Did Deception Sentence Passengers to Death?

GE235: Did Deception Sentence Passengers to Death?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
February 6, 2015

Executive Summary: The GE235 crash was a tragedy. The responsible agencies must must conduct a thorough investigation. The black box has left a record. Did the captain report an engine abnormality? Was his warning ignored? A thorough investigation must be conducted. Did someone violate procedure and cover this up, sentencing those onboard to death? The public deserves to know the truth.

Full Text Below: 

According to some TransAsia Airways pilots, just before GE235 crashed, Captain Liao Chien-chung made a round trip between Taipei and Kinmen. His entry in the flight log read, "One of the engines is acting up".  But the ground crew feared CAA fines for delayed flights. So they asked him to "Just make this flight, then we'll see”. Who knew they were handing those onboard death sentences? If this rumor is true, then TransAsia Airways' flight safety procedures and attitudes must be totally revamped.

Yesterday TransAsia Airways flatly denied the rumors. The CAA also said it has received no reports of any abnormalities. The facts should be easy to confirm. The possibilities are limited. One. Ground crews deliberately covered up the truth. Two. Someone doctored the flight logs. Three. The captain's report was verbal, not in writing. Four. Whistleblowers deliberately fabricated or distorted the facts. Flight safety officials and prosecutors can uncover the truth by interviewing the relevant personnel. would like to believe that if the engine really had a problem, Liao Chien-chung would not have been willing to re-enter the cockpit, and treat his own life and the lives of the passengers lightly.

In any event, the plane crashed primarily because the engine failed and was unable to gain altitude. This is an indisputable fact. In other words, whether Liao Chen-chung reported an abnormal condition that day or not, TransAsia Airways cannot deny that its plane experienced a mechanical failure. In fact, when TransAsia Airways purchased this brand new plane last April, it experienced an engine failure en route and was forced to land in Macau. A new engine had to be installed before it could fly on to Taipei. Were such twists of fate the result of hidden defects in the system? Were they blind spots that TransAsia Airways must acknowledge?

Twin-engined airliners are designed so that if they lose power in one engine, they can still climb well enough to return to the airport. This is Flight Simulation 101 for civil aviation pilots. Yet GE235 crashed right after take off. It lost altitude and speed until if finally crashed into the river. Therefore the plane must have experienced something even more serious than a single engine failure. This was either the result of a design defect, improper TransAsia Airways maintenance, or pilot error. All possibilities must be investigated. A review of flight safety records reveals, that on May 2, 2002, the TransAsia Airways flight GE515 ATR experienced a left engine failure when taking off from Sungshan Airport. When attempting to return to the airport, the pilot lost his bearings and flew all the way to the Qi Xing Mountain region. Only then did he discover his mistake and turn around. During this process, the aircraft issued five "stall warnings" and three "ground proximity warnings". It was a miracle that it was finally able to land safely. Last year's Makong Airport GE222 crash shocked the public. An investigation revealed that the pilot failed to see the runway before he dropped to a lower altitude. As a result, it was too late to climb back. These problems show that the ATR fleet desperately needs a thorough review of its flight or aircraft maintenance procedures. 

TransAsia Airways has been expanding in recent years. It has introduced new aircraft, opened new routes, and improved its service. Increased tourism within and without the island has reaped dazzling results. But flight safety for passengers is a basic requirement. It is the lifeblood of an airline. If a pilot reports that an engine is behaving abnormally, yet ground crews allow the plane to fly, what does that say about their attitude toward flight safety? If they endanger the lives of passengers merely to avoid a CAA fine, what does that say about their sense of responsibility?

On closer examination, the Kinmen route has become so popular in recent years mainly due to frequent cross-Strait exchanges. Many passengers transit through Kinmen. Of the 53 passengers on the ill-fated flight, 31 were Mainland tourists, far more than the number of local passengers. After massive rescue efforts, only three Mainland tourists were rescued. The remaining 20 or more are either dead or missing. TransAsia Airways owes its Kinmen route success to large numbers of Mainland tourists. Yet it is unable to ensure these tourists' safety. That is truly regrettable.

Advances in information technology have given the public unprecedented access to information. The plane crash was recorded by the dashcam of a passing car. The flight path of the plane before the accident can also be found on the Internet. But mistaken or false information can also be found on the Internet. For example, claims that the ATR was "a model even Mainland China no longer uses" are misleading. The ATR series debuted 30 years ago. Over one thousand planes have been produced. It remains the global short-range airliner sales champion. It does not meet most of Mainland China's needs. But that does not mean it is an "outdated" model. TransAsia Airlines ATR aircraft have experienced a series of accidents. They are used for transportation to Taiwan's outlying islands. Are its systems properly maintained? Are the company's attitude towards flight safety sufficiently rigorous? Those are the real questions.

This crash was a tragedy. The responsible agencies must must conduct a thorough investigation. The black box has left a record. Did the captain report an engine abnormality? Was his warning ignored? A thorough investigation must be conducted. Did someone violate procedure and cover this up, sentencing those onboard to death? The public deserves to know the truth.

誰在欺上瞞下，讓班機飛向死亡之路？
2015-02-06 02:30:55 聯合報 社論

據復興航空機師爆料，失事班機墜毀前，

機長廖建宗當天上午已完成一趟台北／金門的往返勤務，並在飛航登錄表上留下「引擎有異狀」的報告；但地勤人員唯恐班機誤點遭民航局罰款，要求他「先飛完這班再說」，不料竟使該機飛上死亡之路。如果此一傳言屬實，復航的飛安管理制度和心態都要打掉重練。

復興航空昨天鄭重否認這項傳聞，民航局也聲稱並未接獲任何異狀報告。此事的真相如何，其實並不難查證，其間可能的情況諸如：地勤人員或者故意隱瞞實情，或者在飛航登錄表動了手腳，或者機長報告的狀況僅屬口頭等，或者爆料者故意捏造或扭曲事實。這些，飛安人員及檢方都不難透過約談與行政稽核來抽絲剝繭，發現真相。我們寧可相信，如果引擎問題真的很嚴重，廖建宗應該不會願意再進入駕駛艙，拿自己和乘客的性命開玩笑。

但無論如何，這架班機之所以失事，主要是引擎雙雙故障而失去爬升動力，這點已是無可爭辯的事實。亦即，不論廖建宗當天有否簽報異常狀況，復航都無法迴避機件失靈的問題。事實上，復航去年四月購入這架新機時，途中即因引擎故障而必須臨時轉降澳門，換上新的引擎，才飛回台北；這樣的轉折與變故，是否潛藏系統接合失靈的死角，也是復航必須坦誠檢視的盲點。

依民航機的設計，雙引擎飛機如果失去一具發動機動力，應仍可維持基本爬升，足以飛回機場降落，這是民航機師模擬機測考最基本的科目。然而，失事的GE235班機卻在短短時間內一路喪失高度、速度，直至墜河；因此，該機是發生了比單發動機失靈更嚴重的故障，這是原廠設計的瑕疵或復航維修不當，或是機師操作的問題，都需要進一步追查。

追溯飛安會紀錄可發現，民國一○一年五月二日，復興航空一架GE515航班的ＡＴＲ客機，也是在松山機場起飛後左發動機故障，待要重新進場時居然迷失位置，一路飛進七星山區，最後才緊急掉頭飛出。其間，飛機發出五次「失速警告」、三次「地面接近警告」，最後仍能安然降落，實屬天幸。再看去年震驚各界的GE222馬公空難，調查發現，機師尚未目視跑道，就已下降至過低的高度，導致最後要重飛已經來不及。就這些現象來看，復航的ＡＴＲ機隊在航務或機務上，顯然都有檢討、整頓的必要。

復興航空近年銳意擴展，引進新機、開闢航線、提升服務，搭配島內外觀光市場成長的大環境，在營運上有亮眼的成績。然而，飛安終究是旅客搭機最基本的要求，也是航空公司安身立命的根本。如果機師提出引擎有異狀的報告，地勤人員卻依然任意放行，這種心態，把飛安置於何地？而如果只是為了規避民航局的些許罰款，卻把大批旅客的生命送上險途，這又是多麼不負責任的經營態度？

進一步看，金門航線近年之所以變得如此熱絡，主要是拜兩岸交流頻繁之賜，許多旅客透過金門中轉往來兩岸。這次失事班機上，五十三名旅客中，即有卅一人是大陸旅客，遠超過本地乘客人數；但經過大規模救援，迄今僅有三名陸客獲救，其餘廿多人均在死亡及失蹤名單。亦即，復興航空靠著大量陸客建立起金門航線的營運規模，卻無法以一絲不茍的精神保障旅客往返離島的安全，委實令人遺憾。

這次空難，由於資訊科技的進步，民眾第一時間可以掌握的資訊相當豐富，墜機畫面被路過汽車的行車紀錄器拍下，班機失事前的航跡、通話資訊也可在網路上查到。然而，網路上誤判或信口開河的訊息也不少，例如宣稱ＡＴＲ是「連中國都淘汰的落伍機種」，即有誤導之嫌。ＡＴＲ系列問世卅年，總產量超過一千架，是全球短程區間客機的銷售冠軍；它雖不符合幅員遼闊的中國大陸之需，卻絕非「落伍」機種。復航的ＡＴＲ機種之所以接連出事，除了多用於台灣離島運輸，其維修保養制度是否得宜，以及內部對飛安控管的態度夠不夠嚴謹，才是更重要的關鍵所在。

對於這場不幸的空難，我們呼籲相關部門必須深入徹查。除了解讀黑盒子留下的訊息，對於機長通報「異常」卻遭地勤隱匿的傳聞也應仔細過濾，並徹查是否有人欺上瞞下違反作業標準，讓金門班機飛向死亡之路，務必誠實把真相公諸社會。