Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Do You Think CI's Fleet ....?  
User currently offline9V-SVC From Singapore, joined Oct 2001, 1797 posts, RR: 10
Posted (12 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 1140 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 ?


Cheers
Charles


Airliners is the wings of my life.
17 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineMr.BA From Singapore, joined Sep 2000, 3423 posts, RR: 21
Reply 1, posted (12 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 1123 times:

I agree something should be done to stop this mess.


Boeing747 万岁!
User currently offline9V-SVC From Singapore, joined Oct 2001, 1797 posts, RR: 10
Reply 2, posted (12 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 1114 times:

Yah , Taiwan is better off with one airline , EVA Air .




Airliners is the wings of my life.
User currently offlineJiml1126 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (12 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 1094 times:

Investigators are looking at the cause of the crash.

One of the theory is that the plane self-destructed, due to it's old age (22.8 years for the 742). And everything falls apart without any explosions.


User currently onlineVirginFlyer From New Zealand, joined Sep 2000, 4574 posts, RR: 41
Reply 4, posted (12 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 1088 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).

V/F



"So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth." - Bahá'u'lláh
User currently offlineNightcruiser From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (12 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 1076 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.

User currently offlineRyanair!!! From Australia, joined Mar 2002, 4755 posts, RR: 26
Reply 6, posted (12 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 1068 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!
User currently offlineRyanair!!! From Australia, joined Mar 2002, 4755 posts, RR: 26
Reply 7, posted (12 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 1051 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!
User currently offlineIMissPiedmont From United States of America, joined May 2001, 6293 posts, RR: 33
Reply 8, posted (12 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 1043 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?


Damn, this website is getting worse daily.
User currently offlineHkgspotter1 From Hong Kong, joined Nov 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (12 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 996 times:

1) GROUND THEM NOW.

2) THE MD-11 AT CLK DID NOT MAKE CONTACT ON THE WING FIRST, I'VE SEEN THE VIDEO OF THIS ACCIDENT.

3) THE 747-400 THAT ENDED UP IN HONG KONG HARBOUR WAS DUE TO A VERY LATE LANDING AND THE STUPIDITY OF THE PILOT, NOT THE WEATHER (not 100%)

AGAIN, GROUND CHINA AIRLINES TODAY !!


User currently offlineEddy Cheuk From Hong Kong, joined Aug 2001, 25 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (12 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 994 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.


User currently offlineCathay250 From Hong Kong, joined Aug 1999, 221 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (12 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 976 times:

HKGspotter1, if u can, can u briefly describe what you saw in the video of that crashed MD-11?

Ivan


User currently offlineHkgspotter1 From Hong Kong, joined Nov 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (12 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 976 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.


User currently offlineTG992 From New Zealand, joined Jan 2001, 2910 posts, RR: 10
Reply 13, posted (12 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 973 times:

Why don't you trust them to look after the plane correctly?



-
User currently offlineHkgspotter1 From Hong Kong, joined Nov 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (12 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 973 times:

TG992,

Hi. I just have that feeling about them. They just seem to be one of those carriers that want to make a fast buck. I hope I'm wrong but thats how I see them.


User currently offlineCXCPA From Hong Kong, joined May 2000, 387 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (12 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 921 times:

CI should not stop their service because they are trying to improve their safety! Unfortunately, they have fatal accident before sucess.

User currently offlineSingapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13742 posts, RR: 19
Reply 16, posted (12 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 879 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.



Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
User currently offlineChiawei From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 944 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (12 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 869 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.


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...
Which Airline Do You Think Has The Perfect Fleet? posted Mon May 3 2004 03:47:35 by Soaringadi
Fly Baboo, What Do You Think Of The Name? posted Sat Nov 11 2006 00:50:21 by Dambuster
Who Do You Think Will Take AC A330-300s? posted Fri Nov 3 2006 02:36:44 by AirCanada014
Do You Think SQ Will Dump Its 345s? posted Sun Jul 23 2006 17:53:03 by F.pier
What Do You Think Of Varig Situation? posted Mon Jun 26 2006 19:45:38 by Thering
Do You Think AA Will Close Some Admirals Clubs? posted Fri May 19 2006 23:52:36 by ASTROJET707
What Do You Think Of BBI? posted Fri Apr 28 2006 19:43:35 by TommyBP251b
What Do You Think On Munich Airlines? posted Fri Apr 7 2006 18:40:18 by TommyBP251b
Do You Think AC Will Have Star Alliance On New 777 posted Sat Apr 1 2006 04:21:58 by AirCanada014
Do You Think B777-200LR Will Be Far Superior Than? posted Sun Mar 5 2006 00:17:03 by AirCanada014