Transasia Airlines ATR-72 down in Taiwan
Ut Sementem Feeceris
I think the 20 TWC would be the least of your worries! I'd be more concerned with the 800m viz and +TS/CB overhead the field. Why would you even go near it let alone try an approach in it? Think of the down draught.
I know it's easy to sit and pontificate after the event but from what we know so far, on the face of it, this seems to be yet another accident caused by commencing an approach in totally inappropriate weather.....how many more?
I know it's easy to sit and pontificate after the event but from what we know so far, on the face of it, this seems to be yet another accident caused by commencing an approach in totally inappropriate weather.....how many more?
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trans Asia accident record
According to Aviation Safety Net, this is the airline's first fatal accident with this aircraft type in which passengers have been killed. Two previous crashes - a positioning flight in 1995 and a freight service in 2002 - involved only crew casualties.
Benbecula, try here for the wx site:
???????? ???? TAMC Typhoon Briefing
???????? ???? TAMC Typhoon Briefing
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: EGMH..a down, not yet out, formerly awesome airfield
Age: 55
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: the City by the Bay
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ROC Air Force denies any role in GE222 crash - The China Post
ROC Air Force denies any role in GE222 crash
By Joseph Yeh ,The China Post
July 31, 2014, 12:00 am TWN
TAIPEI, Taiwan -- The R.O.C. Air Force yesterday refuted a local media report that alleged the Air Force could be responsible for a civilian airplane crash last week on the offshore island of Penghu.
TransAsia Flight GE222, which took off from Kaohsiung on the evening of July 23, crashed in Penghu, killing 48 of the 58 people on board.
The Chinese-language Next Magazine yesterday quoted a source as saying that the military could be partially responsible for the tragedy.
According to the magazine, the pilot of the aircraft, Lee Yi-liang (李義良), who was also killed in the accident, had previously asked the control tower of the Magong Airport if his plane could land on runway 2 instead of runway 20, due to the low visibility in the airspace near the airport.
The control tower of the joint military/civilian-use airport later asked the Air Force if the GE222 could land on the number 2 runway that is mostly used by military aircraft instead of civilian ones, the magazine said.
The number 2 runway is equipped with an Instrument Landing System (ILS), an internationally normalized system for navigation of aircraft on final approach for landing. With the ILS, it may be safer to land, the magazine said.
However, the military refused the request, ultimately leading to the crash of the airplane, the magazine claimed.
In response, the Air Force yesterday refuted the report, while expressing sincere protest over the “ungrounded accusation” the magazine raised.
The Air Force stressed the military had transferred jurisdiction over the Magong Airport to the Civil Aeronautics Administration (CAA, 民航局) as early as January 2001.
The CAA is now responsible for the control tower of the airport, it said in a released statement.
Also, all the fighter jets at the Magong air base were grounded on July 23 due to the stormy weather in the wake of Typhoon Matmo.
The control tower of the Magong Airport had full control over the landing and taking-off of all aircraft on that day, it noted.
The Air Force did not intervene with the tower control, it added.
The Air Force once again expressed regret over the tragedy. It added that the reason for the crash is now being investigated by the Aviation Safety Council (ASC).
CAA's Refutes Report
Meanwhile, the CAA yesterday also refuted the magazine report.
It confirmed that the pilot did ask the control tower to change to the number 2 runway before landing. According to regulations, the control tower needs to consult the Air Force before they approve or deny the request, according to the CAA.
However, the pilot later changed his mind and decided to try to land on runway 20 before the control tower could respond to his request, it said.
The CAA said it would not disclose more details about the accident because the investigation headed by ASC was still ongoing.
Wonder if this was a factor.
ROC Air Force denies any role in GE222 crash
By Joseph Yeh ,The China Post
July 31, 2014, 12:00 am TWN
TAIPEI, Taiwan -- The R.O.C. Air Force yesterday refuted a local media report that alleged the Air Force could be responsible for a civilian airplane crash last week on the offshore island of Penghu.
TransAsia Flight GE222, which took off from Kaohsiung on the evening of July 23, crashed in Penghu, killing 48 of the 58 people on board.
The Chinese-language Next Magazine yesterday quoted a source as saying that the military could be partially responsible for the tragedy.
According to the magazine, the pilot of the aircraft, Lee Yi-liang (李義良), who was also killed in the accident, had previously asked the control tower of the Magong Airport if his plane could land on runway 2 instead of runway 20, due to the low visibility in the airspace near the airport.
The control tower of the joint military/civilian-use airport later asked the Air Force if the GE222 could land on the number 2 runway that is mostly used by military aircraft instead of civilian ones, the magazine said.
The number 2 runway is equipped with an Instrument Landing System (ILS), an internationally normalized system for navigation of aircraft on final approach for landing. With the ILS, it may be safer to land, the magazine said.
However, the military refused the request, ultimately leading to the crash of the airplane, the magazine claimed.
In response, the Air Force yesterday refuted the report, while expressing sincere protest over the “ungrounded accusation” the magazine raised.
The Air Force stressed the military had transferred jurisdiction over the Magong Airport to the Civil Aeronautics Administration (CAA, 民航局) as early as January 2001.
The CAA is now responsible for the control tower of the airport, it said in a released statement.
Also, all the fighter jets at the Magong air base were grounded on July 23 due to the stormy weather in the wake of Typhoon Matmo.
The control tower of the Magong Airport had full control over the landing and taking-off of all aircraft on that day, it noted.
The Air Force did not intervene with the tower control, it added.
The Air Force once again expressed regret over the tragedy. It added that the reason for the crash is now being investigated by the Aviation Safety Council (ASC).
CAA's Refutes Report
Meanwhile, the CAA yesterday also refuted the magazine report.
It confirmed that the pilot did ask the control tower to change to the number 2 runway before landing. According to regulations, the control tower needs to consult the Air Force before they approve or deny the request, according to the CAA.
However, the pilot later changed his mind and decided to try to land on runway 20 before the control tower could respond to his request, it said.
The CAA said it would not disclose more details about the accident because the investigation headed by ASC was still ongoing.
Wonder if this was a factor.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However, the pilot later changed his mind and decided to try to land on runway 20 before the control tower could respond to his request, it said.
And is there a cultural thing that equates declaring emergency with failure and humiliation, such that it's not done as often as in the West?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Not here
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
372 page final report is here:
http://www.asc.gov.tw/upload/acd_att...-01-002-en.pdf
News Release:
Aviation Safety Council
http://www.asc.gov.tw/upload/acd_att...-01-002-en.pdf
News Release:
Aviation Safety Council
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Paris
Age: 74
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ouch:
8. According to the flight recorders data, non-compliance with standard operating procedures (SOPs) was a repeated practice during the occurrence flight. The crew’s recurring non-compliance with SOPs constituted an operating culture in which high risk practices were routine and considered normal.
8. According to the flight recorders data, non-compliance with standard operating procedures (SOPs) was a repeated practice during the occurrence flight. The crew’s recurring non-compliance with SOPs constituted an operating culture in which high risk practices were routine and considered normal.
N4790P
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regrettably this sort of behaviour is common place at TransAsia. Contact approach's, Weather Radar approaches, ignoring all and any minimums etc etc. All with the inevitable and tragic consequences we have seen so often. Welcome to Taiwan.....
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Croydon
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even better summary here: Safety Lessons from TransAsia ATR-72 Flight GE222 CFIT
Is Taiwan a particularly litigious country? If it is me thinks TransAsia have big problems ahead.
Is Taiwan a particularly litigious country? If it is me thinks TransAsia have big problems ahead.
