Turkish airliner crashes at Schiphol
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Spain
Age: 58
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Credibility !
I know it's quite infuriating, reporters are writing long winded articles about how the Captain saved dozens of lives by "bringing the wings down level." Do they even know who was flying the plane? Do they know what level of control the pilots had over the plane?
crashresident:
I am sorry but to me you come across as someone who likes to be in the centre of the attention. You even complained about Dutch TV channel RTL not broadcasting the interview which they allegedly did with you on this tragic event. I am sorry but to me, that undermines your whole credibility as an alleged eyewitness (and all other statements on the accident, for that matter).
----
Was not thinking of participating in this thead (which I have been reading with great interest though) but I smelled a rat and I just thought that a word of caution was needed.
OldFokker
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's dispel this 'locked door' nonsense. There is NO WAY the door would have remained locked following that crash UNLESS the crew had operated the deadbolt for some reason, which is VERY UNLIKELY.. Jammed yes. If that is an accurate quote from Flight they need their arses kicking.
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: Kalgoorlie, W.A. , Australia
Age: 86
Posts: 458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many posts refer to a fireman attempting to make a hole in the roof. What I saw was a fireman beating whatever was sticking out of the roof with a hammer. At first he succeeds in driving it back down but then it jams.
But perhaps I've watched a different video!
But perhaps I've watched a different video!
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: MI
Posts: 570
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
crashresident
Part of Post #824-
Part of Post #842-
Post #881-
Post #885-
Seems to be some differences in your posts. You started out by saying you heard the engines BEFORE impact, but then you say you heard NO sounds UNTIL impact. Which is/was it?
Part of Post #824-
I stand that i heard the engingins during the impact of the plane and faded in seconds (1 or 2).
So my withness that engines were still running during impact and after is most likely.
Heard a bang, groundtremble and engine howling that fade in seconds(1-2).
For who it interest: Heard no sounds until impact.
Seems to be some differences in your posts. You started out by saying you heard the engines BEFORE impact, but then you say you heard NO sounds UNTIL impact. Which is/was it?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: SAYE
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PAX in TV Interview
It would be of interest if someone who speaks Dutch could relate at least a brief summary of what the passengers are explaining in the 19 minute PAUW & Witteman interview/forum on 925.nl TV (link posted earlier by OF)
Vliegtuig crasht op RTL Boulevard - NINE TO FIVE - 925.nl
or
YouTube - Pauw & Witteman - 25 februari 2009
Vliegtuig crasht op RTL Boulevard - NINE TO FIVE - 925.nl
or
YouTube - Pauw & Witteman - 25 februari 2009
Last edited by avionimc; 2nd Mar 2009 at 16:37.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: eu
Age: 70
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
avionimc
This Turkish passenger stated that the plane went done with full throttle engines. He also stated that the a/c started to 'wiggle' from left to right about 10 secs before impact.
This Turkish passenger stated that the plane went done with full throttle engines. He also stated that the a/c started to 'wiggle' from left to right about 10 secs before impact.
The point hasn't yet been made with regard to the ear-witness's comments and the photograph taken immediately post-crash.
If there is the impression that the engine was running after separation and that the horizontal vapour is evidence of this, I think that is incorrect.
I think given the deformation of engine casing/cowling and rapid exhaustion of fuel in what remained with the engine of the severed fuel line, neither engine "continued to run" after impact.
On the contrary, the engine with less cowling material attached shows distinct evidence of rotation which was stopped quickly by impact damage, (many blades bent back opposite direction of rotation, some straight blades remaining).
Although there is some backward-bending of the blades seen, it is difficult to say more about the other engine as the view in the photograph of the blades is more obscured.
If there is the impression that the engine was running after separation and that the horizontal vapour is evidence of this, I think that is incorrect.
I think given the deformation of engine casing/cowling and rapid exhaustion of fuel in what remained with the engine of the severed fuel line, neither engine "continued to run" after impact.
On the contrary, the engine with less cowling material attached shows distinct evidence of rotation which was stopped quickly by impact damage, (many blades bent back opposite direction of rotation, some straight blades remaining).
Although there is some backward-bending of the blades seen, it is difficult to say more about the other engine as the view in the photograph of the blades is more obscured.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PAX in tv interview
Perhaps noteworthy is that the passenger says he heard the engines go to full power AFTER he and his friend noticed that the ground appeared closer than usual, implying maybe that the engines were not running at full power prior to this.
Then he goes on to mention that immediately after impacting the ground, all was silent.
Then he goes on to mention that immediately after impacting the ground, all was silent.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: MI
Posts: 570
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
crashresident -
Ah.....Post #824. I think that if they were running "during the impact", that they must've been running BEFORE impact...no?
Show me where i stated before
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Switzerland, Singapore
Posts: 1,309
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Couldn't we leave the unimportant stuff and lets concentrate on the animation that has been done by some grafik specialists and referenced here already twice:
Link
(the original link is busy I guess)
If you watch that animation everything is pretty consistant, with the eyewitnesses, the pax statements, the way the wreckage lays on the ground and the transponder signals.
Dani
Link
(the original link is busy I guess)
If you watch that animation everything is pretty consistant, with the eyewitnesses, the pax statements, the way the wreckage lays on the ground and the transponder signals.
Dani
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: wherever
Age: 55
Posts: 1,616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DANI
Very realistically made video about the last seconds:
Airrebels.com
It supports my theory:
Came in fast and high, disengaged AT, forgot it there, trim went full aft, pulled shortly before stall, pushed throttle full forward, nose went even higher, speed incresed, stall avoided, high ROD, shortly before impact some flare, controlled landing, crash.
Video created after eyewitnesses, not according ADS-B data.
Dani
Airrebels.com
It supports my theory:
Came in fast and high, disengaged AT, forgot it there, trim went full aft, pulled shortly before stall, pushed throttle full forward, nose went even higher, speed incresed, stall avoided, high ROD, shortly before impact some flare, controlled landing, crash.
Video created after eyewitnesses, not according ADS-B data.
Dani
2) The animation shows a stall with unsuccessful recovery. Not at all what you describe.
Dani;
I would consider such an animation as "the unimportant stuff" and eye/ear witness "testimony" marginally less unimportant but only marginally, and consider the data from the recorders and detailed photographs including aerial work, the most important "stuff".
Such animations are just cartoons with a sophisticated look to them. They are in fact dangerous to understanding what happened because they build in an unsuspecting public what may turn out to be false impressions but which, as we witness here on a daily basis, impressions which some refuse to alter in the face of new infomation or data.
That they may bear a resemblance to "eyewitness" or passenger comments is due entirely to the skill of someone working in Mia, Adobe Flash or the older 3DStudio programs. It's not hard to do.
The key as to why such presentations are wholly useless and lacking in the slightest integrity is that they are not data-driven by the DFDR. So while it may be momentarily entertaining for CNN, SkyNews, etc, it has absolutely no investigative use or importance whatsoever.
I have done hundreds of animations from flight data in our flight data analysis program and can tell you (or anyone else who might be interested in how it is actually done), without hesitation that even data-driven animations have significant shortcomings and can create false understandings.
People are certainly free to view such animations but for those wanting an understanding of what happened, especially families, friends and colleagues of those killed, waiting for the interim report which will be based on data not cartoons, is the correct response.
I say this with no pretense that "I" have the right answers - not at all. I find great value in suspending judgement in favour of morbid curiosity.
Like all investigators/safety specialists/pilots, I am keenly interested in reasons behind yet another tragic accident but eschew speculation in advance of what is known.
I hope this is helpful.
PJ2
Couldn't we leave the unimportant stuff and lets concentrate on the animation that has been done by some grafik specialists and referenced here already twice:
Such animations are just cartoons with a sophisticated look to them. They are in fact dangerous to understanding what happened because they build in an unsuspecting public what may turn out to be false impressions but which, as we witness here on a daily basis, impressions which some refuse to alter in the face of new infomation or data.
That they may bear a resemblance to "eyewitness" or passenger comments is due entirely to the skill of someone working in Mia, Adobe Flash or the older 3DStudio programs. It's not hard to do.
The key as to why such presentations are wholly useless and lacking in the slightest integrity is that they are not data-driven by the DFDR. So while it may be momentarily entertaining for CNN, SkyNews, etc, it has absolutely no investigative use or importance whatsoever.
I have done hundreds of animations from flight data in our flight data analysis program and can tell you (or anyone else who might be interested in how it is actually done), without hesitation that even data-driven animations have significant shortcomings and can create false understandings.
People are certainly free to view such animations but for those wanting an understanding of what happened, especially families, friends and colleagues of those killed, waiting for the interim report which will be based on data not cartoons, is the correct response.
I say this with no pretense that "I" have the right answers - not at all. I find great value in suspending judgement in favour of morbid curiosity.
Like all investigators/safety specialists/pilots, I am keenly interested in reasons behind yet another tragic accident but eschew speculation in advance of what is known.
I hope this is helpful.
PJ2
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Switzerland, Singapore
Posts: 1,309
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hoppy, ATE, you guys have no clue. The animation is completly consistant with all relevant data we have at the moment. Have you ever sat in an airliner simulator and been in similar circumstances (although at higher altitudes)?
The problem is that you cannot accept the facts we already have or the hints we already gather. No problem, go ahead. You can continue to wonder at all kinds of facts that will surface in the next days/weeks/months.
Of course I know that this animation is only an artistic expression. But it shows how it most probably went.
Continue discovering, I immerse again...
Dani
The problem is that you cannot accept the facts we already have or the hints we already gather. No problem, go ahead. You can continue to wonder at all kinds of facts that will surface in the next days/weeks/months.
Of course I know that this animation is only an artistic expression. But it shows how it most probably went.
Continue discovering, I immerse again...
Dani
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Planet Earth for a short visit
Posts: 614
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like most professionals I actually await the official report because it affects me and my colleagues.
Re the flightdeck door, I was only passing on what is in Flight International this week, a better source of info I feel than Pprune.
Whether a flightdeck door will 'unlock' electrically in an impact is a matter for future speculation. Just because the electrical supply has been lost does not mean the door will be open.
I am of course biased because I have always been of the opinion that the doors serve only to persuade the public that politicians are doing their bit to stop terrorists. Rather than do their jobs properly.
Re the flightdeck door, I was only passing on what is in Flight International this week, a better source of info I feel than Pprune.
Whether a flightdeck door will 'unlock' electrically in an impact is a matter for future speculation. Just because the electrical supply has been lost does not mean the door will be open.
I am of course biased because I have always been of the opinion that the doors serve only to persuade the public that politicians are doing their bit to stop terrorists. Rather than do their jobs properly.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Spain
Age: 58
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Translation Passenger TV Show
Not a whole translation, just the relevant bits.
Person interviewed is Mustapha Bahcecioglu (of Turkish origin but in fluent Dutch):
- no announcement by crew of problems; descent/landing phase was initiated, "fasten seatbelt" annoucement was made and later the standard "Cabin Crew, Take Your Seats" announcement;
- was seated in seat 19F (window) just behind the wing;
- observed a normal descent with the plane gradually coming closer to the ground;
- says that at a certain moment, plane started to swing/sway heavily (wings moving up and down as later clarified visually by the interviewer and confirmed by the passenger) [later in interview passenger describes this as plane being 'out of balance'];
- says that at that moment it seemed the pilot applied full throttle, that the nose went up yet plane hit ground tail-first after which the front of plane came down hard;
- estimates time between the plane starting to swing/sway and tail hitting ground to be between 7 and 10 seconds.
- passenger states he left plane with his friend and evacuated a pregnant woman in front of them [row 18 right?] who was blocking their way to the overwing right emergency exit.
- says he is a Security & Health Coordinator at Dutch Railways and that he instructed people, once outside, to move as far away from plane as possible;
- says he did not smell kerosene once outside;
- says he and his friend went back inside (front of plane this time) to help evacuate people who they heared banging on inside of fuselage and screaming for help;
- says he saw one FA 'running around' all covered in blood;
- states emergency services arrived swiftly and acted professionally;
- states majority of fatalities were located either in front of plane or near the tail-section.
Person interviewed is Mustapha Bahcecioglu (of Turkish origin but in fluent Dutch):
- no announcement by crew of problems; descent/landing phase was initiated, "fasten seatbelt" annoucement was made and later the standard "Cabin Crew, Take Your Seats" announcement;
- was seated in seat 19F (window) just behind the wing;
- observed a normal descent with the plane gradually coming closer to the ground;
- says that at a certain moment, plane started to swing/sway heavily (wings moving up and down as later clarified visually by the interviewer and confirmed by the passenger) [later in interview passenger describes this as plane being 'out of balance'];
- says that at that moment it seemed the pilot applied full throttle, that the nose went up yet plane hit ground tail-first after which the front of plane came down hard;
- estimates time between the plane starting to swing/sway and tail hitting ground to be between 7 and 10 seconds.
- passenger states he left plane with his friend and evacuated a pregnant woman in front of them [row 18 right?] who was blocking their way to the overwing right emergency exit.
- says he is a Security & Health Coordinator at Dutch Railways and that he instructed people, once outside, to move as far away from plane as possible;
- says he did not smell kerosene once outside;
- says he and his friend went back inside (front of plane this time) to help evacuate people who they heared banging on inside of fuselage and screaming for help;
- says he saw one FA 'running around' all covered in blood;
- states emergency services arrived swiftly and acted professionally;
- states majority of fatalities were located either in front of plane or near the tail-section.
Last edited by Old_Fokker; 2nd Mar 2009 at 18:58. Reason: [Editted for spelling]
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Found in Toronto
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If there is the impression that the engine was running after separation and that the horizontal vapour is evidence of this, I think that is incorrect.
I think given the deformation of engine casing/cowling and rapid exhaustion of fuel in what remained with the engine of the severed fuel line, neither engine "continued to run" after impact.
On the contrary, the engine with less cowling material attached shows distinct evidence of rotation which was stopped quickly by impact damage, (many blades bent back opposite direction of rotation, some straight blades remaining).
Although there is some backward-bending of the blades seen, it is difficult to say more about the other engine as the view in the photograph of the blades is more obscured.
I think given the deformation of engine casing/cowling and rapid exhaustion of fuel in what remained with the engine of the severed fuel line, neither engine "continued to run" after impact.
On the contrary, the engine with less cowling material attached shows distinct evidence of rotation which was stopped quickly by impact damage, (many blades bent back opposite direction of rotation, some straight blades remaining).
Although there is some backward-bending of the blades seen, it is difficult to say more about the other engine as the view in the photograph of the blades is more obscured.
It is quite conceivable that the main fan blades could be damaged to the point of non-rotation, yet the high pressure compressor and turbine could continue running.
Last edited by Lost in Saigon; 2nd Mar 2009 at 19:38.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: south east UK
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The animation is completly consistant with all relevant data we have at the moment
For those who don't know - the only real data is that in the official report. ICAO annex something or another clearly lays down responsibilty and procedure for accident investigation. Funily enough it doesn't include a bunch of weird speculators on pprune, nor does it include the media, governments, prosecutors, airline spokesmen and everyone else chucking their pennysworth in at the moment.
There is one agency (the dutch AAIB) and one report due in due course. Everything else is made up.
