China Airlines B737 Fire at Okinawa
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Global
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are right PAXBoy in many ways, if a 737 takes of or lands every 30s somewhere in the world that’s 120 slat retractions per hour, 2880 per day, 20160 per week, ……. You get the drift.
If there was a manufacturing fault it would have showed up years ago and Boeing would have had to redesign the system. Think in the terms of what they did to the rudder PCU.
However this does appear to be maintenance related, which of course Boeing may not be directly responsible for the maintenance actions or control on individual aircraft. But they are the design authority and produce the maintenance manuals for the aircraft and systems, hence there is ultimately responsibility.
Someone will sue, for sure, directly it will be China Airlines, who will pass the buck and so on and so forth, Boeing will be called as a co-defendant and well you get the idea.
So at sometime in the last maintenance check, a person installed the bolt and tightened it, whether it was done correctly or not, or if there was metal fatigue in the track assembly….. whatever the Japanese Safety Authorities determine to be the fundamental cause of the accident. The manufacturer will be dragged into someway.
Not to single out Mr Boeing but Mr Airbus has had the same problem. On the 20/1/92 an A320 flew into the top of a hill near Strasbourg. The pilots mistakenly had set “3.3” in the mode control panel of the autopilot, thinking that they had set a 3.3 degree descent path. What they had actually done is set a 3300fpm rate of descent and the promptly crashed. There was nothing mechanically wrong with the airframe before impact.
Airbus as the Design Authority held ultimate responsibility for the accident as I believe it was successfully argued that it was a design error. Just as many people would argue it was the pilots fault, however it was an AD and a redesign of the system by Airbus that was made in the effort that this never happened again.
In essence the insurers will have a $40 million dollar claim for the airframe, the airport will have a claim for someone burning their tarmac, the passengers will attempt to claim post traumatic stress disorder, (when I grew up you would just be happy to be alive) and sue for whatever they can get and Boeings insurers will be awaiting the out fall.
I should have rephrased it that the insurers are going to give Mr Boeings insurance a kicking. Even though the issuance of an Emergency AD is no admission of guilt.
I hope I cleared that up
If there was a manufacturing fault it would have showed up years ago and Boeing would have had to redesign the system. Think in the terms of what they did to the rudder PCU.
However this does appear to be maintenance related, which of course Boeing may not be directly responsible for the maintenance actions or control on individual aircraft. But they are the design authority and produce the maintenance manuals for the aircraft and systems, hence there is ultimately responsibility.
Someone will sue, for sure, directly it will be China Airlines, who will pass the buck and so on and so forth, Boeing will be called as a co-defendant and well you get the idea.
So at sometime in the last maintenance check, a person installed the bolt and tightened it, whether it was done correctly or not, or if there was metal fatigue in the track assembly….. whatever the Japanese Safety Authorities determine to be the fundamental cause of the accident. The manufacturer will be dragged into someway.
Not to single out Mr Boeing but Mr Airbus has had the same problem. On the 20/1/92 an A320 flew into the top of a hill near Strasbourg. The pilots mistakenly had set “3.3” in the mode control panel of the autopilot, thinking that they had set a 3.3 degree descent path. What they had actually done is set a 3300fpm rate of descent and the promptly crashed. There was nothing mechanically wrong with the airframe before impact.
Airbus as the Design Authority held ultimate responsibility for the accident as I believe it was successfully argued that it was a design error. Just as many people would argue it was the pilots fault, however it was an AD and a redesign of the system by Airbus that was made in the effort that this never happened again.
In essence the insurers will have a $40 million dollar claim for the airframe, the airport will have a claim for someone burning their tarmac, the passengers will attempt to claim post traumatic stress disorder, (when I grew up you would just be happy to be alive) and sue for whatever they can get and Boeings insurers will be awaiting the out fall.
I should have rephrased it that the insurers are going to give Mr Boeings insurance a kicking. Even though the issuance of an Emergency AD is no admission of guilt.
I hope I cleared that up
Paxing All Over The World
Dear ihd,
Thank you for a clear, helpful, complete and interesting explanation to my somewhat peremptory inquiry!
Rgds,
PAXboy
Thank you for a clear, helpful, complete and interesting explanation to my somewhat peremptory inquiry!
Rgds,
PAXboy
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Bielefeld, Germany
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by international hog driver
On the 20/1/92 an A320 flew into the top of a hill near Strasbourg. The pilots mistakenly had set “3.3” in the mode control panel of the autopilot, thinking that they had set a 3.3 degree descent path. What they had actually done is set a 3300fpm rate of descent and the promptly crashed.
PBL
ex-Tanker
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Luton Beds UK
Posts: 907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FA down the slide first
That is definitely not procedure - the crew stays as long as it can to see people out of the cabin.
Indeed it used to be the standard joke, "Follow Meeee...."
FC.
Indeed it used to be the standard joke, "Follow Meeee...."
FC.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Global
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PBL has a point.
Two sides to every coin. I know which one I believe.
Flight Global
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...ter-crash.html
Airdisaster.com
http://www.airdisaster.com/cgi-bin/v...line=Air+Inter
All in French.. (PBL's homepage)
http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publ...sbourgrep.html
Make up your own conclusion
Anyway before we drift too far out into the bandwidth blackhole, the subject I believe is:
China Airlines, B737, Japan, AD's & SB's........ continue
Two sides to every coin. I know which one I believe.
Flight Global
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...ter-crash.html
Airdisaster.com
http://www.airdisaster.com/cgi-bin/v...line=Air+Inter
All in French.. (PBL's homepage)
http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publ...sbourgrep.html
Make up your own conclusion
Anyway before we drift too far out into the bandwidth blackhole, the subject I believe is:
China Airlines, B737, Japan, AD's & SB's........ continue
I certainly am not interested in any blame game here (operator's maintenance vs Boeings design) but to me the issue is how a minor malfunction (loss of the bolt for whatever reason) could lead to a catastrophe.
At the minumum the regulator needs to relook at their assumptions in the basis for cetification. And even here I'm not to prejudge the adequacy of the regulations. As I opinioned earlier the regulations are not in them selves foolproof in preventing accidents and do accept a level of risk for things that can not be contemplated.
At the minumum the regulator needs to relook at their assumptions in the basis for cetification. And even here I'm not to prejudge the adequacy of the regulations. As I opinioned earlier the regulations are not in them selves foolproof in preventing accidents and do accept a level of risk for things that can not be contemplated.
Errrrrrr, I think some posters here need to take a deep breath and relax for a while.
I doubt that Boeing's design is fundamentally flawed on the basis of the number of aircraft successfully flying day after day with a similar flap end stop arrangement.
Furthermore, its not really a "bolt" just because it has a head on one end and a nut on the other, it's really a pin in shear.
If it was not attached to what it was supposed to be attached to, then either some component part of it has failed or something wasn't done right in maintenance or overhaul - which could be for all sorts of reasons - and the thing has detached.
It's rather premature to sheet this home to Boeing or anyone else for that matter, let alone predict lawsuits and eventual winners and losers.
Thank goodness no one was seriously injured. Alls well that ends well, it's only money and the plane was no doubt insured. At least the Firey's got a real test of their equipment and procedures out of it
I doubt that Boeing's design is fundamentally flawed on the basis of the number of aircraft successfully flying day after day with a similar flap end stop arrangement.
Furthermore, its not really a "bolt" just because it has a head on one end and a nut on the other, it's really a pin in shear.
If it was not attached to what it was supposed to be attached to, then either some component part of it has failed or something wasn't done right in maintenance or overhaul - which could be for all sorts of reasons - and the thing has detached.
It's rather premature to sheet this home to Boeing or anyone else for that matter, let alone predict lawsuits and eventual winners and losers.
Thank goodness no one was seriously injured. Alls well that ends well, it's only money and the plane was no doubt insured. At least the Firey's got a real test of their equipment and procedures out of it
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
Quite. And I see no relevance whatsoever of an Airbus CFIT accident! Please can we stick to the subject? It involves an apparent maintenance error and evacuation procedures. Any discussion of general design/accident causes should go elsewhere. And let's leave out trying to apportion blame and solving the inevitable court cases.
Rainboe
Unh, it does also involve the loss of an aircraft that had not completed discharge of its passengers. That in itself goes beyond a pure maintenance issue and certainly there is room for some lessons learned here.
Quite. And I see no relevance whatsoever of an Airbus CFIT accident! Please can we stick to the subject? It involves an apparent maintenance error and evacuation procedures. Any discussion of general design/accident causes should go elsewhere. And let's leave out trying to apportion blame and solving the inevitable court cases.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Rickmansworth
Age: 74
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's interesting, the mind set of humans (and some animals I suppose), there seems to be a slight reluctance on the part of the early exiters at the front right side slide, to get going, but once they have, then people seem to be streaming down. Maybe if we have any psychiatrists (I'm sure we have many of the amateur variety) they might be able to explain this.
I dealt with office design in a previous life and took part in some interesting research concerning evac from buildings. In experiment, unknowing members of the public were invited to an office very clearly marked with fire exit signs, while they were filling out forms an alarm sounded, the resulting videos were also quite alarming as the volume had to be increased to the level where no one could ignore it and even then folk only slowly reacted while others continued to complete their forms before attempting to leave - then very few left by following the fire exists - they mostly went out the way they came in.
Just how this would apply to fire in an aircraft I'll leave for others but it would seem that many people have difficulty in leaving their seats even when it's pretty obvious that anywhere else would be better.
Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult
Join Date: May 2007
Location: On the western edge of The Moor
Age: 67
Posts: 1,100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
then very few left by following the fire exists - they mostly went out the way they came in.
Creatures of habit!
it's a well known fact in a fire prople will not use the nearest exit but use what they are used to, alarm volumes have to be so loud as to hurt and encourage the "run away" reaction.
tried a fire drill once where the normal exit was phsically blocked by furniture and a smoke machine- the reaction furniture moved and danger ignored. Habits are bad to break.
I would suggest that the only advantages in the a/c situation is 1/prescence of crew shouting/directing & 2/ normal exit is emergency exit (apart from over wings - not used though) IMO the initial delay is the difference between I expect steps & you really want me to slide down this!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Dubai
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder
Interesting info. Wonder if they had the pumps off or were actually using the old procedures?
http://japan.suite101.com/article.cf...possible_cause
"...electrical short…in a fuel vapor environment…” is considered the prime culprit."
http://japan.suite101.com/article.cf...possible_cause
"...electrical short…in a fuel vapor environment…” is considered the prime culprit."
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having read the article quoted above, my question is: "what explosion?".
There is a definite difference between an "explosion" and the ignition of a large amount of spilling fuel in a short time, resulting in a huge fireball. The fire from the initial leak was already well underway before the fireball.
Looking for a fuel vapour explosion in this particular case seems somewhat far-fetched.
There is a definite difference between an "explosion" and the ignition of a large amount of spilling fuel in a short time, resulting in a huge fireball. The fire from the initial leak was already well underway before the fireball.
Looking for a fuel vapour explosion in this particular case seems somewhat far-fetched.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national...27TDY02005.htm
If the nut was still attached to the bolt the mechanics scenario is interesting.
If the nut was still attached to the bolt the mechanics scenario is interesting.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: the City by the Bay
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
FAA orders Boeing 737 inspections after fire
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Federal Aviation Administration has ordered airlines to inspect wing slats on all newer Boeing 737 aircraft after an initial investigation said a loose part caused a fuel leak and subsequent fire that destroyed a China Airlines 737 last week in Japan.
The FAA issued the directive on Saturday to owners and operators of 783 U.S. planes that have been in service since 1998, but the directive will likely be applied to the nearly 2,300 planes worldwide soon, the agency said. FAA spokesman Les Dorr said other directives would follow. "We consider this an interim action," he said. "Obviously we're looking at it, Boeing is looking at it, and if we come up with something better, there might be some other action, but that is to be determined."
The FAA said the directive was issued after the China Airlines incident and another incident involving the wing slats of a 737.
In the China Airlines incident, investigators found that a bolt from the right wing slat pierced a fuel tank, causing a fuel leak and fire just after landing on Aug. 20. All 165 people aboard escaped moments before flames engulfed the plane. In the other incident, a loose nut pierced the slat housing wall. Maintenance workers found fuel leaking through the hole.
Slats slide out from the forward edge of a plane's wing to stabilize it during landings and take-offs.
The directive gives owners and operators 24 days to complete the detailed inspections. Those inspections are to be repeated every 3,000 flights. It also orders a one-time tightening of the nut and bolt that hold the assembly in place.
Boeing spokesman Jim Proulx said the aircraft maker has received four reports of the nut coming loose from the assembly. It issued a service letter in December 2005 telling operators to check the assembly to be sure the nut was tightened, he said. Two minor updates to the letter have been issued since then, Proulx said, most recently last month.
The directive applies to Boeing Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes that have been in service since 1998, the FAA said.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Federal Aviation Administration has ordered airlines to inspect wing slats on all newer Boeing 737 aircraft after an initial investigation said a loose part caused a fuel leak and subsequent fire that destroyed a China Airlines 737 last week in Japan.
The FAA issued the directive on Saturday to owners and operators of 783 U.S. planes that have been in service since 1998, but the directive will likely be applied to the nearly 2,300 planes worldwide soon, the agency said. FAA spokesman Les Dorr said other directives would follow. "We consider this an interim action," he said. "Obviously we're looking at it, Boeing is looking at it, and if we come up with something better, there might be some other action, but that is to be determined."
The FAA said the directive was issued after the China Airlines incident and another incident involving the wing slats of a 737.
In the China Airlines incident, investigators found that a bolt from the right wing slat pierced a fuel tank, causing a fuel leak and fire just after landing on Aug. 20. All 165 people aboard escaped moments before flames engulfed the plane. In the other incident, a loose nut pierced the slat housing wall. Maintenance workers found fuel leaking through the hole.
Slats slide out from the forward edge of a plane's wing to stabilize it during landings and take-offs.
The directive gives owners and operators 24 days to complete the detailed inspections. Those inspections are to be repeated every 3,000 flights. It also orders a one-time tightening of the nut and bolt that hold the assembly in place.
Boeing spokesman Jim Proulx said the aircraft maker has received four reports of the nut coming loose from the assembly. It issued a service letter in December 2005 telling operators to check the assembly to be sure the nut was tightened, he said. Two minor updates to the letter have been issued since then, Proulx said, most recently last month.
The directive applies to Boeing Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes that have been in service since 1998, the FAA said.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Dubai
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't agree
Christian J I hate to tell you but your definition is in accurate.
”There is a definite difference between an "explosion" and the ignition of a large amount of spilling fuel in a short time, resulting in a huge fireball.
Definitions found on the Web:
An explosion is a sudden increase in volume and release of energy in a violent manner, usually with the generation of high temperatures and the release of gases. An explosion causes pressure waves in the local medium in which it occurs. Explosions are categorized as deflagrations if these waves are subsonic and detonations if they are supersonic (shock waves).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosion
The sudden release or creation of pressure and generation of high temperature as a result of a rapid change in chemical state (usually burning), or a mechanical failure.
lnglicensing.conocophillips.com/about/glossary/
A very rapid combustion of a substance using its own oxygen supply. Initiated by ignition.
riv.co.nz/rnza/hist/terms.htm
If you look at all the definitions you have a sudden release or increase in volume of energy in a violent manner that is ignited. Sorry your ignition verses explosion does not hold water. A sudden ignition of spilling fuel in a short time that creates a sudden release and expansion of energy (and temperature) is EXACTLY what you had. That is the definition of an explosion.
Now if you look at what the author said. There was an explosion under the wing… If anyone saw the footage they could not disagree. There was a sudden increase in VOLUME and RELEASE of ENERGY that was caused by an IGNITION source in a SHORT TIME.
What the article said was the cause however, was an “ ..electrical short…in a fuel vapor environment…” nothing about an explosion other than under the wing and minuscule semantics is irrelevant.
http://japan.suite101.com/article.cf...possible_cause
You can argue about your definition of what is an explosion but it makes no difference. It does not have to be a nuclear bomb to be an explosion. A jet engine has hundreds of explosions a minute. A test: “He theorized the rearward-channeled explosion based on his third law of motion?” Isaac Newton found at NASA http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:0...lnk&cd=1&gl=ae
Burners and Out!
”There is a definite difference between an "explosion" and the ignition of a large amount of spilling fuel in a short time, resulting in a huge fireball.
Definitions found on the Web:
An explosion is a sudden increase in volume and release of energy in a violent manner, usually with the generation of high temperatures and the release of gases. An explosion causes pressure waves in the local medium in which it occurs. Explosions are categorized as deflagrations if these waves are subsonic and detonations if they are supersonic (shock waves).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosion
The sudden release or creation of pressure and generation of high temperature as a result of a rapid change in chemical state (usually burning), or a mechanical failure.
lnglicensing.conocophillips.com/about/glossary/
A very rapid combustion of a substance using its own oxygen supply. Initiated by ignition.
riv.co.nz/rnza/hist/terms.htm
If you look at all the definitions you have a sudden release or increase in volume of energy in a violent manner that is ignited. Sorry your ignition verses explosion does not hold water. A sudden ignition of spilling fuel in a short time that creates a sudden release and expansion of energy (and temperature) is EXACTLY what you had. That is the definition of an explosion.
Now if you look at what the author said. There was an explosion under the wing… If anyone saw the footage they could not disagree. There was a sudden increase in VOLUME and RELEASE of ENERGY that was caused by an IGNITION source in a SHORT TIME.
What the article said was the cause however, was an “ ..electrical short…in a fuel vapor environment…” nothing about an explosion other than under the wing and minuscule semantics is irrelevant.
http://japan.suite101.com/article.cf...possible_cause
You can argue about your definition of what is an explosion but it makes no difference. It does not have to be a nuclear bomb to be an explosion. A jet engine has hundreds of explosions a minute. A test: “He theorized the rearward-channeled explosion based on his third law of motion?” Isaac Newton found at NASA http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:0...lnk&cd=1&gl=ae
Burners and Out!
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, W Weasel - you'll not find any agreement in here with "A jet engine has hundreds of explosions a minute." A gas turbine is a CONTINUOUS COMBUSTION process - very much like a gas stove. Once ignited, it burns continuously and smoothly.