Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Looks Like A Repeat Of The JAL Accident, WHY?  
User currently offlineGearup From Canada, joined Dec 2000, 578 posts, RR: 1
Posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 8507 times:

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/nation.../2005/02/25/china-plane050225.html

A CBC news storey from CBC.ca . Looks like it's quite similar to the JAL 747D that went down with >500 pax after a failed pressure bulkhead caused the vertical tail to blow apart. (The repair was done with a single row of rivets instead of a double row). So sad. You have to wonder why, seeing as we know the cause of the JAL crash. The circumstances look remarkably similar, tail strike followed a few years later by structural failure. It would seem to be the 747's Achilles heal.

GU


I have no memory of this place.
18 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 8424 times:

It was a tail strike followed structural failure 22 years later. According to Airwise.com, China Airlines did not correctly repair the aircraft and relied soley on a doubler as the long term fix. I do not think this accident was the product of a shortcoming of B747 design.

http://news.airwise.com/story/view/1109327773.html

The JAL crash was the result of an improper repair by Boeing. Again rather than a design flaw, the crash was caused by botched work.


User currently offlineBennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7573 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 8407 times:

Yes, there are similarities although I think that it was the structure that failed this time, not the pressure bulkhead.

My only surprise is that I thought that I read about this in Flight International some time ago.


User currently offlineGearup From Canada, joined Dec 2000, 578 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 8373 times:

Sorry N79969, I did not mean to imply that the 747 has a design flaw but rather is vulnerable to such issues as this. It is such a shame that similer causes has caused the destruction of 2 aircraft with all souls on board.

GU



I have no memory of this place.
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 8349 times:

The only similarity that I'm aware of is the original tailstrike that started the accident chain.

Unless there's been a report out (that I missed) that's got more detailed info than does the media article you linked...

1/ JAL123 had an improper repair; do we know if CI611's repair was proper or not?

2/ JAL123 had pretty much the whole vertical stabilizer blow off, with the aft fuselage still attached to the airframe; do we know the exact failure mode of CI611? Did CI611 actually have a repeat of JAL123, or did its vertical stabilizer stay intact/attached, and the entire tail (forward of the horizontal stabilizers) separate in-flight?

Anyone know if there's a more-detailed report out?


User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 8309 times:

Gearup,

No need to apologize for anything. I agree with you that it is a shame particularly since both of these crashes were apparently caused by avoidable hazards.

OPNLGuy,

That airwise story I linked seems indicate that China Airlines mx was at fault. I would check google for the Taiwanese website that may have an English report.


User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 8290 times:

Looks like the report was just issued today, according to the article, and I'll look for it...

Based on the more-detailed Airwise article, it doesn't appear that the failure mode was quite the same, and that the vertical stabilizer wasn't specifically involved as was the case with JAL123.

I do recall seeing some pictures published a couple of years ago (AWST?) that showed multiple doubler layers (3 or 4?). IIRC, the accident aircraft was about to be sold (or just had been, but not delivered to the new airline, and the picture might have been related to a pre-sale inspection.

I'll post a link to the report if I can find it...


User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 8248 times:

OK, found it...

http://www.asc.gov.tw/asc_en/news_list_2.asp?news_no=194

At the bottom, there are links to Volumes 1 and 2, and they are big files (one 11 megs and the other 25 megs). There's also a file that contains 86 photos/graphics from the press conference...

One of the slides I noticed mentioned that the tailstrike repair was not done in compliance with the Boeing SRM, so an improper repair would be another similarity between CI611 and JAL123.

Enjoy the read!  Big grin


User currently offlineHa763 From United States of America, joined Jan 2003, 3657 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 8191 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Actually, an improper repair on any aircraft, Boeing and Airbus, could result with the exact same results as CI611 and JL123.

User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 8128 times:

"According to maintenance records, starting from November 1997, B-18255 had a total of 29 CPCP inspection items that were not accomplished in accordance with the CAL AMP and the Boeing 747 Aging Airplane Corrosion Prevention & Control Program. The aircraft had been operated with unresolved safety deficiencies from November 1997 onward."

- Quote from the Taiwan Aviation Safety Council summary linked above.

That is simply appalling. I cannot understand how such a lackadasical attitude towards safety persisted at CAL considering their spate of crashes.


User currently offlineN754PR From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 7911 times:

Said it before and I'll say it again, CI are not a safe airline.

User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13096 posts, RR: 12
Reply 11, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 7760 times:

Wouldn't a major check (like a D check?) have found the alleged weaknesses that are being blamed for this CI accident? Clearly, as noted above, there are specific inspection procedures issued by Boeing as to older a/c and shouldn't they have included procedures as to when other repairs have been done? This also reminds me of the AC crash in Ohio in the early 80's where the a/c caught on fire in the air, and where found later that a tailstrike repair was improperly done causing damage to the electrical systems of that a/c. At least now we have an plausable answer to this tragic accident and hope that Boeing and CI revise their inspections and repair procedures to eliminate such potential risks in the future.

User currently offlineGearup From Canada, joined Dec 2000, 578 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 7286 times:

Wouldn't a major check (like a D check?) have found the alleged weaknesses that are being blamed for this CI accident?

I would have thought so too. It does seem from the report that CI missed some very important stuff during inspections. One would think that they would be especially concerned about the area around the doubler. Perhaps the aircraft did not have a D check between the tail strike repair and the accident although given the elapsed time between those 2 events, at least 1 major check should/would have been performed. When the FAA/Boeing go to such lengths to ensure the correct maintenance of aging aircraft, you would think that would be taken seriously by such a major carrier. I know that much smaller airlines such as Aer Lingus do an excellent job so there really is no excuse for a larger airline. EI's 2 747's, EI-ASI and ASJ were tired when they were taken out of service but they were in perfect condition structurally simply because they were correctly looked after. They were in EI service for over 25 years.

GU



I have no memory of this place.
User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 7200 times:

The cause was a temp repair to the aft pressure bulkhead. The permanant repair was never done and the temp repair lasted 22 years. Not bad for a temp repair!

User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 6927 times:

>>>This also reminds me of the AC crash in Ohio in the early 80's where the a/c caught on fire in the air, and where found later that a tailstrike repair was improperly done causing damage to the electrical systems of that a/c.

The Air Canada 797 landing/fire at CVG? The LH aft lav flush motor that popped the CBs and started the fire was originally damaged in a previous tailstrike?

Never heard that before; will have to dig through the report...

Just did... (NTSB AAR84-09)

I'd always been under the impression that the aft lav flush motor had been the culprit, and although the NTSB report says the fire was of unknown origin, it's clear that a generator feed cable was a more likely culprit than the lav flush motor, especially given the aircraft's history of generator-related write-ups. In September 1979, the accident aircraft had an aft pressure bulkhead failure at FL250, and was out of service at BOS until December 1979 while they rebuilt the aft part of the aircraft. (No tailstrike, but still a major repair on that end of the aircraft).



[Edited 2005-02-26 18:18:57]

User currently offlineKtachiya From Japan, joined Sep 2004, 1794 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 5000 times:

Oh boy....

This is a tragedy when JL123 had a similar incident before. But its quite unbelievable that the temporary repair had lasted them until 2002. So it was once when the ac reached crusing altitude and it was not like JL123 where the pilots struggled for 40 minutes to get the plane back to HND?



Flown on: DC-10-30, B747-200B, B747-300, B747-300SR, B747-400, B747-400D, B767-300, B777-200, B777-200ER, B777-300
User currently offline757MDE From Colombia, joined Sep 2004, 1753 posts, RR: 6
Reply 16, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 4641 times:

Quoting OPNLguy (reply 6):
the accident aircraft was about to be sold (or just had been, but not delivered to the new airline, and the picture might have been related to a pre-sale inspection.


It had been sold to Orient Thai Airlines, that was almost the last revenue flight with CI.



I gladly accept donations to pay for flight hours! This thing draws man...
User currently offlineOkie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 3010 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 4494 times:

From my memory of the Discovery Channel program on the JL-123 accident.
They had a metallurgist test the type incorrect repair that was involved with the 123 accident and came within a few pressurization cycles of the failure involved. I got the impression at that time that there would not be much evidence beforehand (cracking, stress cracks etc.) before catastrophic failure.

Okie


User currently offlineMD11LuxuryLinr From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1385 posts, RR: 14
Reply 18, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 3673 times:

Quoting N79969 (reply 9):
"According to maintenance records, starting from November 1997, B-18255 had a total of 29 CPCP inspection items that were not accomplished in accordance with the CAL AMP and the Boeing 747 Aging Airplane Corrosion Prevention & Control Program. The aircraft had been operated with unresolved safety deficiencies from November 1997 onward."



Un freakin believable! Why is CI allowed to operate with practices like this?



Caution wake turbulence, you are following a heavy jet.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Pic Of The AeroCalifornia Accident posted Wed Jul 28 2004 21:26:42 by RCS763av
It Looks Like Lots Of TWA Cuts At JFK... posted Fri Sep 21 2001 06:56:28 by N960AS
Looks Like The A380 Is Now In BMI Colors posted Thu Nov 2 2006 15:59:17 by APFPilot1985
First JAL 744BCF Out Of The Hangar posted Fri May 12 2006 19:21:08 by AirbusA346
Why Does Airbus Add Lights On The Side Of The.? posted Sat Mar 25 2006 18:41:29 by AirCanada014
Why No Any Of The Indian Airlines In SFO? posted Mon Sep 5 2005 20:08:40 by SQ2
B6: Why The EMB190 Instead Of The A318? posted Tue Feb 1 2005 04:09:08 by QuestAir
Why No Airbus Equivalents Of The 757 Or 7E7-3? posted Sun Nov 14 2004 03:15:24 by TransPac
Why R Most Of The TWA A/c Acquired By AA In Storage posted Sat Sep 4 2004 20:51:55 by Ourboeing
Why Are All Of The AA Flights In PHL Delayed? posted Mon Aug 2 2004 00:59:04 by Tony Lu