Istanbul : 737 Skids Off Runway and Breaks Up

DOCARCH

Not a great time for Boeing! No fatalities reported.

https://simpleflying.com/breaking-pegasus-boeing-737-snaps-into-three-landing-in-istanbul/?utm_source=pop

dzilla

second occurrence?

http://avherald.com/h?article=4d1a5fd9&opt=0

L1011

737s snap in that location behind the cockpit more than they really should. One of the Lionair write-offs and the Turkish crash in Schiphol come to mind

Tenzor07

DOCARCH wrote: »

Not a great time for Boeing!

How's that?

If there's a car accident in bad weather, poor visibility, high winds etc. in a Passat is that not a great time for Volkswagen ?

Fritzbox

L1011 wrote: »

737s snap in that location behind the cockpit more than they really should. One of the Lionair write-offs and the Turkish crash in Schiphol come to mind

According to the article the plane rolled down a bank, so it would be no surprice if the airframe did break up into pieces.

DOCARCH

Tenzor07 wrote: »

How's that?

If there's a car accident in bad weather, poor visibility, high winds etc. in a Passat is that not a great time for Volkswagen ?

With car accidents you generally don't tend to have the type/model of car involved in the 'headline'.

I was not suggesting for a minute any fault with the aircraft....all I was getting at is it's yet another Boeing in the news.

Tenzor07

DOCARCH wrote: »

I was not suggesting for a minute any fault with the aircraft....all I was getting at is it's yet another Boeing in the news.

Just as well it wasn't the usual A320 they use for this route, otherwise wouldn't have attracted much controversy..

Not sure which airframe could have withstood this incident..

According to Mode-S data transmitted by the aircraft the aircraft landed long and hot, 1500 meters before the runway threshold the aircraft was descending through 950 feet MSL (corrected for local pressure, actual Mode-S reading 1500 feet)/661 feet AGL at 194 knots over ground, touched down about abeam taxiways T/F (about 1950 meters/6400 feet past the threshold, about 1000 meters/3300 feet before the runway end) at about 130 knots over ground, overran the end of the runway at about 63 knots over ground veering slightly to the left (last transponder transmission), hit the localizer antenna runway 06, went over an airport road and a cliff and impacted the airport perimeter wall.

mr.anonymous

DOCARCH wrote: »

With car accidents you generally don't tend to have the type/model of car involved in the 'headline'.

I was not suggesting for a minute any fault with the aircraft....all I was getting at is it's yet another Boeing in the news.

Definitely- to the untrained eye it looks like another faulty Boeing.

Reports say it crossed the threshold at 600ft AGL & 190kt. Looks like an approach that should have been abandoned. Hopefully it'll stay a non fatal accident.

Tenzor07

mr.anonymous wrote: »

Definitely- to the untrained eye it looks like another faulty Boeing.

This 738 was an 11 year old airframe, landing with an airspeed of 130 knots above ground, with only 3300 feet of runway, and possibly with a strong enough tailwind...

IE 222

dzilla wrote: »

second occurrence?

http://avherald.com/h?article=4d1a5fd9&opt=0

3rd time.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pegasus_Airlines_Flight_8622

faoiarvok

Tenzor07 wrote: »

airspeed of 130 knots above ground

Air speed or ground speed?

Tenzor07

faoiarvok wrote: »

Air speed or ground speed?

Ground....

Noxegon

L1011 wrote: »

737s snap in that location behind the cockpit more than they really should. One of the Lionair write-offs and the Turkish crash in Schiphol come to mind

If you haven't watched it, this is an interesting and very relevant documentary.

https://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/peopleandpower/2010/12/20101214104637901849.html

It dates from well before the 737 MAX saga, too.

Fritzbox

Noxegon wrote: »

If you haven't watched it, this is an interesting and very relevant documentary.

https://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/peopleandpower/2010/12/20101214104637901849.html

It dates from well before the 737 MAX saga, too.

And?

As far as I can see, the 737 Classic and 737NG have had, on the whole, very good safety records - no worse than the MD-80/MD-90 or A320.

Noxegon

Fritzbox wrote: »

And? As far as I can see, the 737 Classic and 737NG have had, on the whole, very good safety records - no worse than the MD-80/MD-90 or A320.

I was replying to a poster who talked about 737s snapping in a certain way. If you watch the programme it offers a potential explanation for that.

Fritzbox

Noxegon wrote: »

I was replying to a poster who talked about 737s snapping in a certain way. If you watch the programme it offers a potential explanation for that.

Regardless of what it may say in the documentary - has the 737 ever shown any tendency to "snap in a certain way" in real life. Perhaps only in those circumstances when you would expect it, or any other type of aircraft, to do so (like in the today's accident)?

L1011

Fritzbox wrote: »

Regardless of what it may say in the documentary - has the 737 ever shown any tendency to "snap in a certain way" in real life. Perhaps only in those circumstances when you would expect it, or any other type of aircraft, to do so (like in the today's accident)?

A320s in similar landings have generally not broken up as significantly as 737s. Compare the Lion Air water landing to the US Airways one for instance.

Fritzbox

L1011 wrote: »

A320s in similar landings have generally not broken up as significantly as 737s. Compare the Lion Air water landing to the US Airways one for instance.

You mean this event: https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20130413-0

Take note of this sentence from the report:

At 150 ft AGL the captain took over control. The copilot handed the control to the captain and stated that he could not see the runway. At 15:10:01, the EGPWS called out "Twenty", and the captain commanded a go around. One second later the aircraft impacted the water.

The US Airways pilots performed a successful controlled landing into the water. The Lion Air pilots were not performing any kind of controlled landing - they were doing the opposite - they didn't even see the water.

Andrew33

Why were they landing with a strong tail wind? As another poster said, should have been an abort.

Noxegon

Fritzbox wrote: »

has the 737 ever shown any tendency to "snap in a certain way" in real life.

With respect, this is not relevant.

The discussion was regarding the 737 splitting in a particular way in a crash. Aircraft are put through forces in a crash that they would never encounter in decades of routine operation.

The documentary I linked offers an explanation for why that might be. Is it right? Who knows. But it's certainly plausible.

I'm going to step away from this thread now. Have a good evening all.

cnocbui

Unfortunately there has been one fatality and with 157 injured out of 177...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7970163/Passenger-plane-skids-runway-bursts-flames-Turkish-airport.html

smurfjed

Why were they landing with a strong tail wind?

Stupidity?

banie01

Would this point to a particular issue with Pegasus' SoP or training programmes?

I'd find it very odd that any Airline encounters this issue twice, let alone twice inside a month.

Banzai600

i know nothing of flying an aircraft etc......


but WHY is their a ditch / massive slope off the runway where this plane landed ? Surely if the ground was level the outcome would have been much better. its a wodner it broke up, the sheer size of it coming off a runway down a massive hill into the ground below, it was going to break up..

look at the drop it came down from the runway



and apparently, the airport had a similar accident in 2018, no fatalities, but the plane came off the runway and down the very very large ditch that time too.

And i also read that the same carrier here Pegasus, had an off runway excursion on Jan 7th this year.

https://www.aerotime.aero/clement.charpentreau/24520-breaking-plane-breaks-in-two-after-landing-in-istanbul-airport


finally, the more i hear about boeing aircraft the less i want to fly on them. Coincidence maybe, but anything sh!te i hear about boeing being good, i'll not be entertaining.

Tenzor07

Fuselages all have there limits, and very few could withstand heavy impacts into ditches and up or down slopes:

https://www.1001crash.com/index-page-description-accident-A320_TACA-lg-2-crash-221.html

smurfjed

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:EMAS_Construction.jpg#/media/File:EMAS_Construction.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineered_materials_arrestor_system

Maybe it times that ICAO mandate EMAS systems rather than satellite based flight tracking.

Banzai600

i get the fuselage was under immense forces, but WHY have a runway on an embankment ?

that to me is sheer idiocy(?).

Cookiemunster

Banzai600 wrote: »

i get the fuselage was under immense forces, but WHY have a runway on an embankment ?

that to me is sheer idiocy(?).

It not at all unusual. Ever see Madiera airport?

Van.Bosch

Banzai600 wrote: »

i know nothing of flying an aircraft etc......


but WHY is their a ditch / massive slope off the runway where this plane landed ? Surely if the ground was level the outcome would have been much better. its a wodner it broke up, the sheer size of it coming off a runway down a massive hill into the ground below, it was going to break up..

look at the drop it came down from the runway



and apparently, the airport had a similar accident in 2018, no fatalities, but the plane came off the runway and down the very very large ditch that time too.

And i also read that the same carrier here Pegasus, had an off runway excursion on Jan 7th this year.

https://www.aerotime.aero/clement.charpentreau/24520-breaking-plane-breaks-in-two-after-landing-in-istanbul-airport


finally, the more i hear about boeing aircraft the less i want to fly on them. Coincidence maybe, but anything sh!te i hear about boeing being good, i'll not be entertaining.

You can’t blame the slope and Boeing, if the slope is an issue then an Airbus would have broken up too. Issue was the pilots shouldn’t have landed that fast with that tailwind on a wet runway.

Banzai600

Cookiemunster wrote: »

It not at all unusual. Ever see Madiera airport?

looks iffy to say the least...

Van.Bosch wrote: »

You can’t blame the slope and Boeing, if the slope is an issue then an Airbus would have broken up too. Issue was the pilots shouldn’t have landed that fast with that tailwind on a wet runway.

fair enough, like i said, i know nout re landing a plane. but even still, pilot error may be the case, but you need a run off, safe area, thats what im getting at

Ryath

Death toll up to 3 now 179 injured
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-51384667

Cookiemunster wrote: »

It not at all unusual. Ever see Madiera airport?

Madiera looks more dramatic but Wellington is over 600m shorter at 2081m! :eek: For reference the runways in Turkey are 4100m and 3750 long.

MoeJay

Building runways on flat ground, EMAS, run off areas are all fine and well...

Do a cursory search for overruns over at the avherald website and see that there are a large number of these incidents that take place where crews attempt a landing in conditions that are questionable to say the least...

Which begs the question why are so many crews making poor decisions to continue when the safer option is to delay or divert? Do they all just have poor judgement or is there something else going on...?

How many other approaches and landings are made on a daily basis where the crew "get away with it"?

What is it that makes crews press on when the safer option is to go around?

Fritzbox

Here is a video of the crash:

Tenzor07

MoeJay wrote: »

Which begs the question why are so many crews making poor decisions to continue when the safer option is to delay or divert? Do they all just have poor judgement or is there something else going on...?
How many other approaches and landings are made on a daily basis where the crew "get away with it"?
What is it that makes crews press on when the safer option is to go around?

If you think about it, low cost carriers only make money when their aircraft are flying and full of passengers, they need the aircraft to make quick turnarounds on very tight schedules, get the luggage and the passengers off quick, and the next ones boarded, missed schedules/slots can become expensive so they make no profit on a flight....

BeardySi

Banzai600 wrote: »

i get the fuselage was under immense forces, but WHY have a runway on an embankment ?

that to me is sheer idiocy(?).

Because many places don't have a few km of flat land aligned in a direction that's favourable for wind/obstacles etc.

The alternaltive would be to put the runway in a hole, which I'm sure you'll agree is a far more idiotic proposal.

I see there is a question mark over communications between ATC in Turkish with a crew where the FO did not speak Turkish, with a change of wind direction communicated on final approach. Aviation safety oversight is not the best in Turkey.

Many airports in the world have no safe overruns. Indeed in Ireland Sligo Airport is one such with sea at both ends, Donegal has humpy ground at either end. The idea is to take-off and land within given runway limits.

Andrew33

Banzai600 wrote: »

looks iffy to say the least...







fair enough, like i said, i know nout re landing a plane. but even still, pilot error may be the case, but you need a run off, safe area, thats what im getting at

The runway IS the runoff. I don’t know the figures but most aircraft could land in HALF the runway length if the approach is correct. The other half is the safety margin.

vicwatson

Andrew33 wrote: »

Why were they landing with a strong tail wind? As another poster said, should have been an abort.

Does ATC not demand the direction? genuine question

Tenzor07

Have a listen to the comms of this incident

faoiarvok

vicwatson wrote: »

Does ATC not demand the direction? genuine question

ATC will decide what the “active” runway is, based on the wind, but the Captain is ultimately responsible for the safe conduct of the flight. If they’re not happy, they should request to use the other end. ATC should try to facilitate them, but it could lead to a significant delay. If that means they have to divert, so be it, go somewhere else and live to fly another day.

1123heavy

Andrew33 wrote: »

The runway IS the runoff. I don’t know the figures but most aircraft could land in HALF the runway length if the approach is correct. The other half is the safety margin.

Jets must be able to land within 60% of the Landing Distance Available (LDA) and props must be able to land within 70% of the LDA.