Taiwan’s China Airlines failed to properly maintain a Boeing 747-200 jet that crashed into the sea killing all 225 people aboard in 2002, Taiwan investigators said on Friday.
A report by the government’s Aviation Safety Council found 29 cases of delayed or overdue inspections. The inspections were supposed to prevent corrosion or deterioration of parts.
Council officials declined to say if the neglected inspections had caused the jet to break apart in mid-air in 2002.
“It is too early to tell now,” said council investigator Tracy Jen. “We have sent the preliminary report to the relevant parties for their feedback… a final report can be expected at the end of October.”
The council said in June last year their probe into the crash had found metal fatigue cracks that penetrated the skin of the aircraft, but did not immediately attribute the faults to the cause of the crash.
The cracks — as well as signs of metal corrosion — had been covered by a patch called a “repair doubler”, which was added as reinforcement to the plane after its tail struck a runway over 20 years earlier.
Yong said data collected so far had ruled out air traffic control, weather, engines, flight operations, security or outside forces as a cause of the crash. They also found no signs of fire, smoke or explosives.
The nearly 23-year-old plane disintegrated in mid-flight near Taiwan’s Penghu islands while on its way to Hong Kong two years ago in China Airlines’ fourth fatal accident since 1994.
By: Dazza - 13th March 2004 at 12:01
IF62M, a Boeing team was sent to Japan after the tail strike to instigate a repair, the repair they came up with was actually stronger than the original bulkhead design, unfortunately where two rivets should have joined a plate only one was fitted, the rest is history, incidentally the Japanese engineer who signed-off on the Boeing repair committed suicide.
-Dazza
By: MSR777 - 13th March 2004 at 10:29
Wasn’t there something similar to this with a JAL 747SR some time ago which was also attributed to the failure of a pressure bulkhead repair failure? If I remember correctly the repair was in fact carried out by Boeing on that occasion. It was a long time back though so my facts may not be totally correct.
By: Wrenchbender - 13th March 2004 at 06:45
That’s what I’m constantly talking about! Airlines are shipping maintenance work to Asia and this is the resultant!
By: Bahnhaus - 13th March 2004 at 02:44
Nice one, Steve, but do you mean to say that we have to use logic as a means to solve this? Not everyone subscribes to the premisse that mathematical logic is a useful structure for argueing about philosophical matters.
By: Whiskey Delta - 13th March 2004 at 02:43
Has there been new information regarding this accident? I thought they figured out that it was an incorrect rear bulkhead repair that had failed a while ago? The news item here states that metal fatigue was announced last June, I thought they had come to that conclusion soon after the accident. Perhaps my memory has compressed the time passage and it was only last summer they discovered that, and not before.
Sign In
March 13, 2004 at 1:10 am