[cwoodward]

A piece of aviation history which may be of interest to those that traveled through the Kai Tak terminal prior to 1996.
It was very ‘no frills’ but it worked so well that I could be home with a G&T 40 minutes after landing on a good day. Today it takes me at least 90 minutes from the new airport. Progress?
https://www.airporthistory.org/kai-tak-photo-special.html

The very hard left turn through the apartment blocks at the Checker Board immediately prior to landing is not easy to forget and I mention it as it had deteriorated very badly but this piece of history has been recently repainted.

3 users thanked author for this post.

Tasclean, TupeloKid, Swissdiver

[Henryp1]

Fabulous article, thank you.

[esselle]

[postquote quote=1101001]

Pure nostalgia; thanks for posting this.

One thing though; wasn’t it hard right at the chequerboard rather than hard left?

[MartynSinclair]

4 users thanked author for this post.

AnthonyDunn, Swissdiver, Montysaurus, cwoodward

[cwoodward]

[postquote quote=1101023]

Ah…yes unless you wanted to eat with the locals or have a picnic on the checker board it was indeed right.

1 user thanked author for this post.

esselle

[GivingupBA]

Landing at Kai Tak was indeed a swing to the right just before landing, as esselle said. I did that landing as a passenger at Kai Tak many, many times and it was always fun. I always requested a window seat on the right side of the aircraft for that reason – you had a great view of the ground seconds before landing, with apartment blocks not far below.

[AMcWhirter]

I also liked the fact that one could so easily public transport when going to or from Kai Tak. (Not to be recommended if one has heavy luggage)

There was a main road close to the terminal entrance and many buses stopped there.

Back in the 1970s I recall doing a day trip from HKG to TPE. At that time I was staying in Causeway Bay and found it quite easy to reach Kai Tak using one of the frequent buses through the Harbour Tunnel.

My last visit was in 1992. I stayed on the Island. I checked in my bags at Island side CX terminal. Having lots of spare time I shunned use of a taxi in favour of public transport. Took Star Ferry across to Kowloon from where I took the bus to Kai Tak.

[Montysaurus]

Kai Tak – the most exciting landings I have ever had (only 6 times) apart from an emergency landing in UK with accompanying fire engines.

[Woodpecker]

Thank you Cwoodward for this piece of nostalgia and bringing back old memories!

Plane spotters had a vantage spot in the field above the checkerboard, and one could swear the aircraft would be coming straight at you before the sudden sharp right turn. In fact, the CX pilots were rather (in)famous for veering at the very last moment, lot later than those of other airlines. Departure time, passengers would be known to hop across the road to the various Thai restaurants after checking in, if one had sufficient time.

While those heart-in-the-mouth landings over the rooftops were a regular feature, there was the milder occasional landing from the other end over Victoria Harbour.

1 user thanked author for this post.

cwoodward

[cwoodward]

I am puzzled by what could possibly be ‘inappropriate content’ in this thread.

In 1993 this CAAC Jumbo trying to land in one of the notorious Hong Kong Typhoons did not make it and and 24 were killed. It was one of the few crashes at Kai Tak as all pilots needed to be specially rated to tackle the dangerous approach.

[Tom Otley]

I think probably someone was pressing ‘Report’ instead of ‘Thanks’ by mistake.
After many requests we moved the button because people kept missing ‘Thanks’ and pressing ‘Report’.
Now we have separated them we get more than ever !

1 user thanked author for this post.

cwoodward

[AMcWhirter]

And of course the B747 in question was Taiwan’s China Airlines and not CAAC of mainland China.

[cwoodward]

Alex you are of course 100% correct and I was just sloppy as I remember the accident well as the written off aircraft was parked at the airport for a couple of months before it was cut up for scrap. It happened during Tropical Storm Ira

Accident report below

‘The aircraft involved was a brand-new Boeing 747-400 registered as B-165. It was only five months old at the time of the accident, having been built in June 1993. The aircraft was powered by four Pratt & Whitney PW4056 turbofan engines and had only 1,969 flight hours with 359 take off and landing cycles at the time of the accident.[3]:11–17[4][5]

The captain was an unnamed 47-year-old male who had previously served with the Republic of China Air Force and joined China Airlines in 1984. He started flying the 747 (the older -200 variant) in 1988 and was upgraded to a captain of the 747-400 in 1990. At the time of the accident the captain had logged a total of 12,469 flight hours, including 3,559 hours on the Boeing 747. The first officer was an unnamed 37-year-old male who joined the airline in 1992, having previous served with the Republic of China Army. He had 5,705 hours, though only 953 of them were on the Boeing 747.[3]:8–9

Flight 605 touched down more than 2,100 feet (640 m) past the runway’s displaced threshold, at a speed of 150 knots (280 km/h; 170 mph), following an IGS runway 13 approach. Tropical Storm Ira was generating 20-knot (37 km/h; 23 mph) crosswinds on that runway, gusting to 38 knots (70 km/h; 44 mph), from a heading of 070 degrees.[2][6]

The pilots received several computer-generated wind shear and glide slope deviation warnings, and observed severe airspeed fluctuations, during the last mile before touchdown. The captain, who was the pilot flying, disconnected the auto-pilot and began flying the plane manually. He also disconnected the auto-throttle as he was unsatisfied with its performance. After the aircraft landed, the First Officer took control of the plane and attempted to keep the aircraft on the center line. However, his inputs were too severe and the Captain was forced to aid him. Meanwhile, the Captain inadvertently increased engine power rather than activating the thrust reversers. The auto brakes were set at only the number two level and then were turned off seconds after touchdown due to the increase in power. The speed brakes were extended briefly, but then retracted, also due to the power increase. This caused the plane to “float”, making the brakes ineffective until the speed brakes were extended again. When the First Officer finally noticed that the auto-brakes were disarmed and the thrust reversers had not deployed, the captain immediately applied manual braking and thrust reversal.

The captain deliberately turned the plane to the left when he realized the plane would overrun the runway and hit the approach lighting system (ALS) for runway 31. That action caused a “ground loop”, making the plane slide off the left side of the runway into Victoria Harbour, thereby preventing a collision with the ALS for runway 31. The plane came to rest in shallow water, with a heading of almost 180 degrees out from the direction of runway 13.

A British Airways pilot had refused to make the approach to Kai Tak runway 13 minutes before the CAL 605 captain decided to attempt it.

The investigation indicated that the accident was caused by the captain’s failure to initiate the mandatory missed approach procedure when he observed the severe airspeed fluctuations, combined with the wind shear and glide slope deviation alerts. The first officer was also found to not have enough experience to handle the aircraft while landing in crosswind conditions. China Airlines was also criticized for not having a clear crosswind landing procedure in their manuals to aid pilots. The investigation recommended that the airline revise its manuals and flight training.’

Aftermath

6 users thanked author for this post.

AnthonyDunn, Jacob, Woodpecker, Montysaurus, esselle, AMcWhirter

[ASK1945]

[quote quote=1101124]I think probably someone was pressing ‘Report’ instead of ‘Thanks’ by mistake.
After many requests we moved the button because people kept missing ‘Thanks’ and pressing ‘Report’.
Now we have separated them we get more than ever ![/quote]

Tom – I am not surprised. I have done this twice, both times by accident. There isn’t a mechanism for undoing it immediately, when realising the mistake.

I think that it may be related to right-handed members who use a mouse. We are more likely to click the button on the right when rushing and not considering properly. If you swap the buttons, then possibly more left-handed people will make the mistake.

1 user thanked author for this post.

TupeloKid

[FinnKZ229]

Can I just clarify that in the incident at Kai Tak when the China Air 747 ran off the runway into the harbour that there were no deaths (the original post by CWoodward stated incorrectly that 24 were killed). Fortunately the captain of a passing tug boat saw the incident occur and push the nose of the aircraft round so that it was effectively beached which made it so much easier to rescue the passengers and crew.
I was living and working in Hong Kong at the time and sailed past the stricken jet while they were planning how to recover it. By that time had already blown the tail fin off with explosives to make it safer for aircraft to take off again. However the aircraft had to do so with a reduced fuel load so that they could climb at a steeper angle for safety.
The aircraft was eventually moved to the Aircraft maintenance area where it was gradually stripped down until there was nothing left.

3 users thanked author for this post.

TerryMcManus24, AnthonyDunn, Woodpecker

[Author]

Posts