9V-SVC From Singapore, joined Oct 2001, 1780 posts, RR: 11 Posted (10 years 12 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 815 times:
Do you guys think that CI's fleet should be grounded immediately ?China Airlines's safety record has a lot to be desired . As you can see in the past records , China Airlines has more crashes then other airlines .
What are your views about this ?
VirginFlyer From New Zealand, joined Sep 2000, 4502 posts, RR: 50 Reply 4, posted (10 years 12 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 763 times:
Jiml1126 - Aircraft don't 'self-destruct' because of old age, the break up because of poor maintenance practices. And 22.8 years is not old. Its no spring chicken, thats for sure, but it isn't ancient either.
People amaze me thinking that older aircraft are inherently less safe. I would feel MUCH safer flying on a well maintained, corrosion-free 747-200 built in the 1970's than a poorly maintained 747-400 built in the 1990s. Still, unfortunately most people seem to think that a fresh lick of paint equals safe and well maintained (and by the same token a dirty appearance equals the opposite).
"So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth." - Bahá'u'lláh
Nightcruiser From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (10 years 12 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 751 times:
Jiml1126, how can a 747 simply "self-destruct." The only explanation I can think of for that to happen is if the 747 suffered some stress-related failure and therefore snapped into pieces. True, the China Airlines 742 was a bit old, but not old enough to simply shatter into a trillion fragments! Let us see what the official crash report has to say about the reason behind this terrible accident.
Ryanair!!! From Singapore, joined Mar 2002, 4652 posts, RR: 27 Reply 6, posted (10 years 12 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 743 times:
If you look into the last few accidents of CAL, you would realise that it wasn't due to the plane but pilot error. The 2 Airbuses that crashed in Nagoya and Taipei struck the ground in eerily similar circumstances. Ie. last minute decision to go-round andpulling up too quickly, thus stalling the aircraft. The aircraft then plunges to the ground but not before levelling out, however, the rate of descend remains unchecked and the plane smashes into the ground with the nose pointing slightly up, as if in a desperate attempt to gain height. Both cases showed the same "crash marks" but the plane in Taipei did some violent gyrations and turns before heading for the ground.
The B747-400 that crashed into the waters off Kai Tak landed in a typhoon with a v strongtailwind. Hence the a/c skidded off the runway into the waters on a platform that allowed little room for error.
The MD11 in Chap Lap Kok once again landed in a typhoon and a strong crosswind caused the wing to clip the ground, the result was the flip-sommersault landing on its top.
Thus, it was mostly due to pilot error. Lets not jump to conclusion for this case because the a/c was close to cruising alt and there is almost nothing that can go wrong, unless the aircraft decompressed, auto-pilot malfunctioned as in the case of the CAL 747SP back in the 80s causing the a/c to dive... or worse, a repeat of the TWA 800 episode. So the chance for "pilot error" that high up there is very slim.
Welcome to my starry one world alliance, a team in the sky!
Ryanair!!! From Singapore, joined Mar 2002, 4652 posts, RR: 27 Reply 7, posted (10 years 12 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 726 times:
Sorry, my point to the last post was no point grounding the planes when its the pilots that needs to be checked.
But if its really the planes, then the maintenence habits of CAL needs to be looked into. However, we must also note that this 747-200 was the last of its kind in CAL's fleet, and incidentally this was also the a/c's last flight for the airline. Could the a/c have certain stress points that was missed out by ground crew? Until the final report comes out, we can only speculate... that fact that there was "rapid descend" could mean a lot of things... eg.the a/c broke apart, uncontrollable dive due to auto-pilot malfunction...
Welcome to my starry one world alliance, a team in the sky!
IMissPiedmont From United States of America, joined May 2001, 6203 posts, RR: 43 Reply 8, posted (10 years 12 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 718 times:
Good God! If a US or European airline had the safety record of CI, they'd have been grounded long ago. Hell, everyones favourite slam, Aeroflot, has a better safety record than this travesty of an airline. What is this, about a dozen major crashes in the last 10 years?
What is it with all the "is there a possibilty airline X will.." threads? The answer it'll is possible.
Eddy Cheuk From Hong Kong, joined Aug 2001, 25 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (10 years 12 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 669 times:
I the the CI611 crash is an accident only. The Boeing 747-200 in the accident is on its final flight, it will discharge from the China Airlines fleet. So there are not ageing problem with the China Airlines passenger fleet. The accident is just coming at a wrong time and wrong airlines. For the ageing fleet problem, I thin Orient Thai is much more serious, since all of their Boeing 747 are old planes from Japan Airlines or this CI Boeing 747-200.
Therefore I think China Airlines fleet is still in good condition.
Hkgspotter1 From Hong Kong, joined Nov 2005, 0 posts, RR: 1 Reply 12, posted (10 years 12 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 651 times:
Thats not correct.
Does that mean all DC-3's, DC-4's etc are dangerous because they are old ??. If you look after any plane there is no reason why it can't fly for ever (you know what I mean).
If the airline flying the plane looks after it then its not a problem. If this happened after the plane went to OX it would still be the problem of CI as they are the one's that missed the problem.
As for OX, would I fly them..... NO. I don't trust them to look after the plane correctly. They have one 747-100 thats 30 years old and one 747-200 thats also 30 years old. For the record the -200 is older then their -100 by 5 months.
Singapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13711 posts, RR: 21 Reply 16, posted (10 years 12 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 554 times:
Of course not!
I see certain people here blaming pilot error as they did when SQ006 crash. However the certain people have no idea what happenned to the plane and are not even entertaining other options so that they can continue with their agenda and outburst of personal feeling that China Airlines should cease operations.
Absolutely preposterous. From what it seems, either a fuel tank exploded like TW800 or a bomb went off. The plane was checked in late September 2001 for a C - Check and therefore, I doubt that it dismantled itself in mid-air.
IF it is indeed a plane error and not a pilot error, I am sure that in the minds of certain people China Airlines was at fault.
Chiawei From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 882 posts, RR: 2 Reply 17, posted (10 years 12 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 544 times:
I have no problem dismantling CI and have EVA took over.
1. CI has made many pilot error without any change. including duplicating the A300 crash in taiwan. Also having a a new A340 took off from the taxiway at ANC. Remember if the CI pilots has not firewalled the engine on that A340, CI would have 2nd 200+ fatality within couple month today.
2. CI has always been a governement pet. Slow and non-efficicent. This company should have been dismantled a while back.
My suggestion is immediately slashing CI routes. Have BR support in the mean time, then have Transasia, Far Eastern took over regional route, and EVA took over all international route.
CI has been given way too much benefit of the doubt.