Talk:TransAsia Airways Flight 235

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the TransAsia Airways Flight 235 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 10 days

A news item involving TransAsia Airways Flight 235 was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 4 February 2015.

Wikipedia

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on February 4, 2019, February 4, 2022, and February 4, 2023.

Aviation: Accidents

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the Aviation accident project.

Disaster management Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Taiwan Low‑importance

	Taiwan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taiwan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Taiwan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TaiwanWikipedia:WikiProject TaiwanTemplate:WikiProject TaiwanTaiwan articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

2010s

	2010s portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

"External video" box

The "External video" box (using the {{External media}} template) had unanimous de facto consensus when this article was initially developed. Those videos were seen as having enough reader value to warrant more prominence than they would have in External links.

The box was removed on 1 Nov 2015 in this edit. The removal was disputed in this edit, and that was reverted in this edit. As a disputed edit, the removal should have required consensus. But there were no edit summaries, let alone discussion, let alone discussion resulting in a consensus to remove the box. Therefore I am restoring the box and removing duplicate links from External links.

Future editors should consider removal of the box as a disputed edit (disputed by me) and gain consensus first. I would not consider agreement of a couple of editors as a large enough consensus to supersede the existing consensus. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:07, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The youtube video is no longer up Nbisbo (talk) 01:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Final report

The Aviation Herald reports that the final report (in Chinese) (summary in English) has been published. Mjroots (talk) 20:35, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done Taipei Times as source. Vycl1994 (talk) 06:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rounding times

According to the final report, the crash happened at 10:54:35, so should we show it as (a) 10:54, i.e. rounding down, (b) 10:55 rounding to the nearest minute, or (c) should we include the seconds as well? To me, (c) seems rather fussy and (a) would be so wrong if it were :59 seconds, so I have plumped for (b). Which is also consistent with the way the take-off time is dealt with (10:51:39, rounded to 10:52). 80.2.106.75 (talk) 12:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pilot error?

Was this crash due to pilot inexperience? Negligence? It seems that the plane was vertical. Any plane that turns after take off will go straight to the ground. Engines need a vacuum and vacuum lines do not start up within a quarter mile in a car. A lack of time for vacuum would create engine flameout. The gas is in the tail wing so that centrifugal force can be created for the gas in the Wings to take over via vacuum. An engine can't create a vacuum right away. Did the pilot simply turn the plane after takeoff? I think this was pilot error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mvdc1980 (talk • contribs) 12:26, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The cause was pilot error because if the crew had ignored the failed engine and done nothing other than staying-at, or pushing both throttles to, take-off power, it is likely the aircraft could have safely returned to the airport on the remaining engine without trouble.

With the auto-feathering of the failed engine's propeller there was no pressing need at such a critical stage in the flight to do anything other than gain height for a safe return to the airport. In the absence of any fire the crew could have safely ignored the failed engine operating both throttles normally until adequate height had been gained to allow time for diagnosing the problem. Providing the propeller has feathered and stopped rotating or is rotating only slowly, operating the dead engine's throttle in parallel with the good engine's throttle will have no serious ill-effects in the absence of fire.

When possible it is a good idea for a crew member to look out of the window to check visually for a failed engine rather than relying on instruments, otherwise mistakes such as this one are likely to occur. At low altitudes such initial mistakes may not be able to be corrected in the time available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.55.51 (talk) 08:52, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Engine replacements

I have editted the article to remove the sentence that both engines were replaced in April 2014 (i.e. 4 days after delivery). I can find no reference which suggests that. On the other hand, the accident report gives serial numbers, dates of manufacture, and dates of installation for both engines. Since the engines were recovered essentially intact, it is reasonable to assume the serial numbers in the accident report accurately reflect the engines installed on the airplane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:300:CA70:0:0:0:ED5A (talk) 01:03, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]