Pegasus Airlines Boeing 737-800 TC-CPF overrun runway at Trabzon. All pax okay
 

Pegasus Airlines Boeing 737-800 TC-CPF overrun runway at Trabzon. All pax reported okay, but not confirmed yet.
Seems like it plowed through an embankment. Nose down stop. Escape slide left aft deployed.
About 2 hrs ago.
Apparently flight ESB-TZX PC8622.
Last alt and V on fr24 is 0ft 140kt.

Daylight photos indeed later show it was an excursion and not an overrun.

Photo shows airfield on a plateau with water on one side and each end. Appears the plane made the field ready for potatoes and then just tipped over the edge. Dont think it got to the water.

Speed from 1700ft downto 50 ft at 143-144 kts and HDG 111-122 deg, then 0ft 140kts as last data point.
Photos appear to show elevators trail edge a liitle up and rudder right.

Speedbrakes ? Or Reverers? Or both?

(BBC a bit late this time)

AH has it now, with some imagery: Accident: Pegasus B738 at Trabzon on Jan 13th 2018, overran runway

Looks like minimal tailwind, wet runway

Well the new photos taken in daylight show that it is a runway excursion and not overrun.

Good shots in this video.

......

Looks like a close call regardless of what happened. A little more energy and that could have been real nasty.

Trabzon is not the easiest place, with a 3.3 degree glide, often TWC as you pass the valley on approach, short runway 2640M and non-standard runway markings. Normally in marginal conditions you would land F40 which is the 738 would be approx 130- 140 KTS depending on weight. The runway at TBN has a grooved section assist stopping. Having said all this technical stuff the real issue is the Pegasus culture: High Speed, always requesting shortcuts, requesting visuals in ridiculous scenarios and a proven track record of busting minima to land. The minima is either 600, 590, or 490 depending on GA %, normally operators use 600 which is 2.5% or 590 which is 3.5%. Unfortunately this looks like another case of busting minima, landing deep and the rest is history. As observed a little more energy and it could be world headlines.
This Turkish site has all the gritty pics, including the engine recovered from the sea ( or locals would have sold it in the bazar! )

http://www.airporthaber.com/pegasus-...e-firladi.html

Lucky escape..!
Now, BEFORE the whole investigation process starts, we must make sure that the Turkish pilots are declared absolute heroes, no matter what.
I wonder what the cockpit gradient is, considering the slope gradient.

On-topic: 2640 meters is not a short runway for a 737. And he didnt use the last 200 meters of it. There must be something else to it.

Kaza sonras?nda uçakta neler ya?and??

Heavy braking and skidded to the side according on passengers (if to be believed) Passenger interviews stating before landing the aircraft was veering , but they thought it normal for Trabzon, after landing aircraft slowed then suddenly increased speed and pax shouting its " not stopping" before it veered off. Aquaplaning/ rubber reversion lets see..but still doesn't explain laying less than minima
you don't need the last 200 metres if you are already dancing!

Pano pictures, quite a close call.

Kaza yeri ve uçak havadan böyle görüntülendi

Ouch. Lucky the hull remained intact on this one as it went off the side without much energy. If it had gone down into the water this would have been a lot worse than just an embarrassment.

The ADS-B altitudes look like they may not be corrected for QNH (1021 hPa), which would make them read about 200' lower than actual.

If that's the case, it's by no means certain that the aircraft had touched down by that final data point (about 1950' after the threshold).

Looking into post #10 pics, picture nº 5 shows the trace on the runway and on soft ground.
And appears to be a sudden change, but it also maybe an indication of high speed and a strong brake action in a sharp moment.
This is a guess: if PIC realized they were overspeeding and with 200/250 metres left, decided to do something vigourous and the AC didn't react in a straight direction.
Being Trebzon in Turkey, will be difficult to reach to an 100% sincere report...

Go around thrust applied after reverse thrust selection?

Fortunately we have some native Turkish speakers here and they are saying that the PAX interviewed at more or less saying the same thing. Wobbly on finals, still in cloud and then slowed after landing followed by sudden speed up with PAX shouting.No suggestions of power increase just sliding around before tipping over the edge. Cabin crew and services did a good job.

RH engine looks to be a long distance away from where I’d picture it ending up if gravity alone carried it there. Residual thrust?

After a period of sustained deceleration a significant reduction in the rate can feel like a speed up, for instance hitting a patch of standing water and aquaplaning...

From the Jeppesen ILS plate for R11 at Trabzon (LTCG/TZX), the ILS CAT I Decision Heights (i.e. heights being referenced to 'above the ground', i.e. being referenced in the same manner as the reported cloud base):

2.5% go-around gradient = 496 ft decision 'height '.
3.5% go-around gradient = 436 ft decision 'height '.
4.5% go-around gradient = 386 ft decision 'height '.

For a B737 it's likely (read that as 'sensible') that one should be using the most limiting go-around gradient (i.e. 2.5%) the assumption being that you get an engine failure at the moment you press the TOGA button, that is unless your landing analysis data shows that you can get a better gradient than that, i.e. having suffered and engine failure at or in the go-around?!

From that weather (METAR reported above) you can read:

At time 20:20z broken cloud 300 ft height above the ground.
At time 20:50z broken cloud 400 ft height above the ground.

Some might of course retort that BKN (Broken cloud) is not a 'ceiling'. However, if the bit of sky that you're in is also the bit with the BKN cloud in it (and remembering that BKN = over half the sky) well go figure the view out of the window?!

So what's revealed by the above reported METAR is, whilst the visibility (which is the controlling parameter for commencing an approach) wasn't limiting, the cloud-base was sitting lower than the published ILS CAT I minima, coupled with a glide-slope that is steeper than normal (the ILS on R11 at TZX is set at 3.3º), as well as a slightly misty visibility and light rain... well let's just say that there are a number of gotcha's with that scenario !