Boeing 747-400

Skylease Cargo

The Sky Lease Cargo Boeing 747-412F aircraft (U.S. registration N908AR, serial number 28026) was conducting flight 4854 (KYE4854) from Chicago/O’Hare International Airport, Illinois, U.S., to Halifax/Stanfield International Airport, Nova Scotia, with 3 crew members, 1 passenger, and no cargo on board. The crew conducted the Runway 14 instrument landing system approach. When the aircraft was 1 minute and 21 seconds from the threshold, the crew realized that there was a tailwind; however, they did not recalculate the performance data to confirm that the landing distance available was still acceptable, likely because of the limited amount of time available before landing. The unexpected tailwind resulted in a greater landing distance required, but this distance did not exceed the length of the runway. The aircraft touched down firmly at approximately 0506 Atlantic Standard Time, during the hours of darkness. After the firm touchdown, for undetermined reasons, the engine No. 1 thrust lever was moved forward of the idle position, causing the speed brakes to retract and the autobrake system to disengage, increasing the distance required to bring the aircraft to a stop. In addition, the right crab angle (4.5°) on initial touchdown, combined with the crosswind component and asymmetric reverser selection, caused the aircraft to deviate to the right of the runway centreline. During the landing roll, the pilot monitoring’s attention was focused on the lateral drift and, as a result, the required callouts regarding the position of the deceleration devices were not made. Although manual brake application began 8 seconds after touchdown, maximum braking effort did not occur until 15 seconds later, when the aircraft was 800 feet from the end of the runway. At this position, it was not possible for the aircraft to stop on the runway and, 5 seconds later, the aircraft departed the end of the runway at a speed of 77 knots and came to a stop 270 m (885 feet) past the end. The aircraft struck the approach light stanchions and the localizer antenna array. The No. 2 engine detached from its pylon during the impact sequence and came to rest under the left horizontal stabilizer, causing a fire in the tail section following the impact. The emergency locator transmitter activated. Aircraft rescue and firefighting personnel responded. All 3 crew members received minor injuries and were taken to the hospital. The passenger was not injured. During the overrun, the aircraft crossed a significant drop of 2.8 m (9 feet) approximately 166 m (544 feet) past the end of the runway and was damaged beyond repair.

ACT Airlines

On 16.01.2017, the crew of the Boeing 747-412F TC-MCL aircraft was performing a THY6491 flight from Hong Kong via Bishkek (Manas Airport) to Istanbul (Ataturk Airport) in order to transport the commercial cargo (public consumer goods) of 85 618 kg. The cargo was planned to be offloaded in Istanbul (Ataturk Airport). Manas Airport was planned as a transit airport for crew change and refueling. From 12.01.2017 to 15.01.2017, the crew had a rest period of 69 h in a hotel in Hong Kong. The aircraft takeoff from the Hong Kong Airport was performed at 19:12 on 5.01.2017, with the delay of 2 h 02 min in respect to the planned takeoff time. During the takeoff, the climb and the on-route cruise flight, the aircraft systems operated normally. At 00:41, on 16.01.2017, the aircraft entered the Bishkek ATC Area Control Center over the reference point of KAMUD at flight level of 10 400 m (according to the separation system, established in the People's Republic of China). At 00:51, the crew requested a descent and reached the FL 220 (according to the separation system, established in the Kyrgyz Republic). At 00:59, the crew received the weather information for Manas Airport: "the RVR at the RWY threshold 400 m, the RWY midpoint and RWY end 300 m, the vertical visibility 130 ft". At 01:01, the crew received the specified data: " in the center of the runway RVR three zero zero meters, vertical visibility one five zero feet." At 01:03, the crew requested a descent, the controller cleared for the descent not below FL 180. At 01:05, the crew was handed over to the Approach Control. At 01:06, the crew was cleared for the descent to FL 60, TOKPA 1 ILS approach chart, RWY 26. At 01:10, the controller reported the weather: wind calm, visibility 50 m, RVR 300 m, freezing fog, vertical visibility 160 ft, and requested the crew if they would continue the approach. The crew reported that they would continue the approach. The crew conducted the approach to RWY 26 in accordance with the standard approach chart. At 01:11, the controller informed the crew: "… transition level six zero" and cleared them for the ILS approach to RWY 26. At 01:15, the crew contacted the Tower controller. The Tower controller cleared them for landing on RWY 26 and reported the weather: "…wind calm… RVR in the beginning of the runway four hundred meters, in the middle point three hundred two five meters and at the end of the runway four hundred meters and vertical visibility one six zero... feet". The aircraft approached the RWY 26 threshold at the height significantly higher than the planned height. Continuing to descend, the aircraft flew over the entire length of the RWY and touched the ground at the distance of 900 m away from the farthest end of the runway (in relation to the direction of the approach) (the RWY 08 threshold). After the touchdown and landing roll, the aircraft impacted the concrete aerodrome barrier and the buildings of the suburban settlement and started to disintegrate, the fuel spillage occurred. As a result of the impact with the ground surface and the obstacles, the aircraft was completely disintegrated, a significant part of the aircraft structure was destroyed by the post-crash ground fire. At 01.17 UTC, the Tower controller requested the aircraft position, but the crew did not respond.

British Airways

The British Airways aircraft B747-400, flight number BA034 with registration G-BNLL, was going to embark on a commercial international air transportation long haul flight from FAOR to EGLL. The ATC gave the crew instructions to push back, start and face south, then taxi using taxiway Bravo to the Category 2 holding point for Runway 03L. During the taxi, instead of turning to the left to follow Bravo, the crew continued straight ahead, crossing the intersection of taxiway Bravo and aircraft stand taxilane Mike. After crossing the intersection, still being on Mike, the aircraft collided with a building. An investigation was conducted and several causal factors were determined. Amongst others, it was determined that the crew erred in thinking they were still taxiing on Bravo while in fact they were taxiing on Mike. This mistake, coupled with other contributory factors such as the briefing information, taxi information, ground movement visual aids, confusion and loss of situational awareness led to the collision. All 202 occupants evacuated safely while four people in the building were injured. The aircraft was damaged beyond repair.

National Airlines - National Air Cargo

The aircraft crashed shortly after takeoff from Bagram Air Base, Bagram, Afghanistan. All seven crewmembers—the captain, first officer, loadmaster, augmented captain and first officer, and two mechanics—died, and the airplane was destroyed from impact forces and postcrash fire. The 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 121 supplemental cargo flight, which was operated under a multimodal contract with the US Transportation Command, was destined for Dubai World Central - Al Maktoum International Airport, Dubai, United Arab Emirates. The airplane’s cargo included five mine-resistant ambush-protected (MRAP) vehicles secured onto pallets and shoring. Two vehicles were 12-ton MRAP all-terrain vehicles (M-ATVs) and three were 18-ton Cougars. The cargo represented the first time that National Airlines had attempted to transport five MRAP vehicles. These vehicles were considered a special cargo load because they could not be placed in unit load devices (ULDs) and restrained in the airplane using the locking capabilities of the airplane’s main deck cargo handling system. Instead, the vehicles were secured to centerline-loaded floating pallets and restrained to the airplane’s main deck using tie-down straps. During takeoff, the airplane immediately climbed steeply then descended in a manner consistent with an aerodynamic stall. The National Transportation Safety Board’s (NTSB) investigation found strong evidence that at least one of the MRAP vehicles (the rear M-ATV) moved aft into the tail section of the airplane, damaging hydraulic systems and horizontal stabilizer components such that it was impossible for the flight crew to regain pitch control of the airplane. The likely reason for the aft movement of the cargo was that it was not properly restrained. National Airlines’ procedures in its cargo operations manual not only omitted required, safety-critical restraint information from the airplane manufacturer (Boeing) and the manufacturer of the main deck cargo handling system (Telair, which held a supplemental type certificate [STC] for the system) but also contained incorrect and unsafe methods for restraining cargo that cannot be contained in ULDs. The procedures did not correctly specify which components in the cargo system (such as available seat tracks) were available for use as tie-down attach points, did not define individual tie-down allowable loads, and did not describe the effect of measured strap angle on the capability of the attach fittings.

Asiana Airlines Cargo

On 28 July 2011, about 04:11 Korean Standard Time), Asiana Airlines flight 991, a B747-400F airplane, HL7604 (hereafter referred to as AAR991), a scheduled cargo flight from Incheon, Republic of Korea, to Shanghai, China, crashed into the international waters about 130 km west of Jeju International Airport (hereafter referred to as Jeju Airport after the flight crew reported a cargo fire to SHI ACC near a reporting point SADLI on airway A593 about 03:54 and attempted to divert to Jeju Airport. Due to the crash impact and fire, the captain and the first officer (FO) were fatally injured, the aircraft was destroyed, and the cargo shipments were damaged, incapable of being recovered, or washed away. AAR991 was a scheduled international cargo flight operated at night under the instrument flight rule in accordance with the Aviation Act of the Republic of Korea and the Convention on International Civil Aviation. The captain and the FO showed up at the flight crew ready room of Asiana Airlines in Incheon International Airport (hereafter referred to as Incheon Airport) an hour before the scheduled time of departure) and signed the "show-up log," respectively. The line mechanic stated that on 28 July, about 02:00, the flight crew arrived at the airplane and that the captain performed the ramp inspection. The loadmaster stated that about 02:15, under the guidance with him, the captain inspected the loaded status of dangerous goods and other shipments in the main deck cargo compartment. The transcript) of ATC radio communications shows that at 03:04:28, AAR991 took off from runway 15L in Incheon Airport. From this moment, the captain) took control of radio communications. At 03:05:48, AAR991 made initial contact with Seoul Area Control Center (SEL ACC) after takeoff and was instructed to climb to 34,000 ft and fly direct to MALPA. At 03:12:19, the flight crew were advised to contact Incheon Area Control Center (ICN ACC). At 03:12:35, AAR991 was climbing to 34,000 ft on a permitted route when it made initial contact with ICN ACC, and at 03:13:05, was allowed to fly direct to NIRAT. At 03:26:05, ICN ACC instructed AAR991 to change its radio frequency to 124.52 MHz. From this moment, the FO mainly assumed control of radio communications, but the captain also occasionally made communication. At 03:26:21, the crew were instructed to fly direct to SADLI, and at 03:50:46, ICN ACC advised AAR991 to contact SHI ACC on frequency 134.0 MHz. At 03:51:15, AAR991 stated that it was maintaining at 34,000 ft and flying direct to SADLI when it made initial contact with SHI ACC. At 03:52:39, SHI ACC instructed AAR991, "AAR991 radar contact, off-set 5 miles right of track," and the flight crew carried out this instruction at 03:52:51. The Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS) messages) received by the ground station were as follows: about 03:53, "EQUIPMENT SMOKE," "EQUIP COOLING," and "CGO DET 11 MN DK"; and about 03:54, "CGO DET 6 MN DK" and "CGO DET 10 MN DK." At 03:54:23, the FO stated, "Shanghai control, Shanghai control, AAR991 request emergency descent, emergency, declare emergency due to fire main deck. Request descent, and descent to one-zero thousand." At 03:54:37, SHI ACC gave AAR991 a descent clearance and instructed it to turn at its discretion, and the FO acknowledged this instruction. The radar data of ICN ACC shows that AAR991 started descending at 03:54:59. At 03:55:08, the FO requested a diversion to Jeju Airport, stating "We have fire main deck, AAR991, return to Jeju AAR991," and SHI ACC approved the request. At 03:58:03, SHI ACC instructed AAR991 to maintain 10,000 ft, however, followed by no response from AAR991. At 03:58:25, SHI ACC requested KAL886 flying near AAR991 to relay any information from AAR991 to SHI ACC. KAL886 stated that AAR991 was descending to 10,000 ft and flying direct to Jeju. According to the radar data of ICN ACC, AAR991 was flying at 16,000 ft at a ground speed of 452 kt on a heading of 345°. At 03:59:13, AAR991 requested a radar vector to Jeju. At 03:59:50, SHI ACC instructed AAR991 to fly heading 045, and AAR991 acknowledged this instruction. At 03:59:26, according to the ATC transcript, the sound of the FO's breathing through an oxygen mask was recorded four times when he communicated with SHI ACC. The last ACARS messages received by the ground station about 04:00 are as follows: "YAW DAMPER UPR," "RUD RATIO DUAL," and "FLAPS CONTROL." At 04:00:23, SHI ACC instructed AAR991 to contact ICN ACC on 124.52 MHz for a radar vector to Jeju, however, AAR991 stated that it was unable to contact on this frequency. Consequently, SHI ACC instructed the crew to monitor frequency 134.0 MHz. The radar data of ICN ACC shows that at 04:01:43, AAR991 was flying at 8,200 ft at a ground speed of 404 kt on a heading of 033°, and after this, AAR991's altitude, ground speed, and heading changed inconsistently. At 04:02:00, SHI ACC instructed AAR991 to contact Fukuoka Area Control Center (FUK ACC) on 133.6 MHz. At 04:02:10, the FO stated, "AAR991" and 12 seconds later, added, "Fukuoka AAR991 mayday mayday mayday, we have cargo fire, request direct to Jeju please," followed by no response from FUK ACC. At 04:03:01, the FO called SHI ACC and stated that it was unable to contact FUK ACC. Consequently, SHI ACC instructed AAR991 to pass information to KAL886 and let KAL886 relay the information to FUK ACC and ICN ACC. At 04:03:01, the flight track data of the Incheon radar shows that AAR991's transponder code in Mode 3/A was set to 7700 from 6353 when the aircraft was flying at 8,500 ft at a ground speed of 410 kt on a heading of 027°. At 04:03:24, KAL886 advised AAR991 that it would relay its message to ICN ACC, and the FO stated, "Yes, now direct Jeju heading 030." KAL886 informed AAR991 that SHI ACC gave it heading 045, and the FO acknowledged this instruction. At 04:04:14, SHI ACC instructed KAL886 to use another transmitter to contact ICN ACC on 124.52 MHz, to request heading to Jeju from its present position, and to report back to SHI ACC. Regarding this, KAL886 gave an affirmative response. At 04:05:30, the captain called KAL886, and KAL886 responded, "Relay from Incheon Control, from Incheon Control, maintain heading 060, radar vector for final, and you may descend to 7,000 ft." At 04:05:52, KAL886 again relayed the message, "Maintain heading 060, radar vector for final, and descend to 7,000 ft," followed by the captain's response, "Descend 7,000 ft." Beginning 04:06:25, the captain called "Korean Air" twice. At 04:06:30, KAL886 responded, "Stand by, stand by," followed by the captain's statement at 04:06:32, "Ah… we are now that rudder control is not working and seems to be fired… (jamming)." At 04:06:41, SHI ACC instructed KAL886 to contact ICN ACC on 124.52 MHz, and at 04:07:16, instructed AAR991 to try contacting KAL886 on 124.52 MHz, followed by the captain's acknowledgement. At 04:07:34, the captain stated, "We have to open the hatch, hatch." Subsequently, KAL886 instructed AAR991 to change its frequency to ICN ACC frequency 124.52 MHz. At 04:08:52, ICN ACC instructed KAL886 to relay the message to AAR991 that JEJ APP established radar contact with AAR991 and that AAR991 should contact JEJ APP on 121.2 MHz. At 04:09:08, KAL886 relayed this message to AAR991. At 04:09:47, the captain said to JEJ ACC, "Rudder control… flight control, all are not working." The FO said to JEJ ACC, "Did you contact? Uh… do you contact us?" and JEJ ACC responded, "AAR991… yes, I can hear you." At 04:10:06, the FO stated, "We have heavy vibration on the airplane, may need to make an emergency landing, emergency ditching," and JEJ ACC responded, "Yes, say again, please." He stated, "Altitude control is not available due to heavy vibration, going to ditch… ah." At 04:10:26, JEJ ACC asked AAR991, "Can you make approach to Jeju?" and subsequently, tried to contact AAR991 three times, however, followed by no response from AAR991. The aircraft crashed in the East China Sea and both pilots were killed. Debris were found about 130 km west of Jeju.

United Parcel Service - UPS

The four engine aircraft was completing a cargo flight from Hong Kong to Cologne with an intermediate stop in Dubai with two pilots on board. One minute after passing the BALUS waypoint, approaching the top of climb, as the aircraft was climbing to the selected cruise altitude of 32,000 feet, the Fire Warning Master Warning Light illuminated and the Audible Alarm [Fire Bell] sounded, warning the crew of a fire indication on the Main Deck Fire - Forward. The captain advised BAE-C that there was a fire indication on the main deck of the aircraft, informing Bahrain ATC that they needed to land as soon as possible. BAE-C advised that Doha International Airport (DOH) was at the aircraft’s 10 o’clock position 100 nm DME from the current location. The Captain elected to return to the point of departure, DXB. The crew changed the selected altitude from 32,000 feet to 28,000 feet as the aircraft changed heading back to DXB, the Auto Throttle [AT] began decreasing thrust to start the decent. The AP was manually disconnected, then reconnected , followed by the AP manually disconnecting for a short duration, the captain as handling pilot was manually flying the aircraft. Following the turn back and the activation of the fire suppression, for unknown reasons, the PACK 1 status indicated off line [PACKS 2 and 3 were off], in accordance with the fire arm switch activation. There was no corresponding discussion recorded on the CVR that the crew elected to switch off the remaining active PACK 1. As the crew followed the NNC Fire/Smoke/Fumes checklist and donned their supplemental oxygen masks, there is some cockpit confusion regarding the microphones and the intra-cockpit communication as the crew cannot hear the microphone transmissions in their respective headsets. The crew configured the aircraft for the return to DXB, the flight was in a descending turn to starboard onto the 095° reciprocal heading for DXB when the Captain requested an immediate descent to 10,000 ft. The reason for the immediate descent was never clarified in the available data. The AP was disengaged, the Captain then informed the FO that there was limited pitch control of the aircraft when flying manually. The Captain was manually making inputs to the elevators through the control column, with limited response from the aircraft. The flight was approximately 4 minutes into the emergency. The aircraft was turning and descending, the fire suppression has been initiated and there was a pitch control problem. The cockpit was filling with persistent continuous smoke and fumes and the crew had put the oxygen masks on. The penetration by smoke and fumes into the cockpit area occurred early into the emergency. The cockpit environment was overwhelmed by the volume of smoke. There are several mentions of the cockpit either filling with smoke or being continuously ‘full of smoke’, to the extent that the ability of the crew to safely operate the aircraft was impaired by the inability to view their surroundings. Due to smoke in the cockpit, from a continuous source near and contiguous with the cockpit area [probably through the supernumerary area and the ECS flight deck ducting], the crew could neither view the primary flight displays, essential communications panels or the view from the cockpit windows. The crew rest smoke detector activated at 15:15:15 and remained active for the duration of the flight. There is emergency oxygen located at the rear of the cockpit, in the supernumerary area and in the crew rest area. Due to the persistent smoke the Captain called for the opening of the smoke shutter, which stayed open for the duration of the flight. The smoke remained in the cockpit area. There was a discussion between the crew concerning inputting the DXB runway 12 Left [RWY12L] Instrument Landing System [ILS] data into the FMC. With this data in the FMC the crew can acquire the ILS for DXB RWY12L and configure the aircraft for an auto flight/auto land approach. The F.O. mentions on several occasions difficulty inputting the data based on the reduced visibility. However, the ILS was tuned to a frequency of 110.1 (The ILS frequency for DXB Runway 12L is 110.126), the Digital Flight Data Recorder [DFDR] data indicates that this was entered at 15:19:20 which correlates which the CVR discussion and timing. At approximately 15:20, during the emergency descent at around 21,000ft cabin pressure altitude, the Captain made a comment concerning the high temperature in the cockpit. This was followed almost immediately by the rapid onset of the failure of the Captain’s oxygen supply. Following the oxygen supply difficulties there was confusion regarding the location of the alternative supplementary oxygen supply location. The F.O either was not able to assist or did not know where the oxygen bottle was located; the Captain then gets out of the LH seat. This CVR excerpt indicates the following exchange between the Captain and F.O concerning the mask operation and the alternative oxygen supply bottle location. The exchange begins when the Captain’s oxygen supply stops abruptly with no other indications that the oxygen supply is low or failing. Based on the pathological information, the Captain lost consciousness due to toxic poisoning. After the Captain left the LH cockpit seat, the F.O. assumed the PF role. The F.O. remained in position as P.F. for the duration of the flight. There was no further interaction from the Captain or enquiry by the F.O as to the location of the Captain or the ability of the Captain to respond. The PF informed the BAE-C controllers that due to the limited visibility in the cockpit that it was not possible to change the radio frequency on the Audio Control Panel [ACP]. This visibility comment recurs frequently during the flight. The Bahrain East controller was communicating with the emergency aircraft via relays. Several were employed during the transition back to DXB. The aircraft was now out of effective VHF radio range with BAE-C. In order for the crew to communicate with BAE-C, BAE-C advised transiting aircraft that they would act as a communication relay between BAE-C and the emergency aircraft. BAE-C would then communicate to the UAE controllers managing the traffic in the Emirates FIR via a landline, who would then contact the destination aerodrome at Dubai, also by landline. The crew advised relay aircraft that they would stay on the Bahrain frequency as they could not see the ACP to change frequency. All of the 121.5 MHz transmissions by the PF were keyed via the VHF-R, all other radio communication with BAE-C and the relay aircraft are keyed from the VHF-L audio panel. There are several attempts by the UAE’s Area Control [EACC] to contact the flight on the guard frequency in conjunction with aircraft relaying information transmitting on the guard frequency to the accident flight. The PF of the accident flight does not appear to hear any of the transmissions from the air traffic control units or the relay aircraft on the guard frequency. Around this time, given the proximity of the aircraft to the RWY12L intermediate approach fix, Dubai ATC transmits several advisory messages to the flight on the Dubai frequencies, for example DXB ARR on 124.9 MHz advise that ‘Any runway is available’. The Runway lights for RWY30L were turned on to assist the return to DXB. The Aircraft condition inbound as the flight approached DXB for RWY12L. The computed airspeed was 350 knots, at an altitude of 9,000 feet and descending on a heading of 105° which was an interception heading for the ILS at RWY12L. The FMC was tuned for RWY12L, the PF selected the ‘Approach’ push button on the Mode Control Panel [MCP] the aircraft captures the Glide Slope (G/S). The AP did not transition into the Localizer Mode while the Localizer was armed. ATC, through the relay aircraft advised the PF, ‘you're too fast and too high can you make a 360? Further requesting the PF to perform a ‘360° turn if able’. The PF responded ‘Negative, negative, negative’ to the request. The landing gear lever was selected down at 15:38:00, followed approximately 20 seconds later by an the aural warning alarm indicating a new EICAS caution message, which based on the data is a Landing Gear Disagree Caution. At 15:38:20 the PF says: ‘I have no, uh gear’. Following the over flight of DXB, on passing north of the aerodrome abeam RWY12L. The last Radar contact before the flight passed into the zone of silence was at 15:39:03. The flight was on a heading of 89° at a speed of 320 knots , altitude 4200 feet and descending. The flight was cleared direct to Sharjah Airport (SHJ), SHJ was to the aircraft’s left at 10 nm, the SHJ runway is a parallel vector to RWY12L at DXB. The relay pilot asked the PF if it was possible to perform a left hand turn. This turn, if completed would have established the flight onto an approximate 10 mile final approach for SHJ RWY30. The flight was offered vectors to SHJ (left turn required) and accepts. The relay aircraft advised that SHJ was at 095° from the current position at 10 nm. The PF acknowledged the heading change to 095° for SHJ. For reasons undetermined the PF selected 195° degrees on the Mode Control Panel [MCP], the AP was manually disconnected at 15:40:05, the aircraft then banked to the right as the FMC captured the heading change, rolled wings level on the new heading, the throttles were then retarded, the aircraft entered a descending right hand turn at an altitude of 4000 feet, the speed gradually reduced to 240 kts. The PF made a series of pitch inputs which had a limited effect on the descent profile; the descent is arrested temporarily. There then followed a series of rapid pitch oscillations. These were not phugoid oscillations, these were commanded responses where the elevator effectiveness decreased rapidly as the airspeed decayed and the elevators could not compensate for the reduced thrust moment from the engines to maintain level flight in a steady state. This was due to the desynchronization of the control column inputs and the elevators. At this point had the aircraft remained on the current heading and descent profile it would have intercepted the terrain at or near a large urban conurbation, Dubai Silicone Oasis. The PF was in VHF communication with the relay aircraft requesting positional, speed and altitude information. From this point onwards, approximately 50 seconds elapse prior to the data ending. The effectiveness of the pitch control immediately prior to the end of the data was negligible. The control column was fully aft when the data ended, there was no corresponding elevator movement. The aircraft lost control in flight and made an uncontrolled descent into terrain.

Singapore Airlines

Singapore Airlines Flight 006 departed Singapore for a flight to Los Angeles via Taipei. Scheduled departure time at Taipei was 22:55. The flight left gate B-5 and taxied to taxiway NP, which ran parallel to runway 05L and 05R. The crew had been cleared for a runway 05L departure because runway 05R was closed because of construction work. CAA Taiwan had issued a NOTAM on Aug 31, 2000 indicating that part of runway 05R between Taxiway N4 and N5 was closed for construction between Sept. 13 to Nov. 22, 2000. Runway 05R was to have been converted and re-designated as Taxiway NC effective Nov. 1, 2000. After reaching the end of taxiway NP, SQ006 turned right into Taxiway N1 and immediately made a 180-degree turn to runway 05R. After approximately 6 second hold, SQ006 started its takeoff roll at 23:15:45. Weather conditions were very poor because of typhoon 'Xiang Sane' in the area. METAR at 23:20 included Wind 020 degrees at 36 knots gusting 56 knots, visibility - 600 meters, and heavy rainfall. On takeoff, 3.5 seconds after V1, the aircraft hit concrete barriers, excavators and other equipment on the runway. The plane crashed back onto the runway, breaking up and bursting into flames while sliding down the runway and crashing into other objects related to work being done on runway 05R. The aircraft wreckage was distributed along runway 05R beginning at about 4,080 feet from the runway threshold. The airplane broke into two main sections at about fuselage station 1560 and came to rest about 6,480 feet from the runway threshold.

Korean Air

Originally, the flight was a direct one from Tokyo-Narita to Seoul but due to poor weather conditions at destination, the crew diverted to Jeju. The aircraft departed Jeju Airport at 2107LT on the final leg to Seoul-Gimpo Airport. At destination, weather conditions were still poor with heavy rain falls and wind from 220 gusting to 22 knots. After touchdown on runway 14R, the crew started the braking procedure but the aircraft deviated to the right and veered off runway. While contacting soft ground, the aircraft lost its undercarriage and came to rest. All 395 occupants evacuated, among them 20 were slightly injured. The aircraft was damaged beyond repair.

China Airlines

China Airlines' scheduled passenger flight CAL605 departed Taipei (TPE), Taiwan at 02:20 for the 75-minute flight to Hong Kong-Kai Tak (HKG). The departure and cruise phases were uneventful. During the cruise the commander briefed the co-pilot on the approach to Hong Kong using the airline's own approach briefing proforma as a checklist for the topics to cover. The briefing included the runway-in-use, navigation aids, decision height, crosswind limit and missed approach procedure. He paid particular attention to the crosswind and stated that, should they encounter any problem during the approach, they would go-around and execute the standard missed approach procedure. The commander did not discuss with the co-pilot the autobrake setting, the reverse thrust power setting or their actions in the event of a windshear warning from the Ground Proximity Warning System (GPWS). Weather reports indicated strong gusty wind conditions, rain and windshear. On establishing radio contact with Hong Kong Approach Control at 03:17, the crew were given radar control service to intercept the IGS approach to runway 13 which is offset from the extended runway centreline by 47°. After intercepting the IGS localiser beam, the pilots changed frequency to Hong Kong Tower and were informed by the AMC that the visibility had decreased to 5 kilometres in rain and the mean wind speed had increased to 22 kt. Two minutes before clearing CAL605 to land, the air traffic controller advised the crew that the wind was 070/25 kt and to expect windshear turning short final. During the approach the pilots completed the landing checklist for a flaps 30 landing with the autobrakes controller selected to position '2' and the spoilers armed. The reference airspeed (Vref) at the landing weight was 141 kt; to that speed the commander added half the reported surface wind to give a target airspeed for the final approach of 153 kt. Rain and significant turbulence were encountered on the IGS approach and both pilots activated their windscreen wipers. At 1,500 feet altitude the commander noted that the wind speed computed by the Flight Management Computer (FMC) was about 50 kt. At 1,100 feet he disconnected the autopilots and commenced manual control of the flightpath. A few seconds later at 1,000 feet he disconnected the autothrottle system because he was dissatisfied with its speed holding performance. From that time onwards he controlled the thrust levers with his right hand and the control wheel with his left hand. Shortly afterwards the commander had difficulty in reading the reference airspeed on his electronic Primary Flying Display (PFD) because of an obscure anomaly, but this was rectified by the co-pilot who re-entered the reference airspeed of 141 kt into the FMC. Shortly before the aircraft started the visual right turn onto short final, the commander saw an amber 'WINDSHEAR' warning on his PFD. A few seconds later, just after the start of the finals turn, the ground proximity warning system (GPWS) gave an aural warning of "GLIDESLOPE" which would normally indicate that the aircraft was significantly below the IGS glidepath. One second later the aural warning changed to "WINDSHEAR" and the word was repeated twice. At the same time both pilots saw the word 'WINDSHEAR' displayed in red letters on their PFDs. Abeam the Checkerboard the commander was aware of uncommanded yawing and pitch oscillations. He continued the finals turn without speaking whilst the co-pilot called deviations from the target airspeed in terms of plus and minus figures related to 153 kt. At the conclusion of the turn both pilots were aware that the aircraft had descended below the optimum flight path indicated by the optical Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI) system. The air traffic controller watched the final approach and landing of the aircraft. It appeared to be on or close to the normal glidepath as it passed abeam the tower and then touched down gently on the runway just beyond the fixed distance marks (which were 300 metres beyond the threshold) but within the normal touchdown zone. The controller was unable to see the aircraft in detail after touchdown because of water spray thrown up by it but he watched its progress on the Surface Movement Radar and noted that it was fast as it passed the penultimate exit at A11. At that time he also observed a marked increase in the spray of water from the aircraft and it began to decelerate more effectively. The commander stated that the touchdown was gentle and in a near wings level attitude. Neither pilot checked that the speed brake lever, which was 'ARMED' during the approach, had moved to the 'UP' position on touchdown. A few seconds after touchdown, when the nose wheel had been lowered onto the runway, the co-pilot took hold of the control column with both hands in order to apply roll control to oppose the crosswind from the left. The aircraft then began an undesired roll to the left. Immediately the commander instructed the co-pilot to reduce the amount of applied into-wind roll control. At the same time he physically assisted the co-pilot to correct the aircraft's roll attitude. Shortly after successful corrective action the aircraft again rolled to the left and the commander intervened once more by reducing the amount of left roll control wheel rotation. During the period of unwanted rolling, which lasted about seven seconds, the aircraft remained on the runway with at least the left body and wing landing gears in contact with the surface. After satisfactory aerodynamic control was regained, the co-pilot noticed a message on the Engine Indicating and Crew Alerting System (EICAS) display showing that the autobrake system had disarmed. He informed the commander that they had lost autobrakes and then reminded him that reverse thrust was not selected. At almost the same moment the commander selected reverse thrust on all engines and applied firm wheel braking using his foot pedals. As the aircraft passed abeam the high speed exit taxiway (A11), the commander saw the end of the runway approaching. At that point both he and the co-pilot perceived that the distance remaining in which to stop the aircraft might be insufficient. At about the same time the co-pilot also began to press hard on his foot pedals. As the aircraft approached the end of the paved surface the commander turned the aircraft to the left using both rudder pedal and nose wheel steering tiller inputs. The aircraft ran off the end of the runway to the left of the centreline. The nose and right wing dropped over the sea wall and the aircraft entered the sea creating a very large plume of water which was observed from the control tower, some 3.5 km to the northwest. The controller immediately activated the crash alarm and the Airport Fire Contingent, which had been on standby because of the strong winds, responded very rapidly in their fire vehicles and fire boats. Other vessels in the vicinity also provided prompt assistance. After the aircraft had settled in the water, the commander operated the engine fuel cut-off switches and the co-pilot operated all the fire handles. The commander attempted to speak to the cabin crew using the interphone system but it was not working. The senior cabin crew member arrived on the flight deck as the commander was leaving his seat to proceed aft. The instruction to initiate evacuation through the main deck doors was then issued by the commander and supervised by the senior cabin crew member from the main deck. Ten passengers were injured, one seriously.