Trans Asia crash video

Henning said:
I think he was already right at the stall given both AoA and rate of sink as he came into frame. Man it's sad to see airline pilots with a lack of such basic airmanship, the AF447 guys did no better, one small glitch brought the plane down because the basic knowledge/thought that "the nose must come down for energy to fly" wasn't there. :nonod:
Click to expand...

I agree they were already right at the stall when the airplane came into view. Its not like they had any good options at that point. The stall/ roll into the river is probably about as good of an outcome as lowering the nose and crashing into a bridge while under control.

Pt 25 aircraft have the performance (given enough rwy) to take an engine failure at any point in the takeoff roll. They had 8500 feet of runway to work with. So it was either a mishandled engine failure, or it was more than just a simple engine failure. Maybe the bad engine wouldn't feather. Maybe the fuel was contaminated and the other engine was crippled in some way.
 
Last edited:
The river is nearly 250' wide there, but it curves a lot. Still, he should have been able to plop it down, he had at least 3000' length to work with, he just didn't couldn't get it lined up.

There was a better outcome possible, the pilot just didn't get there.
 
Pretty sure he was trying to clear that building afterwards stalled
 
dell30rb said:
I agree they were already right at the stall when the airplane came into view. Its not like they had any good options at that point. The stall/ roll into the river is probably about as good of an outcome as lowering the nose and crashing into a bridge while under control.

Pt 25 aircraft have the performance (given enough rwy) to take an engine failure at any point in the takeoff roll. They had 8500 feet of runway to work with. So it was either a mishandled engine failure, or it was more than just a simple engine failure. Maybe the bad engine wouldn't feather. Maybe the fuel was contaminated and the other engine was crippled in some way.
Click to expand...

It'll be interesting to see what the FDR shows.
 
Matthew said:
I found this chart:

Almost looks like he was aiming for the river, adjusted course to miss a bridge, then swung back to line up with the river again and ran out of energy.
Click to expand...
]On that diagram the flight path looks erratic from takeoff. But it appears he had higher terrain ahead and to the left, and may have been trying to follow the river to stay over the lowest terrain.
 

Attachments

  • taipei.jpg
    taipei.jpg
    97.8 KB · Views: 44
According to a few websites, they are claiming the last transmission to ATC was something along the lines of "Mayday, Mayday. Engine Flame-out".
 
bflynn said:
From the signs, I'm pretty sure this was Songshan airport. There aren't a lot of good options for where to put down if you discover you can't fly. But I can't quite pin down where the crash happened.

I think it was an amazing job of energy management by the pilot to avoid wiping out a couple of city blocks. At some point he was going to run out speed and altitude. Maybe intending to make it to the river, but not quite enough oomph.
Click to expand...

That airport is IN Taipei. Walking distance from the hotel I've stayed in often when there for business. You are correct, there aren't a lot of options.
 

Attachments

  • 015 Taipei International Airport.JPG
    015 Taipei International Airport.JPG
    3.5 MB · Views: 40
Aren't these the same pilots Norwegian Air wants to hire under a "Flag of Convenience" so as to give everyone low cost transatlantic fares ?
Careful what you wish for !
 
Art VanDelay said:
Aren't these the same pilots Norwegian Air wants to hire under a "Flag of Convenience" so as to give everyone low cost transatlantic fares ?
Careful what you wish for !
Click to expand...

The airline industry should never allow flags of convenience or do away with cabotage restrictions. If it happens, safety will suffer greatly, it made a real mess in the maritime industry that is still not a problem fully overcome. Overseas maintenance is bad enough.
 
bflynn said:
I think it was an amazing job of energy management by the pilot to avoid wiping out a couple of city blocks. At some point he was going to run out speed and altitude. Maybe intending to make it to the river, but not quite enough oomph.
Click to expand...
Standard conditions -- sea level, 15 deg C ... should there not be enough oomph on one to stay in the air if managed correctly?
 
DJTorrente said:
No wonder at all. International reciprocity is governed by ICAO, a UN organization. China holds a veto in the UN Security council, and refuses to permit recognition of Taiwan's independence for any UN purpose. So, to ICAO, Taiwan doesn't exist.

?
Click to expand...

And that, my friends, is how false rumors start.

Based on what I read early in this thread, I thought I learned that one of the reasons for this crash was because of poor Taiwanese pilot training standards. I read here that Taiwese pilots are not accept by the other countries, and I inferred from this that their flying abilities were substandard.

Evidently, the reason Taiwanese pilots are not accepted by other countries is because Taiwan does not exist according to the ICAO. Has nothing to do with pilot training standards.

Guess I need to clarify things with my wife before she spreads it further.
 
Henning said:
Man, that bad huh? Because you have to mess up pretty bad to get that result out of an engine failure with that much horsepower on tap, plus he already had altitude, it wasn't like the gear was still out. I can't imagine getting that result unless maybe the prop wouldn't feather, and even then.:dunno:
Click to expand...

you make the bold assumption that the right engine was still healthy. You don't know that. It's likely, sure, but not 100% certainty.

Speculation posts are just that; speculation. And I think they're poisonous to the community.
 
RalphInCA said:
And that, my friends, is how false rumors start.

Based on what I read early in this thread, I thought I learned that one of the reasons for this crash was because of poor Taiwanese pilot training standards. I read here that Taiwese pilots are not accept by the other countries, and I inferred from this that their flying abilities were substandard.

Evidently, the reason Taiwanese pilots are not accepted by other countries is because Taiwan does not exist according to the ICAO. Has nothing to do with pilot training standards.

Guess I need to clarify things with my wife before she spreads it further.
Click to expand...

No, your original assumptions are still pretty much valid.
 
RotorAndWing said:
"The pilot flying had accumulated 4,914 flight hours and his co-pilot, 6,922 flight hours, says Lin. There was also a third pilot in the jump seat with over 16,000 flight hours of experience."
Click to expand...

Maybe it was a lot of Pilot time in there...

36798.jpg


If ya get my drift. :dunno:
 
James331 said:
Maybe it was a lot of Pilot time in there...

36798.jpg


If ya get my drift. :dunno:
Click to expand...

No, being Asian they keep meticulous records and log every minute of flight time (literally).

Training is a HUGE issue in Asia. The differences between standards in Asia and the West are night and day.
 
Or 240,000 - 360,000 minutes.
 
Let me just state that until proven otherwise, I will assume that the pilots were well trained and highly skilled professional pilots who did their very best to salvage a very bad situation.

But That's Just Me! (tm)
 
FastEddieB said:
Let me just state that until proven otherwise, I will assume that the pilots were well trained and highly skilled professional pilots who did their very best to salvage a very bad situation.



But That's Just Me! (tm)
Click to expand...


Well they secured the wrong engine, so I guess you can climb down off of that horse. :)
 
timwinters said:
Yeah but don't obese people have built in airbags that help them survive the initial impact? ;)
Click to expand...

There are advantages and disadvantages, which ones present themselves most you won't know until the crash is over. I know 400 pound guys who are animals, I don't see them being at disadvantage, a couple of them I would bet on to be able to tear a new exit out the side of the plane.:rofl:
 
All they had to do was absolutely nothing except keep control of the plane and bring it back around and all would be fine. I'm telling ya, autonomous airplanes have some really attractive points to them.
 
Last edited:
txflyer said:
Jesus H. Christ the lawsuits if that happened here ... :crazy:
Click to expand...

:confused: Wouldn't change anything from the other accidents that happen here, air carriers are Strict Liability. Doesn't matter why the accident happened, the pay out will be the same unless you can prove Gross Negligence and add punis too the bill. This is Gross Incompetence, and we don't issue punis for that.
 
what kind of payouts did the colgan 3407 families get?
 
Henning said:
Does that get publicized?
Click to expand...


Probably depends on the terms of the settlement. I assume the cases were settled rather than tried...?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
dans2992 said:
Probably depends on the terms of the settlement. I assume the cases were settled rather than tried...?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

They are always settled in airline cases, Strict Liability precludes the need for a trial, it doesn't matter why, what, or who caused the problem, they have full liability.
 
Henning said:
They are always settled in airline cases, Strict Liability precludes the need for a trial, it doesn't matter why, what, or who caused the problem, they have full liability.
Click to expand...


Who determines an amount then?
 
dans2992 said:
Who determines an amount then?
Click to expand...

I am not sure, I have never worked an airline loss. I would imagine the airline insurance lawyers put together an offer that most people will accept, or there is some mediation board if you want to pursue some greater action, I'm not totally sure exactly how they'll work it, but it will be the airline insurance that will be paying.
 
Henning said:
They are always settled in airline cases, Strict Liability precludes the need for a trial, it doesn't matter why, what, or who caused the problem, they have full liability.
Click to expand...

Not really. Strict liability takes away some of the elements that must be proven at trial, but not all. For example, the amount of damages must still be plead and proven.

Also remember that strict liability under the Montreal Convention is limited to passengers (or their estates) suing the airline. Then you need to add all non-passengers suing the airline, and all passengers (or their estates) and non-passengers suing everybody else (plane manufacturer etc) and you have a huge trial to deal with.
 
Flying Viking said:
Not really. Strict liability takes away some of the elements that must be proven at trial, but not all. For example, the amount of damages must still be plead and proven.

Also remember that strict liability under the Montreal Convention is limited to passengers (or their estates) suing the airline. Then you need to add all non-passengers suing the airline, and all passengers (or their estates) and non-passengers suing everybody else (plane manufacturer etc) and you have a huge trial to deal with.
Click to expand...

Correct, I meant as far as proving fault for the Pax.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top