TransAsia in the water?

[Cafe City]

Taiwanese news channel showing footage of an ATR72 in the water off the end of the runway. Not sure where exactly.
40 rescued. 12 still on board.

[TedCrum]

BBC News - Taiwan TransAsia plane crash-lands in Taipei river (http://www.bbc.com/news/business-31125052)

[Going Nowhere]

Check out a few tweets on twitter. EFATO? Note the difference in pitch of the #1 and #2 props

https://twitter.com/RodrigoEBR/status/562824752356945920/photo/1

https://twitter.com/flightradar24/status/562824183097614336

[mingocr83]

Check this out...https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/10410311_326110884253274_5986539868797523448_n.jpg?oh=a7c352 23e7e36156d8ee07ff4b12440e&oe=5561AA88&__gda__=1430818786_674318018ee49c8f2001a70158d6e4c3

https://scontent-a-mia.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xaf1/v/t1.0-9/1377388_326111357586560_4058451265033433079_n.jpg?oh=0cbd651 d718d1c95a1397947426fe30e&oe=556C8871

News are saying there are 10 still trapped majority survived...

[VictorWatcher]

It's come out from SungShan Airport (TSA) taking off towards the east and then landed about 4km away from the end of the runway somewhere around here:

25.064216° 121.613841°

I work around 3km from there and can not exactly place it from the pictures but it's certainly in that region +/- a 100m or so.

Update - the resting place is 500m ESE of the coords above.

[PastTense]

The crashed TransAsia Airways (http://www.flightglobal.com/landingpage/TransAsia%20Airways.html) ATR 72-600 turboprop was less than a year old, delivered to the airline in April 2014.
Data from Flightglobal’s Ascend Fleets shows that the turboprop was built in 2014 and delivered to the privately-owned Taiwanese carrier on 14 April 2014. This comes from an order placed by the airline in 2012.
The ATR 72, registered B-22816, was powered by Pratt & Whitney PW100-127M engines and had accumulated 684 flight hours totaling 956 flight cycles as of 31 May 2014. It is owned directly by the carrier.
...
TransAsia has a fleet of 20 aircraft comprising of 11 ATR 72s, seven Airbus A320 (http://www.flightglobal.com/landingpage/Airbus%20A320.html) family and two A330s.

Crashed TransAsia ATR 72 less than a year old - 2/4/2015 - Flight Global (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/crashed-transasia-atr-72-less-than-a-year-old-408668/)

[Going Nowhere]

Live streaming of the rescue

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8GmxMGCDh4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxJKnDLYZz4

Looks like it departed via the MUCHA TWO DEP http://eaip.caa.gov.tw/eaip/history/2015-01-22/graphics/86114.pdf

[JanetFlight]

Someone recorded the last seconds of the flight inside a car on the motorway:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MMzCwzXMQY

[BG47]

Domestic passenger flight crashes in Taiwan with 58 people aboard

Map of Taiwan locating a passenger plane crash on February 4, 2015
A passenger plane with 58 people on board plunged into a river outside Taiwan's capital Taipei on Wednesday, with 17 people rescued and dozens trapped inside, according to television reports.
The TransAsia ATR 72-600 turboprop plane was on a domestic flight when it hit a road bridge before ploughing into the river, the reports said. Rescuers were trying to reach the trapped passengers.
Television images showed rescuers standing on large sections of broken wreckage trying to pull passengers out of the plane with ropes. Those who were rescued -- including two children -- were put in dinghies and taken to the shore.
Some were then loaded on stretchers and all 17 rescued have been taken to hospital, reports said.
Officials at Taiwanese emergency services were not immediately available to comment.
The accident happened just before 11:00 am (0300 GMT), a few minutes after the plane took off from Taipei's Songshan airport en route to the island of Kinmen.
Last July 48 people were killed after another domestic TransAsia flight crashed onto houses during a storm on the Taiwanese island of Penghu.

Strait Times reports: The crash happened shortly after the plane took off from Songshan Airport in Taipei and was suspected to be due to insufficient propelling force, according to United Daily News.

The pilot of flight GE235 radioed a "Mayday, Mayday" distress call shortly before the crash, but did not respond when air traffic controllers answered, the report said.

[JanetFlight]

http://archive-server.liveatc.net/rcss/RCSS-Twr-Feb-04-2015-0230Z.mp3
it declared mayday with engine flame out at 23:25.

[armchairpilot94116]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8GmxMGCDh4

LIVE telecast from the scene. They showed a lot of people getting luggage out of the back section but the front section remained submerged. Some divers are working the front section of the aircraft. But the passengers in that section of the plane are believed to have died. Some 30 remain missing and are believed to be in the front of the aircraft according to the spokesman.

The spokesman further said that they are waiting for cranes to lift the front part of the aircraft.

28 people were rescued but at least 12 are DOA at the hospital. Two were children and 25 were adults. The children are believed to be alive.
Of the 12 dead, 6 of them were found drifting down the river , away from the fuselage.



Currently awaiting heavy lift cranes to lift the front fuselage. Some passengers believed to be still trapped in the back section as well. They are trying to free them.

One more person rescued from fuselage but DOA, bringing the count up to 29 persons pulled from the wreckage .

Helicopters searching downstream for any signs of more bodies. Unsure how many are still trapped in the front and how many are drifting down river.

edit: they plan to lift the fuselage. A large crane has arrived on scene.
Divers said visibility under water is very bad and they do not want to enter the fuselage (with good reason).

A net has been set up downstream to catch any bodies flowing past.

[Bedder believeit]

looks like the person/people in the yellow vehicle in front of the camera car were in the wrong place at the wrong time

[Massey1Bravo]

A better view:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BIsUCQEv_8

It looks like the ATR fell fast while remaining wings level, until a wing dropped as it crossed the bridge. The aircraft seemed to have already stalled before the wing drop.

Initial speculation: Double engine failure? Even with autofeather failed I can't see how it can fall like a rock while remaining wings level.

[Blind Squirrel]

TransAsia Airways Flight 222 (GE222/TNA222) was a scheduled domestic passenger flight that crashed into buildings during approach to land in bad weather at Magong Airport, Penghu Island, Taiwan, on 23 July 2014. The ATR 72-500 operating the flight was travelling from Kaohsiung International Airport with 54 passengers and four crew members on board; only 10 survived. The exact circumstances of the accident are under investigation, being led by the Taiwanese Aviation Safety Council.


TransAsia Airways Flight 222 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TransAsia_Airways_Flight_222)

[unworry]

looks like the person/people in the yellow vehicle in front of the camera car were in the wrong place at the wrong time

but are probably feeling quite fortunate to have survived ...

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/B8-Uj7MIMAEGkoD.jpg

[VictorWatcher]

The guys in the taxi (yellow car that was clipped) are okay according to the local news.

Something else is that I am not sure it clipped any bridges at all. In that area there are a couple of elevated highways that run pretty much long the sides of the river and it looks like it clipped the one on the south bank. The bridges across the river I think were all missed.

So it looks like the plane flew down the river line, clipped one of the elevated highways along side the river (probably the South one) and then crashed into the river close to the NanHu bridge - which is a bit lucky because there is a metro bridge next to that bridge and if it had hit either then it would have been much worse with possibly a metro train falling 20m into the river.

If you use google earth to go to
25.063120° 121.611826° and then enter street view from the top of the bridge you can see the highways both to the N and S of the river and then the metro bridge a few meters to the East, The plane is approx 800m to the east of this bridge even though there is a plot of the planes route putting it crashing to the west of the bridge. (There are a bunch of traffic webcams in the area and I can see it on one of them).

[TWT]

The 4th ATR accident resulting in fatalities for Transasia

[pattern_is_full]

Looks like he tried for a Sully, in the one place not covered with buildings (the river) and just didn't have the speed or altitude to quite make it.

Ugly situation...

[atakacs]

That there are survivors is just amazing...

[McWho]

Yes as TWT said, media claiming 4th ATR72 crash for this airline and the last one was just last year, not good.

[BettingMan]

Reviewing the pictures several times I got the perception that the tail might have hit the top of the building and than the plane bank sharply

[bughunta]

Clearer video clip here
www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJNAx4BsUtE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJNAx4BsUtE)

[BNEA320]

just saw footage on Channel 10 news in BNE.


Reporter said aircraft hit a taxi on freeway before hitting freeway 7 crashing into river.


She went onto say that aircraft had just taken off from TPE & was headed to Taiwan !!! Obviously failed geography at school.

[Mikehotel152]

Or the pilot banked to avoid the road?

[Flightmech]

I know nothing about ATR procedures and it could be normal but how long after takeoff as the aircraft appears to be flaps up??

[TWT]

Point of collision with the elevated road using co-ordinates from the dashcam in post #24

https://goo.gl/maps/bErFP

[v1r8]

Im with Mike. Either about to enter a secondary stall, or knowing it's about to be over, banking hard left to avoid cars.

[Livesinafield]

a similar type our flaps stay at 7 until 1500 feet and accelerate a to VSER

[StormyKnight]

Pictures from the live stream showing the orange black boxes (2) in the back of a station wagon.

Live Stream -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=T8GmxMGCDh4

[das Uber Soldat]

ATR doesn't have a roll rate anything like that.

Flaps come up at white bug, roughly 20kts above V2 after the climb sequence is done and dusted.. Say 1000-1500ft very roughly.

http://i.imgur.com/wazEJzJ.png

[givemewings]

Given the map posted, it does seem he was trying to get it hard left and over the road to ditch it but lost too much altitude/ had too much bank?

[mad_jock]

Looks to me that they hit Vmca.

[Livesinafield]

There is no way there is control at the latter stages, they are not trying to avoid bridges or buildings the last few seconds over the bridge the aircraft was completely out of control

[StormyKnight]

Point of collision with the elevated road using co-ordinates from the dashcam in post #24

https://goo.gl/maps/bErFP

If that is the location, looks a fair way off the centre line of the runway. I can only assume he was in trouble almost immediately & was heading for the river....then he was too high before the bridge (Sanchong Rd) & too low after...

[trommel]

Looking at the photos i think the LH engine is feathered, hard to say but the flap looks like it is at its takeoff setting.

[StormyKnight]

Below is the Google streetview of the point of impact with the road. On the left is a light pole which was removed by the aircraft as it came down.

What's more interesting is the high voltage lines running across above. Could this be the reason for the sharp bank to avoid those wires?

https://www.google.com.au/maps/@25.062865,121.616984,3a,75y,88.78h,105.62t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sUtiZTzXP_ufcn-FeC8pIYA!2e0?hl=en

Note: the high voltage powerlines are not show in the satellite view only the streetview.

[das Uber Soldat]

You can't roll an ATR that fast with control inputs alone. It just won't do it.

[jonseagull]

From the pictures and the reports of a mayday call it could be a left engine failure and subsequent stall and wing drop. The direction of the roll and wingdrop would tie in with the left engine failure theory. As for the stall, there could be a myriad of reasons.

[TWT]

StormyKnight,it's the other carriageway to the east,cars heading NW (ish)

Streetview here: https://goo.gl/maps/wYHxO

Aircraft passed just behind the overhead crossbar

[jack11111]

Are 58 souls a full load for this aircraft?

[27/09]

Stormy Knight (and others)

Could this be the reason for the sharp bank to avoid those wires?

That aircraft was out of control well before the wires. They'd lost directional control before they crossed those buildings.

This accident looks to have "loss of control at Vmca written all over it.

[27/09]

Are 58 souls a full load for this aircraft?

No, can be up to 74

[mickjoebill]

It doesn't look to me that it touched the buildings.
It went under the high voltage wires.
Perhaps the final straw was trying to pull-up to miss those wires...

[GroundScot]

Jack - normal config is 72 pax seats for this carrier

[StormyKnight]

StormyKnight,it's the other carriageway to the east,cars heading NW (ish)

Streetview here: https://goo.gl/maps/wYHxO

Aircraft passed just behind the overhead crossbar

Yes we are on the same street, if you go thru the crossbar the lightpost on the right is one removed. There is a white blob of paint to the left of the base of it.

Also here's another view looking up from the ground showing the proximty of the overhead power lines...crossing near that crossbar.

https://www.google.com.au/maps/@25.062241,121.617337,3a,75y,358.13h,115.72t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sV0VNNcEk04Z9ZXVmcXve2w!2e0?hl=en

[ACMS]

Looks to me like left Engine failed but didn't feather, crew let it get too slow and went below VMCA.....all over red rover.....

[Mark in CA]

From a Reuters report:

The last communication from one of the aircraft's pilots was "Mayday Mayday engine flameout", according to an air traffic control recording on liveatc.net.

The head of Taiwan's civil aviation authority, Lin Tyh-ming, said the aircraft last underwent maintenance on Jan. 26. The pilot had 4,916 hours of flying hours under his belt and the co-pilot had 6,922 hours, he said.

[Heebicka]

Looks to me like left Engine failed but didn't feather, crew let it get too slow and went below VMCA.....all over red rover.....


and left is afaik critical engine in ATR

[parkfell]

A question for an ATR pilot.

Let us assume that, for what ever reason, there was a loss of power on left engine, what kind of performance is possible assuming the auto feather is successful?

If the auto feather malfunctions, and therefore a windmilling prop condition exists, the performance is significantly degraded until manual intervention occurs in a timely manner.
This will be practiced during LPC/OPC in the simulator. How much more difficult is it to control and survive?

Loss of airspeed is always the final critical factor in this type of accident.

Remember the accident with the Airtours crew being flown GLA-ABZ in a Cessna twin?. This of course was not a performance A machine

[BO0M]

I've got 10 years on type and currently a TRE/TRI on the 600 for the last 2 years.

The ATR is perfectly capable of maintaining a rate of climb with an unfeathered prop if controlled correctly. ATR don't specifically have a procedure to deal with the no autofeather scenario due to the odds of it occurring. That been said many operators have their own for safety reasons.

Generally a crew would identify the ATPCS had failed during the initial memo items immediately after the gear is selected up (let's say 100ft). Timely identification takes place and the engine would be shut down. This is not a difficult procedure and an experienced crew would have no issues maintaining 200/300ft/min until completed

I personally don't like speculating on accidents but I highly doubt a failure of the auto feather system is the culpriate. If indeed there was a failure of the left engine after takeoff then it could be as simple as the crew mishandling the failure.

[Massey1Bravo]

One more video:

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1053519784674205

Looks to me like left Engine failed but didn't feather, crew let it get too slow and went below VMCA.....all over red rover.....

They were going to crash well before that wing drop/Vmca roll at the very last few seconds. IMO it was probably a secondary/wing drop stall, possibly the pilots pulled just a bit too much after they realised they might hit the motorway.

High sink rate + pitch relatively high +wings level = partially/fully stalled

Given that the ATRs should have enough performance to not fall like a rock after an OEI scenario with wings level (with or without autofeather) this is leading me to believe it's a double engine failure and I agree with pattern_is_full that the pilots might be trying to pull off a 'Sullenberger' on the river.

[Vilters]

What you see is not roll command. That is a typical wing drop at a stall with a failed engine.

Take off, loosing the left engine, getting too slow, stall, and wing drop.

The wing drop is agravated because of the engine flame out. You loose the prop wash generating extra lift on the left wing, so the left wing WILL stall before the right wing.

Procedures may vary, but at first sign of an engine failure it is nose down.

Then fly airspeed, airspeed, airspeed, airspeed.
Speed is your life.
Even if you have limited altitude, and you have to sacrifice altitude for speed. SPEED is your life .

[Dash8100]

Regarding the video in post 22:

To me it looks like both propellers are not spinning very fast. Maybe a double flame out? Trying to stretch the glide, they saw the brigde coming up and stalled (the left wing) trying to miss it? It doesn't make sense that experienced pilots would mess up a single engine flame out.

Then again, a double flameout would probably feather both props?

[mary meagher]

EFAT, full of fuel...lucky to be in the water....and shallow water at that.

[BO0M]

A double engine flame out is highly unlikely as is the no auto feather scenario.

What is more likely is poor handling technique on the initial flame out leading to overuse with ailerons to maintain directional control, this is all due to an over realiance on the "new" auto rudder trim.

Seen it many times in the sim and when that rudder snaps out its not pretty.

All that said these comments are in no way saying that's what has occurred I'm not here to point fingers or do the I know why game. It's a very sad accident for all involved.

[mad_jock]

I don't think it was stalled.

I also don't think the LH engine was secured.

Maybe it was still giving some power but not as much as to be equiv to feathered. Auto feather didn't kick in because they didn't get neg torque and they didn't realise that getting 5-10% torque is worse than feathered.

I think they lifted the nose because they thought they were going to hit those flats.

Speed came back and went below Vmca and then they ran out of roll/yaw authority.

[Livesinafield]

Procedures may vary, but at first sign of an engine failure it is nose down.

what?! we are flying Perf A turboprops here not PA28's.......

[papazulu]

To me it looks like both propellers are not spinning very fast.

It comes from a dashboard cam, most likely the frame ratio wouldn't cope. Thus the "slow-mo" effect.

[givemewings]

I hadn't see the video yet with the woman in the car. Yes now it's more clear with the wider angle. If they didn't hit the buildings it looks they came very, very, close.


Lucky people on the ground indeed

[snowfalcon2]

"The Civil Aeronautics Administration said the aircraft involved in Wednesday’s disaster had just completed a safety review on January 26. The pilot had 4,914 hours on his record and his co-pilot 6,922 hours, the authorities said."

There are about 15 survivors according to 23 believed dead, 20 missing in TransAsia crash in Taipei - Taiwan News Online (http://www.taiwannews.com.tw/etn/news_content.php?id=2683262)

Edit: According to the CAA there was also a third pilot in the jump seat with over 16,000 flight hours of experience, says FlightGlobal: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/three-pilots-onboard-crashed-transasia-atr-72-408669/

Furthermore, FlightGlobal notes that the airline said: "At the press conference, it was also revealed that the turboprop previously had a faulty left engine which was replaced in Macau. The ATR 72 was powered by Pratt & Whitney PW100-127M engines." http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/transasia-atr-72-crashed-four-minutes-after-take-off-408675/

[mad_jock]

A better term would be reduce angle of attack which as we all know doesn't necessarily mean select a nose down attitude compared to the horizon.

[Jet Jockey A4]

Procedures may vary, but at first sign of an engine failure it is nose down.

That would depend at which stage of flight you are in.


And yes the Boeing/Airbus video on stalls is very informative but that relates to "big" under the wing jet powered aircrafts and may not necessarily apply for a turboprop type aircraft.

Although speculative at this time on my part and as others have also speculated, it could be that a VMCA incident occurred.

Time will tell when the "black boxes" are read.

[Livesinafield]

Interesting thanks, but in all my OPC's LPC etc i have never been taught to lower the nose, I am more interested in my speed

Only time i would consider lowering the nose is if i was at a very high pitch angle and even then i am going to keep some of that while i slow towards V2, if i simply lower the nose as you say and its low level i suspect we will loose height

I guess it all varies what type your flying...

[Massey1Bravo]

What is more likely is poor handling technique on the initial flame out leading to overuse with ailerons to maintain directional control

Interesting, I didn't expect the overuse of ailerons would have such a major impact on performance to the point where the aircraft cannot maintain altitude, especially for a large turboprop. I mean this isn't a MU-2 with roll spoilers.

[stuckgear]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B8_LBvpIYAAEr9U.jpg

[Loose rivets]

"At the press conference, it was also revealed that the turboprop previously had a faulty left engine which was replaced in Macau.

Oh dear. I suppose there's just a chance the 'fault' was upstream of the actual engine.


BO0M, Is there an improved check or automation for those fuel pump switches above the skipper's head? In my time on type I couldn't believe how many times the NFP failed to set them. I heard of at least two times it lead to a Mayday being put out.

(as an aside, I couldn't believe it wasn't part of the engine fire drill to turn them off. Just one example of FCOM overruling experience.)

[mad_jock]

Don't think most on here realise the amount of drag you get on a prop if you don't secure it.

To simulate a feathered prop its not uncommon to have to use 10-14% on the dead engine.

Over the years there have been many many incidents when there has been a partial failure and the engine keeps turning but giving intermittent burst of power or something below the simulated failed engine torque.

On my TP type at MTOW the stall speed is 84 knts. Vmca is 101knts Vr is 111knts.

Tim Allen at BAe systems did a extremely good article about the dangers of trying to nurse an engine home on a turbo prop when it is producing less than 15%- 20% torque 10 years ago. And its something that I have hammered into me in the sim as well.

Vmca goes through the roof with one engine at full chat and the other at flight idle way way above Stall speed. There are no numbers produced but in the sim my type will run out of rudder and aileron at 115-120knts and the stall speed is still the same and it won't climb never mind pref A performance until the engine is secured.

[Greenlights]

What is more likely is poor handling technique on the initial flame out leading to overuse with ailerons to maintain directional control

indeed.
so, wondering pilot's experience, how is the recruitment in this airline, the training etc

[biscuit74]

This recent series of posts does raise a query in my mind.

The quite high deck angles achieved on initial climb out insome aircraft today suggests that on occasion a significant reduction in angleof attack or easing of pitch angle, done reasonably smartly, may be helpful toensure the aircraft remains above Vmca following a partial or subtle power loss. It will take some time for any lost airspeed torecover in a heavy aircraft – is that demonstrated in simulator exercises?Especially recalling that many pilots may find controlled flight at or very near Vmca ‘challenging’in some types.


I recall in UK gliding, after a series of nasty accidents a few years ago, a lotof effort was spent reminding pilots that just getting the nose down wasn’tenough. It is important of course to wait until there is sign of positive rise in airspeed beforemanoeuvring vigorously.

That short video clip also seems to me to show the effect of insufficient airspeed, for whatever reason at that point. Horrible to see, horrible to feel an aircraft dropping away from you. Impressed anyone survived.

[FullWings]

It does have all the hallmarks of a Vmca departure, maybe combined with a wing drop. High pitch attitude, RoD building then a final rapid roll into the water. What malfunction(s) and/or handling might have led to that we have yet to see.

I remember what my first flying instructor told me, which was: “If you’re going to crash, crash with the wings level”, i.e. if possible, keep the aircraft under control, even if you’re going down to a certain impact. Fortunately, I’ve never had to put his advice into practice...

Interesting thanks, but in all my OPC's LPC etc i have never been taught to lower the nose, I am more interested in my speed
Until we started doing LOEs as part of our ATQP, OPC/LPC (or even IRR, back in the day) engine failures consisted of V1 cuts because they we supposed to be the most critical or difficult. We all know that’s not the case and a failure just as you’re reached the AEO attitude needs a swift reduction in pitch otherwise you’ll be going back past V2 on the way to Vmca. Waiting for speed trends to develop could leave you in a less than desirable situation.

Same could be said for a power loss in a turn or during clean up.

[Golf_Seirra]

Considering they would have been not far off Accel Alt, may well have been a case of securing the incorrect engine and left with no options. I agree that they seemed to be trying to lift the nose to make the river in front of them. Pity some companies think operating turbo-props are for beginners although both crew had above average hours...oh dear, we seem to be hour measuring again...

[funfly]

keep the wings level?
With due respect, the aircraft missed high rise buildings and a busy road, would it be so difficult as to think that the pilot acted in order to achieve this at the expense of his aircraft and obviously his own life?

[Volume]

Interesting thanks, but in all my OPC's LPC etc i have never been taught to lower the nose, I am more interested in my speed Well, if you look at your nose, it indicates where your speed will be in the near future... Additionally, at the time you lose an engine (or loose thrust) your flight path angle immediately gets shallower. If you keep the nose at the same pitch, your AoA will increase meaning your speed will decrease. If you lose an engine, you have to lower your nose to maintain AoA. Naturally an aircraft will do that by itself, but if you want to be a little proactive to prevent a drop in speed, you better use the elevator to expedite the natural reaction.
I guess it all varies what type your flying...Depending on the effect thrust has on the pitching moment, aircraft will drop the nose immediately if you lose thrust (even more than necessary), so yes it all varies with type what you have to do, however the nose has to get lower, whether you do that or it happens naturally is not that important.

[rnzoli]

Were these recordings listened to by anyone? Was there a Mayday call?
Airport Detail: TSA | LiveATC.net (http://www.liveatc.net/search/?icao=TSA)

[Cusco]

Were these recordings listened to by anyone? Was there a Mayday call?
Airport Detail: TSA | LiveATC.net

See post #10

Mayday at 23.28 or thereabouts

[Huck]

Looking at the last video - there is no way either motor was producing torque. No way. 2700 hp per side...... A Vmca roll would come after a significant climb rate.....

[aa777888]

Perhaps the wrong engine was secured?

[wooski]

maybe autofeather didn't work, or manually feathered/shut wrong engine...

doing a search seems there was a discussion in the tech log about the procedures , not sure if its the same model

http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/446258-atr72-500-engine-flame-out-take-off.html


Huck Looking at the last video - there is no way either motor was producing torque. No way. 2700 hp per side...... A Vmca roll would come after a significant climb rate.....

[Bokkenrijder]

Perhaps the wrong engine was secured?
Or kicked the wrong rudder?

[beamender99]

Now lifting some of the wreckage.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8GmxMGCDh4

[parkfell]

Mad Jock post at 1158 hits the nail on the head.

Tim Allan's observations / article about loss of power must now be critical reading and teaching to turbo prop crews.

I found, if memory serves, that zero thrust on Saab 340 is about 30 TQ.?
No doubt DB6 will keep me right !

Therefore any torque less than this zero thrust setting will create DRAG, and must be dealt with without delay.

Must be included in the simulator as a teach and practice. Auto feather failure is difficult to deal with even when you know it is on the agenda. Control and secure practice is essential.

[mad_jock]

A Vmca roll would come after a significant climb rate

Unfortunately not, you can get it while decending as well. It doesn't matter to be honest what your doing if your going down or up as soon as your speed comes back it bites.

The larger the angle of bank the greater the speed as well. Once you go past about 10 degrees the Vmca increases rapidly in a none linear manner.

[Glassy Water]

I fly the Caravan - with an unfeathered prop it flies as if you have just jettisoned the wings - the rate of descent is horrific. Feathered, the thing flies on forever !

[mad_jock]

My type won't NTS or auto feather what ever you want to call it until it senses negative torque.

Which is 10-15% below the zero thrust setting/feathered

[Lost in Saigon]

A couple of random thoughts


About 25 years ago my brother was flying a CASA on a warmish day in Africa when shortly after take-off he had an engine failure. Despite having a theoretical service ceiling of 26,000 on two engines, on one engine on that day the CASA was losing height. He called PAN and managed to land at a nearby airport that was roughly ahead of him by good fortune. But he was disconcerted by the poor single engine performance.



All transport category aircraft are certified to fly after a failure of one engine.

Your brother's CASA must have been too heavy for the airport temperature and altitude on that particular day. That is a performance calculation problem. It is not the fault of the aircraft.

There are many factors which can limit the performance of an aircraft. (overloaded, too hot, too high, improper Center of Gravity, etc) Some of these factors could be at play with this ATR-72 crash as well.

One of the most difficult things a pilot trains for is an engine failure right at liftoff. Some pilots are better than others at this maneuver.

The investigation may prove otherwise but my gut feeling tells me the pilot did not handle the aircraft properly following an engine failure.

[mad_jock]

thing is....

I have never heard of a turbine turbo prop engine failure that is anything like what you get in the sim.

I have had first hand storys from pilots not just reading the reports.

They have had rear compressor failures metal coming out the back EGT's through the roof.

They have had the spline couples go between the prop and gear box.

They have had the compressor suck a bird and start surging.

They have FEDEC's go nuts.

Engines that start cycling between 0 and 100% torque.

prop governors not governing.


But never a bang at V1/Vr and then the engine winds down all very well behaved.

[Jet Jockey A4]

Not much left of the aircraft forward of the wing, indeed even the wing is pretty much non existent. However this could be in the way they strapped the aircraft to get it out of the water

Surprised anyone survived the crash.

[Trackdiamond]

I would like to present these two possible scenarios with ATPCS failed compounded with Eng Flame out.If not reacted to properly in the second segment climb..performance would be severely diminished, this added to posiible mishandling and eroding speed below Vmca...possibly leading to the loss of control we saw depicted in the video sequence.58 people is not a full load on an ATR 72 and for performance to be diminished like that Lo Pitch and or ATPCS might have played a critical role.The assymetric drag experienced during LO pitch if prop not feathered is worse than during engine flame out.It is a Memo item! ATPCS provides for(apart from torque boost on the live engine) auto feather on the engine suffering power loss.So if ATPCS failed...you take matters in your hands..and deal with it swiftly or brace!

[mad_jock]

its not even that warm there just now.

Min 14 deg max 18 in the last 36 hours.

Wind under 15 knots.

[I-NNAV]

Just For info, if -600 is the same as -500 you don't need negative torque on the ATR but Tq< 18%, and prop isn't going to feather if you don't have the pwr management selector on T/O... like when you are above minimum acceleration altitude...

[papershuffler]

Regarding CRM: the pilot (according to news reports) issued a Mayday, therefore managed to graduate to the Communicate part of ANC.

Bearing in mind the timescale, apart from Sullenberger, is there a record of this happening in similar circumstances?

[mad_jock]

I-NAVV what is your zero thrust torque?

[maxed_out]

In my view the ATR is a huge compromise. Underpowered and poorly designed. How they got the "double pull" procedure approved is really beyond strange.
The only benefit of the ATR is that it gets 70 ish people into the air as cheap as possible. Compared to the SAAB 2000:s 4152 SHP the ATR 72-600 is, with it's 2475 SHP, quite underpowered. Bear in mind that they have roughly the same MTOM (ATR 200 kg lower).

Some ATR driver might also shed some light to the engine problems the ATR fleet has had in recent times. Something about massive propeller vibrations?
Maybe the cause of this accident?

[I-NNAV]

For simulated oei ops in manuals is reported only a Power lever angle 39* not a torque, but if you consider that for a 3* glide slope you fly around 22 Tq roughly (not sure, I don't follow the Tq a lot like other colleagues) I don't consider a TQ above 18% an high drag setup...

[mad_jock]

More than likely because it isn't and they chose that number for the auto feather to trigger because to go below that you would be into the drag zone.

Whats flight idle?

[340drvr]

I know nothing about the ATR, but, can these engines experience a runaway torque conditon like the PT-6 in a King Air? Maybe the left engine was OK, while the right side was screaming past redline? That scenario in King Air sim is one of the hardest to recognize and handle properly.

[Trackdiamond]

If you have flown the ATR you will understand the meaning of Lo Pitch fail and ATPCS failure impact on take off performance.Swift manual feathering would have been required to comply with second segment climb.It might be whilst trying to do that and arrest descent rate they eroded speed and fell below Vmca..that is the scenario am eyeing upon and hope when reports are released to confirm or cofound it.Any ATR 72-600crew in here please can you shed any ligh t on this.

Dispatch with ATPCS u/s or off requires:
Bleeds off

Increase V1 limited by Vmcg by 5kts
Incr Vr by 2kts
Increase Vmca by 3kts
Decrease max 2nd segmet weight by....3600kg in case of ATR 72
For Approach increase Vmcl by 3 kts

So if any of the above were breached in an ATPCS unavailable scenario you can see the performance impact.

[Trackdiamond]

Control wheel..Push firmly
*if flaps zero(extend flaps to 15)
*if flaps 15 (likely case):
Pwr management ...TO
CL/PL......................MCT
ATC........................notify (May day! in this case...cose to the ground).

Note..This procedure is valid whatever the LDG GEAR position (down or up..in this case UP)

Note that the narrative is based on ATR 500 series.I wonder what the diff would be with 600 series checklist.

[Trackdiamond]

There is a short in flight troubleshoot procedure after retyrding TQ to about 84% and see if the Np increased is below 101% (in whic case continue flt normally

Or if Np remains. Above 101% and conditions permit..shut down the affected engine and follow S.E. ops QRH procedure.

*red limits must not be deliberated exceeded.

I don't think this was the scenario.

[Trackdiamond]

For PW121A eng. It is <18%
For PW127E/127M is is <21%

FI PL position is 37 degrees PL angle. The thrust will depend on Atmospherics and EEC regulation that moment.

[BlueVolta]

Once you have past the acceleration altitude and set the power management from TO to Climb you do not have anymore the protection of the ATPCS.
On the -600 you just move the rotary switch from TO to Climb and that's it the climb sequence is over.
Should you loose an engine just at this moment it can be very tricky as you need to recognise it quickly enough to have time to feather it manually.
Furtermore the -600 has in my opinion some interface ergonomy can be confusing and with stress I am not sure if the crew could not be confused by some PFD indications instead of reverting to "basic airmanship".

We will see what it comes out from the inquiry....

The ATR is quite underpowered, single engine in optimum conditions is as requested for certification.
In actual OEI conditions, especially with a windmilling prop, I have some doubts if it can maintain level flight and speed.

[Jet Jockey A4]

Tracking shows the aircraft climbed to at least 1250 feet.

On the initial takeoff it was still on rwy heading and by the end of the rwy at 300 feet and 113kts.

At one point after the rwy end it makes a sharp right turn while climbing to 1250 feet where the speed is now at 83kts!

It further drops to 81kts while descending and eventually gets to 85kts before the impact.

For those familiar with the ATR 600, what is the Vmca, flaps up or in takeoff position?

[deefer dog]

The wing stalled....that seems pretty obvious to many here. It was certainly not a deliberate roll to the left, the aircraft simply isn't capable of such a rate of roll.

For those who favour the VMCA theory I strongly disagree. Reducing IAS through VMCA would never produce such a high rate of roll. For certain one wing stalled, and quite likely very shortly after so too did the other one.

A tragedy, and for those fortunate enough to survive, also miracle.

[Jet Jockey A4]

Well a Vmca departure could also lead to a wing stalling if you try to keep the nose up and try to counteract with ailerons plus spoilers.

I know that with full power on one engine only if you allow the speed to go below Vmca on a Dash 8 it will roll into the dead engine pretty fast.

Of course if you keep bleeding the speed back then the wing will stall most likely the one with the failed engine first because of the prop wash on the other wing.

In this case it could be that they initially thought they could make the opening on the other side of the highway but at the last minute saw they could not and added power (if it wasn't always at max power) and were too slow and hit Vmca.

Anyway with the black boxes retrieved, they will know.

Obviously an aircraft not under control both in direction, speed and altitude.

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

[mad_jock]

I am trying to find online that article of Tim Allan's. Some is asking for it.

I think everyone up north was pushed towards reading by a certain exam callsign and Flight ops inspector.

It really is a superb article for all multi engine prop pilots.

It was in the operator safety magazine and it was written when Tim was still a test pilot for them which I reckon was maybe around the 1995-2000 period.

Now the perfect thing would be someone nice from BAe regional that reads this to get authorized for public viewing and online somewhere. It really is a superb training document and would aid flight safety to all.

I think my copy of it went to the wind a few years back with a hard drive failure. And anyway I wouldn't post it on line as understandably its copyrighted.

[Benbecula]

I have been on the ground for most of the day at the crash site. I'm not going to offer any speculation as to what caused the accident, but I'd like to say that the Taiwanese emergency services have done an absolutely stellar job today with the rescue and recovery operation.
It has been a bad 12 months, particularly for Asia, for aviation. I am hoping that this year will see an end to this peculiar run of aviation related tragedies.

[GusHoneybun]

MJ,

copy of the article here. It should be compulsory on each type rating. Starts pg 9

http://www.availableaircraft.co.uk/ImagesNFiles/Jetsets_-_Feb_2008_-_Issue_1.pdf

[mad_jock]

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1053519784674205

USe that video on HD and full screen. Its not feathered and still turning.

[papershuffler]

Regarding the screen shots on page 1:

Is it perspective/elevator position, or is there a piece missing from one of the horizontal stabilisers?

If so: debris from failed engine taking out control surfaces?

EDIT: it's most visible on the first, the second has contamination from the impact and light gantries, making it artificially appear that the lower side is longer.
EDIT2: I suspect the length difference is a perspective issue due to the position of the stabilisers on the T-tail. Not sure if this totally accounts for the difference in shape though?

[Sop_Monkey]

Here we go again. The company are going to review their safety procedures. What about a total review of training procedures and experience of crew reviews.

The authorities and companies don't seem to have any idea of dealing with the issue. Just awaiting more stringent and regular medicals and university degrees as a remedy,

Where is ICAO when you need them??

[mad_jock]

The article isn't the full article about the dangers of trying to nurse a engine home when its delivering less than zero thrust ie not feathered.

It looks like the time period 1995-2000 is correct though.

[go123]

"The wing stalled....that seems pretty obvious to many here. It was certainly not a deliberate roll to the left, the aircraft simply isn't capable of such a rate of roll.

For those who favour the VMCA theory I strongly disagree. Reducing IAS through VMCA would never produce such a high rate of roll. For certain one wing stalled, and quite likely very shortly after so too did the other one.

A tragedy, and for those fortunate enough to survive, also miracle."

I'd have to disagree with you on this one, Asymmetric roll over happens pretty quickly

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

[PBY]

Look at the graph in the post #104. I think there is some answer. They lost an
engine, but managed to climb to 1300 feet in one minute. That seem to be an excessive climb rate. It seems some quite excessive pitch for being on one engine. It seems the speed for single engine was not taken care off. I am not sure, what is the single engine climb rate in an ATR. But 1300 fpm seem to be high. They went below the safe speed and it goes downhill from there. Of course it is just a theory. Who knows, what else could cause all this. But if it was not a control difficulty problem, than it seems to be overcontrolled.
Sad day.

[JammedStab]

Interesting thanks, but in all my OPC's LPC etc i have never been taught to lower the nose, I am more interested in my speed

Only time i would consider lowering the nose is if i was at a very high pitch angle and even then i am going to keep some of that while i slow towards V2, if i simply lower the nose as you say and its low level i suspect we will loose height

I guess it all varies what type your flying...

In the climb phase, especially initial climb, there will inevitably be a lowering of the nose to accelerate. This is what the level off height or third segment is all about. Lower the nose, accelerate, clean up. Even for enroute climb, if you want to maintain the same airspeed, what are you going to do. Cruise altitude and you need to drift down, how are you going to do initiate the drift down. If you are more interested in airspeed(which is the important thing) how else are you going to maintain it or increase it when required.

Interesting, I didn't expect the overuse of ailerons would have such a major impact on performance to the point where the aircraft cannot maintain altitude, especially for a large turboprop. I mean this isn't an MU-2 with roll spoilers.

The ATR does have roll spoilers to augment the ailerons. While not nearly as significant as an MU-2 which has no ailerons, adding significant amount of roll input will raise the associated spoiler reducing lift on that wing. Same with many large jets. I have seen someone in the sim use lots of aileron(with spoiler deflection) in a multiple engine out scenario and it just contributed a continual loss of airspeed(for that type and scenario).

If there was an engine failure with no autofeather in this accident, six-bladed props might make things worse as compared to the older 4 blade engine aircraft.

[Miserlou]

go123.
That manoeuvre in the video is a spin, not a Vmca loss of control.

[RatherBeFlying]

The video initially shows a wings level descent which indicates the a/c was under control, but seriously short of power over hostile terrain.

Fuel not getting to the engines would be more likely than two near simultaneous
mechanical failures.

I can understand the crew desperately needed at least one engine back, but may have been too slow to maintain control if an engine suddenly produced thrust.

One can understand why they would stretch the glide as the terrain was as hostile as it gets.

[Sqwak7700]

All plausible scenarios, Vmca excursion, Dual flameout, or incorrect securing of a non-failed engine.

I'm tending to think they had lost power on both power plants, because if you look at the speed/graph posted, when the aircraft stopped climbing, it was in a very steady descent, with mostly constant speed.

Seems to me that badly mishandled asymmetric flight would at least provide mostly level flight, or at least a shallower descent. That last minute pull was an automatic reaction to the pilots seeing that they were gonna hit the bridge or power lines. I don't think it was a Vmca roll, it just doesn't seem to have enough yawing and the wing drop looks more as a result of a stall.

Either way, the recorders look in great shape so we should have all the data soon and I'm sure the preliminary report will be quite expedient due to this airline's safety record. This will be a very politically charged event no doubt.

[Methersgate]

As a boy, I saw the Breguet Atlantique crash at Farnborough in September 1968. It looked very similar.

[freespeed2]

The altitude reached in the graph suggests that the engine failure may have occurred after the after take-off checks were commenced, one of which (on the turboprop I fly) is to turn off the autofeather (is it the same on the ATR?). After that the prop will windmill, and when instructing in the sim I occasionally see pilots forget or mis-handle the windmilling prop. they still expect the prop to feather.

The graph suggests that the pilot maintained the best speed he could to avoid the stall after the failure. In the final moments he was left with no option but to pull the control column aft to avoid the buildings / bridge and reach the river. The 'g' and speed reduction from this action likely caused a stall and Vmca at the same time.

We do exercises in Vmca in the sim on initial courses. We set up the conditions under which the aircraft Vmca speed is certified; MAOM, aft CG, critical engine failure, take-off flap, gear up, 5,000ft PA. If a gentle descent is maintained for demonstration purposes to allow a slow speed reduction towards Vmca then it can be docile maneuver, but the real world is never like that. If the pilot concentrates on maintaining altitude during the exercise then at Vmca the aircraft will roll very rapidly to the failed engine.

Vmca is generally close to the stall speed. Maintaining aft control column and max rudder deflection at this speed has a name: Full pro-spin action.

[papershuffler]

Is it known for certain that it didn't contact the power lines? It appears to me that the right horizontal stabilizer is breaking up before any of the empennage contacts the bridge. Makes me wonder if they snagged the powerlines.

As mentioned at #109, I was studying the horizontal stabilisers ("h/s") earlier and thought there was a section missing on the port side.

Bearing in mind the t-tail design which distorts perspective, it's not so much the length, rather than the shape.

BBC News - Taiwan TransAsia plane crashes into river (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-31125052)

On the third clip (taken by the car in the right lane) at 18-20s, have a look at the port side. I confirmed with a bit of modelling tonight, that the end of the stabiliser should graduate away bearing in mind perspective and the angles the plane travels through. Instead, it's 'blunter' than it should be; the tapered end part appears to be missing.

So, if part of the h/s had gone, some down force would be lost, the nose would go down, and the AOA of that wing would lower, possibly creating a spin. Does this fit the scenario?

[Lost in Saigon]

As mentioned at #109, I was studying the horizontal stabilisers ("h/s") earlier and thought there was a section missing on the port side.

Bearing in mind the t-tail design which distorts perspective, it's not so much the length, rather than the shape.

BBC News - Taiwan TransAsia plane crashes into river (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-31125052)

On the third clip (taken by the car in the right lane) at 18-20s, have a look at the port side. I confirmed with a bit of modelling tonight, that the end of the stabiliser should graduate away bearing in mind perspective and the angles the plane travels through. Instead, it's 'blunter' than it should be; the tapered end part appears to be missing.

So, if part of the h/s had gone, some down force would be lost, the nose would go down, and the AOA of that wing would lower, possibly creating a spin. Does this fit the scenario?

It does look like the port side stabilizer and elevator are misshapen but it may just be some kind of an optical illusion.

Even if part of the stabilizer were missing I don't believe there is enough missing to account for what we see happen to the aircraft. To me it just looks like a stall with a wing drop.

Lowering the nose would reduce the AOA on both wings and would prevent a stall. Are you are suggesting that a smaller port side stab would reduce the AOA on only the starboard wing and cause a spin to the left? That just doesn't make any sense to me at all.



http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y17/msowsun/photo%20stuff/photo16/Clipboard01ee.jpg~original

[Tarq57]

.....
So, if part of the h/s had gone, some down force would be lost, the nose would go down, and the AOA of that wing would lower, possibly creating a spin. Does this fit the scenario?
Nope. Firstly, regarding spinning, a reduction in AoA will reduce the likelihood of a stall/spin, not increase it. (It would appear that had the crew reduced the AoA prior to the roll commencing, the result would have been similar; it would have hit the bridge, but probably at a slightly different - and maybe less survivable - configuration. They simply didn't have the altitude to play with, and probably not the required power to prevent it.

I doubt that anything the crew did made the accident more or less survivable. They were clearly out of options, and just prolonging the inevitable (as you do. Poor buggers.) (This is called ''stretching the glide''. It didn't quite work. It often doesn't. It may have set up - inadvertently - an accident geometry that made the impact survivable for some on board. Having seen the videos, it is not the sort of accident sequence one would expect survivors from. Those few were darned lucky.)

The accident sequence was already established; the roll to the left was merely part of it.
The aircraft was already committed to crash into the river/bridge prior to any power line contact taking place.

Appears a classic stall/incipient spin to me.

[misd-agin]

Post 116 - One can understand why they would stretch the glide as the terrain was as hostile as it gets.






There is no "stretch the glide" ability by going slower than your best L/D speed. Going slower reduces how far you fly.

[Ka6crpe]

Further, to stretch the glide into wind the airspeed should be increased above best LD by around half the wind speed.

[Yaw String]

Stretching the glide..yes,I was sure I mentioned that..I just can't found out where...Alzheimer's
..or Mr.Moderator!!

[core_dump]

There is no "stretch the glide" ability by going slower than your best L/D speed. Going slower reduces how far you fly.This assumes that all you care about is at what point along a flat surface you will hit the ground. There are often other considerations besides best distance. Like perhaps a large chunk of concrete in your way.

[CDRW]

From the close in pics of the aircraft clipping the car, can anyone see if the rudder is being use - I would have expected to see a whole lot of right rudder but to me it looks central??

[SHVC]

May I throw a spanner in the works, Does this company use Selatar in Singapore for their proficiency checks? If so is this company one of the Asian carriers that were continuing to check their pilots in a simulator with broken rudder peddles? I know for a fact that this simulator was still been used by company's in this broken state in the second half of last year. If so did these two pilots conduct a check and pass in a simulator with broken rudder peddles?

[Sunamer]

From that image it is appears that the left prop was rotating at much slower rate, hence the different motion blur that both props have got on the image - it is 2-2.5 times longer on the right propeller.

If my assessment is correct, it looks like the right propeller was rotating faster - (roughly) 2 2.5 faster, than the left one.

Here - i made a small test to confirm that - the left object rotates at 2.5 times faster rate than the right one.


http://s21.postimg.org/7enx6n9jb/atr_props_blur_test.png

[bloom]

Where do I start?

If there is damage to the port side elevator balance tab that some of you see in the video stills, where did it come from? Ground damage missed on preflight is my only guess. Even if a turbine wheel burst, it would most probably have been contained by the shroud. The engine parts would not go downstream and hit the T tail, no alignment. Prop blade? I see all four blades on both engines. Only "damage" I see prior to impact is caused by camera angle and the inherent distortion of a digital image expanded beyond the limits of its pixels. No, the aircraft was in good shape before impact.

In the best of the two dash cam videos, the aircraft appears from the left and is wings level, apparently slow, in a nose high attitude at a high rate of descent. At one point after takeoff they declared a "Mayday, engine flame out".

But at one point in the flight they had altitude (1250 feet), near sea level (fat air), and adequate airspeed. It was not that long a flight, so probably a light fuel load and well under seat capacity. The were not "heavy".

The aircraft should have been able to fly after V1 , climb and return. Minimum airspeed, no altitude, the aircraft should have been up to the task.

They pissed it all away and when they saw that they were not going clear the roadway, panicked and deep stalled the aircraft; the left wing stalled first. Lift normally generated by thrust over the wing that was absent due to the failed engine determined the direction of roll. Stalled. Not a "spin". A spin would need altitude.

The crew mismanaged a manageable incident. They "screwed the pooch". Whether it was their shortcomings or the lack of good training or training standards, is not mine to speculate. But when I transitioned to several different aircraft I was trained to "approach to stall" recovery. It wasn't till several crews actually stalled the aircraft (thankfully with sufficient altitude) that we received true stall avoidance/recognition/recovery training.

[Lost in Saigon]

Prop blade? I see all four blades on both engines. Only "damage" I see prior to impact is caused by camera angle and the inherent distortion of a digital image expanded beyond the limits of its pixels. No, the aircraft was in good shape before impact.

I agree with everything you say but an ATR-72 has more than four prop blades. I suppose the photos only look like four blades due to motion blur of the dash cam video.

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y17/msowsun/photo%20stuff/photo16/B8-OwC9IAAEb1g6.jpg

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y17/msowsun/photo%20stuff/photo16/Taiwan2.jpg

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y17/msowsun/photo%20stuff/photo16/taiwan.jpg

[OzSync]

Bloom you are happy to speculate that "they pissed it all away", "deep stalled" (sic), "mismanaged a manageable incident" and "screwed the pooch" on what little evidence there currently is yet it's not for you to speculate on training standards...wtf?

As for the old stretching the glide scenario, we need to consider that this probably saved those few. Turning that last bit of airspeed into momentum away from buildings and admittedly losing glide distance afterwards may have prevented a 911 type impact.

[mad_jock]

To deep stall it they would have had to defeat the stick pusher.

There is nothing in the alt profile to suggest that it activated

[MagicCarpet]

I think an engine failed at ~1,300 ft
Look at the graph on page 6 of this thread.
The flight lasted 3 min, 45 sec

00:00 Takeoff roll commenced
01:00 Rotate
01:45 Lower the nose, accellerate, retract flaps (maybe), all normal, autopilot may have been on
02:10 Engine fails at 1,300ft, pilots level off, airspeed decays
02:20 Wing stalls, aircraft drops 500 ft in 15 sec
03:45 Impact

I think the wing stalled in level flight after the engine failed. Maybe late going TOGA or MCT on the good engine. I think the aircraft remained stalled, or at least on the far back side of the power curve, until impact.

The crew were likely task saturated trying to secure a failed engine, turn away from terrain, and recover from a stall, almost simultaneously. Throw in GPWS alerts to add to the mix at the end. And we know from the final seconds of the video that this ATR can surely drop a wing in a stall, so the initial stall that lost them 500’ in 15 seconds may have well been similar. Very disorienting.

We all practice V1 cuts. Rarely do we practice engine failure in initial climb or in the cleanup phase, possibly in a terrain avoidance turn. My last airline had a sim scenario with engine failure at 700’ in IMC with the autopilot off. Much harder than a standard V1 cut.

[McWho]

Apparently one of the air stewardesses who survived was also on board the last crash in July 2014. Lucky girl, depending on whether you're a glass half full kind of person! Not sure how anyone could return to work after going through this twice though.

58 souls, 15 survivors, 12 stilll missing.

[cris95123]

as they never reached VFTO they didn't complete memo items ( SHUT OFF engine )....if engine 1 was not fully flamed out ...propeller was still spinning.

[ZFT]

May I throw a spanner in the works, Does this company use Selatar in Singapore for their proficiency checks? If so is this company one of the Asian carriers that were continuing to check their pilots in a simulator with broken rudder peddles? I know for a fact that this simulator was still been used by company's in this broken state in the second half of last year. If so did these two pilots conduct a check and pass in a simulator with broken rudder peddles?

Interesting comments as Selatar in Singapore is in fact ATR's own training Center and until last month was the only operating 72-600 simulator within the region. Would find it somewhat difficult to accept an aircraft manufacturer would compromise themselves this way!

[snowfalcon2]

It does look like the port side stabilizer and elevator are misshapen but it may just be some kind of an optical illusion.

Another explanation is that when the elevator is in full-up position, the mass balance horns protrude from the shape quite prominently. The starboard side seems to look similar.

In that situation, maximum pull would be a natural, if not optimal, pilot action.

[oldchina]

Can't spell pedals and doesn't know it's Seletar not Selatar.

[SHVC]

Do apologize for my spelling as I was on a IPhone and in a rush. But if anyone of you do the research you will find that it is fact that the sim was still operating with inoperative rudder pedals for up to 4-6 weeks. ATR were still allowing companies to use it in this condition.

[BO0M]

But if anyone of you do the research you will find that it is fact that the sim was still operating with inoperative rudder pedals for up to 4-6 weeks. ATR were still allowing companies to use it in this condition

Yes the SIM in Singapore operating for about 2 weeks without rudder pedals on the Captains side not 4-6 like you say. You are correct in saying many companies continued to train and check their crews in it, all apart from the Kiwi and Ozzy companies that refused. It is completely at the airlines and TRE/TRIs descretion if they want to continue training in a faulty product. Read into that what you will!

[david1300]

Where do I start? ...
They pissed it all away ...
The crew mismanaged a manageable incident. They "screwed the pooch".
With all the assumptions and speculation in your post, and the condemnation of the crew, maybe you just lobby to replace all accident investigation operations with your superior ability and random deductive skills :ugh:

Or, better still, make some considered observations without coming across as a thoughtless and arrogant prat by drawing such absolute and as yet unfounded conclusions.

[rh200]

A couple of questions from a dumb F$%, and they are not to imply in anyway this is whats happening, just technicality and enlightenment.

Roll rate, yes we know it can't roll that quickly commanded. But what is the roll rate with one engine out near stall maybe with some rudder kicked in?

Glide distance, yes pilots know the drill, optimum glide distance, too fast or too slow you fall short. But does that not imply a speed that the aircraft is under some sort of reasonable control, even up to landing. Not maybe opps we have some power, now we don't. Or the thing is flying when it really shouldn't be at the moment speed.

Regardless of the theory, controlled flight into high rises or houses may make you try for the illogical.

[olster]

A lot of speculation here just like the Air Asia thread. We all would like answers but it may be optimal to hear the outcome of the investigation(s)....before coming up with definitive conclusions based on assumptions.

[Trackdiamond]

Was this likly a line training flight.One of the crew members had iover 16k hours and the other 2 had 6.9k and 4.5k respectively. This was no lack of experience scenario unless all 3 were low hours on type.Giving them all the benfiit of the doubt they probably did all thta was instinctly and procedurally possible to minimise damage. That last minute high bank might have been to avoid clipping the structures on the road across theior flight path with the intent of ditching into the river?Had they not clipped that car the plane might not have hit the road bank?I wish the crew are alive to tell the story in hindsight...but are they?Cockpit was submerged for a long time and they must have been strapped and probably might have been electrocuted with all the electrical and electronic bays behind their backs.

Any news of the recovery of the 3 cockpit crew?

[BO0M]

If it was a "glide" as a lot are saying then it was done incorrectly. (As per QRH/FCOM)

I don't pretend to know the weight of the aircraft involved but the target speed for a glide in an ATR is VmHB. If the info out there is correct and its maximum speed was only 113Kts then it was a long way from the optimum glide speed especially at a flap zero configuration. At 80 odd knots with flap zero that airframe was stalled as it went in.

What is extremely obviously to those with experience on type is that the aircraft had an issue with an engine that was either managed incorrectly by the crew (I really hope not) or was completely unmanageable.

[HamishMcBush]

Local-ish newspaper reporting that one family switched seats prior to take-off as they were unhappy about engine noise from port engine:

Together with the child's mother, the family had switched seats on the plane "out of a hunch" that saved their lives, the United Daily News said.
"The family originally sat in the heavily damaged left side but Lin Ming-wei felt uneasy after he heard noises before taking-off and requested to switch seats," the report quoted Dai Bi-chin, a friend of the family, as saying after visiting them in hospital.

From
TransAsia pilot hailed as a hero for avoiding populated areas - Regional | The Star Online (http://www.thestar.com.my/News/Regional/2015/02/05/TransAsia-pilot-hero/)

[Yaw String]

Oh BO0M......lets not all get too smart here...
As has been mentioned,we do not have all the facts yet,to confirm double engine failure.
However, we are not talking about perfect conditions with an optimum approach angle and speed to the water surface..Is it not apparent to you that his choice of touchdown/crash point may well have been compromised!..just a little!

.."Done incorrectly"......please!

BTW..have my "Silver C"... And the Lasham Plate!

[hualien]

I'm a longtime reader and finally have something to contribute. I live in Taiwan and fly back and forth between Hualien Taiwan and Taipei almost weekly. Transasia is the only carrier that services our town and really the only domestic carrier aside from a few Mandarin airlines connection flights.

I just checked my photos and I flew on this EXACT plane last year on July 24th from Songshan airport. The flight really stood out to me because the plane was very new with different lighting and interior finishes than the rest of their ATR-72 fleet.

This plane had the oddest vibration in the engine. I normally sit up in seat 2D, ahead of the props since noise is lower. That wasn't the case on this plane. When they started the engine the vibration was intense up front and continually rattled the emergency exit door. The flight itself was uneventful. I've flown on this type over 50 times and this one was unusual. I usually enjoy flying on a new aircraft, but not in this case. Here is a photo from boarding that night on the tarmac. I'm now seriously considering taking the train or driving until TransAsia gets their issues sorted out. Sadly tour-bus and truck filled mountain roads here are pretty dangerous.

http://i.imgur.com/qREfHdIl.jpg (http://imgur.com/qREfHdI)

[mary meagher]

Stretching the glide....undershooting. Very little time to do the right thing, but the BA777 captain on final approach to LHR a few years back, the copilot being PF, and the engines declining to provide power when asked....the captain retracted a stage of flap, they scraped over the fence and all survived.

That was a power failure on approach. Much more difficult if you are faced with EFAT. Too many problems - how to improve the performance of your aircraft which has suddenly turned into a very unhappy glider. No flaps to put away. A useless windmill on one wing at least, acting as asymetrical airbrake. Poor choice of landing areas immediately ahead. No time to restart an engine. They did very well to make it to the river.

When undershooting in a simple glider, with no other problems, you have to lower the nose to INCREASE your speed over the ground, and if done properly this may get you over the hedge. The worst thing to do would be to raise the nose to clear obstacles.

[mad_jock]

Well the other TP drivers will have seen the coming in of heavy jet guys to regional TP due to lifestyle reasons.

Sometimes its not pretty.

Quite a few don't make it past type rating.

So the linetraining theory may have some weight.

Also nobody has said where that data has come from. It maybe that its ground speed not airspeed. The wind on the day was about 10 knots.

Also is there a noise abatement procedure with a V2+10 off that runway?

I must admit my speed control is very poor when we are meant to do them. My normal 0-5knts tolerance can get as bad as +40. And any excuse such as a bird being seen 24 hours before departure means I can't do it due flight safety reasons.

Never flown a jet, and never had to do one for real, but in the sim it gets very acrobatic in a tp when you get an engine fail at that speed and gear up. You have to instantly drop the nose from 20 degrees nose up down to 9 up Any delay and your speed is below v2. You have to set the attitude before the asi starts moving. You deep into the dirty side of the drag curve.

If they have been doing a v2 + 10 the departed i salute you I more than likely couldn't have done any better if I hadn't cheated with poor speed control.

[BO0M]

Oh BO0M......lets not all get too smart here...
As has been mentioned,we do not have all the facts yet,to confirm double engine failure.
However, we are not talking about perfect conditions with an optimum approach angle and speed to the water surface..Is it not apparent to you that his choice of touchdown/crash point may well have been compromised!..just a little!

.."Done incorrectly"......please!

Cmon Yaw I think you have read to much into what I'm trying to say. I've sqid over and over we don't know the facts!

The point I was trying to get across is that a double engine flame out and glide is highly unlikely! There isn't an ATR pilot out there worth his/her salt that doesn't know VmHB and feathered props are your life in such an event. Stretching the glide can only be achieved with Flap 15 and allowing the VmHB to reduce (and let's face it it's not really stretching it).

Like I said stating some facts to hopefully make people aware a double flame out/glide this was not.

[Trackdiamond]

Is there any documented evidence of previous left engine trouble and what was the nature of that trouble that needed fixing?

[TWT]

Does anyone know what the nature of the 'technical issues' were that resulted in both engines being replaced in Macau on the delivery flight last April,as alleged in the following article ?

Taiwan pilot hailed a hero for pulling plane clear of buildings - World | The Star Online (http://www.thestar.com.my/News/World/2015/02/05/Taiwan-plane-crash-lands-in-river-more-than-10-hurt--TV/)

nnnnn
nnnnnn
nnnnn
nnnnn

[funfly]

Any news of the recovery of the 3 cockpit crew?

Although not reported in the media, while I was watching the recovery of the front cockpit section there was a pause when two stretchers were taken to the area and taken away carrying two bundles wrapped in white cloth.

I don't know the contents of the bundles.

[funfly]

Watching the events of getting the aircraft out of the water, it has to be observed that the local authorities really did a well organised job and achieved the result pretty quickly.

[Royale]

Yes the -600 does have auto rudder trim, which is active as long as the Yaw Damper is engaged, it will hold in the event of an engine failure, even though I have only tried it in the simulator.

Without the yaw damper engaged it just a matter of correcting the yaw with the rudder pedals, and then engaging the yaw damper, which will then trim out any rudder force required.

The -600 is very easy to handle single engine, much easier that for example the -500.

However there is an risk of "lesser" pilots becoming reliant on this system for handling SE flight, and forgetting the basics.

[Going Nowhere]

Mayday call issued before deadly crash into river in Taipei | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-2938986/Taiwanese-plane-53-passengers-crashes-Taipei-river.html)

Does anyone else see a feathered prop hub?

[snowfalcon2]

The Daily Telegraph says the captain had complained about the left engine...

"The latest so far is the claims that the captain, Liao Jiangzhong, complained of “engine abnormalities” and requested an urgent inspection of the plane shortly before its final take-off but was rebuffed.

Liao Jiangzhong, the plane’s former air force pilot, is among 32 people so far confirmed to have died when the aircraft crashed into a river shortly after taking off from Taipei’s Songshan airport on Wednesday morning.

An unnamed “whistleblower” told Taiwan’s Liberty Times newspaper that Mr Liao requested a thorough inspection of the plane after noticing “engine abnormalities” during its previous flight.

The pilot registered the problem on a flight log, the newspaper added."

TransAsia plane crash: Pilot complained of ?engine abnormality? before take-off - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/taiwan/11388935/TransAsia-plane-crashes-into-river-in-Taiwan-latest-updates.html)

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Not a "spin". A spin would need altitude.

It's not a developed spin (there wasn't the altitude for that) but is sure looks like an incipient spin to me (been there hundreds of times, but at a safe altitude). The aircraft is obviously semi-stalled at least just before the roll-off to the left, nose high with a high rate of descent, very high alpha. Then the left wing dropped as the bottom fell out of it.

What we don't know is why it got into that situation.

If it's true the airline happily used a sim with inop rudder pedals then that says a lot about standards.

Agree that the aeroplane at high alpha as this one was would have come down faster than it would at best glide. But as someone said, the attitude may have been forced on the pilots by having to avoid hitting a building, by sacrificing speed for height. Though from what we can see in videos there are no buildings protruding into the aircraft's flight path that would cause that - maybe just involuntary desire to 'pull back to keep it in the air 'till the river?'

[BO0M]

To an ATR 72-600 pilot...

Does the 600 have an auto trim on the rudder and, if so, would it cope with an engine failure and remain engaged?

Yes new addition on the 600, only available once the YD is engaged.

[Royale]

Yes that definitely looks feathered to me.

[cris95123]

if you engage yd. AFTER engine flame out...autotrim is not operative

[Jet Jockey A4]

With the retrieval of the black boxes we should know soon enough what happened. It will be interesting to see if the stall warning was activated but for the time being I'll just ask questions to the pilots that fly the 600 and to those who know the airport of departure.

First… To those who know this airport. Do we know if one of the SIDs at this airport requires a right turn after departure?

Flight tracking shows a right turn followed by a left turn and then back to the right where the aircraft is almost on runway ending but off its centre axis. To me this seems they were struggling to control the aircraft.

Second… To ATR 600 pilots. What is the Vmca of this aircraft? What is the Stalling speed of this aircraft assuming a normal fuel load and pax load (58 + crew) to make this flight to destination? Assuming we can come close to its GTOW figures, we can probably figure out the takeoff speeds, a clean stall speed and one with flaps at takeoff position.

Weather was basically VFR with some rain and IIRC the winds on the ground were 10-15kts.

Now for the speculation part…

We know from the flight tracker that the aircraft reached about 1300 feet. The highest speed attained was 116kts, the lowest was 81kts and in its final stage prior to impact was increasing slightly to show a recorded speed of 85kts.

Now these speed are most likely ground speeds so if we take a 10kts headwind component we can assume the IAS would have been 126kts, 91kts and 95kts. Now assuming those IAS speeds are correct are we close to a stalling speed for flap 0 or flap in takeoff position for an ATR 600 for a given weight at takeoff?

We know one of the pilots called the “mayday and engine flame out” so we can almost ascertain there was an engine failure and most likely the left one. Why the left one? Because of the pictures showing us it was feathered or almost feathered, but definitely had a different pitch angle on its blades versus the right engine’s blades and finally it was turning slower than the right engine.

I think there is the possibility that the left hard over was a Vmca departure, a stall or a combination of both. From the video we see the aircraft seems to be level and descending then the left roll occurs.

Was this just a stall or a Vmca departure?

Perhaps has they were “gliding” towards the open area beyond the elevated highway, the pilots knew they were not going to clear it and added power to the one engine producing power, the right engine (on the pictures we see this because the prop is rotating faster).

At that moment perhaps they were close to Vmca and as the power came up there was not enough authority on the controls to keep it level and the aircraft rolled left.

This is just an exercise and is all speculative on my part… I’m not blaming anyone or pointing the figure at anyone, it is merely here for discussion purposes…

Now for your thoughts and view point and please keep it civilized!

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


In regards to the left hand engine and its propeller, if indeed this pictures shows that left engine it seems to me to be in a feathered position.

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b79/mlab601/ATR%20Prop_zps9vd62zhw.jpg

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Adding power doesn't increase Np.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

What's the difference between a VMCA departure and a spin entry?

For a spin, we increase AoA to the stall, and induce a yaw input using rudder (deliberate, or unintended through mishandling of the rudder), the inner wing lets go and drops, followed by the nose, and you're spinning. I know this having done it deliberately literally hundreds of times.

I'm not a multi-engine pilot so VMCA is theory to me. However, as I understand it the mechanism is similar to that of spin entry, except the yaw is induced by assymetric power overcoming the ability of the rudder to compensate, due low airspeed. Also, a VMCA departure can presumably happen when both wings are (before the event) below stall AoA. But the outcome is the same - inner wing stalled, un-commanded wing drop, and you're spinning.

[mad_jock]

the inner wing doesn't stall.

You run out of rudder the aircraft continues to yaw. The wing starts lifting you hit full cross controls and it continues to yaw into the failed engine and the wing keeps going up. All happens in a matter of seconds.

Only way you can get out of it is by chopping the power on the good engine.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Thanks Mad Jock. Didn't realise the inner wing didn't stall in the latter stages of a VMCA incident.

[Sop_Monkey]

It is always worth trying to remember that the occupants of an aircraft, have a 90% chance of survival if you contact the ground UNDER CONTROL. Fly the thing on!!

If the aircraft is flown in under control, the wings, elevators etc will absorb a lot of energy. It's the lack of control and vertical speed that mostly kills.

The glide stretch mindset must not be a reflex action, ever. If indeed this was the course of events in this accident, we don't know yet.

What we do know from photographic evidence the aircraft was not under control.

[Oggi]

Hope this helps to better understand the various speeds: http://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/493.pdf

[mad_jock]

It may stall depending the reason why you are hitting Vmca

But it certainly doesn't have to stall. Its the yaw which causes the roll not loosing lift.

[Ian W]

If the pilot concentrates on maintaining altitude during the exercise then at Vmca the aircraft will roll very rapidly to the failed engine.

Vmca is generally close to the stall speed. Maintaining aft control column and max rudder deflection at this speed has a name: Full pro-spin action.

And the rapid roll is a typical 'auto-rotation' entry to a spin.

[FullWings]

Given the evidence from the flight tracking (which has to be taken with a pinch of salt but is the best we have until the FDR is decoded), it looks like they had engine and/or propeller problems somewhere around AA.

Whatever happened and how it was handled left them with significantly less airspeed than before, probably well behind the drag curve for SE flight. The RoD appears to be c. 1,000fpm at that stage.

In the final moments, the airframe got so slow that it departed, looking like a mix of Vmca effects and a stall/spin. The still frames from the video, as others have pointed out, show what looks like substantial/full up elevator deflection (the “gap” in the stabiliser), which ties in with a stall/spin.

As to what actually happened to start this chain of events, there are many failure modes for a turboprop power plant, some much nastier than others... :ouch:

[Unusual Attitude]

I don't normally comment on these threads as I don't fly TP's however aerodynamics are aerodynamics regardless of the type and something strikes me looking at the speed / time / alt plot.

From the point just after rotation at about 100' the speed starts to decay, however the ROC remains surprisingly steady until they pass approx. 1100' when the ROC is reduced slightly. By this point speed is now passing below 100kts and then drops suddenly with associated loss in altitude of around 500' which looks like a stall and attempted recovery. The speed however never gets back above 100kts from this point and altitude continues to reduce steadily until the point of impact.

It looks to me that the speed was allowed to decline with constant ROC until the point of stall following which insufficient speed was attained during the recovery and the aircraft remained on the back of the drag curve unable to accelerate or climb on one engine.

Looking at the final video clip the aircraft is descending with significant positive AoA and I suspect the poor crew, out of options, attempted one last pull to avoid hitting the building resulting in a wing drop.
As it happens this might have been the one thing that saved lives Vs actually hitting the building.

[offa]

"On Feb 5th 2015 the airline reported that the two pilots at the controls had 4,914 hours and 6,922 hours total flying experience, an instructor with 16,121 hours total occupied the observer's seat. The crew had signed the flight papers, that showed no unusual circumstances"

The instructor wouldn't pull an engine on a Line Check would he?

[Jet Jockey A4]

The instructor wouldn't pull an engine on a Line Check would he?

I certainly hope not. That would go I'm sure against any decent airline's policies.

If he did that would be seen as criminal I'm sure with dire consequences for all involved.

[mover625]

The line check is supposed to be an observation of a normal operation to ensure that all SOPs are adhered to.
Nothing more.

[Jet Jockey A4]

Perhaps he was there to help observe what the pilots had reported with a problem on the left engine.

With 3 pilots in the cockpit it will be interesting to see how or if any crew coordination occurred.

[rondun]

Looking at the footage of the luggage being retrieved from the tail section in the river, it appears there are a large number of extremely heavy suitcases being removed. I know they will be full of water but still ...

[FullWings]

From the point just after rotation at about 100' the speed starts to decay, however the ROC remains surprisingly steady until they pass approx. 1100' when the ROC is reduced slightly.
If the “speed” in question is groundspeed (which I think is what is reported), then that would be normal for a takeoff into-wind as you climb at constant IAS into an increasing headwind. The ROC reduction is normal at flap retraction height.
By this point speed is now passing below 100kts and then drops suddenly with associated loss in altitude of around 500' which looks like a stall and attempted recovery. The speed however never gets back above 100kts from this point and altitude continues to reduce steadily until the point of impact.
Yes, it’s all going wrong now. Only one thing is certain and that is that drag is more than thrust so the flight path is now angled downwards. Why there is that imbalance remains to be seen. Could be a) high induced and trim drag from slow (IAS) flight, b) drag from an unsecured power unit, c) lack of power from the good(?) engine, etc. Or a combination of all of them...

[Discorde]

Without (as yet) knowing the full circumstances of the accident, it's noteworthy that a 'mayday' was sent apparently before aircraft control was established, which perhaps is not the best prioritisation of actions. As an examiner I noted that some crews did this during sim checks, which prompted me to write:

there is absolutely no point whatsover in sending ‘Mayday’ before the aircraft is under control and following the correct flight path. ATC can help you with neither of these

in my article 'How To Do Well In The Sim' (http://steemrok.com/howtodowellv3). Of course, if the situation is beyond recovery then a 'mayday' is vital to alert SAR services who might be able to rescue potential survivors.

[Jet Jockey A4]

Perhaps the "Mayday and engine flameout" message to ATC was sent after the initial memory items were completed and aircraft under control.

[DespairingTraveller]

Looking at the footage of the luggage being retrieved from the tail section in the river, it appears there are a large number of extremely heavy suitcases being removed. I know they will be full of water but still ... A standard size cabin bag flooded with water would tip the scales at around 50kg, let alone an item of hold luggage.

[Loose rivets]

First… To those who know this airport. Do we know if one of the SIDs at this airport requires a right turn after departure?


If things were going TU at a very early stage, he may well have over-dramatized the turn away from high-ish ground. His local knowledge might also have influenced him to turn well away from huge gas/fuel bottles and go for low terrain. That would certainly indicate he feared a normal single engine profile was not going to be achieved.

[jcjeant]

CAA Taïwan
All ATR grounded ?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/05/taiwan-airplane-checks-idUSL4N0VF1TX20150205
A grounding of Taiwan's 22 ATR aircraft was not ordered despite the incident, the second fatal crash involving a TransAsia plane in seven months.Well .............
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/02/05/asia/atr-72-safety-record/

[Loose rivets]

Mmm . . . what do they know that we don't?

[Jet Jockey A4]

All the ATRs or just the 600 model?

[despegue]

Sorry but I do not necessaryly agree with the idea that a Mayday is not necessary asap.

It is vital that WHEN TIME ALLOWS, to warn ATC that you are in trouble.

Why?

1) they will not interfere when seing you swerve rom flightpath

2) they can reroute, hold all other traffic asap freeing your way to whatever course you must go

3) in case of you being behind the aircraft and headingmtowards terrain, they can warn and offer escape vector. ( in a radar environment)

This is of course when in a terminal area below msa etc...

Obviously,maircraft under control comes first, then memory items, but you are with two on the flightdeck.

[thcrozier]

Anyone get the impression that with that nose high atitude and steep angle of descent as it crosses the buildings, it may have been in an unrecoverable stall at that point?

[Kelly Hopper]

Despeque

Aviate, navigate, communicate. When the sh1t hits the fan even more so.

[JanetFlight]

This very same aircraft B-22816 on the morning of 19th April last year declared a mayday and then cnl in favour of a full standby prevention at Macau due to the Hidraulic System lost at Engine 1, minutes before landing.

[Nock187]

Looking at the Mode S transponder graph, I get a different impression of what happened.

First, as far as I know, the "speed" being sent from the transponder is IAS, not ground speed. What it appears then is that the aircraft accelerated to near 116 knots and took off. At this point the climb profile is immediately abnormal. The plane is climbing steeply, but the IAS is immediately decreasing, instead of pilots making sure the speed stays constant or accelerating. Whatever their throttle settings or whether they have 2 or 1 good engines.......clearly the pilots are not monitoring their speed (seen that so many times now) through the departure climb, and they never regained that lost situational awareness.

For a full minute after take-off, the pilots keep the same rate of climb, but the speed decays every so slowly and gradually. Finally, at ~105 knots the plane gently stalls (From reading ATR-72 specs this is about the normal stall speed when clean and heavy), and we see a immediate reduction in the rate of climb. But it is still climbing....slower, but still climbing and still recoverable. Wings lost a lot of lift, but the AoA and high engine thrust still pulling them up, but unable to maintain speed and going to be in deep trouble if don't immediately start proper stall recovery procedure.

Then in those crucial seconds the pilots do what so many other pilots have done before them. Instead of gently easing the stick pressure and letting the engines pull them back onto the curve, they pull the nose up further and now the speed REALLY drops off. Now they got no speed, and losing altitude. And that's where they hold the nose all the way down, staying below stall speed until they crash. Look at the crash video, nose was kept above the horizon......all the way down until hit the bridge.

I don't buy the "engine failure" reports. It does happen, but statistically it is so very rare on these aircraft, and besides this aircraft is capable of a single engine departure (albeit tricky). We know that instead from crashes that depressingly the single most probable cause is pilot error, particularly in this neck of the woods.

"Engine failure" is probably what they thought or yelled in the few seconds they had during a high workload environment as the only thing that made "sense". Throttles set high/full, my nose is above the horizon, but the plane dropping out of the sky......hmmm, must be engine failure! Particularly as we know a lot of these pilots have probably never experienced a real-world stall/near-stall situation before. We've seen this before on several crashes, same thing on Colgan Air, AF447 etc. In the confusion the pilots brain just can't detect the reason they are descending with throttle levers pushed up and nose up is because they are stalled. "Engine failure" is the only rationale explanation that comes in those confused moments.

[armchairpilot94116]

http://s21.postimg.org/cfhuno2mf/640_6e842091de5df1094d8bbc5b3d6e7f35.jpg (http://postimage.org/)
free image uploading (http://postimage.org/)


Unconfirmed seating chart. Not final.

Red = Survivors
White = Empty seats
Blue = Deceased or Missing

The flight crew are confirmed deceased sadly.

[wingview]

Unconfirmed seating chart. Not final.

You'll never get a final seating chart because (some) people make changes inside the plane to sit alone or together.

Nevertheless, still amazing some got out alive!

[BG47]

Huang Chin-shun, a 72-year-old man, said he helped save four lives by unclipping safety belts.

"Shortly after taking off, I felt something was not right," he told CNN affiliate ETTV. "I thought: 'something's wrong with the engine,' because I always take this flight."

[ATC Watcher]

A grounding of Taiwan's 22 ATR aircraf
I read that figure before but according to airfleets , Transasia just has ( had) 11 ATRs , all 72s, in operation, where do the other 11 come from ?

[Chronus]

The passengers`s statement may be meaningful. Possible indication of engine loss after V2 and crew forced to take problem into the air. The real mystery is unless they also lost thrust on the remaining engine, then why were they unable to maintain altitude or climb.
As and when the power plants and props are recovered we might get a better idea whether or not the props were under power or not. Has anyone seen any photos of the recovered props or blades.

[JohanB]

Is there any risk the a/c was fueled wtht water contaminated or incorrect fuel, that dergraded the trust om the left and later took out the engines one by one, when the "dirty" fuel reached the engines?:confused:
does Someone have experiance about that?

[helen-damnation]

TV footage of the wreckage being recovered appeared to show an engine with feathered prop. All supposition at this time.

http://www.bbc.com/news/31143640

Look around the 38 second point.

[Chronus]

The engine and chewed up prop looks feathered.

In the event the synchrophaser malfunctioned or was not selected off, would this lead to autofeathering, especially with ATPCS disarmed. Has there been any previous issues realting to this on type.

[mad_jock]

Do the props not go to feathered anyway when the oil pressure drops?

[TheInquisitor]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't high aspect ratio aerofoils normally exhibit benign drag curves, resulting in a low Vimd and making it difficult to get on the wrong side of the curve? I've tried to find an example of the ATR72 drag curve, but can't.

If the above is correct, the speeds shown on the trace, plus a margin for headwinds, shouldn't have put the a/c on the wrong side of the curve. Even after levelling off, there wasn't enough power available to maintain speed, and eventually height.

Any ATR72 drivers want to comment on what the Vimd might be?

Whatever the root cause, if my first para is correct, it seems like there was more going on here than a single engine failure....

[mad_jock]

I fly a similar profile wing and it gets draggy as hell below 160knts. Sweet spot is about 180-190 depending on weight.

S & L clean you will use the same power at 130 knts as you do at 165knts. 120 its the same as 190knts.

[McWho]

Diagram on the previous page of the seating plan suggests someone in the jump seat?

[armchairpilot94116]

Another pilot was reportedly in Jump Seat. Reasons not clear.

[mad_jock]

that's where the line training theory comes from. Or maybe line check

[TheInquisitor]

Mad Jock, even if the same applies to the ATR, it still appears that they didn't have the power to maintain speed, even after levelling at only 1350-ish ft - Given that they ought to have been able to control an eng fail right back at V1, and safely climb away, this suggests that at this point they had somewhat less than 1 engine's worth of power available...?

[Chronus]

Autofeather at lift off under t/o power would be quite an event. Mind blowing confusion with Nh, TGT, FF all in t/o range. Hydraulics unlikely to have caused or contributed, it is the contradictory indications of a sudden and unexpected autofeathering that are a handful.

A good example is the accident report for Lockheed L188C G-FIZU, AAIB bULLETIN 5/2008.

For those interested:
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/Lockheed%20L188C,%20G-FIZU%2005-08.pdf

[itsmepaul57]

I'm sure I'm not the only one who has viewed the video clip numerous times. One of the things I have noticed is that the ailerons are not deflected ,if your aircraft banks suddenly to port wouldn't it be natural to throw the wheel to starboard to counter it - try and lift the port wing? So far as I can see the ailerons are flush with the wings - I'd expect to see some serious ailerons movement - there is non. PE

[mad_jock]

It all comes down to the prop on the failed being secured.

On one engine with the prop secured your down to 40-45% effective power performance.

If your zero thrust torque is 15-20% on an engine to simulate feathered and the engine isn't feather that then brings you down to 20-25%% effective power. Which just isn't enough to keep you S & L and speed stable.

Its why we have NTS and auto feather in TP's if you don't get rid of the drag of the failed prop you have the flights dynamics of a brick.

There are a few types which are not in that situation which is the SAAB 2K and Q400, from mates that fly them they are that well endowed in the engine dept even at a full load they have to be careful of overspeeding on single engine.

The SAAB 2K on a single engine a FL250 will quite happily overspeed.

Some of us have to deal with drift down alts in the region of 5-6k ft single engine and a full load.

[skyhighfallguy]

itsmepaul57


Hi, I have looked at the video and about 2 seconds prior to hitting the bridge I do notice that the right aileron is up, trying to level the plane. It is hard to see and you have to go frame by frame.

[Sop_Monkey]

Jock Indeed

If the ambient temps are high and your good engine is cooking itself your drift down alt maybe be sea level or below, certainly if the dead prop doesn't feather.. Keep it flying.

The above illustrates why a TP is more demanding than a turbo fan to fly.

[mad_jock]

I looked at the temps on the day and they were within 5 deg of ISA.

Vmca increases with temperature decreasing. It also increases when you put the gear up.

The book Vmca's are only valid in the TO configuration. After you get the gear up V2 is meant to keep you safe and then Vyse once clean. But if you stray away from the book configurations and limitations ie use more than 5 deg of bank engine not feathered you don't have a clue what the Vmca is.

Which is another issue I have with some of these noise abatement procedures requiring sometimes a 90 deg + turn left or right before the acceleration phase.

25-30 deg bank angle at 1000ft and the inside engine goes and your a smoking hole in the ground even with the auto feather or NTS working at V2 +10

[JanetFlight]

According Taiwan CAA an instructor/examiner with 16,121 hours total occupied the observer's seat.

[Carbon Bootprint]

Quote:
A grounding of Taiwan's 22 ATR aircraft
I read that figure before but according to airfleets , Transasia just has ( had) 11 ATRs , all 72s, in operation, where do the other 11 come from ?

I'm well aware of the conflicting news reports, but according to today's WSJ, no Taiwanese ATRs have been grounded. However, Taiwan's CAA has ordered "thorough checks" on the country's entire fleet of 22, which consists of 10 from TransAsia and another 12 owned by EVA subsidiary Uni Air.

[TheInquisitor]

Cheers for the info MJ. I'm a TP man, but only have extensive experience handling 4's (Hercs) - we would regularly practice 2 engine overshoots in the ac and MOS EFATOS in the sim (climbout below Vmca1) so I'm generally aware of how tricky it can get... and how quickly. Still though, something doesn't add up with those speed / alt plots.

Forgive the ignorance of more modern types... but when you say 'secured', do you mean feathered AND braked, or just feathered? From the vids & subsequent recovery pics, the left prop seems feathered, but still turning.

I think we may be missing a vital piece of info somewhere?

[RifRaf3]

I hope it's not an issue in this case, but sometimes the presence of checking authorities in a real emergency can be a serious inhibition, particularly where sticking to the book in fine detail is unwarranted by lack of time or other confounding factors. Often there is an awareness of the checker's idiosyncrasies by reputation that modifies one's instinctive response.
On the other hand, if time is not of the essence, they can be a valuable additional resource. It just depends on the particular circumstances.

[KrispyKreme]

It could also be as simple as they have feathered the wrong engine, not the first time this has happened.

[TheInquisitor]

Difficult to get that wrong on a TP twin though... the failed side becomes self-evident very quickly indeed at low speeds - 'dead leg, dead engine' is how I was taught. Unless yaw dampers / autotrim muddle the issue?

[mad_jock]

To me as a twin TP pilot of a barely enough powered auld heap.

Apart from the speeds which some are interpreting as airspeeds which I believe are ground speeds it seems to be not to bad.

The crux is the engine securing. I have done a feather failure only a couple of times in 10 years and never on departure below 1k in the sim. Its not required as part of the LPC.

From doing OPC's in the aircraft and the TRE not setting zero simulated thrust after you have identified the engine with everything spot on 5 deg of bank, bang on Vyse she will descend with quarter tanks and just two of you onboard and 200kg of ballast in the boot and you will be at the control limits of both rudder and aileron. This I might add is the same in both TP types that I fly.

Put the "dead" engine up to 10% simulated and she will climb at 1000ft per min and regain both rudder and aileron to about 50% max travel.

With a full load of freight on we get 500ft/min climb rate in that config (don't ask we had a TRE that used to do that sort of thing when there was no pax on, to be honest looking back it was superb training if not a bit dodgy. I was doing single engine work with him every empty or freight flight sometimes 3-4 times a month for nearly 2 years)

If they had pulled the wrong engine it would have dropped out the sky pretty much vertically.

Secured as I use it just means the appropriate shutdown checklist has been completed or if not at least the memory items completed. I believe only one engine on the ATR's has a brake for hotel mode but I doubt its used in the event of a shut down. Windmilling on those dagger type props I think has a limit of 5% rpm if it gets above 10% it causes problems with fire drills as your meant to wait until the rpm is below 10% before firing the fire bottle. I am not a ATR driver so any that are can say if I am talking mince or not. They can adjust the windmilling speed but its extremely rare that its ever checked the faster it windmills the more drag you get.

[TheInquisitor]

That wing should glide fairly well - I just read somewhere that the ATR has a L/D of around 17:1.

Not sure of how valid or relevant this may be, but some (very) approximate calculations from those traces suggest in the minute between 03:53:30 and 03:54:30 they descended approximately 600', and taking a stab at an average speed of say 90KIAS, this represents 450' / nm, equating to an L/D of around 13.3:1 (assuming no thrust).

Do the ATR's props decouple under high neg tq?

Maybe someone far cleverer than I could say if anything can be inferred from this?

[mad_jock]

They are free turbine engines so they are never coupled.

The L/D ration only works with both engines secure and your at the best speed.

The only thing that can be inferred is they had substantially less effective power than they required for flight.

The reason for that lack of effective power be it high drag or low power on the live engine we will have to wait for the report.

I am pretty sure though its high drag due to low speed and an unsecured failed engine or one that is producing some power but not above the zero thrust level.

[BO0M]

It's all getting very technical and a bit off the mark for specific ATR ops.

Put simply the ATPCS system automatically arms during the takeoff roll, part of the takeoff procedure is to check it is active. If an engine fails the system up trims the live engine from 90% TQ to 100% (RTO PWR) and feathers the failed engine. Technically from that point the engine is secure! After acceleration altitude (min 400ft depends on second segment restrictions etc) memo items at carried out that confirm the ATPCS has functioned correctly and manually confirm the failure (PL, CL to FTR and FSO, bleed if live engine isn't within limits and performing). Form this point the engine is well and truely secure, the only way to unfeather the prop is to attempt a relight which I highly doubt occurred here, not enough Alt or SPD or time to go to QRH.

Now if they had already gone through accel alt and moved the PWR MGT to CLB the ATPCS function would have been disarmed requiring prompt action from the crew to identify and feather the engine. If not done quickly performance can be serverly degraded.

In a glide at VmHB the ATR does approx 2nm per 1000ft altitude, compared to other TP I've operated it glides quite well but from 1300ft you don't have much time to get on top of it.

For those interested Vmcl is 98 for F15 and F30 config.

[mad_jock]

VMCL, the minimum control speed during landing approach with all
engines operating, is the calibrated airspeed at which, when the critical
engine is suddenly made inoperative, it is possible to maintain control of
the airplane with that engine still inoperative and maintain straight flight
with an angle of bank of not more than 5 degrees. VMCL must be established
with--
(1) The airplane in the most critical configuration for approach with all
engines operating;
(2) The most unfavorable center of gravity;
(3) The airplane trimmed for approach with all engines operating;
(4) The maximum sea level landing weight (or any lesser weight necessary to
show VMCL); and
(5) Maximum available takeoff power or thrust on the operating engines.
(g) For airplanes with three or more engines, VMCL-2, the minimum control
speed during landing approach with one critical engine inoperative, is the
calibrated airspeed at which, when a second critical engine is suddenly made
inoperative, it is possible to maintain control of the airplane with both
engines still inoperative and maintain straight flight with an angle of bank
of not more than 5 degrees. VMCL-2 must be established with--
(1) The airplane in the most critical configuration for approach with the
critical engine inoperative;
(2) The most unfavorable center of gravity;
(3) The airplane trimmed for approach with the critical engine inoperative;
(4) The maximum sea level landing weight (or any lesser weight necessary to
show VMCL-2);
(5) The power or thrust on the operating engines required to maintain an
approach path angle of 3 degrees when one critical engine is inoperative; and
(6) The power or thrust on the operating engines rapidly changed,
immediately after the second critical engine is made inoperative, from the
power or thrust prescribed in paragraph (g)(5) of this section to--
(i) Minimum available power or thrust; and
(ii) Maximum available takeoff power or thrust.
(h) The rudder control forces required to maintain control at VMCL and
VMCL-2 may not exceed 150 pounds, nor may it be necessary to reduce the power
or thrust of the operating engines. In addition, the airplane may not assume
any dangerous attitudes or require exceptional piloting skill, alertness, or
strength to prevent a divergence in the approach flight path that would
jeopardize continued safe approach when--
(1) The critical engine is suddenly made inoperative; and
(2) For the determination of VMCL-2, the power or thrust on the operating
engines is changed in accordance with paragraph (g)(6) of this section.


I don't think Vmcl is appropriate as they didn't have the gear down. Gear down reduces it. And I don't think they had both engines working



It's all getting very technical

I don't think it is, in fact I think it should be required knowledge for all multi engined prop drivers.

And what's your Vs ? For VR its 1.3Vs or 1.1 Vmca which ever is higher. So Vmca is more likely before stall.

[BO0M]

Mad Jock, apologises

I thought I read further back someone wanted the Vmcl. I just gone back and it was Vmca as you have pointed out. 1.1 Vmca based on ISA conditions and SL is 108kts so approx 98kts.

Stall speed is obviously variable given config and weight but a rough guide for 23T clean airframe is about 117 CAS (ATR don't offer any other charts)

[mad_jock]

Its the higher of 1.3 Vs or 1.1 Vmca

So it could be less than 98 and the Vr is limited by the Stall speed.

They way you can tell is if the Vr decreases with temp above ISA its Vmca limited.

[TheInquisitor]

2nm per 1000' - correlates reasonably with the plots.

It's also feasible that 80-odd kts GS correlates to nigh-on 98 KIAS.

So it seems we're not that far from the mark - they could well have been gliding with little-to-no thrust available - possibly not even stalled?

I've been trying to examine the vids & stills to determine rudder position, but can't make it out. One would expect that if there was any appreciable thrust on that right donkey, the rudder would have been hard over right...

Edit: Not sure if I'm seeing it correctly, but on the video the right aileron appears to go from a neutral position to up in the last moments before impact - I would expect a good degree of 'right hand down' to already be applied with asymmetric thrust...

[mad_jock]

If it was 1.3 Vs that would give it a stall speed of about 85 knts.

I presume it has a stick shaker at 1.1 Vs and push at 1.05 Vs ?

[JammedStab]

TAIPEI CRASH: CAA dismisses engine problems

The Civil Aeronautics Administration (CAA) yesterday denied that pilots of the TransAsia Airways Flight GE235 that crashed on Wednesday had identified problems with their aircraft’s engines before they took off from the Taipei International Airport (Songshan).

The airlines ground crew also did not let the flight leave with a bad engine to avoid government penalties for a flight delay, the agency said.

The comments came in response to a story in yesterday’s Liberty Times (the Taipei Times’ sister newspaper), which cited information provided by an alleged TransAsia Airways pilot, who said that the aircraft, serial number B-22816, had completed one round-trip from Taipei International Airport (Songshan) to Kinmen.

The person told the Liberty Times that Flight GE235 pilot Liao Chien-tsung (廖建宗) had identified problems with the engines in the technical log book after the flight returned from Kinmen to Songshan.

The story also quoted the source as saying TransAsia’s ground crew workers feared that a delay in Flight GE235’s departure would cause the company to be penalized by the government, and so they decided to let the flight take off with a problematic engine and conduct a more thorough inspection of the engine when the aircraft returned from Kinmen.

The CAA displayed the aircraft’s technical logs, which showed that the plane had been used to conduct flights GE231 and GE232 before Flight GE235. No engine problem was entered in the log book.

The administration said that the log book for Flight GE235 was on board the airplane when it went down, adding that it was impossible that the aircraft could be cleared to take off with engine problems.

Aviation experts have been puzzled over the fact that the aircraft stalled less than two minutes after takeoff.

Some CAA flight instructors have looked at a video captured by a car’s dash camera and questioned why the aircraft appeared to operate stably until it experienced a stall, which caused its body to tilt before crashing into the river.

TAIPEI CRASH: CAA dismisses engine problems - Taipei Times (http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2015/02/06/2003610939)

[BG47]

Taiwan's aviation regulator has ordered TransAsia and Uni Air, a subsidiary of EVA Airways Corp 2618.TW, to conduct engine and fuel system checks on the remaining 22 ATR aircraft they still operate.

[fitliker]

The only way I know of to prevent the roll over when you get below VMC is to reduce the power on the operating engine RFN.
With both engines out, a reduced airspeed lower energy emergency landing can be achieved in your new glider.
1.1 VSO for 50 foot ref, slowing even more if ground effect can be used to slow down in ground effect where the stall speed is reduced. Although this would require excellent skills beyond that would elude the four landings a month crews. Those guys should continue to fly it on to the chosen landing area/spot.

[mad_jock]

Some CAA flight instructors have looked at a video captured by a car’s dash camera and questioned why the aircraft appeared to operate stably until it experienced a stall, which caused its body to tilt before crashing into the river.

Seems they need to read Tims prose as well.

Or maybe they only have experence of turbo fans.

[Sqwak7700]

The CAA displayed the aircraft’s technical logs, which showed that the plane had been used to conduct flights GE231 and GE232 before Flight GE235. No engine problem was entered in the log book.

Well, yes, but that does not mean that the pilot did not bring to the attention of the mechanics faults with the engine. Obviously, something written in the tech log with regards to abnormal engine parameters would instantaneously ground the aircraft, or at least, require further troubleshooting before release for flight.

I would be more interested in the conversation between the pilot and engineer, especially if it was captured by the CVR and took place onboard the aircraft.

I'm not saying this is what caused the crash, or that it even happened. I'm simply pointing out that this report by the CAA does not rule out the possibility of a known malfunction prior to takeoff.

In fact, them coming out and denying it so soon makes me think the opposite. :hmm:

[mad_jock]

Does anyone have plates for the airport?


If so does it have a noise procedure?

Or is it SOP for the company to always fly one?


And with those hours quoted for the jump seat pax I am wondering if it was an authority "instructor" in the jump seat. Which if it was is going to make the whole thing more political.

[Fundi-Ya-Ndege]

I flew the original ATR72 in the nineties and had an engine failure on takeoff.
I don't know about the -600 and it is a long time ago now but on the original it would have auto feathered the prop and up trimmed the power on the good engine (before you did the climb sequence).
In my failure there was a problem with water getting into the electrics somewhere in the prop control system (where I think the signal came from for the auto feather and up trim) so neither auto feather or uptrim happened for me. Aircraft performance was not exactly great until we feathered the prop... :rolleyes:

[27/09]

MadJock I have done a feather failure only a couple of times in 10 years and never on departure below 1k in the sim. Its not required as part of the LPC.

I've heard of some who train for feather failure with a V1 or just above, engine failure. So there are some who do train for this. Perhaps dependent on type.

[mad_jock]

Type and which authority your under I suspect.

In fact I think I will add into my lots next sim cycle.

Might as well use a similar profile to this.

Gear up through acceleration and fail it as they bring the power back to climb rpm or just before.

Straight ahead with wings level for the FO's and give the Capt inside engine during a turn starting at 600ft.

[9gmax]

Information released today 06th...

quote

On Feb 6th 2015 Taiwan's ASC reported that the investigation so far determined from flight data and cockpit voice recorders: the aircraft received takeoff clearance at 10:51Z, in the initial climb the aircraft was handed off to departure at 10:52:33Z. At 10:52:38Z a master warning activated, at 10:52:43Z the left hand engine was throttled back and at 10:53:00Z the crew began to discuss engine #1 had stalled. At 10:53:06Z the right hand engine (engine #2) auto-feathered. At 10:53:12Z a first stall warning occured and ceased at 10:53:18Z. At 10:53:19Z the crew discussed that engine #1 had already feathered, the fuel supply had already been cut to the engine and decided to attempt a restart of engine #1. Two seconds later another stall warning activated. At 10:53:34Z the crew radioed "Mayday! Mayday! Engine flame out!", multiple attempts to restart the engines followed to no avail. At 10:54:34Z a second master warning activated, 0.4 seconds later both recorders stopped recording.

unquote

[JanetFlight]

multiple attempts to restart the engines followed to no avail

Engines or engine????

[staplefordheli]

UK media reporting just now double engine failure from investigators

[olasek]

Looks like engine #2 failed (blue, dotted) but pilots shut off #1 (green).

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

[belowMDA]

Looking at the engine plot that's been published it looks like the live engine was shut down.

[Radix]

Why did they throttle #1 engine back? That's the million dollar question. Uh oh. I hope it doesn't turn out to be what it feels like it is.

[oversteer]

Why did the RH bleed valve close at the same time as the ENG 1 master warning? Is this something the ATR does automatically?

[porterhouse]

Uh oh. I hope it doesn't turn out to be what it feels like it is.
Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck .. it's a duck!!
Another aviation classic - shutting down wrong engine, have we seen it before? :} :eek:

[captplaystation]

Cross wiring ? was mentioned after Kegworth, of course it wasn't the case there, but I remember in checks of many other Boeings (inc 757's if I remember) there were cases of cross-wiring discovered, or is my old memory playing tricks ?

[Dct_Mopas]

Quoted from sky news:

Thomas Wang, director of the safety council, said: "Based on the data we have so far we can see that for a period of time both engines showed not thrust."

He added: "The right engine flamed out and triggered a warning in the cockpit. The left engine was shut down by command and the pilot tried to restart the engine but couldn't."

Unfortunately sounds very much like the wrong engine was identified.

[porterhouse]

Cross wiring ?
Regardless, pilots have multiple ways to verify which engine failed, in some small twins there are no fancy 'lights' to tell you which one it is, you verify with your feet/throttle and double checking other instruments, if a lowly GA pilot is trained to do it and do it fast an ATP pilot hauling people for hire should be able to do it even better.
(the cross-wiring discovered would have no relation to such accident)

[parkfell]

What we need now is the CVR to be made available in due course to really get the complete picture.

CRM will once again come under scrutiny. It is one thing in the cold light of day to identify what went wrong; the difficult part is to understand WHY?

Just what were the mental processes which triggered this, and, with a third pair of eyes of an experienced pilot even more puzzling.

A lot to understand and learn from. Use it to educate and protect others.

[Jet Jockey A4]

I think parkfell meant in do time it should be released so that others in the pilot community can study this case and learn from it.