Jump to content
MalaysianWings - Malaysia's Premier Aviation Portal
Suhaimi Fariz

Flying Tiger Line Flight 66 Crashed in Puchong on 19 February 1989

Recommended Posts

Something I found and would like to share...

 

Copyright to Jabatan Penerangan Malaysia.

 

NV+2-89-10_R1_-1.jpg

 

NV+2-89-10_R1_-3.jpg

 

NV+2-89-10_R1_-5.jpg

 

NV+2-89-10_R1_-6.jpg

 

NV+2-89-10_R1_-8.jpg

 

NV+2-89-10_R1_-9.jpg

 

NV+2-89-10_R1_-11.jpg

 

Something not right within the line...

Screenshot-29_9_20122_12_04AM.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like a lot of jungle in Puchong in 1989. And just 25 years later, it is concrete jungle out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone know where the exact location is?? Street names or google (satellite) photo or maps please!



Looks like a lot of jungle in Puchong in 1989. And just 25 years later, it is concrete jungle out there.

 

In the name of rapid urbanisation....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone know where the exact location is?? Street names or google (satellite) photo or maps please!

 

 

In the name of rapid urbanisation....

If you search for Puchong in Google Earth, there is a patch of greenery in the middle of that concrete jungle. The Ayer Hitam Forest Reserve. Could that be the spot? It is in a direct line to SZB's 33. I wonder what is the elevation of that particular area.

Edited by Mulyadir Fitri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you search for Puchong in Google Earth, there is a patch of greenery in the middle of that concrete jungle. The Ayer Hitam Forest Reserve. Could that be the spot? It is in a direct line to SZB's 33. I wonder what is the elevation of that particular area.

probably over 200ft?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you search for Puchong in Google Earth, there is a patch of greenery in the middle of that concrete jungle. The Ayer Hitam Forest Reserve. Could that be the spot? It is in a direct line to SZB's 33. I wonder what is the elevation of that particular area.

 

If you use the historical view you can see that a recent as 2000 there were a lot more trees in that area.

Edited by Robert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

QUOTE(Teoh Z Yao @ Sep 11 2006, 06:37 PM) 72396[/snapback]

I want the tyres... Rubber doesn't disintegrate or rust... tongue.gif

 

Tragic, how tragic! That is why grammar is there for... If controller had said "descend to two four zero zero" the accident would most probably have been avoided. Correct grammar pays!

 

I beg to differ. It's not about grammer..it's about pronounciation..that's why the standard ATC pronounciation today dropped the word 'to' as it's confusing. Refer earlier post by our Capt. wink.gif

 

Still can't understand why the crew descend to 400ft, no ATC would ever ask an A/c to decend 400ft

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They didn't ask to descent to 400 ft. The tower wanted it to be 2400ft but the guy said 'descend two-four-zero-zero' instead of 'descend TO two thousand four hundred'.

 

When you hear it, it sounds like the tower meant 'descent TO four zero zero'.

 

If the pilots had the Subang navigational chart they would have known that the minimum altitude there was about 800-1000 ft IMHO.

 

Because of all that, the ATC phraseology is now 'descend TO two thousand four hundred' which is very clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Because of all that, the ATC phraseology is now 'descend TO two thousand four hundred' which is very clear.

In the UK they've done away with "TO" altogether.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if ATC would ask to decend 400ft as a pilot I think one should query back 400ft seriously???? maybe they are too tired

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Nik H. @ Dec 15 2008, 07:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>It happened one Sunday morning on a clear day. I first heard about it over the TV at about 8am as I was getting ready to ride my bike for Fraser's Hills.The aircraft descended towards the Kilo Lima NDB which was just over 7 nautical miles from Runway 33 extended centerline. The height it should have been at that point should not have been less than 2400ft. If I remember correctly there were a number of errors that conspired to cause the crash.1. It was dark. If it was bright, the pilots would have seen the terrain.2. The Glideslope was not available, either withdrawn or unservicable. If it was servicable, the pilots would have followed the GS and flew the slope correctly.3. The Radar at Lumpur those days had no altitude reporting capability. If it had, the controller would have seen the aircraft descending to a level it should not descend to.4. The Pilot misunderstood the controller's transmission to descend to 2400 ft. He thought that he's cleared to descend TO 400 ft.The aircraft burst into flames upon impact, and was totally consumed by the post crash fire, leaving only the rudder visible. It was a fairly forgettable crash as 'only' 4 were killed.After the accident... the phraseology was changed to 'two thousand four hundred' instead of 'two four zero zero', if i'm not mistaken...

I know that both this post and the accident were a long time ago, but for the record, the correct phrasing in 1989, required by both ICAO and the Malaysian AIP was "descend AND MAINTAIN two THOUSAND four zero zero", emphasis added on the parts the Malaysian controller neglected to say. His explanation was that he did not say thousand (towsand) because of previous pilot confusion caused by his accent (actually mispronuciation). If the crew had of properly self briefed, had heeded the NOTAM and had proper situational awareness they would not have accepted the instruction. The shortness of the sector meant that documentation and self brief for the landing really needed to be squared away before pushback in Singapore. The Malaysia controller also neglected to correct the readback of "Okay, four zero zero", and matters were confused by four different points all being referred to phonetically as " KayEll", including, incorrectly, Kuala Lumpur aerodrome by Malaysian controllers. The crew ignored GPWS warnings, so ultimately all the defences against CFIT were breached. Most of the cause can be laid on the crew and DCA, who should never have allowed the four Kay-Ell situation to develop and should have had better training and standards for ATC. The controller should not have been allowed to normalise his deviance, but obviously must bear a fair proportion of the responsibility. This accident did not result in changed phraseology, but it did contribute momentum to the cause of E-GPWS, reduction of false warnings so that pilots did not get in the habit of ignoring them, as this crew so clearly did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone knows where is the exact location? Lestari Puchong and Bandar Bukit Puchong seems to be quite far apart.i stay near the latter.

I make it somewhere east of Bandar Bukit Puchong, the ridge line to the east of Jalan Puteri 12/10 around the 200 metre contour line. It was on track for Subang RWY 33, so maybe follow a GPS route for that along the ridge. I've got it marked on a (1970s)TERHAD map somewhere, but an MRSO grid reference probably wouldn't help, even if I find the map. If they had descended a little later they might have gotten away with just a fright only. I can't ever imagine accepting an instruction to maintain 400 in IMC - but task fixation, trying to figure out their approach, may have prevented the insanity of that from registering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone knows where is the exact location? Lestari Puchong and Bandar Bukit Puchong seems to be quite far apart.i stay near the latter.

 

Someone took drone footage of the flight path, and interviewed some of the first respondents. I would think it's closer to Lestari Puchong since the area is hilly and based on coordinates Kayell beacon is in the middle of Bandar Puteri Puchong.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaubyirCTV0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone took drone footage of the flight path, and interviewed some of the first respondents. I would think it's closer to Lestari Puchong since the area is hilly and based on coordinates Kayell beacon is in the middle of Bandar Puteri Puchong.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaubyirCTV0

Very interesting, thank you. According to my information it had first strike at 437 feet, which would be 133 metres, with the bulk of the wreckage finishing up at the 200 metre contour. The 200 m contour would put it a bit south of what is marked on my map as Wawasan Hill, more or less pointed to by Jalan Puteri 12/23. The approach chart gives the IAF as KAYELL, whilst the controller used KILO LIMA for the same point (the telegraphic identifier instead of the telephonic identifier. The DME identifier was India Kilo Lima, Very likely to cause further confusion. The description I have is "...descended to 437 ft AMSL before striking a ridge line just over one mile SE of the KAYELL beacon. As the aircraft hit the tree tops, it shed portions of leading and trailing edge devices plus parts of the horizontal stabiliser. The aircraft continued in controlled flight until the undercarriage struck a path halfway up the the ridge. The landing gear then sheared off and the 747 pancaked in on the top half of the ridge. As the fuel tanks ruptured, leaking fuel ignited and consumed the cockpit. Fire damage to the rest of the aircraft was minimal but it was still destroyed on impact with the ground. The wreckage came to rest on heading 295 degrees... ...one mile SE of the KAYELL NDB and nine miles from the aerodrome. " I would concur that the first strike was closer to Lestar Puchong, where it ended up is perhaps a little different. It would make sense that the fellows at the Sultan Idris Shah Forest Education Foundation would very likely have come across wreckage that is still there and could help solve the question definitively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just watched some YouTube videos on the accident. Just can't believe that there were so many rules broken by the flight crew just prior to the crash. Or maybe there were no such rules back then?

 

1. I think they don't have the approach chart in front of them. Otherwise, it will be easy to see the 2400 limit rather than 400.

2. They were still hoping to see the ILS signal, which has been NOTAMed off the air. Wonder if they ever do the approach briefing.

3. That "Whoop whoop pull up" GPWS warning. It means immediate go around, no question asked.

 

I wonder what happened to the ATC officer involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...