Simviation Forum - Why did the Italian ATR 72 couldn't?

May 20^th, 2009 at 1:02pm

Alejandro Rojas L. Ex Member
I Love Simviation.

I saw yesterday something that has not sense at all ,National Geographic TV is making a good job creating more general phobia to flight BTW.. Huh

There is this ATR 72 who also at FL180 ran Out of gas for the most stupidity someone put afuel indicator gauge which has the same connnector and the same look as the ATR 42 only 1 number change in the front view ,I wonder who was the Super genius in that french company that did this Both works different and this cause the death of 20 people.
MY question is why if the pilot of a heavier airplane lands a heavier bigger with engine Bellow the wings , airplane in the Hudson River successfully while this ATR lighter Engines in the top in a much higher altitude Crash into the watter,braking the plane in 3 part killing the half of the passenger and crew? He had more change to focus on the landing , to prepare passengers , is the peple of the Hudson river where lucky of this is more about the pilot's experience?

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #1 - May 20^th, 2009 at 1:37pm

Rich H Offline
Colonel
Sweden Jamboree 2011!
Solihull, U.K.

Gender:
Posts: 2082

Is this Air Crash Investigation? I believe he wasn't completely level when landing, but it said he got his angle of attack right. And I guess the A320 might be stronger?

"Politics" is made up of two words, "Poli", which is Greek for "many", and "tics", which are blood sucking insects. - Gore Vidal

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #2 - May 20^th, 2009 at 2:10pm

Alejandro Rojas L. Ex Member
I Love Simviation.

This was much more heavier and stronger Ethiopian-Airlines-Flug 961 crash 1996 and ran out of gas too

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbShxVtfKVc

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #3 - May 20^th, 2009 at 2:35pm

Hagar Offline
Colonel
My Spitfire Girl
Costa Geriatrica

Posts: 33159

It's easy to make accusations. This sounds like a case of Sod's Law. If it's possible to make a mistake then someone, somewhere will make that mistake.

Whoever was responsible for this sad incident the Italian authorities have made their decision & sentenced the flight crew & 5 other employees of Tuninter to a total of 62 years jail. http://www.shephard.co.uk/news/2200/

Quote:

Pilot Chafik Gharby and co-pilot Ali Kebaier each received 10-year sentences. Tuninter (Sevenair) director general Moncef Zouari and technical chief Zoueir Chetouane were sentenced to nine years, while eight-year sentences were handed down to the airline's head of maintenance, Zouehir Siala, chief mechanic Chaed Nebil and maintenance squad leader Rhouma Bel Haj. Two members of the airline maintenance crew were acquitted. None of the defendants were in court for the sentencing and a lawyer for the airline said they will appeal the sentences.

If I remember correctly the pilot of that 767 was handicapped by fighting off hijackers while trying to ditch the aircraft.

Founder & Sole Member - Grumpy's Over the Hill Club for Veteran Virtual Aviators
Member of the Fox Four Group

Need help? Try Grumpy's Lair

My photo gallery

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #4 - May 20^th, 2009 at 3:12pm

expat Offline
Colonel
Deep behind enemy lines!

Gender:
Posts: 8499

The big difference between the two aircraft is the reason that one broke up and one did not. I have seen that show too and the pilot of the ATR also touched down at the correct speed and perfect angel, but the strongest part of the aircraft is on top of the fuselage, that being the wing box. The Air Bus being low wing landed on it's wing box. It is the strongest part of an aircraft and absorbs a lot of the impact. The ATR being high wing landed on the fuselage, the weakest part of any aircraft. On top of this weak structure is a very heavy and strong structure. Once the fuselage struck the water, momentum stored in the wing box and attaching parts (engines) wanted too and did carry on by ripping itself from the aircraft. Much the same as you braking and you passenger not having a seatbelt on, they carry on forward. It is a ditching problem for any high wing aircraft that has wing mounted engines. Saying that it does not always work as in the Ethiopian-Airlines 767, but that is the theory of it .

Matt

PETA People Eating Tasty Animals.

B1 Boeing 737-800 and Dash8 Q-400

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #5 - May 21^st, 2009 at 4:30pm

flavio Offline
Colonel
USA

Posts: 157

expat wrote on May 20^th, 2009 at 3:12pm:

The big difference between the two aircraft is the reason that one broke up and one did not. I have seen that show too and the pilot of the ATR also touched down at the correct speed and perfect angel, but the strongest part of the aircraft is on top of the fuselage, that being the wing box. The Air Bus being low wing landed on it's wing box. It is the strongest part of an aircraft and absorbs a lot of the impact. The ATR being high wing landed on the fuselage, the weakest part of any aircraft. On top of this weak structure is a very heavy and strong structure. Once the fuselage struck the water, momentum stored in the wing box and attaching parts (engines) wanted too and did carry on by ripping itself from the aircraft. Much the same as you braking and you passenger not having a seatbelt on, they carry on forward. It is a ditching problem for any high wing aircraft that has wing mounted engines. Saying that it does not always work as in the Ethiopian-Airlines 767, but that is the theory of it .

Matt

wow nice description and I think its pretty much along those lines as well.

Back to top

IP Logged

	Search the archive: