Most of us who've been involeved in Accident Investigation would rephrase that..

6. Eye witnesses can be notoriously unreliable and their reports should be weighed carefully before being totally discounted or ignored

- many have made serious mistakes ignoring such evidence on petty prejudices

So, sometimes they are and sometimes they aren't... the one I quoted in #133 certainly seemed to have noticed that the aircraft crashed - or was he unreliable about that?

We shall see if his estimate of the initially nose-up attitude and approx height (80m) was far wrong fairly soon I should think....

The evidence in the field seems to support his statement '... the aircraft seemed then to lose speed (& propulsion?) and drop very steeply'

It's a starting point and without CVR's and FDR' etc, just like a detective, have to build up a picture from visual evidence... fortunately we have additional information these days.

Magplug,

You miss the point completely.

I do fly aircraft painted the right shade of blue, and that is why I am telling you that you will "NEVER" have gotten, or get, now, or any time ever in the future, a "visual switch from 18R to 18C".

It just is not done at SPL. The controller even verifies the new localizer frequency with you when you accept the change of runway. Surely, you have not been accepting the change with a view to completing it as a visual approach? :eek:

Sorry to be so pedantic, but if we are going to be critical of sensationalism in others, lets keep our own posts factual to start with. Claiming to have done visual switches often in the past, only makes your otherwise good post seem as sensationalist as the other people you are being critical of.

Just heard from Sky news via a live press report from Schiphol airport saying all three pilots were killed.

Sad to here that RIP

All 3 FC perished and still in flight deck for investigation.

84 injured, 9 dead, 25 severly, 24 lightly, rest - no status.

Trivial point in the overall scheme of things, but the motorway labelled A9 in Capt Kaos' diagram is actually the A200. The A9 is the road underneath the +/- 1.5km label.

Icing - yes they would have been in icing conditions. The engine anti ice would have been on as a matter of course, in cloud with OAT below +10.

Airframe icing is really not an issue with the 73NG, at least not in those sort of conditions.

Windshear (since it has been mentioned) - to cause such an accident would have had to have been pretty dramatic. Unlikely if not impossible in prevailing conditions.

I think it highly unlikely the aircraft just ran out of fuel. The smell of kerosene just lends more credence to that theory.

If there was only unusable fuel left in the fuel system, it likely would not be in sufficient quantities to be smelled by people in the area of the crash.

Fuel leaking from the tanks is a more reasonable expectation.

BUT, even if the aircraft ran out of fuel, how does that explain the stall?Aircraft don't just fall out of the sky when the engines stop running.

I believe this accident has much in common with Colgan 3407 in that it appears they let the airspeed get to slow and a stall resulted.

Following the first press conference this afternoon, the media's hunger to know the names of the desceased is a constant distraction and only goes to inflame my hatred for an industry that still believes in "if it bleeds, it leads" ... mind you, I think the Dutch were a little too quick off the mark to hold such a presser, followed by the promise of a second one at 1900cet when they will release the names. One presser, no names and just the facts post-accident.

Then again, it's just my opinion.

Dutch TV reporting that the aircraft travelled a very short distance, no longer than the length of the aircraft itself, after hitting the ground. Six of the injured passengers are said to be very seriously injured.

without substance
 

I just happened to read about the THY crash on German media and went to this forum in order to see whether anything substantial is coming to light - apparently not.

When I opened this thread it was 9 pages long. Now it has grown to 14.:ugh:

I hate too many rules and overregulation, but it sure would be nice to cut the BS here.

How does every professional aviator prefer to be treated when she/he is involved in an incident or accident and none of the facts are known yet...?

This reminds me of the fatal accident of a friend where a high-profile passenger was involved (but survived). It was a sheer nightmare for the family of this pilot to hear and read about all the sheer speculation that emerged in the days after the accident.

In France, on the news, we have had Gérard Feldzer (retired air france captain and director of the bourget air and space museum) who have given this explanations for the fire absence :
- Wings didn't separate from the fuselage, so no leak of fuel
- Pilots certainly had done their emergency checklist before the crash and shutoff the fuel levers.....

Shuting off both fuel levers is done in a predicted crash just before touching down, but I don't think that in this case, they have had the time to do this procedure........

Just one post from busz that has anything to offer on what looks increasingly like a stall.
Pilots,when flying an approach,can either leave the AT in "ARM" mode(min speed reversion assured automatically) or disengage it altogether.If it was disengaged,then the pilot becomes responsible for ensuring speed remains above 1.3Vs.
Call-outs are made by the PM at the OM/1000 Radalt and 500 radalt to ensure that speed,profile and descent rate remain within limits.If the PF elects to "go visual" these calls may be omitted,although usually a 500' call will remain in case of incapacitation.Distraction and/or complacency can also lead to these vital calls being omitted.
Dual flame-out?Possibly but then we should really be looking at a picture of a 737 in a field without its back broken.The wreckage doesnt fit the dual-flameout.
Very early to speculate I know.Apologies.

atc from minutes after incident.
 

Qnh 1025
Qne 1013

Statements on casualties in Turkish Airlines crash create controversy
 

Statements on casualties in Turkish Airlines crash create controversy
Contradictory statements made by officials after a Boeing 747-800 type passenger plane operated by Turkish Airlines (THY) crash-landed in Amsterdam on Wednesday. (UPDATED)

Footage aired by Dutch broadcasters and news agencies showed bodies in body bags like the one Hurriyet Daily News Online used for this story. In the photograph bodies can be seen lying on the ground, covered, by the wreckage.



However initial statements regarding the accident made by Turkish officials, including those representing the Transportation Ministry and executives from THY, said all passengers survived the crash, prompting local media to label the accident as a "miracle".



The situation created controversy and raised question. The CEO of THY, Temel Kotil said: "Nobody has been killed."



And Transportation Minister Binali Yildirim echoed a similar view: "There are injured but no deaths."



The first controversy, however, came from remarks made by Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan when he told reporters that he sends his condolences to the family of the passenger killed in the accident. His remarks came ahead of the official statement on casualty numbers.



The Turkish public now awaits an official explanation on the situation that has begun to resemble an effort to cover up a disaster and present it as a miracle.

HÜRRÝYET - ENGLISH
This website is updated quite often.
But beware they are already listing crew and pax names.

The Rescue vehicles with the tracked, tank-like wheels you see in the photos were ordered after the Saab 340 crash about ten years ago, when they had trouble navigating through the thick mud prevalent in the fields around the airport. Whoever decided to make that investment may have saved someone's life today.

From the photos limked so far, I can't resolve fully the condition of the fan blades of the RH engine nor whether there is indeed fire damage to the bottom of the core nacelle.

I agree with some of the other posters that the smell of kerosene is not conclusive about the presence of useable fuel.

I also note that relatively intact wings do not always catch fire when crash landing on wet soil even though they are leaking fuel.

So, the majority of the speculation is worthless until we get a couple of more facts perhaps from the investigators on scene.

Is there any word on the state of injuries of the rest of the crew? For example the Cabin Crew sat in the tail section etc?

Well, how about if the sudden deceleration was largely in the vertical plane? (FWIW, I have personally experienced a stall and near vertical fall from about 60ft and am glad I am still around. YMMV!)

Anyone thinking of the BA 777 at LHR not too long ago?

:suspect:

Baffled
 

I cannot for the life of me understand why the stbd engine is forward of the cockpit AND in a similar flight path to the fuselage. Unless it had become detached just prior to impact.

Can anyone offer an alternative explanation ?

We haven't had much rain here in the last few days but this is reclaimed land lying (at the point of the crash) some 10 feet below sea level. The soil is thick sea clay - the type that stays wet-ish for a long time and sticks in big clumps to your feet when you walk on it. Also, the ground water level sits just a few feet below the surface so water is sucked up and, unless you have a tracked or four-wheel-drive vehicle, or a tractor, it's virtually impossible to drive any kind of vehicle on these kinds of fields.

A four-wheel-drive fire truck might just be able to reach the wreck but would have serious trouble getting away after standing still for more than half an hour. A regular ambulance has no chance at all. Schiphol has something like nine "E-one"s (8-wheelers) which should work in these kinds of fields.

The pictures of body bags being loaded onto a flatbed trailer towed by a tractor may have been ghastly, but it was probably the only way of getting them out of the field, short of carrying them by hand for a few hundred meters to the nearest road.

The tracked vehicle you see in the pictures is a Haglund. It is especially suitable for traversing all the ditches that lie around the airport. But from a book on Schiphol I have here, it seems that Schiphol owns only one.

Supprised that there is no evidence of foam around the wings.

Even if the integrity of the tanks was maintained (and I would consider this doubtfull in this instance), I would have thought there would have been some fuel spill which the fire crews would have had to deal with.

(737 LAE).

From: Experts say Turkish Airlines plane put down on landing, did not crash

An interesting choice of phrase there...

Facts And Speculation
 

FACTS:

Several eyewitnesses, including pax on the a/c, report a pitch-up followed by a sharp pitch down.

Surprising short tracks on the ground (approximately one a/c-length), indicating low forward velocity.

3 deceased FCMs remain in the cockpit on the authority of the Dutch Public Prosecutor.

SPECULATION (for the PPL'ers):

An eyewitness who was one of the first to assist survivors noticed oxygen masks were deployed in the cabin? Maybe rapid decompression at 200'?

Maybe some of the spark plugs were dirty and not all cylinders were firing, just I once had on my 172?

As there was a check captain on board and cloud base at 800', maybe they were practicing a precautionary with low level circuit and short and soft field landing? I had to do that once too...

Yes, that is interesting. My guess (only a guess) is that it's consistent with a very steep descent in a nose-up attitude. The tail impacts first, the resulting acceleration force breaks the engine pylon fuse and releases the engine, and what forward momentum there is lets the free engine slide along the ground ahead.

This would also be consistent with the flight crew being killed by the high G-force as the fuselage, rotating down around the stabiliser lateral axis, hit the ground.

But now that I think of, the mechanics is all wrong - my 2nd para. contradicts the first (which assumes the fuselage does not rotate down).

Wait for the FDR readout!

It takes time to read and moderate these threads.... this is also not the place for 14 year olds (or any other year olds) to post condolences and such. :=

tragedy in EHAM / AMS
 

I'm responding to one post talking specifically about fuel starvation.
It is highly unlikely, although not impossible, that fuel starvation is an issue. If fuel was starved because of a fuel leak, then it would be noticed and rectified either by diversion or x-feed shut-off or engine (1 of) shutdown or other remedial action. You don't notice you've no fuel left once on finals, although it has happened (B747 arrives at LHR and engines shut down during taxi - airline name with-held). We will have to wait for the CVR and FDR to give further indication there.
As for fuel used, a typical B737-800 (I've used CFM56 fitted engines here) on a sector LTBA - EHAM using todays weather for an 0530Z departure would require trip fuel for 3 hrs 12 mins and dependent on TK fuel policy, would have around 4 hrs of fuel on board to include diversion (assuming EHRD) and contingency / reserves (I used 5% in calculation). That equates to approximately 10,700kgs of fuel - pilots will know but others may not - jet aircraft are not generally fuelled in litres, but by weight - either LBS or KGS - as fuel volume differs from its' weight due to temperature, altitude of airport ASL, etc. I did not include destination mvr fuel, but did include 30 minutes of hold at 1167 kgs. As aircraft did not divert, reserves are still assumed aboard on landing.

If you want facts - there they are. BBC and SKY news should be in possession of facts like that before they start any conjecture. Maybe they are but it helps everyone to know the starting point and work on from there.

Before we can speculate on any starvation issue, we need to get more facts like fuel remaining during the dsc, which may be obtained from the FDR.

All FD Crew lost - sad, very sad. My condolences to THY Flight Dispatch and Crew personnel and their families, and whatever the cause, I'm sure the professionalism of the crew dealing with the emergency contributed to the fact that out of 135 souls falling vertically, they saved 126.

Where are the helicopters?
 

Long haul,

When I saw the damage, the only thing that made me give any credence to the denials of any deaths, was the lack of helicopters. At a major airport in the US, lifeflight helicopters would have been all over it. Not just some tracked vehicle. I still assume that the television cameras just arrived too late for the helicopters. Was that tracked vehicle really all they had?

That would be Malaysian then. Banned by the UK CAA for several weeks, some years ago.

The cockpit is severely damaged, and crushed from the front/bottom, pushing all the equipment towards the occupants. In many of the 737's I fly, they are not fitted with head restraints either, so I am conscious that my neck would probably be broken in such a incident. As for the observers seat, well it is more like a bench than a seat.

TK pilot on !!!!!!!!!!!!!! claims the plane took off with 12.2 tons of fuel on board, with trip fuel calculated at 8.1.

TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 3 — Civil Aviation Forum | !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Post #72

Published images and witness reports so far suggest this was a VERY abrupt high-G arrival with a large vertical decelleration component, to which the soft ground surface will have contributed adversly. I fear for the number and extent of survivor injuries here particulary spinal and major orthopedic injuries (Kegworth). Seat structure and orientation can only help so much in a high-G situation.
Minor point but I speculate that slide inflation-systems may have been damaged?
(500hr PPL/sailplanes, and medical doctor)

Why would they leave the dead bodies of the flight crew in their seats? Ive never heard of this before. It was some what chilling to see some of the emergency services peering through the windows of the flight deck looking at the dead bodies.

Also 3 crew? Training? Line check? Where all 3 people in the flight deck crew or was the person on the jump seat someone else??

Preservation of the (potential crime) scene.

RISq
Your post is long called for - well said :ok::D

Know what you mean RCopyC,
loss of differential at FL200 combined with carb icing, fuel starvation, your obvious oversight of the FMC 'Insuficcient Fuel' memo, failiure to put the girt bars into the floor restraints and thus arming your power-assisted doors, accepting a18R instead of 18C approach on short finals (FRA 25R/Lwas always better for that - if you're flyng the right flag :eek:), and then the thoughtless discarding of your left engine over the Ringvaart (where incidentially my boat is parked) in your 172 can be the only acceptable explaination for this tragic incident.
I trust you'll be handing you licence back to the boys in 'Belgrano' soonest
Tsk Tsk

fuel discrapancy
 

Backpacker - Wow - that's a lot of fuel, but of course, I did a generalisation based on weather and best route. Without knowing the actual route flown, and therefore the wx en-route, and TOW, engine degradation etc., it is impossible to be completely accurate, but the point made there is that they had much more fuel than minimum needed for best sector. I used a max ZFW also, and a 738 with 138 SOB is not full, unless there was lots of cargo downstairs.

Like I said, point made -they had lots of fuel, so unless there was an undetected leak, and the crew were totally disregarding their flight plan, not logging Fuel Remaining figures or Fuel to Destination figures, then I think fuel starvation is very unlikely.

Whatever we think of them, pilots, are professionals after all.

More images of crash site
 

Some more pictures from Belgium news paper "Le soir"
portfolio - galeries photos - lesoir.be

If they're dead, removing them immediately is not going to make a difference to them anymore. Ghastly as that may sound.

But their position (who occupied which seat, who was holding which lever, which aircraft part impacted with which body part etc.) may be of tremendous value to the investigation. Also, removing them may mean breaking through structural items and accidentally hitting switches, buttons and such, whose position you might want to record first.

I can perfectly imagine that saving lives comes first in these situations, but once saving lives is no longer possible, preserving the scene of accident is the next priority.