Cx flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6713 posts, RR: 55
Reply 12, posted (11 years 9 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 5311 times:
The aircraft was only 5 months old, and could have been salvageable at a cost. Problem was the amount of time that it had spend in the water, and the fact that a very large part of the aircraft had been submerged, unlike the Air France 744 that partially went for a dip. The China Airlines had completely gone out to sea, and was nudged back towards the runway by a tug boat that happened to be near. This is why the aircraft is seen with it's nose to the runway.
The question of salvageability was answered when the tail was blown off to remove it from obstructing departing aircraft. I can't remember what happened exactly, but I believe they landed far down the runway, and accidentally deactivated the autobrakes at high speed. By the time they realised, it was too late and swimming they went!
Laddb From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 226 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (11 years 9 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 5253 times:
Those barge cranes have multiple ballast tanks. They just fill a ballast tank at the opposite end of the load and they can balance the load that way so the barge does not tip over. This one still looks like the bow is down a bit.
There are no anchors. It looks to me like she is underway. Notice the wake and the tug along the side and one out front.