Transasia Airlines Crash

Taiwan Living in Taiwan
61

And then this:

chron.com/news/world/article … 640443.php

Lu said TransAsia suspected typhoon weather caused the crash, but was waiting for aviation authorities to finish an investigation to say for sure.

So before there’s even time for investigation, the airline finger points at the government, while the government basically does the same to the airline.

Seems about par for the course. Priority one is deflecting blame and responsibility. Then comes seeking justice and truth for the victims and their families.

If either side wanted the truth, they would shut up about speculating on what was or wasn’t the cause for now, that is exactly the purpose of an investigation. Though based on the government’s previous speculative comments, I’m not sure I’d trust the findings of that investigation so trustworthy, they seem to really want to rule out the cause that resulted in the cancellation of work and classes for the entire island.

62

Flying into a typhoon with a turboprop equals a bad idea. Then when the pilot failed to land first time he tried to land again instead of going back to Kaoshiung which was clear of thunderstorms.

The logic earlier that ‘some planes landed’ so it should have been okay is actually THE ROOT CAUSE of this crash.

That’s bullshit playground logic.

63

[quote=“headhonchoII”]

That’s bullshit playground logic.[/quote]

Exactly. I’ll never trust the local aviation authority after reading this nonsense.

64

There are certainly more holes in the swiss cheese to line up when bad weather is about. Especially a typhoon. Which causes unpredictable winds and heavy localized rainfall.

So many crashes have happened while in the vicinity of a typhoon, they really ought to tighten standards at airports when one is about.

CAL’s MD11 (ITalian captain so no Asians can’t fly jokes) crashed on landing at CHep Lap Kok (HongKOng) during a storm.

The cross wind exceeded the aircraft design parameters at a critical moment when the jet was flaring for landing.

It landed with some 11G on its right bogie (IIRC) and the bogie crashed through the wing and the plane rolled over and inverted down the runway. Lucky only 3 died. All could have been killed.

There were LOTS Of other flights that had landed safely in the minutes before but what does that prove? It does not lessen the danger.

SQ6 in its haste to take off preceeding the arrival of a typhoon heading for CKS took off on the wrong runway. There was no ground radar and the crew had turned down the services of a Follow Me Truck. There was confusion about which runway due to lighting and the crew’s haste to depart.

The 747 crashed into construction equipment on the runway it took off from (it was closed half way down its length) with many fatalities.

Typhoons cause anxiety and things to be missed and/or other dangers not in a normal operating environment.

They should be given much greater respect.

65

It’s exceptionally troubling that authorities are implying that russian roulette would be safe because you didn’t blow your brains out the 1st time.

66

[quote=“Taiwan Luthiers”]The problem is they shouldn’t be flying a plane in a typhoon. Perhaps larger jets can handle things but a smaller plane can’t.

Those prop planes strictly speaking is a jet, they’re called “turbojets” meaning the propeller is driven by a jet engine. It is not as fast as a turbofan plane but it is more fuel efficient. Regular prop plane would mean propellers driven by a piston engine.[/quote]
You mean a “turboprop”. The ‘jet’ part comes in only if you use the exhaust to push the plane forward, which the ATR does not.

67

I’ve never been on board for a bad weather landing, it must have been very scary for all pax from the failed attempt and onwards. Presumably very bad visibility, rain, wind squalls, the buffetting and air pockets which tommy and yuli mentioned earlier. I liked this quote from pprune (on a different thread from the Transasia crash):

Here is a video of a fully automated airbus doing a landing in bad vis. And this is fog, so presumably little wind and no rain. Pretty benign conditions when compared to Penghu, apart from the fact you can see f-all.

68

[quote=“headhonchoII”]Flying into a typhoon with a turboprop equals a bad idea. Then when the pilot failed to land first time he tried to land again instead of going back to Kaoshiung (Gaoxiong) which was clear of thunderstorms.

The logic earlier that ‘some planes landed’ so it should have been okay is actually THE ROOT CAUSE of this crash.

That’s bullshit playground logic.[/quote]

Would the bean-counters have given him enough fuel to return to KHH?
After all, the weather at Penghu is fine, no? So the most he’d need is KHH-Penghu + maybe 10% for a go-around or two. :whistle:

69

[quote=“Icon”]The insurance. 19 people on board had policies. And anyways the airline will have to pay, sooner or later.

Remember the big buhaha when the parents of the MRT attacker sold their house?[/quote]

“Are they trying to liquidate their assets? Why move so suddenly?”

Idiot reporters. Obviously, when your son is a mass murderer, it makes sense to move away from the judgmental stares of people you’ve known for years.

70

(What’s the extra H for?)

Yes, he almost certainly had enough fuel for that. The plane took off at 5:43 and should have reached Penghu 35 minutes later. It was in the air until 7:06. That’s enough time to have made it back to Kaohsiung.

71

All airports have both and ICAO and IATA indentifiers. So in Kaohsiung’s case, the ICAO indentifier is RCKH, and the IATA is KHH. However, in some areas, there are some navigational aids which have similar 3 letter identifiers. For example, there is a VOR (VHF Omni-range transmitter, a transmitter which broadcasts a unique signal for aircraft to follow towards or away from a transmitter on a given bearing), in Xinatan, China which is identified as KHN - these transmitters are also sometimes used for landing approaches, so it is important not to get them confused with actual airports. There is an airport in China already with the IATA identifier KHG, which I believe is Kashi airport, and KNG, which is somewhere in Indonesia, so Kaohsiung got stuck with an extra H.

[quote]Would the bean-counters have given him enough fuel to return to KHH?
After all, the weather at Penghu is fine, no? So the most he’d need is KHH-Penghu + maybe 10% for a go-around or two.[/quote]

Not only this, but aircraft will not generally lift fuel at PengHu. Usually, they take enough for a return trip. They had more than enough fuel to get back to KHH. However, they may not have had enough fuel to make 2 go-around’s and then make it back to KHH without lifting more fuel required for the mandatory diversion amount. considering the time it was already in the air for - however, tracking back to KHH would have been seen as a diversion anyway.

This is what is called a CAT 3 approach. A CAT 3 approach can only be executed under certain conditions. If it is too windy, they would have to divert. The Transasia ATR would not have had the necessary technology available for a CAT 3, unless it was upgraded - which I doubt, and in any case, it wouldn’t have been able to land using CAT 3 in those conditions anyway - plus the airport can not handle CAT 3 approaches. The conditions on the day fall within CAT II, which is 350 meters RVR (runway visual range) and 100 meters decision height, according to the weather reported at the time. However, AFAIK, the ILS system at Magong airport is only rated at CAT 1. The problem here I think was with gusts, tailwind and vertical wind shear.

72

Some comments from the Aviation Herald site regarding this accident:

avherald.com/h?article=477bcc95&opt=0

By (anonymous) on Wednesday, Jul 23rd 2014 18:55Z

It is insane to try to land an ATR 72 with that tailwind and that conditions, the maximun allowed tail wind is 10 knots, 15 for ATR42.
+TSRA overhead the airport means WINSHEAR, heavy rain, gusty winds, reduce visibility… Do the RNAV, if you dont see the runway go back home and try next day, don’t try to be a hero and land in the worse ever conditions.

If you check both approaches, the mimimuns are the same, 340 feet for the ILS02 and RNAV20, the difference is the required visibility, I’ll speak for myself, but I’d have gone for VOR or RNAV 20, I know how bad the ATR behave with tailwind and bad weather.

RIP for all involved.

@john
By michael Anthony on Thursday, Jul 24th 2014 00:13Z

It’s almost inevitable that if you are a pilot in certain parts of Asia, you’re going to end up flying in or near a typhoon. Typhoon forecasts are pretty accurate, which allows for some advance planning. For example, about 90% of the flights at Makung were canceled today. That still leaves several aircraft “at risk”.

Calm Down!
By 72driver on Friday, Jul 25th 2014 06:49Z

I have about 4K hours on the 72 and more on other turboprops.
When it comes to handling in gusty condition, 72 is somewhat difficult compared to others that I have flown. I don’t know the exact reason, but I suspect it is due to its size, or power to weight ratio or some other reason I don’t fully claim to understand. To make the long story short, you need more finesse when you handle the 72 in gusty condition.
And please don’t be quick to put the blame on pilots saying they should have simply diverted and all that. We don’t know the weather condition at their alternate, or the enroute to the alternate! How much fuel was remaining?( the companies nowadays are ever so stingy when it comes to fuel reserves, as they are calculating very pennies and dimes for that quarterly bottom line!). Depending upon all these variables, it might have been more prudent to “try” another approach! I am sure we have all been there!

end quote

Personally
I think the flight should have been cancelled, as well as all others for that time period with a thunderstorm overhead that has been stationary for some time.

73

Tommy, as far as I know, the low speed handling response issues and problems in gusts are due to the ATR’s wing design and throttle lag times.

74

[quote=“keroliver”]if you use the radar from CWB:
cwb.gov.tw/V7e/observe/radar … htm?type=0
and look carefully at the situation in PengHu at 19:00
It’s RED ! that is heavy rain.[/quote]

I quote myself. Sorry about that. I wish I had done printscreen / screenshot of the radar.
But can anyone find the archive of the radar situation above Penghu at the time of the accident?
Believe me, the weather was clear until 6:45 PM then it turns dark red, the sign of a thunderstorm!
Wrong timing.
RIP

75

Remember the China airlines pilots that were ex Air force and liked to take more ‘risks’ than civilian pilots, that resulted in accidents?

Was this pilot ex air force?

I am flying with this airline next week to Bangkok.

76

[quote=“european”]Remember the China airlines pilots that were ex Air force and liked to take more ‘risks’ than civilian pilots, that resulted in accidents?

Was this pilot ex air force?

I am flying with this airline next week to Bangkok.[/quote]

Thought I read the Captain was ex AF. With over 20,000 hours (thats a LOT ) . The copilot only had a few thousand hours.

But that itself may have little bearing. Others had just landed safely so they thought, ok, missed approach due heavy rain, go around for second attempt. All very “normal”. People got too used to having a thunderstorm about and then this one bites you HARD.

Same with the MD11 crash in HK. Everything was fine , down to the last few seconds when a sideways gust and sudden loss of lift flipped the plane onto its right gear and it pounded hard onto the runway.

And planes were landing there too just minutes before.

Pilots get complacent and stop realizing the danger. Just because other planes landed minutes before does not mean it is safe NOW.

And that MD11 aircraft carried enough fuel to continue to TPE from BKK nonstop because the dispatch already knew HKG was under threat of typhoon and landing may not be possible.

The Captain went ahead in spite of knowing sidewinds were close to limits. IIRC he retired and never flew again.

IT was a bad call. THIS was a bad call (obviously).

Many moons ago i was landing in Madrid in a DC9 and we circled on top of a very large T-storm system. The captain announced the storm and said all flights are being divereted to Barcelona but he was going to make an attempt and we should all “hold on”.

Well that was comforting (not).

We went down into the storm (it was daytime) and it became pitch black and I swear lightning hit near our plane. I was happy when we hit a mother of an updraft and we shot back into the clear skies. We made our way to Barcelona and sat on the tarmac with our doors open (but no service of any kind) for near 3 hours with literally dozens of other jets.

I was happy the return flight to Madrid was very smooth.

Later i thanked the Captain for not making a second attempt and politely questioned his reasoning in making the first attempt. I said he really should not have done that and he risked everyone’s life by doing so when ALL other aircraft had diverted. He said NOT ONE WORD in response to that.

My associate who was waiting for me at the airport said that was the BIGGEST TSTORM EVER TO HIT MADRID IN 30 YEARS and it was all over the news.

Some pilots are more gungho then others. That is good in many circumstances. But a pussy pilot is often a safer pilot.

F16 fighter pilots can be gungho, but commercial pilots should be pussies.

p.s. to bernie: I told ya the ATR is a handful in bad weather :stuck_out_tongue: I thought so as a passenger (albeit in a 42) and pilots have written it is a bit difficult in less then ideal conditions.

We have a small airport close by (concord, calif) that caters to biz jets and props. NO commercial.

The weather is almost always good here but we get some tstorms during certain months of the year.

A few years ago a single engine just missed the runway and nearly landed on highway 4, which is perpendicular to one end of the runway and is crossed on the approach. IIRC killed the pilot and 2 other members of his family.

Just because the airport was still open didn’t mean it was “safe” and it wasn’t for them.

I’d like to give storms a very wide berth.

77

The first problem is in declaring that the airport is ‘open’, which puts pressure on pilots to reach the destination, especially when other pilots have landed. This is Asia, follow the leader, face etc.

The second problem was making a second attempt when Kaoshiung and most of Taiwan was clear of bad weather.

I also checked the radar data and Penghu was forecast to be covered by a massive band of thunderstorms, before the crash and after too.

I guess Penghu didn’t have the radar that detects microbursts that is common worldwide now.

Bad policies, bad management, bad decisions.

78

Agree but the airlines themselves have to hold themselves to a higher standard.

Airlines do not all have the same policies and risk asssessment.

79

Only Taoyuan has meteorological doppler radar, although the CWB have their own sites located around the island, not directly related to aviation.

80

Froggers, that is a big fail. It should be standard. Microburst under those conditions? Plausible. Deadly.

The plane bounced off 5 different places as if slammed.

7 experts from France and 1 from Canada arrived today to assist in the investigation.