Turkish airliner crashes at Schiphol
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kerry Eire
Age: 76
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Video
Lucky Strike:
The video is in the public domain and there is nothing wrong with people making comments.
If it is real time video filmed within minutes of the accident, air safety experts, psychologists and behavioural analysts are going to have a field day and a number of text books are going to be re-written. Evacuation procedures are in need of looking at and re-enforcing - not the least the leadership of the THY cabin crew who have the responsibility of evacuating the aircraft and getting the pax as far from sources of fire and explosion as quickly as possible.
If, as I tend to believe, the video was filmed long after the accident with an added sound track, then a news organisation has been taken in or the caption writer has got it wrong.
The video is in the public domain and there is nothing wrong with people making comments.
If it is real time video filmed within minutes of the accident, air safety experts, psychologists and behavioural analysts are going to have a field day and a number of text books are going to be re-written. Evacuation procedures are in need of looking at and re-enforcing - not the least the leadership of the THY cabin crew who have the responsibility of evacuating the aircraft and getting the pax as far from sources of fire and explosion as quickly as possible.
If, as I tend to believe, the video was filmed long after the accident with an added sound track, then a news organisation has been taken in or the caption writer has got it wrong.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Seattle WA
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: The video.
No problem with it. As a 737 technician, and having an interest in safety, I see a great deal of value in being able to examine the aircraft interior and seeing first hand how it held up to the impact. It seems to have perfomed well beyond it's design strength.
As to speculation. However morbid.
It would seem to me that a forum that uses the word "RUMOR" in the title, is designed for speculation, and is supposed to encourage it. Especially among active and former aircrew.
Again, I see nothing wrong going on.
Yes, people were injured, and some lost thier lives. We know this. But this is essentially a technical issue, that potentially reaches from the day the first part of the aircraft was cut, to the day a determinaton of cause is made. The human factor is very much in play, from engineering, to the actions of the crew, to the emergency response post impact.
It's human nature to speculate, discuss, argue. I think that's what this forum is all about. I don't mean to sound callous, but the victims are a side issue. If the victims or their families are an issue for you, that's ok, but it's a distraction from the facts of the matter.
Analysis and speculation are not disrespectful. Photographs or video presented for armchar forensic analysis are not disrespectful. The examination is of the aircraft, the aircrew, and the environment at the time. That is the focus. If one cannot get past the casualties, there is nothing to be done.
The is a long standing saying in legal doctrine that you cannot slander the dead. And at any rate the truth will out very likely, very soon.
Based on everything I have seen and read so far, I have no problem speculating, and further will have no guilt if proven wrong:
That for whatever reason, the crew failed to monitor airspeed on short final. The aircraft stalled or was nearly so.
The aircraft pitched up and stalled fully. It pitched up because that was the control input. Whether that control input was simply an error, or a heroic attempt to arrest speed before impact (also an error in my view) the result is the same. And I wonder if the outcome might have been better had the aircraft been allowed to touch down sooner, in a better attitude albeit higher speed. All escaped the DEN accident, even with the fire and a significant fuel load.
No problem with it. As a 737 technician, and having an interest in safety, I see a great deal of value in being able to examine the aircraft interior and seeing first hand how it held up to the impact. It seems to have perfomed well beyond it's design strength.
As to speculation. However morbid.
It would seem to me that a forum that uses the word "RUMOR" in the title, is designed for speculation, and is supposed to encourage it. Especially among active and former aircrew.
Again, I see nothing wrong going on.
Yes, people were injured, and some lost thier lives. We know this. But this is essentially a technical issue, that potentially reaches from the day the first part of the aircraft was cut, to the day a determinaton of cause is made. The human factor is very much in play, from engineering, to the actions of the crew, to the emergency response post impact.
It's human nature to speculate, discuss, argue. I think that's what this forum is all about. I don't mean to sound callous, but the victims are a side issue. If the victims or their families are an issue for you, that's ok, but it's a distraction from the facts of the matter.
Analysis and speculation are not disrespectful. Photographs or video presented for armchar forensic analysis are not disrespectful. The examination is of the aircraft, the aircrew, and the environment at the time. That is the focus. If one cannot get past the casualties, there is nothing to be done.
The is a long standing saying in legal doctrine that you cannot slander the dead. And at any rate the truth will out very likely, very soon.
Based on everything I have seen and read so far, I have no problem speculating, and further will have no guilt if proven wrong:
That for whatever reason, the crew failed to monitor airspeed on short final. The aircraft stalled or was nearly so.
The aircraft pitched up and stalled fully. It pitched up because that was the control input. Whether that control input was simply an error, or a heroic attempt to arrest speed before impact (also an error in my view) the result is the same. And I wonder if the outcome might have been better had the aircraft been allowed to touch down sooner, in a better attitude albeit higher speed. All escaped the DEN accident, even with the fire and a significant fuel load.
Last edited by onemancrew; 1st Mar 2009 at 00:37.
Regarding the suggestion that the F/O could not be rescued - don't all airport fire tenders carry a bloody great petrol driven circular saw, capable of cutting though a 737 in seconds? People have suggested that all they did was make a little hole in the roof with an axe...why?
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Glasgow
Age: 73
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the various comments.
DaveReidUK
I've no idea if RadarBox or SBS was used to originate the ADS-B data. Indeed, I have no experience of the RadarBox although, I have to admit, it sounds interesting.
At the end of the day though, whether raw data from the SBS, or corrected data from a RadarBox, would the final altitude have been -200 feet?
Airbubba's post 765 is interesting as far as the correction for QNH is concerned. I wish that SBS would incorporate such a correction. This morning, aircraft taking off from Heathrow were maintaining 5925 feet on my SBS rather than 6000 feet!
snowfalcon2
Sorry if I did not express myself clearly. The point I was trying to make was that the originator of the original graph had already increased the altitude by 200 feet. The total correction (1027-1013) was about 375 feet, hence my comment about raising all altitudes by a further 175 feet. I agree that the aircraft carried on further towards the threshold of 18R. After all, it was still 175 feet or so above the ground and had some forward motion. How far, I do not know and made no claim about knowing this. That is a matter of fact for the investigators. Also, I made no comment about the -4096 fpm vertical speed. This may have been due to an instantaneous sampling rate which was not representative but is not, I feel, relevant.
SBS
DaveReidUK
I've no idea if RadarBox or SBS was used to originate the ADS-B data. Indeed, I have no experience of the RadarBox although, I have to admit, it sounds interesting.
At the end of the day though, whether raw data from the SBS, or corrected data from a RadarBox, would the final altitude have been -200 feet?
Airbubba's post 765 is interesting as far as the correction for QNH is concerned. I wish that SBS would incorporate such a correction. This morning, aircraft taking off from Heathrow were maintaining 5925 feet on my SBS rather than 6000 feet!
snowfalcon2
Sorry if I did not express myself clearly. The point I was trying to make was that the originator of the original graph had already increased the altitude by 200 feet. The total correction (1027-1013) was about 375 feet, hence my comment about raising all altitudes by a further 175 feet. I agree that the aircraft carried on further towards the threshold of 18R. After all, it was still 175 feet or so above the ground and had some forward motion. How far, I do not know and made no claim about knowing this. That is a matter of fact for the investigators. Also, I made no comment about the -4096 fpm vertical speed. This may have been due to an instantaneous sampling rate which was not representative but is not, I feel, relevant.
SBS
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Seattle WA
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It makes no difference if it is video or still photos, evidence is evidence. If it were a series of stills would it matter?
If examination of the wreckage didn't matter, nobody would bother.
If examination of the wreckage didn't matter, nobody would bother.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: At home
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
StainesFS
OK, now I understand better. And I should have made it clearer what was my comment to your text and what was my own additional text.
Anyway I've been struggling with that OpenATC data because if I e.g. recalculate the speeds from the distance traveled per 15-sec sample interval, I get greatly differing values compared to the (instantaneous?) values reported in the data. Something seems to be wrong somewhere...
Anyway I've been struggling with that OpenATC data because if I e.g. recalculate the speeds from the distance traveled per 15-sec sample interval, I get greatly differing values compared to the (instantaneous?) values reported in the data. Something seems to be wrong somewhere...
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Philbky,
You are over-analysing things too much. The video footage was obviously taken immediately after the crash; do you seriously think the police and authorities would allow strangers to get anywhere near the plane - let alone walk around INSIDE it - to take pictures and video footage?
The whole area would be sealed off - even now - and guarded by police.
There were no people from the emergency services in the video, the person in orange was wearing a T-shirt.
You have no idea how people react in trauma. People can often seem very calm because they are stunned. In the video you can see lots of passengers in the distance just standing around in shock: that's natural.
Why do people have to make up conspiracy theories? For what?
I dare say the passenger who recorded it was as shocked as everyone else. And the fact of the matter is the plane crashed, NO-ONE at this stage knows why - not even the air accident investigation team.
More than likely when they discover what actually happened it will turn out to be some simple error/fault which had tragic consequences. Nearly every plane crash turns out to have been caused by something bordering on trivial which leads to a catalogue of confusion or events.
You are over-analysing things too much. The video footage was obviously taken immediately after the crash; do you seriously think the police and authorities would allow strangers to get anywhere near the plane - let alone walk around INSIDE it - to take pictures and video footage?
The whole area would be sealed off - even now - and guarded by police.
There were no people from the emergency services in the video, the person in orange was wearing a T-shirt.
You have no idea how people react in trauma. People can often seem very calm because they are stunned. In the video you can see lots of passengers in the distance just standing around in shock: that's natural.
Why do people have to make up conspiracy theories? For what?
I dare say the passenger who recorded it was as shocked as everyone else. And the fact of the matter is the plane crashed, NO-ONE at this stage knows why - not even the air accident investigation team.
More than likely when they discover what actually happened it will turn out to be some simple error/fault which had tragic consequences. Nearly every plane crash turns out to have been caused by something bordering on trivial which leads to a catalogue of confusion or events.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Holland
Age: 78
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a statement made by the Aviation Herald that the Dutch Safety Board had made a pre-statement that both engines had already stopped running before A/C grounded.
This will certainly raise another number of questions. If it is a true fact.
Newspapers are copying everything said here or in other fora. It is becoming difficult to determine what's fact and what's not.
This will certainly raise another number of questions. If it is a true fact.
Newspapers are copying everything said here or in other fora. It is becoming difficult to determine what's fact and what's not.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: FL 410
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Servus !, you said:
With respect, Mostly correct. However, switching off the FDs will not automatically put the A/T into MCP SPD mode, it depends on A/T mode at FD disengagement.
If the AFDS was in LVL CHG (FLCH for the 57 crowd) prior to FD disengagement and prior to ALT capture, the A/T would remain in ARM. Pressing SPEED button on MCP restores A/T to MCP SPD mode (with FD's off, such as on a manually-flown visual approach). If the AFDS was in V/S mode at time of FD disengagement, then the A/T would remain in MCP SPD and increase thrust as required to maintain the MCP selected speed.
ASRAAM is right, if you are in FLCH descent not following the FD the throttles will stay in idle (HOLD) until to the MCP ALT. Switching off the FD changing the AT to speed mode and everything is fine. Thats the reason why you have to switch of the FD during visual approaches.
If the AFDS was in LVL CHG (FLCH for the 57 crowd) prior to FD disengagement and prior to ALT capture, the A/T would remain in ARM. Pressing SPEED button on MCP restores A/T to MCP SPD mode (with FD's off, such as on a manually-flown visual approach). If the AFDS was in V/S mode at time of FD disengagement, then the A/T would remain in MCP SPD and increase thrust as required to maintain the MCP selected speed.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Video
Why are you so sure all people were shocked? Many passengers walked away alone (no inguries), not all parts of the aircraft where stressed the same so not all passengers experienced the crash in the same way. If you remembr the B777 short landing in LHR last year, one of the passengers said that it was a bumpy landing!!! When he got out he show theplane was sitting on the grass.
The fact that there were casualties doesn't mean that the rest surviving is a miracle (that makes it tragic for TV purposes).
It may prove that the casualties where all sitted close to gether in an area of the plane that took a lot of acceleration. My opinion is that most/all of them where in the front (Cockpit, bussines class, stewardess sitting infront).
Also the crew is responsible to get you out of the plane, it is not a babysitter or law enforcer to keep you out. If passengers would run shocke ta the street and get run over bu a car it would be the crews' responsibility?!?!?! It's the same here the other way around (unless you are a lawyer).
I'm no pilot ofcourse, but as a frequent passenger, I see people sweating in light turbulence and clapping at landing. It is obvious that those people will be shocked in a crash event. Others will take the short landing of the B777 as bumpy (cannot find BBC link for that, whoever remembers, remembers).
The fact that there were casualties doesn't mean that the rest surviving is a miracle (that makes it tragic for TV purposes).
It may prove that the casualties where all sitted close to gether in an area of the plane that took a lot of acceleration. My opinion is that most/all of them where in the front (Cockpit, bussines class, stewardess sitting infront).
Also the crew is responsible to get you out of the plane, it is not a babysitter or law enforcer to keep you out. If passengers would run shocke ta the street and get run over bu a car it would be the crews' responsibility?!?!?! It's the same here the other way around (unless you are a lawyer).
I'm no pilot ofcourse, but as a frequent passenger, I see people sweating in light turbulence and clapping at landing. It is obvious that those people will be shocked in a crash event. Others will take the short landing of the B777 as bumpy (cannot find BBC link for that, whoever remembers, remembers).
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Austria
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whenever you turn off the FDs (both sides and taking about the 777) the ATs go into SPD mode.
We tryed all possible variants to modify the TCAS RA manover in order to fly it with the ATs engaged and again, when switching off both FDs the AT goes always in SPD mode.
Is actually off topic and not really important
We tryed all possible variants to modify the TCAS RA manover in order to fly it with the ATs engaged and again, when switching off both FDs the AT goes always in SPD mode.
Is actually off topic and not really important
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kerry Eire
Age: 76
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Big Blue Eyes,
Having studied airline accidents for well over 40 years I've plenty of evidence to know exactly how people behave in survivable accidents - exactly the same as they do in other life threatening situations. Whilst some people freeze, most are spurred by adrenalin to flee. The very last reaction of the survivor is to casually wander around filming or hang around. Those who stay and aren't "frozen" invariably try to rescue the trapped.
As I pointed out, if the video is genuine then a number of text books will need to be re-written. BTW there is more than one orange vest/shirt in the video.
I'm not trying to start any conspiracy theory, merely querying the provenance of the video, particularly the soundtrack which doesn't fit.
The quality is similar to broadcast quality and no small camera phone or small video would be capable of picking up the sound from within the fuselage at the distance shown in the last quarter of the video - the levels hardly vary from those when the filming was inside the cabin - the acoustic is the same.
It would be interesting to know when the teams were allowed in to remove personal belongings from the cabin and map the debris trail in the field.
As to Dimitris I Am's comments, the cabin crew are responsible for the safety of the passengers and the safe evacuation of the aircraft.
Evacuation procedures are predicated on fast exit, get as far away as possible and do not return. The cabin crew are there to see the safe evacuation is completed as far as is humanly possible.
Having studied airline accidents for well over 40 years I've plenty of evidence to know exactly how people behave in survivable accidents - exactly the same as they do in other life threatening situations. Whilst some people freeze, most are spurred by adrenalin to flee. The very last reaction of the survivor is to casually wander around filming or hang around. Those who stay and aren't "frozen" invariably try to rescue the trapped.
As I pointed out, if the video is genuine then a number of text books will need to be re-written. BTW there is more than one orange vest/shirt in the video.
I'm not trying to start any conspiracy theory, merely querying the provenance of the video, particularly the soundtrack which doesn't fit.
The quality is similar to broadcast quality and no small camera phone or small video would be capable of picking up the sound from within the fuselage at the distance shown in the last quarter of the video - the levels hardly vary from those when the filming was inside the cabin - the acoustic is the same.
It would be interesting to know when the teams were allowed in to remove personal belongings from the cabin and map the debris trail in the field.
As to Dimitris I Am's comments, the cabin crew are responsible for the safety of the passengers and the safe evacuation of the aircraft.
Evacuation procedures are predicated on fast exit, get as far away as possible and do not return. The cabin crew are there to see the safe evacuation is completed as far as is humanly possible.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK Philbyk,
Are you seriously expecting us to believe that the police would allow sightseers to walk around inside the plane after the crash?!
You need to get back to your books!
The whole crash scene was sealed off as soon as the emergency services got there and the survivors were transported away from the scene. They do that in EVERY crash (I've witnessed one myself in REAL life) and I know what I'm talking about.
Next you'll be telling you saw Elvis on the plane!
Are you seriously expecting us to believe that the police would allow sightseers to walk around inside the plane after the crash?!
You need to get back to your books!
The whole crash scene was sealed off as soon as the emergency services got there and the survivors were transported away from the scene. They do that in EVERY crash (I've witnessed one myself in REAL life) and I know what I'm talking about.
Next you'll be telling you saw Elvis on the plane!
Guest
Posts: n/a
The instantaneous ground speed is reported by the GPS unit on board and transmitted via ADS-B along with the latitude and longitude.
Looking at the latitude/longitude points, I see where you see a discrepancy:
Time Distance NM AvgSpeed Calculated Avg spd from instant spds
09:30:08
09:30:23 0.4985 119.64 (145.4 + 129.1)/2=137.25
09:30:38 0.5524 132.6 (117.2 + 129.1)/2=123.15
09:30:53 0.4318 103.6 (86.2 + 117.2) / 2 = 101.7
I would have to assume that the speed is showing a lag that is not apparent in the lat/lon points, or the other way around. Who knows...?
Looking at the latitude/longitude points, I see where you see a discrepancy:
Time Distance NM AvgSpeed Calculated Avg spd from instant spds
09:30:08
09:30:23 0.4985 119.64 (145.4 + 129.1)/2=137.25
09:30:38 0.5524 132.6 (117.2 + 129.1)/2=123.15
09:30:53 0.4318 103.6 (86.2 + 117.2) / 2 = 101.7
I would have to assume that the speed is showing a lag that is not apparent in the lat/lon points, or the other way around. Who knows...?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Burundi
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speculation is conversation...
Strong turbulence reported by PAX just before accident. I vote for the wake turbulence issue (757 is a heavy dude in this matter in spite its real weight). The strong and abrupt shear of such encounter, not only causes loss of control but also can cause the jet engines to stall and flame out, if this was the case.
Differently from Airbus, in a 737 you can always override a malfunctioned autopilot, so I don't believe that was the cause.
Well, 737 had a few terrible accidents in the past caused by sudden and uncommanded rudder movements. The NG, however is believed to be trouble free in this matter, so far (Rudder Pressure Reducer installed).
Differently from Airbus, in a 737 you can always override a malfunctioned autopilot, so I don't believe that was the cause.
Well, 737 had a few terrible accidents in the past caused by sudden and uncommanded rudder movements. The NG, however is believed to be trouble free in this matter, so far (Rudder Pressure Reducer installed).
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Cambridge (the original one)
Age: 76
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rainboe: actually, I have a CPL with IR, but your point's well taken. What I'm trying to express is that the automation was designed for that to be its predominant use. If it's not being used like that in reality, we have a problem. HarryMann's multiplicity of ways of setting up an approach is, IMHO, a symptom of that problem.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,501
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rainboe
Stop it right there! It is not allowed to transition from LNAV to LOC without going through Hdg! No more 'advice' please for those doing this in real life! It is also unreal. Maybe in development it all looks good doing that, but in real life.....never! Little things like ATC intervene, and actually flying a real aeroplane on the day, not a perfect simulated creation. You must not give piloting advice when you are not even a pilot!
The 737 NG is a good aircraft, but it does have it's flaws. Warning systems are not up to modern standards. Helios and cabin altitude warning springs to mind. Being modified as we speak.
Stall warning is, lets say, adequate? A stick shaker, and that's it. BRRRRRRR! No voice, no lights. No real protection against stall except for stick pressure when you fly in manual. Not really working if you slide down the GS with the A/T disconnected. No auto retract of speedbrakes if you react to a GPWS TERRAIN and try to pull up (AA in South America, 757, but reacts the same).
What protection do you have if you end up high on final and decide to disconnect the autopilot and autothrottle, dive down (in IMC) and fly right throught the GS only to find yourself heading fast into the ground when you break out of the clouds, followed by a OJOJOJ and a quick pull up (in idle because you are new to this aircraft and now have both hands on the yoke pulling and forgot the A/T), rapid loss of airspeed and a subsequent stall and some more OJOJOJ, some thrust and "game over". Turbulence for the SLF's could easily be a badly flown approach?
But we don't really know who was at the controls, and training captains are gods (all except a few that I know of), so this scenario is just something from my imagination. My disclaimer, so to speak.
In all fairness, it's possible to fly an Airbus into the ground without much hassle. GF BAH.
Last edited by ManaAdaSystem; 1st Mar 2009 at 00:26.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Herts, UK
Posts: 748
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gegenbeispiel
Well what I thought was a particularly pertinent observation to this accident and the discussion seems to have removed.... maybe there's another place it?
Sorry, but I maybe mislead you into thinking I was talking from a confused pilot's perspective?
I was in fact trying to say that if there are few if any PPRuNers who agree without a multitude of qualifying statements and a multitude of subsequent corrections from others on one or two basic let down and G/S intercept setups for this 738 for this runway, time and met then to an outsider it looks like flight automation systems are in need of a serious rethink - the fact that tweaks (and even cheats) are necessary (forgetting variations in Boeing recommendations and airline SOPs) to get the level of protections expected combined with a reliable intercept and stability on the slope - surely throws up a much wider, global question about systems complexity and understanding in todays cockpits?
Sorry, but I maybe mislead you into thinking I was talking from a confused pilot's perspective?
I was in fact trying to say that if there are few if any PPRuNers who agree without a multitude of qualifying statements and a multitude of subsequent corrections from others on one or two basic let down and G/S intercept setups for this 738 for this runway, time and met then to an outsider it looks like flight automation systems are in need of a serious rethink - the fact that tweaks (and even cheats) are necessary (forgetting variations in Boeing recommendations and airline SOPs) to get the level of protections expected combined with a reliable intercept and stability on the slope - surely throws up a much wider, global question about systems complexity and understanding in todays cockpits?
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Cambridge (the original one)
Age: 76
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
too many MCP modes and interactions between them?
HarryMann: I hope the mods will reinstate our discussion soon. I've always felt an intuition that there are too many MCP modes and that the interactions between them are too complicated. Also, I suspect some of them are being used in an improvised way: FLCH is called that because I doubt it was intended to be used anywhere near the ground.
I find the idea of hand flying the yoke but relying on AT to remain engaged and act properly quite scary, but it seems lots of ATPLs don't.
I find the idea of hand flying the yoke but relying on AT to remain engaged and act properly quite scary, but it seems lots of ATPLs don't.