Pilot Error Caused Crash of TransAsia GE 235

[Fellow Aspirant]

A friend of mine in the commercial aircraft industry just sent me a link to a publication called Air Transport World. Its cover story carries the report on the cause of the crash. Weirdly, the pilots, when faced with an engine emergency in one engine, promptly shut down the OTHER engine:

"The aircraft was only at an altitude of 1,200 feet when this occurred. However, ASC said data indicates that the engine didn’t actually flame out, but went into auto-feather mode, which means it was operating at a reduced level and not producing thrust.

For unexplained reasons, the pilots then set the left engine—which data indicates was not malfunctioning—“to fuel shutoff position resulting in left engine shutdown,”

Here's the link (sorry for the length, but it works!):

http://atwonline.com/manufacturers/transasia-right-engine-malfunctioned-pilots-shut-left-engine?NL=ATW-04&Issue=ATW-04_20150206_ATW-04_610&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_1&YM_RID=CPEN1000000436021&YM_MID=1693

Pilot error, yet again.

B.

[Selene]

Well, they always claim "pilot error", don't they?

That's a legal dodge. Because if the airline and the plane's manufacturer can place the blame on the [dead] pilot, who cannot defend his actions, they won't have to pay out insurance on civil claims of malfeasance or poor maintenance or bad design. Easy peasy. They do it every time.

I think it's much more damning that apparently there was immediate engine trouble on takeoff: clearly a maintenance and not a pilot issue. And possibly due to cost-cutting by the airline. But that never ever happens, does it? Naoh... :rolleyes:

Cheers,

Selene

[Chip]

This is not surprising. Especially with Asian trained crews, whom more than often receive poor training. This is a very common mistake during simulator training with young low time Pilots.
In the States we are rigorously trained on exactly this scenerio - engine failure during critical phase of flight (take off/landing).
It is unfortunate but I am almost certain from watching the crash video that this is exactly what happened. They secured the wrong engine during the stress of the moment. Only after the official investigation will we know for sure. But my bet is on Pilot error. Sadly

[indigopete]

Well, they always claim "pilot error", don't they?

That's a legal dodge. Because if the airline and the plane's manufacturer can place the blame on the [dead] pilot, who cannot defend his actions, they won't have to pay out insurance on civil claims of malfeasance or poor maintenance or bad design

I very much doubt that.

Aircraft accidents (other than "deliberate ones" like 9/11) are the most thoughroughly investigated mechanical incidents in any industry. The evidence for that is simply the statistical safety of flying. It's not always a straightforward exercise to identify a failed engine - especially during a phase of flight where the aircraft is close to the ground and time is limited. There are other examples of commercial pilots with thousands of hours "getting the wrong one"...

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/formal_reports/2_2001_g_ilgw.cfm

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/formal_reports/4_1990_g_obme.cfm

[cuitlahuac]

A friend of mine in the commercial aircraft industry just sent me a link to a publication called Air Transport World. Its cover story carries the report on the cause of the crash. Weirdly, the pilots, when faced with an engine emergency in one engine, promptly shut down the OTHER engine:

"The aircraft was only at an altitude of 1,200 feet when this occurred. However, ASC said data indicates that the engine didn’t actually flame out, but went into auto-feather mode, which means it was operating at a reduced level and not producing thrust.

For unexplained reasons, the pilots then set the left engine—which data indicates was not malfunctioning—“to fuel shutoff position resulting in left engine shutdown,”

Here's the link (sorry for the length, but it works!):

http://atwonline.com/manufacturers/transasia-right-engine-malfunctioned-pilots-shut-left-engine?NL=ATW-04&Issue=ATW-04_20150206_ATW-04_610&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_1&YM_RID=CPEN1000000436021&YM_MID=1693

Pilot error, yet again.

B.

According to this site: After takeoff the right engine went into auto-feather mode, which means it was operating at a reduced level and not producing thrust. But the pilots reported a right engine flame out. They next shut off the left engine. Right engine in auto feather not producing trust and left engine off... deadly prediction. Are US pilots trained in this kind of "mistakes" and computer events?

This is somehow like the case of the anti-block-brake-mechanism of modern cars. The NWO can make your breaks fail.

Why does the right engine went into auto feather? Computer malfunction? virus? followed by pilot mistake to shut off the good engine?


Both of TransAsia Airways flight GE235’s Pratt & Whitney Canada PW127M engines stopped producing thrust during the brief flight of the ATR 72-600, investigators said.

The turboprop aircraft, carrying 53 passengers and five crew, crashed into a river in Taipei on Feb. 4 just over three minutes after taking off. As of Feb. 6, the death toll stood at 35 people, including the two pilots.

Data from the ATR 72-600’s flight data recorder (FDR) and cockpit voice recorder (CVR) indicates that a right engine flameout warning sounded in the cockpit shortly after takeoff, according to a Feb. 6 preliminary report from Taiwan’s Aviation Safety Council (ASC). The aircraft was only at an altitude of 1,200 feet when this occurred. However, ASC said data indicates that the engine didn’t actually flame out, but went into auto-feather mode, which means it was operating at a reduced level and not producing thrust.

For unexplained reasons, the pilots then set the left engine—which data indicates was not malfunctioning—“to fuel shutoff position resulting in left engine shutdown,” according to ASC. Investigators said they did not know why the flight deck crew shut off the left engine, which should have provided enough thrust to keep the ATR 72-600 flying even with the right engine experiencing problems.

ASC said the pilots could be heard on the CVR calling for an engine restart several times in the moments before the crash and data indicates the left engine did restart 16 seconds before the FDR stopped recording.

Pratt & Whitney Canada is cooperating with investigators, but not commenting while the crash probe is ongoing.

http://atwonline.com/manufacturers/transasia-right-engine-malfunctioned-pilots-shut-left-engine?NL=ATW-04&Issue=ATW-04_20150206_ATW-04_610&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_1&YM_RID=CPEN1000000436021&YM_MID=1693

Flight teachers taught me that planes with 2 engines can fly with only one. In this case I don't know if they had to avoid skyscrapers and so force the plane climbing rate and produce a stall (loose of lift due to slow speed).

In this case it seems that the plane lost lift in the left wing. A previous case of this kind of crash involved "flaps out" in the "stalled" wing due to accident damage to the hydraulics of the stalled wing, while the other wing remained with "flaps" down.

Sorry for the tech babble.

Could you please ask your friend why does the left wing lost lift? Was the speed and climb ratio near stall?

[cuitlahuac]

If we put this in sequence, we can see more clearly what happened. Computer mistake, crew mistake crash.

The plane takes off.
"Data from the ATR 72-600’s flight data recorder (FDR) and cockpit voice recorder (CVR) indicates that a right engine flameout warning sounded in the cockpit shortly after takeoff".
"The aircraft was only at an altitude of 1,200 feet when this occurred. However, ASC said data indicates that the engine didn’t actually flame out, but went into auto-feather mode, which means it was operating at a reduced level and not producing thrust."
First mistake, a computer mistake? No evidence of pilot mistake.
Crew then reports a right engine flameout and puts the left good engine “to fuel shutoff position resulting in left engine shutdown,”.
Clear "pilot" mistake. Shutting off good engine.
"Investigators said they did not know why the flight deck crew shut off the left engine, which should have provided enough thrust to keep the ATR 72-600 flying even with the right engine experiencing problems."
Both engines stop producing trust. Plane was to slide and crash very shortly.
Crew makes efforts to start the left engine.
Left engine starts 16 seconds before crash. "data indicates the left engine did restart 16 seconds before the FDR stopped recording."


The video of the crash shows the plane wasting 6 seconds from the moment it misses the buildings to the moment of crash. That leaves 10 seconds to recover.
Video of the plane shows it falling fast and left ("good") fan probably stopped.
I looks like a final maneuver to crash in the river.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2GEeHOBDbI

[KiwiElf]

cuitlahuac is correct, It's a bit of both: the initial right engine failure obviously wasn't pilot error. This is either a fault with that particular aircraft - which could be related to maintenance, computer glitch (or sabotage), but definitely no fault of the pilots. As I understand from the various reports, this aircraft may have been quite new. The ATR itself is one of the most popular and largest selling aircraft of its type. On a side note, it is made in France.

http://www.atraircraft.com/

The worst possible time to lose an engine is on takeoff, where the aircraft is barely above its stall speed (hopefully accelerating) and probably near it's gross weight (fully loaded). All modern twin-engine aircraft from 4-seaters to airliners can continue to fly on the remaining engine provided the pilots do everything right and it has to be done quickly.

Many turboprop aircraft (a jet engine driving a propellor) have an auto feather system to streamline an engine failure event or the pilot would have to do this manually as well. Feathering a prop means the blades of the propellor are turned into a straight ahead position to minimise drag on the failed engine, consequently producing zero thrust. (this could be likened to putting your car into neutral if the engine conked out - it will coast further than leaving it in gear). Not doing this, and the dead engine and prop act more like a brake on that side.

The whole idea of two pilots in the cockpit is to reduce the possibility of error, in this case, mis-identifying the wrong engine. At altitude and cruise you have more time to do this. These guys would have had just seconds. It is a more common mistake than most people realise, even from the most experienced pilots. (The co-pilot was a Kiwi citizen btw, and was flight-trained in New Zealand). During pilot training, whether single engined, twin- or multi-engined aircraft, pilots are trained to allow for the possibility of an engine failure on every takeoff. As it rarely happens, those skills are soon forgotten if not regularly practised. With training however, you're expecting the event and you're mentally prepared for it. In real life, it just happens and often without warning. There are several seconds of sheer "mind block", shock, fear or even panic before the pilot may react.

Given that mistake, they did a commendable job of continuing to fly the plane without power and avoid buildings (A good reason NOT to cram high-rise buildings in the flightpath of runways). Without power, the plane effectively became a big glider. Keep in mind that the engines on larger aircraft power-assist many other mechanisms like flight controls, just like your car's power-steering.

Jet engines also take more time to spool up, unlike piston engines which have almost instant power response. That 10 seconds wasn't so much wasted, it just simply wasn't enough time for the good engine to come up to power; the plane was virtually at its stalling speed.

That being said, statistically, pilot error is the largest cause of most air accidents.

[Cardillac]

@KiwiElf

"pilot error is the largest cause of most air accidents"- no it isn't; most planes are flown remotely and pilots will take over the remote only if they want to keep in practice landing/take offs; if the pilots suddenly took overt command of this plane it meant something "fishy" took over the remote-

Larry

[Fellow Aspirant]

@KiwiElf

"pilot error is the largest cause of most air accidents"- no it isn't; most planes are flown remotely and pilots will take over the remote only if they want to keep in practice landing/take offs; if the pilots suddenly took overt command of this plane it meant something "fishy" took over the remote-

Larry

Here's a compilation of stats about plane crashes, done by an outfit called "planecrashinfo". Its information clearly shows pilot error as the leading cause of commercial air crashes:

http://www.planecrashinfo.com/cause.htm

The survey is for the last six decades. They break it down distinctly into various causes, including Pilot Error, Pilot Error related to Weather problems, and Pilot Error related to Mechanical problems.

Total Pilot Error for the last 60 years averages out to 53%. Interestingly, Total Pilot Error for the 2000s, at 57%, is higher than in the 1990s, when it was 55%.

http://www.planecrashinfo.com/cause.htm

Here's another site, one that puts the number of Pilot Error as cause at 56% ...

http://www.1001crash.com/index-page-statistique-lg-2-numpage-4.html


As far as "something fishy taking over the remote", I don't buy the conspiracy theory of an override by an outside source. There are simply too many crashes, and too many of them have an easily identifiable cause. Not to say that an outside intervention never happens, as I am certain that it has, but in a statistically insignificant way.

I'd say the intervention of the pilots on board is more often related to an alarm going off (especially during autopilot conditions) and the humans in charge (the current designation is "flight managers") not properly responding to it. Stalls come to mind as the number one issue in this category.

Fly Safely!

Brian

[KiwiElf]

Thank you for confirming my original statement Fellow Aspirant ;). Let's deal with FACTS, Cardillac, not science fiction.

[KiwiElf]

New Twist - TransAsia Crash Footage Faked - CGI??

mgcJJbaH7Es

Here's the clearer full screen footage shown on CNN - step frame it through to the impact - definite CGI - even if the crash itself was real! WTF???

jKNREZ_u8E8

[cuitlahuac]

New Twist - TransAsia Crash Footage Faked - CGI??

mgcJJbaH7Es

Here's the clearer full screen footage shown on CNN - step frame it through to the impact - definite CGI - even if the crash itself was real! WTF???

jKNREZ_u8E8

CGI: Computer Generated Imagery.

This is very strange. There are 2 main sources of the video, the one taken from the car in the left line, the video with the WSJ logo, and it has clear evidence of CGI. The other source of the crash is from the car in the right line. The video with the IVBS logo and it has its own CGI evidence. Two different videos both with evidence of CGI!

I don't know how does this electronic cameras work, so I can not say if these anomalies or evidence of CGI are the result of the way cameras record digital pictures. At the end, this looks like a case of CGI.

The crash seems real. There is a mark in the tarmac where the wing hit. They are made of soft aluminum covering strong beams. The mark is from the wing beam. The crash seems to be real. But the CGI manipulation too.

A digital video analyst could clarify this. If the plane were to be a slow moving object, this video would be a clear case of CGI manipulation. But in the case of a fast moving object, I don't know if this CGI anomalies could be considered "normal".