ATR 72 A Death Trap??

[earl1937]

  It gets a little frustrating when you see accidents like the one that just happened in Twain! People dying unnecessarily due to a poorly designed aircraft! On paper, this ATR72 is a regional carriers dream ship, but when you look at the accident record and still no changes in the basic problem of the design, a horizontal stab, elevator, vertical stab and rudder which is just to small, in my view for the aircraft!



This a pic of the short version



This the current production model, which is like the one which crashed! Now, can anyone see any change in the size of the tail surfaces between the two aircraft? I can't see any change!
Another great engineering feat by some idiot somewhere that lives by numbers alone and not what the thing will actually do. They had "deep stall" prioblems in test flights from day one, and have always had cross wind trouble when landing this thing. My question is, how many more lives are going to be wasted before they shut this thing down from carry passengers.
Sorry, didn't mean to get on my soap box, but those people should not have died!! Just because he lost the left engine right after takeoff should not have resulted in a deadly crash. Of course I realize that pilots all have different skill levels during emergencies but this was a high time capt with plenty of hours in this aircraft.
I just wonder at what IAS the aircraft was above VMC when the left engine flamed out? If he was 5 knots above VMC, should have never happened!!

A copy of accident history:

 On 31 October 1994, American Eagle Flight 4184, an ATR 72–212 crashed due to icing in Roselawn, Indiana killing all 68 people on board.
On 30 January 1995, an ATR 72-200 of TransAsia Airways crashed during flight from Penghu to Taipei. Four crew members were killed.[35]
On 21 December 2002, TransAsia Airways (TNA) cargo flight 791, an ATR 72–200, crashed due to icing during flight from Taipei to Macau. Both crew members were killed. The aircraft encountered severe icing conditions beyond the icing certification envelope of the aircraft and crashed into sea 17 km southwest of Makung city. The Aviation Safety Council of Taiwan investigation found that the crash was caused by ice accumulation around the aircraft's major components, resulting in a loss of control. The investigation found that flight crew did not respond to the severe icing conditions with the appropriate alert situation awareness and did not take the necessary actions.[36]
On 6 August 2005, Tuninter Flight 1153, a Tuninter ATR 72–202 en route from Bari, Italy, to Djerba, Tunisia, ditched in the Mediterranean Sea about 18 miles (29 km) from the city of Palermo. 16 of the 39 people on board died. The accident resulted from engine fuel exhaustion due to the installation of fuel quantity indicators designed for the ATR 42 in the larger ATR 72.[37]
On 24 August 2008, an Air Dolomiti ATR 72–500 en route from Munich, Germany, to Bologna, Italy, aborted take off after the pilot announced a smoke alarm. The airline treated the aircraft's evacuation as a mild incident. On 26 August, an amateur video, filmed by a bystander, showed 60 passengers jumping from and fleeing the burning aircraft before fire department workers extinguished the flames.[38]
On 4 August 2009, Bangkok Airways Flight 266, an ATR 72-212A from Bangkok Airways skidded into a disused tower at the airport on Koh Samui. The pilot of the aircraft died and 10 passengers were injured.
On 10 November 2009, Kingfisher Airlines Flight 4124, operated by ATR 72-212A VT-KAC skidded off the runway after landing at Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport, subsequently damaging the nose section severely. The aircraft came to a halt just a few metres away from the fuel tanks of the airport. All 46 passengers and crew escaped unharmed.[39]
On 4 November 2010, Aero Caribbean Flight 883, operated by an ATR 72–212, with 61 passengers and 7 crew members, crashed at Guasimal, Cuba, while en route from Santiago de Cuba to Havana. All 68 people on board were killed. The accident was due to the prevailing meteorological conditions and to the wrong decisions made by the crew.[40] The flight was due in Havana at 7:50 p.m. but had reported an emergency and lost contact with air traffic control at 5:42 p.m.[41]
On 17 July 2011, Aer Arann ATR 72–212 EI-SLM was damaged beyond economical repair when the nose gear collapsed on landing at Shannon International Airport, Ireland. The aircraft was operating an international scheduled passenger flight from Manchester Airport, United Kingdom. There were no injuries amongst the 4 crew and 21 passengers on board.[42]
On 13 February 2012 Danish Air Transport DX627, operated by an ATR 72–200 with 16 passengers en route from Bergen to Moss (Oslo) Airport Rygge had trouble with the front landing wheel and performed an emergency landing at Rygge Airport. All passengers and crew escaped unharmed.[43]
On 2 April 2012, UTair Flight 120, a ATR 72–201 crashed soon after takeoff from Roshchino International Airport in western Siberia. 33 of the 43 passengers and crew on board were killed.[44] the crash cause was wrong de-icing procedures. The flight was from Tyumen to Surgut with 39 passenger and four crew members.
On 2 February 2013, a Carpatair ATR 72–212A flying on behalf of Alitalia crashed at Leonardo da Vinci–Fiumicino Airport in Rome while landing after a flight from Pisa. 16 people were injured, 2 seriously, including the co-pilot. During the interval between the crash that Saturday evening and sunrise on Sunday, the turboprop – which had worn Alitalia's green, white and red livery – was repainted entirely in white.[45]
On 16 October 2013, Lao Airlines Flight 301, an ATR 72–600 crashed into the Mekong River whilst on approach to Pakse International Airport, Laos, killing all 49 people on board.[46] This incident marks the first ATR 72–600 to be written off in a crash.
On 23 July 2014, TransAsia Airways Flight 222, an ATR 72-500 crashed into hard ground whilst attempting an emergency landing on approach to Magong in Taiwan's Penghu county in the Taiwan Strait, killing 48-51 people and injuring 8.[47][48][49]
On 4 February 2015, TransAsia Airways Flight 235, an ATR 72-600 carrying 58 people crashed in Taipei, striking a road bridge before ending up in a river. This portion of the crash was captured on video by a car driving on the bridge. [50] Taiwan's civil aviation authority said 31 people were killed and more than 12 people were still missing.[51] At least 15 passengers survived. [52] The ATR-72 had just taken off from Taipei Songshan Airport and was headed to the outlying Kinmen islands, just off the coast of south-east China. [53] Initial media reports indicate that the pilot called a mayday for an engine flameout. [54]

Specifications (ATR 72–600)[edit]

[FLS]

Looking at the attitude in the video it appears the pilot pulled up to avoid buildings and lost too much speed.

[earl1937]

Looking at the attitude in the video it appears the pilot pulled up to avoid buildings and lost too much speed.

that could have been a contributing factor for sure.....I am sure the recorders will tell us something, but there is no way a engine failure should have resulted in this. Even at gross weight and still on the ground, he should be able to lose one engine, takeoff and have a positive rate of climb. But I am not familiar with that airport, so there could have been some obstacles in his flight path but then then the carrier should have some restrictions to make operations safe from that runway. The captain was a well experienced ATR pilot, so something unusual must have intervened during the takeoff.

[Denniss]

Rather strange accident, nobody really known what happened other than engine problems. You may be too fast blaming the aircraft, it may also be related to procedures by this airline.
It wouldn't be the first aircraft to crash shortly after maintenenace because someone forgot something inside that doesn't belong there.

BTW the crashlist for B737 or A320 would be a tad longer, nobody would really claim these aircraft are unsafe.

[PR3D4TOR]

Over at the O'Club Busher chimed in...

Have a few hours on this airplane and the Dash-8 (very similar).

If you fail to stop the yaw with rudder and promptly feather the prop on the failed engine, this will result

All licensed airports have published obstacle clearance procedures based upon natural or man-made terrain. Assuming the airline's safe dispatch procedures include this performance analysis (required climb gradient), the airplane will, if properly flown will clear all obstacles in its departure path after suffering an engine failure on takeoff.

Failure to control the yaw with rudder, failure to fly the aircraft at the correct single engine climb speed, and failure to feather a windmilling propeller after engine failure all work to degrade climb performance. Any one of these can cause a complete loss of control. I am not suggesting that this was the cause of the accident - we'll have to wait for the official report.

I only have about 150 hours on the ATR but more than 5000 on the Dash-8. They are very similar and used exactly the same P&W turbo-prop engine.

[earl1937]

Rather strange accident, nobody really known what happened other than engine problems. You may be too fast blaming the aircraft, it may also be related to procedures by this airline.
It wouldn't be the first aircraft to crash shortly after maintenenace because someone forgot something inside that doesn't belong there.

BTW the crashlist for B737 or A320 would be a tad longer, nobody would really claim these aircraft are unsafe.

You make a good point, but how much does the "side stick" issue play into some those accidents? Where you have to instinctively react in an emergency, I would prefer to have a "yoke" in front of me

[earl1937]

Rather strange accident, nobody really known what happened other than engine problems. You may be too fast blaming the aircraft, it may also be related to procedures by this airline.
It wouldn't be the first aircraft to crash shortly after maintenenace because someone forgot something inside that doesn't belong there.

BTW the crashlist for B737 or A320 would be a tad longer, nobody would really claim these aircraft are unsafe.

:Fat Albert" as some would call the 737 had a major design flaw in the rudder function, which has been since corrected. The A320 I think had some "side stick" issues when it first became operational and also had some computer fuel management issues, which most have now been corrected. The pilots, as time passed on, become more and more familiar with the "side stick", look at what "Skully" was able to do landing in he Hudson river! Perfect touch down, rear of both engines and tail at same instant, couldn't have been any better

[PR3D4TOR]

You make a good point, but how much does the "side stick" issue play into some those accidents? Where you have to instinctively react in an emergency, I would prefer to have a "yoke" in front of me

Why?

[earl1937]

Why?

In an emergency situation, you are going to react instinctively and to me, a side stick is something that I would have to use a long time for it to become "second" nature to use.

[PR3D4TOR]

Because you're used to a yoke rather than a stick? How many hours do you think you'd need?

[mbailey]

Funny you post this, I always had an irrational fear of flying on any of the MD-80 series of aircraft   I would actually make sure it wasn't one before booking a flight to fly anywhere

[Grendel]

It gets a little frustrating when you see accidents like the one that just happened in Twain! People dying unnecessarily due to a poorly designed aircraft! On paper, this ATR72 is a regional carriers dream ship, but when you look at the accident record and still no changes in the basic problem of the design, a horizontal stab, elevator, vertical stab and rudder which is just to small, in my view for the aircraft!

Pfff. If it was unsafe, it wouldn't fly. I havent lost any sleep over flying dozens of times on ATR72s so far and won't be losing any now. It's a nice plane that does its job getting be to places within short distances.

And side stick? Quite a few planes these days use side sticks. You train to fly with it.

[DaveBB]

Just from watching the video, I noticed a few things like Earl said:

(1) #1 engine appeared to be windmilling, causing massive amounts of drag.
(2) Multi-engine aircraft should be able to climb after losing one engine at gross weight.  This aircraft was clearly descending with a nose high attitude.
(3) Rudder authority seemed poor.  The rudder is the last control surface to stall.
(4) If I had to venture a guess, the plane was in a stall the entire time in the video, and fell below single engine speed right as it rolled 90 degrees left.

[Puma44]

Yep, it definitely appears the left engine is rolling back/failed. The aircraft appears to be climbing a normal V2 climb to 1,000 feet AGL as the engine problem occurs.

It could be whichever pilot flying was caught off guard, didn't apply corrective rudder (dead foot, dead engine) quickly enough, resulting in the unrecoverable roll.  

Surely, the ATR had to be certified to experience an engine failure after V1, climb to a safe altitude, remain controllable, and land safely.

Any aeronautical engineers that can speak to the ATR's control surface sufficiency?

In this type of scenario, the rudder and proper application of it to counter the yaw of an engine not producing equal takeoff/climb power is essential for a safe outcome.  

[mbailey]

I believe Busher has some hours in this aircraft