Nine die as Turkish airliner breaks up during crash landing

[Bounty]

A Turkish Airlines plane has crashed on landing at Amsterdam's Schiphol international airport, killing nine people and injuring 84, six critically.

The plane, carrying 127 passengers and seven crew, crashed short of the runway near the A9 highway. It broke into three pieces, but did not catch fire.

Three of those killed are crew members. Dutch officials say most of the passengers on board were Turkish.

It remains unclear why the plane, en route from Istanbul, crashed.

The Boeing 737-800 aircraft came down at 1031 local time (0931 GMT), several hundred yards (metres) short of the runway. It had left Istanbul's Ataturk Airport at 0622 GMT.

At a news conference in Amsterdam, officials confirmed that all the bodies had been removed from the plane.

Investigators have found the flight data recorders from the plane. They will be sent for expert analysis.

Emergency services spokeswoman Ineke van der Zande told an earlier news conference that six people were in a critical condition and 25 were severely wounded.

Another 24 passengers had suffered light injuries, she said, with the injuries of another 31 still to be determined.

She said 84 people altogether had been taken using 60 ambulances to 11 hospitals in the surrounding area.

Michel Bezuijen, mayor of the Haarlemmermeer municipality under which Schiphol airport falls, said the passenger list was being studied to establish the nationalities and identities of those on board.

"As far as I know there are no more passengers in the plane," he said. "We cannot say anything about the cause at the moment. The priority... is providing help and care."

Earlier, Candan Karlitekin, head of Turkish Airlines' board of directors, told reporters in Turkey the plane had been properly maintained.

"We have checked the plane's documents and there is no problem concerning maintenance," he is quoted as saying by AP.

Turkish Transport Minister Binali Yildirim said it had been "a miracle" that there were not more casualties, AP reports.

"The fact that the plane landed on a soft surface and that there was no fire helped keep the number of fatalities low," he said.

One passenger aboard the plane, Kerem Uzel, told Turkish news channel NTV that the plane's landing had been announced when they were at an altitude of 600m (2,000ft).

"We suddenly descended a great distance as if the plane fell into turbulence. The plane's tail hit the ground... It slid from the side of the motorway into the field."

White sheets

Television footage from the scene showed rescue workers laying out white sheets on what appeared to be bodies.

Relatives of passengers who were waiting at the airport have been taken to a sports hall at a nearby village.

Airport spokeswoman Mirjam Snoerwang said Turkish Airlines had organised a special flight to Schiphol, due to arrive at 1710 GMT, for family members of those on the plane which crashed.

Tomas Friedhoff, a student who was cycling past the scene, told BBC News he had seen the plane appearing to glide through the air, having lost all propulsion, before hitting the ground.

"The plane was nose up and the tail section was at a 45-degree angle. The tail section broke down first, which broke off," he said.

"And seconds after the crash people started exiting through the tail section...

"I saw dozens of people making it out very quickly, and as I was about to dial 911 the first sirens were noticeable, and within five minutes there were 10 or 15 ambulances."

Telecom worker Nikolai van der Smagt, who was driving past the airport moments after the crash, told BBC News he saw the plane lying in three pieces in a field just 60m from the A9 motorway.

He said: "The first people were just getting off the plane and they looked confused. There was a lot of dust, but no fire."

All flights were suspended, but the airport has since re-opened. The A9 motorway remains closed.

The last crash involving a Turkish Airlines plane was in 2003, when at least 65 people died in an accident in eastern Turkey.

Schiphol airport has six runways and one major passenger terminal. In 2007, it handled 47 million passengers, ranking fifth in Europe.

A very peculiar accident - I hope some of the more plane-savvy members might have an idea what could have happened here. Like the article said, the passengers are lucky the wreck didn't catch fire.

[Broomstick]

Well, it's very soon to be speculating. With the usual disclaimer that I am guessing one possibility is a microburst, which, for lay people, is a very powerful downdraft. There could be some weird-ass mechanical problem, possibly. The black boxes are intact, which should be very helpful.

The recent spate of airline crashes with minimal or no fatalities seems to indicate that several decades of research into making crashes more survivable is paying off though, of course, the Buffalo crash shows that there are no guarantees.

[tim31]

I've flown into Schiphol in very shitty conditions before. Scary stuff. Microburst sounds quite plausible considering how far short of the runway they impacted, but how like is it that it could have been an autolanding system failure? Interesting titbit from wikipedia:

On August 21, 2006, Sky News alleged that Boeing's Next Generation 737s built from 1994 to 2002 contained defective parts. The report stated that various parts of the airframe produced by Ducommun were found to be defective by Boeing employees but that Boeing refused to take action. Boeing said that the allegations were "without merit".

But speculating with no facts from the scene does not get us anywhere.

[Broomstick]

I've flown into Schiphol in very shitty conditions before. Scary stuff. Microburst sounds quite plausible considering how far short of the runway they impacted, but how like is it that it could have been an autolanding system failure?

That would depend on whether or not the airport AND the airplane even had an autolanding system. They are be no means universal.

[Count Chocula]

Another, possibly more plausible explanation considering the plane landed intact, broke up after landing, and did not catch fire, is simple fuel starvation. In the US and Europe we're used to accurate weather forecasts with in-flight updates, and also have FAA and ICAO (?) regulations regarding reserve fuel; a too-light fuel load, too-strong headwinds, and/or more weight than was punched into the FMS could have led to a bingo condition. That would presume, however, that the fuel gauges were off or malfunctioning (improbable in a 2 year old airplane) or the pilots ignored low fuel warnings to try and make Schipol. At the time of the crash, the plane had been in the air for a bit over three hours, which in my experience is a long time airborne for a 737.

[weemadando]

That would depend on whether or not the airport AND the airplane even had an autolanding system. They are be no means universal.

Given that Schipol is one of the biggest airports in the world, I'd say that it's likely to have some level of automation. In fact, given the severity of the crash, how lucky are these people that it happened somewhere first world?

[Broomstick]

Another, possibly more plausible explanation considering the plane landed intact, broke up after landing, and did not catch fire, is simple fuel starvation.

Actually, fuel starvation in airliners is pretty rare. Possible, but rare. Microbursts are more common.

In the US and Europe we're used to accurate weather forecasts with in-flight updates, and also have FAA and ICAO (?) regulations regarding reserve fuel; a too-light fuel load, too-strong headwinds, and/or more weight than was punched into the FMS could have led to a bingo condition. That would presume, however, that the fuel gauges were off or malfunctioning (improbable in a 2 year old airplane) or the pilots ignored low fuel warnings to try and make Schipol.

Well, you know, Turkey is hardly a stone-age level tech hellhole. I would expect them to have a safety record comparable with European airlines. In fact, the only two fuel exhaustion incidents I am familiar with in commercial passenger operations since the 1980's involved Canadian airlines (and both resulted in safe landings). Of course, since I'm pulling that out of memory my recollection may be faulty, but your implication that because this was a Turkish flight from Istanbul they would be less likely to check weather in-flight or more inclined to screw up fuel calculations is baseless.

At the time of the crash, the plane had been in the air for a bit over three hours, which in my experience is a long time airborne for a 737.

Unlike when I fly, when passengers airliners fly they don't routinely top off the tanks. They only take on sufficient fuel for the planned flight plus safety margin, and it is pointless to carry more fuel than that.

That would depend on whether or not the airport AND the airplane even had an autolanding system. They are be no means universal.

Given that Schipol is one of the biggest airports in the world, I'd say that it's likely to have some level of automation.

Autoland requires that BOTH the airport and the airplane have autoland systems. If you don't have both it doesn't matter which one my otherwise have it. Autoland also requires specific training and currency for the pilot(s) as well. Even at airports with autoland systems installed, generally only a minority of flights are capable of using it.

In fact, given the severity of the crash, how lucky are these people that it happened somewhere first world?

Given how many walked out under their own power we would have had survivors no matter where it happened. Given that there was no fire, even third world folks could have gone in and carried out the injured. The only difference would have been for the most critically injured, and perhaps not even there. This is not a situation where first world/third world is relevant.

[Bounty]

Well, you know, Turkey is hardly a stone-age level tech hellhole. I would expect them to have a safety record comparable with European airlines.

They have. One of the first statements after the crash was that the airline was in compliance with all safety regulations and had never been blacklisted; the plane itself was serviced and declared fully airworthy just a few months ago. Additionally, the captain was one of the company's most experienced with over 15000 hours, so I hardly think he'd be one to misjudge fuel supplies.