The sequence
1) Aborted/baulked landing with go-around.
2) Gear does not retract.. fly aircraft follow MAP
3) At this stage A/C is just declaring a go-around as there is no fire yet..
4) Ecam started several checklists plus cabin reports
5) Engine Fire starts, change priorities and start memory items
6) Decide on RW 35 as best option, declare May Day, rest is history..
In this time line 12 minutes is not long, the suggestion the aircraft was flying around for 20 minutes on fire is not accurate.

Old system Aviate, Naviagte, Communicate..

Ataturk is a swarming nest of aircraft with holding on arrival the norm. Even in CB activity it is difficult to get avoiding tracks due traffic density, so in this situation above ATC have no Idea what's going on until the Pilots tell them.

As for " vectoring over water" why? to avoid built up areas" crew took shortest route back to land, RW05 was not a good choice, they did well. ATC also did a good job in getting the diverts away

The above reason is why on APPROACH 757's should be treated as HEAVY for separation reasons, as it is in this configuration when their wake becomes troublesome to a following aircraft when classed as MEDIUM.

In Denmark the 757 is medium when behind and heavy when in front, end story.

757 is heavy when being followed, medium when following. The U.K. Is an anomaly in this regard. This "upper medium" "lower medium" stuff doesn't exist in most places either.

Sorry, I'm a little lost. When cleared for take off, after the required separation, the crew did so. Your point is?

Currently 35R is torn up and is under complete reconstruction (on the landing video you can see earth-moving equipment in operation on 35R in foreground). With the accident IST was down to one operating runway till the evening, causing complete havoc. I was on one of the affected flights, by the time I got in at 10pm four hours late both 35L/17R was operational again, the accident aircraft was already moved.

What about departure point on the runway, rotation point wind etc.

de facto & lgw vulture

There is no restriction for a medium following a medium for T/O. On a high density runway like LGW/LHR take off clearance will be given and accepted as soon as the preceding aircrafts nose wheel has lifted. Perfectly normal and happens every day, to criticise the airline shows a lack of knowledge.

For landing the normal spacing is 2.5nm behind a medium and 5nm behind a heavy. LHR has recently switched to time based separation so the spacing can be reduced with strong headwinds, but the time remains constant.

9F. Departures
9F.1 Wake turbulence separation minima on departure shall be applied by measuring airborne times between successive aircraft. Take-off clearance may be issued with an allowance for the anticipated take-off run on the runway; however, the airborne time interval shall reflect a difference of at least the required time separation.
9F.2 The wake turbulence separation minima in the table below shall be applied when aircraft are using:
(1) (2)
the same runway; or
parallel runways separated by less than 760 m; or
16 October 2014
Section 1: Chapter 3: Separation Standards - Page 13
CAP 493
Table 4:
(3) crossing runways if the projected flight path of the second aircraft will cross the projected flight path of the first aircraft at the same altitude or less than 1000 ft below; or
(4) parallel runways separated by 760 m or more, if the projected flight path of the second aircraft will cross the projected flight path of the first aircraft at the same altitude or less than 1000 ft below.
Leading Aircraft


Minimum Wake Turbulence Separation at the Time Aircraft are Airborne
Following Aircraft

A380-800

Departing from the same position
or
from a parallel runway separated by less than 760 m (2,500 ft)

No wake turbulence separation minima required
A380-800

Heavy

2 minutes

Medium (Upper and Lower) Small
Light
3 minutes
Heavy
Heavy

4 nm or time equivalent

Medium (Upper and Lower) Small
Light
2 minutes

Medium (Upper and Lower) or Small
Light
2 minutes
A380-800 (Full length take-off)

Departing from an intermediate point on the same runway
or
from an intermediate point of a parallel runway separated by less than 760
No wake turbulence separation minima required
A380-800

Heavy

3 minutes

Medium (Upper and Lower) Small
Light
4 minutes
Heavy (Full length take-off)

Heavy

4 nm or time equivalent
Medium (Upper and Lower) Small
Light
3 minutes
Medium or Small (Full length take-off)
Light
3 minutes
Note: ATC shall apply the minima as prescribed above, irrespective of any pilot request for reduced wake turbulence separation. ATC does not have the discretion to reduce wake turbulence separation minima.

Locked door,
Not sure where my post you were refering to is..(my posts seeem to disappear often recently...).but im quite sure i did not criticise BA crew.
I just mentionned the standard ICAO vortex separation..now if LHR has a reduced separation,it was obviously approved by the UK CAA and such difference notified to pilots operating there..i have never flown there myself.
LGW however I am quite familiar with and never had an issue with minimum ICAO time separation,just late landing clearances.
Now it is a fact that PIC have the right to accept or not such reduced separation,I wonder how many wake turbulence reports they get there on a monthly basis..oh hang on a minute...its always windy up there...maybe the reason for reduced separation and few reports..:E

Looks like they had the very hard landing (the reason being unknown) most of it on the right main landing gear, which suffered great damage along with the engine.

They went around (most probably because they followed SOP or because they didn't think they would safely stop on the runway)

During the missed approach the extent of the damage must not have been apparent, or they would have returned immediately.

Once they learned of the status of the airplane (reports by cabin crew, ECAM, etc…) they decide to land on a longer runway and prepare for the worst, that is, to prepare for evacuation.

A man makes decisions with the info he has available. If he has time, he should use it to get to the best possible decision. When he learns he doesn't have the time, he will land with no delay. They did this, so it was ok, unless the first hard landing was a handling error, in which case they have a not so good score

Not entirely correct. They were on approach to RW 05 (The shorter runway) at first. By this time they would have been well aware of their emergency situation, at the very least single engine after a fire.

I'll wait for the report, but I am wondering why on a single engine in calm weather conditions you would not come back on the longer runway first time!? I'll be very keen to find out if there was a reason.

Looked like he got to about 500 feet before going around and repositioning for 35L (Longer Runway).

Looking a the picture of the aircraft in flight, it's clear the rear section of the engine is missing. I suspect 05 wasn't available because of debris!

RW 05 is the shorter runway. Who cares whether it had debris or not.

Take the longer runway... It's not rocket science!

Heroes
 

Like with the Turkish airline crash in Amsterdam,

They inflicted the predicament upon themselves.
The Turkish Aviation Authority, like w the A'dam crash will label them as heroes.

Blame will be upon all others but the heroes.

Eric

Please tell us exactly what the separation was to the aircraft in front. You obviously know without any shadow of a doubt that they deliberately got to close, don't you?:ugh:

There are a number of valid possibilities, including that the separation to a 787 needs to be bigger. At this stage we simply do not know with certainty.

Eric, judging by your previous "contributions" and you even poorer command of English I doubt very much you would have the skill or presence of mind to fly a crippled airliner through busy airspace and achieve a successful landing. Whatever the initial cause, the important issue is the successful outcome of saving lives.. remember that when being quick to judge with no facts to hand.

Kirks gusset, when you criticise others regarding commenting before the facts come out, you should really take your own advice. Your previous comments state facts that are incorrect too.

The crew did take RW05 initially (which I agree with you was not a good choice).

The crew did well?? Well, we'll wait to see the final report, but as my previous posts allure to, I can't for the life of me work out why they chose RW05 in the first place.

Success in the end for sure, but will be very interesting reading the final report when it becomes available.

If the separation from the 787 needs to be greater then why not act right NOW and make it so. If the investigation later decides this was not a factor in the accident then we can always revert back.
:ugh:

The FR24 playback suggests that no flights landed on 05 (or 35) for half an hour or so after the THY's incident. This included the flight immediately following the A320. Presumably the A320 left debris which was immediately spotted, and had to be cleared away. Nothing landed on any runway until the 320 got down on 35.

I'd interpret this as saying that conditions made 05 optimum, the runway wasn't cleared by the time the A320 was making its second approach, and the state of the a/c prompted the crew to ask to get down quick, even on a non-optimum runway.