A China Airlines Airbus A330 nearly overran the runway at Taipei International Airport (Songshan airport) on June 14 after its three primary computers, its thrust reversal and automatic braking systems, and its spoilers failed during landing. The pilot decelerated the plane by applying its manual braking system, which stopped it 9m short of the end of the runway, preventing a serious incident.
The plane’s three primary computers work independently, so they are unlikely to fail at the same time, and it is even rarer for the braking and reverse thrust systems to fail simultaneously.
Survey data about worldwide aviation incidents show that they are usually caused by one or more of three kinds of factors:
The first includes human errors, such as the ones likely made by pilots lacking sufficient experience on a particular aircraft. Other factors of this kind are whether flight data was correctly entered, how well air traffic controllers managed traffic flow and whether accurate weather data was provided.
One matter to thoroughly investigate in this incident is also whether the crew correctly calculated how much fuel the plane was carrying, and the weight and balance of its load.
Any one of these errors might cause a serious incident.
The second kind of factor includes mechanical failure and computer malfunctions.
The world’s two major manufacturers of large passenger aircraft — Boeing and Airbus — are established companies whose planes can be considered relatively safe. The question, then, is whether maintenance and repair tasks were properly performed.
An aircraft has more than 10,000 components, so proper maintenance and the timely replacement of potentially deficient parts are crucial.
For example, an incident on a flight from Italy to Tunisia occurred after maintenance personnel mistakenly replaced the fuel indicator of an ATR 72 turboprop plane with one designed for an ATR 42. This caused the ATR 72 to run out of fuel and crash.
Both planes are made by the same manufacturer, but that does not mean that the same component can be used in either aircraft.
This shows how maintenance crews’ professionalism and adherence to standard operating procedures have direct impact on aviation safety.
The third kind of factor includes weather phenomena. Danger can arise from hurricanes, thunderstorms, wind shear, turbulence or the relatively rare phenomenon of microbursts beneath cloud formations that can push aircraft toward the ground. Weather-related risks can be minimized by technological advances and improved airline safety standards.
Any of these factors might have contributed to the A330 incident. The pilot might have accidentally pressed the wrong button. Maintenance staff might have made a mistake when the plane was being serviced, or the aircraft might have been struck by lightning, causing its control system to malfunction.
The incident could have been caused by a problem with the plane’s original design, but that is unlikely: A330s have been in service for 28 years.
The plane was only carrying about 80 passengers, making it fairly light and relatively easy to slow down in time. If it had been fully laden with passengers and cargo, the greater weight would have made it more likely that the brakes would not have been able to decelerate the aircraft in time.
In view of this, the Civil Aeronautics Authority and other departments must thoroughly investigate the incident to prevent a recurrence.
Anderson Fu is a senior traffic manager at an airline.
Translated by Julian Clegg
The first Donald Trump term was a boon for Taiwan. The administration regularized the arms sales process and enhanced bilateral ties. Taipei will not be so fortunate the second time around. Given recent events, Taiwan must proceed with the assumption that it cannot count on the United States to defend it — diplomatically or militarily — during the next four years. Early indications suggested otherwise. The nomination of Marco Rubio as US Secretary of State and the appointment of Mike Waltz as the national security advisor, both of whom have expressed full-throated support for Taiwan in the past, raised hopes that
Whether in terms of market commonality or resource similarity, South Korea’s Samsung Electronics Co is the biggest competitor of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC). The two companies have agreed to set up factories in the US and are also recipients of subsidies from the US CHIPS and Science Act, which was signed into law by former US president Joe Biden. However, changes in the market competitiveness of the two companies clearly reveal the context behind TSMC’s investments in the US. As US semiconductor giant Intel Corp has faced continuous delays developing its advanced processes, the world’s two major wafer foundries, TSMC and
Authorities last week revoked the residency permit of a Chinese social media influencer surnamed Liu (劉), better known by her online channel name Yaya in Taiwan (亞亞在台灣), who has more than 440,000 followers online and is living in Taiwan with a marriage-based residency permit, for her “reunification by force” comments. She was asked to leave the country in 10 days. The National Immigration Agency (NIA) on Tuesday last week announced the decision, citing the influencer’s several controversial public comments, including saying that “China does not need any other reason to reunify Taiwan with force” and “why is it [China] hesitant
We are witnessing a sea change in the government’s approach to China, from one of reasonable, low-key reluctance at rocking the boat to a collapse of pretense over and patience in Beijing’s willful intransigence. Finally, we are seeing a more common sense approach in the face of active shows of hostility from a foreign power. According to Article 2 of the 2020 Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法), a “foreign hostile force” is defined as “countries, political entities or groups that are at war with or are engaged in a military standoff with the Republic of China [ROC]. The same stipulation applies to
RSS