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

[Tywais]

TransAsia plane crash: Pilot complained of ‘engine abnormality’ before take-off

The captain of doomed TransAsia Flight GE235 complained of “engine abnormalities” and requested an urgent inspection of the plane shortly before its final take-off but was rebuffed, it has been claimed.

Liao Jiangzhong, the plane’s former air force pilot, is among 32 people so far confirmed to have died when the aircraft crashed into a river shortly after taking off from Taipei’s Songshan airport on Wednesday morning.

An unnamed “whistleblower” told Taiwan’s Liberty Times newspaper that Mr Liao requested a thorough inspection of the plane after noticing “engine abnormalities” during its previous flight. The pilot registered the problem on a flight log, the newspaper added.

However, the source claimed that TransAsia staff had only inspected the plane’s communications equipment rather than performing a full inspection, for fear of incurring penalties for relying the flight from Taipei to the island of Kinmen.

More here - Telegraph

[Bernard Flint]

read on facebook, that a couple of fruit bats say this was a hoax, think the names were allegedly some bugger, and baron von somebody, crazies, especialy names like that, maybe cult members

[Tywais]

Appears both engines were down.

TransAsia ATR flight data suggests wrong engine shut down

Flight-data recorder information suggests the crew operating the crashed TransAsia Airways ATR 72-600 may have shut down the left-hand engine of the aircraft shortly after the right-hand engine flamed out.

Taiwan’s Aviation Safety Council has released engine plots from the recovered flight-data recorder that appear to show that, shortly after takeoff, a master warning indicated a flame-out of the right-hand powerplant. The aircraft was at an altitude of around 1,200ft at the time.

The data indicates that the propeller of the right-hand engine feathered.

But less than a minute after the warning, the data shows a fuel shut-off to the left-hand engine. There is no indication on the data plot that a flame-out warning was active for this engine.

Around the same time, air traffic control communications show that the crew made a 'mayday' call, citing an engine flame-out.

Further data from ASC shows that around 42s after shutting off the fuel to the left engine, it was restarted, around the same time that a stall warning sounded.

At no time was fuel to the right-hand engine shut off, the data suggests.

Flightglobal

[Tywais]

TransAsia GE235: Shutting down the wrong engine

Taiwan's accident investigators have taken the unusual step of publishing part of the flight data recorder printout for the crashed ATR 72-600 almost as soon as it was available to them. There are no rules or protocols saying they must do so, and none saying they should not.

The printout they released concerns only the data for the engines. It is a series of graphical lines describing the state of 12 different engine parameters against a timeline, with barometric altitude also displayed. The graphs provide numerical values for some of those parameters; others just show whether a switch is on or off – like the fuel shut-off valve for example.

This data tells the investigators, in great detail, what happened, but still not – at this stage – why it happened.

The graph shows that the crew certainly suffered the engine "flame-out" they reported in a Mayday call to ATC: the turbine temperature for No 2 engine (the right-hand one) dropped, power was lost and the propeller auto-feathered.

But then, in the stressful situation prevailing from that point, the crew carried out the shutdown drill for the working engine, so it stopped too.

Flightglobal

[Tywais]

Flight data recorder data. PLA1 & PLA2 are the engine power lever angle. Definition of labels here - Aviationstackexchange

[jpinx]

Thanks to Tywais for posting all that. Looks like a very sad series of incidents causing the one good engine to be shut down. We can only wait for the CVR transcript in due course.

BIG kudos to the investigators for publishing the raw data immediately. Western countries would never do this

Edited February 7, 2015 by jpinx

[khaosai]

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.

Instrumentation plays a very large part in flying and managing an engine failure on commercial aircraft even in VFR conditions.

Yes you will recognise and engine failure primarily by heading change due to the yaw that occurs. That recognition could be by looking outside but more likely by seeing the change of heading via the aircraft instrumentation.

This yaw will be counteracted by applying the correct rudder to stop the yaw. This could be achieved by looking outside but far more likely by looking at the primary flight display and ensuring the turn and slip indicator is approximately centralised with the wings approximately level.

You will most likely have to adjust the pitch attitude to ensure you do not allow the speed to decay to an unsafe level. This could be by looking outside but far more likely by setting an appropriate pitch attitude on the primary flight display.

The main objective is to ensure you have the aircraft under control, first and foremost. Identification whilst very important is secondary to flying the aircraft safely.

Speed is very much your best friend at this stage. Do not allow the aircraft to get below the take off safety speed. If performance is compromised then advance the thrust levers to ensure appropriate performance.

The next thing to address is the engine out procedure. It may well be a fairly complicated one or very straight forward.

Once it's all under control and to help with proper identification of the failure between both crew members then it would be prudent to engage the autopilot.

Take your time. Assessment will consist of looking at the crew alerting system to highlight a problem. From there you will look at the engine indications. Prior to taking any action you must ensure that you get confirmation from the other crew member on proper identification.

Who moves what control or switch will depend on the manufacturers guidance and possibly the individual operator.

Human nature, human factors and a bad day at the office for whatever reason will continue to pose risks to aviation that end sadly.

[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.

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

As you will now note the up to date investigation has now determined the pilot is a hero for avoiding the buildings but an idiot for turning off the wrong engine thereby leaving the plane totally without power. PILOT ERROR>

[poweratradio]

To all you armchair pilots with your windy explanations of yaw and drift and instrumentation forward thrust and lift. What could a should a been done all is a little over a minute. BTW the prop feathers automatically. One engine at idle is no worries at all. Turning of the good engine and going for a restart is PILOT ERROR>

[NeverSure]

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

As you will now note the up to date investigation has now determined the pilot is a hero for avoiding the buildings but an idiot for turning off the wrong engine thereby leaving the plane totally without power. PILOT ERROR>

Yes, you are using this statement repeatedly, even in reply to posts to which it is irrelevant. I have repeatedly said that the plane was gliding without power. My post you quoted said it was gliding and this before it was reported that the good engine was shut down. One can tell that both engines are out just from the video showing the attitude and behavior of the plane. It isn't in an attitude to overcome asymmetrical thrust and it's in a slow (too slow) glide with the nose up somewhat, further slowing the plane.

If the plane had a good engine it would be banked and have rudder against the thrust of the good engine and it should be climbing. We wouldn't be watching a video because the plane would have climbed and turned back to the airport.

We didn't know until now why it had no power and we don't know why it was allowed to slow below the stall speed. We can only see, and have always seen that this was the case. Again, it was gliding straight but too slow and the left wing stalled first and the rest is history.

I see at least three instances of pilot error. The first is that the pilot decided to go with concerns about the engine. This I just learned. The pilot is The Ruler of The Universe concerning his airplane and his decision is final. The second is that we now hear that the good engine was shut down. The third is that the plane slowed to below the stall speed in a straight ahead glide.

I'll cut the pilot some slack on that one because he saw what he was gliding toward and may have made a decision to risk a stall in hopes of stretching the glide. He may have seen certain death, even for people on the ground at the end of a normal glide path. The pilot can tell exactly where the plane is going to touch down simply by seeing what is static in his windscreen.

[Basil B]

Only a few days ago everybody was pointing their fingers at the ATR72 now some things are a little clearer...

Taiwan's TransAsia cancels 90 flights as pilots are sent for training, while officials look into why an engine was switched off before Wednesday's crash.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-31204059

[jpinx]

................The first is that the pilot decided to go with concerns about the engine. This I just learned. ::::::

link please ?

.... The pilot is The Ruler of The Universe concerning his airplane and his decision is final.....

No -- that's the captains job. The pilot flying will do what he's told by the Captain.

Edited February 8, 2015 by jpinx

[skippybangkok]

From the above record.... It's clear

Engine 2 flame out

PIlots shut down engine 1 ( fuel flow and switch cut off )

Tried as they may, could not re start both engines ( not having the fuel switch selected to "on" for engine 1 may be the reason . )

About 1 min before impact the realised fuel switch in off position, turned it on. Engine 1 started up, but was still spooling up when they impacted.

Will wait for investigation, but pretty clear a basic 101 procedure on engine failure alluded the captain and co pilot. There are many other issues, ie pulling throttles back for both engines.... Why ?

Edited February 8, 2015 by skippybangkok

[jpinx]

From the above record.... It's clear

Engine 2 flame out

PIlots shut down engine 1 ( fuel flow and switch cut off )

Tried as they may, could not re start both engines ( not having the fuel switch selected to "on" for engine 1 may be the reason . )

About 1 min before impact the realised fuel switch in off position, turned it on. Engine 1 started up, but was still spooling up when they impacted.

Will wait for investigation, but pretty clear a basic 101 procedure on engine failure alluded the captain and co pilot. There are many other issues, ie pulling throttles back for both engines.... Why ?

From your post it seemed that you had information about the captain having concerns about one of the engines before the flight. If so - link please -- if not - please clarify your statement

[NeverSure]

................The first is that the pilot decided to go with concerns about the engine. This I just learned. ::::::

link please ?

.... The pilot is The Ruler of The Universe concerning his airplane and his decision is final.....

No -- that's the captains job. The pilot flying will do what he's told by the Captain.

LINK to concerns about engine.

Yes I misspoke. It's the Captain, but of course the Captain could be the pilot. It was still "pilot error" to decide to go with concerns about the engine.

Edited February 8, 2015 by NeverSure

[jpinx]

TransAsia are to be applauded for doing something quickly -- revision training of flight crew, even at the expense of cancelling a lot of flights. It will be very interesting to see/read the report that was filed regarding the "abnormalities" noticed by the captain on the previous flight. The CVR will confirm the rest but it is also pretty obvious from the map

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03187/Taiwan_plane_path__3187115a.gif

that the captain was indeed attempting a left turn to get into the river, while the other flight crew were trying to spool up the good engine -- but too late.

One wonders about the experience of the first officer. The captain was apparently and old hand, but he's basically alone if the rest of the cockpit is in panic mode.

[NeverSure]

TransAsia are to be applauded for doing something quickly -- revision training of flight crew, even at the expense of cancelling a lot of flights. It will be very interesting to see/read the report that was filed regarding the "abnormalities" noticed by the captain on the previous flight. The CVR will confirm the rest but it is also pretty obvious from the map

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03187/Taiwan_plane_path__3187115a.gif

that the captain was indeed attempting a left turn to get into the river, while the other flight crew were trying to spool up the good engine -- but too late.

One wonders about the experience of the first officer. The captain was apparently and old hand, but he's basically alone if the rest of the cockpit is in panic mode.

It's not at all obvious that the plane was attempting to turn left. It had made a dogleg turn left and then right in the vicinity of the buildings, perhaps to avoid buildings, but after he cleared the buildings he straightened out. The map line stops at the point of impact, no left turn.

The plane then stalled and dropped on its port side.

[skippybangkok]

From the above record.... It's clear

Engine 2 flame out

PIlots shut down engine 1 ( fuel flow and switch cut off )

Tried as they may, could not re start both engines ( not having the fuel switch selected to "on" for engine 1 may be the reason . )

About 1 min before impact the realised fuel switch in off position, turned it on. Engine 1 started up, but was still spooling up when they impacted.

Will wait for investigation, but pretty clear a basic 101 procedure on engine failure alluded the captain and co pilot. There are many other issues, ie pulling throttles back for both engines.... Why ?

From your post it seemed that you had information about the captain having concerns about one of the engines before the flight. If so - link please -- if not - please clarify your statement

OMG - the serious squad has arrived. Learn to use google, not too hard to find

As for CLA and PLA, can see clearly with red lines. Very clear he realized his ooooopsy too late in the game ( last red line, CLA selected on, can see engine starting up )

Ps - applauding Transasia for not training and verifying their crew on a basic issue such as engine failure is a strange concept

Edited February 8, 2015 by skippybangkok

[jpinx]

From the above record.... It's clear

Engine 2 flame out

PIlots shut down engine 1 ( fuel flow and switch cut off )

Tried as they may, could not re start both engines ( not having the fuel switch selected to "on" for engine 1 may be the reason . )

About 1 min before impact the realised fuel switch in off position, turned it on. Engine 1 started up, but was still spooling up when they impacted.

Will wait for investigation, but pretty clear a basic 101 procedure on engine failure alluded the captain and co pilot. There are many other issues, ie pulling throttles back for both engines.... Why ?

From your post it seemed that you had information about the captain having concerns about one of the engines before the flight. If so - link please -- if not - please clarify your statement

OMG - the serious squad has arrived. Learn to use google, not too hard to find

As for CLA and PLA, can see clearly with red lines. Very clear he realized his ooooopsy too late in the game ( last red line, CLA selected on, can see engine starting up )

Ps - applauding Transasia for not training and verifying their crew on a basic issue such as engine failure is a strange concept

ImageUploadedByThaivisa Connect Thailand1423379059.522666.jpg

Don't misconstrue my posting -- read it again correctly.

[jpinx]

Overlaying the readouts against the map of the route appears to give this......

[Basil B]

From the above record.... It's clear

Engine 2 flame out

PIlots shut down engine 1 ( fuel flow and switch cut off )

Tried as they may, could not re start both engines ( not having the fuel switch selected to "on" for engine 1 may be the reason . )

About 1 min before impact the realised fuel switch in off position, turned it on. Engine 1 started up, but was still spooling up when they impacted.

Will wait for investigation, but pretty clear a basic 101 procedure on engine failure alluded the captain and co pilot. There are many other issues, ie pulling throttles back for both engines.... Why ?

From your post it seemed that you had information about the captain having concerns about one of the engines before the flight. If so - link please -- if not - please clarify your statement

OMG - the serious squad has arrived. Learn to use google, not too hard to find

As for CLA and PLA, can see clearly with red lines. Very clear he realized his ooooopsy too late in the game ( last red line, CLA selected on, can see engine starting up )

Ps - applauding Transasia for not training and verifying their crew on a basic issue such as engine failure is a strange concept

ImageUploadedByThaivisa Connect Thailand1423379059.522666.jpg

Left/Right, #1/#2 Engine, Port/Starboard... must be pretty confusing particularly when things go wrong.

[skippybangkok]

Left/Right, #1/#2 Engine, Port/Starboard... must be pretty confusing particularly when things go wrong.

Yep, thats why they are usually drilled excessively on this topic ( obviously not Trans Asia ). Used to help in new crew training in DC-10 simulator, engine failure after V1 was standard... And after that experience i always say a prayer on take off with anything less than 4 engines as i have seen even senior captains bouncing down the runway unable to take off ( derated take off - forget to push up remaining engines ). In the simulator was funny to watch.... Boink, Boink, Boink, Boink, crash

General procedure is

1.Fly the aircraft

2.Full power (Both throttle levers)

3.Identify dead foot = dead engine

4.Verify effected engine throttle. confirm with both pilots by pointing to the effected engine and slowly bring to idle (While cross checking with N1 or RPM to see its not dropping)

5.confirm fuel selector with both pilots then cut off.

Just looking at them pulling both throttles back is already weird

Edited February 8, 2015 by skippybangkok

[khaosai]

Left/Right, #1/#2 Engine, Port/Starboard... must be pretty confusing particularly when things go wrong.

Yep, thats why they are usually drilled excessively on this topic ( obviously not Trans Asia ). Used to help in new crew training in DC-10 simulator, engine failure after V1 was standard... And after that experience i always say a prayer on take off with anything less than 4 engines as i have seen even senior captains bouncing down the runway unable to take off ( derated take off - forget to push up remaining engines ). In the simulator was funny to watch.... Boink, Boink, Boink, Boink, crash

General procedure is

1.Fly the aircraft

2.Full power (Both throttle levers)

3.Identify dead foot = dead engine

4.Verify effected engine throttle. confirm with both pilots by pointing to the effected engine and slowly bring to idle (While cross checking with N1 or RPM to see its not dropping)

5.confirm fuel selector with both pilots then cut off.

Just looking at them pulling both throttles back is already weird

Which would beg the question there may well have been some very confusing information going on within the flight deck for 3 experienced guys to have been unable to process it properly. Will make for sad but interesting reading when the findings are published.

[Basil B]

...Just looking at them pulling both throttles back is already weird

With stories of pilots with fake qualifications over recent years no doubt the Air Accident investigators will be going through that aspect with a fine tooth comb.

[skippybangkok]

Which would beg the question there may well have been some very confusing information going on within the flight deck for 3 experienced guys to have been unable to process it properly. Will make for sad but interesting reading when the findings are published.

3 guys on Transasia or DC-10 ?

On the DC-10 simulator we gave them a derated take off at about 240 Tons on a nice long runway. Engine fire after V1. They would shut down the correct engine, but more often than desired, forgot to push the remaining engines up to full thrust.

Would still hit V2, rotate, lift off a bit, but not enough power, so would bounce down the runway and u would see them in panic trying to figure out what was going on. Many of these had been either captains on Airbus, or co pilot on ie 747. Not freshies

[khaosai]

Which would beg the question there may well have been some very confusing information going on within the flight deck for 3 experienced guys to have been unable to process it properly. Will make for sad but interesting reading when the findings are published.

3 guys on Transasia or DC-10 ?

On the DC-10 simulator we gave them a derated take off at about 240 Tons on a nice long runway. Engine fire after V1. They would shut down the correct engine, but more often than desired, forgot to push the remaining engines up to full thrust.

Would still hit V2, rotate, lift off a bit, but not enough power, so would bounce down the runway and u would see them in panic trying to figure out what was going on. Many of these had been either captains on Airbus, or co pilot on ie 747. Not freshies

Transasia.

[ExPratt]

Transasia Pilots fail safety test ,Shocking

Some 29 pilots working for Taiwanese airline TransAsia have been suspended after failing or missing safety tests, a week after a fatal crash.

The airline said the results were not acceptable and promised to improve the training of its pilots.

Regulators ordered the tests after a TransAsia plane crashed in Taipei, killing at least 42 people.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-31404500

[Mosha]

BBC Talking to a captain involved in pilot training. A pilots license popular with the LCCs in this part of the world is MPL. Multi Crew Pilots License. The training concentrates on systems rather than flying. Someone from school, no flight experience, could be in the right hand seat with as little as 215 hours and 12 - 15 months after starting training. The vast majority of Legacy Carriers do not use this system.

[skippybangkok]

The mind boggles.... Looked last night at the AF447 ( airfrance ) crash, mind also boggles.... Nose up 40 somewhat degrees and Co pilot still pulling the stick back..... Maybe he wanted to be an Apollo astronaut

[Basil B]

The report I read is 10 failed the assessment, out of 71 pilots that is shocking...

Not sure if they all attended for the assessment.

In a little over 10 years (10 years and a few days) TransAsia pilots have written off four ATR72's... nearly 100 person have lost their lives and only now does it sink in many of TransAsia's pilots should never have been flying anything more than a kite.