The disposal of the aircraft wreck of the Gerona (LEGE) B757 is very similar. It was also a low speed crash. The plane actually touched down at the runway but departed from it falling into a small cliff.

The Turkish B737 touched the ground tail first at very low airspeed and at a very high AOA, and then the rest of the plane became smashed to the ground getting halted in very very short distance.

I think that this is fact. Any pilot can understand it viewing the images.

Why the plane get in low speed condition is speculation, and why shouldnt we just speculate?

9G ... it would not even come off the runway ... it's a transport class: 3G and you are history ...

The posting of the helicopter video (and a good, useful post) shows the horizontal stabiliser is inverted - just a comment, no further speculation about the bounce characteristics of major airframe components on agricultural land and the prevailing weather conditions or the crop that has been planted. I'll wait for the report.

The three EMS helicopters in the field shows that there was an emergency plan in place by AMS. Re the earlier comment about the same thing happening at LHR, which got some stick, that would not happen, there is no such coordinated response.

As far as the special members area goes, perhaps it could be based on number of posts per day? If you get above 1, maybe you should get a life?

Quote; PS EHAM has had a NOTAM for birds for months

They all have Bird warnings as standard. Unfortunately this is just to cover their backsides and not a true assessment of the situation.

Before condemning the pilots it might be good to look at this flight path reconstruction: http://aviation-safety.net/photos/gr...090225-0-2.gif

If we were to assume a loss-of-power event, one likely scenario is that the crew tried to glide towards the airport, but didn't quite make it and had to stretch the final part to avoid hitting the N200 road which runs straight across the flight path just before the eventual touchdown. The consequence of that stretching would then be loss of airspeed and stall or partial stall.

So in this scenario the crew had the unenviable choice between hitting the traffic on the road or lose flying speed. :(

I have not yet noticed any witness from those undoubtedly numerous who were driving along the N200, who could say how low the plane was when it crossed the road. Tomorrow we will without doubt be wiser on this issue.

ETA was 1031, is scheduled flight, crash at 1030 I would not think it was fuel starvation.
No fire after impact due to low fuel on board and ground conditions.
Low cloud 700 and possible low vis due to fog 5 temp 4 due, ac was spot on the approach.
Bird strike very possible but examination of the engines will show straight away signs of this, and they would have been an attempt for a force landing which is not the case.
Stall of the ac is obvious, could be due to high level of automation and not in time recognition of the impending stall due to ac been in tha glide path.
Lets wait for the AIB investigation, for lessons learned.
Sad very very sad!! RIP

Having just seen the last post ( no. 301), using ETA vs. accident time to derive a fuel figure, "ac being spot on the approach", and "stall of the ac is obvious", I rest my case.

Any pilot except "757_Driver". He seems to disagree with this assessment.

"Stall of the ac is obvious"

no-it isn't, it was seen flying high aoa, meaning low on airspeed. tail seems to have impacted first. if it stalled in flight I would expect it to have struck the grond with a low-nose attitude.

This seems fairly straightforward to me (not solved, but the mysteries remaining seem pretty linear).

Aircraft on short final slows to a speed that cannot support flight. It may be very hard to "stall" a 737, but at a slow enough speed it (and anything down to the size of a Warrior) will develop a high sink rate ("fall out of the sky") even if the AOA and airflow are not in a technical stall.

Slow forward speed is consistently supported by short debris trail, witness accounts, "flat" or tail-low impact posture.

Weather reported (stable, stratus layer, no vertical development, no CNB) is not consistent with a wind-shear event (but a severe wind shear would produce similar results and appearances - at the right time of year).

Wake turbulence usually results in roll effects - this seems to be a wings-level pitch incident.

So - why was it slow?

Low thrust seems to head the line of suspects. (Witness reports of relative silence of plane, from inside and outside the hull, engine state as visible SO FAR(!!))

> Birds in engines? Not impossible (Cactus 1549, Ryanair/Ciampino).
> Fuel contamination or blockage? Could be (BA 777).
> Failure to set thrust correctly? Not unheard of. (Continental/Colgan 3407 - although still a big big MAYBE in that case).
> Fuel exhaustion? I have doubts myself - but it has happened more times than I would have expected in jetliners.

That's where the FDR and CVR come in handy. Plus DNA checks of the engines. Etc. etc. The investigation.

Now - evidence could still appear that contradicts me. Signs the engines were producing high thrust at the time of impact (physical state plus data records). Something like the magic air tank from the Qantas/Manila event - that introduces a whole new factor. We've been "surprised" by the obvious quite a few times in just the past year.

If I were on the investigation team, I'd be looking for facts. And just as happy to find ones that proved me - wrong - as proved me right.

In the configuration the aircraft was in, could someone with appropriate knowledge say what the stall speed would be?

Sensible remark,

Yes witness reports of motorists on the 6-lane motorway (about 500 yards from the impact site) have been gathered and passed onto the Dutch "AAIB". Even commercial pilots saw it happen in the traffic jam.
Unfortunately (I guess) gathered in a non-english language..

...and at a suitable reporting date (if it was only for xxxxx-xxx-xxxxxx) very likely in English.

to: Feathers McGraw

Vref for a landing flaps, partially loaded 738, low on fuel, somewhere around 130. divide by 1.3 and my calculated guess is 100 knots, 185km/hr.

OK, so the 88kts GS, 420ft and a last recorded position N52 22.8 E004 42.8 (right where the impact occurred) I saw elsewhere would fit in as being consistent with that stall speed, IOW below it by some margin.

Guppiebugs

88kts GS was the final recorded value in the software log from a guy with a Radarbox Mode-S receiver who is fairly near EHAM, and has coverage of aircraft on the ground there so would be able to receive the Mode-S from where TC-JGE was before impact.

Naturally because the position, speed and height transmissions are not all sent at the same time you can't say the three things are coincident, but they will be within a second or so I would say.

I'm just trying to give people an idea of how far below Vs they were just before impact.

AOA - Ignore any discussion about this until the facts are known from the FDR.

The untrained eye witnesses don't understand the different landing attitudes of different aircraft, so will always say "hey he was very nose up" or words to that effect.

the BA777 incident proved this, witnesses said he had a high AOA, but the reality was that the crew lowered the nose to try to get the airspeed back.

Feathers..
 

So running the speculation the other way would it be fair to say the Radrabox data could be wildly inaccurate and therefore all this talk of Vs is premature...just a thought?

If any bird control people could reposed. (I assume they are allowed to contribute to this forum, even under the proposed 'show me your ATPL’ rules...)

Bird Control is (in the EU) primarily within airport boundaries. Airports may have local agreements to operate outside boundaries, and will also plot hazard areas, and liase with local planners and environment agencies to try to minimise habitat impact on operations whilst maintaining a sensible ecological balance. For example netting waste disposal sites, lagoons and making areas immediately adjacent to the airfield less attractive to birds. Schipol is unfortunately in an area frequented by birds as the whole area is a natural habitat, and we are just getting to the start of many species migratory season.

I've been fortunate enough to spend time a few years ago with the AMS bird control unit and they are a highly professional, motivated and innovative unit.:D

"88kts GS was the final recorded value in the software log from a guy with a Radarbox Mode-S receiver ..."

amazing equipment for a hobby ...

88kts seems realistic and the high pitch (proabably) seen already indicated the low speed.

I'm off now, don't forget to correct for wind, won't be too much of it I guess.

Wiggy

It would be pretty close, but of course not timestamped as you would get from the DFDR or QAR. The 88kts would have come from the GPS receiver, so turning GS into IAS/TAS needs the wind component, as I recall the wind was a low figure (10kts approx?) from 210 degrees so about 25 or 30 degrees off the runway heading. That might make the IAS another 8 kts or so higher?

I wasn't intending to do anything other than provide what I believe to be quite accurate information, or point any fingers. In comparison with some of what has appeared here today I thought it was pretty tame actually.

stall warning & recovery on 737NG
 

Not suggesting that this is what happened or that it was a factor in this accident, but someone mentioned the possibility of A/THR not set and the a/c stalling due to high pitch / low speed condition.

Could someone that is current on the 737NG please clarify some what-if questions:
(a) Assuming you have auto-pilot (or both) engaged but not A/THR, airspeed gets to low and you enter or approach a stall, what would the aircraft do or not do itself if the pilots did nothing? Is there something similar to Airbus' alpha floor on them Boeings?
(b) Does the autopilot disconnect when the stall warner goes off?
(c) What is the standard procedure for stall recovery in landing configuration and at low altitude on the 737NG?
(d) As a [very] rough guess, what ball park range of altitude loss are we talking about assuming that recovery actions are performed as soon as the stall warner goes off given their configuration and prevailing conditions?

Thx for your help!
Uncle Maxwell

Obviously the Airport can only operate with 'Adequate' fire cover, But I would have thought some of the Airport Fire vehicles, I don't know how many they have at AMS would have returned to provide that cover for 1 or 2 of the runways to get working again after their being no risk of fire or explosion after a period of time?

Also if the impact was outside of the Airport perimeter, I would have thought it would be on the Civilian Fire departments map?

Winglets and engine wreckage
 

I don't have the answers so skip this post

However for those who are wracking their brains around angels on the head of a pin.

Engines have a tendancy to go forward of the airframe when they come off early and the airframe slows down a lot more due to sliding friction. Even an unpowered engine will roll and bounce quite a distance since it doesn't slide very much once it's loose.

Aircraft slding along the ground in soft earth will rooster tail lots of dirt up over the wobbling sliding wings. The dirt likely could have some serious erosive inpact on composite winglets.

Now if any of these little bits are so very critical to what happened and you really have to know, then wait a day and see which way the investigators are focusing :)

Hey loma, do you work for the NTSB ? You must have studied many crash sites to come up with those statements as to what goes where after a crash:confused:

a)Minimum speed reversion is not available with AT off and AFDS in ALT HOLD or after GS capture.
b)NO
c)Firewall thrust,5deg ANU(seat position is critical here..below 100,ensure seat position is correct,shoulder harness on,both feet guarding rudder pedals,one hand shadowing TL movement..not enough emphasis put on this in training..Ive seen some sorry pictures in my time,seat way back,feet planted on the floor and lackadaisical operation of the critical stages of flight through the MCP..not the way to do it)
d)"As soon as" are the key words..if the reaction by the pilot to the stall is firm,immediate and correctly performed,height loss should be minimal.

Byalpha india Although in Dutch this should give you an idea of the number of fire vehicles available at Schiphol's three Fire Stations.

Unfortunately only 32 of the 120 firemen (info from that site) would have been on duty at any one time. I imagine most of them attended as rescue workers. After working in what was described by a survivor as a blood bath would you expect them to just pick up what they had been doing at the moment of the crash?

Three parts
 

To account for the three pieces, here is my opinion based on the aerial views (See NOSJOURNAAL).

Aircraft struck nose up. This means the tail section hits first (BREAK1; where elevator is found, about 1/4 mile before the rest of the aircraft). No longer having a tail and with CG normally FWD center of lift (no elevator at all) the airplane started pitching down. As a result the attitude changed rather quickly to point the nose down in the last few moments. When the nose hit, it caused the 2nd fuselage break resulting in 3 pieces.

Best to you all. Hope no-one close to you is hurt

Lucky day for the pax, But a sad day for the Flight deck crew.

The crash would have been a lot worse if they had been on approach to R 29? over a built up area - Where the EL AL 747 crashed.

I would be looking at Fuel or lack of as a possibility in this crash?

wingtip anomoly
 

some questions i have that i would like to know:

1) where are the tail plane elevators?
2) why are the wingtips sheared in half but not detached from the wing
3) aerial shots - where are these? it would show track of a/c hitting mud

Dear loveJet,
The answers upon which I based my speculation are here; video 4:

NOSJOURNAAL - Zeker 9 doden bij vliegongeluk Schiphol

You can clearly see the elevator separated from the rest of the aircraft. This is what I believe caused the three pieces as I mentioned in the earlier post.

Regards

Pprune has been going for around 10 years, of which I have been on for the majority of it. There has never been any change in the way people post and respond when there are accidents and incidents and GUESS WHAT; there never will be. :ugh: So what is the point of the ridiculous 'post and opinion police' every time coming on saying what people should or shouldn't say. Live with it, your posts are as much use as the ones you are criticising. :=
If you disagree with them give us an interesting informed argument. :ok:
The best way to resolve any investigation is to eliminate first all the most unlikely ideas then you will be left with the answer. So please, people with ideas keep those posts coming. Its called democracy and free expression. Many, many people have died for this right or at least that is what they were told.
If the posts are too ridiculous then they are at least amusing, some very to those of us who do have some knowledge.:E

As for the new posters asking why there are no condolences required, try reading back a few thousand threads and see where 75% of the thread is taken up with sorry this, sorry that, prayers to some god or other etc. blah blah blah. Planes crash, people die. We know you are sorry, every one is. :sad: Why aren't you sorry when people all over the world die from malnutrition, abuse and unnecessary conflict to make money for corporate enterprises.
If you want to start a condolences thread please do so and the mods can make it a sticky which is universal for all accidents.

Oh and I might as well add my speculation for fun to keep the continuity; perhaps the Auto throttle disconnected and no one noticed as there is no alarm. Similar to the Thomsonfly incident a while back.:suspect:

Aviatoratheart and md80fanatic: You guys are talking past one another.

In describing red stains etc. md80fanatic was, I believe, suggesting signs of a BIRD STRIKE in the engine, in light of previous suggestions of a bird strike as a possible cause - not as evidence of HUMAN passenger injury.

AaH read the more grisly interpretation and was offended.

be careful in reading and writing posts to make sure that 1) you absolutely positively* understand what is meant and that 2) you have been as absolutely, positively as clear and unambiguous as possible.

*To borrow a tagline frm the freight dogs

A fully agree with pilotbear. I've read every post on this thread that I can (no doubt missed some that have been removed before I got to see them).

May I suggest that a mod starts a thread where condolences for all accidents can be posted, and kept to that thread. This should keep those people happy who want to keep condolences off the accident threads, and provide an outlet for those who want to express their condolences. Anyone not wanting to see condolences expressed doesn't have to click on the thread, do they?

As an enthusiast and very occasional SLF I come here to find out about any latest accidents/incidents. I also use these threads to provide leads to find material for articles on Wikipedia. I sometimes have a question about an aspect of a crash and will ask it.

There is a very interesting airborne video (Dutch Police) on the BBC web site
BBC NEWS | Europe | Aerial pictures of plane crash scene

The stabilizer appears to be in one piece, about two fuselage lengths behind the main wreckage. It is either inverted or has been rotated horizontally through 180 degrees.

Please just limit yourself to reading the comments don't waste page space trying to look knowledgeable.

Airbus only...:ugh:

The point being if it was a Stall then in an Airbus protection laws are available to help the crew in this situation.

unless the plane runs out of fuel at the same time......

I know you hate speculation but ... one of the photos suggests they may have been faced with a line of trees. Perhaps some trading of airspeed was required to clear them?

Engine damage?
 

Hard to be conclusive, given the damage to the cowling/intake, but this photo appears to show significantly less fan damage to No1 engine compared to the photos previously posted of No2:

http://cdn-www.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!/aviatio.../2/1489234.jpg

Just an observation.

Speculation
 

I read these comments with some interest but having been with a GAPAN group to the UK Air Accident Investigation Branch unit I know the enormous detail they go into to determine the real cause or causes and especially the chain of events leading to impact. Most, as has often been stated, are a sequence of events and rarely one factor that cause an accident. The comments on this forum have only scratched the surface but for sure the aircraft appears to have been in a stalled mode with tail down and nose up at first impact or to put it another way insufficient air speed close to the ground coupled to insufficient height to recover before hitting the ground.

One thing does surprise me. Why did the flight deck all succumb when they would have had full harness and more warning of the pending accident than anybody else? The cockpit area seems relatively undamaged.

I would imagine it is because the cockpit area is at the end of the a large pivot/moment arm. i.e. if it hit tailfirst with the nose high then the rapid deceleration (short skid length) will have derotated the cockpit into the ground with enormous force. Evidently non-surviable force.

It will be interesting to see the distribution and seriousness of the injuries in the final report. Based on my theory (just that) the nearer the front the more likely you would have been to sustain serious injury.

A4