of the alps
@Redfox:
The MUC accident revealed a very specific problem of the RR Tay engine which has ice impact panels rear of the fan. While the original design had a higher number of small panels designed to just exit the engine to the rear after detachment, a later redesign switched to a smaller number of larger panels which blocked the airflow when detaching.
(That they did detach at all had to do with improper bonding of the panels which in turn may have been caused by an impractical layout of the maintenance manual that distributed the required steps of work over several chapters and used lots of cross-references.)
AFAIK the engines used on the 738 don't have ice impact panels at all.
The Tay panels now have "weak spots" that will break if the panels detach and allow the pieces to exit the engines through the air duct. In addition they're glued AND screwed to the casing.
The MUC accident revealed a very specific problem of the RR Tay engine which has ice impact panels rear of the fan. While the original design had a higher number of small panels designed to just exit the engine to the rear after detachment, a later redesign switched to a smaller number of larger panels which blocked the airflow when detaching.
(That they did detach at all had to do with improper bonding of the panels which in turn may have been caused by an impractical layout of the maintenance manual that distributed the required steps of work over several chapters and used lots of cross-references.)
AFAIK the engines used on the 738 don't have ice impact panels at all.
The Tay panels now have "weak spots" that will break if the panels detach and allow the pieces to exit the engines through the air duct. In addition they're glued AND screwed to the casing.
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
From: Denmark
give investigation a chance
This unfortunate accident will have detailed FDR/CVR data, that can tell the story, for others to learn from (hopefully). I agree with other inputs, that this site is not the right place for random speculation on how and why. The accident investigation branch will most probably come up with the answers that many are asking for.
I have a problem with the fact that we, the cockpit crew, accout for more than 70% of the actual or probable cause to day.
I have a problem with the fact that we, the cockpit crew, accout for more than 70% of the actual or probable cause to day.
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
From: arnhem
-aware starvation: unlikely: atc routine, atc surprised after loss, airport and cabin crew not prepared for emergency.
-unaware fuel starvation: unlikely: engines away from plane as if (some) thrust was available on impact, compressor blades damaged as if they were rotating.
-configuration error: unlikely: flaps and slats seem in proper position on pictures.
-terrorst involvement: unlikely: they would let us know proudly.
-flying error: unlikely maybe attributing: 3 man crew, line training maybe? no distress call, so the situation evolved in seconds. it would be a very gross mistake and is therefor unlikely to be the only cause, maybe attributing,
-icing on flight surfaces: unlikely, maybe attributing: 738 has sufficent AAI bleed capacity, it would have to switched on though. however icing accidents on approach usually appears earlier (when setting flaps) and impact path often near vertical.
-thrust loss due to malfunction: possible (777 EGLL) but would be a first for 738 therefor also unlikely unless birds were ingested.
-thrust loss due to system operation error: possible: EAI could have been switched off, Autothrust could have been in wrong mode (off?). not unlikely or possibly contributing.
Engines or thrust automation are very likely to be involved due to the position of the crash because thrust increase would probably be asked for just after the final flap setting, usually some 3NM out. Ice protection of engines and training or distraction may be involved, even birds.
Often (usually) a number of factors are involved: just out of my hat: frozen water in fuel leading to single engine thrust loss which was noticed late by crew and PNF (captain?) then concentrated on instruments or procedure while unexperienced FO did not increase thrust on other engine and lost speed/energy control. or another of 20000 possibilities and combinations .... this one will be solved: cockpit (switch positions), CVR and FDR are available.
-unaware fuel starvation: unlikely: engines away from plane as if (some) thrust was available on impact, compressor blades damaged as if they were rotating.
-configuration error: unlikely: flaps and slats seem in proper position on pictures.
-terrorst involvement: unlikely: they would let us know proudly.
-flying error: unlikely maybe attributing: 3 man crew, line training maybe? no distress call, so the situation evolved in seconds. it would be a very gross mistake and is therefor unlikely to be the only cause, maybe attributing,
-icing on flight surfaces: unlikely, maybe attributing: 738 has sufficent AAI bleed capacity, it would have to switched on though. however icing accidents on approach usually appears earlier (when setting flaps) and impact path often near vertical.
-thrust loss due to malfunction: possible (777 EGLL) but would be a first for 738 therefor also unlikely unless birds were ingested.
-thrust loss due to system operation error: possible: EAI could have been switched off, Autothrust could have been in wrong mode (off?). not unlikely or possibly contributing.
Engines or thrust automation are very likely to be involved due to the position of the crash because thrust increase would probably be asked for just after the final flap setting, usually some 3NM out. Ice protection of engines and training or distraction may be involved, even birds.
Often (usually) a number of factors are involved: just out of my hat: frozen water in fuel leading to single engine thrust loss which was noticed late by crew and PNF (captain?) then concentrated on instruments or procedure while unexperienced FO did not increase thrust on other engine and lost speed/energy control. or another of 20000 possibilities and combinations .... this one will be solved: cockpit (switch positions), CVR and FDR are available.
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
From: Dallas, TX USA
Any pilot, when faced with a loss of thrust, or loss of airspeed, must lower the nose and maintain the airspeed. These pilots did not maintain their airspeed. They LOST CONTROL of their aircraft.
If this was a loss of power accident, maybe the pilots tried to lower the impact speed with a high AOA, similar to the BA 777 aircrew, but with less success.
I also ran some calculations, and assuming where the airframe stopped was about 1.5km out (as reported), they're altitude should have been somewhere around 250ft to 275ft AGL at that spot.
Last edited by Flight Safety; 25th February 2009 at 22:02. Reason: To add some defense of the pilots
I Have Control
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 51
Likes: 1
From: North-West England
It appears that the 737 struck the ground in a stalled condition. For whatever reason. And that's all I believe one can surmise. Even that first statement may be incorrect.
Speculation is an utter waste of time here.
Speculation is an utter waste of time here.
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
From: Malta
The 737 is designed to survuve up to 9 G without serious damage, It is not surprising that the winglets snapped then when we can assume that a few more Gs came into play.
As to whether the 737 is flyable with no hydraulics, yes , heavy but easily managable.
Flight crew all gone RIP
As to whether the 737 is flyable with no hydraulics, yes , heavy but easily managable.
Flight crew all gone RIP
