The 'panic' shows the 747 completely on its back. Not so.

They waited until the event was fully mature and the autopilot had gone to its limits. When it let go, SURPRISE!! and the airplane rolled. Not sure they knew what was going on at first going from a low workload to a high task environment. And if you look at other sources you will see the airplane rolled VERY quickly.

Yes and Boeings have shed parts also. But if you want it to be another anvil to bang on Airbus, have at it.

 

Fatigue was mentioned in a report I read and if we consider the environment, it certainly was a low stimulation point. Night, light turb, white noise, cruise, no visible horizon, latter part of a long flight.. not much going on and an engine rolls back and APPEARs to have flamed out. Big problem is this in some ways replicates myriad accident (specifically thinking of Eastern 410 (?) and the everglades) where everyone is focused on what they think the problem is and no one is flying or monitoring the airplane. BAD.

Plus, I generally have some hesitancy to grant any credence to any program that begins with PANIC or other emotive words.

The report can be found at China Airlines B747SP Loss of Power and Inflight Upset It does not read well about crew actions.

 

Perhaps a better description of what happened and a link to NTSB report:

China Airlines Flight 006 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Normally, loss of a single engine in cruise flight is a non event. At some weights and altitudes flight may be continued with no change in altitude and little change in airspeed and just a twist on the rudder trim. At higher altitudes and heavier weights a descent must be initiated prior to reaching minimum maneuver speed.

They wasted time on an attempted restart well outside the envelope while airspeed decayed.

 

I don't think 'stomp' is a good verb for using the rudder. After all, stomping on the rudder back and forth is what caused American to exceed design limits CONSIDERABLY on the A300. Not to bang on the crew because that is what they were taught to do and the same was suggested for rudder hard overs on the 737 when it was having rudder problems.

The SFO incident (almost accident) was because the FO use NO rudder.

 

Ref the fatigue question: This was a three crew aircraft, (Capt., F/O, and Flight Engineer.) That means (according to U. S. rules anyway) that they would be legal for up to 12 hours scheduled block time without any relief pilot. If I remember correctly the Taipei to SFO leg is scheduled just under 12:00. Many airlines do schedule a relief pilot onder these circumstances because the SFO to Taipei leg is greater than 12:00. Most airlines at the time had 1 relief pilot who would relieve each of the three primary crewmembers in turn. Assuming an 11:45 block time, 30 minutes ground time leaves 11:15 flight time. Usually breaks are figured as starting 30 minutes after takeoff, and ending 1 hour before landing. This leaves 9:45 of total break time available. Therefore each of the four crewmembers has an opportunity for about 2:25 of break time.

Joe

 

In cruise the required rudder input for a loss of a single engine can easily and quickly be applied with just the trim knob. In a takeoff loss of engine a large and rapid input of rudder will be required due to the much higher power output and low speed.

 

From small quick Lears (23, 24, 25) through 707s and 767s (and dare I mention Airbus FBWs), I have never had to 'stomp' the rudder. Quick application, yes. Contrary to what it may appear, on the 23, you went immediately to the floor on a V1 cut or you visited the airport environs. And in high speed, with a BUF on the boom, you could yank an outboard to idle and gently apply rudder so that the receiver didn't know you had a simulated eng failure.

Hate to seem judgmental but from the info avail on this event and crew, they performed at a lesser level.

 

I agree with all of that, what should have been a minor incident turned into a major near death experience for a lot of people.