Talk:China Airlines Flight 006

Accident
I changed all of the words "incident," to the word "accident," since that is the correct nomenclature, whenever the plane suffers significant damage and/or significant injuries to any onboard. EditorASC (talk) 06:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Roll Direction
Didn't the jet roll to starboard? The graphics and NTSB report say it rolled right, but the article says "port." Just want to make sure before I change it. CPColin (talk) 19:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that too. Edit away! Titaniumlegs (talk) 02:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

"port" & "starboard" are not the usual terms for "left" & "right" in aviation parlance anyway. duncanrmi (talk) 03:22, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Notability
Is this accident notable? nobody was killed and the aircraft returned to service. Any comments? MilborneOne (talk) 17:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This line is in one of the last paragraphs: "After substantial investigation, this incident brought to international attention the problem of jet lag as a contributing factor to pilot errors." If it can supported by reliable sources, it would be notable per the AATF proposed guidelines in having lasting effects/repercutions. - BillCJ (talk) 19:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. I believe the comment "You have to be nuts to fly China Airlines, or at least someone with a Death Wish" should be inserted to properly illustrate the meaningfulness of this incident for adventurous human beings and devotees of extreme sports all round the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.134.239.247 (talk) 12:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This is one of those cases where some judgment is required. It may be simple to say, "it's not notable because no one was killed and the plane returned to service."  But it was a very unique event, notable for all of the following reasons:
 * If not for corrective action (even if less than perfectly executed) by the crew, all lives on board were at risk and could have been lost.
 * Any case of an airliner in passenger service entering uncontrolled or inverted (upside-down) flight is significant.
 * Regardless of the fact that the plane was eventually repaired, the damage was significant. The photos in the article show parts of the airplane's control surfaces actually broke off.
 * The investigation turned up important lessons learned, particularly about over-reliance on the auto-pilot and requiring crew rest, which have made aviation safer today.
 * The human story of the passengers who survived also make this a story of significant interest, which is why TV documentaries were made about it.
 * I hope that's enough. Ikluft (talk) 04:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Very definitely notable, IMHO. Any time an airliner experiences an upset resulting in a High Dive of over 30,000 ft., because of the incompetent actions of a 15,000+hours captain, it becomes highly notable, especially since all on board would have died had it not been for the good luck of the weather permitting visual contact with the horizon, below 11,000 ft. MSL.


 * Just as notable as the stall-crash at SFO, of a B-777 landing on R28L in visual conditions (July, 2013), even though there were only 3 fatalities among the 307 SOB, because of the incompetence of TWO airline captains, who also had significant flight-time hours under their belts. Both accidents reflected deficient training of the pilots, because they had been certified without their being able to demonstrate a consistent ability to fly their planes manually (without reliance upon automated systems) in a variety of normal and emergency situations. EditorASC (talk) 23:30, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that this was a notable incident, but I can't agree with EditorASC that it is notable because of incompetence and the weather. No one denies that the captain made mistakes, but it wasn't the weather that saved the passengers; it was the captain. I think what is most notable about this incident was the captain's extraordinary recovery of the aircraft, which took a lot of skill, and his ability to land the damaged jet. When an aircraft goes out of control like 006 did, there's generally very little hope of everyone surviving -- that's what makes this incident so noteworthy. Another notable aspect is the fact that it was the captain, who demonstrated excellent airmanship in recovering the aircraft, that had made basic errors in the first place which led to the upset -- trying to reconcile that apparent paradox is certainly something worthy of note. I think this incident highlighted the fact that even the most skilled and experienced pilots are fallible, and that an understanding of factors which degrade performance, such as fatigue etc., is vital to safe flight. Good pilots aren't enough.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.122.42 (talk) 07:54, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

notability... mmm.... well, there haven't been many other cases of a 747 full of people doing a barrel-roll & the pilot not even realizing.
 * -O

duncanrmi (talk) 03:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Maximum velocity
It has been suggested that China Airlines Flight 006 holds the speed record for a 747. The NTSB report states a velocity of 296 KIAS during the powered dive. By comparison, Mach 1 at the altitude that the incident started appears to have been 298 KIAS. Thus it looks like this plane hit the sound barrier on the way down. Could someone confirm this? NeilFraser (talk) 16:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think anyone can know for sure. In the same section of that NTSB report, where it mentions 296 Kts, it also says that "...the vertical acceleration values approached 5 Gs. Thereafter, invalid data was recorded for several periods during the early part of the descent."  The captain said the plane exceeded Vmo twice during the dive, but the FDR did not record any speeds that exceeded Vmo. That may explain why they never heard the overspeed warning clacker. EditorASC (talk) 01:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Missing FDR data. As far as I know the max recorded G force was 5.2 followed by a jump in time-stamps of about 2 minutes in the FDR data. The explanation is that because the FDR contains a heavy armored capsule and weighs much more than a standard size module, the G-force caused the small electronic equipment rack to flex, and the FDR module lost correct contact with the slide-in electronic connector port on the rack. Connection was regained when the G force was reduced below 5. Hence it would not be unusual for there to be no digital record of some of the reported instrument readings. (747 Tech)


 * It's a little confusing, because to non aviation people a jumbo screaming down at or near Mach 1 must have been a split second from disaster. In reality, it must have (mostly) been a shallowish dive, because it took 145 seconds to drop 30,865 ft. That -- the loss of height -- required the a/c to average only 145 miles per hour vertically during that procedure. Yes, I know it was speeding forward as well, but the falling out of the sky bit wasn't (relatively) all that fast. I'm not a 747 pilot. How did you guess. Moriori (talk) 03:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I read on another page (can't seem to find it now) that it "almost certainly" exceeded the sound barrier. How can that be, if the above is correct? 66.189.116.112 (talk) 23:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * That's the page on the sound barrier that you're referring to. In the penultimate section, "the sound barrier fades". 84.134.185.133 (talk) 14:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Yaw damper?
From the article: "The rudder was controlled only by pilot input." I believe that the normal autopilot did not control the rudder, but the plane surely had a yaw damper controling the rudder?--ospalh (talk) 11:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The yaw damper has a very limited range of authority, and is designed only to greatly reduce the constant fishtailing/dutch-roll tendency of swept-wing aircraft. It has no power to counteract an unwanted roll of the plane.  The yaw damper computer is separate from the autopilot system, and doesn't really care what the bank of the aircraft is, at any given time.  It has to be designed that way, else it would interfere with normal pilot and autopilot control of the aircraft. EditorASC (talk) 01:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Which airport
It says flight 006 departed from Taipei. Is there only one Taipei airport, or is the article being deliberately unclear? 66.189.116.112 (talk) 00:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Arrival Time
The arrival time is not correct. The plane departed at 16:22 Taiwan time (according to the NTSB report) and the accident happened at 10:10 pacific time, 3 hours after the mentioned arrival time (07:00 pacific time). Based on normal flight times the flight should have an arrival time between 13:00 and 15:00 local time. 88.159.86.90 (talk) 19:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Removing Fry's Electronics 747SP photo
I don't see any relevance for the inclusion of File:Fry's Electronics Boeing 747SP Simon.jpg. The article already includes three images of the actual aircraft involved in this incident. I'm therefore removing the photo. If you feel I missed something, feel free to explain it here. Rupert Clayton (talk) 17:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

G-forces
The NTSB report states that the DFDR recorded a maximum g-force of 5.1G. This is written in the article as "all onboard experienced g-forces as high as 5g". Is it true that everyone will have experienced the same g-forces? E.g. a sudden pitch-up or pitch-down would be felt more strongly by those at the rear of the plane than by those at the front. 80.2.106.75 (talk) 05:27, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on China Airlines Flight 006. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120604020601/http://www.747sp.com/History.asp?22805 to http://www.747sp.com/History.asp?22805

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:53, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Thrust changes required to control approach?
Hi, Burninthruthesky. I have read the report and have studied the incident quite thoroughly. You are correct that the approach was conducted with the aid of the autopilot; but the crew disengaged it at 2,500 for the final approach, as is noted in the NTSB report. I have provided a citation to support the lack of elevator control. I'm not a regular "editor" on Wikipedia, so hopefully the reference was correctly cited. If not, please advise and I'll try to fix it. Thanks for your message. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.122.42 (talk) 02:43, 11 August 2017‎ Copied from User talk page by Burninthruthesky (talk) 07:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I noticed that this claim is made in the Mayday documentary. Unfortunately, that is not a reliable source (see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force/Archive 5).
 * The NTSB report does indeed say the autopilot was disconnected at 2,500 ft. This is routine (unless doing an autoland). The report also says the autopilot "operated satisfactorily", which it would not do if the elevators were damaged to the extent that thrust adjustments were needed to maintain the flight path. If the claim were true, I do not believe the NTSB report would omit to mention it. For this reason, I believe the claim is incorrect, so I have removed it. Please continue to discuss here if you have any further comments. Burninthruthesky (talk) 07:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Sure, well I'm not sure what is considered a reliable source for the purposes on Wikipedia. I am aware that with other accidents profiled on Mayday, the Wikipedia entries do often footnote things said in the Mayday episode. My experience with Mayday episodes is that they are, for the most part, accurate; in fact, I would struggle to think of any glaring errors off the top of my head. I would also note, however, that, directly following the comment regarding the elevators by the narrator, Accident Expert Peter Ladkin provides a statement which does seem to support that they were having difficulty on the approach. Narrator says: "Without them [the elevators], landing his jet will be extremely difficult." Ladkin says: "The problem is: it's a very big airplane and it responds very, very slowly, and just might not do it before you run out of air; you might hit the ocean. What you need is a very cool head." It seems odd to me that he would make the statement if the aircraft was flying the approach without any difficulty. I also think it's odd that Mayday would just create the claim regarding the elevators. I will, of course, defer to your expertise regarding what is a reliable source for the purposes of the article, but I will keep searching around to see if any further verification regarding the elevators claim can be located and would appreciate anyone else's thoughts on the issue -- namely, where the claim came from and if it has any merit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.122.42 (talk) 13:26, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The context of that expert quote is unclear. We don't know if he was talking about the approach or the accident in general. I would welcome more sources or input from others. Burninthruthesky (talk) 07:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)