Turkish airliner crashes at Schiphol
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Thessaloniki, GRECE
Age: 41
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: MI
Posts: 570
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK.....so there was a Captain and two Co-Pilots. We still do not know the third pilots status: deadheading jump seat, observer, ??? Co-Pilots don't check Co-Pilots...at least not where I come from.
Gender Faculty Specialist
DC, our company has a First Officer on the jump seat, as a safety pilot, for the first few sectors of line training, even for a pilot from within the company who is new to type. Alternatively it could have been someone on a familiarisation flight and that could be an OPS bod, cabin crew, a new Captain or F/O or anybody else really.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: southwest
Age: 78
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: EU
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cockpit door lock
Not wanting to disclose too much about cockpit doors, but rest assured they will unlock by design after a crash.
Just after 9/11 (when the doors were not redesigned yet) deadbolts from the cockpit were used and that would be a post-crash problem.
It is likely that in this case both the cockpit door and the Capt's sliding window (which can be opened from outside) were jammed. Specially because reportedly the pilots were crushed by the "instrument panel behind them" (presumably circuitbreaker panel).
Just after 9/11 (when the doors were not redesigned yet) deadbolts from the cockpit were used and that would be a post-crash problem.
It is likely that in this case both the cockpit door and the Capt's sliding window (which can be opened from outside) were jammed. Specially because reportedly the pilots were crushed by the "instrument panel behind them" (presumably circuitbreaker panel).
Originally Posted by BackPacker
And for the record, I'm with the Public Attorney as well. I think the "Openbaar Ministerie" has to have access to the data (but maybe not the actual physical CVR and FDR) to determine whether a criminal investigation should be started or not. Giving them access to the data does not automatically make this a criminal case.
But right now it is Mr. van Vollenhovens Onderzoeksraad who is the only one able to make the determination whether this is a criminal case or not. Something that's completely and utterly outside their jurisdiction and expertise.
See also this thread.
(*) Rijkswet Onderzoeksraad voor Veiligheid (loosely translated: "National Law for the Dutch Transport Safety Board")
Last edited by xetroV; 28th Feb 2009 at 13:21.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kerry Eire
Age: 76
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
"Onepostonly makes sense, except that they must have gone through GPWS glideslope, EGPWS and stickshaker without applying power? Any one of those ought to make the trainer apply TOGA."
Unfortunately the history of aircraft accidents is littered with instances of ought to but didn't and disregarded warnings, both audible and visual.
"Onepostonly makes sense, except that they must have gone through GPWS glideslope, EGPWS and stickshaker without applying power? Any one of those ought to make the trainer apply TOGA."
Unfortunately the history of aircraft accidents is littered with instances of ought to but didn't and disregarded warnings, both audible and visual.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: .
Posts: 557
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jackharr, very sensible indeed! This was sector 3 of a 4 sector day, the cadet was PNF for first (well with me doing paperwork etc) and PF for 2nd and 3rd. The trainer thinking (at the time) home base and then AMS would not be too demanding.
If they had gone just below G/S (1/2 or 3/4 dot say) and then back onto it (plots show high ROD than slightly shallower than normal ROD briefly) you wouldn't get a glideslope call. The EGPWS would not go off as until the final moment terrain is not an issue. You are on profile, just (getting) low on speed. ROD was high but when above 1000ft and then on the high side but not to trigger a EGPWS. Stickshaker however they would have got in this scenario. Anyone would respond. Its all rumour but there is talk of the engines spooling up late on. Maybe just too late and not in time as they were spooling up from idle??
Dunno, its all speculation!
If they had gone just below G/S (1/2 or 3/4 dot say) and then back onto it (plots show high ROD than slightly shallower than normal ROD briefly) you wouldn't get a glideslope call. The EGPWS would not go off as until the final moment terrain is not an issue. You are on profile, just (getting) low on speed. ROD was high but when above 1000ft and then on the high side but not to trigger a EGPWS. Stickshaker however they would have got in this scenario. Anyone would respond. Its all rumour but there is talk of the engines spooling up late on. Maybe just too late and not in time as they were spooling up from idle??
Dunno, its all speculation!
More than just an ATCO
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Up someone's nose
Age: 75
Posts: 1,768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Christodoulidesd Interesting quote from Learmount there; unfortunately there doesn't seem to be anyrhing elsewhere on the net to support it. The last statement from the OVV was that the analysis is continuing and further info may be released on Wednesday.
Onepostonly's scenario is v. plausible I'm afraid. It was my initial thought too and the reason I asked about the ILS interception several pages ago.
Onepostonly's scenario is v. plausible I'm afraid. It was my initial thought too and the reason I asked about the ILS interception several pages ago.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Seattle
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Impact Forces vs. Seat Location
Previous posts here have established the following facts relative to impact:
The nature of the impact was that those in the aft cabin experienced forces from a vertical velocity equal to ROD mitigated slightly by the frangibility of the tail structure absorbing some of the kinetic energy.
People in the front end experienced impact at a higher velocity. Once the tail hit the ground the vertical kinetic energy acted to rotate the fuselage about the tail (pitch up angle quickly = 0) which increased the vertical velocity of the forward cabin to a value well above ROD. This rotation also created a component of centrifugal force in the forward direction. This might also explain how the engine came to rest forward of the aircraft.
- ROD was large.
- Fwd velocity was small.
- Aircraft was in a nose high attitude.
- The nose gear was punched upwards into the cockpit.
The nature of the impact was that those in the aft cabin experienced forces from a vertical velocity equal to ROD mitigated slightly by the frangibility of the tail structure absorbing some of the kinetic energy.
People in the front end experienced impact at a higher velocity. Once the tail hit the ground the vertical kinetic energy acted to rotate the fuselage about the tail (pitch up angle quickly = 0) which increased the vertical velocity of the forward cabin to a value well above ROD. This rotation also created a component of centrifugal force in the forward direction. This might also explain how the engine came to rest forward of the aircraft.
It is really distateful that this turf fight is now fought in public. And actually with both sides going head-to-head, it looks like whoever got the CVR and FDR first, would not have given the data to the other party. This is not going to be good for subsequent incidents, where both of these parties might want to rush to the scene, ignoring everything else, to get to the black boxes first.
And for the record, I'm with the Public Attorney as well. I think the "Openbaar Ministerie" has to have access to the data (but maybe not the actual physical CVR and FDR) to determine whether a criminal investigation should be started or not. Giving them access to the data does not automatically make this a criminal case.
But right now it is Mr. van Vollenhovens Onderzoeksraad who is the only one able to make the determination whether this is a criminal case or not. Something that's completely and utterly outside their jurisdiction and expertise.
On the other hand, what's the rush? The Openbaar Ministerie can also sit on their hands for a month, wait for the analysis of the data and then subpoena the data anyway. It's the investigation and the results of the investigation of the OVV that should not be used in criminal cases, but I cannot believe that that would also go for the raw data on which the OVV investigation is based.
That would actually create a nice loophole in general. If I'm involved in an accident which might somehow lead to a criminal investigation, I would ship everything that might even be remotely used as evidence to the OVV, knowing that it's going to be safe from the OM.
Mr. van Vollenhoven is right in the sense that he wants to protect the independence of the OVV, but I think he's wrong in not giving the OM access to the raw data.
And for the record, I'm with the Public Attorney as well. I think the "Openbaar Ministerie" has to have access to the data (but maybe not the actual physical CVR and FDR) to determine whether a criminal investigation should be started or not. Giving them access to the data does not automatically make this a criminal case.
But right now it is Mr. van Vollenhovens Onderzoeksraad who is the only one able to make the determination whether this is a criminal case or not. Something that's completely and utterly outside their jurisdiction and expertise.
On the other hand, what's the rush? The Openbaar Ministerie can also sit on their hands for a month, wait for the analysis of the data and then subpoena the data anyway. It's the investigation and the results of the investigation of the OVV that should not be used in criminal cases, but I cannot believe that that would also go for the raw data on which the OVV investigation is based.
That would actually create a nice loophole in general. If I'm involved in an accident which might somehow lead to a criminal investigation, I would ship everything that might even be remotely used as evidence to the OVV, knowing that it's going to be safe from the OM.
Mr. van Vollenhoven is right in the sense that he wants to protect the independence of the OVV, but I think he's wrong in not giving the OM access to the raw data.
The collection of data and analyis are not outside the Dutch Aviation police expertise as they have qualified air accident investigators who are capable of working together with their civil counterparts
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: MI
Posts: 570
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chesty Morgan -
So, even though one of the F/Os was in training, we don't know who was sitting where yet, I don't think. Or.....who was the Pilot Flying.
DC, our company has a First Officer on the jump seat, as a safety pilot, for the first few sectors of line training, even for a pilot from within the company who is new to type. Alternatively it could have been someone on a familiarisation flight and that could be an OPS bod, cabin crew, a new Captain or F/O or anybody else really.
So, even though one of the F/Os was in training, we don't know who was sitting where yet, I don't think. Or.....who was the Pilot Flying.
It was reported early on in this thread that the QNH at the time of the crash was 1027hPa. Since the SBS altitude data is related to standard pressure, it was under-reporting the altitude by 14 times 27feet, i.e. 378 feet.
This means that we can't be sure whether the altitude readouts were relative to 1013mb, or were corrected for the prevailing QNH (RadarBox will do the latter automatically, but only if the appropriate box is ticked).
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Thessaloniki, GRECE
Age: 41
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLICK HERE to view video footage of the plane (inside, and around it, outside) taken after the crash.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
757 Driver.
FlCh Trap
I fly the 777 and from other comments here it would appear this is not a factor on the 737. On the 777 however it is possible to find oneself without the speed protection you might imagine whilst decending using Flight Level Change.
If you were to select a lower alt and activate FlCh the thrust will (usually) come back to idle and the FD will command an idle power descent at the selected speed.
Were you to fly the aircraft manually and ignore the FD commends, for example by reducing the descent rate, to avoid clioud perhaps, then the speed will reduce.
In most modes on the 777 with A/T engaged the thrust will maintain amber line, or 'wake up' just below amber line and increase speed to top of amber band.
In FlCH the A/T will do nothing untill the MCP alt has been reached, the speed could decay to stall speed.
This is why it is vital to either follow the FD or if it is not programmed correctly turn off the FD which will then give speed protection if the A/T is armed.
FlCh Trap
I fly the 777 and from other comments here it would appear this is not a factor on the 737. On the 777 however it is possible to find oneself without the speed protection you might imagine whilst decending using Flight Level Change.
If you were to select a lower alt and activate FlCh the thrust will (usually) come back to idle and the FD will command an idle power descent at the selected speed.
Were you to fly the aircraft manually and ignore the FD commends, for example by reducing the descent rate, to avoid clioud perhaps, then the speed will reduce.
In most modes on the 777 with A/T engaged the thrust will maintain amber line, or 'wake up' just below amber line and increase speed to top of amber band.
In FlCH the A/T will do nothing untill the MCP alt has been reached, the speed could decay to stall speed.
This is why it is vital to either follow the FD or if it is not programmed correctly turn off the FD which will then give speed protection if the A/T is armed.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: At home
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
StainesFS
Sorry, I don't understand your reasoning.
Why assume an altitude correction of 175 ft to the data when the QNH implies it should be 378 ft? Looking at the actual position of the last "-200 ft" data sample and comparing it with photos it looks quite probable that the airplane was still airborne at that point, possibly even at +178 ft amsl as the QNH corrected data suggests. And with a -4096 fpm descent rate it would anyway have reached ground level in ~2.5 seconds.
The conclusion of the above would be that the airplane remained on or above the glideslope for an even longer time.
Anyway, bearing in mind all the various measuring inaccuracies I would not dismiss the possibility that this much discussed -4096 fpm descent rate may turn out to be sampled at precisely the moment when the airplane's nose slammed down in the field, accelerated by the moment around the main wheels, as explained in earlier posts. But let's be careful not to make too deep conclusions from this unofficial data.
PS: From the looks of it, the position of the last data sample seems to be around 120 m short of the actual location where the nose came to rest. Corrections welcome
If we assume that all altitudes in the graph should be shifted up by about 175 feet, and adjust the graph accordingly it shows a somewhat different pattern.
The conclusion of the above would be that the airplane remained on or above the glideslope for an even longer time.
Anyway, bearing in mind all the various measuring inaccuracies I would not dismiss the possibility that this much discussed -4096 fpm descent rate may turn out to be sampled at precisely the moment when the airplane's nose slammed down in the field, accelerated by the moment around the main wheels, as explained in earlier posts. But let's be careful not to make too deep conclusions from this unofficial data.
PS: From the looks of it, the position of the last data sample seems to be around 120 m short of the actual location where the nose came to rest. Corrections welcome
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
re #744.. video of accident aftermath. Is it just me, or is that WEIRD. There are no signs of the emergency services, which would indicate this was recorded VERY soon after impact.
Looks like it's done on a phone (?), but by whom? What kind of passenger would a) be un-stunned enough to have the presence of mind to do that, and b) wouldn't be trying to help people, rather than faffing around with a phone?
If the recorder is a local bystander, then b applies. You could clearly hear people in distress.
As a total non-pilot, but one who puts my life in the hands of you guys on a regular basis, I've always been content to read this site - but this video has forced me to break my silence.
And for all my safe landings, I'm sure some of you on here must have been at the controls, so I thank you
Looks like it's done on a phone (?), but by whom? What kind of passenger would a) be un-stunned enough to have the presence of mind to do that, and b) wouldn't be trying to help people, rather than faffing around with a phone?
If the recorder is a local bystander, then b applies. You could clearly hear people in distress.
As a total non-pilot, but one who puts my life in the hands of you guys on a regular basis, I've always been content to read this site - but this video has forced me to break my silence.
And for all my safe landings, I'm sure some of you on here must have been at the controls, so I thank you
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kerry Eire
Age: 76
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the contrary, the video on #744 looks to have been taken well after the accident, with all the pax gone from the fuselage and all the emergency services withdrawn - probably on Friday