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: 5
4
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 04:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by enigmania
reply to post by C0bzz
 


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

Company policy is never to run the plane out of fuel after one missed approach. In any case, if it was, Turkish Airlines would of probably got strung up a long time ago.


but until the accident investigation has cut the cockpit apart (from all accounts its not accessible) i think we are just guessing

No doubt.

[edit on 26/2/2009 by C0bzz]




posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 04:19 AM
link   
reply to post by C0bzz
 


Well, this whole discussion was about the possibility of airliners cutting costs by flying on low fuel, so.

Nobody's denying that were guessing at this point, isn't that what we do here on ATS, most of the time?



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 04:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by solidshot
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

A Dutch newspaper (Telegraaf) states the pilots were crushed from behind by an instrument panel that came lose after the plane suddenly came to a stop. The statement came from the head of the safetyboard who went on scene shortly after the crash occured.

www.telegraaf.nl...,1

[edit on 26/2/09 by Fastwalker81]



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 04:40 AM
link   
www.airliners.net...

that is the cockpit , and i think it can be appreciated the extent of the crush damage and the location where the pilots actually sit.


[edit on 26/2/09 by Harlequin]



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by FredT
 


FredT....if you're asking about fire suppression "inerting" systems....no. (At least, not the ones I flew, here in the USA)

I think that tech is still in development....


JP5 could be used instead of standard jet fuel but of course it's is more expensive and ultimately deemed as an "unnecessary expense"...

As for fuel tank inertation I am not quite sure what you mean or how it can be accomplished but none-the-less this concept is interesting.



For others....fuel exhaustion is WILD speculation. ANY pilot finding himself in a critical fuel situation would declare 'minimum fuel' to ATC and receive priority handling.


Yes, sounds a bit of a stretch.......



To imagine any flight crew accepting, at dispatch, a fuel load with inadequate reserves....well, it's difficult to comprehend.


Perhaps a fuel guage malfunctioned giving the pilots a bad reading?




Still, too early to speculate....we had trouble for a while with the R/R engines on the 757s....the 'flight idle' setting was too low, and sometimes an engine would 'roll back' when at idle, simulating a power loss. (When slats/flaps are extended, the Flight Idle circuitry increases idle speed automatically....our 'roll-backs' occured at altitude, during idle descents, clean config....so, they changed the idle speed.

I went off-track....the Turkish airplane had gear down, slats and flaps...this is certainly going to be an interesting case to watch.


Not that I am an expert but it seems *system automation* is becoming more of a headache than a comfortable solution. Sometimes its better to keep things simple and fly the plane hands-on!



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 08:47 AM
link   
There are seven versions for the crash of Turkish airlines plane in Amsterdam


26 February 2009 | 15:53 | FOCUS News Agency Amsterdam. There are seven different versions released about the crash of Turkish airline Boeing 737 800 at Amsterdam's Schiphol airport, NTV television channel informed. Air accident specialists have recovered the plane's black box flight recorder - the challenge now will be to identify what caused the catastrophe. The black box of the plane has been sent to Paris. The seven versions for the crash are as follows:

according to the first one it was a pilot’s error. However that version was immediately rejected by close to the pilot people who said that he has been on of the best pilots from the civic aviation of Turkey.

According to the second version the accident occurred due to an error of the second pilot who has been made training flight.

According to the third version the left engine of the plane has fell about some 2km before reaching the landing strip.

Fourth version announced that the two engines of the plain have suddenly stopped and forced the plane to land.

Fifth version is about a bird that blocked one of the engines, the

six possible cause is insufficient fuel and the

seventh one is turbulence.


Focus Information Agency

Phew! 7 versions - anyone want to add any others?

Last night, Russia Today had the breaking news ticker tape showing lack of fuel as the reason.

Does anyone know the official reason given for the plane that crashed on some houses recently? Sorry, my brain is struggling today and I just can't remember where that was. (Not the Huddson river one)

Edit to add - it was the Buffalo one. Any official word on what the cause was? Was if the ice?

[edit on 26-2-2009 by Maya00a]



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by enigmania
reply to post by C0bzz
 


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


Any captain that let his/hers company push them to upload less than a safe amount of fuel for a given trip is in error, and probably shouldn't be on the flightdeck of any commercial airliner at all.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ivar_Karlsen

Originally posted by enigmania
reply to post by C0bzz
 


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


Any captain that let his/hers company push them to upload less than a safe amount of fuel for a given trip is in error, and probably shouldn't be on the flightdeck of any commercial airliner at all.


The company does'nt "coerce" pilots to do certain things, rather it obligates them to follow company policies. If you disobey you will lose your job!

reply to post by Maya00a
 


Why so many conflicting versions at once


Perhaps there is an orchestrated disinformation campaign underway?!


Originally posted by johnsky
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.


In all honesty, I don't think any of the standards you mentioned are high enough but you correctly pointed out that even the most rudimentary checklists are often ignored in the race to keep aircraft aloft and making money. A quick(and often incomplete job) is preferrable to a thorough job. Unfortunately this is how the real world works and I am not going to be a hypocrite to suggest its the mechanic's fault. Usually IT IS the MANAGEMENTS' fault!

Beyond the obvious THERE ARE a lot of moderate to major safety enhancements that COULD BE MADE if money was not the primary consideration. For example, droppable engines on long haul, transoceanic flights; stronger seats with deployable airbags for each and every passenger; fewer passenger seats which translates to better spacing; overhead baggage compartments that don't open upon impact and smash peoples' heads; a semi water-tight fuselage that doesn't sink within 10-15 minutes in deep water; *Longitudinal Emergency Control System* using thrust modulation in the case of a hyraulic failure; etc....

Does what I say sound like science fiction? The only constraints are cost and a lack of imagination!


[edit on 26-2-2009 by EarthCitizen07]



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
For example, droppable engines on long haul, transoceanic flights;


OK, I am far from an expert in the field, but I can't see how this can possibly help anything. Detachable engines? How exactly could that work? If you detach an engine, that would really unbalance an aircraft, even a four engined one. While a non functioning engine means the Horizontal Stabilizer must be used to trim the aircraft, to just drop an engine off would need a lot of detailed calculation to balance the forces with the ailerons to get it balanced again.

Unless that isn't what you mean of course.


overhead baggage compartments that don't open upon impact and smash peoples' heads;


Hmm, I thought that only happened in the movies....


a semi water-tight fuselage that doesn't sink within 10-15 minutes in deep water;


A difficult task of engineering, it isn't expected to land in water usually, and I only know of one incident where the fuselage stayed in one piece since flying boats where used everywhere as airliners (I do of course, refer to the incident in the Hudson River).



*Longitudinal Emergency Control System* using thrust modulation in the case of a hyrdaulic failure;


The chances are minuscule of that happening, 3 incidents since the dawn of jetliners, 1 of which was terrorist activity, 1 of which was a really bad repair job a few years earlier, and the other had a tiny almost completely undetectable crack in the engine (I think to detect it would have required complete engine dismantling).

And nowadays they use less hydraulic systems anyway. Electricity gives far better power per unit of weight for a system.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 01:21 PM
link   
Five Turkish and four Americans are among those who died.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Engine failure may have been a factor in Wednesday's crash of a Turkish Airlines plane at Amsterdam's Schiphol airport, the chief investigator says. Pieter van Vollenhoven told Dutch state television that the way the aircraft fell directly from the sky suggested that its engines might have stalled.


BBC


Still early days but it still doesn't really explain what caused the engines to stall though? bird's or fuel starvation?



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by apex

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
For example, droppable engines on long haul, transoceanic flights;


OK, I am far from an expert in the field, but I can't see how this can possibly help anything. Detachable engines? How exactly could that work? If you detach an engine, that would really unbalance an aircraft, even a four engined one. While a non functioning engine means the Horizontal Stabilizer must be used to trim the aircraft, to just drop an engine off would need a lot of detailed calculation to balance the forces with the ailerons to get it balanced again.

Unless that isn't what you mean of course.


When attempting an emergency landing at sea the engines usually scope up water causing tremendous drag and as a result tearing the fuselage apart. For this reason even a perfectly balanced and timed ditch is usually hopeless but with the engines removed the odds of sucess are much improved.

Yes a substantial amount of trimming would be needed but the auto-pilot/on board computer would take care of that provided it has enough time to make the adjustments.


Originally posted by apex

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
overhead baggage compartments that don't open upon impact and smash peoples' heads;


Hmm, I thought that only happened in the movies....


I recently saw a documentary about flight safety and many experts argued that the overhead baggage compartments and the seat mountings are not quite durable enough even for a low g crash....


Originally posted by apex

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
a semi water-tight fuselage that doesn't sink within 10-15 minutes in deep water;


A difficult task of engineering, it isn't expected to land in water usually, and I only know of one incident where the fuselage stayed in one piece since flying boats where used everywhere as airliners (I do of course, refer to the incident in the Hudson River).


You make a valid point but if airplanes do manage to successfully land in water then they should also be able to stay afloat for a reasonable amount of time to provide for rescue. Otherwise there is no point in attempting to land at sea, right?


Originally posted by apex

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
*Longitudinal Emergency Control System* using thrust modulation in the case of a hyrdaulic failure;


The chances are minuscule of that happening, 3 incidents since the dawn of jetliners, 1 of which was terrorist activity, 1 of which was a really bad repair job a few years earlier, and the other had a tiny almost completely undetectable crack in the engine (I think to detect it would have required complete engine dismantling).

And nowadays they use less hydraulic systems anyway. Electricity gives far better power per unit of weight for a system.


Relax, most of my points were hypothetical! I understand cost vs reward is the primary consideration when going into bussiness, therefore I don't have any false expectations that some(or all) of these safety measures will be implemented in the near future.

Usually we must lose a few hundred lives before the faa starts to consider tougher regulations. Thats quite unfortunate!



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


THANKS, EC07, for focusing on those issues.

As to 'droppable engines'....sheesh! Does anyone know how much those things cost???!!!???

Regardless....dropping an engine would cause a drastic chane in the CG...

Much of a modern airplane's CG requires the weight of the engines, and the airframe, as the base 'OEW'....that's Operating Empty Weight.

For traditonal airplanes, there is a concern about the 'center of lift' as compared to the CG...the 'center of gravity'.

The ...I was interrupted....sorry....

EDIT: to go back to topic....'droppng' an engine isn't really a viable opton... IF you have a three or four-engine airplane, for Extended Over-Water Ops....rules differ.

IF, though, you are operating a twin-jet over Extended Over Water Ops....we call that 'ETOPS'. EVERY twin-jet that is ETOPS certified must include a flight crew that is ETOPS trained, and certified, as well.

There are about three or four categories of ETOPS, for Dispatch purposes.

The first, as the FAA was learning to authorize this activity, was the '75 minute' rule....because, prior to that, the 'rule', per FAA regs, was 60 minutes from, on one engine, to a 'suitable airport'.

This, given the reliability of the engines, was later expanded to the '120 minute' rule....to be further increased, for the B777....to the '160 minute rule'.

What we did.....we drew circles, on our charts, before take-off over-water.

We 'plotted' on these charts, even though our onboard equipment told us where we were at all times....it was still there, just in case.

When you operate 'ETOPS' there are specific diversion Airports, depending on where you are. AND, certain 'diversion' Airports might not meet the minimum weather requirements, for the estimated time of your flight....these are all facctors to consider.....EVERY ETOPS flight considers all of these factors. In addition, if it's an ETOPS flight, the fuel quantity MUST be verified by a Mechanic....usiing the 'drip-sticks' under the fuel tanks....this is then verified, and entered into the logbook.

NOW....for a flight from Istanbul to Amsterdam? Not over-water, so ETOPS criteria won't apply....however, standard fuel loads should include the estimated burn to destination, plus taxi fuel, plus reserves....AND, for an International flight, fuel to allow for 30 minutes of holding, at normal burn, plus an additional 10%....IN addition to the Flight Manual's minimum....which is usually increased by the 'Operator'....based on the Manufacturer's recommendations.

My Airline, for the B737, used to be 5,000 lbs.....minimum. That was for starters, and that gives you about 45 minutes....on top of that were added the required reserves, PLUS the fuel required for the Flight Plan....

Fuel Exhaustion? in this Accident? I'd be very surprised......








[edit on 2/27/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 06:00 PM
link   
I just drove by the crash site and they are apparently still working on the plane even during the night. The crash site is next to a highway and they have put up screens and stopping your car to have a look will earn you a nice 240 Euro fine.

I read in the paper today that the Turkish pilot association claims the crash occured because of turbulence from a 757 that landed two minutes before the Turkish 737. They are accusing Air Traffic Control of not informing the pilots adequately.

Article (in Dutch)

I'm no expert but it seems two minutes should to be enough time between planes to avoid heavy turbulence. Maybe someone here can shed some light on that..



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Fastwalker81
 


Even though a B757 is NOT a heavy...unless its a B753...common ATC practice in the USA is to consider the B757 as a 'heavy', for separation standards. Meaning, instead of the usual 3-mile separation, airplanes behind a 'Heavy', or a B757....require a 5-mile separaton standard....


Because, it had been determined that the wake of the B757 was far more powerful than expected....



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 05:49 AM
link   

The Turkish Airlines plane which crashed into a field near Amsterdam's Schiphol airport had had repairs for a system malfunction two days earlier. The Boeing 737-800 was briefly taken out of operation on Monday after the pilot reported a problem with the Master Caution Light, the airline said.


BBC

Could be just a coincidence? but could this be linked to this crash? and what sort of problem does a master caution light usually indicate?



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by solidshot
 


The master caution is just a light that illuminates when almost anything happens. The light when pushed is extinguished. It doesn't tell us anything except alert the pilot (The actual problem or whatever is usually displayed on the screens).


When attempting an emergency landing at sea the engines usually scope up water causing tremendous drag and as a result tearing the fuselage apart.

There has only really been three ditchings with aircraft with engines under the wings, two success, one failure. The failure was an improper ditching so it may as well be compared to nose diving into the sea.


Yes a substantial amount of trimming would be needed but the auto-pilot/on board computer would take care of that provided it has enough time to make the adjustments.

Willing to bet that when the engines fall off the CG would go so far aft the plane would pitch up and stall. Doubt the stab can physically move that fast...


Usually we must lose a few hundred lives before the faa starts to consider tougher regulations. Thats quite unfortunate!

Provide examples. Modern ones. Also, provide examples of how in the best of times, pilot training is poor as is maintainence.


Perhaps a fuel guage malfunctioned giving the pilots a bad reading?

Pilots should get a load sheet at the start of every flight, so they know how much fuel has been loaded. If there was a malfuction there would be a mismatch.


Not that I am an expert but it seems *system automation* is becoming more of a headache than a comfortable solution. Sometimes its better to keep things simple and fly the plane hands-on!

Why?


Any captain that let his/hers company push them to upload less than a safe amount of fuel for a given trip is in error, and probably shouldn't be on the flightdeck of any commercial airliner at all.

MORE than that, any suggestion that airline policy is to upload less than safe amount of fuel is ignorant, at best.


The company does'nt "coerce" pilots to do certain things, rather it obligates them to follow company policies. If you disobey you will lose your job!

Give examples. Prove uploading absurd amounts of fuel is a part of 'company policies'. Furthermore, fuel calculations are done by computers; the numbers are not made up, they are not guesses.


For example, droppable engines on long haul,

There are zero examples where that would of helped.


stronger seats with deployable airbags for each and every passenger;

In the brace position, airbags are not going to do a whole lot. (Except for kil the passenger).


fewer passenger seats which translates to better spacing;

Less money.


a semi water-tight fuselage that doesn't sink within 10-15 minutes in deep water;

Already done.


*Longitudinal Emergency Control System* using thrust modulation in the case of a hyraulic failure; etc....

Nah, Power By Wire is better.

It's a miracle we don't have more deaths? Uh... no you're seeing things that are not there. It is not chance airlines are as safe as they are.

[edit on 28/2/2009 by C0bzz]



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by solidshot
 


solid, there are two...an amber Master Caution and a red Master Warning.

EDIT....actually, there are four....two each, on either side.

There are amber warning lights all throughout, most on the overhead panel....'low fuel press', 'hyd press', etc. Since they're on the overhead, the amber Master Caution is on the foreward glareshield in the pilots' line of sight.

The Master Warning is there to accompany red lights....usually fire warnings, along with the fire warning bell. The bell can be silenced by pushing the red Master Warning, thre is also a bell cut-off button. Pulling the fire handle will also silence the bell....but you really don't want to hear that bell while you're running the checklist.

So....not sure what the Master Caution problem was on a previous flight, but it is usually a very minor problem.

[edit on 2/28/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 12:09 PM
link   
3 local Boeing workers die in Dutch air crash


The terrible reality of an airplane tragedy hit home for Boeing workers Friday as the company acknowledged that three of its employees had died in the crash of a Turkish Airlines 737-800 jet in Amsterdam on Wednesday.

Four Seattle-area engineers working for Boeing's defense division were traveling on Flight TK1951 from Istanbul, Turkey, where they had been supporting a defense program based on a military version of the 737.



Boeing Workers Killed in Netherlands Crash


A fourth employee, [...], was seriously injured and is in the hospital. He is expected to recover.

Boeing confirmed Thursday that all four men worked for Integrated Defense Systems[...].

All four worked on the Boeing AEW&C, the Airborne Early Warning and Control System, also known as Wedgetail, based on the Boeing 737s. Turkey calls its system the Peace Eagle after purchasing these high-tech military planes. All four were returning from that country after helping the Turkish air force.


Wedgetail Refs:
www.google.com...



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 05:57 AM
link   
something of interest -

www.flightglobal.com...


The Turkish Airlines Boeing 737-800 crash on approach to Amsterdam Schiphol airport is the first survivable incident in which the anti-hijacking cockpit security door was shown to be a hazard for pilots

Turkey's main English language newspaper Hurriyet has reported an on-scene witness statement that one of the pilots survived the crash even if badly injured, but he was not rescued in time to save his life.



so , the anti-hijaking door has been shown to have potentially killed one of the aircrew - if this is proven boeing will get there asses sued.

and a cath 22 - the USA demand the door fitted to aircraft within its borders - what if the rest of the world demand its removed as a life threatening danger?



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join