Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 21, 2014, 09:54:16 PM
Home Help Login Register      
News: NEW Follow LiveATC updates on Twitter and Facebook


+  LiveATC Discussion Forums
|-+  Air Traffic Monitoring
| |-+  Listener Forum (Moderators: dave, RonR)
| | |-+  Turkish Airliner Crash
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] Go Down Print
Author Topic: Turkish Airliner Crash  (Read 63832 times)
joeyb747
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1583


Nothing Like A 747!


« Reply #135 on: March 09, 2009, 07:04:46 PM »

thanks for the links to the report!

I know the whole redundancy issue has been discussed before - but just in general, shouldn't on a airplane every vital function be back-uped? I mean why is the A/T not in general configured to use both radio-alts no matter what?
just out of curiosity, how does airbus handle the subject? do their A/T also only use one radio alt to measure the distance to the ground? (I really don't wanna start some boing vs. airbus discussion!!! just wondering if this A/T configuration is standard (and if so, why?) or not...)

If I'm correct here, the autothrottle is simply linked to the autoland system. It can obviously be used without autoland being activated for cruise and all other phases of flight. The crew of this particular flight was performing a single channel autoland, witch defaults to the left, or #1, Rad Alt.  If a dual channel autoland was being executed, the autopilot would have sensed a discrepancy between the two Rad Alts, and disconnected the autopilot. At witch point, the crew would have had to shoot the ILS "old school", using the autopilot with APPR and IAS Speed Hold mode engaged until they obtained visual contact with the runway environment.

So to answer your Q, it can be connected to both Rad Alts, if the right mode is selected.

As far as differences between Airbus, Boeing, Douglas, Tupolov, or any other manufactureer, I am not totally sure on that...
« Last Edit: March 14, 2009, 09:51:24 PM by joeyb747 » Logged

Aircraft Mechanic
empiredude
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10


« Reply #136 on: March 10, 2009, 03:02:35 AM »

hmm I get your point, but why question would more be like "whether or not it is necessary (or "good" or "reasonable") to perform a procudure only "single channel" - only relying on one radioalt instead of both?" I mean there are always at least two radio altimeter on board -  why not use them both (if both are working) in no matter what situation? just for backup reasons - and to detect discrepancies between two instruments...
this would of course be an issue more concerning the aircraft manufacturors than the crew...
Logged
joeyb747
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1583


Nothing Like A 747!


« Reply #137 on: March 10, 2009, 08:51:04 AM »

Aircraft perform single channel autolands everyday. 99.99% of those are uneventful. I understand your point. Use all the redundancy at your disposal. I'm not sure why they were doing a single. There are only three people who can answer that...unfortunately, they are not available for comment...
Logged

Aircraft Mechanic
speker
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #138 on: March 13, 2009, 11:52:20 AM »

I have come across to below explanations regarding initial report on the CVR-FDR findings ;

Pilots recognised the left altimeter foult at 7000 feet during approach

Due to foulty functioning left altimeter, pilots engaged the autothrottle systems to the rigth controls (at first officer side)
Although the systems should have been commanded by the right altimeter, foulty left altimeter continued processing foulty data to the systems. (due to a software mistake by boeing)
 
Due to the heavy traffic , air control requested the plane to start landing approach from distance 8.69 km & 600 m altitude. (it is said in the report that healthy approach figures should have been 11.47 km & 1000m.) 

Auto throttle cut the gas.  Pilots did not recognised initially as they were fast already.  (landing checklist was going on)
Shacker system automatically activated (as the speed was decreased) by warning the pilots & shaking the controls & increasing throttle. But since the autothrottle still was on, the throttle was back to idle again.

Pilots manually maximized the throttle, but it was too late unfortunately.



does these info makes sense & enlight ? (sorry if I made any translation mistake)
Logged
iskyfly
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 177


« Reply #139 on: March 13, 2009, 12:24:46 PM »

(due to a software mistake by boeing)
 
says who?
Logged
speker
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #140 on: March 13, 2009, 02:43:19 PM »

two Turkish newspapers says that they sourced these info from Dutch officials.

http://www.haberturk.com/haber.asp?id=133865&cat=110&dt=2009/03/12

http://arama.hurriyet.com.tr/arsivnews.aspx?id=11190593

also they gave the voice decoding in written.

latest words were : throttle officer throttle !!! (by the senior first officer sitting behind the captain & student first officer (who was landing).
Logged
joeyb747
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1583


Nothing Like A 747!


« Reply #141 on: March 13, 2009, 09:24:43 PM »

A software error?? In only one radio altimeter? Seems a little far fetched to me. Seems like there would be more then one airplane experiencing these types of issues.

Quote from speker:
"Auto throttle cut the gas. Pilots did not recognised initially as they were fast already.  (landing checklist was going on)"

I know I referenced the possibility that the crew was distracted by something, and was not watching what the airplane was doing way earlier in this thread. But to be distracted by something as routine as a landing checklist?? Usually the pilot not flying reads the checklist, and the other monitors the airplane and what it's doing. The also had a third person, an instructor none the less, in the cockpit. I find it real hard to believe that a landing checklist would distract an experienced crew of three to the point that they would not be paying attention the the performance of the aircraft.

Not to say that isn't what happened. It very well may be...I just have a hard time stomaching that. Just my opinion...
« Last Edit: March 14, 2009, 09:55:29 PM by joeyb747 » Logged

Aircraft Mechanic
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!