Jiml1126 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1477 times:
China Airlines flight CI197 'almost' crashed into a bank building in Kaohsiung while in landing process on April 16. However, China Airlines has denied about such incident and said it was the differences of viewing.
The eyewitness said CI197 was preparing to land at KHH around 2300LT. Pilot's obeservation thinks that the head of the plane didn't face the runway properly, and decided to go around. During the go-around process, the eyewitness said it almost smashed into the building belongs to "Land Bank." (a name for the bank)
KHH authority explained that there's nothing unusual and the plane has successfully left KHH the day after. CI official said the plane lowered its altitude by 400 to 500m, which might causes the people to have false impression that the plane almost smashed into the building.
Bobcat From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1297 times:
I was going to say "OH MY GOD!"
but then I realized it's China Airlines....
just another "routine" flying stunt
by a brave CI pilot....
Airbus_A340 From Hong Kong, joined Mar 2000, 1554 posts, RR: 21 Reply 4, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1244 times:
Yay, I'm a brave person, I flew them twice, I'm double brave!
It's obvious peoepl got the wrong impression of it, must of been hard to see, especially at night. If someone got off the flight at the (now closed) Kai Tak airport in Hong Kong, I wouldn't be suprised if people kepts saying "we nearly crashed!"
Kaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 11957 posts, RR: 37 Reply 6, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1140 times:
To lose one A300 is unlucky, to lose two is careless; to lose three is . . . CAL?
Oh ye of little faith; of course, they were nowhere near a building; they just happened to be about 400-500m lower than they should have been on approach; nothing to worry about at all.
Carnoc From China, joined Oct 2001, 875 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (11 years 1 month 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1003 times:
I can remember that there was a discussed topic about Air China (CA) VS China Airlines (CI) on a Chinese avaiation forum.
A registered user who worked for China Airlines and he is currently living in mainland China (a real frequent flyer with Air China) posted the greatest advantages of Air China & China Airlines:
Air China: High Standard Safety Record (compared to CI)
China Airlines: High Standard Onboard Service (compared to CA)
Air China & China Airlines mostly same standard aspects:
* Public Relatios
* Catering Service
* Ground Service
* Frequent Flyer Program
Hkg82 From Hong Kong, joined Apr 2002, 1219 posts, RR: 1 Reply 9, posted (11 years 1 month 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 976 times:
I've never flown China Airlines but by all accounts their service onboard is pretty decent. However, their safety record isn't!! This incident isn't a big deal. It may look like it almost crashed into the building from someone's point of view on the ground, but it was at night & I don't think it could've been that close or else wouldn't there be other people voicing their complaints about how close the plane was to the building?
Check out these cool China Airlines pictures at Kai Tak:
Dynkrisolo From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1834 posts, RR: 7 Reply 10, posted (11 years 1 month 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 925 times:
Kaitak:
I'm not arguing with about CI's safety standard, but there were two Airbus crashes at CI, not three.
Ryanair!!! From Singapore, joined Mar 2002, 4653 posts, RR: 27 Reply 11, posted (11 years 1 month 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 879 times:
For those of you unfamiliar with the CI A300-600 crashes, you might like to know that they crashed in similar circumstances in Nagoya (Apr 26 1994) and Taipei (Feb 16 1998).
Both instances, a/c decided to go-round at the last minute during the final phase of approach. Both a/c hastily climbed... in fact the first Airbus in Nagoya climed so fast that the tower controller speculated the speed to be 1500ft within a few seconds. Both Airbuses stalled after a steep climb leading to catastrophic crashes.
The difference between the 2 is the one on Nagoya had its gears down, with the pilots arguing whether they should indeed go-round. Whereas the one in Taipei had its gears up.
The one in Nagoya stalled because the nose was pitched too high and the airspeed dropped to below 80knots, a/c could not be recovered in time and smashed into the ground, aft tail cone and main landing gears first...
The one in Taipei obviously had decided to go-round with its gears up but made wild turns at the airport boundaries after rapidly climbing to an alarming 1000ft (airspeed was unregisterable at this point), a pitch of 40deg nose up then down, and a futile almost-recovery just before the plane hit the ground, just like Nagoya.
There were speculations that someone on board the CI Airbus in Taipei was using a handphone while the a/c was on approach, thus interfering with the nav systems. But this was never proven.
Well, China Airlines has improved in terms of safety since then. Who would want lightning to strike twice? Especially when an airline is concerned? After those crashes, there has never been a safer time to fly with CI. Seriously, it has got all CI employees on their toes...
Lets not talk about the CI MD11 crash in HKG, bad decision by the pilot to land in typhoon...
Cheers
Ryan
Welcome to my starry one world alliance, a team in the sky!
Airbus_A340 From Hong Kong, joined Mar 2000, 1554 posts, RR: 21 Reply 12, posted (11 years 1 month 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 868 times:
Yes, let's also not mention about the CI A340 taking off from the taxiway in Anchorage.
Anyway, I have flown on CI twice, once on their A300-600's and once on their 737-800, an dI have to admit, they are one of the best airlines I have ever flown with. There is no doubt that the service on board is exceptional. Safety is somethign they are strongly working on and I am glad to know that.
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 0 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Nov 2005, 0 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 11957 posts, 
From China, joined Oct 2001, 875 posts, 
From Singapore, joined Mar 2002, 4653 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
