It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

China Airlines accident animation

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 09:06 PM
link   
This animation is a beauty - the accident is spectacular (aircraft on fire) - but there were no injuries and I don't recall it being in the news at all.




posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


That was in like 2007. Scary video, I remember it well.




posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


why did they wait so long for the fire trucks to get there?? glad everyone was okay.

those people in the plane that just flew over the blazing plane must have been really scared!!!!

that animation was really good, very clear, such a small thing as a washer was left off caused this to happen.
edit on 10-12-2013 by research100 because: add sentence



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 10:50 PM
link   
Looks like three people didn't do their jobs correctly. First the mechanic with the extra part and didn't follow the tech data (obvious). The person that signed off the work without looking at it (obvious) and the QA person that failed to find a major error in the assembly, that is if they even looked. At any one of these given points this could have been avoided. As it is, failure to follow proper procedures resulted in the total loss of an aircraft and fortunately no lives lost.

China's maintenance practices are not the best in the world and this case is totally unacceptable in the light of those practices.
edit on 12/10/2013 by pstrron because: add a little



posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 03:51 AM
link   
reply to post by pstrron
 


You would be amazed at how often this happens. I know of a handful of lost aircraft because of a missed bolt, or a plug left in place, etc.



posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 01:50 PM
link   

pstrron
Looks like three people didn't do their jobs correctly. First the mechanic with the extra part and didn't follow the tech data (obvious). The person that signed off the work without looking at it (obvious) and the QA person that failed to find a major error in the assembly, that is if they even looked. At any one of these given points this could have been avoided. As it is, failure to follow proper procedures resulted in the total loss of an aircraft and fortunately no lives lost.


I've been in all 3 of those roles, and have, occasionally, also failed to perform properly in all 3 of those roles! Fortunately never with as much consequence as this.

but you forgot many others - the whole design team that generated this "feature" also failed to make it error tolerant!

People are human and mistakes happen - much of aviation safety is about catching the errors, but "human factors" in aviation is now (and for eth last 25 years) about how to deal with the INEVITABLE mistakes.


China's maintenance practices are not the best in the world and this case is totally unacceptable in the light of those practices.


all maintenance failure is unacceptable - but it is also expected!



posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


I see this in my field as well. If they had just used a larger nut that couldn't pass through the bore then this would not have happened and hopefully been caught on subsequent inspections. A potential failure in a system that could have be avoided by using a different method but weren't to possibly save cost.



posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Sammamishman
 


IMO cost would not be a function in this instance - I suspect it is more likely there is no such "large nut" available as a spec'd part.



posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 02:45 PM
link   
British Airways pilot sucked out

That accident happened because the mechanic didn't double check the windscreen screws against the parts list. He eyeballed some screws that were about 1/8th of an inch too short, and thought they matched up.



posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Zaphod58
British Airways pilot sucked out

That accident happened because the mechanic didn't double check the windscreen screws against the parts list. He eyeballed some screws that were about 1/8th of an inch too short, and thought they matched up.


Strictly speaking only 6 of the 90 bolts were too short (by 0.1") - the remaining 84 were too narrow - by 0.026". The previous windscreen also had the wrong screws and the maintenance staff had replaced "like for like" without referring to the maintenance documentation.

There's always temptation to do stuff like this, and this accident was one of the ones that resulted in the "push" for human factors training in maintenance though the 1990's (the DC-10 crash into Mt Erebus in 1979 was another I am familiar with, as I was working for Air New Zealand at the time)

Here's the Air Accidents Investigation report

Wiki page on the accident



posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


I knew it was something like that, but I was going from memory. It's been awhile since I've read up on that one.



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join