It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Turkish plane crashes at Amsterdam airport (25/02/09 ,at least 9 people killed )

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 09:07 PM
link   
Some have suggested the manufacturers don't care enough about public safety, some have suggested it's the airlines safety requirements...

I find it's rarely the requirements, they're quite strict, and pretty high... it's usually somewhere in the chain of command that things fall apart.
And the manufacturers tend to do a very good job, otherwise they lose the contract.

Yes, quality inspections will require adequate levels of safety are met, but I find the common breakdown is between the maintenance crew, and management (with the blame placed on the crew, where-as it was ultimately managements fault). While management demands the safety levels are met, they also demand the maintenance crew get the job done 'faster'.

If you prove you can work at X speed when there's a need, management will often come to expect you to work at that speed at ALL times. This is typically what happens when your manager works by the numbers, and doesn't have actual hands on experience with the positions he's managing.

It's a flaw you will find in many companies, from manufacturing, all the way to customer service. Management is trained to manage, not to understand how to do the jobs they're managing.

As such, it's a common occurrence they will see your highest output and expect you to do that more in the future.
Ergo, they will decrease the expected time it takes to perform X task.
They have bosses too, the faster their crew works, the better they look as a manager.

From the maintenance crews point of view, the window of time they have to do their job steadily becomes smaller as they learn to work faster, or more efficiently.
Eventually, they neither have the time to stop and bring concerns forward to management, nor do they have time to go the extra mile and perform extra checks to appease their concerns.
Effectively, their backside is on the line.

I say this because I've seen the maintenance get blamed quite often for failures that were forced to occur by management, mostly because of their arrogance and ignorance.

In a corrupted chain of command, the blame drips down, and the kudos flow up.

[edit on 25-2-2009 by johnsky]




posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 10:33 PM
link   
Is there a plane crash epidemic going on right now?



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 11:58 PM
link   
History repeats itself.



The plane is lighter if it has little to none exces fuel, therefore it will use up less fuel, and is cheaper in fuel cost.

Common sense please...


"INSUFFICIENT FUEL".

If you don't know what that means, don't comment. Basic 737-800 knowledge PAHLEAASE!



Anybody know does the 737 or all planes for that matter have an inerting system for the tanks Post TWA 800?

Plane crashed, it didn't fly apart in the air like TWA 800. Dissimilar incidents. Also, I believe newer aircraft use a newer fuel venting system.


Or, all aircrafts can be taken over by automatic pilot from satellites – that is the other way.

Can't. Why? Autopilot is disconnected by cutting the power.


Commercial aircraft could be made much safer if airlines and aircraft manufacturers' took public safety as serious as they should.

They take safety very seriously - an accident costs huge amounts of money, and ruins the Airlines reputation. Look at the Q400 gear incidents and TWA 800...


Even in the best of times aircraft maintance is below par, not to mention poor pilot training.

LMAO.

Even in the worst of times, aircraft maintainence is extraordinarily good, as is pilot training. This is especially true for airlines such as Turkish, especially with Boeing 737's.


yes, the race for profit can be blamed. Sure, there are regulations on maintenance, however the companies tend to make sure they never do more than the minimum expected.

Well why are IFSD rates three times better than required then? Airlines do dramatically more than required.


. This would increase the price for tickets, however it is worth paying 20 % more and being allive, right?

No. The question is, would you pay 20% more for an accident that would likely happen anyway. We don't even know the cause yet...


well, not in my country! we do the minimum required by the aviation standards . And not a penny more!

What country is that?

[edit on 26/2/2009 by C0bzz]



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 01:38 AM
link   
737`s don`t have fuel dumps/

edit:

Boeing say they dont

[edit on 26/2/09 by Harlequin]



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 02:15 AM
link   
reply to post by enigmania
 

Well, the fact that it was approaching slowly would indicate engines without fuel. Probably this is why no fire. Doubtful due to maintainance as some people are saying. More likely not correct fuel load taken on board or adverse weather caused the plane to use up entire fuel load.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 03:00 AM
link   
reply to post by C0bzz
 





"INSUFFICIENT FUEL". If you don't know what that means, don't comment. Basic 737-800 knowledge PAHLEAASE!


I don't know what your problem is, but I was just trying to explain why it would be cheaper for airliners to fly with just enough fuel for the trip, instead of taking in tons of extra fuel.

So jeah, PAHLEAASE right back at ya.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 03:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by apex
.....Aircraft are designed so that crashes are as survivable as possible, just the accidents recently have been of the more survivable types, namely not straight into terrain type accidents.


I respectfully disagree!

Commercial aircraft could be made much safer if airlines and aircraft manufacturers' took public safety as serious as they should.


Do you actually believe that?

They do take safety seriously. Even ignoring the people on it, a lost aircraft costs a lot of money to both the manufacturer and the airline in getting a new one. Then to add to that the potential lawsuit or whatever you want to call it from the victims of the accident, the incentive to make an aircraft as safe as possible is pretty high.

If you want to see them not taking safety as seriously as they should, look at the accidents with airlines that are banned from the EU, or are from two or three decades ago. Those are the ones where they don't take safety as seriously as they should, though perception at the time probably said they did at the time, but now we have the wonders of hindsight.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 03:09 AM
link   
Wondering what happened to the pilots that were killed? the area of the cockpit that they were sat in looked fairly intact and yet they were killed



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 03:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by enigmania
reply to post by C0bzz
 





"INSUFFICIENT FUEL". If you don't know what that means, don't comment. Basic 737-800 knowledge PAHLEAASE!


I don't know what your problem is, but I was just trying to explain why it would be cheaper for airliners to fly with just enough fuel for the trip, instead of taking in tons of extra fuel.

So jeah, PAHLEAASE right back at ya.


Yes it is cheaper to fly with less fuel even if it doesn't get burned. However, any modern airliner is going to have a Flight Management Computer with the route, alternate, and the amount of fuel programmed in. If at any time there is insufficient fuel, a message will display on the CDU reading "INSUFFICIENT FUEL". Thus ANY fuel starvation in a modern airliner is PILOT ERROR, he's the one who took off the insufficient fuel, and he's the one who kept on flying with insufficient fuel. Unless that has something to do with the training regime, it has nothing to do with the Airline, and nothing to do with cutting corners.


Wondering what happened to the pilots that were killed? the area of the cockpit that they were sat in looked fairly intact and yet they were killed

Speculation that if the plane hit tail first (as it looks in photos), the nose would be whipped into the ground very hard.


When we did our ditching training in the SVC10, we were afterwards shown a film of a 10 foot SVC10 model, specially built to simulate a ditching. Every time it was catapulted into the tank, the model`s nose area underwent violent pitching. The boffins calculated that those G forces would have killed the cockpit crew in the event of a real ditching. The injury would have been the tearing of the arteries from the heart. So Turkish hitting tail first, then violently pitching down, then the sudden stop, may well have done just that.

www.pprune.org...


aviation-safety.net...

Possible plane was nose up because they tried to avoid the highway?

[edit on 26/2/2009 by C0bzz]



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 03:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by C0bzz
Thus ANY fuel starvation in a modern airliner is PILOT ERROR, he's the one who took off the insufficient fuel, and he's the one who kept on flying with insufficient fuel. Unless that has something to do with the training regime, it has nothing to do with the Airline, and nothing to do with cutting corners.


There was a news report on the local news in the London area (probably over a year ago now?) stating that the number of aircraft having to declare an emergency and ask for immediate landing due to low fuel had risen markedly, and although the reporter couldn't prove it there was a lot of speculation at that time this was due to airlines cutting the amount of fuel on their aircraft



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 03:29 AM
link   
reply to post by C0bzz
 


Maybe so, still my post was a reply to this one;




How would not putting enough fuel in save them money? If they over fill the fuel tanks that just means they will need to put less in for the next trip. The excess doesn't get drained out at the end of each flight and chucked down a drain.


So, there was really no need for you to be so patronizing.

[edit on 26/2/09 by enigmania]



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 03:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by solidshot

Originally posted by C0bzz
Thus ANY fuel starvation in a modern airliner is PILOT ERROR, he's the one who took off the insufficient fuel, and he's the one who kept on flying with insufficient fuel. Unless that has something to do with the training regime, it has nothing to do with the Airline, and nothing to do with cutting corners.


There was a news report on the local news in the London area (probably over a year ago now?) stating that the number of aircraft having to declare an emergency and ask for immediate landing due to low fuel had risen markedly, and although the reporter couldn't prove it there was a lot of speculation at that time this was due to airlines cutting the amount of fuel on their aircraft


Yeah, I've heard there is a lott of pressure on pilots to conserve fuel. Even so, I maintain that if it runs out of fuel, it is pilot error - it just shouldn't happen.



So, there was really no need to for you to be so patronizing.

My apologies. I was wrong.


[edit on 26/2/2009 by C0bzz]



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 03:34 AM
link   
Seems like this isn't happening in just the UK either?


THERE has been a sharp increase in planes, particularly from Continental Airlines, flying into New York with so little fuel that they demand an emergency landing, according to US authorities. In a report on minimum and emergency fuel declarations into Newark airport last year, the US Department of Transportation (DOT) expressed concern that some of the incidents may be prompted by fuel-saving measures.


Planetalking



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 03:37 AM
link   
reply to post by C0bzz
 



Thus ANY fuel starvation in a modern airliner is PILOT ERROR, he's the one who took off the insufficient fuel, and he's the one who kept on flying with insufficient fuel.


thats bollocks - Jet 2 flight (amsetrdamn >leeds 15/10/2007) landed at newcastle with bingo fuel after declaring a fuel emergency , after being diverted from Leeds to Teeside (after a 30 min hold at leeds) , missed landing at teeside then another divert to newcastle - delacred emergency on way to newcastle and landed with less than 100 lbs fuel (which is nothing) and a cockpit lit up like a fire works display.

apparantly the crew of that Jet 2 flight had allrady started the unpowered decent checklist and had advised newcastle approach of there status.


so NO its not PILOT ERROR.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 03:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
reply to post by C0bzz
 



Thus ANY fuel starvation in a modern airliner is PILOT ERROR, he's the one who took off the insufficient fuel, and he's the one who kept on flying with insufficient fuel.


thats bollocks - Jet 2 flight (amsetrdamn >leeds 15/10/2007) landed at newcastle with bingo fuel after declaring a fuel emergency , after being diverted from Leeds to Teeside (after a 30 min hold at leeds) , missed landing at teeside then another divert to newcastle - delacred emergency on way to newcastle and landed with less than 100 lbs fuel (which is nothing) and a cockpit lit up like a fire works display.

apparantly the crew of that Jet 2 flight had allrady started the unpowered decent checklist and had advised newcastle approach of there status.


so NO its not PILOT ERROR.


Sure.

If that had happened to the plane in question.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 03:48 AM
link   
reply to post by C0bzz
 


Apology accepted, I appreciate it.

It takes a man to admit his wrongs.




posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 03:57 AM
link   
reply to post by C0bzz
 


you made a blanket statement that


Thus ANY fuel starvation in a modern airliner is PILOT ERROR, he's the one who took off the insufficient fuel, and he's the one who kept on flying with insufficient fuel.


`a modern airliner` - thats ANY airliner not just the one that came down yesterday - there are many more factors involved than simply running out of fuel - 2 diverts with a hold? thats not planned (jet 2 flight i mentioned) - all aircrew plan for 1 divert with a 30 min hold + a small amount more , plan for 2 diverts with a hold and your chief pilot will want to know what the heck you are doing.

the real world doesn`t work like that - when fuel is loaded you take enough for the trip + extra for the chance of waiting to land when you arrive + extra for if you have to be diverted. and thats it - you don`t load extra because you want to - you`ll quickly no longer be in any of the front seats for wasteing everyone time and money for doing that ; fuel = weight , weight = more fuel burn in flight and longer flight duration - and any pilot is taught the correct fuel calculations.

this airliner had allready had 1 go around for an as yet unknown reason.

but it`ll all come out in the wash. what we do know is from napkin maths the aircrew hit the ground at around 6g instant force (50 m/s/s) pprune

edit:

i stand correct it was flight JAT 262 ordered to go around after reporting the TK-1951 was on the ground short (go around ordered at 9.27.03 local time)

[edit on 26/2/09 by Harlequin]



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 04:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Harlequin
 


Sure. I was wrong (again) lol.

I'll update my statement.

Any modern airliner running out of fuel after one missed approach should probably not of taken off without more fuel, in the first place, making it pilot error.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 04:09 AM
link   
but until the accident investigation has cut the cockpit apart (from all accounts its not accessible) i think we are just guessing



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 04:11 AM
link   
reply to post by C0bzz
 


If the pilot is pushed because of company policy, it's hardly the pilot's error.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join