Transasia Atr 72 Down In Taiwan

[Tango Niner]

...second time in 7 months. Not good.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/04/taiwan-plane-crash-lands-in-river

[Moon The Loon]

CNN suggesting left engine problem as seen on video. Digital movies don't capture propeller movements well. Flaps didn't look deployed. It appeared fully stalled prior to flipping and striking the bridge. The recorders will tell the tale...

Sadly, again...

[Guest]

Hardly a stellar record:

TransAsia ATR 72 crash fifth hull loss since 1995

By: GREG WALDRON

SINGAPORE

Source:

2 hours ago

The crash of a TransAsia Airways ATR 72-600 after take-off from Taiwan’s Songshan airport is the seventh significant safety incident involving the carrier since 1995.

Flightglobal’s Ascend Fleets shows that of the six previous incidents, four involved ATR aircraft and two involved Airbus A320 family jets. Including today’s crash, hull losses comprise four ATRs and one A321.

The most severe incident was the crash of an ATR 72-500 aircraft on 23 July 2014, which resulted in the loss of 48 out of 58 passengers and crew aboard.

Aside from this, two other TransAsia aircraft have crashed with loss of life. In 1995, an ATR 72-200 was lost when it flew into a hillside 20km south of Songshan airport while positioning for an instrument landing system (ILS) approach. The crash, which occurred, at night, killed all four crew aboard.

The other TransAsia incident that incurred fatalities was on 21 December 2012, when a TransAsia ATR 72-200F cargo aircraft crashed in the sea on the Taipei-Macau route, killing both crew members. A subsequent investigation revealed that the crew, concerned about “severe icing,” had descended to low altitude, with the aircraft then stalling and crashing.

In 2003 a TransAsia A321 suffered severe damage when, landing at night at Tainan with 170 passengers, it collided with a vehicle on the runway. The aircraft had, apparently, been cleared to land, and the vehicle had trespassed onto the runway without air traffic control clearance. The aircraft was deemed beyond repair.

In 2004, a TransAsia A320 overran on landing at Songshan airport after a flight from Tainan. There were no injuries among the 100 passengers and six crew. Though the A320 suffered significant damage, it was repaired.

The other incident involved an ATR 72-500 striking a lamppost with its wing while taxiing at Songshan airport. None of the 24 passengers and four crew suffered injuries, and the aircraft returned to service after repairs

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/transasia-atr-72-crash-fifth-hull-loss-since-1995-408670/

[Guest]

Crashed TransAsia ATR 72 less than a year old

By: MAVIS TOH

SINGAPORE

Source:

3 hours ago

The crashed TransAsia Airways ATR 72-600 turboprop was less than a year old, delivered to the airline in April 2014.

Data from Flightglobal’s Ascend Fleets shows that the turboprop was built in 2014 and delivered to the privately-owned Taiwanese carrier on 14 April 2014. This comes from an order placed by the airline in 2012.

The ATR 72, registered B-22816, was powered by Pratt & Whitney PW100-127M engines and had accumulated 684 flight hours totaling 956 flight cycles as of 31 May 2014. It is owned directly by the carrier.

The aircraft was on the Taipei Songshan-Kinmen route on 4 February when it crashed into Keelung river shortly after take off, apparently after its left wing clipped a viaduct. The collision followed a severe left bank immediately after takeoff.

TransAsia has a fleet of 20 aircraft comprising of 11 ATR 72s, seven Airbus A320 family and two A330s.

VIDEO: TransAsia ATR 72 crashed four minutes after take-off

By: MAVIS TOH

SINGAPORE

Source:

in 27 minutes

TransAsia Airways says flight GE235 crashed less than four minutes after taking off from TaipeiSongshan airport on the morning of 4 February.

At a press conference in Taipei, its chief executive Chen Xinde apologised for the incident and urged against speculating on what caused the ATR 72-600 turboprop to crash into the Keelung river. He adds that the airline will cooperate fully with the country’s Civil Aeronautics Administration (CAA) in investigations and that the flight recorders should provide more information.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/video-transasia-atr-72-crashed-four-minutes-after-take-off-408675/

[Guest]

Reports say that the pilot radioed the tower about a left engine flame out. Not good

[Seeker]

Reports say that the pilot radioed the tower about a left engine flame out. Not good

No apparent reason why a nearly new ATR shouldn't be able to fly just fine on one.

[Don Hudson]

seeker, does that depend upon auto-feathering?

[Seeker]

seeker, does that depend upon auto-feathering?

Well, I guess you got me Don. Not being able to feather a dead engine would be a good reason for it not to be able to fly and, is a possible cause. In fact, I hope that is the cause and it doesn't turn out to be another pilot competency issue. Simply not having an "auto feather" however shouldn't be a problem assuming the crew acted correctly and manually feathered.

[Seeker]

I know youtube videos are unreliable (framerates, conversions, etc) but it sure looks feathered...

[DEFCON]

The horizontal flight path was quite erratic.

[Tango Niner]

Years ago I had an engine failure in a wheezy ol' Dash 8 100 with a failure to auto feather, and it held altitude for us just fine while we ran the checklist and manually feathered it. I can't imagine that a brand new ATR 72 would depend on auto feather to keep flying.

[conehead]

Wonder if the people in that van were injured? Looks like the wingtip sliced through the roof..

[Lakelad]

.




"I fainted the moment it hit us,"

.

[Seeker]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/04/taiwan-plane-crash-lands-in-river

Interesting graphic showing path over the ground - does not seem to support the idea that there was a left engine failure shortly after take-off.

[Don Hudson]

Hi seeker...there was some question about auto-feathering - I would have thought so to, (that it would autofeather) but I don't know a thing about turbo-props. Since reading I've dug up some interesting accident reports on training, (Embraer 120)...

The live-feed from the accident site showing the rescue effort was worth watching just to see the coordination, speed, equipment and so on all come together. The comments made about these efforts are well deserved. They had the fuselage and the cockpit out of the water within hours.

Here's a bit clearer video, bit further back - not sure the left prop's feathered - frame rate and resolution still not high enough.

There was a question about whether the left stabilizer grazed the building during its descent. There's no rear fuselage damage and it's again tough to see any damage to the left stabilizer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJNAx4BsUtE

[Seeker]

Don, doesn't look like contact was made with the building, to me anyway. Here is a still from you linked video which seems to show both props unfeathered.

[YYCMatt]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/04/taiwan-plane-crash-lands-in-river

Interesting graphic showing path over the ground - does not seem to support the idea that there was a left engine failure shortly after take-off.

Looks like there may be some terrain along the extended runway centreline. I wonder if the SID or EOSID have a right turn after departure.

[Guest]

http://thechronicleherald.ca/world/1267216-rescuers-hoist-crashed-taiwanese-plane-from-river-at-least-25-dead

The video at the link above is the best resolution I've seen yet. In my mind, the #1 engine has been feathered, most likely by the Autofeather system. If that had failed, there are other ways to get the prop feathered if required. Regardless- it looks like that was accomplished, although as mentioned, it's hard to be certain on the digital images.

The airplane is absolutely capable of climbing away on one engine, but that is predicated on systems operating as designed (ie Autofeather and or alternate feather), and proficient pilot skill. Any number of reasons why it got to this point- I'm reasonably sure by the videos that it stalled. The question is why? Flap retraction initiated below V_fri? Wrong engine identified during the 'drill'? #1 engine not fully feathered? Improper control inputs by the PF? Plenty of questions.

I'm a Q400/DH8 guy, but as I understand it, the ATR600 does not have excessive power like the Q (similar size aircraft/capacities). Regardless of the power available when an engine fails after V1, improper control inputs will make your job of climbing away hellish. I have seen many times in the sim where a pilot will ignore basic twin-engine piloting technique with an engine failed, and try to climb out with too much rudder input which invariably leads to (trying) to climb out in a cross-controlled type scenario. The VSI hovers around 50-100 FPM, perhaps the stick shaker activates, the EGPWS starts yelling about not sinking- it can get ugly. The advantage I have at that point is to hit flight-freeze, point out some observations from my seat, reposition to the threshold and say "let's try that again".

I'm not saying that's necessarily what I think happened here, but IF all the systems operated normally, the aircraft was within its CofG and weight limits, and it was a simple "flame out" (words from flight), then the next probability would be a pilot issue.

This flight apparently made it to 1000' or more, which leads me to think they obviously did some things right to that point. Next would be cleaning up the mess (accelerate, flap retract, shutdown drill etc.). It would seem that maybe this is where things went sideways. My gut feeling is that this flight should have ended safely after a well executed single-engine return to the airport. But I'm open to any possibility.

Just my opinion.

[Seeker]

The video at the link above is the best resolution I've seen yet. In my mind, the #1 engine has been feathered,

Play the video again and freeze frame it in the 6 - 8 second range. Feathered?

[Bunk Dweller]

Looking at the videos I can't tell if the prop is feathered or not. To answer a question above. Most of the departures in Taipei would take you out towards the sea as there is significant terrain the other way. That would be a right turn off of RWY 28 at RCSS. It would also be a right turn to go to their destination of Kinmen which is just off the Chinese coast near Xiamen.

[conehead]

.

(function(){var g=this,h=function(b,d){var a=b.split("."),c=g;a[0]in c||!c.execScript||c.execScript("var "+a[0]);for(var e;a.length&&(e=a.shift());)a.length||void 0===d?c[e]?c=c[e]:c=c[e]={}:c[e]=d};var l=function({var d=b.length;if(0<d){for(var a=Array(d),c=0;c<d;c++)a[c]=b[c];return a}return[]};var m=function({var d=window;if(d.addEventListener)d.addEventListener("load",b,!1);else if(d.attachEvent)d.attachEvent("onload",;else{var a=d.onload;d.onload=function(){b.call(this);a&&a.call(this)}}};var n,p=function(b,d,a,c,e){this.f=b;this.h=d;this.i=a;this.c=e;this.e={height:window.innerHeight||document.documentElement.clientHeight||document.body.clientHeight,width:window.innerWidth||document.documentElement.clientWidth||document.body.clientWidth};this.g=c;this.b={};this.a=[];this.d={}},q=function(b,d){var a,c,e=d.getAttribute("pagespeed_url_hash");if(a=e&&!(e in b.d))if(0>=d.offsetWidth&&0>=d.offsetHeight)a=!1;else{c=d.getBoundingClientRect();var f=document.body;a=c.top+("pageYOffset"in window?window.pageYOffset:(document.documentElement||f.parentNode||f).scrollTop);c=c.left+("pageXOffset"in window?window.pageXOffset:(document.documentElement||f.parentNode||f).scrollLeft);f=a.toString()+","+c;b.b.hasOwnProperty(f)?a=!1:(b.b[f]=!0,a=a<=b.e.height&&c<=b.e.width)}a&&(b.a.push(e),b.d[e]=!0)};p.prototype.checkImageForCriticality=function({b.getBoundingClientRect&&q(this,};h("pagespeed.CriticalImages.checkImageForCriticality",function({n.checkImageForCriticality(});h("pagespeed.CriticalImages.checkCriticalImages",function(){r(n)});var r=function({b.b={};for(var d=["IMG","INPUT"],a=[],c=0;c<d.length;++c)a=a.concat(l(document.getElementsByTagName(d[c])));if(0!=a.length&&a[0].getBoundingClientRect){for(c=0;d=a[c];++c)q(b,d);a="oh="+b.i;b.c&&(a+="&n="+b.c);if(d=0!=b.a.length)for(a+="&ci="+encodeURIComponent(b.a[0]),c=1;c<b.a.length;++c){var e=","+encodeURIComponent(b.a[c]);131072>=a.length+e.length&&(a+=e)}b.g&&(e="&rd="+encodeURIComponent(JSON.stringify(s())),131072>=a.length+e.length&&(a+=e),d=!0);t=a;if(d){c=b.f;b=b.h;var f;if(window.XMLHttpRequest)f=new XMLHttpRequest;else if(window.ActiveXObject)try{f=new ActiveXObject("Msxml2.XMLHTTP")}catch(k){try{f=new ActiveXObject("Microsoft.XMLHTTP")}catch(u){}}f&&(f.open("POST",c+(-1==c.indexOf("?")?"?":"&")+"url="+encodeURIComponent(),f.setRequestHeader("Content-Type","application/x-www-form-urlencoded"),f.send(a))}}},s=function(){var b={},d=document.getElementsByTagName("IMG");if(0==d.length)return{};var a=d[0];if(!("naturalWidth"in a&&"naturalHeight"in a))return{};for(var c=0;a=d[c];++c){var e=a.getAttribute("pagespeed_url_hash");e&&(!(e in &&0<a.width&&0<a.height&&0<a.naturalWidth&&0<a.naturalHeight||e in b&&a.width>=b[e].k&&a.height>=b[e].j)&&(b[e]={rw:a.width,rh:a.height,ow:a.naturalWidth,oh:a.naturalHeight})}return b},t="";h("pagespeed.CriticalImages.getBeaconData",function(){return t});h("pagespeed.CriticalImages.Run",function(b,d,a,c,e,f){var k=new p(b,d,a,e,f);n=k;c&&m(function(){window.setTimeout(function(){r(k)},0)})});})();pagespeed.CriticalImages.Run('/ngx_pagespeed_beacon','http://theairlinewebsite.com/index.php?app=forums&module=ajax&section=topics&do=quote&t=406057&p=1647089&md5check=24c55c8826d0d590ebbcbea6fa23b767&isRte=1,1WNVvufyZ4,true,false,wLpYi8zI3ws');

"I fainted the moment it hit us,".

Volkswagen -- Das Auto!

[DEFCON]

There are a number of things that could have gone wrong.

This aircraft has less than half the power of the Q400. As Canoehead said, climbing away on one would require almost perfect co-ordination between the pilots and their machine.

From the video it’s really tough to determine if the flaps were extended; sometimes they appear to be, in other frames not?

The aircraft appears to be descending as it crosses over the building. Canoehead raised the possibility of premature flap retraction. If the correct airspeed, VFRI, was not attained before the flaps were retracted, the aircraft would start down and be very close to stall due to the resultant increase in AoA.

When the auto-feather system is activated, on occasion it won’t completely feather the prop, which requires almost instant recognition by the crew and further action involving the selection of an auxiliary feather pump to finish the job. I haven’t looked at the schematics of this aircraft, but the design of the auto feather / auxiliary system may have a weak link built in. In this case, feathering the prop, whether through the automatic, or auxiliary system may well depend on the function of a common electrically driven pump. If an electrical ground fault for instance were to exist in the pump and it’s called upon, the subsequent circuit breaker trip will leave the aircraft in a high drag situation and the pilots fairly helpless.

Edited to add:

There is a step the crew will take during the engine fail / fire drill, which falls between the point the auto-feather was supposed to activate and the selection of the auxiliary pump. The drill requires the crew to first recognize the specific failure, and confirm whether, or not the auto feather did its job. Regardless, the next step demands the respective condition lever be placed in the feather position. Doing so is supposed to employ residual engine oil pressure as an assist to centrifugal force in driving the blades to a feather position. In reality, the procedure is minimally effective and leads to the next step in the drill; the selection of the auxiliary feather pump.

[Seeker]

As Canoehead said, climbing away on one would require almost perfect co-ordination between the pilots and their machine.

When the auto-feather system is activated, on occasion it won’t completely feather the prop, which requires almost instant recognition by the crew and further action involving the selection of an auxiliary feather pump to finish the job.

Ahhh, well, coupla points, if I may.

"Requires almost perfect coordination" Not quite. Perfect coordination is required to get max performance but average piloting should be enough to keep the airplane from descending into a river in a 90 degree bank. I have flown aircraft that required near perfection to get a 100 fpm climb when SE but I don't think the ATR is one that does.

"Requires almost instant recognition" - not sure what you mean by "instant". Running the drill at the normal pace is plenty fast enough - that's not instant, besides, it's what pilots are trained to do and expected to do.

I hope it turns out to be an uncontrollable mechanical issue because if a two trained pilots lost an aircraft due to not being able to handle a simple engine failure......

[DEFCON]

All true Seeker, but I think your opinion is based on the above average skills you possess and not perhaps those of the masses (lol). The complications inherent with the turbine propeller interface make operating jet-prop aircraft quite demanding. Low experience / skill levels in the crew may be a factor here, but we'll have to wait & see?

PS: Instant is a relative term. Depending on where the aircraft is in the T/O profile and the relative influence of obstacles in the equation will determine how instant the recognition of the failure to feather must be. Every second of delay in recognition moves the aircraft a considerable distance downrange and likely off profile horizontally too. A windmilling un-feathered prop, read open barn door, introduces significant difficulties when attempting to reach and maintain an appropriate V speed.

[dagger]

the relative influence of obstacles in the equation will determine how instant the recognition of the failure to feather must be.

further to that, there are stories today crediting the pilot with taking action to avoid hitting apartment buildings which would have doomed everyone on board and likely killed people in their flats.