Taipei, Feb. 4 (CNA) An ATR-72 airplane belonging to TransAsia Airways crashed into the Keelung River in Taipei after hitting an elevated bridge, Taipei City government spokesman Sidney Lin confirmed Wednesday morning. The plane had just taken off from Taipei Songshan Airport and was headed to Kinmen Airport in the outlying county just off the coast of southeastern China. (focustaiwan.tw) 更多...
A similar thing happened with British Midland Flight 92. They shut down the good right engine when the left engine had suffered an internal failure, causing a crash. This may have already been said, but, I didn't read through all 103 comments.....
Glen, further to all the other comments one has to wonder how both pilots could have mis-identified the failed engine. I can understand the need for haste at such a low altitude, but still they were about 1200' agl which would have been adequate to clean the aircraft up and adopt a straight and level flight when the engine failed and if the pilot flying had both feet on the rudder pedals I would have thought the old rule "dead foot = dead engine" would have helped the identification. Assuming the aircraft departed from runway 28 at Songshan airport at the time of engine failure a gentle change in heading to the NW to follow the Keelong River valley would have given them the advantage of heading for the coast as well as obviating the need to climb. As it happens it seems that the aircraft did track to the right of runway centerline possibly to avoid rising terrain (there is a hill 1970' and 9 nm pretty well straight ahead after take off) which could account for them continuing to climb. The fact is that if they had done NOTHING except concentrating on flying the aircraft S&L at 1200' - 1300', let alone not pull the good engine, they would have survived. I believe the aircraft would have an autofeather prop. Was the autopilot engaged (which it should not have been) so soon after take off? If it were engaged could that have been one of the reasons for not being able to identify the correct failed engine? Those final moments we see on the video certainly would suggest the aircraft had entered an incipient spin following a stall.
looks like they did, in fact shut down the wrong engine http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/transasia-ge235-shutting-down-the-wrong-engine-408790/
Does anyone know for sure if it was fueled up? Having just taken off, there was no mention or video of any fire or smell of jet fuel. Thought that was a little unusual since he hit bridge. Did dry or low tanks cause an engine failure?
Well, it looks like the #2 failed and auto feathered and they shut down the #1. On the video it looks like the #2 is running. It is, autofeather doesnt shut the engine off it just feathers the engine. The #1 looks somewhat stationary because they feathered and shut it off. This shouldn't happen, but it does. As was mentioned in a post already, the plane was flying on one engine for a bit before they shut the wrong engine down. No reason to rush.
Well, further investigation into the CVR/FDR indicates the pilots got the engine out warning for the left side but either in haste or by mistake they shut down the good one. They did get a successful restart but way too late. Taiwanese investigators stopped just short of saying pilot error or mistake. However, transport authority or whatever the regulatory body is over there, has ordered a refresher on all ATR pilots, so we'll see.
True - Reminds me of the Air Force C5 that crashed at Dover, confused which engine had failed after putting the flaps and gear out. Not enough thrust on the two engines to remain airborne. I guess we can learn that if an engine fails you have to slow down double check (guard the good engine.)
Heard something about they may have lost one engine and partial loss of power in the other one. Anyone else hear anything like that? It might explain why they weren't able to control the aircraft if they had one good engine.
As I said below, CBS reported this morning that both engines were go, but as we discussed, all of us have seen the videos and it looked like the right was cranking, so idk.
Everybody is saying port engine is the critical one on the ATR. If it was down and they shut off the other, that may have worked with more altitude; obviously it didn't here.
I understand the starboard engine has a prop brake on it, they basically use the engine on the ground like an APU. Not aware of other differances between port and starboard engines.
I really can't remember. I was just going by another comment in this thread. I had ATR SIM time and about a month's worth of flying but that was about 5-6 years ago and all I flew was the 24.
Hey guys and gals--this was not a V1 cut. This aircraft flew 3 miles on one engine. I'm thinking the left didn't feather. Gear box? Is it a free turbine or geared? How was it loaded? The ATR has a forward cargo bay (very unusual). Lots of questions I have. With all the secrecy over there and especially with TransAsia, we may never get the whole story.
Looks like the classic case where with one engine out (not sure which one critical on the ATR-72) and the pilot trying desperately to maintain altitude, the airspeed continues to drop to a point below that required for the rudder to continue to have control of the roll caused by the full-powered good engine trying to roll the aircraft to left. When you drop below the minimum single engine control speed, the aircraft will just roll to the left out of control and drop with no vertical lift. This is why multi-engine pilots do engine out minimum control speed demonstrations. Hopefully in the simulator. If you do them at altitude and take it below the minimum control speed you lose a lot of altitude quickly and it looks just like the car dash cameras shots taken of the crash. It is very hard to keep the aircraft pointed straight as the rudder struggles to control the roll and yaw and the airspeed is low. And, if the propeller is not feathered you will really have to push hard on the right rudder to maintain directional and roll control with the good engine at full power. One way to stop the roll/yaw tendency is to pull the power off the good engine and let it glide straight ahead. That has its own set of problems!
Everybody is saying that it was the port enging that went out. I really couldn't tell by looking at the video, except he lost a bunch of altitude in a hurry and did a fine job of missing those apartments and buildings
Yes...just heard that on local news. Preach..we all have seen video..do you see that as a possibiliaty? Right engine appeared to be cranking at a pretty good clip to me.
I think you guys have it right. CNN now has the talking heads and "experts" 24/7. That ATR should have been controllable (with an American crew). The Asians just aren't trained to our standards. Maybe, just maybe it was out of W/B limits? The performance is only guaranteed if the aircraft is flown within limits. Most engine failures in the sim are with loads that are legal. I flew the Do-328 and she would climb better than certificate even with the left failed, not feathered AND the gear down. That's an airplane!! Never liked the ATR or the Dash for that matter.
Well, the talking heads can say what they want, but as there is no GA program in most of these countries, most of these pilots, at least the seniors, are American trained. Now lack of a GA program may deprive them of some of the basics, but from what I have seen, you have to give the devil his due, and the FAA, along with the Airlines, are pretty well toing the mark on training and maintenance, which is why our U.S. crash rate has been so low in the last few years. That monitoring & enforcement seems to have been what is lacking overseas.
As unfortunate as this is, they missed all of those apartments etc... Had it hit one of those, you'd be dealing with a multistory fire, a lot of wreckage falling on streets below (likely crowded). RIP.
Such unfortunate tragedies would continue at faster rates as the booming air travel region in that part of the world continues its growth in geometric progression. The laws are just in the books, widespread corruption, overwhelmed and ancient air traffic control system (s), not to mention a desperate outcry for qualified (safety cultured!!!!) personnel, are all contributing factors to a transportation infrastructure collapse. This is the airliners that make the news! See how many train and bus crashes account for deaths in that region. People of the developing countries are starting to have usable incomes, but their respectful systems are not ready to accommodate them, instead, they claim more and more victims...
Having flown in that part of the world quite a bit, let it just suffice to say that it is like the wild west in places and very nationalized, protective of airspace. It has been awhile since I have been over there and while improved, it's still not to where it needs to be. You had to kinda guess on what ATC meant when they told you something, if you could understand them. If you really wanted to piss a controller off, ask him to repeat in GOOD ENGLISH.
Yeah old preach. Go into Montreal and listen to the French, even in this day and age. I can speak French a bit and I probably pissed some off when I told them in French to use Englais.
Well, that's like that story going around about a Lufthansa pilot at Frankfurt was told by controller to speak English instead of German. He said here I am a German, in a German Aircraft, at a German Airport. Why should I have to speak English. A Speedbird pilot out there somewhere chimed in and said "because you lost the bloody war". Montreal not much better and it's been about 6-8 since I've been there but I have been told it hasn't improved much either. Truthfully, with the rise of all the airlines in various parts of the world, I wonder how long it will be before they go for a language change. It is only English because we are so many and whupped everybody in WW2.
On the serious side about the language, there does have to be something universal, but a lot of these guys concentrate more on their piloting skills than they do language. I guess it is English since, as Robert E Lee once said, we were there firstest with the mostest. He was speaking of winning a battle but I'm talking about the most planes.
On the serious side, I wouldn't be surprised if there came a push for something else at some point and time. I can remember being in Germany as an Army brat in the early 60's. We weren't all that far past the war at that time, and while living on the economy for awhile until quarters on base opened, our land lord had a picture of himself in a SS uniform and Iron cross hanging off his neck, yet he worked for daddy out on post. My point is that he had 2 kids about our age and fluent English was required of them in school. Of course we had German in class and after 6 months, me and my sister were both speaking it fluently. After we came back stateside and no one to talk to on a routine basis, can't speak a word now. I don't know what they are doing over there now, whether it is still required or not. I have listened to Lufthansa pilots at various places around the world, and most of theirs don't even carry an accent.
We know we aren't racist. I do admit to many prejudices on a "one on one" basis. Those who say they don't are 99% liars. I feel real bad for the people involved in this accident and wish no harm to anyone in the world with the exception of those trying to kill us. You and I will probably make "remarks" till we run out of fuel. :-)
By golly, I believe you are right. I watched the other videos at highest def several times. I think it clipped a building with the port side horizontal stabilizer. If you check the other vid, it's apparent that it is much shorter than the starboard side when it was at 90 degrees of bank in over the bridge. Totally out of control. VMC didn't have much to do with it at that point...except to make it worse. They were lucky to be over the water or nobody would have been saved.
I've looked at the video numerous times, and I'm wondering if there's a different one. To me it doesn't look like the plane came anywhere near close enough to clip the building.
The angle or perspective gives the impression of having a seemingly damaged HS but if you slow down the vid you see there isn't anything amiss. The path it took over those building here: https://www.google.com.tw/maps/@25.063035,121.616463,3a,75y,235.92h,100.45t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1siyXDYMbTCcvmWgGk2xvspQ!2e0?
Yes, there are at least two different dash-cam videos. One is from a vehicle farther back on the highway and resolution can be turned higher on Youtube. I think that when it struck the building (as it appears to have...saw debris trail briefly) it slowed the plane so rapidly that it was pulled down below VMC immediately. Not positive about the left horizontal stabilizer, but I thought it looked like it took the blow. Pilot may have been in a VMC roll to the left when it struck the building. Don't know how they missed hitting the port wing. These guys were definitely in deep kimche at that point. If they had not fallen into the river, death toll would have been higher both in the plane and out. Plane was climbing like a B58 Baron, one engine, on a hot Texas afternoon with a full load of passengers and fuel.
My only engine failures in the ATR were in the sim. Even with autofeathering it was a handful. You still had work the rudder to maintain control. I can't imagine if the autofeather failed.
Seems like I had a SIM round in them but I have slept since then. AA sent them to Abilene after a couple of months so I didn't have to deal with them anymore or refresh. I never did like them anyway. Sorry excuse for a plane. I think the junk that AA was running was the 24's. They went back to ERJ's on most of their schedules as the ATR's didn't save that much fuel and the slower time was really F******G up their schedules. They were running them out of DFW to mostly points in Texas, OK and AR. They had about 6 schedules a day into FSM and they would try and turn the ATR's on about half of them.
If you look closely at the still photos, you can see the left prop is feathered and the the blur is less than the right prop so the left prop was defenately running slower
mariofer, you have it exactly correct. I saw it right away even before CNN got a hold of the video and now are claiming to have all the "experts" talk about it. Still, the aircraft should have been controllable.
It is odd that they are having so many crashes with these Chinese company's . Maybe that lets not hire any one over 52 is staring to catch up with them.
The ATR props don't turn very fast when they are running. I forget the actual number, but its around 1200 RPM. It looked like the left engine was feathered and the right was running....hence the VMC roll right before impact.
I agree. Looks like they ran out of right rudder or airspeed...needle below the blueline, in one hell of a hurry. If you ever wondered why your multi-instructer yelled at you if you just sat there and didn't react appropriately (and with all due speed) at an engine cut near the blueline right after rotation...here is a good example of what not to do. Also a good reason to not fudge on your weight figures too. You may need that 100 lbs back one of these days when the fire goes out. God bless those poor folks.
yep, further in the thread, someone posted the liveatc feed where the pilot radios ATC with mayday and engine flame out... 23:25 of the audio http://archive-server.liveatc.net/rcss/RCSS-Twr-Feb-04-2015-0230Z.mp3
The resulting engine out causing adverse yaw didnt help as the pilot tried to maintain altitude...watch the sink rate comes over the building. Once the aircraft slows more than the MCA (minimum controllable airspeed), the left wing stalls and the aircraft rolls. The pilot did an admirable job setting the aircraft down in what may have been the only choice of clear areas to minimize casualities on the ground.
A passenger plane clipped a bridge and plunged into a river in Taiwan on Wednesday, killing at least 23 people, according to the country's official news agency, CNA.
A Tranasia Airways ATR 72-600 airplane which took off from Taiwan's Taipei-Sung Shan Airport crashed four minutes into the flight during its initial climb phase.
reports saying the plane was "sideways on descent"?
plane in video is wings level in top left navigating buildings and the Pilot flying makes a last hard left bank attempt to hit the river to keep casualties to a hopeful minimum.
so sad they couldn't power up enough with remaining engine to sustain flight.
No, the pilot didn't make a last hard left. The plane was out of control at that point. We'll see what his airspeed was. The left wing probably stalled with all thrust on the right and P factor pushing further to the left.
makes sense...if the aircraft lost power, the pilot did the best with what he could.. the river was probably the only place he could set it down, but it looks like it possibly stalled as he was trying to get over the bridge, causing the wing to drop...You can see the sink rate in the video as it comes over the apartment buildings, then rolls left...
Very close call, dashcam video - TransAsia Flight 235 ATR-72 crash
An ATR-72 ditched attempted to ditch into a river in Taiwan Wednesday morning, after taking off from a nearby airport.
TransAsia Airways flight 235 took off from Taipei's Songshan Airport at 10:53am. Songshan Airport is a smaller alternative to Taoyuan, where most of the international flights land. Flight 235 was headed for Kinmen.
Just minutes after departure, it was forced to ditch in the Keelung River. The pilots called a mayday due to an engine failure. The plane was sideways on its descent, hitting an elevated roadway and a bus before flipping and breaking up on impact.
I'd say failed port engine - not feathered - aircraft below VMCA - loss of control. Investigators will need to know why engine failed, why props were not feathered, why the crew failed to maintain VMCA. Know for a fact I wouldn't be getting on this airline - period.