Plane crash Schiphol

• Mar 4, 2009

• Thread starter
• #21

Marcel

rotartsinimdA

Staff

Admin

Mod

11,327

6,082

Sep 19, 2006

Holland

www.redbeatband.nl

They had an erratic approach as you can see on the graphs. Story now goes that one of the altimeters was wrong. They did the approach on autopilot, but the autopilot "thought" they were close to the strip, so put the engines on idle. One of the pilots tried to correct, but in vain. The plane crashed tail first into the ground.

 

Attachments

• Energy.jpg

  29.7 KB · Views: 167
• Angle.jpg

  27.5 KB · Views: 181
• AltitudeDist.jpg

  26.3 KB · Views: 127

• Mar 4, 2009

• #22

Vassili Zaitzev

Master Sergeant

2,953

95

Nov 25, 2005

Connecticut, United States

Interesting, I thought using autopilot on take off and landings were uncommon?

 

• Mar 4, 2009

• Thread starter
• #23

Marcel

rotartsinimdA

Staff

Admin

Mod

11,327

6,082

Sep 19, 2006

Holland

www.redbeatband.nl

On landing, yes, but during approach, no, that's quite often done by autopilot. Joe can probably explain better.

 

• Mar 4, 2009

• #24

FLYBOYJ

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

28,075

8,761

Apr 9, 2005

Colorado, USA

Vassili Zaitzev said:

Interesting, I thought using autopilot on take off and landings were uncommon?

Click to expand...

Marcel said:

On landing, yes, but during approach, no, that's quite often done by autopilot. Joe can probably explain better.

Click to expand...

Take offs yes, landings are frquently done with a coupled approach. That when you'll time one or more picese of navigation equipment into the autopilot and aloow that equipment to fly the approach and landing. Here's some info on it.


Flying the coupled approach

 

• Mar 4, 2009

• #25

Vassili Zaitzev

Master Sergeant

2,953

95

Nov 25, 2005

Connecticut, United States

Thanks for the link FBJ! A little confusing, but I think I got the point.

 

• Mar 4, 2009

• #26

H

HoHun

Tech Sergeant

1,759

30

Oct 15, 2006

Hi Marcel,

>They had an erratic approach as you can see on the graphs.

Hm, there must be something wrong with the energy graph in my opinion - since the aircraft apparently touched down at about 1.0 G stall speed, it must have had significant amounts of kinetic energy left when the potential energy fell to zero. A zero kinetic energy impact with a non-VTOL aircraft seems unlikely since it will either go forward at a significant speed, or drop like a stone ...

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

• Mar 5, 2009

• Thread starter
• #27

Marcel

rotartsinimdA

Staff

Admin

Mod

11,327

6,082

Sep 19, 2006

Holland

www.redbeatband.nl

In this case it dropped like a stone.
The graph is made by using the ADS-B data from here: OpenATC.com recording of THY1951 crash

 

• Mar 5, 2009

• #28

H

HoHun

Tech Sergeant

1,759

30

Oct 15, 2006

Hi Marcel,

>The graph is made by using the ADS-B data from here: OpenATC.com recording of THY1951 crash

Intersting link, thanks! The lowest ground recorded speed (of the first data point with a negative altitude) is 83 knots ground speed, which is about 900 J/kg.

I guess the problem with the above graph is simply that the speed is arbitrarily set to 0 at the impact point ...

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

• Mar 5, 2009

• Thread starter
• #29

Marcel

rotartsinimdA

Staff

Admin

Mod

11,327

6,082

Sep 19, 2006

Holland

www.redbeatband.nl

HoHun said:

Intersting link, thanks! The lowest ground recorded speed (of the first data point with a negative altitude) is 83 knots ground speed, which is about 900 J/kg.

I guess the problem with the above graph is simply that the speed is arbitrarily set to 0 at the impact point ...

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Click to expand...

Yup, that's what it look like.

 

• Mar 5, 2009

• #30

Henk

Master Sergeant

2,713

3

Feb 9, 2006

George - South Africa

The passengers said that the plane just dropped like a rock and they think it run out of fuel.

If the cockpit crew was still alive we all might have had a bit more insight into what happened to the plane.