TransAsia crash in Taiwan - Hits bridge and falls into river

[ExtraSlow]

Didn't see any mention of this. TransAsia flight out of Taiwan clips bridge and lands in river, current estimates say at least a dozen fatalities, and many people unaccounted for. Insane footage.


http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/02/04/383682396/transasia-plane-crashes-into-taiwan-river-at-least-8-dead
zn1a2lSk_UI

[killramos]

Looks like the pilot lost control of that plane well before the bridge.

Reports of a failure or was he just an idiot?

[eglove]

Jesus that's crazy.

[Aleks]

Looks like it was stalling coming over the buildings. I think either too heavy or loss of engine power after takeoff.

[GQBalla]

F that is crazy.

[CapnCrunch]

Insane. I would have crapped myself.

[Aerobat]

Vmc roll?

[Rat Fink]

.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[CapnCrunch]

Originally posted by killramos
Looks like the pilot lost control of that plane well before the bridge.

Reports of a failure or was he just an idiot?

BBC reported that the pilot radioed a mayday saying engine flameout.

[rage2]

Way better video.

pf2TREwieiI

Hope nobody got decapitated in that cab. Holy shit!

[lilmira]

Wonder if the driver had to change his pants, that's a whole new level of merging traffic.

What's going on with all the asian plane crashes? Tranasia crashed another plane last July too.

[topmade]

The van is a taxi and the driver was injured but not killed I believe. I think the pilot did an awesome job in landing it in the river in a area with so many buildings. RIP to all the people who passed.

[Nitro5]

I don't think I'm flying on any airline that has 'asia' as part of its name :eek:

[eiysa101]

Cant drive or fly

[freshprince1]

Saw on reddit that the taxi cab driver and passenger were okay, just bumps and bruises. Apparently an engine went out and the guess is that the pilot aimed for the river, trying to avoid the buildings & casualties.

15 survivors from the plane....wow.

[toastgremlin]

That cab made out pretty well, all things considered.

[revelations]

Looks like a typical stall-crash caused by one engine inoperative and SOPs not being followed :( Nose is way too high.

Kudos to the pilots for not hitting the buildings though.

(The ATR72 has a very small margin of error in an OEI state as the aircraft does not have very powerful engines for its capacity, as compared to a Q400 for eg.)

[shakalaka]

That is absolutely insane. :eek:

RIP to the people that didn't make it.

[KrisYYC]

Dash cams providing evidence not only in car accidents but plane crashes as well.

[CapnCrunch]

Originally posted by KrisYYC
Dash cams providing evidence not only in car accidents but plane crashes as well.

That video will be what Calgary traffic looks like once hover cars are invented.

[max_boost]

That sucks. Horrible.

[Xtrema]

Have a feeling that only Cathy and Japanese airlines are following proper check and maintenance procedures.

Everybody else is just going for lowest cost possible.

[Cos]

.

[KrisYYC]

Originally posted by Cos
All I can think of when I saw the video. I would argue that the pilot did an amazing job, I think he avoided the buildings as he knew he was going down. I am not a pilot so I don't know what he was doing trying to rotate like that, but I feel like he was also trying to avoid that bridge and maybe did reduce it.

He did call a mayday saying they lost an engine. It does kind of look like he intentionally aimed for the river to avoid buildings etc then the left wing stalled.

Total armchair analysis by the way. I'm not a pilot I'm just in the industry and aviation is my hobby/passion.

[rage2]

For the pilots:

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b79/mlab601/ATR%20crash%202_zpskxwc2wew.png

[95EagleAWD]

Looks like he was trying to clear the bridge into the river on one engine, and got a little slow, stalling it hard. Clipped the bridge and went into the river.

Shitty. Pilot did a pretty good job, I think.

[rage2]

From the pilot forums that I lurk, most guys are blaming pilot error. Kept going nose up when they lost an engine, and just game over at that point. It also didn't help that the plane is fairly underpowered, so the window for keeping that plane in flight is very narrow.

[95EagleAWD]

Originally posted by rage2
From the pilot forums that I lurk, most guys are blaming pilot error. Kept going nose up when they lost an engine, and just game over at that point. It also didn't help that the plane is fairly underpowered, so the window for keeping that plane in flight is very narrow.

Yeah, it might be "pilot error" because that's probably exactly what he was trying to do, but if he was trying to keep it airborne long enough to clear the bridge or buildings or whatever and had no power, well, that's a job well done, IMO.

[lilmira]

Engine on the left died I assume? Not enough air flow, wing dipped = game over? Can it even fly with one engine?

[rage2]

Originally posted by 95EagleAWD
Yeah, it might be "pilot error" because that's probably exactly what he was trying to do, but if he was trying to keep it airborne long enough to clear the bridge or buildings or whatever and had no power, well, that's a job well done, IMO.
Ya, I think their point was that he had climbed to 1300ft already, which was enough altitude to keep the plane flying and not dropping like a rock as per the speed/altitude charts.

[revelations]

The ATR72 is supposed to be able to fly just fine, up to something like 11,000ft on one engine - but thats a slow climb and has to be trimmed and handled properly (not sure how feathering is handled on these machines).


Good comparison on the ATR72 vs Q400 for the plane nerds.

http://theflyingengineer.com/aircraft/proud-to-fly-a-turboprop-q400-vs-atr72/

[Aerobat]

Vmc roll in lay terms is where a plane doesnt have enough rudder to compensate for increased yaw of one engine making full power and the other one shut down therefor plane rolls over onto its back and your dead. Any twin plane these days has to be able to maintain level flight with its critical engine failed and has a specific density altitude service ceiling where it can maintain level flight, just have to be able to keep it above VMC or it bites...

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

Slowed down below VMC prior to touch down with full power on the left engine

[01RedDX]

.

[Maxx Mazda]

You train in the simulator for hours upon hours to fly with one engine inoperative. The ATR isn't a "sprightly" machine by any stretch, but any 705 (air transport) category aircraft must be able to meet certain standards of performance with one engine inoperative, even at max gross weight. I would never judge a pilot on his decision making abilities and his method of handling a situation, however I will say that from the evidence I've been presented with, it looks like a failed left engine and subsequent stall and loss of control.

Whether that's because VMCa wasn't adhered to, or due to other factors that won't be determined until the FDR is analyzed, time will tell. From what I've seen, looks like a "traditional" stall/spin situation. The paddles on those 6 bladed ATR's are huge. Not sure of how the auto feather system operates as I've never flown one, but I can imagine a significant amount of drag exists until that engine is secured.

[95EagleAWD]

Originally posted by Maxx Mazda
You train in the simulator for hours upon hours to fly with one engine inoperative. The ATR isn't a "sprightly" machine by any stretch, but any 705 (air transport) category aircraft must be able to meet certain standards of performance with one engine inoperative, even at max gross weight. I would never judge a pilot on his decision making abilities and his method of handling a situation, however I will say that from the evidence I've been presented with, it looks like a failed left engine and subsequent stall and loss of control.

Whether that's because VMCa wasn't adhered to, or due to other factors that won't be determined until the FDR is analyzed, time will tell. From what I've seen, looks like a "traditional" stall/spin situation. The paddles on those 6 bladed ATR's are huge. Not sure of how the auto feather system operates as I've never flown one, but I can imagine a significant amount of drag exists until that engine is secured.

That's what I think too... Also, where was he leaving from? What's the departure route... mountains, cities? Is the SID complicated and designed to route around terrain and stuff?

[Lex350]

Originally posted by Maxx Mazda
You train in the simulator for hours upon hours to fly with one engine inoperative. The ATR isn't a "sprightly" machine by any stretch, but any 705 (air transport) category aircraft must be able to meet certain standards of performance with one engine inoperative, even at max gross weight. I would never judge a pilot on his decision making abilities and his method of handling a situation, however I will say that from the evidence I've been presented with, it looks like a failed left engine and subsequent stall and loss of control.

Whether that's because VMCa wasn't adhered to, or due to other factors that won't be determined until the FDR is analyzed, time will tell. From what I've seen, looks like a "traditional" stall/spin situation. The paddles on those 6 bladed ATR's are huge. Not sure of how the auto feather system operates as I've never flown one, but I can imagine a significant amount of drag exists until that engine is secured.

They had a pilot on CNN yesterday that was keying in on the feathering of that engine. He was speculating that it was not set properly.

[rage2]

Originally posted by 01RedDX
So would you say it's mostly a fluke that it ended up in the river? Looking at it, I'm not sure if it was due to a conscious decision but still, very lucky it landed where it did, both for people on the ground and the few surviving passengers.
That's what it looks like. I don't think at any point in the video, even at the beginning where it cleared some buildings, was the plane in any sort of control by the pilots. That plane was stalled and dropping fast.

btw - here's the raw dashcam footage.

eJNAx4BsUtE

I don't think the cabbie had any idea what hit him. He just gets out, pops the trunk, makes sure his shit is OK.

[speedog]

What's odd in videos like the one above is those people in the other vehicles obviously saw what had just happened and chose to just keep driving. Apparently, compassion for what might've happened to the people in the taxi or the people on the plane just doesn't rate high enough as compared to what compels them to just keep going on their merry way.

[clem24]

Originally posted by speedog
What's odd in videos like the one above is those people in the other vehicles obviously saw what had just happened and chose to just keep driving. Apparently, compassion for what might've happened to the people in the taxi or the people on the plane just doesn't rate high enough as compared to what compels them to just keep going on their merry way.

Dude keep in mind this is Asia... We're not like you. ;)

[lilmira]

Someone's got to make shoes for us. Ok it's not China, close enough.

Jokes aside, I don't know what I would do in that situation. It might take me a minute to comprehend WTF just happened. No one's hurt on the bridge, stopping doesn't really do much other than selfie opportunity.

[shakalaka]

Weird...video doesn't work anymore.

[rage2]

Here's another even better one.

w1LdLidpObU

[revelations]

Originally posted by speedog
What's odd in videos like the one above is those people in the other vehicles obviously saw what had just happened and chose to just keep driving. Apparently, compassion for what might've happened to the people in the taxi or the people on the plane just doesn't rate high enough as compared to what compels them to just keep going on their merry way.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/10/24/chinas-bystander-problem-another-death-after-crowd-ignores-woman-in-peril/


China's bystander problem is pervasive but complex enough that everyone has a theory for it. Perhaps the most popular is shao guan xian shi, an aphorism that roughly translates as "mind your own business," which deters both interfering and helping others. Lijia Zhang explained in a much-circulated Guardian piece (hat tip again to Fallows):

The fundamental problem, in my view, lies in one word that describes a state of mind: shaoguanxianshi, meaning don't get involved if it's not your business. In our culture, there's a lack of willingness to show compassion to strangers. We are brought up to show kindness to people in our network of guanxi, family and friends and business associates, but not particularly to strangers, especially if such kindness may potentially damage your interest.

[Tik-Tok]

Is there a chinese word for North America's approach of "I'd rather take photo's with my phone than actually do anything to help"?

[rage2]

Originally posted by Tik-Tok
Is there a chinese word for North America's approach of "I'd rather take photo's with my phone than actually do anything to help"?
吃蕉

[yobi5888]

搵食姐,犯法啊!!

[01RedDX]

.

[rage2]

FDR data:

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/B9JarHTIAAAgAy3.jpg

Timelines here:

http://avherald.com/h?article=48145bb3

And here:

http://focustaiwan.tw/news/asoc/201502060015.aspx

Looks like right engine (#2) failed and they shut down the wrong engine (left #1). When engine #2 failed they were still climbing but at a slower rate, so the plane definately could fly on 1 engine.

[95EagleAWD]

Wow. That is an OUTRAGEOUS error for a flight crew with almost 20,000 combined hours to make.

[lilmira]

Aiya, Wong engine!

[rage2]

Another interesting note, #2 engine doesn't seem to have flamed out. The oil pressure never changed and fuel flow never zero'd, so it just dropped to idle for whatever reason when the warning triggered.

[95EagleAWD]

Yeah but everything dumps on engine two. ITT dumps, the prop goes into beta (feathered) and the fuel flow and NP2 (N2? Turbine speed?) drops. Something stopped working in that engine.

[sillysod]

with all these Asian planes going down I'm starting to think pearl harbor was an accident

[rage2]

Originally posted by 95EagleAWD
Yeah but everything dumps on engine two. ITT dumps, the prop goes into beta (feathered) and the fuel flow and NP2 (N2? Turbine speed?) drops. Something stopped working in that engine.
NP is propeller speed. Yea, I was just curious what caused engine 2 to stop working and drop to idle.

PLA is power lever, and you can see the pilots ramp down power on engine one (the working engine) 4 times until it shut down, probably SOP for shutting down a failed engine. That's when the plane started to drop since both engines weren't generating any thrust at that point.

They did get engine 1 refired near the end of the trace, but by that time it was too late.

[bjstare]

That is absolutely terrifying to see pilots (apparently) making mistakes like that. Looks like if I want to visit asia, I'll fly to europe and then roadtrip there in order to stay alive :rofl:

[revelations]

Meanwhile, the pilot was lauded as a hero for missing the res building. :dunno:

(and then secures the wrong engine)

[rage2]

One of you pilots might be able to explain this one, but on the graph at 02:54:28, the pilots pulled throttle back on failed engine #2, and it looks like it started to recover. Any reasoning or speculation behind that?

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by rage2
One of you pilots might be able to explain this one, but on the graph at 02:54:28, the pilots pulled throttle back on failed engine #2, and it looks like it started to recover. Any reasoning behind that?

Just like a car engine, too much fuel will get you no where. Back to idle, and if there's still any kind of flame still sputtering there, it'll possibly re-ignite.

[rage2]

Originally posted by Tik-Tok
Just like a car engine, too much fuel will get you no where. Back to idle, and if there's still any kind of flame still sputtering there, it'll possibly re-ignite.
That's the weird thing, fuel flow on #2 is low as soon as it "failed". When they pulled back on the power, fuel flow started going up.

Trying to understand the actual engine #2 failure there.

[revelations]

Originally posted by rage2
One of you pilots might be able to explain this one, but on the graph at 02:54:28, the pilots pulled throttle back on failed engine #2, and it looks like it started to recover. Any reasoning or speculation behind that?

With the case of almost any kind of compressor stall/surge situation during high power conditions, going back to idle normally brings the airflow in the engine back to a stable condition as its not trying to push as much mass through.

For eg. bird ingestion - engine typically loses most of its performance at high power (due to internal damage), but is still able to function at idle.

[jonsey737]

I'm not super familiar with turboprops and all their terms but to me it looks like fuel was shutdown to both engines exactly the same time. Then 48 seconds ish later they switched on the fuel to both engines which would explain why #1 started coming back.

Edit: CLA is condition lever angle I think which will turn off the fuel when pulled all the way back.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[rage2]

Originally posted by jonsey737
I'm not super familiar with turboprops and all their terms but to me it looks like fuel was shutdown to both engines exactly the same time. Then 48 seconds ish later they switched on the fuel to both engines which would explain why #1 started coming back.
Fuel was never shut off on #2 if I'm reading the chart correctly. Fuel flow dropped on #2 when it failed, and ramped down with throttle inputs on #1.

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by jonsey737
I'm not super familiar with turboprops and all their terms but to me it looks like fuel was shutdown to both engines exactly the same time. Then 48 seconds ish later they switched on the fuel to both engines which would explain why #1 started coming back.

Edit: CLA is condition lever angle I'm guessing.

Fuel was never shutoff to #2, look at "fso" on the pic.

[jonsey737]

Originally posted by rage2

Fuel was never shut off on #2 if I'm reading the chart correctly. Fuel flow dropped on #2 when it failed, and ramped down with throttle inputs on #1.

Doh, need more coffee. For some reason it looked like #2 followed #1, I didn't see it remain in the low state. It's bad too because I look at this shit daily on the 737 simulator oops lol

[Maxx Mazda]

Any complex turbine aircraft I've ever flown, any time you're faced with any sort of engine abnormality, ironically the first step is always "have a smoke." (With certain exceptions being V1 cut, etc.)

As I stated before, any 704/705 aircraft has more than enough power to climb single engine, and as was clearly illustrated here, sometimes doing nothing for a minute until the dust settles is often MUCH safer than doing the WRONG thing, as they did here. This is why we sim train, to get that muscle memory down pat. Lets take a breath, make sure we know what's going on, and then act accordingly. This was another case of pull levers first and ask questions later, resulting in the shutdown of a perfectly good engine.

Now its easy for me to sit here and "armchair quarterback" the situation, when I wasn't in that cockpit. I can say that once the bells start ringing and the lights start flashing, it does get your hair on end, especially if you're presented with conflicting information. Its important to remember here, that an engine can still roll back or stop producing sufficient power, even though it has not failed. I had a bad FCU one time cause a rollback to about 30% power on me, which was still too high to trigger an autofeather. In this case prompt identification of the problem and manual feathering was paramount, but I also had a bunch more altitude under my ass than these guys did. I digress...

I'm not sure if the newer ATR's still use a mechanical FCU or if they've got a FADEC style setup on the engines, but any number of things could have caused the engine failure, which will be determined later. At the end of the day, it looks like the failure wasn't handled properly by the flight crew, resulting in the shutdown of a perfectly good engine. Now we need to ask why did this happen? Poor training? Bad SOP's?

[CapnCrunch]

Originally posted by sillysod
with all these Asian planes going down I'm starting to think pearl harbor was an accident

:rofl:

[rage2]

Originally posted by Maxx Mazda
This is why we sim train, to get that muscle memory down pat. Lets take a breath, make sure we know what's going on, and then act accordingly.

Originally posted by Maxx Mazda
At the end of the day, it looks like the failure wasn't handled properly by the flight crew, resulting in the shutdown of a perfectly good engine. Now we need to ask why did this happen? Poor training? Bad SOP's?
One of the news reports mentioned that the sim training for this aircraft only used a left engine #1 failure scenario, which could be why the pilots focused on the wrong engine.

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by rage2


One of the news reports mentioned that the sim training for this aircraft only used a left engine #1 failure scenario, which could be why the pilots focused on the wrong engine.

I've also seen a scenario on our older fleet, where a caution light for two engines had been mis-installed, and were opposite of each-other. Was nothing as serious as an engine flame-out, but made it pretty difficult to troubleshoot a problem when we were looking at the wrong engine the entire time, lol.

Not sure if this particular ATR has a glass flight deck, which would make it more difficult, but still possible.

[jonsey737]

Originally posted by rage2


One of the news reports mentioned that the sim training for this aircraft only used a left engine #1 failure scenario, which could be why the pilots focused on the wrong engine.

I wouldn't be surprised if that was a contributing factor. A lot of sim training scripts are fixed so after half of the pilots have been through that year's scenario the other half already knows exactly what will happen next. I think good training scripts should vary the failure but at the same time you want to be giving the same consistent training to all of your pilot's so it's a trade off, but at the very least they should have randomized which engine they fail....

[Maxx Mazda]

Originally posted by rage2


One of the news reports mentioned that the sim training for this aircraft only used a left engine #1 failure scenario, which could be why the pilots focused on the wrong engine.

If that's the case, it is very likely that May have played a significant role in this accident.

[rage2]

More angles of the crash.

RUQWJai59lo

Yea, that's a pretty severe drop rate.