Airline Crashes

TAA Matt · September 28, 2006

Crash of China Airlines Flight 642

Why we need pilots

<param name="movie" value="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed>Military Crash

Crazy Planes

October 15, 2006

That second one is why I don't really like airbus that much lol

Uncle Chop Chop · October 16, 2006

I was wondering what hapened on the flight so I did a search on the Aviation Safety Network and found this.

Source- http://aviation-safety.net/database/rec ... -0&lang=en

Status: Final Date: 22 AUG 1999
Time: 18:43

Type: McDonnell Douglas MD-11

Operator: China Airlines

Registration: B-150

C/n / msn: 48468/518

First flight: 1992

Total airframe hrs: 30721

Cycles: 5824

Engines: 3 Pratt & Whitney PW4460

Crew: Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: 15

Passengers: Fatalities: 3 / Occupants: 300

Total: Fatalities: 3 / Occupants: 315

Airplane damage: Written off

Location: Hong Kong-Chek Lap Kok International Airport (HKG) (Hong Kong)

Phase: Landing

Nature: International Scheduled Passenger

Departure airport: Bangkok International Airport (BKK/VTBD), Thailand

Destination airport: Hong Kong-Chek Lap Kok International Airport (HKG/VHHH), Hong Kong

Flightnumber: 642

Narrative:

China Airlines flight 642 departed Bangkok for a flight to Taipei via Hong Kong. Weather in the Hong Kong area was very poor with a severe tropical storm ('Sam') 50km NE of the airport and gale force winds and thunderstorms. Extra fuel was carried, because the crew intended to continue to Taipei, depending on weather at Hong Kong on arrival. Before the arrival of flight 642 four flights carried out missed approaches, five planes diverted and 12 planes landed successfully.

Weather information obtained by the crew at 18:06 reported a 300deg wind at 35 knots and an RVR of 650m in heavy rain. The flight crew then prepared for a runway 25L ILS approach. Landing reference speed was calculated to be 152 knots and the captain (pilot-in-command) would fly the approach at 170 knots and would continue to land depending on a wind check on finals.

At 18:41, while flying the runway 25L ILS approach, weather was reported to the crew being 1600m visibility in the touchdown zone, wind 320deg/25 knots gusting to 33 knots. The aircraft was then cleared to land. At an altitude of 700 feet prior to touchdown a further wind check was passed to the crew: 320deg/28 knots gusting to 36 knots. Maximum crosswind component limit for the aircraft was 24 knots. The pilot-in-command continued with the approach, disconnected the autopilot but left auto throttle engaged. The MD-11, with a weight very close to the maximum landing weight permitted, stabilized slightly low on the glide slope. At 50 feet above the runway, upon power reduction to flight idle, the airspeed decreased from 170 to 152 knots. An attempt was made to flare in a slightly right wing down (less than 4 deg) attitude. The aircraft landed hard on its right main gear and the no. 3 engine touched the runway. The right main gear separated and the right wing separated. The MD-11 then rolled inverted as it skidded off the runway in flames. It came to rest on a grass area next to the runway, 1100m from the runway threshold. The right wing was found on a taxiway 90m from the nose of the plane.

The crash sequence in this case bears similarities to a Fedex MD-11 which also flipped upside down on landing at Newark.

CAUSAL FACTORS:

"The cause of the accident was the commander's inability to arrest the high rate of descent existing at 50 ft RA.

Probable contributory causes to the high rate of descent were:

(i) The commander's failure to appreciate the combination of a reducing airspeed, increasing rate of descent, and with the thrust decreasing to flight idle.

(ii) The commander's failure to apply power to counteract the high rate of descent prior to touchdown.

(iii) Probable variations in wind direction and speed below 50 ft RA may have resulted in a momentary loss of headwind component and, in combination with the early retardation of the thrust levers, and at a weight only just below the maximum landing weight, led to a 20 kt loss in indicated airspeed just prior to touchdown.

A possible contributory cause may have been a reduction in peripheral vision as the aircraft entered the area of the landing flare, resulting in the commander not appreciating the high rate of descent prior to touchdown."

China Airlines and the plane's co-pilot applied for a review of the findings and conclusions of the accident report. In September, 2002, the Chief Executive appointed an independent Board of Review made up of a Principal Magistrate and two overseas expert assessors. Their report completed in December, 2004.

Regarding the causal factors, the Board of Review rejected the part of the causal factor relating to the maximum landing weight in para. (iii) being a possible significant contributing cause to the high rate of descent: "In relation to para. (iii), we are of the view that the reference to aircraft weight is possibly misleading as any increase in drag resulting from the aircraft weight would have been minimal and a heavier aircraft would have more inertia and possibly greater stability in these particular circumstances. Furthermore, the extra fuel carried would have allowed for a wider range of aircraft diversion options, thereby relieving some of the pressures on the crew to avoid a go-around

."

Sign In

Sign In

Airline Crashes

Recommended Posts

TAA Matt

Guest WillMikoyan

Uncle Chop Chop

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Whats New

My Streams

Media

Resources

Members