New incident with china airlines in japan

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore_ … Flight_006

[quote=“Satellite TV”][quote=“Elegua”] I recall the crew claimed that the runway signs were not very clear, nor were the signs showing that runway was closed. Bit of a he-said-she-said story, but given how sloppily many things are done in Taiwan, I don’t think it’s impossible they didn’t do a stellar job with the signs. Viz was also very poor at the time of that incident. Yes you can blame the crew for deciding to take off in poor conditions, but let’s face it, they are under huge pressure from the airline and also the airport to fly on time.

.[/quote]

Singapore Airlines accepted full resonsibility when it was shown [color=blue]that the pilots had in fact missed a safety pre-flight briefing[/color] due to the closed runway and that the pilots who has in fact flown in on 10 previous flights thru that ariport had in fact misread the airport runway lights.[/quote]

Hmmm…You sure about that? You are quoting the Taiwan Aviation Safety Board report, which the Singapore MOT, (with similarly skewed veiwpoint), did not agree to.

Not an expert by any means, but from what I gathered CKS airport had a single switch that turned on both runway 5L and 5R green centerline lights (and this was not in accordance with international practice). Also using part of 5R as a taxiway was not in accordance with international practice when the runway is not usable as a runway.

Singapore Airline pilots made a very serious mistake. They did not cross check with each other exactly which runway they were on and the route they were to take to get there. They also should have noted that 5R was notably less wide then the normal 5L . 5R was apparently not used as an active runway. Is substantially less wide and not actually used for take offs or landings. Also 5L , the correct runway, is lit by lights alongside as well.

The crew were probably pre-occupied with getting out of CKS as soon as possible before prevailing conditions precluded their departure. And headquarters would be most displeased if that were to occur. So they were under a lot of pressure.

CKS airport was dificient in not having ground radar and also allowing flights to take off where the tower could NOT visually see them. The tower offered but did not insist on a FOLLOW ME truck escort to the runway. Which in hindsight would be a good thing for such poor weather operations.

IN truth the airport should have been closed to traffic in such conditions , even though conditions were still marginally acceptable.

Personally I feel that the CKS airport was not totally blameless in this accident. Most of the blame could be assigned to the flight crew for losing situation awareness. They were stressed by the need to get out of there ASAP under worsening weather and that overriding thought made them careless.

Much like the Tenerife KLM seasoned captains decision to TAKE OFF without clear instructions from the tower to do so in a dense fog situation.

While the SQ flight crew is certainly not faultless, these accidents are not even in the same league. There was no cockpit culture issue in this accident. There was no ingoring of basic ATC commands…no hot shot pilot at the controls. 45M runways are ‘normal’ sized runways. Basically you have two parallel runways at night lighted in the same manner with the construction equip. at the other end. An accident waiting to happen. Very cha bu duo.

I do remember the Taiwan authorities trying to see if they could prosecute the SIA pilots.

While the SQ flight crew is certainly not faultless, these accidents are not even in the same league. There was no cockpit culture issue in this accident. There was no ingoring of basic ATC commands…no hot shot pilot at the controls. 45M runways are ‘normal’ sized runways. Basically you have two parallel runways at night lighted in the same manner with the construction equip. at the other end. An accident waiting to happen. Very cha bu duo.

I do remember the Taiwan authorities trying to see if they could prosecute the SIA pilots.[/quote]

except that 5R is NEVER used as an ACTIVE runway. And NEVER has side lights that are always on at 5L. at night. These pilots were often at CKS, they should have remembered. A better article to read about this crash may be this one:

airlinesafety.com/editorials … ore006.htm

Taiwanese prosecutors decided not to prosecute due to international pressure. There would have been a lot of negatives from locking them up for five years for professional negligence resulting in death. Had they been CAL pilots , they wouldve been locked up for sure.

It is interesting to note that Singapore Airlines later fired the captain and copilot (but kept the Flight Engineer). Although initially they stood by their pilots, while admitting that they WERE at fault .

I read that Singapore Airlines paid up to 10 million US dollars apiece for some plaintiffs. Hirtherto CAL had been the highest payers with some 400,000 US dollars per passengers.

The Active 5L is reported to be usually “lit like a christmas tree at night” while the NEVER active 5R shoudl NOT have even the green centerline lights but is not lit anywhere like 5L.

I would apportion blame as 80pct to the pilot and copilot and 20pct to inproper lighting and tower clearance to the flight.

Yes. Prosecuting pilots is highly irregular unless there is real negligence (like they showed up to work drunk) because it confound the investigation process.

It depends. Ultimately they are responsible for the safety of the aircraft and SIA is a responsible airline.

When was the last time any pilot in Taiwan has been prosecuted (not that I would want them to be, for safety reasons))

Lets see:

CAL penghu 747 breakup = pilots DEAD (and not any fault of theirs)

CAL CKS AB6 crash = pilots DEAD

CAL NAGOYA AB6 crash = pilots DEAD

Transasia ATR 72 ferry flight to Songshan = pilots DEAD

Transasia ATR 72 cargo flight to Macau mid air de-icing incident = pilots DEAD ( taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/ … 2003314727 )

Tranasia A321 tainan accident = no fatality

Tranasia A320 sungshan accident = no fatality

CAL penghu 737 crash = pilots DEAD

CAL hualien 737 crash = pilots DEAD

FAT 737 sanyi breakup = pilots DEAD

FAT md82 khh crash = no fatality

CAL caravelle inflight bombing = pilots DEAD (and not their fault anyway)

CAL 747 cargo wanli crash = pilots DEAD (and not their fault that the plane literally lost 2 engines inflight)

UNI airways md90 hualien fire incident = not crew fault

CAL okinawa fire incident = not crew fault

so lets see? who IS there to prosecute?

There is the Manila CAL 707 crash and burn. Some fatalities. Not sure if pilots were jailed but it was their fault .

There is also the Mandarin Airlines Md 11 Hong Kong crash that left 3 people dead and plane destroyed. The italian captain lost his job and also retired from flying. An enquiry cleared him of wrong doing. The plane suffered a nine G compression on right landing gear due to windshear at the flare on approach. LG collapsed and engine contacted ground and separated followed by the right wing separation. Aircraft inverted and proceeded hundreds of meters down the runway on fire and upside down. Stopped directly in front of firehouse. Heavy rain precluded fire engulfing the whole aircraft and most passengers from the loaded plane escaped serious injury.

Well, I can’t help it if CI pilots do a good job of killing themselves. Is that a vote for against aviation safety in Taiwan?

But regardless, the point is you’re not supposed to prosecute the pilot (if they live). Look at the criticism being leveled at Brazil for threatening the charge pilots in an air-to-air collision. There is a good reason for it - it would chill any cooperation from manufacturers, pilots, airport authorities…etc…with air crash investigations with a detremental effect on safety.

[quote=“Elegua”]Well, I can’t help it if CI pilots do a good job of killing themselves. Is that a vote for against aviation safety in Taiwan?

But regardless, the point is you’re not supposed to prosecute the pilot (if they live). Look at the criticism being leveled at Brazil for threatening the charge pilots in an air-to-air collision. There is a good reason for it - it would chill any cooperation from manufacturers, pilots, airport authorities…etc…with air crash investigations with a detremental effect on safety.[/quote]

I agree, I am not saying they should be prosecuted outside of gross negligence perhaps?

As did an aerospace engineer friend of mine who works for a major aircraft engine manufacturer. He mentions that cracks in secondary structures and non-structural parts are allowed within certain limits, and “even the main structural members can have cracks, but the limits have been analyzed to guarantee the flying public safety”. Of course primary structures like engine disk rotors, engine fan/compressor blades etc. are different.

So as usual, Truant is correct.

[quote=“tommy525”]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]

All well and good. How come this sort of “bad luck” only happens to China Airlines? How come airlines with ten or even a hundred times more flying hours don’t suffer this kind of problem? Fate? Luck? Voodoo? Bad joss? Feng shui? China Airlines are great, they just keep crashing planes and having safety-related problems. But it’s not their fault. They’re much better than jumping off a cliff. Or something.

I wouldnt be the first to join the CAL frequent flyers club either. Just saying every accident should be judged by itself. Not saying CAL was blameless in many of the accidents its had.

Manila 707 crashed short of runway = pilot error

AB6 Taipei and Nagoya crashes = pilot error , inadequate training on type

737 hualian = most definitely pilot error. Left turn on take off instead of right, and not making it past high ground due to downdraft . And it was not SOP, that takeoff.

I can go on with a few more. But there are those where the pilots are not at fault. Like Okinawa, Wanli, mid air to HK. The wanli crash happened due to engine separation. And that also happened to a european plane (I forget the airline but you can google it) which also crashed. It wasnt even the fault of the maintenance crew because they were operating according to boeing instructions. The 747 had a problem with the bolts that attach the engine to the wing. The mid air to HK was no pilot error. Instead failure of a patch repair done by boeing after tail strike years earlier (which was pilot error the tail strike).

Okinawa appears to be neither maintenance or pilot error. Design fault and/or mis assembly AT BOEING appears most likely cause.

CAL has had quite a few pilot errors due to its insufficient training and conversion of fighter pilots to commercial . Hopefully that phase is over. Now their maintenance is considered quite good and planes fly with clean books.

NO doubt CAL has made mistakes in the past. I just think they deserve a fair shake when being tried for any future mishaps.

I do think they should be renamed and re organized . With a lot more talent brought in from abroad. Compared to Cathay Pacific who has had a similarly long history, CAL’s record is certainly VERY POOR. LIkewise compared to SQ who has only had one crash.

CAL is in the same league as the problem plagued KOREAN AIR and better then Garuda, but not as good as Phillippines Airlines. So yes, I agree they need to be better. I myself havent been on a CAL flight for over a decade. And I would still avoid them too.

But I believe in judging case by case.

Point taken. And of course they know that no matter what the overwhelming stench of politics means they will never really suffer any great censure from the Taiwanese government.

I am still amazed though that people fly them. At what point does safety actually play a role in flight purchases? They are 1000 times more dangerous than BA. At what point does it start to matter? I mean are people drunk when they buy the tickets or something? It’s not like they’re even cheap.

[quote=“Lord Lucan”]Point taken. And of course they know that no matter what the overwhelming stench of politics means they will never really suffer any great censure from the Taiwanese government.

I am still amazed though that people fly them. At what point does safety actually play a role in flight purchases? They are 1000 times more dangerous than BA. At what point does it start to matter? I mean are people drunk when they buy the tickets or something? It’s not like they’re even cheap.[/quote]

CAL is a disgrace to TAiwan. EVA is good and even FAT has a better safetly record then CAL. The govt actually has been trying to unload itself of CAL for a number of years. NO TAKERS. Singapore Airlines was close to a deal once. Its the governments child who grew up and became a thug. They are trying to get rid of it but cant. And closing it would be a loss of face I guess.

And we cant have THAT !!

Its such a wierd company. It cant change its name to TAIWAN AIRLINES or something because the Chinese (of all people) protest and will dis-allow CAL to overfly China. Which wont do. And it has a record worse then the mainland carriers!

Nobody wants to buy the company for any realistic money. The govt still owns over fifty percent. I think a quarter is owned by the employees .

its kinda stuck in a limbo. But all these years it has been generally profitable. And statistics being able to be interpreted anyway you want it to , they say that flying CAL is less safe but the chances of dying on Die Nasty (its call sign is dynasty as you probably know) are only bout like winning the lotto with 4 tickets instead of 1 ticket. Your chances are greater but statistically insignificant. So they say.

Dang those stats if you are the one heading down !! Thats for sure.

I donno, what would YOU do with CAL?

ME? I would try to change its name (but thorny issue as would have to be a name that would retain China overfly rights as those are economically important on flights to europe). I would bring in a lot more talent to run things. More european/american pilots. More maintenance advisors. MOre of the likes of LUFTHANSA to advise operations, etc.

Its got good routes, relatively new planes. A decent income. So its got a lot going for it. Needs tweaking.

P.S. I got an idea. Why not rename it DYNASTY Airlines. Its call sign internationally is already DYNASTY. And that would be NON political a name so the Chinese would be appeased. And has a linkage to its past and yet presents a NEW CAL? And drop the flower which is the flower used by the KMT as a symbol. Use another Taiwan symbol. Maybe the TAiwan MONKEY?? uh, maybe not. Well you get the idea.

I’m interested in this, however I’m also a mod, so I’m doing my best to be objective to the subject.

This thread is going off topic, and as usual it’s been jumped on as a general CAL bashing thread.
There are plenty of threads bashing CAL, and usually frequented by the same posters with the same comments. YAWN.
We’ve heard about why you don’t want to fly CAL, over and over. Just don’t fly them if you don’t want to, no big deal. You don’t have to whine about it for years.

As I’ve mentioned before, the statistics are a reflection of the past, not the future. When it comes to airline stats, the numbers are so extreme that they are very easily skewed when you’re talking millions of flights. We are not talking about which numbers come up on a pair of dice or which card is dealt next. There is a lot more to it than that, and saying you’re 1000 times safer getting on a BA flight is naive, misguided and plain wrong.
Perhaps until a few weeks ago, flying 1-2-Go airlines into Phuket seemed like an OK idea. Now what? Are they more dangerous now? Or safer? Is flying with another airline going to guarantee you anything?

You know, I bet the people who rant and rave about which airline to fly probably think nothing of flagging down a random taxi, driven by a driver who is statistically more likely to be an ex-con than anyone else. The car is most likely never serviced unless it breaks down, and when it’s worked on it’s by untrained unregulated people using bogus or secondhand parts, who have no accountability. The car then hurtles down some of the more accident prone streets of the world running red lights, speeding, swerving lanes recklessly. The driver might be watching TV while he drives, is possibly consuming mind altering shit, and is prepared to literally kill you with a rusty screwdriver if you attempted to jump out and run for your life without paying.
But what’s on the passengers mind? Which airline to fly!!! haha. (still the safest form of transport available no matter who you fly with).

If you want to talk about your “chances” of dying, you’d be better off ranting about the things that are more likely to kill you. Significantly so.

nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds_dying.jpg

All very true of course.

Just that we FEEL particularly helpless in a tube at 35,000 feet rocketing thru the air at 1000kph and thus are easily paranoid :sunglasses: :noway:

Well, if you’re talking about the crack, the ‘only happens’ might not be correct. I’m willing to speculate that this crack might have escaped media attention if it had simply been found and fixed by another airline.

As for the bolt problem, as has already been pointed out, it has happened to many others.

Yes, CA has its problems, but let’s be rational about our assessment of the situation.

I think people are being rational here, after all, nothing screams danger like a smoldering fuselage, and it is a simple fact that CAL has had more of these than most airlines This is a forum related to things Taiwan, and of course, despite the name, CAL is a Taiwan carrier.

HG

good article on CAL

bootsnall.com/guides/05-06/t … a-air.html