China Airlines B737 Fire at Okinawa
I support PPRuNe
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Belo Horizonte, Brazil
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am trying to understand
forget and Rainboe: Of course I am paying attention to what you said because if anything, I want to add to this group, not to be a problem.
I did not criticize unduly and for sure I do not suggest that I know a better way to do things. Far from it. I just read a poster from someone about if this fire happened when the plane was at the gate connected to the ramp, wondering how this could have been more difficult to handle. Of course we are glad that this was not the case, and pleased that all went so well. When I read the scenario raised by the poster I just expressed myself and now I know that this did not add to the discussion, and perhaps was kind of silly. I apologize.
I am not a commercial pilot, a pro, like the many I see and respect here. I am involved in another profession but I have experiences flying small planes, Piper Colt Tripaces and Cherokees. Far from having the experiences that I see around. But aviation remains my first love, and I consider myself privileged to participate in these groups.
Of course I like to know when and if my posters are not appropriate, don´t add to the discussion or are plainly silly. Be sure that I will able to listen when anyone feels that my participation was uncalled for.
Regards to all.
I did not criticize unduly and for sure I do not suggest that I know a better way to do things. Far from it. I just read a poster from someone about if this fire happened when the plane was at the gate connected to the ramp, wondering how this could have been more difficult to handle. Of course we are glad that this was not the case, and pleased that all went so well. When I read the scenario raised by the poster I just expressed myself and now I know that this did not add to the discussion, and perhaps was kind of silly. I apologize.
I am not a commercial pilot, a pro, like the many I see and respect here. I am involved in another profession but I have experiences flying small planes, Piper Colt Tripaces and Cherokees. Far from having the experiences that I see around. But aviation remains my first love, and I consider myself privileged to participate in these groups.
Of course I like to know when and if my posters are not appropriate, don´t add to the discussion or are plainly silly. Be sure that I will able to listen when anyone feels that my participation was uncalled for.
Regards to all.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Asia
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAL Maintenance
Take this only for what you consider it to be worth, after all this is only a rumour network , but I do seem to remember a China Airlines pilot receiving a memo from CAL Chief Pilot Office near the turn of the century : “Maintenance is out of control! Be careful”. As some people say “ The more things change the more they stay the same”
How to “be careful” ?
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national...23TDY01003.htm
Maintenance error cited in jet blaze
The Yomiuri Shimbun
Joints of a fuel pipe inside the pylon holding the engine under the right wing of the China Airlines airplane that burst into flames Monday at Naha Airport were not properly secured, according to investigators.
Accident investigators believe the joints were knocked out of position when the plane landed, causing a large amount of fuel to leak and trigger an explosion.
The Construction and Transport Ministry's Aircraft and Railway Accidents Investigation Commission suspects a mistake was made during maintenance or other work on the Boeing 737-800, which underwent a regular inspection in July, and is looking into whether appropriate maintenance was carried out.
The investigators believe fuel that leaked from the pylon under the right wing was heated by the second engine causing the fuel to vaporize and ignite.
It is not thought that fuel leaked during flight, but a ground mechanic confirmed that a large volume of fuel had leaked at the aircraft parking apron, leading the investigators to believe the leak started while the airplane was moving between the runway and the taxiway.
The fuel pipes are made of metal and have a diameter of about three centimeters. They are strong enough not to rupture under high pressure and curved sections are connected using joints.
The Boeing 737-800 had such joints in several locations, held in place by metal bolts passed through rubber O-rings to prevent fuel leaking through gaps.
The thickness, material and replacement date of O-rings are clearly determined so that fuel, lubricating oil, water or other fluids does not wear away the components they protect. The component may deteriorate if the wrong type of O-ring is fitted, and it may not be possible to hold it securely in place when a thicker ring is used, since the metal bolt length becomes too short.
Aircraft always undergo a heavy impact during landing. A great deal of force is exerted on the pylons, which shake violently when planes decelerate to land.
These vibrations also affect the fuel pipes.
The accident investigators believe that before the accident, the joints on pipes that pass through the inside of the pylon came loose, making it likely the joints were jerked far out of position when the plane landed at the airport.
A China Airlines spokesman said the airline had carried out a regular inspection on the aircraft's engine in July--including an endoscopy of the inside of the combustion chamber and turbine.
The airline made another inspection--as it does every 500 flight hours--in August, but said it did not find anything wrong with the fuel pipes.
(Aug. 23, 2007)
How to “be careful” ?
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national...23TDY01003.htm
Maintenance error cited in jet blaze
The Yomiuri Shimbun
Joints of a fuel pipe inside the pylon holding the engine under the right wing of the China Airlines airplane that burst into flames Monday at Naha Airport were not properly secured, according to investigators.
Accident investigators believe the joints were knocked out of position when the plane landed, causing a large amount of fuel to leak and trigger an explosion.
The Construction and Transport Ministry's Aircraft and Railway Accidents Investigation Commission suspects a mistake was made during maintenance or other work on the Boeing 737-800, which underwent a regular inspection in July, and is looking into whether appropriate maintenance was carried out.
The investigators believe fuel that leaked from the pylon under the right wing was heated by the second engine causing the fuel to vaporize and ignite.
It is not thought that fuel leaked during flight, but a ground mechanic confirmed that a large volume of fuel had leaked at the aircraft parking apron, leading the investigators to believe the leak started while the airplane was moving between the runway and the taxiway.
The fuel pipes are made of metal and have a diameter of about three centimeters. They are strong enough not to rupture under high pressure and curved sections are connected using joints.
The Boeing 737-800 had such joints in several locations, held in place by metal bolts passed through rubber O-rings to prevent fuel leaking through gaps.
The thickness, material and replacement date of O-rings are clearly determined so that fuel, lubricating oil, water or other fluids does not wear away the components they protect. The component may deteriorate if the wrong type of O-ring is fitted, and it may not be possible to hold it securely in place when a thicker ring is used, since the metal bolt length becomes too short.
Aircraft always undergo a heavy impact during landing. A great deal of force is exerted on the pylons, which shake violently when planes decelerate to land.
These vibrations also affect the fuel pipes.
The accident investigators believe that before the accident, the joints on pipes that pass through the inside of the pylon came loose, making it likely the joints were jerked far out of position when the plane landed at the airport.
A China Airlines spokesman said the airline had carried out a regular inspection on the aircraft's engine in July--including an endoscopy of the inside of the combustion chamber and turbine.
The airline made another inspection--as it does every 500 flight hours--in August, but said it did not find anything wrong with the fuel pipes.
(Aug. 23, 2007)
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Above 30,000 ft
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
is it being suggested that a hard landing has caused this? If so I would be interested to know the dfdr readout, and also what vertical acceleration would be required to damage fuel supply lines. all in good time...
Last edited by gengis; 23rd Aug 2007 at 05:28.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Bielefeld, Germany
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A colleague in Japan said that NHK today is reporting statements from the investigators that fuel was seen to be leaking in large quantities from the oil drain ports on the right engine during taxi. Apparently, one port is on the lower edge of the pylon aft of the engine, and the other on the side of the pylon above the engine.
The pylon is being disassembled today. The NTSB, Boeing and CFM is in attendance.
The observation that the aircraft was just out of maintenance is pertinent. There have been incidents caused through misassembly of components such as O-rings and fuel lines. Think of the Eastern Airlines L-1011 incident in 1983, or the Air Transat A330 Azores glider in 2001. Jim Reason has a chapter in one of his books entitled "Maintenance cay Seriously Damage Your System".
He cites a couple of aviation examples, but they are both structural (AA 191 at Chicago in 1979, JL 123 at Mount Osutaka in 1985). So in answer to Gengis's question whether a hard landing can shake something loose, the answer is yes, if it has been misassembled. Just to be clear, I am not speculating on any cause here (we'll have to wait a couple of days to find out what the investigators think of the pylon assembly, I take it) but just reminding people of some history.
BTW, now that everyone has persuaded marciovp to grovel for asking whether there are procedures for dealing with such a fuel fire when the aircraft is docked at a terminal, can anybody answer his very reasonable and pertinent question?
Fire regulations, at least those concerned buildings in the vicinity of structures and vehicles containing highly flammable liquids, should in many countries be covered by rather stringent requirements concerning how to handle fires. Are there any generally-accepted procedures, or is it all just local ordinances? (I know a couple of aviation fire specialists I could ask if no one here can answer.)
PBL
The pylon is being disassembled today. The NTSB, Boeing and CFM is in attendance.
The observation that the aircraft was just out of maintenance is pertinent. There have been incidents caused through misassembly of components such as O-rings and fuel lines. Think of the Eastern Airlines L-1011 incident in 1983, or the Air Transat A330 Azores glider in 2001. Jim Reason has a chapter in one of his books entitled "Maintenance cay Seriously Damage Your System".
He cites a couple of aviation examples, but they are both structural (AA 191 at Chicago in 1979, JL 123 at Mount Osutaka in 1985). So in answer to Gengis's question whether a hard landing can shake something loose, the answer is yes, if it has been misassembled. Just to be clear, I am not speculating on any cause here (we'll have to wait a couple of days to find out what the investigators think of the pylon assembly, I take it) but just reminding people of some history.
BTW, now that everyone has persuaded marciovp to grovel for asking whether there are procedures for dealing with such a fuel fire when the aircraft is docked at a terminal, can anybody answer his very reasonable and pertinent question?
Fire regulations, at least those concerned buildings in the vicinity of structures and vehicles containing highly flammable liquids, should in many countries be covered by rather stringent requirements concerning how to handle fires. Are there any generally-accepted procedures, or is it all just local ordinances? (I know a couple of aviation fire specialists I could ask if no one here can answer.)
PBL
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm confused. The video clearly shows the primary fire well alight on the left hand side to be followed by burning fuel spreading under the fuselage to the right hand side with a subsequent explosion under No. 2 engine. Initial reports also stated that fire started in left engine.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: what U.S. calls ´old Europe´
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HotDog,
the location of the fuel leak and the ignition source do not neccesesarily have to be on the same side of the aircraft. The crosswind from the right may have had a big influence, too. The slope of the ground might have pushed the fuel to left side also, causing the fire to burn mainly on the left side. It is clearly visible in the picture posted above, that the flames at the right engine burn all along from the ground to the pylon, (due to the wind, it is not just flames reaching up to the pylon, but you can clearly see something burning all the way along) while on the left side no evidence is visible, all fire there might be fuel on the ground.
If the problem was located on the right side, it will be covered up as the firemen did a good job to safe that part of the aircraft for investigation...
the location of the fuel leak and the ignition source do not neccesesarily have to be on the same side of the aircraft. The crosswind from the right may have had a big influence, too. The slope of the ground might have pushed the fuel to left side also, causing the fire to burn mainly on the left side. It is clearly visible in the picture posted above, that the flames at the right engine burn all along from the ground to the pylon, (due to the wind, it is not just flames reaching up to the pylon, but you can clearly see something burning all the way along) while on the left side no evidence is visible, all fire there might be fuel on the ground.
If the problem was located on the right side, it will be covered up as the firemen did a good job to safe that part of the aircraft for investigation...
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: SYD
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looking at the initial footage, and especially the charred remains, it really looked like the left-hand side got the worst of it and so I thought the left must have been the start point. Just goes to show you can't tell anything by superficial observations. Not that the investigation is complete (hardly even begun)!
I'm constantly amazed at what they find out in investigations. Such attention to detail. (Some may beg to differ, of course
) Have to wait and let them do their work.
I'm constantly amazed at what they find out in investigations. Such attention to detail. (Some may beg to differ, of course
) Have to wait and let them do their work.
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PBL- I made no comment about Marciovp's posting- I was aware he was using someone else's posting.
The question of fire near terminals has been raised. What is wanted here? Aeroplanes are not in the habit of spontaneously igniting, though some do very infrequently. We don't see many 747s fully loaded with fuel go up on jetties. The whole point of having departure gates and jetties is to load people onto aeroplanes- that is what they are there for. So, you build the infrastructure, then do what fireproofing you can. Safety audits are carried out to ensure lack of combustible materials, very adequate fire escape routes and efficient fire services. What is expected now- that we keep all aeroplanes on remote stands/coach access only? On the basis of these concerns, we would not allow fuel tanks behind our children sitting in the back seats of cars, and has anybody thought of the dangers of allowing petrol stations next to major highways where out of control lorries could take them out? And they sell Butane cans as well! And good heavens, some people attach Calor gas cans to their caravans, while they sleep in them!
Where does it end? You have to accept there is an extremely minute risk of having aeroplanes hooked up to terminals. I doubt if this aeroplane had been hooked up to a jetty whether anybody would have been killed. Damage to building probably. This is a whole separae H & S issue that maybe deserves a separate thread to this one if you want to discuss it.
Any landing that left the undercarriage still attached, the wings still attached to the fuselage at a normal angle, the aeroplane still able to taxy to the apron, and the people aboard still able to walk, should not have damaged the engine in any way! It would seem likely there is a technical cause. In view of the large number of such 737s and the lack of previous problems, it points suspicion towards a unique and individual maintenance issue.
The question of fire near terminals has been raised. What is wanted here? Aeroplanes are not in the habit of spontaneously igniting, though some do very infrequently. We don't see many 747s fully loaded with fuel go up on jetties. The whole point of having departure gates and jetties is to load people onto aeroplanes- that is what they are there for. So, you build the infrastructure, then do what fireproofing you can. Safety audits are carried out to ensure lack of combustible materials, very adequate fire escape routes and efficient fire services. What is expected now- that we keep all aeroplanes on remote stands/coach access only? On the basis of these concerns, we would not allow fuel tanks behind our children sitting in the back seats of cars, and has anybody thought of the dangers of allowing petrol stations next to major highways where out of control lorries could take them out? And they sell Butane cans as well! And good heavens, some people attach Calor gas cans to their caravans, while they sleep in them!
Where does it end? You have to accept there is an extremely minute risk of having aeroplanes hooked up to terminals. I doubt if this aeroplane had been hooked up to a jetty whether anybody would have been killed. Damage to building probably. This is a whole separae H & S issue that maybe deserves a separate thread to this one if you want to discuss it.
is it being suggested that a hard landing has caused this? If so I would be interested to know the dfdr readout, and also what vertical acceleration would be required to damage fuel supply lines. all in good time...
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Home
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can someone tell me how long is the flight from Taipei to Okinawa!
And would be nice to hear from any of their crew what quantity of fuel would normaly be carried on this flight.
The whole thing looks like it started in the wheelwell area, I have no experience on the NG but would like to know ere exactly in the wheelwell are the centre tank pumps located on this model. Is it the same as the 300. Pictures would be appreciated a lot.Thanks.
Zaz
And would be nice to hear from any of their crew what quantity of fuel would normaly be carried on this flight.
The whole thing looks like it started in the wheelwell area, I have no experience on the NG but would like to know ere exactly in the wheelwell are the centre tank pumps located on this model. Is it the same as the 300. Pictures would be appreciated a lot.Thanks.
Zaz
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why just ask? You can get yoursel all the answers by looking at world airline schedules, the China Airlines schedules, or look at an atlas yourself and work it out, and do your own research. As for fuel, for flights like this, fuel loaded would be about 3000kgs x flight time in hours. Fuel remaining likely to be about 2000kgs+ unless roundtrip was carried. Fuel pumps located within centre fuel tank. Brief yourself here:
http://www.b737.org.uk/fuel.htm
then report back when you have done your homework!
http://www.b737.org.uk/fuel.htm
then report back when you have done your homework!
Paxing All Over The World
I am not in the habit of telling other posters that they are wrong but ZAZOO
Have you read this thread? Skip just seven posts back up on this page and read about the likelihood of a fuel line breaking. [#127 but this is not the only] This fire was given large amounts of fuel very quickly and that indicates that a fuel line was broken sooner in the event, rather than later as a result of fire.
When you read this thread, you will see more than one report that ground staff saw the fuel pooling under the a/c and that it was, in all likelihood, ignited in the tailpipe of the #2 engine. It then followed the river of fuel onto the ground, under the fuselage and up to the port wing. The flight crew were advised of the situation by the ground crew. The wheels and all of the u/c just happened to be in the way. Had the wind or other factors been different, the fuel might have run away to starboard and ignited the neighbour a/c or the run forwards to the terminal.
Once the report is out we shall know for sure but there are already examples in this thread (as in other incident threats) where the CCTV and eye witness reports land up as being at odds with the facts when investigated.
The whole thing looks like it started in the wheelwell area
When you read this thread, you will see more than one report that ground staff saw the fuel pooling under the a/c and that it was, in all likelihood, ignited in the tailpipe of the #2 engine. It then followed the river of fuel onto the ground, under the fuselage and up to the port wing. The flight crew were advised of the situation by the ground crew. The wheels and all of the u/c just happened to be in the way. Had the wind or other factors been different, the fuel might have run away to starboard and ignited the neighbour a/c or the run forwards to the terminal.
Once the report is out we shall know for sure but there are already examples in this thread (as in other incident threats) where the CCTV and eye witness reports land up as being at odds with the facts when investigated.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Japan
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuel leak cause update
A report on the evening NHK News program showed the lastest report made by the Japanese Accident Investigators.
A rupture of 2-3 cm in size in the wing fuel tank was found that had been caused by a bolt lodged in the slat mechanism, which is surrounded by part of the fuel tank. It now appears that as the slat was retracted after landing the bolt was pushed back and pierced the tank allowing fuel to escape.
The orgin of this loose bolt has not yet been determined.
Attention has now switched from the pylon fuel line theory to this newly identified cause.
To answer Zazoo's question, a previous reported stated that the aircraft arrived with 5 tons of fuel remaining.
PTH
A rupture of 2-3 cm in size in the wing fuel tank was found that had been caused by a bolt lodged in the slat mechanism, which is surrounded by part of the fuel tank. It now appears that as the slat was retracted after landing the bolt was pushed back and pierced the tank allowing fuel to escape.
The orgin of this loose bolt has not yet been determined.
Attention has now switched from the pylon fuel line theory to this newly identified cause.
To answer Zazoo's question, a previous reported stated that the aircraft arrived with 5 tons of fuel remaining.
PTH
A report on the evening NHK News program showed the lastest report made by the Japanese Accident Investigators.
A rupture of 2-3 cm in size in the wing fuel tank was found that had been caused by a bolt lodged in the slat mechanism, which is surrounded by part of the fuel tank. It now appears that as the slat was retracted after landing the bolt was pushed back and pierced the tank allowing fuel to escape.
The orgin of this loose bolt has not yet been determined.
Attention has now switched from the pylon fuel line theory to this newly identified cause.
To answer Zazoo's question, a previous reported stated that the aircraft arrived with 5 tons of fuel remaining.
PTH
A rupture of 2-3 cm in size in the wing fuel tank was found that had been caused by a bolt lodged in the slat mechanism, which is surrounded by part of the fuel tank. It now appears that as the slat was retracted after landing the bolt was pushed back and pierced the tank allowing fuel to escape.
The orgin of this loose bolt has not yet been determined.
Attention has now switched from the pylon fuel line theory to this newly identified cause.
To answer Zazoo's question, a previous reported stated that the aircraft arrived with 5 tons of fuel remaining.
PTH
I've seen several secondary incidents of fuel tank penetrations of the size of a bolt head and none of them resulted in a ground pool fire. The rate of evaporation vs the rate of flow seems to lower the risk.
Just how large was the bolt suppose to be in this latest rumor?
I support PPRuNe
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Belo Horizonte, Brazil
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many thanks
PBL- I made no comment about Marciovp's posting- I was aware he was using someone else's posting.
The question of fire near terminals has been raised. What is wanted here? Aeroplanes are not in the habit of spontaneously igniting, though some do very infrequently. We don't see many 747s fully loaded with fuel go up on jetties. The whole point of having departure gates and jetties is to load people onto aeroplanes- that is what they are there for. So, you build the infrastructure, then do what fireproofing you can. Safety audits are carried out to ensure lack of combustible materials, very adequate fire escape routes and efficient fire services. What is expected now- that we keep all aeroplanes on remote stands/coach access only? On the basis of these concerns, we would not allow fuel tanks behind our children sitting in the back seats of cars, and has anybody thought of the dangers of allowing petrol stations next to major highways where out of control lorries could take them out? And they sell Butane cans as well! And good heavens, some people attach Calor gas cans to their caravans, while they sleep in them!
Where does it end? You have to accept there is an extremely minute risk of having aeroplanes hooked up to terminals. I doubt if this aeroplane had been hooked up to a jetty whether anybody would have been killed. Damage to building probably. This is a whole separae H & S issue that maybe deserves a separate thread to this one if you want to discuss it.
The question of fire near terminals has been raised. What is wanted here? Aeroplanes are not in the habit of spontaneously igniting, though some do very infrequently. We don't see many 747s fully loaded with fuel go up on jetties. The whole point of having departure gates and jetties is to load people onto aeroplanes- that is what they are there for. So, you build the infrastructure, then do what fireproofing you can. Safety audits are carried out to ensure lack of combustible materials, very adequate fire escape routes and efficient fire services. What is expected now- that we keep all aeroplanes on remote stands/coach access only? On the basis of these concerns, we would not allow fuel tanks behind our children sitting in the back seats of cars, and has anybody thought of the dangers of allowing petrol stations next to major highways where out of control lorries could take them out? And they sell Butane cans as well! And good heavens, some people attach Calor gas cans to their caravans, while they sleep in them!
Where does it end? You have to accept there is an extremely minute risk of having aeroplanes hooked up to terminals. I doubt if this aeroplane had been hooked up to a jetty whether anybody would have been killed. Damage to building probably. This is a whole separae H & S issue that maybe deserves a separate thread to this one if you want to discuss it.
Last edited by marciovp; 23rd Aug 2007 at 16:49. Reason: Typo
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Japan
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This all came from a Press conference given buy the Japanese Investigstion team and reported on NHK with photos of the bolt penetrating the tank skin taken from within the tank. The size of the rupture was as stated and it appeared not to be the head of the bolt that penetrated, rather the opposite end.
The photo showed a oval tear-like rupture with space around the bolt that the fuel could have flowed through. I did not catch if they specified the size of the bolt as yet.
It will take a few hours for the translations from Japanese to make their way into English media.
The International Herald Tribune already has a brief report confirming this and here is one paragraph confirming my previous "rumour",
Kazushige Daiki, chief investigator at Japan's Aircraft and Railway Accidents Investigation Commission, told reporters Thursday that officials found a bolt, which is on the right wing slat, piercing through the fuel tank. The hole was about 2-3 centimeters (0.8-1.2 inches) in diameter.
The photo showed a oval tear-like rupture with space around the bolt that the fuel could have flowed through. I did not catch if they specified the size of the bolt as yet.
It will take a few hours for the translations from Japanese to make their way into English media.
The International Herald Tribune already has a brief report confirming this and here is one paragraph confirming my previous "rumour",
Kazushige Daiki, chief investigator at Japan's Aircraft and Railway Accidents Investigation Commission, told reporters Thursday that officials found a bolt, which is on the right wing slat, piercing through the fuel tank. The hole was about 2-3 centimeters (0.8-1.2 inches) in diameter.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 55
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The latest from Seattle News:
By MARI YAMAGUCHI
NEW - 08:35 AM
Taiwanese jet explodes in fireball at Okinawa Airport
Russia stages its largest post-Soviet air show
TOKYO — Investigators today found that a bolt had pierced the fuel tank of a Taiwanese jetliner that caught fire after landing in Japan, forcing all 165 people aboard to evacuate the plane seconds before it exploded, officials said.
A fuel leak through that hole likely caused Monday's fire on the China Airlines Boeing 737-800, said Kazushige Daiki, chief investigator at Japan's Aircraft and Railway Accidents Investigation Commission.
All 157 passengers and eight crew evacuated safely at the airport on the resort island of Okinawa before the explosion. The pilots jumped from the cockpit window just before the jet erupted in a fireball.
Daiki said aviation officials investigating the wreckage found a bolt from a right wing slat piercing the fuel tank. The hole was about 0.8-1.2 inches in diameter. Investigators were still trying to determine how the bolt got into the tank.
"The bolt pierced through the fuel tank, and we believe that caused fuel to leak out," Daiki said.
Following today's findings, Japan's Transport Ministry ordered three Japanese airlines that own Boeing 737-800s to inspect the leading edge slats on the main wings to ensure bolts are in place before their first flight takes off Friday morning, said ministry spokesman Yusuke Asakura.
Slats slide out from the frontal edge of the main wings during takeoff and landing to stabilize the aircraft, along with flaps that come out of the wings' rear edge.
Aircraft maker Boeing Co. has in the past received reports of several similar cases in which the bolt penetrated the fuel tank and instructed airlines in December 2005 to inspect their 737-800s, Kyodo News agency reported, citing Japanese transport officials.
Boeing spokesman Mark Hooper declined to comment on the report because the "investigation has not concluded."
Ground engineers had said they saw fuel leaking from the plane's right engine as it pulled into a parking spot after arriving from Taiwan.
Investigators had earlier suspected damage to the pylon connecting the engine to the right wing. But Harumi Tsurumi, a spokesman for the Accidents Investigation Commission, said the experts took apart the pylon and found no major problems so far.
The explosion was a blow to the Taiwan-based airline, which has been struggling to shake off its reputation for having a poor safety record.
In 2002, a China Airlines 747 crashed during a flight from Taipei to Hong Kong, killing 225 people. Some 450 people died in China Airlines accidents in the 1990s.
NEW - 08:35 AM
Taiwanese jet explodes in fireball at Okinawa Airport
Russia stages its largest post-Soviet air show
TOKYO — Investigators today found that a bolt had pierced the fuel tank of a Taiwanese jetliner that caught fire after landing in Japan, forcing all 165 people aboard to evacuate the plane seconds before it exploded, officials said.
A fuel leak through that hole likely caused Monday's fire on the China Airlines Boeing 737-800, said Kazushige Daiki, chief investigator at Japan's Aircraft and Railway Accidents Investigation Commission.
All 157 passengers and eight crew evacuated safely at the airport on the resort island of Okinawa before the explosion. The pilots jumped from the cockpit window just before the jet erupted in a fireball.
Daiki said aviation officials investigating the wreckage found a bolt from a right wing slat piercing the fuel tank. The hole was about 0.8-1.2 inches in diameter. Investigators were still trying to determine how the bolt got into the tank.
"The bolt pierced through the fuel tank, and we believe that caused fuel to leak out," Daiki said.
Following today's findings, Japan's Transport Ministry ordered three Japanese airlines that own Boeing 737-800s to inspect the leading edge slats on the main wings to ensure bolts are in place before their first flight takes off Friday morning, said ministry spokesman Yusuke Asakura.
Slats slide out from the frontal edge of the main wings during takeoff and landing to stabilize the aircraft, along with flaps that come out of the wings' rear edge.
Aircraft maker Boeing Co. has in the past received reports of several similar cases in which the bolt penetrated the fuel tank and instructed airlines in December 2005 to inspect their 737-800s, Kyodo News agency reported, citing Japanese transport officials.
Boeing spokesman Mark Hooper declined to comment on the report because the "investigation has not concluded."
Ground engineers had said they saw fuel leaking from the plane's right engine as it pulled into a parking spot after arriving from Taiwan.
Investigators had earlier suspected damage to the pylon connecting the engine to the right wing. But Harumi Tsurumi, a spokesman for the Accidents Investigation Commission, said the experts took apart the pylon and found no major problems so far.
The explosion was a blow to the Taiwan-based airline, which has been struggling to shake off its reputation for having a poor safety record.
In 2002, a China Airlines 747 crashed during a flight from Taipei to Hong Kong, killing 225 people. Some 450 people died in China Airlines accidents in the 1990s.
Following today's findings, Japan's Transport Ministry ordered three Japanese airlines that own Boeing 737-800s to inspect the leading edge slats on the main wings to ensure bolts are in place before their first flight takes off Friday morning, said ministry spokesman Yusuke Asakura
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 55
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought the same. Flap drive maybe, but the slats driving a blunt bolt through aluminium with only one cycle ?
Perhaps the damage was cumulative.
Perhaps the damage was cumulative.
So everyone out safely - only just - and THEN the fire trucks roll up. Is this a little slow?