|
The correct English translation for "leerling" is apprentice. The word "trainee" is often replaced with 'stagiair(e)' or just plain trainee is used.
|
@Lost In Saigon
The article you linked to is very old and appears to be in error ...Turbine blades..... Sorry Fan Blades.... Too many earlies :( |
Dani,
The SAS MD-81 that crashlanded in 1991 had a landing run of 110 meters.
It did not stall - speed 121 kts when touching some trees and 107 kts (flaps full) at touch down. G-force at touch down 2.09. ROD last 10 sec.: 1536 ft./min. Number of serious casualties 8. minor around 80. No fatalities. It appears that it is important NOT to stall. Link to the accident report: http://www.havkom.se/eng/pdf/C1993_57e.pdf brgds |
The Dutch Athorities are also leaning towards the engines
From AP: Investigator Pieter van Vollenhoven said, in remarks quoted by Dutch state television NOS, that the Boeing 737-800 had fallen almost directly from the sky, which pointed toward the plane's engines having stalled. He said a reason for that had not yet been established. Spokeswoman Sandra Groenendal of the Dutch Safety Authority confirmed his remarks and added that stalled engines on the plane were still "one of the possible scenarios" for the crash. |
Look now at the second image of the other engine and you will see that the turbine blades are all intact even though the nacelle has hit the ground quite hard and scooped in a lot of dirt in the process. This engine was not rotating at impact and therefore could not have been producing any thrust. As is also witnessed by the BA incident, a total loss of thrust below 1000' can be brought so a safe outcome given favourable terrain.
Originally Posted by Magplug
(Post 4749565)
@Lost In Saigon
My post was intended as an illustration of turbine damage in answer to another contributor's question, not a post mortem on the BA777 incident. I thought that was made clear. The BA777 did not have a total loss of thrust, and the lack of visible damage to the right engine didn't prove a thing. The visible condition of the Turkish 737's engines also don't mean a thing at this point. |
Photo from the interior of the plane after the crash:
http://www.rtl.nl/components/actueel...l_schiphol.jpg RTL Nieuws.nl - Eerste foto binnenkant ramptoestel |
Cockpit door
Originally Posted by ManaAdaSystem
And what the XXXX caused that damage to the cockpit roof? The nose gear is further back, so I don't think the strut could have done that. There must have been some massive forces acting at the pointy end when they hit the ground.
It looks like the cockpit door stanchion (doorframe) which I think is why in one video you see the fire service guy trying to hammer it back down, probably in an attempt to open the door. |
Desertdiner, I think that's just journalist misinterpretation of the term 'stalled', taking it to mean stalling like a car engine (taking 'the aircraft stalled' to mean the same as 'my car stalled'). 'Falling directly from the sky' points more toward the kind of stall that everyone's been talking about on this thread.
|
"Near-perfect landing", Dani? Who do you fly for?
|
TK safety record
Much has been made of TK's safety record down through the years and it is true that, at first glance, its safety record is not stellar. However, in fairness to TK, it should be pointed out that Turkish Airlines is one of the world's fastest growing carriers; over the past three years alone, its growth in pax numbers has been significant:
2006 17m 2007 19.7m 2008 22.5m - a growth of around a third in two years. Recent years, prior to 2005, have seen significant growth as well. Taking at face value a statement, made in the media, that TK has one of the worst safety record in Europe ignores the fact that the TK of the 70s and 80s is a much different airline than the TK of today, flying a much smaller fleet and far fewer pax. A far fairer comparison, I think, is to look at how the strong growth in the past few years has been managed. |
Turkish union critical to THY
The turkish civil aviation union, with more than 12.000 members, wrote on their website 18 february (!) that THY is ignoring the most fundamental parts in keeping flight safety on a high level, pointing specifically at bad maintaining of a/c.
|
Investigator Pieter van Vollenhoven said ... pointed toward the plane's engines having stalled. |
Stick pusher
Originally Posted by captplaystation
Belgique & dani, 737 is not fitted with stick pusher (no t-tail no deep-stall) merely stick shaker x2................................
Not quite correct, some are fitted with them. The G -regn ones I worked on for many years were. From memory they are fitted more to provide a positive indication of the stall (a stick nudger) rather than a stall recovery device. After stick shake the stick sedately moves forward a couple on inches. Nothing like the panel shattering stick push of the Trident. |
The SAS MD-81 that crashlanded in 1991 had a landing run of 110 meters. It did not stall - speed 121 kts when touching some trees and 107 kts (flaps full) at touch down. G-force at touch down 2.09. ROD last 10 sec.: 1536 ft./min. I mean it's obvious that this aircraft landed relatively soft. If nearly all survived. RoyHod, have you ever had to land some 60 tons of metal on a soft field??? Most probably the injuries happened where the fuselage cracked or where structure failed internally. The misconception leads from the definition of "low speed". It means the aircraft didn't drill itself into a hole. It means that this aircraft came in at landing configuration and speed. I seriously doubt that a investigation spokesman would give hints about such a critical circumstance like the speed at such an early stage on the proceedings. I guess LiS's citation is an interpretation of one or more journalists. Dani |
"Near-perfect landing", Dani? Who do you fly for? Even my cat understood it that way "under these conditions". Oh boy... |
snippet from BBC News at 19:17
Engine failure may have been a factor in Wednesday's crash of a Turkish Airlines plane at Amsterdam's Schiphol airport, the chief investigator says.
Pieter van Vollenhoven told Dutch state television that the way the aircraft fell directly from the sky suggested that its engines might have stalled. Nine people were killed when the Boeing 737-800 crashed short of the runway. A Dutch official said five Turks and four Americans were among the dead. Six people remain in a critical condition. Eighty-six people were injured altogether. Mr Van Vollenhoven, chairman of the Dutch Safety Board, said a reason for the apparent engine failure had not yet been established. "If you then lose speed, you then literally fall out of the sky," he was quoted as saying. Dutch officials have taken the flight data and voice recorders to Paris, where French authorities are providing technical assistance. Mr Van Vollenhoven said analysis of the recorders might be completed as early as Friday, but that the Dutch Safety Board would probably not announce any preliminary findings until next week. "We hope to have a firmer grip as soon as possible," he told NOS television, adding that the information retrieved from the recorders was of high quality and would aid reconstruction of the accident. |
OH NO! "Dutch officials have taken the flight data and voice recorders to Paris, where French authorities are providing technical assistance."
P.S. as perfect a landing as Hetfield's cat falling from a tree. |
Given that we know the AC had a GS of 88kt and the wind was relatively calm would those claiming a near perfect landing like to explain how they come to their conclusion?
|
@Dysag
I had already posted that, according AP, FDR had been sent to Paris....???:confused: For whatever reason my post was deleted. |
Dani -
I assume that the ROD must have been less than 1000 ft/min, most probably less than 500. (normal sink rate at touchdown 100-300). |
The pilot was screaming
One of the passengers tells TV-station:
"All of a sudden the captain starts screaming ojojojojojoojoj, I thought it was a joke, but then the plane fell down..." Link: Utredare granskar olycksplats | Utrikes | SvD |
Well well, DC-ATE again. Go back to your MS Flight Sim!
FE hoppy, the 88kts come from a ADS transponder read out which is clearly not correct. It most probably measured the average speed during touchdown shortly before stopping. Can someone of you guys give me an explanation why and how an aircraft could stall, then slide on more than hundred meters and still everyone survives? There is simply no known accident of a stalled aircraft where someone survived. I take bets in any currencies... Dani |
European Commission says Turkish Airlines has good safety inspection results
"European Commission VP and Commissioner for Transport Antonio Tajani said in a statement that "in 2008 Turkish Airlines underwent 100 ramp inspections. The results for safety and security have always been good." THY completed its IATA Operational Safety Audit in April 2006. It was renewed in November 2007 through November 2009."
From: ATW Daily News |
Did not really want to post here but just have to agree with Rainboe [Post 427] and Lost in Saigon [Post 441] re Danis Post 343.
Dani, while I agree with your analysis that only holds water IF the aircraft was fully stalled the word fully being vitally important. Indeed, what you describe at post 343 normaly stalling first over the wings, it falls into a spiral and the wing impacts first As we all know, when an aircraft is partially stalled, generally from the wing root and extending outboard as the angle of attack increases, it exhibits increasing drag and decreasing lift which starts to become insufficient to support the aircraft mass, thus leading to an increasing ROD. The further towards the fully stalled condition, the lower the lift generated, and the higher ROD. Therefore, in a partially stalled condition, you have a higher ROD than normal, but not in the realms of that which you allude to, a value whereby the crush damage on impact is total and catastrophic. If, and it is an if as I would hate to prejudge things here, this were a stall-induced early "touchdown" in the undershoot, the aircraft would probably only be partially stalled with a lower than normal airspeed (hence groundspeed hence shortish groundslide), higher than normal ROD and an unusually high pitch angle leading to the tail impacting first. Once the tail started to drag, aerodynamics would fade, and pure mechanics would start to take over. Effectively the airborne mass of the aircraft would reduce as more and more weight is taken by the increasing amount of fuselage in contact with the ground. Ground friction drag would start to rapidly rise leading to an increasingly rapid clockwise moment causing rotation (when viewed from stbd) leading to pitch-down motion along with increasing deceleration. Ill let you take the simple mechanics through the final seconds. By the time the cockpit reaches the ground, forward velocity would be very much reduced while the pitch-down moment would have reached its greatest ignoring any forces dissipated by engine pods breaking off etc, etc. Anyway, hope this provides a scenario of what may have happened here. Whatever happened, for whatever reason another sad day in aviation (sorry Rainboe H n H is a bit of a softy at heart! I know you hate it!!!!!) |
I would like to pose a question to the experts: how instrumental was the muddy field in increasing the survivability of this accident? It seems to me that the yielding dirt cushioned the vertical forces just enough to make this accident survivable for most.
|
Engine stall
I think the term 'stall' used in the context of the statement is a dumbing down for the benefit of the non-aviation public.
I doubt if it refers to 'compressor stall', more like the stalling of a car engine. |
...................
|
As we all know, when an aircraft is partially stalled, generally from the wing root and extending outboard as the angle of attack increases, it exhibits increasing drag and decreasing lift which starts to become insufficient to support the aircraft mass, thus leading to an increasing ROD. Jet aircraft on the approach are usually speed unstable as approach speeds are less than minimum drag speed. Of course if you let the speed get really low full thrust won't accelerate the a/c since drag is greater than the thrust - you then have to lower the nose, decrease the angle of attack and get some speed back - this presupposes you have sufficient height to do so. Not saying this is what happened on this accident but it could be a factor. |
As no-one else has provided the requested re-translation of van Vollenhoven's original Dutch, I've done some reading of a few Dutch news sites. I've not found anywhere referring to stalled engines - but then I don't think anyone here thinks that was an accurate translation anyway! ;)
I've roughly translated the following article - disclaimer - I am English but lived in Holland for five years and, unlike many, actually did bother learning the lingo to a reasonable degree!: nu.nl/vliegramp schiphol | 'Toestel viel letterlijk uit de lucht' "Volgens Pieter van Vollenhoven heeft de bemanning van het Turkse vliegtuig dat woensdag bij Schiphol neertstortte, geprobeerd zo lang mogelijk in de lucht te blijven." According to Pieter van Vollenhoven the crew of the Turkish aircraft that crashed at Schiphol on Wednesday tried to stay in the air as long as possible. ''Maar als je dan snelheid verliest, dan val je letterlijk uit de lucht. Het toestel heeft ook geen lang spoor in het weiland getrokken'', aldus de voorzitter van de Onderzoeksraad voor Veiligheid in het NOS Journaal. Quote: "But if you then lose speed, you literally fall out of the sky. The plane also didn't leave long tracks in the ground (literally meadow)." according to the Chairman of the Safety Investigation Committee / Council in NOS Journaal (one of the main Dutch TV News Programmes). Van Vollenhoven en enkele andere deskundigen van de raad hebben de plek des onheils woensdag bezocht en zijn hun onderzoek begonnen. Van Vollenhoven and various other advisors / experts visited the scene of the accident on Wednesday and begun their investigation. Daar trof Van Vollenhoven een dermate grote ravage aan, dat hij ''zeer verrast'' is dat het aantal doden woensdagavond nog beperkt was tot negen. Van Vollenhoven found there such a scene of carnage (can't quite get the nuance of ravage right myself, I'm afraid) that he is "very surprised" that the number of dead was still only 9 on Wednesday evening. De voorzitter van de Onderzoeksraad voor Veiligheid zei in het tv-programma NOVA dat de vliegers van het toestel verpletterd zijn, toen een instrumentenpaneel achter hun rug de cockpit binnen kwam. The leader of the Safety Investigation Committee / Council said in the TV programme NOVA that the flight crew met their death when an instrument panel came into the cockpit from behind their backs. (Note: that's what it says - "behind their backs" and "came into the cockpit"; please don't shoot the messenger!) De oorzaak was het plotselinge afremmen van het toestel in de modder, aldus Van Vollenhoven. According to Van Vollenhoven, the reason for this was the sudden deceleration of the fuselage in the mud. |
I have flown in Turkey and to be honest I have seen a lot of craps, when I say a lot it's a lot, which for sure could have end up in a field before the runway. So my bet is that the A/C has no technical deffects at all. I would be tempted to say that they lost control when they disconected the A/P. Knowing that they where three in the cockpit, I would say first flight as PF for the F/O after the type rating and no proper or too late correction of the captain. For sure it's just supposition...
|
There are even some examples where the engines continue to run after an accident has occurred
Originally Posted by helimutt
(Post 4749719)
I saw this once when an airliner crashed onto a beach. The engines continued to run and even caused a further fatality some time after initial impact. Ever since then the series of 'LOST' has gone downhill.
http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/PDF...t_Accident.pdf When the aircraft finally stopped moving, the Captain asked for the severe aircraft damage drill checklist. As they completed the checklist, it became apparent that both engines were still at full power and they were initially unable to shutdown the left engine because the thrust lever was impaired. Meanwhile, the passengers were getting instructions from the in charge F/A to start evacuating the aircraft. Fortunately the right engine shut down by itself as the passengers exited the right overwing exit. The left engine continued to run at full power even after the fire switches were pushed. It was only after the Captain put his foot on the instrument panels and applied all of his strength, that he was able to shut down the left engine. http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y17...line/FSKI1.jpg http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y17...line/FSKI2.jpg |
The four Americans who died were the four Boeing employees on the flight.
|
I just heard an eyewitness on the Dutch television, who was seated just aft of the wing (seat 19F). He recounts that the airplane made some strange movements before he heard the engines rev up to full speed. He clearly stated that the pilot must have applied full power, because the engine noise was really loud. It was however too late and shortly thereafter the aircraft smashed into the ground.
This would clearly mean there was no fuel starvation and that the pilot did indeed select TOGA-power. This would also indicate that there was no problem with the engine. The theory of a/t being disengaged without the pilots knowing seems more plausible by the minute. |
The more I hear the more I am beginning to think that there is a fuel issue rooted in this. Engines simply do not have compressor stalls causing fan rotation to terminate that quickly. Pictures appear to indicate little or no rotation upon contact with the ground.
|
Van Vollenhoven found there such a scene of carnage (can't quite get the nuance of ravage right myself, I'm afraid) that he is "very surprised" that the number of dead was still only 9 on Wednesday evening. Take care |
@ rainboe:
Look at the pictures on page 1 and 2. The tail is broken off behind the rear fuselage! Are you an experienced pilot? You cannot land a plane like this on a wet field without the gear coming off and the fuselage sliding quite a long way- not one planelength! The very rapid stop means slow speed and the damage means high ROD. Wherever are you getting these rate of descent estimates from? They came within a whisker of not surviving. http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/900/screenshot1037.jpg The similiar state of the SAS -80: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._751_crash.jpg |
@jupilair
Possible. I must admit, I've seen a lot of crap with non standard crew composition. Would be very interesting if there are any statistic numbers of accidents/incidents regarding non standard crew. |
If the engines were reving up just before, then why no fire? You would expect fuel all over the place under these conditions.
There must have been some tremendous g's to dig her in like this when she came down. From the Times: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multime...ra_493190a.jpg |
3333333333333333333333
|
Fyrefli - thanks for the translation. How about 'devastation' for 'ravage'?
H'n'H - well said... |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 08:53. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.