just read it in a german online newspaper:
airport staff on a japanese airport found a 70cm long hairline crack (fissure) on a CHINA AIRLINES 737.
This airlines needs to be grounded!
i dont know how i survived accumulating 80.000 miles with them, but i will never set foot in any of their machines again.
i wasnt really aware at that time they had such a bad reputation and history and some taiwanese ‘freinds’ recommended it to me. well i am not gonna call these freinds again
i mean this was discovered by japanese airport staff, not even CA own staff found this?
[quote]
China Airlines maintenance workers discovered the hairline crack near the tail of the jet during a routine post-flight inspection Thursday afternoon at Saga Airport on the southern Japanese island of Kyushu, Transport Ministry official Rui Mitsuma said.[/quote]
Credit where credit is due. China Airlines may have been deficient at times in the past with pilot training and maintenance issues, but they are a lot better then they used to be. There was a lot of praise among pilots about their handling of the fire evac at Okinawa (which in NO WAY was the fault of China Airlines). And a crack developing on a 737 is not necesarily the fault of the airline either. They are to be commended for discovering it and not allowing the aircraft to continue on its return journey.
These are positive signs for the airline, not negative. Shit happens. Sometimes its nobody’s fault.
The cause of the crack has not yet been established. Lets wait to pass judgement on that one.
[quote=“Truant”][quote=“Gelangweilt”]I mean this was discovered by japanese airport staff, not even CA own staff found this?[/quote]wrong
sure, but the point is that the Taiwanese maintenance crews in Taiwan didn’t spot the crack and allowed the aircraft to fly … Once it got to Japan, Japanese crews who work for CA did spot the crack and ground the plane… A crew of Taiwanese engineers were then dispatched from Taipei to follow up on what their Japanese collegues had discovered… that alone speaks volumes, Taiwanese CA crews signed off on a damaged un-airworthy plane, Japanese CA crews picked up on it, luckily for the passengers… Taiwanese negligence any way you want to spin it…
That was in reference to the CX (Cathay) maintenance crews, not CA… read further in the thread…
they might be improving, but IMO China Air is still a corner cutting dangerous airline, that facts speak for themselves…
That was in reference to the CX (Cathay) maintenance crews, not CA… read further in the thread…[/quote]
I read that, but the later post was ALSO referring to CX maintenance in TPE, which is contracted out to CAL.
China Airlines and Air China = a source of constant confusion around the world
Air China has the bad service but the fairly good safety reputation and China Airlines has the famous service and the infamous safety.
Furthermore China Airlines planes are usually not allowed to fly to China. How ironic.
It has been said that there is no " CHINA AIR " , only " Air China" and " China Airlines" .
But it has been suggested that the two should merge and then finally there could be a "CHINA AIR " maybe with the good service AND the safe reputation?
to be quite frank, the media more often than not get it wrong, or misrepresents the facts. It may well be a case of a cracked fairing or similar which is technically part of the fuselage, but not strictly a major structural item. I’m not saying it is in this case, but the media have a habit of omitting information to sensationalize a story. Eg, where are the follow up reports about the Boeing design fault that led to the CAL fire at Okinawa? That doesn’t sell newspapers does it?
When aircraft have major checks, a great deal of rectification is the repair of numerous cracks all over it. Not many people realize that ALL aircraft fly with cracks, some known, some unknown. What prevents them falling out of the sky is designed redundancy allowing cracks to exist until picked up at the appropriate maintenance opportunity.
Ironically, a crack is found during maintenance, the aircraft grounded, and people get all upset. I guess aircraft are not allowed to break down away from their home base without it making the news.
well whatever, but 2 incidents within 4 weeks basically is enough to drive me away as a customer.
and regarding the incident in japan last month: who says it wasnt a maintenance problem? loose bolt means someone didnt tighten the thing enough? ( i am no aircraft expert, but thats what my logic tells me)
knowing how some so called ‘engineers’ work in IT industry here, i have not really the faith anymore to believe that aircarft engineers here have a better (or more strict) attitude.
sloppiness that is in my point of view.
[quote=“Gelangweilt”]well whatever, but 2 incidents within 4 weeks basically is enough to drive me away as a customer.
[/quote]
BA had two incidents within 24 hours (with the same plane) findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m … _n15976813.
Ok the first was a bird strike, but incidents do happen. And there is no conclusions (apart from the media) yet on the causes for the CAL incidents, and as Traunt said the impact on the performance/safety of the airplane.
Maybe this is wrong, but as long as nobody gets hurt, I’m really happy when China Airlines (or another airline that flies to Taiwan) has a problem like this. Because then the fare will be cheaper, and the way I look at it, I’m still way more likely to die in the car ride to TPE than in the flight to New York.
Im not sure I’m willing to accept that bolded part at face value, especially the “ALL”… do you have anything to substantiate that claim?.. I understand airframes stretch and contract a great deal every flight cycle and that micro deformations and stress patterns in the alloy body sheets and structural components could be loosely labelled as “cracks” but IMO thats playing a bit fast and loose with the definition… my intention isn’t to be an arse, I realise the second half of the sentance quoted above is a reality and I’m curious more than calling you out, but I’m not convinced you’re not playing the flip side of the media’s sensationalist tactics in this description…
If we assume for now that your claim that all aircraft fly laden with cracks day in day out as a matter of routine is true, for a crack to be serious enough to ground the aircraft, we’re by definition not talking about a “run of the mill” type of crack anymore then are we?..
[quote=“Truant”]Not many people realize that ALL aircraft fly with cracks, some known,…"[/quote]NO they do not. If this happens it is the result of falsified maintenance docs and knowingly NON-ADHERENCE to Aviation Safety Regs.
This is a statement that an FAA or CAA inspector would dearly hate to see coming from someone involved in the a/c MRO business.
[quote=“TainanCowboy”][quote=“Truant”]Not many people realize that ALL aircraft fly with cracks, some known,…"[/quote]NO they do not. If this happens it is the result of falsified maintenance docs and knowingly NON-ADHERENCE to Aviation Safety Regs.
This is a statement that an FAA or CAA inspector would dearly hate to see coming from someone involved in the a/c MRO business.[/quote]
I’m not sure I’m willing to accept that bolded part at face value, especially the “ALL”… do you have anything to substantiate that claim?.. I understand airframes stretch and contract a great deal every flight cycle and that micro deformations and stress patterns in the alloy body sheets and structural components could be loosely labelled as “cracks” but IMO thats playing a bit fast and loose with the definition… my intention isn’t to be an arse, I realise the second half of the sentance quoted above is a reality and I’m curious more than calling you out, but I’m not convinced you’re not playing the flip side of the media’s sensationalist tactics in this description…
If we assume for now that your claim that all aircraft fly laden with cracks day in day out as a matter of routine is true, for a crack to be serious enough to ground the aircraft, we’re by definition not talking about a “run of the mill” type of crack anymore then are we?..[/quote]
I’m not trying to sensationalize anything. If you look hard enough and long enough at an airframe, you’ll find a crack.
Even aircraft fresh off the production line test flight have cracks. There are a myriad of reasons an aircraft structure can crack ranging on a scale from overstressing and ground handling defects, to corrosion, to manufacturing defects or plain wear and tear. Obviously, some cracks are more important than others.
Through out an aircraft’s life, common cracking defects are reported to the manufacturer and a service bulletin may be released outlining a special inspection or modification to temporarily or permanently repair such items. If serious enough, the FAA issues an Airworthiness Directive which generally mandates 1 or more OEM bulletins within a time frame.
All aircraft have a Structural Repair Manual issued and revised by the manufacturer, which specifically highlights common areas that an aircraft cracks or has other known structural issues. Many of these known defects have acceptable limits to which the recommended action is to monitor the crack or defect during scheduled maintenance, and only repair the crack when the acceptable limits are exceeded, or when the appropriate maintenance opportunity arises.
Deferred maintenance is recorded in the Aircraft Logbook. If there are operational limits associated with a monitored defect, then this is also noted in the logbook.
This thread is going a bit off topic, and I don’t know anything about the specific crack other than via the links provided, but as I mentioned earlier, the crack could be non-structural yet still ground the aircraft (i.e. a fairing etc)
[quote=“TainanCowboy”][quote=“Truant”]Not many people realize that ALL aircraft fly with cracks, some known,…"[/quote]NO they do not. If this happens it is the result of falsified maintenance docs and knowingly NON-ADHERENCE to Aviation Safety Regs.
This is a statement that an FAA or CAA inspector would dearly hate to see coming from someone involved in the a/c MRO business.[/quote]
Bullshit. What I hate to see is people who don’t know what they are talking about. See above, there are occasions (thousands every day in fact) when aircraft safely fly with known defects.
… Once it got to Japan, 
