: Turkish Airlines 737 crash at Schipol, Amsterdam - Fog related? -

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Turkish Airlines 737 crash at Schipol, Amsterdam - Fog related?

#1 User is offline   admin 

  • Administrator
  • Group: Administrators
  • Posts: 10
  • Joined: 22-January 06

Posted --

Excerpt from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5801273.ece click for full article

A Turkish Airlines Boeing 737-800 jet with 135 passengers on board has crashed while attempting to land at Amsterdam's Schiphol airport in foggy conditions. 

 

 


0

#2 User is offline   Dave W 

  • Group: Executive
  • Posts: 5356
  • Joined: 17-October 03
  • LocationBrighton

Posted --

 25/02/2009 10:55->
METAR EHAM 251055Z 22011KT 4500 BR SCT006 OVC007 06/05 Q1027            TEMPO 2500=
SA25/02/2009 10:25->
METAR EHAM 251025Z 22011KT 3500 -DZ BR OVC007 05/04 Q1027            TEMPO 2500=
SA25/02/2009 09:55->
METAR EHAM 250955Z 21010KT 4500 BR BKN007 OVC008 05/04 Q1027            TEMPO 2500=
SA25/02/2009 09:25->
METAR EHAM 250925Z 20010KT 4500 BR SCT007 BKN008 OVC010 04/03            Q1027 TEMPO 2500=

I dont think it was weather related .. theres no evidence of fog about at the time though cloud base was lowish..


0

#3 User is offline   Flatlander 

  • Group: Registered Climate Users
  • Posts: 2270
  • Joined: 29-September 06
  • LocationDoncaster, South Yorks. 20m AOD.

Posted --

Tail first landing (look at the damage) -> Stall. Cause of stall -> Unknown at this point.

Unlikely to be weather related...
0

#4 User is offline   cirrus 

  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 151
  • Joined: 14-August 03

Posted --

Very sad to see another accident, especially one thats taken the lives of nine people. Seems like there was three crew in the cockpit, which was completely sealed off by the reinforced door, thereby denying access by rescue personnel....although probably not made any difference.
Seems like a run of "good " luck had to run out sooner or later.....No fatalities in the BA 777 at LHR, Ryanair 737 at Rome, and USair A320 at LGA.


0

#5 User is offline   Stuart Robinson 

  • Group: Executive
  • Posts: 4195
  • Joined: 15-October 02
  • LocationMountsorrel, Leicestershire.

Posted --

Ryanair are in crap mode right now - nothing wrong with the aircraft but Ryanair run them exclusively - it is the public perception that the 727 has faults that Ryanair fear...
0

#6 User is offline   scrapemedic 

  • Group: Forum Managers
  • Posts: 3727
  • Joined: 29-December 04
  • LocationWest nor'west London

Posted --

Quote

cirrus - 25/2/2009 22:33

Seems like there was three crew in the cockpit, which was completely sealed off by the reinforced door, thereby denying access by rescue personnel....although probably not made any difference.

I am guessing if the plane is on the ground they could break through the window or the fire brigade could cut through the door with their cutting gear
0

#7 User is offline   cyfrin 

  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1073
  • Joined: 03-August 03

Posted --

It just may have run out of fuel............................

0

#8 User is offline   pettinger 

  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 360
  • Joined: 22-July 04
  • LocationHerstmonceux, East Sussex

Posted --

This sad event seems to have similarities (co-incidental or not) with the BA crash at London Heathrow last year, though it came to ground a little further
from the runway threshold. Might be fuel shortage, or fuel supply restriction. Odd that the 3 crew died, as, from the outside, the cockpit seems quite intact.
0

#9 User is offline   admin 

  • Administrator
  • Group: Administrators
  • Posts: 10
  • Joined: 22-January 06

Posted --

The 3 crew perished because of the landing gear being shot up through the cockpit during the crash, as it was reported today.
0

#10 User is offline   Blownaway 

  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1013
  • Joined: 20-January 07

Posted --

Quote

pettinger - 26/2/2009 15:29 This sad event seems to have similarities (co-incidental or not) with the BA crash at London Heathrow last year, though it came to ground a little further from the runway threshold. Might be fuel shortage, or fuel supply restriction. Odd that the 3 crew died, as, from the outside, the cockpit seems quite intact.

 

I thought the same thing initially but according to recent reports the aircraft was effectively no longer flying just before impact, unlike the heathrow incident in which that aircraft was 'limping along' but essentially in flight until it landed. If the engines had failed, the landing gear would be immobilised as far as I  know, suggesting they were well into final approach before the problem occured. Whatever it was was presumably very sudden and clearly catastrophic. Considering the recent NY Hudson incident and the flight capabilities of that aircraft, even without engines, I still wouldn't discount turbulence/weather as a factor but obviously that remains to be seen.


0

#11 User is offline   pettinger 

  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 360
  • Joined: 22-July 04
  • LocationHerstmonceux, East Sussex

Posted --

I doubt that weather had any part in this. Little wind, and adequate visibility , although a fairly low cloud base shouldnt have presented any difficulties.
The investigators are now saying that the engines 'effectively stalled'. This might mean running out of fuel, fuel mismanagement, or even another double bird strike. But the difference between the BA 777 crash at Heathrow and this one might be the piloting strategy. If the engines cut out, the need is to overide the automatics, lower the nose to maintain some flying speed and some control, and prevent a stall, which is what the BA pilots at Heathrow did. If , after the engine stall, the pilots in this 737 responded instinctively to an automatic 'pull up' call by pulling up hard, the aircraft would nose up, stall and fall to the ground with little wforward speed, which seems to have been the case here.
0

#12 User is offline   Flatlander 

  • Group: Registered Climate Users
  • Posts: 2270
  • Joined: 29-September 06
  • LocationDoncaster, South Yorks. 20m AOD.

Posted --

"Investigation Board warns Boeing for possible faults in radio-altimeter of Boeing 737-800

The Safety investigation board has warned aircraft manufacturer Boeing as a result of the first findings in the investigation of the Boeing 737-800 that crashed on 25 February 2009 shortly before landing on the polderbaan (red RWY 18R) of Schiphol airport. Because of a malfunctioning radio-altimeter the auto throttle, as part of the automatic pilot, received faulty signals. The president of the investigation board, prof.mr. Pieter Van Vollenhove, said on Wednesday afternoon that, while the aircraft was still flying at a an altitude of 1950 feet, de radio-altimeter indicated a height of minus 8 feet, so that the auto throttle retarded and also for the rest set the configuration as if the aircraft was positioned only a few meters above the runway. When the crew of the Turkish Airlines aircraft noticed what was happening, it was too late to effectively intervene.

Boeing has indicated that a warning will be sent to all operators of this type of aircraft, to alert them to this possible risk."


Hmmmmm. Pilots should have spotted this one earlier...but given it had apparently happened twice before in the last few flights, the plane should have been fixed as well.
0

#13 User is offline   SNOW_JOKE 

  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 370
  • Joined: 29-September 08

Posted --

Wasnt there a similar problem with the Altimeter that led to a Boeing 747 Cargo crash at Stansted not too long ago? I cant remember the root cause of the problem but it was something to do with the calibration settings.
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users