RIP to all who died in this accident. Condolences to their families,friends and coworkers. Prayers for those who were injured for a speedy recovery

I plotted the ground speed, vertical speed and press alt for TK6491 using Flightradar24.com additional data. It reveals that TK6491 initially started to climb after missing the approach, but speed immediately began to decrease. The data stops before the impact. It appears insufficient thrust was applied in the go-around.

http://www.satcom.guru/2017/01/tk6491-7 ... lines.html

Latest facts from ACT:
The flight had 85,618kg general cargo and the pilots had 69 hours rest period at HKG before this flight. Both pilots are ex Turkish Air Force, the pilot had 10,821 total hours and 833 hours on the type, co pilot had total 5910 hours, 1771 hours on the type.

Very sad indeed for all those involved. I know we don't know what happened yet, but it's even more sad when a perfectly flyable aircraft crashes. If that's the case of pilot error and poor weather conditions I hope it's something we can learn from so it doesn't happen again.

So sad to loose a half-aged 747 in such tragic circumstances.
No one really knows what caused it yet but I think we´ll all be surprised if this crash wasn´t due to some kind of pilot error in bad weather.

na wrote:

So sad to loose a half-aged 747 in such tragic circumstances.

Who cares a zilch about what type of plane it was when there are so many dead.

Cunard wrote:

'Not a good start to the year but hopefully no more accidents after this'

It's ONLY 15 January 2017 so I wouldn't count on that.

There is typically a major accident every other month or so. At least this wasn't a fully-loaded passenger plane, but it is still an awful loss of life for those on the aircraft and on the ground.

peterinlisbon wrote:

I looks to me like they descended below minimums and tried to land, realised they weren't going to make it and then tried to go around but hit the fence and then the houses.

A couple of hours ago a BBC Kyrgyz reporter was interviewed on the World Service and seemed to say that they had tried to go-around but had hit an airport building and subsequently crashed. She did not provide a source for that specific piece of information, though.

Edit: I missed the second page of replies but it would seem that this version of events is supported by the poster above who shared data from the aircraft's last moments.

My God how can people even say that the aircraft's age makes a crash even worse!!! What on earth are these people thinking!!! The people who lost their lives in a crash is far worst then the aircraft involved!!!


A388

A388 wrote:

My God how can people even say that the aircraft's age makes a crash even worse!!! What on earth are these people thinking!!! The people who lost their lives in a crash is far worst then the aircraft involved!!!


A388

Easily. This is not an "in memorium" website. There are many people dying in far more tragic circumstances every second of every day. Unless you have a personal connection to someone in this accident or someone grieving from it, one "RIP" post after another sounds false, slightly narcissistic and an utter waste of bandwidth.

A388 wrote:

My God how can people even say that the aircraft's age makes a crash even worse!!! What on earth are these people thinking!!! The people who lost their lives in a crash is far worst then the aircraft involved!!!
A388

You're sounding like a drama queen. This is an aviation enthusiast website. It is not wrong or out of line to be focused on things other than the loss of life. There are plenty of other places for that. Not so much for the aviation aspects of a crash.

A388 wrote:

My God how can people even say that the aircraft's age makes a crash even worse!!! What on earth are these people thinking!!! The people who lost their lives in a crash is far worst then the aircraft involved!!!
A388

OMG, what´s your problem? That the loss of life is of course the worst in an accident is selfunderstood and doesnt need any further discussion. But this forum is an aviation forum, so discussing aviation details (of which the aircraft and its age and history belongs to) is no.1.

Various news reports say that anywhere from 20 to 37 people were killed and many more injured on the ground from this terrible crash. I wonder if this is one of the highest numbers of lives lost on the ground in a plane crash not including 9/11. Some news reports say the 'black boxes' have been recovered, that the pilots were ex-Turkish Air Force, didn't have a not of overall flying hours and 800-1200 hours on this type.

lemme wrote:

I plotted the ground speed, vertical speed and press alt for TK6491 using Flightradar24.com additional data. It reveals that TK6491 initially started to climb after missing the approach, but speed immediately began to decrease. The data stops before the impact. It appears insufficient thrust was applied in the go-around.

http://www.satcom.guru/2017/01/tk6491-7 ... lines.html

What exactly is "additional data"? Is there more comprehensive ads-b data somewhere within FR24 that I'm not aware of?

Interesting - Turkish Airlines have dispatched an Austrian-based lawyer that has demanded to remove all references to Turkish Airlines in a news article on an Austrian aviation news website... They are threatening litigation...

https://www.austrianwings.info/2017/01/ ... en-lassen/

vfw614 wrote:

Interesting - Turkish Airlines have dispatched an Austrian-based lawyer that has demanded to remove all references to Turkish Airlines in a news article on an Austrian aviation news website... They are threatening litigation...

https://www.austrianwings.info/2017/01/ ... en-lassen/

Who is in legal responsibility in such a case? The aircraft was operated by MyCargo but was clearly flying for TK. So I guess it was technically a TK flight. In my opinion both parties should share responsibility. Was there ever a similar crash where the ill-fated airplane was wet-leased?

GianiDC wrote:

vfw614 wrote:

Interesting - Turkish Airlines have dispatched an Austrian-based lawyer that has demanded to remove all references to Turkish Airlines in a news article on an Austrian aviation news website... They are threatening litigation...

https://www.austrianwings.info/2017/01/ ... en-lassen/

Who is in legal responsibility in such a case? The aircraft was operated by MyCargo but was clearly flying for TK. So I guess it was technically a TK flight. In my opinion both parties should share responsibility. Was there ever a similar crash where the ill-fated airplane was wet-leased?

Happens all the time. e.g. the Colgan Air crash in Buffalo.

Happens every time one of the regional affiliates of a major carriers has a crash. I remember, for example, the Colgan Air / Continental Q400 crash near Buffalo or the Contactair / Lufthansa DHC8 crash in Paris. Usually, the larger airline is quick to point that it is not them but an independent regional airline that has trashed an aircraft.

It might not be a row of houses but a petrol pump just across the road from RWY 23 in YYZ!! Sure it has the jet blast barricade and fence but could it be a disaster waiting to happen. Check any landing pics into RWY 23 in YYZ.

ltbewr wrote:

Various news reports say that anywhere from 20 to 37 people were killed and many more injured on the ground from this terrible crash. I wonder if this is one of the highest numbers of lives lost on the ground in a plane crash not including 9/11. Some news reports say the 'black boxes' have been recovered, that the pilots were ex-Turkish Air Force, didn't have a not of overall flying hours and 800-1200 hours on this type.

I think the air show disaster many years ago took over 50 lives? I don't think this crash is the highest toll of lives on the ground. I think Pan Am 103 had many lost on the ground too.

Beefmoney wrote:

lemme wrote:

I plotted the ground speed, vertical speed and press alt for TK6491 using Flightradar24.com additional data. It reveals that TK6491 initially started to climb after missing the approach, but speed immediately began to decrease. The data stops before the impact. It appears insufficient thrust was applied in the go-around.

http://www.satcom.guru/2017/01/tk6491-7 ... lines.html

What exactly is "additional data"? Is there more comprehensive ads-b data somewhere within FR24 that I'm not aware of?

Flightradar24 initial reports stopped mid-field. Later they released a supplementary spreadsheet on their blog that showed additional reports they were able to decode.

Mode-S has other useful variables. but so far Flightradar24.com has not shared more than track heading, ground speed, vertical speed (inertial/baro?), pressure altitude. Reports may be six seconds or more apart, but the info may be sent at a higher update rate.

I used to be based out of Manas, I know exactly where everything is. This is terrible news. RIP

-IR

Flaps, I'm not a drama queen so keep me that to yourself. Secondly I just don't understand such reactions. You don't need to have a direct relation to those fatalities to be "justified" for me to react this way. Anyway I'll move on. Let's keep it on topic.

A388

Gasman wrote:

A388 wrote:

My God how can people even say that the aircraft's age makes a crash even worse!!! What on earth are these people thinking!!! The people who lost their lives in a crash is far worst then the aircraft involved!!!


A388

Easily. This is not an "in memorium" website. There are many people dying in far more tragic circumstances every second of every day. Unless you have a personal connection to someone in this accident or someone grieving from it, one "RIP" post after another sounds false, slightly narcissistic and an utter waste of bandwidth.

Couldn't have said it better myself. I see nothing wrong with mourning those lost, as well as mourning the loss of the aircraft.

Flightsimboy wrote:

It might not be a row of houses but a petrol pump just across the road from RWY 23 in YYZ!! Sure it has the jet blast barricade and fence but could it be a disaster waiting to happen. Check any landing pics into RWY 23 in YYZ.

Don't you think you're taking this too far?
"A disaster waiting to happen" sounds like something a sensationalist news anchor would say..

There are several airports worldwide with nearby gas stations. Not just that but schools, hospitals, residential areas, etc.
Isolated airports simply can't happen sometimes. I find a crash at Rwy23 to be very very unlikely at YYZ.

leleko747 wrote:

Isolated airports simply can't happen sometimes.

Or even hardly ever. You may as well close LGA, EWR and JFK while you're at it, not to mention HND, SFO, LAX, MDW and most other urban airports around the world.

At some point it's up to the maintenance crews to keep airliners flying, ATC to know how to direct them and pilots to know how to fly. Crashes can occur literally anywhere when any of those things don't happen.

leleko747 wrote:

Flightsimboy wrote:

It might not be a row of houses but a petrol pump just across the road from RWY 23 in YYZ!! Sure it has the jet blast barricade and fence but could it be a disaster waiting to happen. Check any landing pics into RWY 23 in YYZ.

Don't you think you're taking this too far?
"A disaster waiting to happen" sounds like something a sensationalist news anchor would say..
I find a crash at Rwy23 to be very very unlikely at YYZ.

I said it could be...think of the A340 of Air France landing on RWY 5 instead of Rwy 24 and where it could have landed up.

Yes there might be many disaster waiting to happen, but its a little hard for an airport to guide what uses property off the airfield can or can't be.

Anyhow, how much of a safety buffer do we need? Is it feet, yards, miles???
Unfortunately there have been plenty of crashes into communities miles from the airport runway, so no matter of much of a buffer created it will never be enough to avoid tragedy.

Incident from 2000 in Burbank:

leleko747 wrote:

Flightsimboy wrote:

It might not be a row of houses but a petrol pump just across the road from RWY 23 in YYZ!! Sure it has the jet blast barricade and fence but could it be a disaster waiting to happen. Check any landing pics into RWY 23 in YYZ.

Don't you think you're taking this too far?
"A disaster waiting to happen" sounds like something a sensationalist news anchor would say..

There are several airports worldwide with nearby gas stations. Not just that but schools, hospitals, residential areas, etc.
Isolated airports simply can't happen sometimes. I find a crash at Rwy23 to be very very unlikely at YYZ.

JJ3054 hit a gas station after overrunning the runway at CGH, killing all aboard the aircraft and 12 people on the ground.

http://www.satcom.guru/2017/01/tk6491-7 ... lines.html

My initial read of the FR24 data did not carefully consider two factors:

1) there is an initial 4 KTAS speed increase. This follows a very stable approach. I would suggest that power was applied to initiate the missed approach/go-around.

2) the pressure altitude rises 550 feet in 1.12 seconds. That equates to over 29,000 fpm. Altitude is not reported subsequent to the initial rotation. Normally, a go-around would settle in at 2,000 fpm. Having just a little over one second of data leaves a degree of uncertainty.

Based on these two factors, I am wondering if the airplane was over-rotated and stalled without room to recover.

Over-rotation in a freighter can be caused by cargo shifting aft due to the high attitude in the go-around.

The graph says "Ground Speed (KTAS)". Those are two different things, so I am confused.

KTAS (True Air Speed in Knots) is basically the Indicated Air Speed corrected for density, and tells you the velocity of an aircraft through the air mass, not the speed relative to the ground.

So I am wondering what numbers are actually reflected in the graph, because there are a lot of reasons that ground speed could change that wouldn't be reasons that air speed would change. More specifically, ground speed tells you a lot less than air speed when attempting to determine why the aircraft might stall.

The "guru" who made the graph claims to be some kind of avionics Wile E. Coyote Super Genius, so I'm trying to figure out how he's right and I'm wrong. Presumably he would know the proper nomenclature...

So many dead... wow. Gives me the chills to inagine it being a passenger plane...

[/quote]
Easily. This is not an "in memorium" website. There are many people dying in far more tragic circumstances every second of every day. Unless you have a personal connection to someone in this accident or someone grieving from it, one "RIP" post after another sounds false, slightly narcissistic and an utter waste of bandwidth.[/quote]

I totally agree with you. I always have found it annoying that so many posts relating to an aircraft accident involving fatalities ends with "my thoughts and prayers " and RIP. I guarantee you the average idiot who posts my thoughts and prayers are with the victims and families, goes about their business the rest of the day and does not give a single thought or prayer to any victim killed in a plane crash on the other side of the world. It is a way to score points after a post thats all.

Like gasman said the repetitive RIP and thoughts and prayers looses its meaning post after post...

Post #51 by Georgiabill is a prime example...

crownvic wrote:

Easily. This is not an "in memorium" website. There are many people dying in far more tragic circumstances every second of every day. Unless you have a personal connection to someone in this accident or someone grieving from it, one "RIP" post after another sounds false, slightly narcissistic and an utter waste of bandwidth.[/quote]

I totally agree with you. I always have found it annoying that so many posts relating to an aircraft accident involving fatalities ends with "my thoughts and prayers " and RIP. I guarantee you the average idiot who posts my thoughts and prayers are with the victims and families, goes about their business the rest of the day and does not give a single thought or prayer to any victim killed in a plane crash on the other side of the world. It is a way to score points after a post thats all.

Like gasman said the repetitive RIP and thoughts and prayers looses its meaning post after post...

Post #51 by Georgiabill is a prime example...[/quote]

Couldn't agree more with you guys. Ending your post with those words is kind of acceptable, but many posts following accidents don't contain anything else at all, no contribution to the discussion at all, just a self-glorifying "my prayers ....bla bla"... What good do the dozens of those posts do?

TheLark wrote:

JJ3054 hit a gas station after overrunning the runway at CGH, killing all aboard the aircraft and 12 people on the ground.

Being a Brazilian, I also had this crash in my mind when I was writing the reply to "Flightsimboy"

LAXintl wrote:

Incident from 2000 in Burbank:

That gas station was removed after that crash.

F9Animal wrote:

ltbewr wrote:

Various news reports say that anywhere from 20 to 37 people were killed and many more injured on the ground from this terrible crash. I wonder if this is one of the highest numbers of lives lost on the ground in a plane crash not including 9/11. Some news reports say the 'black boxes' have been recovered, that the pilots were ex-Turkish Air Force, didn't have a not of overall flying hours and 800-1200 hours on this type.

I think the air show disaster many years ago took over 50 lives? I don't think this crash is the highest toll of lives on the ground. I think Pan Am 103 had many lost on the ground too.

First of all, PA103 was in 1988 - and it claimed 11 Lockerbie residents.

Since Sept. 11, 2001, I can think of several major accidents that killed people on the ground. TAM Flight 3054 killed 12 on the ground at CGH in 2007; Dana Air Flight 992 killed 10 on the ground at LOS in 2012; Mandala Flight 091 killed 49 on the ground in 2005; EAS Flight 4226 killed 78 on the ground in 2002. This isn't even a comprehensive list...

Air Africa in the DRC, aircraft was a AN-32, 225 killed on ground when it hit an open-air market
Aeroméxico Flight 498, mid air collision with Piper over suburban LA, 15 dead on ground

Worst airshow ground disaster was in Lviv Ukraine, 77 dead on ground, SU27 went into the crowd

and just found this list on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_a ... fatalities

Okay guys, I see both points now about what Flaps, na and others have said so I agree with everybody now. To get back to topic, is this ACT crash categorized as an CFIT?


A388

Gasman wrote:

....... This is not an "in memorium" website. There are many people dying in far more tragic circumstances every second of every day. Unless you have a personal connection to someone in this accident or someone grieving from it, one "RIP" post after another sounds false, slightly narcissistic and an utter waste of bandwidth.

Try to consider that some folks are in a mild state of shock when they read about airplane crashes here and, while it might be something of a knee-jerk reaction to say "R.I.P. ......blah, blah....", no harm is meant and offending your sensitivities is not the intention of posters.

Kind of interesting, there have been 88 posts in the thread. Yours was # 60. There have been 10 "RIPs" with at least a little other comment, and 4 "RIP only" posts. All but one were posted before you complained.

Maybe you should just post earlier in these threads.

Or, perhaps, you might simply have a little empathy for the empathizers.

Peace be unto you (and to those who perished).

I backpacked through Kyrgyzstan in 2002 so have always taken note from afar of news from this mountainous, wholly picturesque and captivating Central Asian country.
This crash is especially sad due to the sheer number of people killed on the ground by a cargo plane with just four aboard. My thoughts today are with everyone caught up in this tragedy ♥️

Sad news ! I can understand that people don't want to falsely lament the loss of lives, but then explain to me why they lament the loss of an aircraft, a bland cargo 747, not something exotic.

A388 : no it's not a CFIT as the aircraft appears uncontrolled, whether because of a pilot error, or because of a shift in cargo (2 most likely scenarios IMHO).

LH648 wrote:

At least 28 people dead on the ground + 4 crew.

That is such a haunting image. It reminds me, sadly, of a similar picture of PanAm 103.

A388 wrote:

My God how can people even say that the aircraft's age makes a crash even worse!!! What on earth are these people thinking!!! The people who lost their lives in a crash is far worst then the aircraft involved!!!


A388

No winners when an accident like this happens. Of course loss of life is by far the worst, but since this is a website about airplanes, there is a lot discussion about the plane, why it happened and what was the cause.
Again nothing good happened with this 747 or the people who died.

wjcandee wrote:

The graph says "Ground Speed (KTAS)". Those are two different things, so I am confused.

KTAS (True Air Speed in Knots) is basically the Indicated Air Speed corrected for density, and tells you the velocity of an aircraft through the air mass, not the speed relative to the ground.

So I am wondering what numbers are actually reflected in the graph, because there are a lot of reasons that ground speed could change that wouldn't be reasons that air speed would change. More specifically, ground speed tells you a lot less than air speed when attempting to determine why the aircraft might stall.

The "guru" who made the graph claims to be some kind of avionics Wile E. Coyote Super Genius, so I'm trying to figure out how he's right and I'm wrong. Presumably he would know the proper nomenclature...

ADS-B reports pressure (baro) altitude, track heading, and ground speed. Ground speed is in knots true air speed (KTAS). The airplane calibrate airspeed (KCAS) is corrected by pressure and temperature to arrive at True Air Speed. Ground speed adds wind to TAS. KTAS and KCAS are used to distinguish the units (both nautical mile per hour).
For TK6491, the baro correction for 30.21 in HG and -9 deg C is about 270 feet (MSL equals pressure altitude plus 270 feet). In this case, TK6491 appears to have descended to about 2070 feet, or very near field elevation, prior to missing the approach. With no appreciable winds, the ground speed is reflective of TAS. Under these conditions, CAS would have been about 2 knots above TAS. http://www.dauntless-soft.com/products/ ... alculator/

I added some more details in my blog, appreciate the confusion.
http://www.satcom.guru/2017/01/tk6491-7 ... lines.html

Thank you for the very clear explanation.

1) Why did TK6491 proceed 16,000 past runway 26 threshold in continuous descent before missing the approach, descending possibly as low as 100 feet AGL? This is miles past the expected MAP.

2) What caused the sudden severe climb, and did the airplane founder as a result of over-rotation?

richierich wrote:

F9Animal wrote:

ltbewr wrote:

Various news reports say that anywhere from 20 to 37 people were killed and many more injured on the ground from this terrible crash. I wonder if this is one of the highest numbers of lives lost on the ground in a plane crash not including 9/11. Some news reports say the 'black boxes' have been recovered, that the pilots were ex-Turkish Air Force, didn't have a not of overall flying hours and 800-1200 hours on this type.

I think the air show disaster many years ago took over 50 lives? I don't think this crash is the highest toll of lives on the ground. I think Pan Am 103 had many lost on the ground too.

First of all, PA103 was in 1988 - and it claimed 11 Lockerbie residents.

Since Sept. 11, 2001, I can think of several major accidents that killed people on the ground. TAM Flight 3054 killed 12 on the ground at CGH in 2007; Dana Air Flight 992 killed 10 on the ground at LOS in 2012; Mandala Flight 091 killed 49 on the ground in 2005; EAS Flight 4226 killed 78 on the ground in 2002. This isn't even a comprehensive list...

Yep. He asked if it was the biggest loss of life of people on the ground. For some odd reason, the only crash that hit me while typing that was Colgan and PA 103, oh and the airshow collision several years ago. As you said, there have been countless people killed on the ground. I forgot about EAST 4226.

BobPatterson wrote:

Gasman wrote:

....... This is not an "in memorium" website. There are many people dying in far more tragic circumstances every second of every day. Unless you have a personal connection to someone in this accident or someone grieving from it, one "RIP" post after another sounds false, slightly narcissistic and an utter waste of bandwidth.

Try to consider that some folks are in a mild state of shock when they read about airplane crashes here and, while it might be something of a knee-jerk reaction to say "R.I.P. ......blah, blah....", no harm is meant and offending your sensitivities is not the intention of posters.

Kind of interesting, there have been 88 posts in the thread. Yours was # 60. There have been 10 "RIPs" with at least a little other comment, and 4 "RIP only" posts. All but one were posted before you complained.

Maybe you should just post earlier in these threads.

Or, perhaps, you might simply have a little empathy for the empathizers.

Peace be unto you (and to those who perished).

Sorry, but no. "RIP.............. blah blah" isn't empathy. Assuming that the poster(s) are not connected with the tragedy, we don't know who the poster is and also; anyone directly affected by the tragedy is highly unlikely to be tooling around on airliners.net at a time like this and if they were, would hardly be likely to be soothed by a RIP from some anonymous guy called "747forever" this is an irritating waste of time at best, and mild narcissism at worst. Or perhaps a way of reconciling the fact that with every disaster, involving insurmountable human tragedy, some small part of us is excited by it.

So no, don't defend the barrage of "condolence" posts which occur here after every aviation related fatality in the name of empathy. As someone above said, I bet everyone that posts along those lines carries on happily with their day without a single thought/prayer for the victims from that point on. True empathy would be sending an anonymous donation to the families affected, and not mentioning it to anyone. But ten RIP/that's so terrible/thoughts/prayers/condolences achieves nothing for the victims, irritates us (well, me) and IMHO actually detracts from real dignified grief and empathy.

Gasman wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

Gasman wrote:

....... This is not an "in memorium" website. There are many people dying in far more tragic circumstances every second of every day. Unless you have a personal connection to someone in this accident or someone grieving from it, one "RIP" post after another sounds false, slightly narcissistic and an utter waste of bandwidth.

Try to consider that some folks are in a mild state of shock when they read about airplane crashes here and, while it might be something of a knee-jerk reaction to say "R.I.P. ......blah, blah....", no harm is meant and offending your sensitivities is not the intention of posters.

Kind of interesting, there have been 88 posts in the thread. Yours was # 60. There have been 10 "RIPs" with at least a little other comment, and 4 "RIP only" posts. All but one were posted before you complained.

Maybe you should just post earlier in these threads.

Or, perhaps, you might simply have a little empathy for the empathizers.

Peace be unto you (and to those who perished).

Sorry, but no. "RIP.............. blah blah" isn't empathy. Assuming that the poster(s) are not connected with the tragedy, we don't know who the poster is and also; anyone directly affected by the tragedy is highly unlikely to be tooling around on airliners.net at a time like this and if they were, would hardly be likely to be soothed by a RIP from some anonymous guy called "747forever" this is an irritating waste of time at best, and mild narcissism at worst. Or perhaps a way of reconciling the fact that with every disaster, involving insurmountable human tragedy, some small part of us is excited by it.

So no, don't defend the barrage of "condolence" posts which occur here after every aviation related fatality in the name of empathy. As someone above said, I bet everyone that posts along those lines carries on happily with their day without a single thought/prayer for the victims from that point on. True empathy would be sending an anonymous donation to the families affected, and not mentioning it to anyone. But ten RIP/that's so terrible/thoughts/prayers/condolences achieves nothing for the victims, irritates us (well, me) and IMHO actually detracts from real dignified grief and empathy.

This is getting to be a waste of bandwith. If you don't like those posts, fine, but there's no need to rub people's nose in it. Just let them share their feelings and move on. As far as pretending to know what anyone does beyond here, I think that's a bit condescending if not outright insulting. I know many people who pray for the victims of events like this (or any myriad of other things) and while some might find that a waste of time, they obviously don't. To each their own.