Turkish Airlines B737 crashes in Schiphol Amsterdam - TK1951

Join this forum to discuss the latest news that happened in the world of commercial aviation.

Moderator: Latest news team

Post Reply
Spitfire
Posts: 3
Joined: 16 Oct 2002, 00:00
Location: South of Brussels, now in French Alps and South of France
Contact:

Re: Turkish Airlines B737 crashes in Schiphol Amsterdam

Post by Spitfire »

Can you tell me why ?

Rgds

User avatar
Atlantis
Posts: 4445
Joined: 12 Apr 2005, 00:00

Re: Turkish Airlines B737 crashes in Schiphol Amsterdam

Post by Atlantis »

I can read only things about safety, journalists, who is wrong and who is right on this certain topic, but I have not read one single sentence in this topic about the families, kids, etc. They are the victom here.
Be human.

Two pax entered again the plane to rescue older people, kids, etc. THEY are the heroes. How many people on this forum would do that?

My thoughts are with the families of the victoms and those who have survived this terrible accident.

Just my2cents.

User avatar
TexasGuy
Posts: 669
Joined: 15 Apr 2006, 00:00
Location: Houston, Texas

Re: Turkish Airlines B737 crashes in Schiphol Amsterdam

Post by TexasGuy »

Im saddened by the loss of life but im very happy it wasnt as great a loss of life that it could have been.
My thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families
Theres nothing better than slow cooked fall off the bone BBQ, Texas style

User avatar
Bruspotter
Posts: 2006
Joined: 04 Sep 2004, 00:00
Location: (Antwerp/Belgium)
Contact:

Re: Turkish Airlines B737 crashes in Schiphol Amsterdam

Post by Bruspotter »

Hello

First of all my condolancies for all people who died. And good luck and get well to the people who got hurt.

When I was watching the skies (like so many other times :D) this morning I already suspected something weird in EHAM as I saw KLM 777-300 & A330 and NWA A330 and a JAT 737 returning from EHAM to EBBR (the JAT apparantly came originally from BRU to AMS but returned to BRU).

First I tought it was fog or something untill I heard the news.
Not that I want to start any speculations , but my guess goes too for the 'fuel issues and to high angle of attack , causing stall'. But let's wait and see, and I'm really curious.

What about procedures @ EHAM if anyone would know? Does anybody think it's possible they would use RWY 18R again for landings by Friday or would that be crazy (would not know how far they could go)?


Best regards, Yannick

Charlie Roy
Posts: 518
Joined: 29 Aug 2006, 22:20
Location: Europa

Re: Turkish Airlines B737 crashes in Schiphol Amsterdam

Post by Charlie Roy »

KLM : not 9 crashes in 27 years, but 8 crashes in its 80 years of existance. And their last one (the Tenerife runway collision) dates from 31 years ago.
If you include KLM Cityhoppers crash in 1994, then you have 9.

4 April 1994 - Flight KL433 to Cardiff, a Saab 340 operated by KLM Cityhopper, returned to Schiphol after setting the number two engine to flight idle because the crew mistakenly believed that the engine suffered from low oil pressure, this because of a faulty warning light. On final approach at a height of 90 feet, the captain decided to go-around and gave full throttle, however only on the number one engine leaving the other in flight idle. Because of this, the airplane rolled to the right, pitched up, stalled and hit the ground at 80 degrees bank. Of the twenty-four people on board, three were killed including the captain. Nine others were seriously injured.

Desert Rat
Posts: 1146
Joined: 08 May 2007, 09:38

Re: Turkish Airlines B737 crashes in Schiphol Amsterdam

Post by Desert Rat »

There's a new problem discovered recently on the CFM56's , when both engines have an EGT deterioration beyond 75 degrees, you are subject to a stall of the engines, reason why on these particular engines (with EGT deterioration)both bleed,both packs and both engine A/I have to be operative and selected to dispatch the A/C, the increase in bleed demand make the engine to Idle at higher speed avoiding the stall...
This is effective for the CFM56-5B4 on the 320, I guess it is the same on the Boeing CFM56-7...
Anybody to confirm???

User avatar
grnkg
Posts: 133
Joined: 02 Jan 2005, 00:00
Location: LGG
Contact:

Re: Turkish Airlines B737 crashes in Schiphol Amsterdam

Post by grnkg »

Spitfire wrote:Can you tell me why ?

Rgds
Well, if you look at the first picture of the engine (with the rescue worker in red suit next to the engine),
you can see that most damage occured at the bottom half of the fan (the engine as you see it in the picture is oriented in the right way, i.e. the bottom side is on the ground). The fan blades on the top half are more or less intact, while at the bottom half, the blades are bent, not broken.

If the engine was running, all the fanblades would be damaged (and all of them in more or less the same way).
Most would have been broken off partially or completely on impact.

Kind regards,
GR.
Last edited by grnkg on 26 Feb 2009, 05:22, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
TCAS
Posts: 255
Joined: 10 Aug 2008, 09:03

Re: Turkish Airlines B737 crashes in Schiphol Amsterdam

Post by TCAS »

Desert Rat wrote: This is effective for the CFM56-5B4 on the 320, I guess it is the same on the Boeing CFM56-7...
Anybody to confirm???
ONLY A318-111, A318-112, A319-111, A319-112, A319-115, A320-214, A320 215, A320-216, A321-111, A321-112, A321-211, A321-212, and A321-213 aircraft models, all serial numbers with CFM56-5B engines installed.

See EASA AD AD No.: 2008-0228-E H E R E

If it was an N-2 'non field' emergency landing, the (3) pilots (RIP) earns respect.
No ground fatalities/injuries etc.

BTW If (example) RWY 27 was in use, it could be worse, much worse.

Yesterday evening (25/02/2009) VTM TV News spoke to a Belgian "Whoop Whoop Terrain" pilot, who said: if this was a 'non field' emergency landing(?), it was badly performed/executed :shock:
Last edited by TCAS on 26 Feb 2009, 06:38, edited 1 time in total.

Desert Rat
Posts: 1146
Joined: 08 May 2007, 09:38

Re: Turkish Airlines B737 crashes in Schiphol Amsterdam

Post by Desert Rat »

OK ...I was wrong... only applicable for the Airbus...

User avatar
TCAS
Posts: 255
Joined: 10 Aug 2008, 09:03

Re: Turkish Airlines B737 crashes in Schiphol Amsterdam

Post by TCAS »

Dutch Police 'KLPD' helicopter Air to Ground 'crash site' M O V I E

As you can see there are three (3) Medivac helicopters on the ground (Dutch have 4, callsign Lifeliner).
Belgium (congested roads/high ways) have ONLY one (1) Medivac 'MUG' helicopter based in Bruges (AZ Sint-Jan).

User avatar
earthman
Posts: 2221
Joined: 24 Nov 2004, 00:00
Location: AMS

Re: Turkish Airlines B737 crashes in Schiphol Amsterdam

Post by earthman »

Charlie Roy wrote:
KLM : not 9 crashes in 27 years, but 8 crashes in its 80 years of existance. And their last one (the Tenerife runway collision) dates from 31 years ago.
If you include KLM Cityhoppers crash in 1994, then you have 9.

4 April 1994 - Flight KL433 to Cardiff, a Saab 340 operated by KLM Cityhopper, returned to Schiphol after setting the number two engine to flight idle because the crew mistakenly believed that the engine suffered from low oil pressure, this because of a faulty warning light. On final approach at a height of 90 feet, the captain decided to go-around and gave full throttle, however only on the number one engine leaving the other in flight idle. Because of this, the airplane rolled to the right, pitched up, stalled and hit the ground at 80 degrees bank. Of the twenty-four people on board, three were killed including the captain. Nine others were seriously injured.
Actually Cityhopper had another crash in 1981, a Fokker F28 flew into a severe thunderstorm and a microburst tore off one of it's wings. It crashed near Moerdijk with all 17 people on board killed.

The airline was called NLM at that time but I think it was a subsidiary of KLM.

That makes 10?

User avatar
TCAS
Posts: 255
Joined: 10 Aug 2008, 09:03

Re: Turkish Airlines B737 crashes in Schiphol Amsterdam

Post by TCAS »

earthman wrote:That makes 10?
O/T

See also AVIACRASH (Dutch ONLY) ;)
earthman wrote:The airline was called NLM at that time but I think it was a subsidiary of KLM.
Correct.

Spitfire
Posts: 3
Joined: 16 Oct 2002, 00:00
Location: South of Brussels, now in French Alps and South of France
Contact:

Re: Turkish Airlines B737 crashes in Schiphol Amsterdam

Post by Spitfire »

grnkg wrote:
Spitfire wrote:Can you tell me why ?

Rgds
Well, if you look at the first picture of the engine (with the rescue worker in red suit next to the engine),
you can see that most damage occured at the bottom half of the fan (the engine as you see it in the picture is oriented in the right way, i.e. the bottom side is on the ground). The fan blades on the top half are more or less intact, while at the bottom half, the blades are bent, not broken.

If the engine was running, all the fanblades would be damaged (and all of them in more or less the same way).
Most would have been broken off partially or completely on impact.

Kind regards,
GR.

Ah ok....do you know that a fan IS a FAN ? So even with no fuel or engine shut down the fan will still be turning at high speed due to the air flowing through it! Even at stalling qpeed....

It could be completly stopped just in case of severe dommage like broken N1 axis, broken turbine... (gear box is on N2 ...).

More over, when you listen to the ATC record, the airplane was established on the ILS 18R and has been asked to contact the tower frequency (118.7 if I remember well) for the landing clearance. Nothing there concerning an engine problem nor an emergency...

We'll better wait for the figures (N1, N2, FF, EGT,....) from the FDR instead of listening to some "expert's rumors"...

User avatar
TCAS
Posts: 255
Joined: 10 Aug 2008, 09:03

Re: Turkish Airlines B737 crashes in Schiphol Amsterdam

Post by TCAS »

According to De Telelgraaf the Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) is last night transcripted.

More 'official' news later today.
Spitfire wrote: More over, when you listen to the ATC record, the airplane was established on the ILS 18R and has been asked to contact the tower frequency (118.7 if I remember well) for the landing clearance. Nothing there concerning an engine problem nor an emergency...
Indeed, no PAN PAN PAN or MAYDAY call

In comparison .... Belgium, I love the Dutch 'Aviation Community' for openness, no 9 to 5 mentality, good spotters facilities and the possibility to listen (forbidden in Belgium :oops: ) online on VHF

Bralo20
Posts: 1448
Joined: 12 Aug 2008, 13:48

Re: Turkish Airlines B737 crashes in Schiphol Amsterdam

Post by Bralo20 »

TCAS wrote: As you can see there are three (3) Medivac helicopters on the ground (Dutch have 4, callsign Lifeliner).
Belgium (congested roads/high ways) have ONLY one (1) Medivac 'MUG' helicopter based in Bruges (AZ Sint-Jan).
Belgium has actually 2 medivac heli's

1 in Bruges and 1 in Bra sur Lienne.

In case of disasters the Seakings of the 40th squadron are also usable in the regular emergency system...
(Actually they are also used daily for rescues on the sea, etc... and are transporting victims).

User avatar
grnkg
Posts: 133
Joined: 02 Jan 2005, 00:00
Location: LGG
Contact:

Re: Turkish Airlines B737 crashes in Schiphol Amsterdam

Post by grnkg »

Ah ok....do you know that a fan IS a FAN ? So even with no fuel or engine shut down the fan will still be turning at high speed due to the air flowing through it! Even at stalling qpeed....

Power setting for a normal approach (F30 or F40) is between 55-65% N1, meaning the fan is spinning at 2800-3400 rpm! Windmilling in cruise gets you to about 10-15%, just enough to relight the engine, if your lucky! This aircraft was at slow speed/high pitch-up attitude, so unlikely they will have been spinning at more than a few 100 rpm. If you know Newton's law then you know this does make a difference to outcome of the engine hitting the ground.

It could be completly stopped just in case of severe dommage like broken N1 axis, broken turbine... (gear box is on N2 ...).

Maybe, a front picture of the second engine would shed some light on this, because that doesn't happen to 2 engines at the same time.

More over, when you listen to the ATC record, the airplane was established on the ILS 18R and has been asked to contact the tower frequency (118.7 if I remember well) for the landing clearance. Nothing there concerning an engine problem nor an emergency...

As was the case with the British Airways 777 at LHR (17/01/2008) and the Avianca 707 at JFK (25/01/1990).

We'll better wait for the figures (N1, N2, FF, EGT,....) from the FDR instead of listening to some "expert's rumors"...

What you call rumours, for most it's just a keen interest to the cause of the accident, because from that we learn and try to prevent it from happening again in the future. Anyone not interested in that is simply in the wrong business!

Kind regards,
GR.

User avatar
TCAS
Posts: 255
Joined: 10 Aug 2008, 09:03

Re: Turkish Airlines B737 crashes in Schiphol Amsterdam

Post by TCAS »

There's a new press conference in AMS at 13:00.

Source NU.NL

User avatar
TCAS
Posts: 255
Joined: 10 Aug 2008, 09:03

Re: Turkish Airlines B737 crashes in Schiphol Amsterdam

Post by TCAS »

grnkg wrote:What you call rumours, for most it's just a keen interest to the cause of the accident, because from that we learn and try to prevent it from happening again in the future. Anyone not interested in that is simply in the wrong business!
So far we can 'only' say

1. The aircraft was in 'Full' landing configuration.
2. The debris field is quite small.
3. No fire does not mean no fuel
4. Eyewitness reports are consistent (deeply stalled aircraft).
5. The Dutch did a fast and excellent rescue job :clap:
6. High experienced Cockpit Crew:
Captain: born 1954, ex. Turkish Airforce (1975 tot 1996) Fighter Pilot and Turkish Airlines instructor.
F/O I: born 1967, ex. Turkish Airforce (1989 - 2006) Fighter Pilot.
F/O II: born 1980, 'No pre Turkish Airlines details available' Turkish Airlines since 2004
7. Mr. Pieter van Vollehoven (Chairman Dutch Safety Board) gave a excellent, no nonse, 'Personal' finding review (NOS Journaal) overruling the journalism (media expert) bullsh*t :mrgreen:

BTW 1 mile final is 330 feet above TDZ (Aviate, Aviate and Aviate) !!
Last edited by TCAS on 26 Feb 2009, 12:15, edited 1 time in total.

regi
Posts: 5140
Joined: 02 Sep 2004, 00:00
Location: Bruges

Re: Turkish Airlines B737 crashes in Schiphol Amsterdam

Post by regi »

and a no congratulations to the Turkish authorities who declined there were casualties- despite it was immediately known that the pilots were dead on impact - as witnessed and reported by passengers who went back into the airplane to help people out. Those passengers of Turkish decent gave extensive interviews, some had telephoned from the crash site to relatives to say all was fine, but some had died.
One such Turkish-Dutch witness told about the horrible sight of a person been smashed to death on a window.
So no, the Turkish authorities should not have given false information.
See Dutch program NOVA last night ( with the indeed very cool PVV who also recounted the visit to the cockpit where the pilots had been smashed by equipment in their back )

If this sounds like Turk bashing, blame it on the Turks who gave false information.

jan_olieslagers
Posts: 3085
Joined: 24 Jun 2006, 08:34
Location: Vl.Brabant
Contact:

Re: Turkish Airlines B737 crashes in Schiphol Amsterdam

Post by jan_olieslagers »

grnkg wrote:What you call rumours, for most it's just a keen interest to the cause of the accident, because from that we learn and try to prevent it from happening again in the future. Anyone not interested in that is simply in the wrong business!
Allow me to keep up disagreeing: while we should indeed take our lessons from accidents, to avoid repeating them, these lessons ought to be taken from the real known causes; not from armchair expert rantings or bar talk ("toogpraat") information.

PS in the discussion on the fans I'm all with you, glad to not disagree on all points!

Post Reply