Looks like airplane is off the runway and moved to a hangar, although some delays, IST seems to be OK after long hours of delays due to runway closure.

Quoting stylo777 (Reply 1): according to some Turkish websites, flight was TK1878 MXP-IST with 97 passengers onboard. All safe and sound. Traffic is been diverted to SAW. another video available here: http://www.airturkhaber.com/haber_detay.asp?haberID=15535

I'm surprised to see an active digger so close to the runway where an emergency landing was planned in advance. Also, the fire engines took their time, or is this normal response time?

Here is the landing from the reverse angle. Amazing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAaLdihzkqw

Quoting n797mx (Reply 48): Wow. You can hear that they were at full power just before landing...

Outstanding ....

Quoting TK787 (Reply 52): Here is the landing from the reverse angle. Amazing.

Thanks for the video, it is interesting to see construction machines keep working on the foreground.

Quoting B747400ERF (Reply 49): An airline not having luck is one that has an airplane shot down and another disappear mysteriously. TK has a history of poor airmanship that causes accidents, they are lucky so far their recent bad performance has not led to deaths. That is the "lucky" part of this, they are actually lucky to not have hundreds of deaths on their hands. Before it is too late, time to wipe out the pilot culture there and start over.

So we have the AMS incident a few years ago, Kathmandu a week or 2 ago and now this.... thats a few incidents in a short period.

Quoting FlyPIJets (Reply 33): Anybody else agree that it is amazing. Look at that wing, yet this ended up as a "non-event" Crew training and today's aircraft design. Yay TK!

Yay TK? Perhaps they should have just landed on the first attempt rather than attempt to take off again with a damaged air frame... ?

Its very lucky that they were able to go around and land safely after the MLG went through the wing and took out an engine.

Quoting SuperCaravelle (Reply 51): I'm surprised to see an active digger so close to the runway where an emergency landing was planned in advance.

That concerned me as well. In the end the aircraft turned around. What if it had turned around veered off the runway earlier, towards the machines?

Quoting FlyPIJets (Reply 33): Anybody else agree that it is amazing. Look at that wing, yet this ended up as a "non-event" Crew training and today's aircraft design. Yay TK!

1982 "incident" Boeing 707 at Brasilia. Crew training and 1958 aircraft design. Yay GIA!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBQ2wzErrgs

It looks very much like a wake vortex encounter just before flare : there was a very little tailwind from the right, enough to entertain the vortex from the previous aircraft., causing a violent roll to the right.

Quoting PHX Flyer (Reply 35): I am flabbergasted that the pilots made the decision to lift off again after they hit the ground already with a bang.

In all probability, the go-around had been initiated while the aircraft was still airborne (takes some 5 seconds to go from idle to GA thrust ) trying to get out of the wake... the ground contact was unavoidable in these conditions... the crew just rode the overshoot...

Quoting mbg (Reply 40): 2) the flaps and gear would not retract,

One of the pics show that the gear seemed retracted in flight with the engine trailing fire.

Afterwards, the crew was busy dealing with all the checklists needed for a safe(r) landing and cabin preparation.

The landing gear doors were down ( they retract after a normal gear extension ) pointing toward yellow hydraulic loss, hence meaning loss of braking - accumulator only - and steering - which explains the 180° pivot.

Quoting n797mx (Reply 48): You can hear that they were at full power just before landing...

Sounds to me quite normal, even to the thrust reduction.

Quoting B747400ERF (Reply 49): TK has a history of poor airmanship that causes accidents,

I wouldn't be so quick to judge. They - IMHO - played well with the cards they were dealt.
Let's wait for the prelim and the DFDR read-outs .

[Edited 2015-04-25 15:10:13]

Major kudos to the flight crew for keeping this incident from turning into something much worse, and to the Airbus engineers and manufacturers for building such a sturdy aircraft. To everyone who is already harping on the pilots skills or decision making, just be quiet... you're not doing anyone any good to play the investigator before any initial investigation is even under way.

Thank goodness everyone got off safely with their hand luggage! smh.

Quoting winterlight (Reply 36): Not a good few months for the A320.

Quite the contrary - it is astonishing given the severity of some of these accidents...

In the close up video of the landing, it appears that the landing has been executed at significantly higher speed than normal. Has anyone else observed same?

I take it this may be primarily due to partial flap failure as well as need to keep speed well above the stall area. Note that the documented stall speed would be meaningless in such a situation since wing configuration was abnormal. Stall speed would hence be unknown, likely significantly higher, so approach and landing speed needed an added margin.

Considering extra drag from main gear doors and pieces of flap and other wing structure extending abnormally into the airstream, there would have been need for a higher than normal power setting on the approach in order to maintain the higher approach speed. N797MX above has already hinted at this although it would not have been full power as he has suggested.

Might the number two engine have been shut down? If so the power setting used on number one engine would have indeed been high to produce the extra needed thrust to maintain a higher approach speed.

Another factor may have been the need to find a speed which produced minimal vibration (from damage) as the crew would have found out when circling before making the ultimate approach.

As I type the above, I am starting to realize that many complications were at play here, in many ways similar to the Qantas A380 Singapore incident that has already been mentioned above.

Although the initial landing was compromised for whatever reason as yet unknown, great airmanship it appears to me has lead to a very good outcome. Pilots definitely had their hands full here and successfully dealt with multiple problems to achieve a landing from which passenger could walk away.

This is one incident where computers did not get in the way of flying the Airbus in an 'out of textbook' configuration and condition and reinforces the importance of giving pilots the option of a high degree of manual control when non documented mechanical things go wrong with the aircraft.

I found additional video footage of the engine on fire during flight after the go-around.

http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/6651...nde_motor.html

http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/6651...nde_motor.html

Quoting B747400ERF (Reply 49): TK has a history of poor airmanship that causes accidents, they are lucky so far their recent bad performance has not led to deaths. That is the "lucky" part of this, they are actually lucky to not have hundreds of deaths on their hands. Before it is too late, time to wipe out the pilot culture there and start over.

I guess with the vast expansion of TK they simply forgotten the key to a successful carrier "safety". I understand after the findings of the FedEx accident in Tokyo killing all crew on onboard a new ruling was put in place for crew to perform a go-around, however after watching this particular incident I don't understand why the pilots would perform the go-around. Best I not judge until the findings.

Quoting SuperCaravelle (Reply 51): I'm surprised to see an active digger so close to the runway where an emergency landing was planned in advance. Also, the fire engines took their time, or is this normal response time?

Quoting LLA001 (Reply 54): Thanks for the video, it is interesting to see construction machines keep working on the foreground.

Very poor planning if you ask me.

Quoting anstar (Reply 55): Quoting FlyPIJets (Reply 33): Anybody else agree that it is amazing. Look at that wing, yet this ended up as a "non-event" Crew training and today's aircraft design. Yay TK! Yay TK? Perhaps they should have just landed on the first attempt rather than attempt to take off again with a damaged air frame... ?

My views exactly, however best we wait the findings.

Quoting WSTAKL (Reply 61): Thank goodness everyone got off safely with their hand luggage! smh.

I'm afraid to say this but the crew have performed poorly in this evacuation.
1) fire clearly seen on the right of the aircraft & evacuation slides deployed on the forward right door/wing.
2) crew need to get passengers off safely and ensure they are reminded to leave all carry on luggage onboard!

I don't want to judge but it's just an observation and I suppose being in this situation would be totally different.

EK413

Quoting EK413 (Reply 64): I found additional video footage of the engine on fire during flight after the go-around. http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/6651...nde_motor.html http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/6651....html

Doesn't load.

Quoting cx flyboy (Reply 65): Quoting EK413 (Reply 64): I found additional video footage of the engine on fire during flight after the go-around. http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/6651...nde_motor.html http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/6651....html Doesn't load.

Really not sure as to why it ain't working?!? Following the original link I copied from it works.

The links are found in the last response; http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=926298&page=80

EK413

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 17): Totally agree with you...so given that TK have had two serious landing incidents that have resulted in no life and damage to the airframes they can consider themselves very lucky to be in that position - it could have been so much worse.

Quoting FlyPIJets (Reply 33): Anybody else agree that it is amazing. Look at that wing, yet this ended up as a "non-event" Crew training and today's aircraft design

They were damn lucky. With the flap torn apart and the right MLG almost falling off one could easily imagine a scenario like FDX80 where the rear spar broke and the aircraft flipped over.

Quoting anstar (Reply 55): Perhaps they should have just landed on the first attempt rather than attempt to take off again with a damaged air frame... ?

for some airlines it is SOP to go around if the aircraft bounces due to the reduced landing distance after the bounce. I assume this was quite a bounce.

Links will work now:

http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/6651...vliegtuig_met_brandende_motor.html

http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/6651...uig_landt_met_brandende_motor.html

Quoting horstroad (Reply 67): They were damn lucky. With the flap torn apart and the right MLG almost falling off one could easily imagine a scenario like FDX80 where the rear spar broke and the aircraft flipped over.

Very different structural design in the a32x VS MD 11. The MD 11 flipped due to the wing snapping and the other wing still making meaningful lift. Airbus and native boeing jets will not break the spar under impact. It's supposed to shed it cleanly to the rear but as seen even if it punches straight up either manufacturer will have a structurally sound wing

Just a question for all of you criticising the crew for allowing passengers take their handbaggage. The crew are at the forward and rear doors, they probably tell passengers to leave their personal belongings and get out. The passengers grab their bags anyway and come to the doors, do the crew take bags off the passengers or let them evacuate with their bags? I would say let them go with their bags if not, you slow down the evacuation by stopping people and saying "excuse me, I told you to leave your bag, please leave it behind". The passenger then does as they're asked, what happens to the bag? Does it magically disappear, or does it block an exit?

The over wing exits are self help exits and passengers look after them themselves, so it was opened by a passenger.

The exit on the starboard side was opened later on and I would agree this put passengers into the way of the fire service dealing with the incident. I am not going to criticise the crew yet for this, maybe they were told it was safe to evacuate, you will note nobody went down that slide until a fire officer was in attendance.

I think we should wait until official information is issued until criticising the actions or inactions of the crew

Quoting flywrite (Reply 3):

Quoting Pihero (Reply 59): Sounds to me quite normal, even to the thrust reduction.

You can hear the buzzsaw sound engines usually make at full or near full power right before they reduced thrust. Not supposed to hear that near landing...

This is going to be an interesting investigation. One has to question pilot training at TK. As to the go-round, perhaps the pilots figured they were too far down the runway to be able to stop in time before running out of it.

Quoting SuperCaravelle (Reply 51): I'm surprised to see an active digger so close to the runway where an emergency landing was planned in advance

I find that very surprising myself. I would think that damage to the right wing / gear / engine could easily result in the aircraft veering to the right after touch down (which it eventually did...). If it had veered right earlier, and at a greater speed, it could have hit that excavator - given where it was placed, that was a definite possibility.

Why on earth would the airport allow it to remain in place, and carry on digging?? Allowing a potential obstacle to remain so close to the path of the aircraft was asking for trouble.

Quoting EK413 (Reply 66):

In the middle of the first video, the plane appears so slow that it reminded me of the 744 crash footage from Afghanistan.. glad everyone survived this.

Quoting n797mx (Reply 72): You can hear the buzzsaw sound engines usually make at full or near full power right before they reduced thrust. Not supposed to hear that near landing...

You're hearing just one engine, which had to deal with :
- the loss of #2
- the extra drag from a dead engine / gear doors hanging / diverse pieces of structure in the slipstream,
- some extra speed for the reduced flap setting the loss of lift due to the damaged wing...

Yes, the engine was at a much higher output than normal.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 73): One has to question pilot training at TK

How can you say that with the scarce info at your hand ?

Quoting Siren (Reply 68): Links will work now: http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/6651...vliegtuig_met_brandende_motor.html http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/6651....html

Thanks for fixing the link  

Quoting bx737 (Reply 71): Just a question for all of you criticising the crew for allowing passengers take their handbaggage.

This is a discussion thread & everyone can voice opinion be right or wrong.

Quoting bx737 (Reply 71): The exit on the starboard side was opened later on and I would agree this put passengers into the way of the fire service dealing with the incident. I am not going to criticise the crew yet for this, maybe they were told it was safe to evacuate, you will note nobody went down that slide until a fire officer was in attendance. I think we should wait until official information is issued until criticising the actions or inactions of the crew

The evacuation is triggered by the captain & not the passengers. One only needs to watch previous disasters and the outcome such as the Britsh Air Tours B737 which experienced an engine fire on takeoff. The evacuation resulted in passengers being severely burnt & inhaling smoke. Another example was the QF A380 engine failure, the captain decided to hold off the evacuation until the all clear from fire crew.
I agree we should await the findings but one thing is clear the evacuation procedures need to be reviewed at TK.

EK413

Quoting SuperCaravelle (Reply 51): Also, the fire engines took their time, or is this normal response time?

Foam was being applied within 30-seconds of the aircraft coming to a stop.

As I recall ICAO guidelines for a major field its something like 3 or 4-minutes.

Looking at the FR24 track, it appears the aircraft performed a series of right turns only after the go around. Coincidence? Or could it be the damage was such that the plane was not capable of turning left? Another thing that puzzles me is that it seems they approached the landing runway at somewhat of an angle. Any ideas on that?

Quoting YYZYYT (Reply 74): Quoting SuperCaravelle (Reply 51): I'm surprised to see an active digger so close to the runway where an emergency landing was planned in advance I find that very surprising myself. I would think that damage to the right wing / gear / engine could easily result in the aircraft veering to the right after touch down (which it eventually did...). If it had veered right earlier, and at a greater speed, it could have hit that excavator - given where it was placed, that was a definite possibility. Why on earth would the airport allow it to remain in place, and carry on digging?? Allowing a potential obstacle to remain so close to the path of the aircraft was asking for trouble.

Two words: telephoto lens. Footage taken at very high zoom levels severely distorts depth perception. Chances are that digger was fairly far from the runway where this happened.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 59): It looks very much like a wake vortex encounter just before flare : there was a very little tailwind from the right, enough to entertain the vortex from the previous aircraft., causing a violent roll to the right.

That was my first thought as well after reading the report of a sudden roll just prior to touchdown. We'll have to wait and see if the data backs this up.
I note that the preceding aircraft in the approach was an AZAL 787 (so a heavy in respect to wake turbulence).

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 73): As to the go-round, perhaps the pilots figured they were too far down the runway to be able to stop in time before running out of it.

There is a time lag after the application of thrust. If it was a sudden loss of control or something similar as it appears to be, the aircraft may have not had enough energy to prevent an impact. Too early to make judgements.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 59): pointing toward yellow hydraulic loss, hence meaning loss of braking - accumulator only - and steering - which explains the 180° pivot.

If I recall correctly it is the other way round, with the green system controlling normal brakes and yellow alternate following green loss?

Here is another video shot from a cockpit of another plane on the tarmac:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h96hpoCFepM#t=83

About the wake turbulence from the AZAL787; I watched the video of a passenger on the plane saying;

"...just before touchdown it felt like heavy turbulence and we pretty much hit the runway and immediately took off again....and he mentioned how the plane tried to stay level but always leaning to the right during the go around and people were praying and FA's preparing the cabin for emergency landing"

Any other 787 wake turbulence reports in the past?
Thanks.

Quoting AIRWALK (Reply 82): There is a time lag after the application of thrust.

They landed on 05 with only 2580m. Just after they hit the runway they declared immediately emergency and lined up for another approach. However, ATC cleared them for 35 and they circled a few minutes for line up. That was certainly a great decision by ATC with hindsight, since even 35 was too short to stop the plane.

Quoting Turkish777X (Reply 84): 35 was too short to stop the plane.

?
According to my info 05 is indeed 2580m long and 60m wide. Runways 35L/R are longer, 3000m, but also slightly less wide at 45m.

Quoting EK413 (Reply 64): Quoting B747400ERF (Reply 49): TK has a history of poor airmanship that causes accidents

It seems to me they did pretty well in this case!

Quoting JerseyFlyer (Reply 86): It seems to me they did pretty well in this case!

Not clear yet!
I am still wondering what happened during the first approach in CAVOK conditions and 5 kts winds.
After the KTM Accident not the best time for another write off!
Most likely Airbus is to blame  

Quoting AIRWALK (Reply 82): If I recall correctly it is the other way round, with the green system controlling normal brakes and yellow alternate following green loss?

You're correct... for older 'buses.
I typed too quick in a brainfart situation.
Apologies.

-People evacuating with their carry-ons really bothers me. Could there be a system in the cabin to lock all overhead bins below 10K feet? Something like arming the doors? What would be the drawback?

-Also, I read in another forum that the damage side door/slide deployed by a passenger. Not sure if this is correct or not, but possible?

Quoting Pihero (Reply 88): Quoting AIRWALK (Reply 82): If I recall correctly it is the other way round, with the green system controlling normal brakes and yellow alternate following green loss? You're correct... for older 'buses.

Yes but all A320 have green main and yellow alternate brakes.
The braking system was changed extensively around MSN2540, but still green main brakes,.
The steering changed from green to Yellow though.

TC-JPE is MSN 2941 so has yellow steering.

[Edited 2015-04-26 06:56:05]

Quoting TK787 (Reply 89): -People evacuating with their carry-ons really bothers me. Could there be a system in the cabin to lock all overhead bins below 10K feet? Something like arming the doors? What would be the drawback? -Also, I read in another forum that the damage side door/slide deployed by a passenger. Not sure if this is correct or not, but possible?

Overhead bin locking would only help somewhat. I always store my main carry on bag under the seat in front. Also I tend to bring only hand luggage and don't often check in a suitcase, even on long hauls particularly to hot countries where heavy clothes are not needed. Hence my carry on is often close to the maximum permissible dimensions and weight.

Unless the emergency is pressing with an obvious conflagration taking hold, I'm not leaving with at least my wrist strap camera bag.

Quoting awthompson (Reply 91): Unless the emergency is pressing with an obvious conflagration taking hold, I'm not leaving with at least my wrist strap camera bag.

And who decides if the emergancy is "pressing" ??!! You? Obviously you think it OK to take small carry on if the emergency isn´t that bad- in your opinion. Well- I´m afraid you´re wrong. If an evacuation is announced- you get up and leave the plane- without anything. Period.
You are risking your own and other people´s lives if you don´t , or start to make your own desisions about an evacuation situation. It is not your call to decide anything in an emergency. And- thats law as well.
So if you ever here " evacuate,evacuate" don´t even think of even putting your shoes on.
I really hope I don´t have to sit next to you in that case....

Amazing with the amount of loads put on the Left MLG it still stands straight, so considering the Right gear was bent ( by the looks of it ) before landing, the forces when it first landed must have been huge!

Quoting Tristarsteve (Reply 90): TC-JPE is MSN 2941 so has yellow steering.

Thanks.
So... Loss of green or not ?
What do you think ?

I find it comical that the crew is being criticized for doing a go around with the amount of damage. Wouldn't be nice if the crew was able to see the pictures and videos of the damaged caused by the hard landing before the initiated the go around.    More than likely a go around had already been initiated prior to the first touch down. Crews train for a scenario like this, a low energy go around or balked landing. There's no way of know what damage has been caused.

Quoting whiteguy (Reply 95): More than likely a go around had already been initiated prior to the first touch down

This might be key. They may have already been committed to the go-around., The damage may have occurred after they were committed to go around.

While we have very little information at this point, it is extremely harsh to bash the crew at this point. I'd rather have this crew on my flight than those bashing this crew without knowing what the facts are. Seems clear to me who I would trust critical decision making to.

Rgds,
PW100

It is actually really disturbing how many people here jumping on the gun with little to no information about what was the real conditions, what was happening in that cockpit, what was the weather like etc etc... It is ironic some people saying TK needs to evaluate their pilot training, they have a poor airmanship, probably never stepped in to a cockpit in their entire life. Sure go ahead, bash them guys in the cockpit because they didn't have the luxury of pausing the scene on YouTube and then say hmmm we have some damage on the right MLG maybe we shouldn't initiate a Go Around, oh wait how much runway we still have at our disposal???
And yes we trained and trained and trained and trained again all these years and hours so some Microsoft simulator pilot should watch the videos and pass a judgement about our airmanship, great!!!

Coming back to subject, key questions in my mind, what was the wind direction, time between the AZAL 787 landing and TK 320
Another thing we need to look at here is the ATC, what is the spacing between the 787 and 320? Was there enough time? IST is getting busier everyday and they always bragging about how many TOs/ Landings they can squeeze out of that ancient airport, we also need to pay attention to this direction instead of just pushing all the blame on a crew which in my opinion did what exactly they were trained and expected to do.

Quoting winterlight (Reply 36): Not a good few months for the A320.

Great few months for Airbus though. Think of all the extra sales due to replacements being needed. The A330 at KTM was brand new!

Quoting Pihero (Reply 94): So... Loss of green or not ? What do you think ?

I believe so. Green actuates all gears and doors. Following failure of green, the crank is used which isolates the landing gear hydraulics from green and uses gravity. Using this method, the gear doors remain open which explains the picture.