Turkish B738 crashlands in Amsterdam.

[Evan]

CNN is running a dubious piece about how newer jets are built to be more crashworthy than those of the 70's and 80's, and this explains the high survival rate of the AMS crash. I'd like to believe this, but the article fails to explain anything specific. Previous gen jets have been held to extreme structural requirements to receive certification. I recall a DC8 crash in the 70's, fuel starvation, landed in a wooded field short of the airport, fuselage fractured sectionally yet most, if not all, survived. I'm aware of many crash-prevention improvements but they are speaking about airframe robustness, fire prevention, etc. Is there any real truth to this? To the best of my knowledge, Boeing is still not implementing nitrogen-gas replacement systems on its fuel tanks to minimize explosive vapors, something I'm told would lessen the risk of explosion in a crash. Seats seem as cheap as ever, and many in this crash were injured between seats. Continental 1404, a 737-500, cracked like an egg and burned like a yule log. Is the 800 really that different? Can anyone provide truth to this article?

[athyon]

In one news video, they showed rescuers attempting to create a hole above the cockpit to retrieve the crew victims, as reinforced cockpit doors made it impossible to get in. From the outside appearence, the cockpit didn't seem too compacted or crushed, how come the crash was severe enough to kill the crew? I've looked in 737 cockpits and there isnt much space, so maybe everything caved in, or there isnt much room to withstand a severe whiplash without colliding with cockpit panels. Unfortunately a quick answer to the cause of the crash is not possible since the crew flying the plane were sadly killed.

[athyon]

It appears that the nose wheel may have been pushed up through the floor of the cockpit on impact - instead of sheering off - causing the deaths in the cockpit.

[Gallipolis]

First of all, condolences on the loss of your friend...



So are you basically saying that the flaps were extended at an airspeed that was above the limit for the flap setting therefore causing a structural failure?

Yes thats what the captain told me.

[Gallipolis]

People this is obviously crew error. Every major expert in Turkey points to that direction. Its the 27 March 1976 crash all over again.

[JordanD]

Yes the 757 can produce a big wake. I remember when I was at LHR the staff car park was directly under the approach to runway 27L - literally just shy of where BA038 ended up. Very often a 757 would fly over, then a good 20 seconds later you'd hear a "ghost" aeroplane landing after it. Took me a while to figure out what that was, but I noticed it was always after 757.

Once just outside the In-N-Out at LAX a good while after an Aeroflot 763 landed I looked up and could still actually see the vortices whipping around.

[Alessandro]

Dear All
Many of you may remember me from Air Disaster forums. I am sorry to tell you that a good friend of mine, Mr.Cuneyt Er,died today on this crash. He was flying to Amsterdam to continue his masters program.

I pray for all those who died and wish the best for the wounded.

Here is something that may shed light to the issue; According to a THY pilot whose name I cannot say here the events took place as follows;

During approach to Schiphol, the Captain asks the F/O and training pilot to take over the flight. The training pilot, in contrary to company policy, extends the flaps 5% over the allowed zone to keep the plane in balance in view of hard winds from the tail. The plane starts to stall due to the fact that the F/O is not aware that the training pilot extended the flaps;

a.manually
b.over the allowed limits.

Immediately after realising the situation, the F/O pushes hard on the throttles without taking them off approach mode on the TO/GO autopilot. Due to extreme winds and pressure on the left engine, the connecting pieces get loose and the engine falls of the plane. Due to loss of engine power,the aircraft plummets to the ground,killing 10 and wounding dozens.

The above is a direct quotation from an experienced THY pilot. Please review it according to your own knowledge and let me know if it sounds logical.

An ironic fact; my father flew with the plane that crashed a few days ago...eery stuff...

P.S: This is the only accident THY had abroad since March 3,1974 when a DC-10 crashed in Paris,killing 346. Until then the airline has improved dramatically and continues to be one of the best airlines in europe and I both as a Turk and as an aviation fan, am still proud of my airline despite of my loss.

Hello, Gallipolli, saddens me that we meet once again after a major loss in your life.
I hope your hand has recovered and that we all can learn something from this accident.

[Alessandro]

CNN is running a dubious piece about how newer jets are built to be more crashworthy than those of the 70's and 80's, and this explains the high survival rate of the AMS crash. I'd like to believe this, but the article fails to explain anything specific. Previous gen jets have been held to extreme structural requirements to receive certification. I recall a DC8 crash in the 70's, fuel starvation, landed in a wooded field short of the airport, fuselage fractured sectionally yet most, if not all, survived. I'm aware of many crash-prevention improvements but they are speaking about airframe robustness, fire prevention, etc. Is there any real truth to this? To the best of my knowledge, Boeing is still not implementing nitrogen-gas replacement systems on its fuel tanks to minimize explosive vapors, something I'm told would lessen the risk of explosion in a crash. Seats seem as cheap as ever, and many in this crash were injured between seats. Continental 1404, a 737-500, cracked like an egg and burned like a yule log. Is the 800 really that different? Can anyone provide truth to this article?

This one, http://aviation-safety.net/database/...?id=19700915-0
No, I personally donīt think todays passengerairplanes are so much better than the DC-8, it was made to last.

[Diamond Bob]

My first post on Jetphotos.net.
This just in:

"The Turkish Airline's plane may have run out of fuel before crashing near Amsterdam's Schiphol airport yesterday killing at least nine people, airport officials suggested last night. The plane's fuel load was running low before the accident, the officials said."

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/plane-may-have-run-out-of-fuel-1653667.html

Unnamed "officials", but there it is.

[Diamond Bob]

This one, http://aviation-safety.net/database/...?id=19700915-0

Or this one, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_173

Since the 737 is basically a 40-something year old design, I doubt it's much safer than older aircraft, even if built in 2002 like the Turkish jet. Although improvements in the fire resistance of materials used may help. This was mentioned in relation to the Denver 737 crash in December (Continental 1404), where there was fire, but everyone was able to escape.

[SYDCBRWOD]

This one, http://aviation-safety.net/database/...?id=19700915-0
No, I personally donīt think todays passengerairplanes are so much better than the DC-8, it was made to last.

Seriously? Do people really believe that as cars elevators, kiddie cots and just about everything else on this planet is getting safer, planes are not? Seems like BS to me. Manufacturers would be making continuous improvements in crash structures, fire resistant materials etc.

I don't buy it - this statement that older planes are safer to crash in smack of the old BS that the 1940's cars could be crashed into a train at 60MPH and would still be OK. (Of course no mention of the fool inside that was impaled on the steering column and would have been killed by the g forsces even if he wasn't kebabed).

[VViscount]

Here is some aerial footage of the crash site.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=915_1235592256

[Theoddkiwi]

Regarding 737-800 systems.

As the performance window between flap settings has a fair bit of overlap i doubt that changing flap settings would cause significant structural damage. The flaps themselves have over stress protection.

One is called load relief so if you overspeed at Flaps 40 it will automatically reduce flaps to Flaps 30. Or 30 to 25

The performance window is much greater than what pilots are trained to use.

A reduction of flap setting by the pilots would seem like a very strange thing to do even for a trainee. I change of one setting should not result in a stall if the aircraft is being flown with in its envelope. Even still a reduction in flap setting would not overstress the Airframe or engines or wing if anything it would reduce it. Add power should quickly arrest an increase if rate of descent. Not to mention the NG does actually have Alpha Floor protection too.

Think about the GOL wing section which was largly intact, which given the rest of the aircraft tore apart i reckon the NG wing is pretty darn strong.

As noted if the Pilot had over sped flaps again that would not have lead to a structural failure, as mentioned there are both system and mechanical load relief systems in the wing/flap system. It might bend a few bits but not tear and engine off or anything.

The NG series have comprehensive Primary Flight Display info including visual indication of the appropriate flight envelope, with Upper and Lower speed limit bars that display on the PFD.

Fuel Quantity is well displayed in the NG with Low Fuel warnings at 750kg in each wing, which is plenty for safe operation, with the indication turning amber. Its prominant, If they new they were low on fuel, i doubt they would have kept it quiet. eg demand a shorter approach etc etc.

Not withstanding, yes a stall is still a possibility, perhaps the got distracted and fell behind the curve. But with GPWS, Alpha Floor, Stick Shaker, powerful engines and a good wing, thats a fair way behind to crash 3nm short.

What abour wind shear? There does not have to be a Thunder Storm to have wind shear.

The NG has a Prodictive Windshear WXR, and Windshear detection in its GPWS. But PWS is to worn you of danger ahead, whereas GPWS tells you your in it and to do something to get out of it eg TOGA.

Finally, in the NG even if the aircraft is in full Automatic flight, if you manually grab the throttles and push them full forward the engines will increase to max thrust regardless of what the Auto Throttles think they should do, as all the Autothrottles do is move the levers. Manual force will always override AT.

I am perpelxed over the fate of the crew in the largely intact cockpit, but the gear through the floor sounds plausable.

[Theoddkiwi]

Or this one, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_173

Since the 737 is basically a 40-something year old design, I doubt it's much safer than older aircraft, even if built in 2002 like the Turkish jet. Although improvements in the fire resistance of materials used may help. This was mentioned in relation to the Denver 737 crash in December (Continental 1404), where there was fire, but everyone was able to escape.

Improvements are more subtle, but most improvements are in the protective systems rather than the structural make up of the frame. Stop the plane from crashing in the first place is the first part.

Other improvements in Passenger seat design, cabin construction etc will make big improvements in survivability. The older planes might have had a pile of rows of seats smashed up in the front of the aircraft. Now perhaps they withstand the impact better and keep the pax in their seats better.
Cabin Crew training has made big improvements as has passenger education. These things all add up to greater survival chances in a crash.

[Thurian]

B738

News reports this morning said three bodies removed from cockpit, would there be three people in the cockpit of a 738 on approach?