Turkish Jet Down In Amsterdam

OtisAir

OtisAir

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Mar 13, 2008
Messages
642
Location
Lansdale
Display Name
Display name:
OtisAir
News still coming in on passenger status....

5715b9974daf8c9ba493164f7c92.jpeg
 
Conflicting reports on passengers. Earliest reports were ~20 injured, no fatalities. Later reports indicated up to 5 body bags followed by an assurance that they were empty. Even later report said one fatality. Still very contractory. Better news later (one hopes).
 
737 a couple of miles from the airport in an apparently empty field. Fog in the area.
 
Re: Amsterdam flight down

ted gilbertson said:
little hard for a short field landing
Click to expand...
Well some of those ariline guys are not too proficient at soft field in a 737 ;)

There was one article that came out quickly dispelling any speculation that it was an out of fuel situation. It went into elaborate details of passenger airline fuel planning but never said how they knew that this was not a out of fuel situation. It is not like there have not been similar pax jet situation where the plane ran out of fuel. But I have heard no real specualtion to a cause yet.
 
Re: Amsterdam flight down

smigaldi said:
Well some of those ariline guys are not too proficient at soft field in a 737 ;)

There was one article that came out quickly dispelling any speculation that it was an out of fuel situation. It went into elaborate details of passenger airline fuel planning but never said how they knew that this was not a out of fuel situation. It is not like there have not been similar pax jet situation where the plane ran out of fuel. But I have heard no real specualtion to a cause yet.
Click to expand...

No idea but fuel planning is only as good as the folks doing the planning
 
Dave Krall CFII said:
It sounds in the text like the pilot may have done a power off stall and tail firsted it in at very low altitude. Always wondered how surviveable that coyuld be: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008794639_webcrash27.html?syndication=rss
Click to expand...
What can I say about the way this was phrased:
Chief investigator Pieter van Vollenhoven said, in remarks quoted by Dutch state television NOS, that the Boeing 737-800 had fallen almost directly from the sky, which pointed toward the plane's engines having stopped. He said a reason for that had not been established.
Click to expand...
:mad2::mad2::mad2:
 
gprellwitz said:
What can I say about the way this was phrased:
:mad2::mad2::mad2:
Click to expand...

I'm guessing falling directly out of the sky means without hitting obstacles first on the way to the surface. The subsiquent comments about the nose going up and the jet sliding down tailfirst to the earth lend much more to the overall picture.
 
Dave Krall CFII said:
I'm guessing falling directly out of the sky means without hitting obstacles first on the way to the surface. The subsiquent comments about the nose going up and the jet sliding down tailfirst to the earth lend much more to the overall picture.
Click to expand...
Yes, but those comments didn't seem to come from Chief investigator Pieter van Vollenhoven. Of course, that may just be because the press chose not to report them, but he should probably have phrased it a little better.
 
gprellwitz said:
Yes, but those comments didn't seem to come from Chief investigator Pieter van Vollenhoven. Of course, that may just be because the press chose not to report them, but he should probably have phrased it a little better.
Click to expand...

It did have a funny sound to it to me as I read it as well. Something like, do not pass go, crash directly to earth.
 
If a plane falls out of the sky then where exactly is the sky? I mean if its only 2mi from the approach end of the runway its gonna be what 300' AGL on approach ( thats just a guess) Greg would know better but is that falling out of the "Sky"? I mean what altitude do you have to be at to be in the sky vs beinng in the air?
 
gprellwitz said:
What can I say about the way this was phrased:
:mad2::mad2::mad2:
Click to expand...
It's a nonsensical statement... probably a little warped in translation, as well. Aside from the (annoying and typical) deduction that planes plummet to earth, out of control, without power, I wonder:

How does a descending airplane "almost directly" fall from the sky? Did it stop briefly on a cloud, or something? How hard is it to say "it seemed the airplane descended more rapidly than normal?"
 
rottydaddy said:
It's a nonsensical statement... probably a little warped in translation, as well. Aside from the (annoying and typical) deduction that planes plummet to earth, out of control, without power, I wonder:

How does a descending airplane "almost directly" fall from the sky? Did it stop briefly on a cloud, or something? How hard is it to say "it seemed the airplane descended more rapidly than normal?"
Click to expand...

How about when one of the two radar altimeters fail, and the flight control / auto-pilot system isn't robust enough to ignore the failed one, thinks you're at flare altitude when you're still 1400' up, and retards the throttles?

(Note: if, as this suggests, the pilots knew that one of the radar altimeters had been being flaky, then doing a fully coupled approach that depended on same might not have been the best decision. Lesson to be remembered, that.)

Aviation Week is reporting as follows:

Boeing is advising operators of all 737-series and BBJ aircraft to carefully monitor primary flight instruments and not engage autopilot/throttle systems during approach and landing in event of a radio altimeter malfunction.

The manufacturer issued the March 4 Multi-Operator Message (MOM 09-0063-01B) in response to preliminary findings of Dutch investigators in their probe of the Feb. 25 Turkish Airlines 737-800 crash at Amsterdam Schiphol Airport. The MOM includes all 737-series, from -100 to -900.

The initial accident findings, issued the same day, indicate the Dutch are focusing on the link between radio altimeter deviation and the autothrottle system as the possible cause of the landing accident.

Based on flight data recorder readouts, investigators determined that all was normal onboard Flight 1951--until the aircraft reached 1,950 feet during its final approach to Runway 18R with 135 people onboard.

At that point, the radio altimeter readout on the captain's (left) side suddenly switched to -8 feet. The altimeter, interpreting the 737 to be just a few feet above touchdown, commanded the autothrottles to power down and configure for landing.

The "landing gear must go down" warning signal alerted the crew to the problem, but data indicate the signal was not regarded as a problem, according to the prelminary report.

The 737-800 responded to the command, decelerating to minimum flying speed, with a stall warning sounding at 150 meters (490 ft.). The flight crew applied full power, but the aircraft was too low to allow recovery. The aircraft hit the ground traveling at 175 kilometers (94 knots) airspeed about 1.5 km. north of Schiphol. Normal landing speed is 260 km. or 140 kt.

Enormous braking forces--in part caused by the nose wheel becoming embedded in the ground--caused the 737 to break in three parts, with its tail, landing gear and engines detaching. Nine of the 135 onboard were killed, including the flight crew.

The deviation occurred only on the captain's (left) radio altimeter, according to the Dutch initial report, which also states that the malfunction had occurred twice previously, both times during landing. However, it was unclear from the report if the events occurred on the same aircraft.

An AviationWeek check of the FAA database indicates the agency issued no airworthiness directives (AD) on 737-series radio altimeter malfunctions. FAA spokesman Les Dorr confirmed there were no ADs to date, but noted the FAA is monitoring the progress of the Flight 1951 probe and will take whatever action becomes necessary.

Cockpit automation, designed to increase safety by altering pilot workload, may also hold hidden hazards. In late 2008, Airbus issued both an operations telex and engineering bulletins to A330 and A340 operators. They suggested remedial actions to take in the event of flight control system failures as had occurred on two Qantas A330 aircraft in 2008.

Both in-flight incidents, one on Oct. 4, and another on Dec. 27 last year, involved faults in the air data inertial reference system units (ADIRU) which led to erroneous values being fed to primary computers--and in turn, to uncommanded attitudes. In one case, the aircraft plunged 650 ft. in 20 seconds. The Australian Transport Safety Bureau continues to investigate both events.

The Flight 1951 probe may lead to additional corrective actions. The Dutch have asked Boeing to investigate whether the radio altimeter/autothrottle-disconnect procedure outlined in its March 4 MOM might be applicable to in-flight situations.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top