Turkish Airlines cargo 747 crashes in Kyrgyzstan
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I still wonder at the missing 'self-preservation' element of this accident. Who in their right mind would hurtle at 150kts, in fog, totally blind, riding a 100 tonne beast towards solid ground unless they were certain where they were and everything was under control? And that's 2 or 3 of them. And they had a perfectly easy escape route, if in doubt. There might be one crazy joe upfront, but not 3 suicidal sheep.
We see this press-onitis in other crashes and it always puzzles the investigators. They know lots are 'mission orientated' people, but why not get it right the 2nd time and thus complete the mission?
We see this press-onitis in other crashes and it always puzzles the investigators. They know lots are 'mission orientated' people, but why not get it right the 2nd time and thus complete the mission?
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 1,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think everybody at the investigation team strongly tempted to check their previous "successful" flights recordings...
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Out of a Suitcase
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We see this press-onitis in other crashes and it always puzzles the investigators. They know lots are 'mission orientated' people, but why not get it right the 2nd time and thus complete the mission?
Certainly the case in a lot of Eastern cultures.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah, we know all that and it has been documented so many times. One would have hoped that in this day & age with EASA & FAA spreading its influence of standards over the whole world, and supposedly giving other regimes something to strive towards, that this anti-CRM culture would have been diluted enough to stop such crass actions 'due to culture'. Many of the eastern airlines are now contracting huge amounts of cadet training to western schools that one could hope for some success in this regard. It really is very sad that such cultures can be perceived as overcoming anti-suicicdal actions by professionals.
Makes one wonder what if this had been a pax jet? One would hope that standards in pax & freight ops are similar, but I wonder.
Makes one wonder what if this had been a pax jet? One would hope that standards in pax & freight ops are similar, but I wonder.
N4790P
One would have hoped that in this day & age with EASA & FAA spreading its influence of standards over the whole world
Unless the 'majors' really start exerting their influence then god help us.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MY comment is that emerging aviation nations, and some old hacks stills struggling with any any kind of modern acceptable standard, do not want to spend time reinventing the wheel. Therefore they might choose an FAA model or (old money) JAA model to base their training, licensing and operational standards on. That's what I meant by influence. It is a template. How much of it you use, and how closely you follow it is another debate.
RAT5,, Boeing 747 pax ops serious accidents , not many
747Fs lots
Whether the standards are different or freight has intrinsic dangers like hazardous cargo, there is big difference especially as the ratio of airframes built is probably 90% pax 10% Cargo
747Fs lots
Whether the standards are different or freight has intrinsic dangers like hazardous cargo, there is big difference especially as the ratio of airframes built is probably 90% pax 10% Cargo
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: on thin ice
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Check your numbers please
More recently, there have been more -F accidents than Pax version accidents. True and because of two reasons:
1: more Frtr versions flying now than Pax versions
2: smoke/fire and cargo shift issues due to loading and lithium batteries
Check the actual numbers for yourself here. Pax hull losses more than double freighters (including acts of terrorism of course)
Your 90-10 % ratio is off by a two times margin. Out of 1556 747s built, 311 were freighters which equals 20%. This doesn't include the BCF conversions of which many are still in service (can't find an exact number of airframes converted) not does it include all the combi/special versions built.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747_hull_losses
1: more Frtr versions flying now than Pax versions
2: smoke/fire and cargo shift issues due to loading and lithium batteries
Check the actual numbers for yourself here. Pax hull losses more than double freighters (including acts of terrorism of course)
Your 90-10 % ratio is off by a two times margin. Out of 1556 747s built, 311 were freighters which equals 20%. This doesn't include the BCF conversions of which many are still in service (can't find an exact number of airframes converted) not does it include all the combi/special versions built.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747_hull_losses
Last edited by sodapop; 15th Feb 2017 at 17:39.
What sodapop said...
While most of the early 747s were passenger models, for new build it became roughly 2 to 1 freighters about 15 years ago (and the -8/-8F has retained that ratio).
Furthermore, many of the passenger models have been converted to freighters - either BCF or 3rd party conversions - while many more of the 'early build' passenger versions have been parked or scrapped. As a result, the majority of 747s currently flying are freighters (and by a significant margin).
While most of the early 747s were passenger models, for new build it became roughly 2 to 1 freighters about 15 years ago (and the -8/-8F has retained that ratio).
Furthermore, many of the passenger models have been converted to freighters - either BCF or 3rd party conversions - while many more of the 'early build' passenger versions have been parked or scrapped. As a result, the majority of 747s currently flying are freighters (and by a significant margin).
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hotel Sheets, Downtown Plunketville
Age: 76
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"We see this press-onitis in other crashes and it always puzzles the investigators. They know lots are 'mission orientated' people, but why not get it right the 2nd time and thus complete the mission?" Quote from RAT5.
This was a scheduled fuel stop en route to IST. Could fuel limitations therefore been a factor. Eleven aircraft had landed ahead of them and whilst how many were behind is not known, I suppose it may be assumed that there was sufficient traffic about to expect some delay in the event of a missed approach. Equally the "facing saving" theory by Eric Jansen cannot be altogether discounted by the fact that 11 ahead had managed it without ploughing up the allotments. Presuming that the crew were on frequency at the relevant times and were therefore aware of it.
This was a scheduled fuel stop en route to IST. Could fuel limitations therefore been a factor. Eleven aircraft had landed ahead of them and whilst how many were behind is not known, I suppose it may be assumed that there was sufficient traffic about to expect some delay in the event of a missed approach. Equally the "facing saving" theory by Eric Jansen cannot be altogether discounted by the fact that 11 ahead had managed it without ploughing up the allotments. Presuming that the crew were on frequency at the relevant times and were therefore aware of it.
Soda Pop
I admit i did use kind of top of the head 'its my impression' numbers but then I ama regualr flyer -passenger obviously and retained an interest in aviation from growing up next to LHR. And my impression is that there are /have been alot more frieghter 747 accidents than the pax ones which of course include the worst ever plane crash in Tenerife all those years ago. I also know that some of the cargo accidents have been due to shall we say non flight ops issues like dangerous cargo .
But do you really think if the 744s in passenger service were still what they were 6-7 years ago and it had an accident record real or perceived similar to the F models that people would be comfortable flying on it . How many peopel would have died in 747 crashes if they had all been passenger variants, and I apologise again for my 'alternative' use of statistics , it was certainly not intentional unlike the political mis use of facts we have to experience every day at the moment
I admit i did use kind of top of the head 'its my impression' numbers but then I ama regualr flyer -passenger obviously and retained an interest in aviation from growing up next to LHR. And my impression is that there are /have been alot more frieghter 747 accidents than the pax ones which of course include the worst ever plane crash in Tenerife all those years ago. I also know that some of the cargo accidents have been due to shall we say non flight ops issues like dangerous cargo .
But do you really think if the 744s in passenger service were still what they were 6-7 years ago and it had an accident record real or perceived similar to the F models that people would be comfortable flying on it . How many peopel would have died in 747 crashes if they had all been passenger variants, and I apologise again for my 'alternative' use of statistics , it was certainly not intentional unlike the political mis use of facts we have to experience every day at the moment
Pax, you might want to take a gander at this Boeing report:Statistical Summary of Commercial Jet Airplane Accidents
http://www.boeing.com/resources/boei...df/statsum.pdf
One quite interesting takeaway is that for the ten year period from 2006 to 2015, the rate of fatal and hull loss accidents for scheduled passenger operations was roughly 3 times better (less) than the rate for "all other operations" (which would be primarily freight and charter ops).
So we can debate the reasons why, but it is clear that pure freight operations are more dangerous than scheduled passenger operations.
http://www.boeing.com/resources/boei...df/statsum.pdf
One quite interesting takeaway is that for the ten year period from 2006 to 2015, the rate of fatal and hull loss accidents for scheduled passenger operations was roughly 3 times better (less) than the rate for "all other operations" (which would be primarily freight and charter ops).
So we can debate the reasons why, but it is clear that pure freight operations are more dangerous than scheduled passenger operations.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
on 15 Feb 2017, at 19:37, Chronus posted:
1. I'm only SLF, but that scenario seems unlikely. (Note: I'm assuming you are referring to running short on fuel, and not simply the added cost of each additional gallon that would have to be loaded once they landed).
If fuel was running short - then in the event of a GA, wouldn't they simply declare a fuel emergency and obtain priority for making second attempt? Presumably also had reserves to reach alternate airport, if necessary. Unlikely they were playing Medellin roulette.
Fire afterwards also suggests had fuel. And FDR/CVR should have revealed if it was an issue (and highly likely that would already have been mentioned in the information released and actions taken).
2. Time lost - in so far as running behind schedule if had to GA and wait in line, might be more likely a consideration (if it even was).
But from what has been posted thus far, it doesn't appear they had any idea (until final moments) that weren't on track for a routine landing.
That they should have realized it sooner -- and why they didn't -- is another matter. As others already have discussed in detail.
Could fuel limitations therefore [have] been a factor . . . it may be assumed that there was sufficient traffic about to expect some delay in the event of a missed approach.
If fuel was running short - then in the event of a GA, wouldn't they simply declare a fuel emergency and obtain priority for making second attempt? Presumably also had reserves to reach alternate airport, if necessary. Unlikely they were playing Medellin roulette.
Fire afterwards also suggests had fuel. And FDR/CVR should have revealed if it was an issue (and highly likely that would already have been mentioned in the information released and actions taken).
2. Time lost - in so far as running behind schedule if had to GA and wait in line, might be more likely a consideration (if it even was).
But from what has been posted thus far, it doesn't appear they had any idea (until final moments) that weren't on track for a routine landing.
That they should have realized it sooner -- and why they didn't -- is another matter. As others already have discussed in detail.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: on thin ice
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pax, you might want to take a gander at this Boeing report:Statistical Summary of Commercial Jet Airplane Accidents
http://www.boeing.com/resources/boei...df/statsum.pdf
One quite interesting takeaway is that for the ten year period from 2006 to 2015, the rate of fatal and hull loss accidents for scheduled passenger operations was roughly 3 times better (less) than the rate for "all other operations" (which would be primarily freight and charter ops).
So we can debate the reasons why, but it is clear that pure freight operations are more dangerous than scheduled passenger operations.
http://www.boeing.com/resources/boei...df/statsum.pdf
One quite interesting takeaway is that for the ten year period from 2006 to 2015, the rate of fatal and hull loss accidents for scheduled passenger operations was roughly 3 times better (less) than the rate for "all other operations" (which would be primarily freight and charter ops).
So we can debate the reasons why, but it is clear that pure freight operations are more dangerous than scheduled passenger operations.
Again, as you mentioned in a previous post, during this period I would submit that there were more frtr than pax variants flying. Another cause for any difference could include frtr flights operate into many non-radar airports and airports with only non-precision approach facilities whereas pax 747s would nearly always be flying into international airports with radar and precision approaches.
Still, I would hesitate to use the term 'more dangerous'. If crews are properly trained and rested, flying well-maintained aircraft, additional threats should be mitigated. The crew flying the MyCargo/Turkish accident aircraft would have crashed in a Cessna, the 747 had nothing to do with the fact they completely botched the approach and should have gone around much earlier.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the point is it's not the aircraft type - it's that freight operations are more likely to finish up in a crash than a passenger plane
this weeks "Flight" quotes a Rosaviatsia study showing that in 56 landing incidents of "large transport aircraft" 1991-2016 93% resulted in the aircraft running out of runway and 37.5% happened in poor weather. Looks like there is a systemic issue here
this weeks "Flight" quotes a Rosaviatsia study showing that in 56 landing incidents of "large transport aircraft" 1991-2016 93% resulted in the aircraft running out of runway and 37.5% happened in poor weather. Looks like there is a systemic issue here
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: on thin ice
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would guess that "large transport aircraft" includes passenger versions. And since it's a Russian agency, they most likely include many Antonov incidents. Plenty of them parked along airports around the world, mostly on unprepared runways which, as I tried to mention previously, have no radar control or precision approaches making them inherently more dangerous, not the type of aircraft or pax vs cargo.
And yes, going off runways usually occurs in bad weather with poorer than normal braking action.
And yes, going off runways usually occurs in bad weather with poorer than normal braking action.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
no - it was LARGE CARGO aircraft - and I'm sure a lot of them are AN's which figure so often in third world stats but as I read it the study was saying the accident rate for cargo flights is significantly worse than the rate for passengers in the same type. And we see exactly the same in the west
Something needs to be done - tougher regulation, more training and more awareness ......
Something needs to be done - tougher regulation, more training and more awareness ......
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: on thin ice
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HH,
Ok, keen to hear what sort of tougher regulations and/or training you would suggest? Or rather, what needs to be fixed exactly?
I've flown -200s, -400s, bcfs, erfs, -8s both pax and cargo and we fly under the same regulations with the same training (pax and freight).
Perhaps, better training, better maintenance and tighter regulatory control for certain countries? Better pay could help too
Freight vs Pax Ops are no different under FAA*, EASA, CAA, CAD regs. (Caveat as FAA does have some more lax flight time limitations for freight ops).
Ok, keen to hear what sort of tougher regulations and/or training you would suggest? Or rather, what needs to be fixed exactly?
I've flown -200s, -400s, bcfs, erfs, -8s both pax and cargo and we fly under the same regulations with the same training (pax and freight).
Perhaps, better training, better maintenance and tighter regulatory control for certain countries? Better pay could help too
Freight vs Pax Ops are no different under FAA*, EASA, CAA, CAD regs. (Caveat as FAA does have some more lax flight time limitations for freight ops).
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Freight vs Pax Ops are no different under FAA*, EASA, CAA, CAD regs. (Caveat as FAA does have some more lax flight time limitations for freight ops).
Also many private cargo ops under Part 125 get various exemptions (as compared to 121). Formal training isn't even required under Part 125.
Similarly, cargo ops under Part 121 Supplemental don't require flight dispatchers, for example (only "flight followers").
The more relaxed duty time limits / fatigue may also have been a factor in several accidents.