Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
asdf
Posts: 695
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 12:03 am

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Thu Feb 06, 2020 9:32 am

BoeingVista wrote:
Nope, I haven't seen them either, but 737 break up pictures, many, many, many of those. At some point a regulator or statisticians are going to look at 737 runway incidents as a whole, there seem to be many more such incidents than with A320's. The propensity for 737 break ups is ridiculous, how much longer can it be justified to keep producing an aircraft that kills people in incidents that would have been survivable in other aircraft in the same class?


there was nothing wrong with building those crafts in the sixties and seventies
that was the state of the art technologies at that time

what the real question is ..... is it really worth to use questionable regulations and still build them NOW?
this will push the same hull problems up in the 2060ies ....
 
uta999
Posts: 905
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:10 am

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Thu Feb 06, 2020 9:49 am

A useful rail analogy to building the (1960s) 737 hull now, would be the British Rail MK1 slam-door rolling stock. The rail coaches crumpled in much the same way in a survivable collision. The frame would often crush the fragile passenger compartments above. They were banned 20+ years ago after several fatal accidents in favour of a rigid passenger compartment, much like the A320 vs 737.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clapham_J ... rail_crash
Your computer just got better
 
asdf
Posts: 695
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 12:03 am

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Thu Feb 06, 2020 11:11 am

morrisond wrote:
asdf wrote:
Spetsnaz55 wrote:

And you already know the G loads both the a321 and this 737 sustained to make such a claim?


the A320 is a 16G hull
the 737 is a 5G hull


That is false - the 16G rule is in relation to the seats - it's nothing to do with the hull.


the 16G rule is in relation to the seats
the 737 by far can not meet that specification because the floor is way to weak
because the floor is to weak the hull has less stability and breaks first before and behind the wing
so the 16G rule definitely has to do with the hull
 
marcelh
Posts: 1011
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 12:43 pm

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Thu Feb 06, 2020 11:15 am

bikerthai wrote:
Wow, just saw a photo of the crash site from the Independent web site. If you drive 50 different models of cars of that cliff at 60 kph, how many in those cars would survive?

bt

Let's take a 1960s Cadillac and a 1980s Volvo.....
 
peterinlisbon
Posts: 1773
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 3:37 am

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Thu Feb 06, 2020 12:01 pm

Just an update: local press is now reporting 3 dead in this crash. They found CCTV footage which shows the plane not able to slow down on the (wet) runway and falling off the end. In pilots forums they are saying that the aircraft was too high, too fast and landing with a strong tailwind.

https://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/plane ... ree-151789
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14980
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Thu Feb 06, 2020 12:33 pm

peterinlisbon wrote:
Just an update: local press is now reporting 3 dead in this crash. They found CCTV footage which shows the plane not able to slow down on the (wet) runway and falling off the end. In pilots forums they are saying that the aircraft was too high, too fast and landing with a strong tailwind.

https://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/plane ... ree-151789


Is there any information if the aircraft has been removed yet ?
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
T4thH
Posts: 981
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 11:17 pm

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Thu Feb 06, 2020 12:48 pm

marcelh wrote:
bikerthai wrote:
Wow, just saw a photo of the crash site from the Independent web site. If you drive 50 different models of cars of that cliff at 60 kph, how many in those cars would survive?

bt

Let's take a 1960s Cadillac and a 1980s Volvo.....


Depends of the car and the production year and of course, if you have fasten the seat belt/airbags e.g.. 1970 with 50 km/h front first 100% cover against a concrete wall: You are dead. 1980 with fastened seat belt: alive but seriously injured, high chance of death. 1990: with fastened seat belts, slightly injured. 30% cover frontal: serious injured. Construction year post 2006, 50 km/h, 100% cover or even 30% cover, fastened seat belts (airbags e.g. of course also): in both cases used, regular nothing worse than slightly burning by the airbag in your face. After 2006, if a car hits a pedestrian with 50 km/h, the pedestrian has a good chance to survive, if a car of a construction year prior 2000 has hit a pedestrian with 50 km/h and more, the pedestrian will most likely not survive.

I have had prior stated in this thread, when first no fatalities have been announced-> this would be a miracle. First fatality announced, still a miracle. Sad to see, that there was no miracle, if I see this wreck, a number of 3 fatalities is still low and there was much luck, that there was no fire, but the "miracle" is gone.
 
THS214
Posts: 339
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2017 4:01 pm

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Thu Feb 06, 2020 1:03 pm

Passedv1 wrote:
Thunderbolt500 wrote:
Opps


You're going to have to explain this one. O--P-P's, Are you quoting Naughty-By-Nature? if so what does that have to do with this crash?


This is an aviation site and its civil aviation where we talk about an airplane accident. Therefore opp means operations.
 
THS214
Posts: 339
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2017 4:01 pm

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Thu Feb 06, 2020 1:10 pm

zeke wrote:
aviatorcraig wrote:
Brake to Vacate would basically say "You are having a laugh mate!" Does B have any plans for a similar system?


ROW/ROP are Airbus patented products that they have offered to Boeing however they have declined. Honeywell does have SmartRunway and SmartLanding that is available for the 737 however is not as effective. That is the system EK have on their 777s and told them to go around as they landed 1000 into 4100 m runway. Yes is was a deep landing, however 3100 m is more than enough room to landed a 777 even above maximum landing weight.

bikerthai wrote:
Any aircraft designed not to break apart in an incident like this would be too heavy to fly economically. Recall even that Asians 777 crack the fuselage when the tail hit the runway wall.


I agree there are some significant vertical drops here, similar drops off the runway like the AF 340 at Toronto, or the TACA A320 at Tegucigalpa demonstrate that aircraft do not need to break up. However the milder inked like AA331 in Miami or BW523 at Georgetown did result in the fuselage failing. They all seem to fail at a similar fuselage locations, I am guessing this maybe a join the barrel ?

The mods have deleted my post showing screen shots of the aircraft landing, it appeared to me to be bouncing, and the possibly sliding along its nose after a nose gear collapse before it left the runway.

Have a look at the video yourself to see
https://www.ntv.com.tr/video/turkiye/sa ... d9V58d8ZGA


I didn't see a bounce (not that it didn't happen) but it definitely looks like nose gear failure from that video.
 
danman132x
Posts: 122
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 4:57 pm

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Thu Feb 06, 2020 1:18 pm

THS214 wrote:
zeke wrote:
aviatorcraig wrote:
Brake to Vacate would basically say "You are having a laugh mate!" Does B have any plans for a similar system?


ROW/ROP are Airbus patented products that they have offered to Boeing however they have declined. Honeywell does have SmartRunway and SmartLanding that is available for the 737 however is not as effective. That is the system EK have on their 777s and told them to go around as they landed 1000 into 4100 m runway. Yes is was a deep landing, however 3100 m is more than enough room to landed a 777 even above maximum landing weight.

bikerthai wrote:
Any aircraft designed not to break apart in an incident like this would be too heavy to fly economically. Recall even that Asians 777 crack the fuselage when the tail hit the runway wall.


I agree there are some significant vertical drops here, similar drops off the runway like the AF 340 at Toronto, or the TACA A320 at Tegucigalpa demonstrate that aircraft do not need to break up. However the milder inked like AA331 in Miami or BW523 at Georgetown did result in the fuselage failing. They all seem to fail at a similar fuselage locations, I am guessing this maybe a join the barrel ?

The mods have deleted my post showing screen shots of the aircraft landing, it appeared to me to be bouncing, and the possibly sliding along its nose after a nose gear collapse before it left the runway.

Have a look at the video yourself to see
https://www.ntv.com.tr/video/turkiye/sa ... d9V58d8ZGA


I didn't see a bounce (not that it didn't happen) but it definitely looks like nose gear failure from that video.


It honestly looks like water droplets on the camera lens causing this bounce look. The light is just refracting of the water when the plane first comes into view.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 3338
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Thu Feb 06, 2020 3:03 pm

asdf wrote:
the 16G rule is in relation to the seatsthe 737 by far can not meet that specification because the floor is way to weakbecause the floor is to weak the hull has less stability and breaks first before and behind the wing so the 16G rule definitely has to do with the hull


The 16G rule does apply to the seats and seat attachment. That means the seat tracks. Not sure about the floor beams. The 16G rule is also a dynamic load test though some have told me it is static also. That is why when seats are tested, they do it on a sled.

Monuments also mounted to the seat track but also are attached to the fuselage are still 9G. Haven't heard about any sled test for monument.

Now, there are some occasions when customers like the US Navy wants 16G for their monuments. Then the design have to be analyzed to verify the loading. Typically that mean the floor loading must be reduced (spread the monument load over more area). Not sure if this have been flowed to the commercial aircraft. If it have through the FAR, then all aircraft must meet the same requirements: 737 or A320.

Your reasoning for why the fuselage break before and behind the wing point to the wrong logic. The reason why you see the break of the fuselage before and behind the wing is pretty basic.

The wing box being the junction of the fuselage and wing is the strongest part of the aircraft. That is why the main landing gear typically is located near there. In a dynamic situation such as this, the forward and aft fuselage is acting like a cantilevered beam with the wing box being the fixed point. Like any cantilevered beam, the highest stresses will be at the "clamped" joint, in this case the fuselage join at the wing box. As with any cantilevered beam section during bending the highest stresses are at the top/bottom of the beam, aka the crown and the keel of the aircraft, and not at the center-the floor beams.

Now, the A320 does have a slightly larger fuselage than the 737. That provides additional stiffness through the larger moment of inertia. But how that impact into the overall stress equations only the A320 and 737 stress analysis knows.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
Bdutch
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2018 11:10 am

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Thu Feb 06, 2020 3:28 pm

Dutch news is now reporting that the First Office has a Dutch nationality and is currently in hospital. The ministry of foreign affairs is in contact to give him consular support.

https://www.nu.nl/buitenland/6028856/nederlandse-copiloot-gewond-bij-vliegtuigongeval-in-istanboel.html
 
khobar95
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2018 10:10 pm

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Thu Feb 06, 2020 3:29 pm

uta999 wrote:
A useful rail analogy to building the (1960s) 737 hull now, would be the British Rail MK1 slam-door rolling stock. The rail coaches crumpled in much the same way in a survivable collision. The frame would often crush the fragile passenger compartments above. They were banned 20+ years ago after several fatal accidents in favour of a rigid passenger compartment, much like the A320 vs 737.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clapham_J ... rail_crash


Hmm...

"...over the years there were many fatalities and injuries connected with the slam doors, mainly due to the lack of central door locking and partly due to the pull down windows in doors."

https://orr.gov.uk/rail/health-and-safe ... ling-stock

And...

"The Hidden report into the 1988 Clapham Junction rail accident concluded that withdrawal of Mark 1 units was impractical and the design was not inherently unsafe: "The inventory of Mark I coaching stock is large, and much of it has not reached an end of economic life, nor will do so for another decade or more. Mark I vehicles have good riding qualities, and are not intrinsically lacking in collision resistance."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_R ... k_1#Safety

But...

"The Hidden Report into the Clapham rail crash of 1988 said that ‘the structural integrity of passenger
containment should be such that its boundaries are not breached in a collision’ (23) and recommended
British Rail (BR) should carry out research into the structural integrity of its rolling stock when involved
in collisions by 1991. The report also said that BR should discuss these conclusions with the Railway
Inspectorate (HMRI) with a view to seeking the HMRI’s agreement to any structural modifications
necessary to Mark 1 vehicles. At the end of 1991 BR reported that no method had been found for
improving crashworthiness which could be considered as being reasonable practicable given the
limited residual life expectancy of the Mark 1 stock. Investigations to accidents after the Clapham rail
crash involving Mark 1 vehicles highlighted Hidden report’s recommendations on Mark 1 stock
crashworthiness and HSE conducted further study into crashworthiness improvements. "

https://slidex.tips/download/revising-r ... egulations

Lastly, the Clapham Junction crash is comparable to the post-Mk1 Ladbroke Grove crash. I think that's worth considering.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2664
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Thu Feb 06, 2020 3:30 pm

asdf wrote:
morrisond wrote:
asdf wrote:

the A320 is a 16G hull
the 737 is a 5G hull


That is false - the 16G rule is in relation to the seats - it's nothing to do with the hull.


the 16G rule is in relation to the seats
the 737 by far can not meet that specification because the floor is way to weak
because the floor is to weak the hull has less stability and breaks first before and behind the wing
so the 16G rule definitely has to do with the hull


I fully understand but it's not a 5G to 16G hull. That is a gross exaggeration. It seems like most of the 737 Hull break-ups are due to downwind landings that leave the runways.

The simple solution is the pilots just have to be trained better so they don't try to land downwind on a rain slicked runway. This is common sense.

No pilot has to accept the instruction from the tower to land downwind.

Yes the A320 has a system that allows this type of poor airmanship to not result in as many losses - but that still doesn't make it a good idea to land any aircraft with a big tailwind.

Assuming something like a 30Knot wind and 140 knot final approach speed that makes it a 170 knot touch down speed downwind vs 110Knots into the wind.

Which do you think is safer?
 
morrisond
Posts: 2664
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Thu Feb 06, 2020 3:33 pm

bikerthai wrote:
asdf wrote:
the 16G rule is in relation to the seatsthe 737 by far can not meet that specification because the floor is way to weakbecause the floor is to weak the hull has less stability and breaks first before and behind the wing so the 16G rule definitely has to do with the hull


The 16G rule does apply to the seats and seat attachment. That means the seat tracks. Not sure about the floor beams. The 16G rule is also a dynamic load test though some have told me it is static also. That is why when seats are tested, they do it on a sled.

Monuments also mounted to the seat track but also are attached to the fuselage are still 9G. Haven't heard about any sled test for monument.

Now, there are some occasions when customers like the US Navy wants 16G for their monuments. Then the design have to be analyzed to verify the loading. Typically that mean the floor loading must be reduced (spread the monument load over more area). Not sure if this have been flowed to the commercial aircraft. If it have through the FAR, then all aircraft must meet the same requirements: 737 or A320.

Your reasoning for why the fuselage break before and behind the wing point to the wrong logic. The reason why you see the break of the fuselage before and behind the wing is pretty basic.

The wing box being the junction of the fuselage and wing is the strongest part of the aircraft. That is why the main landing gear typically is located near there. In a dynamic situation such as this, the forward and aft fuselage is acting like a cantilevered beam with the wing box being the fixed point. Like any cantilevered beam, the highest stresses will be at the "clamped" joint, in this case the fuselage join at the wing box. As with any cantilevered beam section during bending the highest stresses are at the top/bottom of the beam, aka the crown and the keel of the aircraft, and not at the center-the floor beams.

Now, the A320 does have a slightly larger fuselage than the 737. That provides additional stiffness through the larger moment of inertia. But how that impact into the overall stress equations only the A320 and 737 stress analysis knows.

bt


Good post - so basically one could view it as the A320 Wingbox may not just be that stiff and because it bends more it's less likely to fracture at the Fuselage join or the short stiff gear of the 737 doesn't absorb as much impact as the longer A320 gear - another reason to extend the gear... :D
 
abies111
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Feb 29, 2016 6:15 pm

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Thu Feb 06, 2020 4:03 pm

morrisond wrote:
asdf wrote:
morrisond wrote:

That is false - the 16G rule is in relation to the seats - it's nothing to do with the hull.


the 16G rule is in relation to the seats
the 737 by far can not meet that specification because the floor is way to weak
because the floor is to weak the hull has less stability and breaks first before and behind the wing
so the 16G rule definitely has to do with the hull


I fully understand but it's not a 5G to 16G hull. That is a gross exaggeration. It seems like most of the 737 Hull break-ups are due to downwind landings that leave the runways.

The simple solution is the pilots just have to be trained better so they don't try to land downwind on a rain slicked runway. This is common sense.

No pilot has to accept the instruction from the tower to land downwind.

Yes the A320 has a system that allows this type of poor airmanship to not result in as many losses - but that still doesn't make it a good idea to land any aircraft with a big tailwind.

Assuming something like a 30Knot wind and 140 knot final approach speed that makes it a 170 knot touch down speed downwind vs 110Knots into the wind.

Which do you think is safer?



I think that a 2020 five star Euro NCAP car is a much safer and desirable mean of transportation than a 1998 old Euro NCAP rule two star car, the drivers being exactly as competent, alert and trained. Passive safety matters, specially for non very high energy non survivable crashes. A lot.
 
sonicruiser
Posts: 921
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 4:18 am

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Thu Feb 06, 2020 4:09 pm

Why can't Boeing just extend the damn gear of the 737? What's so difficult about this? They can make folding wingtips but they can't extend the gear?
شما می توانید مردم را تحریم کنید ، اما نمی توانید سبک تحریم را اعمال کنید

You can sanction people, but you can't sanction style
 
WIederling
Posts: 9291
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Thu Feb 06, 2020 4:25 pm

marcelh wrote:
bikerthai wrote:
Wow, just saw a photo of the crash site from the Independent web site. If you drive 50 different models of cars of that cliff at 60 kph, how many in those cars would survive?

bt

Let's take a 1960s Cadillac and a 1980s Volvo.....


Take a 1961 Volvo ( like the PV 544 )
or compare a 1950ties designed Mercedes Benz against any US car till about Ralph Nader :-)

crumple zones with no petrol tanks,
deformation resistant passenger space,
collapsible steering columns,
savety belts.
Mercedes first then Volvo were in the lead.
Murphy is an optimist
 
BravoOne
Posts: 4094
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Thu Feb 06, 2020 4:27 pm

sonicruiser wrote:
Why can't Boeing just extend the damn gear of the 737? What's so difficult about this? They can make folding wingtips but they can't extend the gear?



Now this is somehow Boeings problem? How about not landing on a wet runway with a tail wind component that is beyond limits for starters.

There is not enough room for a longer gear, if I understand what the engineers say. Bottom line is that the 737 is an old design that has outlived its original design. Boeing needs a new product.
 
WIederling
Posts: 9291
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Thu Feb 06, 2020 4:31 pm

sonicruiser wrote:
Why can't Boeing just extend the damn gear of the 737? What's so difficult about this? They can make folding wingtips but they can't extend the gear?


Major redesign probably and bumps the grandfathering foundation.
If the height is fixed higher you now need evacuation slides for overwing exits.( what else changes?)
if you do some telescopic scissor thing that collapses in an emergency situation
you have issues with unintended lowering and other shit.

It is a real big box of "duh, simple .. " solutions that dont work from the get go or have implications that are strongly negative.
Proof: the brilliant boys from Boeing haven't come up with a workable solution over, what? 40 years ( 737 Classic )?
Murphy is an optimist
 
StdTank80002
Posts: 39
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2019 10:42 am

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Thu Feb 06, 2020 4:42 pm

khobar95 wrote:
uta999 wrote:
A useful rail analogy to building the (1960s) 737 hull now, would be the British Rail MK1 slam-door rolling stock. The rail coaches crumpled in much the same way in a survivable collision. The frame would often crush the fragile passenger compartments above. They were banned 20+ years ago after several fatal accidents in favour of a rigid passenger compartment, much like the A320 vs 737.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clapham_J ... rail_crash


Hmm...

"...over the years there were many fatalities and injuries connected with the slam doors, mainly due to the lack of central door locking and partly due to the pull down windows in doors."

https://orr.gov.uk/rail/health-and-safe ... ling-stock

And...

"The Hidden report into the 1988 Clapham Junction rail accident concluded that withdrawal of Mark 1 units was impractical and the design was not inherently unsafe: "The inventory of Mark I coaching stock is large, and much of it has not reached an end of economic life, nor will do so for another decade or more. Mark I vehicles have good riding qualities, and are not intrinsically lacking in collision resistance."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_R ... k_1#Safety

But...

"The Hidden Report into the Clapham rail crash of 1988 said that ‘the structural integrity of passenger
containment should be such that its boundaries are not breached in a collision’ (23) and recommended
British Rail (BR) should carry out research into the structural integrity of its rolling stock when involved
in collisions by 1991. The report also said that BR should discuss these conclusions with the Railway
Inspectorate (HMRI) with a view to seeking the HMRI’s agreement to any structural modifications
necessary to Mark 1 vehicles. At the end of 1991 BR reported that no method had been found for
improving crashworthiness which could be considered as being reasonable practicable given the
limited residual life expectancy of the Mark 1 stock. Investigations to accidents after the Clapham rail
crash involving Mark 1 vehicles highlighted Hidden report’s recommendations on Mark 1 stock
crashworthiness and HSE conducted further study into crashworthiness improvements. "

https://slidex.tips/download/revising-r ... egulations

Lastly, the Clapham Junction crash is comparable to the post-Mk1 Ladbroke Grove crash. I think that's worth considering.


The modern equivalent then being the 2007 Grayrigg derailment. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grayrigg_derailment

Here a Alstom Class 390 Pendolino derailed at 95mph, with most carriages rolling down an embankment into the farmland adjacent. Google images show you the height. The carriages stayed in tact and only one person died, I believe a heat attack induced by the accident. Many injured. Most seem to have survived this incident too of course. But the carriages themselves stayed in a relatively good state.

The trains themselves are very heavy though and can be a nuisance to those maintaining the track!
 
User avatar
PITingres
Posts: 1304
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 1:59 am

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Thu Feb 06, 2020 4:45 pm

sonicruiser wrote:
Why can't Boeing just extend the damn gear of the 737? What's so difficult about this? They can make folding wingtips but they can't extend the gear?


In addition to the lack of room, I believe it would require slides at the wing exits. The 737 is low enough that with the existing gear, the slides aren't required. It would affect baggage loading as well.

I think it should be reasonably obvious that if it were easy to extend the gear, they would have done that instead of screwing around with a goofy engine mount. Folding wingtips are trivial by comparison, especially outboard of the moving surfaces.
Fly, you fools! Fly!
 
morrisond
Posts: 2664
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Thu Feb 06, 2020 5:02 pm

abies111 wrote:
morrisond wrote:
asdf wrote:

the 16G rule is in relation to the seats
the 737 by far can not meet that specification because the floor is way to weak
because the floor is to weak the hull has less stability and breaks first before and behind the wing
so the 16G rule definitely has to do with the hull


I fully understand but it's not a 5G to 16G hull. That is a gross exaggeration. It seems like most of the 737 Hull break-ups are due to downwind landings that leave the runways.

The simple solution is the pilots just have to be trained better so they don't try to land downwind on a rain slicked runway. This is common sense.

No pilot has to accept the instruction from the tower to land downwind.

Yes the A320 has a system that allows this type of poor airmanship to not result in as many losses - but that still doesn't make it a good idea to land any aircraft with a big tailwind.

Assuming something like a 30Knot wind and 140 knot final approach speed that makes it a 170 knot touch down speed downwind vs 110Knots into the wind.

Which do you think is safer?



I think that a 2020 five star Euro NCAP car is a much safer and desirable mean of transportation than a 1998 old Euro NCAP rule two star car, the drivers being exactly as competent, alert and trained. Passive safety matters, specially for non very high energy non survivable crashes. A lot.


You are missing the point - by landing into the wind you reduce the amount of energy in an landing radically making any runway excursion a lot more survivable. Crashing at 170 knots on the Autobahn in either a 2 Star car or a 5 star Car isn't going to have a significantly different outcome.

Yes - more passive safety is a good idea - but then again it looks like thankfully only three fatalities in an 170knot crash. (60-70 knots when leaving the runway which is still quite fast). That actually is not that bad when you think about it.

Landing the other way and landing long at the same distance from the threshold would probably have put then under 20knots when leaving the runway.
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 4112
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Thu Feb 06, 2020 5:26 pm

PlymSpotter wrote:
morrisond wrote:
That is false - the 16G rule is in relation to the seats - it's nothing to do with the hull.

Google and you can find images of A320'S breaking into three pieces as well.


See I did, and I can't find those images. The nearest I came was the TACA accident where they broke it into two pieces. I can't see any other crashes as you describe - so am I missing something here... perhaps you can't direct us to those incidents you refer to?


Any progress on the images?
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
User avatar
flybynight
Posts: 1534
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 1:58 pm

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Thu Feb 06, 2020 5:50 pm

I'm sure everyone has seen this blurry video by now. Not sure why it looks like the plane is bouncing. I am guessing it is just the poor quality of the video and light reflection. Or maybe it is off in the grass and bouncing around like an SUV doing some off-roading.
The rain is obviously very heavy at the time.

Way too early to know, but it looks like a pilot error. Maybe landed to far down the runway. Maybe didn't deploy all braking callabilities. Who knows.
Not that it reflects on Boeing nor the 737, but it still isn't the kind of news needed for the struggling company.
Speedy recovery to everyone aboard!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoTOqEv4uNc
Heia Norge!
 
Armodeen
Posts: 1265
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 10:17 am

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Thu Feb 06, 2020 5:53 pm

MIflyer12 wrote:
How many million safe landings have 737NGs seen?

You can bust up any plane when flown improperly. See Asiana 214,

or WN 345 https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/qu ... -1.1474479

or AA 1420. https://www.nytimes.com/1999/06/03/us/9 ... storm.html

The problem here isn't the aircraft.


Asiana 214 is a poor choice to support your argument. The airframe held together remarkably well considering the enormous forces it endured during the crash sequence. Same for BA38 at LHR. The 777 is robust, modern airframe. The 737 unfortunately is demonstrably less likely to hold together in otherwise survivable crashes.
 
goosebayguy
Posts: 705
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 1:12 pm

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Thu Feb 06, 2020 5:53 pm

It still shocks m that Boeing have not imprved the 737 over all those years. Sure cosmetic changes and newere engines but seriously no fly by wire? Now to find that the crash survivability has not been improved to modern standars is just lazy or bad management chasing profit above all else.
The 737 should have long ago been updated making the MAX unstable and expecting it to fly was criminal but to now find the 5g figure over the A320's 16g makes me think twice about flying in a 737 ever again. Its just criminally insane management leaving passengers to die in crashes when they could have survived.
 
WIederling
Posts: 9291
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Thu Feb 06, 2020 6:14 pm

PW100 wrote:
PlymSpotter wrote:
morrisond wrote:
That is false - the 16G rule is in relation to the seats - it's nothing to do with the hull.

Google and you can find images of A320'S breaking into three pieces as well.


See I did, and I can't find those images. The nearest I came was the TACA accident where they broke it into two pieces. I can't see any other crashes as you describe - so am I missing something here... perhaps you can't direct us to those incidents you refer to?


Any progress on the images?


I've seen Morrisond's statement ( or someone else posting the same ) previously and tried to find those easy finds.
it is really difficult. just like PlymSpotter only the TACA overrun is available apparently:
https://www.flightglobal.com/pictures-a ... 95.article

google brings up mostly "737 crashed with broken fuselage" when looking for "A320 broken fuselage" :-)

probably a "pilot thing" or I lack the google foo? :-))
Murphy is an optimist
 
WIederling
Posts: 9291
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Thu Feb 06, 2020 6:24 pm

PW100 wrote:
PlymSpotter wrote:
morrisond wrote:
That is false - the 16G rule is in relation to the seats - it's nothing to do with the hull.

Google and you can find images of A320'S breaking into three pieces as well.


See I did, and I can't find those images. The nearest I came was the TACA accident where they broke it into two pieces. I can't see any other crashes as you describe - so am I missing something here... perhaps you can't direct us to those incidents you refer to?


Any progress on the images?


I've seen Morrisond's statement ( or someone else posting the same ) previously and tried to find those easy finds.
it is really difficult. just like PlymSpotter only the TACA overrun is available apparently:
https://www.flightglobal.com/pictures-a ... 95.article

google brings up mostly "737 crashed with broken fuselage" when looking for "A320 broken fuselage" :-)

probably a "pilot thing" or I lack the google foo? :-))
Murphy is an optimist
 
D L X
Posts: 12671
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Thu Feb 06, 2020 6:35 pm

Everyone talking about the 737 fuselage being weak seems to forget that Aloha jet that didn’t crash when it lost a third of its roof.
 
peterinlisbon
Posts: 1773
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 3:37 am

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Thu Feb 06, 2020 6:35 pm

I can't understand why so many people here are blaming the plane. If you throw a plane off a steep embankment at over 100km/hr and it hits a concrete wall at the bottom you can expect it to snap. If they did the same thing with an A320 I don't think it would be in much better shape. Planes simply aren't built to survive that kind of treatment. They are made of the same material. The reason for this accident is that they landed on a wet runway with a strong tailwind and couldn't stop on the runway - that's not the fault of the aircraft.
 
User avatar
Erebus
Posts: 1140
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 2:40 am

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Thu Feb 06, 2020 6:41 pm

Virtual737 wrote:
acavpics wrote:
3 within the span of 2 years.... Yeah Something is terribly wrong in Pegasus's management/safety culture.


It is interesting that the "correlation does not imply causation" brigade have not flagged that comment as they did the ones earlier concerning the 737, as it could equally apply.


What would be interesting to me is if you take the view that "correlation does imply causation" here.

In which case, you can infer that either: Pegasus seem to be selectively applying bad airmanship across just their 737 fleet, or: their A320s more forgiving to such reckless flying. Their fleet mix is roughly 50:50 but no similar incidents with their A320s as far as I'm aware.
 
WIederling
Posts: 9291
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Thu Feb 06, 2020 6:57 pm

D L X wrote:
Everyone talking about the 737 fuselage being weak seems to forget that Aloha jet that didn’t crash when it lost a third of its roof.

737-200.

I don't think that cabrio would have withstood a harder landing than the one that was achieved.
A regular landing and at lower speeds.

The 737-800 is about 1/3 longer than the 737-200 and quite a bit heavier too.
Murphy is an optimist
 
WIederling
Posts: 9291
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Thu Feb 06, 2020 6:59 pm

Erebus wrote:
Virtual737 wrote:
acavpics wrote:
3 within the span of 2 years.... Yeah Something is terribly wrong in Pegasus's management/safety culture.


It is interesting that the "correlation does not imply causation" brigade have not flagged that comment as they did the ones earlier concerning the 737, as it could equally apply.


What would be interesting to me is if you take the view that "correlation does imply causation" here.

In which case, you can infer that either: Pegasus seem to be selectively applying bad airmanship across just their 737 fleet, or: their A320s more forgiving to such reckless flying. Their fleet mix is roughly 50:50 but no similar incidents with their A320s as far as I'm aware.

What is the difference in landing speeds and runway use on landing?
How do the braking systems compare ( effectiveness, .. ) ?
Murphy is an optimist
 
iberiadc852
Posts: 302
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 8:23 am

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Thu Feb 06, 2020 7:14 pm

D L X wrote:
Everyone talking about the 737 fuselage being weak seems to forget that Aloha jet that didn’t crash when it lost a third of its roof.

Yes, I'm sure Airbus build their planes in a way that doesn't allow them to lose their roof, in order to mask their weakness.
variety is the spice of life; that's what made the "old times" so good
 
morrisond
Posts: 2664
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Thu Feb 06, 2020 7:43 pm

Armodeen wrote:
MIflyer12 wrote:
How many million safe landings have 737NGs seen?

You can bust up any plane when flown improperly. See Asiana 214,

or WN 345 https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/qu ... -1.1474479

or AA 1420. https://www.nytimes.com/1999/06/03/us/9 ... storm.html

The problem here isn't the aircraft.


Asiana 214 is a poor choice to support your argument. The airframe held together remarkably well considering the enormous forces it endured during the crash sequence. Same for BA38 at LHR. The 777 is robust, modern airframe. The 737 unfortunately is demonstrably less likely to hold together in otherwise survivable crashes.



Unless you put the frames through the exact same circumstances you can't say that for sure. Lot's of people have died in 319,320,321 landing accidents as well. I don't think they cared whether or not the fuselage was in 1, 2 or 3 pieces. Arguably if it's a fire situation having some more egress points may not be the worst thing.

One of the big problems is that for a lot of the crashes where people died there just doesn't seem to be a lot of images where you can actually see what happened.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_a ... 320_family
 
Armodeen
Posts: 1265
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 10:17 am

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Thu Feb 06, 2020 7:45 pm

Nobody is debating the cause of the accident, clearly the decision to push the landing in the prevailing conditions is the primary cause. That the aircraft failed to protect its occupants as well as other frames (from the same manufacturer even) is a separate issue.

What’s more interesting than the break at the front of the fuselage (which will happen if you ride it into a wall) is the one at the rear, which doesn’t regularly happen with other frames.

That’s all.
 
User avatar
Erebus
Posts: 1140
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 2:40 am

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Thu Feb 06, 2020 8:12 pm

WIederling wrote:
Erebus wrote:
What would be interesting to me is if you take the view that "correlation does imply causation" here.

In which case, you can infer that either: Pegasus seem to be selectively applying bad airmanship across just their 737 fleet, or: their A320s more forgiving to such reckless flying. Their fleet mix is roughly 50:50 but no similar incidents with their A320s as far as I'm aware.

What is the difference in landing speeds and runway use on landing?
How do the braking systems compare ( effectiveness, .. ) ?


Sorry, I wouldn't really know much about those or whether an A320 would have survived this specific accident is sort of a different matter.

But I was just taking on the assertion that there is a "safety culture problem" at Pegasus which so far hasn't translated to similar incidents with their Airbus fleet and whether this indicates if deficiencies in training have more disastrous outcomes in one type over the other.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 3338
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Thu Feb 06, 2020 8:27 pm

WIederling wrote:
D L X wrote:
Everyone talking about the 737 fuselage being weak seems to forget that Aloha jet that didn’t crash when it lost a third of its roof.

737-200.

I don't think that cabrio would have withstood a harder landing than the one that was achieved.
A regular landing and at lower speeds.

The 737-800 is about 1/3 longer than the 737-200 and quite a bit heavier too.


:spin: In this comparison, I'd put my money on the -200. the fuselage is shorter, (less bending stresses), and other than fatigue issues, the fuselage skin hasn't gone through 2 iterations of weight savings.

And yes, they did look at trying to lengthened the main landing gear like they did with the nose gear. Remember that the wing box is your strong point and you want to attach to it, then lengthening the gear would require complicating telescoping features. Heck, they never put a door on the main gear because there no room to make it work.

Lets move on and redesign the NMA to replace the 737.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 3338
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Thu Feb 06, 2020 8:34 pm

Armodeen wrote:
What’s more interesting than the break at the front of the fuselage (which will happen if you ride it into a wall) is the one at the rear, which doesn’t regularly happen with other frames.


Riding a frame of a cliff doesn't happen very often. I would suspect, we will not know why the fuselage broke where they broke until after the investigator analyze the data recorders and see the orientation of the frame when it came off the cliff, what angle did it hit the ground and what bounce, if any, occurred. You can easily break of the tail if you came in at a high AOA.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
kraz911
Posts: 189
Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 5:21 am

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Thu Feb 06, 2020 8:42 pm

Hello all,
Looking at the damage photos, the nose gear got ripped off and it appears the aircraft after going down the cliff landed on the lower fuselage between the cockpit and the front cabin doors ripping it off. The forward momentum and gravity going down the hill inverting the nose section. Striking the wall stopped the forward momentum and probably caused the rearward fuselage separation helped by the tail striking the lip of the hill and the fall down the cliff. It sad that lives were lost as they were probably near the front fuselage separation. The emergency crews were working on that section for a long time evidenced by the live stream. Hopefully the injured pax recover quickly...
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 3338
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Thu Feb 06, 2020 8:46 pm

And yes, you can shear of the front end of a fuselage even if you were not going off a cliff.
You just have to take everything in context.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/etihad-a340-accident/

kraz911. My guess would be the fatalities is probably at the front also. A while back, a colleague was one of the fatalities during landing of another 737 coming out of Turkey. He was in the first row of the business/first class section.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
D L X
Posts: 12671
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Thu Feb 06, 2020 8:56 pm

iberiadc852 wrote:
D L X wrote:
Everyone talking about the 737 fuselage being weak seems to forget that Aloha jet that didn’t crash when it lost a third of its roof.

Yes, I'm sure Airbus build their planes in a way that doesn't allow them to lose their roof, in order to mask their weakness.

What does my post have to do with airbus?
 
PlymSpotter
Posts: 10711
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 7:32 am

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Thu Feb 06, 2020 9:07 pm

morrisond wrote:
Lot's of people have died in 319,320,321 landing accidents as well. I don't think they cared whether or not the fuselage was in 1, 2 or 3 pieces.


The trouble is, you keep making these claims, when they demonstrably are not true.

Nobody has ever died in an A319 landing accident, because there has't even been a fatal A319 accident full stop (impressive in itself for the near 1,500 produced). Same can be said for the A318 too. The A321 meanwhile has incurred three fatal incidents - two due to terrorism and one CFIT so, again, no landing accidents.

That leaves just the A320 - where LH, TACA and TAM have had fatal landing accidents. In the case of TAM, the horrific circumstances of a near 100 knot overrun were unsurvivable in any aircraft, whilst in the case of LH and TACA, the fact that the fuselage didn't disintegrate into multiple pieces was noted as having saved lives - so yes, you can be sure that those passengers really did care how many pieces the aircraft was in. Same for those in the Air Canada A320 which somehow survived what was basically a CFIT intact, or the Air Phillipines A320 which ploughed through a housing area.
...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
 
Bradin
Posts: 348
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:12 am

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Thu Feb 06, 2020 9:39 pm

flybynight wrote:
I'm sure everyone has seen this blurry video by now. Not sure why it looks like the plane is bouncing. I am guessing it is just the poor quality of the video and light reflection. Or maybe it is off in the grass and bouncing around like an SUV doing some off-roading.
The rain is obviously very heavy at the time.

Way too early to know, but it looks like a pilot error. Maybe landed to far down the runway. Maybe didn't deploy all braking callabilities. Who knows.
Not that it reflects on Boeing nor the 737, but it still isn't the kind of news needed for the struggling company.
Speedy recovery to everyone aboard!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoTOqEv4uNc


Add a little ATC into the equation as well. After listening to LiveATC recording (can be heard at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRcnQ8bIaEE), Pegasus was the last flight in flying runway 6 before they switched to runway 24.

Sunturk 87R was told wind 270 degrees 22 knots gusting 34 knots when cleared to land.
 
acavpics
Posts: 364
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2018 2:54 am

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Thu Feb 06, 2020 9:42 pm

Erebus wrote:
Virtual737 wrote:
acavpics wrote:
3 within the span of 2 years.... Yeah Something is terribly wrong in Pegasus's management/safety culture.


It is interesting that the "correlation does not imply causation" brigade have not flagged that comment as they did the ones earlier concerning the 737, as it could equally apply.


What would be interesting to me is if you take the view that "correlation does imply causation" here.

In which case, you can infer that either: Pegasus seem to be selectively applying bad airmanship across just their 737 fleet, or: their A320s more forgiving to such reckless flying. Their fleet mix is roughly 50:50 but no similar incidents with their A320s as far as I'm aware.


Does the fact that Airbus planes use fly-by-wire technology play a role here?
 
Blotto
Posts: 133
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2015 7:00 am

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Thu Feb 06, 2020 9:44 pm

PlymSpotter wrote:
morrisond wrote:
Lot's of people have died in 319,320,321 landing accidents as well. I don't think they cared whether or not the fuselage was in 1, 2 or 3 pieces.


The trouble is, you keep making these claims, when they demonstrably are not true.

Nobody has ever died in an A319 landing accident, because there has't even been a fatal A319 accident full stop (impressive in itself for the near 1,500 produced). Same can be said for the A318 too. The A321 meanwhile has incurred three fatal incidents - two due to terrorism and one CFIT so, again, no landing accidents.

That leaves just the A320 - where LH, TACA and TAM have had fatal landing accidents. In the case of TAM, the horrific circumstances of a near 100 knot overrun were unsurvivable in any aircraft, whilst in the case of LH and TACA, the fact that the fuselage didn't disintegrate into multiple pieces was noted as having saved lives - so yes, you can be sure that those passengers really did care how many pieces the aircraft was in. Same for those in the Air Canada A320 which somehow survived what was basically a CFIT intact, or the Air Phillipines A320 which ploughed through a housing area.


You might as well at Hudson and Moscow miracles to that impressive list.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2664
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Thu Feb 06, 2020 9:55 pm

PlymSpotter wrote:
morrisond wrote:
Lot's of people have died in 319,320,321 landing accidents as well. I don't think they cared whether or not the fuselage was in 1, 2 or 3 pieces.


The trouble is, you keep making these claims, when they demonstrably are not true.

Nobody has ever died in an A319 landing accident, because there has't even been a fatal A319 accident full stop (impressive in itself for the near 1,500 produced). Same can be said for the A318 too. The A321 meanwhile has incurred three fatal incidents - two due to terrorism and one CFIT so, again, no landing accidents.

That leaves just the A320 - where LH, TACA and TAM have had fatal landing accidents. In the case of TAM, the horrific circumstances of a near 100 knot overrun were unsurvivable in any aircraft, whilst in the case of LH and TACA, the fact that the fuselage didn't disintegrate into multiple pieces was noted as having saved lives - so yes, you can be sure that those passengers really did care how many pieces the aircraft was in. Same for those in the Air Canada A320 which somehow survived what was basically a CFIT intact, or the Air Phillipines A320 which ploughed through a housing area.


I was going to say A320 but I just included the other two types to indicate the series. You missed Indian Airlines 605.

What you are not getting is that by landing downwind the Pegaus flight was vastly beyond the normal landing speed relative to the ground - if it was gusting 37 knots that's almost equivalent to an 75knot overrun vs landing into the wind. It's amazing that more didn't die.

I can't find any A320'series landing incidents that resulted going badly either from landing the wrong way or that went down an 60M embankment. That may just be the luck of the draw.

737's big issue seems to be trying to land with a tailwind where the speeds are a lot higher relative to the ground and there is a big increase in the crash energy - hence why they might be breaking into three pieces. Landing downwind is a big no-no. That is a pilot training issue - don't land with a tailwind and you won't crash and break into three pieces.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2664
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Thu Feb 06, 2020 9:57 pm

Blotto wrote:
PlymSpotter wrote:
morrisond wrote:
Lot's of people have died in 319,320,321 landing accidents as well. I don't think they cared whether or not the fuselage was in 1, 2 or 3 pieces.


The trouble is, you keep making these claims, when they demonstrably are not true.

Nobody has ever died in an A319 landing accident, because there has't even been a fatal A319 accident full stop (impressive in itself for the near 1,500 produced). Same can be said for the A318 too. The A321 meanwhile has incurred three fatal incidents - two due to terrorism and one CFIT so, again, no landing accidents.

That leaves just the A320 - where LH, TACA and TAM have had fatal landing accidents. In the case of TAM, the horrific circumstances of a near 100 knot overrun were unsurvivable in any aircraft, whilst in the case of LH and TACA, the fact that the fuselage didn't disintegrate into multiple pieces was noted as having saved lives - so yes, you can be sure that those passengers really did care how many pieces the aircraft was in. Same for those in the Air Canada A320 which somehow survived what was basically a CFIT intact, or the Air Phillipines A320 which ploughed through a housing area.


You might as well at Hudson and Moscow miracles to that impressive list.


Yes every 737 landing that hasn't gone well has resulted in total fatalities.
 
User avatar
OA940
Posts: 1988
Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 6:18 am

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Thu Feb 06, 2020 10:01 pm

Why are we even talking about the overrun statistics? Quite literally - and with no exception - every single serious overrun involving either an NG or a bus (and almost every single runway overrun involving any type of aircraft ever) has been attributed to pilot error. Doesn't matter if the 737 has more problems with tailwinds than the A320. If the pilots aren't inept you won't have an accident. Why is that so hard to understand
A350/CSeries = bae

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos