Discussion in 'Hangar Flying' started by Alan Waters, Dec 29, 2014.
I'd like to know the source of that timeline. Is it reliable?
Sorry if my comment seemed like a jab at you, it was not (note the wink I had ended it with). I was just saying that I thought it was too early to say and that it would be a rare pilot indeed to formulate and execute such a plan in that short time. Your input is always welcome and I appreciate you stepping up to defend the pilot in an event that prompts most to point fingers at the crew without justification (either for or against). You helped remind us that everyone is innocent of blame until proven guilty. It's all just speculation until then.
That is straight off the FDR. I am really surprised they are so quick and forthcoming with the information.
It's sad, even 10 seconds from impact they could have shoved the power forward and flown away. The plane crashed with a perfectly good engine at idle power.
I guess the three of them didn't add up to one Sully... That is so sad.
Not twin rated myself, but I put on my thinking cap on, to try and figure out why this has happnned so many times.
It occured to me that the pilots, of twins, probably get a feel for engine thrust by one wing tip moving forward and one moving back, both on the ground and in the air. and make subtle throttle adjustments to correct.
Therefore it would be counter intuitive to reduce power on the bad engine, since it's on the lagging side. In a split second reaction, maybe gut habit takes over (when it shouldn't).
I'm sure some pilot's have figured this out, but perhaps not enough.
But they had already cut off the fuel and feathered the engine. They were reportedly talking about restarting the good engine, but I'm sure that takes time. It's possible that the restart procedure may have been a distraction that caused a worsening of their situation (as evidenced by the stall horn immediately afterward). Perhaps their focus would have been better spent on executing a forced landing.
Correct. Restart was the only option at that point.
Do you have a link to the full report?
Its been 40 years since my malty engine check ride. What I remember is working foot working engine. The airplane yaws to the dead engine so the correct the yaw you have to push on the side of the working engine. It is hard for me to imagine killing a good engine.
Esp. with three pairs of eyes in the cockpit.
Anyway... RIP to the crew.They pulled the bodies of the pilot and copilot out today. They drowned upside down when their legs were crushed and pinned by the instrument panel.:ermm:
Out of curiosity, if one engine shuts down due to flameout and the second engine a couple of seconds later, which one would be 'the good engine'?
It might be wise to check the information source before jumping to conclusions that pilots could have shoved the power forward of any dead engine. Such forthcoming and quick information sometimes turn out to be false speculations in the end.
Both engines on TransAsia Flight 235 lost power and pilots tried to restart one of them before the plane crashed into a river, killing 35 people, Taiwan's top aviation safety official said Friday.
Well, the answer might be in the 'perfectly good engine' criteria that Ferguson mentioned earlier. TransAsia apparently had another crash with an ATR and the official crash reason was bad weather. However, there was some wood debree found upon inspection in one engine, indicating a possible tree branch ingestion before the crash happened. If well cared for, most of these engines run fine. If not, then a lot of odd things can happen. And two engines out on an ATR is a very rare thing to happen, beyond a 'perfectly good engine' scenario.
You do realize that it's very common for a turboprop or turbofan to ingest debris during the course of a crash, right? Either way, even if they did hit trees and then crashed, the question still remains why they were low enough to hit a tree. Stop and think about that for a second...you'll see why your comment doesn't exactly lead anywhere in a logical sense. The crash wasn't caused by the failure of the engine following the ingestion of debris but rather the engine failed during the crash sequence. You seem to be mixing up correlation with causation.
By the way, I'll also point out that the crash you are referring to (TransAsia Flight 222) is still under investigation (last I checked) so the only "official" cause is the media blaming it on bad weather which probably did play a huge role in the crash.
Are you aware that the flight data recorder shows they shut down the good engine? Your post doesn't seem to reflect that updated information.
I think they made two errors. Shut down the good engine and not keeping sufficient air speed to fly in that situation. I sure hope the first engine malfunction wasn't their fault too. If it was this could be most helpless air crew after the AF447 that I know of.
Three words: Glasgow helicopter crash.
The lack of doing anything to maintain airspeed is what puzzles me, seems like both pilots were dealing with the engine failure and no one was flying the plane.
Yes, I am aware of this possibility (and probability) but it will be up to the official investigation team to see whether the debris was ingested at the time of crash as a consequence of crash or before the crash as a reason why one engine would not operate normally. If there were certainty in a cause and consequence logic of the 222 Flight then the investigation could have been over by now. My point is that there is always a logic reason why one engine would not operate, and with the modern forensic capabilities I am sure they will find the real reason why it stopped running.
The same recorder would record that 'they' shut the engine down if it malfunctioned. Be it aliens, gremlins or some pilots on board, a flameout might record as a fuel deprivation to an engine. However, you are mostly pilots here so would that make any sense to shut down a good engine if the other one is out? So far I have seen only speculation that the pilots shut down the only operational engine when one went out. Would it not be fair to the pilots to give them a chance and wait until it can be determined with certainty that they made such an irrational move? Ask yourself would you shut down an operating engine in a case of emergency?
Most people who have worked in fault finding are aware that the real fault does not have to be the one registred by the computer. Be it highly sophisticated car computers, electronic systems or even airplanes, a malfunction can be indicated different by the computer than the actual fault happening in reality. The computer malfunction indication can be a consequence of the real fault instead of the fault itself. Modern airliners sometimes DO indicate a fault as a result of a glitch or inner logic problem rather than being a real fault. Some pilots know that and have to use logic to determine whether the indication was real or just a glitch. False warnings happen much more often in airliners than people usually think, and the pilots usually consult the maintenance control center for advice.
My post relies highly on logic that a rational and trained pilot would not shut down an operational engine if the other is out. It makes as much sense as smashing a car into a tree just because the engine slowed down, or crushing an iphone cause it had a scratch on the screen. I could be wrong and there is always a chance the pilots did just what the 'expert' news reporters wrote, crashed the airplane cause one engine was out. However, most pilots are aware that airliners are built to be redundant so one single problem is usually not the cause, it takes a series of events to pile up to bring an airplane down. And there are high chances there is more to this crash than the information news reporters feed us with. Thus I'll wait for the final conclusion rather than say some pilots were that stupid to shut down the only operational engine, as much as insurance companies would like that scenario and promote it over the internet.
Have you ever flown a plane as PiC Dangerzone?
In emergency situations people mostly rely on trained procedures. Well-thought out reasoning and logical actions like what you're describing... forget it, there is simply no time for that.
Yes, and that is why I am saying that these pilots contributed to a much better end than what could have happened. They were trained for a one engine out scenario and if only one engine were out, they would have returned back to the airport for a landing instead of a crash.
Since you are asking... Have you ever been as a PiC in an emergency situation or training for emergency procedures..? It's rhetoric, hopefully you understand. It seems discussions here start to become personal at some point for no reason.
Do airline pilots not train for a failure of all engines? There's been more than one airliner that has landed successfully with all engines inoperative. Even if both engines failed the aircraft should not have stalled seconds later if the pilots reacted correctly. A gliding plane covers a lot more distance for a given altitude than a stalled one.
Separate names with a comma.