Turkish Airlines cargo 747 crashes in Kyrgyzstan
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Small aprtment
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's all please hope this is not yet another botched go-around.
Autopilots don't botch them, human pilots can though. Watch
what unfolds as they investigate.
In the meantime, terrible horror for a lovely village.
Autopilots don't botch them, human pilots can though. Watch
what unfolds as they investigate.
In the meantime, terrible horror for a lovely village.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Estonia
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Drone video puts the end of debris area here https://www.google.com/maps/place/43...81!4d74.434629
This place is visible in Drone video @ https://youtu.be/qwKZdWMgVUY?t=2m28s
This place is visible in Drone video @ https://youtu.be/qwKZdWMgVUY?t=2m28s
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: world
Posts: 3,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think it's a good idea to post the names of the crew
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 1,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From another point.
And looks like its not airfield fence but NDB/VOR fence:
https://yandex.ru/maps/-/CZXgqQK9
or https://goo.gl/maps/QamxfrwGNDC2
Shoot from North to SE direction
Last edited by Kulverstukas; 16th Jan 2017 at 10:28.
Aviation Herald:
(...) was on final approach to Bishkek's runway 26 at 07:18L (01:18z) when the aircraft went around from very low height but did not climb out to safety, impacted terrain about 1100 meters/3600 feet past the runway end and went through a couple of houses of a village.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
Flight tracking data, if correct, indicates A/C platformed at 3100', Jep chart states 3400'.
FR24 will be showing uncorrected Mode C data. (encoded alt based on 1013)
QNH was 1023/1024 according to the METARs.
30 ft/HPa
So 300 ft sounds about right.
Flight tracking data, if correct, indicates A/C platformed at 3100', Jep chart states 3400'.
FR24 will be showing uncorrected Mode C data. (encoded alt based on 1013)
QNH was 1023/1024 according to the METARs.
30 ft/HPa
So 300 ft sounds about right.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: İstanbul
Age: 62
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: LHR
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Parallels are being drawn here with the recent botched 777 go-around at DXB....
I do have my doubts. The Cat II minima for FRU26 in my docs says 350M RVR and RA99'. At the point of deciding to GA and announcing 'Go-Around Flaps 20' the aircraft should have been in a perfect position to land and just short of threshold. The DXB issue of the Boeing TOGA mode becoming unavailable is only after touchdown so that issue should not come into play here.
If however the suggestion is that this aircraft did GA from minima without applying any power then it seems to have flown an unbelievably long distance (4000m runway plus another ~2000m upwind) before it stalled into the ground. I simply don't buy the idea.
There is another possibility - The NGFMC in the 744 generates the characteristic speeds when VNAV selected on the GA... It is also unbelievably unreliable being prone to failures giving inappropriate speed generation and/or complete loss of Autothrottle/VNAV/LNAV functions. Not at all what a tired crew needs going round from a Cat II approach with ****ty weather on minimums.
I do have my doubts. The Cat II minima for FRU26 in my docs says 350M RVR and RA99'. At the point of deciding to GA and announcing 'Go-Around Flaps 20' the aircraft should have been in a perfect position to land and just short of threshold. The DXB issue of the Boeing TOGA mode becoming unavailable is only after touchdown so that issue should not come into play here.
If however the suggestion is that this aircraft did GA from minima without applying any power then it seems to have flown an unbelievably long distance (4000m runway plus another ~2000m upwind) before it stalled into the ground. I simply don't buy the idea.
There is another possibility - The NGFMC in the 744 generates the characteristic speeds when VNAV selected on the GA... It is also unbelievably unreliable being prone to failures giving inappropriate speed generation and/or complete loss of Autothrottle/VNAV/LNAV functions. Not at all what a tired crew needs going round from a Cat II approach with ****ty weather on minimums.
Itsa question i have raised before but there have been a lot of 747F crashes compared to the vastly more numerous pax versions. Is it something to do with freight operations-less experienced less capable crew ?? Less well maintained aircraft, greater crew fatigue ?