Jiml1126 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (14 years 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3141 times:
Just want to correct all you people on the forum about the aircraft flying CI611 today.
Yes, CI611 is operated by 744 according to the timetable, BUT, CI officials temporarily called their only 742 to fly this route today.
The plane departed at 1508LT from Taipei, and crashed around 10Knots NW of PengHu Island. The plane registered B18255, flew 64810 hours, and was originally going to sold to Oriental thai Airlines around June. The age is 22.8years.
The captain flew 6128 hours, the co-pilot 6244 hours, flight technician 18024 hours.
Today's deadly CI611 was suppose to be the last flight of this 747-200 serving China Airlines.
Peoples from Chuanghua county found these debris fallen from the aircraft.
This is the 14th crash in China Airlines' since 1958, 4th major crash between Taiwan and HK.
At this stage, rumours are specualting that the 747 exploded in the midair. Before the crash 2 CX jet received an SOS call from CI611.
If all 225 on board confirmed killed, this will be the crash that has the largest number of deaths within Taiwan. In 1994, CI crashed A300 in Nagoya, 265 killed, the largest number of passengers killed outside Taiwan.
Meanwhile, 1 law maker from Taiwan, 2 journalists from UDN News are among the passenger list of the CI611 crash.
I think I made a wrong comment about CX jet receiving SOS call from CI. CX did not receive SOS call, it only receives ordinary emergency reports.
By the way, the crash site is close to the the crash site of China Airlines' 737 crash in 16 years ago. There was a story about that crash. A China Airlines' flight attendant who was killed in the 737 crash 16 years ago survived the 747SP emergency landing in SFO the year before.
Many people have already stated in previous posts that this particular flight is usually operated by a 744. it may well be that the aircraft initially intended for this flight [a 744] was inop and had been replaced by ill fated 742 as a late call. It could very well have been sitting on a bloody hot ramp all day [as an operational spare], with only vapour in its CFT. The short flight to Hong Kong certainly won't require fuel in the CFT. Not only the temperatures at Taipei create identical characteristics as with TWA800. All indications are that it suffered from a catostrophical in-flight break up as well:
* no distress call;
* aircraft disappearing from radar AT 30000 ft or so, with no apparent secondary radar-signs of loss of altitude;
* cabin pieces like in-flight magazines etc found tens of miles away from what appear to be main wreckage point;
* witness claims to have heard a [violent?] explosion.
I am curious to learn what the active duty of this particular aircraft was the previous 24 hrs. Any Taipei spotters know if this aircraft had been sitting idle for some hours on a ramp at Taipei prior to the crash?
It sure is smelling like another TWA800. Maybe a lot of speculation, but this horrible accident could just shine a completely different light on the conspiracy theories of TWA800...
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
A388 From Netherlands Antilles, joined May 2001, 10780 posts, RR: 15
Reply 12, posted (14 years 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2801 times:
I didn't even know CI was still operating the 747-200 passenger variant. That's what also surprised me, I thaught they only operated 747-200F Fullfreighters. I hope investigators will find the cause of this crash. I does sound a bit like the TW800 crash. I still find the TW800 crash to be a very suspicious one......
B777 From Canada, joined Sep 1999, 371 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (14 years 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2744 times:
Just saw CBS news on TV on the crash. Apparently, they didn't do their research as the picture behind the newsannouncer showed the tail of an Air China jet superimposed on a flag of the People's Republic of China (aka red China)!
Hkg82 From Hong Kong, joined Apr 2002, 1331 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (14 years 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2521 times:
I didn't know that CI had a passenger 742 in operation, thought they were all converted to freighters. When CNN made the announcement that it was a 747-200, I was thinking to myself oh great, they stated the wrong aircraft again!! But moments later after reading some of the info posted in the forum, I stood corrected. I'd never seen a CI passenger 742 at CLK when spotting, only their 742Fs.
I won't say what might've happened onboard the 742, but speculation is rife in the media that the crash may have been caused by problems with the wiring or cables due to the plane's old age BUT this is just speculation & not my opinion. I don't like the theory of a plane's old age being the cause of a crash. There's no reason why a 30-year-old properly maintained plane shouldn't be as safe as a 10-year-old one.
Jiml1126 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (14 years 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2339 times:
There have been serveral accident near Penghu. Passing through there is not recommanded. But many flight pass through there, such as TPE-HKG, HKG-KIX, and so on......
This is kind of ridiculous.
If a same area suffered major accidents several times, it means its not safe to fly over there? Then what about the path from JFK to Europe? 3 planes crashed on this path, does airline changed its path? no.