TransAsia ATR crash in Taiwan.
Discussion
I have no idea on the cockpit layout but.
Have the engine warning lights / cut off switches for each engine in front of the appropriate seat.
Left seat has left engine stuff, right seat has right engine stuff.
Both sets reachable by either pilot at a stretch and possibly duplicated in the middle somewhere.
Must be impossible to confuse then :?
Have the engine warning lights / cut off switches for each engine in front of the appropriate seat.
Left seat has left engine stuff, right seat has right engine stuff.
Both sets reachable by either pilot at a stretch and possibly duplicated in the middle somewhere.
Must be impossible to confuse then :?
Pretty sure on most aircraft there is only one set of engine fuel valves etc.
As for mirrors - unless the engine is on fire I don't see how it will help - or night time...
The instruments are a much better way to look at engine status.
I think someone posted the engine panel on PPRUNE and it was fairly clear which is which.
As for mirrors - unless the engine is on fire I don't see how it will help - or night time...
The instruments are a much better way to look at engine status.
I think someone posted the engine panel on PPRUNE and it was fairly clear which is which.
98elise said:
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?It seems to be obvious and cheap, so what have I missed?
If with all that experience they got it wrong there must be something lacking in the design of this particular aircrafts' controls.
Mirrors are the highest level of tech required for this solution; if you see flames in the left mirror etc.
The engines weren't on fire, therefore mirrors would have been of no use.
I was being flippant with the above posts about mirrors, but what seems clear is that the system for identifying an engine issue needs to be absolutely fool proof and simple. The computer system on this aircraft would have known which engine was having unusual flight parameters.... Correct? In which case, a simple and clear indication should have been evident on the flight deck.
I was being flippant with the above posts about mirrors, but what seems clear is that the system for identifying an engine issue needs to be absolutely fool proof and simple. The computer system on this aircraft would have known which engine was having unusual flight parameters.... Correct? In which case, a simple and clear indication should have been evident on the flight deck.
I mentioned mirrors in my first post, I purposely didn't say wing mirrors for obvious reasons, but I did think it.
Before posting I'd read the Wiki about the UK accident, that engine did have flames, in this instance it's a turbo prop, I'd imagine without any training I'd be able to tell the difference between a rotating engine under power and stalled or at idle props in the daylight in a mirror.
I'm no expert clearly, but I just cannot see how this very simple solution could be a hindrance and if all hell is breaking loose with buzzers, lights and other warnings that the captain doesn't say left engine out, buzzer, light, give me a visual check, 1st officer looks up to mirrors, confirms left engine out, turn the thing off.
What's the worst this solution provides, a two second delay where there is no positive visual check available - puts them back in the same situation.
No video cameras, no additional high technology, just a couple of mirrors.
A poster above, presumably a pilot said (s)he would know which engine was out on their aircraft, but sadly they were not flying that day; how did three pilots with tens of thousands of flying hours make this mistake unless the controls are inadequate?
It seems as if the authorities are putting this down to pilot error and my argument being that no such error should be possible even if a layman was making the decisions and let's not forget that one of the engines did actually fail but this is being somewhat overlooked by pointing at the pilots instead of the manufacturer.
Before posting I'd read the Wiki about the UK accident, that engine did have flames, in this instance it's a turbo prop, I'd imagine without any training I'd be able to tell the difference between a rotating engine under power and stalled or at idle props in the daylight in a mirror.
I'm no expert clearly, but I just cannot see how this very simple solution could be a hindrance and if all hell is breaking loose with buzzers, lights and other warnings that the captain doesn't say left engine out, buzzer, light, give me a visual check, 1st officer looks up to mirrors, confirms left engine out, turn the thing off.
What's the worst this solution provides, a two second delay where there is no positive visual check available - puts them back in the same situation.
No video cameras, no additional high technology, just a couple of mirrors.
A poster above, presumably a pilot said (s)he would know which engine was out on their aircraft, but sadly they were not flying that day; how did three pilots with tens of thousands of flying hours make this mistake unless the controls are inadequate?
It seems as if the authorities are putting this down to pilot error and my argument being that no such error should be possible even if a layman was making the decisions and let's not forget that one of the engines did actually fail but this is being somewhat overlooked by pointing at the pilots instead of the manufacturer.
Legend83 said:
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!
I'd assume many modern aircraft would have auto shutdown/fuel cut off systems in place anyway? Was there any need to manually power down/throttle off/fuel cut on that ATR in the first place...?He certainly wouldn't be reaching for the engine shut-down checklists just after take-off!
PPrune are quite clear that the best thing to do during take off if you get an engine failure is.... Nothing.
Fly the plane, get out of the climb, then react.
I know it's simple to say, not so easy to do when you are suddenly hit by a barrage of klaxons and warnings and have already had an engine problem - immediate reaction is going to be to assume that's the faulty engine and shut it down.
If they had simply waited for 5 minutes, this accident wouldn't have happened.
Fly the plane, get out of the climb, then react.
I know it's simple to say, not so easy to do when you are suddenly hit by a barrage of klaxons and warnings and have already had an engine problem - immediate reaction is going to be to assume that's the faulty engine and shut it down.
If they had simply waited for 5 minutes, this accident wouldn't have happened.
MarkRSi said:
I'd assume many modern aircraft would have auto shutdown/fuel cut off systems in place anyway? Was there any need to manually power down/throttle off/fuel cut on that ATR in the first place...?
I don't think that auto shutdown is a good idea. Better to have 1 or 2 very rough running engines than none at all. pushthebutton said:
MarkRSi said:
I'd assume many modern aircraft would have auto shutdown/fuel cut off systems in place anyway? Was there any need to manually power down/throttle off/fuel cut on that ATR in the first place...?
I don't think that auto shutdown is a good idea. Better to have 1 or 2 very rough running engines than none at all. 
DonnyMac said:
I mentioned mirrors in my first post, I purposely didn't say wing mirrors for obvious reasons, but I did think it.
Mirrors wouldn't add anything that isn't already displayed and giving much more accurate/pertinent information through the engine instruments. They'd be an unnecessary expense that'd just add to the price of your ticket. It's a bit of a lame example but, if you assume a time critical situation such as severe engine damage shortly after take-off, airframe vibration is mentioned fairly near the top of most checklists.There are loads of other ergonomic and practicality issues surrounding mirrors which would make them redundant against current engine instruments.
TTmonkey said:
I was being flippant with the above posts about mirrors, but what seems clear is that the system for identifying an engine issue needs to be absolutely fool proof and simple. The computer system on this aircraft would have known which engine was having unusual flight parameters.... Correct? In which case, a simple and clear indication should have been evident on the flight deck.
The problem is with the immediate distrust of a system that tells you, you have a faulty engine. Is it an engine fault or an engine monitor fault?In the kegworth crash it was said the pilot thought he knew from experience on earlier aircraft that if they could smell smoke in the cockpit, it was due to the aircon being supplied by the left engine. Unfortunately in newer aircraft both engines were piped through and it was the other engine.
In this one it looks as though engine no 1 has a history of failure so when presented with a no2 failure they could easily have decided it was really a no1 failure again.
Best thing sit on hands
DonnyMac said:
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.
left or right, left or right.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kegworth_air_disaster
25 years later ....
Unforgivable? No, just getting mixed up and as things get worse due to the mix up you have even more stress to try and work it all out.
And less and less time.
el stovey said:
DonnyMac said:
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.
Aren't both the pilots dead? el stovey said:
Aren't both the pilots dead?
That won't stop all and sundry trying to deflect blame on the pilots. The simple fact is that if three very experienced pilots can make such a fundamental error, and with such tragic consequences, then something is badly wrong with the way information was presented to them by their instruments. For such a critical event, the state of the engines has to be shown in a way that is impossible to ignore. I read that the similar Fokker twin-turboprop has lights that flash red on the power lever of a failed engine - hardly rocket science and probably/possibly simple to install as an upgrade.Cobalt Blue said:
That won't stop all and sundry trying to deflect blame on the pilots. The simple fact is that if three very experienced pilots can make such a fundamental error, and with such tragic consequences, then something is badly wrong with the way information was presented to them by their instruments. For such a critical event, the state of the engines has to be shown in a way that is impossible to ignore. I read that the similar Fokker twin-turboprop has lights that flash red on the power lever of a failed engine - hardly rocket science and probably/possibly simple to install as an upgrade.
Exactly.There is always a complex chain of events that lead up to an accident. Deciding some dead pilots actions were "unforgivable" without knowing why something happened seems a bit glib to me. It's like sky news announcing "pilot error" because it's much easier than examining why something happened.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff