Boing 737-800 at Istanbul overran runway, impacted wall, broke up

from Hacker News http://avherald.com/h?article=4d2e6a8d&opt=7168

Accident: Pegasus B738 at Istanbul on Feb 5th 2020, overran runway, impacted wall, broke up By Simon Hradecky, created Wednesday, Feb 5th 2020 16:07Z, last updated Wednesday, Feb 5th 2020 20:46Z A Pegasus Boeing 737-800, registration TC-IZK performing flight PC-2193 from Izmir to Istanbul Sabiha Gokcen (Turkey) with 177 passengers and 6 crew, landed on Sabiha Gokcen's runway 06 at 18:20L (15:20Z) but overran the end of the runway, impacted the airport perimeter wall and broke into three parts about 170 meters/550 feet past the runway end. An engine, that had separated, caught fire. As of current rescue and recovery works are in progress, the engine fire was quickly extinguished. One occupant died, 157 people were taken to hospitals with injuries. Istanbul's governor reported 52 people were taken to hospitals with injuries, including all 6 crew members. In the later evening (19:20Z) the governor reported 120 people were taken to hospitals, efforts to free people still trapped inside the aircraft are still ongoing. Around 20:13z the governor reported there were 177 passengers and 6 crew on board, one occupant died, 157 people were taken to hospitals with injuries. Turkey's Transport Ministry reported there were 177 people on board, there was no loss of life. The aircraft landed hard, went off the runway and got stuck in land. Local Media report people may still be trapped inside the aircraft. (Feb 5th 2020 17:15Z) The airline reported their aircraft TC-IZK flying from Izmir to Sabiha Gokcen suffered a runway excursion on landing. So far there has been no loss of life been reported, injured have been taken to hospitals. Information will continue. According to Mode-S data transmitted by the aircraft the aircraft landed long and hot, 1500 meters before the runway threshold the aircraft was descending through 950 feet MSL (corrected for local pressure, actual Mode-S reading 1500 feet)/661 feet AGL at 194 knots over ground, touched down about abeam taxiways T/F (about 1950 meters/6400 feet past the threshold, about 1000 meters/3300 feet before the runway end) at about 130 knots over ground, overran the end of the runway at about 63 knots over ground veering slightly to the left (last transponder transmission), hit the localizer antenna runway 06, went over an airport road and a cliff and impacted the airport perimeter wall. According to ATC frequency recordings the aircraft performed an ILS approach to runway 06. Upon contacting tower the crew was told there had been two go arounds prior to them. The aircraft was cleared to land on runway 06, tower adivsed winds were from 270 degrees at 22 knots gusting 37 knots, the crew read back the cleared to land. On ground frequency the controller reported to another aircraft preparing for departure the winds were coming from 270 degrees at 25 knots, the runway was being switched from 06 to 24. At 15:20z a lot of shouting in Turkish occurs on tower frequency (presumably alerting emergency services and directing them to the accident site). About 13 minutes before the accident tower had cleared another aircraft to land on runway 06 advising that crew the winds were coming from 100 degrees at 10 knots. Metars: LTFJ 051550Z 27013KT 240V300 9999 -SHRA BKN030 BKN070 10/08 Q0993 RETSRA NOSIG= LTFJ 051537Z 29018KT 9999 -SHRA FEW025CB BKN036 BKN070 10/08 Q0992 RETSRA NOSIG= LTFJ 051520Z 29022G37KT 240V330 7000 -TSRA FEW017CB BKN025 BKN070 11/09 Q0992 RESHRA NOSIG= LTFJ 051450Z VRB08G18KT 9999 -SHRA FEW025CB BKN036 BKN070 12/09 Q0990 NOSIG= LTFJ 051420Z 32018KT 290V350 7000 -SHRA FEW025CB BKN036 BKN080 13/10 Q0989 NOSIG= LTFJ 051404Z 33013KT 300V360 9999 -SHRA BKN036 BKN080 13/10 Q0988 NOSIG= LTFJ 051350Z 01011KT 9999 BKN040 BKN080 14/11 Q0987 NOSIG= LTFJ 051320Z 06007KT 020V090 9999 SCT040 BKN090 16/10 Q0987 RESHRA BECMG 23012KT= LTFJ 051250Z 12004KT 070V170 9999 -SHRA SCT040 BKN080 19/08 Q0987 NOSIG= LTFJ 051220Z 15006KT 100V170 9999 SCT040 BKN080 19/08 Q0988 NOSIG= Related NOTAMs: A0743/20 NOTAMN Q) LTBB/QMRLC/IV/NBO/A /000/999/4054N02919E005 A) LTFJ B) 2002051531 C) 2002051730 E) RWY 06/24 CLSD. -DUE TO AIRCRAFT CRASH- A0746/20 NOTAMN Q) LTBB/QILAS/I /NBO/A /000/999/4054N02920E005 A) LTFJ B) 2002051655 C) 2002071700 E) ISAB ILS/LLZ 109.9 MHZ RWY 06 U/S. Ground observer post accident video (Video: Ali ÖZDENÝZ): The aircraft after the accident: The aircraft seen from the highway surrounding the airport: Map (Graphics: AVH/Google Earth): By Sugoi on Wednesday, Feb 5th 2020 23:14Z B737 fuselage parts By Ken Murphy on Wednesday, Feb 5th 2020 23:01Z Sorry, the link won't come through. Google "On a Wing and a Prayer", look for video "People & Power - On a wing and a prayer - @Drone Pilot By KAP on Wednesday, Feb 5th 2020 23:00Z What a dumb comment! Where is Ecumenico when you need him? By (anonymous) on Wednesday, Feb 5th 2020 22:56Z I'd like to hear from Captain Crunch. Andycap, which Australian documentary? By Govind C on Wednesday, Feb 5th 2020 22:20Z @Andycap, can you please give some reference to this documentary, so that I can dig it out? pegasus disaster By ergun on Wednesday, Feb 5th 2020 22:20Z glad it was boeing (as always) and not airbus Tailwind limits By 727driver on Wednesday, Feb 5th 2020 22:15Z Typos corrected. Sorry to say, the certification limits, 10-15 kts (!?), are totally irrelevant on a touchy approach. Just do a landing distance check before starting the approach.... Tailwind limits By 727driver on Wednesday, Feb 5th 2020 22:04Z Sorry to say, the cerification limits 10-15 kts (!?) are totally irrelevant on a touchy approach. Just do a landing distance check before strarting the approach.... Kaisersemmel By Sam on Wednesday, Feb 5th 2020 21:42Z You have to read FCOM once again,10/15kts dry or contaminated rwy,36 kts xwind. By (anonymous) on Wednesday, Feb 5th 2020 21:34Z @Opsguygo - the links didn't go - but you can easily check many crashes with more stress and less splitting. The best is TACA A320 in Tegucigalpa, prefix EI-TAF. If you see the many photos you'll see how was the impact. Also you can check the Asiana 214 (B777) in San Francisco 2013 that strongly hit the ground but didn't split. Just caught fire. The fact is that safety employees of Boeing just denounced this possibility. Before taking positions we have to let the investigators reach a conclusion. The problem is that what was explained is that those handmade parts, placed precisely were this Boeing split, can be an Achilles heel. izk By ricardo on Wednesday, Feb 5th 2020 21:31Z pegasus o Izmir Airlines ? By (anonymous) on Wednesday, Feb 5th 2020 21:23Z @Opsguy I remember several Fokker 100 landing in farms, hitting everything and stayed in one piece. There are several Boeings (earlier models) and Airbuses that suffered even more stress and didn't split in the back. Let's wait and see. One example is here: another: a 777 that hit hardly the ground. Didn't split. Just caught fire. There are many other examples. Why EMAS is not mandatory?! By Johnny on Wednesday, Feb 5th 2020 21:20Z I don't understand why ICAO/EASA can't say that EMAS should be mandatory on every RWY where the proper overrun area is not exist. (Of course, only for major airports, let's say for more than X movements/day in the medium+heavy A/C category) kinda stupid By Kaisersemmel on Wednesday, Feb 5th 2020 21:18Z According B737 NG FCOM, no tailwind component is allowed on contaminated runways. On dry runways maximum tailwand under all circumstances most not exceed 15 knots. In this case (acc. METAR) they experienced gusts of up to 37 knots, creating a possible tailwind component of 23 knots! It's insane to even try a landing in this conditions. Needles to say that they might have exceed the crosswind component as well. It's max 35 knots with good braking action on the runway which presumably has not been the case. Ground them! Parts made by computer... tell me another joke By Ernest Phelps on Wednesday, Feb 5th 2020 21:13Z @AndyCap As soon as I saw the pictures I remembered the videos you are referring to. It is of vital importance to inspect this plane and determine if those large connections parts were some of the few made by computer - as approved by FAA - or the majority handmade with a pilot marker etc. You remembered what the wistleblowers and the ex-employees of Boeing denounced third parties not following the procedures(and were fired because of that). Meaning that the plane could resist and at least divide in just 2 parts and not 3. Let's wait and see. Parts made by computer... tell me another joke By Ernest Phelps on Wednesday, Feb 5th 2020 21:11Z @AndyCap As soon as I saw the pictures I remembered the videos you are referring to. It is of vital importance to inspect this plane and determine if those large connections parts were some of the few made by computer - as approved by FAA - or the majority handmade with a pilot marker etc. You remembered what the wistleblowers and the ex-employees of Boeing denounced third parties not following the procedures(and were fired because of that). Meaning that the plane could resist and at least divide in just 2 parts and not 3. Let's wait and see. @AndyCap - faulty what? By Opsguy on Wednesday, Feb 5th 2020 21:10Z AndyCap, if your 1st thought is why did it break into 3 pieces after overrunning a 9800ft runway at 63kts why did it break into 3 parts? Please show me any aircraft that would have survived a fall 20 meters without breaking up? Tailwind? By cncept on Wednesday, Feb 5th 2020 20:48Z If runway in use is 06 and wind is coming from 270, doesn't that mean they had tailwind? Why would you ever land with almost 40(!!)kts tailwind? Identical case ASL flight 7332 5 Augusta 2016 BGY By (anonymous) on Wednesday, Feb 5th 2020 20:45Z Identical case ASL flight 7332 in my point of view from 5 August 2016 BGY Exxxxx-yabanci By Yabanci thy. on Wednesday, Feb 5th 2020 20:45Z Most of the turkish captains are ex-air force turkish pilots without CRM and poor judgment... It’s logical to happen accidents in this country. They should be banned flying in Europe. RWY 24 By Martin on Wednesday, Feb 5th 2020 20:43Z any idea why RWY 24 was not used for landing? lack of NAV aids? or just more direct route? By Nic on Wednesday, Feb 5th 2020 20:40Z Wet runway. 16 kts TW according to the metar, 26 kts if we included the gust. Wind seems to be all over the place probably due to a cell in the vicinity. I'd like to know what the tower reported for winds to these guys once they got their clearance. 1 Passenger Death is Confirmed By N.S. on Wednesday, Feb 5th 2020 20:36Z Death is confirmed in local agency: Faulty security straps? By AndyCap on Wednesday, Feb 5th 2020 20:32Z I see the plane broke up in 3 parts. Is this evidence of failure on those reinforcement that was manufactured by hand instead of CNC with a close to 100% fault ratio on the 737 NG? Very little is found on this subject if you search but I watched an australian documentary the other night. They showed what happend to the plane when it crashed on landing with 3 examples. This 737 broke up in same place. By TheMightyQ on Wednesday, Feb 5th 2020 20:31Z It’s always suspicious when there’s no post-crash fire. @Thomas By AL on Wednesday, Feb 5th 2020 20:30Z Step 1 - write “I don’t want to post an unprofessional comment” Step 2 - write&post unprofessional comment thx for your useful contribution By Giorgio on Wednesday, Feb 5th 2020 20:24Z One person dead is reported in a foreign website. I can't cross check. By Thomas on Wednesday, Feb 5th 2020 20:12Z Don't want to post "unprofessional" comment however as soon as I've heard flypegasus associated with overran and broke into 3 pieces I immediately new it's 737ng B737 vs. A320 By Drone Pilot on Wednesday, Feb 5th 2020 20:08Z Would it be possible to get an unbiased view on this? The stats anonymous presented seem statistically significant. Could the awfully stretched 737 and its required low pitch angle on approach play a role? Not relating to this case where the nuts up front planted her down 2/3 down the runway. But being high and fast, can that be more easily corrected on an A320 due to a wider pitch band? If crews were/are pushed towards landing at first attempt to save cost, such a wider margin for correction could be clearly in favor of the bus. Wrong transmission By Cpt on Wednesday, Feb 5th 2020 20:07Z The tower should have instructed, "sunturk clear to land and overrun runway 06". Because its 220 degrees 22 knots gusting 37 for runway 06 which makes 19 kts of tailwind excluding gust factor. Yeah, people would say the pilots are guilty or mistaken landing under these circumstances...