gearup
Posts: 514
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2000 9:23 am

Looks Like A Repeat Of The JAL Accident, WHY?

Sat Feb 26, 2005 11:37 am

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/nation.../2005/02/25/china-plane050225.html

A CBC news storey from CBC.ca . Looks like it's quite similar to the JAL 747D that went down with >500 pax after a failed pressure bulkhead caused the vertical tail to blow apart. (The repair was done with a single row of rivets instead of a double row). So sad. You have to wonder why, seeing as we know the cause of the JAL crash. The circumstances look remarkably similar, tail strike followed a few years later by structural failure. It would seem to be the 747's Achilles heal.

GU
I have no memory of this place.
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: Looks Like A Repeat Of The JAL Accident, WHY?

Sat Feb 26, 2005 11:47 am

It was a tail strike followed structural failure 22 years later. According to Airwise.com, China Airlines did not correctly repair the aircraft and relied soley on a doubler as the long term fix. I do not think this accident was the product of a shortcoming of B747 design.

http://news.airwise.com/story/view/1109327773.html

The JAL crash was the result of an improper repair by Boeing. Again rather than a design flaw, the crash was caused by botched work.
 
bennett123
Posts: 7442
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: Looks Like A Repeat Of The JAL Accident, WHY?

Sat Feb 26, 2005 11:49 am

Yes, there are similarities although I think that it was the structure that failed this time, not the pressure bulkhead.

My only surprise is that I thought that I read about this in Flight International some time ago.
 
gearup
Posts: 514
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2000 9:23 am

RE: Looks Like A Repeat Of The JAL Accident, WHY?

Sat Feb 26, 2005 11:52 am

Sorry N79969, I did not mean to imply that the 747 has a design flaw but rather is vulnerable to such issues as this. It is such a shame that similer causes has caused the destruction of 2 aircraft with all souls on board.

GU
I have no memory of this place.
 
OPNLguy
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

RE: Looks Like A Repeat Of The JAL Accident, WHY?

Sat Feb 26, 2005 11:57 am

The only similarity that I'm aware of is the original tailstrike that started the accident chain.

Unless there's been a report out (that I missed) that's got more detailed info than does the media article you linked...

1/ JAL123 had an improper repair; do we know if CI611's repair was proper or not?

2/ JAL123 had pretty much the whole vertical stabilizer blow off, with the aft fuselage still attached to the airframe; do we know the exact failure mode of CI611? Did CI611 actually have a repeat of JAL123, or did its vertical stabilizer stay intact/attached, and the entire tail (forward of the horizontal stabilizers) separate in-flight?

Anyone know if there's a more-detailed report out?
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: Looks Like A Repeat Of The JAL Accident, WHY?

Sat Feb 26, 2005 12:07 pm

Gearup,

No need to apologize for anything. I agree with you that it is a shame particularly since both of these crashes were apparently caused by avoidable hazards.

OPNLGuy,

That airwise story I linked seems indicate that China Airlines mx was at fault. I would check google for the Taiwanese website that may have an English report.
 
OPNLguy
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

RE: Looks Like A Repeat Of The JAL Accident, WHY?

Sat Feb 26, 2005 12:15 pm

Looks like the report was just issued today, according to the article, and I'll look for it...

Based on the more-detailed Airwise article, it doesn't appear that the failure mode was quite the same, and that the vertical stabilizer wasn't specifically involved as was the case with JAL123.

I do recall seeing some pictures published a couple of years ago (AWST?) that showed multiple doubler layers (3 or 4?). IIRC, the accident aircraft was about to be sold (or just had been, but not delivered to the new airline, and the picture might have been related to a pre-sale inspection.

I'll post a link to the report if I can find it...
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
OPNLguy
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

RE: Looks Like A Repeat Of The JAL Accident, WHY?

Sat Feb 26, 2005 12:25 pm

OK, found it...

http://www.asc.gov.tw/asc_en/news_list_2.asp?news_no=194

At the bottom, there are links to Volumes 1 and 2, and they are big files (one 11 megs and the other 25 megs). There's also a file that contains 86 photos/graphics from the press conference...

One of the slides I noticed mentioned that the tailstrike repair was not done in compliance with the Boeing SRM, so an improper repair would be another similarity between CI611 and JAL123.

Enjoy the read!  Big grin
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
ha763
Posts: 3168
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 5:36 pm

RE: Looks Like A Repeat Of The JAL Accident, WHY?

Sat Feb 26, 2005 12:40 pm

Actually, an improper repair on any aircraft, Boeing and Airbus, could result with the exact same results as CI611 and JL123.
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: Looks Like A Repeat Of The JAL Accident, WHY?

Sat Feb 26, 2005 1:06 pm

"According to maintenance records, starting from November 1997, B-18255 had a total of 29 CPCP inspection items that were not accomplished in accordance with the CAL AMP and the Boeing 747 Aging Airplane Corrosion Prevention & Control Program. The aircraft had been operated with unresolved safety deficiencies from November 1997 onward."

- Quote from the Taiwan Aviation Safety Council summary linked above.

That is simply appalling. I cannot understand how such a lackadasical attitude towards safety persisted at CAL considering their spate of crashes.
 
N754PR
Posts: 2909
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 1999 10:03 pm

RE: Looks Like A Repeat Of The JAL Accident, WHY?

Sat Feb 26, 2005 7:48 pm

Said it before and I'll say it again, CI are not a safe airline.
Bush, your a sad, sad man.
 
ltbewr
Posts: 12398
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

RE: Looks Like A Repeat Of The JAL Accident, WHY?

Sat Feb 26, 2005 10:36 pm

Wouldn't a major check (like a D check?) have found the alleged weaknesses that are being blamed for this CI accident? Clearly, as noted above, there are specific inspection procedures issued by Boeing as to older a/c and shouldn't they have included procedures as to when other repairs have been done? This also reminds me of the AC crash in Ohio in the early 80's where the a/c caught on fire in the air, and where found later that a tailstrike repair was improperly done causing damage to the electrical systems of that a/c. At least now we have an plausable answer to this tragic accident and hope that Boeing and CI revise their inspections and repair procedures to eliminate such potential risks in the future.
 
gearup
Posts: 514
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2000 9:23 am

RE: Looks Like A Repeat Of The JAL Accident, WHY?

Sun Feb 27, 2005 1:13 am

Wouldn't a major check (like a D check?) have found the alleged weaknesses that are being blamed for this CI accident?

I would have thought so too. It does seem from the report that CI missed some very important stuff during inspections. One would think that they would be especially concerned about the area around the doubler. Perhaps the aircraft did not have a D check between the tail strike repair and the accident although given the elapsed time between those 2 events, at least 1 major check should/would have been performed. When the FAA/Boeing go to such lengths to ensure the correct maintenance of aging aircraft, you would think that would be taken seriously by such a major carrier. I know that much smaller airlines such as Aer Lingus do an excellent job so there really is no excuse for a larger airline. EI's 2 747's, EI-ASI and ASJ were tired when they were taken out of service but they were in perfect condition structurally simply because they were correctly looked after. They were in EI service for over 25 years.

GU
I have no memory of this place.
 
PhilSquares
Posts: 3371
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: Looks Like A Repeat Of The JAL Accident, WHY?

Sun Feb 27, 2005 1:20 am

The cause was a temp repair to the aft pressure bulkhead. The permanant repair was never done and the temp repair lasted 22 years. Not bad for a temp repair!
Fly fast, live slow
 
OPNLguy
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

RE: Looks Like A Repeat Of The JAL Accident, WHY?

Sun Feb 27, 2005 1:49 am

>>>This also reminds me of the AC crash in Ohio in the early 80's where the a/c caught on fire in the air, and where found later that a tailstrike repair was improperly done causing damage to the electrical systems of that a/c.

The Air Canada 797 landing/fire at CVG? The LH aft lav flush motor that popped the CBs and started the fire was originally damaged in a previous tailstrike?

Never heard that before; will have to dig through the report...

Just did... (NTSB AAR84-09)

I'd always been under the impression that the aft lav flush motor had been the culprit, and although the NTSB report says the fire was of unknown origin, it's clear that a generator feed cable was a more likely culprit than the lav flush motor, especially given the aircraft's history of generator-related write-ups. In September 1979, the accident aircraft had an aft pressure bulkhead failure at FL250, and was out of service at BOS until December 1979 while they rebuilt the aft part of the aircraft. (No tailstrike, but still a major repair on that end of the aircraft).



[Edited 2005-02-26 18:18:57]
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
ktachiya
Posts: 1501
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 5:54 am

RE: Looks Like A Repeat Of The JAL Accident, WHY?

Sun Feb 27, 2005 5:43 am

Oh boy....

This is a tragedy when JL123 had a similar incident before. But its quite unbelievable that the temporary repair had lasted them until 2002. So it was once when the ac reached crusing altitude and it was not like JL123 where the pilots struggled for 40 minutes to get the plane back to HND?
Flown on: DC-10-30, B747-200B, B747-300, B747-300SR, B747-400, B747-400D, B767-300, B777-200, B777-200ER, B777-300
 
757MDE
Posts: 1451
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 11:45 am

RE: Looks Like A Repeat Of The JAL Accident, WHY?

Sun Feb 27, 2005 6:32 am

Quoting OPNLguy (reply 6):
the accident aircraft was about to be sold (or just had been, but not delivered to the new airline, and the picture might have been related to a pre-sale inspection.


It had been sold to Orient Thai Airlines, that was almost the last revenue flight with CI.
Quisiera volveraamartevolveraquerertevolveratenertecerrrrcaademígirl! Mis ojos lloran porrr ti...
 
Okie
Posts: 3553
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 11:30 am

RE: Looks Like A Repeat Of The JAL Accident, WHY?

Sun Feb 27, 2005 6:50 am

From my memory of the Discovery Channel program on the JL-123 accident.
They had a metallurgist test the type incorrect repair that was involved with the 123 accident and came within a few pressurization cycles of the failure involved. I got the impression at that time that there would not be much evidence beforehand (cracking, stress cracks etc.) before catastrophic failure.

Okie
 
MD11LuxuryLinr
Posts: 1311
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 8:34 am

RE: Looks Like A Repeat Of The JAL Accident, WHY?

Sun Feb 27, 2005 8:50 am

Quoting N79969 (reply 9):
"According to maintenance records, starting from November 1997, B-18255 had a total of 29 CPCP inspection items that were not accomplished in accordance with the CAL AMP and the Boeing 747 Aging Airplane Corrosion Prevention & Control Program. The aircraft had been operated with unresolved safety deficiencies from November 1997 onward."



Un freakin believable! Why is CI allowed to operate with practices like this?
Caution wake turbulence, you are following a heavy jet.

Who is online