http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/feb/04/transasia-plane-crash-lands-in-taiwan-river-rolling-coverage?CMP=fb_gu

Click link for pictures.

Whats going on with Asian airline companies...?

Edited February 4, 201511 yr by starcraftguy1

Looks like they had a stall after take off.

This is a un-common mistake, You would think they would know better than to attempt a steep climb at takeoff or at least that is what seems to have happened.

I'm not sure if it is the plane this time, Or the pilot. But all these asian airlines need to fix their shit.

I would like to see if the number of commercial airline crashes is actually increasing, or the numbers are the same and it's just a hot topic to report on. 

Edited February 4, 201511 yr by SIR_Sergeant

They lived..

They lived..

No. At least 23 people have been killed.

 

I saw the video for this just a little while ago, it could have been a lot worse than what it was - the pilots managed to narrowly miss a block of flats. It's still both sad and shocking though.

Personally I say congratulations to the pilots for:

 

1/ Avoiding a huge appartments complex

2/ Aiming for the river to try and lower damage and casualties

 

They probably avoided a much greater disaster.

EDIT: Here's an unedited version of the dashcam footage: http://www.theverge.com/2015/2/4/7975487/transasia-taiwan-plane-crash-dash-cams

Edited February 4, 201511 yr by Hystery

With rapid economic expansion in Asia, the demand for aviation travel is soaring. It's growing so rapidly that i don't think they're properly training the pilots.

I'm sure this incident will be pilot error, as will the new Air Asia A320.

There's no way it'll be mechanical, I'm sure in maybe over a year these incidents will stop.

With rapid economic expansion in Asia, the demand for aviation travel is soaring. It's growing so rapidly that i don't think they're properly training the pilots.

I'm sure this incident will be pilot error, as will the new Air Asia A320.

There's no way it'll be mechanical, I'm sure in maybe over a year these incidents will stop.

Which is why I use FlyUS

I would like to see if the number of commercial airline crashes is actually increasing, or the numbers are the same and it's just a hot topic to report on. 

 

This is just a hot topic. Plane incidents are more common than you think. Usually they dont involve them falling from the sky however. It is usually just like engine failure before takeoff and passenger disruptions. Here is a website on statistics for crashes.

 

http://www.airdisaster.com/

No. At least 23 people have been killed.

 

I saw the video for this just a little while ago, it could have been a lot worse than what it was - the pilots managed to narrowly miss a block of flats. It's still both sad and shocking though.

 

I only watched the video and didn't read the article, so it looked like another lucky save similar to the landing on the Hudson River.

 

Sadly not. That's terrible. For most of these types of incidents I blame the pilots for not doing their jobs properly, unless it was something that they couldn't avoid like the flock of geese that supposedly damaged the turbines on Flight 1549.

< snip >

Edited June 23, 20241 yr by tobeymaguire

Honestly, I would ONLY label the pilots as "good" IF the issue was caused by some sort of major mechanical failure. For example, one or more engines shutting down. To me, it looked like they were attempting to ascend too fast and lost airspeed, resulting in a stall. Though I guess they get credit for pulling quick decisions either way.

 

That's my belief as well, I think there was some reports of it having suffered an engine failure, apparently an ATC transmission, but even if thats the case, its a multi-engine aircraft, they don't crash because of one engine failure. So until more information comes out and an investigation is concluded then I'm going to continue to believe pilot error.

 

I wander when the National Geographics Air Crash Investigation will make a program based on this crash. 

Honestly, I would ONLY label the pilots as "good" IF the issue was caused by some sort of major mechanical failure. For example, one or more engines shutting down. To me, it looked like they were attempting to ascend too fast and lost airspeed, resulting in a stall. Though I guess they get credit for pulling quick decisions either way.

 

That's my belief as well, I think there was some reports of it having suffered an engine failure, apparently an ATC transmission, but even if thats the case, its a multi-engine aircraft, they don't crash because of one engine failure. So until more information comes out and an investigation is concluded then I'm going to continue to believe pilot error.

 

I wander when the National Geographics Air Crash Investigation will make a program based on this crash. 

 

The pilots can still be good and make an error. Nobody is perfect. I am assuming either of you guys are absolutely perfect at something and will never make a mistake? "until more information comes out...I'm going to continue to believe pilot error." That doesn't make any sense, we don't know anything about the crash and the investigation just started but you are going to automatically assume it was pilot error? What evidence is this based on?

 

All of this media coverage on aviation accidents lately has apparently made everyone experts in that field.

I would like to see if the number of commercial airline crashes is actually increasing, or the numbers are the same and it's just a hot topic to report on. 

2014 was arguably one of the safest years for aviation ever with only 21 fatal incidents out of 3.2 billion flights. The stats in the article below suggests that there is only 1 fatal incident every 2.38 million flights, meaning it's a 1 in 2.38 million chance of being involved in a fatal accident. Pretty good odds if you ask me, especially in comparison to air travel in the 1980's. 

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-31133246

The pilots can still be good and make an error. Nobody is perfect. I am assuming either of you guys are absolutely perfect at something and will never make a mistake? "until more information comes out...I'm going to continue to believe pilot error." That doesn't make any sense, we don't know anything about the crash and the investigation just started but you are going to automatically assume it was pilot error? What evidence is this based on?

 

All of this media coverage on aviation accidents lately has apparently made everyone experts in that field.

 

Yes, it happens that good pilots make mistakes, nor am I perfect, nor have I stated that I'm perfect so your assumption comes out of nowhere. What makes no sense about "until more information comes out... I'm going to continue to believe pilot error"? I'll break it down for you. It is my belief that this crash was caused by inexperience of the pilots or some critical mistakes performed within the cockpit, such as not checking load distribution, or improper training. Until more concrete evidence comes out, such as a report which proves me wrong, I'm going to continue to believe that it was pilot error.

 

My evidence is based on a series of aircraft accidents due to poor training:

Asiana 214: Caused by pilot error, the aircraft was too low and too slow, causing it to collide with the sea-wall. The inexperienced co-pilot was piloting but the captain didn't make any corrections despite the fact they were way below the glide slope. 

AirAsia 8501: Reports indicate that the pilots where trying to out climb a series of cumulonimbus clouds, considering those clouds can stretch up to 40km into the sky its a very big mistake. 

Transasia 235: It is a brand new aircraft, it's ten months old, a mechanical error is very unlikely.

 

Sir/ Ma'am, I spend a lot of time involved with aviation, enough to come up with a likely hypothesis and be able to support my belief. Don't treat me like some kid from the YouTube comment section, because I do my research and have enough knowledge to know what I'm talking about. I read plenty of articles from many sources discusses commercial and military aviation, so it's not the case of me just watching "Air Crash Investigation" and being an "expert in that field.

 

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I hate pilot error being the culprit. It's very sad to know that a pilot doomed his/her own aircraft and that all the relatives of the deceased will blame the pilot.

 

Heres an article which discusses how the growth of aviation in asia poses a threat to safety:

http://airinsight.com/2014/12/31/concern-asian-air-traffic-growth-future-safety/#.VNNF_kIjj8s 

 

Regards

Yes, it happens that good pilots make mistakes, nor am I perfect, nor have I stated that I'm perfect so your assumption comes out of nowhere. What makes no sense about "until more information comes out... I'm going to continue to believe pilot error"? I'll break it down for you. It is my belief that this crash was caused by inexperience of the pilots or some critical mistakes performed within the cockpit, such as not checking load distribution, or improper training. Until more concrete evidence comes out, such as a report which proves me wrong, I'm going to continue to believe that it was pilot error.

 

My evidence is based on a series of aircraft accidents due to poor training:

Asiana 214: Caused by pilot error, the aircraft was too low and too slow, causing it to collide with the sea-wall. The inexperienced co-pilot was piloting but the captain didn't make any corrections despite the fact they were way below the glide slope. 

AirAsia 8501: Reports indicate that the pilots where trying to out climb a series of cumulonimbus clouds, considering those clouds can stretch up to 40km into the sky its a very big mistake. 

Transasia 235: It is a brand new aircraft, it's ten months old, a mechanical error is very unlikely.

 

Sir/ Ma'am, I spend a lot of time involved with aviation, enough to come up with a likely hypothesis and be able to support my belief. Don't treat me like some kid from the YouTube comment section, because I do my research and have enough knowledge to know what I'm talking about. I read plenty of articles from many sources discusses commercial and military aviation, so it's not the case of me just watching "Air Crash Investigation" and being an "expert in that field.

 

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I hate pilot error being the culprit. It's very sad to know that a pilot doomed his/her own aircraft and that all the relatives of the deceased will blame the pilot.

 

Heres an article which discusses how the growth of aviation in asia poses a threat to safety:

http://airinsight.com/2014/12/31/concern-asian-air-traffic-growth-future-safety/#.VNNF_kIjj8s 

 

Regards

 

Out of those three incidents you listed only one of them has a complete investigation. The storm clouds that AirAsia flight ran into could also extend horizontally. So would you say it would have been a mistake to try and fly around them too? The fact the aircraft is only ten months old doesn't rule out the possibility of mechanical failure. The DC-10 and 737s both had issues when they were first introduced and on most of these aircraft there have been faults found in aircraft later in its production life that hadn't been discovered before. Just because an aircraft is brand new and has been in production for a certain amount of time doesn't mean it is exempt from new mechanical errors.

 

I also spend a lot of time involved with aviation but that doesn't mean I can come up with a hypothesis based on no evidence. The "evidence" you are claiming to have is all based off of incidents from separate airlines, separate aircraft, and separate countries (Asiana 214 didn't even occur on the same continent). These airlines aren't even from the same countries; Asiana is from South Korea, AirAsia is from Indonesia, and TransAsia is from Taiwan. The only thing these incidents have in common is that the airlines were based in the same region of the world.

 

Here is an article saying the pilots had radioed a distress call saying they had an engine flameout. There were three people in the cockpit with about 28,000 combined flight hours.

http://avherald.com/h?article=48145bb3&opt=0

Out of those three incidents you listed only one of them has a complete investigation. The storm clouds that AirAsia flight ran into could also extend horizontally. So would you say it would have been a mistake to try and fly around them too? The fact the aircraft is only ten months old doesn't rule out the possibility of mechanical failure. The DC-10 and 737s both had issues when they were first introduced and on most of these aircraft there have been faults found in aircraft later in its production life that hadn't been discovered before. Just because an aircraft is brand new and has been in production for a certain amount of time doesn't mean it is exempt from new mechanical errors.

 

I also spend a lot of time involved with aviation but that doesn't mean I can come up with a hypothesis based on no evidence. The "evidence" you are claiming to have is all based off of incidents from separate airlines, separate aircraft, and separate countries (Asiana 214 didn't even occur on the same continent). These airlines aren't even from the same countries; Asiana is from South Korea, AirAsia is from Indonesia, and TransAsia is from Taiwan. The only thing these incidents have in common is that the airlines were based in the same region of the world.

 

Here is an article saying the pilots had radioed a distress call saying they had an engine flameout. There were three people in the cockpit with about 28,000 combined flight hours.

http://avherald.com/h?article=48145bb3&opt=0

 

The DC-10 and 737 were extraordinary cases, highly unlikely that it's going to be a similar sort of fatal design which brought down the ATR, I mean its a possibility but seems like such a minute chance. 

The fact that they've taken place with different airlines and different aircraft doesn't mean too much. The three airlines are relatively new airlines which may indicate that they are recruiting their pilots but aren't up to the same safety standards or experience levels as older airlines. Just because it didn't occur on the Asian continent doesn't change anything, its not like the crew and training suddenly change when they fly over another continent, the training remains the same.

 

Again, the whole Asian CONTINENT is experiencing a large boom in aviation, they're doing very well economically, as such they've seen a growth in regional and international airlines, and to meet that demand they've had to recruit a large amount of pilots, which may not meet the same safety standards as European or North American standards. 

We're talking about the B777 here, not having suffered any major incident (bar SpeedBird 38 which was a fault with the RR engines) suddenly brought down due to pilot error, and the disappearance of Malaysia 370, no one knows what's happened to that aircraft so nothing can be said of course. 

ATR-72 three crashes in the Asian continent, Lao attributed to pilot error, TransAsia 222 still under investigation, but authorities are questioning why the pilots proceeded to fly through such poor weather. And finally this TransAsia aircraft, we'll see what the investigation will produce.

 

The two pilots in the Asiana aircraft had 22,000 hours combined, means nothing. It turned out the PF only had 33 hours of flying the 777 as PIC, whereas the Captain had 9000 hours as PIC. With regards to their 28,000 flight hours it may have been an inexperienced pilot, or possibly the aircraft was new to them, something that they've had little flying time with. 

 

It may be, that I see this pattern of accidents in Asia, and I'm jumping to the wrong conclusion. Thats always possible, and whilst you choose not to come up with a hypothesis, I do, I use evidence which I come across, it may not be evidence to you but it sure as hell depicts a picture for me, such rapid growth may mean compromising safety standards, thats the underlying cause of these accidents. The pilots face situations which they're unfamiliar with, such as bad weather, and make errors which cause loss of life. 

 

And yes, I was aware of the engine flameout report, I heard about that but it said it was unconfirmed. Still, a single engine flame-out on a multi-engine aircraft doesn't bring it down. Truth be told this debate can continue endlessly, my opinion isn't groundless as you make it out to be. We shall see with the emergence of new evidence and with the final investigation. 

The DC-10 and 737 were extraordinary cases, highly unlikely that it's going to be a similar sort of fatal design which brought down the ATR, I mean its a possibility but seems like such a minute chance. 

The fact that they've taken place with different airlines and different aircraft doesn't mean too much. The three airlines are relatively new airlines which may indicate that they are recruiting their pilots but aren't up to the same safety standards or experience levels as older airlines. Just because it didn't occur on the Asian continent doesn't change anything, its not like the crew and training suddenly change when they fly over another continent, the training remains the same.

 

Again, the whole Asian CONTINENT is experiencing a large boom in aviation, they're doing very well economically, as such they've seen a growth in regional and international airlines, and to meet that demand they've had to recruit a large amount of pilots, which may not meet the same safety standards as European or North American standards. 

We're talking about the B777 here, not having suffered any major incident (bar SpeedBird 38 which was a fault with the RR engines) suddenly brought down due to pilot error, and the disappearance of Malaysia 370, no one knows what's happened to that aircraft so nothing can be said of course. 

ATR-72 three crashes in the Asian continent, Lao attributed to pilot error, TransAsia 222 still under investigation, but authorities are questioning why the pilots proceeded to fly through such poor weather. And finally this TransAsia aircraft, we'll see what the investigation will produce.

 

The two pilots in the Asiana aircraft had 22,000 hours combined, means nothing. It turned out the PF only had 33 hours of flying the 777 as PIC, whereas the Captain had 9000 hours as PIC. With regards to their 28,000 flight hours it may have been an inexperienced pilot, or possibly the aircraft was new to them, something that they've had little flying time with. 

 

It may be, that I see this pattern of accidents in Asia, and I'm jumping to the wrong conclusion. Thats always possible, and whilst you choose not to come up with a hypothesis, I do, I use evidence which I come across, it may not be evidence to you but it sure as hell depicts a picture for me, such rapid growth may mean compromising safety standards, thats the underlying cause of these accidents. The pilots face situations which they're unfamiliar with, such as bad weather, and make errors which cause loss of life. 

 

And yes, I was aware of the engine flameout report, I heard about that but it said it was unconfirmed. Still, a single engine flame-out on a multi-engine aircraft doesn't bring it down. Truth be told this debate can continue endlessly, my opinion isn't groundless as you make it out to be. We shall see with the emergence of new evidence and with the final investigation. 

 

I know changing continents doesn't change the crew or training, my point being that you are putting pieces together that aren't there. None of those incidents you listed have anything in common. Yes, Asia is seeing a rapid growth in air travel and it is possible that to meet demands they are not training pilots the correct way but to say "well I'm going to assume its pilot error" because of a bunch of other well publicized crashes in that region within 24 hours of the incident with next to no reports coming out of it is premature to say the least. Half of those incidents that you are basing your pattern off of aren't even fully investigated yet. You can't really put together a pattern when the information isn't there yet.

I know changing continents doesn't change the crew or training, my point being that you are putting pieces together that aren't there. None of those incidents you listed have anything in common. Yes, Asia is seeing a rapid growth in air travel and it is possible that to meet demands they are not training pilots the correct way but to say "well I'm going to assume its pilot error" because of a bunch of other well publicized crashes in that region within 24 hours of the incident with next to no reports coming out of it is premature to say the least. Half of those incidents that you are basing your pattern off of aren't even fully investigated yet. You can't really put together a pattern when the information isn't there yet.

I understand your point, I know a lot of them haven't been investigated yet, thats true. However these airlines have only started emerging just recently, the accidents which I have are so recent, spanning from 2012 to now, the NTSB was able to complete their Asiana investigation much sooner due to the size of the organisation compared to the Asian counterparts. That's something I cannot help, I base my theory, because it is just a theory of course, on the reports and articles which do depict the actions of a pilot. To me it seems remarkably strange for an aircraft, especially as new as that particular ATR to drop out of the sky in such a horrendous way, without it being attributable to pilot error. It, to me, seems to follow a trend. ]

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 10:51Z, in the initial climb the aircraft was handed off to departure at 10:52:33Z. At 10:52:38Z at about 1200 feet MSL, 37 seconds after becoming airborne, a master warning activated related to the failure of the right hand engine, at 10:52:43Z the left hand engine was throttled back and at 10:53:00Z the crew began to discuss engine #1 had stalled. At 10:53:06Z the right hand engine (engine #2) auto-feathered. At 10:53:12Z a first stall warning occured and ceased at 10:53:18Z. At 10:53:19Z 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 10:53:34Z the crew radioed "Mayday! Mayday! Engine flame out!", multiple attempts to restart the engines followed to no avail. At 10:54:34Z a second master warning activated, 0.4 seconds later both recorders stopped recording.

 

Exactly my point, like the BMI crash, pilot error, shut down the wrong engine. 

Edited February 6, 201511 yr by SeaHawk14