China Airlines 747 Down
Jack
sea with 200 souls aboard, has anyone got more info ?
Hans Huber
Missing plane confirmed crashed
A China Airlines jet has crashed into the sea en route from Taiwan to Hong
Kong.
As dusk falls, life vests and an oil slick are being seen from spotter
planes in waters off the Taiwan-held island of Penghu, also known as the
Pescadores.
"It disappeared from the radar," airport spokesman Wei Sheng-chih told
Reuters by telephone.
The plane took off at 3:11pm (5:11pm AEST) and disappeared off radar screens
19 minutes later.
Local television reports Taiwanese Prime Minister Yu Shyi-kun has confirmed
the plane has crashed into the sea.
Officials say flight CI 611 was carrying more than 200 passengers, including
three infants, and 19 crew.
"The cabinet has formed an emergency team to deal with the situation,"
cabinet spokesman Chuang Suo-han told reporters.
In the last major crash in Taiwan, a Singapore Airlines plane crashed at
Taipei airport in October 2000, killing 83 of the 179 people on board.
"Jack" <j...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3cef...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
William Liao
the
> sea with 200 souls aboard, has anyone got more info ?
>
>
(which China Airlines is a national carrier of) and has been watching the
latest updates on the news over there.
It's a Boeing 747-200, 22.8 years old. They were going to retire it next
month and sell it to Thailand, guess the resale value just went down...
Oh and there's 226 souls on board. It apparently just disappeared off the
radar, no mayday calls or anything.
Will
William Liao
Boeing 747-200, registration B-18255
Total flying hours : 64810
Total no. of landings : 21398
206 passengers on board, plus 19 crew members, total of 225 souls.
This was to be the aircraft's last revenue flight with China Airlines before
it's sold.
Will
tin can jockey
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/218727/M/
Andrew.
"William Liao" <fox...@innocent.com> wrote in message
news:7TNH8.176199$o66.5...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
JollyGreenGiant
seems CA has a major problem if planes crash nearly month
matt weber
wrote:
I think that makes 4 747's that CI has destroyed in the past 15 years
or so. They are leaders. No doubt encouraged by the fact that most of
the aircraft they have destroyed were probably insured for more than
they were worth. It's actually part of their fleet renewal program....
In spite of that remarkable record, you are probably still more likely
to be killed crossing the street then flying CI...
JollyGreenGiant
--
It is easier to get older than it is to get wiser.
Co-ListMum, "Soap Naturally"
<http://www.soapnaturally.org/
Aussie made Molds for sale
http://www.dianesnaturally.com
Ruley
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/World/story_32348.asp - the plane had been sold
for US$1.45m (AU$2.61 million).....
Now, although I wouldn't even be able to afford the most basic of Cessna's
(!!), this sounds very cheap for an old 747.... or is this what they are
worth??
"William Liao" <fox...@innocent.com> wrote in message
news:UnNH8.176017$o66.5...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
matt weber
>According to NineMSN news -
>http://news.ninemsn.com.au/World/story_32348.asp - the plane had been sold
>for US$1.45m (AU$2.61 million).....
>
>Now, although I wouldn't even be able to afford the most basic of Cessna's
>(!!), this sounds very cheap for an old 747.... or is this what they are
>worth??
My guess is the aircraft is very close to needing a D check, which
costs literally millions, and there is no shortage of available PW
powered 747-200's parked at Marana or Mohave.
No doubt CI moved all of the Unservicable bits they could find onto
the aircraft, as this was to be it's last flight in CI service. You
can't help but wonder if perhaps that's why it went down. Somebody
wasn't careful enough installing some of the bits...
David Bromage
tank, terrorist bomb and other conspiracy theories to circulate.
Cheers
David
matt weber
wrote:
Neither are overly likely. The center tank is indeed empty, for that
matter so are the other tanks. Thumbnail calculation puts the maximum
fuel load at less then 10,000 gallons (tanks hold about 52,000
gallons).
Big problem however is that the partial pressure of oxygen is so low
at 35,000 feet, that unless someone found a way to plug the tank
vents, the fuel vapor mixture is far to rich to even ignite, let alone
explode.
As for missiles, well you have to launch air to air from somewhere,
and there wasn't anything in the neighborhood. Air to Air missiles
tend to be rather small (A sidewinder is only about 85kg), they go for
the engines, and on a 747, while it will probably bring down the
aircraft, it doesn't do so instantly. At 35,000 feet you are well and
truly far beyond the range of shoulder launched missiles.
That leaves a surface launched missile,which is possible, but those
things are big, and have huge visible and IR plumes (most weigh
upwards of 700kg). It is unlikely one could be launched and no one
would notice it, in fact those things are big enough that an air
defense radar is likely to see it.
Fortunately the big surface launched missiles leave unmistakable signs
of their use (The explosive war head is surrounded by steel balls, the
effect is like firing an HMG inside the aircraft. It leaves circular
holes and dents all over the place, and quite a few of the balls. In
fact that is how the Russian knews the aircraft had been shot down
with a missile last year. They found the tell tale signs including
some of the steel balls in the wreckage.
My own supsicion is that since this was the last revenue flight (I
suspect the aircraft was to be turned over to the new owners at HKG),
CAL probably took the opportunity to move most of their 'suspect'
spares inventory into the aircraft, just as QF swapped some parts on
the SP's before ferrying them to Marana.
And either part of the installation was botched, or some of the spares
were more than merely suspect...
Time will tell however...
Couple that with penchant for making some not so smart decisions in
the cockpit and you have a recipe for disaster. CAL has had 3 serious
747 accidents resulting from very poor operating procedures.
R.Morgan
back at
crusing altitude and spiral dived to 14,500 ft.??
R.Morgan
matt weber wrote:
I will risk crossing the street, at least you can see whats comming.
At 35,000 chances of survival are zero
Wee Duncan
> Oh dear. Didn't take long for the stray missile, exploding centre
> tank, terrorist bomb and other conspiracy theories to circulate.
>
Accident Team which looked after TWA800 SR111 etc
JollyGreenGiant
accidentally shot down a pax jet last yr .. it can happen...
--
RT
Craig Welch <cr...@pacific.net.sg> wrote in message
news:e9l6fugaaag2ur09j...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 28 May 2002 17:01:33 +1000, "R.Morgan" <rmo...@hothere.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Was this the same Airline that had one of its 747SP's roll over onto its
> >back at
> >crusing altitude and spiral dived to 14,500 ft.??
>
> astonishing airmanship in correcting it.
>
> I believe he also posts below the attributed text, in accordance
> with accepted Usenet practice.
Got concise details, Craig? (About the 747SP, not top/bottom posting)
Trevor Fenn
<a2654ca.02052...@posting.google.com>:
And just how many major accident teams do you think there are?
--
Trevor Fenn
To Email me add an extra green to the address above.
"Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just"
The Star Spangled Banner
Francis Scott Key
matt weber
wrote:
>Was this the same Airline that had one of its 747SP's roll over onto its
>back at
>crusing altitude and spiral dived to 14,500 ft.??
Yes, also the one that ran a 747-400 off the end of the runway at Hong
Kong in bad weather, and also the one that wrote one off at Manila
while attempting a 3 engine takeoff.
Also the one crashed an A300 at Nagoya because the pilot and the
autopilot were having an argument. I think they have lost two more
Airbuses since then.
Also the one that crashed an MD11 at Hong Kong in bad weather...
Selling widebodies to CAL is good business....
Writing insurance for CAL is bad business......
matt weber
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001214X35672&key=1
is the NTSB summary...
"The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable
cause(s) of this accident/incident as follows.
FLIGHT/NAVIGATION INSTRUMENT(S)..INATTENTIVE..PILOT IN COMMAND
DIVERTED ATTENTION..PILOT IN COMMAND
AIRSPEED..NOT MAINTAINED..PILOT IN COMMAND
FLIGHT CONTROLS..IMPROPER USE OF..PILOT IN COMMAND
AIRCRAFT HANDLING..NOT MAINTAINED..PILOT IN COMMAND
DESIGN STRESS LIMITS OF AIRCRAFT..EXCEEDED..PILOT IN COMMAND"
Do you see a problem here?
Wee Duncan
> duncan...@hotmail.com (Wee Duncan) wrote in
> <a2654ca.02052...@posting.google.com>:
>
> >dbro...@omni.com.au (David Bromage) wrote in message
> >news:<ca7386a3.02052...@posting.google.com>...
> >> Oh dear. Didn't take long for the stray missile, exploding centre
> >> tank, terrorist bomb and other conspiracy theories to circulate.
> >>
> >Not too surprising considering the US have sent the same NTSB Major
> >Accident Team which looked after TWA800 SR111 etc
>
> And just how many major accident teams do you think there are?
There can be several actually - structured and resourced according to
the circumstances of individual accidents.
You appear to be unaware of this?
Or if not, was there some contribution you were attempting to make?
Paul Saccani
wrote:
>I no longer have the full reference, but here's a synopsis:
>
>"A China Air B747, flying on autopilot high over the Pacific,
>suffered an engine failure, followed by loss of control, and entered
>an inverted spin at about 40,000 ft.
Stagnation, due to high altitude. 41,000 feet. Engine did not
fail. Autopilot in track following mode corrected the course with
rudder, whilst the pilot maintained bearing with aileron. When the
autopilot disconnected, the aileron caused the roll which led to loss
of control. (or the other way around, I can't remember which had
which axis for sure).
>After experienced +6 to -4G on the way down, it was recovered at
>9,000 ft and flown carefully to SFO in a mildly damaged state.
>
>Pilot judgement was faulty in three main respects (and excellent in
>one - recovering quickly from the spin when it was possible!).
>
>The major misjudgement was operating the aircraft at an altitude at
>which an engine loss would not enable the airplane to continue
>flying straight-and-level above stall speed - immediate nose-down
>was essential for recovery.
I'd dispute that. But descent to a lower altitude was necessary to
take the engine out of stagnation parameters. (Maximum possible fuel
flow can't increase thrust/RPM, similar to a botched start, descent
allows more O2, thus allowing increase RPM. Minimum RPM to avoid
stagnation increases with altitude. (n1, n2 deliberately avoided))
> The autopilot was not designed to
>operate in those conditions, and gave different control inputs which
>caused the aircraft to enter the inverted spin. The pilots took some
>time to determine what was happening. "
Nope, it was the interaction between the autopilot and the handling
pilot, who were using different axis of control at cross purposes.
cheers,
Paul Saccani
Perth West Australia
Paul Saccani
wrote:
>Paul Saccani <traptinne...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>news:e6t8fukrvtfte3abt...@4ax.com:
>> Nope, it was the interaction between the autopilot and the handling
>> pilot, who were using different axis of control at cross purposes.
>
> Did the autopilot not throw in the towel, or did the handling
>pilot get involved before things were sufficiently unstuck for
>that to happen and not disable autopilot?
The autopilot and pilot were acting in opposite directions.
IIRC, it all went pear shaped when the A/P was selected to disengage.
R.Morgan
breach wrote:
> duncan...@hotmail.com (Wee Duncan) wrote in
> news:a2654ca.02052...@posting.google.com:
> > You appear to be unaware of this?
>
> I'm sure that Trev is /fully/ aware of this. He is
> without a doubt eminently qualified to comment in
> comparison to the former poster.
>
> > Or if not, was there some contribution you were attempting to make?
>
> That too. He's likely indicating (a) that random and
> unjustifiably sensational guesswork of the type proffered
> by the former poster is neither valid nor beneficial
> to the investigation and is, by virtue of it's unfoundedness
> and invalidity, pre-judicial in the extreme and (b) that in
> his opinion, and that of all others, JGG is an unmitigated
> moron who would do well to swallow his tongue.
This is the best example of plagarism I have ever seen.
>
>
> breach
matt weber
wrote:
>Paul Saccani <traptinne...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>news:e6t8fukrvtfte3abt...@4ax.com:
>> Nope, it was the interaction between the autopilot and the handling
>> pilot, who were using different axis of control at cross purposes.
>
> Did the autopilot not throw in the towel, or did the handling
>pilot get involved before things were sufficiently unstuck for
>that to happen and not disable autopilot?
Actually the Pilot turned off the autopilot... If he had left the
autopilot engaged while he figured out what was really gone on (stuck
throttle) everything would have been fine...
And the engine actually wasn't in a stagnation stall. What had
actually happened was a common enough occurance that many airlines
fixed it by getting rid of the feature that was the root cause. JT9D
auto throttles were well known for their propensity to get stuck at
inopportune times. QF actually disabled them on the PW powered 747's.
Wee Duncan
have done just that and swallowed his tongue.
However since neither he or I had referred in the thread to JGG - AND
his response was clearly directed at my post then your admirable
attempt to fathom thought processes is clearly awry.
Let me rephrase it as simply as I can - Fenn was either demonstrating
his embarassing ignorance of NTSB processes or he was, as is his wont,
idly wasting bandwidth again.
Period.