............

Any data released from the recorders yet, officially or unofficially?

The Chaos theory (aka: the butterfly effect)
 

Rainboe:

I agree. The engines position is irrelevant. Like the balls in the lottery (lotto). They drop into the bowl from the exact same position every time, with the exact same velocity. They get mixed the exact same way every time. The engines position is unpredictable. Like the lotto balls. This it what's called the chaos theory. Chaos theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ah, and of course, "exact" is not entirely true, that's the reason we get different results, but go ahead and predict them if you like... Not addressing you, Rainboe, that was for those who thinks they can make something out of the engines position. :)

Throw the dice. Wow! You got a 6, what can you read out of that?

NoD;

Small point - for the purposes of clarity, would you mind using full nom-d'plumes when attributing quotes please? I didn't make the comments to which you are responding to - it was "puddle-jumper2".

"puddle-jumper2", will you please sign your remarks with your full forum name and not shorten it to "PJ2", so as to avoid any confusion as to who is saying what? - Thank you.

Better resolution, almost the same link as above :-)
http://lh5.ggpht.com/__SfybfHbfMo/Sa...8/pHQ0gW0z4fU/

The real PJ2... Sorry! As you say, I just copied the sign off... post now edited ;)

NoD

let's just make one thing clear. there is no FAA requirement to ensure that an engine separates to save a fuel tank. lest we would have jetison switches to selectively drop one on an orphanage.

The only requiremet is that the critical aircraft structure for flight have a minimum or greater level of capability.

In crash impact (not a landing) all things are possible

Lomapaseo is right, there is no FAA regulation how to build an airplane. Boeing adopts the design philosophy that the engine should shear off in case of impact on water or ground. Hence the engines are attched with shear pins on the Fat Bobby.
Airbus on the other hand adopts the design philosophy that the engine should stay on the wind in all cases and uses a redundant sleeve/bolt design.
There is no right or wrong here!
Me thinks that the Airbus philosophy helped ditching US Air succesfully into the Hudson and the Boeing design route certainly minimised casualties in the case we are discussing here.

Lomapaseo, Fendant,

Just for my education really, I was under the impression that the engine fuse pins (I guess Boeing-only given your comments) were also designed to shear in flight in the event of a catastrophic engine failure, mainly the onset of seizure of one or more of the shafts. Such an event, even as it developed, would start to transfer rotational energy/momentum from the shaft(s) to the engine casing and the pins were designed to let go before the twist went back up the pylon and into the spars. Nothing to do with this situation – just interested as the question of the pins has been raised!

End of Thread creep! :ok:

Showing the position in relevance to the runway.

http://lh5.ggpht.com/__SfybfHbfMo/Sa...U/s800/crash02

PJ2,

Apologies. I should have chosen a smaller name :bored:

Rainboe, point taken,

I'll comment no more on this until the after the report.

Just to clarify though I'm not trying to explain why this happened, merely pointing out the difference with regard to pictorial evidence of the engines.

There is no way that anybody can define catastrophic seizure loads in a design envionment (way too many what ifs). What both Airbus and Boeing do is to ensure that the critical aircraft structures (for flight) meet the min or better capability for sustaining flight loadings (gust, flutter etc.) and the engine manufacturer has to demonstrate that in a blade off test no distortion will occur in the engine mounts. Airbus and Boeing then size the in betweens the engine and the wing to sustain loads up to but not exceeding the capability of the wing.

When all is said and done the regulation does not accept engines breaking loose in a defined flight envelop but are content with the status quo as long as it does not fall off and hit somebody.

Tomorrow, at 1300Z (1400CET) a press conference will be held in the hague by the investigation commitee. see De Onderzoeksraad voor veiligheid

They will discuss the preliminary findings of this accident. So a bit more patience please....

source: nu.nl/algemeen | Eerste resultaten onderzoek crash woensdag bekend

(in dutch)

@fox niner

There is no need for a dutch press conference.

The Turkish Press (Hürriyet) has already found the reason for the crash, AMS ATC.....:ouch:

Lomapaseo, TY - understand your comments re the FAA and engine mounts! Cheers, H 'n' H

Danny:

"Now that we've had a bit of time to breathe, I'd like you all to know that there are far too many uneducated and irrelevant posts being made on this thread. So far, there have been 1,532 posts of which 595 have been deleted."

Danny, I think you could have deleted a further 900 and the thread would have suffered no great loss...

Humble prediction of what probably will happen:

Accident cause will be clear to investigators.
Turks will not agree and put the blame elswhere.
Our S.O.P.`s will change.
Boeing will install another sticker in front of my nose, stating the obvious.

Almost 1000 messages on this thread...

yet almost no one has tried to find the root cause that presumably "loaded up" the flight deck crew to the extent that they missed the signs of an impending stall.

This is the one and only post that I've so far noticed addressing that root cause.

I'm astonished that so many esteemed Ppruners concentrate on discussing fan blades, when the real learnings from this sad accident are to be found elsewhere. :uhoh:
Well, tomorrow we'll hopefully all be wiser.

Well, what "loaded them up" and why, we might never know.

For what's clear is - derived from the tansponder data - that they where not established, that they where high and fast, that they suddenly lost speed and that they fell near-stall nearly out of the skies.

Well, it really doesn't need much imagination to come to the theory I'm promoting for a long time and is constantly dismissed by nearly everyone here.

But Danny is correct by stating that most people have little knowledge about phyisical laws in aviation. One of these is the powerful force of two CFMs running from idle to full power within seconds: It's a huge nose-up-momentum, that can put your aircraft immediatly into an uncontrollable situation, even if you were not near stall before. This momentum is so strong that the books say don't use it in stall recovery (I don't know the Boeing books but at least the Airbus books say it, and I don't think that those two aircraft are very different in this very behaviour).

So if you watch the data from the transponder and interprete it with the little facts we have, it really doesn't need a lot of imagination to come to the conclusion I came to. I'm pretty convinced that there is no other solution than the obvious...

Keep discovering
Dani