"So far, we have had verbal diarrhea from someone saying the accident looks survivable! Not to me Jose- I suppose really careless of the victims to succumb."

Ok then oh great one, point me in the direction of ANY a/c accident where there were no survivors and where this much of the fuselage maintained this degree of structural integrity and without manifest evidence of fire.

Please - any - just one - please.

It was an observation of my suprise - no conjecture why - no opinion - nada.

But in your forum, I take it that it is yours - yes/no? - I guess that's verboten.

411A
You're right on the money! Maybe the time has finally come or else we have to accept that these forums have descended into a free-for-all rather than a place for serious discussion between professionals..............

:(

Does that mean all non-glass aircraft should be grounded due plenty of potential for crew disorientation?

PBL
I have learned never to antognize lawyers journalists or academics so I'm not trying to provoke your anger, but just trying to broaden your insight.
and yes your postulation above is certainly worthy of discussion by those that choose.
I tend to agree that it likely went in underside first, partly broke up and bounced. But my judgement is clouded because I haven't recognized more than the center wing box and the tail and of course no wreckage scatter diagram as yet.
However I don't agree that striking underside first necessarily points to a stall. I have two points of experience that conflict with that supposition.
First, I have only seen flat impacts from stalls in rare cases. In most cases of stall one wing drops and the aircraft upsets leaving asymentrical damage from one side to the other. In other events the nose pitches down.
Second; I have seen numerous CFIT events where the wreckage pattern had bottom fuselage impacts, breakup and bounce. Much of which depended on what side of the terrain it impacted. Consider that in most events you are not centered on the hill so either the left or right wingtip hits first, sometimes spinning the fuselage as it progresses forward.
In this case I have no conclusions (too little data), but I am always mindful that it takes a lot of time to go from a flameout to an uncontrolled ground impact. Most pilots use this time to aviate, navigate and communicate

well they did fine until they touchdown long, on the runway and then departed off the right hand side. I got a laugh out of the link reporting about the loss of the inlet cowl as a factor (it was only a pointer that an engine failed)

Actually I value PBL's input. A good number of years ago at University (early 90's) as a so called "spotter" as I were then I used to read a lot PBL used to write on the Risks list, and now RHS 737 EFIS I have to say my opinion of him hasn't changed one iota.

I suggest you review his previous literature going back perhaps 20 years before personally attacking the guy.

And flame me all you like.


Rainbowe said:
Charles and PBL, you won't take the hint! Stop this stupid speculation based on zero information. This is getting like the Kenyan thread. It takes trained investigators looking at scratches and gouges to work out what the aeroplane was doing. Analysing the post ground contact movements is not really at all productive, we are really after why the collision took place in the first place, not your musings. There seems to be a competition with every accident to be the first to come up with the cause- it's getting embarrassing. Why do you think people want to hear your idle, inexperienced speculation? Most experienced pilots will have a fairly good suspicion as to why and how the event took place, but until further details are released, better to hold their peace, as they are- leaving it to enthusiastic aviation fans with a computer and absolutely no training or experience (or understanding!) to bombard us with garbage!

So far, we have had verbal diarrhea from someone saying the accident looks survivable! Not to me Jose- I suppose really careless of the victims to succumb.

Can we please wait for news to be released, and any pertinent comments from someone who knows what they are talking about?

I saw that aircraft company last week
 

First of all,the MD83 has not a EGPWS but only a simple GPWS(without terrain clearance floor datas of registered airports) so if you are fully configured and in a normal rate of descent,you will have no warning despite you are offset centerline!
MD83 equipped with only conventional RDI(radio directional indicator) without any ND and MAP display.
the captain said he had the rwy in sight but still possibility of black whole if between you and the threshold you do not see the green lights of the start of the rwy.
Last week I saw this plane or another Atlasjet MD83 in Pristina.As we were waiting for the RVR improvement for T/O(2 and half hours in the plane with PAX on board),during this time that plane landed in front of me with a very low RVR and you need 800mPLUS ceiling of 300ft for the ILS 17 PRN which is the lowest min for PRN(special state case).then he took off just a while after with RVR much below the min requirement!!
SO I REALLY WONDER ABOUT ANY POSSIBLE SAFETY CULTURE in this company but again this purely speculation and wait for the investigation.Sad for all persons killed.

I have not yet seen any information on the flight path relative to the impact terrain and the pictures only show the immediate wreckage.

As Lomapaseo has noted:In contrast to those who have postulated a straight down impact or descending at a greater rate than the downslope (neither yet excluded), a more likely impact sequence is being pivoted by a wing impact followed by the upslope wingtip impacting the ground and the fuselage impacting sideways, caveat more complete information.

The energy absorption by the wing would explain the apparent integrity of the fuselage, but that does not count for much. Films of experimental crashes conducted by NASA on flood damaged Navahos show massive dynamic deformation of fuselages before they resume an apparently intact appearance.

Is EGPWS required on Turkish aircraft?
Atlas jet flies into Europe according to what I read.
I am almost sure Europeans require this, I know most Middle East and Asian countries do require it, upgrading is not all that difficult.

Can someone confirm the exact location of the crash site?

So far, I few contradicting indications have been given, and it is not even confirmed that the approach was for Runway 05

ibelieveicanfly wrote:


"First of all,the MD83 has not a EGPWS but only a simple GPWS..."
This aircraft has been flying charter flights from and to Europe this summer, including Scandinavia and if it not had EGPWS it would not been able to operate example from Finland, our so loved CAA is taking care of this. So there fore I would say that they did had an EGPWS installed.


You also wrote "MD83 equipped with only conventional RDI(radio directional indicator) without any ND and MAP display."


If you are referring with this line to ex Swiss MD83´s (You´re Swiss right?) you´re correct but if you do a search there is a lot of MD80´s out there with EFIS/ND/FMS/GPS/INS -installed... For example this aircraft used to fly with RenoAir and they did had EFIS/ND/FMS cockpit layout.


Your comment about Turkish pilots safety culture is absolutely correct. What I have seen they are negligent to everybody in this business! Latest stunt from their country men was few weeks ago in Finland when they almost hit ground vehicle because they decided to leave the holding and do the practise approach (ILS CAT I) with RVR less than 550m. Bad thing was that they did not informed anybody about this and they terminated their approach to VERY LOW. The airport did not had radar surveilance. Well the investigation is under way anyway...Way to go Turks:yuk:
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...hlight=Pegasus

Thanks Fin Pilot for the EGPWS requirement in Europe.

http://www.md80.net/yabbse/images/at...rta_pprune.jpg
Map layer from Navigraph

Here are the published procedures plus crash site according to information from news media.

What puzzles me is that the ATC transcript (post #24), if correctly relayed, states that the MD-83 reported "overhead VOR" at time 2318Z and the last communication "established inbound" was 18 minutes later - you hardly fly a D12 racetrack for that long?

Could anybody familiar with Turkish ATC procedures enlighten what the guys might have done during that time? Could the flight originally have come DCT IPT VOR at high altitude with handoff from Antalya radar for descent to published procedure at 8,000 ft over the VOR? MSA is 11,500 ft in the area.

In what direction is the wreckage pointing?

to FINpilot
 

ok good but it is the first time hear an 83 has an EFIS maybe you confuse with the 87.
if the acft would have been equipped with EGPWS(unless it was u/s) and not a simple GPWS,an alert would have come automatically to the pilot if not flown in rose mode,isn'it?who knows?

dear "IbelieveIcanfly".

I feel that your post is probably what we will find to be true, My only complaint is that it is not "black whole", but it is "black hole".

As this is a giant nothing, I apologize for even mentioning it.

Over 40 years ago, responsible people asked for ILS approaches at all jet served airports.

its that simple.

shortcuts at night near mountains are an accident waiting to happen.

I don't discount an improperly set radio nav receiver, HSI course selector incorrectly set or the like.

In what direction is the wreckage pointing?

-no pilot speaking-
from the video cnn-turk and the picture http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/11/30/europe/plane.php (Herald Tribune)
looks like the hill gets down to the west, and if the picture is from this morning it would point to NW. But searching for more pictures or description would be indicated.

flash8,

thanks for the kind words.

lomapaseo,

glad you are engaging. I don't buy your dynamics yet. Let's stay on it.

RatherBeFlying,

I don't buy your dynamics either.

PBL

"looks like a slow speed impact, maybe stall due to engine out while on final or some kind of trouble close to the ground."

Like they used to say about the Cub, flies fast enough to just kill you.

Unfortunately there are a couple of people here who think they are investigators and can determine the probable cause of an accident by a picture or two of part of the wreck. Its not worth arguing. Just stick to the facts like any professional safety expert would. More info will probably come out.

http://aviation-safety.net/database/...php?Country=TC

True, but the worst offenders tend to join for one accident that affects them, then bugger off after the investigation and thread has run its course. I've been variously lurking and hopefully contributing stuff of some use for a few years now and I'd miss this place were I no longer admitted.