That's what, the fourth or fifth ATR72 TransAsia has crashed?
Couldn't really tell but looked like left engine was not rotating like right one. :prayKeen eye Slate - buddy of mine at work who is a former Air Force mechanic noticed the same thing when we watched it at my desk this morning and that he stalled it right out in an attempt to get it to the river rather than into the apartment buildings.
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
Have a few hours on this airplane and the Dash-8 (very similar).:airplane: My big compliant about the design of this aircraft is the size of the elevator and rudder. I think the engineers sacrificed handling at low speeds for high speed cruise numbers. If this aircraft had, say, just 20% larger rudder and elevator, the VMC would be a lot lower and I think serveral of these accidents could have been prevented. Again though, money gets in the way of safety
If you fail to stop the yaw with rudder and promptly feather the prop on the failed engine, this will result
Suspiciously many stall related crashes with the ATR.:airplane: You are correct! Since 1988, someone should have said, bad design, lets redo the tail surfaces and give the pilots a better chance in low speed realm's.
What a job missing all that concrete and hitting the river.:airplane: By the time you can see the aircraft in the video, the pilot had no control over what the aircraft was doing!
I would not use the word "many" in relation to the number of fatal accidents involving the ATR 42/72. 11 fatal accidents in 30 years from 1200 produced aircraft doesn't strike me as excessive. However that four fatal accidents (including two where only the crew perished) were TransAsia flights does.:airplane: I am reminded of something "Chuck Yeager" once said: "if it don't look right, generally speaking it doesn't fly right"! I think the tail surfaces are out of sync with the rest of the airframe, especially the stretch 600 model.
http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/atr.htm
:airplane: My big compliant about the design of this aircraft is the size of the elevator and rudder. I think the engineers sacrificed handling at low speeds for high speed cruise numbers. If this aircraft had, say, just 20% larger rudder and elevator, the VMC would be a lot lower and I think serveral of these accidents could have been prevented. Again though, money gets in the way of safety
It could be whichever pilot was flying this aircraft, was caught off guard, and reacted to late to counter the yaw and ensuing roll over. A very dynamic and fast pace of events right after takeoff.
"Then the otherThe engine we see running is actually the malfunctioning engine. The crew shut down the left engine manually. Regardless of how much earl1937 would like it differently it seems like a pilot error rather than toejamty design.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 flight, which had been bound for Taiwan's Kinmen Island, crashed into the Keelung River just 72 seconds later.
The plane, an ATR 72-600, is able to fly with just one functioning engine. Mr Wang said it was not clear why the left engine had been shut down.
To serve as a commercial airliner in the U.S, the ATR had to demonstrate, during certification, the ability to experience an engine failure after V1, climb on one, remain controllable, and land safely.
From SysError's link::airplane: There is a good "black box" report in aircraft and vehicles, which says the left engine, or #1 was the inop engine during the emergencie and now it looks like they may have shut down the good engine, while trying to clean up #1. If that was the case, yes it would be pilot error!
The engine we see running is actually the malfunctioning engine. The crew shut down the left engine manually. Regardless of how much earl1937 would like it differently it seems like a pilot error rather than toejamty design.
You keep saying it has a small rudder, but it clearly doesn't compared to similar aircraft.
You keep saying it has a small rudder, but it clearly doesn't compared to similar aircraft.:airplane: The "moment arm leverage" on the vertical axis is something that is computed when designing the aircraft. My question is: should it be 150% of normal "throw" or is it one those figures right on the "button".
The right engine went into auto feather at about 1500 ago but the crew reduced power on the left engine and then shut down the left engine. I've done a few 100 shutdown and restarts and if they figured out the error and tried to restart and unfeather the left engine it would make the aircraft roll hard left. When the left engine comes out of feather it's like going from 4th gear to first gear and the drag on that prop is huge. We've done it a few times with both engines feathered at 10,000 feet and expect to lose 2000 before its out of feather and providing forward thrust.:airplane: Well, it is an interesting discussion! a lot of good posts and replies, a lot of good technical stuff to!
I have a copy of the FDR with just a few channels so you can't tell control inputs, just engine data.
Fli
Very sad.
:pray for the lost ones. :angel: to those who survived. :salute for the pilots.
In most cases the shorter versions of a plane need a bigger fin, A318 for example have a bigger fin than the bigger brothers. Short plane means less stability and thus need a larger fin. I cannot see that the ATR-72 has a undersized fin or rudder. Max demonstrated cross wind on dry runway its 35 kt for the ATR 72-600 and that indicate that it has a very good rudder.:airplane: The only reason for the rudder is to "overcome the adverse yaw, created by the down turned aileron when making a turn". That is the basic reason for a rudder, reason, simply put, if you start a left turn, the nose of the aircraft, without the use of rudder, will turn right first and only then will it come back to left as you want! If climbing, which these guys were doing at the time, non use of the rudder would increase the drag on the aircraft because it is now slipping in the turn, which also raises the stalling speed to a higher than normal value, which could have caused the left turn which this aircraft did prior to losing control alto gather. Now there are other functions for the rudder in addition to that, one being, overcoming the adverse yaw created by a failed engine and the torque and "P" factor now created by the still operating good engine! Last, but not least, controlling yaw about the vertical axis of the aircraft in all flight realms.
Earl, at what speed does the ATR's rudder become ineffective in a one engine configuration?
Thats like asking how long is a piece of string.
No. It's like asking at what speed does the ATR stall in a given configuration. Obviously Earl knows the minimum allowable speed for the ATR in a one-engine configuration, and that it is above stall speed, or he wouldn't claim that the ATR could operate at a lower speed with a larger rudder. Right?
That "research paper" by some student is full of assumptions and hardly relevant.
You have a lot of variables to plug in there to get an answer, "one engine" is only one of them.
The lowest allowable speed in different configurations should be printed in the flight manual and checklists.
Data from the "black box" flight recorders retrieved from the wreckage suggests the pilots shut down one engine after the other lost power. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-31162351
Earlier, TransAsia said all of its pilots would be retaking proficiency examinations following the disaster.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-31162351
I'd like to know how many hours those pilots had been clocking in the weeks prior to that crash.:airplane: can't answer that question, but will say this: It comes down to basic stick and rudder control of the aircraft, where are not you are descending or in level flight! All pilots, who are trained correctly in cockpit interaction in an emergency should both agree on which engine is to shut down. I would always ask the Captain or co=pilot, depending on which position I was flying in to respond back to me verbally which engine had failed, by reference to dead foot, dead engine, manifold pressure or in this case compresser speed, or even some have old EPR gauges or some did anyway. On top of that, that is a master watning light for each engine with a big number right in the middle of the thing.
Earl, at what speed does the ATR's rudder become ineffective in a one engine configuration?:airplane: It would depend on the estimated weight at takeoff, by the flight ops dispatcher, forget what they were called, and the agreement by the Captain, at which he would sign a document stating that he agrees with dispatch about the weight.
I'm not a pilot if that's what your asking.:airplane: Sir, with all due respect, if you are not a pilot and are just going by the "book", here is something you won't find in a book that if you don't do, you will DIE! Fly the aircraft first, navigate second and communicate third, what did he, the capt do, started hollering "mayday" when he should have been thinking about flying the aircraft.
Almost in every ATR72 accident, there has been a loss of control! Wonder how many of those could have saved with a 12% larger rudder and vertical stab?
:airplane: Sir, with all due respect, if you are not a pilot and are just going by the "book", here is something you won't find in a book that if you don't do, you will DIE! Fly the aircraft first, navigate second and communicate third, what did he, the capt do, started hollering "mayday" when he should have been thinking about flying the aircraft.
I appreciate your comments, however uninformed they are, we are just having a general, "wonder what happened" discussion and none of us will know until the "boxes" are analyzed.
I was giving a check ride to a ATR applicant one time in a DC-3 and picture this: we were at altitude of 8,000 feet, we were simulating an approach to an airport at 7,000 feet, he has the airspeed nailed down good, heading was excellent, vertical speed right where it was supposed to be, and then I casually shut the fuel down to left engine. As soon as it, the left engine quit due to lack of fuel, we are now down to about 600 feet above the simulated ground and what does he do, starts looking for the paper which has the VMC at our current weight, in case he has to go around!
Needless to say, I failed the applicant, he should have known those figures by heart, and he didn't!!!
And by the way, he was down to 5500 feet before he got everything cleaned up, feathered engine and other items on check list. Since the ground was supposed to be a 7,000 feet, don't you guess he and everyone in back would more than likely be dead?
(And doesnt all air crashes involves loss of control....)
It could have hit cables or wires in between buildings.
no it could not have hit a buliding with horizontal stab. Not without having some other part hitting the building too.
It could be a optical illusion but the plane banks left at the moment the tail is over a building. if so the debris should be found.
The kid piloting that thing was 28yo and had 8,000 hours. His co-Pilot was 30yo and had 5,000 hours.
Thats a lot of hours to "not know" which engine to turn off.
Failed the ORAL? Wow. That says something.:airplane: You make a good point Toad! I doubt if this airline has a simulator because they are so costly. Most airlines are not run by pilots, but accountants and a lot decisions are made based on the "number"!
I note they say nothing about an actual proficiency check in a simulator.