Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Turkish Airlines cargo 747 crashes in Kyrgyzstan

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 Airlines cargo 747 crashes in Kyrgyzstan

Old 14th Feb 2017, 10:50
  #281 (permalink)  
 
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?
RAT 5 is offline  
Old 14th Feb 2017, 11:37
  #282 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 1,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by RAT 5
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?
I think everybody at the investigation team strongly tempted to check their previous "successful" flights recordings...
Kulverstukas is offline  
Old 14th Feb 2017, 12:20
  #283 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Out of a Suitcase
Posts: 154
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?
In a lot of cultures a go-around is seen as a loss of 'face' - so it's not going to happen.

Certainly the case in a lot of Eastern cultures.
Eric Janson is offline  
Old 14th Feb 2017, 15:36
  #284 (permalink)  
 
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.
RAT 5 is offline  
Old 15th Feb 2017, 09:34
  #285 (permalink)  
ZFT
N4790P
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Asia
Age: 73
Posts: 2,265
Received 10 Likes on 4 Posts
One would have hoped that in this day & age with EASA & FAA spreading its influence of standards over the whole world
May I beg to differ. EASA doesn't even have influence within the EU. Any national regulatory authority can basically do what that want (and do so). Just look at the 'standards' of Greece and Lithuania to name just two to see what I'm angling at. The LBA are not exactly squeaky clean either.

Unless the 'majors' really start exerting their influence then god help us.
ZFT is online now  
Old 15th Feb 2017, 10:21
  #286 (permalink)  
 
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.
RAT 5 is offline  
Old 15th Feb 2017, 11:12
  #287 (permalink)  
ZFT
N4790P
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Asia
Age: 73
Posts: 2,265
Received 10 Likes on 4 Posts
Understood but (IMHO) the role model is severely flawed.
ZFT is online now  
Old 15th Feb 2017, 11:27
  #288 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: se england
Posts: 1,552
Likes: 0
Received 43 Likes on 19 Posts
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
pax britanica is offline  
Old 15th Feb 2017, 18:29
  #289 (permalink)  
 
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

Last edited by sodapop; 15th Feb 2017 at 18:39.
sodapop is offline  
Old 15th Feb 2017, 19:27
  #290 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 68
Posts: 4,299
Received 135 Likes on 66 Posts
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).
tdracer is online now  
Old 15th Feb 2017, 19:37
  #291 (permalink)  
 
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.
Chronus is offline  
Old 15th Feb 2017, 20:00
  #292 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: se england
Posts: 1,552
Likes: 0
Received 43 Likes on 19 Posts
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
pax britanica is offline  
Old 15th Feb 2017, 21:39
  #293 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 68
Posts: 4,299
Received 135 Likes on 66 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.
tdracer is online now  
Old 15th Feb 2017, 23:23
  #294 (permalink)  
 
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:

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.
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.
Passenger 389 is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2017, 12:00
  #295 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: on thin ice
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by tdracer
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.

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.
sodapop is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2017, 14:27
  #296 (permalink)  
 
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
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2017, 14:36
  #297 (permalink)  
 
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.
sodapop is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2017, 15:06
  #298 (permalink)  
 
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 ......
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2017, 18:06
  #299 (permalink)  
 
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).
sodapop is offline  
Old 16th Feb 2017, 23:31
  #300 (permalink)  
 
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).
Not exactly the same. E.g., many hazardous materials (including lithium battery shipments) are allowed on freight ops but banned as cargo on passenger aircraft. And we know lithium battery fires have been suspected as the cause of several recent cargo crashes.



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.
peekay4 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.