Emirates Flight Skids Into Sea Off Hong Kong

[PeterRS]

Hong Kong's International Airport was built by vastly expanding a small island to the north of the largest island of Lantau. It has been virtually accident-free apart from one incident during the start of a mild typhoon in August 1999 when a China Airlines MD11 crashed on landing after a wing tip touched the ground and the aircraft turned 180 degrees and slid on its back. Despite the small fire which broke out and most passengers being stuck upside down by their seat belts, as a result of the heavy rain and quick response of emergency teams everyone except for three passengers got out of that wreck alive. That evening I happened to be in the Cathay Pacific lounge as I was about to fly to Bangkok to finalise the deal to purchase my apartment. I could not work out why everyone had suddenly rushed to the windows! But with the airport then closing, taxis suddenly became like gold and getting back to my apartment in monsoon rain took around 6 hours insted of the usual 90 minutes..

At 03:50 this morning the airport suffered its second fatal accident when an Emirates cargo 747 wet-leased to ACT Airlines crashed into the sea. This happened on the new 3rd runway. That runway is now closed. Thankfully it is some way away from the original two runways and so airport operations should only be mildly affected. Allegedly the aircraft hit a vehicle on the ground which resulted in the accident and two members of the ground staff were killed. . This split the plane in two. Why a ground vehicle was on an active runway will no doubt be the subject of an urgent enquiry. The airport authority is due to give a media conference at 09:00 Bangkok time.

The scene is vaguely similar to a 1993 incident at the old Kai Tak airport. A notoriously difficult airport for landings from the west which necessitated a 90 degree turn just before touch down, a China Airlines (same airline) 747-400 got its turn slightly wrong, landed too far down the runway and fell into the sea at the end. mercifully no-ne was injured, although the new 747 was badly damaged.

 

 

[PeterRS]

At the media conference, the airport authorities have stated that the arcraft was given correct constructions for landing. The BBC website reports that the ground vehicle was not on the runway when the accident happened. It has posted this map of the crash site. I believe that where is states "runway exit" is incorrect. It is a runway entrance and you can see that from the angle at which it enters the runway. The first of several runway exits is a little further down. Since the plane was carrying no cargo when it landed, it would have been relatively light and might have been making for that first exit. I have no idea where the ground vehicle was located when hit by the 747. But I have landed three times on this runway and there is a road track by the harbour wall not marked on this map. The airport authorities have said the vehicle struck by the 747 was outside the runway fence. It must therefore have been on that track close to the harbour wall.

The biggest problem for the airport now will be its cargo operations. It has a massive cargo throughput and that third runway handles a lot of cargo traffic. Reduced to two runways will put a stress on the airport until that runway is operational again.

[PeterRS]

The authorities have now confirmed the ground vehicle was not on the runway but on the harbour road. It was hit by the 747 as it collided with the harbour wall into the sea and both in the vehicle were drowned.

[PeterRS]

I have just been reading the latest story on this crash which appears in news.com.au. If the map issued by the HK Airport Authority is anywhere near accurate, this story is a load of garbage! It suggests that the 747 failed to stop "at the end of the runway" (it was less than half way down as shown in the photos), hit the ground vehicle and ended up in the sea. It is perfectly obvious it veered off the runway before it reached any of the turn-off taxi ways. This implies a fault with the aircraft or its pilots as they must have been aware that the turn-off points were on their right but the aircraft veered left. There is no left turn off taxi-way! But that is speculation and we must wait for the initial inquiry results.