Turkish airliner crashes at Schiphol
Joined: Nov 2007
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 537
Likes: 179
From: Between a rock & a hard place.
Witness/passenger reports taken from sky news.
Jihad Alariachi said there was no warning to brace for landing before the ground loomed up through the mist.
"We braked really hard, but that's normal in a landing. And then the nose went up. And then we bounced ... with the nose aloft," she said.
Passenger Kerem Uzel said the jet's tail made contact with the ground first.
"We were at an altitude of 600 metres (2,000ft) when we heard the announcement that we were landing," he said.
"We suddenly descended a great distance as if the plane fell into turbulence. The plane's tail hit the ground ... It slid from the side of the motorway into the field."
Jihad Alariachi said there was no warning to brace for landing before the ground loomed up through the mist.
"We braked really hard, but that's normal in a landing. And then the nose went up. And then we bounced ... with the nose aloft," she said.
Passenger Kerem Uzel said the jet's tail made contact with the ground first.
"We were at an altitude of 600 metres (2,000ft) when we heard the announcement that we were landing," he said.
"We suddenly descended a great distance as if the plane fell into turbulence. The plane's tail hit the ground ... It slid from the side of the motorway into the field."
Joined: Jul 2004
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 637
Likes: 17
From: Found in Toronto
Look at these pictures of the BA777 crash at LHR.
www.flightglobal.com
As you can see from the first picture the first stage turbine blades are sheared off at around half of the length of their radius. This was because they were rotating at some speed when the impact occurred. The engine nacelle was forced onto the rotating blades causing almost identical damage to all the blades as they turned and they have all fractured at a similar radial length. The engine therefore must have been rotating and producing at least some thrust on impact.
Look now at the second image of the other engine and you will see that the turbine blades are all intact even though the nacelle has hit the ground quite hard and scooped in a lot of dirt in the process. This engine was not rotating at impact and therefore could not have been producing any thrust.
As is also witnessed by the BA incident, a total loss of thrust below 1000' can be brought so a safe outcome given favourable terrain.
www.flightglobal.com
As you can see from the first picture the first stage turbine blades are sheared off at around half of the length of their radius. This was because they were rotating at some speed when the impact occurred. The engine nacelle was forced onto the rotating blades causing almost identical damage to all the blades as they turned and they have all fractured at a similar radial length. The engine therefore must have been rotating and producing at least some thrust on impact.
Look now at the second image of the other engine and you will see that the turbine blades are all intact even though the nacelle has hit the ground quite hard and scooped in a lot of dirt in the process. This engine was not rotating at impact and therefore could not have been producing any thrust.
As is also witnessed by the BA incident, a total loss of thrust below 1000' can be brought so a safe outcome given favourable terrain.
The article you linked to is very old and appears to be in error.
Initial report update, 24 January 2008
The engines did not shut down and both engines continued to produce thrust at an engine speed above flight idle, but less than the commanded thrust.
The engines did not shut down and both engines continued to produce thrust at an engine speed above flight idle, but less than the commanded thrust.
Last edited by Lost in Saigon; 26th February 2009 at 17:02.
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
From: 6W
Has anyone else ever dispatched with the autothrottle unservicable on a B737. I did - it was memorable in that my F/O and myself both forgot it as we levelled off in the holding pattern prior to approach. Fortunately we noticed the speed decay in time. The A/T system is normally so reliable that it is taken for granted.
Joined: Aug 2001
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 1,829
Likes: 165
From: se england
Rainboe
Like you I am old enough to remeber Papa India all too clealry-I was in Staines that very day and my friend and I heard it hit the ground though we did not know what it actually was at the time.
As you say the aircraft looked virtually intact and the wreckage pattern engines aside of course for obvious reasons looks remarkably similar to the TK 737 with the fuselage spliting in a couple of places the tail detached and the nose sort of pointing downward. As I recall the cockpit area suffered rather more severe damage than the 73 did but PI stalled at about 1300 feet as I recall and presumeably had more vertical speed when it hit.
I won't specualte but will just underline that observation that the wreckage looks very similar to the ill fated Trident all those years ago.
PB
Like you I am old enough to remeber Papa India all too clealry-I was in Staines that very day and my friend and I heard it hit the ground though we did not know what it actually was at the time.
As you say the aircraft looked virtually intact and the wreckage pattern engines aside of course for obvious reasons looks remarkably similar to the TK 737 with the fuselage spliting in a couple of places the tail detached and the nose sort of pointing downward. As I recall the cockpit area suffered rather more severe damage than the 73 did but PI stalled at about 1300 feet as I recall and presumeably had more vertical speed when it hit.
I won't specualte but will just underline that observation that the wreckage looks very similar to the ill fated Trident all those years ago.
PB
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 570
Likes: 0
From: MI
goinggrey -
I sure don't like to hear an attitude like that from a 'professional' pilot.
Everything seems to be 'automatic' these days. Doesn't anyone know how to fly an airplane any more?!
The A/T system is normally so reliable that it is taken for granted.
Everything seems to be 'automatic' these days. Doesn't anyone know how to fly an airplane any more?!
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
From: Here and There
What do you think?
Boeing recommends on the 737NG that if the autopilot is disengaged the auto throttle should be disengaged for manual flying (either full automation or no automation), If the speed is not carefully monitored the aircraft can quickly degenerate into a low energy state and high rate of descent and I think the aircraft was too close to the ground to recover. Just speculating what do you guys think?
Last edited by PLTFORLIFE; 26th February 2009 at 17:12. Reason: typo
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
From: Tween Hurn&Filton
And another one
Regarding the link about THY accidents from "in my last airline", they also had a fatal 737-400 accident in about 2001, when the aircraft was ferrying with full crew from (I believe) Diyarbikir to Jeddah. It flew into a thunderstorm and lost control, causing a crater 5 metres deep on impact about 15 minutes after take-off.
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,320
Likes: 9
From: Switzerland, Singapore
Rainboe, I strongly reject your comment that my posts are missleading. Indeed yours are!
If this 737 would have been in a very high or even normal high rate of descent (ROD), there wouldn't have been any survivers. Stall at an altitude above a few meters is not survivable. Modern airliners are very efficient and Boeings are rigid and strong, but a fuselage with high ROD would desintegrate immediatly. G forces would be so strong to kill everyone on board. I assume that the ROD must have been less than 1000 ft/min, most probably less than 500. (normal sink rate at touchdown 100-300). The ground track was not short but indeed very long under these circumstances. Remember how fast the "Hudson Airbus" stopped on the water (seen by the CCTV)? Remember other accidents like the AUA F70 or the SAS MD80?
You may call it luck but I say that this was a near perfect landing on a soft field. (that doesn't imply that the crew didn't do mistakes before).
Dani
If this 737 would have been in a very high or even normal high rate of descent (ROD), there wouldn't have been any survivers. Stall at an altitude above a few meters is not survivable. Modern airliners are very efficient and Boeings are rigid and strong, but a fuselage with high ROD would desintegrate immediatly. G forces would be so strong to kill everyone on board. I assume that the ROD must have been less than 1000 ft/min, most probably less than 500. (normal sink rate at touchdown 100-300). The ground track was not short but indeed very long under these circumstances. Remember how fast the "Hudson Airbus" stopped on the water (seen by the CCTV)? Remember other accidents like the AUA F70 or the SAS MD80?
You may call it luck but I say that this was a near perfect landing on a soft field. (that doesn't imply that the crew didn't do mistakes before).
Dani
SkyGod
Joined: Aug 2000
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 1,624
Likes: 107
From: Palm Coast, Florida, USA
You may call it luck but I say that this was a near perfect landing on a soft field. (that doesn't imply that the crew didn't do mistakes before).
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
From: Berkeley
engine stop after tailstrike?
Re comparing engines -- would the tail breaking off cause the engines to shut down such that the blades would have stopped moving before the engines hit the ground)?
That's assuming the engines _were_ running when the tail broke off.
That's assuming the engines _were_ running when the tail broke off.
Joined: Jul 2004
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 637
Likes: 17
From: Found in Toronto
I consider it to be an uncontrolled crash following a stall.
Early remarks from the investigators also supprt this scenario. Turkish 737 had 'low forward speed' before Amsterdam crash
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
From: Manchester, UK
Interesting to note on the 18R approach video where the landing checks were being done, half mile or so before the impact point. Selection of flap 30, followed by landing checks and distraction therefore not applying power to counter extra drag of flap 30? The auto-throttle disarm light, although flashing red and in the immediate field of vision of the FO is surprisingly easy to miss. There is no master caution or aural alert. As i said back on page 3 or so,Im still guessing that the a/c was allowed to get slow on the GS, without the crew noticing.
Busz (737-800 jockey).........And waiting to be proved wrong
Busz (737-800 jockey).........And waiting to be proved wrong
Joined: Sep 1998
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 1
From: wherever
You may call it luck but I say that this was a near perfect landing on a soft field. (that doesn't imply that the crew didn't do mistakes before).
Dani
Dani
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
From: southwest
Apprentice
Thanks for the replies. The word has been copy-pasted all over the media, including Flight magazine's website.
I was curious as to whether this "apprentice" status would permit him to sit in the RH seat for landing. I originally assumed he was in the jumpseat.
However since all of that is already known to the Dutch authorities, my two cents worth is just a distraction.
I was curious as to whether this "apprentice" status would permit him to sit in the RH seat for landing. I originally assumed he was in the jumpseat.
However since all of that is already known to the Dutch authorities, my two cents worth is just a distraction.
Joined: Jul 2004
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 637
Likes: 17
From: Found in Toronto
There are even some examples where the engines continue to run after an accident has occurred.