Turkish Airlines cargo 747 crashes in Kyrgyzstan

[Chronus]

Originally Posted by Kulverstukas

It's not country-wide, it's usually local community. Possibly, in USSR time this patches was provided for airport workers (see, it's just 400 sq.m each) for growing fruits and vegetables. Usually it was in form of non-pofit cooperative. I think that if you put "aeroflot village" in google map you will find a thousands of them.

Kulverstukas would I be correct in thinking that in the past the area was used as "allotments". This is the term in the UK to describe small plots of land provided by a local authority to the people of the community, to grow vegetables for their own use. Has the land since been developed for residential occupation or does it continue to be used as allotment land. It is just that it seems so close to the runway.

[Kulverstukas]

You are right about term. Any non-temporary buildings was prohibited on such a patches. After USSR collapse, usually such patches are privatized (based on "property rights because owned for a long time"), changed status and frequently are used for summer (or even year round) dwelling.

[barry lloyd]

Kulverstukas:

Большое спасибо!

I just followed your link and found one near Ramenskoe which I remember now.

[Airbubba]

A third ADS-B dataset for TK6491 is available here at RadarBox24, it might require some sort of subscription or registration:

https://www.radarbox24.com/data/flig...6491#148232065

The speed data is less finely sampled than with FR24 or FlightAware but it does appear to agree that the plane was decelerating all the way down the path to the runway.

If they did have the power back to idle trying to slow down descending into freezing fog, wouldn't those Pratts still have plenty of anti-ice capability with normal pneumatics? On some ETOPS twins you have a minimum power setting for anti-ice with a single bleed source but it is normally not a player with everything working.

[scanelpan]

I have a question for active B747-400 pilots. Being retired for almost 10 years, its too long ago to answer the question myself. Some of you here talk about FR24 Data show a stable approach, others talk about a decellerated approach, all the way down. Most of you seem to agree, the data show a three degree approach angle, between 300 and 500 ft above the ILS Glideslope. My question: would it be possible to program the FMCs to perform a LNAV/VNAV approach with RW26 as active runway, but with final descent waypoint (mistakably) threshold RW08? I could not think of a good reason to use such a construction under the prevailing conditions, so I want to emphasize, its a technical question only.

By the way, I have seen Map shifts on the B747-400 on numerous occasions, even up to 6 nm, but it was back in days, where our 747's were not yet equipped with GPS. Didn't observe them after GPS installment. Assume MyCargo Airlines fleet of 8 747's was GPS equipped.

[Icelanta]

Scanelpan,

Yes, this is possible, and to be honest, I have already thought about this.
But surely no sane crew would do this...

[archae86]

I'm not a pilot, nor do I know the relevant 747 systems, but understand a little geometry.

Assuming a GPS approach, but with an altitude error instead of a position error of sufficient magnitude to generate the observed descent path, how would a 747 behave once the intended position had been overshot, but without reaching ground level, say because of a data entry error or a system error affecting altitude?

Would there be specific warnings? Would automation change modes or take other actions?

[lemme]

I verified that the FR24 ADS-B position reporting was accurate by looking at the departure and the 13 Jan arrival into Bishkek.




I plotted the "additional data" FR24 released to augment the final approach. In addition, I adjusted the reported altitude up by 300 feet to account for the high pressure.




The approach is offset by more than two miles from where any published approach provides.
TK6491 descended below any appropriate altitude before commencing the go-around.
TK6491 appears to have over-rotated and zoom-climbed. The final resting place suggest it stalled and crashed nearly directly below.

Satcom Guru: TK6491 747-400F MyCargo/ACT Airlines, Manas Airport (FRU/UCFM) in Bishkek

[aterpster]

scanelpan:

The ADSB data are not sufficient in my view. Having said that, nothing has changed about flying an ILS in bad weather; i.e., on GS and on speed and stable passing the final approach fix.

Hopefully, we will eventually learn what the CVR and DFDR recorded.

[peekay4]

Interesting theory sjimmy.

Local reports that both blackboxes were sent to Moscow today for decoding at MAK.

[Airbubba]

Originally Posted by lemme

TK6491 appears to have over-rotated and zoom-climbed. The final resting place suggest it stalled and crashed nearly directly below.

Satcom Guru: TK6491 747-400F MyCargo/ACT Airlines, Manas Airport (FRU/UCFM) in Bishkek

Not sure I buy the zoom climb, looks to me like the plane was already breaking up as it went to the scene of the accident.

Originally Posted by sjimmy

I read that potentially they where high/ above GS.
What one would do to catch the GS is to dial the alt on the MCP to a lower value.
What IF this value was set to 100/200ft AGL on MCP. And at a check height they did not see the wrong GA ALT was set.
Now they end up doing a GA. They press TOGA . Aircraft goes up and directly captures at alt in the MCP window.
Just a theory!

There was a Boeing procedure like this years ago for non-precision approaches with mins set in the window but I don't think it would apply to a low-viz ILS autoland. I'm thinking they were high and fast, started down late, maybe forgot to arm the G/S before turning final and chased the path with vertical speed and the ATHR pulled the throttles back to idle.

[peekay4]

Not sure I buy the zoom climb, looks to me like the plane was already breaking up as it went to the scene of the accident.

I would agree. 30,000 fpm climb doesn't seem credible given weight (momentum) and aerodynamic limits. It also doesn't correlate with the last transmitted ADS-B vertical rate. The last couple ADS-B data points should probably be discarded as outliers -- we may be seeing post-impact effects.

[act700]

Hotel Tango,

"Sorry, I disagree! The key word is "qualified". How "qualified" one is can arguably depend a great deal on training received on the type and how proficient the country's regulatory authority is."

....now we're talking a totally different thing here!! Morals, etc...qualified is qualified, just like the Asiana SFO boys were "very high time and experienced" pilots...

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by lemme

I plotted the "additional data" FR24 released to augment the final approach. In addition, I adjusted the reported altitude up by 300 feet to account for the high pressure.

If the ADS-B data for those last two points is correct, it represents a height gain of 325 feet (± 50') over a horizontal distance of 175 feet.

That's a heck of a flight path angle.

[Hotel Tango]

qualified is qualified

Sadly, no it's not - for reasons already given. Captain only had 800 hours on type. We don't know what training he received and by whom he was "qualified". With 800 hours long haul flying on this particular type this may well have been his first GA. How he was able to handle that may well come down to the fact that his training (on type) was not adequate. That essentially would not be his fault but that of the authority/person which "qualified" him.

[Pali]

Originally Posted by Kulverstukas

It's not country-wide, it's usually local community. Possibly, in USSR time this patches was provided for airport workers (see, it's just 400 sq.m each) for growing fruits and vegetables. Usually it was in form of non-pofit cooperative. I think that if you put "aeroflot village" in google map you will find a thousands of them.

I am bit surprised that there is no regulation to prohibit building any hard structures on the centreline or in the vicinity of it. I can imagine that runway existed there long before any dwellings were built. We don't know yet if the outcome for the crew would be different in case there would be only gardens and fields but I would suggest that areas in the straight line from runway should stay clear in a reasonable distance from an airport fence.

If you watched that video on 727 cargo take off at Puerto Carreno crash recently it may be that hitting hard structure behind the fence possibly severing flaps on the starboard wing was the final Swiss cheese hole which doomed the flight.

We would find quite many cases when built up structures on the prolonged centreline made things worse and I am not certain if given legislation is neglected or it simply doesn't exist.

Why endanger pilots and inhabitants on the ground by such a negligence?

[Magplug]

Our 744s have twin GPS and NGFMC so we can fly RNAV final approaches down to RNP1 specification. In fact the RNP1 minima are sometimes below the minimum autopilot disconnect height for a NPA so that becomes the lowest MDA.

When flying an RNAV transition or final approach the autopilot MUST be used in both LNAV & VNAV to guarantee the required vertical and horizontal accuracy. The database approach in the FMC MUST be used and cannot be modified in any way by the pilot. You certainly CANNOT build your own approaches. In my docs there are no RNAV approaches at all published at FRU.

With the RVR conditions on the day at around 350M both a Cat II ILS and an automatic landing were mandatory. It is NOT permitted to carry out manual landings with RVR below Cat I conditions (550M for FRU26). The B744 has 3 ILS recievers - It only needs 2 of them to execute an autoland.

Personally I have had a couple of autolands in my career in RVR below 200M where I had to intervene to avert a mishap, but that situation is very rare as automatic landings with rollout are VERY reliable. Consequently Captains tend to be comfortably in the mindset of 'we are landing off this approach'. Where the approach has a visual decision point (like Cat II), that decision is slightly academic because... in the absence of outside influence the aircraft will reliably continue below minima down the ILS, land and safely roll-out with absolutely no pilot input.

It is clear from the traces that the aircraft was accurately established and maintaining the centreline, they were also descending at an accurate ROD consistent with automatic control.... although way above the glide path.

The map of the debris field above is not consistent with a stall from height. This aircraft flew into the ground at medium speed at a shallow angle consistent with the earlier ADS-B ROD figures. I suggest the final ADS-B points suggesting a GA are crash corruption.

I believe this aircraft had captured the localiser but never ever captured the glideslope. They continued to descend in V/s without noticing they were getting higher & higher above the glide. There would have been no 'Land 3' FMA annunciation at 1500', no FLARE or ROLLOUT armed and at 1000' instead of taking control the Captain should order a GA if 'Land 2 or 3' are not showing.

If I am correct and all this is later proven to be true, we are talking about mishandling of epic proportions.

[donotdespisethesnake]

Originally Posted by lemme

TK6491 appears to have over-rotated and zoom-climbed. The final resting place suggest it stalled and crashed nearly directly below.

The last two data points are impossible, for more than one reason. If you look at the map of impact damage posted recently by Kulverstukas, the last data point is after the first impact occurred. If you ignore the last two data points, and extrapolate the line of descent it is very consistent with the actual impact damage.

What puzzles me is that at RVR of 350m, runway should have been visible in time to abort but apparently no GA was attempted. RVR a lot less or pilots disoriented?

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by donotdespisethesnake

The last two data points are impossible, for more than one reason. If you look at the map of impact damage posted recently by Kulverstukas, the last data point is after the first impact occurred.

Really?

[Amadis of Gaul]

Originally Posted by act700

Hotel Tango, again, I do not buy or accept that line of reasoning! If you are qualified on type, irregardless of hours, you should be able to perform any normal maneuver on that type.

Irregardless is not a word. Just an FYI.