The Next Chinese Hull Loss
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Home soon
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to the CAAC,if the crew continues below MDA without visual references,they will be banned from flying commercialy for the rest of their life.
I guess we wont be hearing the captain for ever,good riddance.
I guess we wont be hearing the captain for ever,good riddance.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: AUSTRALIA - CHINA STHN
Age: 59
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hard to prove?
You might have had vis @MDA and then lost it... Slim ...but always possible...?
Still, bit of flack flying around over this and de icing incident...
Still, bit of flack flying around over this and de icing incident...
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Home soon
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you had vis at the minima and continued on a correct path,you wouldnt be so low in the first place.
If you lost vis at the proper height versus distance and immediately gone around,rather than playing the dead while hoping to see the 'ground' as they are a god damn helicopter,they wouldnt have touched any ground obstacle.
The captain f
up and good riddance,he will never fly again.
If you lost vis at the proper height versus distance and immediately gone around,rather than playing the dead while hoping to see the 'ground' as they are a god damn helicopter,they wouldnt have touched any ground obstacle.
The captain f
up and good riddance,he will never fly again.
Last edited by de facto; 8th Mar 2013 at 02:53.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In a far better place
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to the CAAC,if the crew continues below MDA without visual references,they will be banned from flying commercialy for the rest of their life.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: People's Republic of China
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There was another incident during the late winter involving involving an Airbus landing well below ILS minimums. Pilots on the ground heard the plane land in RVR 300M, and thought (in Chinese) OMG - someone got in! Captain found himself in deep trouble with the CAAC. For that matter, the F/O was in trouble for just sitting there - though it is the F/O has no right to call for a go-around.
EDIT: Apologies for the really bad Chinglish news, but it is machine translated and not handled by proficient English speakers.
http://www.newshome.us/news-5225398-...-is-false.html
Xiamen Airlines flight landing after engine fire officials said evacuation of the whole machine is false
BEIJING, Aug. 21 Fuzhou Power (Wang Yung Chun) 21, the reporter learned from the Fujian Provincial Public Security Department, on the same day 15:38 arrived in Fuzhou Changle International Airport, Xiamen Airlines MF8542 flights (Shanghai - Fuzhou) taxiing after landing to B7 taxiway, the burst of fire, the whole crew evacuated. After investigation, the fire of an aircraft system false positives.
At 15:45 on August 21, Fujian Provincial Public Security Bureau Command Intelligence Center received the airport Fuzhou Changle International Airport Operations Command Tel reported: MF8542 flights (Shanghai - Fuzhou) on the same day 15:38 arrived in Fuzhou Changle International airports, aircraft taxiing after landing to B7 taxiway, cargo aircraft crew reported a fire.
Alarm, Airport Public Security Bureau police at 15:47 arrived at the scene to carry out rescue, help evacuate passengers, and conduct on-site guard sealed off.
16:11 aircraft cargo fire lifted.
After preliminary examination confirmed that the fire is a flight systems false positives. Now have all passengers on the safe evacuation of the aircraft at 16:14 was off the scene. (END)
(Original title: Xiamen Airlines flight landing after an engine fire official said the evacuation of the whole machine is false)
EDIT: Apologies for the really bad Chinglish news, but it is machine translated and not handled by proficient English speakers.
http://www.newshome.us/news-5225398-...-is-false.html
Xiamen Airlines flight landing after engine fire officials said evacuation of the whole machine is false
BEIJING, Aug. 21 Fuzhou Power (Wang Yung Chun) 21, the reporter learned from the Fujian Provincial Public Security Department, on the same day 15:38 arrived in Fuzhou Changle International Airport, Xiamen Airlines MF8542 flights (Shanghai - Fuzhou) taxiing after landing to B7 taxiway, the burst of fire, the whole crew evacuated. After investigation, the fire of an aircraft system false positives.
At 15:45 on August 21, Fujian Provincial Public Security Bureau Command Intelligence Center received the airport Fuzhou Changle International Airport Operations Command Tel reported: MF8542 flights (Shanghai - Fuzhou) on the same day 15:38 arrived in Fuzhou Changle International airports, aircraft taxiing after landing to B7 taxiway, cargo aircraft crew reported a fire.
Alarm, Airport Public Security Bureau police at 15:47 arrived at the scene to carry out rescue, help evacuate passengers, and conduct on-site guard sealed off.
16:11 aircraft cargo fire lifted.
After preliminary examination confirmed that the fire is a flight systems false positives. Now have all passengers on the safe evacuation of the aircraft at 16:14 was off the scene. (END)
(Original title: Xiamen Airlines flight landing after an engine fire official said the evacuation of the whole machine is false)
Last edited by Transformer_Man; 22nd Aug 2013 at 10:45.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: People's Republic of China
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Xiamen Airlines Almost Scores Jackpot 737 Crash - Internal Memo:
TAIL STRIKE OR HARD LANDING OR BOTH??
On 24th Feb, 2014, MF8310 flight from ZGSZ to ZSCN landed with 2.007G and pitch attitude 8.26 degrees due to flight crew improper control of the airplane.
Now here are the brief description of the weather condition and whole landing process, which would lead us to discuss what we should have done better to avoid such errors occur again.
Weather condition:
wind calm, -RA, FG, visibility 1000m, RVR landing part 1500 meters, middle part 1300 meters, ceiling 60 meters, and RWY03 in use
Process:
The airplane landing configuration was completed on final at 6NM and landing clearance was received thereafter. Flight crew decided to use dual channel approach mode for purpose of possible G/A. With Vref 142, flight crew set MCP 148kts.
Captain on left seat was pilot flying and at altitude 306ft RA he had approach lights in sight and decided to disconnect A/P. Before DA, runway was in sight and flight crew decided to continue to land with captain announced “landing”.
During process of manual control, the airplane continuously stayed higher than glide slope and resulted in passing threshold nearly 100ft higher than normal threshold altitude. PM reminded with callouts “altitude too high, too low airspeed”. Captain started correction by retarding throttle without pitch correction to re-catch normal landing profile. At 110ft, N1 was 48.5 and airspeed 144kts. Airplane passed aiming marker at 50ft with N1 41.4, speed 141kts and descent rate 800ft per minute. One second before touchdown, descent rate was 688ft per minute with airspeed 138kts and pitch attitude 3.34. Captain corrected with abrupt flaring nose up to attitude of 8 degrees and airplane touched down with G force 1.808 at first time, speed 136kts. Followed by airplane airborne again and touched down with G force 2.007 and pitch up attitude 8.26 degrees. We should notice that the tail strike attitude for that condition was 8.8 degrees, which almost lead to an incident of tail strike.
It’s quite a typical case of flight crew improper control of airplane which leads to a serious error. Please discuss with your colleague about what kind of correct action should be taken to avoid such error happen again, and the importance of maintaining stable approach. We hope that this case could give us a chance to think about what better callouts is, CRM or decision making, of course, good understanding of the airplane and procedures.
TAIL STRIKE OR HARD LANDING OR BOTH??
On 24th Feb, 2014, MF8310 flight from ZGSZ to ZSCN landed with 2.007G and pitch attitude 8.26 degrees due to flight crew improper control of the airplane.
Now here are the brief description of the weather condition and whole landing process, which would lead us to discuss what we should have done better to avoid such errors occur again.
Weather condition:
wind calm, -RA, FG, visibility 1000m, RVR landing part 1500 meters, middle part 1300 meters, ceiling 60 meters, and RWY03 in use
The airplane landing configuration was completed on final at 6NM and landing clearance was received thereafter. Flight crew decided to use dual channel approach mode for purpose of possible G/A. With Vref 142, flight crew set MCP 148kts.
Captain on left seat was pilot flying and at altitude 306ft RA he had approach lights in sight and decided to disconnect A/P. Before DA, runway was in sight and flight crew decided to continue to land with captain announced “landing”.
During process of manual control, the airplane continuously stayed higher than glide slope and resulted in passing threshold nearly 100ft higher than normal threshold altitude. PM reminded with callouts “altitude too high, too low airspeed”. Captain started correction by retarding throttle without pitch correction to re-catch normal landing profile. At 110ft, N1 was 48.5 and airspeed 144kts. Airplane passed aiming marker at 50ft with N1 41.4, speed 141kts and descent rate 800ft per minute. One second before touchdown, descent rate was 688ft per minute with airspeed 138kts and pitch attitude 3.34. Captain corrected with abrupt flaring nose up to attitude of 8 degrees and airplane touched down with G force 1.808 at first time, speed 136kts. Followed by airplane airborne again and touched down with G force 2.007 and pitch up attitude 8.26 degrees. We should notice that the tail strike attitude for that condition was 8.8 degrees, which almost lead to an incident of tail strike.
It’s quite a typical case of flight crew improper control of airplane which leads to a serious error. Please discuss with your colleague about what kind of correct action should be taken to avoid such error happen again, and the importance of maintaining stable approach. We hope that this case could give us a chance to think about what better callouts is, CRM or decision making, of course, good understanding of the airplane and procedures.
Last edited by Transformer_Man; 5th Apr 2014 at 23:32. Reason: format
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: wyoming
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is a good example of how bad the Chinglish translations are we are required to read. The short story was there was a false wheel well fire warning for the Xiamen flight into Fuzhou. It was over 1 hour after takeoff and on approach into Fuzhou when it occured. The Captain was unsure so he decided to evacuate. Not the best decision but it was a conservative one. The hard landing incident was a young Captain with low PIC hours who did a planter landing in very low visibility. His punishment is demotion to FO for several months.
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Rockford, IL
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Move the doomsday clock up a minute or two.
There was a Spring Air flight that had a tailstrike and rolled a main gear in the mud at Xiamen, June 6th. Then China Eastern landed on a Nanning taxiway on June 17th. If that wasn't enough, another China Eastern flight overran a runway at Changzhi on June 19th.
Hmmm, what else? China Eastern and China Southern have blown escape slides over the past several days. It's like a cat using up its 9 lives all at once. Verily, verily, I declare it is like a drunken sailor spending his cash in a Bangkok cathouse.
The CAAC has responded with a "manage them until they bleed" initiative. Inspections galore, followed by superman jet-jock checkrides. If you can land with no hydraulics, one gear up, standby power, and a cargo fire, then you will surely not make a bad decision and crash.
You can't make this up - not even on acid. There are even pictures on Freeweibo, Wechat, and the Aviation Herald.
I forgot one - a flight landing in Wuhan rolled into the dirt while attempting to expedite off the runway June 25. Not enough guts or brains to fly first and accomodate ATC second...
There was a Spring Air flight that had a tailstrike and rolled a main gear in the mud at Xiamen, June 6th. Then China Eastern landed on a Nanning taxiway on June 17th. If that wasn't enough, another China Eastern flight overran a runway at Changzhi on June 19th.
Hmmm, what else? China Eastern and China Southern have blown escape slides over the past several days. It's like a cat using up its 9 lives all at once. Verily, verily, I declare it is like a drunken sailor spending his cash in a Bangkok cathouse.
The CAAC has responded with a "manage them until they bleed" initiative. Inspections galore, followed by superman jet-jock checkrides. If you can land with no hydraulics, one gear up, standby power, and a cargo fire, then you will surely not make a bad decision and crash.
You can't make this up - not even on acid. There are even pictures on Freeweibo, Wechat, and the Aviation Herald.
I forgot one - a flight landing in Wuhan rolled into the dirt while attempting to expedite off the runway June 25. Not enough guts or brains to fly first and accomodate ATC second...
Last edited by The_Loner; 29th Jun 2014 at 05:48. Reason: spelling
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: People's Republic of China
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How many flights have rolled into the dirt this year? Instead of ab-initio pilots, the need is for self-operating aircraft. Maybe it will save lives, but I see the doomsday clock slowly ticking down...
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: blue earth
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
oops
How many flights have rolled into the dirt this year?
https://ph.yahoo.com/news/xiamen-air...--finance.html
MANILA (Reuters) - A Xiamen Air aircraft with 165 people on board veered off an airport runway in the Philippines capital of Manila shortly before midnight (1555 GMT) on Thursday, but there were no casualties.
The Boeing 737-800, landing after a flight from Xiamen "went off the runway during a heavy downpour", said Connie Bungag, the officer in charge of Manila International Airport Authority's (MIAA) public affairs office, said. "We are still determining how it happened."
Xiamen Air is a subsidiary of China Southern Airlines.
"All 157 passengers and eight crew were evacuated without injuries, according to XiamenAir," Boeing said in a statement, adding it was closely monitoring the situation.
Philippine airport authorities said the passengers of Xiamen flight 8667 would be brought to a hotel near Terminal 1 of the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA), which services international flights to the country.
Still images of the aircraft carried by local media on Twitter showed the left wing of the Xiamen Air 737 touching the ground.
Due to the incident, NAIA's international runway will be closed until 12 p.m. local time on Friday, a separate statement from airport authorities said.
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Rockford, IL
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are there any statisticians in here eho can confirm or refute that we are about 1/2 standard deviation from botched landings and go arounds to a fatal accident? There was another close call a few days ago at Macau (VMMC).
Capital Airlines flight JD-5759, Beijing to Macau, did multiple hard bounces on runway 34. Contact with the runway was severe enough to damage the landing gear and cause ingestion of nosewheel components into an engine. With one engine out and damaged landing gear they limped to Shenzhen, landed, and evacuated.
How many pilots do you know who have had multiple high G slams on a runway, FUBARred an engine, done a one engine rejected landing, gone to an alternate, landed, evacuated, shutting down runways at two airports in one flight?
We are mow perilously close to a big and deadly accident. Why? The Chinese airlines are no different from other industries, where the mandate is development first / accept casualties. It is a human wave attack on natoonal poverty.
Capital Airlines flight JD-5759, Beijing to Macau, did multiple hard bounces on runway 34. Contact with the runway was severe enough to damage the landing gear and cause ingestion of nosewheel components into an engine. With one engine out and damaged landing gear they limped to Shenzhen, landed, and evacuated.
How many pilots do you know who have had multiple high G slams on a runway, FUBARred an engine, done a one engine rejected landing, gone to an alternate, landed, evacuated, shutting down runways at two airports in one flight?
We are mow perilously close to a big and deadly accident. Why? The Chinese airlines are no different from other industries, where the mandate is development first / accept casualties. It is a human wave attack on natoonal poverty.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Been around the block
Posts: 629
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are there any statisticians in here eho can confirm or refute that we are about 1/2 standard deviation from botched landings and go arounds to a fatal accident? There was another close call a few days ago at Macau (VMMC).
Capital Airlines flight JD-5759, Beijing to Macau, did multiple hard bounces on runway 34. Contact with the runway was severe enough to damage the landing gear and cause ingestion of nosewheel components into an engine. With one engine out and damaged landing gear they limped to Shenzhen, landed, and evacuated.
How many pilots do you know who have had multiple high G slams on a runway, FUBARred an engine, done a one engine rejected landing, gone to an alternate, landed, evacuated, shutting down runways at two airports in one flight?
We are mow perilously close to a big and deadly accident. Why? The Chinese airlines are no different from other industries, where the mandate is development first / accept casualties. It is a human wave attack on natoonal poverty.
Capital Airlines flight JD-5759, Beijing to Macau, did multiple hard bounces on runway 34. Contact with the runway was severe enough to damage the landing gear and cause ingestion of nosewheel components into an engine. With one engine out and damaged landing gear they limped to Shenzhen, landed, and evacuated.
How many pilots do you know who have had multiple high G slams on a runway, FUBARred an engine, done a one engine rejected landing, gone to an alternate, landed, evacuated, shutting down runways at two airports in one flight?
We are mow perilously close to a big and deadly accident. Why? The Chinese airlines are no different from other industries, where the mandate is development first / accept casualties. It is a human wave attack on natoonal poverty.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Eagles Nest
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Accident: Capital Beijing A320 at Macau on Aug 28th 2018, dropped nose wheels on hard touchdown
By Simon Hradecky, created Tuesday, Aug 28th 2018 14:31Z, last updated Wednesday, Aug 29th 2018 16:00ZA Capital Airlines Beijing Airbus A320-200, registration B-6952 performing flight JD-5759 from Beijing to Macau (Macau) with 157 passengers and 9 crew, was on final approach to Macau's runway 34 into the flare already when the aircraft encountered wind shear and touched down hard. The crew initiated a go around, received indications of left engine (CFM56) failure and suspecting gear damage declared Mayday. The aircraft diverted to Shenzhen (China) and landed on runway 34 about 40 minutes after the rejected landing. The aircraft became disabled on the runway with both nose wheels missing from the nose gear strut.
Runway 34 was closed for about 3 hours until the aircraft was moved off the runway. Runway 15/33 remained operational.
The missing wheels were recovered from Macau's runway.
China's CAAC reported the aircraft attempted landing at Macau at 11:16L (03:16Z) but was unsuccessful, the crew went around. The crew declared Mayday and requested emergency services on standby in Shenzhen reporting possible landing gear failure. The aircraft landed on Shenzhen's runway 34 at 11:58L (03:58Z), it was subsequently found both nose wheels were missing. The aircraft was evacuated. 5 Passengers were taken to a hospital with minor injuries. Shenzhen's runway 34 was temporarily closed. The CAA Shenzhen have opened an investigation into the occurrence.
The airline reported the aircraft is suspected to have encountered windshear while landing at Macau, the crew immediately initiated a go around, suspected damage to the landing gear and declared emergency. The aircraft diverted to Shenzhen where the 157 passengers and 9 crew were evacuated.
On Aug 29th 2018 The Aviation Herald received information from a multitude of sources stating that the aircraft touched down on Macau's runway 34 at 7.7 degrees nose up, 123 KIAS and 2.4G, bounced, touched down a second time at 15.1 degrees nose up between 133 and 144 KIAS and 3.4G. The aircraft bounced again, touched down a third time at 7.7 degrees nose down (nose gear first), both wheels and part of the nose gear structure separated, debris was ingested by the left hand engine, debris destroyed the VHF1 antenna (causing temporary loss of communication), the damage to the nose gear also prompted the nose gear to permanently indicate being on the ground preventing gear retraction. About 5 seconds after the third bounce the go around was initiated.
By Simon Hradecky, created Tuesday, Aug 28th 2018 14:31Z, last updated Wednesday, Aug 29th 2018 16:00ZA Capital Airlines Beijing Airbus A320-200, registration B-6952 performing flight JD-5759 from Beijing to Macau (Macau) with 157 passengers and 9 crew, was on final approach to Macau's runway 34 into the flare already when the aircraft encountered wind shear and touched down hard. The crew initiated a go around, received indications of left engine (CFM56) failure and suspecting gear damage declared Mayday. The aircraft diverted to Shenzhen (China) and landed on runway 34 about 40 minutes after the rejected landing. The aircraft became disabled on the runway with both nose wheels missing from the nose gear strut.
Runway 34 was closed for about 3 hours until the aircraft was moved off the runway. Runway 15/33 remained operational.
The missing wheels were recovered from Macau's runway.
China's CAAC reported the aircraft attempted landing at Macau at 11:16L (03:16Z) but was unsuccessful, the crew went around. The crew declared Mayday and requested emergency services on standby in Shenzhen reporting possible landing gear failure. The aircraft landed on Shenzhen's runway 34 at 11:58L (03:58Z), it was subsequently found both nose wheels were missing. The aircraft was evacuated. 5 Passengers were taken to a hospital with minor injuries. Shenzhen's runway 34 was temporarily closed. The CAA Shenzhen have opened an investigation into the occurrence.
The airline reported the aircraft is suspected to have encountered windshear while landing at Macau, the crew immediately initiated a go around, suspected damage to the landing gear and declared emergency. The aircraft diverted to Shenzhen where the 157 passengers and 9 crew were evacuated.
On Aug 29th 2018 The Aviation Herald received information from a multitude of sources stating that the aircraft touched down on Macau's runway 34 at 7.7 degrees nose up, 123 KIAS and 2.4G, bounced, touched down a second time at 15.1 degrees nose up between 133 and 144 KIAS and 3.4G. The aircraft bounced again, touched down a third time at 7.7 degrees nose down (nose gear first), both wheels and part of the nose gear structure separated, debris was ingested by the left hand engine, debris destroyed the VHF1 antenna (causing temporary loss of communication), the damage to the nose gear also prompted the nose gear to permanently indicate being on the ground preventing gear retraction. About 5 seconds after the third bounce the go around was initiated.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it correct China saw no hull losses since 2012?
We can't say that on Europe & US.
If true that should make us shut up for at least 120 seconds & review the situation.
Who was the first to (correctly) ground the 737MAX.. Perceptions & reality drift apart.
https://www.mro-network.com/airlines...s-dramatically
We can't say that on Europe & US.
If true that should make us shut up for at least 120 seconds & review the situation.
Who was the first to (correctly) ground the 737MAX.. Perceptions & reality drift apart.
https://www.mro-network.com/airlines...s-dramatically
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Over the Pacific mostly
Posts: 1,043
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it correct China saw no hull losses since 2012?
We can't say that on Europe & US.
If true that should make us shut up for at least 120 seconds & review the situation.
Who was the first to (correctly) ground the 737MAX.. Perceptions & reality drift apart.
https://www.mro-network.com/airlines...s-dramatically
We can't say that on Europe & US.
If true that should make us shut up for at least 120 seconds & review the situation.
Who was the first to (correctly) ground the 737MAX.. Perceptions & reality drift apart.
https://www.mro-network.com/airlines...s-dramatically
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: J-land
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MA 60's don't count... They are weed eaters like the old SA226/227 were... Land and off in the grass due to the nose wheel steering leaving lots to be desired.... Ha... No harm no foul, just dirty shoes...
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: uae
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
