Those people tried their best to prevent the accident

Facts contradict that. If they really tried to prevent the accident they would be paying attention to what was going 10 inches in front of them on rather than engage in chit-chat in the worst possible time. I suggest you read the final report from the Dutch Safety Board (220+ pages) and where they put the blame for this accident, clearly they did not have many kind words for this crew. I guess the Dutch Board was not very respectful either :(

Facts contradict that. If they really tried to prevent the accident they would be paying attention to what was going 10 inches in front of them on rather than engage in chit-chat in the worst possible time. I suggest you read the final report from the Dutch Safety Board (220+ pages) and where they put the blame for this accident, clearly they did not have many kind words for this crew. I guess the Dutch Board was not very respectful either :(

+1 Unfortunately they ultimately could have avoided the crash. This is usually the case in the majority of aircraft accidents.

Those people tried their best to prevent the accident and maybe we can even say they saved many lives, but lost theirs.

Did you read the report? :( The pilots failed to react to a trend in airspeed/altitude. Their best wasn't that good, unfortunately. :( The original statement made by Al was accurate.In my experience with years hanging around airports and flying, morbid jokes are almost a source of learning. They're told while "hangar flying" to iterate what not to do during said phases of flight. While insensitive, they really stick with you while flying. Again, in my experience. Some folks use humor to learn/communicate. Some others don't. But I digress.

For anyone interested in a more detailed analysis, final report: http://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/docs/rapporten/Rapport_TA_ENG_web.pdfFWIW, I think the accident is no laughing matter.Tero

So i need 3 turkish pilots ?

No, you need to grow up and keep your poor remarks for yourself.

FWIW, I think the accident is no laughing matter.

That's my point. There are some accidents that are only pilot errors. Even for those accidents, you just try to learn from those people's errors and get precautions for it not to happen again. There is nothing in the world for me to accept to joke around about an accident, any accident avaition or not, involving deceased people.So my point stands. It is childish behaviour I see in here by some individuals. It is not that important if the accident involves pilot error. Grow up.

I think this has been discussed for at least 4 or 5 times! Please search the forum before post!!Actually, NOT All Radio Altimeter Failures will cause A/T to enter RETARD mode. Radio Altimeter failure is not very rare however A/T enters RETARD mode because of the failure is very rare. You can not even simulate this in real simulators by disabling Radio Altimeter at the captain's side.

This question came up a few months ago. If I remember the statistics correctly, there have been several hundred RALT failures throughout the NGs service life. Out of those hundreds, only 15 or so led to the A/T tripping into retard mode. It's one of those "ghosts in the machine". Also, what's with the thin skins on the forums lately? It's the internet for heavens sake.EDIT: Howie beat me to it. That's what happens when I spend 10 minutes looking for statistics.

Edited May 25, 201115 yr by ExNusquam

Facts contradict that. If they really tried to prevent the accident they would be paying attention to what was going 10 inches in front of them on rather than engage in chit-chat in the worst possible time. I suggest you read the final report from the Dutch Safety Board (220+ pages) and where they put the blame for this accident, clearly they did not have many kind words for this crew. I guess the Dutch Board was not very respectful either :(

I really doubt that you have read the report. If you have, well, then what you are saying is just simplistic...The primary cause of the accident was a hardwarefailure. Not even a failure!!! a very known problem Boeing "solved" by just informing their customers...As the report states, the pilots didn't do there jobs at all, I have to agree... Not in monitoring the autoland, nor during stall recovery (anyone that saw or read the report knows the ACFT had a perfect chance of recovering if the captain wouldn't have taken over from the F/O and forgot to make sure full thrust was applied.)Further on Turkisch Air was not in the clear eather: always land by autoloand? Pretty stupid policy if you ask me. The stall recovery procedure was never re- trained.Even ATC wasn't in the clear either although I felt it was just to prove that the report was complete...Lots of causes, typically in every incident/accident.The fact that the Turkish government declared the pilots as heroes soon after the incident proves that they are simplistic (too).Bert Van Bulck

I really doubt that you have read the report. If you have, well, then what you are saying is just simplistic...

I agree with you. Sort of. Unfortunately it comes down to the fact the pilots were at fault. In the grand scheme of things one (me) could argue it is that simplistic. Of course I'm a simpleton...The primary chain in the "chain of events" to cause the accident was a strange system anomaly/failure... The primary cause (to me) was the pilot's inability to fix the issue, which would have been extremely simple remedy.

Correct Zach. This was a very easily avoidable disaster, pilots are paid to deal with such relatively minor anomalies, this is their job. Their training is all about possible failures, many much more serious than this one. Equipment does fail once in a while, it is fact of life. If pilot is incapable of monitoring the primary display during the most important phase of the flight -approach, he should find another profession.

Correct Zach. This was a very easily avoidable disaster, pilots are paid to deal with such relatively minor anomalies, this is their job. Their training is all about possible failures, many much more serious than this one. Equipment does fail once in a while, it is fact of life. If pilot is incapable of monitoring primary display during the most important phase of the flight -approach, he should find another profession.

They should have seen it, yes! You read the report? Then you tell me what te reason was they didn't!Bert Van Bulck

That's enough on this guys.We are not making a 737 crash simulator - this is a very obscure failure mode which did not alone cause the accident in question. We're not going to spend our time programming stuff like this. None of our failures can crash the airplane as long as they're dealt with properly according to the QRH.