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 1st Mar 2009, 08:07
  #801 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Norway
Age: 56
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
ManaAdaSystem

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.
Helios Airways Flight 522 was a 737-300 which made its first flight in December 1997. Cabin altitude warning/configuration take-off warning is not similar on the NG (IIRC).
bobcat4 is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2009, 08:50
  #802 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Engines running or not?

While we would get a better answer probably this week, I would like to point to 3 "evidences":
-several eyewitness reported increasing sound of the engines short of the impact. One supposed eyewitness (on the ground) said: "There was no explosion but the noise of the impact, a big bang, the ground trembled and there was the sound of engines howling like they reversed power or were just overturning by lack of resistance.*" "*Jeroen Jonkers, an Amsterdam resident, is an eyewitness of the crash of a Turkish Airlines flight in Amsterdam. He contacted Hurriyet Daily News via its website and sent his story. This is his story in his own words." http://arama.hurriyet.com.tr/arsivnews.aspx?id=11090641 (I know, maybe not the best source, but I think a detached, running, engine would make a very particular noise and the description doesn't sound like a fake).
-then this picture, from the highway, showing the first seconds after the impact, with dust "traces" from the engines. The engines nearly 80-100 m in front of the plane wing (aparently) http://media.nu.nl/m/m1bzv76a43o6.jpg
There are a lot of pictures showing both an engine and the plane, but taken with telephoto lens (or similar zoom) that gives a wrong distance feeling ("the telephoto shot appears to compress the distance between objects due to the perspective from the more distant location." Wikipedia).
-Both engines apparently travelled the same distance and one remained in the same "flight" direction. I tend to think it was due to gyroscopic effect.
Well, that's all my speculation and I would wait the DFR and CVR readings.

added ""
Mauersegler is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2009, 08:50
  #803 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kerry Eire
Age: 76
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Video

Big Blue Eyes,

I watched a great number of live feeds and loops on TV from the first shots shown by Sky and BBC 24. There were injured with broken limbs being carried out of the middle section of the aircraft long after this video was supposedly taken - yet they don't appear as trapped in their seats.

No I don't believe that sightseers are allowed anywhere near the aircraft but personal belongings have to be removed and catalogued and debris trails are mapped - in fact many accident scenes have large numbers of people swarming over them (most not in uniform) once the recorders have been removed and photo evidence has been taken from key sites such as, in this case, the cockpit.

That's why I asked when the clear up and mapping teams gained access - a point you missed in your hurry to pour scorn on my analysis.

Last edited by philbky; 1st Mar 2009 at 09:19.
philbky is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2009, 09:17
  #804 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Nobody is bothering to investigate EMP disruption of digital aircraft systems
Looks like Ryanair is... they are encouraging pax to use their mobile phones on board. Shouldn't be long before we see if there are issues.
Nocti is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2009, 09:29
  #805 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Kildare, Ireland
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I'm not aware of any documented cases to suggest that the use of mobiles on board have ever interfered with aircraft systems, no more than there is evidence to suggest that it's dangerous to use them while filling up your car at the petrol station. But it's better not to take that chance so they prohibit their use in these situations - fair enough.

In the Ryanair case (using OnAir technology that has already been used elsewhere) the chance of such interference occuring is greatly reduced (if it exists at all) as the phones need only produce minimum power output to communicate with the on board transmitter, as opposed to maximum output to communicate with a ground station. While I would of course hope they investigate all possibilities in this crash, I personally don't feel they'll find anything untoward in this regard.

What amazes me is the disagreement amongst bread and butter pilots as to all the various A/T modes, procedures, etc for this aircraft. Surely one guy's 738 rating is exactly the same as the next guy's (ie there's only one way to fly this aircraft properly), and everyone should be singing from the same hymn sheet (though this is where different company SOPs come in I suppose)
Otto Nove Due is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2009, 09:45
  #806 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by 892
What amazes me is the disagreement amongst bread and butter pilots
- don't be surprised. We have no real information on what happened and the lunatics are, as usual, running wild with engine failure/untrained pilots/bird strikes/wake turbulence and anything else they can post, based on dubious inputs of flight info. Now we are onto Ryanair
BOAC is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2009, 10:03
  #807 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: BRU
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
In the Ryanair case (using OnAir technology that has already been used elsewhere) the chance of such interference occuring is greatly reduced (if it exists at all) as the phones need only produce minimum power output to communicate with the on board transmitter, as opposed to maximum output to communicate with a ground station.
Only those phones that are set on automatic network selection though. If a phone is set on manual, it will continue to try to find the selected network with maximum power rather than connect with the OnAir cell. Surely, the certification of OnAir took that into account.

This is just one more reason to believe that interference from mobile phones has nothing to do with the accident in question, and is probably not much more likely than an alien laser attack. So while rumours are the gist of this forum, I would suggest to stick to slightly more realistic scenarios.
Profit Max is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2009, 10:07
  #808 (permalink)  

Mach 3
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Stratosphere
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
My bets are with Belgique's analysis.

The explanation will revolve around what the AT was or was not doing...

Why?

Something to do with Occam's Razor?

Precedents, reported and un-reported, exist for very similar aircraft behaviour.
SR71 is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2009, 11:24
  #809 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"The use of mobile phones on board aircraft by flight crew, cabin crew and passengers presents a source of uncontrolled electro-magnetic radiation with a risk of adverse interference effects to required aircraft systems including those used for communications and navigation."

UK CAA.

I think the CAA know what they are talking about!
Well, recently I was paxing to SYD aboard a [non British] B777 [configured for inflight mobile phone use] where everyone awake was happily using their cell/mobile phones.
GlueBall is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2009, 11:29
  #810 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Universe
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Close up pic of blades: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...VS2IVPRU.1.jpg
dicks-airbus is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2009, 11:35
  #811 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Universe
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
One more engine close up: http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/...urkish-001.jpg
dicks-airbus is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2009, 11:44
  #812 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Oxford
Age: 52
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Mobile Phones

Well, recently I was paxing to SYD aboard a [non British] B777 [configured for inflight mobile phone use] where everyone awake was happily using their cell/mobile phones.

Good point - But! That aircraft was configured to be mobile phone friendly.

I think interference from mobile phones is a theory that should be looked at, as has previously been said. If it ‘s nothing at all to do with this then fine and dandy. But worth looking at and worth checking mob phone records from masts in that area. In fact - wouldn’t the ‘on’ mobile phone kick-in at just about the geographical point of the incident? I know nothing about mob phones, but worth investigation - even if it’s just for ‘elimination purposes’ as the police would say.
Bridge Builder is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2009, 12:07
  #813 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: England
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The What - and now the "HOW" and "WHY"

"De Telegraaf" reports that the Boeing was descending much too fast.
From the radar registration it appears that the aircraft descended at 1344 ft/min instead of the usual 700/800 ft/min. 45 Seconds before the crash the descent rate was 576 ft/min at a low 85 knots speed. Speed at time of crash was 83 knots. Speed in the last 2 minutes was 159, 148, 145, 129, 117, 85, 83 knots.
Comment: Reducing speed would seem to indicate that the autothrottles were stuck in ARM and that the actual static power-setting was insufficient to support a 3 deg glideslope on the ILS..... therefore kinetic was being swapped for potential energy and the auto-trim was working its deviltry ...until stick-shaker provoked a handful of max power, and the extreme nose-up back-trim (immediately after autopilot disconnect) took them into the nose-high zoom and a power-on stall..... with the subsequent impossibility of "pulling out" from the resulting nose-low attitude without G-stalling
.
In an attempt to validate my interpretation of post 779's English, I've attempted to re-write it more clearly (see the coloured bits), as I'm a steam-driven multi-pilot. I'd like a high-tech man to validate
If you are in FLCH descent and not following the FD, the throttles will stay in idle (HOLD) until down to the MCP ALT. Switching off the FD changes the A/T to speed mode and everything is fine. That's the reason why you have to switch off the FD during visual approaches.
With respect, Mostly correct. However, switching off the FDs will not automatically put the A/T into MCP SPD mode, it depends on the A/T mode at FD disengagement.

If the AFDS was in LVL CHG (FLCH for the 757 crowd) prior to FD disengagement and prior to ALT capture, the A/T would remain in ARM (i.e. ready but inert - not good). Subsequently pressing the SPEED button on the Mode Control Panel (MCP) would restore the A/T to MCP SPD mode (with FD's off, such as on a manually-flown visual approach). However 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 whatever was set as the "MCP-selected" speed.
.
Might a fair conclusion therefore be that:
"the AFDS was in LVL CHG prior to FD disengagement and prior to ALT capture, so the A/T remained in ARM (i.e. ready but inert - not good)?"
TheShadow is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2009, 12:33
  #814 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A Scenario for an insidious A/T knock-out?

Auto-throttle can conventionally and generically be knocked out (disconnected) in a number of ways:
.
e.g. (and typically)
.
ATS OFF/ON button pushed,
A/T DISC on left throttle pressed,
AP disengaged,
ALL INTERRUPT button on yoke pressed, and.........
.
Pilot manually pushes throttle lever and actual position and autothrottle position differ by >10 degrees for 3s. (a Turkish trainee's typical ab initio error?)
.
Is it within the realm of possibility that a trainee (that's not used to auto-throttle) should sight unseen (by the other pilots) make such a singular inadvertent input and then realising his mistake, thereafter cease making throttle inputs, thinking that the auto-throttle was still doing its thing?
.
Plausible on a 738?
UNCTUOUS is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2009, 12:41
  #815 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
bobcat4

Helios Airways Flight 522 was a 737-300 which made its first flight in December 1997. Cabin altitude warning/configuration take-off warning is not similar on the NG (IIRC).
It's the same outdated system on the 737 NG. After Helios, Boeing decided to throw in a Cabin Altitude warning light. New NG's probably come with this installed.
ManaAdaSystem is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2009, 13:31
  #816 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
UNCTUOUS (#823), you did not state what type you fly. Regarding the 737NG:

1) ATS OFF/ON button pushed,
2) A/T DISC on left throttle pressed,
3) AP disengaged,
4) ALL INTERRUPT button on yoke pressed, and.........
5) Pilot manually pushes throttle lever and actual position and autothrottle position differ by >10 degrees for 3s.

1) Yes, it's a switch on the MCP
2) Yes, actually on both thrust levers
3) Nope
4) Nope, yoke button disengages A/P only
5) Nope again (that answers, "Plausible on a 738?")

Lotsa speculation going on here but I agree that this is a Rumours Net and I enjoy some of the reading. I've found some pearls like PJ2 and DC-ATE posts. I would tend to side with PJ2 but appreciate both's, generally respectful, way of posting. I also agree with whoever said that statistically, most of the speculative writing going on here will prove wrong at the end of the investigation process. May I recommend "Safety is no Accident" (Tench William H.) reading to those interested in the matter?

Thanks also to the poster that mentioned the speed deselect method, I had never used it b4; I moslty fly fully manual (FD) below 1000 AGL. I'd like to ask the poster who said speed deselect was forbidden at one of his airlines why was so?

Regarding automatic operation, may I also remind that A/T only (no A/P) operation is forbidden/not recommended (we don't don't do it, can't remember which is the right one) on the 737NG. That has been already said but a later poster did not notice it).

And finally one request: please take time to read all posts (diagonally is ok) b4 posting.
ant1 is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2009, 13:45
  #817 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Norway
Age: 56
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Electromagnetic radiation

Otto Nove Due wrote:

I'm not aware of any documented cases to suggest that the use of mobiles on board have ever interfered with aircraft systems, no more than there is evidence to suggest that it's dangerous to use them while filling up your car at the petrol station.
Right! The general rule (at least here in Norway) is that it's prohibited to use any equipment containing a transmitter or receiver. I can understand, to a degree (better safe than sorry), why they ban transmitters but receivers?

Although a receiver will emit electromagnetic radiation from its local oscillator, it is a mind-boggling low power. Probably less than background radiation from ground stations or cosmic radiation (the latter was ironic).
bobcat4 is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2009, 14:52
  #818 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
First of all, I am not a qualified pilot so will not be offering comment on anything I'm not qualified to do. Having read the full thread and having worked with emergency services for 14 years and qualified in matters of crash investigation can I say that the first priority will always be the preservation of life. Yes damage caused by rescuers will often make matters more complicated but no investigator would ever criticise anyone acting in good faith to rescue survivors. Investigators will aways, by careful examination of the damage and witness statements including those from rescuers be able to establish what is impact damage from that of rescue damage. Certainly this is the policy in the UK and I would imagine for the rest of Europe.
markyboy is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2009, 15:11
  #819 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re the video: It's quite obviously a film taken well after the event probably with dubbed sound. There is a ruddy great hole in the cockpit roof - made by the long departed firemen.


The JAA accuracy standards for Mode S is +/- 125' but what is the actual accuracy of the tx units installed? To put any real credence on Google plot with interpolated data collected from a spotters SBS1 unit doesn't sit well with me.


Kegworth scenario / engine failure / stretched glide / stall all seem like plausible options.
eltonioni is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2009, 15:29
  #820 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Found in Toronto
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by eltonioni
Re the video: It's quite obviously a film taken well after the event probably with dubbed sound. There is a ruddy great hole in the cockpit roof - made by the long departed firemen.
VIDEO: Hart van Nederland - Allereerste beelden na de crash

It is possible that the audio was dubbed in after, and that this video was shot much later.

But it looks authentic to me. At what part of the 1:03 long video did you see a "ruddy great hole in the cockpit roof "?

All I saw was the small hole made by the reinforced door frame being pushed up by the impact.
Lost in Saigon is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.