Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/4332762/

Topic: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: PanAm_DC10
Posted 2009-02-27 00:58:38 and read 57137 times.

Please continue the discussion of the crash of TK flight 1951 shortly before landing at Amsterdam's Schiphol International airport.

TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Above links to previous threads for reference

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Robcol99
Posted 2009-02-27 01:11:55 and read 57251 times.

I've seen a couple of postings about the tone of "hurry" in the pilot's voice. Knowing the dialect, both the languages and a number of Turkish ex-military pilots, I actually would disagree. That's a typical tone that they use.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: BlueShamu330s
Posted 2009-02-27 01:14:29 and read 57201 times.



Quoting Robcol99 (Reply 1):
I've seen a couple of postings about the tone of "hurry" in the pilot's voice. Knowing the dialect, both the languages and a number of Turkish ex-military pilots, I actually would disagree. That's a typical tone that they use.

It has been picked up on by the media also, but I would agree with you, their transmissions were nothing out of the ordinary at all.

Rgds

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Starlionblue
Posted 2009-02-27 01:18:02 and read 57165 times.



Quoting Airbuspilot (Reply 217):
First of all, a normally operating Airbus( fly by wire generation) can not be stalled. Its authothrust system will not allow you to loose that much energy. It will order max available power and command a pitch up movement starting a climb immediatly as soon as you come even near to stalll speed, and no matter what the pilots inputs are.

Wouldn't it command a pitch down instead of up if speed was too low and projected engine response not sufficient? Kind of like the famous Mulhouse crash. Since there was not enough power to stay level or climb without causing a stall, that 320 very neatly crashed, wings perfectly level.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: EZEIZA
Posted 2009-02-27 01:37:24 and read 57041 times.

Quick question (out of ignorance);
if it's true that theey were flying manually for training purposes and the f/o forgot to check the speed .. how is it possible that no one else saw that? There were two other pilots in the cockpit, and they didn't realize they were going too slow? Wouldn't that (speed) also be part of an evaluation?

rgds

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: ETFokker50
Posted 2009-02-27 01:47:47 and read 56980 times.

Reports in the media are indicating that Olgay Özgür was the copilot flying (as I understand it), and this was a training flight: he was working on type-certification. The article here, http://www.nu.nl/algemeen/1924383/co...estel-maakte-trainingsvlucht.html, indicates there were 3 pilots in the cabin, but isn't dead clear whether he was actually the copilot flying at the time, and isn't very clear about the 3 pilot: I think we will be hearing more about this as the investigation continues.
The investigation is expected BTW to take another 3 days, anybody but the people living in the surrounding area are now banned from the site: people were getting in the way.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Airbuspilot
Posted 2009-02-27 02:07:11 and read 56749 times.

It will go in what we call ALPHA FLOOR protection and I guess, when you look into it in detail (which I tried to avoid to avoid confusion) the airplane will pitch down slightly, engage TOGA LOCK on the engines after which you will start climbing!

Regarding who was PF and PNF, that will be speculative untill the black boxes are decoded. which is why everything here are only asumptions....

I know JAR requirements demand raw data approaches to be flown in the sim, and real life exposure is not required in theory, most airlines do make it mandatory during line training to fly at least one approach like this.

Correct me if wrong please...

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Airbuspilot
Posted 2009-02-27 02:11:13 and read 56697 times.

Of course an AIRBUS can be stalled, it is just an airplane after all.

Which is why I clearly stated that under normal conditions, with all system operative, it will never stall! And certainly not under the same conditions the TK flight experienced!

I am just trying to simplify things a bit here, as not everybody has the technical knowledge of an FBW plane. Many people read these forums, so why over complicate things?

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Airbuspilot
Posted 2009-02-27 02:15:24 and read 56638 times.



Quoting EZEIZA (Reply 4):
Quick question (out of ignorance);
if it's true that theey were flying manually for training purposes and the f/o forgot to check the speed .. how is it possible that no one else saw that? There were two other pilots in the cockpit, and they didn't realize they were going too slow? Wouldn't that (speed) also be part of an evaluation?

rgds

It is only one of the many theories here...Please do not consider this as a clear reflection of what happened. Its just that, a mere possibilty!

And yes, it would have been part of an evaluation....if all had ended well that was!

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Ual777
Posted 2009-02-27 02:30:24 and read 56456 times.

Quoting Sudden (Reply 230):
I must express that for being a pilot, your comments are being rather ignorant. Why?
Because every time when someone corrects you, you go defensive. I'm not sure what sort of license you have, may it be a PPL or a CPL, but in any case you may want to be a bit more open to what others are stating here as you can learn from it as well.

I hold a CMEL and CSEL with an instrument rating.

I am miffed that Mir insinuated that I am "amateurish" in regards to my knowledge of instrument approaches when I shoot them every week sometimes at night and often close to minimums.

The point I am trying to make is that people forget to set altimeters, correct NAV/COM frequencies, GPS points, etc. etc. all the time. When the aircraft is in a critical phase of flight (especially being 1SM from the threshold on impact), conflicting information to an inexperienced pilot (and sometimes an experienced one) can lead to disaster very quickly. Further, mistakes must be caught very quickly for the above-stated reason.

I was generalizing in my initial posting as not everyone is familiar with how instrument approaches work and the differences between precision/non precision approaches.

If I came off as an asshole I'm sorry. If my vague initial posting confused anyone I am sorry. Technically Mir is right that while "on an ILS" having an incorrect altimeter setting will not make you contact the ground early, but if anything goes wrong, you have literally seconds to make a decision and the work load increases tremendously. When going missed with obstacles in the area having the correct altimeter setting is a big deal.

If I seem defensive its because I have seen and flown with guys who are very non-chalant when it comes to safety. They cut corners saying "this or that doesn't" matter and it is dangerous.

So now that I have said my piece, what exactly did I say that was ignorant?

[Edited 2009-02-27 02:35:59]

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Spitfire
Posted 2009-02-27 03:06:02 and read 56125 times.



Quoting Airbuspilot (Reply 8):


Quoting EZEIZA (Reply 4):
Quick question (out of ignorance);
if it's true that theey were flying manually for training purposes and the f/o forgot to check the speed .. how is it possible that no one else saw that? There were two other pilots in the cockpit, and they didn't realize they were going too slow? Wouldn't that (speed) also be part of an evaluation?

rgds

It is only one of the many theories here...Please do not consider this as a clear reflection of what happened. Its just that, a mere possibilty!

Well I have the same feelings as yours my dear Airbuspilot ....  Wink

And as usual we have to wait till at least the CVR and FDR are decoded....

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Acabgd
Posted 2009-02-27 04:10:47 and read 55159 times.



Quoting Airbuspilot (Reply 7):
Of course an AIRBUS can be stalled, it is just an airplane after all.

If I'm not mistaken, that's exactly what happened to the Air New Zealand bird off the coast of Perpignan, according to the latest report.

Therefore, yes - an Airbus can also be stalled.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Airbuspilot
Posted 2009-02-27 05:13:13 and read 54120 times.

True, but I am sure you will agree with me that there is a difference between an A320 doing a testflight, performing low speed manoeuvres probably in some sort of a downgraded state in order to explore the boundaries of the flight envelope and an A320 on final of an approach, fully configured at a normal speed with normal pilots and passengers on board?

In real life, normal situation, the Airbus FBW series will NOT stall when handled within its design boundaries...

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Bahadir
Posted 2009-02-27 05:22:20 and read 53971 times.

TALPA, Turkish Airline Pilots Association , is issuing a statement regarding the crash. Here are some highlights:
- The aircraft had 4100 kgs of fuel on board at the time of crash.
- They have interesting snapshots of the airplane which I don't know where they got it.
At 9:26:08 UTC the airplane's speed is 83 kts and the the plane was descending at 4300 ft/min.
At 9:25:53 UTC the airplane's speed is 83 kts and vertical speed is 600 ft/min.

They are speculating that they are focusing their attention on the NW 757 that Turkish was following by two minutes only.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: NNomad
Posted 2009-02-27 05:38:22 and read 53667 times.



Quoting Airbuspilot (Reply 12):
In real life, normal situation, the Airbus FBW series will NOT stall when handled within its design boundaries...

Agree..there's virtually no way you can stall a fully operational Bus with Normal Law being applied, mostly cause thats the point of the system... You kick in harder..system kicks you out even harder.... and he's much more stubborn than all of us together.

In Direct Law..well..enjoy the stall...........

A.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: SQ325
Posted 2009-02-27 05:41:48 and read 53615 times.



Quoting Bahadir (Reply 13):
They are speculating that they are focusing their attention on the NW 757 that Turkish was following by two minutes only.

What is a normal Vref for a B738 with about 140 people onboard? 135kt maybe 140kt.

If the numbers 83kts and 4300ft Rod are true, they where in a stall and I never heard a Waketurbelence can bring you to a loss of at least 50kt IAS and a ROD of 4300ft.

I would focus my speculation on the CRM of the TK crew, has always been an issue especially with their ex fighter pilots.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Bahadir
Posted 2009-02-27 05:45:38 and read 53532 times.

THY says that 4 of the crew are dead: 3 pilot and the steward  Sad

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Md80fanatic
Posted 2009-02-27 05:46:04 and read 53505 times.

Is looking at the preceeding aircraft going to answer the question why the Turkish 737 did not have the power to make the airfield? Most have heard of the wake from a 757, but usually this incurs a rolling moment and not simply a catastrophic loss of airspeed to a smaller aircraft close behind.

I hope we don't enter la-la land with this investigation, like what happened in BUF.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: BlueShamu330s
Posted 2009-02-27 05:55:26 and read 53315 times.



Quoting Bahadir (Reply 13):
They are speculating that they are focusing their attention on the NW 757 that Turkish was following by two minutes only.

Why do you say "only" ?

2 minutes in trail, normally 160kts to 4DME or the OM, gives 6NM separation. Even categorising the B757 as a heavy, there only need be 5 NM for a medium category aircraft following it.

Rgds

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: NNomad
Posted 2009-02-27 05:59:32 and read 53230 times.



Quoting Bahadir (Reply 13):
At 9:26:08 UTC the airplane's speed is 83 kts and the the plane was descending at 4300 ft/min.
At 9:25:53 UTC the airplane's speed is 83 kts and vertical speed is 600 ft/min.

83kts......jezz...thats like a brick falling.. and correct me if im wrong.. but i seriously doubt wake turbulence would make the speed drop to those limits. Besides the bouncing and rolling wouldnt it be more logical to see a normal Vref speed, with a huge descent rate (resulting in control loss)?

If those 83kts are real, i seriously doubt it had anything to do with the 757 ahead.

A.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Ciaran
Posted 2009-02-27 06:20:31 and read 52735 times.

What are the standard OAP in the training for stalling and recovery in the 737/ A320 type, more so is it all done in the sim? or do pilots get hands on in a safe environment (if there is such a thing).

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: TK787
Posted 2009-02-27 06:23:55 and read 52670 times.

Latest ( bulletin #5) from TK says families of the deceased will get 50,000 euros initially and the hospitalized, between 5 to 10,000 euros.

"Türk Hava Yolları tarafından kazada hayatını kaybeden mürettebat ve yolcularımızın yakınlarına ilk etapda 50 bin Avro, hastanede yatarak tedavi görenler için ise 5 bin ila 10 bin Avro ödeme yapılacaktır."

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Md80fanatic
Posted 2009-02-27 06:27:59 and read 52554 times.

Yeah, not even sure there WAS a control loss, as 93% of the people survived a terrain crash.
By sheer luck it could land wings levels, and perhaps it was, but certainly unlikely.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: BuyantUkhaa
Posted 2009-02-27 07:09:51 and read 51638 times.

Similar to what was announced after the Buffalo crash, anti-gay organisation Westboro Baptist Church has announced it will try to disturb the funerals of the deceased in the Amsterdam crash. The article says that "[Westboro] are convinced that this is God's punishment for the gay-friendly Netherlands".

Assuming the death toll won't rise (let's hope so!), there won't be any funerals in the Netherlands, as none of the deceased are Dutch. Bad luck for Westboro.

The world would be a friendlier place without these people.

http://www.volkskrant.nl/binnenland/...en_uitvaarten_vliegcrash_verstoren (in Dutch only).

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Trystero
Posted 2009-02-27 07:11:23 and read 51573 times.



Quoting Bahadir (Reply 13):
At 9:26:08 UTC the airplane's speed is 83 kts and the the plane was descending at 4300 ft/min.
At 9:25:53 UTC the airplane's speed is 83 kts and vertical speed is 600 ft/min.

If this is correct, they where flying a grand piano...

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Acabgd
Posted 2009-02-27 07:13:14 and read 51543 times.



Quoting Airbuspilot (Reply 12):
True, but I am sure you will agree

Oh, absolutely I fully agree you cannot stall an Airbus "just like that" and that the Perpignan crash was a demanding test flight.

As for TK, if the report about speed is correct, I really wonder how come none ofvthe three pilots noticed such a massive loss of speed.

But, hey, even bigger aircraft with experienced crew have been stalled close to the ground and crashed (L-1011).

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: DingDong
Posted 2009-02-27 07:16:55 and read 54676 times.



Quoting BuyantUkhaa (Reply 23):
Similar to what was announced after the Buffalo crash, anti-gay organisation Westboro Baptist Church has announced it will try to disturb the funerals of the deceased in the Amsterdam crash. The article says that "[Westboro] are convinced that this is God's punishment for the gay-friendly Netherlands".

Unbelieveable.

All I can say is that mental illness takes many forms.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Trystero
Posted 2009-02-27 07:24:59 and read 54345 times.



Quoting BuyantUkhaa (Reply 23):
Similar to what was announced after the Buffalo crash, anti-gay organisation Westboro Baptist Church has announced it will try to disturb the funerals of the deceased in the Amsterdam crash. The article says that "[Westboro] are convinced that this is God's punishment for the gay-friendly Netherlands".

Assuming the death toll won't rise (let's hope so!), there won't be any funerals in the Netherlands, as none of the deceased are Dutch. Bad luck for Westboro.

The world would be a friendlier place without these people

I had to double check this. It's true. I thought you were joking, but this people really exist.

I have no words for this.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Cmoltay
Posted 2009-02-27 07:35:17 and read 54118 times.



Quoting BuyantUkhaa (Reply 23):
Assuming the death toll won't rise (let's hope so!), there won't be any funerals in the Netherlands, as none of the deceased are Dutch. Bad luck for Westboro.

It is not only the funerals in the Netherlands that they will disturb, they'll also distrub the funerals of Islamic Turks because "God Hates The Godless Turks" and "God Hates Turkey"...

http://www.godhatesfags.com/written/...5_turkey-amsterdam-plane-crash.pdf

Wow... How can people be followers to this hatred?

Rgds,

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Mir
Posted 2009-02-27 07:45:44 and read 53744 times.



Quoting Ual777 (Reply 225):
Yes, you can technically fly an ILS using just the needles but what if the wrong frequency was input?

That error should be caught by cross-checking the identifier between the chart and the readout on the PFD.

Quoting Ual777 (Reply 225):
What if it drops dead in the middle of the approach?

Automatic missed approach.

Quoting Ual777 (Reply 225):
You could go missed and with a 400 foot error in your altimeter you could smack some obstacle that you can't see.

If you were on the glideslope when it dropped dead, then you're only going to be descending without vertical guidance for as long as it takes you to spool up the engines and raise the nose to a climb attitude - about 10-15 seconds. And you shouldn't be descending any faster than you were on the glideslope during that time, so you'd still be clear of obstacles.

Quoting Ual777 (Reply 9):
I am miffed that Mir insinuated that I am "amateurish" in regards to my knowledge of instrument approaches when I shoot them every week sometimes at night and often close to minimums.

My main objection was that you tried to equate a non-precision approach (where an incorrect altimeter setting can put you too low) to a precison approach (where it can't - well, it can if you're a horrible pilot, but I'm giving the TK pilots the benefit of the doubt on that). I may have been a bit harsh, and for that I apologize, but I would have thought that the difference between the Hartford accident and this would be clear to someone with an IR.

Quoting Ciaran (Reply 20):
What are the standard OAP in the training for stalling and recovery in the 737/ A320 type, more so is it all done in the sim? or do pilots get hands on in a safe environment (if there is such a thing).

Stall recovery training is done, but always in the sim. The only people who intentionally stall airliners are the manufacturer's test pilots - it's quite risky.

Quoting Trystero (Reply 27):
this people really exist.

They're coming to my school in a couple of weeks for some reason or other. We're planning a little welcoming committee.  mischievous 

-Mir

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: EMA747
Posted 2009-02-27 08:35:12 and read 52493 times.



Quoting Cmoltay (Reply 28):

Quoting BuyantUkhaa (Reply 23):
Assuming the death toll won't rise (let's hope so!), there won't be any funerals in the Netherlands, as none of the deceased are Dutch. Bad luck for Westboro.

It is not only the funerals in the Netherlands that they will disturb, they'll also distrub the funerals of Islamic Turks because "God Hates The Godless Turks" and "God Hates Turkey"...

http://www.godhatesfags.com/written/...5_turkey-amsterdam-plane-crash.pdf

Wow... How can people be followers to this hatred?

Rgds,

Man these guys should be shoved into a jet engine at takeoff thrust.  mad 

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Ciaran
Posted 2009-02-27 08:37:48 and read 52389 times.

Mir
In follow up question, not to over simplyfy this particular tragic scenario although the coroally being that the forces of nature are in the end quiet simple, would doing a "Sully" into a ploughed field would have been the better option.? Cant see them teaching that in a sim

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: PlanesNTrains
Posted 2009-02-27 08:56:49 and read 51932 times.



Quoting Airbuspilot (Reply 12):
True, but I am sure you will agree with me that there is a difference between an A320 doing a testflight, performing low speed manoeuvres probably in some sort of a downgraded state in order to explore the boundaries of the flight envelope and an A320 on final of an approach, fully configured at a normal speed with normal pilots and passengers on board?

In real life, normal situation, the Airbus FBW series will NOT stall when handled within its design boundaries...

Interesting, but I am still trying to figure out why you have gone to the trouble of extoling this when it seemed to have nothing to do with the original post you were replying to? They merely asked if the damage would be similar or different between the 737NG and the A320 series:

*******************************************************************************************************

Quoting Patches (Reply 209):
Then it looks like the nose hit the dirt last and the whole cockpit floor caved in and crushed the pilots. The 737 is built closer to the ground than a A-320. Do you think the airbus would have surivied a crash like this in better shape, especially in the cockpit region? becuse its higher off the ground and also the nose is shaped much different.The airbus nose seems to be longer. I'm no engineer so maybe I'm blowing a lot of hot air on this subject. Please don't flame me. Thanks, Patches

First of all, a normally operating Airbus( fly by wire generation) can not be stalled. Its authothrust system will not allow you to loose that much energy. It will order max available power and command a pitch up movement starting a climb immediatly as soon as you come even near to stalll speed, and no matter what the pilots inputs are.

But lets say, for the sake of the question, that for some reason this would happen (can happen after multiple other failures whereby the aircraft finds itself in a downgraded mode), the Airbus would be as badly damaged as the 737 here!

*******************************************************************************************************

In the end, you suggest that it can happen in certain circumstances??? Oh well...

Quoting Md80fanatic (Reply 17):
I hope we don't enter la-la land with this investigation, like what happened in BUF.

It seems that these quotes are attributed to TALPA. If so, then they are possibly trying to create alternative scenario's to protect the interests of their membership. I'm only speculating, but I would imagine that is an objective that they would have - at least secondarily - in any crash situation.

-Dave

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Vikkyvik
Posted 2009-02-27 08:58:50 and read 51883 times.



Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 3):

Wouldn't it command a pitch down instead of up if speed was too low and projected engine response not sufficient? Kind of like the famous Mulhouse crash. Since there was not enough power to stay level or climb without causing a stall, that 320 very neatly crashed, wings perfectly level.

Yes, it ought to command a pitch down.

There's often talk of "stall speeds", and what often gets lost is that wings stall at an AOA. That AOA doesn't change much (well, except with the extension of slats), but the speed at which you hit that AOA changes with weight, configuration, etc.

So needless to say, if you're on the backside of the power curve, and you were nearing a stall, and you pitched up - well, you just erased whatever margin you had left.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Trystero
Posted 2009-02-27 09:17:30 and read 51433 times.



Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 33):
There's often talk of "stall speeds", and what often gets lost is that wings stall at an AOA. That AOA doesn't change much (well, except with the extension of slats), but the speed at which you hit that AOA changes with weight, configuration, etc

AOA meaning? Sorry not to familiar with some acronym's..

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: FatmirJusufi
Posted 2009-02-27 09:27:05 and read 51232 times.



Quoting Trystero (Reply 34):
AOA meaning? Sorry not to familiar with some acronym's..

Angle of Attack I think.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: FatmirJusufi
Posted 2009-02-27 09:48:29 and read 50819 times.



Quoting Cmoltay (Reply 28):
It is not only the funerals in the Netherlands that they will disturb, they'll also distrub the funerals of Islamic Turks because "God Hates The Godless Turks" and "God Hates Turkey"...

http://www.godhatesfags.com/written/...5_turkey-amsterdam-plane-crash.pdf

Wow... How can people be followers to this hatred?

I just saw a BBC documentary about them. Shame about their actions.
Where are they supposed to picket Turkish funerals?

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: TK787
Posted 2009-02-27 09:52:47 and read 50817 times.

From Turkish Aviation workers union's (Hava-Is) leader;
One of the FA's, the only male FA on this flight; Ulvi Murat Eskin lost his life, another FA, Figen Eren's one leg is amputated. Yasemin Vural has minor injuries. Perihan Ozden has few broken bones and from a phone conversation she thanks the pax who helped her out from the emergency exit. She also mentions how important it seems now when she tells exit row pax how to operate those doors in case of an emergency, and that those same people carried her out.
Now that is has been few days and my initial shock is diminished, it looks like a miracle that lots of pax were able to walk out of this broken plane, with most of the crew incapacitated.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Burner71
Posted 2009-02-27 09:52:56 and read 50789 times.

I'm sticking to my pilot error theory.

Maybe some form of distraction in the cockpit allowed them to get too far behind the power curve and they entered a deep stall trying to recover.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Vikkyvik
Posted 2009-02-27 09:55:29 and read 50605 times.



Quoting Trystero (Reply 34):
AOA meaning? Sorry not to familiar with some acronym's..

Sorry, yes, AOA = Angle of Attack.

It's the angle between the freestream airflow and the relative airflow over the wings.

It's distinct from the pitch angle (angle of the fuse relative to the horizon).

...and the angle of incidence (angle of the wings relative to the fuse).

Suffice it to say that AOA isn't something you can determine by just looking at an airplane. It takes into account the angle of incidence, the attitude of the airplane relative to its direction, the effects of aerodynamic forces on the relative airflow (such as downwash), etc., to come up with the aggregate angle of the airflow over the wings with respect to the freestream airflow.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Md80fanatic
Posted 2009-02-27 10:20:57 and read 50231 times.

83 knots is about 45 knots below the power curve. I am not so quick to blame these pilots, I actually think they were personally responsible for saving so many lives. At 83 knots, they may have been 1 to 2 knots away from dropping a wing and no one surviving.

Seeing 83 knots at both a standard ILS descent rate, and then 15 seconds later at 4500 ft/min, indicates to me they were consciously trying NOT to let it fly any slower....perhaps riding the stick shaker to reduce the descent rate as much as possible, without risking a loss of aileron authority.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: UAL777
Posted 2009-02-27 10:34:06 and read 49721 times.



Quoting Mir (Reply 29):

That error should be caught by cross-checking the identifier between the chart and the readout on the PFD.



Quoting Mir (Reply 29):

Automatic missed approach.



Quoting Mir (Reply 29):

My main objection was that you tried to equate a non-precision approach (where an incorrect altimeter setting can put you too low) to a precison approach (where it can't - well, it can if you're a horrible pilot, but I'm giving the TK pilots the benefit of the doubt on that). I may have been a bit harsh, and for that I apologize, but I would have thought that the difference between the Hartford accident and this would be clear to someone with an IR.

I agree with you on all counts, but as I am sure you well know human error comprises a significant amount of aircraft accidents.

I appreciate the apology and I also apologize if I was harsh as well.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Spitfire
Posted 2009-02-27 10:34:48 and read 49710 times.



Quoting Bahadir (Reply 13):
TALPA, Turkish Airline Pilots Association , is issuing a statement regarding the crash. Here are some highlights:
- The aircraft had 4100 kgs of fuel on board at the time of crash.
- They have interesting snapshots of the airplane which I don't know where they got it.
At 9:26:08 UTC the airplane's speed is 83 kts and the the plane was descending at 4300 ft/min.
At 9:25:53 UTC the airplane's speed is 83 kts and vertical speed is 600 ft/min.

Any idea from where does the TALPA get those figures ? ACARS maybe.....not yet from the FDR readings I think...

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Airbuspilot
Posted 2009-02-27 10:47:52 and read 49449 times.

Dave,

I am very sorry but if you would have bothered to read the whole discussion of the day you would know why we entered the discussion, how it was explained and why I went so deep into the subject!

Its just a question to an answer posted by one of the guys here, thats all.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: EMA747
Posted 2009-02-27 11:04:56 and read 49043 times.

On the 737 is there any kind of warning if you are that much below the normal approach speed? I mean 83 knots is way off what it should have been [guess 130-40?]. If it was a training thing [and I am not saying it is] surely this is going too far without intervention? Close to stall training should be in a sim right?

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Winterapfel
Posted 2009-02-27 11:05:29 and read 49101 times.

The crisis team has given a "wrap up" press conference

Major topic: all persons on board (including the 9 death) have been identified.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Mcdu
Posted 2009-02-27 11:11:02 and read 48878 times.



Quoting Mir (Reply 29):
My main objection was that you tried to equate a non-precision approach (where an incorrect altimeter setting can put you too low) to a precison approach (where it can't - well, it can if you're a horrible pilot, but I'm giving the TK pilots the benefit of the doubt on that). I may have been a bit harsh, and for that I apologize, but I would have thought that the difference between the Hartford accident and this would be clear to someone with an IR.

I want to reiterate that it is not one action or inaction that causes the accident. In the AA BDL altimeter case there was more than one reason for the impact with the trees. It is the coincidence of unintended events that always leads to the crash. Rarely one item. In the AA BDL event it was the company policy of AA to adjust their altimeters to read Zero when landing. Didn't matter if they were in DEN or LAX they made corrections to the altimeter setting to show zero. This played a major factor in the AA case due to rapid pressure changes due to the weather at the time and led to AA rescinding this policy to the widely accepted procedure to have the altimeter indicate ASEL.

If the altimeter setting played a role in this I would be surprised. When you operate above or below the transition level/altitude with the inappropriate setting in the latest Boeings the Altimeter setting changes to amber with a box around the setting and in some cases you get the "BARO SET DISAGREE" EICAS alert if their is a difference in the Cap and F/O selections.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: 757GB
Posted 2009-02-27 11:11:34 and read 48868 times.



Quoting EMA747 (Reply 30):
Man these guys should be shoved into a jet engine at takeoff thrust.

That would be a waste of a perfectly good engine...

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Sudden
Posted 2009-02-27 11:27:30 and read 48827 times.

A video made with a cellphone from one of the pax was on TV here in Holland about an hour ago.
It was made just after impact and before he/she had made it out of the A/C. It was a total mess inside, however, the overhead and ceiling are still intact in that section, although it looks like this pax was seated in the middle of the A/C. Maybe some other locals that saw this on SBS6 can confirm what I saw.
Footage was also made after he/she had made it outside with people walking around the field.

I guess SBS6 will sell the video to other channels, so sooner or later you will probably see it.
The channel also made clear that they will send this vieo to the investigation team.

Aim for the sky!
Sudden

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Mir
Posted 2009-02-27 11:31:07 and read 48551 times.



Quoting Ciaran (Reply 31):
In follow up question, not to over simplyfy this particular tragic scenario although the coroally being that the forces of nature are in the end quiet simple, would doing a "Sully" into a ploughed field would have been the better option.? Cant see them teaching that in a sim

It's very difficult to simulate what happens when you land an airplane on soft ground, so I don't believe they can train for it.

That said, I wouldn't compare this to Sully's incident quite yet. If we believe the passengers, there were signs of the airplane being out of control - why that's the case, or whether it's the case at all, is yet to be determined. Sully had complete control of his airplane all the way down to the water. So that's a big difference there.

It is noteworthy, however, that the results were similar - most of the people on the plane survived. Unfortunately, some people did lose their lives in this case. But even when accounting for the speed of the airplane, ground is harder than water, so it's not entirely surprising.

Quoting UAL777 (Reply 43):
as I am sure you well know human error comprises a significant amount of aircraft accidents.

Absolutely. But, like I said, that's a pretty silly error, and even if you do make it, you've got to be a pretty poor pilot to let a bad altimeter setting screw you up on an ILS. I'm giving the TK pilots the benefit of the doubt until evidence comes out otherwise, and saying that they know better than that. If the cause of this crash is pilot error (which is still entirely possible), the root causes are going to run much deeper than an improperly set altimeter.

Quoting EMA747 (Reply 46):
On the 737 is there any kind of warning if you are that much below the normal approach speed?

AFAIK, not per se, though there is plenty of warning about approaching the low-speed end of the flight envelope (i.e. approaching a stall).

Quoting Mcdu (Reply 48):
If the altimeter setting played a role in this I would be surprised.

As would I.

-Mir

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: NCB
Posted 2009-02-27 12:28:29 and read 47474 times.

The unexperienced F/O was co-piloting as part of his line training.

This makes the theory of an incapacitated captain and failure by the greenie to realise it as a result of reluctancy, very plausible. TOGA could have been pushed by any of the F/O's after the stick shaker and a few seconds to realise that the captain was incapacitated, but it was too late.

Personally, I would not look at engine failure, just considering eye-witness accounts and the way the aircraft crash-landed as opposed to the crew executing a safer forced landing in absence of threatening obstacles. A temporary thrust seizure is plausible but in that case it would suggest that the crew were not capable to safely execute the required forced landing and that would imply undervaluing the crew, which is inadequate.

Of course, icing and a catastrophic hardware malfunction remain top on the list.

I read in a Belgian newspaper a very idiot article.
A certain Belgian airline pilot blames fuel starvation as the only pausible cause for the crash, thus undervaluing his Turkish colleagues who have lost their lives in an heroic attempt to save as many passengers as circumstances allowed, limiting casualties to less than 10%.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Draigonair
Posted 2009-02-27 12:35:59 and read 47396 times.

footage taken inside and around the plane just few minutes after impact
http://www.hartvannederland.nl/item/...57/Allereerste_beelden_na_de_crash

Nick

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: BlueShamu330s
Posted 2009-02-27 12:55:30 and read 46687 times.



Quoting NCB (Reply 52):
Of course, icing and a catastrophic hardware malfunction remain top on the list.

On what grounds? I'd love to know.

Quoting NCB (Reply 52):
A certain Belgian airline pilot blames fuel starvation as the only pausible cause for the crash, thus undervaluing his Turkish colleagues who have lost their lives in an heroic attempt to save as many passengers as circumstances allowed, limiting casualties to less than 10%.

Again, as I and others have said before, there are as yet no heroes or villains. There is no objective evidence yet pointing to the cause of this crash, nor whether the crew did anything or had time to lessen the impact or whether, indeed, their actions were directly the cause of the accident.

We can speculate to our hearts' content, but as yet must not canonize nor castigate individuals until there is hard evidence to support it one way or the other.

Rgds

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Mcdu
Posted 2009-02-27 12:57:31 and read 46869 times.

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idINLR36546820090227?rpc=44

Interesting that the TK Pilots Association would publish something like this. Personally I have to say that if the pitch up that was reported is true then it does not indicate Wake turbulence. You get a rolling motion with Wake versus a severe pitch up.

Also why did they get into the wake turbulence? If they were on the glideslope and the previous arrival had flown the glideslope, then wake would not have been a factor. The only reason they could have experienced wake if the previous arrival was on G/S, would have been for the TK airplane to be BELOW the G/S. If that is true then WHY were they below the G/S?

This will unfold to several reasons for the crash and wake turbulence in a 737 two miles behind a 757 is not an accident causing issue. An average pilot can accommodate wake turbulence events in this situation. If the this was a bizjet or light airplane behind a 757 then perhaps you could enter uncontrollable wake but the 737-800 should not enter an unrecoverable situation.

Finally Wake Turbulence tend to leave the airplane in a wing low or rolled impact. This accident site does not reflect the traditional wake event.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: PlanesNTrains
Posted 2009-02-27 13:10:53 and read 46463 times.



Quoting Airbuspilot (Reply 45):
I am very sorry but if you would have bothered to read the whole discussion of the day you would know why we entered the discussion, how it was explained and why I went so deep into the subject!

With all due respect, Airbuspilot, I have read every single post in all six threads. Thank you for your apology, though.

If I did indeed miss the post where someone asked for an explanation of an Airbus A320's stall characteristics, then I apologize for missing it. Having said that, with 6 threads and probably well over 1000 posts in just a couple of days, it is tedious at best to sift through the subtopics that seem to go off in their own direction regardless of whether they have anything to do with the crash of a TK 738.

Warmest regards,

-Dave

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Dstefanc
Posted 2009-02-27 13:54:58 and read 45583 times.



Quoting Draigonair (Reply 53):
footage taken inside and around the plane just few minutes after impact
http://www.hartvannederland.nl/item/...crash

Quite disturbing watching this and at the same time I am amazed how calm most of the people are. I am sure this footage will aid in the investigation, for example in determining what was the setting of the flaps and many more things. Does anyone know what people are saying on the video?

Damian

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: KL577
Posted 2009-02-27 13:55:36 and read 45621 times.

The chairman of the Dutch transportation safety board was on the news show "Nova" this night:

The recorder readings are back with the investigation team at Schiphol. The team will start/has started analysing this weekend. Latest by Wednesday next week the investigators want to give more clarification as to which rumours can be ruled out, and which facts will be subjected to further investigation.

He further noted that the wake turbulence theory is being looked at, since especially due to the very low winds last Wednesday wake turbulence effects can linger for quite some time. Of course he pointed out that it is only one of other possibilities under investigation.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Draigonair
Posted 2009-02-27 14:10:48 and read 45124 times.



Quoting Dstefanc (Reply 58):
Does anyone know what people are saying on the video?

Seems its not available anymore..

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: OA260
Posted 2009-02-27 14:14:11 and read 45154 times.



Quoting Dstefanc (Reply 58):
Quite disturbing watching this and at the same time I am amazed how calm most of the people are.

Yes really is. I didnt expect to see video footage like this.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: FatmirJusufi
Posted 2009-02-27 14:32:02 and read 44743 times.



Quoting Draigonair (Reply 53):
footage taken inside and around the plane just few minutes after impact
http://www.hartvannederland.nl/item/...57/Allereerste_beelden_na_de_crash

Nick

It's unique footage. You can clearly see damages and impact results.
Thanks for sharing.

Fatmir

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Swissy
Posted 2009-02-27 15:15:09 and read 43937 times.



Quoting OA260 (Reply 61):
Quoting Dstefanc (Reply 58):
Quite disturbing watching this and at the same time I am amazed how calm most of the people are.

Yes really is. I didnt expect to see video footage like this.

I am with you on that..... I still have the picture of the Kalitta 747 cockpit photos in mind, they more or less walked away..... after ditching in a field after t/o... iirc

Looking at the posted "final" speed, the short distance before ac came to a full stop, impact must have been tremendous...

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: BlueShamu330s
Posted 2009-02-27 15:24:20 and read 43714 times.



Quoting NCB (Reply 57):
I don't really care what you and the others have said before.

That speaks volumes. Arrogance often precedes a fall. I'd hate to fly with you.

Quoting NCB (Reply 57):
I decorate them as heroes for the sole purpose that they died trying to save lives, which they obviously did.

Obviously? You have absolutely no proof of that.

Quoting NCB (Reply 57):
The rest is common sense, the question is whether or not you have any.

Whilst others, some of whom have training or accident investigation backgrounds, are being quite objective in their contributions, you have unfortunately let emotion cloud your judgement.
One can only be grateful for the fact you are not part of the investigative team.
Please, let's speculate with the information we already know and not let emotion ruin a good thread.

Rgds

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: B707forever
Posted 2009-02-27 15:25:57 and read 43639 times.



Quoting Trystero (Reply 27):
I had to double check this. It's true. I thought you were joking, but this people really exist.

I have no words for this.

They've been around a long time. These are the crazy people who picked Mathew Shephard's funeral, the young gay man that was brutally murdered and left to die in the outback country of Wyoming. They left him tied to a fence. Both of the murderers are in jail for life and Mathew's parents have become excellent advocates for gay rights.

Quoting EMA747 (Reply 30):
Man these guys should be shoved into a jet engine at takeoff thrust.

I wouldn't want to waste an engine on them. These people are dispicable and very very dangerous. The British government just refused them entry. They were sued by someone and lost millions. It stopped them for a bit but they're at it again.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Starlionblue
Posted 2009-02-27 15:39:36 and read 43476 times.



Quoting Bahadir (Reply 13):
At 9:26:08 UTC the airplane's speed is 83 kts and the the plane was descending at 4300 ft/min.

That's almost 22 m/s. If that was ground impact speed, my guess is that it was survivable (as evidenced) but painful.

Quoting BuyantUkhaa (Reply 23):
Similar to what was announced after the Buffalo crash, anti-gay organisation Westboro Baptist Church has announced it will try to disturb the funerals of the deceased in the Amsterdam crash. The article says that "[Westboro] are convinced that this is God's punishment for the gay-friendly Netherlands".



Quoting Cmoltay (Reply 28):
It is not only the funerals in the Netherlands that they will disturb, they'll also distrub the funerals of Islamic Turks because "God Hates The Godless Turks" and "God Hates Turkey"...

http://www.godhatesfags.com/written/...5_turkey-amsterdam-plane-crash.pdf

Wow... How can people be followers to this hatred?

First of all, good luck to them protesting in Turkey.

Secondly, society was and is unfortunately full of groups promoting hatred:
- Nazis.
- Extremist mullahs.
- Talibans.
- KKK.
- Al Qaeda.
- Any religious group that does not promote acceptance of lifestyles other than its own.

These guys are more visible but certainly they are not alone.

Quoting EMA747 (Reply 30):

Man these guys should be shoved into a jet engine at takeoff thrust.

Why waste a perfectly good jet engine? Strap them on he exhaust side instead.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: EMA747
Posted 2009-02-27 15:44:54 and read 43256 times.



Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 65):
Why waste a perfectly good jet engine? Strap them on he exhaust side instead.

Good idea. Toast them like a marsh mallow!  flamed 

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: LTAC03R
Posted 2009-02-27 15:50:02 and read 43239 times.

ok everyone, once and for all lets do away with the altimeter error speculation... 1) Anyone flying the 737NG would know that it'll MAKE you set the local altimeter setting, latest as you descend through the transition altitude in the nav database, and 2) for god sake they were coming in on a glide slope with a 700-foot ceiling which translates to breaking out of cloud at roughly 2 miles out, in other words no where near minimums.

Also, lets quit making any serious connections to the fact that there was training going on. Those of us flying in the airline environment know that training is an integral part of airline operations on a daily basis, i.e. not an emergency! Yes it can increase cockpit workload, but that's about it. Pilots in line training are simply new to a type, and not flying an airplane for the first time in their lives. Which was especially true in the case of the trainee pilot involved here, who was a recently retired air force officer, having served as a fleet commander in the ranks of the air force. Likewise, line instructors are not the ordinary, perhaps newly promoted line captain. They are in the sim day in day out training scenarios and emergencies well out of the ordinary, and regularly fly with pilots new to the type. Their experience on the type and on the line alike typically exceeds 10 years and thousands of hours, flying to places ranging from the high altitude airports burried in the depth of a valley with dynamic seasonal weather and a sole circling approach like ERN, VAN or KCM, all the way up to the complex multiple runway activity with closely knit traffic at the likes of AMS, LHR or FCO. Meanwhile, some of us here are arguing that a loss of airspeed significant enough to stall the 737 could have gone unnoticed... I don't think so! Thus I would like to invite some folks to exercise a little more sensibility on the speculations they make with sincere regard to the credibility of what they have to say.

regards

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: F4f3a
Posted 2009-02-27 16:11:38 and read 42884 times.

Just thought id say theres a lot of rubbish coming out in the news. esp in the english newspapers. referring to the engines stalling and problems with the master caution. Complete rubbish. I hope there other stories are more reliable on other subjects

For one thing I think they meant the wings stalling and the master caution warning system doesnt cover the flaps.

My best guess on the description from eye witnesses is the pilots selected the flaps lever down and moved the speed bug to the flap speed but didnt check that the flaps had extended on the flap guage. The result would be a higher pitch to maintain lift until the wing stalled.

Another scenario is that there could have been a failure on the auto throttle when the engines where idle and the a/c was slowing down anyway and didnt notice the decaying airspeed until too late

There have been a few incidences of both these scenarios happening on the 737 . But I think the failure of the flaps to extend/ flap assym is the most likelly

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Metroliner
Posted 2009-02-27 16:25:13 and read 42619 times.

I see a lot of "of course"s and "most likely"s in these 6 threads. We won't know for a long time, if at all, even whether there are any of those.

Quoting F4f3a (Reply 68):
flap assym

What - how? It landed wings level...

I think some of the speculation is beginning to border on the wacky!

I haven't seen any suggestions of a failure of the airspeed indicator - though this to me would seem a possibility, like the 757 crash in Colombia in the 90s, but with very different circumstances. But that, I stress, is a hypothesis - it could be anything. We just have to wait and see.

My condolences to the families of the crew and all others that lost their lives.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: EMA747
Posted 2009-02-27 16:46:26 and read 42393 times.

So the general gist on here seems to be that the airspeed got to be so low that is was unrecoverable. The question seems to be why it got that way.

Even this might not be the case and as most often I bet there will be more than one thing that made this plane come down.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Metroliner
Posted 2009-02-27 17:14:23 and read 42047 times.



Quoting EMA747 (Reply 70):
I bet there will be more than one thing

 yes 

I agree. It's pretty common, in aviation accidents, to see a combination of factors at play that compounds a situation until it is beyond recovering.

What these were, how they came about and in what order... the professionals will let us know.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: SPL
Posted 2009-02-27 17:34:27 and read 42024 times.

New link, with the footage from inside:

two versions, slighty different.

http://www.hartvannederland.nl/item/...Eerste_beelden_van_net_na_de_crash

http://www.hartvannederland.nl/item/...57/Allereerste_beelden_na_de_crash


It looks most of the people allready left the aircraft.

The things they are saying is:

'can you get out? no, stuck with my shoulder'
'who's still inside'
'is everybody out'
'here is still somebody'


Groeten

[Edited 2009-02-27 17:47:25]

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Upcfordcruiser
Posted 2009-02-27 18:33:38 and read 41288 times.



Quoting BuyantUkhaa (Reply 23):
Similar to what was announced after the Buffalo crash, anti-gay organisation Westboro Baptist Church has announced it will try to disturb the funerals of the deceased in the Amsterdam crash. The article says that "[Westboro] are convinced that this is God's punishment for the gay-friendly Netherlands".

Assuming the death toll won't rise (let's hope so!), there won't be any funerals in the Netherlands, as none of the deceased are Dutch. Bad luck for Westboro.

The world would be a friendlier place without these people.

Not a surprise, this group has been very active here in America disturbing the funerals of American soldiers. They came down to my area to disrupt a funeral and were given a less than welcome reaction. Having seen some of the aftermath (not the incident itself) firsthand, I hope they had good auto insurance.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Md80fanatic
Posted 2009-02-27 18:47:27 and read 41153 times.

Please quit giving WBC press in this thread, unless they were on this flight.

Remember, the only bad publicity is NO publicity.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: FlyLKU
Posted 2009-02-27 19:43:30 and read 40614 times.



Quoting EMA747 (Reply 70):
So the general gist on here seems to be that the airspeed got to be so low that is was unrecoverable. The question seems to be why it got that way.

The condition of the wreckage appears to support a very low ground speed although 83 knots sounds unbelievable. The final reports on this one and BUF will be interesting and I suspect result in operating procedure changes regardless of the root causes.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Dc863
Posted 2009-02-27 21:38:32 and read 39543 times.

If the plane hit wingtip vortices from another aircraft it would most likely roll not lose airspeed and pancake.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Sankaps
Posted 2009-02-27 21:49:19 and read 39712 times.

Seattle Post Intelligencer has several new details at http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/401772_boeingcrash28.html .

Amongst the info:

All 4 Boeing employees were sitting in front, in business class (3 are confirmed dead, one seriously injured).

The article quotes Turkish press reports saying at least one of the pilots was still alive and screaming for help, but could not be reached due to locked cockpit door.

The most surprising report, again from the Turkish news sources, is that medical help took 40 minutes to arrive.

Of course one does not know how reliable the news sources are, but scary to consider nevertheless.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Gorgos
Posted 2009-02-27 22:37:52 and read 39236 times.

Sankaps,

I´ve been hearing various 'news' from Turkey regarding the airline crash in Holland.

It all started with the minister reporting there were no deaths.

I fail to understand how news agencies and government officials are able to report these 'scoops' when all the info and investigations are being carried out in Holland.

I also fail to understand how that association can claim with such certainty that a wake vortex most probably was the cause for the crash.

While specualtion on A.net is most welcome in my view, official channels must act with more restrain.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Aerofede
Posted 2009-02-27 23:31:58 and read 38726 times.



Quoting Mcdu (Reply 55):
This will unfold to several reasons for the crash and wake turbulence in a 737 two miles behind a 757 is not an accident causing issue. An average pilot can accommodate wake turbulence events in this situation. If the this was a bizjet or light airplane behind a 757 then perhaps you could enter uncontrollable wake but the 737-800 should not enter an unrecoverable situation.

Probably you mean 2 minutes, since the required distance separation fro a Medium category aircraft (like the 737 series) behind a B757 or an Heavy is 5NM or 2 Minutes.

I have seen with my eyes an A319 roll to almost 90degrees bank when landing 5,5NM behind a B777.
Probably the situation can be recovered, but that's not safe, and if you are really low, it may be too late.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Starlionblue
Posted 2009-02-27 23:34:34 and read 38672 times.



Quoting Gorgos (Reply 78):
It all started with the minister reporting there were no deaths.

Classic grandstanding politician.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Virgin744
Posted 2009-02-27 23:48:12 and read 38602 times.

Its incredibly disconcerting to hear these statements coming from the pilots' association and government officials so prematurely when the investigation hasn't even been completed yet. Unfortunately, Turks have one major problem and that's having no idea of what the term "Good Public Relations" means... They are always making rash and unsubstantiated statements as if it will alter the conclusion in some way. What they should have done from the get go was continually refer all questions to the investigators or simply say 'we'll know the answer when the investigation is concluded'.


Virgin744

[Edited 2009-02-28 00:08:50]

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Max777geek
Posted 2009-02-28 00:08:42 and read 38535 times.



Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 80):
I have seen with my eyes an A319 roll to almost 90degrees bank when landing 5,5NM behind a B777.
Probably the situation can be recovered, but that's not safe, and if you are really low, it may be too late.

I saw something worse, with my very own eyes during a cockpit ride on a 747-200 : we were behind at a very safe distance following another 747 (I was into an Az, the one in front of us was a Jap), and, regardless of wake turb theory about rolling, that literally shaked us up and down, so strong I can't even tell you. If there was a glass of water on the tech table, that would have been water everywhere in the cockpit. I wondered what it was, the capt said "that's the jap". No rolling at all. What I have understood, ok, that was slightly after takeoff just near the end of climb, anyhow not any close to the ground, the speeed was more than the landing, but the more the distance separated us, the wider the vortexes were. I know from theory vortexes starts from the wings extremities and gets wider with distance, so believe me or not, I can tell you a whole fu**ing 747 was shaked like an umbrella by the air flow, and that was up and down. We weren't in a turn and we didn't started rolling by any side except up and down. I can't tell if this was only a rotation around the lateral axes of the plane or the whole plane shaking, excuse my broken english but I think I gave the idea.

About Ams, the training scenario sound the more reasonable, the airplane stalled, it seems to me too low for an airspeed to be down to 83knots, also for the reason what was anyone else doing in beetween the speed fell so down ? That wasn't even in a moment somebody could act on the airbrakes to reduce speed, that would have been happening before there, in case. And I guess there's been more than an alarm if the airspeed got that low. That seems to me too long of a time to be anyone who can do something incapacitated. Anyhow all the theories will be just zero, until the blackboxes will be decoded, which will take a while and finally we will know what went on and why, in the cockpit. Also I wouldn't get on the theory of the cockpit member alive asking for help because it would have been taking one second to pull him out. Rescue people knows in such a situation, you can literally kill somebody who's alive, if you don't take him out of the wreckage in proper condition. The worst that could happen is that he was going to die anyway, if pulled out in the improper way with important internal injuries, even if still alive. The operation to take out somebody of a crushed car maybe pretty long, people sometimes don't make it to be pulled out safely without breaking them in two, or compromise the situation until he will not be able to walk or breath spontaneously, and if they don't make it until proper ways to rescue are in place, it's just like when they don't make it in the ambulance to the hospital, like so many times, unfortunately, happens. But thanks God, we have now procedure in place to pull out people with spinal .... "movable beds" (sorry I miss the english term but I think you got it) that can locks the situation "as is", without causing more damages, and this increased dramatically the amount of the neurological functions saved as they were at the moment of the rescue, without making more damages like it came out to be when we didn't have those procedures in places. This is usually stuff for firemen, they have the tools to cut a car in two, Im sure a cockpit cabin wouldn't have been much of a problem, to completely open a window, enter with a spinal moving bed, immobilize the living pilot, and take him out with all the precautions. If that's been the case that he was alive asking for help but his internal injuries didn't last him alive until the proper people was in place, I guess he wasn't going to last until medical threatment anyway. Anyhow God bless his soul and his mates ones for making their best to avoid more life losses when they understood they were going to loose theirs.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Airvan00
Posted 2009-02-28 00:12:05 and read 38396 times.



Quoting Aerofede (Reply 79):
I have seen with my eyes an A319 roll to almost 90degrees bank when landing 5,5NM behind a B777.
Probably the situation can be recovered, but that's not safe, and if you are really low, it may be too late.

But that doesn't look to be relevant in this case. The passengers have not reported violent manoeuvrers and as people have been pointing out for days, the aircraft "landed" wings level.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Severnaya
Posted 2009-02-28 01:03:59 and read 37902 times.



Quoting Sankaps (Reply 77):
is that medical help took 40 minutes to arrive.

Ehm, that is not true for sure, as i saw within 5 minutes after the crash the medical cars speeding out of Schiphol to the crash site which was known within a few minutes due to people driving on the A9 speedway calling the 112 number.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Gorgos
Posted 2009-02-28 01:17:13 and read 37807 times.



Quoting Severnaya (Reply 84):

Sounds a lot more reasonable, as it takes only 40 min to drive to the german border.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Airvan00
Posted 2009-02-28 01:18:24 and read 37824 times.



Quoting Severnaya (Reply 84):
medical cars speeding out of Schiphol to the crash site which was known within a few minutes due to people driving on the A9 speedway calling the 112 number.

Also the controllers in the TWR pushing the big red button in the tower would have summoned the emergency services. I daresay that button would have been pushed before the aircraft hit the ground.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Spitfire
Posted 2009-02-28 01:21:14 and read 37945 times.

Have a look here guys, very interesting figures and simulation :

http://www.openatc.com/THY1951/


I remind you that altitudes are based on 1013.2 or 29.92 !!





As requested : "ADS-B data is used with permission from the OpenATC aircraft tracking network, http://www.OpenATC.com"

[Edited 2009-02-28 01:43:46]

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: F4f3a
Posted 2009-02-28 01:44:30 and read 37675 times.

to answer metroliner. There maybe no roll associated with flap assym. Because when the flap system detects assym or scew it stops the flaps traveling further, and on the flap indicator it will accentuate a 15 degree split to make the problem obvious.

Aerofade , the separation for a 737 following a 757 is 4nm , special case just for this aircraft due to unique wing characteristics. following at half the distance would be very uncomfortable
indeed. But the controllers at ams are very good if sep was an issue im sure they would have made the a/c go around.

One thing to mention if this was a training flight and it could have been an early one then the training captains work load would have been very high, and the fo would be a lot slower than an experienced one.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: KL577
Posted 2009-02-28 01:50:31 and read 37642 times.



Quoting Severnaya (Reply 84):
Quoting Sankaps (Reply 77):
is that medical help took 40 minutes to arrive.

Ehm, that is not true for sure, as i saw within 5 minutes after the crash the medical cars speeding out of Schiphol to the crash site which was known within a few minutes due to people driving on the A9 speedway calling the 112 number.

Indeed this is complete nonsense. Correct me if I'm wrong, but 40 minutes after the crash, television stations had already arrived and started transmitting the rescue operation live. That was around 11.15 am when I turned on the television.

Quoting Virgin744 (Reply 81):
Its incredibly disconcerting to hear these statements coming from the pilots' association and government officials so prematurely when the investigation hasn't even been completed yet. Unfortunately, Turks have one major problem and that's having no idea of what the term "Good Public Relations" means... They are always making rash and unsubstantiated statements as if it will alter the conclusion in some way. What they should have done from the get go was continually refer all questions to the investigators or simply say 'we'll know the answer when the investigation is concluded'.

As I understood it from television last night: Turkish airlines officials are represented with the investigation team at Schiphol. The first data from the black boxes came back yesterday night, and has probably been seen by those officials as well. When asked whether these TK officials are indirectly behind this press release, based on inside information, he evaded the question.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Max777geek
Posted 2009-02-28 02:03:53 and read 37512 times.



Quoting F4f3a (Reply 88):

Aerofade , the separation for a 737 following a 757 is 4nm , special case just for this aircraft due to unique wing characteristics. following at half the distance would be very uncomfortable
indeed. But the controllers at ams are very good if sep was an issue im sure they would have made the a/c go around.

any aviation expert witnessing would be useful to confirm if there were 2 or 4 nautical miles in beetween the 2 ac, until now we did read of 2. (where did it came from, please don't ask)

Quoting F4f3a (Reply 88):

One thing to mention if this was a training flight and it could have been an early one then the training captains work load would have been very high, and the fo would be a lot slower than an experienced one.

Ok, the captain was taking care of the radio, of the instruments and his workload increased until the stall, the trainee was at the command, and the speed decreased (assuming data we read are true) from 140-150 knots to 83 knots. That did take a while, or every pax was crushed on the next seat back, but, what I wonder of, even in this scenario, is : what was doing the real FO of the flight who was presumably seat in the jumpseat ? I can believe of one cockpit member incapacitated, but not two. Not likely both of them noticed speed going down and did nothing until it stalled. I may believe the speed decreased too low on the cround to recover, but this means they were far out of the glideslope already. And nobody noticed and nobody notified nobody else and nobody else didn't do nothing to recover ?
Let's say the speed was too low, the descent rate was too high, that drove the airplane out of the glideslope, below of it since a while. This data should be available to the atc also, outer than the blackboxes. Wasn't even somebody in the tower going to notify the airplane if it was coming out to be too low ? Im not sure if this kind of data is propagated by the transponder to the ground radar, I assume it is. We heard so many times on the radios "you're too low, please climb up to...." so I guess it is.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Starlionblue
Posted 2009-02-28 02:04:09 and read 37488 times.



Quoting Max777geek (Reply 82):
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 80):
I have seen with my eyes an A319 roll to almost 90degrees bank when landing 5,5NM behind a B777.
Probably the situation can be recovered, but that's not safe, and if you are really low, it may be too late.

Just for the record, I didn't say that.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Airbuseric
Posted 2009-02-28 02:06:47 and read 37493 times.

I didn't read completely all the 6 parts on this topic yet, but still are thinking about the following;

I still remember the FR crashlanding on 10 Nov 2008 at CIA, B738 EI-DYG. It suffered multiple birdstrikes on very short finals and had to crashland. As far as I know, both engines stopped while still in the air, resulting in the rough landing, resulting in collapse of the gear.

How about such a case on TK1951. Let's presume that TC-JGE flew into a flock of birds and the plane suffered also birdstrike in both engines. Engines stopped to operate now.
The aircraft was already on short finals for runway 18R, and flaps would be fully extended and gear down. Aircraft speed is already quite low.
At the moment that both engines fail, also all hydraulic power would be gone, and the crew is not able anymore to retract the flaps and try to power up for a go around etc.
Due to the low speed and unavoidable landing short of the runway the crew had to hope for the best. With the highway (A9) still in front as their largest obstacle (the A9 is at at a higher level, some kind of dike), crew might have been acting in such way that the aircraft suddenly dropped on the farmland?! To avoid a crash with the highway, which would've resulted in probably a much higher damage to the frame and less chance for survivors.

This was just a scenario I was thinking off last days and wanted to share it here.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Alessandro
Posted 2009-02-28 02:10:41 and read 37464 times.

So have they started to remove the wreckage from the area or are they going to build tents of it
to continue to investigate?

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Max777geek
Posted 2009-02-28 02:15:59 and read 37418 times.



Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 91):
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 80):
Just for the record, I didn't say that.

Holy, my quoting fault. I did copied the wrong quoted text and it came under your name (it depends on which post you press "quote selected text"

I did try to edit the post with no success. Here is the original quote with proper name :

Quoting Aerofede (Reply 79):


I have seen with my eyes an A319 roll to almost 90degrees bank when landing 5,5NM behind a B777.
Probably the situation can be recovered, but that's not safe, and if you are really low, it may be too late.

Sorry again, my mistake.

Max

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Airbuseric
Posted 2009-02-28 02:16:08 and read 37419 times.



Quoting Alessandro (Reply 93):
So have they started to remove the wreckage from the area

No not yet. Reported by officials that the wreckage might be removed somewhere next week, when all investigations are finished on the spot.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: AirbusA370
Posted 2009-02-28 02:29:22 and read 37383 times.

I'm surprised that the overhead panel could come loose and hit the pilots. There are extremely strict requirements for crash safety of stuff located overhead. Does anybody know if there were some "grandfather rights" claimed during certification of the 737NG regarding this topic? We might see a modification of the panel attachment on the 737 fleet due to this accident...

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: BlueShamu330s
Posted 2009-02-28 03:15:07 and read 36978 times.



Quoting Max777geek (Reply 90):
any aviation expert witnessing would be useful to confirm if there were 2 or 4 nautical miles in beetween the 2 ac, until now we did read of 2. (where did it came from, please don't ask)

I think there is an element of confusion here, caused by misreporting in the media. From what we know, there was 5 NM between the previous landing 757 and the THY 738, which equates to roughly 2 minutes in time. I think the media have picked up on 2 NM from the fact that there was a Transavia 738 following the THY 5 NM in trail which reduced to 2 NM as the THY's airspeed decayed. The Transavia was sent around. As they went around, they were asked if they could "see anything on the ground," but they had been IMC throughout.

Quoting AirbusA370 (Reply 96):
I'm surprised that the overhead panel could come loose and hit the pilots. There are extremely strict requirements for crash safety of stuff located overhead.

At the end of the day, it's a secured panel on a hinge (and damned heavy too). I doubt any aircraft's fascia could have withstood this impact.

Rgds

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Fkruiver
Posted 2009-02-28 03:25:03 and read 36992 times.

First video after crash....
http://www.hartvannederland.nl/item/...Eerste_beelden_van_net_na_de_crash

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Flood
Posted 2009-02-28 03:48:38 and read 36714 times.



Quoting Sankaps (Reply 77):
The most surprising report, again from the Turkish news sources, is that medical help took 40 minutes to arrive.



Quoting KL577 (Reply 89):
Indeed this is complete nonsense.

It seems the quote in the SeattlePi article may have been taken out of context. I understood the 40 minutes was in reference to gaining access to the cockpit, not the accident scene itself.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Petertenthije
Posted 2009-02-28 04:37:44 and read 36400 times.



Quoting Sankaps (Reply 77):
The most surprising report, again from the Turkish news sources, is that medical help took 40 minutes to arrive.

I think 4 minutes is a more reasonable guess! 40 minutes in the TV crews where already reporting having counted 33 ambulances. In total 60+ ambulances where dispatched as well as 3 medevac helicopters flying back and forth the crash site and numerous hospitals in the region.

The nearest by firestation/ambulancepost is at the intersection of Adrianahoeve and the N201. That's about 6 kms, most of which a straight line dual carriage way that is not particularly busy. If any Schiphol crashtenders where waiting at the beginning of the runway, apparantly an emergency had been declared so it seems likely, then they would hvae been no more then 3 kms away.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Deaphen
Posted 2009-02-28 04:48:20 and read 36424 times.



Quoting Petertenthije (Reply 100):
I think 4 minutes is a more reasonable guess! 40 minutes in the TV crews where already reporting having counted 33 ambulances. In total 60+ ambulances where dispatched as well as 3 medevac helicopters flying back and forth the crash site and numerous hospitals in the region.

Yes, having seen the scene myself, 40 mins is definitely rubbish! As it is that area is hustling and bustling with airport activity. Whether its emergency services or airport services.

Also, the moment ATC would have said they have a major problem, as they did on those clips we heard, alarm bells must have rung.

Considering the fact, that 3 hours after the crash, the scene was like that of a crash which had happened 2 days ago, it was really very impressive, again, i reiterate the fact that the Dutch services are brilliantly efficient and effective in situations like this.

Regards
Nitin

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Mbg
Posted 2009-02-28 04:52:26 and read 36352 times.



Quoting Petertenthije (Reply 100):
apparantly an emergency had been declared

Can anybody provide us with concrete evidence that an emergency was declared?

I am not suggestiıng that it actually took 40 mins for the emergency crews to reach the crash-site (as a matter of fact, I think that's BS), I am just not sure if an emergency was actually declared.

mbg

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Deaphen
Posted 2009-02-28 04:54:36 and read 36439 times.



Quoting Mbg (Reply 102):
Can anybody provide us with concrete evidence that an emergency was declared?

I am not suggestiıng that it actually took 40 mins for the emergency crews to reach the crash-site (as a matter of fact, I think that's BS), I am just not sure if an emergency was actually declared.

MBG:

From the ATC tapes, it is clear that the controllers knew of the problem (probably not of the severity) but the moment they said "we have a big big problem" and "i think we have lost and aircraft" i think we can be sure an emergency was declared.

Regards
Nitin

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Max777geek
Posted 2009-02-28 04:56:15 and read 36437 times.



Quoting BlueShamu330s (Reply 97):
Quoting AirbusA370 (Reply 96):
I'm surprised that the overhead panel could come loose and hit the pilots. There are extremely strict requirements for crash safety of stuff located overhead.

At the end of the day, it's a secured panel on a hinge (and damned heavy too). I doubt any aircraft's fascia could have withstood this impact.

As long as I did read, the cockpit crew is been killed by something in front coming over them
(or them going harder on it). By looking at the picture you would say the frame is intact, but the lower part of the cockpit is evidently pushed up, so I guess that did hurt the jumpseater crew as well. Panel or not, for such heavy shot, the human body suffers of self compression injuries which if doesn't kill drive to die very soon. Not a nice show to see for the first rescuers, I guess.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Mbg
Posted 2009-02-28 05:01:59 and read 36322 times.



Quoting Deaphen (Reply 103):

I meant to say "was there an emergency declared by TK1951 that would cause the emergency vehicles to be standing by at the beginning of the runway".

Quoting Petertenthije (Reply 100):
crashtenders where waiting at the beginning of the runway, apparantly an emergency had been declared so it seems likely

That has been the rumor going around, but the ATC tapes indicate otherwise.

mbg

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Yendig
Posted 2009-02-28 05:02:51 and read 36367 times.

I have a theory which I thought I'd share.

No doubt at all about the aircraft entering a stall.

As to why, how about a normal approach suddenly being affected by birds in the area? Not an actual bird strike, but could the pilots have pitched up too far to prevent a strike from occurring? The speed bled away and, unfortunately, we all know what happened afterwards.

I'm no pilot, only an enthusiast.

Pilots - could this be a valid reason or would you carry on regardless through the birds at that altitude on approach?

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Airbuseric
Posted 2009-02-28 05:12:05 and read 36287 times.



Quoting Mbg (Reply 105):
I meant to say "was there an emergency declared by TK1951 that would cause the emergency vehicles to be standing by at the beginning of the runway".

TK1951 did not declare emergency. It was transferred to 118.27 tower frequency and was even Cleared to Land, and this was read back by TK crew. Suddenly this accident happened shortly after this transmission.
Of course ATC controllers in the tower were able to see the scene and probably quick enough to see that they lost this aircraft. And of course, then they ring all alarmbells, which will mean that an emergency was declared by the airport authorities.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Winterapfel
Posted 2009-02-28 05:13:40 and read 36426 times.

Quoting Spitfire (Reply 87):
Have a look here guys, very interesting figures and simulation :

http://www.openatc.com/THY1951/


I remind you that altitudes are based on 1013.2 or 29.92 !!

Someone has made some graphs, based in these data
airdisaster_forum
I've inserted them here:

http://i42.tinypic.com/ddg9k2.gif
http://i42.tinypic.com/5ajc6s.gif
http://i39.tinypic.com/20hwrcg.gif


Could somebody explain these graphs?
- It seems the aircraft never was stable on the glide slope. Are the deviations we see normal/acceptable? At what time would the crew have gotten a "glideslope" warning?
- If case the glide slope warning indeed has chimed: wouldn't the crew have realized their speed varying and decreasing?
- Do I understand correctly that the ATC tapes we've heared on the internet actually stop before the start of these graphs?

Any other information in these graphs which I'm missing?


edit!!
I'm now reading the following, but I'm unable to judge.
Could the data on openatc.com be based on 1013 hPa, while the air pressure at the time of the crash was 1027 hPa. The difference (14 hPa time 27 foot per hPa = 378 foot) should be added to the height of the plain, resulting in a graph in which the plane is for most of it's time above the glide slope.????

[Edited 2009-02-28 05:24:02]

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: PW100
Posted 2009-02-28 06:02:52 and read 35805 times.



Quoting Sankaps (Reply 77):
The most surprising report, again from the Turkish news sources, is that medical help took 40 minutes to arrive



Quoting KL577 (Reply 89):
Indeed this is complete nonsense. Correct me if I'm wrong, but 40 minutes after the crash, television stations had already arrived and started transmitting the rescue operation live



Quoting Deaphen (Reply 101):
Yes, having seen the scene myself, 40 mins is definitely rubbish



Quoting Flood (Reply 99):
It seems the quote in the SeattlePi article may have been taken out of context. I understood the 40 minutes was in reference to gaining access to the cockpit, not the accident scene itself.

Flood is correct. The 40 minutes reference has been taken out of context. It indeed took rescue workers 40 minutes to gain access to the cockpit due to the state of the cockpit: crunched panels and racks [it appears that the front cabin and cockpit floor came up as a result on the impact, maybe crushed by the noswheel gear assembly], and possibly the re-inforced cockpit door. Which was very unfortunate for at least one cockpit crewmember.

PW100

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Acabgd
Posted 2009-02-28 06:09:26 and read 35758 times.



Quoting Yendig (Reply 106):
Not an actual bird strike, but could the pilots have pitched up too far to prevent a strike from occurring? The speed bled away and, unfortunately, we all know what happened afterwards.

This would have to be such a major error that it seems, well not impossible, but improbable.

Normal approach speed at that point would probably be around 140kts, and the way down to 83kts is so big, that somply pitching up is not enough.

We don't see any indication they pulled up, but even if they did the next intuitive reaction would be to hit TO/GA or simply shove the thrust levers forward. Again, we apparently didn't see this happening - just as we didn't see them try to pull up from the flight path provided.

I am sure investigation is now trying to determine how and why did the crew let the airspeed bleed all the way down to 83kts and if they tried applying more power before crashing.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: PW100
Posted 2009-02-28 06:14:10 and read 35707 times.



Quoting Mbg (Reply 102):
Can anybody provide us with concrete evidence that an emergency was declared?

I am not suggestiıng that it actually took 40 mins for the emergency crews to reach the crash-site (as a matter of fact, I think that's BS), I am just not sure if an emergency was actually declared.

No emergency was declared by the cockpit crew; it is not on public ATC tapes. Now that may be because of the fact that the live streams are coming of scanners, which record multiple frequencies simultaneously. But other pilots, including one that was two planes behind the Turkish, have confirmed that they heard no emergency call [no mayday nor pan pan pan]. In fact no pilots in the air or on the ground knew what was going on until ATC mentioned on air something like "we have a huge emergency on the airport".

A full blown ground emergency was declared by the tower after TK1951 failed to reach the airport. This halted all air traffic on the ground, clearing the airport grounds [including runways, taxiways, ramps etc] for rescue workers. Also a ton of outside rescue workers were called to the crash site.

PW100

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Petertenthije
Posted 2009-02-28 06:20:41 and read 35690 times.



Quoting Deaphen (Reply 103):
From the ATC tapes, it is clear that the controllers knew of the problem (probably not of the severity) but the moment they said "we have a big big problem" and "i think we have lost and aircraft" i think we can be sure an emergency was declared.

First call to the emergency services was made at 10:31:33. Note that this was the call made to the external services. Schiphol´s own fire department was probably informed earlier, but I don´t have a time for that.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Vfw614
Posted 2009-02-28 06:22:44 and read 35622 times.

I am sure it has been mentioned somewhere explicity - was the aircraft in clouds until it entered the stall?

Quoting BuyantUkhaa (Reply 23):
Assuming the death toll won't rise (let's hope so!), there won't be any funerals in the Netherlands, as none of the deceased are Dutch. Bad luck for Westboro.

I suppose those nuts will be mainly pestering the funerals of the US citizens (as they chose to fly with a non-Christian airline to a gay-friendly destination....)

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Winterapfel
Posted 2009-02-28 06:36:39 and read 35475 times.



Quoting PW100 (Reply 111):

No emergency was declared by the cockpit crew; it is not on public ATC tapes.

isn't it true that we're still missing a time slot here in which an emergency could have been declared?

If I understand correctly we have
- the TK plane on approach, this recording ends when the plane has to contact another AT controler on a new frequency (some minutes before the crash)
- We have this controller just after the crash (when the plane is missing)

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: LTBEWR
Posted 2009-02-28 06:37:30 and read 35531 times.



Quoting Spitfire (Reply 87):
Have a look here guys, very interesting figures and simulation :

It seems from the above data and its simulation graphics, the approach seems to be ok until just after the final turn. The a/c seems to align itself very close to centerline for the runway and then just drops off rather suddenly. The speed also seems to be decling at a higher rate that it shoud be on final approach from that drop off point. I would add that somehow this aircraft although it landed hard, did land relatiely flat, perhaps not unlike the US flight that landed into the Hudson River in NYC so there must have been some sense of control.

This brings up a series of questions that may only be determined by the black boxes including the voice recorder, especially as sadly all in the cockpit died. As this was an a/c built within the last few years they will probably have considerable amounts of valuable information as to what happened in those last few minutes of this flight.

While 9-10 people were killed, it is a small number and isolated mainly at the front of the a/c, 120 or so did live, although some with serious injuries, so truly a miricle occured at AMS as well.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Vfw614
Posted 2009-02-28 06:42:32 and read 35510 times.

Well, it looks as if the Turkish media have begun looking for a non-Turkish scapegoat. I have seen quotes in the German media from Turkish media with the TALPA blaming Dutch ATC for not having warned the pilots about wake turbulence, someone else blaming the rescue forces for being late on the scene and thus being responsible for some of the deaths etc.....

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Logos
Posted 2009-02-28 06:50:33 and read 35375 times.



Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 65):
- Any religious group that does not promote acceptance of lifestyles other than its own.

Let me see if I have this straight. You won't accept those who won't accept? You wish to impose your values on them? Does that not seem a tad hypocritical?

Cheers,
Dave in Orlando

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: PW100
Posted 2009-02-28 07:01:13 and read 35289 times.



Quoting Winterapfel (Reply 114):
isn't it true that we're still missing a time slot here in which an emergency could have been declared?

If I understand correctly we have
- the TK plane on approach, this recording ends when the plane has to contact another AT controler on a new frequency (some minutes before the crash)
- We have this controller just after the crash (when the plane is missing)

I am not sure if all ATC communication was captured by the live stream recording. But I am quite positive that if the crew had declared an emergency that more people than only ATC would have heard that, at least other traffic on the same frequency.

I don't understand why 1) ATC would not make public than an emergency was declared, and 2) why nobody else has spoken about this. Several [Dutch] cockpit crew, inlcuding pilots who were in the air with TK1951 have been on TV in several late night shows and news shows, and none of them mentioned that Turkish had declared an emergency. Off course there is always the pssibility that they were on a different frequency. On what frequency would an emeregency be declared? Tower, Approach or 121.500?

PW100

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Max777geek
Posted 2009-02-28 07:18:43 and read 35121 times.



Quoting Yendig (Reply 106):

As to why, how about a normal approach suddenly being affected by birds in the area? Not an actual bird strike, but could the pilots have pitched up too far to prevent a strike from occurring? The speed bled away and, unfortunately, we all know what happened afterwards.

As you can see from the second chart, the horizontal situation shows that the ac was already below the glide slope, slightly after 9.24.30. At the same time, speed was fine. If speed loss is been a conseguence to try to avoid a birds storm, they would be eventually be above the glideslope, in your theory, not below.. Assuming your theory maybe correct and that happened before the indicated time crossing the glideslope, that still doesn't answer the question why didn't they recover as speed was getting down and they were below of the glideslope, leading to a fatal stall.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Severnaya
Posted 2009-02-28 07:19:20 and read 35097 times.

Polderbaan is due to reopen on sunday evening according to the mayor of Haarlemmermeer.

http://www.nu.nl/algemeen/1925051/om...hol-zijn-bang-voor-veiligheid.html (sorry only dutch)

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Gonzalo
Posted 2009-02-28 07:28:30 and read 34987 times.



Quoting Metroliner (Reply 69):
I think some of the speculation is beginning to border on the wacky!

I agree with you on that.

Quoting Metroliner (Reply 69):
I haven't seen any suggestions of a failure of the airspeed indicator - though this to me would seem a possibility, like the 757 crash in Colombia in the 90s

Are you talking about the AA bound to Cali ? That one crashed for a NAV error, the PIC enter a wrong navaid, an the aircraft made a turn to the mountains instead the valley in the dark of the night...nothing to do with aispeed indicators. Now if you are talking about the Birgenair case, another 757, the failure was consequence of a wasp species making the nest in the pitot tube ( the aircraft was parked two weeks before the flight without pitot protectors ). That crash occurred shortly after take off. In the TK 738 case, they crashed shortly before landing. The only reason a pitot could be blocked in this case is ice, but AFAIK there were not a single report of icing conditions for this flight until now.

Quoting Airbuseric (Reply 92):
I didn't read completely all the 6 parts on this topic

I did, and there are several passengers saying they heard the engines spooling up to max power, so i doubt your theory can be compatible with that. Sorry
 Smile

Saludos
G.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: CityhopperNL
Posted 2009-02-28 07:30:31 and read 35038 times.

Past few days I've been reading all posts in all parts of the discussion here about this terrible accident, and today I couldn't resist the temptation of joining a.net anymore, I hope you guys don't mind me entering the topic. I would imagine that in the rest of the world the news of this crash has faded away a little bit, but still plenty of attention for it on the Dutch national TV.

Quoting Gorgos (Reply 78):
I fail to understand how news agencies and government officials are able to report these 'scoops' when all the info and investigations are being carried out in Holland.



Quoting Vfw614 (Reply 116):
Well, it looks as if the Turkish media have begun looking for a non-Turkish scapegoat. I have seen quotes in the German media from Turkish media with the TALPA blaming Dutch ATC for not having warned the pilots about wake turbulence,

I agree with you, although you must not forget that there is a big difference in culture between Turkey and countries like the US or the Netherlands. Shortly after the crash, I think every citizen in our country was amazed by the fact that officials in Turkey were saying that everybody survived the crash, whereas Dutch rescue workers had only just arrived at the scene. The people in Turkey are so proud of their national airline, and of their pilots, that they are sort of inclined towards excluding all possibilities that put any blame on the airline or the pilots. This results in things like saying that it "probably was wake turbulence", which is not very nice of them, because it implicitly points a finger at the air traffic controllers at Amsterdam while there is no evidence that they have anything to do with it. Also the claim that rescue workers arrived too late (but as said - maybe that one was taken out of context) makes no sense because passengers have shown their appreciation for the extremely quick arrival of medical help (in the videos that were made at the crash scene minutes after impact, one can already hear the first sirens).

I'm not Turkish, but I visited Turkey 3 weeks ago and returned on the same flight as the one that went down. I already talked to some turkish friends of mine, and what they said about the crash was very much consistent with the above: They said they considered the pilots as heroes for saving so many lives etcetera. For us Western european people, this all sounds very premature; we wouldn't dare to draw conclusions before the official investigation has come to an end. All I'm saying that in Southern countries, people tend to be so temperamentful and passionate about certain things, that it might be hard for them to maintain objectivity. I think we should bear this in mind whenever we read anything from a Turkish source, and for sure we shouldn't judge them too hard on this.

Quoting F4f3a (Reply 68):
Just thought id say theres a lot of rubbish coming out in the news. esp in the english newspapers. referring to the engines stalling and problems with the master caution. Complete rubbish. I hope there other stories are more reliable on other subjects



Quoting Airbuseric (Reply 92):
Let's presume that TC-JGE flew into a flock of birds and the plane suffered also birdstrike in both engines. Engines stopped to operate now.

Now then, I want to make some remarks about the engine failure theory. During the past 2 days at least a handful of Dutch people that were in the plane have told their story. Of course, if you don't live in Holland it's likely that you don't hear about what they said. Yesterday for example, 2 of the passengers were interviewed at a show named P&W, and both of them described how the plane fell down and that they clearly noted the pilot pitching up the nose for something that appeared to be a "go around". The same guy is telling his story here again, and from 7 min 15 secs onwards he is saying that the pilot appeared to apply full throttle and that the engines made loud noise:

http://www.hartvannederland.nl/item/...4/Henk_Heijloo_overleeft_vliegramp

Another guy that was at the show yesterday was asked if the heard the pilot spooling up the engines before the crash and his answer was "Absolutely." For me the most convincing statement is another one from a man named Rob de Knegt, who survived another plane accident in Turkey two weeks earlier:

http://www.nu.nl/vliegramp-schiphol/...-rampvluchten-binnen-een-week.html

Especially these parts are interesting:

De Dordtenaar heeft er geen problemen mee over de ramp te praten. "Dat de motoren van het vliegtuig het niet meer deden, is onzin'', vertelt de zakenman vrijdag. /// "Ineens zakten we. Alsof we in een luchtzak waren geraakt'', herinnert De Knecht zich.
"De piloot gaf vol gas. We hoorden de motoren op volle kracht draaien. Vervolgens begon het hele toestel te trillen.

Translation:
The Dordrecht resident has no problems talking about the crash. "The claim that the engines of the airplane did no longer function, is nonsense", says the businessman on Friday. /// "Suddenly we descended rapidly. As if we hit a wake in the air", says De Knecht. "The pilot applied full throttle. We heard the engines roar at full power. After that the engine started shaking."

I know that you should never trust a single eye witness report, but all of the passengers seem to be saying the same thing. The "full throttle" reports are so consistent and the people are so self confident that it might be safe to say that a total failure of both engines (as a result of bird strike, failing fuel supply or fuel starvation) can be ruled out as a cause of the crash. The only thing I can think of, although very very very unlikely, is that there was a temporary disruption of the flow of fuel to the engines while they were on final, which disappeared again when full throttle was applied. I don't know what you guys think, but to me that is the only 'technical engine related' possibility, but at the same time it's almost too crazy to be seriously considered. To be honest, I think we should let go of the possibility of a (temporary or permanent) engine malfunction, and look at other options instead.

[Edited 2009-02-28 07:41:59]

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Mir
Posted 2009-02-28 07:30:34 and read 34993 times.



Quoting Winterapfel (Reply 108):
If case the glide slope warning indeed has chimed: wouldn't the crew have realized their speed varying and decreasing?

If the glideslope warning goes off, the first instinct should be to pitch up to get back on the glideslope. This should be accompanied by increasing the power as necessary to maintain speed. If they weren't paying attention to their speed in the first place (which we don't know yet), pitching up could have made the problem worse.

Quoting PW100 (Reply 118):
On what frequency would an emeregency be declared? Tower, Approach or 121.500?

On whatever frequency the airplane was talking on at the time. 121.50 should only be used when you don't know who to call. Declaring directly to ATC will get you help much faster.

-Mir

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Kaitak
Posted 2009-02-28 07:40:45 and read 35015 times.

There's an interesting - albeit rather disturbing - issue being raised in PPRUNE, to the effect that the Dutch state prosecutor's office is demanding access to the recorders, to determine whether a prosecution should be instituted. This is obviously of concern, for a number of reasons:

- General speaking, criminal prosecutors don't have a huge amount of knowledge of the technical aspects of flying a plane, or interpreting data
- This has the potential to usurp the role of the accident investigators, whose approach is diametrically opposite, in that they are NOT in the business of apportioning blame;
- People will be far less forthcoming in investigation if there is a potential for criminal liability - again, contrary to the interests of air safety.

I don't know a huge amount about Dutch law, but I'm also wondering if there is even the potential for accident investigators to be prosecuted if they protested the criminal prosecution.

I hope this can be resolved quickly; this is the last thing an aircraft accident investigation needs.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Airbuseric
Posted 2009-02-28 07:41:12 and read 34942 times.



Quoting PW100 (Reply 118):
Several [Dutch] cockpit crew, inlcuding pilots who were in the air with TK1951 have been on TV in several late night shows and news shows, and none of them mentioned that Turkish had declared an emergency. Off course there is always the pssibility that they were on a different frequency. On what frequency would an emeregency be declared? Tower, Approach or 121.500?

As I said before, no emergency was declared by TK1951.
TK1951 succesfully transferred from ATC approach to ATC Tower (118.27). The order to change frequency is the last moment that we can hear the TK crew on the now public transmissions.
Although a Dutch ATC controller confirmed meanwhile that TK1951 transmitted on 118.27 and got a 'cleared to land 18R' and TK1951 did a successfull readback of this. So it seems that the crew was not aware of any problem at this time.
btw, although graphics above show that the aircraft is all the way below the glideslope, such things would also be noted by ATC and they should have informed them about their flightlevels.
I doubt if above data is correct.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Vfw614
Posted 2009-02-28 07:45:10 and read 35022 times.



Quoting Severnaya (Reply 120):
Polderbaan is due to reopen on sunday evening according to the mayor of Haarlemmermeer.

One of the things I have been wondering about is why this mayor plays such a prominent role in the media. Apparently the aircraft crashed at his place, but why is he heading press conferences at the airports, announces the re-opening of the runway etc.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Airbuseric
Posted 2009-02-28 07:45:30 and read 35088 times.



Quoting Kaitak (Reply 124):
I don't know a huge amount about Dutch law, but I'm also wondering if there is even the potential for accident investigators to be prosecuted if they protested the criminal prosecution.

I hope this can be resolved quickly; this is the last thing an aircraft accident investigation needs.

The leader of the crash investigation, Mr. P. Van Vollenhoven, have said that nobody else then his team will see the conclusions from the recovery of the DFDR and CVR.
He stated that it is only possible for prosecutors offices to get hands on these materials in case of hijacking, terrorism, etc.
The prosecutors office will not get the data from the aircraft, as this is forbidden by international aviation laws.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Airbuseric
Posted 2009-02-28 07:48:32 and read 34966 times.



Quoting Vfw614 (Reply 126):
One of the things I have been wondering about is why this mayor plays such a prominent role in the media. Apparently the aircraft crashed at his place, but why is he heading press conferences at the airports, announces the re-opening of the runway etc.

The airport is under responsibility of the local government of the Haarlemmermeer, therefore the mayor of Haarlemmermeer is playing his role, and he does is quite good in my opinion.

Today is stated by him, that everybody going to the scene to watch the wreckage and investigation team, can look out for a penalty of EUR 250,- by Dutch police officers.
So be aware of that, for those people who wants to take a look.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Max777geek
Posted 2009-02-28 07:54:12 and read 34914 times.



Quoting Mir (Reply 123):
If the glideslope warning goes off, the first instinct should be to pitch up to get back on the glideslope. This should be accompanied by increasing the power as necessary to maintain speed.

You don't gain height by pulling up, you gain height by *speeding* up. Increasing speed is necessary to gain height. When you have powerlift, you can pull up, not before.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Spitfire
Posted 2009-02-28 08:11:18 and read 34752 times.

Quoting Winterapfel (Reply 108):
Could the data on openatc.com be based on 1013 hPa, while the air pressure at the time of the crash was 1027 hPa. The difference (14 hPa time 27 foot per hPa = 378 foot) should be added to the height of the plain

That's right... so when we see an altitude of 1625 ft, the a/c was level at the correct intercepting altitude for the ILS 18R, which is 2000 ft QNH (1635+378 = 2013 ...).

It seems also that the heading given by the Approach Control to intecept the 18R ILS ( heading 210, clear ILS 18R...) was a little bit tiny, knowning that the wind was from 220 at 11 kts (on the ground). It seems that the aircraft intercept the glide before being established on the localizer around 09:24:08 1635 ft (= 2000ft) Vertical speed -128 ft/min speed 159 kts track 201.

At 09:24:23 (almost centered on the localizer) 1525ft (=1900ft) with a speed of 151 kts they had a vertical speed of -704 ft/min which is too low (it should have been 800 ft/min). So becoming high on the glide... Track 191° (not yet 184°, the localizer track, but very close).

At 09:24:38 at 1200 ft (=1575 ft) rate of descent of 1344 ft/min and speed increased up to 159 kts.

From there the speed bleed regulary ...Seems the engines where put in idle in order to regain the glide slope and to maintain the normal flaps/speed schedule.

At 09:24:53 875 ft (=1250 ft) V/S -1216 ft/min speed 148 kts track 185°

At 09:25:08 600 ft (= 975ft) V/S -896 ft/min speed 145 kts track 184° (V/S still a little bit high, should have been around 770 ft/min).

At 09:25:23 425 ft (= 800 ft) V/S -704 ft/min speed 129 kts (seems to be the correct speed and V/S )

At 09:25:38 250 ft (= 625 ft) V/S -640 ft/min speed 117 (also correct speed and V/S, but seems a little bit too slow to me...but I can't say more as I don't have the Vref ).
The rwy should have been insight at that moment as the ceiling was at 700 feet (OVC 700 in the Metar).

From there everything went wrong :

AT 09:25:53 75 feet (= 450 ft) V/S -576 Speed 86 kts

At 09:26:08 -200 ft (= 175 ft) V/S -4096 Speed 83 kts.......


Did they let the throttles in idle during all that time ? I don't know. We will discover that in the FDR readings.

[Edited 2009-02-28 08:13:59]

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Mir
Posted 2009-02-28 08:17:53 and read 34702 times.



Quoting Max777geek (Reply 129):
You don't gain height by pulling up, you gain height by *speeding* up. Increasing speed is necessary to gain height. When you have powerlift, you can pull up, not before.

Normally you are correct - pitch for airspeed and power for altitude. It works the other way on an ILS though - pitch for altitude and power for airspeed (though the two often work in conjunction).

-Mir

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: 757GB
Posted 2009-02-28 08:29:41 and read 34542 times.



Quoting CityhopperNL (Reply 122):

Thanks for the insightful post CityhopperNL. I'm glad you decide to join. Welcome aboard  Smile
(I joined a short time ago myself after years of reading).

The point you make regarding culture is very valid I think.
I found the accounts of Dutch passengers very interesting, and though we agree that witness accounts are not always reliable, I also find a remarkable consistency.

So if we speculate based on that, and we don't take into consideration engine failure, what I would like to know is if indeed they were slow as has been reported. The reasons for being so slow would be a crucial factor. Wake turbulence seems to be discarded by many, though it's hard to rule it out, and if we combine it with low speed it might prove a fatal combination.

We are slowly ruling out options, though this one for sure is a head scratcher.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: NCB
Posted 2009-02-28 08:46:33 and read 34341 times.



Quoting PW100 (Reply 118):
I am not sure if all ATC communication was captured by the live stream recording. But I am quite positive that if the crew had declared an emergency that more people than only ATC would have heard that, at least other traffic on the same frequency.

I don't understand why 1) ATC would not make public than an emergency was declared, and 2) why nobody else has spoken about this. Several [Dutch] cockpit crew, inlcuding pilots who were in the air with TK1951 have been on TV in several late night shows and news shows, and none of them mentioned that Turkish had declared an emergency. Off course there is always the pssibility that they were on a different frequency. On what frequency would an emeregency be declared? Tower, Approach or 121.500?

Emergency would be declared on the frequency you are talking to ATC on and if not able to reach, 121.50. In this case it would have been Tower. Unfortunately, there is no Tower Feed available on liveatc.net, so we don't know whether they ever made it to Tower frequency.
THY was asked to go on tower frequency at 9:24:18Z. JAT 262 was asked to go on Tower at 9:26:03Z and at 9:27:00Z to go around (I don't know how that got on the APP feed? We don't hear JAT262 contacting the tower nor getting a landing clearance...)
Aircraft that were behind can have no idea if THY ever Maydayed the tower, only the CVR, the ATC recording of the tower and other aircraft that were on the same tower frequency (118.27) at that moment can tell.

Supposing THY never made it to tower, ATC was already aware of a problem with THY an aircraft at 9:27:00. From there the tower atco must identify the aircraft that's missing, take his binoculars and try to find any signs of smoke in the surrounding of the approach path, report the problem to AFRS.

In absence of smoke, and in low visibility, binoculars were probably not effective at finding the aircraft.

At least 5 minutes should have taken from that moment for any rescue vehicle to reach the area, another 3 minutes to find the crash site.

All in all, the best the EHAM crew could have done is being there within 10 minutes of the crash.

That said, a witness who has stopped on a road and run out to the passenger's rescue said that it took about 20 minutes for the rescues to arrive. About the same as it would take in a car accident event. He said that one of the F/O's was alive when he arrived but that he was breathing very loudly and with difficulty.

40 minutes is probably a vast exageration. Turkey is hurt by the crash, but the Turkish Pilot's Association is putting unnnecessary blame and pressure on the Dutch side.
That is arrogant.

The aircraft crash-landed in a horizontal attitude and passengers did not report any disturbing turbulence. Wake turbulence can therefore be ruled out at this point.

Icing, crew incapacitation, temporary fuel flow disruption or hardware malfunction (as is starting to be presumed in the NZ A320 crash)?

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Gorgos
Posted 2009-02-28 08:50:13 and read 34348 times.



Quoting CityhopperNL (Reply 122):

Yes, its one thing to have sympathy and compassion for the fate of those poor pilots, it is another thing to rule out any sort of unintentional pilot error and make it a tabboo to discuss.

Im not saying it was, Im just not saying it wasnt.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: EMA747
Posted 2009-02-28 08:59:40 and read 34265 times.



Quoting NCB (Reply 133):
He said that one of the F/O's was alive when he arrived but that he was breathing very loudly and with difficulty.

I assume from all that I have read on here that there is no way to enter the cockpit of the 737 from the outside other than through the cockpit door? Is there no window or something that can be opened by rescue crews from the outside. Doesn't the 747 have a hatch in the cockpit roof that can be opened from the outside?
It's not nice to think the F/O might have died due to an armored door that could not be opened by fire crews.  Sad

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: ZANL188
Posted 2009-02-28 09:07:29 and read 34319 times.



Quoting EMA747 (Reply 135):
Is there no window or something that can be opened by rescue crews from the outside.

There is an escape window on both sides of the cockpit. IMHO from pix I have seen the mechanism for the windows was probably disrupted sufficiently that fire/rescue could not open the windows. My guess is they focused on getting survivors out first then went to work on those trapped.

A rescue circular saw would make short work of the fuselage, let alone the cockpit door.

The window with the light shining thru here is the escape window....


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Daan Krans

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Reality
Posted 2009-02-28 09:08:24 and read 34142 times.



Quoting CityhopperNL (Reply 122):
The people in Turkey are so proud of their national airline, and of their pilots, that they are sort of inclined towards excluding all possibilities that put any blame on the airline or the pilots. This results in things like saying that it "probably was wake turbulence", which is not very nice of them, because it implicitly points a finger at the air traffic controllers at Amsterdam while there is no evidence that they have anything to do with it.



Quoting CityhopperNL (Reply 122):
All I'm saying that in Southern countries, people tend to be so temperamentful and passionate about certain things, that it might be hard for them to maintain objectivity.

No doubt there are big cultural differences between countries and your point is well taken, though the people of Turkey may not agree with your characterization of them. And then it may be that the people of Holland have there own biases and prejudices which may make it harder for them to consider air traffic control problems, etc.

Objectivity may be difficult to maintain regardless of our country of origin.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Airbuseric
Posted 2009-02-28 09:17:17 and read 34086 times.



Quoting NCB (Reply 133):
Unfortunately, there is no Tower Feed available on liveatc.net, so we don't know whether they ever made it to Tower frequency.

As I said twice before, yes, TK 1951 made it on 118.27 frequency (tower).
Yes, TK1951 got 'cleared to land' and this was read back by the crew.

You presume that this is not known because liveatc.net cannot provide you with this 118.27 stream. But Dutch ATC controllers already stated that they had contact with tower and got their cleared to land. liveatc.net is not a source in the investigation, but can be used by us 'the public'.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: NCB
Posted 2009-02-28 09:37:48 and read 33923 times.



Quoting CityhopperNL (Reply 122):
I know that you should never trust a single eye witness report, but all of the passengers seem to be saying the same thing. The "full throttle" reports are so consistent and the people are so self confident that it might be safe to say that a total failure of both engines (as a result of bird strike, failing fuel supply or fuel starvation) can be ruled out as a cause of the crash. The only thing I can think of, although very very very unlikely, is that there was a temporary disruption of the flow of fuel to the engines while they were on final, which disappeared again when full throttle was applied. I don't know what you guys think, but to me that is the only 'technical engine related' possibility, but at the same time it's almost too crazy to be seriously considered. To be honest, I think we should let go of the possibility of a (temporary or permanent) engine malfunction, and look at other options instead.

I must agree with this analysis.

I want to add something: the whitness said that the engines started shaking.
This is likely because the aircraft was outside its flight envelope (stalled). Engines are not designed to operate outside the flight envelope.
Applying full thrust in one motion during take-off on a day with a crosswind can stall the compressors, hence manufacturer recommendations for applying engine thrust in 2 or 3 motions on many engine designs in crosswind conditions.
Applying full thrust in one motion on a stalled aircraft provides the same result, a compressor stall or near stall, the engine starts to shake violently.

If that is what happened, crew member incapacitation comes on top of the list since power would have been applied only after the aircraft was already outside its flight envelope.

As I said in thread 5, Turkish captains have the tendency of taking the "I'm god" attitude in the cockpit. Many wouldn't even let F/O's land. This is not a rumour but hard reality that the Turkish pilots on this website will confirm.

New F/O's trained in that environment become reluctant to informing their captain of unusual configuration and setting, even more so if the captain is a veteran with military background and your training captain.
In those circumstances the F/O would be reluctant to say "captain, your airspeed is low" let alone taking over and going around until some kind of warning bell (sink rate, glideslope or the stick shaker) confirmed his doubts.
At idle power, on the extreme left side of the drag curve, the time between the airspeed departing Vref and the stick-shaker could be less than 10 seconds.
Things can go south when the captain is incapacited and the F/O doesn't realise it in time.

Another very plausible explanation in this same line is that they may have inadvertently disengaged the A/T in a CAT 3 approach, resulting in the same circumstances as TNT Airways flight in East Midlands (B733 as opposed to B738), with the aircraft departing the glideslope. You can read details here: http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20060615-0
That could then be qualified as pilot error, which obviously is one of the possibilities as well.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Winterapfel
Posted 2009-02-28 09:59:16 and read 33583 times.



Quoting Airbuseric (Reply 138):
Dutch ATC controllers already stated that they had contact with tower and got their cleared to land

Hi Airbuseric,

Thanks for including the source of your statement. I had missed that the first time. Just to be sure (on can not be sure enough will all the rumors and also misunderstandings): Do you know whether any other comments nhave been made by ATC controllers on possible other radio contact between the aircraft and ATC.

I'm asking since being in contact with tower and having your cleared to land, doesn't explicitly mean that they didn't have any other contact.

Not that is actually matters that much, it doesn't help us much further....

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Spitfire
Posted 2009-02-28 10:11:39 and read 33472 times.



Quoting NCB (Reply 139):
Another very plausible explanation in this same line is that they may have inadvertently disengaged the A/T in a CAT 3 approach, resulting in the same circumstances as TNT Airways flight in East Midlands (B733 as opposed to B738), with the aircraft departing the glideslope. You can read details here: http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20060615-0
That could then be qualified as pilot error, which obviously is one of the possibilities as well.

The weather conditions didn't required a Cat III approach. We have a Cat I weather, so the ILS can be flown manualy, no auto throttle and even raw data....

If this was a line training flight, perfect conditions for the "student" to handle the jet manualy.

But... something happened...what??? Not yet known.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Airbuseric
Posted 2009-02-28 10:28:07 and read 33303 times.



Quoting Winterapfel (Reply 140):
Do you know whether any other comments nhave been made by ATC controllers on possible other radio contact between the aircraft and ATC.

No problems with the aircraft, their flying situation, or crewmembers have been reported as far is known to the public at this moment. The readback of their cleared to land was the last transmission of TK1951, using 118.27 frequency.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: NCB
Posted 2009-02-28 10:38:29 and read 33203 times.



Quoting Spitfire (Reply 141):
The weather conditions didn't required a Cat III approach. We have a Cat I weather, so the ILS can be flown manualy, no auto throttle and even raw data....

If this was a line training flight, perfect conditions for the "student" to handle the jet manualy.

But... something happened...what??? Not yet known.

METAR EHAM 250925Z 20010KT 4500 BR SCT007 BKN008 OVC010 04/03

A cloud base at 800ft AGL is indeed CAT I weather, but who knows maybe they were doing a CAT IIIA as part of the line traininig, it's very possible.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Severnaya
Posted 2009-02-28 10:40:20 and read 33204 times.



Quoting Vfw614 (Reply 126):
why is he heading press conferences at the airports, announces the re-opening of the runway etc.

That was not at the airport, he announced the re-opening as a sidenote. Keypoint of today's gathering was that the people living nearby the polderbaan feel less safe and so, but on the other hand they want to take pressure of the Zwanenburgbaan (18C/36C), which is now handling more traffic. See the source for more info.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Spitfire
Posted 2009-02-28 10:55:21 and read 33067 times.



Quoting NCB (Reply 143):
A cloud base at 800ft AGL is indeed CAT I weather, but who knows maybe they were doing a CAT IIIA as part of the line traininig, it's very possible.

Sorry NCB but the answer is clearly No , as for any cat III approaches there must be a lot of different actions taken on the ground in order to minimize the risk of LOC and/or GS disturbances.

CAT III approaches to check the a/c equipment (in the air) are conducted with perfect weather (let's say CAVOK) not with 800' and 3500m.

Well for me, that were perfect conditions to make a manual approach as training. The 'student' would not see anything till 700 feet , wind relativly 'calm'(11 kts), 40° with the rwy and a visibility of 3500 m.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: OA260
Posted 2009-02-28 11:16:42 and read 33101 times.

The Turkish Airlines Boeing 737-800 that crashed in Amsterdam killing nine people had been repaired for a malfunction two days before.

The airline has admitted that the passenger jet had been grounded for repairs on Feb 23 after the crew detected a problem with the "Master Caution Light" just before take off.

The Istanbul-based air carrier said the fault was corrected and the plane had subsequently made eight flights without any problems.

Meanwhile, the chief investigator has admitted that engine trouble may have caused the crash.

The aircraft also underwent routine maintenance on Feb 19 and a part on the aircraft's left wing was replaced on Oct 28 2008.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ionalities-of-dead-identified.html

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Metroliner
Posted 2009-02-28 11:45:11 and read 32643 times.



Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 121):
Now if you are talking about the Birgenair case, another 757

Hi Gonzalo, yes, I was thinking of this particular incident but also another, one where the issue of sabotage came into play with regard to the pitot static system.

My meaning was that to me, it seems more likely that there was some sort of failure of the pitot system (icing isn't impossible if the pitot heats were off - though why would that be the case?) which the pilots only realised when they recognised the stall.

Low visibility would have made it harder to see the stall coming or recognise it due to a lack of a visual horizon and would account for the 'too-late' reaction of firewalling the engines perceived by that Dordrecht resident in the above account.

Birdstrikes, fuel starvation, crew incapacitation all seem unlikely. I can conceive of possibly the latter being a compounding factor.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: NCB
Posted 2009-02-28 12:23:57 and read 32336 times.

Quoting Spitfire (Reply 145):
CAT III approaches to check the a/c equipment (in the air) are conducted with perfect weather (let's say CAVOK) not with 800' and 3500m.

Note I mentionned line training of the F/O not equipment testing as you seem to have misunderstood.

Sure, they could have been training CAT I as well.

But in that case the A/T disengagement theory falls away and would make it look like a very blunt mistake on the part of the crew. Even if green F/O was flying, he was already made familiar with the type through type-rating and he had a highly experienced captain sitting next to him and an experienced F/O sitting behind him, which makes a CFIT a bit unlikely. With a cloud base of 800ft they must also have been able to realise that something was wrong long before it was too late....

In manual flying, airspeed is the last thing you would forget to check... not so much if flying with A/T engaged.

[Edited 2009-02-28 12:26:02]

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Spitfire
Posted 2009-02-28 12:46:29 and read 32123 times.

Quoting NCB (Reply 148):
But in that case the A/T disengagement theory falls away and would make it look like a very blunt mistake on the part of the crew. Even if green F/O was flying, he was already made familiar with the type through type-rating and he had a highly experienced captain sitting next to him and an experienced F/O sitting behind him, which makes a CFIT a bit unlikely. With a cloud base of 800ft they must also have been able to realise that something was wrong long before it was too late....

In manual flying, airspeed is the last thing you would forget to check... not so much if flying with A/T engaged.

I totaly agree with you NCB, that's why we have to wait till more reliable informations are available.

And I thought about something else concerning my previous answer : a newly qualified F/O, and Captain as well, will never make Cat III approaches nor even Cat II before at least 6 month on the a/c. and this after some simulators hours and theoretical courses.

[Edited 2009-02-28 12:49:07]

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2009-02-28 13:09:12 and read 31955 times.



Quoting Kaitak (Reply 124):
- This has the potential to usurp the role of the accident investigators, whose approach is diametrically opposite, in that they are NOT in the business of apportioning blame;

Why should this be different from what frequently happens following serious motor vehicle accidents, where charges are often laid before the investigation is complete? Obviously they should have sufficient evidence before taking such action. And I'm sure the presumption of innocence until proven guilty exists in Dutch law.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: EMA747
Posted 2009-02-28 13:10:26 and read 32007 times.



Quoting NCB (Reply 148):
which makes a CFIT a bit unlikely.

What does CFIT mean?

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: SXI899
Posted 2009-02-28 13:15:19 and read 32051 times.

Avherald has updated their article on this accident saying the Dutch Safety Board has reported that the CVR and DFDR have been read out already, and that initial evidence suggests that both engines failed before impact.

Anyone else heard the same info? I've been following the news here, and there's been no mention of this on either the internet sites or Dutch TV, where it is mentioned that the both recorders are currently being read out in Paris by the BEA, and that the first information is expected next week at the earliest. The report of the dual engine failure also seems strange considering the large number of eye-witness accounts that would indicate that the engines were functioning up until the moment of impact.

Yorden

[Edited 2009-02-28 13:21:41]

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: By188b
Posted 2009-02-28 13:19:03 and read 31895 times.



Quoting EMA747 (Reply 151):
What does CFIT mean?

CFIT = controlled flight into terrain

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: TheSonntag
Posted 2009-02-28 13:20:55 and read 31909 times.



Quoting EMA747 (Reply 151):
What does CFIT mean?

Controlled Flight into Terrain. That is a common term for accidents where the flight crew made a mistake by crashing the aircrafft into terrain without technical reasons...

There can be CFIT with engine problems, as well, for example when the flight crew "forgets" to fly the airplane, trying to sort out a problem and not watching where they go, though

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: EMA747
Posted 2009-02-28 13:36:11 and read 31701 times.

I have heard of Controlled Fligh into Terrain but not the term CFIT so thanks for enlightening me guys.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Sudden
Posted 2009-02-28 13:46:49 and read 31668 times.



Quoting PW100 (Reply 111):
A full blown ground emergency was declared by the tower after TK1951 failed to reach the airport. This halted all air traffic on the ground, clearing the airport grounds [including runways, taxiways, ramps etc] for rescue workers. Also a ton of outside rescue workers were called to the crash site.

It's also possible to hear on the post-crash ATC tape that no aircraft were to be pushed/taxi or whatever just a few minutes after TK1951 went down. They even told an aircraft on approach to change their heading due to a most likely loss of an A/C.

Aim for the sky!
Sudden

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Gonzalo
Posted 2009-02-28 13:57:30 and read 31542 times.



Quoting Metroliner (Reply 147):
Hi Gonzalo, yes, I was thinking of this particular incident but also another, one where the issue of sabotage came into play with regard to the pitot static system.

Hi !! Mmmm i'm sorry but you lost me.... There's no "pitot static system"....could be a static port or a pitot tube, two different things. Now, regarding the TK accident near EHAM, i think is different to the accidents of 757's you are referring to. In the 90's there were three major accidents of 757 in this part of the world :

- AA flying to Cali, that one crashed due to a NAV error from the PIC ( Technically was a CFIT, the aircraft was perfectly fine but they made a wrong turn direct into high terrain.)

-Birgenair 301, the one with the pitot tube obstructed by wasps. The crash occurred shortly after take off after pilots were unable to read or understand contradictory warnings from their instrumens. The TK flight made all the flight from IST to AMS without reporting failures in any instrument.

-Aeroperu 603, in this case, the static ports remained covered by a protective tape ( not sabotage ), and that was the cause of, like in the Birgenair case, the pilots can't understand their instruments and warnings and crashed in the middle of the night, over the water, with zero visual reference. The TK pilots had much better visual conditions at the moment of the crash.

The only thing clear to me in this TK 1951 accident, is this : It was a weird crash, and we have to wait a good time for knowing the real causes.

Saludos
G.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Part147
Posted 2009-02-28 14:15:20 and read 31399 times.



Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 157):


Quoting Metroliner (Reply 147):
Hi Gonzalo, yes, I was thinking of this particular incident but also another, one where the issue of sabotage came into play with regard to the pitot static system.

Hi !! Mmmm i'm sorry but you lost me.... There's no "pitot static system"....could be a static port or a pitot tube, two different things.

Really!!! If you click the image tab in google and type in "pitot static system" you'll find hundreds of pictures showing this very system!

It IS called the pitot static system by aviation personnel  Wink

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: CityhopperNL
Posted 2009-02-28 14:16:44 and read 31406 times.



Quoting SXI899 (Reply 152):
Avherald has updated their article on this accident saying the Dutch Safety Board has reported that the CVR and DFDR have been read out already, and that initial evidence suggests that both engines failed before impact.

Just to clear things up; some things have happened here that could cause some confusion in the rest of the world. First of all, there has been a kind of 'battle for power' between the Dutch Safety Board and the Public Prosecutors yesterday. The latter said it is entitled to the results of the readings of the flight recorders. As far as I know, this has clearly been won by the Safety Board; the board has complete autonomy in a situation like this and is the only organization that will get the results, until there is reason to believe that some really bad crimes were committed in that cockpit. The chairman of the Board confirmed this today, saying that there is "one way traffic" in the direction of the Board, and that there was no reason to share anything with the Justice department.

So secondly, maybe it could be true that the black box has already been examined, and maybe because of that the Board knows that there is no reason for a criminal investigation: this assumption could be why AVHerald posted this. But they cannot be sure. And they certainly cannot be sure about the 'initial evidence', because no official information has at this point been released by the Safety Board. Afterall, if they had, I would have noticed it on the Dutch media but clearly no details have been published as of yet.

The "suggests that both engines failed before impact" part might be explained by the fact that Mr. Van Vollenhoven, president of the Safety Board, had a slip of the tongue on the first day after the crash; he said that "it could have been an engine failure". This has been picked up widely by the media all over the world. But really Mr. Van Vollenhoven could not have known anything at that point. On that particular interview that night he did not even know how far from the treshold the plane had crashed, and it has to be said that although he is probably a wise man, Mr Van Vollenhoven is by no means a crash investigation expert and he has very little knowledge about aviation itself. Unlike the NTSB that is completely dedicated to traffic accidents and I guess has a president who is an expert in aviation, Van Vollenhoven is just a political/public figure here in The Netherlands who will be completely dependent on the findings of investigators that work for him (also the Safety Board here is called in at any big emergency in the country, not just plane crashes, so that explains it).

So please keep this in mind and be careful when reading something that was stated the past few days by the Dutch Safety Board. Nothing has been published yet and as far as I know it will be on Wednesday the earliest that we will get some official info.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Md80fanatic
Posted 2009-02-28 14:43:12 and read 31169 times.

Well, a wings-level descent into field short of threshold sort of implies an engine(s) issue doesn't it? The odds of three pilots accidently allowing a perfectly serviceable aircraft to get 40 kts below Vref 1 mile out are astonomical, literally. Provided all are conscious....it just isn't going to happen, ever.

Sadly, it will be distressing yet again for me when this final verdict comes back "pilot error". Of course airlines will be strapped with costly mandatory retrofits to further warn of a super-duper deep stall, and all NG pilots will need to be trained to use the new system, all to deal with an issue that did not actually exist in reality.  irked  But at least we can all feel like we have actually done something to prevent it occurring again.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Mir
Posted 2009-02-28 14:55:27 and read 31044 times.



Quoting Md80fanatic (Reply 160):

You seem to be convinced that the results of the accident report are going to be incorrect. What information do you have that the investigators don't?

-Mir

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Md80fanatic
Posted 2009-02-28 15:19:39 and read 30870 times.

None Mir, just a hunch based on past experience.

We should always be suspicious of anyone claiming expertise in any field. Aviation is not a mystery science, that only the adept can understand. Most people who follow threads like these are logically trying to get to an answer.....but much data released is illogical and does not fit the reality. But because -they- are experts, and we are not.....we tend to subjugate our better sense to their authority, even if it is directly counter to what we know to be true. Physics can not be bent or molded, but it necessarily has to be bent to allow some of these official theories to float at all.

Remember When Winston was asked "how many fingers do I have up"? When Winston told the truth (4) he would be tortured. When he lied and said (5) he was tortured. But when he finally admitted that he did not know how many fingers, and would allow the torturer to decide for him.....the torture stopped. We aren't supposed to be smart enough to understand accidents, we are supposed to commit to memory what we are told by those in the position to know.  redflag 

I have seen some "dirty pool" in aviation accident investigations, and I don't think any government agency ever gets better over time.....only worse. So extrapolate from there if you like.

All they need to do to get my trust back is to stand there and tell me the whole unadulterated truth, no matter what the cost.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Metroliner
Posted 2009-02-28 15:20:06 and read 30856 times.



Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 157):
Aeroperu 603

This is the one I was thinking of. Suggestions of sabotage came about after the subsequent investigation.

Quoting Mir (Reply 161):
-Mir



Quoting Md80fanatic (Reply 160):
sort of implies an engine(s) issue doesn't it? The odds of three pilots accidently allowing a perfectly serviceable aircraft to get 40 kts below Vref 1 mile out are astonomical, literally.

Many things - see my above post for some examples - can happen that will mislead 3 pilots into such a situation. What we call 'pilot error', and use to describe anything pilots do which deviates from SOP - inadvertently, under duress or otherwise - is seldom a prime causal factor.

But a small error + a small error + a small error sometimes does not equal 3 small errors in aviation. It might spell disaster.

(Please excuse the mixed metaphor there.)

I don't know anything that you all don't know - but I would stress that it is highly unlikely that any modern jetliner would crash due to any single factor. We have nothing as yet to confirm that there was anything wrong with the aircraft when it crashed.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Oldtimer
Posted 2009-02-28 15:21:39 and read 30857 times.



Quoting Md80fanatic (Reply 160):
Well, a wings-level descent into field short of threshold sort of implies an engine(s) issue doesn't it? The odds of three pilots accidently allowing a perfectly serviceable aircraft to get 40 kts below Vref 1 mile out are astonomical, literally. Provided all are conscious....it just isn't going to happen, ever.

No it doesn't, if you read through the whole threads, other instances of crews getting behind the power curve have been mentioned. I am not ruling it out either, we just do not know enough yet to blame the crews, the engines, wake turbulence or men from mars. Everybody is guessing, but a lot of people not involved in aviation are making deliberations as though that can be the only reason and everybody else is wrong.

We will, hopefully, have a prelimenary report in the next month, then we will have a better idea.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2009-02-28 15:25:20 and read 30890 times.

Not sure if anyone has mentioned this previously, but one possible scenario that came to mind (however unlikely it may be) was a deranged or suicidal pilot intentionally causing the aircraft to crash. It has happened in the past.

A few incidents come to mind. In the last two I don't think suicide was every proven but evidence indicates that it was a likely cause. The first JL DC-8 incident occurred at a relatively similar stage of the final approach as the TK crash.
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19820209-0
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19991031-0
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19971219-0

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Metroliner
Posted 2009-02-28 15:33:36 and read 30759 times.



Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 165):
suicide

It does seem a little unlikely, given the flight phase. If I were ever to commit suicide in a plane, I'd get it going fast, high, and then make ground fill the windscreen... but during approach?

Granted, you do have at least one precedent. Crew issues cannot be ruled out, but I'd tend towards the incapacitation theory as suggested by someone above if we're going down that route.

Quoting Oldtimer (Reply 164):
getting behind the power curve

I agree. Also in favour: Occam's razor.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Md80fanatic
Posted 2009-02-28 15:36:08 and read 30784 times.

40 knots behind?

c'mon

Alarms and lights flashing everywhere long before 100 knots is reached.....and three people missed that? I have too much faith in humanity to believe that. Even with dead instruments, including airspeed, the cues are too numerous for experienced pilots to miss.



BTW, ever wondered whether those "other" accidents were astronomical multi-pilot error.....or was it something more and we simply weren't told the whole truth?

What makes multi-person ineptitude more likely than multi-person conspiracy? Because one is more easy to swallow than the other?

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: LTAC03R
Posted 2009-02-28 15:41:23 and read 30742 times.



Quoting NCB (Reply 139):
As I said in thread 5, Turkish captains have the tendency of taking the "I'm god" attitude in the cockpit. Many wouldn't even let F/O's land. This is not a rumour but hard reality that the Turkish pilots on this website will confirm.

whoaaa buddy... and exactly what do you know about Turkish pilots and their attitudes? You fly for a Turkish carrier?? Or have ever been in the cockpit? Tell us if you know anything to support your claim otherwise please apologize for your extreme generalization. As a fully civilian pilot flying for TK I would say you might be confusing Turkey with your home country. Sorry to ruin your make-belief theory!

Quoting NCB (Reply 139):
New F/O's trained in that environment become reluctant to informing their captain of unusual configuration and setting, even more so if the captain is a veteran with military background and your training captain.
In those circumstances the F/O would be reluctant to say "captain, your airspeed is low" let alone taking over and going around until some kind of warning bell (sink rate, glideslope or the stick shaker) confirmed his doubts.

Look dude we have pilots from all sorts of backgrounds at TK and they train for and fly within standards. Though the last thing we have is contempt for one another. However, you seem to have plenty of just that in your words. It hurts to see this kind of attitude following a disaster that hit close to home for anyone involved in aviation.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Metroliner
Posted 2009-02-28 15:42:21 and read 30722 times.



Quoting Md80fanatic (Reply 167):
Alarms and lights flashing everywhere

What alarms/lights? It is conceivable that it happened so suddenly, all they would have felt was the stick shaker, heard and seen the stall warning and that's it.

Quoting Md80fanatic (Reply 167):
the cues are too numerous

I've already mentioned they couldn't see the horizon. They might have noticed a decrease in windscreen noise. Apart from those two things off the top of my head, what else would they have felt?

Quoting Md80fanatic (Reply 167):
conspiracy

You're making it impossible to be taken seriously by bringing the 'c-word' into it...

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Dc863
Posted 2009-02-28 15:47:47 and read 30674 times.

Turkish pilots are as good as another other professional flight crew. In this case something mechanical or software related caught the crew off guard and obviously happened so fast that it was out of their hands. At least the plane came down in a farm field and not a built up residential zone.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Cmoltay
Posted 2009-02-28 15:48:19 and read 30712 times.



Quoting CityhopperNL (Reply 122):
All I'm saying that in Southern countries, people tend to be so temperamentful and passionate about certain things, that it might be hard for them to maintain objectivity.

My dear friend,

One Turkish film director, Nuri Bilge Ceylan, while receiving the best film award in Cannes spoke the following words: "I'm receiving this award for my beautiful and lonely country".

I love the Mediterranean characteristics of my country's people, I love the short temper, I love the passion. But what you're observing, I'm sorry to say this, is not about being Mediterranean or Southern. Turkish people are feeling lonely, they're manipulated to feel lonely and they're acting under the influence of this manipulation.

Politics in this country is mediocre. For many years my fellow countrymen have been manipulated thru the fear of the "other" by those wanting to govern this country the way they want and consume its riches. What they had to do was to find an "other" to designate as an enemy and attack. Once the Greeks were the "other", USA has been so, EU has been so, in our case the Dutch envying the success of TK is the "other", there're even many "others" in the nation itself. The more isolationist the rulers can be, more power they receive in their hands.

Publicity in Turkey about the pilots of the concerned flight being heroes with no substantiated information as to what happened there and the wake vortex theory has been so strong that I'm very much afraid that when the real report comes out noone will care to believe its findings if the report says something contrary to what we have been led to believe. Mr Van Vollenhoven will be the new "other". In the latter years we have become a nation that cares less and less about the truth than what we want to hear, at least the part of us with the louder voice is acting in that manner, as the struggle for power in the country heats up higher than ever. I'm sorry to say this.

I would never have wanted to go into a political/social explanation in this forum and I have no intention to continue a discussion on this basis but I think all of you who have been trying very eagerly to understand, give meaning to what has happened without putting the blame on anyone deserve to understand more why my "beautiful but making itself lonely" country is acting the way it is.

Regards,

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: DingDong
Posted 2009-02-28 15:52:27 and read 30603 times.

Quoting LTAC03R (Reply 168):
As a fully civilian pilot flying for TK I would say you might be confusing Turkey with your home country.

Please -- we are all friends here with a common purpose: love of aviation. No need for the stereotyping against unrelated people (or countries) other than who you were responding to. Allow us to rise above that.

I, for one, believe TK 1951's flight crew members to be of the utmost professionals. I do not yet know how this went bad, so I look forward to seeing what the eventual final report concludes. It is indeed a strange situation.

I share your sorrow in the loss all lost aboard TK 1951.

[Edited 2009-02-28 16:27:32]

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Md80fanatic
Posted 2009-02-28 15:59:39 and read 30635 times.

Suddenly? 15 seconds of 83 knots reported before impact? That's not very sudden to me.

Don't need to see the horizon, only the airfield....which will have started to descend almost below the windscreen at 100 knots.....disappearing at 83 knots. It's not normal to be on GS with a pitch attitude so extreme the runway cannot be seen from the cockpit.

Can you prove to me that a conspiracy has never occurred, even in aviation? If not, it's still possible and should not be tossed aside in the first 30 minutes after a crash (as if ANYONE knows for sure that quickly). It's the instant elimination of the possibility of foul play....that forces a wedge into your common sensical instinctual physics understanding to make way for whatever manufactured event you are being told about.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Dc863
Posted 2009-02-28 16:03:15 and read 30551 times.



Quoting Md80fanatic (Reply 173):
Suddenly? 15 seconds of 83 knots reported before impact? That's not very sudden to me.

When you're suddenly trying to figure out what's going on, 15 seconds seems like a nanosecond. Put yourself in their shoes.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Metroliner
Posted 2009-02-28 16:05:40 and read 30549 times.

We don't know how much of the airfield they could see. And, were they indeed stalling, the airfield would be sinking/have sunk out of view - agreed, certainly not a normal attitude. But again, not impossible.

Don't forget the Eastern Tristar crash in which 2 pilots completely failed to notice the AP disengaging and the plane gently sinking into the Everglades. Pilots fail - far more often unintentionally than through conspiracy. Of course aviation has been a target for conspiracy - but I don't see it any more likely here than in the Hudson A320 incident.

Give me a motive, at least, or a reason why the conspirators chose to initiate their plan as the plane was right on final. Why would conspirators leave open the chance for 90%+ of the occupancy to survive? Given the circumstances, the odds would be seemingly against that theory.

EDIT:

"When you're suddenly trying to figure out what's going on, 15 seconds seems like a nanosecond. Put yourself in their shoes." - well said, my friend.

[Edited 2009-02-28 16:07:10]

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Starlionblue
Posted 2009-02-28 16:05:55 and read 30653 times.



Quoting Logos (Reply 117):
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 65):
- Any religious group that does not promote acceptance of lifestyles other than its own.

Let me see if I have this straight. You won't accept those who won't accept? You wish to impose your values on them? Does that not seem a tad hypocritical?

My point (muddled to be sure) is that there are plenty of groups promoting hatred. I have no problem accepting their right to think this way. In fact I think I said in this thread (or was it the Hudson river crash one?) that I would even defend their right to have these views, even though I disagree with them.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Acabgd
Posted 2009-02-28 16:15:07 and read 30586 times.



Quoting Metroliner (Reply 169):
What alarms/lights? It is conceivable that it happened so suddenly, all they would have felt was the stick shaker, heard and seen the stall warning and that's it.

Well if nothing else, there is the "Glideslope", as well as "Sinkrate" aural warnings - maybe it came too late, but it would certainly make me at least then check the speed tape as well.

And you also push the "no horizon" theory, how they had no visual clue what was going on. What visual clues do you have on a cloudy, moonless night, but I still don't see airliners falling from the sky on those days...

I don't want to speculate any more on possible causes, but something went terribly wrong with this machine and the pilots were unable to correct it in time before slamming into the ground.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Metroliner
Posted 2009-02-28 16:17:58 and read 30574 times.

Quoting Acabgd (Reply 177):
maybe it came too late

Dobro vece, Acabgd - this was the hypothesis I reached. There are indications that the throttles were advanced - possibly too late.

Quoting Acabgd (Reply 177):
What visual clues do you have on a cloudy, moonless night, but I still don't see airliners falling from the sky on those days...

Totally agree - this is also behind the other theory I'm advocating: no single cause. The poor visibility might, however, have been another factor in a series of events leading to the accident.

I'm trying to keep an open mind about it. I visualise the accident happening along these lines - and I am trying to think of the simplest possible theory.

[Edited 2009-02-28 16:20:12]

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Md80fanatic
Posted 2009-02-28 16:21:54 and read 30526 times.



Quoting Metroliner (Reply 175):
Pilots fail - far more often unintentionally than through conspiracy.

Agreed with almost everything...except the above. How do we know the above is true....really know? You have to trust an expert. Dangerous place to be really.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Metroliner
Posted 2009-02-28 16:24:01 and read 30475 times.



Quoting Md80fanatic (Reply 179):
Dangerous place to be really.

I'm just allowing myself a little faith in human nature, I guess  Smile

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Md80fanatic
Posted 2009-02-28 16:34:28 and read 30396 times.

Sounds good, enough of this for now. We still know nothing more than we did an hour ago.
When the officials speak, we can return to this point, if necessary.  Smile

My apologies for letting my suspicious self derail this thread.  embarrassed 

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Metroliner
Posted 2009-02-28 16:38:32 and read 30370 times.



Quoting Md80fanatic (Reply 181):
My apologies for letting my suspicious self derail this thread.

No need to apologise - you made me think. It's a very stimulating discussion. I hope to return to it another time.

Now it's almost 1am here, so I bid you goodnight/g'day  Smile

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Md80fanatic
Posted 2009-02-28 16:49:44 and read 30321 times.



Quoting Dc863 (Reply 174):
Put yourself in their shoes.

If I were in their shoes (with several thousand hours + military), I'd be instinctual with regard to saving a underspeed airliner. What is there to think about, how you got there? No systems to worry about at that instant, just dropping the nose and getting some thrust, stick and throttle.

I think they say "Aviate, Navigate, Communicate" and I'd like to add "investigate" to the end if I could. If there was any hesitation at all as to the course of action, it would be in the milliseconds for these well trained and experienced aviators.

How much skill would it take to keep wings level at 80 something knots in a fully loaded 738 dropping out of 400 feet? No slight against Sully, but here's your heroes, makes ditching at 125 look easy in comparison.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: NCB
Posted 2009-02-28 16:52:41 and read 30355 times.

Quoting Md80fanatic (Reply 173):
Can you prove to me that a conspiracy has never occurred, even in aviation? If not, it's still possible and should not be tossed aside in the first 30 minutes after a crash (as if ANYONE knows for sure that quickly). It's the instant elimination of the possibility of foul play....that forces a wedge into your common sensical instinctual physics understanding to make way for whatever manufactured event you are being told about.

I can give you one:
October 4th 1992, Amsterdam. A EL AL B742F departing EHAM crashed into a multiple-story building after an unstable engine 3 broke off its unstable pylon (it's designed to break off at high loads), hitting engine 4 in the process, on an overloaded aircraft carrying secret military cargo that was removed from the crash site together with the Uranium of the B747's tail, according to eye-witness accounts, at night by men in white suits.
The Dutch safety board, at first hand claiming to not have found the FDR, later manipulated FDR data released to the public as a private investigator proves in his book: "doelvlucht" using eye-witnesses accounts, fire department and police recordings.

What a coincidence, that among the dead of the crash, 3 of 4 Boeing employees who were returning to Seattle after working on the B737-AEW&C were among 9 dead, making up 33% of casualties on an aircraft that had a 7% casualty rate.

I'm not necessarily implying that there is conspiracy though.

[Edited 2009-02-28 17:09:33]

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2009-02-28 17:06:27 and read 30278 times.



Quoting Metroliner (Reply 163):
Many things - see my above post for some examples - can happen that will mislead 3 pilots into such a situation. What we call 'pilot error', and use to describe anything pilots do which deviates from SOP - inadvertently, under duress or otherwise - is seldom a prime causal factor.

But a small error + a small error + a small error sometimes does not equal 3 small errors in aviation. It might spell disaster.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Air_Lines_Flight_401

Quoting Md80fanatic (Reply 167):
What makes multi-person ineptitude more likely than multi-person conspiracy? Because one is more easy to swallow than the other?

Well, not really. It's because most air accidents have been discovered to have a cause other than a multi-person conspiracy. Human error, mechanical failure and weather are much more likely.

This is from Wiki...so take it with a grain of salt. Scroll down to CAUSES;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_accidents_and_incidents

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Md80fanatic
Posted 2009-02-28 17:11:07 and read 30268 times.

Back before Sully, the Ethiopian 767 ditch video was not so widely known. It was then that you could ask someone if they remember seeing the video. If they said yes, but not recently, I would ask them to tell me (without going to watch it again first) what became of the port (left) wing in the ditching. I swear that 8 out of 10 would say the port wing broke away and flew into the air. It's true, that was the most incredible bit of footage from my perspective and I watched it over and over again trying to understand how a wing could shear away so cleanly (as if it were designed to do so).

Going back to watch it again.......the left wing is no longer visible, photoshopped out or something. Every copy of that video you can get online these days does NOT show the left wing depart and fly 100 feet up in the air.

Now go read the official report, the report now states the left wing was taken underwater...but remained attached to the fuselage.

What the hell man?

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Vikkyvik
Posted 2009-02-28 17:22:43 and read 30228 times.



Quoting Md80fanatic (Reply 160):
The odds of three pilots accidently allowing a perfectly serviceable aircraft to get 40 kts below Vref 1 mile out are astonomical, literally. Provided all are conscious....it just isn't going to happen, ever.

Don't want to get completely sidetracked here, but in this example, 2 pilots allow a plane to get well below glideslope and crash short of the runway, without reacting till it was much too late:

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19900214-2

Nothing is impossible. Even if highly improbable.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2009-02-28 17:27:49 and read 30171 times.



Quoting Md80fanatic (Reply 186):

My litmus test of a conspiracy is; what's in it for the conspirators? With the Ethiopian accident, I can't see why it would be in anybody's interest to conceal a wing staying on a plane after it crashes into the water? A wing falling off in the air would be a different matter.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Kiwiandrew
Posted 2009-02-28 17:33:05 and read 30149 times.



Quoting NCB (Reply 184):
What a coincidence, that among the dead of the crash, 3 of 4 Boeing employees who were returning to Seattle after working on the B737-AEW&C were among 9 dead, making up 33% of casualties on an aircraft that had a 7% casualty rate.

Not really. If they had been seated randomly throughout the aircraft then I would have called it coincidence , but since they were sitting in business class , and it appears that most if not all the fatalities were towards the front of the aircraft then it does not seem at all surprising to me .... (pauses for breath and waits for the conspiracy theorists to tell me that I am missing the obvious cover-up)

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Md80fanatic
Posted 2009-02-28 17:40:55 and read 30094 times.

Joe, I hear ya loud and clear. I wasn't looking for conspiracy but noticed that the only thing that had previously caught my eye in that famous video, was no longer there.

Why, or for what reason......hell if I know. Someone changed something official, and that is a crime, no? If someone risked breaking the law in this fashion (when some hayseed could spot it, like me), there must a been a helluva important reason for it.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Md80fanatic
Posted 2009-02-28 17:49:49 and read 30058 times.

Kiwi, what if the intention was for all to die, including the targets? Not saying this, as I don't believe conspiracy always revolves around injuring people specifically. What if the idea was to force a short landing like at LHR? No casualties (except Boeing). There are plenty of motives to go around when it comes to big time military contracts, of which Boeing was the supplier for the 737 varient to Turkey. Perhaps another Boeing with a mystery dual engine rollback or the equivalent, might force Turkey to rethink the further acquisition of more 737.

We really can never know, unfortunately.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Deaphen
Posted 2009-02-28 18:03:31 and read 30015 times.

You know what i find really strange is, the way the aircraft came in contact with the ground. From all the pictures i took the day of the crash, and after looking at them rather carefully.

1. The plane was pitched up at a steep angle, because the first bits of debris in the debris field is that of the horizontal stabilizers.

2. The plane then very violently contacted the ground on it main landing gear, because its gear is lying (tires virtually intact) about 5-10 meters infront of the horizontal stabilisers.

3. Strangely, in all the debris, tires, stabs (still very far from the main fuselage) are small cabin bags strewn all over the place. These bags are lying in the debris itself, its strange, where would they have come from?

4. After the gear, you can see the main landing gear rods (not sure of the techincal term, but the rods the wheels are attached to).

5. After that, a cluster of galley carts.

6. Then the rear section of the a/c mangled and turned in the opposite direction (as all of you have seen from the pics.)

ENGINES:

Someone good at physics please help me out, there is one mangled engine (not totally mangled, but it has about 8-9 blades intact) lying to the right of the aircraft, aft of the wreckage (presumably the engine that came in contact with the ground first) and then again on the right side of the wreckage, is the perfectly intact engine, with ALL blades intact (i can see this from the various pics i got of it).

This second engine , is also strewn out in a line, first is the cowling (mangled only from one side, probably the side which contacted the ground), then some other debris and then the main engine. Its blades are intact, but the outer area of it have been cocooned around the rim of the engine.

Would it be usual for the engines to be in the place they are? Is it usual for one engine to be so intact?

I am confused, this really is a strange case.

Regards
Nitin

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Acabgd
Posted 2009-02-28 18:10:15 and read 29959 times.



Quoting Md80fanatic (Reply 186):
Going back to watch it again.......the left wing is no longer visible, photoshopped out or something. Every copy of that video you can get online these days does NOT show the left wing depart and fly 100 feet up in the air.

It never was the left wing. When the left wing dug into water the airliner started rolling and it was the right wing that flew in the air and can be seen in the footage.

So please, let's go back to the subject at hand and if you want to propagate your conspiracy theories this is certainly not the place.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Md80fanatic
Posted 2009-02-28 18:43:41 and read 29782 times.



Quoting Acabgd (Reply 193):
It never was the left wing.

No need to get edgy, I wasn't trying to propogate any theory, just describing a notable event related to aviation....in contrast to the El Al example posted earlier.

But I agree, let's move on please. [peace]

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Dc863
Posted 2009-02-28 18:46:09 and read 29793 times.



Quoting Deaphen (Reply 192):
is the perfectly intact engine, with ALL blades intact (i can see this from the various pics i got of it).

This second engine , is also strewn out in a line, first is the cowling (mangled only from one side, probably the side which contacted the ground), then some other debris and then the main engine. Its blades are intact, but the outer area of it have been cocooned around the rim of the engine.

Blades intact mean the engines were not operating.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: EMA747
Posted 2009-02-28 18:48:42 and read 29791 times.

Nitin your points are interesing.

If the plane had contacted the ground when it was not level maybe only one side of the horizontal stab hit the ground but with enough force to rip it all off the plane.

Then the rear of the plane could have hit the ground an split off the back part that flapped around and emptied things like the bags you are saying.

The pilots could then have got it level and then crash to a stop where the aft section ended up it the funny position it is in because it was already mostly unattached from the plane.

I bet that is very hard to follow without me drawing what I mean!

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Md80fanatic
Posted 2009-02-28 18:53:43 and read 29795 times.



Quoting Deaphen (Reply 192):
I am confused, this really is a strange case.

Thank you so much for posting this about the engines, I had the same observation and was severely punished at another forum for saying so. So the blades were clean and perfectly spaced? Amazing considering.......

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: LTBEWR
Posted 2009-02-28 19:02:24 and read 29754 times.

As to the 'pilots as god' concept, what about the deadlist air crash ever not from terror acts that some claim was in part due to the arrogance of a Dutch KLM pilot. I would also note that since that time, CRM has become a strong policy at any airline and I am quite TK's CRM training is a sound as most airlines.

To me from what a much earlier post had and I pervoiusly noted here, the a/c seemed to very much lined up to the centerline of the runway. In the Air India crash noted in another post, that was 100's of feet off center. This TK crash does appear to be a CFIT, that for some reason there was a rather sudden decrease in speed to a point way where they were dropping vertically much too quickly and into the terrain. Some surviving pax's comments suggets that there was some attempt to retain contol in the air, but was too late to recover.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Md80fanatic
Posted 2009-02-28 19:32:01 and read 29606 times.

Is a loss of thrust considered a loss of control, as in CFIT? I mean, if there is no choice but to fly into terrain, is it still considered CFIT? Normally this cause is assigned when it's pilot error.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Sbkom
Posted 2009-02-28 20:15:08 and read 29602 times.

Hi,

I have been an avid reader of this site for a number of years, and finally I have decided to join!
This accident is particularly interesting and puzzling to me.

First of all I extend my condolences to the families/friends of all of those perished in this accident.

With your permission, I will make a few comments:

Most of these postings talk about a stall and a resulting crash into a field. Yes, I agree, according to the speed data posted earlier, there is stall, but only during the last seconds. For some reason, the a/c sink rate was excessive to the point that the pilot realized that he wouldn't make the runway. In some newspapers they mentioned about these words "I can't make it!" (could be on the PA system or pax witnessing).

My scenario is a controlled stall to land to a relatively small and soft field.

Some sort of unrecoverable condition exists. The pilot decides to crashland to a field, picks the best available area in the spot. A recently plowed field, relatively small, but not long enough to flare. He has to clear the A-200 which is higher than the field, and needs to stop before hitting the trees and the other road (Krommespieringweg which is also higher than the field) at the other end. As soon as he clears the road (he was at 117kts just before A-200), he pulls up keeping the wings level to reduce the speed to minimum (83 kts), in the mean time hits the elevators, and the a/c, already slowed down touches the ground tail first. The tail section breaks. The a/c is probably at an angle like 40-50 degrees pointing the sky. When the front of the a/c hits the ground, the front gear acts like a plow, suddenly slowing down the a/c and stressing the frame, and the frame breaks behind the cockpit (upwards) because of the momentum of the slowing down and digging the nose into the terrain.

This is what I would do to minimize the impact and the damage given the circumstances and a short field. Keep the a/c flying until the last moment and induce a controlled pitch up stall to slow down to a min speed.

In my view, the captain made an excellent maneuver once he realized that he can't make the runway. Good choice of landing area (soft, away from obstacles and habitations), good control of the a/c (wings level, slowing down to a min speed at the last second), good choice of landing technique (tail first), avoiding more casualties and explosion and fire.

Regardless of the root cause(s) of the accident, the final seconds are handled very professionally.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Comorin
Posted 2009-02-28 20:58:12 and read 29559 times.



Quoting Sbkom (Reply 200):

Welcome aboard! Excellent first post  thumbsup 

If you add to it that the engines were not spinning, I'd bet your scenario comes closest to what we will hear from the anticipated CVR and FDR briefings on Monday.

A.netters have a great track record when it comes to solving aftermath problems. While accident investigation is best addressed by painstaking professional work, there is a role for crowd-sourced problem-solving with all the expertise present here. I've learned a lot about aviation from following the reasoning behind these posts.

A word of advice - you mat want to post earlier during the day from maximum readership in the Eastern US and Europe!

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: 727forever
Posted 2009-02-28 21:40:10 and read 29394 times.



Quoting Ciaran (Reply 31):
would doing a "Sully" into a ploughed field would have been the better option.? Cant see them teaching that in a sim

They would have been better off to have sucked up the gear and belly landed it. The mains digging into that soft mud is what caused the cockpit to slam down killing the crew. Had the gear been up the airplane still would have slammed into the ground, but it would not have had as much moment for the cockpit when doing so. Perhaps even less injuries. However, they had an unbelievabley short time to realize what was wrong, react to keep the airplane flying, and then to think of details such as this.

Quoting Dc863 (Reply 195):
Blades intact mean the engines were not operating.

 checkmark  When I saw the photos on a.net of the engines I could tell you right away that at least the left engine was not making thrust. It is far too clean, meaning the blades, to have been making thrust. The right engine does have blade damage but this could completely be due to fod after impact.

In further news, I did read today that it is confirmed that both engines were not making thrust prior to impact. I read this on The Aviation Herald.

Quoting Sbkom (Reply 200):
This is what I would do to minimize the impact and the damage given the circumstances and a short field. Keep the a/c flying until the last moment and induce a controlled pitch up stall to slow down to a min speed.

 checkmark  I'm generally not one to speculate, but if I were, I'd be with you on this one. The bad thing is that they were configured for landing so they had an immense amount of drag for the landing already. If indeed the engines both failed, as I wrote above, they would have probably been well below airspeed when they realized that the failures had occured. More than like the autopilot was still engaged and holding the glideslope until such time as the N2 had spooled down enough to drop the generators or the APU picked up the load if running. Either way they were probably already 10-15 knots under and trying to figure out what was going on. With all that drag not a good situation. At that point I would imagine the Captain took over and began the process of putting it in that field which is when you see the airplane slowing and ducking below glideslope. I am amazed though that at 83 knots the airplane stayed wings level. This shows how good the 737s wing is.

727forever

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Dc863
Posted 2009-02-28 22:25:49 and read 29221 times.



Quoting Md80fanatic (Reply 199):
I mean, if there is no choice but to fly into terrain, is it still considered CFIT?

No.
CFIT only applies to an accident where the crew unknowingly hits terrain.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: JCS17
Posted 2009-02-28 22:29:20 and read 29278 times.

With TALPA coming out and exclaiming it was wake turbulence, I'm afraid we're going to have an EgyptAir 990 situation if the crash was caused by anything but wake... by the way, check out TALPA.org, for their "theory," you don't even need to know Turkish to see what they're postulating. I'd be utterly embarrassed if I actually was a Turkish Airlines crew member, it makes your airline look horrible to the West. The flight will be investigated by the best-of-the-best European and American investigators who do a damn good job getting to the bottom of air disasters. What if it is pilot error that is discovered? What are you going to claim? Absolutely atrocious stuff from TALPA.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Sbkom
Posted 2009-02-28 23:17:03 and read 29100 times.



Quoting JCS17 (Reply 204):
Absolutely atrocious stuff from TALPA

I agree with you. By making this kind of flaming and accusing statements they destroy their credibility. Bringing a point is one thing, blaming and fingerpointing before all the facts are known is another. TALPA is not like us, they are not speculating some theory in a forum. They should act like a serious organization, laying down facts, asking questions, but not accusing before the investigation. I understand their psychology, and I understand the statements made by Cmoltay, but it still is not appropriate.

I am sure they are considering and evaluating the wake turbulence as a factor.

Quoting 727forever (Reply 202):
They would have been better off to have sucked up the gear and belly landed it.

Yes, I thought about the same, but I would imagine they didn't have time or power to do it, or maybe the captain had another valid reason. If we look at the result, it seems like it would save a few more lives if the gear was up.

Quoting Dc863 (Reply 203):
This shows how good the 737s wing is.

Or how good the pilot is!

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Max777geek
Posted 2009-03-01 00:04:54 and read 28953 times.

If that was definitely an engine failure, that sounds reasonable that they tried to make it to the field, not having time at all to raise the landing gear (and maybe even power : less event to start the apu). If the only running engine didn't provide trust because of the too quickly push of the throttle, that sounds reasonable too. This makes me feel somehow better, think Im not the only one, than the trainee error, and less than ever the suicidal attempt during short final which would be the first one I hear of.

At the end of the story, if this will be confirmed as the most plausible cause, the instructor captain did really an incredible job out of his powers, to fly in a controlled manner a 737 at 83 knots in a short field trying to avoid the better he could, the highway below. From the charts that shows it took seconds, sounds also reasonable to me that he didn't have the time to try a second spool up attempt, less to mention to raise the landing gear. Sounds like he did instinctively what he could, to save everyone, unfortunately that didn't save him and his fellow pilots. God bless their souls.  checkmark 

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: LTAC03R
Posted 2009-03-01 00:14:17 and read 28911 times.



Quoting JCS17 (Reply 204):
I'd be utterly embarrassed if I actually was a Turkish Airlines crew member, it makes your airline look horrible to the West. The flight will be investigated by the best-of-the-best European and American investigators who do a damn good job getting to the bottom of air disasters. What if it is pilot error that is discovered? What are you going to claim? Absolutely atrocious stuff from TALPA.

TALPA and TK have no formal connection FYI. TALPA is an NGO for pilots of all airlines in Turkey. As a TK crew member I am utterly appalled by the campaign that TALPA has been running.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Cmoltay
Posted 2009-03-01 00:23:39 and read 28853 times.



Quoting LTAC03R (Reply 207):
TALPA and TK have no formal connection FYI. TALPA is an NGO for pilots of all airlines in Turkey. As a TK crew member I am utterly appalled by the campaign that TALPA has been running.

What's more they have not even put anything about their wake vortex theory on their website, other than the famous picture though the site already includes later press releases.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: LAXintl
Posted 2009-03-01 00:30:16 and read 28809 times.

Yes its indeed important to note that TALPA is not connected to THY, and is not the collective bargaining unit for its pilots.

TALPA is more akin to a Turkish version of AOPA.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Mir
Posted 2009-03-01 00:51:51 and read 28769 times.



Quoting Md80fanatic (Reply 197):
So the blades were clean and perfectly spaced?

Not on one of the engines. It was pretty beat up.

Quoting Md80fanatic (Reply 199):
Is a loss of thrust considered a loss of control, as in CFIT?

CFIT, by definition, is not a loss of control. The airplane is functioning normally, and is flown into terrain by the pilots.

-Mir

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Sbkom
Posted 2009-03-01 00:53:49 and read 28782 times.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 209):
What's more they have not even put anything about their wake vortex theory on their website, other than the famous picture though the site already includes later press releases.

Dear Can,

Indeed, they don't have that claim in their website, but the press in Europe and Turkey are full of flaming remarks from Savas Sen (Secretary of TALPA).

http://w9.gazetevatan.com/Onceki_uca...zanin_suclusu_kule/225613/1/Manset

He literally accuses AMS ATC saying "The ATC is guilty, there is no pilot error". More, he gives a wrong explanation of wake turbulence (this subject has been covered in this thread).

OK, I am not saying there was no wake turbulence. First of all, TALPA should not accuse anyone, but wait for the conclusion of the accident report. Secondly, the effect of a wake turbulence is not as described by Mr. Sen in the above article. Least but not last, an a/c will be affected by the wake turbulence if it is lower that the preceding a/c, where things start getting complicated (was it? or why?). Wake turbulence may be a contributing factor, as well as a compressor stall, or any other action or malfunction. We need to be calm, and only think or speculate about what we know that is reasonably acceptable.
Cheers.

[Edited 2009-03-01 01:00:17]

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: NCB
Posted 2009-03-01 01:15:56 and read 28681 times.



Quoting Kiwiandrew (Reply 189):

Not really. If they had been seated randomly throughout the aircraft then I would have called it coincidence , but since they were sitting in business class , and it appears that most if not all the fatalities were towards the front of the aircraft then it does not seem at all surprising to me .... (pauses for breath and waits for the conspiracy theorists to tell me that I am missing the obvious cover-up)

I can give you a theory  Smile :
The forward section is the most vulnerable part of the aircraft in a crash with high vertical force components as the nose landing gear is not designed to withstand high vertical forces. Since all the Boeing employees were seated in the front, stalling the aircraft was the only way to make it look like an accident (by pilot error) instead of a suicide attempt if for instance the aircraft was willingly nose-dived into open sea.
Whoever would have wanted them dead could have engineered that meticulously.

The bigger the lie, the more people will believe it.

Of course, I'm not implying that there is a conspiracy here. We'll probably never know if there has been any, but it's interesting to discuss it since we're all bored waiting for the first data to be made public.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Cmoltay
Posted 2009-03-01 02:37:07 and read 28198 times.



Quoting Sbkom (Reply 211):
Dear Can,

Indeed, they don't have that claim in their website, but the press in Europe and Turkey are full of flaming remarks from Savas Sen (Secretary of TALPA).

The words were mine, not Laxintl's, just for the sake of records.

I completely agree with you, I was trying to mean that they have implied wake turbulence but they're not backing their own theory in a written manner as if they've rethought what they've done and decided it was a mistake and now they're trying to decrease the volume of their statement so that they're not blamed later or they purely did make the statement to manipulate the public opinion in Turkey and they did not even believe what they were saying when they were saying it.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Sbkom
Posted 2009-03-01 02:56:10 and read 28101 times.



Quoting Cmoltay (Reply 213):
The words were mine, not Laxintl's, just for the sake of records.

I selected your words, addressed the message to your name, pressed the "selected text quoted" and replied to you, but somehow it took Laxintl's name. Maybe I selected your text but hit the button on Laxintl's message, I don't know. I tried to edit the msg after that, but it reverted back to the wrong name again! Anyways, sorry for the confusion.

Yes, I think THY, TALPA and the other officials are making internal noise/propaganda due to the political situation in Turkey. But they should realize that their voice is heard from all over the world, and these days, thanks to the advanced communications, the entire world is hearing them. I' ve read the same article in an Iranian, Dutch, and Israeli newspapers also.

Anyways, we are waiting for the CVR data to be published I guess, it will be interesting to see what the pilots thought about the situation.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: CityhopperNL
Posted 2009-03-01 05:03:17 and read 27365 times.



Quoting 727forever (Reply 202):
checkmark When I saw the photos on a.net of the engines I could tell you right away that at least the left engine was not making thrust. It is far too clean, meaning the blades, to have been making thrust. The right engine does have blade damage but this could completely be due to fod after impact.

In further news, I did read today that it is confirmed that both engines were not making thrust prior to impact. I read this on The Aviation Herald.

No this is not true. Please check my post 159 as to why they might have posted it. Actually the AVHerald is saying "First evidence suggests" and you are now saying "it is confirmed that", which is how rumours spread over the internet. Absolutely nothing has been confirmed yet.

I have to say, I have had great trouble believing that there was a complete engine failure because of the numerous reports of passengers that heard the engines go to full throttle. On the other hand, I am completely with your analysis about the engines, which is inconsistent with the reports. I've been thinking a little here, and I've seen 4 interviews with people that were in the plane, and I believe at least 2 of them that were talking about full power engines (and maybe 3) were on the right side of the plane. (the F seats). The passenger that was on the left side didnt say anything about engine noise but only about a "go around" feeling.

One of the passengers also stated that the airplane slightly rolled to the left as the engines went to full throttle. (the Henk Heijloo interview I posted earlier)

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Petertenthije
Posted 2009-03-01 05:15:26 and read 27264 times.



Quoting CityhopperNL (Reply 215):
numerous reports of passengers that heard the engines go to full throttle

People will hear what they expect to hear (cognitive dissonance). With that in mind, is it possible that the noise of the tail hitting the ground was the sound people recognised as throttling up? The pax mentioned they felt the plane going for a go-around, could the jolt of the tail hitting the ground, and then indeed briefly increasing altitude, cause the same?

Numerous planes have crashed because pilots felt they where going right, even when they had instruments to dispel their beliefs. The earlier mentioned CFIT crashes are a good example of that. The passengers do not have such instruments, let alone training.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Deaphen
Posted 2009-03-01 05:24:14 and read 27202 times.



Quoting CityhopperNL (Reply 215):
One of the passengers also stated that the airplane slightly rolled to the left as the engines went to full throttle. (the Henk Heijloo interview I posted earlier)

Could it be possible that only 1 engine was working? Or let me put it this way, power was erroneously or because of a problem, only one engine spooled up?

Resulting in the roll, and the fact that one engine is battered and the other is perfectly fine?

Nitin

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Ciaran
Posted 2009-03-01 05:36:20 and read 27184 times.

Quoting Kaitek:
"There's an interesting - albeit rather disturbing - issue being raised in PPRUNE, to the effect that the Dutch state prosecutor's office is demanding access to the recorders, to determine whether a prosecution should be instituted. This is obviously of concern, for a number of reasons:


This does not come across as particularly professional from a Gov body if they have to start squawking for info, It calls into question the procedural practices for accident investigations. Doesn’t the FBI working in tandem with NTSB sign off initially on criminal intent i.e. Bomb etc.. and then defer to the NTSB after such!

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: CityhopperNL
Posted 2009-03-01 05:39:53 and read 27111 times.



Quoting Petertenthije (Reply 216):
With that in mind, is it possible that the noise of the tail hitting the ground was the sound people recognised as throttling up? The pax mentioned they felt the plane going for a go-around, could the jolt of the tail hitting the ground, and then indeed briefly increasing altitude, cause the same?

Yes Peter, I am completely aware of various illusions that pilots may experience and I would figure that untrained pax are even more likely to report things that are not true. I found it strange that one of the frequent flying pax had the guts to say that it was complete nonsense that the engines werent running anymore; he was pretty sure about himself. Also, it appears to me that he could have been right, because there is at least one engine that is pretty badly damaged. The other one might have malfunctioned as it appears to have not been running given the small amount of damage.

I'm starting to wonder if a failure of one of the engines (the left one) might come unnoticed, that is, with no particular warnings on the flight displays. In that case you wouldn't immediately notice a total loss of thrust (like Sully experienced) and because airspeed is decreasing slowly the pilots would not have taken the necessary steps (nose down, retract flaps) to avoid a stall. This is just pure speculation however, and the more I think about possible causes the more I doubt about what happened here.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Deaphen
Posted 2009-03-01 05:54:59 and read 27110 times.

Quoting CityhopperNL (Reply 219):
Also, it appears to me that he could have been right, because there is at least one engine that is pretty badly damaged

Hmmmm im not expert, but to the untrained eye, it seems that even the second engine is not all THAT bad... i would assume all the blades to be messed up, but some on the other engine are also intact!

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e213/deaphen/engine11.jpg

Rgds
Nitin

edited to include pic of other engine just for reference
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e213/deaphen/engine2.jpg

[Edited 2009-03-01 05:56:15]

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Winterapfel
Posted 2009-03-01 06:14:54 and read 26856 times.

Give the fact the the engine "casing" (the part that's around the fan disk) is still in place and still circular (not damaged, or turned into an egg shape): could this mean that the fan disk was still able the turn when the engine hit the muddy soil, and with this explain the absence of damage to the fan disk?

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Deaphen
Posted 2009-03-01 06:17:58 and read 26821 times.



Quoting Winterapfel (Reply 221):
could this mean that the fan disk was still able the turn when the engine hit the muddy soil, and with this explain the absence of damage to the fan disk?

Yes i suppose that is possible too, i would assume that the casing/outer part of the engine is designed to be very strong, so that is a strong possibility.

Nitin

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Spitfire
Posted 2009-03-01 06:32:10 and read 26889 times.

Big version: Width: 500 Height: 313 File size: 132kb



Here to compare the shape of the fan blades ....

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Acabgd
Posted 2009-03-01 06:45:41 and read 26635 times.



Quoting NCB (Reply 212):
Of course, I'm not implying that there is a conspiracy here. We'll probably never know if there has been any, but it's interesting to discuss it

I'd say it's not interesting at all to discuss random conspiracy theories and that this forum is not the place to do it. Thank you.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: EZEIZA
Posted 2009-03-01 07:22:57 and read 26376 times.



Quoting CityhopperNL (Reply 215):
I have to say, I have had great trouble believing that there was a complete engine failure because of the numerous reports of passengers that heard the engines go to full throttle

Could it be that they lost the engines but then regained power too little too late, right before hitting the ground?

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Exsr
Posted 2009-03-01 07:45:28 and read 26463 times.



Quoting Acabgd (Reply 224):
I'd say it's not interesting at all to discuss random conspiracy theories and that this forum is not the place to do it. Thank you.

Thank you. It had to be said.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: EMA747
Posted 2009-03-01 08:13:32 and read 26243 times.



Quoting Deaphen (Reply 220):
Quoting CityhopperNL (Reply 219):
Also, it appears to me that he could have been right, because there is at least one engine that is pretty badly damaged

Hmmmm im not expert, but to the untrained eye, it seems that even the second engine is not all THAT bad... i would assume all the blades to be messed up, but some on the other engine are also intact!



Rgds
Nitin

edited to include pic of other engine just for reference


[Edited 2009-03-01 05:56:15]

On the engine in the first pic it looks like there is mud splatter on the leading edge of the fan blades that disipates to the inner edge. This would be what it would look like if it was turning when it hit some mud right? The other engine has none of this at all.

Another question - if the engines had no power could they still windmill or is this not possible?

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Spitfire
Posted 2009-03-01 08:21:16 and read 26206 times.

Quoting EMA747 (Reply 227):
Another question - if the engines had no power could they still windmill or is this not possible?

Yes of course, N1 (Fan) will be turning, except if there is a severe damage, like broken shaft or blocked compressor/ turbine for instance.

The gear box is actuated by N2 , so if any problem there, the fan will still be windmilling.

[Edited 2009-03-01 08:22:57]

[Edited 2009-03-01 08:28:08]

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: PW100
Posted 2009-03-01 08:21:23 and read 26206 times.



Quoting 727forever (Reply 202):
They would have been better off to have sucked up the gear and belly landed it. The mains digging into that soft mud is what caused the cockpit to slam down killing the crew

Don't think the main caused the forward rotation resulting in the cockpit to slam down. Given the short length of the main gear assembly, and the long fuselage on the 737-800, odds are that the fuselage pitch angle was way over the max rotation angle for the main gear to hit the ground before the rear fuselage. The rear fuselage hit the ground first, and absorved the first and probably most of the vertical energy component. That is what caused the rear part of the fuselage to break off. The fact that it ended up next to the mid section of the fuselage was probably because it was being dragged by electrical harnesses, seat tracks, rudder/elevator control cables that did not snap. That would also explain why the tail is in opposite orientation.

On hindsight, it would probably have been a better situation to have the gear, especially the nose gear, retracted. It appears that it was the nosegear that caused so much trauma to the front section and cockpit, as it may have penetrated the cabin floor.

Regards,
PW100

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: XT6Wagon
Posted 2009-03-01 08:38:17 and read 26072 times.



Quoting PW100 (Reply 229):
Don't think the main caused the forward rotation resulting in the cockpit to slam down. Given the short length of the main gear assembly, and the long fuselage on the 737-800, odds are that the fuselage pitch angle was way over the max rotation angle for the main gear to hit the ground before the rear fuselage. The rear fuselage hit the ground first, and absorved the first and probably most of the vertical energy component. That is what caused the rear part of the fuselage to break off. The fact that it ended up next to the mid section of the fuselage was probably because it was being dragged by electrical harnesses, seat tracks, rudder/elevator control cables that did not snap. That would also explain why the tail is in opposite orientation.

its fairly clear that the plane hit with the tail first, we agree on that. What happens then though is the plane converted alot of energy into rotation of the fuselage. effectively whipping the front into the ground. The FRONT hit the dirt with the highest velocity in the vertical. The tail likely came off thanks to extreme bending one direction then the other...

as for the speculation if it would have been safer with the landing gear stowed.... I don't think so. It occupies volume regardless, and in this case it was a hell of a hit, not a wheels up landing in a controled manner on a nice soft glide onto a runway.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: F9Animal
Posted 2009-03-01 09:24:29 and read 25721 times.



Quoting BuyantUkhaa (Reply 23):
Similar to what was announced after the Buffalo crash, anti-gay organisation Westboro Baptist Church has announced it will try to disturb the funerals of the deceased in the Amsterdam crash. The article says that "[Westboro] are convinced that this is God's punishment for the gay-friendly Netherlands".

Assuming the death toll won't rise (let's hope so!), there won't be any funerals in the Netherlands, as none of the deceased are Dutch. Bad luck for Westboro.

The world would be a friendlier place without these people.

http://www.volkskrant.nl/binnenland/...en_uitvaarten_vliegcrash_verstoren (in Dutch only).

Please let me know if they plan to come out to Washington State.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: 727forever
Posted 2009-03-01 10:14:39 and read 25378 times.

Quoting PW100 (Reply 229):
Given the short length of the main gear assembly, and the long fuselage on the 737-800, odds are that the fuselage pitch angle was way over the max rotation angle for the main gear to hit the ground before the rear fuselage. The rear fuselage hit the ground first, and absorved the first and probably most of the vertical energy component

Never said that the mains hit first. Mostly I agree with what you said. Tail hit first, but the second thing to hit was main gear which dug in and pulled the nose down into the ground even harder than if the gear would have been up. Probably still would have hit hard enough to cause injury if the gear had been up though.

Quoting CityhopperNL (Reply 215):
No this is not true. Please check my post 159 as to why they might have posted it. Actually the AVHerald is saying "First evidence suggests" and you are now saying "it is confirmed that", which is how rumours spread over the internet. Absolutely nothing has been confirmed yet.

I reread. Thanks for the correction, though it does say initial evidence says both engines had failed prior to impact when discussing the FDR data. I suppose more info will be forth coming this week.

727forever

[Edited 2009-03-01 10:30:32]

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: CityhopperNL
Posted 2009-03-01 10:21:45 and read 25360 times.



Quoting PW100 (Reply 229):
Don't think the main caused the forward rotation resulting in the cockpit to slam down. Given the short length of the main gear assembly, and the long fuselage on the 737-800, odds are that the fuselage pitch angle was way over the max rotation angle for the main gear to hit the ground before the rear fuselage. The rear fuselage hit the ground first, and absorved the first and probably most of the vertical energy component. That is what caused the rear part of the fuselage to break off. The fact that it ended up next to the mid section of the fuselage was probably because it was being dragged by electrical harnesses, seat tracks, rudder/elevator control cables that did not snap. That would also explain why the tail is in opposite orientation.

I think this is a good analysis. But I also think that when stalling a plane onto a surface, the landing gear comes in very handy to absorb the first energy. So although it was catastrophic for the people in the front of the plane, it certainly could have helped reducing the impact for the rest of the passengers (especially the main gear). Now I doubt the pilots left the gear extracted intentionally, they probably did not have the time to respond (I mean, even if it was CFIT, how could they have known it was such a muddy field; even I still doubt about whether a belly landing would have been better or not). As they clearly stalled the aircraft I'd rather see this as a crash than a controlled landing. If the pilots were aware of losing all engine trust, for me CFIT would have been picking a nice spot on the ground and gliding it down there, just like Sully did.

I'm also still wondering how reliable the OpenATC data are, does anyone have an idea? Speculating on those radar readings on openATC.net I even think that, had they been aware of engine problems and decided to do a CFIT, they would never have let the speed bleed so far below Vref. Eye witnesses on the ground that see many planes flying every day also say that it was flying at a dangerously low speed when it stalled. These pilots knew that its madness to fly a 737 at 100 knots.

There seem to be so many contradictions about this crash, also regarding the engines and stuff, I can't think of any theory anymore that is most probable. I'm pretty sure though that we will know what happened immediately as soon as the flight data have been published on Wednesday, but for now, I'm at the boundaries of my imagination.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Iberiadc852
Posted 2009-03-01 10:22:39 and read 25342 times.

As someone with really minumum cockpit knowledge, the fact that the aircraft seemed to be losing too much speed gradually makes me think it worked like if some kind of brake, like airbrakes, were deployed. Given that the odds of an accident happened, what do you think of some possibility involving airbrakes?.

Thanks.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Vfw614
Posted 2009-03-01 10:33:18 and read 25254 times.

From the data, it appears that the aircraft was out of clouds for more than a minute. Assuming that something could have been done about the loss of speed (which we do not know) and the stall was not sort of deliberate to avoid the highway/reach an open field - would three experienced pilots notice the extraordinarily low speed without instruments/warnings? It must have been an usually slow approach, so one would think that the pilots would get alerted even without any instruments. Or is the difference of, a 50 per cent lower approach speed on finals not noticeable even if you have orientation marks all around you?

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: 727forever
Posted 2009-03-01 10:38:16 and read 25183 times.



Quoting CityhopperNL (Reply 233):
I'm also still wondering how reliable the OpenATC data are, does anyone have an idea? Speculating on those radar readings on openATC.net I even think that, had they been aware of engine problems and decided to do a CFIT, they would never have let the speed bleed so far below Vref. Eye witnesses on the ground that see many planes flying every day also say that it was flying at a dangerously low speed when it stalled. These pilots knew that its madness to fly a 737 at 100 knots.

We know that the surface winds were at 10 knots, but I am wondering what the winds were aloft. There is usually a drop off in wind velocity in the 200-300' range. This would have an impact if they were riding on the ragged edge of a stall trying to maintain a minimum sink speed, or maximum lift speed, and had no thrust from which to compensate for the lost wind velocity.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Mir
Posted 2009-03-01 11:32:27 and read 24863 times.



Quoting Iberiadc852 (Reply 234):
As someone with really minumum cockpit knowledge, the fact that the aircraft seemed to be losing too much speed gradually makes me think it worked like if some kind of brake, like airbrakes, were deployed. Given that the odds of an accident happened, what do you think of some possibility involving airbrakes?.

Very unlikely. Speedbrakes should not be used while on approach - if you need them, you're unstabilized in the first place and need to go around. Pilots know this, and shouldn't be touching the handle for any purpose other than to arm them for landing. It would be very difficult to accidentally deploy them while doing so and not realize it.

-Mir

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Deaphen
Posted 2009-03-01 12:00:02 and read 24665 times.

Will we ever get the report? I mean, is there any chance we will get to know the results of the readings from the FDR's?

Just very curious now.

Regards
Nitin

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Sbkom
Posted 2009-03-01 12:07:22 and read 24657 times.



Quoting CityhopperNL (Reply 219):
I would figure that untrained pax are even more likely to report things that are not true.

One of the pax sitting on the left side even mentioned about seeing smoke coming out from the left engine during final, and said the engine broke off and went ahead of the a/c! Obviously after a state of the chock, it is normal for people to say things like that. It is how the brain functions.

Quoting CityhopperNL (Reply 219):
In that case you wouldn't immediately notice a total loss of thrust (like Sully experienced) and because airspeed is decreasing slowly the pilots would not have taken the necessary steps (nose down, retract flaps) to avoid a stall.

Sully was climbing with full power, obviously a power loss is more noticeable. In this case the engine was already on idle or near idle. But it would be hard to believe the crew didn't notice a power loss.


Quoting CityhopperNL (Reply 219):
because airspeed is decreasing slowly the pilots would not have taken the necessary steps (nose down, retract flaps) to avoid a stall

You never retract the flaps during a power failure at approach. It will make you stall immediately. On the contrary, you put full flaps before touching down and voluntarily stall the plane during the last seconds to minimize the impact.

In this case, I still believe whatever happened, happened during the final approach, since they followed a correct angled path to intercept the ILS on the base, otherwise they would turn directly towards any runway on sight cutting short, and declare emergency while they were at 4000' or above.

According to the data available, the a/c was not stalling until reaching A200, a bit slower than the ideal approach speed, but it could be the best gliding speed given the configuration at that time. The stall or "falling like a brick" starts around the vertical of A200, in my opinion is a voluntary stall to land to this short field, nose up, wings level.

Regarding the engines, I tend to believe that they were not producing full thrust, even if they were spooling to some degree. Again there can be several reasons for this, from malfunction to compressor stall induced for several reasons, or some external reason like a bird strike which could almost be eliminated, since the bird parts would be visible, and they would have announced that longtime ago.

Quoting CityhopperNL (Reply 233):
As they clearly stalled the aircraft I'd rather see this as a crash than a controlled landing.

According to the data we have the a/c was not stalling (but near stalling speed) before A200.

Quoting CityhopperNL (Reply 233):
If the pilots were aware of losing all engine trust, for me CFIT would have been picking a nice spot on the ground and gliding it down there, just like Sully did.

IMHO they did. They didn't have a vast area and length to flare like Sully, they needed to touchdown like a helicopter. Also, the "best spot to crashland" is near the airport, where all the emergency equipment is ready and the area relatively less congested.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Max777geek
Posted 2009-03-01 12:12:55 and read 24573 times.



Quoting Iberiadc852 (Reply 234):
As someone with really minumum cockpit knowledge, the fact that the aircraft seemed to be losing too much speed gradually makes me think it worked like if some kind of brake, like airbrakes, were deployed. Given that the odds of an accident happened, what do you think of some possibility involving airbrakes?.

Definitely not. airbrakes can be used at a certain extension in flight to reduce airspeed, that would increase dramatically the descent ratio, but I would totally exclude this could be the case expecially in short final phase of the flight. If that needed to be used to decrease speed before loosing the glide slope, that would have been noticed, as they were also following another airplane at a given airspeed to keep separation. And for the record, I may have a bit of cockpit knowledge, but Im not a professional airline pilot.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Haggis79
Posted 2009-03-01 12:16:39 and read 24597 times.



Quoting Metroliner (Reply 169):
You're making it impossible to be taken seriously by bringing the 'c-word' into it...

you're best off by just ignoring him... he seems to be incapable of contributing to a thread without bringing up any conspiracy theories... just read some of his posts in non-av

Quoting Acabgd (Reply 193):
So please, let's go back to the subject at hand and if you want to propagate your conspiracy theories this is certainly not the place.



Quoting Acabgd (Reply 224):
I'd say it's not interesting at all to discuss random conspiracy theories and that this forum is not the place to do it. Thank you.

I fully concur... we should lay these theories to rest, at least until some official announcements have been made. The investigators are expert professionals and I think it's quite unfair to put them under general suspicion just because we are not able to fully comprehend their findings in our armchairs at home. Plus, people have died in this accident - I find it quite inappropriate to construct a conspiracy theory around their deaths just a few days after.

Just my  twocents 

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Whaley
Posted 2009-03-01 13:20:23 and read 24185 times.

I don't remember if this eye witness from the outside was already mentioned:
In an article in Dutch at http://www.nieuwsbladgeldermalsen.nl...n-ziet-crash-met-Turks.328251.news 19 year old Dutchman Sven saw the plane coming in very low, causing him to wonder what was about to happen, saw the tail hit the trees then slam to the ground. There was 'debris and engines flying around'.

Apparently he has seen the plane coming in surprisingly low, but he does not mention anything out of the ordinary until the 'tail hit the trees'.

He adds that he didn't smell kerosine, but he did not get real close to the scene (there was 7 meter of water to cross for him and his colleague if they had wanted to go help, which they didn't)

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2009-03-01 13:41:32 and read 24006 times.



Quoting Sbkom (Reply 239):
Sully was climbing with full power, obviously a power loss is more noticeable. In this case the engine was already on idle or near idle. But it would be hard to believe the crew didn't notice a power loss.

The TK crash reminded me of the British Midland 737-400 crash in 1989 where one engine developed major problems but the crew mis-identified the bad engine and shut down the wrong engine, followed by a further major power loss in the faulty engine on final approach and the resulting crash. I suppose that's another hypothetical possibility in the TK event.
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19890108-0

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: CityhopperNL
Posted 2009-03-01 14:12:57 and read 23745 times.



Quoting Sbkom (Reply 239):
In this case, I still believe whatever happened, happened during the final approach, since they followed a correct angled path to intercept the ILS on the base, otherwise they would turn directly towards any runway on sight cutting short, and declare emergency while they were at 4000' or above.

Yes you are quite right, it must have happened less than a minute before scheduled touchdown, because where the plane crashed it only had half a minute to fly to the treshold. And it is said that TK1951 had been cleared to land by tower prior to that with no problems. Thanks for correcting my clear mistake as well. I guess your theory could be true, it would be a 'controlled stall into terrain' and that would have been a pretty good job by the pilots. Of course there are other options, we will see on Wednesday.

Quoting Deaphen (Reply 238):
Will we ever get the report? I mean, is there any chance we will get to know the results of the readings from the FDR's?

On Wednesday we will get preliminary results from the recorders, at least thats what the investigators are aiming for.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: EMA747
Posted 2009-03-01 14:18:42 and read 23715 times.



Quoting Whaley (Reply 242):
I don't remember if this eye witness from the outside was already mentioned:
In an article in Dutch at http://www.nieuwsbladgeldermalsen.nl...n-ziet-crash-met-Turks.328251.news 19 year old Dutchman Sven saw the plane coming in very low, causing him to wonder what was about to happen, saw the tail hit the trees then slam to the ground. There was 'debris and engines flying around'.

Apparently he has seen the plane coming in surprisingly low, but he does not mention anything out of the ordinary until the 'tail hit the trees'.

He adds that he didn't smell kerosine, but he did not get real close to the scene (there was 7 meter of water to cross for him and his colleague if they had wanted to go help, which they didn't)

Interesting, but nobody else has mentioned the plane hitting a tree (not that I have read anyway).

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 243):
The TK crash reminded me of the British Midland 737-400 crash in 1989 where one engine developed major problems but the crew mis-identified the bad engine and shut down the wrong engine, followed by a further major power loss in the faulty engine on final approach and the resulting crash. I suppose that's another hypothetical possibility in the TK event.

It sort of reminds me of it too. I live close to EMA and the place where the Midlands plane hit the ground first is a similar distace from the runway as the TK crash. In the case of the TK crash the time from it being a normal ILS arrival to the crash seems to me too short to have one engine fail then go through the procedure of shutting down the other one before the impact. What times are we taking, 1-2 min max? It would explain one engine being pretty ok and the other more badly damaged.
Also would eyewitnesses be able to tell if only one engine was working when they are talking about hearing it go to full power? I guess the pax might be able to tell depending on what side they were on but we have none of the here to quizz!

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Starlionblue
Posted 2009-03-01 15:50:36 and read 23211 times.



Quoting Ciaran (Reply 218):
Quoting Kaitek:
"There's an interesting - albeit rather disturbing - issue being raised in PPRUNE, to the effect that the Dutch state prosecutor's office is demanding access to the recorders, to determine whether a prosecution should be instituted. This is obviously of concern, for a number of reasons:


This does not come across as particularly professional from a Gov body if they have to start squawking for info, It calls into question the procedural practices for accident investigations. Doesn’t the FBI working in tandem with NTSB sign off initially on criminal intent i.e. Bomb etc.. and then defer to the NTSB after such!

I dunno. This could just be standard procedure. By law they may have to "demand" access in order to check all the bureaucratic boxes.

Quoting CityhopperNL (Reply 233):
But I also think that when stalling a plane onto a surface, the landing gear comes in very handy to absorb the first energy.

I would think that in mud, gear down is not a good idea since it would get stuck (as it did). Better to "skid" on the surface if you will.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Virgin744
Posted 2009-03-01 15:55:49 and read 23284 times.

http://www.worldbulletin.net/news_detail.php?id=37469

According to the TALPA (Turkish Pilots Association) they explain that the plane did not crash due to engine failure nor made no mention of a mechanical problem, so this points to one of 2 things imo. Either pilot error or windshear. The former the most likely.

The following statement is telling, "The plane reached a speed that made him fall 1500 meters in one minute. This shows that the engine did not stop", they said.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: RichM
Posted 2009-03-01 16:03:24 and read 23231 times.



Quoting Mir (Reply 237):

Very unlikely. Speedbrakes should not be used while on approach - if you need them, you're unstabilized in the first place and need to go around. Pilots know this, and shouldn't be touching the handle for any purpose other than to arm them for landing. It would be very difficult to accidentally deploy them while doing so and not realize it.

-Mir

Is this always the case? In 2006 when I flew to Ibiza on a Thomsonfly 757-200 (G-BYAN) the speed brakes were used while on final approach.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Mir
Posted 2009-03-01 16:05:37 and read 23211 times.



Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 243):
The TK crash reminded me of the British Midland 737-400 crash in 1989 where one engine developed major problems but the crew mis-identified the bad engine and shut down the wrong engine,

That's a possible scenario, and it would point to a failure of TK's training and CRM programs. An engine failure in an airliner is not a time-critical scenario - you have a good amount of power left. With that in mind, you can take your time making sure that the fuel lever you cut off is the correct one (normally, the PF will either guard the lever for the good engine, or visually verify that the PNF has his finger on the correct lever).

Approach is a nasty time to be doing all that, though - a go around would probably have been in order if they wanted to go through the steps to secure the engine. The other option would be to continue and deal with the securing on the ground. But trying to secure the engine and land at the same time is putting a lot of work on the crew at a time where the workload is already high.

But again, we don't know that that's what happened.

-Mir

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Theredbaron
Posted 2009-03-01 16:09:16 and read 23233 times.

I am just an armchair aviation enthusiast but after reading over a 1000 posts on this terrible accident I have a theory so here it goes:

The 737 was almost perfect till 90 seconds before the crash, nobody could have anticipated this crash, so I think ATC its out of the loop in this respect and also the crew did not declare emergency (at least some people has stated they did not declare emergency).

The 737 lost a lot of speed and they had seconds to correct the problem, since their altitude was very low and in the final phase of the landing.

Witnesses stated that the plane was very low and slow and stalled or very close to stalling.

The 737 Slammed the ground very hard towards the front of the plane so causalities are concentrated in that area. due to G forces and gear intrusion on the cabin.

Pax have stated that there was engine noise prior to the crash, also vibration and the crash was fast and sudden (no crew prep, no announcement, no warning).

The plane came down level or almost level and engines do no show heavy damage, one of them is damaged the other is in very good condition (fan blades almost intact).


So I think that something distracted the crew, maybe it was something stupid just as the L1011 crash on the everglades, the CVR will shed some light on this but I think something or bad CRM made them go dangerously slow and get WAY below the power/lift curve, So they had just seconds to correct the problem, and they did not work in tandem.

Why do I come to this conclusion? It was been established that the 737 was in a high angle of attack (witnesses say the plane in high AOA and it impacted the trees tail first and the wreckage also confirms this). So they realize this, by a lot of sirens (in the cabin) they they are below the glide-slope and the stall warning, so they ram the engines to full power and pitch the plane up, resulting in engine compressor stall due to very slow speed and angle of attack, so the plane plunges like a brick.

They thought they had enough juice and altitude to "make it" they did not have time to attempt a "landing" because I bet they would have tried at least to pull up the gear ASAP, and at least declare mayday.

Time and time again we have seen that bad CRM is the perfect recipe for small mistakes that put together spell disaster.

I will read the info that comes this next week very close, because I don't think all the questions will be answered in this freakish accident.

BTW I have read that the aircraft was in MX and had some problems, maybe a MX related problem on the approach distracted the crew and these are the consequences.

Best Regards

TRB

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Mir
Posted 2009-03-01 16:19:26 and read 23267 times.



Quoting RichM (Reply 248):
Is this always the case? In 2006 when I flew to Ibiza on a Thomsonfly 757-200 (G-BYAN) the speed brakes were used while on final approach.

Depends on what you define as final approach. My comment was based on final approach being defined as after intercepting the glideslope. You can be getting vectored to the localizer and have speedbrakes out with no problems.

Quoting Theredbaron (Reply 250):
So I think that something distracted the crew, maybe it was something stupid just as the L1011 crash on the everglades, the CVR will shed some light on this but I think something or bad CRM made them go dangerously slow and get WAY below the power/lift curve, So they had just seconds to correct the problem, and they did not work in tandem.

That would be a great shame if it were the case. People have brought up that the FO might have been handflying as a training exercise, which is possible. There's nothing technically wrong with that, but the other pilot should have been monitoring the approach very closely the whole time.

-Mir

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: 727forever
Posted 2009-03-01 17:56:10 and read 22992 times.



Quoting Mir (Reply 251):
Quoting RichM (Reply 248):
Is this always the case? In 2006 when I flew to Ibiza on a Thomsonfly 757-200 (G-BYAN) the speed brakes were used while on final approach.

Depends on what you define as final approach. My comment was based on final approach being defined as after intercepting the glideslope. You can be getting vectored to the localizer and have speedbrakes out with no problems.

This all depends on the airplane and company. The company that I flew the 727 for prohibitted speed brake use anytime any flaps were extended. The company that I flew the CRJ for prohibitted flight spoiler extention with more than flaps 20. My current company does not allow speed brake use on the MD-80 with more than just the slats extended but does allow for speed brake use on the 757/767 with up to flaps 25. Let's just say that a 757 with speed brakes full and flaps 20 will come down like the elevator in the Empire State building.


727forever

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Md80fanatic
Posted 2009-03-01 19:48:58 and read 23027 times.

How can both pilots be distracted at once? One is looking at instruments and the other out of the windscreen. At best one might be distracted for a brief time, in the very few seconds.

Really folks, the way most of you think pilots operate their aircraft makes me wonder how you garner the bravery to climb aboard in the first place. Getting distracted, zoning out, missing aural alarms and bright lights, not knowing when they are 40+ knots slower than intended.....and the list goes on and on and on. How on earth do keep from having an anxiety attack when such error-prone half-wits in the pointy end hold your life in their hands?No wonder they call us SLF.

 banghead 

Here we have another good reason for the cockpit divider to be removed completely, so you folks can watch real pros in action, become really impressed by their skill, and finally be able to discuss an accident with some clue as to just how in-command and in-touch professional pilots really are.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Md80fanatic
Posted 2009-03-01 19:58:31 and read 23022 times.

The DFDR and CVR must be in absolutely mint condition, and the necessary download could/should have been possible in very short order (like same day).

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Mir
Posted 2009-03-01 20:07:38 and read 22992 times.



Quoting Md80fanatic (Reply 253):
How can both pilots be distracted at once?

People ask that question a lot. And yet it keeps happening.

Quoting Md80fanatic (Reply 253):
Here we have another good reason for the cockpit divider to be removed completely, so you folks can watch real pros in action, become really impressed by their skill, and finally be able to discuss an accident with some clue as to just how in-command and in-touch professional pilots really are.

Then maybe you have some insight you'd like to share on that. Because as far as I can tell, the only thing you've contributed to this discussion is to propagate the idea that there must have been a conspiracy involved, because everything else sounds too improbable. And that's not sensible investigation.

-Mir

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Zeke
Posted 2009-03-01 20:10:50 and read 23013 times.



Quoting Virgin744 (Reply 247):
According to the TALPA (Turkish Pilots Association) they explain that the plane did not crash due to engine failure nor made no mention of a mechanical problem, so this points to one of 2 things imo. Either pilot error or windshear. The former the most likely.

Lots of possibilities, a unknown failure like what caused the 737 rudders to have hard overs, inadvertent thrust reverser deployment etc, so many possibilities, it is best to wait until the report is released. Far too early for TALPA to start speculating.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Md80fanatic
Posted 2009-03-01 20:42:26 and read 22921 times.



Quoting Mir (Reply 255):
And yet it keeps happening.

Proof? Do you have first hand proof?

I wonder what got under Steve Chelander's skin so bad that he resigned one week into the Buffalo accident? He was being pounded pretty good by the press over the icing theory he was trying to supress.

Quoting Mir (Reply 255):
Because as far as I can tell, the only thing you've contributed to this discussion is to propagate the idea that there must have been a conspiracy involved, because everything else sounds too improbable. And that's not sensible investigation.

I did not ever once say this crash was a conspiracy. How do I know that so certainly? Because the officials have said nothing yet. Make sense?

Obama can lie to your face, and perhaps you may believe him. Bush lied to your face and you picked up on it. People lie to me several times daily, and to you too I am sure. But for some reason, you will trust without fail, anything an investigator says. How can you trust one so implicitly, without any evidence to go on whatsoever?

What if a whole slew of investigators miss a small part or something.....an honest error that makes history as if it were 100% fact? I mean, if two pilots are so prone to error, why should accident investigators be immune to the same human frailty?

Anyway, I said I'd stop the conspiracy talk yesterday, and I have not re-entered it into this discussion since (you did though a few moments ago). I'd appreciate it if you'd stop misrepresenting me, Mir. Unless you can explicitly disprove anything I have said so far in this thread, then my theory is as valid and as possible as any other laid out here.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Md80fanatic
Posted 2009-03-01 20:56:39 and read 22880 times.

Windshear? Huh?

Maybe God sneezed and this plane got too close to the downdraft? Since we're throwing darts with eye's closed......why not?

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Theredbaron
Posted 2009-03-01 22:21:12 and read 22704 times.

Md80 Fanatic I used to like flying for almost 20 years since I got my first propeller trip on a DC6, then I flew 5 years completely terrified, why?

I used to fly a lot in the Jumpseat and I experienced things in the cabin on perfectly normal flights that gave me flight paranoia. They even sedated me once on a Plane from Orlando to Miami (very long history) because I was causing a lot of noise in the cabin (this was pre 9/11 luckily).

Another BIG BIG scare cured me, very long experience to tell. Now Iam fine (just see my signature)

I have seen very VERY professional airmen and mavericks, time and time again IN ALL KIND of ways of life we see screw ups simply because we are not perfect and make mistakes.

I hope this is not the case but its a possibility .

Best Regards

TRB

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Dc863
Posted 2009-03-01 23:03:48 and read 22555 times.



Quoting Md80fanatic (Reply 253):
How can both pilots be distracted at once?

I take it you've never read too many NTSB accident reports. Pilots can be distracted by many things. It happened so many times when there used to be 3 crew aboard.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Mir
Posted 2009-03-01 23:55:36 and read 22380 times.



Quoting Md80fanatic (Reply 257):
Proof? Do you have first hand proof?

A brief visit to the NTSB site should answer that question. Off the top of my head, I can give you two major accidents that were the result of pilot inattention: AA965 and DL5191. Those accidents are years apart - years in which CRM training advanced quite a bit. Yet DL5191 still happened. Here's another one that just came into my head: Eastern 401. And that wasn't just two pilots - that was at least three. IIRC, it was four, all of whom were completely and utterly distracted from flying the airplane.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that distractions happen to pilots. I've seen it happen, and it's happened to me. I also know that not all distractions end in an accident - 99.9% of them don't. This one might have just fallen into the .1%. Or, it might have been something else entirely. But your idea that professional pilots are immune to making mistakes is something that simply does not hold water.

Quoting Md80fanatic (Reply 257):
I did not ever once say this crash was a conspiracy.

No, you've just strongly hinted at it. With stuff like this:

Quoting Md80fanatic (Reply 191):
Kiwi, what if the intention was for all to die, including the targets?

That one pretty much implies foul play.

We have your first comment, which implies that you know that the report will come out listing pilot error as the cause, and that it will be incorrect.

Then we have the whole comparison to the Egyptair ditching video. Again, the implication is clear: since one video was doctored, it means that there are some agents out there of someone or other who would break the law in order to keep things quiet. Of course, the fact that it was pointed out later that the video wasn't doctored kind of put a dent in that one.

And then we have the idea that those who are claiming that pilot error could (not did, but could) have played a role have no idea of the skills and responsibilities of a pilot, and that if they did, they'd know that it was impossible for a crew to screw up this badly, and that therefore, the cause must be something else.

It's pretty clear what the message is.

If you want to reject government sources out of suspicion of tampering, that's your right. But you should know that NTSB reports have saved lives, and will continue to do so.

If you can provide some solid evidence to substantiate the idea that there was some outside influence at work here, please do. But right now, you seem to be going off the outright rejection of the idea that pilots are immune to gross error, when history shows that that is clearly not the case. And that makes the conclusions rather hard to take seriously.

-Mir

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: KL577
Posted 2009-03-02 00:12:39 and read 22289 times.

In other news:

The Polderbaan (01L-18R) has reopened for traffic.

The wreckage will not be removed before Tuesday, as technical investigations require more time.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Alias1024
Posted 2009-03-02 00:40:01 and read 22182 times.



Quoting Md80fanatic (Reply 253):
How can both pilots be distracted at once? One is looking at instruments and the other out of the windscreen. At best one might be distracted for a brief time, in the very few seconds.

It can happen a lot more easily than you would imagine.

Just a few weeks ago I was inbound to SFO from the south on the Quiet Bridge visual. I was pilot monitoring with the captain flying this leg. Just before the turn to intercept the 28L final, I looked down to put tower frequency in the standby on COM 1. I then looked for the frequency for ramp so I could have it ready in COM 2, but I had a bit of trouble finding the right chart and was head down for probably 10-15 seconds.

I looked up and we were already across the 28L centerline and almost on the 28R centerline, still headed northbound at 200 kts. The captain had just zoned out for a few seconds. Thankfully there wasn't any traffic for 28R at the time, but I sure though for a little while that evening about how differently it could have turned out if there had been.

Quoting Mir (Reply 261):
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that distractions happen to pilots. I've seen it happen, and it's happened to me. I also know that not all distractions end in an accident - 99.9% of them don't. This one might have just fallen into the .1%. Or, it might have been something else entirely. But your idea that professional pilots are immune to making mistakes is something that simply does not hold water.

 checkmark 

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Part147
Posted 2009-03-02 01:05:35 and read 22128 times.

It seems this paper is reporting that ATC is mainly at fault, since it didn't use 5 miles separation between aircraft, resulting in windshear and, I personally think if true, asking the pilots to keep their speed to a minimum...

http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/65...ower-in-amsterdam-plane-crash.html

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: 76er
Posted 2009-03-02 01:51:41 and read 21983 times.

On the Dutch pilot forum "Airwork" it is stated (by an anonymous air traffic controller?) that radar plots show a separation of 5.6 NM. Alledgedly, the approach was also commenced hot and high. We shoud know within a day or two..

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Max777geek
Posted 2009-03-02 01:52:55 and read 21829 times.



Quoting Zeke (Reply 256):
inadvertent thrust reverser deployment

in flight ? that would have been making the plane coming down even faster the empire state building elevator, and not just as pointed, at -1500 fpm

Quoting Dc863 (Reply 260):
Pilots can be distracted by many things. It happened so many times when there used to be 3 crew aboard.

during short final out of the gs ? that would surprise me. I think they were doing a hell of a job to try to recover the situation, not just to come back in the gs again, but just to fly it. I wouldn't spouse the separation theory either. Id be more on the single movement failing spoolup of the eventually only engine running.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Vfw614
Posted 2009-03-02 02:04:54 and read 21753 times.



Quoting KL577 (Reply 262):
The Polderbaan (01L-18R) has reopened for traffic.

The wreckage will not be removed before Tuesday, as technical investigations require more time.

Wonder what goes through the head of pilots on approach to the Polderbaan when passing overhead the wreckage (and passengers if the wreckage is off centreline and can be spotted from the cabin).

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Max777geek
Posted 2009-03-02 03:05:45 and read 21349 times.



Quoting Vfw614 (Reply 267):
and passengers if the wreckage is off centreline and can be spotted from the cabin

Landing on the same rwy, I wouldn't say so. Maybe traffic from the other rwys, but I guess everything is been covered also concerning for this reason.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: DeC
Posted 2009-03-02 03:44:28 and read 21243 times.

Very realistic cgi depiction of what went wrong with the plane, i.e the actual crash based on the investigation findings so far and eye-witness accounts

http://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/panorama...AirlinesMaschine-ab/story/12210785

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Deaphen
Posted 2009-03-02 03:47:29 and read 21174 times.



Quoting DeC (Reply 267):
Very realistic cgi depiction of what went wrong with the plane, i.e the actual crash based on the investigation findings so far and eye-witness accounts

True, but whats strange is, which this animation has not picked up, was why both the engines are to the right side of the fuselage. One about 200 meters or so behind the other, on the same side of the wreckage.

Nitin

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Nitepilot79
Posted 2009-03-02 04:23:29 and read 20880 times.

I have seen the term "incapacitation" used to describe a possible factor in the crash. I assume this in reference to physical and/or mental incapacitation of the flight crew? Any elaborations on why this keeps coming up? Is it just pure speculation?

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Max777geek
Posted 2009-03-02 04:30:02 and read 20831 times.

Quoting Deaphen (Reply 268):

True, but whats strange is, which this animation has not picked up, was why both the engines are to the right side of the fuselage. One about 200 meters or so behind the other, on the same side of the wreckage.

different bounces, possibly different pylon damages upon ground contact ?

[Edited 2009-03-02 04:30:53]

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Draigonair
Posted 2009-03-02 07:08:54 and read 19807 times.



Quoting Md80fanatic (Reply 251):
How can both pilots be distracted at once? One is looking at instruments and the other out of the windscreen. At best one might be distracted for a brief time, in the very few seconds

It can all happen, the PNF just quickly looking at, for example, the taxi route and the PF fixated on the g/s leaving the speed un-monitored. Trust me that it can happen. Im currently doing my ME/IF course and it can happen to anyone, especially if its a new aircraft and everything is still not 'second nature' in the cockpit.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Khobar
Posted 2009-03-02 07:39:52 and read 19808 times.



Quoting Md80fanatic (Reply 251):
Really folks, the way most of you think pilots operate their aircraft makes me wonder how you garner the bravery to climb aboard in the first place. Getting distracted, zoning out, missing aural alarms and bright lights, not knowing when they are 40+ knots slower than intended.....and the list goes on and on and on. How on earth do keep from having an anxiety attack when such error-prone half-wits in the pointy end hold your life in their hands?No wonder they call us SLF.

GPWS - "Pull up. Woop woop. Pull up."
Pilot - "Shut up! Shut up!"
sound of impact.
end of tape.

Quoting Max777geek (Reply 264):
in flight ? that would have been making the plane coming down even faster the empire state building elevator, and not just as pointed, at -1500 fpm

There is a video of a C130 fitted with rockets that shows what can happen when "reverse thrust" is applied in flight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDlyk9E67_A

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Sbkom
Posted 2009-03-02 10:42:52 and read 18484 times.



Quoting DeC (Reply 267):
Very realistic cgi depiction of what went wrong with the plane, i.e the actual crash based on the investigation findings so far and eye-witness accounts

This is not what went wrong, this is how the pilots managed the crisis.
This is exactly how I imagined when I tried to describe it earlier. If this is true, (and this is what we deduct from the data published earlier), this is not a crash, but an emergency crashlanding.
Once the pilot realizes he can't make the runway, slows down dramatically and lands to the most appropriate field to avoid hitting other obstacles.

Still the biggest puzzle, why was he unable to make it?

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: LTBEWR
Posted 2009-03-02 16:57:59 and read 16874 times.

One possibility I want to put out there, was there a major electrical fault, short or a circuit breaker going out and kicking back in? What I am thinking of is something where the FBW systems were not fully functioning for a very short time, but unfortuntally at a very critical time causing a short shut down of the engines, of operating control systems etc.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2009-03-02 17:12:31 and read 16832 times.



Quoting Mir (Reply 259):
A brief visit to the NTSB site should answer that question. Off the top of my head, I can give you two major accidents that were the result of pilot inattention: AA965 and DL5191. Those accidents are years apart - years in which CRM training advanced quite a bit.

Also UA173 in 1978, the DC-8-61 that ran out of fuel while holding near PDX to investigate a landing gear warning, luckily with only 10 fatalities of the 189 aboard in the resulting crash landing about 6 miles short of the airport. That accident prompted UA to implement new CRM procedures. From the NTSB probable cause:

PROBABLE CAUSE: The failure of the captain to monitor properly the aircraft's fuel state and to properly respond to the low fuel state and the crewmember's advisories regarding fuel state. This resulted in fuel exhaustion to all engines. His inattention resulted from preoccupation with a landing gear malfunction and preparations for a possible landing emergency. Contributing to the accident was the failure of the other two flight crewmembers either to fully comprehend the criticality of the fuel state or to successfully communicate their concern to the captain.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Zeke
Posted 2009-03-02 17:18:27 and read 17192 times.



Quoting Max777geek (Reply 264):

in flight ? that would have been making the plane coming down even faster the empire state building elevator, and not just as pointed, at -1500 fpm

Where did you get 1500 fpm from ? Above 1500 mpm (approx 4 920 fpm) was mentioned, but I think it is too early to know that until the initial report is out.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: OV735
Posted 2009-03-02 17:36:47 and read 17227 times.



Quoting Sbkom (Reply 273):
This is not what went wrong, this is how the pilots managed the crisis.
This is exactly how I imagined when I tried to describe it earlier. If this is true, (and this is what we deduct from the data published earlier), this is not a crash, but an emergency crashlanding.
Once the pilot realizes he can't make the runway, slows down dramatically and lands to the most appropriate field to avoid hitting other obstacles.

If you take a look at the map, after a turn to the left by 20-30 degrees, there would have been much more room for the crash landing, and no need to stall the aircraft before the impact.



The crew of SK751 (incidentally, also three people in the cockpit) managed to pull off a landing on a field, without victims. Granted, they had a little more altitude and thus a bit more time for reacting and choosing their patch of field.

Nevertheless, even 10 degrees to the left would have given the TK crew considerably lot more room before the A9, to execute a flare and a controlled landing. Deceleration on a field would have been sufficient and the aircraft would have slowed down quickly, probably ripping of the landing gear while doing that.

What's even more confusing is, that if they faced an emergency for the last two minutes or so before the impact, why not turn to the left before A200, to gain room for an emergency landing.

I understand that it's easy for me to speculate from my seat, and the atmosphere in the cockpit in the last seconds was entirely different, with three people yelling at each other and so on...

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Sbkom
Posted 2009-03-02 19:44:39 and read 16840 times.



Quoting OV735 (Reply 277):
even 10 degrees to the left would have given the TK crew considerably lot more room before the A9, to execute a flare and a controlled landing

It is pure speculation at this point. It is impossible for us to see the real terrain on the Google map, but the accident pictures show trees planted around the borders of the fields. Also, the a/c was at 177 kts and very low altitude before the A200, he barely made it. Initial touchdown is right after the A200 at 83 kts. If he attempted to turn, even a slight movement of wings would destabilize the a/c reducing the lift area and maybe initiate a spin at this very low speed, stall condition.
This is very difficult to judge from what we have. But what I know from stall maneuvers is "never attempt to turn, keep wings level".
We also don't know the condition of the fields other than the one he landed on. There could be plantations, green houses, animals, etc. The only thing we know is the condition of this particular field, surrounded by trees and even some farm structures nearby.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Gonzalo
Posted 2009-03-02 20:06:02 and read 16844 times.



Quoting Mir (Reply 259):
IIRC, it was four, all of whom were completely and utterly distracted from flying the airplane.

You're correct. A simple lamp distracted the crew ( was a gear locked indicator, although the gear was in position )...and an almost brand new wide body full of people ended in the Everglades... Distractions and errors can affect any crew...when you're tired or sleepy, or angry with your copilot, or thinking in your family, or how to pay the bills, .... hundreds of things can affect a crew, and sadly, sometimes, the result is a crash.
However, i think there's no evidence at all suggesting a distraction or fault from the crew of the TK 738, like others said before, too early to say there were heroes or villains in this tragic event.

Nothing about the CVR or DFDR readings yet ?

Saludos.
G.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Dc863
Posted 2009-03-02 21:58:34 and read 16617 times.



Quoting Max777geek (Reply 264):
during short final out of the gs

Yes.
Also I never insinuated that the Turkish pilots didn't do everything possible to avoid disaster. I was addressing MD80s assertion that pilots can and have been distracted up till the point of impact.
The Delta DC-9 crash in June of '73 was a case of major cockpit distraction due to the crew's workload and proximity to Logan.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Iberiadc852
Posted 2009-03-03 02:02:26 and read 15986 times.



Quoting Max777geek (Reply 238):
Definitely not. airbrakes can be used at a certain extension in flight to reduce airspeed, that would increase dramatically the descent ratio, but I would totally exclude this could be the case expecially in short final phase of the flight. If that needed to be used to decrease speed before loosing the glide slope, that would have been noticed, as they were also following another airplane at a given airspeed to keep separation. And for the record, I may have a bit of cockpit knowledge, but Im not a professional airline pilot.

Although an accident is generally a concatenation of causes, an explanation is most probable as less concatenations of odds you need to justify it.

And when you have an accident like this one with the weak link of a learning pilot the chance of that playing a role arises a lot.

So, my point in an accident like this one, is that the sequence:

Speedbrakes (perhaps deployed as part of the training)
+
Distraction (because of whatever possible issue)
+
Late Recovery (not enough for avoiding crash, but yes to possibly soften the impact)

could be a relatively simple explanation that:

- Satisfies the progressive loss of speed
- Satisfies the aircraft nose up and full power at the final moment but not enough to avoid the accident.
- Satisfies a situation of crash landing in very short field but with many survivors.

I had the doubt of speedbrakes absolutely forbidden in that aircraft and alarms, but it seems that is not the case.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Ptrjong
Posted 2009-03-03 02:41:46 and read 15779 times.



Quoting OV735 (Reply 277):
What's even more confusing is, that if they faced an emergency for the last two minutes or so before the impact, why not turn to the left before A200, to gain room for an emergency landing.

I don't see why they would have preferred to do that. Anyway, the fields north of A200 have lots of ditches.

A low approach, an engine failure, shutting down the good engine, and then a controlled stall to make a short crash landing - that does sound like a possible course of events.

Peter

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Na
Posted 2009-03-03 03:55:37 and read 15523 times.



Quoting Part147 (Reply 262):
It seems this paper is reporting that ATC is mainly at fault, since it didn't use 5 miles separation between aircraft, resulting in windshear and, I personally think if true, asking the pilots to keep their speed to a minimum...

This is also on yahoo now. And the, again premature, reaction from Turkey: The pilots made no mistake.
Wait and see.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Bralo20
Posted 2009-03-03 05:18:04 and read 15120 times.



Quoting Sankaps (Reply 75):
The most surprising report, again from the Turkish news sources, is that medical help took 40 minutes to arrive.

Of course one does not know how reliable the news sources are, but scary to consider nevertheless.

The 40 minutes is most likely not true although Fire & EMS were dispatched to a wrong location at first.

Quoting Petertenthije (Reply 98):
I think 4 minutes is a more reasonable guess! 40 minutes in the TV crews where already reporting having counted 33 ambulances. In total 60+ ambulances where dispatched as well as 3 medevac helicopters flying back and forth the crash site and numerous hospitals in the region.

The nearest by firestation/ambulancepost is at the intersection of Adrianahoeve and the N201. That's about 6 kms, most of which a straight line dual carriage way that is not particularly busy. If any Schiphol crashtenders where waiting at the beginning of the runway, apparantly an emergency had been declared so it seems likely, then they would hvae been no more then 3 kms away.

Correct, but AFAIK they were dispatched to a wrong location. But it definately wasn't 40 minutes.

Quoting Mbg (Reply 100):
Can anybody provide us with concrete evidence that an emergency was declared?

I am not suggestiıng that it actually took 40 mins for the emergency crews to reach the crash-site (as a matter of fact, I think that's BS), I am just not sure if an emergency was actually declared.

mbg

First dispatch for the regular fire services:

At 10h31m33s the first call was made to the fire services:

10:31:33 25-02-09 GROUP-2 PRIO 1 UGS A PELIKAANWEG LUCHTHAVEN SCHIPHOL LUCHTVAART INCIDENT SCHIPHOL (VOS: 6) (INC: 09) [ 344 171 349 346 342 748 198 563 574 590 584 195 594 194 193

And this for the following service:

- FD Kennemerland
- FD Haarlem (West)
- FD Heemstede
- FD Hoofddorp
- FD Haarlemmermeer

Following the VOS - 6 SOP:

Aircraft crash with 50 to 250 people on board

Seconds later (10h31m54s) an additional dispatch was made for Kennemerland and Heemstede following the GRIP - 2 SOP:

Large incident with effects in a larger radius arround the incident scene


At 10h36m05s another additional call was made and the the GRIP - 2 was raised to GRIP - 3:

Large disastor with effects in the direct neighbourhoud of the incident


At 10h41m27s additional ambulances were called to the scene
Arround 11h10 the last additional ambulances were called to the scene.

During the minutes and hours after the crash additional emergency services were called to the scene to assist or relief.



Since the plane crashed arround 10h31m you can say the emergency services were dispatch immediately when the crash occured...

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Draigonair
Posted 2009-03-03 08:29:30 and read 14475 times.

Interesting photo taken from the cockpit. Taken short final RWY 18R you can see TK1951 lying on the ground. http://lh5.ggpht.com/__SfybfHbfMo/Sa...AAAAAAAQ8/pHQ0gW0z4fU/s800/crash02

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Severnaya
Posted 2009-03-03 08:51:47 and read 14212 times.

That photo indicates that the plane was on the centerline.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: LHRSpotter
Posted 2009-03-03 09:13:37 and read 14101 times.



Quoting Sbkom (Reply 278):
Also, the a/c was at 177 kts and very low altitude before the A200, he barely made it. Initial touchdown is right after the A200 at 83 kts.

Sbkom, I also think that your theory about the crew stalling to crashland in the soft field AND to avoid the busy A9 motorway is quite plausible, especially after watching that reconstruction. You meant 117 kts above didn't you?

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Litz
Posted 2009-03-03 09:58:55 and read 13799 times.



Quoting Draigonair (Reply 285):
Interesting photo taken from the cockpit. Taken short final RWY 18R you can see TK1951 lying on the ground. http://lh5.ggpht.com/__SfybfHbfMo/Sa...AAAAAAAQ8/pHQ0gW0z4fU/s800/crash02

Are those the horiz. stabilizers sitting in the field a goodly distance from the rear of the plane?

You can see the tail canted off to the side from the rear of the fuselage, but it's hard to tell if the stabs are still attached.

Flat-out amazing that this 737 could pancake in like this, and no fire ...

- litz

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: EMA747
Posted 2009-03-03 10:12:55 and read 13750 times.



Quoting Draigonair (Reply 285):
Interesting photo taken from the cockpit. Taken short final RWY 18R you can see TK1951 lying on the ground. http://lh5.ggpht.com/__SfybfHbfMo/Sa...ash02

I assume the big white coloured tent and the brown road that the truck is driving on to the left of the wreckage are built after the crash?

A good job the plane didn't hit that row of trees just in front as there would have surely been more chance of a fire then from broken wing tanks.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Petertenthije
Posted 2009-03-03 10:25:16 and read 13664 times.



Quoting Litz (Reply 288):
Are those the horiz. stabilizers sitting in the field a goodly distance from the rear of the plane?

Yes they are.

Quoting EMA747 (Reply 289):
I assume the big white coloured tent and the brown road that the truck is driving on to the left of the wreckage are built after the crash?

Yes both the road and the tent where added after the crash.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Deaphen
Posted 2009-03-03 10:29:49 and read 13647 times.



Quoting EMA747 (Reply 289):
I assume the big white coloured tent and the brown road that the truck is driving on to the left of the wreckage are built after the crash?

Yes, that is a temporary enclosure.

But look at the difference in height, assuming that the aircraft the picture was taken from was also inbound 18R. That is a large height diff.

Nitin

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: EMA747
Posted 2009-03-03 11:52:26 and read 13174 times.

From looking at the picture again I would say the tail section split off from the main body about were the horizontal stab did and that is why there is a line of derbies. Maybe it was dragged along still partly joined to the main body and only swung round when it all come to a stop.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: DRAIGONAIR
Posted 2009-03-03 12:31:48 and read 12967 times.



Quoting EMA747 (Reply 292):
From looking at the picture again I would say the tail section split off from the main body about were the horizontal stab did and that is why there is a line of derbies. Maybe it was dragged along still partly joined to the main body and only swung round when it all come to a stop.

yeh i think that too. The plane, where the photo was taken from, is indeed on approach 18R and looks normal as i seem to see 2 red 2 white from the PAPI

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Sbkom
Posted 2009-03-03 14:42:25 and read 12343 times.

Quoting LHRSpotter (Reply 287):
You meant 117 kts above didn't you

Yes, I made a typo, sorry! I tried to edit it afterward but was unable.
117 kts is taken from the speed published just before the A200.

[Edited 2009-03-03 14:48:42]

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: PW100
Posted 2009-03-04 01:53:06 and read 11314 times.

Today at 14.00 CET, the Dutch Safety Board investigating this accident will publish their initial findings.
http://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/index.p...itnodiging-crash-turkish-airlines/

Regards,
PW100

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: NCB
Posted 2009-03-04 02:28:53 and read 11145 times.



Quoting OV735 (Reply 277):
The crew of SK751 (incidentally, also three people in the cockpit) managed to pull off a landing on a field, without victims. Granted, they had a little more altitude and thus a bit more time for reacting and choosing their patch of field.

Nevertheless, even 10 degrees to the left would have given the TK crew considerably lot more room before the A9, to execute a flare and a controlled landing. Deceleration on a field would have been sufficient and the aircraft would have slowed down quickly, probably ripping of the landing gear while doing that.

This is a correct analysis.
Whatever happened was so sudden and unexpected that it didn't give the pilots time to react, let alone execute a more comfortable landing.

We'll know about the details in less than 3 hours!

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Deaphen
Posted 2009-03-04 03:00:32 and read 10986 times.

one silly question, will the report be in dutch or english or both? Cant wait to hear the results. Hmmm and where will the finding be posted or will it be broadcast on tv? Thanks, nitin

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: PW100
Posted 2009-03-04 03:26:02 and read 10869 times.

The report will definitively be published in English as well. I don't have link, but the press conference will be live on several Dutch TV channels.

Regards,
PW100

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Hotje
Posted 2009-03-04 03:52:54 and read 10813 times.

Flightglobal already posted some info prior to the press conference:

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/un...urkish-airlines-crash-evidenc.html

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Gorgos
Posted 2009-03-04 04:06:57 and read 10643 times.

^^^ Is it normal that the engines are in "retard" mode in that fase of approach?

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: N14AZ
Posted 2009-03-04 04:09:59 and read 10673 times.



Quoting Hotje (Reply 299):
Flightglobal already posted some info prior to the press conference:

Thanks very much for the link.

Quote:
Boeing will warn crews about fundamentals like flying the aircraft, monitoring airspeed, monitoring altitude, and will give advice about radalt issues

Doesn't sound too good for the crew - if these are the first results.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: TristarSteve
Posted 2009-03-04 04:13:15 and read 10618 times.



Quoting Gorgos (Reply 300):
Is it normal that the engines are in "retard" mode in that fase of approach?

No, probably because of the Left RadAlt false reading.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Wolbo
Posted 2009-03-04 04:15:00 and read 10613 times.

These unconfirmed reports have also been broadcasted on Dutch TV. If true it shows how unwise it was for TALPA to try to lay the blaim elsewhere without any evidence to back up their accusations.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Draigonair
Posted 2009-03-04 04:17:07 and read 10589 times.

Woo thats not good at all.
If the throttle are in retard mode and you want to give power and then you let go of the throttles, if i understand correctly, it will go back to idle?
The question is, why weren the TOGA buttons pressed?

Nick

[Edited 2009-03-04 04:34:08]

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Lexer
Posted 2009-03-04 04:36:35 and read 10381 times.

Can somebody explain exactly what the "retard mode" is?

Many thanks. L.

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: Gorgos
Posted 2009-03-04 04:43:52 and read 10320 times.



Quoting Lexer (Reply 305):
Can somebody explain exactly what the "retard mode" is?

This bit of info helped me:

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6186447/description.html

Topic: RE: TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 6
Username: HB-IWC
Posted 2009-03-04 04:47:05 and read 10302 times.

Please continue the discussion here:

TK B738 Crash At Amsterdam - Part 7

This thread is now archived.


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/