Author Topic: Turkish Airliner Crash  (Read 112352 times)

kea001

  • Guest
Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
« Reply #50 on: February 27, 2009, 06:26:02 PM »
The aircraft hit the ground tail first in a high rate of descent with low forward speed.


WoW! What a nifty resource. I knew you could stream this data through google earth but I didn't know you could capture it.

<a href="http://www.openatc.com/THY1951/thy1951-3.jpg" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">http://www.openatc.com/THY1951/thy1951-3.jpg</a>

This surprised me here.

The distance from the indicated first impact point to the place where the plane finally rests is about 2000 ft; quite a lot longer distance than what has been portrayed in the media so far.  I wonder how accurate the graphic is?

From: http://www.openatc.com
http://www.openatc.com/THY1951/
« Last Edit: February 27, 2009, 07:01:36 PM by kea001 »

Offline joeyb747

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1745
  • Nothing Like A 747!
Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
« Reply #51 on: February 27, 2009, 07:21:00 PM »
hakan737:
Thanks for that great information. I found it very interesting! Don't worry about your English, seemed fine to me!  :-D

kea001:
Thanks for the great posts. I love the graphics! You do some good work to put light on the issue, no matter what it is! Keep up the good work!  :-D

I referenced Eastern 401 a couple of posts back, about the crew being distracted by the gear light, and crashing into the Florida Everglades. And Kea001, I think you said something about the pilots being distracted a couple of posts ago. I'm thinking this may be the case. I'm just wondering what it could have possibly been to distract all three in the cockpit, given their combined experience level...Truly sad if infact it was something along those lines.  :cry:


Offline andreblt

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 10
Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
« Reply #52 on: February 28, 2009, 05:32:09 AM »
Quote
The distance from the indicated first impact point to the place where the plane finally rests is about 2000 ft; quite a lot longer distance than what has been portrayed in the media so far.  I wonder how accurate the graphic is?

The explanation is that the Mode-S transponder which sends all this data is designed to use pressure altitude input.
Pressure altitude is the indicated altitude when an altimeter is set to an agreed baseline pressure setting.
This setting equivalent to 1013.25 hectopascals, or 29.92 inches Hg – is equivalent to the air pressure at mean sea level (MSL). Since the baseline pressure setting for the transponder is not corrected for local regional Pressure (QNH) as it is primarily intended to give ATC information at cruising altitudes, the altitude reading close to the ground is not the exact altitude above airfield elevation and depends on the difference between the baseline of 1013.25 and the actual QNH. Notice that the last altitude reading shows -200 ft while the actual Schiphol elevation is -11 ft
So in short the baseline of ground level in the Google earth graphic is about 200ft too high. To get the actual track just draw an imaginary line through groundlevel to the place of impact.
Every 27 ft is equivalent to 1 Hpa. So I would guess the local QNH was 1006 Hpa at the time of the crash.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2009, 05:35:44 AM by andreblt »

Offline empiredude

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 10
Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
« Reply #53 on: February 28, 2009, 05:49:53 AM »
hey guys,

how likely is it that it was really fuel starvation? i mean I just cannot imagine how.
they must have had at least extra fuel to hold over the dest. airport, fly at least one missed approach, divert to at least one alternate airport... besides, there must be at least a couple of different, independant fuel mesauring instruments - and therefore I consider it virtually impossible that they have run out of fuel without noticing it... and i mean there's no information that the turkish machine had been on hold or something for a long time, right?

what do you guys think about this?

kea001

  • Guest
Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
« Reply #54 on: February 28, 2009, 06:17:26 AM »
And Kea001, I think you said something about the pilots being distracted a couple of posts ago.

That wasn't my post, nor do I agree with the conclusion.



Notice that the last altitude reading shows -200 ft while the actual Schiphol elevation is -11 ft
So in short the baseline of ground level in the Google earth graphic is about 200ft too high.
To get the actual track just draw an imaginary line through groundlevel to the place of impact.
Every 27 ft is equivalent to 1 Hpa. So I would guess the local QNH was 1006 Hpa at the time of the crash.

Yes, I had noticed that the plane had found itself resting 200 ft. below sea level, a phenomenon I thought would be conspicuously suspicious, even in the Netherlands. 

This graphic on Aviation Herald seems more accurate.

The first impact point reflects what has been mentioned already, namely that the distance between the first impact
and the resting point is quite small:

graphics here:
http://avherald.com/h?article=41595ec3&opt=1


The next question I have is, at what point is it obvious from this graphic that the pilot is in trouble, and WHY is it obvious?

Here's another helpful tool - Google distance calculator:
http://www.daftlogic.com/projects-google-maps-distance-calculator.htm

« Last Edit: February 28, 2009, 08:47:53 AM by kea001 »

Offline joeyb747

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1745
  • Nothing Like A 747!
Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
« Reply #55 on: February 28, 2009, 06:40:31 AM »
Latest news points to wake turbulence from a 757 may have caused the crash. Here is the link to the story:

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-world/20090227/INTERNATIONAL-US-CRASH-AMSTERDAM-PILOTS/

kea001

  • Guest
Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
« Reply #56 on: February 28, 2009, 07:09:54 AM »
Latest news points to wake turbulence from a 757 may have caused the crash. Here is the link to the story:

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-world/20090227/INTERNATIONAL-US-CRASH-AMSTERDAM-PILOTS/
from article:

"TALPAS's Dane said: "We do not have exact information about the distance between the planes and we do not know if our plane has been warned about the situation. But according to the records we have seen, no mention of it is made."

"We want Dutch Aviation Authorities to be neutral and release all information, including any which might relate to them."

                                                          -###-

Wake turbulence would be first on my list but the Turkish Airline Pilots Association and their preemptive criticism of the investigation process makes them sound terribly paranoid.  :-o

For that reason alone, I would hesitate to fly in one of their planes.

Your article neglected to include the following zinger:

"If this is the case, then air traffic controllers and Dutch aviation officials are the ones that should be accused. There are international limitations on such cases," chairman of the TALPA, Ali Ziya Yilmaz, said.
http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/english/domestic/11101165.asp?scr=1

Honestly, they really should get a professional public relations person to coach them in disaster management.




« Last Edit: February 28, 2009, 07:21:02 AM by kea001 »

Offline iskyfly

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 179
Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
« Reply #57 on: February 28, 2009, 09:25:01 AM »
hey guys,

how likely is it that it was really fuel starvation? what do you guys think about this?

anything is possible at this point.

Offline iskyfly

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 179
Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
« Reply #58 on: February 28, 2009, 09:28:03 AM »
I'm thinking this may be the case.
there you have it, case closed.
cmon, at this point there are a lot of possible reasons. i dont see how you could be so sure on your theory.

Offline Ion the Sky

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12
Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
« Reply #59 on: February 28, 2009, 10:37:21 AM »
Any thoughts of maybe a wrong altimeter input by the crew? That might explain why he was short of the runway and low speed thinking he was closer to the runway than actually was?

We better be careful, we're starting to sound like the media!

kea001

  • Guest
Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
« Reply #60 on: February 28, 2009, 12:00:15 PM »


I don't think there's anything wrong with speculation, as long as you don't expect to reach a conclusion. The Buffalo crash has motivated a lot of pilots to familiarize themselves with tailplane icing irregardless of whether that was the cause. The pilots are basically indicating  that they have a tremendous desire to take ownership of their responsibilities. That's a healthy attitude to have.

Imagine what kind of world we would live in if people just waited for a government agency to bring some edict down from on high before they motivated themselves to change their behavior.

So if one were to take a lesson away from all of this it would be 'Jack be nimble, Jack be quick, Jack jump over the candlestick." Just don't walk up to a pilot tomorrow and say  "Hi...Jack".

                                            -###-

<a href="http://cargolaw.com/images/disaster2000.africa.plane4.GIF" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">http://cargolaw.com/images/disaster2000.africa.plane4.GIF</a>

Trans Arabian Air Transport - Mwanza, Lake Victoria, Tanzania - Feb. 5, 2000

"Ironically, the plane was supposed to pick up a load of fish:"

Cargo Law dot com
http://cargolaw.com/2000nightmare_africa_air.html




« Last Edit: February 28, 2009, 12:20:52 PM by kea001 »

Offline iskyfly

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 179
Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
« Reply #61 on: February 28, 2009, 01:19:16 PM »


I don't think there's anything wrong with speculation,
I agree. I just think the "could it be / is it possible" type questions can all be answered with a "Yes" at this early point in time. Which makes the question meaningless.
Possible, yes. Probable? that is another story.



Quote
Imagine what kind of world we would live in if people just waited for a government agency to bring some edict down from on high before they motivated themselves to change their behavior.
Well, I wouldn't want individual pilots of airlines start making up their own procedures based on speculation regarding a crash / incident, but instead, act on advisories / change in procedures handed down to them by their airline ops which is usually blessed by the FAA or a result of a NTSB recommendation or manufacturer bulletin.


Offline joeyb747

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1745
  • Nothing Like A 747!
Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
« Reply #62 on: February 28, 2009, 07:28:31 PM »
I'm thinking this may be the case.
there you have it, case closed.
cmon, at this point there are a lot of possible reasons. i dont see how you could be so sure on your theory.

The key word was "may". I am not sure of my theory, and thats all it is. A guess. No different then what anyone else does on this site.

Offline joeyb747

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1745
  • Nothing Like A 747!
Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
« Reply #63 on: March 01, 2009, 09:12:32 AM »


Here is a link to audio with a picture slide show. Kinda interesting. 

Check out the 747 getting hit by lightning. Crazy!


Offline snader

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
« Reply #64 on: March 01, 2009, 09:44:45 AM »
The co-pilot was on one of his first trips on the type.
The third crewmember was a so-called buddy pilot who comes along in case something happens to the captain. He can then assist the inexperienced co-pilot in landing the airplane.
From this we can assume that a fair amount of training was being conducted on the flightdeck making it ever more strange that a slowly decaying airspeed went unnoticed.
Let's recap the events.
The aircraft is fully configured at 3NM in approx. 1000ft with Flaps 30 on speed and on glideslope.
The vertical speed seems a bit high though as with an airspeed of 150 knots approx 800 ft/min rate of descent would result in a 3 degrees glide path.
The approach looked fairly normal until 600ft in regards to glide path and speed.
Then something odd happens as the speed starts to decay.
For some unknown reason(s) proper speed management was not maintained, or maybe they assumed the autothrottle was still engaged when it was not.
The mistake was only noticed very late down the approach and they were caught without options on a low energy/low altitude scenario.
They tried to initiate a GA (survivors state a sudden increase in engine power shortly before impact).
There is not enough altitude to recover and with the ground approaching fast the pilot instinctively pulls the aircraft into a low speed stall.
Witnesses on the ground describe nose high attitude, followed by a dive to the ground.
The aircraft hit the ground tail first in a high rate of descent with low forward speed. This is obvious from the photos of the crash scene.

In my opinion this accident was caused due to the pilots inability to maintain the proper approach speed.
Maybe they were distracted by something as it seems they never checked in with the tower after hand over from the approach controller.
Waiting for the FDR and CVR information to be released.

A very interesting read.

Do you suppose that the lack of announcement from the flight crew to the passengers could indicate a last minute 'non normal situation'. i.e. autothrottle disconnected or disengaged, technical failure, etc etc.
Normally the flight crew would at least call for a 'brace for impact' if they can see that things are going downhill right?

Any thoughts of maybe a wrong altimeter input by the crew? That might explain why he was short of the runway and low speed thinking he was closer to the runway than actually was?

We better be careful, we're starting to sound like the media!

As for a wrong altimeter input, that sounds very unlikely.
For landing, the most important altitude is the radio altitude, the barometric altitude is less important at that time.
The radio altitude gives the altitude call outs, rising runway (optional) and some of the EGPWS call outs.
This radio altitude indicates the distance between the aircraft and the ground regardless of barometric settings.
A 737-800 is usually a CAT 3A autoland approved aircraft and therefore has two independent radio altimeters.
CAT 3B is optional for this type but not many operators have this (in this case there would be three independent radio altimeters).


Offline hakan737

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 9
Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
« Reply #65 on: March 01, 2009, 11:50:40 AM »
Quote
The co-pilot was on one of his first trips on the type.

according report of TALPA(Turkish Airliners Pilot Assc.), co-pilot(first officer) was on his line training.  THY line training process is require 100legs PIC flight with instructor senior captain and observer senior first officer or line captain. The pilot was on 46th flight on his line training. (if I din't heard wrong from TV press conference)


Offline empiredude

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 10
Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
« Reply #66 on: March 01, 2009, 11:53:36 AM »


I don't think there's anything wrong with speculation,
I agree. I just think the "could it be / is it possible" type questions can all be answered with a "Yes" at this early point in time. Which makes the question meaningless.
Possible, yes. Probable? that is another story.

[/quote]

sure, I agree, anything is possible at this early point - but my question was how likely fuel starvation is/was - because to me it's rather unlikely given the circumstances (no indication of long holding/diversion/missed approaches, etc... of the aircraft) so I was quite surprised to read in the media that it could have been fuel starvation - of course, all speculation - but nevertheless, I think it's legitimate to discuss the probability of such a scenario...

Offline joeyb747

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1745
  • Nothing Like A 747!
Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
« Reply #67 on: March 01, 2009, 08:55:38 PM »
What about wind shear? I know wind shear is normally associated with thunderstorm activity. But is it possible this could have been a microburst, or wind shear itself?

Offline joeyb747

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1745
  • Nothing Like A 747!
Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
« Reply #68 on: March 01, 2009, 09:00:36 PM »
just found this....

"Engine problems are the most possible reasons that have caused the Turkish Flight TK 1951 to crash at Amsterdam's Schiphol airport on Wednesday, reports reaching here said on Friday."

Above is the opening line to the story linked to below:

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-02/27/content_10912028.htm

Offline iskyfly

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 179
Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
« Reply #69 on: March 01, 2009, 10:22:18 PM »
What about wind shear? I know wind shear is normally associated with thunderstorm activity. But is it possible this could have been a microburst, or wind shear itself?
yes.
or wake turbulence
or fuel starvation
or stall
or pilot heart attack
or engine failure
or navigation equipment failure
or flight control failure
or crew error
or some combination thereof

Offline joeyb747

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1745
  • Nothing Like A 747!
Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
« Reply #70 on: March 02, 2009, 06:52:19 AM »
What about wind shear? I know wind shear is normally associated with thunderstorm activity. But is it possible this could have been a microburst, or wind shear itself?
yes.
or wake turbulence
or fuel starvation
or stall
or pilot heart attack
or engine failure
or navigation equipment failure
or flight control failure
or crew error
or some combination thereof

You dont like speculation, do you... :-)

Offline empiredude

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 10
Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
« Reply #71 on: March 02, 2009, 01:41:59 PM »
What about wind shear? I know wind shear is normally associated with thunderstorm activity. But is it possible this could have been a microburst, or wind shear itself?
yes.
or wake turbulence
or fuel starvation
or stall
or pilot heart attack
or engine failure
or navigation equipment failure
or flight control failure
or crew error
or some combination thereof

dear mr. iskyfly,

as you might have noticed, people are here to discuss what MIGHT have caused the accident! and yes, if we in fact already knew the answer, we would not be here discussing it...
I just don't get it - it's obvious that people are just speculating here - I mean isn't that the point of this forum here?!

Offline iskyfly

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 179
Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
« Reply #72 on: March 02, 2009, 04:32:04 PM »
I mean isn't that the point of this forum here?!
I'm not sure. The description for this forum says;
"This group is for discussions about worldwide aviation communications. "


Offline iskyfly

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 179
Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
« Reply #73 on: March 02, 2009, 04:40:09 PM »

You dont like speculation, do you... :-)
I am all for speculation / discussion. Just not for broad questions that start with "could", or "is it possible" because the answer will be yes, even if the chances are .000000000000000001%.

Is it possible that the flying pilot's seat broke causing him to fall back with the control column in his hands causing the airplane to pitch up and stall? Possible? Yes.

Offline joeyb747

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1745
  • Nothing Like A 747!
Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
« Reply #74 on: March 02, 2009, 07:20:59 PM »

You dont like speculation, do you... :-)
I am all for speculation / discussion. Just not for broad questions that start with "could", or "is it possible" because the answer will be yes, even if the chances are .000000000000000001%.

Is it possible that the flying pilot's seat broke causing him to fall back with the control column in his hands causing the airplane to pitch up and stall? Possible? Yes.


I'm just not sure why you feel it necessary to shoot down ideas in such a sarcastic way that other people share. They are ideas. Thoughts.

Possible it was windshear? Yes
Probable? No.

It was just another idea to toss into the mix.