Isaac 0 Report post Posted October 21, 2005 China Airlines Flight 611 Summary Date : May 25th, 2002 Accident Site : Taiwan Strait Aircraft Type : Boeing 747-209B Tail number : B-18255 Passengers : 206 Crew : 19 Fatalities : 225 On May 25, the flight took off at 2:50 pm local time for the 1 hour 20 minutes flight to Hong Kong. About 20 minutes after takeoff, the aircraft disappeared from radar screens, suggesting the aircraft had experienced an in flight breakup at FL350, near the Penghu Islands at Taiwan Strait, killing all 19 crew members and 206 passengers. 190 of the deceased are Chinese from Taiwan, 14 Chinese from Hong Kong, 1 Singaporean, 9 Chinese from Mainland, and 1 Swede. 3 were infants. 114 were in a group tour organized by five travel agencies to Hong Kong or the Mainland. The plane was expected to arrive at 4:28 PM. What actually went wrong ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Fendy Report post Posted October 21, 2005 (edited) FINDINGS RELATED TO PROBABLE CAUSES: 1. Based on the recordings of CVR and FDR, radar data, the dado panel open-close positions, the wreckage distribution, and the wreckage examinations, the in-flight breakup of CI611, as it approached its cruising altitude, was highly likely due to the structural failure in the aft lower lobe section of the fuselage. 2. In February 7 1980, the accident aircraft suffered a tail strike occurrence in Hong Kong. The aircraft was ferried back to Taiwan on the same day un-pressurized and a temporary repair was conducted the day after. A permanent repair was conducted on May 23 through 26, 1980. 3. The permanent repair of the tail strike was not accomplished in accordance with the Boeing SRM, in that the area of damaged skin in Section 46 was not removed (trimmed) and the repair doubler did not extend sufficiently beyond the entire damaged area to restore the structural strength. 4. Evidence of fatigue damage was found in the lower aft fuselage centered about STA 2100, between stringers S-48L and S-49L, under the repair doubler near its edge and outside the outer row of securing rivets. Multiple Site Damage (MSD), including a 15.1-inch through thickness main fatigue crack and some small fatigue cracks were confirmed. The 15.1-inch crack and most of the MSD cracks initiated from the scratching damage associated with the 1980 tail strike incident. 5. Residual strength analysis indicated that the main fatigue crack in combination with the Multiple Site Damage (MSD) were of sufficient magnitude and distribution to facilitate the local linking of the fatigue cracks so as to produce a continuous crack within a two-bay region (40 inches). Analysis further indicated that during the application of normal operational loads the residual strength of the fuselage would be compromised with a continuous crack of 58 inches or longer length. Although the ASC could not determine the length of cracking prior to the accident flight, the ASC believes that the extent of hoop-wise fretting marks found on the doubler, and the regularly spaced marks and deformed cladding found on the fracture surface suggest that a continuous crack of at least 71 inches in length, a crack length considered long enough to cause structural separation of the fuselage, was present before the in-flight breakup of the aircraft. 6. Maintenance inspection of B-18255 did not detect the ineffective 1980 structural repair and the fatigue cracks that were developing under the repair doubler. However, the time that the fatigue cracks propagated through the skin thickness could not be determined. http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20020525-0 Edited October 21, 2005 by Fendy Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Peter Smith 1 Report post Posted October 22, 2005 Such a sad event. Her next flight was due to be a delivery flight to Orient Thai! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jamal 0 Report post Posted October 22, 2005 Why not check at www.airsafe.com for more investigation reports of this accident. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Isaac 0 Report post Posted October 22, 2005 Thanks, guys Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Denny Yen 0 Report post Posted October 24, 2005 The best source is from the investigative jurisdiction country. In this case, Taiwan's Aviation Safety Council. CI settled the lawsuits from all victims for an undisclosed sum, news report stated CI confirmed that the sum is higher than the amount SIA finally settled in those US class-action litigation for the SQ006 accident. http://www.asc.gov.tw/asc_en/accident_list...o=83&type_no=34 The actual report are here (huge files) in it you can read about the break-up sequence, salvage, evidence tracing, injury profile of victims, etc: http://www.asc.gov.tw/author_files/CI611_EN_vol1.pdf http://www.asc.gov.tw/author_files/CI611_EN_vol2.pdf Interestingly, a made for local TV investigative documentary highlighted several theories: Penghu islands (Pescadores) are situated exactly 180deg opposite of Bermuda triangle. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
