TransAsia plane crashes in Taiwan with 58 people on board; 2 killed

[lvr181]

This aIrcraft has a joystick? Not even a control column? Must be very ancient aircraft

[Chicog]

Now the latest reports suggests this might have been a pilot error. The wrong engine was shut down. And then they tried to start it up again without any luck.

As someone has already pointed out on PPrune, shades of Kegsworth

[I say]

Bang goes his no claims discount, I'll bet he shit a solid gold one.

which side of the car houses the steering wheel? do they drive left on the road or right?

[PETERTHEEATER]

What is this joystick jargon? This was a serious accident and for the future of flight safety in this aircraft type the cause must be determined. What is not needed is moron press reporters filing rubbish!

[ripstanley]

What is this joystick jargon? This was a serious accident and for the future of flight safety in this aircraft type the cause must be determined. What is not needed is moron press reporters filing rubbish!

Please read what a joystick is pertaining to an aircraft.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joystick

[poweratradio]

This is a real good vid. It clearly shows that the plane was level past the buildings, cleared the buildings, and then dropped hard to port over the roadway. It also has some excellent footage of rescuing people including perhaps the toddler.

The last article may say different, but this plane stalled port wing first and dropped like a rock.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DszvxPpIWt8#t=17

Dropped like a rock due to pilot error. Hero ???? BS The plane is made to run on one engine on take off even and pilots are all trained how to continue to proceed with an engine failure on take off. All aviation analyst are saying the same thing. There was no need for this crash. The pilot panicked and failed to follow engine out procedure.

[Roota]

Please read what a joystick is pertaining to an aircraft.

Every ATR I've ever seen uses two conventional yokes. In modern aircraft that do use sticks, like Airbuses, they're placed to the side and known, not surprisingly, as side sticks. 'Joystick' afaik is no longer a current term in aviation.

[Chicog]

This is a real good vid. It clearly shows that the plane was level past the buildings, cleared the buildings, and then dropped hard to port over the roadway. It also has some excellent footage of rescuing people including perhaps the toddler.

The last article may say different, but this plane stalled port wing first and dropped like a rock.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DszvxPpIWt8#t=17

Dropped like a rock due to pilot error. Hero ???? BS The plane is made to run on one engine on take off even and pilots are all trained how to continue to proceed with an engine failure on take off. All aviation analyst are saying the same thing. There was no need for this crash. The pilot panicked and failed to follow engine out procedure.

Well thanks for that, I guess they can just not bother with the investigation now eh?

[jpinx]

Having been in a similar position I can tell you that you have to be VERY careful to not shut the wrong engine down ! It's all very well to be a keyboard warrior on a topic like this, but when you're just airborne and very busy in the cockpit, an engine problem is a nightmare. Two pilots should not make the mistake if the training has been good, but routine flying breeds a complacency that training is meant to extinguish. It seems that one pilot was apparently doing the flying and another presumably trying to get an engine going again. Very sad for everyone concerned but kudos to the pilot managing to miss the worst of the obstacles. Condolences to everyone affected, in the aircraft and on the ground.

[jaywalker]

Bang goes his no claims discount, I'll bet he shit a solid gold one.

which side of the car houses the steering wheel? do they drive left on the road or right?

They (mostly) drive on the right side of the road, but the traffic is a bit like Thailand & there's no telling which side they'll drive on half the time.

[hawker9000]

Double engine failure is likely to have been a fuel problem or a flock of birds ingested.

Oh, no. The experts here on TV maintain that turbine engines can withstand ingesting birds, turkeys even... 'So I guess it had to be the fuel problem.

[lvr181]

Joystick is a quaint term, rarely used these days for powered aircraft. More modern terminology used now. If Bleriot were alive he would be amazed!

[F430murci]

The ATR is a turboprop.

Gas turbine or in layman terms a jet engine driving a propellor.

Engine failure on take of will result in huge asymmetric problems or in other words the aircraft will roll towards the dead engine.

The un feathered prop on the dead engine will act like a brake.

Is this what they call a wing stall?

No. Wing stall is when the wings stop producing lift because of insuffient forward speed.

It appears the engine flamed out or to put it another way wound down and stopped.

Take off is a critical phase of flight.

If you look at the propellers you will see one it rotating slower than the other.

With one engine producing little or no power and the other on full power the aircraft would want to turn sharply towards the dead engine and in so doing roll.

Pilots of small twin engined aircraft train for this scenario but a fully loaded airliner would be extremely difficult

to control. The only way to stop the roll is with full rudder but near impossible to achieve at slow speed.

Both engines were off for about a minute before the crash so probay not roll into dead engine.

They are saying he accidentally turned off the wrong engine.

Edited February 7, 2015 by F430murci

[jpinx]

Double engine failure is likely to have been a fuel problem or a flock of birds ingested.

Oh, no. The experts here on TV maintain that turbine engines can withstand ingesting birds, turkeys even... 'So I guess it had to be the fuel problem.

I remember RR putting out a promotional movie about their turbines withstanding bird-strikes. An engineer was seen to be throwing chicken carcasses into the intake of a running engine. None of the chickens survived and the engine didn't miss a beat - compressor revs and JPT steady as a rock.

In a much older movie on the same topic a jet was run at maximum thrust on a rig and ice-cubes were fed into it at a huge rate to simulate worst case hail. The rate of ice was increased till the engine blew up, but it took a huge amount - as if a 40ton truck tipped it's entire load in. The failure was spectacular.

A flame out can be caused by any one of numerous problems, but the chances of the same problem affected both engines is infinitesimal - a complete fuel starvation is almost the only cause (Glasgow Police helicopter). It takes a big flock of big birds to pop both engines - as was seen in the previous river-flop in USA, but AFAIK there's no flocks of geese in the wild in Taiwan....

The ATR has turbo-props, and a bird would more likely give a prop-strike with only the remains going into the engine, but if the prop is sufficiently badly damaged it could cause severe imbalance, needing to shut down that engine. Assuming the crew shut down the correct engine, the flight could maintain altitude one the remaining engine and land safely.

[jpinx]

The ATR is a turboprop.

Gas turbine or in layman terms a jet engine driving a propellor.

Engine failure on take of will result in huge asymmetric problems or in other words the aircraft will roll towards the dead engine.

The un feathered prop on the dead engine will act like a brake.

Is this what they call a wing stall?

No. Wing stall is when the wings stop producing lift because of insuffient forward speed.

It appears the engine flamed out or to put it another way wound down and stopped.

Take off is a critical phase of flight.

If you look at the propellers you will see one it rotating slower than the other.

With one engine producing little or no power and the other on full power the aircraft would want to turn sharply towards the dead engine and in so doing roll.

Pilots of small twin engined aircraft train for this scenario but a fully loaded airliner would be extremely difficult

to control. The only way to stop the roll is with full rudder but near impossible to achieve at slow speed.

Both engines were off for about a minute before the crash so probay not roll into dead engine.

They are saying he accidentally turned off the wrong engine.

Both props appeared to be windmilling in the video - so both engines seem to be off.

A fully loaded, maximum weight airliner will climb with one engine out. it's standard training for an engine to be stopped at a critical phase of fight.

[lvr181]

Good to see some experts here despite what some other, ill-informed posters, have said.

[Tywais]

Both props appeared to be windmilling in the video - so both engines seem to be off.

You can not rely upon a video to determine that due to the stroboscopic effect of the video shutter timing and blade rotation. Example below, engine running at normal rpm but looks like it is windmilling.

[jpinx]

Both props appeared to be windmilling in the video - so both engines seem to be off.

You can not rely upon a video to determine that due to the stroboscopic effect of the video shutter timing and blade rotation. Example below, engine running at normal rpm but looks like it is windmilling.

Indeed -- the stagecoach wheels always appeared to be going backwards at certain speeds I was looking at the fact that they were both fully feathered, which is usually an automatic action when an engine stops.

[hawker9000]

Double engine failure is likely to have been a fuel problem or a flock of birds ingested.

Oh, no. The experts here on TV maintain that turbine engines can withstand ingesting birds, turkeys even... 'So I guess it had to be the fuel problem.

I remember RR putting out a promotional movie about their turbines withstanding bird-strikes. An engineer was seen to be throwing chicken carcasses into the intake of a running engine. None of the chickens survived and the engine didn't miss a beat - compressor revs and JPT steady as a rock.

In a much older movie on the same topic a jet was run at maximum thrust on a rig and ice-cubes were fed into it at a huge rate to simulate worst case hail. The rate of ice was increased till the engine blew up, but it took a huge amount - as if a 40ton truck tipped it's entire load in. The failure was spectacular.

A flame out can be caused by any one of numerous problems, but the chances of the same problem affected both engines is infinitesimal - a complete fuel starvation is almost the only cause (Glasgow Police helicopter). It takes a big flock of big birds to pop both engines - as was seen in the previous river-flop in USA, but AFAIK there's no flocks of geese in the wild in Taiwan....

The ATR has turbo-props, and a bird would more likely give a prop-strike with only the remains going into the engine, but if the prop is sufficiently badly damaged it could cause severe imbalance, needing to shut down that engine. Assuming the crew shut down the correct engine, the flight could maintain altitude one the remaining engine and land safely.

Hmm. And have you ever been PIC and had to shut down an engine and land "as soon as practicable" due to a bird strike?

I have. (And it was just one bird.)

And in a Beech King Air. Would you happen to know what kind of engines that has?

...

The fact that engines are tested in order to determine their susceptibility to different levels of damage due to bird strike, to assist in design efforts to minimize such damage to the extent possible, and to assess likely damage when birdstrikes do occur, certainly does not mean that they aren't vulnerable to them. They shoot frozen turkeys at aircraft windshields too - would you like to volunteer for a live flight experiment along those lines perhaps?

http://www.airsafe.com/birds/signif.htm << you (& some others) might find this interesting

[jpinx]

Double engine failure is likely to have been a fuel problem or a flock of birds ingested.

Oh, no. The experts here on TV maintain that turbine engines can withstand ingesting birds, turkeys even... 'So I guess it had to be the fuel problem.

I remember RR putting out a promotional movie about their turbines withstanding bird-strikes. An engineer was seen to be throwing chicken carcasses into the intake of a running engine. None of the chickens survived and the engine didn't miss a beat - compressor revs and JPT steady as a rock.

In a much older movie on the same topic a jet was run at maximum thrust on a rig and ice-cubes were fed into it at a huge rate to simulate worst case hail. The rate of ice was increased till the engine blew up, but it took a huge amount - as if a 40ton truck tipped it's entire load in. The failure was spectacular.

A flame out can be caused by any one of numerous problems, but the chances of the same problem affected both engines is infinitesimal - a complete fuel starvation is almost the only cause (Glasgow Police helicopter). It takes a big flock of big birds to pop both engines - as was seen in the previous river-flop in USA, but AFAIK there's no flocks of geese in the wild in Taiwan....

The ATR has turbo-props, and a bird would more likely give a prop-strike with only the remains going into the engine, but if the prop is sufficiently badly damaged it could cause severe imbalance, needing to shut down that engine. Assuming the crew shut down the correct engine, the flight could maintain altitude one the remaining engine and land safely.

Hmm. And have you ever been PIC and had to shut down an engine and land "as soon as practicable" due to a bird strike?

I have. (And it was just one bird.)

And in a Beech King Air. Would you happen to know what kind of engines that has?

...

The fact that engines are tested in order to determine their susceptibility to different levels of damage due to bird strike, to assist in design efforts to minimize such damage to the extent possible, and to assess likely damage when birdstrikes do occur, certainly does not mean that they aren't vulnerable to them. They shoot frozen turkeys at aircraft windshields too - would you like to volunteer for a live flight experiment along those lines perhaps?

http://www.airsafe.com/birds/signif.htm << you (& some others) might find this interesting

Indeed -- several times and only me in the cockpit The Kingair was a peachy machine to fly, but I didn't get a birdstrike in it.

FWIW - I had an engine failure due to insect ingestion once -- a swarm of locusts in Egypt clogged the intake in my helicopter while I was spraying

I was based at Edinburgh Airport for some years and they went to considerable lengths to chase the birds. Some places use false falcons.

Google the "Bass Rock gannets " in the Firth of Forth. It's one of the biggest colonies of Gannets in the world -- and we had to get onto the pad there.

I was attacked in flight by a Golden eagle on one occasion. Now I know what it feels like to be a sparrow!

I did see the frozen turkey testing thing, but I've never heard of anyone meeting a frozen turkey in flight, so that test was a bit spurious

That link has some interesting history, but nothing recent.

Back to the ATR in Taiwan -- a prop-strike can easily give so much vibration that the engine can be damaged too. The crew could have been working in a cockpit vibrating so hard that instruments would be difficult to read. As I said earlier - it's easy to talk about these scenarios, but very different when you're actually doing it.

[NeverSure]

Having been in a similar position I can tell you that you have to be VERY careful to not shut the wrong engine down ! It's all very well to be a keyboard warrior on a topic like this, but when you're just airborne and very busy in the cockpit, an engine problem is a nightmare. Two pilots should not make the mistake if the training has been good, but routine flying breeds a complacency that training is meant to extinguish. It seems that one pilot was apparently doing the flying and another presumably trying to get an engine going again. Very sad for everyone concerned but kudos to the pilot managing to miss the worst of the obstacles. Condolences to everyone affected, in the aircraft and on the ground.

When one engine fails, the plane yaws toward the dead engine from the asymmetrical thrust. The plane may also begin a roll toward the dead engine, but the first thing the pilot will notice is the yaw.

A pilot, having already become very proficient with the rudder and aileron coordination due to many uses including cross winds on landing and takeoff, will instinctively give opposite rudder to halt the yaw and straighten the nose. He will also instinctively counter with the aerilons to level the wings as this is what he routinely does to deal with cross winds on takeoff and landing.

To avoid shutting down the good engine, all a pilot has to say to himself in one instant is "dead foot, dead engine." In other words, the rudder pedal he is already pushing, right or left, is the good engine side. Then he immediately feathers the prop on the dead engine to greatly reduce drag from a windmilling propeller to make it easier for the good engine to maintain airspeed and lift.

If one or both of the ATP's pulled the good engine, it is an epic fail that a student wouldn't be allowed to perform. One would hope that these pilots have had engine out practice both in planes with an instructor (at safe altitude) and in simulators.

"Dead foot, dead engine."

[NeverSure]

This is a real good vid. It clearly shows that the plane was level past the buildings, cleared the buildings, and then dropped hard to port over the roadway. It also has some excellent footage of rescuing people including perhaps the toddler.

The last article may say different, but this plane stalled port wing first and dropped like a rock.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DszvxPpIWt8#t=17

Dropped like a rock due to pilot error. Hero ???? BS The plane is made to run on one engine on take off even and pilots are all trained how to continue to proceed with an engine failure on take off. All aviation analyst are saying the same thing. There was no need for this crash. The pilot panicked and failed to follow engine out procedure.

Where did I say pilot error? I said the left wing stalled. It may have been the lessor of two evils to try to stretch the glide and risk a stall rather than hitting buildings or even structural parts of the roadway. I don't know why that decision to approach stall speed was made.

I simply say that the plane was gliding, the left wing stalled rolling the plane onto its left side, and then left side and therefore the whole plane dropped hard. That was apparent from the very first video we saw.

Cheers

[jpinx]

This is a real good vid. It clearly shows that the plane was level past the buildings, cleared the buildings, and then dropped hard to port over the roadway. It also has some excellent footage of rescuing people including perhaps the toddler.

The last article may say different, but this plane stalled port wing first and dropped like a rock.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DszvxPpIWt8#t=17

Dropped like a rock due to pilot error. Hero ???? BS The plane is made to run on one engine on take off even and pilots are all trained how to continue to proceed with an engine failure on take off. All aviation analyst are saying the same thing. There was no need for this crash. The pilot panicked and failed to follow engine out procedure.

Where did I say pilot error? I said the left wing stalled. It may have been the lessor of two evils to try to stretch the glide and risk a stall rather than hitting buildings or even structural parts of the roadway. I don't know why that decision to approach stall speed was made.

I simply say that the plane was gliding, the left wing stalled rolling the plane onto its left side, and then left side and therefore the whole plane dropped hard. That was apparent from the very first video we saw.

Cheers

2 points

1 - the job of shutting down the bad engine is often done by the pilot who is not actually flying. He has to rely on instrumentation.

2. - the aircraft was already very low on airspeed and the pilot elected to try a left turn - presumably to avoid obstacles. In the turn the inner (left in this case) wing loses lift.

[NeverSure]

Dropped like a rock due to pilot error. Hero ???? BS The plane is made to run on one engine on take off even and pilots are all trained how to continue to proceed with an engine failure on take off. All aviation analyst are saying the same thing. There was no need for this crash. The pilot panicked and failed to follow engine out procedure.

Where did I say pilot error? I said the left wing stalled. It may have been the lessor of two evils to try to stretch the glide and risk a stall rather than hitting buildings or even structural parts of the roadway. I don't know why that decision to approach stall speed was made.

I simply say that the plane was gliding, the left wing stalled rolling the plane onto its left side, and then left side and therefore the whole plane dropped hard. That was apparent from the very first video we saw.

Cheers

2 points

1 - the job of shutting down the bad engine is often done by the pilot who is not actually flying. He has to rely on instrumentation.

2. - the aircraft was already very low on airspeed and the pilot elected to try a left turn - presumably to avoid obstacles. In the turn the inner (left in this case) wing loses lift.

I don't believe you've ever flown a twin. You're making too many incorrect statements.

The pilot didn't try to turn. He was trying to fly straight. The plane was flying straight and too nose high to maintain airspeed in a glide. You can see it's nose high which will slow it. There is no other control surface input to initiate a turn. That left wing just drops like a rock and the plane continues straight while dropping.

As the closest video clearly shows, the plane is on its side as it passes the camera and hits the guardrail, and there's a clear view of the tail control surfaces. There is no rudder or elevator input. They are neutral.

At the critical moment with no further control surface input from the pilots, the left wing just stalls and drops, straight ahead.

Edited February 7, 2015 by NeverSure

[jpinx]

Dropped like a rock due to pilot error. Hero ???? BS The plane is made to run on one engine on take off even and pilots are all trained how to continue to proceed with an engine failure on take off. All aviation analyst are saying the same thing. There was no need for this crash. The pilot panicked and failed to follow engine out procedure.

Where did I say pilot error? I said the left wing stalled. It may have been the lessor of two evils to try to stretch the glide and risk a stall rather than hitting buildings or even structural parts of the roadway. I don't know why that decision to approach stall speed was made.

I simply say that the plane was gliding, the left wing stalled rolling the plane onto its left side, and then left side and therefore the whole plane dropped hard. That was apparent from the very first video we saw.

Cheers

2 points

1 - the job of shutting down the bad engine is often done by the pilot who is not actually flying. He has to rely on instrumentation.

2. - the aircraft was already very low on airspeed and the pilot elected to try a left turn - presumably to avoid obstacles. In the turn the inner (left in this case) wing loses lift.

I don't believe you've ever flown a twin. You're making too many incorrect statements.

The pilot didn't try to turn. He was trying to fly straight. The plane was flying straight and too nose high to maintain airspeed in a glide. You can see it's nose high which will slow it. There is no other control surface input to initiate a turn. That left wing just drops like a rock and the plane continues straight while dropping.

As the closest video clearly shows, the plane is on its side as it passes the camera and hits the guardrail, and there's a clear view of the tail control surfaces. There is no rudder or elevator input. They are neutral.

At the critical moment with no further control surface input from the pilots, the left wing just stalls and drops, straight ahead.

What is it with people forever personalising their postings? I don't query your experience just because I have a different opinion of the event. 25 years as a professional pilot and instructor in both FW and RW gives me an insight I am comfotable with - even if you're not. I respect your opinion, but I don't agree and I don't cast doubt on your life's experiences.

From the video I suggest that they managed to clear the buildings with the last gasp of airspeed and headed for the river on a stretched glide at stall speed. We can't see the total topography but it's not unreasonable to suggest that there was a compelling reason to make an attempt to turn left to avoid something, but - as any aerobatic pilot will know - turning while stalled will drop the inner wing. It was very nearly a survivable splashdown, but that attempt to turn dropped the wingtip onto the bridge and there was nothing anyone could do after that. I suggest that the pilot was working hard in tragic circumstances and it'll be very interesting to read the full report in due course.

All the experts in the world aren't going to save those unfortunate souls now......................

[NeverSure]

This is a real good vid. It clearly shows that the plane was level past the buildings, cleared the buildings, and then dropped hard to port over the roadway. It also has some excellent footage of rescuing people including perhaps the toddler.

The last article may say different, but this plane stalled port wing first and dropped like a rock.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DszvxPpIWt8#t=17

Dropped like a rock due to pilot error. Hero ???? BS The plane is made to run on one engine on take off even and pilots are all trained how to continue to proceed with an engine failure on take off. All aviation analyst are saying the same thing. There was no need for this crash. The pilot panicked and failed to follow engine out procedure.

Where did I say pilot error? I said the left wing stalled. It may have been the lessor of two evils to try to stretch the glide and risk a stall rather than hitting buildings or even structural parts of the roadway. I don't know why that decision to approach stall speed was made.

I simply say that the plane was gliding, the left wing stalled rolling the plane onto its left side, and then left side and therefore the whole plane dropped hard. That was apparent from the very first video we saw.

Cheers

2 points

1 - the job of shutting down the bad engine is often done by the pilot who is not actually flying. He has to rely on instrumentation.

2. - the aircraft was already very low on airspeed and the pilot elected to try a left turn - presumably to avoid obstacles. In the turn the inner (left in this case) wing loses lift.

"He has to rely on instrumentation."

This is the deal killer for me. You've never flown a twin. They were in VFR conditions. The props would go out of sync giving them the first and audible notice that an engine was slowing. The plane would next begin to yaw hard which they could see through the windscreen as they saw the horizon. They would instinctively straighten and level it because they've done it so many times for other reasons including crosswinds.

"Dead foot, dead engine," and feather the prop on the dead engine. They don't need instruments for any of that. Yes they might glance at the engine instruments to verify what they already know, but they do already know it.

The one who is actually flying the plane be it left or right seat is going to feather that dead engine because he's going to be the first one to know which engine failed. From his foot. From his foot. He's going to want to reduce the drag from the windmilling prop ASAP and he'll just do it.

Alternatively, the one who wasn't flying the plane killed the good engine because he didn't have the feedback from the rudder pedals. That would be epic fail.

[NeverSure]

2 points

1 - the job of shutting down the bad engine is often done by the pilot who is not actually flying. He has to rely on instrumentation.

2. - the aircraft was already very low on airspeed and the pilot elected to try a left turn - presumably to avoid obstacles. In the turn the inner (left in this case) wing loses lift.

I don't believe you've ever flown a twin. You're making too many incorrect statements.

The pilot didn't try to turn. He was trying to fly straight. The plane was flying straight and too nose high to maintain airspeed in a glide. You can see it's nose high which will slow it. There is no other control surface input to initiate a turn. That left wing just drops like a rock and the plane continues straight while dropping.

As the closest video clearly shows, the plane is on its side as it passes the camera and hits the guardrail, and there's a clear view of the tail control surfaces. There is no rudder or elevator input. They are neutral.

At the critical moment with no further control surface input from the pilots, the left wing just stalls and drops, straight ahead.

What is it with people forever personalising their postings? I don't query your experience just because I have a different opinion of the event. 25 years as a professional pilot and instructor in both FW and RW gives me an insight I am comfotable with - even if you're not. I respect your opinion, but I don't agree and I don't cast doubt on your life's experiences.

From the video I suggest that they managed to clear the buildings with the last gasp of airspeed and headed for the river on a stretched glide at stall speed. We can't see the total topography but it's not unreasonable to suggest that there was a compelling reason to make an attempt to turn left to avoid something, but - as any aerobatic pilot will know - turning while stalled will drop the inner wing. It was very nearly a survivable splashdown, but that attempt to turn dropped the wingtip onto the bridge and there was nothing anyone could do after that. I suggest that the pilot was working hard in tragic circumstances and it'll be very interesting to read the full report in due course.

All the experts in the world aren't going to save those unfortunate souls now......................

"It was very nearly a survivable splashdown, but that attempt to turn..."

No he didn't attempt to turn. If the asymmetrical lift on the wings from a turn that you suggested earlier caused the left wing to stall, then we would see the beginning of the turn to get the plane and the wings into that condition. We don't see it. There would have to be at least some banking and turning to produce the conditions you described and it isn't there.

The plane is flying straight when that left wing drops. It simply ran out of airspeed and the left wing stalled first for any of a number of unknown reasons, and dropped.

[jpinx]

OK -- that's enough -- go over to pprune and see how you get on with this line of reasoning and your claims that the posters don't have the experience needed to make a good guess at what happened.

[Basil B]

Shut down wrong engine???

Nothing learned from "Kegworth"...

[Basil B]

2 points

1 - the job of shutting down the bad engine is often done by the pilot who is not actually flying. He has to rely on instrumentation.

2. - the aircraft was already very low on airspeed and the pilot elected to try a left turn - presumably to avoid obstacles. In the turn the inner (left in this case) wing loses lift.

I don't believe you've ever flown a twin. You're making too many incorrect statements.

The pilot didn't try to turn. He was trying to fly straight. The plane was flying straight and too nose high to maintain airspeed in a glide. You can see it's nose high which will slow it. There is no other control surface input to initiate a turn. That left wing just drops like a rock and the plane continues straight while dropping.

As the closest video clearly shows, the plane is on its side as it passes the camera and hits the guardrail, and there's a clear view of the tail control surfaces. There is no rudder or elevator input. They are neutral.

At the critical moment with no further control surface input from the pilots, the left wing just stalls and drops, straight ahead.

What is it with people forever personalising their postings? I don't query your experience just because I have a different opinion of the event. 25 years as a professional pilot and instructor in both FW and RW gives me an insight I am comfotable with - even if you're not. I respect your opinion, but I don't agree and I don't cast doubt on your life's experiences.

From the video I suggest that they managed to clear the buildings with the last gasp of airspeed and headed for the river on a stretched glide at stall speed. We can't see the total topography but it's not unreasonable to suggest that there was a compelling reason to make an attempt to turn left to avoid something, but - as any aerobatic pilot will know - turning while stalled will drop the inner wing. It was very nearly a survivable splashdown, but that attempt to turn dropped the wingtip onto the bridge and there was nothing anyone could do after that. I suggest that the pilot was working hard in tragic circumstances and it'll be very interesting to read the full report in due course.

All the experts in the world aren't going to save those unfortunate souls now......................

"It was very nearly a survivable splashdown, but that attempt to turn..."

No he didn't attempt to turn. If the asymmetrical lift on the wings from a turn that you suggested earlier caused the left wing to stall, then we would see the beginning of the turn to get the plane and the wings into that condition. We don't see it. There would have to be at least some banking and turning to produce the conditions you described and it isn't there.

The plane is flying straight when that left wing drops. It simply ran out of airspeed and the left wing stalled first for any of a number of unknown reasons, and dropped.

Looking at the pictures, maps and flight path it was a fluke that the plane landed in the drink, the plane was totally out of control flying on it's side, falling like a brick, it would have needed to turn right to line up with the river.