NZFF

Given the radical angles and impact I am amazed that 46 of 58 passengers survived.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11396650

It's unreal. Looks like it was stalled coming down.

It is impressive footage, due to cameras today , one that still sticks in the BC is the 747 Cargo leaving the Afgan when the load shifted.

cowpatz wrote:Given the radical angles and impact I am amazed that 46 of 58 passengers survived.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11396650

Actually it says only 13/12? were recovered alive. Most of the rest are still missing.

I think today so many captures of crash's .. when I did fly .. always have the window seat .. last thing I would want to do is plop into the water.

scaber wrote:

cowpatz wrote:Given the radical angles and impact I am amazed that 46 of 58 passengers survived.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11396650

Actually it says only 13/12? were recovered alive. Most of the rest are still missing.

Yes unfortunately that was the initial report. It seems like the fatality rate is much higher but it is still amazing anyone survived.
Looking at better footage it would appear to be the classic case of getting too slow with one engine out (VMCA issue), incorrect engine shutdown or else both engines flamed out (unlikely).
In the last case it may have been an attempt to stretch the glide. In all cases it ended up with a classic tip stall.

cowpatz wrote:In the last case it may have been an attempt to stretch the glide. In all cases it ended up with a classic tip stall.

I thought of the 737 crash years back with the pilots rushing and not sure.... then into the Potomac river, the Air Florida flight ... it is the possible answer - over complainant and arrogance .

cowpatz wrote:

scaber wrote:

cowpatz wrote:Given the radical angles and impact I am amazed that 46 of 58 passengers survived.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11396650

Actually it says only 13/12? were recovered alive. Most of the rest are still missing.

Yes unfortunately that was the initial report. It seems like the fatality rate is much higher but it is still amazing anyone survived..

Indeed, it is surprising that anyone survived considering the angle it was at when it disappeared from view - I did wonder if the report had been updated.

Bet that taxi driver charged a soilage fee

omitchell wrote:Bet that taxi driver charged a soilage fee

Yeah , viewed the extra footage last night POOH .. mean STINK , there is that famous footage from 1982 when the Air Florida flight crashed and another driver close witnessed it ... and lucky he was a bodybuilder/weight lifter happened to see near the same sort off thing , but without hesitation dives into the water saving one person ... there the water was so cold your dead in minutes if not seconds.

From the Aviation Herald:

On Feb 6th 2015 Taiwan's ASC reported that the investigation so far determined from flight data and cockpit voice recorders: the aircraft received takeoff clearance at 10:51L, in the initial climb the aircraft was handed off to departure at 10:52:33L. At 10:52:38L at about 1200 feet MSL, 37 seconds after becoming airborne, a master warning activated related to the failure of the right hand engine, at 10:52:43L the left hand engine was throttled back and at 10:53:00L the crew began to discuss engine #1 had stalled. At 10:53:06L the right hand engine (engine #2) auto-feathered. At 10:53:12L a first stall warning occured and ceased at 10:53:18L. At 10:53:19L the crew discussed that engine #1 had already feathered, the fuel supply had already been cut to the engine and decided to attempt a restart of engine #1. Two seconds later another stall warning activated. At 10:53:34L the crew radioed "Mayday! Mayday! Engine flame out!", multiple attempts to restart the engines followed to no avail. At 10:54:34L a second master warning activated, 0.4 seconds later both recorders stopped recording.

Later the day Feb 6th 2015 the ASC also released an English version of the initial release detailing further that when the first master warning activated associated with the right hand engine the crew "called it out", then the left hand engine thrust lever was progressively retarded to flight idle. At 10:53:24L the condition lever was set to fuel shut off position resulting in the shut down of the left hand engine. Following several call outs to restart the left hand engine the parameters suggest the left hand engine was restarted at 10:54:20L, however, at 10:54:34L another master warning sounded, the CVR recorded unidentified sounds and both recorders stopped.

On the face of it (and without other data as to why the LH engine was throttled back) it seems a case of engine misidentification.
It became a very heavy inefficient glider.

Ian Warren wrote:

omitchell wrote:Bet that taxi driver charged a soilage fee

Yeah , viewed the extra footage last night POOH .. mean STINK , there is that famous footage from 1982 when the Air Florida flight crashed and another driver close witnessed it ... and lucky he was a bodybuilder/weight lifter happened to see near the same sort off thing , but without hesitation dives into the water saving one person ... there the water was so cold your dead in minutes if not seconds.

Know this one well, was Air Florida flight 90 I believe, hit the 14th St bridge in DC just minutes after takeoff from Reagan National and landed in the Potomac River in the middle of winter when it was frozen over. Problem caused by not following proper de-icing procedures...

cowpatz wrote:On the face of it (and without other data as to why the LH engine was throttled back) it seems a case of engine misidentification.
It became a very heavy inefficient glider.

One only has to look up when an ATR flys over and see the profile ... little wing area for gliding , .... not the same but almost similar was when the DC-10 lost its engine at Chicago O'Hare , I have the cockpit recorder transcript, I dig it up and post it - the pilot thought he only lost the power and the weight of the entire engine.

The Chicago O'Hare incident was a little more involved than that. Many factors were at play including unapproved maintenance practices, Hydraulic design/layout (allowing an asymmetrical LE flap condition with a severed hydraulic line) as well as the engine failure procedure which required reducing airspeed back to V2. If any of those factors were absent then this crash would not have occurred.

Not the bad Hmmm .. lets use a fork lift to replace an engine .. course the damage did affect the wing as the engine rolled over top of it .

It does make me wonder, the -600 has an auto rudder for asymmetric thrust. I'm not sure but is there a lack of tactile feel on the rudder that could effect crew response to an engine failure? Sure you train engine outs at V1 over and over but in the heat of the moment, when you are missing the 'dead leg - dead engine' step, could the enhancement of automation actually reduce pilot SA and lead to shutting down the wrong engine?

In any case, in a turboprop with autofeather there is no reason at all to touch the power or condition levers until the aircraft is stabilised and the crew has caught up. In many turboprops the autofeather is armed by a microswitch somewhere around half way up the throttle quadrant. If you retard the lever before the engine has feathered, it disarms and won't feather - just leave the levers alone or push them up if anything. Looking at the system description for the -600 though, why would you go near the levers until above acceleration altitude and calling for the checklist?

In the event of an engine failure during take off, with the power levers set at the TO detent, the ATR has an automatic autofeather of the dead engine and an automatic torque (TQ) ‘up trim’ of the live engine up to 100% TQ without the pilot needing to move the power lever of the live engine forward from the TO detent, and an auto-rudder trim function to balance the yaw generated by the asymmetric power.

Yet another loss of control in flight and another sad day for commercial aviation.

You think maybe SA .. maybe crew new to each other or the model [continuity], that happening on a near new aircraft put the , lets say it was a "What the hell" before they realized what the hell was going on ? is a possible ? .... simply unfamiliar with the 600 to previous type used

In the ATR I've heard in passing that the AFX system disengages rather early in the climb sequence.

Lindstrim wrote:In the ATR I've heard in passing that the AFX system disengages rather early in the climb sequence.

What exactly is the AFX system ? and is it only on a ATR 600 series ? - when ATR were first introduced they did have this problem with falling out the sky due to lack off icing heat on the wings - then all aircraft modified .

Sorry AFX is autofeather.