Turkish airliner crashes at Schiphol
From Flightglobal.com:
Schiphol crash pilot's death draws cockpit door scrutiny
Imho, this is a more plausible story than the conspiracy theory posted by Tashdo.
But regardless of that, TALPA should leave their speculations to themselves as long as there are no official confirmations by the accident investigators. That's what one would expect from professionals (at least, I would).
Schiphol crash pilot's death draws cockpit door scrutiny
Imho, this is a more plausible story than the conspiracy theory posted by Tashdo.
But regardless of that, TALPA should leave their speculations to themselves as long as there are no official confirmations by the accident investigators. That's what one would expect from professionals (at least, I would).
Last edited by xetroV; 27th Feb 2009 at 21:54.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Up North
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tashdo
One of the witnesses from the motorway saw the crash and came by the 738. Also another survivor aggrees that; co-pilot Murat Sezer was alive for app. 40 mins but stuck in there. Both say they saw him from the glareshield and heared, then warned people afterwards but no one from first-aid moved to rescue him...just for criminal purposes! I probably wouldnt care air-law at that time but is it possible to leave him die like that ? Or does the law say dont touch anything in the cockpit, nor a switch or the crew...I couldnt see any human approach in there !!!
Rgds
The Moss
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm getting somewhat upset by the suggestions that the rescue services didn't do their jobs adequatly, wheren't fast enough, purposely didn't save the FO etc, etc.
By law, airport rescue services have to reach an accident within 3 minutes. CFR is so positioned around the airport so as to meet that minimum. HOWEVER this aircraft didn't crash ON THE AIRPORT!!! If you look at the satelite imagery you can see that there's no straight line possible, multiple small ditches in between. I think the rescue services did an awsome job getting there as fast as they did.
One could only hope that turkish CFR would do a similar good job!!!
Now quit with the threat drift. Stop asigning blame until the full report is out!!
By law, airport rescue services have to reach an accident within 3 minutes. CFR is so positioned around the airport so as to meet that minimum. HOWEVER this aircraft didn't crash ON THE AIRPORT!!! If you look at the satelite imagery you can see that there's no straight line possible, multiple small ditches in between. I think the rescue services did an awsome job getting there as fast as they did.
One could only hope that turkish CFR would do a similar good job!!!
Now quit with the threat drift. Stop asigning blame until the full report is out!!
Accident/Incident definitions
UK Emergency Services do not differentiate in their description of an eventuality they attend in the way ICAO and other aviation bodies do with regards to what happens to aircraft.
Events ranging from a minor road collision, through a bank robbery, a major fire to terrorism are routinely described by the UK emergency services as "incidents" in everything from traffic reports to press releases generated by such happenings.
Thus Telster is using the correct UK jargon in his post.
Thanks. I realise this is an aviation forum but I wasn't trying to use a aviation specific term. Think this is probably far enough away from the main topic of the thread now!
UK Emergency Services do not differentiate in their description of an eventuality they attend in the way ICAO and other aviation bodies do with regards to what happens to aircraft.
Events ranging from a minor road collision, through a bank robbery, a major fire to terrorism are routinely described by the UK emergency services as "incidents" in everything from traffic reports to press releases generated by such happenings.
Thus Telster is using the correct UK jargon in his post.
Thanks. I realise this is an aviation forum but I wasn't trying to use a aviation specific term. Think this is probably far enough away from the main topic of the thread now!
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Confusio Helvetica
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find it troubling that a crowd so skeptical and critical of the press would accept at face value the uncorroborated account of someone who claims to have been at the scene and provides lurid yet imprecise details without a single commonality to what other sources have reported. You know, like the guy who got phone calls from the Helios flight.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: NZWN New Zealand
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just out of interest, how well does the CFM-56 cope with a large thrust demand from idle
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Obvious
Age: 77
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hard to Stall? Not really.....
Rainboe said:
"It is very very hard and takes tremendous stick force to hold a 737 right into a stall. You cannot maintain altitude and it takes diabolical pressure to keep the nose up." You have to distinguish here between the conventional nose-low one g "untrimmed into" training stall at idle power (clean or configured) and the likely scenario here....... i.e. a "pitched into" fully nose-up (back-trimmed by auto-trim) condition suddenly revealed at stick-shaker/autopilot disconnect and with the additional complication of the stall happening at max power (TOGA) and at a very nose high attitude. CHALK and CHEESE.
.
The stall happens quickly (not progressively) and the nose-drop is quite extreme - leading to the complication of a g-stall re-stall during the ground-avoidance pull-out (which is evidently what happened to the Turkish).
.
For a greater elucidation see Belgique post at 648 and Belgique earlier posts on the thread.
.
Thomsonfly unstable Bournemouth approach under investigation
By David Learmount
The UK Air Accidents Investigation Branch confirms that it is investigating an "unstable approach" by a Boeing*737-300 at Bournemouth International airport in the UK.
Unofficial sources say that incident on 23 September 2007 involved a go-around following an uncommanded power reduction that left the aircraft at stalling speed during the approach.
The crew disconnected the autopilot and autothrottle to recover the aircraft successfully to safe flight, but witnesses report that the nose-up attitude during recovery exceeded 40°*and the airspeed reduced to approximately 90kt (166km/h) at its lowest point. The crew then carried out a safe landing at the airport, the AAIB confirms.
Because the AAIB is still studying the case, which is known to have involved a Thomsonfly 737-300, it will only confirm that the event took place and that it is formally under investigation.
The airline has not responded to requests to comment. Thomsonfly is one of the airlines owned by the international TUI Travel group.
from link
"This aeroplane was not in a full stall condition, with nose drop and recovery within the low cloud base. I was practising 737 stalls in November. It is very very hard and takes tremendous stick force to hold a 737 right into a stall. You cannot maintain altitude and it takes diabolical pressure to keep the nose up. Near the stall with buffet occurring, a high ROD regime naturally occurs. The warnings, tactile, sensual and visual are manifest. You cannot do this inadvertently, not on a straight descent! Restoration of power increases speed, but pitch coupling gets the nose up again holding you in the buffet margin. I think that must have been how impact occurred. So what was the power? Idle/stopped or full thrust, 1 or 2? Totally mysterious.
.
The stall happens quickly (not progressively) and the nose-drop is quite extreme - leading to the complication of a g-stall re-stall during the ground-avoidance pull-out (which is evidently what happened to the Turkish).
.
For a greater elucidation see Belgique post at 648 and Belgique earlier posts on the thread.
.
Thomsonfly unstable Bournemouth approach under investigation
By David Learmount
The UK Air Accidents Investigation Branch confirms that it is investigating an "unstable approach" by a Boeing*737-300 at Bournemouth International airport in the UK.
Unofficial sources say that incident on 23 September 2007 involved a go-around following an uncommanded power reduction that left the aircraft at stalling speed during the approach.
The crew disconnected the autopilot and autothrottle to recover the aircraft successfully to safe flight, but witnesses report that the nose-up attitude during recovery exceeded 40°*and the airspeed reduced to approximately 90kt (166km/h) at its lowest point. The crew then carried out a safe landing at the airport, the AAIB confirms.
Because the AAIB is still studying the case, which is known to have involved a Thomsonfly 737-300, it will only confirm that the event took place and that it is formally under investigation.
The airline has not responded to requests to comment. Thomsonfly is one of the airlines owned by the international TUI Travel group.
from link
Last edited by Belgique; 28th Feb 2009 at 08:18.
Guest
Posts: n/a
OpenATC.com now has ADS-B data online
They now have the ADS-B data online, along with the Google Earth screenshots. OpenATC.com recording of THY1951 crash
-AL@FT-
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: VA, USA
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find it easier reading graphs so here it goes:
Alt & GS vs Time THY1951
ADS-B data is used with permission from the OpenATC aircraft tracking network, openATC
Alt & GS vs Time THY1951
ADS-B data is used with permission from the OpenATC aircraft tracking network, openATC
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: İstanbul
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt ARISAN
Hello to all,
I'm a captain on A320 fleet and I was together with Capt ARISAN only day before accident at the lunch break. He was a really good pilot and wonderfull personality man. Today we will farewell to him his last flight.
I'm a captain on A320 fleet and I was together with Capt ARISAN only day before accident at the lunch break. He was a really good pilot and wonderfull personality man. Today we will farewell to him his last flight.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Graph might be useful in another form?
Anybody able to integrate that graph (link) from Luckystrike's post
into a timescaled versus height and distance graph (and mount it)?
It might prove very clarifying, but at present I don't find it very illuminating.
into a timescaled versus height and distance graph (and mount it)?
It might prove very clarifying, but at present I don't find it very illuminating.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: gate 67 JFK
Posts: 690
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firstly may i say to all our Turkish colleagues how sad we are for your loss.
Looking at the flight data against the Google earth plot it would appear that in respect of speed it all went very bad in the space of 30 sec going from around 129 knts GROUND SPEED to 86knt GROUND SPEED in that 30 sec time frame, the allitude read outs need to be adjusted for the QNH which was 1027 and touch down elevation is -10ft AMSL
The track shown is consistent with either a visual or loc track on short finals if the aircraft was being hand flown, but it would appear to be below the glide slope for some period having left the platform of 2000ft at the correct point.
There is no way IF the engines were running? and the A/T was engaged in ARM mode?, that the aircraft could have got that slow, but it did.
I had considered whether this was a GO=AROUND that went wrong from an unstable approach, but if the A/T was serviceable and engaged in ARM then there would have, even very late on be either a reduction in the rate of descent or an increase in airspeed (recorded as GROUND SPEED) the fact that the speed remainds constant at 86knts points to the aircraft at the back of the drag curve with a high ROD in an all but stalled condition.
In conclusion i remain of the view that this was either a loss of power due birds <5% chance or an handling error, which sadly seems the most probable.
The windshear theory is highly unlikely, there will have been an inversion but probably no more than 4 or 5 degrees.
The vortex off an aircraft ahead is also unlikely with a surface wind of 240/10 which is 60 deg off the inbound track and at a 1000ft that would gave been nearer 270/20 so any wake would have been blown down wind.
Turkish airline are part of the Star alliance and any star alliance member is heavily audited in respect of flight safety so i expect this to be a serviceable aircraft with a well trained crew.
Looking at the flight data against the Google earth plot it would appear that in respect of speed it all went very bad in the space of 30 sec going from around 129 knts GROUND SPEED to 86knt GROUND SPEED in that 30 sec time frame, the allitude read outs need to be adjusted for the QNH which was 1027 and touch down elevation is -10ft AMSL
The track shown is consistent with either a visual or loc track on short finals if the aircraft was being hand flown, but it would appear to be below the glide slope for some period having left the platform of 2000ft at the correct point.
There is no way IF the engines were running? and the A/T was engaged in ARM mode?, that the aircraft could have got that slow, but it did.
I had considered whether this was a GO=AROUND that went wrong from an unstable approach, but if the A/T was serviceable and engaged in ARM then there would have, even very late on be either a reduction in the rate of descent or an increase in airspeed (recorded as GROUND SPEED) the fact that the speed remainds constant at 86knts points to the aircraft at the back of the drag curve with a high ROD in an all but stalled condition.
In conclusion i remain of the view that this was either a loss of power due birds <5% chance or an handling error, which sadly seems the most probable.
The windshear theory is highly unlikely, there will have been an inversion but probably no more than 4 or 5 degrees.
The vortex off an aircraft ahead is also unlikely with a surface wind of 240/10 which is 60 deg off the inbound track and at a 1000ft that would gave been nearer 270/20 so any wake would have been blown down wind.
Turkish airline are part of the Star alliance and any star alliance member is heavily audited in respect of flight safety so i expect this to be a serviceable aircraft with a well trained crew.
Last edited by INKJET; 28th Feb 2009 at 07:24.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: southwest
Age: 78
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I expect this to be a serviceable aircraft with a well trained crew.
Wait and see.
There were three on the flight deck and no-one has yet revealed where the "apprentice" was sitting.
There were three on the flight deck and no-one has yet revealed where the "apprentice" was sitting.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: gate 67 JFK
Posts: 690
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dysag
I am not sure what you mean?
That this was either a line check or a line training sector is highly probable, but that does not in its self make it less safe, the rules that govern pilots under training are well established, they are not flights that are more risky. For most passengers the only way they would be aware of a lower experienced pilot at the helm, might be a firmer landing, but i still do that now and again!!
I have yet to see any pictures of what happened to the landing gear? i would have expected it to have been torn off as in the EMA/TNT event or punched through the wing as in the LHR/BA777 or ROME/RYANAIR event.
That this was either a line check or a line training sector is highly probable, but that does not in its self make it less safe, the rules that govern pilots under training are well established, they are not flights that are more risky. For most passengers the only way they would be aware of a lower experienced pilot at the helm, might be a firmer landing, but i still do that now and again!!
I have yet to see any pictures of what happened to the landing gear? i would have expected it to have been torn off as in the EMA/TNT event or punched through the wing as in the LHR/BA777 or ROME/RYANAIR event.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: EDI, LHR, NQY
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by xetroV
TALPA should leave their speculations to themselves as long as there are no official confirmations by the accident investigators. That's what one would expect from professionals (at least, I would).
Originally Posted by Associated Press
0821GMT 28FEB09
ANKARA, Turkey (AP) — A Turkish pilots' group claims turbulence from a large plane landing at Amsterdam airport may have caused the crash of a Turkish Airlines flight in which nine people died.
Turkey Airline Pilots' Association Secretary-General Savas Sen said late Friday that a large Boeing 757 had landed at Schiphol Airport two minutes earlier. Sen said that plane most likely created "wake turbulence" that hampered the Turkish aircraft's landing.
ANKARA, Turkey (AP) — A Turkish pilots' group claims turbulence from a large plane landing at Amsterdam airport may have caused the crash of a Turkish Airlines flight in which nine people died.
Turkey Airline Pilots' Association Secretary-General Savas Sen said late Friday that a large Boeing 757 had landed at Schiphol Airport two minutes earlier. Sen said that plane most likely created "wake turbulence" that hampered the Turkish aircraft's landing.
Inkjet, the landing gear can be seen in at least one of the Schiphol fire & rescue Dpt pictures which were linked to earlier:
http://www.brandweerschiphol.nl/inci...2_26/jk/16.jpg
http://www.brandweerschiphol.nl/inci...2_26/jk/16.jpg