Turkish Airlines RJ100 Crash
Eight Gun Fighter
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Western Approaches
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A terrible accident.
Just watched an interview with one of the survivors from her hospital bed. She said, quite matter of factly, something along the lines of - Just before we landed, I was thinking about unbuckling my seatbelt.
Just watched an interview with one of the survivors from her hospital bed. She said, quite matter of factly, something along the lines of - Just before we landed, I was thinking about unbuckling my seatbelt.
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
One BBC report I saw cited the reason for the crash as "natural causes" because of the heavy fog..
According to BBC (again), the female survivor - I would guess to be probably the same one Rollingthunder saw interviewed - apparently survived because she was "thrown clear" during the crash, and ended up in a snow embankment.
She also reported hearing a "BANG" prior to impact - however, I understand that this is a fairly common phenomenom with crash victims.
Back in the US, early findings at the crash site of the B1900 appear to indicate that the aircraft reached a pitch attitude of 52 degrees ANU!!
Worldwide, a bad start for aviation safety for the new year.
According to BBC (again), the female survivor - I would guess to be probably the same one Rollingthunder saw interviewed - apparently survived because she was "thrown clear" during the crash, and ended up in a snow embankment.
She also reported hearing a "BANG" prior to impact - however, I understand that this is a fairly common phenomenom with crash victims.
Back in the US, early findings at the crash site of the B1900 appear to indicate that the aircraft reached a pitch attitude of 52 degrees ANU!!
Worldwide, a bad start for aviation safety for the new year.
Medieval Warrior,
Thanks for that. FYI, I do have a bit of an idea about how to drive RJs. I asked my question because the available evidence on other websites indicated that there wasn't an ILS on the runway used.
Your "approach ban" statement brings back memories: in Oz we had "operational control" up until a few years ago, where ATC would not permit approaches if the weather was bad. That system, while a bit obtrusive, would have prevented many crashes around the world where crews pressed on and on in ridculously bad WX until they pranged. Anyway, some red-neck G/A enthusiastic amateur forced the safety authority to stop that system and leave it all up to the PIC to decide what the WX was like at the MDA/DA...
Cheers, B
Thanks for that. FYI, I do have a bit of an idea about how to drive RJs. I asked my question because the available evidence on other websites indicated that there wasn't an ILS on the runway used.
Your "approach ban" statement brings back memories: in Oz we had "operational control" up until a few years ago, where ATC would not permit approaches if the weather was bad. That system, while a bit obtrusive, would have prevented many crashes around the world where crews pressed on and on in ridculously bad WX until they pranged. Anyway, some red-neck G/A enthusiastic amateur forced the safety authority to stop that system and leave it all up to the PIC to decide what the WX was like at the MDA/DA...
Cheers, B
Guest
Posts: n/a
Canīt agree more...and White Knight...there is no RJ which is CAT III B, it is IIIA and may have some Company internal B or whatsoever, but in terms of approach category it is "only" certified for CATIIIA. For CATIIIB there is a bit more required than just an autoland capability.
ex-Tanker
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Luton Beds UK
Posts: 907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He doesnt play cricket - he plays croquet - RTFQ!
There has been a magnificent PA job done on this crash by someone - every paper and TV report in Europe comes out with the amazing statement that the crash was "caused by the fog".
Are the media really this naïve? Do they learn nothing from previous contact with experts? I know very little about nuclear power or finance but I am dependent upon my newsmedia for information - God help us!
There has been a magnificent PA job done on this crash by someone - every paper and TV report in Europe comes out with the amazing statement that the crash was "caused by the fog".
Are the media really this naïve? Do they learn nothing from previous contact with experts? I know very little about nuclear power or finance but I am dependent upon my newsmedia for information - God help us!
This is copied from 'Janes'....I don't know if this helps you lot out or not...less sensationalist though than other sources...
09 January 2003
More crashes in Turkish air accident black spots
By Philip Butterworth-Hayes
Accident investigators looking into the crash of a Turkish Airlines Avro RJ100, which killed 72 passengers on 8 January, will be concentrating on what information was available to the pilot from precision-approach landing systems and air traffic controllers. The aircraft crashed when it landed 30m short of the runway at Diyarbakir airport in heavy fog.
Five people are believed to have survived the crash.
Although early Turkish press reports have commented on the lack of automated landing aids at the airport, new state-of-the art voice communications systems, supplied by US firm Litton-Denro, were only recently installed there. It is not yet known whether the runway was equipped with a fully functioning instrument landing system (ILS), although the runway on which the aircraft was attempting to land is located in the military sector of the airport.
The aircraft should also have been equipped with a ground proximity warning system, which would have warned the pilots of approaching terrain; with four engines it is unlikely the aircraft would have crashed because of an engine failure.
One of the two flight recorders has been recovered from the crash site and is being flown to the UK where its data will be analysed.
Poor weather was also being cited as the probable cause of a mid-air collision between two Turkish F-4 fighters in the southeastern province of Malatya, just a few hours after the RJ-100 airliner crash. All four crew were reported to have been killed in the accident, which occurred during a training flight.
251 of 389 words [End of non-subscriber extract.]
09 January 2003
More crashes in Turkish air accident black spots
By Philip Butterworth-Hayes
Accident investigators looking into the crash of a Turkish Airlines Avro RJ100, which killed 72 passengers on 8 January, will be concentrating on what information was available to the pilot from precision-approach landing systems and air traffic controllers. The aircraft crashed when it landed 30m short of the runway at Diyarbakir airport in heavy fog.
Five people are believed to have survived the crash.
Although early Turkish press reports have commented on the lack of automated landing aids at the airport, new state-of-the art voice communications systems, supplied by US firm Litton-Denro, were only recently installed there. It is not yet known whether the runway was equipped with a fully functioning instrument landing system (ILS), although the runway on which the aircraft was attempting to land is located in the military sector of the airport.
The aircraft should also have been equipped with a ground proximity warning system, which would have warned the pilots of approaching terrain; with four engines it is unlikely the aircraft would have crashed because of an engine failure.
One of the two flight recorders has been recovered from the crash site and is being flown to the UK where its data will be analysed.
Poor weather was also being cited as the probable cause of a mid-air collision between two Turkish F-4 fighters in the southeastern province of Malatya, just a few hours after the RJ-100 airliner crash. All four crew were reported to have been killed in the accident, which occurred during a training flight.
251 of 389 words [End of non-subscriber extract.]
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
Nice post Croquette-er.
And touche, FC RTFQ - "direct your energies to improving your cricket.."
You Poms really are NO match any more, for the Aussies.
But I digress. Even Janes appear to be afflicted by the mis-information bug, eg.,
Once the gear has been selected down, and the aircraft configured for landing, and in a stabilised descent, this (terrain) warning is effectively inhibited.
Such an oversight, by a respected publisher of Janes standing is a little worrying.
From previous reports, it would appear that the aircraft MAY have been ececuting a VOR (/DME) approach - and "Yes", with the missed approach altitude set, there would be no aural alert, and no auto-pilot intervention (if engaged), (as opposed to having the MDA set.).
However SOP's then come into the equation...."Approaching minimums.....minimums"
What does not appear to have received too much "exposure", was the fact that there is apparently a military field in very close proximity - if not adjacent - to the civil airport.
For NON-pilots reading this thread, fog is a weather phenomenom for which professional pilots are trained.
However, having said that, the visual illusions created by the water droplets which comprise fog play amazing "tricks" at times. I have seen a vasis (the lights we use for the very last part of our landing phase) simultaneously indicating full fly UP , AND full fly DOWN in shallow fog conditions.
Okay FC go polish your bat and balls - Croquette, try the D&G forum if you feel like a bit of Aussie bashing - it's a close runner to Jet Blast!!
And touche, FC RTFQ - "direct your energies to improving your cricket.."
You Poms really are NO match any more, for the Aussies.
But I digress. Even Janes appear to be afflicted by the mis-information bug, eg.,
The aircraft should also have been equipped with a ground proximity warning system, which would have warned the pilots of approaching terrain;
Such an oversight, by a respected publisher of Janes standing is a little worrying.
From previous reports, it would appear that the aircraft MAY have been ececuting a VOR (/DME) approach - and "Yes", with the missed approach altitude set, there would be no aural alert, and no auto-pilot intervention (if engaged), (as opposed to having the MDA set.).
However SOP's then come into the equation...."Approaching minimums.....minimums"
What does not appear to have received too much "exposure", was the fact that there is apparently a military field in very close proximity - if not adjacent - to the civil airport.
For NON-pilots reading this thread, fog is a weather phenomenom for which professional pilots are trained.
However, having said that, the visual illusions created by the water droplets which comprise fog play amazing "tricks" at times. I have seen a vasis (the lights we use for the very last part of our landing phase) simultaneously indicating full fly UP , AND full fly DOWN in shallow fog conditions.
Okay FC go polish your bat and balls - Croquette, try the D&G forum if you feel like a bit of Aussie bashing - it's a close runner to Jet Blast!!
Last edited by Kaptin M; 11th Jan 2003 at 11:53.
I would like to try and correct a few misconceptions which are creeping in. First the Avro RJ Autoland capability. It depends on your definition of Cat 3A/B. However the RJ system is fail passive and hence is unlikely to be approved for minima below 50ft DH and 150 m Touchdown RVR for landing (Public Transport, JAR - OPS 1 Subpart E). In terms of certification to achieve capability below those minima the system must be fail operational which the Avro RJ is not.Next ,the Diyirbakir accident. The only published civilian procedures are non precision approaches. However there were PAR minima published in FLIP documents- unfortunately I don't have the latest edition to confirm.There is one runway ( 16/34) on this joint military/civil airfield. This means that military and civilian aircraft land and take off on the same runway. On the ground they use their own dedicated facilities. There is no other published civilian approach information nor is it yet clear exactly what type of approach was flown. This will only be known with certainty when the ATC tapes are replayed and the aircraft CVR is recovered and replayed,together with the FDR.
Last edited by Soddit; 12th Jan 2003 at 07:29.
Kaptain M, or etal, I'm kind of directing this question your way because you seem to have placed things in an organized perspective.
I thought that I had read that the surviving female passenger stated that the pilot was in the middle of talking to the passengers when he was cutoff by the crash.
Wouldn't this be indicative that they were not completely configured for landing and more possibly a CFIT?
I thought that I had read that the surviving female passenger stated that the pilot was in the middle of talking to the passengers when he was cutoff by the crash.
Wouldn't this be indicative that they were not completely configured for landing and more possibly a CFIT?
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
Thank you for your kind words, lomapaseo. Sorry to say that I did not hear that particular part of the survivor's interview, however it would be "unusual" if either of the cockpit crew were doing anything other than giving their full attention to the approach, at that point in time, ie esp. below 1,000' agl, at night, and in low visibility conditions - it would have been a work-intensive period for both pilots.
The handful of survivors would, I imagine, be suffering from major post-accident traumatic stress, and consequently events prior to and including the crash are usually often chronologically scrambled for some time, hence making their initial accounts often unreliable.
The handful of survivors would, I imagine, be suffering from major post-accident traumatic stress, and consequently events prior to and including the crash are usually often chronologically scrambled for some time, hence making their initial accounts often unreliable.
ex-Tanker
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Luton Beds UK
Posts: 907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kap,
It was an attempt at humour - or 'Hoomer' as they say in Norfolk. However, since the very rude preceding post (Fosters fuelled presumably) has been removed, there is no play on words any more. (PS. the balls are shiny but I exchanged a bat for skis way back...)
- As regards Janes - they also fall into the "caused by fog" trap, when mentioning the mil. crash.
- As regards Cat 111A or Cat 111B - non of that helps if a VOR
APP is in use of course.
It was an attempt at humour - or 'Hoomer' as they say in Norfolk. However, since the very rude preceding post (Fosters fuelled presumably) has been removed, there is no play on words any more. (PS. the balls are shiny but I exchanged a bat for skis way back...)
- As regards Janes - they also fall into the "caused by fog" trap, when mentioning the mil. crash.
- As regards Cat 111A or Cat 111B - non of that helps if a VOR
APP is in use of course.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Oklahoma, USA
Age: 62
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Recent news (CVR records) says they were flying below MDA on a VOR approach and slightly left of the path. GPWS warning sound heard on CVR but they insisted on flying below MDA. Also heard is the question of the tower whether the RWY in sight or not. The response from the pilot was negative.
Source: "Hurriyet" daily newspaper headline.
Source: "Hurriyet" daily newspaper headline.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Oklahoma, USA
Age: 62
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Recent News (Source: Hurriyet newspaper):
Pilots confused the runway lights with the fence lighting (As the airport is within the military zone, it looks like the airport is fenced). Some pilots subscribe this idea, some do not. Newspaper says that the pilot has confused the lights and started to descend 20 meters left (Off-set) of the runway extended centreline. While he made a steep right turn, the crash has happened.
However, it does not seem reasonable to me. The RWY approach lights are (As far as I know) VASI which is almost impossible to be confused with ordinary lighting (Like street lights) to illuminate the fences.
Whichever the situation is, I think it is almost clear that they have flown below the MDA prior to having the runway in sight.
Pilots confused the runway lights with the fence lighting (As the airport is within the military zone, it looks like the airport is fenced). Some pilots subscribe this idea, some do not. Newspaper says that the pilot has confused the lights and started to descend 20 meters left (Off-set) of the runway extended centreline. While he made a steep right turn, the crash has happened.
However, it does not seem reasonable to me. The RWY approach lights are (As far as I know) VASI which is almost impossible to be confused with ordinary lighting (Like street lights) to illuminate the fences.
Whichever the situation is, I think it is almost clear that they have flown below the MDA prior to having the runway in sight.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: here and there
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thks Ogel. keep us posted.
Going below MDA (if they did so) somehow reminds me of an almost similar accident THY had a few years back in Samsung (same acft type).
I know THY has a state of the art training facility but once again
it looks like they faced some CRM problems.
This is not to blame the THY military club but if itīs true some should review the CRM training that their pilots have to go thru.
Going below MDA (if they did so) somehow reminds me of an almost similar accident THY had a few years back in Samsung (same acft type).
I know THY has a state of the art training facility but once again
it looks like they faced some CRM problems.
This is not to blame the THY military club but if itīs true some should review the CRM training that their pilots have to go thru.
