Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
CI 747's Violent Maneuvers Minutes Before Crash?  
User currently offlineBobcat From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 0 posts, RR: 0
Posted (12 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2604 times:



On my way home last night, I was listening to local all-news radio station.(CBS Radio) I only heard the last few lines of a report regarding the CI #611 crash last week. They said investigators are now trying to determine why the 747-200 performed a series of violent maneuvers about 8 to 10 minutes prior to the breaking up of the plane.

If anyone still has the ATC transcript, did the CI pilots report this to the ATC? Was it turbulence or something?


31 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineVh-daq From Hong Kong, joined Nov 2001, 182 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (12 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2554 times:

after reading the transcripts that have been posted on forums there was no report of anything. it just dissapeared off radar and that was it.

HOOroo
DAQ


User currently offlineHkgspotter1 From Hong Kong, joined Nov 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (12 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2445 times:

8 to 10 Minutes !!, are you sure ??.

User currently offlineBobcat From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (12 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2399 times:

Here's an update, according to CCTV English news(Telstar 5 in North America), the CI 747-200 made at least ten sudden acceleration/deceleration TWO & HALF minutes prior to disappearing from the Chinese air traffic radar. The plane's direction also chaged left/right, up/down several times at the same time.

The same broadcast can be seen via Newsworld Int'l, a Canadian channel that re-broadcast news from foreign stations. (channel 364 on DirecTV)


User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (12 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2384 times:

If true, that pretty much eliminates the collision,fuel tank, missle, or bomb theories. It could be one of those one in many billion confluence of multiple events (clear air turblulence, unlikely structural failure) that may never be explained.

User currently offlineSabena 690 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (12 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2383 times:

Strange...

I think that it is due to technical problems, or turbulence. What else could it be? Any suggestions?

Regards,
Frederic


User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (12 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2374 times:

If it turns out to be technical problem, it had to have been huge. A 747 is designed to withstand 9Gs of stress. It would require a tremendous amount of force to break the plane into four parts. Same for turbulence. I wonder if the joints of the fuselage undergo maintenance during a D-check.

User currently offlineNa From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10677 posts, RR: 9
Reply 7, posted (12 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2326 times:

If thats true (and why should it be untrue?) the center fuel tank explosion theory is dead. A possible scenario could be that a clear wheather turbulence caused a already weak structure to break.
Or could it have been something like the Lauda Air desaster 11 years ago (reverse thrust misfunction)?
What about the reports of meteorites going down at that time? I read something like that here.


User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (12 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2283 times:

I think the only doubt is the completeness of radar data. They are still compiling information to ensure the radar returns were not erroneous. I don't doubt the veracity of the radio report.

User currently offlineCx flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6597 posts, RR: 55
Reply 9, posted (12 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2173 times:

Someone sent me all the radar data last week. Unfortunately I deleted it off my computer, but it did include several sudden speed drops on 100+ kts associated, if I remember correctly, with heading changes of 90 degrees to the left in a turn that took 11 secs, (Quite a steep turn when at altitude) and then a few minutes later, after recovering heading to track heading, another change of 90 degrees or so, also for 11secs to the right.

If this was associated with steep climbs and descents as well, I wonder if something happened to the rudder/evelator assemblies. Perhaps the rear pressure bulkhead blew out taking some of the control surfaces with it?


User currently offlineHkgspotter1 From Hong Kong, joined Nov 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (12 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2141 times:

Sounds like it, Just like the JAL.......

User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (12 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2131 times:

but it did include several sudden speed drops on 100+ kts associated, if I remember correctly, with heading changes of 90 degrees to the left in a turn that took 11 secs

That's not aircraft-caused. There were external factors ie turbulance.


User currently offlineCx flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6597 posts, RR: 55
Reply 12, posted (12 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2038 times:

I don't think that the CI were in a known area of turbulence, unless there were thunderstorms that day which they decided to fly through. Does anyone have weather data for that route at the time the a/c went down?

User currently offlineBigPhilNYC From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 4076 posts, RR: 54
Reply 13, posted (12 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1987 times:

I think China is doing a VERY bad job of covering up an OBVIOUS dogfight.

I remember one time I saw the Concorde doing all sorts of evasive manuevers avoiding fighter jets and missiles, adn eventually crashed in the snow.

Oh, wait, that was "Airport '79". My bad.



Phil Derner Jr.
User currently offlineLMML 14/32 From Malta, joined Jan 2001, 2565 posts, RR: 6
Reply 14, posted (12 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1985 times:

Wouldn't the pilot have reported severe turbulence? It could be that the pilots were fooling around with the aircraft.

User currently offlineSegmentKing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (12 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1975 times:

Re: JAL incident.. i'm thinking the same thing....

It sounds like the plane is "fishtailing" in the air, which means the tail assembly was absent or rudder fell off.. but if you loose a rudder, you can *technically* still fly... it wouldn't cause you to blow up. Now if it was hit by another object, then that *should* show up on radar...

Could it be possible there was an extreme depressurization, which would knock everyone out in about 5 seconds at that altitude..... ??

-nate


User currently offlineSmolt From Japan, joined Nov 1999, 275 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (12 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1932 times:

Retyping the data from the Taiwanese Aviation Authority,
http://www.asc.gov.tw/asc/_file/2006/upload/news/CI611-RADAR.pdf

No. EAST NORTH TIME HEADING SPEED ALTITUDE
1 119.70028 24.02333 152744 226 453 34000
2 119.68111 24.0075 152756 226 442 34300 (after this disappered)
3 119.66139 23.98917 152808 226 450 34300
4 119.64139 23.97167 152819 226 451 34700
5 119.62694 23.95444 152831 224 432 34700
6 119.68083 23.98306 152843 070 413 34700
7 119.70417 24.00778 152855 057 417 36911
8 119.69111 23.9875 152907 186 241 35158.37
9 119.6725 23.97861 152919 217 251 34343.11
10 119.65111 23.96806 152931 228 281 35417.89
11 119.64583 23.96194 152943 227 255 34553.98
12 119.69278 23.99472 152955 055 309 32259.17
13 119.71056 24.01083 153007 051 343 32551.94
14 119.72111 24.01667 153019 053 305 32663.8
15 119.71028 23.97161 153031 148 281 31797.43
16 119.70611 24.00528 153043 018 218 31797.43
17 119.71139 24.01639 153055 020 218 31470.83
18 119.71278 24.02278 153107 019 187 32173.46
19 119.69583 23.97083 153119 186 182 31918.21
20 119.6825 23.95944 153131 204 184 31918.21
21 119.72083 24.00778 153143 065 197 32077.21
22 119.71056 23.97611 153155 181 197 31127.73
23 119.60417 23.56556 153207 172 198 31127.73
24 119.605 23.56028 153219 000 000 31127.73


User currently onlineT prop From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 1028 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (12 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1919 times:

A high altitude upset can easily cause the aircraft to perform violent manoeuvres to the point of structural failure. In fact in 1985 China Airlines had it happen to one of their 747SP's although it didn't come apart. http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001214X35672&key=1

One more thing:
'A 747 is designed to withstand 9Gs of stress'

um... I don't think so.

T prop.




User currently offlineOxygen From Hong Kong, joined Sep 1999, 674 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (12 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1910 times:

Hey BigPhilNYC,

Is there any benefits that the People's Republic of China can get by doing so to the Republic of China ? I am not clever enough to figure it out.


User currently offlineCx flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6597 posts, RR: 55
Reply 19, posted (12 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1892 times:

I doubt the mainland has anything to do with the crash.

Losing a tail would not cause the aircraft to break up, but that's what the AA A300 started to do last year after it lost it's tail didn't it? It it was at 30,000ft, it might have fallen to bits as well.


User currently offlineAdmiral ackbar From Canada, joined May 2002, 159 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (12 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1876 times:

A 747 is designed to withstand 9Gs of stress

Unless you have evidence to back this up, I seriously, seriously doubt this. The Big Guy is cool, but he ain't exactly an F-16  Smile


User currently offlineSmolt From Japan, joined Nov 1999, 275 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (12 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1850 times:

The data above get me feel;
1. the location data east and north from no. 6 does not seem to reflect the ACTUAL locations. Plotting them the aircraft is flying the zig zag way even the fighter could not do.(only a flying saucer could)
2. if I can ignore the location data, the aircraft seem to enter to a horizontal spin from the left to the right.
3. data of the speed and the altitude look like to have mutual relationship of a certain significance; when the altitude lost, the speed gained. when the altitude gained, the speed lost.

regards


User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (12 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1749 times:

T-prop and Admiral Ackbar,

The 747 is designed to survive 9gs of stress intact- not meant to be operated regularly under 9gs. I have heard/read that in several places: Discovery channel, Boeing Everett tour, and other places. I don't catalog the stuff but I don't make it up either.



User currently offlineBigPhilNYC From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 4076 posts, RR: 54
Reply 23, posted (12 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1635 times:

"Is there any benefits that the People's Republic of China can get by doing so to the Republic of China ? I am not clever enough to figure it out. "

Actually, there are many reason why they would shoot down their own plane.

Feeling that they need to eliminate one speicfic passenger on board or somethign that we may never understand.

But why could it only have been China? Who said it's not a terrorist attack form some other country?



Phil Derner Jr.
User currently offlineSegmentKing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (12 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1634 times:

well flight attendant and cockpit jumpseats are suppose to withstand like 10 G's or so....

-n


25 Madog : ". A 747 is designed to withstand 9Gs of stress. It would require a tremendous amount of force to break the plane into four parts." Hmmm... i don't th
26 Na : If it wasn´t an explosion (and the lack of fire traces and the strange movements already minutes before the final disastrous event points in the dire
27 VirginFlyer : Na - an explosive decompression could have ejected part of the aircraft backwards. The force of the air escaping out the back of the aircraft would be
28 Aerosol : At that point of the investigation everything is possible, even the collision with a drone (I don't think so, but it is possible).
29 Oxygen : About the explosion, could the explosion happen after the mid-air disintergration happen? maybe after the aircraft came apart, the fuel get exposed an
30 Joni : Perhaps there was a struggle in the cockpit that caused both the violent maneuvres and also the hull break-up?
31 APP : Anyone know whether the CVR and/or FDR has been recovered yet? APP.
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...
Shooting Onboard Armenian Before Crash... posted Fri Oct 20 2006 07:47:55 by Kevin
CI 747 Dreamliner In Costa Rica W Taiwan President posted Mon May 8 2006 01:53:06 by Aceairways
Taiwan President Takes CI 747 To South America posted Fri May 5 2006 15:21:21 by 777way
CI 747 Upper Deck To AZ posted Wed Aug 17 2005 16:17:24 by Wingedarrow
Final Moments Before Crash On C.V.R's posted Sun Jul 24 2005 02:09:34 by COAMiG29
Check-in-10-minutes-before-departure Option? posted Tue Mar 8 2005 21:25:41 by Pe@rson
President's Pilot Warned Before Crash posted Wed Nov 24 2004 08:59:11 by TRACON
Passengers Previously On An Aircraft Before Crash posted Thu Nov 13 2003 07:07:59 by Thrust
Are The 747 Pilots From SQ 006 Crash Still Flying? posted Sat Oct 19 2002 23:52:03 by Bobcat
TU 154 Pilot Had 44 Seconds Warning Before Crash posted Thu Jul 4 2002 19:06:34 by LBA