Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

TransAsia airplane crashes in Taipei (ATR 72)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
    Ok, so this is not specific of the ATR-72-RQZ MK4 V 2.0.1.204 QRH FCOM 2nd eddition. But it could have saved a bunch of lives.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVcuDHvtcMQ
    Here's one example of why this is not a universal procedure for any twinprop:
    An issue with the P-38 arose from its unique design feature of outwardly rotating (at the "tops" of the propeller arcs) counter-rotating propellers. Losing one of two engines in any twin-engine non-centerline thrust aircraft on takeoff creates sudden drag, yawing the nose toward the dead engine and rolling the wingtip down on the side of the dead engine. Normal training in flying twin-engine aircraft when losing an engine on takeoff would be to push the remaining engine to full throttle to maintain airspeed; if a pilot did that in the P-38, regardless of which engine had failed, the resulting engine torque and p-factor force produced a sudden uncontrollable yawing roll and the aircraft would flip over and hit the ground. Eventually, procedures were taught to allow a pilot to deal with the situation by reducing power on the running engine, feathering the prop on the dead engine, and then increasing power gradually until the aircraft was in stable flight.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Evan View Post
      Here's one example of why this is not a universal procedure for any twinprop:[INDENT]An issue with the P-38 arose from its unique design feature of outwardly rotating (at the "tops" of the propeller arcs) counter-rotating propellers.
      Yes, I've heard that the Wright Flyer was another twinprop with a particular procedure.

      The procedure shown by King applies after Vmc, and works in the P-38 too (by definition of Vmc). In ANY airplane with 2 or more engines of any kind, if the critical engine fails below Vmc you have to reduce power in at least some of the remaining engines. That includes the P-38.

      --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
      --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
        Yes, I've heard that the Wright Flyer was another twinprop with a particular procedure.

        The procedure shown by King applies after Vmc, and works in the P-38 too (by definition of Vmc). In ANY airplane with 2 or more engines of any kind, if the critical engine fails below Vmc you have to reduce power in at least some of the remaining engines. That includes the P-38.
        Understood. Above and below Vmca there is a consistent procedure.

        But I take this to mean that the P-38, not having a critical engine (both producing maximum adverse effect) combined with the enormous torque of the unusual outward-rotating engines results in a much higher than normal Vmca (around 120kts*) than expected from a pilot accustomed to conventional twins**. So that a pilot not type-rated might apply the above-Vmca procedure for engine failure too early or below the safe single-engine airspeed (and there is no reduction in Vmca here for a non-critical engine).

        Apparently that's what happened here:
        Jeff Ethell's series of pilot reports on various warbirds earned the noted author and aviation historian wide acclaim during his career. Ironically, he died on June 6, 1997 when the newly-restored P-38L he was flying spun and crashed near Tillamook, Ore. The NTSB's final report on the crash teaches a hard lesson about learning an unfamiliar aircraft's systems.


        (because the P-38 is a 'limited' rather than 'experimental' class aircraft, a type-rating is required)

        So I have to clarify my point as being about the importance of on-type training.

        Keeping in mind of course that this crash had nothing to do with controllability before the stall.

        *(I believe this might exceed the current FAA requirement for Vmca within 1.2 times Vs.)
        ** For comparison, the aircraft in that video, a Beechcraft Duchess, has a Vmca of 65kts and an approach speed around 95kts.

        Comment


        • #79
          Evan's World:

          1) Procedure for UAS in A330
          2) Procedure for engine out in a ATR-72
          3) Procedure for encountering severe downdraft in a 737-200
          4) Procedure for encountering severe downdraft in a 737-236A
          5) Procedure for landing a 777 with autothrottles
          6) Procedure for engine out in a Duchess
          7) Procedure for engine out in a P-38

          Most everyone else's world:

          1) Procedure for UAS in A330 based on fundamentals with specifics.
          2) Procedure for engine failure in a ATR-72 based on fundamentals with specifics.
          3) Procedure for encountering severe downdraft in a 737-200 based on fundamentals with specifics.
          4) Procedure for encountering severe downdraft in a 737-236A based on fundamentals with specifics.
          5) Procedure for landing a 777 with autothrottles based on fundamentals with specifics.
          6) Procedure for engine out in a Duchess based on fundamentals based on fundamentals with specifics.
          7) Procedure for engine out in a P-38 which deviates from the fundamentals in this specific way.

          Questions:

          1) Do people forget stuff?

          2) Would remembering stuff you learned flying a 150 that's applicable to an A330 and 777 be helpful when "the startle factor" kicks in- or do we untrain them?

          3) Would someone work extra hard to remember the red font above (even if it wasn't red font)?

          4) Which world do you think the AF pilots lived in?
          Les rčgles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

          Comment


          • #80
            Instructors work very hard at breaking the students reaction to pull back on the stick to stall.

            During my first power lesson the instructor took his hands off and let me take it, sat back and watched. As we climbed past 5,000 feet he finally said "Just where the heck are you going" ... I just said ... High enough where if I f' up I just may figure it out".

            It's innate to pull back and get high and away from the ground. This should stay with you but, when I went back after a few breaks, it all goes out the window.
            Live, from a grassy knoll somewhere near you.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by 3WE View Post
              ....[Various trolling commentary]
              Evan's World:

              1) All procedure based on fundamentals with specifics, the latter of which can be quite different from one type to another.
              2) All procedures based on CRM in a two-pilot cockpit.

              Questions:

              1) Is there more than one pilot in a commercial airline cockpit? Or is it like a big Cessna?
              2) Should we instill cross-check procedures in those pilots to overcome individual human factors like shock, stress, fatigue and forgetfullness?
              3) Should we call this 'Crew Resource Management'?

              Comment


              • #82
                Meanwhile, on topic...
                Some 29 pilots working for Taiwanese airline TransAsia have been suspended after failing or missing safety tests, a week after a fatal crash.
                The airline said the results were not acceptable and promised to improve the training of its pilots.

                The aviation regulator said on Wednesday that out of 68 pilots, 10 failed oral proficiency tests designed to show how they would handle an emergency.
                http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-31404500

                Comment


                • #83
                  means nothing. the airline is working hard to create a facade of safety where perhaps one didn't exist before. the pilots didn't become incompetent overnight or over the last few days.

                  oh and all you commercial pilots out there jump in any time...

                  very few pilots pass every test every time. or more exactly, not every pilot will figure her/his way out of every simulated emergency all the time

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by guamainiac View Post
                    It's innate to pull back and get high and away from the ground.
                    Of course not! Flying is not innate!

                    If you feel it "natural" to pull up or "counterintuitive" to relieve back pressure upon an approach to stall or stall, then you just have acquired bad habits.




                    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Gabriel, innate means it is a natural tendency or one that does not rise from the intellect or learned behavior. 99 out of 100 students will have the urge to pull the stick back in a stall.

                      Read that carefully. As an instructor I'm sure you keep a firm hand at ready and have had to use it when teaching introduction to stalls.

                      Do you introduce it by luring the student into a stall with a series of turns and power reductions?

                      Think back to the time before they have acquired any habits. That was my point exactly. When you say they have acquired bad habits in relation to the AF debacle, what you are saying is that they have somehow picked this up or "learned it" somehow. My point would be that you need to practice proper recovery enough where it becomes rote behavior and the stall initiates the reaction to go nose down. Being in a sim or having a check pilot looking over your shoulder probably puts them at ready but an average or (certain percentage), of pilots will revert at times of boredom or fatigue or panic. The learned portion of stall recovery has degraded.
                      Live, from a grassy knoll somewhere near you.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by guamainiac View Post
                        Read that carefully. As an instructor I'm sure you keep a firm hand at ready and have had to use it when teaching introduction to stalls.
                        Yes, Gabriel, what IS the instruction procedure out there at Sweet Monkey River?

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Evan's World:
                          1) With sufficient training, practice, and written procedures, humans can be made to act like machines which in absolutely any circumstance will quickly and flawlessly execute the best possible course of action 100.0% of the time. This is true regardless of whether said humans are acting individually or as part of a team.

                          Real World:
                          NOT!
                          Be alert! America needs more lerts.

                          Eric Law

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by elaw View Post
                            Evan's World:
                            1) With sufficient training, practice, and written procedures, humans can be made to act like machines which in absolutely any circumstance will quickly and flawlessly execute the best possible course of action 100.0% of the time. This is true regardless of whether said humans are acting individually or as part of a team.

                            Real World:
                            NOT!
                            Brian, is there no end to this? You try to explain your opinions on this forum and then are besieged by morons why recast them into something moronic, far removed from anything you've actually said.

                            I like a good debate, with facts and logic. I'm here to learn a few things in the process. I think Gabriel is someone who understands that (I miss MCM) but then there is another element here that is basically just schoolyard mentality, thowing their feces at each other....

                            Is it even possible to moderate an internet forum? Or is this just what happens when you give something with great social potential to a mass of idiots?

                            Anything you can do to keep the thing on topic and free from personal attacks would be much appreciated. (And then please delete this post).

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
                              means nothing. the airline is working hard to create a facade of safety where perhaps one didn't exist before. the pilots didn't become incompetent overnight or over the last few days.
                              Except this is the 4th TranAsia ATR-72 to go down. Look back at the previous three and you seem to get a pattern of poor piloting and a stress by the airline to fly in conditions others would not. A really fatal combination.

                              So those statistics don't surprise me. What does surprise me is that the local CAA hasn't apparently gone through the operation of this airline with a fine tooth-comb and discovered these issues beforehand. How many warning signals do they need?

                              This time it could have been pure bad luck. But I would bet the farm it was more likely to be a systemic failure by the airline in not having pilots who can get out of a jam and, more importantly, not get into one in the first place. Whether by selection, training or management is the real question.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by guamainiac View Post
                                Gabriel, innate means it is a natural tendency or one that does not rise from the intellect or learned behavior.
                                in•nate /ɪˈneɪt/
                                adj.
                                existing from birth;
                                inborn;
                                native:
                                innate talents.
                                existing in the nature of something:
                                an innate defect in the hypothesis.
                                arising from the intellect rather than learned through experience:
                                an innate knowledge of good and evil.
                                But ok, I understand what you mean.

                                99 out of 100 students will have the urge to pull the stick back in a stall.
                                That's because 99 out of 100 students start to practice stalls before understanding what they are. I know because I was among them. That's not innate nothing. That's bed teaching: pull to raise the nose, push to lower the nose. We humans don't have a cue about how a plane is to be flown until we start LEARNING it somehow. Unlike walking or eating, the way the airplane controls are designed are pure convention. I can assure you that many people used to play video games and facing MSFS for the first time moved the joystick "up" (forward) to go up.

                                In short, it's not the pilots "innativity's" fault. it's the instructor fault. A student should have the correct impulse the first time he tries a stall.

                                Read that carefully. As an instructor I'm sure you keep a firm hand at ready and have had to use it when teaching introduction to stalls.
                                Yes, and the same for take-off, landing, steep turns, slow flight or any maneuver close to the envelope limits. The reason is easy: a student is likely to screw up at any time.

                                Do you introduce it by luring the student into a stall with a series of turns and power reductions?
                                Ask 3we about the "advanced maneuvering at the onset of the stall warning" training that we do at [our imaginary] Sweet Monkey River Flight School del Sur.

                                Think back to the time before they have acquired any habits. That was my point exactly. When you say they have acquired bad habits in relation to the AF debacle, what you are saying is that they have somehow picked this up or "learned it" somehow. My point would be that you need to practice proper recovery enough where it becomes rote behavior and the stall initiates the reaction to go nose down. Being in a sim or having a check pilot looking over your shoulder probably puts them at ready but an average or (certain percentage), of pilots will revert at times of boredom or fatigue or panic. The learned portion of stall recovery has degraded.
                                Yes, it must be learned, as anything else regarding flying.

                                But practice is not enough. The big lacking part of flight training, in general, is ground school. Pilots should have a deep understanding of aerodynamics and flight dynamics, not to the point to derive the Navier–Stokes equations or be able to calculate the period of the phugoid of a plane based on its mass distribution (that´s for engineers, not pilots), but yes the concepts. I have feel very confident that I could train a pilot that would have not only an intellectual but also a natural reaction to lower the nose the first time that he tries a stall. And I will still have my hands on the controls too.

                                And by the way, you are exaggerating. The first time that you practice an approach to stall (say in the second or third flight) you've just have tried flying at different speeds, know that you have to pull up to slow down and push down to speed up, have seen the instructor demonstrating the stall first (with your hands lightly placed on the controls to "follow" the instructor's actions) and have been pulling increasingly up (both in force and displacement) during the last several seconds to keep the nose from going down by itself as you've been bleeding off speed. I would say that 99% of the students lower the nose the very first time they try an approach to stall. And that's despite all the things mentioned above that can be improved.

                                The natural impulses in the airplane are not instincts. They are learned habits. The good ones and the bad ones.

                                --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                                --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X