Investigation Summary
The approach was conducted during Typhoon Ira, which produced crosswinds gusting to 38 knots. Despite receiving multiple windshear and glideslope deviation warnings, the captain elected to continue the approach rather than initiating a missed approach. After a gentle touchdown within the normal zone, the first officer struggled to maintain the centerline in the gusty conditions. The captain intervened to assist with roll control but, in the process, moved the thrust levers forward. This action triggered the aircraft's logic to disarm the autobrakes and retract the spoilers, which had briefly extended. The crew did not immediately notice the lack of deceleration or the failure of the thrust reversers to deploy. By the time manual braking and maximum reverse thrust were applied, the aircraft was passing the penultimate taxiway with insufficient distance to stop. The subsequent rescue operation was completed within 30 minutes. During the evacuation, the crew was forced to perform emergency checklists from memory due to the urgency and the failure of the PA system, which prevented standard communication with the cabin.
Final Conclusions
The Hong Kong Civil Aviation Department (CAD) concluded in report AAR 1-95 that the primary cause was the commander's failure to initiate a missed approach despite severe weather warnings. Contributory factors included the commander's inadvertent advancement of thrust levers during the rollout, which disabled automatic braking systems, and the first officer's lack of experience in handling heavy crosswinds. The investigation also highlighted the absence of a clearly defined crosswind landing technique in the airline's operations manual.
Photographic Evidence (1)
Video Analysis
How A Tiny Nudge Put A Jumbo Jet In The Ocean | China Airlines Flight 605 — A detailed breakdown of the landing at Kai Tak, the pilot's inadvertent throttle movement, and the first hull loss of a Boeing 747-400.
If playback is blocked, the owner has disabled embedding — use the link above.
Airframe & Maintenance
Crew Experience
Captain
Former Republic of China Air Force pilot.
First Officer
Former Republic of China Army pilot.
Systems & Failure Modes
Autobrakes
The system disarmed automatically when the captain moved the thrust levers forward, as the aircraft logic assumed a go-around was being attempted.
Speedbrakes / Spoilers
The spoilers retracted shortly after touchdown due to the increase in engine power, significantly reducing aerodynamic braking and weight on the wheels.
Thrust Reversers
Deployment was delayed because the captain's hand was on the primary thrust levers to assist with control rather than the reverse levers.
Interesting Facts
- 01This was the first hull loss of a Boeing 747-400 series aircraft.
- 02The aircraft was only five months old at the time of the accident.
- 03One passenger suffered a serious dislocated shoulder because another passenger, who was not wearing a seatbelt, was thrown into them during the crash.
- 04The vertical stabilizer was demolished with dynamite shortly after the crash because it interfered with ILS signals for the reciprocal runway 31.
- 05A British Airways pilot had refused to attempt the same approach just 13 minutes prior due to the weather.
- 06The aircraft came to rest facing nearly 180 degrees away from the landing direction.
- 07China Airlines branding and livery were removed or painted over while the aircraft was in the water to conceal its identity.
Safety Actions & Advisories
Operational Manual Revision
China Airlines was directed to include clearly defined crosswind landing techniques and procedures in their Operations Manual.
Flight Training Enhancement
The investigation recommended revised training for pilots to ensure mandatory missed approach procedures are followed when windshear warnings are triggered.
Known Controversies & Unanswered Questions
Concealment of Airline Identity
Reference ↗Immediately following the accident, China Airlines was criticized for its haste in removing the airline's lettering and logo from the fuselage while the aircraft was still in the harbour, an action seen by some as an attempt to protect the brand's image rather than focusing on the investigation.
Destruction of the Vertical Stabilizer
Reference ↗The decision to use dynamite to demolish the vertical stabilizer to restore ILS functionality for Runway 31 was a point of discussion, as it involved the intentional destruction of a major component of a nearly new aircraft before it could be moved for a more detailed land-based inspection.