Turkish Airlines accident in Istanbul (IST)

[Passenger]

It seems that this Milan-Istanbul flight (from this morning) was a close call, given the damage to the wing, the engine and the landing gear:



http://www.hln.be/hln/nl/960/Buitenland ... otor.dhtml

[Passenger]

More photo's TK-1878 and link to ATC audio:

http://www.airlive.net/2015/04/breaking ... -with.html

[Flanker2]

So it looks like our Turkish friends did another spectacular one today.
An A320 bound from MXP came in for a regular landing, went around, followed immediately by an emergency landing with damage to the trailing edge of the right hand wing, engine fire seen on approach, followed by a right main landing gear collapse on landing, then engine scraping and catching fire.



http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-JIODjt1rizE/V ... apture.PNG



http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-rfuLAADeOTU/V ... AAakvx.jpg

ATC Audio, with an ugly amount of non-standard mixed with Turkish... chaos. But what did I expect


I'm going to put my money on very hard landing causing gear collapse and wing strut intrusion into the wing, plus engine strike on the runway on the first landing attempt, followed by the emergency landing.

The below picture shows that there was a high positive G impact, causing oxygen masks and IFE systems to drop. The emergency landing was too soft to cause this to happen, so I assume that this happened during the first landing attempt.



http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-5es-Y8LENfc/V ... AE5aGz.jpg

Image source: http://www.airlive.net/2015/04/breaking ... -with.html

[Passenger]

More photo's TK-1878 and link to ATC audio:

http://www.airlive.net/2015/04/breaking ... -with.html

And report on Aviation Herald:

http://avherald.com/h?article=48546eb6&opt=0

[sn26567]

There was already serious damage at the wing, flaps, landing gear and engine before landing:



"Replay" of the landing on FR24:

[RTM]

Close call... extensive damage like that to the faps can cause a lot of problems... Good job in getting it on the ground like that.

But what happened on the first approach...? Did it touch down, or not...? If they did, they really cocked it up. If they didn't, then what happened? Did the last turbine stage gave way, and took all in its path?
But that doesn't explain the wingtip... So my guess is they touched down...

[sdbelgium]

They touched on the first one. Pax reported a very sudden sharp roll to the right, and they had the impression the right main landing gear collapsed at that point already. That's also when the damage to the flaps and engine occurred. They went around and landed on the second approach, after which the landing gear did collapse and they veered of the runway.

[Flanker2]

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Star-All ... 2629076/L/

The above picture says it all.
Look at the wingtip fences... all bent.

As I suspected, they struck the ground hard on the first landing, aborted and came back to land with damaged wing, engine and right gear.

Kudo's to Airbus for building such sturdy aircraft.
At that point, you can bet that the aft spar was failed or close to failing and the wing was holding on the main spar only.

As to what transpired in the cockpit... it's split second decisions, but how could they know that the wing would hold and produce lift that was symmetric enough to be within flight envelope?
IMO the first, trained reaction is always to go-around, but when there is risk of structural failure, especially to the wing, it's a different story...

In anyway, the A320 saved the day, with its huge solidity and amazing structural redundancy.
Bravo Airbus and their little flying tank!

[speedbird1]

https://twitter.com/airlivenet/status/5 ... 09/photo/1

I think the crew had some serious luck on their side...

Rgds,
Speedy

[Homo Aeroportus]

Saw a couple of posts on AVH concerning possible wake turbulence due to landing traffic just ahead of TK1878 though separation as seen on FR24 seems OK (B788 preceding).

However, FR24 also shows another A/C on take off from RWY 35L +/- less than 1 minute before TK1878 landing on RWY 05.

METAR shows calm wind (5kts) and wake turbulences tend to linger when wind is calm.
Could it be that the wake turbulence of the departing aircraft (A330) washed the path of the landing accident aircraft?

See pic below.

Red line is landing A/C.
Green line is A330 taking off from RWY 35L.
Yellow line is wind from 170, variable 140 - 200, which tends to "block" the turbulence from dissipating.

So, yes they may have done a terribly poor landing (again as some say ), but they may also have done an outstanding job at preventing a crash, applying TOGA, showing tremendous airmanship to bring this wreck back on one engine with probably at least one Hyd line severed.

So let's keep our minds open.
Until proven different, these two guys deserve respect.

H.A.

[Homo Aeroportus]

... these two guys deserve respect.

H.A.

I meant "these two PILOTS deserve respect" of course.
Sorry ladies

H.A.

[RoMax]

As to what transpired in the cockpit... it's split second decisions, but how could they know that the wing would hold and produce lift that was symmetric enough to be within flight envelope?
IMO the first, trained reaction is always to go-around, but when there is risk of structural failure, especially to the wing, it's a different story...

I doubt that in that very short period of having to make that decision, they had any clue about the actual damage to that wing and even the engine. It happened before that aircraft touched the ground with their engine and/or wingtip to go-around. Usually it's not that bad. This was a very extreme case, but probably very difficult to assess from the cockpit contrary to the pax who had a much better view on the actual situation in this case.

[Flanker2]

Homo Aeroportus, I find it unlikely that the A330's wake turbulence could affect the path of the A320 in this case.
Wake turbulence only starts becoming a factor when an aircraft is higher than ground effect height, as a rule of thumb half the wingspan, ie in the case of an A330 above obstacle clearance heigth and well past half of that runway.

As you show very well, the wind was carrying everything away towards the North, not brought closer to the South where rwy 05 is.

The Azerbaijian B787 landing ahead is also unlikely to have affected this aircraft IMO. Yes, the B787 is a heavy per definition, but it's on the lighter side of the Heavy spectrum and Azerbaijan is also not half a planet away, so it's unlikely that they were flying with huge amounts of fuel contingencies.

Given the wind direction blowing right to left on the runway, it's possible that the B787's right wing's counter-clockwise rotating vortices lifted the left wing indeed, but I doubt that it can cause sufficient torque to push the right main gear into the wing. Those struts and shock absorbers can take quite a load, and for them to push through it, would require a significant vertical load that I don't see being achieved by roll torque.
In addition, the vortice can't be both big and low, as it would be diffused by contact with the ground. So it's either big and high or small and low.

For me this has all the signs of a heavy landing
-too high approach speed exacerbated by tailwind component
-right wing lowered for crosswind component
-bounce following a high flare

Other factors that are unacceptable in this situation (and TK haven't learned anything from their recent accident in KTM):
-ground works have not been halted pending the emergency landing, probably due to lack of emergency communication procedures and briefings
-Pax allowed to carry hand luggage out of the aircraft
-Pax sitting at the overwing exit not instructed properly as to the do's/don't do's, resulting in an open emergency exit just by the fire source
-Evacuation from the aft RH door by cabin crew, which could have impeded firefighting efforts and exposed pax to fire risk, eg fuel leaked from the engine during the roll out igniting below the evacuees feet.
-Fire crews extinguishing the aircraft from the evacuating side of the aircraft instead of the fire side of the aircraft

Those by themselves reflect poor operational performance at all levels. Add that just recently their colleagues have demonstrated very poor airmanship, and what I have seen personally, so I won't hold my breath on the pilots saving the day rather than contributing to this accident.

Not for no reason did I add this airline to my personal safety blacklist after only one return trip. Even as pax (allbeit an educated one who knew what wasn't at its place) I could see things that are just unacceptable from a safety point of view.
I wouldn't say that it's as bad as flying a blacklisted African airline, but I can't say that we're that far off.

[Passenger]

So, yes they may have done a terribly poor landing (again as some say), but they may also have done an outstanding job at preventing a crash, applying TOGA, showing tremendous airmanship to bring this wreck back on one engine with probably at least one Hyd line severed.

I agree with this. If you look at the damage, only superb pilots could have landed that aircraft: one engine out, probably two Hydraulics out ("green and yellow", I've read on another forum), adverse flap settings,... It's hard to imagine that such experienced people were unable to do a routine landing.

So let's keep our minds open. Until proven different, these two pilots deserve respect.

Just like the TK Kathmandu crashlanding, indeed. The crew initially was also blamed by some, for not having made a second go around. Untill it became clear that the crew had the runway in sight, and untill ATC stated after the crashlanding that there was that sudden fog, coming out from nowhere, not advised to the crew.

[Flanker2]

Just like the TK Kathmandu crashlanding, indeed. The crew initially was also blamed by some, for not having made a second go around. Untill it became clear that the crew had the runway in sight, and untill ATC stated after the crashlanding that there was that sudden fog, coming out from nowhere, not advised to the crew.

So what? If there is a sudden fog after decision altitude and lose sight of the runway, you must go around.
They failed big time and they are still being blamed...

If you look at the damage, only superb pilots could have landed that aircraft: one engine out, probably two Hydraulics out ("green and yellow", I've read on another forum), adverse flap settings,...

I don't think so. It's most likely most A320 rated captains would have pulled it off.
They still had thrust on the RH engine as per the recording, the flaps were bent, but very much inboard of the wing, so little yaw/roll momentum and loss of lift, plenty controllable.
I don't know why you think they lost hydraulics? Just because some guy on airliners.net says so doesn't make it true. Unsafe gear is often associated with open MLG doors, simply to avoid that the doors might bend components of an unlocked gear when closing shut.

[sean1982]

So let's keep our minds open. Until proven different, these two pilots deserve respect.

Just like the TK Kathmandu crashlanding, indeed. The crew initially was also blamed by some, for not having made a second go around. Untill it became clear that the crew had the runway in sight, and untill ATC stated after the crashlanding that there was that sudden fog, coming out from nowhere, not advised to the crew.

Right, so you think that crash landing the aircraft in kathmandu was a better option than going around? So if you drive your car at 120km/hr and suddenly you cant see the road anymore you're going to keep on driving at full speed without seeing where you go? Once again you prove how much you are in touch with aviation operational procedures.

[Passenger]

So let's keep our minds open. Until proven different, these two pilots deserve respect.

Just like the TK Kathmandu crashlanding, indeed. The crew initially was also blamed by some, for not having made a second go around. Untill it became clear that the crew had the runway in sight, and untill ATC stated after the crashlanding that there was that sudden fog, coming out from nowhere, not advised to the crew.

Right, so you think that crash landing the aircraft in kathmandu was a better option than going around? So if you drive your car at 120km/hr and suddenly you cant see the road anymore you're going to keep on driving at full speed without seeing where you go? Once again you prove how much you are in touch with aviation operational procedures.

Contrary to some others here with no knowlegde of "aviation operational procedures", I don not pretend to have the truth in mind. Actually, I only quote double checked facts. One of those facts is that the crew had the runway in sight during their second approach, but that they were surprised by a sudden fog bank that even ATC hadn't announced. How relevant was that for this crash? I think we have to wait for the final report.

But then, I wasn't there in Kathmandu. So I rest my case.

[KriVa]

Hindsight is 20/20, of course, but... When you're not properly set up to fly your approach and landing with low to no visibility, and you lose sight of the runway, you go around, even if it means diverting. Just because you had the runway in sight at first, does not make it safe to continue. There's a very nice video demonstrating the correct procedure on youtube, but I seem to be unable to find it right now.

Note: I'm not following the accident in question up close, the statements above are suggested as a general rule. Whether they (completely) apply to the accident in question, remains to be seen after the investigation has been completed.

[Passenger]

...Those by themselves reflect poor operational performance at all levels. Add that just recently their colleagues have demonstrated very poor airmanship, and what I have seen personally, so I won't hold my breath on the pilots saving the day rather than contributing to this accident. Not for no reason did I add this airline to my personal safety blacklist after only one return trip. Even as pax (allbeit an educated one who knew what wasn't at its place) I could see things that are just unacceptable from a safety point of view. I wouldn't say that it's as bad as flying a blacklisted African airline, but I can't say that we're that far off.

I have flown with Türkish Airlines once (on a real flight, intercontinental, 2 legs, return, in Y) and I also have first hand feedback from a few dozen people who flew them. They are a million times better then those blacklisted African airlines that appear in the crash reports.

We really should wait for any conclusion till we know some more details - in this case "what caused that the first landing went wrong?". May I remind you to your own analysis, regarding the Germanwings crash? Just before the CVR revealed what had really happened, you've posted this theory:

-The nose landing door or other problem in the nose section caused a local decompression in the cockpit area. The closed cockpit door caused a local decompression / high cabin altitude in the cockpit alone, which went undetected by the aircraft systems for lack of cabin altitude sensors in the cockpit. Without warnings, the flight crew was hit by hypoxia. By the time they realised that they were losing consciousness, the last ditch resort was to make an emergency descent by turning the A/P knobs, as they didn't even have the energy to grab their masks anymore, or the masks failed to operate due to lack of oxygen pressure, itself owed to a lack of servicing of the 02 bottles.

[Homo Aeroportus]

...
Right, so you think that crash landing the aircraft in kathmandu was a better option than going around? So if you drive your car at 120km/hr and suddenly you cant see the road anymore you're going to keep on driving at full speed without seeing where you go? Once again you prove how much you are in touch with aviation operational procedures.

Of course I don't have your level of knowledge about Aviation Operational Procedures (sic), for sure concerning the cabin activities, but when it comes to other aspects such as visual perception in photopic, mesopic and scotopic vision, slant visual range, thin layer fog and associated matters I feel a bit more at home.
Let's not get into the effect that sudden change in RVR and slant visual range has on perspective view of the runway ahead but I'd like to bring two points to your attention concerning the KTM crash :

1. If I knew where the runway was at T-30 seconds, T-10 seconds and T-1 second, then I have a reasonable idea as to where it is at To. Initiating abrupt manoeuvres such as a GA so close to the ground carries its own risks.
2. The engine response time from V App idle to GA is incompressible and it is only after you obtain this additional thrust that you have enough energy to operate the GA. During this time you must also consider your altitude loss.
Below are graphs from an Airbus course on Energy Management during Approach.

I was not in the cockpit of this TK flight in KTM, probably you weren't either, so until proven that these pilots were completely reckless let's keep the door open that maybe they did the right thing. Unfortunately the end result is not satisfactory but it could also have ended up being much worse.

A final note : when there is fog, please stay home. If you are one of these stupid and dangerous drivers who hit the brakes when entering a fog bank, I'd prefer you are not in front of me.
And you may not like me being behind

H.A.