Taiwan twin engine crash. Did one engine flameout or two?

Take a look, the aircraft was in a stall as it passed by the cameras.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUQWJai59lo

The FDR info>>

B9JarHTIAAAgAy3.jpg:large


Take a look at the beta traces, both props were feathered at some point during the event.
 
Last edited:
flyingmoose said:
Sure looks to me like the RH engine restarted at the end??
Click to expand...

When #2 fell down they shut off fuel to #1. #1 restarted when they reopened the fuel cutoff but too late to help. The green traces are #1.

It appears to me the #2 flameout warning resulted in the crew shutting down #1. Notice the #2 autofeather on the beta trace follows the flameout trace.
 
Last edited:
Oh IC it now.. So #2 did feather as soon as it lost power. Thats what I see
 
Looks like they made two radio transmissions. First, right when #2 failed. 2nd when #1 quit.
 
By comparing the FDR altitude trace with the #2 flameout you can see the aircraft was still climbing on one engine. Once they closed the PL and fuel shutoff on #1 the altitude started down. Game over.
 
Last edited:
3393RP said:
By comparing the FDR altitude trace with the #2 flameout you can see the aircraft was still climbing on one engine. Once they closed the PL and fuel shutoff on #1 the altitude started down. Game over.
Click to expand...

Of course the plane will fly away on one with everything else working, no worries.
 
Very tragic event. Prayers to all affected.
I just don't understand why you would shut fuel off to any engine at a low altitude, barring a fire on that engine. Climb to a safe altitude then asses the problem. Fly the plane.
 
AirAsia is grounding pilots to carry out proficiency checks.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-31204059
Taiwan's Civil Aeronautics Administration (CAA) has ordered retraining for all TransAsia pilots flying its ATR fleet.
"All 71 ATR pilots will take part in proficiency tests carried out by the CAA and third-party professionals for an estimated four days," TransAsia Airways said in a statement (in Chinese).
 
NoHeat said:
AirAsia is grounding pilots to carry out proficiency checks.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-31204059
Taiwan's Civil Aeronautics Administration (CAA) has ordered retraining for all TransAsia pilots flying its ATR fleet.
"All 71 ATR pilots will take part in proficiency tests carried out by the CAA and third-party professionals for an estimated four days," TransAsia Airways said in a statement (in Chinese).
Click to expand...

This is a good outcome, provided they get serious about their training profiles and the scrutiny placed on their pilots. If it's a rubber stamp cursory academic discussion, then it won't have a marked effect on awareness and a change in attitude when taking the runway for takeoff. I don't think they can politically survive another pilot-botched emergency.
 
On that FDR chart posted on page 5, what is the engine bleed valve? What does it do? Noticing that as soon as #2 failed, #1 bleed valve shuts. Is that some sort of computerized response by the plane?
 
woodchucker said:
On that FDR chart posted on page 5, what is the engine bleed valve? What does it do? Noticing that as soon as #2 failed, #1 bleed valve shuts. Is that some sort of computerized response by the plane?
Click to expand...

Yes it's a computerized response. As to what engine bleed valves do, that's where the pneumatic systems on the airplane take their bleed air for pretty much everything. Canopy defog, anti-ice, pressurization of the cabin, air conditioning if done via power packs, G-suit (not applicable), pressurization of the hydraulic reservoir if so equipped, etc etc. Closing it allows all the gas to go to the power generating section to maximize power.
 
FastEddieB said:
I find name calling at this point childish and grossly inappropriate.
Click to expand...



narchee said:
Latest info on CNN is that they had problems with the first engine but then discussed shutting down the other one.

So my money is on these dumforks shutting down the wrong engine.
Click to expand...



narchee said:
You are right and I apologize.

They are incompetent though if this is true and if I knew someone who had died on that plane I would reserve the right to call them names.
Click to expand...


Turns out he was right.
 
Found the numbers: 10 out of 68 tested failed the oral quiz for emergencies.
 
NoHeat said:
What is beta?
Click to expand...

http://www.pilotoutlook.com/airplane_flying/reverse_thrust_and_beta_range_operations

Others will correct my simple understanding, but beta range is essentially the range of prop pitch that generates reverse thrust on aircraft with that capability.

That trace is named beta but likely measures prop pitch in both alpha and beta ranges?? I'm not sure how to read the beta trace on that graph but my assumption is that the flat line of the trace after power loss, when the BETA value moves up to... what... 85*... is the feathered position and that the propellers could have gone further beyond that into the true reverse thrust range but they stopped at feathered. I think.
 
Last edited:
denverpilot said:
Turns out he was right.
Click to expand...

If you were talking about narchee, you missed my point.

I did not ever mean to say that the pilots...

Might not have erred badly...

Or been poorly trained...

Or been unqualified...

Or been fatigued.

Any or all of those things may be true.

I was lamenting the tendency of some on this forum to "eat their own", so to speak. These were fellow human beings, and also fellow pilots. Calling them dumforks is still inappropriate, no matter their sins.

Now, if they were drunk or on drugs, I might have a few choice epithets up my sleeve for them. But not for mistakes that may have been caused by a larger problem than simple bad piloting.

Like I've said before, it just degrades and cheapens the atmosphere here.

But I suppose with so many members, it's probably unavoidable.
 
petrolero said:
http://www.pilotoutlook.com/airplane_flying/reverse_thrust_and_beta_range_operations

Others will correct my simple understanding, but beta range is essentially the range of prop pitch that generates reverse thrust on aircraft with that capability.

That trace is named beta but likely measures prop pitch in both alpha and beta ranges?? I'm not sure how to read the beta trace on that graph but my assumption is that the flat line of the trace after power loss, when the BETA value moves up to... what... 85*... is the feathered position and that the propellers could have gone further beyond that into the true reverse thrust range but they stopped at feathered. I think.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure the props go into reverse the other side of fine/flat pitch rather than through feather.
 
These type accidents occur often in both commercial and private aviation. The pilots can do the proper procedures in a sim.......usually, and they can explain what they would do in a rational manner that would impress you. But.......when the chips are down , when it's show time, many just crumble. They just can't cope. It's the reason the military pushes cadets to the breaking point, to see if they can handle a lot of stress. It's good to remember this if you have an Instrument ticket with low time and experience. The Colgan - buffalo n.y. Accident is a classic example.
 
Last edited:
Jimmy cooper said:
These type accidents occur often in both commercial and private aviation. The pilots can do the proper procedures in a sim.......usually, and they can explain what they would do in a rational manner that would impress you. But.......when the chips are down , when it's show time, many just crumble. They just can't cope. It's the reason the military pushes cadets to the breaking point, to see if they can handle a lot of stress..
Click to expand...

Not sure in what context your military cadet comment is about, but in flight training pushing someone to a breaking point is negative training and entirely inappropriate in aviation training.

Airline training is a systematic approach using CRM and ADM as well as Risk Management. System and Procedures knowledge with high standardization will get a competent crew through most any abnormal or emergency situation.

One of the huge problems in Asia with their training is CRM is non-existant, systems knowledge is lacking and they simply don't teach ADM or RM. The "Instructors" love to play "pile it on till they break" in the sim, and never actually teach anything.
 
FastEddieB said:
I was lamenting the tendency of some on this forum to "eat their own", so to speak. These were fellow human beings, and also fellow pilots. Calling them dumforks is still inappropriate, no matter their sins.
Click to expand...


Not really. But how PC of you! I feel all warm and fuzzy now that someone told us all the word-rules.

They killed a bunch of people through willful lack of ability. I'm cool with "willfully sub-standard murderers" if "dumbforks" is too colloquial.

Being unprepared to handle an engine out in a commercial transport is not something our community should have any patience with. 10 out of 68 of their peers failed a simple oral exam on the topic days after the crash. Not a sim ride, an oral quiz of mandatory memory items.

Worrying about what words are used to describe such an epic failure of an entire pilot group isn't too high on my priorities list. I'm sure the airline will pay someone handsomely to study it and put it in weasel words.

On a free Internet message board, dumbforks seems plenty accurate enough. No PC-word-cop stuff needed. We all knew what he meant.
 
I can see the point FastEddieB was making - A dumbfork is someone who, despite training, goes out and makes a mistake that he was trained over and over not to make.

In this case, it's entirely possible the pilots did exactly what they were trained to do - which was the wrong thing. I don't mean they were trained to shut down the good engine, it's just possible they weren't trained to make sure that didn't happen.

I worked with a guy who traveled to China to do maintenance on some equipment. One of the things he had to do was install a panel with about a dozen bolts. The local Chinese employees were looking over his shoulder the whole time so he figured he'd let them do the work instead. He handed them his ratchet wrench, pointed to the bolts that needed to be tightened, and went on to something else. He came back a while later and they were still on the first bolt. He couldn't figure out what was taking them so long. He then noticed - they would pull the wrench CCW (lefty-loosey) and hear the ratchet click. Then they'd pull the socket off the bolt, return the wrench to it's original position (CW), put it back on the bolt, and pull it CCW again to hear the ratchet click. The result was that they were never tightening the bolt at all, but just letting the ratchet make the clicking sound.

If you take someone from a culture way different than ours, and expect them to function the same way we do, using equipment we have designed to work the way we think, you need to have a whole different approach to training.
 
I don't care what culture or where they're from. No one working for that airline doesn't know:

A) They're responsible for other people's lives.

B) There's plenty of countries and organizations that can teach exactly how to fly airplanes in such a way as to match numerous other airline's safety records.

If you're so stupid that you can't figure out that you aren't training to the standards everyone else does, which is readily readable on the Internet including translation services, to anyone from the janitor up through the chief exec, or you really think you do it better...

You're a dumbfork. As are most of the people involved in the airline.

This information isn't a secret or even hard to find. And they know it. It's negligence. Not mistakes.
 
P.S. I did ten minutes of Google searching and found websites discussing ops standards for three carriers flying the ATR and the entire emergency procedures manual from one of them.

This stuff ain't hard to find.
 
denverpilot said:
I don't care what culture or where they're from. No one working for that airline doesn't know:

A) They're responsible for other people's lives.

B) There's plenty of countries and organizations that can teach exactly how to fly airplanes in such a way as to match numerous other airline's safety records.

If you're so stupid that you can't figure out that you aren't training to the standards everyone else does, which is readily readable on the Internet including translation services, to anyone from the janitor up through the chief exec, or you really think you do it better...

You're a dumbfork. As are most of the people involved in the airline.

This information isn't a secret or even hard to find. And they know it. It's negligence. Not mistakes.
Click to expand...

Chinese do not believe that other people's standards apply to them, especially welding standards.:nonod: Legal standards either.
 
FastEddieB said:
I was lamenting the tendency of some on this forum to "eat their own", so to speak.
Click to expand...
I share your sentiment but for a different reason. There is a tendency on POA to declare pilots 'idiots' and 'killers' based on general media reports before any real facts are known. There is also a tendency to regard the media as 'idiots' in matters regarding aviation. So pilots are declared idiots based on reports by idiots. Who's the idiot in this picture? Sometimes you get lucky. Sometimes you're wrong.

I have been a party to investigations where unchecked speculation has had a real and significant impact on the execution of that investigation. I know I'm not going to stop it, but I don't have to sit back in silence and watch people justify it either.

Nauga,
who knows something can't fail in flight if it wasn't installed to begin with
 
Last edited:
nauga said:
I have been a party to investigations where unchecked speculation has had a real and significant impact on the execution of that investigation. I know I'm not going to stop it, but I don't have to sit back in silence and watch people justify it either.

Nauga,
who knows something can't fail in flight if it wasn't installed to begin with
Click to expand...

On another forum, there was rampant speculation about a specific accident. What links in a chain and/or pilot error or mechanical failure may have led to it, that sort of thing. Though that particular forum is more polite (which others here deem "PC") and I don't recall a lot of name calling.

Fact remains, though seriously injured the pilot survived. Turns out the "accident" was a failed suicide attempt.

1) That kind of rendered pages of premature speculation moot - and entirely off base, and,

2) The surviving pilot was treated with sympathy and respect.

What some here would call PC, I call basic human decency.
 
FastEddieB said:
What some here would call PC, I call basic human decency.
Click to expand...

My two oldest brother oft spew the "PC is BS" mantra and they run around insulting everyone/everything that they don't agree with and/or don't look like and/or don't believe like.

Oh, but heaven forbid should someone affront their sensitivities. Then they cry like little girls.

Let me tell some good catholic jokes and they cry and act offended.

In response to them railing against Brian Williams this week, let me parrot Jon Stewart with "well, it's about time someone is held accountable for misleading the American public about the Iraq war!" And the barrage of hate they spew in return is never ending.

It's my experience that the "PC is BS" contingent here is the same (and everywhere else for that matter). They simply want the right to run around spewing insults with impunity but they can't handle it if/when they're on the receiving end.
 
FastEddieB said:
On another forum, there was rampant speculation about a specific accident. What links in a chain and/or pilot error or mechanical failure may have led to it, that sort of thing. Though that particular forum is more polite (which others here deem "PC") and I don't recall a lot of name calling.

Fact remains, though seriously injured the pilot survived. Turns out the "accident" was a failed suicide attempt.

1) That kind of rendered pages of premature speculation moot - and entirely off base, and,

2) The surviving pilot was treated with sympathy and respect.

What some here would call PC, I call basic human decency.
Click to expand...

Which accident was that?
 
timwinters said:
My two oldest brother oft spew the "PC is BS" mantra and they run around insulting everyone/everything that they don't agree with and/or don't look like and/or don't believe like.

Oh, but heaven forbid should someone affront their sensitivities. Then they cry like little girls.

Let me tell some good catholic jokes and they cry and act offended.

In response to them railing against Brian Williams this week, let me parrot Jon Stewart with "well, it's about time someone is held accountable for misleading the American public about the Iraq war!" And the barrage of hate they spew in return is never ending.

It's my experience that the "PC is BS" contingent here is the same (and everywhere else for that matter). They simply want the right to run around spewing insults with impunity but they can't handle it if/when they're on the receiving end.
Click to expand...

It all comes down to being a competitive rather than cooperative society. We feel that each individual is the only person on the planet that matters.
 
Last edited:
Jimmy cooper said:
It's good to remember this if you have an Instrument ticket with low time and experience. The Colgan - buffalo n.y. Accident is a classic example.
Click to expand...


Yes the colgan crash was a classic, textbook case. Clearly the result of inexperienced pilots with fresh instrument tickets.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
denverpilot said:
I don't care what culture or where they're from. No one working for that airline doesn't know:

A) They're responsible for other people's lives.

B) There's plenty of countries and organizations that can teach exactly how to fly airplanes in such a way as to match numerous other airline's safety records.
Click to expand...

The issue is, however, that the general safety culture that we have in the US and most of Europe is not that same in China and a number of other countries.

It is one thing to train someone in the mechanics of safety procedures, it is something else entirely to get the employees to "own" that culture of safety.

It's like cramming for a college exam.. you can go through the motions of knowing the material for a day or two, but it often isn't left in "long term storage".
 
Matthew said:
I worked with a guy who traveled to China to do maintenance on some equipment. One of the things he had to do was install a panel with about a dozen bolts. The local Chinese employees were looking over his shoulder the whole time so he figured he'd let them do the work instead. He handed them his ratchet wrench, pointed to the bolts that needed to be tightened, and went on to something else. He came back a while later and they were still on the first bolt. He couldn't figure out what was taking them so long. He then noticed - they would pull the wrench CCW (lefty-loosey) and hear the ratchet click. Then they'd pull the socket off the bolt, return the wrench to it's original position (CW), put it back on the bolt, and pull it CCW again to hear the ratchet click. The result was that they were never tightening the bolt at all, but just letting the ratchet make the clicking sound.
Click to expand...

Wanted to point out how good of a story that was in relation to the topic. I saw the same kind of thing from the guys in Turkey working on the simulator, especially considering only one of them spoke English.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top