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 27th Feb 2009, 10:57
  #581 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: the world is my oyster
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If the engines are at flight idle-they are still delivering thrust.
mach79 is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2009, 11:02
  #582 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Alps
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
WizofOz, I totally agree!
There would be no warning from the A/T (as it would be off).
FA10 is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2009, 11:06
  #583 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Age: 58
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Autopilot

Everybody seems convinced that the autopilot was engaged. Was it?
Personally, when I intend to do a manual landing, I fly a manual approach.
astonmartin is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2009, 11:20
  #584 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: the world is my oyster
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
In those conditions, I think its fairly safe to say the autopilot was on-although of course one must wait for the report to confirm it.
mach79 is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2009, 11:24
  #585 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: At home
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Everybody seems convinced that the autopilot was engaged. Was it?
Personally, when I intend to do a manual landing, I fly a manual approach.
No one here knows, yet.
I'd speculate, however, that in a manually flown approach the pilot would have noticed the speed decay earlier. Unless he was distracted of course.
snowfalcon2 is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2009, 11:25
  #586 (permalink)  
28L
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Astommartin,
Where do you fly? Doing a manual approach into a busy airport (eg AMS) can really load the other guy up with MCP inputs to keep up with your flying. Virtually all my landings are manual. Most are done done following an automatic approach. It maintains SA in very busy airspace IMO.
28L is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2009, 11:25
  #587 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
What of a prolonged glide in icing conditions....with no anti-ice selected.
Conditions are visible moisture.. Thrust response would definitely be a problem if ice is present..
SkyBat is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2009, 11:46
  #588 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I dont buy windshear and I think Rainboe's fuel theory is crazy.Although Dani is technically correct about passengers not surviving true stalls,he is splitting hairs somewhat.This aircraft crashed as it approached the stall.Lemurian's post about dissipation of the energy forces in the crash sequence was very well thought out and perhaps explains why we have so many survivors.
Survivor testimony of engine acceleration in the final moments is very telling in what it implies and what it rules out.
The most plausible thing we have on the table right now is automation complacency/confusion(ie.AT status) brought about by a deadly mixture of distraction,haste and inexperience(training flight).I know that Schiphol controllers are excellent but they can be highly demanding as well.Sometimes their demands can lead to hurried approaches where callouts and careful monitoring are absent and where checklists are completed in the most critical phase(below 1000').May not be the case here but at this stage it should be considered.

Last edited by Rananim; 27th Feb 2009 at 12:12.
Rananim is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2009, 11:52
  #589 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Boldly going where no split infinitive has gone before..
Posts: 4,801
Received 51 Likes on 25 Posts
If the engines are at flight idle-they are still delivering thrust.
Yes, but not much. CERTAINLY not enough to stop a landing-configured aircraft on a 3deg glide-slope from stalling.

In those conditions, I think its fairly safe to say the autopilot was on-although of course one must wait for the report to confirm it.
If he was capturing the GS from above, below platform altitude, I think it more likely that the A/P was off.

the only way to do this with A/P on is-

Select a lower alt on MCP
Select a Vertical mode( Probably V/S)
Set a value for V/s
Wait while the aircraft gently responds
Wait till G/S captures
Reset MCP to Go-around altitude.

OR, you disconnect and shove the nose down.

Most pilots (me included) would opt for the latter.
Wizofoz is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2009, 12:07
  #590 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: USofA
Posts: 1,235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Just a little thread drift here but I have seen several posters use the term "platform altitude". Is that a JAA term as to my knowledge it is not used in any Boeing or FAA manuals. Now back to our regular programing.

Thanks
Spooky 2 is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2009, 12:09
  #591 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Am I going a bit daft? Can anyone else see any evidence of the landing gear in any of the crash photos?
dc1968 is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2009, 12:13
  #592 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: London, UK
Age: 65
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
dc1968
If you look at fire service photos (link in a post earlier in the thread) you can landing gear
ELondonPax is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2009, 12:18
  #593 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Boldly going where no split infinitive has gone before..
Posts: 4,801
Received 51 Likes on 25 Posts
Just a little thread drift here but I have seen several posters use the term "platform altitude". Is that a JAA term as to my knowledge it is not used in any Boeing or FAA manuals. Now back to our regular programing.
Spook,

I don't think it is even defined in JAR, but is a commonly used term refering to the initial altitude prior to G/S intercept on an Instrument approach.
Wizofoz is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2009, 12:20
  #594 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Herts, UK
Posts: 748
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Although Dani is technically correct about passengers not surviving true stalls,he is splitting hairs somewhat.
I'm not so sure he is, its just his words and this black/white stall misconcept I think...

It certainly didn't have a very high vertical speed... my words yesterday were something like '... mushing along with insufficient thrust' at the moment of impact, what preceded that may have, probably was, more extreme pitch and speed deviations, but last minute recovery and control inputs may well have saved over one hundred lives..

The deaths occurred in the forward section experiencing extreme longitudinal decelerations, the centre section behind having many times its mass and hence energy.

I would not be surprised to find that control changed hands within the last minute before impact... nor that there was a degree of inattention shortly before and/or a prior poor decision.

Last edited by HarryMann; 27th Feb 2009 at 12:31.
HarryMann is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2009, 12:29
  #595 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Manchester, UK
Age: 39
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
For a low drag approach (flap 30), i would expect a Vref of around 142 or so.....
busz is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2009, 12:31
  #596 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Denmark
Age: 79
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
GS capture from above - likely?

Wisofoz,

I just compared the info from Google Earth, info in post#579
and info from the approach chart for ILS 18R, http://www.ais-netherlands.nl/aim/09...-IAC-18R-2.pdf

According the approach chart the crossing altitude when on ILS GS when passing 6.2 NM is 2000 ft. THY was not established until approx. 4.8 NM (acc. Google) and consequently did not pass 6.2 NM on localizer, as still on an intercept heading.
The aircraft passed 4.8 NM at 1900 ft. i.e. high on GS. (approx. 300 ft.)
He realized this and reacted by increasing descent, and he passed approx. 1000 ft. on the GS at 2.9 NM - acc. post#579. Fine so far!

Agree?

What happened thereafter will be guesswork.

brgds

Last edited by grebllaw123d; 27th Feb 2009 at 13:03.
grebllaw123d is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2009, 12:40
  #597 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,091
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Our SOPs require that the A/T are never fully disconnected. Yes, we do take out the autopilot, and announce it to the other chap, and also ask the other seat for "Speed Off" which requires speed to be deselected on the MCP. Following these actions, an alarm sounds for the AP disconnect, and the red-flashing warning light for A/T flashes. The Speed Mode is then shown as ARM. In these circumstances, thrust will return automatically when the actual speed falls below the selected MCP speed.

However, in the scenario where Vertical Speed is armed, the speed window opens at the selected speed, and the aircraft will attempt to match the specified vertical profile. One can place a lower altitude in the window to arm V/S, or as would make sense in this scenario, the missed approach altitude can be selected, and a vertical speed initiated - now there is no floor to prevent the aircraft acquiring an altitude which can mess everything up in a ILS! We've all done it, when everything is looking dandy, suddenly the ALT ACQUIRE pops up and the descent/re-capture close to being ruined. Fancy handy work, normally by quick hands on the MCP, or manual flight is really the only option then.

Vertical Speed offers absolutely no speed control. Although the autopilot is flying, it concentrates only on obtaining the nominated V/S, ignoring the speed entirely.
no sponsor is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2009, 12:40
  #598 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Age: 58
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
@nick 14: such a manoevre would almost immediately result in high sinkrate, regardless of high pitch/AoA.

@28L I fly out of AMS. I don't like late change-overs from automatic to manual. Pilot-not-flying workload during manual flight is not that high....
astonmartin is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2009, 12:43
  #599 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
never discount the subtle changes to the cockpit environment by having someone in the jumpseat.

on the other hand, the jumpseater may have been the first to call a warning.

I'm not sure what the guy was saying about DC8 throttles not moving...unless he meant that they had to be moved by hand. the dc9 had the same sort of speed control/command authothrottles for approach only...they ended up being disconnected to avoid mx issues.

Hand flying making the NFP work harder...too bad. You need to keep your hand current.

subtle incapacitation hasn't been mentioned has it?
protectthehornet is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2009, 12:49
  #600 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Have the Dutch indicated when we might learn something from the recorders? I know the French have them which I fear will no doubt delay any useful information coming forth. Being a Boeing, I doubt the info will be tainted.
wes_wall 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.