Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

TransAsia in the water?

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

TransAsia in the water?

Old 4th Feb 2015, 09:26
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Enzed
Posts: 2,208
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 is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2015, 09:29
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Enzed
Posts: 2,208
Are 58 souls a full load for this aircraft?
No, can be up to 74
27/09 is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2015, 09:31
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: UK/OZ
Posts: 1,682
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...
mickjoebill is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2015, 09:31
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 33
Jack - normal config is 72 pax seats for this carrier
GroundScot is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2015, 09:33
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 129
Originally Posted by TWT View Post
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/@25.0...ve2w!2e0?hl=en
StormyKnight is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2015, 09:41
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Oztrailia
Posts: 2,711
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.....
ACMS is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2015, 09:50
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: US/EU
Posts: 685
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.
Mark in CA is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2015, 09:53
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: LKLT
Age: 42
Posts: 42
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
Heebicka is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2015, 09:53
  #49 (permalink)  

de minimus non curat lex
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: sunny troon
Posts: 919
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
parkfell is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2015, 10:05
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Around
Posts: 41
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.

Last edited by BO0M; 4th Feb 2015 at 10:09. Reason: Auto correct issues
BO0M is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2015, 10:24
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Strategic hamlet
Posts: 113
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.
Massey1Bravo is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2015, 10:26
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Belgium
Age: 60
Posts: 137
Wing drop at stall.

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 .
Vilters is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2015, 10:29
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 43
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?
Dash8100 is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2015, 10:31
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,548
EFAT, full of fuel...lucky to be in the water....and shallow water at that.
mary meagher is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2015, 10:35
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Around
Posts: 41
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.
BO0M is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2015, 10:42
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,823
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.
mad_jock is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2015, 10:42
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Leeds
Posts: 176
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.......
Livesinafield is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2015, 10:44
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: bespin, the cloud city
Posts: 1,168
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.
papazulu is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2015, 10:54
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: In the back of a bus
Posts: 954
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
givemewings is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2015, 10:59
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Finland
Posts: 242
"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

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/art...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/art...ke-off-408675/

Last edited by snowfalcon2; 4th Feb 2015 at 11:07. Reason: added Flightglobal's info
snowfalcon2 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.