TransAsia ATR crashes in Taipei

jimbis

Just seeing this popping up on Twitter. 58 on board, 10 rescued so far.
Doesn't look good from the pics I've seen. Amazingly it seems to have been caught on a dash camera.


Edit: flight was GE235 Taipei - Kinmen. It came down less than 3 mins into the flight.


Stills of it attached

I seem to be the bearer of bad news lately

biketard

I live in Taipei, not far from the crash in fact. This is (obviously) all over the local news.

Given how built up the area around this is, it's absolutely incredible that it didn't result in much higher damage and loss of life. Of course it's still not clear how many survived in the plane itself.

This is dashcam footage (from a distance) of the plane clipping a bridge on the way down. Think it's from about 18 seconds.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-MMzCwzXMQY

Here's the result of the plane clipping the taxi on the bridge (you can see it getting clipped in jimbis' image above). Amazing no-one was actually injured on the bridge:



This is a live feed of the rescue as it happens. WARNING: Taiwanese news isn't shy about showing live footage of them pulling bodies out of the plane.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=T8GmxMGCDh4

biketard

Better dashcam footage:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6BIsUCQEv_8

N64

Closer dashcam footage:

http://instagram.com/p/yqnvQ6OrkH/

:eek:

windowspotter

Shocking accident & even scarier to see up close like that. Somebody was watching over that taxi driver though

DOCARCH

N64 wrote: »

:eek:

+1...that's crazy!

Alaba320

This same plane was used to transport the Munster rugby team for the Heineken Cup in 2014, pictures of it at Shannon are available online.

pfurey101

Declares a Mayday at 23:25. Engine flame out

http://archive-server.liveatc.net/rcss/RCSS-Twr-Feb-04-2015-0230Z.mp3

fryup

Alaba320 wrote: »

This same plane was used to transport the Munster rugby team for the Heineken Cup in 2014, pictures of it at Shannon are available online.

same model of plane or "actual" plane

Alaba320

fryup wrote: »

same model of plane or "actual" plane

Actual plane

https://www.flickr.com/photos/n707pm/13673008765/

fryup

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

so whats a tranasia plane doing in europe??

Alaba320

Alaba320 wrote: »

Actual plane

https://www.flickr.com/photos/n707pm/13673008765/

Actually I read it wrong! It brought the Toulose team to Shannon!

Alaba320

fryup wrote: »

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

so whats a tranasia plane doing in europe??

Wet lease I guess

L1011

Alaba320 wrote: »

Actually I read it wrong! It brought the Toulose team to Shannon!

Pre-delivery (F-WWxx reg), Airbus sponsor Toulouse and probably borrowed it off their half-subsidiary

Sterling Archer

Looks like they are getting ready to recover the fuselage

Al Capwned

Jesus, that footage is shocking....

I'm reading 23 confirmed dead with everyone else rescued. http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1701465/airplane-carrying-over-50-people-crashes-river-taiwan

Looking at that video, it's unbelievably lucky that it didn't hit buildings - we could have been looking at a figure in the hundreds

biketard

Al Capwned wrote: »

Jesus, that footage is shocking....

I'm reading 23 confirmed dead with everyone else rescued. http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1701465/airplane-carrying-over-50-people-crashes-river-taiwan

Looking at that video, it's unbelievably lucky that it didn't hit buildings - we could have been looking at a figure in the hundreds

Actually, 20 still missing according to that article.

homerjay2005

Al Capwned wrote: »

Jesus, that footage is shocking....

I'm reading 23 confirmed dead with everyone else rescued. http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1701465/airplane-carrying-over-50-people-crashes-river-taiwan

Looking at that video, it's unbelievably lucky that it didn't hit buildings - we could have been looking at a figure in the hundreds

Perhaps the pilot deliberately avoided the city and ditched into the river???

Al Capwned

biketard wrote: »

Actually, 20 still missing according to that article.

Yeah, i read the all others rescued elsewhere...
Hang on let me see if i can find it.

Who knows what's true just yet though.

Edit - never mind, I misinterpreted what was said, apologies.

Zonda999

Hasn't been a good record for the ATR72 in Asia in recent times, that's three fatal accidents in the last 18 months about. This, the Transasia crash last July and the Laos airlines accident in October 2013.

The AVHerald article is incorrect too at the moment . It states it was an ATR72-200 but it was the current 72-600 model, less than one year old the aircraft in question

homerjay2005

Zonda999 wrote: »

Hasn't been a good record for the ATR72 in Asia in recent times, that's three fatal accidents in the last 18 months about. This, the Transasia crash last July and the Laos airlines accident in October 2013.

The AVHerald article is incorrect too at the moment . It states it was an ATR72-200 but it was the current 72-600 model, less than one year old the aircraft in question

the first time i was ever on an ATR was an internal flight in India :eek::eek::eek:

i had been on about 100 flights in the previous 12 months and it was genuinly the first time id ever been nervous on a flight - there was only 17 passengers on it to make me even more nervous.

Sterling Archer

Lifting now
same link as earlier

Happyman42

Shane_ef wrote: »

Lifting now
same link as earlier

From the speed it seemed to be hitting the ground at it is amazing there is any of it intact at all.
Sympathies to all involved.

Reoil

homerjay2005 wrote: »

Perhaps the pilot deliberately avoided the city and ditched into the river???

Very much doubt it. The plane was clearly out of control.

Stinicker

Zonda999 wrote: »

Hasn't been a good record for the ATR72 in Asia in recent times, that's three fatal accidents in the last 18 months about. This, the Transasia crash last July and the Laos airlines accident in October 2013.

The AVHerald article is incorrect too at the moment . It states it was an ATR72-200 but it was the current 72-600 model, less than one year old the aircraft in question

I think I will refuse to fly on ATR equipment and there have been an entire string of incidents with ATR airlines and quiet a few involving the Aer Arran Stobart Air aircraft, no crashes but enough to scare me. I wouldn't be caught near any McDonnell Douglas Aircraft or any DC10 etc. Some aircraft are safer than others and I don't consider ATR's to be very safe at all.

youreadthat

From another video I've seen it looks like it had the altitude to avoid the buildings easily enough, the bank happens quite late and looks like the left wing is stalling.

weisses

Stinicker wrote: »

I think I will refuse to fly on ATR equipment and there have been an entire string of incidents with ATR airlines and quiet a few involving the Aer Arran Stobart Air aircraft, no crashes but enough to scare me. I wouldn't be caught near any McDonnell Douglas Aircraft or any DC10 etc. Some aircraft are safer than others and I don't consider ATR's to be very safe at all.

Considering your latest brush with disaster I would suggest you stay away from the 777 as well :eek:

Reoil

weisses wrote: »

Considering your latest brush with disaster I would suggest you stay away from the 777 as well :eek:

What brush was that?
I have a vague recollection of somebody not getting on one of the two Malaysian Airline flights...

keith16

Reoil wrote: »

What brush was that?
I have a vague recollection of somebody not getting on one of the two Malaysian Airline flights...

Stinicker was supposed to be on MH17 which was shot down over Ukraine.

The_Rev

Looks like the pilot was trying to avoid the built up areas and ditch into the water. Didn't have enough height/speed and stalled the left wing just over the road. By the looks of the video, he had a nose up attitude and was steering slightly to the left... trying to keep the plane in the air and into the water. So fair play to the pilots, they saved some lives with their actions.

Reoil

keith16 wrote: »

Stinicker was supposed to be on MH17 which was shot down over Ukraine.

How come he didn't get on it?

keith16

Reoil wrote: »

How come he didn't get on it?

Got offered a swap at the last minute and took it as far as I recall. I'm sure he'll be on here later to confirm!

Hey Stinicker!

A Dub in Glasgo

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91318966&postcount=55

The Black Oil

The footage is very scary. Most crashes on the news tend to be grainy - the dashcam's probably just someone on the way to work. The size of the aircraft when you see it up close like that. It's a wonder some people survived.

biketard

Well now... according to this news article (in Chinese - sorry), the pilot had already flown that morning from Taipei to Jinmen and back and had reported that the engine was sounding a bit off and could they please check it before he took off again. However, the airline was concerned about being fined for delaying the flight, so they told him they would check it after he got back from the next trip to Jinmen.

http://news.ltn.com.tw/news/focus/paper/853449

I passed by the crash site on the way into work today and saw the remains of the plane at the side of the river. Really surreal.

FWVT

From the video it is clear that the left prop is just windmilling. With a single-engine climbout what is the ATR like performance-wise? Obviously they let it stall, but is the ATR tricky when it comes to this situation or did they just not react quickly enough? I know, speculation and all that, but just wondering what they were faced with.

sully2010

FWVT wrote: »

From the video it is clear that the left prop is just windmilling. With a single-engine climbout what is the ATR like performance-wise? Obviously they let it stall, but is the ATR tricky when it comes to this situation or did they just not react quickly enough? I know, speculation and all that, but just wondering what they were faced with.

Apparently the ATR is quite underpowered compared to other props like the Dash 8 or Saab 340. It should still be able to climb out on one engine no problem but the engine that was shutdown didn't feather as the video suggests and that can cause serious performance issues. This is also speculation but not good for ATR if true.

lord lucan

Being reported now that the right engine flamed out and shut down and they manually shut down the left engine.

martinsvi

that sounds like Kegworth all over again http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kegworth_air_disaster

Tabnabs

A synopsis of the incident by Flightradar24.com

Reoil

martinsvi wrote: »

that sounds like Kegworth all over again http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kegworth_air_disaster

My brother was on that plane on the flight before that crash.

PukkaStukka

lord lucan wrote: »

Being reported now that the right engine flamed out and shut down and they manually shut down the left engine.

Yep, this is what's on AVHerald currently

AVHerald wrote:

On Feb 6th 2015 Taiwan's ASC reported that the investigation so far determined from flight data and cockpit voice recorders: the aircraft received takeoff clearance at 10:51Z, in the initial climb the aircraft was handed off to departure at 10:52:33Z. At 10:52:38Z at about 1200 feet MSL, 37 seconds after becoming airborne, a master warning activated related to the failure of the right hand engine, at 10:52:43Z the left hand engine was throttled back and at 10:53:00Z the crew began to discuss engine #1 had stalled. At 10:53:06Z the right hand engine (engine #2) auto-feathered. At 10:53:12Z a first stall warning occured and ceased at 10:53:18Z. At 10:53:19Z the crew discussed that engine #1 had already feathered, the fuel supply had already been cut to the engine and decided to attempt a restart of engine #1. Two seconds later another stall warning activated. At 10:53:34Z the crew radioed "Mayday! Mayday! Engine flame out!", multiple attempts to restart the engines followed to no avail. At 10:54:34Z a second master warning activated, 0.4 seconds later both recorders stopped recording.

Xpro

Full write up now on Avherald with CVR data published

God knows what happened, but it appears that while one engine failed, the other one was throttled back..

Aerohead

What the hell happened to cause them to shut down a good engine, they were only after getting airborne surely they could have climbed out and landed again with one engine.

L1011

Aerohead wrote: »

What the hell happened to cause them to shut down a good engine, they were only after getting airborne surely they could have climbed out and landed again with one engine.

Mistakes have happened before, e.g. Kegworth, where the wrong engine was identified as faulty

Sterling Archer

L1011 wrote: »

Mistakes have happened before, e.g. Kegworth, where the wrong engine was identified as faulty

Slightly unrelated that was on this seasons Mayday

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Y9-wPkV4ls

b318isp

Off topic but for info: In the Kegworth crash, did the pilots use any engine instrument information in their decision making process? It seems in the Wiki article that they used secondary information about the air conditioning to make their decision on which engine was defective.

mr.anonymous

b318isp wrote: »

Off topic but for info: In the Kegworth crash, did the pilots use any engine instrument information in their decision making process? It seems in the Wiki article that they used secondary information about the air conditioning to make their decision on which engine was defective.

The crew shut down the incorrect engine because they believed that the Air conditioning was run from the no. 2 engine, which it was on older variants of the 737. On the newer -400 series they were flying, the aircon was run from both engines. There was a smell of smoke after the no.1 engine malfunctioned.

This combined with unfamiliarity with the new format of the engine displays, inadequate training, the 'correct' reaction from the aircraft after the incorrect engine was shut down and ATC communications distracting the crew while they reviewed their actions contributed to the accident in this case.

Irish Steve

AV Herald update,

On Feb 7th 2015 the airline reported, that all 71 flight crew are to undergo additional assessment and training by Taiwan's Civil Aviation Authority over the next 4 days resulting in flight cancellations.

The specific information has not been made available, while all 3 of the people on the flight deck had significant experience, what's not been made public is the total time on type for the crews, and there has been a comment elsewhere about a significant movement out of the airline of flight crew to other airlines.

The fact that there are urgent and wide ranging reviews being undertaken effectively instantly suggests that the regulators have information that's not in the public domain and requires a rapid and significant response.

A close friend who has very wide experience in the industry over many years made a very telling comment in another discussion thread, which was to ask what language the FCOM and check lists are written in, and do the operating crews have manuals in their native language, and what is the quality of the translation of that information from either French or English, depending on the language of the original manuals.

While not dismissing it, I find it hard to believe that 3 crew were all "suckered" into shutting down the wrong engine, but on the basis of the information released so far, that appears to have been the case. That said, maybe the issue was that the No 1 was retarded to assist getting the aircraft back under control, in that if the No 2 was producing no power, reducing the power of the No 1 would at least have assisted with the asymmetric handling issues, albeit at the expense of introducing other significant problems, and that may have confused the analysis of the problem.

The implication of the information released thus far is that the autofeather of the No 2 did not happen for a significant period after the failure. I don't have enough tech type information to know if that is a normal response, or if there were other issues that confused the scenario.

It's bad enough being low and slow with an engine failure, it's even worse if the responses of the automatic protections are then slow, and possibly confusing. Hopefully, there will be a lot more in depth analysis of EXACTLY what happened, so that (if nothing else) training can be enhanced to reduce the risk of a repeat event.

Means Of Escape

This is a serious matter. Anyone mentioned of a fictional movie scenario will see you taking another holiday from A&A

PukkaStukka

Here's a wild one: could the engine failure indication been wrongly given for the good engine? Is that possible ?