Turkish airliner crashes at Schiphol
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
yeah but when the last data burst goes out during touchdown it clearly doesn't transmit the last air speed... Most probably the cockpit was the last part of the aircraft that stayed intact and thus could still send data while the aircraft had "landed" already!
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 505
Likes: 1
From: Wiltshire, UK
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,320
Likes: 9
From: Switzerland, Singapore
and what about the white dots behind your red arrows? Are they cows? Are they tulips? And the touchdown happened most probably before the first debrie.
btw this footage is shot by a zoom. Objects further away from the lense appear to be smaller...
btw this footage is shot by a zoom. Objects further away from the lense appear to be smaller...
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
From: Alps
wing tank fuel used first
Rainboe,
interesting theory of highly non-standard procedure to use wing tank fuel first, which brings you completely out of the certified envelope for the 738.
However - using this procedure will not lead to fuel starvation, because after the wing tanks are half empty the fuel in the center tank will automatically be drained into the main tank #1 (left wing tank), which gradually will lead to a nasty imbalance.
Therefore your proposed procedure does not make a lot of sense.
If it is really necessary to get cold fuel out of the wings (to avoid icing on ground) there is an approved procedure to transfer fuel from the wings INTO the center tank when you are on ground - so you are able to refuel the wing tanks with warm fuel.
The procedure takes a while, but you stay within approved area!
interesting theory of highly non-standard procedure to use wing tank fuel first, which brings you completely out of the certified envelope for the 738.
However - using this procedure will not lead to fuel starvation, because after the wing tanks are half empty the fuel in the center tank will automatically be drained into the main tank #1 (left wing tank), which gradually will lead to a nasty imbalance.
Therefore your proposed procedure does not make a lot of sense.
If it is really necessary to get cold fuel out of the wings (to avoid icing on ground) there is an approved procedure to transfer fuel from the wings INTO the center tank when you are on ground - so you are able to refuel the wing tanks with warm fuel.
The procedure takes a while, but you stay within approved area!
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
From: Turkey
737-800 length
The the length of a complete 737-800 is about 42 meters long. What do you estimate the stopping distance to be?
Overall length: 129 ft 6 in (39.47 m)
Fuselage length: 124 ft 9 in (38.02 m)
737-900 dimensions from same doc.
Overall length: 138 ft 2 in (42.11 m)
Fuselage length: 133 ft 5 in (40.67 m)
Last edited by Aeroengineer1; 26th February 2009 at 20:13. Reason: Further data inclusion
Joined: Jul 2004
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 637
Likes: 17
From: Found in Toronto
Dani, How far do you estimate the stopping distance to be?
The Analog Kid
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
From: Brecon Beacons National Park
Originally Posted by golfyankeesierra
Pieter van Vollenhoven told Dutch state television that the way the aircraft fell directly from the sky suggested that its engines might have stalled.
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,320
Likes: 9
From: Switzerland, Singapore
To make my reasoning more understandable (for the doubtfuls):
This is a wreckage where pasengers can walk away (if they are lucky):
Atlasjet 4203
btw noone survived...
This is the wreckage where there is no big chance of survival:
Kegworth
btw 47 survived the crash.
Basically the chance of survival of a crash is a function of g forces. There is also the question if there are evacuation possibilites and fire or smoke.
If your G forces are too high, your body will be destroyed. So now compare these two pictures with the wreckage in AMS, and you can clearly see that primary structures were relatively intact, that the passenger floor with it's seats stayed in place and that there where a lot of survivers.
So this should be a clear evidence that this aircraft didn't fly below stalling speed, that the ROD wasn't very high. Compare post Post 445 for information of the very similar SAS accident (everybody survived).
Dani
This is a wreckage where pasengers can walk away (if they are lucky):
Atlasjet 4203
btw noone survived...
This is the wreckage where there is no big chance of survival:
Kegworth
btw 47 survived the crash.
Basically the chance of survival of a crash is a function of g forces. There is also the question if there are evacuation possibilites and fire or smoke.
If your G forces are too high, your body will be destroyed. So now compare these two pictures with the wreckage in AMS, and you can clearly see that primary structures were relatively intact, that the passenger floor with it's seats stayed in place and that there where a lot of survivers.
So this should be a clear evidence that this aircraft didn't fly below stalling speed, that the ROD wasn't very high. Compare post Post 445 for information of the very similar SAS accident (everybody survived).
Dani
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
From: Cambridge
Rainboe,
All I can say is that your company has an interesting fuel policy if your wing tanks will top-off with 1500kgs on a turnaround!!!!
Also why would -25C be a problem, do you have any idea what the minimum fuel temperatures are???
By the way. Congratulations on all of your experience. Some people have 20000 hours experience and others have 100 hours experience 200 times over.
Like I said, fuel icing, rubbish.
Over and out.
All I can say is that your company has an interesting fuel policy if your wing tanks will top-off with 1500kgs on a turnaround!!!!
Also why would -25C be a problem, do you have any idea what the minimum fuel temperatures are???
By the way. Congratulations on all of your experience. Some people have 20000 hours experience and others have 100 hours experience 200 times over.
Like I said, fuel icing, rubbish.
Over and out.
Joined: Sep 1998
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 1
From: wherever
Callsign Type Registration Code LAT LON ALT VSP GSP TRK
THY1951 B738 TC-JGE 3554 N 52° 22.7' E 4° 42.8' -200ft -4096ft/min 83kts 181°
This is the last mode-s data from the flight.
ALT -200ft the QNH was 1027 so that would indicate 190 ft AGL.
DANI do you really believe this ac didn't stall on finals??????
THY1951 B738 TC-JGE 3554 N 52° 22.7' E 4° 42.8' -200ft -4096ft/min 83kts 181°
This is the last mode-s data from the flight.
ALT -200ft the QNH was 1027 so that would indicate 190 ft AGL.
DANI do you really believe this ac didn't stall on finals??????
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,320
Likes: 9
From: Switzerland, Singapore
FEHoppy, yes I do! If this aircraft would have landed with 4000ft/min there wouldn't be anything left except powder! btw 83kts is most probably ground speed. The fact that this aircraft couldn't impact with 4000ft/min is a sign that these transponder data are not correct.
Rainboe:
Well, the only interesting are the last 100'. Because all accident happen there! But I understand your wish to know more about the causes. OK. We will never have the chance to find out except when the investigation is finished.
My motivation here is to hint to certain thinking mistakes which are easily to falsifie when you look at the pictures. So that you can rule out 99% of all posts here and elsewhere.
My last post here, good night, happy landings, live long and sound,
Dani
Rainboe:
I have no further interest in anything below 100' altitude!
My motivation here is to hint to certain thinking mistakes which are easily to falsifie when you look at the pictures. So that you can rule out 99% of all posts here and elsewhere.
My last post here, good night, happy landings, live long and sound,
Dani
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 1
From: Hampshire, UK
I'll try a last time. There is nothing interesting in the actual crash apart from looking at the surviveability aspect for future safety proofing. All that matters is what caused the Baby Boeing to descend below 100' at that position! That's where the discussion should be centred. Goodnight Good Sir!
And here is a thought. If the Dutch had filled Holland in properly instead of leaving it a giant hole and the ground at -10', the aeroplane wouldn't have fallen so far. So it's their fault. But the French own KLM, so can we pin any blame on the French? We always blame them.
And here is a thought. If the Dutch had filled Holland in properly instead of leaving it a giant hole and the ground at -10', the aeroplane wouldn't have fallen so far. So it's their fault. But the French own KLM, so can we pin any blame on the French? We always blame them.
