Recent European airliner crashes explained
Last May, a 747 Jumbo of Kalitta Air broke into several parts in Brussels during take off. As it was a cargo jet and with some luck, nobody got hurt, but it is not so hard to imagine the results of a passenger crash of this impact. Since then, I have become addicted to search Google News for the possible causes, without much luck, until today.
Reports on other recent crashes are simultaneously coming out, many stating not only a technical failure but, unfortunately, the inadequate reaction of the crew.
Speaking of the Kalitta plane, the Dutch and French language reports on the Report coming out state that
- One of the four engines was hit by a bird (which happens all too frequently, despite “bird control” systems installed at airports), decreasing its performance to 40%. According to the report (the writers of which had significantly more time to decide than the crew), this wouldn’t have prevented a safe take-off, using the three engines left.
- Despite seconds over V1 (the speed of no return at a take off, according to procedures), the pilot decided to abort. Possible cause is the Captain’s recent negative experience with these engines of “bad reputation”.
- Somehow, the crew didn’t use reverse thrust, which can be even seen on regular airline landings.
Despite these two mistakes, the plane luckily managed to stop meters from high-voltage lines and a railroad, but the aircraft has totally been destroyed and the runway severely damaged.
Another report published last week investigated the more recent crash involved a Turkish 737 “landing” on a crop field next to Amsterdam Schiphol airport, killing several people including the crew. The sequence of events this time were the following:
- The weather was cloudy (no visibility of the runway during the events below) and and a pilot in training was at the contols in the right (co-pilot) seat. In addition to the captain, a supervisor pilot was also in the cockpit watching the trainee. (Although both of these conditions should be standard, they certainly didn’t help.)
- Of the two altimeters on board, the left one was faulty. Unfortunately, this captain-side gauge was the one controlling the autopilot. Consequently, the engine power was automatically decreased to idle and the plane nose lowered.
- The 3-person crew failed to realize the situation for 100 long seconds, either the false (even negative) sign on the left altimeter, or the “landing gear not down” warning buzzer. The report also speculates that they had visiblity on the runway well before taking action.
- Finally, a stall warning alarm went off, which prompted the pilots to apply full thrust, but it was too late, at 150 m altitude.
Finally, a happy ending story of a similar bird crash like the Kalitta is the Hudson river landing of the US Airways Airbus.
All these stories only remind me to the extraordinary “job profile” of an airliner pilot: while both casual and professional drivers of road vehicles exceed technical limitations and highway rules on an everyday basis; plane crew are not only expected to obey strict rules and procedures, but to be prepared for and cope with technical failure as part of they job.
Photos: Cimm, virtualpilot88 and jkrums.
