Turkish Airlines cargo 747 crashes in Kyrgyzstan
That could conceivably be interpreted as either 900m before the end, or 900m beyond the end.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Salzburg
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting to note, that these documents do not come off any official Russian government site and definitely not from the MAK/IAC website (although the PDFs claim to be released by the MAK/IAC), but an aviation forum in Russia. The documents also do not use any of the official letterheads. Official? I am anything but sure.
Edited later:
I found documents released by Rosaviatsia (CAA), not the MAK/IAC as identified in the linked PDFs. The release by Rosaviatsia, using the official letter head etc., is word by word identical to what has been created by somebody as MAK/IAC release ... So the origin of this report is Rosaviatsia.
Edited later:
I found documents released by Rosaviatsia (CAA), not the MAK/IAC as identified in the linked PDFs. The release by Rosaviatsia, using the official letter head etc., is word by word identical to what has been created by somebody as MAK/IAC release ... So the origin of this report is Rosaviatsia.
Last edited by Austrian Simon; 3rd Feb 2017 at 17:22.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It just looks like a classic false g/s all the way down to me or am I over simplifying ?
That could conceivably be interpreted as either 900m before the end, or 900m beyond the end.
The Russian version is not ambiguous: 900m beyond the end. It specifically states, that it overflew the whole runway.
And with a 4,200m runway, by the time you are 900m from the far end, you've already overflown almost all of it.
Doubtless the FDR will establish conclusively what happened and where.
DRUK...
MAK has stated that the first point of contact with any object was the concrete airport fence. That, along with no damage to approach lights, stands, localiser antennae, etc at the 08 end of the runway, suggests there was no touchdown on the runway surface.
MAK has stated that the first point of contact with any object was the concrete airport fence. That, along with no damage to approach lights, stands, localiser antennae, etc at the 08 end of the runway, suggests there was no touchdown on the runway surface.
My Russian is a bit rusty but I would say that "900 м от дальнего по заходу торца полосы" means something like 900m from the western threshold of the runway.
The MAK report makes a distinction between the initial contact with the ground and the collision with the fence (see post #217): "After touch down, the aircraft collided with a concrete fence"
That, along with no damage to approach lights, stands, localiser antennae, etc at the 08 end of the runway, suggests there was no touchdown on the runway surface.
As I said previously, while we're waiting for the report and FDR plot everything else is simply speculation based on a relatively few published facts to date.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Dunedin, NZ
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Cargo a subsidiary of HNA Group
The B744 was registered in Turkey, and under the AOC of Turkish DGCA.
Strangely enough there is no mention of the ownership of this operation? This for the purposes of insurance and responsibility for damages caused on the ground as per the Rome convention, and liabilities from the company.
I am not up to date on the number of aircraft this particular operation had, but as of year 2014 they only had two B744's based in SAW cargo hangar, a former cargo operation by Orex and Star Havayollari, pretty much a gangster operation by CEO's like Kani Kurtulus whom faded away from the industry back in year 2009 despite several attempts to re-start other similar operations in the Bakkans, Georgia and Rumania.
Ownership of this operation is based in Hainan-Island, P.R.C, which comprises several airlines in China, and some abroad as the case was with MyCargo B744 operation based in Turkey.
Several statements on this rumor network dislike the use of specific names of the crew involved in the accident.
This practice is common in China, a public execution of whom to blame for the accident; There is however no mention of the board of directors and CEO of the HNA group and their action as a result of this accident??
These information above is offered without prejudice to help the families of the crew and the relatives of the people affected by this accident, so that they can consider litigation to compensate the losses from this monopoly of HNA group based in Hainan island, China, P.R.C
Strangely enough there is no mention of the ownership of this operation? This for the purposes of insurance and responsibility for damages caused on the ground as per the Rome convention, and liabilities from the company.
I am not up to date on the number of aircraft this particular operation had, but as of year 2014 they only had two B744's based in SAW cargo hangar, a former cargo operation by Orex and Star Havayollari, pretty much a gangster operation by CEO's like Kani Kurtulus whom faded away from the industry back in year 2009 despite several attempts to re-start other similar operations in the Bakkans, Georgia and Rumania.
Ownership of this operation is based in Hainan-Island, P.R.C, which comprises several airlines in China, and some abroad as the case was with MyCargo B744 operation based in Turkey.
Several statements on this rumor network dislike the use of specific names of the crew involved in the accident.
This practice is common in China, a public execution of whom to blame for the accident; There is however no mention of the board of directors and CEO of the HNA group and their action as a result of this accident??
These information above is offered without prejudice to help the families of the crew and the relatives of the people affected by this accident, so that they can consider litigation to compensate the losses from this monopoly of HNA group based in Hainan island, China, P.R.C
DRUK
Chill mate. I said "suggests that..."
You seem to take these discussions personally and differing points of view as affronts to your own view. Yet, ironically, you mention that everything is speculation while we wait for the official facts from the investigation. So we are all speculating, including you.
Sent with smiles and an open mind
Chill mate. I said "suggests that..."
You seem to take these discussions personally and differing points of view as affronts to your own view. Yet, ironically, you mention that everything is speculation while we wait for the official facts from the investigation. So we are all speculating, including you.
Sent with smiles and an open mind
dignified:
According to the document labelled 'release' posted by Kulverstukas, the owners are shown as LCI Freighters One in Ireland.
https://www.lciaviation.com/fixed-wi...eing-747-400f/
According to the document labelled 'release' posted by Kulverstukas, the owners are shown as LCI Freighters One in Ireland.
https://www.lciaviation.com/fixed-wi...eing-747-400f/
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 1,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting to note, that these documents do not come off any official Russian government site and definitely not from the MAK/IAC website (although the PDFs claim to be released by the MAK/IAC), but an aviation forum in Russia. The documents also do not use any of the official letterheads. Official? I am anything but sure.
Edited later:
I found documents released by Rosaviatsia (CAA), not the MAK/IAC as identified in the linked PDFs. The release by Rosaviatsia, using the official letter head etc., is word by word identical to what has been created by somebody as MAK/IAC release ... So the origin of this report is Rosaviatsia.
Edited later:
I found documents released by Rosaviatsia (CAA), not the MAK/IAC as identified in the linked PDFs. The release by Rosaviatsia, using the official letter head etc., is word by word identical to what has been created by somebody as MAK/IAC release ... So the origin of this report is Rosaviatsia.
So first part is just copy of "Known facts" from MAK report and second part can lead us to possible findings of investigation committee.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 1,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I can make it into english:
Plane overflew whole length of runway and landed on the ground 900 m after the end or RWY26 (beginning of RWY8). After landing, plane crashed into concrete fence of the airport and through it rolled into the village, located 1000m from the RWY.
Plane overflew whole length of runway and landed on the ground 900 m after the end or RWY26 (beginning of RWY8). After landing, plane crashed into concrete fence of the airport and through it rolled into the village, located 1000m from the RWY.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 1,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And from interview with the Head of Investigation Committee:
Last communication with the Tower was weather check.
Last communication with the Tower was weather check.
I think avherald.com has the translation correct ("On Feb 3rd ..."): Crash: MyCargo B744 at Bishkek on Jan 16th 2017, impacted terrain on go around
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 1,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know and it doesn't fit with drafts of damage on the village map (official, issued by village administration) I posted earlier and there is visible right shift in the damage area relative to rwy.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Not far from a big Lake
Age: 81
Posts: 1,454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Plane overflew whole length of runway and landed on the ground 900 m after the end or RWY26
Points of contact with the ground.
Just in case anybody is reading too much into the pictures and unofficial words.
The attitude of the plane makes a difference (pitch and roll) as well as the dangling parts of the plane like gear and engines. Even in the Korean event in Guam it was clear that the first contact was way upstream from where the wreckage sat in the ravine
I'm not content to conclude anything based on what's reported to-date. However I will follow with interest any speculation from herein regarding what might make a difference in the causal chain.
Just in case anybody is reading too much into the pictures and unofficial words.
The attitude of the plane makes a difference (pitch and roll) as well as the dangling parts of the plane like gear and engines. Even in the Korean event in Guam it was clear that the first contact was way upstream from where the wreckage sat in the ravine
I'm not content to conclude anything based on what's reported to-date. However I will follow with interest any speculation from herein regarding what might make a difference in the causal chain.