What's the 'main' cause of the fatal Schiphol plane crash?

Let's see: the 737 (a time-tested aircraft) landed short of the runway--hard enough to snap the fuselage into three pieces, but not hard enough to disintegrate as normally happens in high speed impacts--in clear, dry conditions with more-than-adequate visibility. That pretty much rules out both bad weather and landing gear problems. Sabotage isn't likely either, as short landings with multiple survivors just aren't the kind of high-casualty incidents terrorists seem to prefer. That leaves pilot/controller error or other mechanical problems. Given the 737's track record, I'm going to go with human error: the pilot misread the altimeter; the controller failed to safely separate the 737 from a previous heavy, and the 737 got caught in wake turbulence; the pilot incorrectly set the flap angle; etc...

But then again, what do I know? :)

I hate this 6 hour rule thing. I'm itching to get on!

If they hadn't enough kerosine to avoid the crash-landing this could likely be "other main cause". Some witnesses are cited to have seen it approach unusally low and slow.

Engine trouble may have caused Netherlands crash
February 26, 2009 | The Associated Press

AMSTERDAM - Engine trouble may be behind the Turkish Airlines crash that killed nine people in the Netherlands, the head of the agency investigating the accident said Thursday. Flight TK1951 from Istanbul crashed about one mile (1.5 kilometers) short of the runway at Amsterdam's Schiphol Airport on Wednesday morning, smashing into three pieces and spraying luggage and debris across a field. It was carrying 134 passengers and crew.

Investigator Pieter van Vollenhoven said, in remarks quoted by Dutch state television NOS, that the Boeing 737-800 had fallen almost directly from the sky, which pointed toward the plane's engines having stalled. He said a reason for that had not yet been established. Spokeswoman Sandra Groenendal of the Dutch Safety Authority confirmed his remarks and added that stalled engines on the plane were still "one of the possible scenarios" for the crash. Van Vollenhoven said an analysis of the plane's flight data recorders in Paris could be completed as early as Friday, but his agency would probably not make a preliminary finding until next week.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090226/ap_on_re_eu/eu_netherlands_plane_crash

Would engine failure constitute "OTHER MECHANICAL PROBLEMS" for settlement purposes?

Keep in mind that a few 'experts' have gone on record as speculating that a bird strike may have caused the engines to lose power (http://www.necn.com/Boston/World/2009/02/26/Investigators-try-to-piece/1235664441.html). While that would most definitely be a mechanical failure, it'd settle as "other main causes", no?

BREAKING NEWS
http://s452.photobucket.com/albums/qq245/skyhawk4754/?action=view¤t=Goose.jpg

@Mork:

I knew it!!!! :)

The market will settle dependent on what the main cause is when cited by investigators. Therefore if this was a bird strike incident we'd have to wait for a report from investigators to see which cause they cite as the primary one. If this was a bird strike though I will settle the market as 'Other main causes cited.' If it is engine failure that would be in the area of mechanical failure.

Regards,
Ryan

Please settle: "God"
http://www.westborobaptistchurch.com/written/fliers/20090225_netherlands-amsterdam-plane-crash.pdf

I've heard mumours about maintenance failure - i.e. someone not doing their job properly when it was last in the workshop. I assume that would be human error?

How will it be settled if the plane ran out of fuel???

If it ran out of fuel because someone didn't top off the tanks, that'd be human error; if it ran out of fuel because, say,corrosion ate a hole in the tank, that'd be mechanical failure; if it ran out of fuel because someone intentionally cut a line, that'd be sabotage; if it ran out of fuel because lightning or hail blew a hole in the wing, that'd be bad weather; and if it ran out of fuel because, say, a bird strike ripped a hole in the tank, that'd be 'other'. :)

I suppose a lack of fuel could partially explain the lack of fire during the crash...but the crew would have doubtless known of the situation much earlier and been able to do something about it (divert to another airport, etc.)

Investigators are examining turbulence as one of the possible causes of the Turkish Airlines crash;
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g_wBSqw0Ju245UxNtpJZ329K0LJgD96KGTMO0

What does 'Wake Turbulance' come under... 'Other' I assume?

That would be 'human error', most likely (as I said in the first comment) as running into it would have been caused by inadequate separation from the previous heavy by either teh controller(s) or the pilot...

http://bit.ly/15v2Qz I think 'other' since wake turbulance is not controlled buy a pilot and is natually occuring

Yeah, but every heavy plane landing or taking off causes wake turbulence, unlike icing or an engine failure; accidents happen when planes fly into it through either pilot ot controller error...

I heard something earlier about it possibly being wake turbulance from a 757 which landed before it. They should be warned abut 757's apparently are known for causing a lot of WT and so the 737 should have been warned

The data from the flight recorders has been fed into a simulator; the two videos at this link shows how things went down:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bbd_1236022716

Amazing the death toll wasn't a lot higher.

Boeing says it was definitely controller (human) error: http://www.worldbulletin.net/news_detail.php?id=37569

At any rate, we'll know a little more tomorrow when the preliminary results are released: http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5hm0XKY5mQeKr9472rip4AyGxur2w

Also: http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=168520&bolum=101

No 'main' cause listed at the press conference; while no apportion, a fault altimeter was listed as a possible factor (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g_wBSqw0Ju245UxNtpJZ329K0LJgD96N85J03), while the crew's actions are being looked at (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/03/04/323374/turkish-737-crash-investigation-focuses-on-crew-actions.html)

I guess the big question now is whether the faulty altimeter was the primary cause while pilot inattention was secondary, or vice versa.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5846088.ece (note the article also blames human error for the Buffalo crash)

AMSTERDAM - A false reading from a faulty altimeter caused an autopilot to sharply slow a Turkish Airlines jet short of the runway last month, sending it plunging into a muddy field and killing nine people, Dutch investigators said Wednesday. The flight carrying 135 passengers and crew crashed a kilometer (less than a mile) from Amsterdam's Schiphol Airport as it was landing on Feb. 25. The pilots were among the dead.

One of the plane's altimeters, a device that measures altitude, had registered that the plane was flying below sea level and caused the autopilot to rapidly reduce power before the crash, officials said. The Boeing 737-800's flight recorders showed false readings from the same altimeter on two flights before the crash, chief investigator Pieter van Vollenhoven said. He did not say if pilots had noticed the previous incorrect readings.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090304/ap_on_re_eu/eu_netherlands_plane_crash

Obscure point of interest:
Schiphol Airport is 11 feet(3 meters) below sea level.

@lola--that's one viewpoint; many I found state that it's either pilot error (from not watching the altimeter or responding properly) or an undetermined combination of human error and mechanical malfunction. I read a lot of things like "According to conversation recorded between the plane's captain, first officer and an extra first officer on the flight, the pilots noticed the faulty altimeter but didn't consider it a problem and didn't react." Many of the headlines state the altimeter was the cause, but a quick glance at the meat of the articles tell a slightly different story: the altimeter 'was a factor' or 'played a role', etc.

@sqlman: I agree. One faulty altimeter cannot cause a plane to crash, especially if sight is OK. According to what I read the issue was even known before the flight, but nobody thought it could be a real problem. Unfortunately, we do not have "a combination of the above" as an option. If we have to decide for ONE main reason, I would say it's the pilots' fault, because they did not react in an appropriate way to the issue. It's like when you drive at night at 160 km/h and your headlights don't work properly. When you crash into a slow driving truck, who's to blame? The headlights or you?

Why would they be using autopilot to land in good weather? Anyway, an altimeter is an electronic device. Does its failure, if it is deemed to be the main cause, count as "mechanical failure" or other?