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 3rd Mar 2009, 22:19
  #961 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: uk
Age: 58
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
NOD,

Obviously a single engine failure is not a singular reason to fall out of the sky, please don't be so patronising. I don't rule it out to being a hole in the Swiss cheese though. Something like that can set off a chain of events - i.e. it's the start.

I would rather at this stage believe that than the version where they just stalled a perfectly serviceable A/C into the ground with both engines running.

Lost in Siagon,

Besides, there have been numerous reports of the engines working prior to the crash.
and you don't think that a witness hearing engine noise could be hearing the live engine when trying to recover then ?

Some here are wondering what 'loaded them up' - a flame out would certainly have got their attention.
puddle-jumper2 is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2009, 22:24
  #962 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by latetonite
Accident cause will be clear to investigators.
Turks will not agree and put the blame elswhere.
Our S.O.P.`s will change.
Boeing will install another sticker in front of my nose, stating the obvious.
As a Turk, and a close follower of Turkish news over the past few weeks, I'm inclined to agree, at least on the first two points.

I'll be interested to see what role (if any) the trainee pilot played in this disaster. Sorry, just a hunch. I'll be happy to delete if anyone is offended.
PanPanYourself is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2009, 22:26
  #963 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Found in Toronto
Posts: 611
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by puddle-jumper2
Obviously a single engine failure is not a singular reason to fall out of the sky, please don't be so patronising. I don't rule it out to being a hole in the Swiss cheese though. Something like that can set off a chain of events - i.e. it's the start.

I would rather at this stage believe that than the version where they just stalled a perfectly serviceable A/C into the ground with both engines running.
I think it is looking more and more like they "stalled a perfectly serviceable A/C into the ground with both engines running"

Lost in Siagon,

and you don't think that a witness hearing engine noise could be hearing the live engine when trying to recover then ?
No. The witnesses, and the aircraft's flightpath all point to a stall and attempted recovery with both engines.
Lost in Saigon is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2009, 22:49
  #964 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
wing mounted underslung engines

when I went from the tail mounted engines of the DC9 series to the underwing engines of the 737, I made up a rule for myself.

pull throttles back, pull back on yoke

push throttles forward, push forward on yoke

I felt that the engines on the 737 had way too much pitch authority. Though it was quite controllable in the simulator doing stalls.

The DC9 series was so well behaved with thrust applications or reductions, I felt it was a purer form of flying...it left the pitch to the elevator, not the engines.
protectthehornet is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2009, 23:28
  #965 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: MI
Posts: 570
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Kiwiguy -

Seems like there's times when possible truths are kept from these investigations for some unknown reason. I had evidence withheld from an investigation concerning possible icing on a 737 accident as well. Ultimately, the crew was held responsible. Of course they died in the accident so were unable to defend themselves. Hopefully the FULL truth will emerge from this and ALL accidents in the future regardless of what it might cost to rectify whatever caused the problem.
DC-ATE is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2009, 23:40
  #966 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: NZWN New Zealand
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
In the 1995 crash of Ansett NZ flight 703, I quizzed a former New Zealand Prime Minister in Parliament after I heard a rumour (Jenny Shipley)

She confirmed to me that the radio altimeter aerials were painted over despite being stenciled nearby "Do Not Paint Aerials"

Politicians in that case determined that it was not relevant and it was not reported in the crash report.

In the same crash Capt Gary Southeran reported that his radio altimeter flipped 1000 feet just as the GPWS sounded a Pull Up warning. The warning was 23 seconds too late and 4.5 seconds prior to impact.

Police charged Southeran with manslaughter. He was aquitted, but after the aquittal a TV station here revealed that a passenger rang the Ansett NZ call centre and spoke to an operator named Cauldwell.

The passenger was complaining to the airline about a late landing just moments before impact from inside the Dash 8. What gave the NZ Police the right or expertise to pre-determine that the phone call was not relevant to the Captain's legal defence, or the cause of the crash ?

Those on this Turkish Airliner thread responsible for censoring threads about possible electronic interference are making the same judgment call which they are not entitled to make
Kiwiguy is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2009, 23:56
  #967 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Boeing adopts the design philosophy that the engine should shear off in case of impact on water or ground. Hence the engines are attched with shear pins on the Fat Bobby.
Airbus on the other hand adopts the design philosophy that the engine should stay on the wind in all cases and uses a redundant sleeve/bolt design.
There is no right or wrong here!
Me thinks that the Airbus philosophy helped ditching US Air succesfully into the Hudson and the Boeing design route certainly minimised casualties in the case we are discussing here.
Dunno how the Airbus philosophy fits here at all. one engine broke off and the other stayed on. Which [non]event "helped" the ditching, and how/why?
Intruder is offline  
Old 4th Mar 2009, 00:44
  #968 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
As a professional pilot I`m looking forward to Wednesday`s press conference in order to hear the facts as they are presented by the people who make the science of air accident investigation their life`s work. This for the sole reason so that we all can learn from the TRUTH and not be fooled by silly conspiracy theories by know nothing armchair home pc flight simulator think-they-know-it -all pretend-a-pilots. We will learn from the mistakes of others , we won`t live long enough to make them all ourselves. Gravity won again.
6000PIC is offline  
Old 4th Mar 2009, 02:36
  #969 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I have read twice on this thread (on 25 and 26 Feb) that four Americans, later identified as Boeing employees died (one was Post #458 and another [apparently since deleted] that specifically said The four Americans who died were the four Boeing employees on the flight).
In the interest of accuracy I am copying the following press release by Boeing:
SEATTLE, Feb. 27, 2009 -- Boeing [NYSE: BA] today received confirmation from the U.S. Embassy in Amsterdam that a third Boeing employee has been identified as among the fatalities from this week's Turkish Airlines Flight 1951 accident in Amsterdam. Boeing extends its deepest condolences to his family, friends and colleagues. With the consent of the affected families, Boeing confirms the names and conditions of the four Boeing employees on Flight 1951. Three employees [Names and Home Town] - died in the crash. One employee - [Name and Home Town] - was among the injured and remains hospitalized. Boeing remains committed to supporting the families of our employees through this very difficult time.
I know of no further information on the condition of the injured employee.
kappa is offline  
Old 4th Mar 2009, 06:48
  #970 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Netherlands
Age: 59
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Kappa,

I think he is still alive. I haven't read any news about the passengers in the last few days. In the beginning there were 6 persons in critical condition. A few days later they said only one person was still in critial condition.I have no idea who it is or with nationality this person has.
Jacobien is offline  
Old 4th Mar 2009, 08:01
  #971 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
EMI --- again.

Originally Posted by Kiwiguy

Incidentally if they are so sure that it is JUST a "crazy idea" then why are they so scared to debate it?
They are not scared to debate it, they know that it is a waste of their time.

And for good reason. Electromagnetic interference has long been known about, it is taken into account during design, and validated in HIRF test facilities. The field intensities in these test environments is orders of magnitude higher than what arrives at the engine location from a cell phone.

The FADECs in the engine are among the most heavily shielded electronics. Same goes for other flight critical system. They will not be disturbed by the puny little emissions of a cell phone.

(Navigation system are another matter, they receive electromagnetic radiation from the outside by design, and are thus inherently vulnerable to EMI. Same goes for communication systems, obviously.)


Bernd
bsieker is offline  
Old 4th Mar 2009, 09:31
  #972 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Age: 46
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
This morning the Dutch investigators are holding a press conference on the Turkish Airlines Boeing 737-800 crash at Amsterdam last week and I understand that later Boeing will release a safety bulletin. From a reliable source, the contents of the Boeing bulletin will include the points below. Regrettably they don't reflect well on the pilots, who are dead of course - but I'd caution that there is a long investigation still to come.
  • no evidence of fuel shortage, birdstrike, icing, windshear, wake turbulence, or engine, system or control malfunction
  • the first officer was initially flying the aircraft and was inexperienced in airline operations
  • autopilot and autothrottle were in use
  • the aircraft was initially high and fast on the approach and at about 2,000ft above ground the throttles were pulled to idle
  • the authrottle went to "retard" mode and the throttles then stayed at idle for about 100 seconds during which time the speed fell to 40kt below reference speed
  • the aircraft descended through the glideslope with the captain talking the first officer through the before landing checklist
  • the stick shaker activated at about 400ft above ground and the first officer increased power
  • the captain took control and as the first officer released the throttles they moved to idle due to being in "retard" mode
  • after six seconds the throttles were advanced but as the engines responded the aircraft hit the ground in a slightly nose-high attitude
  • throughout the episode the left-hand radio altimeter read negative seven feet altitude, but the right-hand radalt worked correctly
Boeing will warn crews about fundamentals like flying the aircraft, monitoring airspeed, monitoring altitude, and will give advice about radalt issues.
Source: Turkish Airlines crash: evidence points to pilots - Unusual Attitude
procede is offline  
Old 4th Mar 2009, 09:50
  #973 (permalink)  
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Astonishing. It's almost impossible to do that!
Rainboe is offline  
Old 4th Mar 2009, 10:08
  #974 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: 41S174E
Age: 56
Posts: 2,816
Likes: 0
Received 26 Likes on 13 Posts
I find it very hard to imagine that scenario.
From the moment the captain realised they were hot and high he would have been very aware of the energy state of the a/c. He would have been constantly monitoring thrust and airspeed and rate of descent in order to bring things back into line. I just can't imagine a distraction big enough to draw his attention from this basic and critical task.
If the rad alt was givig them false info maybe some other instruments were too. Hope so because otherwise it looks terrible. Subtle incapacitation????
framer is online now  
Old 4th Mar 2009, 10:12
  #975 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Age: 46
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Could the faulty radalt cause the A/T to go into retard mode?
procede is offline  
Old 4th Mar 2009, 10:12
  #976 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Limbricht
Posts: 2,184
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I find it very hard to imagine that scenario.
Here we go again. The FACTS can't be right. Stand-by for another 1500 posts full of tosh from the we-know-better brigade.
Avman is offline  
Old 4th Mar 2009, 10:16
  #977 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: London
Posts: 390
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Rainboe, which of the 2 posts above yours are you referring to?
Have a guess!!!

Astonishing is the word, Rainboe.

That said... A lot of training captains at my company will call ask crewing for another destination if they are rostered to fly with an FO on his/her first couple of sectors. Granted, it's mostly because they think it would not be a good learning experience because they'd be a mile behind the aircraft in case of one of Schipol's crafty shortcuts. This is NO EXCUSE for losing control of the aircraft, not for a newbie and definitely not a training captain.

But... It might be worth questioning the sometimes macho vectoring that that goes on at AMS. I know I'm going to get a lot of "if you can't handle it don't fly a jet" replies... But since other airports as busy as AMS can handle the traffic without giving those drastic shortcuts, the attitude of some of the controllers might have to be questioned. They are very good, don't get me wrong, some of the best in the business. But sometimes I feel they're trying just a little too hard to make themselves look sharp... High and fast approaches happen naturally once in while because of all the unknowns associated with approaches. But the goal should be to keep them to a minimum.

Again, the press conference sounds like it was a truly dreadful handling incident. But in the interest of flight safety, approach vectoring at AMS should be looked at. If it turns out to be blameless, fine. But it should not be discarded as a contributing factor from the onset.

P
Permafrost_ATPL is offline  
Old 4th Mar 2009, 10:19
  #978 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Europe
Age: 44
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"the captain took control and as the first officer released the throttles they moved to idle due to being in "retard" mode"

Why would the thrust levers do that? If they were low on speed they would increase thrust, regardless of A/P mode. As long as A/T was engaged. Don't get it.
highdownwind is offline  
Old 4th Mar 2009, 10:57
  #979 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: A better place now!
Posts: 733
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
As a current captain on the NG, I am trying to find out if there is a pitfall awaiting those who don't know, and trying to get as much valid and pertinant information as possible.

If the A/T was engaged, why was it not commanding an increase in thrust, why would it still be in retard mode? I realise that in an autoland, below 28RA, it will retard the thrust levers, but surely then, both autopilots would have had to be engaged for the approach, with the LHS pilot as the handling pilot?

Am I missing something?
rhythm method is offline  
Old 4th Mar 2009, 11:09
  #980 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The autothrottle behavior is puzzling, but:

-throughout the episode the left-hand radio altimeter read negative seven feet altitude, but the right-hand radalt worked correctly

-Boeing will warn crews about fundamentals like flying the aircraft, monitoring airspeed, monitoring altitude, and will give advice about radalt issues.
could have something to do with that.

Rainboe, maybe you have the poster on your ignore list? Your "that's impossible to do" post follows one about shear pins. Your recent answers make you look like you have slipped off you soap box and banged your head against somthing really hard. No offence.
ManaAdaSystem is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.