Read the forum code of contact
By: 7th February 2005 at 17:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Does seem a little odd but, as with all these things, we don't, and never will, have all the facts presented to us.
By: 7th February 2005 at 17:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-The MD-11 had poor sales record because MD skimped on the development and just stuck winglets on the DC-10 wing. It consequently suffered poor range. Thats why it didn't sell well.
A mistake made long before Boeing bought MD.
By: 7th February 2005 at 17:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Does seem a little odd but, as with all these things, we don't, and never will, have all the facts presented to us.
Correct, but without providing any reasonable factor (beyond the MD-11 sales record) why the aircraft manufacturer is responsible for the accident he sounds more like he's interested in removing blame from himself rather than uncovering a design flaw.
By: 7th February 2005 at 18:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Thats certainly what it sounds like. Do you have a link to the "official" accident report?
By: 7th February 2005 at 19:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-It is well known that the tail of the MD-11 is rather small due to the engine. As a consequence the control surfaces are also small, and therefor not as responsive as other planes. This MAY have contributed to the accident.
Still, this sounds very much like a attempt to shift blame. A bad attempt as well.
And euhm, how many accidents and incidents have China Airlines had?
By: 8th February 2005 at 00:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-This might b a stupid question by anyway
wats the difference between the md-11 and the dc-10?? :confused:
By: 8th February 2005 at 01:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-This might b a stupid question by anywaywats the difference between the md-11 and the dc-10?? :confused:
Asks the person that says " Boeing is NO match for AIRBUS!!! "
Dude... you know what a plane is, right? ;)
By: 8th February 2005 at 01:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-I have a video of the actual approach and it shows the rapid ROD when he hits the rwy, now whether this was caused by the weather/windsheer or pilot action remains open for discussion, but for the pilot to try and apportion the blame on Boeing is just mind boggling.
I'll try and upload the video to some webspace for those who havent seen it, its quite spectacular yet horrifying to say the least.
D.
By: 8th February 2005 at 01:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-By: 8th February 2005 at 05:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Guys,
I don't know if you know that there was a typhoon here in Hong Kong during the accident.
By: 8th February 2005 at 14:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-There was indeed a typhoon that night....I was in CLK and saw the crash in person......lots of other flights diverted due to the weather that was BAD....
If I am right(dont quote me on this), then there were crosswinds of 40 knots plus as well as the typhoon and rain!
The mountains at the side of CLK do create a lot of windshear at the best of times!!!
By: 8th February 2005 at 15:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-I couldn't find a specific quote of the wind conditions at the field at the time of the accident, anyone know? I can imagine that they were rather strong given that a typhoon was in the area.
By: 8th February 2005 at 22:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-If anyone will know, ask Daryl Chapman or Colin Parker at the Hong Kong Spotters forum - http://the-wu.org/hkgspotting/index.php
Posts: 2,513
By: Whiskey Delta - 7th February 2005 at 17:13
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/aplocal_story.asp?category=6420&slug=AS%20Hong%20Kong%20Crash%20Probe
So his only "evidence" that the aircraft was the cause of the accident was that the MD-11 had a poor sales record and that they aren't produced anymore? Oh man, I can't believe that someone gave this guy a forum to spout this dribble.