Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
TK787 wrote:RIP to all that lost their lives. Was this the frame that was leased by TK for 6 months?
TK787 wrote:Thanks LAXintl, looking at flightradar this flight is usually flown by a 332F, was this flight a one off, of just an equipment change?
VS4ever wrote:but he flew the runway, took down the fence and fell onto the garden."
cpthtg wrote:To me, looking at the latest METAR, requiered RVR for the Ils 26 is 720 meters. Actual report : 550 meters, not to mention the temperature correction for temp -9 degrees, and the high elevation. In other words, if the aircraft was on the approach for the Ils 26 he busted the minimums. He should not have flown the appraoch at all. (approach ban)
beeweel15 wrote:Read there was one survivor from the crew. RIP to the Crew members and those on the ground.
cpthtg wrote:To me, looking at the latest METAR, requiered RVR for the Ils 26 is 720 meters. Actual report : 550 meters, not to mention the temperature correction for temp -9 degrees, and the high elevation. In other words, if the aircraft was on the approach for the Ils 26 he busted the minimums. He should not have flown the appraoch at all. (approach ban)
LH648 wrote:VS4ever wrote:but he flew the runway, took down the fence and fell onto the garden."
What correlates with FR24 data: last recorded point is in the middle of the runway.
kaitak wrote:Here's a report from the BBC:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-38633526
TC-MCL is a fourteen year old machine (almost to the day) and started its career with SIA Cargo as 9V-SFL.
https://www.planespotters.net/airframe/ ... T-Airlines
F9Animal wrote:beeweel15 wrote:Read there was one survivor from the crew. RIP to the Crew members and those on the ground.
That would be a miracle if anyone on that plane survived. I am confused though. Someone stated it made a technical stop? Was it having any mechanical issues? Did they need to stop for fuel? I would think that plane had the range to make it non stop.
helmat wrote:UCFM 160100Z VRB01MPS 0050 R26/300N FZFG VV001 M09/M10 Q1023 R26/19//60 NOSIG
UCFM 160130Z VRB01MPS 0150 R26/550 FZFG VV001 M09/M10 Q1024 R26/19//60 NOSIG
mafaky wrote:Well, I don't want to be the devil's advocate, but this frame's history looks a bit strange / unusual to me:
1) It started flying for SQ Cargo, as a factory-fresh frame (original cargo plane, not converted!...): late Feb 2003 till Jan 2009; for 6 years.
2) Then, apparently it as returned to the (unknown) lessor. But, especially for a factory-fresh cargo plane, isn't this utilisation of only 6 years (and for an airline like SQ) too short?
3) Later, as far as I can see, this plane never flew for any commercial flights for a period of 6+ more years... Isn't that also unusual for a young cargo frame? Nobody wanted to lease it?
4) Finally it was leased by ACT/Turkey in late 2015, flew for QR Cargo during 2016 or almost a year (but definitely not for 12 months) until it was freed from QR Cargo services. It as wet-leased to TK starting 11th Jan. 2017; just a couple of days ago. (BTW: TK is wet leasing another ACT 747F frame,: the TC-ACJ which is a much older frame around 25.5yo, since 27.10.2016...)
KTPAFlyer wrote:LH648 wrote:VS4ever wrote:but he flew the runway, took down the fence and fell onto the garden."
What correlates with FR24 data: last recorded point is in the middle of the runway.
I'm a bit confused, how can it be an overrun if the last point was the middle of the runway? Please excuse my naïveness, I might be missing something obvious here.
frigatebird wrote:KTPAFlyer wrote:LH648 wrote:What correlates with FR24 data: last recorded point is in the middle of the runway.
I'm a bit confused, how can it be an overrun if the last point was the middle of the runway? Please excuse my naïveness, I might be missing something obvious here.
I know it's way too early, but still to speculate:
Landing half way the runway and running out of tarmac, like the AF358 A340 crash at YYZ?
Or perhaps more like EK521 773 crash at DXB, a botched go-around?
Sadly in this case not ending up in a creek like the AF or on the runway like the EK bird. Why on Earth people are allowed to live in houses just beyond the runway is really incomprehensible. I know the people living there often don't have a choice, but still.
76er wrote:helmat wrote:UCFM 160100Z VRB01MPS 0050 R26/300N FZFG VV001 M09/M10 Q1023 R26/19//60 NOSIG
UCFM 160130Z VRB01MPS 0150 R26/550 FZFG VV001 M09/M10 Q1024 R26/19//60 NOSIG
Well, if Wikipedia is correct UCFM approach capability is only CAT2, which is cutting it pretty close. Putting it mildly..
Edit: I've looked it up, CAT2 approach minimums are 100ft RA and 350m RVR at Bishkek.
frigatebird wrote:KTPAFlyer wrote:LH648 wrote:What correlates with FR24 data: last recorded point is in the middle of the runway.
I'm a bit confused, how can it be an overrun if the last point was the middle of the runway? Please excuse my naïveness, I might be missing something obvious here.
I know it's way too early, but still to speculate:
Landing half way the runway and running out of tarmac, like the AF358 A340 crash at YYZ?
Or perhaps more like EK521 773 crash at DXB, a botched go-around?
Sadly in this case not ending up in a creek like the AF or on the runway like the EK bird. Why on Earth people are allowed to live in houses just beyond the runway is really incomprehensible. I know the people living there often don't have a choice, but still.
andrej wrote:Horrible news. RIP.76er wrote:helmat wrote:UCFM 160100Z VRB01MPS 0050 R26/300N FZFG VV001 M09/M10 Q1023 R26/19//60 NOSIG
UCFM 160130Z VRB01MPS 0150 R26/550 FZFG VV001 M09/M10 Q1024 R26/19//60 NOSIG
Well, if Wikipedia is correct UCFM approach capability is only CAT2, which is cutting it pretty close. Putting it mildly..
Edit: I've looked it up, CAT2 approach minimums are 100ft RA and 350m RVR at Bishkek.
Question for those in the know...does this mean that at 0100Z pilot could land on RWY26 utilizing ILS CAT2 and at 0130Z it would not be legal to land? Assuming that at or before 100' RA pilot would make a 'visual contact' with RWY?
Thanks!
Andrej
frigatebird wrote:Sadly in this case not ending up in a creek like the AF or on the runway like the EK bird. Why on Earth people are allowed to live in houses just beyond the runway is really incomprehensible. I know the people living there often don't have a choice, but still.
CARST wrote:frigatebird wrote:Sadly in this case not ending up in a creek like the AF or on the runway like the EK bird. Why on Earth people are allowed to live in houses just beyond the runway is really incomprehensible. I know the people living there often don't have a choice, but still.
Tell that to Chicago Midway airport... or many, many airports worldwide. About every major city in this world has airports directly in the city center or surrounded by houses, where a crash directly after takeoff or on a go-around would probably impact these.
The list could go on forever. And we all know that you don't need houses directly behind the runway fence for an aircraft to crash into these, just look at El-Al 1862 or Colgan Air 3407 and many other crashes. And we just can't rebuild all airports worldwide to place them in uninhabitated territory. As long as we need air travel as we know it today, we have to live with these "risks", which are really, really small, if everythig is done to regulations. I would wait for the results of this crash here, because I am quite confident something wasn't done to regulations here...
helmat wrote:
That depends on the RVR reported at time the aircraft was cleared for the approach. The RVR measurements often change quite frequently, the reported values are 30min apart so it's possible that the values were better (or worse) in between.
The value has to be the minimum required RVR when you are cleared for the approach and as long as you are outside of the outer marker. So if you have, in this case, 350m minimum RVR and tower calls you outside of the marker that RVR now is 250m you would have to go around and discontinue the approach. As soon you are inside the outer marker you can continue whatever values are being reported to you.