Turkish Airlines plane crashes at Amsterdam airport

[benoit.baril]

Turkish Airlines plane crashes at Amsterdam airport
Plane carrying 135 passengers splits in three on approach to Schiphol airport, reports say

Peter Walker, Robert Tait and agencies guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 25 February 2009 10.35 GMT
At least one person was killed and 20 injured in the crash. Photographs: United Photos/Toussaint Kluiters/EPA

A Turkish Airlines plane carrying at least 135 people crashed in a field and broke into three sections today while coming in to land at Amsterdam's Schiphol airport, with all those on board surviving, airline officials said.

The airline originally said that one person had died and 20 were injured as the Boeing 737-800 came down heavily close to the airport. However, the Turkish Airlines chief executive told reporters later that this was incorrect and no one had been killed. Turkey's transport minister, Binali Yildirim, reiterated this.

The crashed jet, about to land on a morning flight from Istanbul, came down as it approached the furthest runway from the terminals at Schiphol, 12 miles from Amsterdam's centre. Although it crashed in countryside, houses could be seen close to the site.

The impact split the fuselage near the front of the wing, while the tail section was sheared off. One of the engines was also cut off from a wing, although there was no sign of fire or smoke.

One passenger told Turkey's NTV television the crash seemed to happen "in the space of five to 10 seconds". He added: "I was sitting at the back of the plane. Myself, my friend and about 15 other passengers were able to get out on our own. We tried to help some other people but then the ambulances arrived. There were injured people."

A Turkish Airlines official at Schiphol airport said many passengers were outside the stricken plane, wading through luggage that had been strewn across the scene.

"We are in the middle of a field now, approximately five or six kilometres from the airport," one survivor, Mustafa Bahcecioglu, told Turkish broadcaster Channel 24.

"The majority of the passengers are injured but there are people who are not injured. Around 30 ambulances have come here," he said, according to Reuters.

The plane, flight TK1951, departed Istanbul's Ataturk airport at 7.55am local time, according to local Turkish TV reports. Other reports suggested the plane appeared to be travelling too quickly while preparing to land.

The airport, one of the main aviation hubs in Europe, was closed to air traffic after the crash. An airport spokeswoman confirmed that a Turkish Airlines plane had crashed as it came into land, but gave no further details.

A witness, Ihsan Karachay, told the Turkish TV channel HaberTurk, that he saw the crash from the airport. He said: I saw a plane coming and quickly coming down. I thought, Oh my God. It's crashed. Police were on the scene along with firefighters within 10 minutes."

Some reports said there were 135 people on board, while other accounts said it was 143 – 135 passengers and eight crew.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/fe ... ol-turkish

[kevinsky18]

Hmmmm plane drops out of sky at a high rate of decent. Seems like lack of thrust. No explosion or fire despite the plane being torn apart . . . what does a fire need to burn and engines need to produce thrust. . .

[. ._]

I say we ground all of the 737s in the world until we get to the bottom of this.

-istp

[benoit.baril]

Icing...

[Sasquash]

SMS !!!! PULL THE O.C. !!!!

[Flying Low]

Plane carrying 135 passengers splits in three on approach to Schiphol airport, reports say

George Carlin would have loved this use of the English language! Pretty amazing that a plane can "...split in three on approach..." and no one (or only one...depending on the report) is killed. Those three parts must glide reasonably well!

[linecrew]

Nine reported dead according to Reuters...

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/ ... J020090225

[glorified bus driver]

Good old reporters at it again, they have no idea about anything!

[Inverted2]

Reported that the engine thrust was increased just before impact. Maybe got low/slow and stalled. Weather was good at the time. Been a lot of 737 NG crashed in the last few years, but theres lots of em' out there.

[MUSKEG]

Hopefully the got the tweazers and nail clippers from the crew during screaning. They can then rule that out.

[props ahead]

I heard it was those damn terrorist Canadian Geese again...

[canadafreak]

Latest news we got here in Holland is that they ran out of fuel. That would indeed account for , little or no thrust and rate of decent...... Indeed still 9 lives lost including the pilots. Very sad thing but damn, am I curious what the report will say about this one......

[Canoehead]

Reporting has fallen to an all-time low on this one. Anybody else see the 'expert' on CTV NewsNet around 13:00 ET today? I was dumbfounded. HELLO- is anyone in the media listening to us? All the news director has to do is check out a few aviation forums to read about what 'we' think of these babbling idiots... But then again, it's all about the ratings, isn't it?

This genious' first thought of what happened: 'an air pocket'.

http://www.thermodyne.ca/pres-message.html

[MUSKEG]

You mean to tell me you aren't aware of these airpockets that float arround waiting to jump infront of some poor unsuspecting pilot? What does airpocket mean anyways. I only have two basic catagories, stable and unstable. One will create up and down drafts but airpockets? I await to be enlightened. I have been wrong before.

[canadafreak]

I have no knowledge about air pockets but I do know the weather was calm this morning. A little light fog was starting to appear but visibility should not have been an issue and I can't imagine air pockets when you have fog. Am I wrong by saying that? The combination seems a bit strange to me. The flight crew is being taken out of the cockpit as we speak. The rest is been taken out earlier but due to the investigation and need to re-position the flight deck for that operation, they left them in. That's what the media says here anyway. And I'm not a fan of the media. They just looked at the crash of Martinair's (DC-10) at Faro Portugal to look for simularities........ As if there are any. And showed film material of the DDA DC-3 with that. They really should shoot these people. The crash of the DC-3 however is painfull to me, killed 6 of my friends back in 1996.

But the thing with the fuel could be right.... or not. No fire.... after a very hard hit (ground was felt shaking about 700 meters from the crash site). Well I'll shut up, purely speculation and some people here really don't like that

[Hedley]

Remember the Boeing loss-of-power crash at Heathrow
a few months back that IIRC was attributed to frozen/low fuel?

[swordfish]

There must have been no cigarettes in the air pockets...that would explain why there was no smoke post-crash.

[MUSKEG]

What do you mean by "frozen"

[airbournesailor]

Find it very interesting that CNN and other US stations only made brief mentions of the crash all day????

[Hedley]

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... backs.html

[MUSKEG]

Thanks Hedley. Is there a lax standard for fuel quality in Europe. I know Africa was suspect at best and one needed to be real careful to make sure you got what you expected to get. Quality control was hit and miss. You would think that there would be a bypass built in that if pressure dictated would open to allow for unrestricted flow. A little water/ice in the fuel is better than no fuel flow I would think. I cant imagine they have not thought of that or is it not possible to install a bypass like that?

[canadafreak]

Well I thought the issue with frozen fuel was reserved for the 777 only, but there has to be a first time for everything I guess. I do believe de non smoking sign was on and that had a good result. No smoke no fire, no nothing but a lot of pieces of airplane scattered around.

[MichaelP]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7910215.stm

[canadafreak]

That article pretty much seems to cover it. They talk about a three men flight crew here........ in a 738.... interesting. Must be someone riding along I guess.

Question as a none flying person. Isn't it standard practise to check your fuel burn / amount left on board / distance to go every.... 30 minutes or so? In that case you should know well in advance that you're not going to make your destination right? I'm just wondering, can somebody help me with that one?

[pika]

Referencing the flightplan to fuel and schedule is usually made every hour or so.

Fuel has a "freeze point" with a built in safety factor. Even when the freeze point is exceeded by 6 degrees the fuel is still usable and not a solid block of wax. Given Jet A's freeze point of -40 C it's still good to at least -46 C. Any NG drivers care to comment on inflight fuel temperatures?

Suction Feed
When main tank fuel pump pressure is low, each engine can draw fuel from its corresponding main tank through a suction feed line that bypasses the pumps. As the airplane climbs, dissolved air is released from the fuel in the tank due to the decrease in air pressure. This air may collect in the suction feed line and restrict fuel flow. At high altitude, thrust deterioration or engine flameout may occur as a result of the fuel flow reduction.
The dissolved air in the fuel tank will eventually deplete after reaching cruise altitude. The depletion time is dependent upon airplane altitude, fuel temperature, and type of fuel. Once the dissolved air is depleted, the engine should effectively operate on suction feed.
Fuel pressure can be provided from a main tank with operating fuel pumps to both engines by opening the fuel crossfeed valve(s). Continued crossfeed use will result in a progressive fuel imbalance.