LiveATC Discussion Forums

Air Traffic Monitoring => Listener Forum => Topic started by: Fryy/Avocadoflight on February 25, 2009, 05:15:32 AM

Title: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: Fryy/Avocadoflight on February 25, 2009, 05:15:32 AM
Apparently about 30 minutes ago a Turkish Airliner crashed at EHAM. Broke into three.
Listen live on the EHAM feed, sounds pretty intense. I hope there are no serious injuries.

http://alt.liveatc.net/eham2
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: dave on February 25, 2009, 05:41:35 AM
I reviewed the available streams and can't find the crash aircraft on either of the streams.  Terrible accident though looks like all survived. UPDATE 1245UTC: Now hearing 9 dead, 50 injured.

Only audio of ATC holding aircraft and delaying traffic post-accident.  0900-0930Z is the right time block.  Accident seems to have occurred around 0925Z +/-.

Dave
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: dutchmil on February 25, 2009, 05:44:52 AM
I wasn't listening live to the feed, but the feed is fixed now to Schiphol tower for the next few hours.


René.
Live ATC feed from the Netherlands
http://audio.liveatc.net:8012/eham.m3u
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: midcon385 on February 25, 2009, 06:33:40 AM
Can't access the archives to listen (likely due to volume of interest), but if anyone happens to find comms from THY1951, please post the clips.

Thanks!

Tim
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: bibi on February 25, 2009, 06:41:26 AM
Can't access the archives to listen (likely due to volume of interest), but if anyone happens to find comms from THY1951, please post the clips.

Thanks!

Tim
In the german news they say the callsign was/is "TK1951". Don't know which one is true.
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: midcon385 on February 25, 2009, 06:42:53 AM
Can't access the archives to listen (likely due to volume of interest), but if anyone happens to find comms from THY1951, please post the clips.

Thanks!

Tim
In the german news they say the callsign was/is "TK1951". Don't know which one is true.

TK1951 and THY1951 are the same thing. Callsign "Turkish 1951"  :wink:
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: bibi on February 25, 2009, 06:44:05 AM
oh ok, my bad. sorry :)
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: midcon385 on February 25, 2009, 06:45:23 AM
No problem/kein problem!

Tim
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: dave on February 25, 2009, 06:52:15 AM
I should say that I did hear a partial transmission (not on the clip I posted) from an unidentified aircraft - pilot sounded like he declared a missed approach.  No way to really know if that was the crash plane.
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: strangr on February 25, 2009, 06:57:35 AM
servers are overloaded atm. I ca  not get out any archived rec's.

anyone else getting them, i believe it happened 920z - 935z
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: dave on February 25, 2009, 06:58:39 AM
There is a partial clip linked on the front page.  We do not have any explicit transmissions from the Turkish Air flight.
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: kea001 on February 25, 2009, 07:48:34 AM
Turkish Airline Flight 1951

According to eyewitness reports, the plane was approaching the Polderbaan runway close to the A9 motorway when its tail began to hang low: 'too low for a landing,' said one eyewitness on NOS radio.

http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2009/02/turkish_plane_crashes_at_schip.php (http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2009/02/turkish_plane_crashes_at_schip.php)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e3/Schiphol-overview.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schiphol_Airport (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schiphol_Airport)

Aviation Herald:
"performed a controlled landing on a field outside Amsterdam's Schiphol Airport while approaching runway 18R ."
"The airplane had been handed off to tower at 09:24Z"
http://avherald.com/h?article=41595ec3&opt=1 (http://avherald.com/h?article=41595ec3&opt=1)

Google maps:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=&ie=UTF8&ll=52.35453,4.746094&spn=0.064271,0.177155&t=h&z=13 (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=&ie=UTF8&ll=52.35453,4.746094&spn=0.064271,0.177155&t=h&z=13)

RNW NEWS:
http://www.radionetherlands.nl/currentaffairs/090225-turkish-plane-crash (http://www.radionetherlands.nl/currentaffairs/090225-turkish-plane-crash)

Dutch T.V.
http://www.nos.nl/nos/voorpagina/ (http://www.nos.nl/nos/voorpagina/)

Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: ruffian on February 25, 2009, 07:52:30 AM
BBC News are reporting 9 fatalities. Not good news ...
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: kitsap2 on February 25, 2009, 08:23:47 AM
light fog, "ok" visibility, no wind, no flames,......no fuel????

tragedy nonetheless.  this type of accident should never happen.  i'm not implying anything, it's just that it should never happen.

Tom
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: joeyb747 on February 25, 2009, 08:30:58 AM
Below is a link to a pic of the airplane. They are claiming 9 dead and 50 injured.

http://www.comcast.net/slideshow/news-general/news-general-20090225-Netherlands.Plane.Crash/

Below is the latest story from my ISP. I find it strange that the headline is "All 134 Survive Plane Crash In Amsterdam"

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20090225/EU.Netherlands.Plane.Crash/


The B737-800 was in-bound to Amsterdam from Istanbul's Ataturk Airport as TK1951.

Possible fuel starvation...
Title: Amsterdam B738 Crash ATC
Post by: englishpilot on February 25, 2009, 08:42:20 AM
Anyone have any audio of this crash?  Not sure what time it was but Schipol is a working feed, right?
Title: Re: Amsterdam B738 Crash ATC
Post by: dave on February 25, 2009, 08:44:22 AM
Anyone have any audio of this crash?  Not sure what time it was but Schipol is a working feed, right?

Merged into main topic.  There is no audio from the crash aircraft.  This thread can be used to discuss the overall incident.
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: iskyfly on February 25, 2009, 08:56:02 AM

Possible fuel starvation...

who is saying that this early in the game?
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: david2006 on February 25, 2009, 09:22:10 AM
You can hear it on archives. Go to the EHAM achive block 0900-0930 ( do not go to EHAM #2) 09mins 51 secs into clip you can hear "Turkish 1951" being cleared "ARTIP then SPL". Then 14mins59secs he checks in with approach and is cleared "SPY.....ILS 18R".
  19min40: left 265 degrees . 22min34 "left 210 cleared approach"
  24min18 : "call tower 118.275 (?)"
  27min13: other aircraft told to go around; alot of background noise in the tower.
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: dave on February 25, 2009, 09:36:33 AM
You can hear it on archives. Go to the EHAM achive block 0900-0930 ( do not go to EHAM #2) 09mins 51 secs into clip you can hear "Turkish 1951" being cleared "ARTIP then SPL". Then 14mins59secs he checks in with approach and is cleared "SPY.....ILS 18R".
  19min40: left 210 degrees . 22min34 "left 210 cleared approach"
  24min18 : "call tower 118.275 (?)"
  27min13: other aircraft told to go around; alot of background noise in the tower.

If someone has time please edit it down and post to the Audio Clips forum...please do not post the entire 30 minute recording.

Thanks,
Dave
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: hknsky on February 25, 2009, 09:45:10 AM
Here is the link for tower chatter, prepared by a friend.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46tl-KOik90

Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: hakan737 on February 25, 2009, 10:17:52 AM
latest news says about loss power during final phase of approach.(in one of Turkish "serious" TV station). Very unlucky accident.
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: kitsap2 on February 25, 2009, 10:18:10 AM

Possible fuel starvation...

who is saying that this early in the game?

Of all the things that could be said 'early in the game', low fuel state is the one that just happens to come to mind the loudest.  Not that it is correct, maybe the pilots had simultaneous heart attacks, maybe there was a bird strike, maybe this, maybe that.  Anyone can say anything this early, that's all :)

Tom
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: david2006 on February 25, 2009, 11:46:45 AM
Just heard Turkish 1953 land on rwy27. Suprised anyone got on that flight must have taken some persuading.
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: dgpilot on February 25, 2009, 02:13:07 PM
Sad this happens so close to reaching the airport. Since no emergency was declared I'm going to speculate it was a birdstrike but at this point it could be anything
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: andreblt on February 25, 2009, 02:17:46 PM
The aircraft never made any radio call after establishing on the ILS. It seemed to just stall out about 3 miles short of the threshold 18R. It landed in a field with its tail first. It fell to the ground almost vertically as reported by eyewitnesses and as can be seen by the relatively short skid marks in the field.
Why the airplanes fell below the Glide slope and stalled is not clear. The remains of the RH engine with its shredded fanblades suggests the engine was running on impact. There were three crewmembers on the flightdeck all of them deceased. Both CVR and FDR are recovered. Keep you posted.
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: iskyfly on February 25, 2009, 02:58:02 PM
The remains of the RH engine with its shredded fanblades suggests the engine was running on impact.
the fan blades of one engine seems to be relatively intact indicating low rpm at time of impact.
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: joeyb747 on February 25, 2009, 03:35:38 PM


[/quote]
who is saying that this early in the game?
[/quote]

Just a guess. Heard from one source that the airplane had performed a go-around. I only heard that form one place...
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: joeyb747 on February 25, 2009, 03:39:50 PM
here is another link to the "latest" news...

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20090225/NEWS-US-CRASH-AMSTERDAM/

This mentions no possible cause just yet...
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: ruud on February 25, 2009, 05:59:31 PM
If you listen to EHAM1b at 01.46 min, it seems to sound like "missed approach". But who this was I don't know.   



http://www.liveatc.net/forums/atcaviation-audio-clips/turkish-airlines-1951-feb-25-2009/
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: kea001 on February 25, 2009, 06:18:43 PM
The aircraft never made any radio call after establishing on the ILS.

"TC-JGE can not be heard on the tower frequency on liveatc.net, possibly because of their feed listens to a multitude of frequencies including clearance, ground and tower with a lot of communication on clearance in the critical time. The tower frequency only cuts in for part into the transmission of the pilot report of an airplane down, the call sign not audible."

So says Aviation Herald.
http://avherald.com/h?article=41595ec3&opt=1 (http://avherald.com/h?article=41595ec3&opt=1)
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: Amante de Aviones on February 25, 2009, 06:55:11 PM
i wonder if it was a birdstrike, i was listening to the feed before the crash and Singapore 342 reported they hit birds on approach.
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: dutchmil on February 25, 2009, 07:00:30 PM
Been listening to my audio feed from this morning, and I think that the Turkish
aircraft crashed at 0926z.

Turkish 1951 was handed over from Schiphol approach to Schiphol tower 118.275
at 0924z, but he never checked in there. This would probably indicate that he
already had some problems then, and was too busy dealing with them and had no
time to check in with tower anymore .....

The next aircraft to land after the Turkish aircraft was JAT 262 and he was
instructed to "go around" by tower on 118.275 at 0927z.

Hope this helps,


René.
Live ATC feed from the Netherlands
http://audio.liveatc.net:8012/eham.m3u
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: kea001 on February 25, 2009, 08:46:05 PM
Been listening to my audio feed from this morning, and I think that the Turkish
aircraft crashed at 0926z.

Ah...the creator. A reason to post this.

Listen to the following attachment. This occurred just prior to the 0926 mark.

I've taken samples from the same time frame from EHAM and EHAM2 feeds.
I've put in audible beeps to distinguish the two samples.

Listen for the female voice in the background. You can hear it in both feeds.

The other thing I was curious about was the discrepancy between the time of the feeds and the time that is being reported in the media. Most outlets are reporting 10:31 local or 0931z as the time of the crash.




By the way, this is the best web designer/multimedia duo in the Netherlands:

Vossen and Springer
http://www.marcelvossen.com/website/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=99&Itemid=51 (http://www.marcelvossen.com/website/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=99&Itemid=51)

Check out the impersonation videos at the bottom.  :-D

Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: dutchmil on February 25, 2009, 08:53:47 PM
Yes, thanks. I think she is shouting something, but unclear what.

Still think very strongly that THK 1951 never checked in with tower.

René.
Live ATC feed from the Netherlands
http://audio.liveatc.net:8012/eham.m3u
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: kea001 on February 26, 2009, 01:50:28 PM
Dutchmil strikes again

BBC NEWS:
Air control confirms emergency
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7910801.stm
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: joedupont on February 26, 2009, 02:43:39 PM
Very strange.. heavy impact.. engines gone and no apparent fire?
Were they out of fuel???
how much fuel was there on board?
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: BerendBotje1 on February 26, 2009, 04:26:34 PM
Turkish 1951 was handed over from Schiphol approach to Schiphol tower 118.275
at 0924z, but he never checked in there. This would probably indicate that he
already had some problems then, and was too busy dealing with them and had no
time to check in with tower anymore .....

Not checking in on the tower frequency can also mean it was not recorded from the feed.  :wink:

Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: iskyfly on February 26, 2009, 07:00:25 PM
Very strange.. heavy impact.. engines gone and no apparent fire?
Were they out of fuel???
how much fuel was there on board?

wet conditions.
you need a spark to light a fire...
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: joeyb747 on February 26, 2009, 07:27:09 PM
Does anyone know for sure what the airplanes attitude was when it made contact with the ground? I've heard tail first, also indicated by the short marks left on the ground. That would suggest a stall. Nose up. Or they were trying to climb.

Was the airplane on autopilot? I haven't heard any mention of autopilot.

Just a passing thought...Does anyone remember Eastern 401? L-1011 that crashed in the Florida Everglades while on approach to KMIA. Crew was preoccupied with a nose gear light that didn't go green. The F/O bumped the yoke and turned off the autopilot as he fumbled with the cover on the light. The airplane began a slow descent as it circled. The crew didnt notice this until they saw the reeds and saw grass going by the windows. I know autopilot today is disconnected by a button, followed by an audible alert. Turns out it was a burnt out bulb....anyway, is it possible they lost track of what they were doing?? I Don't want to blame the crew, I hear the Captain was rather experienced.

Just a couple of thoughts to kick around... :-D
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: joeyb747 on February 26, 2009, 07:45:12 PM
http://www.airdisaster.com/news/article.php?id=46

Here is the link to the story on airdisaster.com in case anyone would like to read it...

It says "The pilot is an experienced one who is a former member of the Turkish Air Force," reguarding the Captain, I'm assuming.
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: LucasJV on February 26, 2009, 08:40:56 PM
Does anyone know for sure what the airplanes attitude was when it made contact with the ground? I've heard tail first, also indicated by the short marks left on the ground. That would suggest a stall. Nose up. Or they were trying to climb.

People from the plane told on Dutch National television they heard loud engine noise just before they hit the ground and thought they were trying to get higher off the ground.
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: joeyb747 on February 26, 2009, 09:07:43 PM
Like full throttle power? TOGA maybe?
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: hakan737 on February 27, 2009, 08:44:32 AM
Quote
how much fuel was there on board?

should be enough for holding over EHAM+1st divert distance to fly+holding over diverted airport. I think they are add 2nd divert airport on the flightplan  if necessary.

@joeyb747

yes that information is true. The most of Turkish pilots comes from Turkish Air Force. Air Force pilots are retires (or get rights to leave air force) around 35-45 years and then they are continue (if they want)  to fly in Turkish Airlines or any other Turkish Companies. There is a protocol between Turkish Airlines and Turkish Air Force. When the Air Force pilots begin job in Commercial Airlines they have at least 3000-4000 flight hours. Ofcourse all of them gets licence conversion training and type training before take the right seat and they are begin of thier new life as first officer. BEsides Turkish Airlines has own flight training center last few years, before that they were trained a lot of civil pilots from 0 hours. Also THY has a contract with an aviation university in Eskisehir city, Eskisehir Anatolin universty,Civil aviation school which is only one university  based flight training center (pilot and air traffic conttoller). A few universities also have their own aviaiton programs about flight training but they didn't start to flights.

at this accident, one of pilots who was former Air Force pilot also one the most experienced flight instructor of THY. On the righ side seat pilot who was also newly former Air Force pilots but still on line training for preparing to become first officer.Third pilot was comes from civil training schools with his own capabilities but even he was younger, more experienced than line trained pilot as senior first officer. Third pilot was in there as observer pilot for if necessary.

according as eyewitness says that; plane stuck the tail first and then hit the ground . Some of them says there wasn't engine sound while at seen nose up. Probably captains tried to as can as get to be slower the plane and increased angle of attack.(they says thay should be do for don't want to hit on highway)

We will see what happened between captured ILS and impact point  after decrypted of FDR and CVR.

p.s sorry for my english.

Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: andreblt on February 27, 2009, 12:45:28 PM
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.
(http://www.openatc.com/THY1951/thy1951-5.jpg)
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.
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: BerendBotje1 on February 27, 2009, 02:49:51 PM
Maybe they were distracted by something as it seems they never checked in with the tower after hand over from the approach controller.
Nice recapture of the event, but I do not agree that they never checked in with the tower after the handover by approach.
What about missing this part in the recording from the LiveATC stream because the scanner might stopped on another frequency at that moment?
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: andreblt on February 27, 2009, 02:56:48 PM
Two independent separate feeds (EHAM and EHAM2) monitor the tower. Both did not register THK 1951 on the tower freq. You could be right but it seems unlikely both feeds missed it.
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: BerendBotje1 on February 27, 2009, 03:32:23 PM
According to the stream info only EHAM#2 has all the tower frequencies in the scanner. Also the delivery, start/up en ground frequencies are in this stream. When I listen to the recording of 0900z a lot of clearance, push/back and ground RT is heard as well as take off clearances from the main tower. Not so unlikely the feed missed the check in. :wink:
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: andreblt on February 27, 2009, 05:04:27 PM
You are right. I stand corrected.
There is a good chance the transmission was missed.
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: hakan737 on February 27, 2009, 05:31:44 PM
do we have chance to find track of NWA60 which is landed shortly before THY1951?
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: kea001 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.

http://www.openatc.com/THY1951/thy1951-3.jpg

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/ (http://www.openatc.com/THY1951/)
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: joeyb747 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:

Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: andreblt 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.
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: empiredude 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?
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: kea001 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 (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 (http://www.daftlogic.com/projects-google-maps-distance-calculator.htm)

Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: joeyb747 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/
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: kea001 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 (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.




Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: iskyfly 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.
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: iskyfly 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.
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: Ion the Sky 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!
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: kea001 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".

                                            -###-

http://cargolaw.com/images/disaster2000.africa.plane4.GIF

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




Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: iskyfly 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.

Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: joeyb747 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.
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: joeyb747 on March 01, 2009, 09:12:32 AM
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/2488127/turkish_airlines_flight_1951_emergancy_landing_eham/

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

Check out the 747 getting hit by lightning. Crazy!

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1651411/boeing_747_gets_hit_by_lightning/
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: snader 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).

Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: hakan737 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)

Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: empiredude 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...
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: joeyb747 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?
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: joeyb747 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
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: iskyfly 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
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: joeyb747 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... :-)
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: empiredude 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?!
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: iskyfly 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. "

Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: iskyfly 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.
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: joeyb747 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.
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: iskyfly on March 02, 2009, 07:53:06 PM

I'm just not sure why you feel it necessary to shoot down ideas in such a sarcastic way that other people share.
I don't feel it necessary.
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: joeyb747 on March 02, 2009, 08:17:30 PM

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

Seems that way...
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: joeyb747 on March 02, 2009, 08:27:39 PM
They are now saying that both engines stalled shortly before the airplae fell to the ground. This counters early accounts of the passengers saying they heard the engines power up shortly before they hit. This article is dated Feb 27.

Has anyone heard for sure how much fuel was onboard?

Below is a link to the story...
 
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5811658.ece
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: iskyfly on March 02, 2009, 08:59:42 PM
They are now saying that both engines stalled shortly before the airplae fell to the ground. This counters early accounts of the passengers saying they heard the engines power up shortly before they hit. This article is dated Feb 27.

Has anyone heard for sure how much fuel was onboard?

Below is a link to the story...
 
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5811658.ece
pax and eyewitness descriptions of what they saw or heard are notoriously inaccurate.

I also don't put much stock in media reports that say the engines "stalled".
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: joeyb747 on March 02, 2009, 10:02:19 PM
True about witness accounts. How offten do stories differ between people who were right next to each other?

And yea. I thought "stalled" was a strange word to use there...
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: andreblt on March 03, 2009, 12:46:25 AM
Both engines came to rest approx 100 ft in front of the fuselage. What made them do that??
My guess is they were running at high power at the moment of impact.
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: joeyb747 on March 03, 2009, 06:49:15 AM
Both engines came to rest approx 100 ft in front of the fuselage. What made them do that??
My guess is they were running at high power at the moment of impact.


That would seem to suggest that, wouldn't it.

Or would momentum alone be enough to launch the powerplants foreward?

It's like we have black and white accounts of what happened. Some say the engines were dead, some say the were running at full power. 

Of course as iflysky and I were just discussing...You can't put all your eggs in the pax and witnesses basket!  "Notoriously inaccurate" is how iflysky put it...great wording! :-D
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: iskyfly on March 03, 2009, 08:21:19 AM

My guess is they were running at high power at the moment of impact.

the pictures of the fan blades indicate low rpm at impact.
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: tlsdk on March 03, 2009, 10:40:53 AM
They are now saying that both engines stalled shortly before the airplae fell to the ground. This counters early accounts of the passengers saying they heard the engines power up shortly before they hit. This article is dated Feb 27.

Has anyone heard for sure how much fuel was onboard?

Below is a link to the story...
 
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5811658.ece

TTL fuel...12000kgs
trip fuel..8000kgs
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: joeyb747 on March 03, 2009, 05:52:30 PM
They are now saying that both engines stalled shortly before the airplae fell to the ground. This counters early accounts of the passengers saying they heard the engines power up shortly before they hit. This article is dated Feb 27.

Has anyone heard for sure how much fuel was onboard?

Below is a link to the story...
 
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5811658.ece

TTL fuel...12000kgs
trip fuel..8000kgs


Was this fuel load at departure?
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: joeyb747 on March 03, 2009, 06:31:26 PM
I worded that wrong...sorry.  :-D

Does anyone know for sure how much fuel was onboard at the time of the crash?
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: joeyb747 on March 03, 2009, 06:35:16 PM

My guess is they were running at high power at the moment of impact.

the pictures of the fan blades indicate low rpm at impact.


I agree iflysky.  From pics Ive seen, the engines are relatively intact, all be it missing cowling and casing. Here are two such pictures...in fact, in the head on view, the blades at the top of the powerplant look almost undamaged...like it was not running at time of impact...

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Crash_Turkish_Airlines_TK_1951_plane_engine.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Crash_Turkish_Airlines_TK_1951_plane_engine_2.jpg
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: joeyb747 on March 03, 2009, 06:46:06 PM
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Turkish_Airlines_Flight_1951

Lots of good pics on this page...
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: tlsdk on March 04, 2009, 06:10:31 AM
I worded that wrong...sorry.  :-D

Does anyone know for sure how much fuel was onboard at the time of the crash?

about 4000kgs
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: joeyb747 on March 04, 2009, 07:51:05 AM
I worded that wrong...sorry.  :-D

Does anyone know for sure how much fuel was onboard at the time of the crash?

about 4000kgs

Ok. Thank you.
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: iskyfly on March 04, 2009, 08:48:31 AM
just the facts please....

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/unusual-attitude/2009/03/turkish-airlines-crash-evidenc.html

Quote
This morning the Dutch investigators are holding a press conference on the Turkish Airlines Boeing 737-800 crash at Amsterdam last week and I understand that later Boeing will release a safety bulletin. From a reliable source, the contents of the Boeing bulletin will include the points below. Regrettably they don't reflect well on the pilots, who are dead of course - but I'd caution that there is a long investigation still to come.


no evidence of fuel shortage, birdstrike, icing, windshear, wake turbulence, or engine, system or control malfunction
the first officer was initially flying the aircraft and was inexperienced in airline operations
autopilot and autothrottle were in use
the aircraft was initially high and fast on the approach and at about 2,000ft above ground the throttles were pulled to idle
the authrottle went to "retard" mode and the throttles then stayed at idle for about 100 seconds during which time the speed fell to 40kt below reference speed
the aircraft descended through the glideslope with the captain talking the first officer through the before landing checklist
the stick shaker activated at about 400ft above ground and the first officer increased power
the captain took control and as the first officer released the throttles they moved to idle due to being in "retard" mode
after six seconds the throttles were advanced but as the engines responded the aircraft hit the ground in a slightly nose-high attitude
throughout the episode the left-hand radio altimeter read negative seven feet altitude, but the right-hand radalt worked correctly
Boeing will warn crews about fundamentals like flying the aircraft, monitoring airspeed, monitoring altitude, and will give advice about radalt issues.

Quote
* Capt LH seat, (fully qualified) FO in RH seat, observer FO on jumpseat
* Normal approach, no changes, to 18R
* Descent on AP, normal procedure for TK
* At 1950 ft LH RadAlt indicated -8 ft and passed this info on the A/T
* From CVR: crew get aural landing-gear warning but not consider this a problem
* A/T pulled throttles closed (At 1950 ft. because A/P thinks aircraft is landing)
* stick shaker at 450 ft (Because no reaction by pilots on closing of throttles by A/P)
* From FDR: full power was then applied
* FDR stores 25 hours, in this case 8 flights, same problem had occured twice previously before previous landings.
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: joeyb747 on March 04, 2009, 09:30:57 AM
Thanks for the great info iflysky!

So this is looking more like an autopilot error? Am I reading this correctly? The last line in your post says:
"* FDR stores 25 hours, in this case 8 flights, same problem had occured twice previously before previous landings."

And if my math is correct and if tlsdk is correct on the 4000KGS of fuel on board, that would mean, for us stuburn Americans :-D, 4000KGS=8800LBS (2.2 LBS/KG), witch translates into roughly 1295 Gallons of fuel (One gallon of jet fuel weighs 6.8LBS).

Given that, I think its safe to say fuel starvation was not the case!

Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: andreblt on March 04, 2009, 09:52:18 AM
So this is looking more like an autopilot error?
Quote
the authrottle went to "retard" mode and the throttles then stayed at idle for about 100 seconds during which time the speed fell to 40kt below reference speed
What is the first thing they teach at flying school?
This is basic flying stuff. Speed control!!
The pilot is there in case the automation fails.
There is always that danger of relying too much on automation.
Therefore in my company it is mandatory during the approach to keep one hand on the control column and one on the power levers. That way the pilot is perfectly " hooked up" to the aircraft and remains in touch with whatever the aircraft is or is not doing.
As in most cases this is a tragic combination of equipment and human failure!!
I hope the industry will take it's lessons from this.
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: joeyb747 on March 04, 2009, 10:13:02 AM
"As in most cases this is a tragic combination of equipment and human failure!!"

Makes sense. Do you think the pilot were just not paying attention to what the airplane was doing? You would think they would notice 40kts below reference. You know, a "somthing dosn't seem right" kind of thing.
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: iskyfly on March 04, 2009, 11:10:28 AM
Thanks for the great info iflysky!

So this is looking more like an autopilot error? Am I reading this correctly? 
In a crash there is no one single cause. Redundancy / layers are designed into the system to prevent things like this from happening. The final report will probably look something like this;

-Crew error

Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: iskyfly on March 04, 2009, 11:16:37 AM
Prelim report here;

http://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/docs/rapporten/Persverklaring_4_maart_GB.pdf
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: joeyb747 on March 04, 2009, 11:26:10 AM
I agree...accidents are a culmination of many factors.

They reference the radio altimeter a lot in the report. I thought the autopilot based its altitude on the barometric altimeter...is that incorrect? The radio altimeter measures distance above ground, and fluctuates with terrain passing under the aircraft. The barometric altimeter measures altitude over sea level, and remains constant. Am I correct on that?

Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: iskyfly on March 04, 2009, 11:45:23 AM
I agree...accidents are a culmination of many factors.

They reference the radio altimeter a lot in the report. I thought the autopilot based its altitude on the barometric altimeter...is that incorrect? The radio altimeter measures distance above ground, and fluctuates with terrain passing under the aircraft. The barometric altimeter measures altitude over sea level, and remains constant. Am I correct on that?


I am not familiar with AP's and how they work but I do believe that during an ILS approach the radio altimeter is used so that you get call outs in AGL. ie (100, 50, 40, 30 20).
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: joeyb747 on March 04, 2009, 11:56:40 AM
Makes sense. I'm thinking it uses both systems in unison.
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: toogd on March 04, 2009, 12:17:19 PM
In the initial report there is this paragraph:

"The voice recorder has shown that the crew were notified that the left radio altimeter was not
working correctly (via the warning signal “landing gear must go down”).
Provisional data indicates that this signal was not regarded to be a problem."

I imagine there will be some discussion about whether the warning signal "landing gear must go down" is indeed an adequate warning in the case of what is a fatal autopilot malfunction. Would not something like "Autopilot Error! Disengage Autopilot!" be a more logical message to a sudden drastic change in altitude, like from 1950 to 8 ft in a fraction of  a second, as measured by one of the crucial inputs to the AP system?

Anyway, I just would not have believed it to be possible for an automatic landing system to actually stall the aircraft like this and allow it to drop from the sky a whole km short of the runway! It boggles the mind.
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: empiredude on March 04, 2009, 12:19:35 PM
here is what I (think I) know: an airplane uses the air pressure to measure the altitude - above 10000feet the crew sets the altimeter to a default pressure (QNH) (1013hPa in europe I think) - below 10000feet the altimeter should be set to the local air pressure (information being received from ATC during approach). could be that the crew set their altimeter incorrectly - causing the aircraft to display a wrong altitude (ref. sea level).
however, if the airplane (at least airbus do that) gets below something like 2000feet - you also get the distance between ground and plane measured by a radar instrument. that one only displays wrong information if the system itself is broken...
if the aircraft gets below something like 100feet - there is either a hearble countdown (100fett / 50feet / 20feet / 10feet) or a "terrain" warning (depending on whether the airplance is "supposed" to be landing or not)
either way,
it's still strange three pilots in the cockpit did not notice the wrong altitude despite all the warnings, etc...

(if I just wrote a total incorrect nonsense, please correct my statements...)
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: MathFox on March 04, 2009, 12:24:10 PM
What I gathered from news reports is that the autothrottle system reacted as if the plane already had landed:  -8 ft radio altitude -> wheels on the ground -> no danger in stalling.
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: andreblt on March 04, 2009, 12:47:31 PM
The737-800 can do an "Automatic Flare/single channel flare" due to it's autopilot design.
Even with A/P B engaged, the A/T recieves its inputs from FCC A and respective "A" radio altimeter, even if "B" channel is engaged. So if the A/T thinks it landing due to the erroneus RA input and retards the P/L's.
I find it quite believable that any or all of the crew could have missed RETARD / FLARE or even WAKE-UP annunciated on the FMA as this is a very common omission even among highly experienced crew.
What I find unbelievable is that 3 pairs of eyes could have failed to notice a loss of 40kts speed from 1950 - 450 ft along with 3 pairs of ears failing to notice the reduction in airflow noise, along with 3 asses that didn't feel the change in body angle required to stay on the glidepath.
The final error "appears" to have been the other all too common fault of commencing a G/A but not pushing TOGA, therefore no useful F/D commands & no automatic movement towards & maintaining of G/A thrust. It appears that when the F/O relinquished control the Capt grabbed the controls with both hands but no-one was guarding the thrust levers.
Still, having said all this, I find it unbelievable that such an experienced crew could have allowed the situation to get this far. If this is true and there is nothing else nasty or dramatic involved, it really was a total loss of situational awareness on the part of 3 crew at a critical stage of flight.
Very strange & scary indeed.
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: iskyfly on March 04, 2009, 12:54:56 PM
In the initial report there is this paragraph:

"The voice recorder has shown that the crew were notified that the left radio altimeter was not
working correctly (via the warning signal “landing gear must go down”).
Provisional data indicates that this signal was not regarded to be a problem."

I imagine there will be some discussion about whether the warning signal "landing gear must go down" is indeed an adequate warning in the case of what is a fatal autopilot malfunction.
I believe the "landing gear must go down" is a translation error.

Quote
Anyway, I just would not have believed it to be possible for an automatic landing system to actually stall the aircraft like this and allow it to drop from the sky a whole km short of the runway!
I find it hard to believe that the pilots did not recognize the signs.

Fly the aircraft first.
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: iskyfly on March 04, 2009, 01:17:59 PM
Quote
FROM: THE BOEING COMPANY
TO: MOM [MESSAGE NUMBER:MOM-MOM-09-0063-01B] 04-Mar-2009 05:29:01 AM US PACIFIC TIME
Multi Operator Message

This message is sent to all 737-100,-200,-300,-400,-500,-600,-700,-800,-900,-BBJ customers and to respective Boeing Field Service bases, Regional Directors, the Air Transport Association, International Air Transport Association, and Airline Resident Representatives.

SERVICE REQUEST ID: 1-1228079803
ACCOUNT: Boeing Correspondence (MOM)
DUE DATE: 10-Mar-2009
PRODUCT TYPE: Airplane
PRODUCT LINE: 737
PRODUCT: 737-100,-200,-300,-400,-500,-600,-700,-800,-900,-BBJ
ATA: 3400-00

SUBJECT: 737-800 TC-JGE Accident at Schiphol Airport, Amsterdam - 25 February 2009

REFERENCES:
/A/ 1-1222489391 Dated 25 February 2009

Reference /A/ provides Boeing's previous fleet communication on the subject event. The US NTSB, FAA, Boeing, the Turkish DGCA, the operator, the UK AAIB, and the French BEA continue to actively support the Dutch Safety Board's (DSB) investigation of this accident.

The DSB has released a statement on the progress of the investigation and has approved the release of the following information.

While the complex investigation is just beginning, certain facts have emerged from work completed thus far:

- To date, no evidence has been found of bird strike, engine or airframe icing, wake turbulence or windshear.
- There was adequate fuel on board the airplane during the entire flight.
- Both engines responded normally to throttle inputs during the entire flight.
- The airplane responded normally to flight control inputs throughout the flight.


The Digital Flight Data Recorder (DFDR) data indicates that the crew was using autopilot B and the autothrottle for an ILS (Instrument Landing System) approach to runway 18R at Amsterdam Schiphol airport. During the approach, the right Low Range Radio Altimeter (LRRA) was providing accurate data and the left LRRA was providing an erroneous reading of -7 to -8 feet. When descending through approximately 2000 feet the autothrottle, which uses the left radio altimeter data, transitioned to landing flare mode and retarded the throttles to the idle stop. The throttles remained at the idle stop for approximately 100 seconds during which time the airspeed decreased to approximately 40 knots below the selected approach speed.

The two LRRA systems provide height above ground readings to several aircraft systems including the instrument displays, autothrottle, autopilots and configuration/ground proximity warning. If one LRRA provides erroneous altitude readings, typical flight deck effects, which require flight crew intervention whether or not accompanied by an LRRA fault flag, include:

- Large differences between displayed radio altitudes, including radio altitude readings of -8 feet in flight.
- Inability to engage both autopilots in dual channel APP (Approach) mode
- Unexpected removal of the Flight Director Command Bars during approach
- Unexpected Configuration Warnings during approach, go-around and initial climb after takeoff
- Premature FMA (Flight Mode Annunciation) indicating autothrottle RETARD mode during approach phase with the airplane above 27 feet AGL. There will also be corresponding throttle movement towards the idle stop. Additionally, the FMA will continue to indicate RETARD after the throttles have reached the idle stop

Boeing Recommended Action
- Boeing recommends operators inform flight crews of the above investigation details and the DSB interim report when it is released. In addition, crews should be reminded to carefully monitor primary flight instruments (airspeed, attitude etc.) and the FMA for autoflight modes. More information can be found in the Boeing 737 Flight Crew Training Manual and Flight Crew Operations Manual.

Operators who experience any of the flight deck effects described above should consult the troubleshooting instructions contained in the 737 Airplane Maintenance Manual. Further, 737-NG operators may wish to review 737NG-FTD-34-09001 which provides information specific for the 737-NG installation. Initial investigations suggest that a similar sequence of events and flight deck indications are theoretically possible on the 737-100/-200/-300/-400/-500. Consequently the above recommendations also apply to earlier 737 models.
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: kitsap2 on March 04, 2009, 01:54:43 PM
If this is true, and the pilots, all three of them, flew this a/c into the ground, it leaves me utterly speechless. 
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: joeyb747 on March 04, 2009, 03:04:00 PM
here is what I (think I) know: an airplane uses the air pressure to measure the altitude - above 10000feet the crew sets the altimeter to a default pressure (QNH) (1013hPa in europe I think) - below 10000feet the altimeter should be set to the local air pressure (information being received from ATC during approach). could be that the crew set their altimeter incorrectly - causing the aircraft to display a wrong altitude (ref. sea level).
however, if the airplane (at least airbus do that) gets below something like 2000feet - you also get the distance between ground and plane measured by a radar instrument. that one only displays wrong information if the system itself is broken...
if the aircraft gets below something like 100feet - there is either a hearble countdown (100fett / 50feet / 20feet / 10feet) or a "terrain" warning (depending on whether the airplance is "supposed" to be landing or not)
either way,
it's still strange three pilots in the cockpit did not notice the wrong altitude despite all the warnings, etc...

(if I just wrote a total incorrect nonsense, please correct my statements...)

I believe it's above 18,000 ft that they set to the standard altimeter setter(in the U.S. its 29.92), and below that it is set to local reading.  I don't think an incorrectly set altimeter could cause this. Variations in altimeter setting would only cause the sea level altimeter to be off by a few hundred feet. I've heard on some of the approach feeds something like "So-And So 1234, you a 500 below/above(what ever the case my be) your assigned altitude, current altimeter 30.12." (or what ever current reading is).

If that is incorrect, please correct me!
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: kitsap2 on March 04, 2009, 03:47:38 PM
here is what I (think I) know: an airplane uses the air pressure to measure the altitude - above 10000feet the crew sets the altimeter to a default pressure (QNH) (1013hPa in europe I think) - below 10000feet the altimeter should be set to the local air pressure (information being received from ATC during approach). could be that the crew set their altimeter incorrectly - causing the aircraft to display a wrong altitude (ref. sea level).
however, if the airplane (at least airbus do that) gets below something like 2000feet - you also get the distance between ground and plane measured by a radar instrument. that one only displays wrong information if the system itself is broken...
if the aircraft gets below something like 100feet - there is either a hearble countdown (100fett / 50feet / 20feet / 10feet) or a "terrain" warning (depending on whether the airplance is "supposed" to be landing or not)
either way,
it's still strange three pilots in the cockpit did not notice the wrong altitude despite all the warnings, etc...

(if I just wrote a total incorrect nonsense, please correct my statements...)

I believe it's above 18,000 ft that they set to the standard altimeter setter(in the U.S. its 29.92), and below that it is set to local reading.  I don't think an incorrectly set altimeter could cause this. Variations in altimeter setting would only cause the sea level altimeter to be off by a few hundred feet. I've heard on some of the approach feeds something like "So-And So 1234, you a 500 below/above(what ever the case my be) your assigned altitude, current altimeter 30.12." (or what ever current reading is).

If that is incorrect, please correct me!

You are correct.  Aircraft altimeters are set to 29.92 at 18,000 ft and above.  Below 18,000 ft, they are set to local barometric readings.

An aircraft's mode C readout (altitude), as monitored at controller displays, must be within 300 ft of assigned altitude.  That is, less than 300 ft, for controllers to be able to use that information for separation purposes (terminal environment).  A controller must verify an a/c's mode c readout periodically.  If pilot states level at 9000, but his mode C, as depicted on the controllers display, is reading 8500, the controller will say something like, "N1234, verify at 9000, altimeter 3002"  If pilot states level at 9000, even after resetting to correct altimeter, and the a/c's mode C is still reading 8500, than the pilot should be told to, "stop altitude squawk, altitude differs by 500 ft."


Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: MathFox on March 04, 2009, 04:44:02 PM
I am just pedantic here; but in the Netherlands the transition level is 3000ft. Altimeter setting would have added to the cockpit workload.

Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: snader on March 04, 2009, 07:39:48 PM
here is what I (think I) know: an airplane uses the air pressure to measure the altitude - above 10000feet the crew sets the altimeter to a default pressure (QNH) (1013hPa in europe I think) - below 10000feet the altimeter should be set to the local air pressure (information being received from ATC during approach). could be that the crew set their altimeter incorrectly - causing the aircraft to display a wrong altitude (ref. sea level).
however, if the airplane (at least airbus do that) gets below something like 2000feet - you also get the distance between ground and plane measured by a radar instrument. that one only displays wrong information if the system itself is broken...
if the aircraft gets below something like 100feet - there is either a hearble countdown (100fett / 50feet / 20feet / 10feet) or a "terrain" warning (depending on whether the airplance is "supposed" to be landing or not)
either way,
it's still strange three pilots in the cockpit did not notice the wrong altitude despite all the warnings, etc...

(if I just wrote a total incorrect nonsense, please correct my statements...)

I believe it's above 18,000 ft that they set to the standard altimeter setter(in the U.S. its 29.92), and below that it is set to local reading.  I don't think an incorrectly set altimeter could cause this. Variations in altimeter setting would only cause the sea level altimeter to be off by a few hundred feet. I've heard on some of the approach feeds something like "So-And So 1234, you a 500 below/above(what ever the case my be) your assigned altitude, current altimeter 30.12." (or what ever current reading is).

If that is incorrect, please correct me!

You are correct.  Aircraft altimeters are set to 29.92 at 18,000 ft and above.  Below 18,000 ft, they are set to local barometric readings.

An aircraft's mode C readout (altitude), as monitored at controller displays, must be within 300 ft of assigned altitude.  That is, less than 300 ft, for controllers to be able to use that information for separation purposes (terminal environment).  A controller must verify an a/c's mode c readout periodically.  If pilot states level at 9000, but his mode C, as depicted on the controllers display, is reading 8500, the controller will say something like, "N1234, verify at 9000, altimeter 3002"  If pilot states level at 9000, even after resetting to correct altimeter, and the a/c's mode C is still reading 8500, than the pilot should be told to, "stop altitude squawk, altitude differs by 500 ft."




Hi all, the barometric altitude has no bearing on this subject.
The aircraft was on the final approach so APP was the active FD and autoplilot mode.
In this mode, the Flight Directors gives the steering commands for the autopilot to steer the aircraft to the glidepath.

Barometric altitude is not used for landing, nor does a QNH setting or QFE setting have any influence on ATC altitude.
The Flight directors in this situation only look for the G/S and LOC signals until the radio altitude drops down.

The altitude call outs come from radio altimeter #1.
Offcourse the flare command also comes from radio altimeter.

If the FCC sees the GS and LOC signals as 'on course' it will then wait for a decreasing radio altitude and at roughly 50 feet or so go into FLARE.

This is the way the system works and is cause for concern as this defect seems to happen quite a lot.

source: http://www.aircraftmech.com/pfd.html
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: joeyb747 on March 04, 2009, 08:55:07 PM
With so much redundancy in modern aircraft today, only the #1 radio altimeter handles the entire approach? What if #1 was inop? Can #2 be set up to handle the same functions as #1?

According to the preliminary report iflysky linked to a few posts back(re-linked here),

http://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/docs/rapporten/Persverklaring_4_maart_GB.pdf

the last line in the report identifies the Left Radio Altimeter as the item that malfunctioned. I'm assuming, as with everyting else on a modern aircraft, the Left unit would also be identified as #1.

From report:
"With the exception of the malfunction of the left radio altimeter the investigators of the Dutch
Safety Board have not yet found any irregularities."


And again, given the crew members experience, it truly is sad that they didn't recognize the issue at hand, and hand-fly the airplane. If infact this is what caused the crash, then this entire event could have been avoided, leaving only a squawk in the logbook, not a destroyed aircraft, injuries, and death.
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: another_one on March 04, 2009, 09:11:39 PM
I believe the "landing gear must go down" is a translation error.

Indeed!! The original Dutch text is "landingsgestel moet uit":

landingsgestel = undercarriage

http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landingsgestel <----> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undercarriage

moet = must
 uit = out.

Does "Undercarriage must [go] out" make more sense?
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: iskyfly on March 04, 2009, 09:49:40 PM


Does "Undercarriage must [go] out" make more sense?
The GPWS warning is "TOO LOW GEAR".
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: iskyfly on March 04, 2009, 09:57:15 PM
With so much redundancy in modern aircraft today, only the #1 radio altimeter handles the entire approach? What if #1 was inop? Can #2 be set up to handle the same functions as #1?
They were not using the redundancy they had available to them. They were not doing a dual channel full autoland. Had they been doing a dual channel autoland the AP would have disconnected which would give the crew another indication that something was wrong.
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: joeyb747 on March 04, 2009, 11:10:53 PM
With so much redundancy in modern aircraft today, only the #1 radio altimeter handles the entire approach? What if #1 was inop? Can #2 be set up to handle the same functions as #1?
They were not using the redundancy they had available to them. They were not doing a dual channel full autoland. Had they been doing a dual channel autoland the AP would have disconnected which would give the crew another indication that something was wrong.


Thanks iflysky. I was thinking in the back of my mind that either/both radio altimeters could handle the approach. I mean, modern aircraft have backups for the backups! :wink: 
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: empiredude on March 05, 2009, 02:07:15 AM
alright, just some more questions:

1. the airplane was on final approach when the accident happened. as far as I know, there is usually neither the A/P steering the aircraft nor the A/T engaged during final approach - unless, of course, there's low visibility and a automatic landing in progress (but this was not the case). so why was the airplane not flown manually?!
I thought A/P and A/T are usually (or even have to be) disengaged after the aircraft is established on the ILS track (except - as mentioned above - during low visibility procedures...)

2. do I get this right: it seems that the radio altimeter that measures the distance between aircraft and ground failed by indicating a wrong altitude above ground - causing the A/T to go into retard/flare mode (too early)?

it's really hard to believe no one (of three pilots) noticed this... I mean in order to stay on the glideslope, the attack angle of the aircraft must have been noticeably increased, not to speak of the speed massively decreasing - and all the warnings (like "too low" / "terrain" / "too slow" etc...)
I mean, is it already too late to recover an aircraft from impending stall when the warnings are triggered?

4. how well are the aircrafts being followed by ATC during final? does falling below the glideslope get noticed by the controller? (like with a warning on the radar screen or something?)

anyway, I know it's not really useful to say all those "unbelievable / how could they not... / how can it be that...." statements - but nevertheless, it is a little bit surprising indeed that such a malfunction during final approach did not get noticed - or only got noticed when it already was too late to recover...
I mean on one side there seems to be crew error -
but on the other side what are all the warnings good for if they warn you when it is already too late to intervene....?
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: sykocus on March 05, 2009, 05:24:21 AM

4. how well are the aircrafts being followed by ATC during final? does falling below the glideslope get noticed by the controller? (like with a warning on the radar screen or something?)



I don't know of any radar system that will detect when a plane is below the GS to a certain runway. The radar systems I've used all have a map of the terrain in the area programed in. Based on aircraft descent rate and trajectory the radar will give a visual and aural alarm. The system isn't perfect and often gives false alarms especially when landing.
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: MathFox on March 05, 2009, 05:55:44 AM
The weather would have been a factor too: cloudy and hazy
Quote
EHAM 250925Z 20010KT 4500 BR SCT007 BKN008 OVC010 04/03 Q1027 TEMPO 2500
When the radio altimeter malfunctioned the plane was above or in the cloud layer; with no easy visual clue for loss of speed.
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: sykocus on March 05, 2009, 08:06:07 AM
The weather would have been a factor too: cloudy and hazy
Quote
EHAM 250925Z 20010KT 4500 BR SCT007 BKN008 OVC010 04/03 Q1027 TEMPO 2500
When the radio altimeter malfunctioned the plane was above or in the cloud layer; with no easy visual clue for loss of speed.

Wouldn't those conditions tend to mean a crew is watching the instruments even more closely then if it were say 5SM SCT035
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: empiredude on March 05, 2009, 09:05:15 AM
just the facts please....

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/unusual-attitude/2009/03/turkish-airlines-crash-evidenc.html


Quote
* Capt LH seat, (fully qualified) FO in RH seat, observer FO on jumpseat

* FDR stores 25 hours, in this case 8 flights, same problem had occured twice previously before previous landings.



Am I getting this right: The same airplane that crashed had had the exact same problem (wrong radar altitude - A/T going into retard/flare mode too early) twice within 25h before ithe accident and

1. no one withdrew that plane for reparation?!

2. no one declared the A/T as INOP (at least for landing procedures)?!

3. no one even seemed to inform the crew about this?!

Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: iskyfly on March 05, 2009, 10:44:32 AM


Am I getting this right: The same airplane that crashed had had the exact same problem (wrong radar altitude - A/T going into retard/flare mode too early) twice within 25h before ithe accident and
a malfunctioning radalt to quote this 737 captain is "something that happens all the time."

I encourage people to read his replies on this subject as they are very informative and give us some insight on what happens on the flightdeck when your approaching the runway in IMC, vectored by ATC onto a tight / short final, above GS, have checklists to go through, looking out the window for the runway....

http://www.airdisaster.info/forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2098&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=175#p27794
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: iskyfly on March 05, 2009, 10:46:10 AM
alright, just some more questions:

1. the airplane was on final approach when the accident happened. as far as I know, there is usually neither the A/P steering the aircraft nor the A/T engaged during final approach - unless, of course, there's low visibility and a automatic landing in progress (but this was not the case). so why was the airplane not flown manually?!
Because they were in IMC conditions.
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: empiredude on March 05, 2009, 01:48:21 PM
thanks for your replies iflysky

you're right, there are often a couple of systems malfunctioning or inop on a plane (without being a real danger to flight operations). but still, isn't it a bit terrifying that they were using a system to control their airspeed during final that had been broken for at least a couple of flights earlier - and didn't even seem to pay special attention to this system.

but again, flight crew definitely has a high workload during final and there was definitely only very little time to react to the problem after it had been noticed - apparently too little...
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: joeyb747 on March 05, 2009, 06:45:16 PM
My question is: If they knew there was a problem with radio altimeter number one, why wasn't the crew operating in dual mode?

With so much redundancy in modern aircraft today, only the #1 radio altimeter handles the entire approach? What if #1 was inop? Can #2 be set up to handle the same functions as #1?
They were not using the redundancy they had available to them. They were not doing a dual channel full autoland. Had they been doing a dual channel autoland the AP would have disconnected which would give the crew another indication that something was wrong.


At least then as iflysky pointed out, the autopilot would have sensed a discrepancy between the two rad alt and disconnected the autopilot.

Aircraft keep a logbook for these such reasons. When something is wrong with the bird, you note it and pass it on to the next crew, or MX at the home base. Does anyone know for sure if this item was noted in the logbook?? I've seen logbook entries for some pretty trivial squawks. I find it hard to believe that was not noted in the logbook.

"Radio Altimeter Number One Intermittent" seems pretty important information!
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: toogd on March 07, 2009, 07:12:29 AM
It is simply strange that the plane was allowed in the air with a "temperamental" altimeter hooked up to its hands free landing system. Surely that calls for some intensive soul-searching at Turkish Airlines...

That the crew end up depending on this port side altimeter seems to be because it they'd done it properly, with dual altimeter input, the autopilot would have disconnected (as it damned well should do!), but I can't find anything here about the other alternative.
-Was it possible to use the right hand side altimeter for the approach?
-Why did the pilot opt to use the documented "temperamental" unit to control this fateful glide?

Is there some logic to this that I am missing? What would a pilot be trained to do in these circumstances?

I can appreciate that it might be easy to miss detecting that the plane was loosing air speed until it was too late, but how do you end up relying on a piece of equipment that you know is faulty and not notice that it is failing you? I'm not getting it.
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: MathFox on March 07, 2009, 07:43:08 AM
It is simply strange that the plane was allowed in the air with a "temperamental" altimeter hooked up to its hands free landing system. Surely that calls for some intensive soul-searching at Turkish Airlines...

[...]

Is there some logic to this that I am missing? What would a pilot be trained to do in these circumstances?

I can appreciate that it might be easy to miss detecting that the plane was loosing air speed until it was too late, but how do you end up relying on a piece of equipment that you know is faulty and not notice that it is failing you? I'm not getting it.
You assume that the defect was written down in the logbook... According to the AEI (international organisation of Airline mechanics) that does not always happen. (Commercial interests.) Published rumour (link in Dutch: http://www.luchtvaartnieuws.nl/news/?ID=29843 ) says that the two previous known failures were not written up in the plane's logbook.  :?  :-o  :x
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: joeyb747 on March 07, 2009, 11:53:40 AM
Wow. Thats amazing. Blows my mind actually. I've seen logbook entries like "Captains seat uncomfortable. Please change cushion." Trivial stuff. Why were these malfunctions not noted?? Thats what I don't understand. 
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: MathFox on March 07, 2009, 12:08:24 PM
joeyb747, you've got some good questions for the investigation. I am pretty sure that the OVV investigation will take a look into maintenance practices and procedures.
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: joeyb747 on March 07, 2009, 12:17:56 PM
joeyb747, you've got some good questions for the investigation. I am pretty sure that the OVV investigation will take a look into maintenance practices and procedures.

Thanks!
We can only hope they will...

You know what they say about the FAA(or governing body in witch ever country the aircraft is operated):
Policies are written in the blood of their passengers...simply meaning, it takes a major disaster before they will change a policy.

I heard that somewhere...just can't remember where...
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: toogd on March 07, 2009, 05:16:45 PM
If the log books are blank regarding earlier malfunctions in this case, the implications are scarier than I care to even think about!
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: joeyb747 on March 08, 2009, 09:21:37 AM
If the log books are blank regarding earlier malfunctions in this case, the implications are scarier than I care to even think about!

Indeed!!
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: empiredude on March 08, 2009, 05:00:58 PM
I just cannot believe they would have been using faulty radaralt if they had known it was malfunctioning - I would simply be ridiculous if it weren't so tragic...

on the other hand I also cannot believe they missed to note this in the A/C logbook - I mean you're supposed to note every stupid little thingy that wasn't working perfectly normal - and I'm no pilot, but a faulty radar altimeter causing the autothrottle to go idle for landing too early sounds like something pretty severe to me... and that apparently happened twice (!) within 25h...

just don't get it, should've never ever ever happened...

by the way, is there some official investigation report available on the internet somewehere?

Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: MathFox on March 08, 2009, 06:48:21 PM
So far the best official report (in Dutch) is http://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/docs/rapporten/Persverklaring_4_maart_09.pdf and in English http://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/docs/rapporten/Press_statement_4_March_GB.pdf

If there are new reports they'll most likely be listed on:
http://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/en/index.php/onderzoeken/onderzoeksraad-start-onderzoek-crash-turkish-airlines-op-schiphol/
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: iskyfly on March 08, 2009, 09:30:32 PM

by the way, is there some official investigation report available on the internet somewehere?

No. The investigation is not complete. It will take 6 - 9 months.

Right now the only official releases are statements of facts leading up to the accident.

Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: empiredude on March 09, 2009, 04:10:55 PM
thanks for the links to the report!

I know the whole redundancy issue has been discussed before - but just in general, shouldn't on a airplane every vital function be back-uped? I mean why is the A/T not in general configured to use both radio-alts no matter what?
just out of curiosity, how does airbus handle the subject? do their A/T also only use one radio alt to measure the distance to the ground? (I really don't wanna start some boing vs. airbus discussion!!! just wondering if this A/T configuration is standard (and if so, why?) or not...)
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: joeyb747 on March 09, 2009, 07:04:46 PM
thanks for the links to the report!

I know the whole redundancy issue has been discussed before - but just in general, shouldn't on a airplane every vital function be back-uped? I mean why is the A/T not in general configured to use both radio-alts no matter what?
just out of curiosity, how does airbus handle the subject? do their A/T also only use one radio alt to measure the distance to the ground? (I really don't wanna start some boing vs. airbus discussion!!! just wondering if this A/T configuration is standard (and if so, why?) or not...)

If I'm correct here, the autothrottle is simply linked to the autoland system. It can obviously be used without autoland being activated for cruise and all other phases of flight. The crew of this particular flight was performing a single channel autoland, witch defaults to the left, or #1, Rad Alt.  If a dual channel autoland was being executed, the autopilot would have sensed a discrepancy between the two Rad Alts, and disconnected the autopilot. At witch point, the crew would have had to shoot the ILS "old school", using the autopilot with APPR and IAS Speed Hold mode engaged until they obtained visual contact with the runway environment.

So to answer your Q, it can be connected to both Rad Alts, if the right mode is selected.

As far as differences between Airbus, Boeing, Douglas, Tupolov, or any other manufactureer, I am not totally sure on that...
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: empiredude on March 10, 2009, 03:02:35 AM
hmm I get your point, but why question would more be like "whether or not it is necessary (or "good" or "reasonable") to perform a procudure only "single channel" - only relying on one radioalt instead of both?" I mean there are always at least two radio altimeter on board -  why not use them both (if both are working) in no matter what situation? just for backup reasons - and to detect discrepancies between two instruments...
this would of course be an issue more concerning the aircraft manufacturors than the crew...
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: joeyb747 on March 10, 2009, 08:51:04 AM
Aircraft perform single channel autolands everyday. 99.99% of those are uneventful. I understand your point. Use all the redundancy at your disposal. I'm not sure why they were doing a single. There are only three people who can answer that...unfortunately, they are not available for comment...
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: speker on March 13, 2009, 11:52:20 AM
I have come across to below explanations regarding initial report on the CVR-FDR findings ;

Pilots recognised the left altimeter foult at 7000 feet during approach

Due to foulty functioning left altimeter, pilots engaged the autothrottle systems to the rigth controls (at first officer side)
Although the systems should have been commanded by the right altimeter, foulty left altimeter continued processing foulty data to the systems. (due to a software mistake by boeing)
 
Due to the heavy traffic , air control requested the plane to start landing approach from distance 8.69 km & 600 m altitude. (it is said in the report that healthy approach figures should have been 11.47 km & 1000m.) 

Auto throttle cut the gas.  Pilots did not recognised initially as they were fast already.  (landing checklist was going on)
Shacker system automatically activated (as the speed was decreased) by warning the pilots & shaking the controls & increasing throttle. But since the autothrottle still was on, the throttle was back to idle again.

Pilots manually maximized the throttle, but it was too late unfortunately.



does these info makes sense & enlight ? (sorry if I made any translation mistake)
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: iskyfly on March 13, 2009, 12:24:46 PM
(due to a software mistake by boeing)
 
says who?
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: speker on March 13, 2009, 02:43:19 PM
two Turkish newspapers says that they sourced these info from Dutch officials.

http://www.haberturk.com/haber.asp?id=133865&cat=110&dt=2009/03/12

http://arama.hurriyet.com.tr/arsivnews.aspx?id=11190593

also they gave the voice decoding in written.

latest words were : throttle officer throttle !!! (by the senior first officer sitting behind the captain & student first officer (who was landing).
Title: Re: Turkish Airliner Crash
Post by: joeyb747 on March 13, 2009, 09:24:43 PM
A software error?? In only one radio altimeter? Seems a little far fetched to me. Seems like there would be more then one airplane experiencing these types of issues.

Quote from speker:
"Auto throttle cut the gas. Pilots did not recognised initially as they were fast already.  (landing checklist was going on)"

I know I referenced the possibility that the crew was distracted by something, and was not watching what the airplane was doing way earlier in this thread. But to be distracted by something as routine as a landing checklist?? Usually the pilot not flying reads the checklist, and the other monitors the airplane and what it's doing. The also had a third person, an instructor none the less, in the cockpit. I find it real hard to believe that a landing checklist would distract an experienced crew of three to the point that they would not be paying attention the the performance of the aircraft.

Not to say that isn't what happened. It very well may be...I just have a hard time stomaching that. Just my opinion...