TransAsia ATR crash in Taiwan.

[JuniorD]

HoHoHo said:

Ginetta G15 Girl said:

Interesting explanation

Thanks very much.

What strikes and frightens me is how quickly it all happens combined with a lack of altitude to help you really have only very few seconds to try and resolve the situation which is very quickly and before you know it becoming your worst nightmare.

It all happens very quickly, but often nothing needs to be done hasily. No 2 engine warning came on but the aircraft would still have been climbing. So at this point, even if they did nothing, they were still fine and still climbing. But within 5 seconds the No 1 engine was throttled back and within 30 further seconds was shut down. What was going on to cause them to wrongly shut down no 1 engine so quickly is mystifying. The situation which they had so little alititude to remedy appears at this stage to be entirely of their own making.

[Legend83]

KTF said:

From one of the posters on Pprune:

Pprune said:

Many years after I had line trained a first officer he reminded me of a simulated emergency I had given him. I don’t recall the details but apparently I said: “Sit on your hands Nick and don’t rush into doing the wrong thing”. Nick later told me that was amongst the best advice he had ever been given.

Kegworth? If they had done nothing, there would probably not have been a crash.

TransAsia.....?

Pretty much exactly what my BIL (A320 and 747 pilot) said to me today - he said he is not physically allowed to touch any intervening controls if an engine goes until at a certain altitude, as you say "sit on hands" approach until the plane is flying relatively comfortably.

He certainly wouldn't be reaching for the engine shut-down checklists just after take-off!

[Mojocvh]

What's the climb performance of subjected aircraft, fully laden with fuel, bodies and baggage ?
And how much time do they have if they lose a donkey to reconfigure the aircraft back into one that will fly level?

Check rides huh....the Turkish 737 that stalled at
Schiphol had 4, YES 4 flight crew in the cockpit, 3 watched as the fo killed them alongside 6 passengers...

Edited by Mojocvh on Friday 6th February 17:30

[sanf]

Munter said:

Blaster72 said:

There seems to be some serious arse covering going on already - how often have you seen the traces from the flight recorders released just one day after an accident?

The pilots are all dead - perhaps and easy target to pin this one on straight away and hope its all quickly forgotten about.

The full accident report should make interesting reading if only to see how it compares to the amateur sleuthing already done on here and various other websites, lets just hope the truth comes and out and the real cause is identified.

The graph might tell us the pilots took the wrong actions.
But why?
If we answer that, then we are left asking why the earlier event?
And so on and so on.
The "real cause" could depend on how far down that line of questioning you want to go/manage to get before stopping.

PH is great for getting interesting down-to-earth info - some very good facts around the timeline. There is a lot of talk on PPrune about there having been a previous engine issue with the left engine. While this has been addressed by various officials and confirmation that all the logs on the aircraft were ok, it may have put the crew into a particular mindset.

IF (that's a big if) - they had discussed an issue with another crew/ground crew, regards the left engine, then when the problem arose the assumption was the left engine - so the wrong engine was shut down.

It's a real tragedy, and sadly may end up being human error again. Terrible for those involved - when you see the state of the wreckage it's amazing anyone survived. Just flew over to Dublin on one of these from Birmingham, this week - nice aircraft.

[Eric Mc]

I want to apologise to everybody over my acronym outburst - especially G15.

I was having a rubbish day and took it out on "the internet".

I promise never to mention the subject again.

[saaby93]

Eric Mc said:

I want to apologise to everybody over my acronym outburst - especially G15.
I was having a rubbish day and took it out on "the internet".
I promise never to mention the subject again.

Eric everyone has bad days
and BTW you're not the only one with feelings about acronyms

[Eric Mc]

I put it down to PSAWS (Post Self Assessment Withdwrawal Symptoms).

[Blaster72]

Eric Mc said:

I put it down to PSAWS (Post Self Assessment Withdwrawal Symptoms).

You're part of the furniture here Eric, feel free to have the occasional rant

Some fresh footage has emerged taken from a nearby rooftop

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUQWJai59lo

[DonnyMac]

After reading this and the Kegworth Wiki doesn't KISS apply, surely an exceedingly cheap component would have kept both planes in the air - cockpit mirrors that allow a view of the engines?

It seems to be obvious and cheap, so what have I missed?

[Eric Mc]

I think the engines are visible from the flightdeck on an ATR-42/72.

[DonnyMac]

Although I cannot begin to imagine the stresses involved in that situation, if that is correct, shutting down the wrong engine is unforgivable, if that is what is found to have caused the accident.

[BrabusMog]

DonnyMac said:

After reading this and the Kegworth Wiki doesn't KISS apply, surely an exceedingly cheap component would have kept both planes in the air - cockpit mirrors that allow a view of the engines?

It seems to be obvious and cheap, so what have I missed?

Or a video camera pointed at the engines? I've been on flights that have external cameras before, surely it's a piece of piss to display the engines to pilots?

[DonnyMac]

To the uninformed it seems obvious, so there must be a reason that it's not introduced.

For the knowledgable posters on this thread, is a visual inspection of the engine not the very first thing on the checklist in a situation like this, even if done by an air-steward?

It cannot be right that the passengers are better informed than the flight crew as to which engines are working.

[PRTVR]

BrabusMog said:

DonnyMac said:

After reading this and the Kegworth Wiki doesn't KISS apply, surely an exceedingly cheap component would have kept both planes in the air - cockpit mirrors that allow a view of the engines?

It seems to be obvious and cheap, so what have I missed?

Or a video camera pointed at the engines? I've been on flights that have external cameras before, surely it's a piece of piss to display the engines to pilots?

Is not the information in front of the pilot already? The feedback from the engines revs fuel flow etc.

[Eric Mc]

I think no one is appreciating the speed at which events like this can occur. Given a few minutes of careful checking, I am sure most crews would diagnose the situation. But if there is little time to react,, mistakes can be made.

[BrabusMog]

Eric Mc said:

I think no one is appreciating the speed at which events like this can occur. Given a few minutes of careful checking, I am sure most crews would diagnose the situation. But if there is little time to react,, mistakes can be made.

Whilst I understand errors can be made, these pilots are responsible for the lives of everybody on board and I expect them to be calm enough in even the gravest of situations to not make fatal errors. I am not saying that's what happened here, but it has clearly happened in the past and it is unforgivable.

[Blaster72]

DonnyMac said:

For the knowledgable posters on this thread, is a visual inspection of the engine not the very first thing on the checklist in a situation like this, even if done by an air-steward?

No its not, although in some phases of flight it wouldn't be unusual for a member of the flight crew to wander back and take a look if something was amiss.

I don't think wandering back through the cabin to look at an engine is high on the list of priorities when you lose an engine just after take off.

Edited by Blaster72 on Saturday 7th February 12:13

[Le TVR]

Taiwan's Civil Aeronautics Administration (CAA) ordered all of TransAsia's 71 pilots who fly ATR planes to take oral tests on operating the aircraft as part of the retraining, after it emerged the pilots may have inexplicably shut down one of the engines before the crash.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0207/678501-aisasia-se...

[98elise]

PRTVR said:

BrabusMog said:

DonnyMac said:

After reading this and the Kegworth Wiki doesn't KISS apply, surely an exceedingly cheap component would have kept both planes in the air - cockpit mirrors that allow a view of the engines?

It seems to be obvious and cheap, so what have I missed?

Or a video camera pointed at the engines? I've been on flights that have external cameras before, surely it's a piece of piss to display the engines to pilots?

Is not the information in front of the pilot already? The feedback from the engines revs fuel flow etc.

Agreed. I don't need a camera in the engine bay to tell if my engine is running. If a pilot gets it wrong after reading guages then they could just as easily get it wrong after looking at a camera.

[TTmonkey]

All that's needed is two big red flashing lights, one on the left hand side of the panel, one on the right. Maybe even in the shape of pointy arrows.


Simple answer. You shouldn't have to interpret a load of instruments to know exactly which engine is having issues.