Talk:China Airlines Flight 140

More pages
Text pages of Bielefeld text version
 * Home page: http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Incidents/DOCS/ComAndRep/Nagoya/nagoyarep/nagoya-top.html
 * http://www.webcitation.org/5zh5MJr72
 * http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Incidents/DOCS/ComAndRep/Nagoya/nagoyarep/nag-contents.html
 * http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Incidents/DOCS/ComAndRep/Nagoya/nagoyarep/nag-1.html
 * http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Incidents/DOCS/ComAndRep/Nagoya/nagoyarep/nag-2.html
 * http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Incidents/DOCS/ComAndRep/Nagoya/nagoyarep/nag-3.html
 * http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Incidents/DOCS/ComAndRep/Nagoya/nagoyarep/nag-4-7.html
 * http://http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Incidents/DOCS/ComAndRep/Nagoya/Nagoyappend/figures.html
 * http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Incidents/DOCS/ComAndRep/Nagoya/Nagoyappend/photos.html
 * http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Incidents/DOCS/ComAndRep/Nagoya/Nagoyappend/text.html
 * http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Incidents/DOCS/ComAndRep/Nagoya/Nagoyappend/CI140_FR.html
 * http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Incidents/DOCS/ComAndRep/Nagoya/Nagoyappend/CI140Cvr.htm

Pages of Japanese documents WhisperToMe (talk) 03:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * http://jtsb.mlit.go.jp/jtsb/aircraft/download/pdf/96-5-B1816-01.pdf
 * http://www.webcitation.org/5zh5ltxEI
 * http://jtsb.mlit.go.jp/jtsb/aircraft/download/pdf/96-5-B1816-02.pdf
 * http://www.webcitation.org/5zh5pu022
 * http://jtsb.mlit.go.jp/jtsb/aircraft/download/pdf/96-5-B1816-03.pdf
 * http://www.webcitation.org/5zh5wh3Ad
 * http://jtsb.mlit.go.jp/jtsb/aircraft/download/pdf/96-5-B1816-04.pdf
 * http://www.webcitation.org/5zh5yhNHw
 * http://jtsb.mlit.go.jp/jtsb/aircraft/download/pdf/96-5-B1816-05.pdf
 * http://www.webcitation.org/5zh62DTWm
 * http://jtsb.mlit.go.jp/jtsb/aircraft/download/pdf/96-5-B1816-06.pdf
 * http://www.webcitation.org/5zh64kCJg
 * http://jtsb.mlit.go.jp/jtsb/aircraft/download/pdf/96-5-B1816-07.pdf
 * http://www.webcitation.org/5zh6G0QeL
 * http://jtsb.mlit.go.jp/jtsb/aircraft/download/pdf/96-5-B1816-08.pdf
 * http://www.webcitation.org/5zh6IbOHu
 * http://jtsb.mlit.go.jp/jtsb/aircraft/download/pdf/96-5-B1816-09.pdf
 * http://www.webcitation.org/5zh7vgzpE
 * http://jtsb.mlit.go.jp/jtsb/aircraft/download/pdf/96-5-B1816-10.pdf
 * http://www.webcitation.org/5zh8GLCKN
 * http://jtsb.mlit.go.jp/jtsb/aircraft/download/pdf/96-5-B1816-11.pdf
 * http://www.webcitation.org/5zh8IiUvI
 * http://jtsb.mlit.go.jp/jtsb/aircraft/download/pdf/96-5-B1816-12.pdf
 * http://www.webcitation.org/5zh8LvciT

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on China Airlines Flight 140. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=1994_1199240
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6UTStiN9w?url=http://www.sozogaku.com/fkd/en/cfen/CA1000621.html to http://www.sozogaku.com/fkd/en/cfen/CA1000621.html
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6UTTLpIhh?url=http://web.archive.org/web/20070929091855/http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20070420a8.html to http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20070420a8.html
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6UTStiN9w?url=http://www.sozogaku.com/fkd/en/cfen/CA1000621.html to http://www.sozogaku.com/fkd/en/cfen/CA1000621.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Anyone know the nations?
I know that there were several passengers from Japan, Taiwan, and the Philippines, but does anyone know the entire passenger or nation list? 73.87.74.115 (talk) 13:38, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Doctor is surprised?
I do not consider this statement as the opinion of a subject matter expert.

"A doctor expressed surprise in response to the survival of two of the children."

A doctor might be surprised a person survives potential fatal injuries, but doctors are not mechanical engineers or aviation safety experts. Most crashes do in fact have survivors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.217.214.194 (talk) 16:26, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * , not all crashes are the same, though, and some crashes do have more severe effects than others. I mean the doctor may not be an expert specifically on post-aviation crash injuries, and that point I could concede. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:59, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. Community Tech bot (talk) 13:21, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * 22391-simcheck-b-1816zip-13-thumbnail.jpg

Duplicate info
Investigation: "Nine months earlier, Airbus had advised its customers to modify the air flight system so it would fully disengage the autopilot "when certain manual controls input is applied on the control wheel in GO-AROUND mode",[12] which would have included the yoke-forward movement the pilots made on this accident flight. The accident aircraft was scheduled to only receive the update the next time it required a more substantial service break, because "China Airlines judged that the modifications were not urgent".[12]"

Software upgrade: "Airbus had the company that made the flight control computer produce a modification to the air flight system that would disengage the autopilot "when certain manual controls input is applied on the control wheel in GO-AROUND mode".[12] This modification was first available in September 1993, and the aircraft that had crashed had been scheduled to receive the upgrade.[12] The aircraft had not received the update at the time of the crash because "China Airlines judged that the modifications were not urgent".[12]"

This could be less repetitive maybe? 82.108.2.131 (talk) 14:24, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Summaries
@Wienliebe: you say that a summary such as "Stalled and crashed on approach" is not descriptive of the accident, and you changed it to "Accidental engagement of Go-Around thrust and Pilot error leading to Stall". Well, what happened to the aircraft? What about all other other factors (12 in total) cited by the report, the Service Bulletins? The point is that the summary is not meant to give a full picture of the article: it would never fit, and cherry-picking one or two causes, or lumping them all under popular phrases such as 'pilot error' or 'design flaw' constitutes synthesis and makes the result non-neutral. The summary should say: Deeday-UK (talk) 14:08, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * What happened (i.e. that the aircraft crashed, which is not obvious from the article title).
 * The general circumstances if relevant (e.g. on landing, in a storm, at night).
 * and then leave all causes, contributing factors and technicalities to the article body, where they can be covered fully and neutrally.