Talk:China Airlines Flight 611

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

search recovery..[edit]

This block of text seems to be irrelevant to the section ad should probably be moved

Remains - Objection to removing excess detail?[edit]

The remains section in this article has a level of repetitive detail that is not really approporiate for an encyclopedia article. "xxx number of bodies had injuries predominantly on their left side..." "The rear section passengers were naked whereas the front passengers were not..." and the repitition of "the status of the infant was not stated." It seems just cut and pasted from some report, and this article does not need ultra detail -- for instance, just a single mention that some of the dead had clothes missing due to explosive decompression is easily enough information on that. Any objection to removing some of this non-encyclopedia-like detail? -- estephan500 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Estephan500 (talk • contribs) 03:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


"The United Daily News stated that some relatives of passengers described the existence of this flight to Hong Kong as being "unnecessary". They said this because most of the passengers intended to arrive in Mainland China, but because of a lack of direct air links between Taiwan and Mainland China, the travellers had to fly via Hong Kong; the relatives advocated the opening of direct air links between Taiwan and Mainland China.[17]" Math1337 (talk) 01:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The route originated before the return of Hong Kong to China in 1997. Taiwan and the PRC had no diplomatic relations and so direct flights between Taiwan and China were not possible, flights having to go instead via British Hong Kong.

a[edit]

There are two differing statements of fact in the article. Under "Search, recovery and investigation", it says that it was the last flight of the plane (this doesn't even belong in that section), but under "The Aircraft", it says that the flight was the second [to] last planned flight. Anybody know which statement of fact is right?

depressurization[edit]

"An explosive depressurization of the aircraft occurred once the crack was broken, causing the complete disintegration of the aircraft mid-air." That is totally impossible. A pressurized aircraft would not explose if there is a crack, and disintegration is total science fiction here. Who would fly if ariplanes would explode each time they have a crack? It's just like saying that your car would disintegrate if you burst one of the tires.

I'm not removing this statement from the main article since I don't know everything about this event, but I'm 100% sure an airplane would not explode on depressurization. What could happen is passengers loosing conscious (including pilots) and the plane could just crash. 88.144.10.164 20:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Complete disintegration might be a bit far fetched but the famous comet mid-air breakup was also caused by metal fatigue (Cracks followed by decompression). The decompression itself may not be enough to destroy the aircraft but the subsequent forces of flight will easily tear apart an aircraft with compromised structural integrity. (Alex) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.64.254 (talk) 20:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Totally impossible is quite out there! not much is totally impossible in materials science and engineering, highly improbable maybe. It's a question of the nature of the crack. In this case it is known the aircraft broke up in mid-air, it is known it had a seam improperly repaired, it is known there was metal fatigue across the seam. There is evidence that the plane had been depressurizing for some years through that area. The air pressure difference increases the stress levels acting on the seam to the point where this one is thought to have had a crack over 2 metres long. Once the crack was large enough, and the remaining superstructure significantly fatigued by increased flexing, the the aircraft shell would not be able to survive the variety of forces it was subject to at 25000 feet including, but not limited to, the pressure differential. The decompression is one part of a number of factors that led to the plane breaking up. Other examples exist of explosive depressurisation, Aloha 243 managed to land with half the roof missing after a similar incident, and I can think of at least 3 others since the changes made to the comet.

I'm not sure there's any suggestion the aircraft undercarriage or tyres were connected to the incident, I'm sure if your car chassis experiences structural failure at cruising speed you're going to have a whole lot of trouble keeping it in one piece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.12.12.83 (talk) 12:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Explosive depressurisation" does not mean the aircraft exploded. It simply describes the sudden force of the depressurisation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.48.168.146 (talk) 02:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remains - Objection to removing excess detail?[edit]

The remains section in this article has a level of repetitive detail that is not really approporiate for an encyclopedia article. "xxx number of bodies had injuries predominantly on their left side..." "The rear section passengers were naked whereas the front passengers were not..." and the repitition of "the status of the infant was not stated." It seems just cut and pasted from some report, and this article does not need ultra detail -- for instance, just a single mention that some of the dead had clothes missing due to explosive decompression is easily enough information on that. Any objection to removing some of this non-encyclopedia-like detail? -- estephan500 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.8.25.19 (talk) 03:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FL350[edit]

The article talks about FL350 on two different occasions. What is this FL350?

That's flight level 35000 feet; I may add a clarifying explanation to the text for those not familiar with these kinds of abbreviations. --88.73.152.36 11:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Table[edit]

"The People's Republic of China figure includes 9 residents of Mainland China and 5 residents of Flag of Hong Kong Hong Kong " Clearly not, since 9 are shown for the PRC and 5 for Hong Kong. I would remove this myself, except for some reason this sentence has four references? --Golbez (talk) 15:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The table poses interesting questions about what "Chinese nationality" is and how it relates to ROC and PRC nationality ... --JensMueller (talk) 09:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archived files[edit]

ENGLISH FILES

Overview and list of files: http://www.asc.gov.tw/asc_en/accident_list_2.asp?accident_no=83 - http://www.webcitation.org/6NvDoTY75
Final report
Factual data report
Interim flight safety bulletin (March 21, 2003, Reference No.: ASC-IFSB-03-03-002): http://www.asc.gov.tw/downfile/ci611ifsb.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6NvDyLfEQ

CHINESE FILES

Overview and list of files: http://www.asc.gov.tw/asc_ch/accident_list_2.asp?accident_no=67 - http://www.webcitation.org/6NvDtiaIm
Final report
Apparently the factual data reports are English only. I'll have to recheck the links in the Chinese page, which either redirect to the home page or give me reports in English (which have Chinese filenames)
Interim flight safety bulletin only in English

WhisperToMe (talk) 14:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://web.archive.org/web/20050306193231/http://www.asc.gov.tw:80/acd_files/ci611pre(1).pdf is the preliminary report (alt file, also English: http://web.archive.org/web/20060227125334/http://www.asc.gov.tw:80/acd_files/ci611pre.pdf )

http://web.archive.org/web/20050306222829/http://www.asc.gov.tw:80/acd_files/ci611ifsb(1).pdf (alt file, also English, http://web.archive.org/web/20060227125340/http://www.asc.gov.tw:80/acd_files/ci611ifsb.pdf) is the interim flight safety bulletin

WhisperToMe (talk) 14:44, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on China Airlines Flight 611. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:53, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

use of Mayday as a source[edit]

@Now wiki:

About this edit, I think Mayday (TV series) is in particular a reliable source, at least for non-scientific aspects of an airliner disaster (scientific aspects should be sourced to specialist publications and/or the official accident reports). If in doubt you can ask the aviation WikiProject. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:40, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nicotine Stains[edit]

In the section dealing with evidence of the improper repair done in 1980, the easily visable brown stains deposited by cigarette smoke inside of the cabin are referred to as “nicotine stains” in several areas. Although nicotine is the addictive chemical contained in tobacco, it is clear and colorless in its pure form. Unless directly quoting a previous source or report that used the term, perhaps “stains from cigarette smoke” or “cigarette tar deposits” would be a much more accurate description. I do not have the proper skills needed to properly edit an article. I am hopeful this will be seen and researched by somebody with editing experience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.235.68.109 (talk) 23:11, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Luigi Heer" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Luigi Heer. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:09, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Passenger manifest[edit]

Shall we merge the hong kong residents into chinese citizen? Prana2106 (talk) 04:47, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong often has been counted differently. If the airline counts it differently, the list should count it differently. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:China_Airlines_Flight_611&oldid=1215769344"