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 2nd Jul 2015, 07:52
  #681 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: the City by the Bay
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
http://www.taiwannews.com.tw/etn/new...php?id=2763968

For what it's worth.
armchairpilot94116 is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2015, 08:50
  #682 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: London
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Here's a link to the press release, which contains much more detail on the cockpit conversation, as well as links to some of the published reports.


https://www.asc.gov.tw/main_en/docDe...=318&docid=701
Dave's brother is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2015, 09:00
  #683 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 723
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
8 seconds before impact:
PF said “wow pulled back the wrong side throttle” while aircraft was at 309 ft. with speed 105 knots.
Not only did they shut down the wrong engine, but they also realised that they had made a mistake.
fox niner is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2015, 09:01
  #684 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Bognor Regis
Age: 73
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Google translate of CVR transcipt from ASC website

ATC time


Summary

1051: 39


GE 235 flights took off rolling line.

1051: 43


Monitor drivers (PM) call "No ATPCS armed" control pilot (PF) answered, "Well continue the takeoff."
(ATPCS: Automatic Take-off Power Control System)

1051: 51


PM calls "Oh there Ah ATPCS armed there."

1052: 01


The aircraft took off from the ground, after the completion of post-takeoff checklist and connect the autopilot began to climb at 1,000 feet by starting right.

1052: 38


Warning aircraft cockpit noise by 1,200 feet; Procedure "ENG2 FLAME OUT AT TAKE OFF" appears on the Engine and Warning Display (EWD).

1052: 41


Aircraft climbed through 1,300 feet, PF will autopilot lifted.

1052: 43


PF said: "I put the engine back to One", PM replied: "Wait a minute cross check" this time ENG1 throttle position record income from 75 degrees to 66 degrees.

1053: 00


PM responded: "Good engine flame out check" and went on to say: "check up-trim there, auto feather there."

1053: 06


PF said: "The number one back to" after ENG1 throttle is closed to 49 degrees. Meanwhile PM said: "Okay, now is to determine the 2nd engine flameout."

1053: 09


PF replied: "Good." ENG1 throttle position remains at 49 degrees. At this height the aircraft to reach 1,630 feet, and began to decrease speed 102 knots / hour.

1053: 13


Audible stall warning sounded and a stick shakers, PM said: "Good pushing back."

1053: 15


PF said: "shut"; PM replied: "Wait a minute ... throttle throttle." 1053: 13-1053: 15:00 ENG2 the accelerator pushed to the recovery of 86 degrees to 34.5 degrees ENG1 throttle (idle position).

1053: 19


PF said: "number one" and then said: "feather shut off." Meanwhile PM said: "The number feather"; after the stall warning and stick pusher action to start 1053: 27.

1053: 22


PM said: "okay"; PF then said: "uh number one."

1053: 24


ENG1 CL (Condition Lever) is close to the fuel shutoff position; 6 seconds after ENG1 propeller shown in the feathered position.

1053: 35


PM Matsuyama tower to declare an emergency engine flameout, followed in 1053: 46-1054: 04, the flight crew had two attempts connect autopilot, unsuccessfully, at the same time during the aircraft entered a stall condition.

1054: 05


PM said: "The two sides are not" two seconds after the PM said: "There is no engine flameout both sides gone."

1054: 09


Aircraft height of 545 feet, the speed of 105 nautical miles / hour, PF said: "The car again."

1054: 20


ENG1 CL leave fuel shutoff position.

1054: 25


Aircraft height of 401 feet, the speed of 106 nautical miles / hour, ENG1 of NH1 speed increased to 30%, while the PM said: "not open."

1054: 27


Aircraft height of 309 feet, the speed of 105 nautical miles / hour, PF said: "wow throttle closing wrong."

1054: 34


Aircraft height of 83 feet, the speed of 108 nautical miles / hour, ground proximity warning system "Pull-up" warning sounded.

1054: 35


Aircraft height of 55 feet, the speed of 106 nautical miles / hour, the slope increased from the left 10 degrees to 80 degrees to the left, then the aircraft position near the viaduct on the left bank of the Keelung River, and the aircraft hit the left wing tip of a viaduct by driving the vehicle and after another crashed into a guardrail and a viaduct viaduct's edge lights, fall within the Keelung River.
Redredrobin is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2015, 13:14
  #685 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Cyprus
Age: 91
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
In the " old days " the mantra was " Dead leg ....Dead engine "

Was he using his legs or was the autopilot in, to reduce his work load?
Lancman is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2015, 13:25
  #686 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: UK
Age: 53
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The article stated he took control BEFORE stating left engine failed
highflyer40 is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2015, 13:26
  #687 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Asia
Posts: 284
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
nowadays, more and more pilots do not know to fly the plane when things gro wrong. No surprising that some people still talk about pilotless a/c.
If pilots can not do their job properly (meaning, they are there to manage a plan and to fly if things go wrong) no wonder why accountants want pilots be paid less etc...I don't say it's good or not, but from an outside perspective, if I was a person who would not know anything about planes and pilots, yes, I would wonder in what is the role of pilots. And I don't want to say it's only to fly from A to B when everythings go fine. It is more than that.
I feel sad and angry that more and more pilots can not recover from a stall or from an engine failure or when autothrust if off during final approach. Something we learn from PPL 6th lesson or first week of MCC. Basics.
Greenlights is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2015, 15:14
  #688 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: what U.S. calls ´old Europe´
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
In the " old days " the mantra was " Dead leg ....Dead engine "
Today the mantra for engineers is "reduce the pilots workload"
...which unfortunately also means "reduce the information the pilot receives"
In IMC that might even be a good idea, as pilots may not immediately understand that they have to "kick the ball" since they are so used to have a screen showing the horizon, but not the yaw motion... Also the simulator can not give you the real sensation of the yaw due to an engine failure.

Sometimes the automatics save your day, sometimes they kill you or at least mislead you, so that you kill yourself. There is no easy solution to komplex problems. There are only skilled and well trained people solving problems. The more basic an aircraft behaves, the easier to understand the situation. But sometimes the harder to deal with it.
In the past pilots failed to do the right thing, today they typically fail already to understand the situation.
Volume is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2015, 16:42
  #689 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Washington.
Age: 73
Posts: 1,046
Received 143 Likes on 48 Posts
"In IMC that might even be a good idea, as pilots may not immediately understand that they have to "kick the ball" since they are so used to have a screen showing the horizon, but not the yaw motion... Also the simulator can not give you the real sensation of the yaw due to an engine failure."

As much as training has changed, the focus moving toward using the automation and away from flying the airplane, I find it incredible to think that pilots are not made quite familiar with engine out procedures.

Nor does it surprise me entirely that the pilots extinguished the wrong engine - but it SHOULD surprise me. The British Midland accident in 1989 is another example, I suppose there are others. But, it anything comes out of this, it should be an emphasis in training. There is just no excuse for letting this go on.
GlobalNav is online now  
Old 2nd Jul 2015, 16:54
  #690 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,895
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Oh, there's loads of excuses.
Crap pilots are cheaper.
They don't complain because their jobs are at risk anyway, so you can treat them like dirt.
The planes are safer.
Sufficient of the travelling public don't care about anything except the ticket price.
Governments don't want to rock the economic boat by regulating businesses properly.
Fox3WheresMyBanana is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2015, 16:54
  #691 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: CYUL
Posts: 878
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
From a news source...

The ASC's report also showed that Captain Liao Jian-zong had failed simulator training in May 2014, in part because he had insufficient knowledge of how to deal with an engine flame-out on take-off.

"Wow, pulled back the wrong side throttle," Liao, 41, was heard to say on voice recordings seconds before the crash.

There appeared to be confusion in the cockpit as the two captains tried to regain control of the plane after one engine lost power about three minutes into the doomed flight.

Liao reduced the throttle on the working engine but did not appear to realize his mistake until it was too late.

He tried to restart the engines several times before a junior first officer in the cockpit said: "Impact, impact, brace for impact."

Those were the chilling last words heard on the data recordings, according to the latest report of the ASC's investigation into the Feb. 4 crash.

Seconds later the almost new ATR 72-600, which had 58 people on board, crashed upside down into a shallow river in Taipei after it lurched between buildings, clipping an overpass and a taxi.

Fifteen people survived but all three pilots and 40 passengers and other crew died in the second crash involving a TransAsia ATR plane in a year.

A source with direct knowledge of the report told Reuters on Wednesday the working engine had been shut off.

FAILED SIMULATOR TRAINING

The ASC report, which neither assigns responsibility nor suggests recommendations, paints a more detailed picture than a preliminary report released days after the crash.

Liao, a former air force pilot, began flying commercial aircraft in 2009 and joined TransAsia the following year. He was promoted to captain in August 2014 and joined the ATR 72-600 fleet in November.

He had a total of 4,914 flight hours on ATR 72 planes.

However, the report showed that Liao failed the simulator check in May 2014 when he was being evaluated for promotion. Assessors found he had a tendency not to complete procedures and checks, and his "cockpit management and flight planning" were also found wanting.

However, he passed after a second simulator check on June 29 and 30 and was promoted to captain, although similar problems were detected during training from July 2-10 last year.

Instructors commented that he was "prone to be nervous and may make oral errors during the engine start procedure" and displayed a "lack of confidence", the report shows.

Issues cropped up again during training for the ATR 72-600 in November, when an instructor said Liao "may need extra training" when dealing with an engine failure after take-off.

After the crash, Taiwan's Civil Aeronautics Administration put TransAsia's ATR pilots through oral proficiency tests on how to handle an aircraft during engine failure.

All but one of the pilots passed the tests, although some needed more than one attempt. The lone failure was demoted in rank to vice captain from captain.
Jet Jockey A4 is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2015, 00:41
  #692 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Tennessee
Age: 59
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I think most multi-engine flight instructors will recognize that starting to shut down the wrong engine is one of the most common mistakes in multi-engine training.
Tscottme is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2015, 01:16
  #693 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Australia
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Tscottme
I think most multi-engine flight instructors will recognize that starting to shut down the wrong engine is one of the most common mistakes in multi-engine training.
Tscott that is exactly right. I trained multi conversion guys for 10 years and it was hands down the most dangerous kind of flying I've ever done because people would simply panic and use incorrect rudder or close the wrong throttle.
I would have thought with auto-feather on the ATR you would be better off doing nothing and focus on target speed and climbing.
GSeries_jetcrew is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2015, 02:31
  #694 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 284
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
There needs to be a fundamental change in the basic handling of EFATO/V1 cut.
1:fly the a/c.
2:400ftagl,announce the failure.
3:1000ft agl,crew cross confirm failure then STOP!
REVIEW!!
Action check list.
Burning holes or wet cockpits happen due to stupid errors mostly via rushed event managing. The key is to slow down and confirm with review.
This whole regulatory sim scenario for IR/PC renewals..base checks hasn't changed since 1975!!!!!!
Pucka is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2015, 04:42
  #695 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Western Pacific
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tscottme
I think most multi-engine flight instructors will recognize that starting to shut down the wrong engine is one of the most common mistakes in multi-engine training.

Tscott that is exactly right. I trained multi conversion guys for 10 years and it was hands down the most dangerous kind of flying I've ever done because people would simply panic and use incorrect rudder or close the wrong throttle. I would have thought with auto-feather on the ATR you would be better off doing nothing and focus on target speed and climbing.
This is not GA & it certainly isn't ab-initio twin training. This is airline flying & all pilots should have these issues well & truly sorted out before they come anywhere near the flight deck of an airliner.

The old adage that you get what you pay for may well hold true in this tragedy, but it shouldn't be accepted by anybody when people's lives are at stake. It is not a restaurant meal or a piece of clothing that we are talking about here, but it would seem that human life is cheap & getting cheaper all the time. Profit is all many care about.
Oakape is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2015, 11:10
  #696 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Asia
Posts: 284
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
soon I take my flight for vacation.

When I see this kind of accident, I just pray that automatism and plane work very well, and the pilots don't have to take controls (except for t/o and landing, oh well).
Not even a touch with one finger.

As a pilot, I am just worried now about "my colleagues" (if they slept, if pay to fly or not, if a next lubitz or not etc).
Funny that since I work in this field, I feel less and less confortable as a passenger myself than before !
Greenlights is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2015, 13:04
  #697 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: EGMH
Posts: 210
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
After the crash, Taiwan's Civil Aeronautics Administration put TransAsia's ATR pilots through oral proficiency tests on how to handle an aircraft during engine failure.

All but one of the pilots passed the tests, although some needed more than one attempt. The lone failure was demoted in rank to vice captain from captain.



This sounds a little off to me. Surely you don't get to be even a 'vice captain' if you can't handle a flame out situation?


Is there a desperate shortage of pilots in that part of the world? (Forgive me for asking)
susier is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2015, 15:00
  #698 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 723
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It is not a restaurant meal or a piece of clothing that we are talking about here, but it would seem that human life is cheap & getting cheaper all the time. Profit is all many care about.
Well, airfares for any typical flight are less than a quarter pounder with cheese and a milkshake. Or any medium-sized T-shirt with starbucks on it. So don't expect too much in return.
fox niner is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2015, 15:34
  #699 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Estonia
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts


I don't understand this exchange. What is the flameout check and is that where the confusion between the two engines started? Or was it an incomplete check?
akaSylvia is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2015, 16:07
  #700 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Austria
Posts: 701
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Pucka
There needs to be a fundamental change in the basic handling of EFATO/V1 cut.
1:fly the a/c.
2:400ftagl,announce the failure.
3:1000ft agl,crew cross confirm failure then STOP!
REVIEW!!
Action check list.
Burning holes or wet cockpits happen due to stupid errors mostly via rushed event managing. The key is to slow down and confirm with review.
This whole regulatory sim scenario for IR/PC renewals..base checks hasn't changed since 1975!!!!!!
On a turboprop, it is not that simple. You need to make sure that the dead propeller is feathered, or else You will not get the required performance and might not even reach the 400ft AGL in Your suggestion. In fact, if You have not flown a turboprop in real life, I invite You to try a ATR or DH8 sim when You find the opportunity. Then You will see the difference: a failed jet simply stops pushing while a failed prop starts braking. Heavily. So a V1 cut will positively require a quick (but not hasty) analysis of the situation immediately after gear retraction. If the propeller is feathered and no fire is indicated, one can and indeed will wait until acceleration altitude to attack the problem. In case of a non-feathered prop and/or an engine fire, there will follow a by-heart shutdown of the engine and if needed the activation of the fire suppression systems (with the relevant selections confirmed and verified by the PF, but performed by PNF). After acceleration, it will be QRH time and all selections will be looked over once again.

This procedure comes with workload much higher than in a jet facing the same situation. It is not only strictly required due to performance reasons, but has been performed in real life many times without any bent metal resulting.

However, I strongly doubt that the proceedings in the TransAsia ATRs flight deck were even close to what any book says. The best SOP will not help anyone if it is not followed.
Tu.114 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.