TransAsia Airways Flight 235 Crash In Taiwan

[Keef]

From here:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/taiwan-transasia-plane-crash-at-5102908

I've been looking at Google Maps all morning and I still have no idea where the crash footage was taken. I don't think that map is correct because the airplane was coming toward the cars from the left side and there are massive buildings on the left. According to Google's satellite picture, there are no massive buildings in the area shown on the above map.

I think the best location is here:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/2...9016,863m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x0

However, unless that empty area to the left of the highway has been completely developed with huge buildings since that satellite image was taken, which is unlikely, then that isn't where it happened either.

 

[Crash]

I'm really not sure what caused the roll to the left besides a stall. The plane was already descending by the time it entered the frame and appeared stable. Perhaps they lost that last little bit of airspeed trying to avoid the highway, lost control surface authority and differential thrust took over.

Like you said, it's that it appeared stable while already descending that makes this hard to guess.

It's also hard to tell from the video at that angle, but the plane could be trying to avoid clipping a tall building with the right wing, and not being able to pull up and out, pilot tried to roll a bit and lost control at such a low airspeed.

I think it's fairly obvious that they lost control surface authority in the final moments and differential thrust took over, but the key question is what led to transitioning from stable to severe roll and what were the control inputs?

 

[CAMAROBOY69]

I have watched this video about 15 times. Just insane!

 

[DurWinning]

I saw the video during school today (lunch to be precise). At first I thought it was fake. Now seeing all this makes me question whether to get on a flight ever again, regardless of the airline.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I swear i was never see that kind of video until now. Brutal honesty, i know.

Like i said, condolence to those who killed.

This one was just as frightening:

Spoiler: Another horrific air crash

 

[Liquid]

I linked that in an earlier post. Might want to spoiler tag it; showing fatalities is not AUP.

 

[Moglet]

I've been looking at Google Maps all morning and I still have no idea where the crash footage was taken. I don't think that map is correct because the airplane was coming toward the cars from the left side and there are massive buildings on the left. According to Google's satellite picture, there are no massive buildings in the area shown on the above map.

I think the best location is here:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/25°03'42.2"N 121°37'08.5"E/@25.061733,121.619016,863m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x0

However, unless that empty area to the left of the highway has been completely developed with huge buildings since that satellite image was taken, which is unlikely, then that isn't where it happened either.

If you go into street view you can see quite a bit of development happening in 2012, so it could be this area. It certainly looks very similar:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/2...sv_wXe5fgENfSQL5i7UcIVw!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x0

 

[FoRiZon]

This one was just as frightening:

Thats just downright brutal.

The transasia, however, got its last second between the bridge and the river. Very close. The wing even tip the car for gods sake. That quite rare on a live footage.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I linked that in an earlier post. Might want to spoiler tag it; showing fatalities is not AUP.

Sorry, forgot about that. Thanks for the heads up:tup:👍

Thats just downright brutal.

The transasia, however, got its last second between the bridge and the river. Very close. The wing even tip the car for gods sake. That quite rare on a live footage.

Can you do me a favour and delete that crash video out of your quote please. If not, I'll have to report myself
Thanks

 

[Keef]

If you go into street view you can see quite a bit of development happening in 2012, so it could be this area. It certainly looks very similar:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/25°03'42.2"N 121°37'08.5"E/@25.061353,121.619506,3a,90y,302.19h,86.69t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sv_wXe5fgENfSQL5i7UcIVw!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x0

Ah yes, I forgot about street view.

You're right, that's definitely it. Looks like I was about 300 feet too far east, haha. This is basically the exact location of one of the cars filming this video:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/25°03'44.8"N 121°37'04.5"E/@25.062409,121.618007,3a,75y,294.52h,100.39t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sCtGGRDnu8SYsZ4pVRIZDUg!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x0

https://www.google.com/maps/place/25°03'44.8"N 121°37'04.5"E/@25.062409,121.618007,342m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x0

Looks like the airplane actually crashed just east of the intersection of the creek and river which is, ehhhh, a little too close for comfort. Haha, the Mirror was wrong and we were right!

I'm not sure what is more stunning, the actual airplane crash or the fact that Taipei developed all that in just a few years. Insane.

 

[Bopop4]

I saw the video during school today (lunch to be precise). At first I thought it was fake. Now seeing all this makes me question whether to get on a flight ever again, regardless of the airline.

You're more likely to die driving to school than you ever would be from flying.

Looks like the aircraft started to stall and then go into a spin, not much you can do when an engine fails on takeoff.

 

[Omnis]

This one was just as frightening:

Spoiler: Another horrific air crash

🤬

What a disaster.

 

[Liquid]

^That one was caused by poor weight distribution, possibly overloading, shifting the centre of gravity to the back of the plane and causing a stall as it climbed out of the airport. It was my first thought when seeing this awful crash yesterday but given that the pilots are recorded as claiming an engine flameout, it's almost certainly not the same cause.

 

[CAMAROBOY69]

This one was just as frightening:

Spoiler: Another horrific air crash

Oh dang that one is indeed just heart wrenching to watch. Even more brutal IMO.

 

[Keef]

^That one was caused by poor weight distribution, possibly overloading, shifting the centre of gravity to the back of the plane and causing a stall as it climbed out of the airport. It was my first thought when seeing this awful crash yesterday but given that the pilots are recorded as claiming an engine flameout, it's almost certainly not the same cause.

More specifically, the load was not tied down properly and shifted during/after takeoff. That 747 was a military-contracted cargo flight.

 

[Swagger897]

^That one was caused by poor weight distribution, possibly overloading, shifting the center of gravity to the back of the plane and causing a stall as it climbed out of the airport. It was my first thought when seeing this awful crash yesterday but given that the pilots are recorded as claiming an engine flameout, it's almost certainly not the same cause.

I believe the final report was that the cargo shifted from forward to aft which at that point it's like dropping a pencil with a ten pound dumbbell attached to the eraser; not much you could do.

My thought of all of this is the aircraft was going extremely slow at the time of first frame of both videos, just below VMIN even with both engines operational. The ATR-72 doesn't have that much area for lift either, and has quite a bulky fuselage too. I'm not saying it's a bad design because obviously the thing flies, but it's not meant to fly at VMIN all the time. duh

Anyways, it would be nice to know what its vertical speed was and we'll be getting that soon, because if it was anywhere near Vsr, then we would know it wasn't mechanical (not the engine flame out) and just physics.

Another thing too is, what was the N(G,1, or 2, I'm not sure what the readout on the EICAS is) reading for engine two? I ask that because the speed of the aircraft is obviously slower than what it should be performing, but for a more specific reason.
At the moment you see the plan pass the electrical tower is when it rolls left, that is when I am talking about, there should be a loss in pressure if the roll was involuntary. Due to it being a prop-job there is thrust flowing over the wing and under. With engine 1 out, there obviously is no additional thrust anywhere. With engine 2 still running I am wondering if the additional lift would have caused it rise up to the point where the pressure was the same over the port side and that is what caused the downward spiral. Essential P-factor if you google that...

That might sound confusing but for me it's hard to put it into words. The news (specifically the big networks) have been saying that the torque from engine two itself caused it to flip, which just isn't true. Essentially you holding your hand on the drive shaft of a car and the car rotates, the wrong way around it.

Devastating, yes, expected, no.

Something that gets me though is maintenance. I have never seen an Indonesian/Asian airline with the same level of maintenance effort as that of Delta or BAW. Now that may be that KATL is my home and I see the hangars every time I fly by it, but still, it's not the 80's anymore when everyone was doing in-house maintenance. Delta (from what I know) is the last US major air line to not outsource mechanical jobs. Now, small things like avionics and small mechanics works to Brazil is common, but engine overhaul, pneumatic, air-frame, heck even paint is still all done by Delta here in Atlanta...
So basically, what level of maintenance, even for as small of a fleet they have, is being done throughout the East?

 

[Legro]

This one was just as frightening:

Spoiler: Another horrific air crash

Oh, 🤬. That was just horrible.

 

[Keef]

Essential P-factor if you google that...

Differential thrust in multi-engine terms. The ATR, just like all multi-engine commercial planes, are certified to climb out on one engine but obviously below a certain airspeed there control surfaces will lose authority and differential thrust will be uncontrollable at that point. That's when you flip.


http://www.fox4news.com/clip/11103774/pilot-weighs-in-on-taiwan-crash

"If operated correctly" the airplane should have had no problem.

 

[Swagger897]

Sure. I'm just interested in his speed and vertical speed.

Ohh, I couldn't get that video to work so try this:

 

[Robin]

TransAsia GE235: Taiwan plane crash engines 'lost power'

Taiwan's Aviation Safety Council said the first problem with one of the plane's engines was detected 37 seconds into the flight.

Black box data from the TransAsia Airlines turbo-prop plane that crashed in Taiwan has revealed that power was cut to both engines, investigators say.

Taiwan's Aviation Safety Council said the engines failed to produce enough thrust for two minutes after take-off.

Data suggest that the flight crew tried to stop and restart one of the engines, without success.

Flight GE235 carried 58 passengers and crew, at least 35 of whom died when the plane crashed into a river.

Fifteen people survived the crash.

According to investigators at a briefing in Taipei, the plane ran into trouble just 37 seconds after taking off from Taipei's Songshan airport.

Thomas Wang, director of the Aviation Safety Council, said the pilot announced a "flame-out", which can occur when the fuel supply to the engine is interrupted or when there is faulty combustion.

However, he said there was in fact no flame-out, and the right engine had actually shifted into idle mode without the oil pressure having changed.

"The plane flashed a flame-out signal for one of the two engines at 10:53:28 when the plane climbed to an altitude of 1,200ft, triggering a warning," AFP news agency quoted Mr Wang as saying.

"Then the other engine was shut down manually. The pilot tried to restart the engines but to no avail.

"That means that during the flight's final moments, neither engine had any thrust. We heard 'Mayday' at 10:54:35," he added.

The plane, which had been bound for Taiwan's Kinmen Island, crashed into the Keelung River just 72 seconds later.​

Gosh sudden double engine failure. Maybe contaminated fuel or a massive electrical fault?

 

[Omnis]

The other engine was shut down manually? Uhh, what? So they turned off their only source of thrust? Man, these pilots in Asia...

 

[Liquid]

The other engine was shut down manually? Uhh, what? So they turned off their only source of thrust? Man, these pilots in Asia...

They might have gotten confused as to which engine was the problem engine. With British Midland flight 92 one of the fan blades on the portside engine suffered a fracture, crippling the engine and setting it alight. Through a combination of pilot error and conflicting instrumentation the pilots shut down the starboard engine, thinking that was the engine giving them problems. By the time they realised and were trying to restart the starboard engine, the plane had descended too low and crashed into the motorway, just short of their intended (emergency) runway.

Maybe the pilots of this Transasia flight went through a similar scenario; they received a flameout warning, wrongly deduced which engine it was and shut down and restarted their only source of power.

 

[Johnnypenso]

They might have gotten confused as to which engine was the problem engine. With British Midland flight 92 one of the fan blades on the portside engine suffered a fracture, crippling the engine and setting it alight. Through a combination of pilot error and conflicting instrumentation the pilots shut down the starboard engine, thinking that was the engine giving them problems. By the time they realised and were trying to restart the starboard engine, the plane had descended too low and crashed into the motorway, just short of their intended (emergency) runway.

Maybe the pilots of this Transasia flight went through a similar scenario; they received a flameout warning, wrongly deduced which engine it was and shut down and restarted their only source of power.

Isn't it clearly labeled on the flight controls? I can't see it saying, "Here's one engine", and, "Here's the other engine".

 

[Keef]

They might have gotten confused as to which engine was the problem engine. With British Midland flight 92 one of the fan blades on the portside engine suffered a fracture, crippling the engine and setting it alight. Through a combination of pilot error and conflicting instrumentation the pilots shut down the starboard engine, thinking that was the engine giving them problems. By the time they realised and were trying to restart the starboard engine, the plane had descended too low and crashed into the motorway, just short of their intended (emergency) runway.

Maybe the pilots of this Transasia flight went through a similar scenario; they received a flameout warning, wrongly deduced which engine it was and shut down and restarted their only source of power.

Especially during takeoff, if you have an engine failure you need to figure it out now. It's a hectic situation and that's why they train heavily for it.

 

[Liquid]

If the engine failure was so soon into the flight, it would certainly be interesting to know what their speed on take-off was versus the V1 speed* for that plane.

*V1 speed - maximum allowed speed to abort a take-off / minimum take-off speed.

Isn't it clearly labeled on the flight controls? I can't see it saying, "Here's one engine", and, "Here's the other engine".

It is, but working out whether that engine is the correct engine to shut down can be difficult, especially in pressure situations like Keef says. Different engines have different functions.

Just to jump back to British Midland 92, the port engine failed. But the pilots knowingly shut down the starboard engine thinking that the starboard engine had failed because there was smoke in the cockpit and the pilots 'knew' that the right engine was responsible for air conditioning to the cockpit. As it turned out, not on that particular 737; a variation the pilots were actually unfamiliar with, magnifying their errors and clouding their judgement with the conflicting instrumentation.

For this Transasia, let's say the left engine failed. The pilots recognise "a" flameout but miscalculate and shut down the right engine. Doing this while still climbing, while not at level flight, is, unfortunately, disastrous.

Why some planes do or don't have an alarm/flashing light for "Left Engine Problem" or "Right Engine Problem" is unknown to me. I'm just a casual air accident reader. Couldn't tell you the specifics of x aircraft.

 

[Swagger897]

Apparently after reading this old article for its older and smaller sibling, they don't have the best climb rates...

But onto this engine 2 shutdown makes me think, "why?" If it were delivered new as of 2014 than it has the glass cockpit, and how you mess up left and right on an EICAS is beyond me. Almost a minute from flameout to mayday isn't much time to deduce the cause and fix it, especially what I read about the Vfpm, so who knows really...

I just read an article from the NYTimes and they said one of the engines were retrieved and replaced by Pratt&whit, citing "glitches from the original." Then I bounced onto another article which said a bit about engine 2 stalled after 1 "flamed-out". The first article I read also stated one of the passengers "knew something was wrong with the engines during take-off."

So there could be two causes that I can think of: 1.) Engine 2 was inadvertently feathered instead of 1 and the engine rpm exceeded the set climb thrust and they backed it down (probably unlikely), or 2.) An issue with the fuel itself or the system from tank to engine had a problem, be it the pump or what not.

This is a good read for stats comparison where it lacks and improves over competitors. Lengthy but good stuff:
http://theflyingengineer.com/aircraft/proud-to-fly-a-turboprop-q400-vs-atr72/

I'm also learning about this "hotel mode" for engine 2, where there is a rotary brake that prevents the prop from spinning and still keeps the engine running at idle. If engine 2 were the problem that was re-serviced earlier, this could be a "glitch". Probably not.

Another thing, it appears that there is not an onboard APU in the aircraft. So if engine 1 was shutdown, and two was set to idle, and then attempted to restart, what was powering the aircraft? From what I've been reading a GPU is necessary to power up the plane, and the battery wont power all these systems in flight...


Crazy.

If the engine failure was so soon into the flight, it would certainly be interesting to know what their speed on take-off was versus the V1 speed* for that plane.

Yeah, especially after reading what one claimed to be a problem with them...

 

[Johnnypenso]

If the engine failure was so soon into the flight, it would certainly be interesting to know what their speed on take-off was versus the V1 speed* for that plane.

*V1 speed - maximum allowed speed to abort a take-off / minimum take-off speed.



It is, but working out whether that engine is the correct engine to shut down can be difficult, especially in pressure situations like Keef says. Different engines have different functions.

Just to jump back to British Midland 92, the port engine failed. But the pilots knowingly shut down the starboard engine thinking that the starboard engine had failed because there was smoke in the cockpit and the pilots 'knew' that the right engine was responsible for air conditioning to the cockpit. As it turned out, not on that particular 737; a variation the pilots were actually unfamiliar with, magnifying their errors and clouding their judgement with the conflicting instrumentation.

For this Transasia, let's say the left engine failed. The pilots recognise "a" flameout but miscalculate and shut down the right engine. Doing this while still climbing, while not at level flight, is, unfortunately, disastrous.

Why some planes do or don't have an alarm/flashing light for "Left Engine Problem" or "Right Engine Problem" is unknown to me. I'm just a casual air accident reader. Couldn't tell you the specifics of x aircraft.

Sounds more like panic to me. I can't see a modern airliner not clearly labeling all the gauges and if one set of gauges is showing shutdown you'd obviously tend to that engine. Thanks to the glory of the internet:

 

[Swagger897]

Sounds more like panic to me. I can't see a modern airliner not clearly labeling all the gauges and if one set of gauges is showing shutdown you'd obviously tend to that engine. Thanks to the glory of the internet:

Problem with that being the old analogue cockpit...
This is what it would've looked like had it been made in 2014:

A little bit more clear to read but it still has everything from above just on different pages..

 

[Johnnypenso]

Problem with that being the old analogue cockpit...
This is what it would've looked like had it been made in 2014:

A little bit more clear to read but it still has everything from above just on different pages..

True, but the point remains the same. There should be clear indications as to which was struggling if indeed it turns out to be a single engine failure.

 

[Swagger897]

True, but the point remains the same. There should be clear indications as to which was struggling if indeed it turns out to be a single engine failure.

well yeah, left is left and right is right... I doubt there was any sort of glitch or swappage of screen info for any reason, as that is so unlikely. I've never heard of anything like that, but we still don't know if that's what happened.