Talk:China Airlines Flight 006

message: I changed all of the words "incident," to the word "accident," since that is the correct nomenclature, whenever the plane suffers significant damage and/or significant injuries to any onboard.  EditorASC (talk) 06:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accident 

message: Didn't the jet roll to starboard? The graphics and NTSB report say it rolled right, but the article says "port." Just want to make sure before I change it. CPColin (talk) 19:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Roll Direction

message: It has been suggested that China Airlines Flight 006 holds the speed record for a 747.  The NTSB report states a velocity of 296 KIAS during the powered dive.  By comparison, Mach 1 at the altitude that the incident started appears to have been 298 KIAS.  Thus it looks like this plane hit the sound barrier on the way down.  Could someone confirm this? NeilFraser (talk) 16:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think anyone can know for sure.  In the same section of that NTSB report, where it mentions 296 Kts, it also says that "...the vertical acceleration values approached 5 Gs. Thereafter, invalid data was recorded for several periods during the early part of the descent."  The captain said the plane exceeded Vmo twice during the dive, but the FDR did not record any speeds that exceeded Vmo. That may explain why they never heard the overspeed warning clacker. EditorASC (talk) 01:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a little confusing, because to non aviation people a jumbo screaming down at or near Mach 1 must have been a split second from disaster. In reality, it must have (mostly) been a shallowish dive, because it took 145 seconds to drop 30,865 ft. That -- the loss of height --  required the a/c to average only 145 miles per hour vertically during that procedure. Yes, I know it was speeding forward as well, but the falling out of the sky bit wasn't (relatively) all that fast. I'm not a 747 pilot. How did you guess. Moriori (talk) 03:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

text: That's the page on the sound barrier that you're referring to. In the penultimate section, "the sound barrier fades". 84.134.185.133 (talk) 14:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Maximum velocity

message: From the article: "The rudder was controlled only by pilot input." I believe that the normal autopilot did not control the rudder,
but the plane surely had a yaw damper controling the rudder?--ospalh (talk) 11:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The yaw damper has a very limited range of authority, and is designed only to greatly reduce the constant fishtailing/dutch-roll tendency of swept-wing aircraft.  It has no power to counteract an unwanted roll of the plane.  The yaw damper computer is separate from the autopilot system, and doesn't really care what the bank of the aircraft is, at any given time.  It has to be designed that way, else it would interfere with normal pilot and autopilot control of the aircraft. EditorASC (talk) 01:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:   Yaw damper? 

message: It says flight 006 departed from Taipei.  Is there only one Taipei airport, or is the article being deliberately unclear?
66.189.116.112 (talk) 00:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which airport 

message: The arrival time is not correct.
The plane departed at 16:22 Taiwan time (according to the NTSB report) and the accident happened at 10:10 pacific time, 3 hours after the mentioned arrival time (07:00 pacific time).
Based on normal flight times the flight should have an arrival time between 13:00 and 15:00 local time.
88.159.86.90 (talk) 19:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arrival Time 

message: I don't see any relevance for the inclusion of :File:Fry's Electronics Boeing 747SP Simon.jpg. The article already includes three images of the actual aircraft involved in this incident. I'm therefore removing the photo. If you feel I missed something, feel free to explain it here. Rupert Clayton (talk) 17:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing Fry's Electronics 747SP photo 

message: The NTSB report states that the DFDR recorded a maximum g-force of 5.1G. This is written in the article as "all onboard experienced g-forces as high as 5g". Is it true that everyone will have experienced the same g-forces? E.g. a sudden pitch-up or pitch-down would be felt more strongly by those at the rear of the plane than by those at the front. 80.2.106.75 (talk) 05:27, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  G-forces 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on China Airlines Flight 006. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120604020601/http://www.747sp.com/History.asp?22805 to http://www.747sp.com/History.asp?22805
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:53, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified