+- FsPassengers Forums (http://www.fspassengers.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Other (http://www.fspassengers.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=11)
+--- Forum: Real World Aviation (http://www.fspassengers.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=12)
+--- Thread: [NEW INFO] Turkish crash (/showthread.php?tid=16965)
Pages:
1
2
[NEW INFO] Turkish crash - Anastasios - 30-03-2009
I recieved some extra background information in the crash of the 737 at A'dam Airport Schiphol.
This could be very interesting for our simmers.
As we all know, the throttle went to idle as one altimeter was faulty. Throttle going idle at that stage of the approach is normal. However,
there was at that time only one way to notice this was a fault.
On the instruments an annunciation of MCP should appear, but a retard annunciation actually did appear.
The pilots did not notice this.
At my company the pilots must always have one hand on the yoke and one on the throttle levers on approach when the automatic pilot is
flying.
This way they can always 'feel' what the autopilot is doing and correct it if necessary.
The Turkish pilots probably did not do this.
The plane was losing speed, but remained on the glideslope.
Only 25 seconds (not 100 according to the media) after the retard the stickshaker activated.
(The pilots did probably not look at their instruments during those 25 seconds because of a checklist and checking outside conditions).
The co-pilot responded by applying full throttle and pushing the yoke forward with both hands.
In respond to that, the captain took over and pushed the yoke forward with both hands to lower the nose.
This is a normal stall recovery procedure for the 737.
However, the co-pilot forgot to disengage the autothrottle.
Immediately after the stall recovery procedure was initiated, the throttles went slowly back to idle.
Because both pilots did not have their hands on the yoke (what is not necessary at a stall recovering procedure) they did not notice this.
Because of all the warnings, all three pilots could not 'hear' that the engines were going to idle:
'Stickshaker'
'Too low gear'
'Too low flaps'
'Terrain, terrain'
'Whoop whoop, pull up'
Just seconds after that, the plane impacted the ground with a vertical speed of -4000ft/m.
Boeing 737 pilots of my company tested this in the simulator.
If the stall recovery procedure was executed normally they would have come out of this stall.
The 737 pilots in the simulator only lost 100 feet of altitude after the stickshaker was activated and after waiting two seconds before
initiating the stall recovery procedure.
At this time it looks like the crash is caused by technical faults at Boeing in combination with pilot error.
Anastasios.
Post Edited ( 03-30-09 14:00 )
Re: [NEW INFO] Turkish crash - Anastasios - 14-04-2009
Decided to bump it one more time to see if there is any response.
Anastasios.
Re: [NEW INFO] Turkish crash - whiskey-zulu - 15-04-2009
Well, it wouldn't be the first time a faulty altimeter/incorrect alitmeter setting has been a part of a cause of a crash. I guess here, the question
to ask is why was the autothrottle not disengaged either manually or automatically? I know there are certain circumstances where the autothrottle
will disengage, much like there are circumstances where the autopilot will disconnect automatically. The other question, I guess would be did the
autopilot disconnect as the aircraft went into its stall, as I think it's meant to, or was it still connected?
Re: [NEW INFO] Turkish crash - relichd - 15-04-2009
I don't know much about B737s but when an Airbus gets into a stall situation, it engages TO/GA thrust, pitches the nose down and tries to keep the
recovery attitude until it is safe to get back to normal or reduced thrust. All this done by auto pilot, ie the pilot does not need to notice that a
stall situation is imminent and the A/P will attempt to recover automatically... But I guess this is made possible by using fly-by-wire systems...
Re: [NEW INFO] Turkish crash - Anastasios - 28-04-2009
The autothrottle must be disengaged but pilots. It does not disengage automatically.
Also it works separately from the autopilot.
A 737 does not recognize a stall. Pilots will have to take action to safe the plane.
Anastasios.
Re: [NEW INFO] Turkish crash - abd zibdeh - 01-06-2009
thats why airbus is better!!
Re: [NEW INFO] Turkish crash - SkyAirWorld - 01-06-2009
Dont make me laugh AbdZibdeh
Boeing is definatly THE commercial jet. It is simply a pilots aircraft.
You loose an engine in a boeing your... "partially" okay.
Try loosing an engine in a Scarebus
they dont have that nickname in pilots circles (and others) for nothing....Embraers Jungle Jets are also top of the line Fly By Wire, but I am definatly a Boeing 100% out of anything I have ever flown (In the jet worlds)
I'm sure any commercial pilot would probably agree.
Re: [NEW INFO] Turkish crash - abd zibdeh - 01-06-2009
hehe , i didnt say anything wrong about boeings, i actually have both a320 pss professional and b737-600/700 pmdg , and honestly i like the systems of
the airbus more , but flying the boeing is definitely more fun , and u can feel the beoing but not the airbus while flying . but overall for me i like
the airbus more hehe .and embraer aircrafts ???? i dont know alot about hehe.
and loosing an engine in an airbus would be okay ! this is the first time i hear that loosing an engine in an airbus is horrible!
and whats with the nickname scarebus ! hahaha thats so funny !
Re: [NEW INFO] Turkish crash - relichd - 02-06-2009
Quote:SkyAirWorld wrote:
Dont make me laugh AbdZibdeh
Boeing is definatly THE commercial jet. It is simply a pilots aircraft.
You loose an engine in a boeing your... "partially" okay.
Try loosing an engine in a Scarebus
Embraers Jungle Jets are also top of the line Fly By Wire, but I am definatly a Boeing 100% out of anything I have ever flown (In the jet worlds)
I'm sure any commercial pilot would probably agree.
Well, I talked to several real world pilots when I was working with an airline (won't tell the name to avoid problems
). Even guys flying Boeingssaid they were quite surprised by the manoeuvrability and comfort of piloting when they tried full motion simulator of A320. Of course, all of them
say that Boeing is "the real plane" with proper yoke unlike Airbus with its side stick. I guess it is a matter of preference, though...
Anyway, we're getting a bit
here 
David.
Re: [NEW INFO] Turkish crash - SkyAirWorld - 02-06-2009
Quote:relichd wrote:
Well, I talked to several real world pilots when I was working with an airline (won't tell the name to avoid problems
said they were quite surprised by the manoeuvrability and comfort of piloting when they tried full motion simulator of A320. Of course, all of them
say that Boeing is "the real plane" with proper yoke unlike Airbus with its side stick. I guess it is a matter of preference, though...
No worries
(About the airline) Airbus is alright to fly, as long as nothing goes wrong
and I suppose I agree perhaps it is just a matter of preference.
Re: [NEW INFO] Turkish crash - Anastasios - 02-06-2009
A captain ones said to me:
If you are flying an Airbus and something is wrong.
The plane it self already solved the problem and took actions before the pilots know what's going on.
Now the question is, if that is safer or not.
Anastasios.
Post Edited ( 06-02-09 09:27 )
Re: [NEW INFO] Turkish crash - SkyAirWorld - 02-06-2009
Will already TRY to solve the problem.
Also the planes do NOT respond well to engine failures (especially @ MTOW) in an Airbus.
In comparison to a boeing or almost any other aircraft.
Re: [NEW INFO] Turkish crash - Anastasios - 02-06-2009
The computer of the Airbus responds quicker than pilots can think.
Smaller problems will be sorted out immediately and automatically by the computer, even before pilots know what's going on.
You know how he described it?
'There was a beeeep. I looked at a screen.. looked at the overhead... o.. solved...'
Anastasios.
Re: [NEW INFO] Turkish crash - SkyAirWorld - 02-06-2009
Anastasios.
I know exactly what you mean so do not patronise me. The computer will TRY to solve the issue within the aircraft or its systems. A computer as
with everything has FLAWS and problems.
& Yes "smaller problems" what about the larger ones
Re: [NEW INFO] Turkish crash - Anastasios - 02-06-2009
Patronise?
Hmm, somone here is feeling a bit attacked by someone else.
And no, the computer can SOLVE some problems.
Anastasios.