Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Could The Pilots Have Saved JL 123?  
User currently offlineUnited Airline From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2001, 9106 posts, RR: 15
Posted (11 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 17714 times:

I know the accident was due to a faulty repair but could the pilots have done anything to land the plane? Was the plane 100% uncontrollable?

64 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineokAY From Finland, joined Dec 2006, 648 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (11 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 17655 times:

What I have understood the pilots did manage to keep the crippled plane in the air for quite some time before it crashed.

I watched an episode of Air Crash Investigation covering the accident. It should be available on youtube.


User currently offlinezkokq From Australia, joined Mar 2012, 462 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (11 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 17632 times:

I think the pilots flew better than most expected.

I dont think they had much chance once they got into the mountains.

And may they RIP.


User currently offlinespacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3517 posts, RR: 12
Reply 3, posted (11 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 17632 times:

It was just barely controllable with engine power. However, this was not a trained procedure and had not even been used before to semi-successfully crash-land a plane on flat ground, e.g. UA 232. So they would have been making it up as they went along, and they were stuck in the mountains. They did actually make some attempt at getting out of the mountains but they couldn't do it before losing too much altitude, which was unavoidable. Their flight path was not entirely random.

Who knows what might have happened if they'd been over flat land near an airport. Even crashing into a mountain, there were many survivors initially.

There's not a whole lot they could have done that they didn't do, despite the apparent hypoxia. They were in an impossible situation.



I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
User currently offlineUnited Airline From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2001, 9106 posts, RR: 15
Reply 4, posted (11 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 17517 times:

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 3):
It was just barely controllable with engine power. However, this was not a trained procedure and had not even been used before to semi-successfully crash-land a plane on flat ground, e.g. UA 232. So they would have been making it up as they went along,

What could have done to control JL 123 apart from engine power? Why was it uncontrollable?


User currently offlinebrons2 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2991 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (11 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 17434 times:

Quoting United Airline (Reply 4):
Why was it uncontrollable?

No hydraulics in the tailplane I believe...



Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
User currently offlinespacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3517 posts, RR: 12
Reply 6, posted (11 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 17429 times:

Quoting United Airline (Reply 4):
What could have done to control JL 123 apart from engine power? Why was it uncontrollable?

Nothing could have been done apart from engine power. They had no hydraulics.

Even with using engine power, they had terrible phugoid effects that eventually culminated in at least two major dives. UA 232 suffered from this as well but I'm just guessing the DC-10 doesn't suffer from this problem quite as badly without working control surfaces. Also, UA232 was trimmed for cruise, whereas JL123 was trimmed for climb. Even so, it was the phugoid effect that drove UA 232 into the ground right at touchdown. That's what really doomed the passengers that died on both planes.



I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
User currently offlineSiren From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 309 posts, RR: 12
Reply 7, posted (11 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 17294 times:

Something else, too, which others haven't mentioned - when the rear pressure bulkhead on JL123 gave out, not only did it take out the hydraulics, but most of the vertical stabilizer was separated from the plane. That had to have caused additional aerodynamic instability that the crew of UA232 didn't have to face- they had an intact airframe minus hydraulics. JL123 was a seriously compromised airplane missing an entire control surface, plus hydraulics.

User currently offlinesq_ek_freak From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2000, 1626 posts, RR: 20
Reply 8, posted (11 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 17185 times:

My understanding was that the pilots kept the 747 in the air much longer than can be reasonably expected, especially because they were missing a sizable chunk of vital machinery. Given that they were in a situation that no pilot was trained for, and had to use off the cuff thinking and their years of piloting experience, they did extraordinarily well. They were desperately trying to get over flat land but also avoid populated areas so it was always going to be near impossible.

The real tragedy here is that many more passengers survived the initial impact but died overnight after search and rescue was called off for the day, leaving only the five that survived.



Keep Discovering
User currently offlinebluewhale18210 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 237 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (11 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 17152 times:

My roommate is a FedEx pilot. He claimed that he could land that DC-10 intact with no casualty.
He also said Al Haynes and company could have done better.
I just rolled my eyes...



JPS on A300-600RF A319/320 B737-400/800 B757-200F B767-300F CRJ-200/900. Looking to add more.
User currently offlinezkokq From Australia, joined Mar 2012, 462 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (11 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 17119 times:

Quoting bluewhale18210 (Reply 9):

Oh yeah of course he could have. What a hero!

Have to feel for pilots and so forth in this situation, knowing its now if, but when.


User currently offlineUnited Airline From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2001, 9106 posts, RR: 15
Reply 11, posted (11 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 17009 times:

Quoting brons2 (Reply 5):
No hydraulics in the tailplane I believe...

Why?

The tail came off right?


User currently offlineaaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 7951 posts, RR: 26
Reply 12, posted (11 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 16870 times:

You cannot maintain stable flight in a 747 or any other large aircraft with most of the vertical stabilizer gone.


If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlinepeterjohns From Germany, joined Jan 2009, 189 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (11 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 16734 times:

Quoting bluewhale18210 (Reply 9):
My roommate is a FedEx pilot. He claimed that he could land that DC-10 intact with no casualty

What sometimes isn´t quite recognized, is that the Crew of UA232 actually DID manage to land the DC 10 at the airport.
The bad outcome of it came due to the after-landing flip, we all know from several MD11 crashes, due to the high sink rate, as they couldn´t flare (remember-no hyd. no elevator). The main gear on this type is known it can damage the spar resulting in wing failure.

If the JAL flight could have had a better outcome is very speculative. The only thing they could have done "better" is immeadiatly put on their oxygen masks in order to have more concious time to do something. If that would have saved the day, I personally doubt.


User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9483 posts, RR: 42
Reply 14, posted (11 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 16639 times:

Quoting United Airline (Reply 4):
Why was it uncontrollable?

Yes, it's Wikipedia, but it's a start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Airlines_Flight_123


User currently offlineSpaceshipDC10 From Australia, joined Jan 2013, 1392 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (11 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 16584 times:

Quoting peterjohns (Reply 13):
What sometimes isn´t quite recognized, is that the Crew of UA232 actually DID manage to land the DC 10 at the airport.

No, they didn't. As soon as engines were idled, the right wing dropped, as it was locked in a right turn configuration, and its tip touched the ground just before the runway. The outer wing broke and the aircraft turned upside down. We all know what happened next.



KEEP LOOKING UP as in Space Fan News
User currently onlinebennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7199 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (11 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 16529 times:

Why was SAR called off for the day.

If I recall, the crash was not far from the Airport.


User currently offlinepeterjohns From Germany, joined Jan 2009, 189 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (11 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 16382 times:

Quoting SpaceshipDC10 (Reply 15):

You´re right about the right wing touching. I thought the wing failure however was caused by the gear after the impact.
I´m probably wrong then.

However - that makes it even more unlikely for that FedEx roomate to do a better job....


User currently offlineSpaceshipDC10 From Australia, joined Jan 2013, 1392 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (11 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 16252 times:

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 16):
I thought the wing failure however was caused by the gear after the impact.

When the wing tip touched the ground, it was to the left of the runway centerline. Then the landing gear impacted heavily the ground of the runway's left hand edge and was sheared off. Then as the aircraft was skidding to the right at high speed and tumbling on its back, the outer part of the wing was demolished.



KEEP LOOKING UP as in Space Fan News
User currently offlineSlcpilot From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 572 posts, RR: 3
Reply 19, posted (11 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 16240 times:

Here are some folks that did "do it better"! It is important to note; however, that all of the crews were very motivated to do their best.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_...d_DHL_attempted_shootdown_incident

It is worth it to hear Al Haynes' presentation if he's still doing them!

Fly Safe,

SLCPilot



I don't like to be fueled by anger, I don't like to be fooled by lust...
User currently offlinepvjin From Finland, joined Mar 2012, 996 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (11 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 16110 times:

Quoting Slcpilot (Reply 19):

Yeah, but we should remember that the DHL flight only lost part of their wing which surely didn't make the plane even nearly as unstable as losing most of the tail like JAL123 did.

I think it's amazing that crew of JAL123 managed to keep their plane in the air that long, I'm sure they couldn't have done any better.



"A rational army would run away"
User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9483 posts, RR: 42
Reply 21, posted (11 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 15959 times:

Quoting pvjin (Reply 20):
Yeah, but we should remember that the DHL flight only lost part of their wing which surely didn't make the plane even nearly as unstable as losing most of the tail like JAL123 did.

The DHL aircraft also lost all hydraulics, leaving the crew with only engine thrust to control it.

Quoting peterjohns (Reply 17):
However - that makes it even more unlikely for that FedEx roomate to do a better job....

Yes, I'd be interested to hear the views of other experienced heavy transport pilots on that one. It's possible, of course, but if you tried it ten times, how many times would you get it just right?


User currently offlineFlaps From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 1227 posts, RR: 4
Reply 22, posted (11 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 15511 times:

Each time an incident of a particular type takes place (ie total hydraulic loss or airframe compromise) we have an opportunity to learn something from it. Hence each subsequent crew facing that issue has a better chance of succeeding than the one before. The JAL 123 crew undoubtedly helped pave the way for the UA crew and both for the DHL crew etc.

I have done some some fairly extensive research on this over the years and can only admire the efforts of the JAL 123 crew. A truly heroic and inspirational effort. IMHO a successful landing in their case was likely impossible regardless of the terrain. Without the vertical stabilizer they had no lateral stability and as speeds decreased during an attempted approach
that lack of stability would have doomed them.


User currently offlinespacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3517 posts, RR: 12
Reply 23, posted (11 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 14470 times:

Quoting David L (Reply 21):
The DHL aircraft also lost all hydraulics, leaving the crew with only engine thrust to control it.

The DHL flight did not seem to suffer from phugoid effects nearly as badly as JAL 123 and UA 232. I have seen the Air Crash Investigation episode on the DHL incident, and externally there didn't seem to be any evidence of phugoid effects at all that I remember - there was plenty of footage of the plane in the air and it seemed to be flying straight and level. The pilots did mention that initially after the missile hit, they had to get the phugoid effects under control, but they seemed to manage to do that pretty quickly.

For one thing, the A300 is a lighter plane than either the DC-10 or certainly the 747. For another, every airplane just has different aerodynamics - it's going to behave differently with dead flight controls. That's further exacerbated by the trim system. I don't recall if the DHL pilots were able to adjust their trim after the missile hit - initially they did have limited hydraulics and they would have immediately leveled off after the explosion, so the trim may have been adjusted at that point. JL 123 was stuck in climb trim and UA 232 was stuck with ailerons set for a turn.

And of course, JL 123 was missing most of its tail, leading it not to just oscillate up and down, but to yaw side to side uncontrollably. Yumi Ochiai, the surviving off-duty flight attendant, said it felt like they were falling like a leaf.

In other words, you can't directly compare all of these situations and say the DHL pilots just did a better job and all of these planes could have landed safely. I do recall simulator tests being done for both JL 123 and UA 232 and none of the trained pilots was able to safely land either plane - most crashed much earlier.



I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
User currently offlinerwy04lga From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 3106 posts, RR: 8
Reply 24, posted (11 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 14312 times:

Quoting aaron747 (Reply 12):
You cannot maintain stable flight in a 747 or any other large aircraft with most of the vertical stabilizer gone.

I remember seeing a photo of a B-52 in flight with about 90% of its vertical stabilizer missing. I don't recall the outcome of that, whether they landed safely or ejected.



Just accept that some days, you're the pigeon, and other days the statue
User currently offlinetrent772 From Colombia, joined Oct 2012, 116 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (11 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 14321 times:

Quoting bluewhale18210 (Reply 9):

My roommate is a FedEx pilot. He claimed that he could land that DC-10 intact with no casualty.
He also said Al Haynes and company could have done better.

He MUST be kidding (I hope he is), if he's not the he just lacks professionalism and thorough knowledge on the matter.
He's way off on this one.

All three crews (JL123, UA232, DHL) did an excellent job given the circumstances, they all displayed exceptional airplane control and systems knowledge but the best thing is they all showed superb CRM skills.

Quoting David L (Reply 21):
I'd be interested to hear the views of other experienced heavy transport pilots on that one.

A few years back I had the chance to practise mechanical reversion landings on the A330 simulator which is somewhat close to what these guys experienced, one huge difference was I had both engines operating and all control surfaces intact, the results? Well, out of several attempts I landed safely (no crash on the sim) only a couple of times and they were really rough landings to say the least.



Pedaling Squares…
User currently offlinejetjack74 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 7386 posts, RR: 51
Reply 26, posted (11 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 13887 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting trent772 (Reply 25):
He MUST be kidding (I hope he is), if he's not the he just lacks professionalism and thorough knowledge on the matter.
He's way off on this one.

All three crews (JL123, UA232, DHL) did an excellent job given the circumstances, they all displayed exceptional airplane control and systems knowledge but the best thing is they all showed superb CRM skills.

What he and other Monday morning quarterbacks fail to realize is, they didn't have training like that back then because it was almost inconceivable to have lost ALL hydraulics. It was after that incident that these procedures were adopted by the airlines for CRM training. Captain Haynes and the a JAL crew had to relay on basic airmanship and rudimentary science to figure out how to control the aircraft

Quoting bluewhale18210 (Reply 9):
My roommate is a FedEx pilot. He claimed that he could land that DC-10 intact with no casualty.
He also said Al Haynes and company could have done better.
I just rolled my eyes...

So your roommate is probably right, he probably could land it better than Al Haynes and his crew, becus the CRM syllabus training he received was probably derived from that incident.



Made from jets!
User currently offlinethrufru From Marshall Islands, joined Feb 2009, 220 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (11 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 13840 times:

The FedEx pilot. Ha! Funny. I got into a discussion about redundant systems with some coworkers recently, too. It morphed into a discussion about the AA crash at ORD in 1979. One of our F/O's gave a 15 minute dissertation on the difficencies of AA's training and how had he been on the flight deck, he would have known what to do. Yep, sure. This coming from a guy who goes into an absolute panic when he's cleared for an RVAV after setting up for an ILS.

User currently offlineTheRedBaron From Mexico, joined Mar 2005, 2154 posts, RR: 8
Reply 28, posted (11 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 13761 times:

Jal 123 could not be saved, the damage was way too extensive, and in my view it is incredible that the whole tail section did not separate with the aft bulkhead rupture and decompression. Remember the China Airlines that was lost in Taiwan in 2002? same problem, a badly repaired plane.

The fact that they flew the crippled plane for so long its a testament for the airmanship of the crew, and its willingness not to be defeated.

May they rest in peace, they are Heroes.

TRB



The best seat in a Plane is the Jumpseat.
User currently offlinerc135x From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 29, posted (11 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 12798 times:

Quoting rwy04lga (Reply 24):
Quoting aaron747 (Reply 12):
You cannot maintain stable flight in a 747 or any other large aircraft with most of the vertical stabilizer gone.

I remember seeing a photo of a B-52 in flight with about 90% of its vertical stabilizer missing. I don't recall the outcome of that, whether they landed safely or ejected.

The crew was able to land safely.

http://www.talkingproud.us/Military/B52%20No%20Tail/B52NoTail.html


User currently offlinepvjin From Finland, joined Mar 2012, 996 posts, RR: 2
Reply 30, posted (11 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 12250 times:

However I think this B52 crew didn't lost their hydraulic like JAL123 did?


"A rational army would run away"
User currently offlineFlaps From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 1227 posts, RR: 4
Reply 31, posted (11 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 11908 times:

Quoting trent772 (Reply 25):
He MUST be kidding (I hope he is), if he's not the he just lacks professionalism and thorough knowledge on the matter.
He's way off on this one.

A not uncommon attitude among FX's finest. In my 16 years there I found a much higher level of arrogance and holier than thou attitudes than at other carriers. I always thought it was because of the high ratio of ex military pilots among the senior flight crew there. Heck I've seen ABX and Astar crews help with the loading to make an on time departure. NEVER saw that at FX.

The JAL 123 crew was incredible. The CVR transcipts detail their performance quite well.


User currently offlineNDiesel From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 79 posts, RR: 0
Reply 32, posted (11 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 11677 times:

Controlling an airplane in this state to the extent that they did was incredible. This photo always gives me the chills.



Edit: I can't verify the authenticity of the image but it's claimed to be of JAL123

[Edited 2013-04-27 14:34:09]


Delta MD-11 JFK-CDG - Upon sunrise I fell in love with Aviation
User currently offlinebueb0g From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 623 posts, RR: 0
Reply 33, posted (11 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 11268 times:

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 6):
UA 232 suffered from this as well but I'm just guessing the DC-10 doesn't suffer from this problem quite as badly without working control surfaces.

Remember that JAL 123 lost its tail.

Quoting United Airline (Reply 11):
Why?

The tail came off right?

Yes, and took out all the hydraulics for the whole a/c.

Quoting trent772 (Reply 25):
A few years back I had the chance to practise mechanical reversion landings on the A330 simulator which is somewhat close to what these guys experienced, one huge difference was I had both engines operating and all control surfaces intact, the results? Well, out of several attempts I landed safely (no crash on the sim) only a couple of times and they were really rough landings to say the least.

Is manual reversion on the A330 just rudder and stabiliser trim?

Quoting jetjack74 (Reply 26):
What he and other Monday morning quarterbacks fail to realize is, they didn't have training like that back then because it was almost inconceivable to have lost ALL hydraulics.

Generally you still don't get training for total hydraulic loss, even today.



Roger roger, what's our vector, victor?
User currently offlinestratosphere From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 1647 posts, RR: 4
Reply 34, posted (11 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 11173 times:

Quoting Flaps (Reply 31):
A not uncommon attitude among FX's finest. In my 16 years there I found a much higher level of arrogance and holier than thou attitudes than at other carriers. I always thought it was because of the high ratio of ex military pilots among the senior flight crew there. Heck I've seen ABX and Astar crews help with the loading to make an on time departure. NEVER saw that at FX.

Considering that FX pilots in the recent past have had their fair share of bent metal with aircraft that have not suffered a catastrophic mechanical event should make them take pause when commenting on other pilots outcomes.



NWA THE TRUE EVIL EMPIRE
User currently offlinetrent772 From Colombia, joined Oct 2012, 116 posts, RR: 0
Reply 35, posted (11 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 10799 times:

Quoting bueb0g (Reply 33):
Is manual reversion on the A330 just rudder and stabiliser trim?

The correct name is Mechanical Backup, not manual reversion. Sorry about the brain fart.

Yes, just rudder, stab trim and engine thrust to control the airplane, and while really tough it is nowhere near the level of challenge these pilots experienced in each of their doomed flights.

Whenever I see footage of UA's 232 landing I find it hard to believe people actually walked away from the wreckage after dusting themselves off.

I'll always stand strong on my belief that the performance displayed by these crews was just Epic.

As many have said before, Heroes.

Quoting stratosphere (Reply 34):
Considering that FX pilots in the recent past have had their fair share of bent metal with aircraft that have not suffered a catastrophic mechanical event should make them take pause when commenting on other pilots outcomes.

I think every pilot should take pause when commenting on other pilots outcomes no matter their level, experience or skill.

[Edited 2013-04-27 15:41:11]


Pedaling Squares…
User currently offlinecbphoto From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1548 posts, RR: 6
Reply 36, posted (11 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 9842 times:

Quoting stratosphere (Reply 34):
Considering that FX pilots in the recent past have had their fair share of bent metal with aircraft that have not suffered a catastrophic mechanical event should make them take pause when commenting on other pilots outcomes.

Touche, I was about to say the exact same thing! Fedex has a hard enough time keeping their working machines in one piece, much less one that is crippled. While I hope they would be able to pull it off, it's a lot easier said at a bar over drinks, then when you are actually faced with the dire situation in real life!

I have met Al Haynes and heard his presentation on the UA 232 incident and he is by far the most professional, humble pilot I have met, even more so then Sully! There is no question what he and his crew did that day was short of miraculous and is in many peoples book a hero, yet he said it himself, he still feels for the passengers and crew who didn't make it that afternoon in Souix City! Class act if you ask me!



ETOPS: Engines Turning or Passengers Swimming
User currently offlinerwy04lga From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 3106 posts, RR: 8
Reply 37, posted (11 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 9303 times:

Quoting rc135x (Reply 29):
The crew was able to land safely.

http://www.talkingproud.us/Military/....html

Thanks for that info and the link....fascinating!



Just accept that some days, you're the pigeon, and other days the statue
User currently offlinePGNCS From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 2752 posts, RR: 45
Reply 38, posted (11 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 9177 times:

Quoting zkokq (Reply 2):
I think the pilots flew better than most expected.

They did an amazingly good job given the cards dealt them.

Quoting United Airline (Reply 4):
What could have done to control JL 123 apart from engine power?

Nothing.

Quoting United Airline (Reply 4):
Why was it uncontrollable?

No hydraulics to any flight controls; the majority of the vertical stabilizer was missing.

Quoting bluewhale18210 (Reply 9):
My roommate is a FedEx pilot. He claimed that he could land that DC-10 intact with no casualty.

Oh, please. If he really believes that I do not want to fly with him. That may be the most arrogant claim I have ever heard in a traditionally arrogant profession.

Quoting Slcpilot (Reply 19):
Here are some folks that did "do it better"! It is important to note; however, that all of the crews were very motivated to do their best.

VERY motivated to give the performance of their lifetimes.

Quoting Flaps (Reply 31):
In my 16 years there I found a much higher level of arrogance and holier than thou attitudes than at other carriers. I always thought it was because of the high ratio of ex military pilots among the senior flight crew there.

I can neither confirm or deny the relative arrogance of FedEx crews, but my carrier has a very high percentage of ex-military pilots (I am one of them) and I have never heard one of them make a claim like that.


User currently offlinetoobz From Finland, joined Jan 2010, 752 posts, RR: 0
Reply 39, posted (11 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 9093 times:

Long story short. No. they did an amazing job with the condition they had. Have u googled the incident and seen the recreation of the incident!?? kind of a random question if u ask me. Do u feel they could have done more?

User currently offlinePC12Fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2378 posts, RR: 5
Reply 40, posted (11 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 8912 times:

Quoting bluewhale18210 (Reply 9):
My roommate is a FedEx pilot. He claimed that he could land that DC-10 intact with no casualty.
He also said Al Haynes and company could have done better.

Your roommate is a risk. Is he even aware that there were several attempts in simulators by professional DC-10 pilots that didn't even get it close to the airport let alone land it? Throw him in a sim under the same circumstances and tell him to get back to us after. I have a sneaking suspicion he would become very quiet.

Quoting SpaceshipDC10 (Reply 15):
No, they didn't.

Yes they did. They got it to the airport. To criticize the fact they didn't pull off a "greaser" is asinine.



Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
User currently offlinejagflyer From Canada, joined Aug 2004, 3458 posts, RR: 4
Reply 41, posted (11 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 8462 times:

If I understand correctly, the 747-100/200 had more of a "fly by cable" system with hydraulic assist. Would it have been possible to control the aircraft with only cable inputs? No doubt it would be physically very difficult but I think it would have been possible at least in regards to aileron input had the tail section been intact.


Support the beer and soda can industry, recycle old airplanes!
User currently offlineYYZatcboy From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1003 posts, RR: 0
Reply 42, posted (11 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 7666 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CUSTOMER SERVICE & SUPPORT

There was also an electra that had something similar.

On 8 June 1983, Reeve Aleutian Airways Flight 8's propeller separated from the aircraft and tore a hole in the fuselage over the Pacific Ocean causing an explosive decompression and loss of control. The pilots managed to land the aircraft safely at Anchorage, Alaska and all 15 passengers and crew survived. Since the propeller fell into the sea the cause of the separation is undetermined.
- Source wikipedia

I did not know about this until I saw a Mayday episode about it. It was similar in that they had limited flight controls due to the cables being pinched or severed due to shedding the prop into the fuse which opened a huge hole in the cabin. really neat story that no one seems to know about.



DHC1/3/4 MD88 L1011 A319/20/21/30 B727 735/6/7/8/9 762/3 E175/90 CRJ/700/705 CC150. J/S DH8D 736/7/8
User currently offline7BOEING7 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1305 posts, RR: 8
Reply 43, posted (11 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 7665 times:

Quoting jagflyer (Reply 41):
If I understand correctly, the 747-100/200 had more of a "fly by cable" system with hydraulic assist. Would it have been possible to control the aircraft with only cable inputs? No doubt it would be physically very difficult but I think it would have been possible at least in regards to aileron input had the tail section been intact.

All they would have done was stretch the cables.


User currently offlinespacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3517 posts, RR: 12
Reply 44, posted (11 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 7404 times:

Quoting NDiesel (Reply 32):
Edit: I can't verify the authenticity of the image but it's claimed to be of JAL123

That is a real photo but it's been edited to look even worse than it was. Here's an interesting comparison of the original with the edited version:



I've seen the original from other sources and that is it. There was still about 1/3 of the tail remaining. Whether that was enough to provide any real lateral stability to the aircraft has been debated for a long time. Obviously they had no actual lateral *control* either way.



I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9483 posts, RR: 42
Reply 45, posted (11 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 7194 times:

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 23):

I'm not saying the DHL crew did a better job. I'm saying they didn't only lose a small past of a wing, they also lost all hydraulics. It may have been easier to keep in the air but descending and landing safely on (or in the region of) a runway using only engine thrust is no picnic.


User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7345 posts, RR: 32
Reply 46, posted (11 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 7227 times:

Some background first. I was stationed in Yokosuka near the mouth of Tokyo Bay at the time. I was doing some video work from a US Navy helicopter that evening, and we heard of the JAL-123 emergency. We refueled at Camp Zama and circled a bit west and south of Yokota to be available for SAR standby.

I heard the radio calls of the JAL 123 crew, and the ATC. Though in Japanese, you could hear the emotions in their voices. Not frantic or paniced, but becoming more and more resigned to a bad ending as the emergency progressed. We had a Japanese national on the helo who translated what was said to us.

We flew over the crash site about 15 minutes after the plane crashed. We could see the two impact points in the dark because of relatively small fires. There were close to a half dozen US military helicopters near the crash site, including a USAF helo with a trained crew to go down on penetrators into heavily forested mountain areas.

The next day, I was called in to go to the crash site from a helicopter (on a cable) with video and still photography gear shortly after the US military had put their first people on the ground.


Quoting bennett123 (Reply 16):
Why was SAR called off for the day.

If I recall, the crash was not far from the Airport.


The crash was on some steeply sided mountains - hitting a ridge and bouncing off largely intact to crash on the upslope of the next ridge a few hundred meters away.

While a relatively short distance from Iruma is was still a very difficult, remote spot to get to.

The SAR was under the responsibility and authority of the Tokyo Metropolitan Police. Who frankly did not have the equipment or training for such a SAR effort. The authorities made the decision the crash was not survivable, and that it could cost the lives of rescuers to attempt to reach the crash site at night.

The USAF argued they could put people on the ground safely, but were denied permission. US military helicopters were ordered away from the crash site as 'interfering' with Japanese rescue efforts. Though no Japanese SAR helicopters were in the air. I heard much of that argument on the radios of the helo that I was in.

That battle escalated to the diplomatic level, and caused a lot of animosity in the months following the crash.

At daybreak - which was about 4:30 am the next morning, Japanese TV helicopters quickly found the smoking remains, and began to broadcast live from their helicopters. At 8 am the Tokyo Metropolitan Police leadership held a press briefing, describing how they were going to attempt to locate the crash site. That all SAR would be done from the ground.

About 9-9:30 am the USAF was allowed to put the people on the ground who were trained and ready to go in the night before. I was on the ground before noon.

Since that day, a lot of people have worked very hard to prevent the real truth from being told.

Quoting Flaps (Reply 22):
IMHO a successful landing in their case was likely impossible regardless of the terrain.

Tokyo sits in a bowl surrounded by mountains. There is really not a good way to take a damaged aircraft into one of the three possible airports - Haneda, Narita or Yokota - without having to maneuver and avoid terrain. Yokota was best but has more terrain issues. Haneda was where they were trying to go, but there was concern about allowing the aircraft to overfly some of the most crowded areas of Tokyo.

And as several people have mentioned - they has 'some control' they did not have stable directional control. They did not have any altitude/ pitch control except for slowing the aircraft down enough to let it descend on its own.

Quoting NDiesel (Reply 32):
I can't verify the authenticity of the image but it's claimed to be of JAL123

A badly doctored photo which has removed the about 1/3 of the vertical stabilizer which was on the plane when it crashed.

Quoting jagflyer (Reply 41):
If I understand correctly, the 747-100/200 had more of a "fly by cable" system with hydraulic assist. Would it have been possible to control the aircraft with only cable inputs? No doubt it would be physically very difficult but I think it would have been possible at least in regards to aileron input had the tail section been intact.

Even if the crew had been able to physically move the control surfaces, it would have been uncoordinated. The bigger issue as far as a landing would have been the complete lack of pitch control. They would not have been able to flare the aircraft, or even accurately control their rate of descent.

The very limited directional control was what kept them in the air so long. The lack of pitch control except with power is why the plane was certain to crash.

Yes, if it had crashed on level terrain, where rescuers could have gotten to the aircraft quickly, likely many more people would have survived, maybe as many as half.

Japan ain't Iowa. Level terrain for several miles to try a light setdown is impossible to find.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24061 posts, RR: 23
Reply 47, posted (11 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 6695 times:

Quoting United Airline (Reply 11):
The tail came off right?
Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 46):
Quoting NDiesel (Reply 32):
I can't verify the authenticity of the image but it's claimed to be of JAL123

A badly doctored photo which has removed the about 1/3 of the vertical stabilizer which was on the plane when it crashed.

What does the official accident report say about the tail separating? Did they find tail wreckage a long distance from the main crash site?


User currently offlineSpaceshipDC10 From Australia, joined Jan 2013, 1392 posts, RR: 3
Reply 48, posted (11 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 6675 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 47):
Did they find tail wreckage a long distance from the main crash site?

I haven't read the official report, however in my Air Disater book, it is said that parts of the tail were found floating in Sagami Bay. In a straight line, the distance between the point where the bulkhead ruptured at about the western end of Sagami Bay to where the aircraft crashed is about 60-70nm. The rupture happened at 6:24:35 and at 6:56:28 the aircraft crashed after flying over about 120 nm without tail.



KEEP LOOKING UP as in Space Fan News
User currently offlinejc2354 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 564 posts, RR: 0
Reply 49, posted (11 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 6514 times:

I always enjoy these "what if" discussions. Thanks to everyone for their contributions.

It seems we all agree that it was inevitable that JL123 would crash. If not for the mountains, would more people survived? With the luxury of time, would the flight have been more of a controlled flight into terrain?

Should KL485 Captain, Veldhuyzen van Zanten, survived his mistake, what would have happened to him?

Quoting bluewhale18210 (Reply 9):
My roommate is a FedEx pilot. He claimed that he could land that DC-10 intact with no casualty.

Your roommate, I believe, is quite right. Captain Haynes and his crew rewrote every book there is. An inflight incident thought impossible by every airplane systems engineer, followed by an unthinkable landing that should have killed everyone on board. The factors and circumstances of flight 232 have been programmed into every simulator I've flown (in Florida and California). Many pilots can now fly and land successfully, without casualties. Many can not, too!

I've always found it ironic that to ensure an aviation system as safe as possible, there has to be a lot of bent metal and bloodshed.

Jack



If not now, then when?
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7345 posts, RR: 32
Reply 50, posted (11 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 6410 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 47):
What does the official accident report say about the tail separating? Did they find tail wreckage a long distance from the main crash site?

Parts of the rudder and a few parts of the vertical stabilizer were found floating in the bay - which would be consistent with them coming off on the initial rupture and explosive decompression.

Much of the non-movable portions of the vertical stabilizer were found at the crash site and were obviously intact until the plane hit the ground.


User currently offlinespacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3517 posts, RR: 12
Reply 51, posted (11 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 6244 times:

Quoting jc2354 (Reply 49):
It seems we all agree that it was inevitable that JL123 would crash. If not for the mountains, would more people survived?

Maybe, but only because rescuers would have reached them faster, as rfields5421 alluded to. The Japanese government basically impeded the rescue effort, some say in a territorial power grab but I'm more inclined to believe it was just conservatism mixed with a blind belief in process. This is the Japanese way - you always err on the side of caution and if there is a procedure in place, you follow it. So that's what happened and it's why it took many hours for rescuers to reach the crash site, during which time many survivors died.

If the airplane had crashed on flat land (and make no mistake, it still would have crashed), then it's possible more people would have survived initially, but it's also possible more people would have died initially - it depends on where they would have been in a phugoid cycle. If they were in the midst of another dive - and there were at least two before they hit the mountain - then it's likely everybody on board would have died instantly. It's really impossible to say more people would have survived initially if they had been over flat land. But assuming the same number of initial survivors, rescuers probably would have reached them sooner and more would be alive today for that reason alone.



I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
User currently offlinebrons2 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2991 posts, RR: 5
Reply 52, posted (11 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 6057 times:

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 51):
If they were in the midst of another dive - and there were at least two before they hit the mountain - then it's likely everybody on board would have died instantly.

I thought they were in the dive portion of the phugoid when they crashed. I have heard the CVR and the GPWS is alerting on sink rate, it goes something like "(alert chime) SINK RATE! PULL UP! PULL UP! PULL UP!" and then they hit the first ridge, then it goes on a couple seconds longer and then the final crash.



Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
User currently offlineliquidair From United Kingdom, joined May 2011, 175 posts, RR: 0
Reply 53, posted (11 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 5884 times:

reading about the accident, it seems they made a turn towards land after the decompression.

Was this intentional, and if so, was a land crash landing preferable to a sea ditching and if so, why?


User currently offlineBreninTW From Taiwan, joined Jul 2006, 1569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 54, posted (11 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 5832 times:

Quoting liquidair (Reply 53):

I imagine the pilots thought they were dealing with a fairly routine pressurisation issue -- and were confident they could make it back to an airport.

I doubt very much that anyone in the cockpit had any sense of how badly damaged the aircraft was. By the time they realised they were in much worse shape than they'd originally thought, they were unable to do anything about it.



I'm tired of the A vs. B sniping. Neither make planes that shed wings randomly!
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7345 posts, RR: 32
Reply 55, posted (11 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 5639 times:

According to the Japanese AAIC Report - English Translation - the flight engineer and a cabin attendant are heard on the CVR discussing the damage to the back of the cabin at 1831 - approx 7 minutes after the bulkhead rupture.

The flight crew did request clearance to descend to 22,000 ft right after the event. However, they did not start to descend until 1840. The crew continued to fly depressurized above 20,000 ft for 18 minutes. None of the three cockpit crew members put on an oxygen mask, though there were comments about the masks on the CVR. The reason the AAIC says that none of the three put on the oxygen mask is because their vocal comments were all recorded by the cockpit area microphone.

The passengers and the cabin crew did used the oxygen masks which deployed,

Quoting BreninTW (Reply 54):
I imagine the pilots thought they were dealing with a fairly routine pressurisation issue

While the depressurization was noticed - the bigger focus of the flight crew right after the event was trying to gain control of the aircraft, trying to figure out how they could fly without flipping the plane over on its back, stall or spin.

The control issues were immediately noticable and extremely difficult to control. While struggling for control, the crew also tried to figure out why their stable aircraft had suddenly tried to depart the flight envelope and normal control inputs were ineffective.

The first item about the event on the CVR is the Captain to the FO to correct an excessive bank angle at 18"25:53 - less than a minute after the bulkhead failed.

The next is recognition that hydraulic pressure is dropping several times within the next minute - and a radio call to ATC that the aircraft had become uncontrollable - about four minutes after the failure.

Throughout the rest of the flight - the crew in the cockpit battled with difficulty with directional and attitude control, but the aircraft kept exhibiting movements of dutch roll and phugiod movements.

Dutch Roll - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_roll

Phugoid - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phugoid

The doctored photo makes it appear the aircraft was in stable level flight - it was not. The crew was not controlling the aircraft, they were 'behind the aircraft' and responding.

It was somewhat like riding a bucking horse and trying to control the beast.


User currently offlineHBGDS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 56, posted (11 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 5182 times:

Pkease ignore if this is already posted, but this is one of the better CVR trnascripts and computer-recreated videos of the tragedy. The pilots were masterful, not knowing they had actually lost most of the tail.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xfh9-ogUgSQ

These guys should get an award postumusly, even eighteen years later.

[Edited 2013-04-29 20:51:04]

User currently offlinespacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3517 posts, RR: 12
Reply 57, posted (11 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 5076 times:

Quoting liquidair (Reply 53):
reading about the accident, it seems they made a turn towards land after the decompression.

Was this intentional, and if so, was a land crash landing preferable to a sea ditching and if so, why?

They were just trying to land, any way they could. They weren't trying to crash, on either water or land. They were trying to make it to Haneda, probably for too long and that may have been one of their mistakes, but it's hard to fault them for it given the information that they had.

The turns they made were mostly a combination of first trying to turn back to Haneda, and then trying to avoid mountains. Some were intentional, but other times they'd get caught in the phugoid cycle combined with a dutch roll and would need to power out of it, which would put them on a different heading than they intended. If you look at the flight path, you can see them initially trying to drift back in the direction of Haneda, then the flight path gets increasingly random as they lose altitude. Eventually they don't really know where they are because they're just putting all their attention into controlling their attitude and avoiding mountains. That first turn you're asking about was just the way the plane wanted to go - they initially announced a left turn, but the plane wanted to go right.

Early on, they thought they'd had a cabin door rip off (the R5 door) and an explosive decompression. That's bad enough, but they really didn't think they were in the dire straits they were - who would? It wasn't supposed to be able to happen. So they tried to turn back to Haneda. When they realized they had no real control, then it became a battle just to keep the plane flying and an attempt to figure out what was actually broken. And once they lost altitude, they had to contend with the mountains, and were just trying to fly out of them in any direction. They were actually very close to Mount Fuji and could have easily hit it too. So things progressed through several stages, each worse than the last, but each stage required their full attention and didn't really allow them to plan ahead.

Initially the surviving passengers also didn't think things were so bad; the flight was still apparently pretty smooth. Things got progressively worse as time went on.

Quoting brons2 (Reply 52):
I thought they were in the dive portion of the phugoid when they crashed. I have heard the CVR and the GPWS is alerting on sink rate, it goes something like "(alert chime) SINK RATE! PULL UP! PULL UP! PULL UP!" and then they hit the first ridge, then it goes on a couple seconds longer and then the final crash.

IIRC, I don't think they were in a dive when they hit, just in the descent/possible stall portion of the cycle. I'm talking about two large dives, during which they lost about 5,000-10,000 feet of altitude in each. (I can't remember the exact number.) The CVR video posted just before is good but it's heavily edited - that's about 30 minutes compressed into 10, so there's a lot you're not hearing. Yumi Ochiai described these dives as so violent that she had to hold on to the seats and still couldn't stand up. If they'd hit the mountain in one of those dives, there wouldn't be a debate about rescuers taking too long to get there.



I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7345 posts, RR: 32
Reply 58, posted (11 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 4859 times:

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 57):
They were actually very close to Mount Fuji and could have easily hit it too.

Mt Fuji is 3,776.4 M / 12,389 ft tall. They were still close to 21,000 ft altitude when they were nearest Mt Fuji and even when they did the 360 turn were above 18,000 ft.

I don't remember any reports of climbers on Mt Fuji seeing the aircraft. There were probably 5-6,000 people climbing Mt Fuji that evening.

They had extreme difficulty in trying to descend. They were never able to descend in a controlled manner. If they got the nose down, the aircraft descended quickly, and violently - exceeding the max IAS. The other descent was a near stall.

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 57):
I don't think they were in a dive when they hit,

From the official report

Quote:
According to statements of eye-witnesses (4 persons) at points 3 to 4 km SSW of the crash point........

Then, about the time the aircraft would have passed Mt. Mikuni the aircraft suddenly plunged into a dive banking to the left to NW direction, and went out of sight behind the mountain.

Refreshing my memory by re-reading the report a few times this week.

The aircraft struck three different times.

The first was on a ridge at elevation about 1,530 m - when the aircraft didn't strike the ground but hit several trees. The #4 engine apparently separated at that point - The engine was found on the down slope of that ridge, and some parts were found on the up slope of the next ridge.

Then second strike was the U shaped ditch on another ridge located 520 m WNW of the first strike at elevation 1,610M. The "U shaped ditch" was 40M long and 2 to 10 M wide. Parts of the right wing tip, wing skin and other parts were found at that location. Parts of the vertical stabilizer were found near this impact point.

The final impact occurred as the aircraft hit the side of the next ridge at elevation 1,565 m.

So the aircraft was observed to dive, but the first impact was at an elevation a few M above 1530 M, the second impact was at 1,610 M and occurred only 520M away from the first impact.

Obviously the aircraft was climbing at the point of the second impact which was severe enough to break the airplane.



The last data from the FDR is:
Airspeed (CAS) - 263.7 kts
Heading - 277.1
Pitch Angle - down 42.2 degrees
Roll Angle - 131.5 degrees

At that point the aircraft's four engines, the vertical fin, the horizontal fin, aft empennage aft of BS2484, and the right wing tip and trailing edge flap had been separated from the aircraft.

The actual impact estimates from the FDR data, and parts / wreckage location is calculated as:

Heading - 220 degrees +/- 40 degrees
Pitch Angle - down 70 degrees +/- 20 degrees
Roll Angle - 60 degrees +/- 30 degrees
Flight Course - 310 degrees +/- 10 degrees

From the official report - top of page 108

Quote:
From the data, the possibility is considered high that the aircraft, taking an almost upside-down attitude with the nose down and heading to the southwest and with the tail turned up and toward the north-east, crashed with the right hand wing down and the left hand wing up.



That indicates basically that the second impact was severe enough to flip the back half of the aircraft upward, pivoting the aircraft near inverted in a nose down attitude.


User currently offlinen729pa From UK - England, joined Jan 2011, 367 posts, RR: 0
Reply 59, posted (11 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 4653 times:

There is a Safety Promotion Centre dedicated to JL123, near Haneda Airport.

I don't know if anyone on here has been to it or not.

http://www.jal.com/en/flight/safety/center/
http://www.jal.com/en/flight/safety/center/visit.html


User currently offlinespacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3517 posts, RR: 12
Reply 60, posted (11 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 4263 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 58):
Mt Fuji is 3,776.4 M / 12,389 ft tall. They were still close to 21,000 ft altitude when they were nearest Mt Fuji and even when they did the 360 turn were above 18,000 ft.

I'm not sure about that - the report states that 16 minutes after the decompression (about 1840, halfway through the event), they began a steep descent from 22,000 to 6,600 feet over 8 minutes. Yumi Ochiai stated in her testimony that she looked out the window either during or just after this and saw Mt. Fuji parallel to the window on the right side, closer than she had ever seen it.

According to the report, it was at about 1845 that they began the left turn that ended up in the 360 loop that brought them back heading east. They had just passed Mt. Fuji at that point. So if they were at 6,600 feet at 1848, I think you can assume that they would be at or below the elevation of Mt. Fuji while passing it.

The lack of photos of the plane isn't that surprising - even the guy who did get the famous photo that we've posted here said he didn't notice anything special about the plane at the time he took the photo (and he wasn't taking photos of the plane, it just happened to be in the background). It still would have been a ways away to anyone on the mountain, and they wouldn't have noticed an obvious problem with the tail from any distance (especially when you're not expecting to see it).

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 58):
Obviously the aircraft was climbing at the point of the second impact which was severe enough to break the airplane.

I re-read the report as well. You're right - they did enter a dive just before the accident, but they had pulled out of it. The official report states that the descent ceased before the first impact, with vertical acceleration of 3G's. So they had ceased descending and were pulling up hard when they hit the first ridge.



I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
User currently offlineha763 From United States of America, joined Jan 2003, 3596 posts, RR: 6
Reply 61, posted (11 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4031 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting n729pa (Reply 59):

There is a Safety Promotion Centre dedicated to JL123, near Haneda Airport.

I don't know if anyone on here has been to it or not.

I went there in 2008. It was so sobering that no one except for the guide talked. You can see the area of the bulkhead that failed and the pieces of the vertical stabilizer up close. The most heartbreaking part is where they have the personal items of the pax and crew on display. Some were donated back to JAL by the families and others were just unidentifiable. The notes written by the pax for loved ones brought tears to people's eyes.


User currently offlineYLWbased From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2006, 803 posts, RR: 4
Reply 62, posted (11 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3537 times:

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 3):
had not even been used before to semi-successfully crash-land a plane on flat ground,

Did a DHL successfully landed their missile hitted plane once in Baghdad?

YLWbased



Hong Kong is not China. Not better or worse, just different.
User currently offlineSpaceshipDC10 From Australia, joined Jan 2013, 1392 posts, RR: 3
Reply 63, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 3274 times:

Quoting YLWbased (Reply 62):
Did a DHL successfully landed their missile hitted plane once in Baghdad?

Yes

http://www.tallrite.com/weblog/blogi...s/refs2005/dhlbaghdadshootdown.htm



KEEP LOOKING UP as in Space Fan News
User currently offlinebueb0g From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 623 posts, RR: 0
Reply 64, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3112 times:

Quoting jagflyer (Reply 41):

If I understand correctly, the 747-100/200 had more of a "fly by cable" system with hydraulic assist. Would it have been possible to control the aircraft with only cable inputs?

No. Most conventional airliners had cables running from the cockpit to the hydraulic actuators for the control surfaces, whereupon the mechanical signals were translated into control surface deflection by the hydraulic system. (With fly by wire, all that has happened is that these cables have been replaced by wires, but still with (generally) a hydraulic system of some sort on the end).

So, if your hydraulics go in a 747, there is no direct connection between the control cables and the surfaces. You can pull all you want and move the yoke about but it won't do anything, because those mechanical signals in the cables are not being translated to control surface movement due to there being no transmission method - the hydraulics have gone.

There are some aircraft, such as the 737, that have what's called "manual reversion", where the cables can directly affect the control surfaces if hydraulics are lost. This takes quite a bit of force. While it could also be implemented on bigger aircraft like the 747, this would be pointless due to the sheer size of the surfaces you'd have to move - beyond human capabilities, certainly.



Roger roger, what's our vector, victor?
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...
Could The 787 Have Been Conceived In The 1980's posted Thu Apr 12 2007 20:05:21 by CJAContinental
Could The Crashes Have Started A World War posted Fri Sep 14 2001 02:33:21 by Mh772
Boeing Could Have Saved The 737-900. posted Wed Jan 2 2002 06:26:43 by ValujetMD-81
A380: Could All The Mishaps Have Been Prevented? posted Wed Jul 26 2006 01:22:47 by LTU932
Could Delta Have Saved TWA? posted Fri Sep 30 2005 01:36:12 by MD90fan
Where Have All The Pilots Gone? posted Wed Aug 11 2004 19:11:46 by Invictus
Can Pilots Have A Smoke In The Cockpit? posted Sat Jul 31 2004 23:19:33 by GRZ-AIR
Could This Have Saved PA? posted Mon Feb 9 2004 15:59:23 by Dtwclipper
Could The X-33's Problems Have Been Solved? posted Wed Feb 5 2003 00:01:24 by AvObserver
Gary Toomey: Virgin Deal Could Have Saved AN posted Sun Sep 8 2002 09:23:46 by Singapore_Air