Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5798262/

Topic: Ill Fated Singapore Flt 6...Flight Crew?
Username: crownvic
Posted 2013-06-23 11:07:14 and read 20606 times.

I just got done watching an interesting documentary on the crash of Singapore Flt 6 in Taipei Oct 2000...curiously I was wondering what ever happened to the flight crew of that flight since both pilots and another relief pilot up front all survived?? I know they were immediately terminated and later faced criminal charges..Does anyone know where they are today???

Topic: RE: Ill Fated Singapore Flt 6...Flight Crew?
Username: penguins
Posted 2013-06-23 12:45:04 and read 20143 times.

The Captain and FO were sacked by SIA shortly after the incident. I believe that the relief got ground duty.

Topic: RE: Ill Fated Singapore Flt 6...Flight Crew?
Username: SIA747Megatop
Posted 2013-06-23 14:15:45 and read 19787 times.

Captain Foong Chee Kong is currently employed by AirAsia.

F/O Latiff Cyrano joined LH as an aeronautical consultant following his SIA contract termination in 2002. He had a brief stint in the F&B industry before becoming a lecturer for the Diploma in Aviation Management & Services at Temasek Polytechnic’s (TP) Engineering School in 2008.

Not sure about Ng Keng Leng.

Topic: RE: Ill Fated Singapore Flt 6...Flight Crew?
Username: crownvic
Posted 2013-06-23 16:58:03 and read 19179 times.

thank you for the update..interesting the captain is still flying..

Topic: RE: Ill Fated Singapore Flt 6...Flight Crew?
Username: AVLAirlineFreq
Posted 2013-06-23 17:06:33 and read 19111 times.

On a related note, do Asian carriers still typically take off during storms, as Flight 6 did?

Topic: RE: Ill Fated Singapore Flt 6...Flight Crew?
Username: prebennorholm
Posted 2013-06-23 18:18:22 and read 18793 times.

Quoting AVLAirlineFreq (Reply 4):
On a related note, do Asian carriers still typically take off during storms, as Flight 6 did?

Asian, European, African, American and Australian carriers do. It was raining. The rain limited visual range so they couldn't see the other end of the runway. And the tower, which had no radar, couldn't see the plane. They could only tell the flight crew that they should use RWY 05L, but the crew used 05R instead.

In my country, during winter (roughly October through April), we rarely see the other end of the runway. Do we fly in winter? Yes we do.

Topic: RE: Ill Fated Singapore Flt 6...Flight Crew?
Username: SIA747Megatop
Posted 2013-06-23 20:08:24 and read 17337 times.

Singapore is currently experiencing severe haze as a result of deforestation going on in Indonesia. Visibility has sunk as low as 600m thus preventing pilots from seeing the other end of the runway and flights have been arriving and departing steadily albeit with greater separation.

Topic: RE: Ill Fated Singapore Flt 6...Flight Crew?
Username: penguins
Posted 2013-06-23 21:29:21 and read 16119 times.

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 5):

I do believe that AVLAirlineFreq was referring to Typhoons and Hurricanes such as the one SIA 6 took off in instead of storms in general.

Topic: RE: Ill Fated Singapore Flt 6...Flight Crew?
Username: Mr AirNZ
Posted 2013-06-23 21:44:08 and read 15906 times.

Quoting crownvic (Reply 3):
thank you for the update..interesting the captain is still flying..

I personally know two pilot's who have been at the controls when an accident resulted in fatalities and continue to fly. I think going back to flying following an accident is more common than many think.

Topic: RE: Ill Fated Singapore Flt 6...Flight Crew?
Username: francoflier
Posted 2013-06-23 22:44:58 and read 15114 times.

Quoting Mr AirNZ (Reply 8):
I think going back to flying following an accident is more common than many think.

I wonder what the path back to the cockpit must be like, psychologically, I mean. I assume there must be a fair amount of therapy involved.

Topic: RE: Ill Fated Singapore Flt 6...Flight Crew?
Username: infinit
Posted 2013-06-23 23:07:18 and read 14819 times.

Quoting SIA747Megatop (Reply 2):
F/O Latiff Cyrano joined LH as an aeronautical consultant following his SIA contract termination in 2002. He had a brief stint in the F&B industry before becoming a lecturer for the Diploma in Aviation Management & Services at Temasek Polytechnic’s (TP) Engineering School in 2008.

According to the Air Crash Investigation/Mayday documentary, Latiff was the only one in the crew who noticed the aircraft didn't line up with an instrument that is meant to indicate it is in position for take off but the Captain shrugged it off as unnecessary. Had they used this instrument, the incident would have never happened.

Topic: RE: Ill Fated Singapore Flt 6...Flight Crew?
Username: neutrino
Posted 2013-06-23 23:26:13 and read 14545 times.

Quoting Mr AirNZ (Reply 8):
I personally know two pilot's who have been at the controls when an accident resulted in fatalities and continue to fly. I think going back to flying following an accident is more common than many think.

It's not "one strike and you are out".
Flyers pick up the pieces and go on to do what they are trained to do when they are cleared by the authorities and their own mind.
All the sizable numbers of hull-loss or seriously damaged airplane pilots whom I have been acquainted with do continue their career paths.

Topic: RE: Ill Fated Singapore Flt 6...Flight Crew?
Username: Unclekoru
Posted 2013-06-24 00:18:44 and read 13850 times.

Quoting neutrino (Reply 11):
It's not "one strike and you are out".
Flyers pick up the pieces and go on to do what they are trained to do when they are cleared by the authorities and their own mind.
All the sizable numbers of hull-loss or seriously damaged airplane pilots whom I have been acquainted with do continue their career paths.

He wasn't suggesting that it is one strike and you're out. In both cases that I'm assuming Mr Air NZ refers to, I believe many in the NZ aviation community were surprised to see the two individuals reappear in an operational role (due to the outcome of the investigations). Good on them for getting back on the horse, as one of my former bosses said, you can be sure they won't make that mistake again.

Topic: RE: Ill Fated Singapore Flt 6...Flight Crew?
Username: StarGuy
Posted 2013-06-24 00:38:40 and read 13556 times.

Oh my god I cannot believe what I am hearing! "Good on them" "getting back on the horse"
Oops, just killed 83 people, sorry about it, my bad!
These guys are paid a heck of a lot of money to do the job that they do and are treated like gods in the meantime, they should not be allowed to make a few oopsies when it come to 83 fatalities and hundreds of further lives ruined due to severe injuries both psychological and physical, not to mention hundreds of grieving families.
Whilst I am aware that there were contributing factors in this disaster, ultimately the flight crew are at the controls and made every decision on the flight deck that night. The Captain at least should be counted lucky that he's not in jail for manslaughter. Other people in other professions have lost their jobs and received criminal records for a lot less of a mistake or lapse in judgement.

Topic: RE: Ill Fated Singapore Flt 6...Flight Crew?
Username: neutrino
Posted 2013-06-24 00:45:26 and read 13467 times.

Quoting Unclekoru (Reply 12):
He wasn't suggesting that it is one strike and you're out.

And I am not suggesting that he did.
I am just stating my view from my observation of not only reported incidents but more importantly, also first hand knowledge from the many pilots that I personally knew who have been involved in crashes.

You may or may not read it that way, but I am actually in agreement with Mr AirNZ that " going back to flying following an accident is more common than many think."

Topic: RE: Ill Fated Singapore Flt 6...Flight Crew?
Username: pvjin
Posted 2013-06-24 01:02:53 and read 13219 times.

Quoting StarGuy (Reply 13):
Whilst I am aware that there were contributing factors in this disaster, ultimately the flight crew are at the controls and made every decision on the flight deck that night. The Captain at least should be counted lucky that he's not in jail for manslaughter. Other people in other professions have lost their jobs and received criminal records for a lot less of a mistake or lapse in judgement.

Then what about all the accidents caused by pilot error but with inadequate training being a big contributor to the accident? Should also those responsible for training those pilots get jailed?

I think to improve safety airlines should try to learn from accidents and incidents, not just put all the blame on the pilots in every case.

Topic: RE: Ill Fated Singapore Flt 6...Flight Crew?
Username: bennett123
Posted 2013-06-24 01:22:34 and read 12939 times.

I agree up to a point.

However, I doubt that many would agree that causing death by dangerous driving or recklessness on the roads is not a criminal offence.

Equally, if the pilot had crashed on the runway to the airport and killed someone, would people be saying that it is more important to learn lessons, (that driving when you cannot see your hand in front your face is a bad idea).

Topic: RE: Ill Fated Singapore Flt 6...Flight Crew?
Username: StarGuy
Posted 2013-06-24 01:26:55 and read 12874 times.

Quoting pvjin (Reply 15):

When I get behind the wheel of my car, I take legal and physical responsibility of it. Regardless of of how well or how badly I am taught to drive by my driving instructor years ago, I have to take responsibility of my car when I'm driving it, I have to take environmental conditions into account. If I drive recklessly or without due care and attention I am the one who pays the price if there is an accident, the penalties are even more severe if others are injured or killed however unintentional my lapse in judgement or concentration is deemed.
Pilots are paid handsomely to be responsible for our lives when they are in the flight deck and should not be exempt from punishment, just as a driver of a car when due care and attention is not paid.

Topic: RE: Ill Fated Singapore Flt 6...Flight Crew?
Username: sankaps
Posted 2013-06-24 01:29:55 and read 12832 times.

Quoting pvjin (Reply 15):
I think to improve safety airlines should try to learn from accidents and incidents, not just put all the blame on the pilots in every case.

Sure, airlines should and do learn from accidents and incidents. And I don't think it is accurate to say they put the blame on pilots in every case.

But there are SOME cases where pilot actions / judgment / negligence despite warnings and other indicators play a disproportionate role in the eventual accident, and I think it is fair to ask whether such pilots should be given a second chance and allowed to fly again especially if their actions resulted in fatalities.

Topic: RE: Ill Fated Singapore Flt 6...Flight Crew?
Username: Unclekoru
Posted 2013-06-24 01:59:50 and read 12413 times.

Quoting StarGuy (Reply 13):
Oh my god I cannot believe what I am hearing! "Good on them" "getting back on the horse"
Oops, just killed 83 people, sorry about it, my bad!

To be clear , my comments did not relate to the Singapore accident but the two accidents mentioned by Mr Air NZ.

Quoting StarGuy (Reply 13):
The Captain at least should be counted lucky that he's not in jail for manslaughter. Other people in other professions have lost their jobs and received criminal records for a lot less of a mistake or lapse in judgement.

Incorrect, the threshold for criminal negligence or manslaughter is high. The shortcomings of the Singapore crew, no matter how unfortunate, were well short of that required for the conviction of the crew on any criminal charges. And how about the shortcomings at the airport itself? Should we string the airport authorities up as well?

I suggest you look at some Human factors texts books, and the definition of hubris.

A punitive culture does little to improve safety.

Topic: RE: Ill Fated Singapore Flt 6...Flight Crew?
Username: sankaps
Posted 2013-06-24 02:07:32 and read 12307 times.

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 16):
However, I doubt that many would agree that causing death by dangerous driving or recklessness on the roads is not a criminal offence.
Quoting Unclekoru (Reply 19):
A punitive culture does little to improve safety.

But road safety indeed does follow a punitive approach and manslaughter due to dangerous, careless, or reckless driving is a criminal offence. Why should it be different for air safety?

Topic: RE: Ill Fated Singapore Flt 6...Flight Crew?
Username: StarGuy
Posted 2013-06-24 02:19:03 and read 12171 times.

Quoting Unclekoru (Reply 19):

I was referring more to the sentiment that it was a minor mistake and that they should have been given another chance. I would get banned from driving for a lessor mistake of being a few mph over the speed limit a couple of times. I'd be fined and god help me if I were to accidentally kill 83 people in the process.

Whilst fans of aviation may well put this down to an unfortunate incident that we can learn a lesson from, I would imagine that the traveling public let alone the families of the 83 dead passengers and crew of SQ006 would see things from a different angle. It was unfortunate, but when fatalities are involved, I think that the price paid should be at the very least never having the pilots responsible take charge of an aircraft again and the relevant airport authorities should also face extreme fines payable to the victims and their families if there were deemed to be failures on their part.

I'm not suggesting that these pilot were deliberate in their actions, but as I said before, people have faced far more severe penalties for lessor mistakes.

Topic: RE: Ill Fated Singapore Flt 6...Flight Crew?
Username: bennett123
Posted 2013-06-24 02:36:14 and read 11945 times.

IMO, before criminal sanctions are considered, we need to see;

1. Fatalities.
2. Some breach of rules.

3. Crucially, recklesses, dangerous flying or malice. Sheer bad luck does NOT count.

I do not see criminal action following every fatality, but in the most extreme cases only.

Topic: RE: Ill Fated Singapore Flt 6...Flight Crew?
Username: Revelation
Posted 2013-06-24 03:21:12 and read 11369 times.

Quoting pvjin (Reply 15):
Then what about all the accidents caused by pilot error but with inadequate training being a big contributor to the accident? Should also those responsible for training those pilots get jailed?

What about those accidents that investigators say are due to inadequate training yet really are due to pilots just doing something stupid - should we jail the investigators?

Topic: RE: Ill Fated Singapore Flt 6...Flight Crew?
Username: Unclekoru
Posted 2013-06-24 03:32:39 and read 11214 times.

Quoting StarGuy (Reply 21):
I was referring more to the sentiment that it was a minor mistake and that they should have been given another chance.

There is no suggestion that it was a minor mistake, you've read too much into a turn of phrase.

Assuming no criminal wrong doing, why be so vindictive as to not let them fly again if they are in a position to do so? These guys will have to live with the consequences of their actions for the rest of their lives, so it's not like they're getting away Scot free.

We let other professionals return to work following retraining after a significant failure, so why not pilots as per the above qualification? They may well have a lot to offer.

Quoting sankaps (Reply 20):
But road safety indeed does follow a punitive approach and manslaughter due to dangerous, careless, or reckless driving is a criminal offence. Why should it be different for air safety?

Flying is significantly safer than driving, so maybe they should try a non punitive or educational approach? I believe people who have completed a defensive drivers course for instance, are statistically less likely to have an accident than those who haven't.

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 22):
IMO, before criminal sanctions are considered, we need to see;

1. Fatalities.
2. Some breach of rules.

3. Crucially, recklesses, dangerous flying or malice. Sheer bad luck does NOT count.

I do not see criminal action following every fatality, but in the most extreme cases only.

That's pretty much how the law works, at least where I come from.

[Edited 2013-06-24 03:37:54]

Topic: RE: Ill Fated Singapore Flt 6...Flight Crew?
Username: steve6666
Posted 2013-06-24 03:34:09 and read 11415 times.

Quoting sankaps (Reply 20):
But road safety indeed does follow a punitive approach and manslaughter due to dangerous, careless, or reckless driving is a criminal offence. Why should it be different for air safety?

And which of those means of transport is statistically much safer?
Roads are full of billions of vast majority amateurs who are tested once for 30 minutes aged 16-18 and let loose for the next few decades. Commercial flying is full of many thousands of very highly trained professionals who are continually evaluated and re-evaluated in their competence throughout their careers. There is a very good article written almost 20 years ago about the "November Oscar" incident, when a BA 747-100 (G-AWNO) came within yards of landing on what is now the Renaissance Hotel by the side of 27R. The Captain was convicted in Isleworth Crown Court of criminal negligence (I forget precisely what the charge was) and committed suicide 18 months afterwards. As Air Crash Investigation (or Seconds From Disaster) remind us all the time, accidents are a sequence of events - just as the November Oscar incident was, just as SQ006 was. The article debates the nature of negligence in an air safety context - it does not compare to road safety.

Topic: RE: Ill Fated Singapore Flt 6...Flight Crew?
Username: Unclekoru
Posted 2013-06-24 03:38:31 and read 11310 times.

Quoting steve6666 (Reply 25):
Roads are full of billions of vast majority amateurs who are tested once for 30 minutes aged 16-18 and let loose for the next few decades. Commercial flying is full of many thousands of very highly trained professionals who are continually evaluated and re-evaluated in their competence throughout their careers.

Well said.

Topic: RE: Ill Fated Singapore Flt 6...Flight Crew?
Username: bennett123
Posted 2013-06-24 03:43:33 and read 11488 times.

Whilst there are a wide range of factors in every crash, surely this could also be said about road crashes.

Lets see;

Driver training
Driver decisions
Driver ill health/illness
Driver tiredness
Road condition
Road signage
Weather conditions/rain/fog/ice etc
Speed limits
Actions of other drivers.


Still at the end of the day, if the driver was reckless or drove dangerously, then they still face a court.

Topic: RE: Ill Fated Singapore Flt 6...Flight Crew?
Username: StarGuy
Posted 2013-06-24 03:54:25 and read 11289 times.

When we are referring to road safety, the issue is not about statistics, but about the issue of responsibility and culpability. Pilots are paid a great deal because of the great deal of training, skill and responsibility that is placed in their hands. Take a surgeon for example, a person can die on the operating table because they were way past the point at which they could be saved, but if they died because the surgeon made a huge mistake regardless of obvious indicators and warning from specialised colleagues, that surgeon would be in trouble.

I forgot, we're taking about aviation and pilots, lets just ignore my whole side of the argument. Give them their jobs back and let put it down to a small boo boo!

Topic: RE: Ill Fated Singapore Flt 6...Flight Crew?
Username: sankaps
Posted 2013-06-24 04:03:39 and read 11156 times.

Quoting steve6666 (Reply 25):
And which of those means of transport is statistically much safer?
Quoting Unclekoru (Reply 24):
Flying is significantly safer than driving, so maybe they should try a non punitive or educational approach? I believe people who have completed a defensive drivers course for instance, are statistically less likely to have an accident than those who haven't.
Quoting steve6666 (Reply 25):
Roads are full of billions of vast majority amateurs who are tested once for 30 minutes aged 16-18 and let loose for the next few decades. Commercial flying is full of many thousands of very highly trained professionals who are continually evaluated and re-evaluated in their competence throughout their careers.

I don't disagree with any of the above. Roads are full of amateurs, the skies are piloted by highly trained professionals. Which is why, given all this training and focus on safety, there should be zero tolerance for amateurish mistakes / carelessness / negligence / overconfidence in the skies **especially if they lead to fatalities**, and those found guilty of these acts should not be allowed to return to flying.

Quoting Unclekoru (Reply 24):
We let other professionals return to work following retraining after a significant failure, so why not pilots as per the above qualification?

Not really. If a doctor's negligence leads to the death of a number of patients, you can be assured he or she will not be allowed to continue to practice. The stakes are much higher in the skies as there are so many lives involved for each incident.

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 27):
Still at the end of the day, if the driver was reckless or drove dangerously, then they still face a court.

Exactly. The key words are "reckless" and "dangerous".

Topic: RE: Ill Fated Singapore Flt 6...Flight Crew?
Username: crownvic
Posted 2013-06-24 04:05:47 and read 11179 times.

two biggest contributing factors to this crash...

Closed runway was fully lit as if operational with no barrriers , X markings or runway closed signs of any kind displayed or posted.

Intentionally slow taxi speed ordered by captain of 9kts vs an average of 20-25 kts due to typhoon conditions..As they made the turn towards the runways the slow taxi speed led to a longer taxiing time thus misleading the captain to believe that he arrived at 05L but turned onto 05R first by mistake.

Topic: RE: Ill Fated Singapore Flt 6...Flight Crew?
Username: bennett123
Posted 2013-06-24 04:10:06 and read 11055 times.

Surely if he was going at half speed, then he would know that reaching 05L would take longer than usual.

Topic: RE: Ill Fated Singapore Flt 6...Flight Crew?
Username: Unclekoru
Posted 2013-06-24 04:19:45 and read 10956 times.

Quoting sankaps (Reply 29):
Not really. If a doctor's negligence leads to the death of a number of patients, you can be assured he or she will not be allowed to continue to practice. The stakes are much higher in the skies as there are so many lives involved for each incident.

No, medical professionals are exactly who I had in mind when I typed the above paragraph. Again, we are talking about actions that kill or injure but fall short of criminal negligence as judged in a court of law.

Topic: RE: Ill Fated Singapore Flt 6...Flight Crew?
Username: sankaps
Posted 2013-06-24 04:25:48 and read 10860 times.

Quoting crownvic (Reply 30):
Closed runway was fully lit as if operational with no barrriers , X markings or runway closed signs of any kind displayed or posted.

Those turned out to be contributory factors at best. But no other flight made this error that evening. And as pointed out in Reply 10 above, one of the crew members tried to warn the captain, who disregarded the warning.

The claim that the runway was "lit as if operational" is still highly debated, as various other pilots and witnesses, as well as the official investigation report, have said that the white runway edge lights were not turned on, and only the green centerline taxi lights were on (as part of the runway was open for taxying aircraft).

[Edited 2013-06-24 04:33:23]

Topic: RE: Ill Fated Singapore Flt 6...Flight Crew?
Username: bennett123
Posted 2013-06-24 04:26:56 and read 10812 times.

This is the entire point.

Only a court of law can determine if negligence was criminal.

This can only be established if that pilot does face a court.

Topic: RE: Ill Fated Singapore Flt 6...Flight Crew?
Username: Revelation
Posted 2013-06-24 04:31:32 and read 10763 times.

Quoting steve6666 (Reply 25):
And which of those means of transport is statistically much safer?

It depends on whether or not you factor in opportunity.

Quoting steve6666 (Reply 25):
Commercial flying is full of many thousands of very highly trained professionals who are continually evaluated and re-evaluated in their competence throughout their careers.

And yet we still have AF 447.

Topic: RE: Ill Fated Singapore Flt 6...Flight Crew?
Username: Ejazz
Posted 2013-06-24 04:48:40 and read 10584 times.

Quoting StarGuy (Reply 17):
Pilots are paid handsomely to be responsible for our lives when they are in the flight deck and should not be exempt from punishment,

Check out the salaries of the Flight Crew who died in the Colgan Air accident in Clarence Centre, New York, along with 47 others, and see if you think pilots are handsomely paid.

Topic: RE: Ill Fated Singapore Flt 6...Flight Crew?
Username: DTWPurserBoy
Posted 2013-06-24 04:58:56 and read 10368 times.

I do not think that any crew member in the US that was involved in a fatal accident on US territory has ever been charged. Is this correct? I know that many countries immediately arrest the crew and some have been tried in other countries. I suspect that a US carrier would move heaven and earth to get their crews out of a foreign country if an event occurs to protect them.

Singapore 6 was a terrible occurrence and my heart goes out to those affected. But I can only imagine that the images of that night will stay with the pilots for all their lives. I am confident that they have beaten themselves up every day with the "what if....." question. I have always had total trust in the pilots that I have flown with because I know the training they have had and the pride they have in their profession and their inherent technical abilities. Talk about "critical thinkers!"

Perhaps that is why they call them "accidents" instead of "deliberates."

Topic: RE: Ill Fated Singapore Flt 6...Flight Crew?
Username: AVLAirlineFreq
Posted 2013-06-24 05:07:22 and read 10208 times.

Quoting penguins (Reply 7):
I do believe that AVLAirlineFreq was referring to Typhoons and Hurricanes such as the one SIA 6 took off in instead of storms in general.

Correct--I should have been more specific. I wasn't trying to be snarky. There was a news story at the time of the crash that referred to this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000/nov/01/johngittings

Topic: RE: Ill Fated Singapore Flt 6...Flight Crew?
Username: sankaps
Posted 2013-06-24 05:15:56 and read 10031 times.

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 37):
Perhaps that is why they call them "accidents" instead of "deliberates."

Sure, but perhaps that's also why one has the term "manslaughter" instead of murder. The first refers to non-intentional deaths resulting from negligent acts that lead to accidents.

Topic: RE: Ill Fated Singapore Flt 6...Flight Crew?
Username: DTWPurserBoy
Posted 2013-06-24 05:26:39 and read 9828 times.

Quoting sankaps (Reply 39):
Sure, but perhaps that's also why one has the term "manslaughter" instead of murder. The first refers to non-intentional deaths resulting from negligent acts that lead to accidents.

An interesting point. When one boards an airliner one expects to arrive safe and sound at your destination. I would think that unless there was gross negligence involved it would be tough to prove manslaughter or murder. To the best of my knowledge even in cases of obvious pilot error there has never been a US crew prosecuted on US territory.

The Warsaw Convention on international flights limit financial liability but does it limit legal liability as well? I guess I'll have to do a little research on that one. And it is not applicable on domestic US flights.

Perhaps some of my fellow a.netters with a legal background can answer that. It is written in such microscopic print (and I don't think it is even on "E" tickets--you have to ask for a copy) that it is hard to read much less understand.

This is a fascinating thread--nice work, folks.

Topic: RE: Ill Fated Singapore Flt 6...Flight Crew?
Username: Farzan
Posted 2013-06-24 07:16:55 and read 8183 times.

Interesting discussion indeed, and quite different from most other topics discussed on a.net

Studying many fatal air accidents over the years it appears to me that in modern aviation statistically most crashes are caused by human factors. Not only pilot error but as well maintenance errors, ATC errors etc. In these days, and we a.netters always agree on that, airplanes are safe and almost no crashes can be blamed on design of the aircraft itself.

Is a human error a criminal offense? In general no it is not.

It could be if let's say the person failing is under the influence of alcohol, drugs or any other mind altering substance. I my view a human making short cuts on safety, against his training, air safety regulations and company procedures could also be a criminal offense.

So in the SQ case being discussed in this topic, conditions were difficult but there was quite a few mistakes was done by the crew. Mistakes is in my world not a criminal offense per say.

But then again. Obviously the crew wanted to get out the before the typhoon would close the airport. If short cuts in safety procedures were made in order to get out in time, then it is a criminal offense. In such a case it was a calculated breach of safety made in order to meet a deadline.

I am obviously not a pilot, but I am a frequent air traveler and I am concerned about safety. It appears to me that quite a few accident have happened because the flight crew wanted to get out ASAP. KL at Tenerife comes to mind. Still the worst air accident ever.

I have never been even close to any fatal accident but I have seen many examples of air crews making short cuts in safety to get out as soon as possible:

Example. On a KL flight on a MD11 out of Rome to Amsterdam we were delayed for hours due to a labor strike. All of a sudden "last call was announced". Everybody rushing on board, doors closing, push back and high speed taxiing while people was still in struggling to their seats. Was that safe and according to rules and procedures? If somebody would have broken their leg or worse? Actually yes, that would be a criminal offense.

Over the last year I had several 4-6 hour delays due to ATC restrictions, sitting on board the airplane in HKG on my way to PEK. (Both on CA and KE). Nobody knows when we will get permission to take off. After 4-6 hours the cabin crew will start serving dinner while still on the ground and in the middle of the dinner service there will be push back, taxiing and take off still with people having their trays on the table. Safe?. What would be the result on an aborted take off and evacuation? People trapped and what not. Criminal offense, sure.

Non criminal human errors should get another chance. Criminal human offenses resulting in loss of life's, does not deserve a second chance.

Topic: RE: Ill Fated Singapore Flt 6...Flight Crew?
Username: ScottishDavie
Posted 2013-06-24 07:31:07 and read 7986 times.

Quoting StarGuy (Reply 28):
When we are referring to road safety, the issue is not about statistics, but about the issue of responsibility and culpability. Pilots are paid a great deal because of the great deal of training, skill and responsibility that is placed in their hands. Take a surgeon for example, a person can die on the operating table because they were way past the point at which they could be saved, but if they died because the surgeon made a huge mistake regardless of obvious indicators and warning from specialised colleagues, that surgeon would be in trouble.

I forgot, we're taking about aviation and pilots, lets just ignore my whole side of the argument. Give them their jobs back and let put it down to a small boo boo!

I worked for 32 years as a prosecutor and since retirement from full time work I sit as a part-time judge, albeit at a fairly lowly level.

In case you and the others who have posted in similar terms don't appreciate it there is a HUGE difference between making a mistake, even a very serious one, and committing a criminal offence. There is an equally huge difference between doing (or failing to do) something which will get you into trouble with your professional regulatory body and committing a criminal offence. The surgeon in your example might well be subjected to a range of sanctions by the Royal College - suspended from practice, required to undergo re-training, restricted in the type of work he can do and so on, right up to being struck off. However it is very unlikely that he would be prosecuted in a criminal court.

Exactly the same principle applies, or should apply, to pilots. I was appalled by the decision to prosecute Captain Stewart after the Heathrow incident and even more appalled by his conviction. He subsequently killed himself a short distance from where my mother lives and his body was found by one of her neighbours who was walking his dog. I really find myself wondering what possible contribution was made to air safely by either the prosecution or the subsequent suicide.

This short thread makes sobering reading, particularly for the "prosecute the pilot" lobby:

'November Oscar - Near Tragedy At LHR, 1989 (by Kaitak Feb 16 2009 in Civil Aviation)

[Edited 2013-06-24 07:32:32]

Topic: RE: Ill Fated Singapore Flt 6...Flight Crew?
Username: b2319
Posted 2013-06-24 07:57:42 and read 7465 times.

Quoting Farzan (Reply 41):
Over the last year I had several 4-6 hour delays due to ATC restrictions, sitting on board the airplane in HKG on my way to PEK. (Both on CA and KE). Nobody knows when we will get permission to take off. After 4-6 hours the cabin crew will start serving dinner while still on the ground and in the middle of the dinner service there will be push back, taxiing and take off still with people having their trays on the table. Safe?. What would be the result on an aborted take off and evacuation? People trapped and what not. Criminal offense, sure.

Interesting. May I ask if you ever fed your concerns back to the airlines?

In the mid 2000s, I had two flights take off without a safety demonstration (Royal Air Maroc & Iberia) and one with an incorrect safety video shown (KLM; A330 shown on a B777). I'm not sure whether this is a 'criminal offence' or not. Nevertheless, in all instances I complained. In all instances I received no reply. In the KLM case, I even sought out who I thought the Netherlands independent airline authority was. Initially the guy took my concerns on board; then the e-mails dried up.

Getting back on topic, for me, there's a big difference between incompetence and negligence. I'm not sure exactly where this example sits, to be honest. I can say that as a professional, I am making mistakes/errors of judgement/call it whatever, from time to time. The causes can be varied and can stem from simply not having sufficient information.

Regards

B-2319

Topic: RE: Ill Fated Singapore Flt 6...Flight Crew?
Username: sankaps
Posted 2013-06-24 09:01:12 and read 6415 times.

Quoting b2319 (Reply 43):
there's a big difference between incompetence and negligence

Incompetence is not a criminal offence. Mistakes made with the best intentions are not a criminal offence. But "mistakes" made by highly trained professionals out of negligence, complacency, laziness, or plain carelessness, especially if warnings were ignored and people are killed as a result, is a different category altogether.

The question is whether SQ 006 fell into that category, and whether the captain should still be flying today, regardless of whether his actions are categorized as a criminal offense of not. It certainly does appear there was a fair amount of carelessness / negligence involved on part of at least some of the flight crew. If a criminal offense, he should be in jail. My view is that it may indeed be too harsh and counterproductive to use the word "criminal" and put him in jail in this case, but it certainly could be categorized as gross negligence / incompetence and the pilot could justifiably be barred from ever flying an aircraft again.

Topic: RE: Ill Fated Singapore Flt 6...Flight Crew?
Username: YLWbased
Posted 2013-06-24 09:22:02 and read 6102 times.

Quoting penguins (Reply 7):
I do believe that AVLAirlineFreq was referring to Typhoons and Hurricanes such as the one SIA 6 took off in instead of storms in general.

Yes we do, if we were to ground all traffic during a typhoon, we'll be effectively shutting down HKG 7 times a during june to sep with minute of 2 days each time.

As long as the weather condition fall within the minimums, I see no problem operating in a storm.

YLWbased

Topic: RE: Ill Fated Singapore Flt 6...Flight Crew?
Username: 777ord
Posted 2013-06-24 10:27:19 and read 4782 times.

Quoting AVLAirlineFreq (Reply 4):
On a related note, do Asian carriers still typically take off during storms, as Flight 6 did?

Not to change topics, but the Continental pilot who landed on a taxiway in EWR years ago is stil flying with us, and, infact upgraded to the 777. FO though.

Topic: RE: Ill Fated Singapore Flt 6...Flight Crew?
Username: DTWPurserBoy
Posted 2013-06-24 10:45:49 and read 4386 times.

Quoting b2319 (Reply 43):
In the mid 2000s, I had two flights take off without a safety demonstration (Royal Air Maroc & Iberia) and one with an incorrect safety video shown (KLM; A330 shown on a B777).

This is a system programing error and should have been spotted by the purser, the safety video stopped and the crew revert to the old manual demonstration. It is the responsibility of the purser to ensure that the safety demo/video is shown prior to takeoff. You are likely to see such errors in the first days of a new month when the systems are updated with the new AVOD programs but as far as the safety demo goes someone did a major boo-boo.

The airlines usually contract the software updates to the AVOD system to the company that installed the system ,i.e. Panasonic, Matsushita, etc. At my airline updating nearly 500 aircraft does not occur overnight and requires a couple of down hours to install so there may be a lag of a couple of days to get everything changed every month. That being said, some systems separate the safety video from the AVOD and the purser selects from a screen showing all the aircraft types--you hit 'select' and enter. If the curser was one line off it can show the wrong aircraft type.

I have had to do this many times--revert to the old manual/read safety demo due to electrical or system problems. Usually another flight attendant will call me and say "we are not getting video in the aft cabin" or "no one is getting sound." So we stop, I call the captain and let/her know we are having issues so they won't take off until the demo is completed properly. This should have been caught immediately. We are the eyes and ears of the pilots in the cabin and our primary obligation is to the safety of our passengers and crew.

My personal apologies on behalf of my profession for an easily correctable error. If it should ever happen again, please IMMEDIATELY notify a crew member. It is absolutely NOT legal for a US registered airplane to takeoff prior to showing this important information because takeoff and landing are the most dangerous parts of any flight.

This sort of reminds me of the Costa Concordia not having done their evacuation drill prior to the ship departing Rome with the tragic results. BTW--insider crew advice--NEVER take your shoes off during takeoff or landing. If you have to climb over hot and torn metal you do not want to do it in your socks.

Topic: RE: Ill Fated Singapore Flt 6...Flight Crew?
Username: neutrino
Posted 2013-06-24 10:47:03 and read 4372 times.

Not completely off topic; how are the surviving cabin crew faring today?
Besides the three pilots of whom only one suffered minor bruises, there were 17 FAs on board. Four died and about a dozen sustained varying levels of injuries. Anyone out there who knows the current status of at least some of them?

Topic: RE: Ill Fated Singapore Flt 6...Flight Crew?
Username: rfields5421
Posted 2013-06-24 11:13:21 and read 3894 times.

Quoting AVLAirlineFreq (Reply 4):
On a related note, do Asian carriers still typically take off during storms, as Flight 6 did?
Quoting penguins (Reply 7):
I do believe that AVLAirlineFreq was referring to Typhoons and Hurricanes such as the one SIA 6 took off in instead of storms in general.

The stories about the airplane trying to takeoff in a typhoon are inaccurate media hype. The center of the typhoon was located 360 km south of the airport, and the greatest winds at the typhoon center at that time were 75 kts with gusts to 90.

The reality is that the weather near the time of the crash was

Quote:
winds 020 at 36 kts, gusts to 56; visibility 600 meters; RVR 450 meters; Heavy rain; clouds broken 200 feet, overcast 00 feet; Temp 21

(1)

The information given to the crew from the ATC tapes was

Quote:
Winds 020 at 28 knots, gusting to 50 knots

(2)

The differences are common on all airports where the official weather station might be located somwhere other than the tower. The actual winds on the runway at the crash location were not measured before the crash - because weather rrecording instrumentation is not placed beside runways.

Yes it was stormy, it was challenging. But these were outlying winds and rain. Not tropical storm strength conditions. The airport was not closed. This was not the only aircraft to land. Several others took off that evening before the crash.

The crash aircraft landed safely at the airport just over two hours before the takeoff crash occured. The Singapore Airlines rotation for the flight was for one crew to fly Singapore - Taipei, then another crew fly Taipei to Los Angeles - the previous day crew would RON approx 24 hours before taking the flight to LAX.

Aircraft operate in other nations, including the United States and Germany and France and the UK, almost every week in similar weather conditions.

Archive of the accident report - http://www.webcitation.org/5z1PJD6ug
(1) Para 1.7.2 page 35 - 2300 weather report
(2) Para 1.7.3 page 35

Topic: RE: Ill Fated Singapore Flt 6...Flight Crew?
Username: neutrino
Posted 2013-06-25 09:42:31 and read 2911 times.

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 47):
My personal apologies on behalf of my profession for an easily correctable error.

That's very noble of you.
My personal thanks to you on behalf of airline passengers. May we be served by more of your type.

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 47):
BTW--insider crew advice--NEVER take your shoes off during takeoff or landing. If you have to climb over hot and torn metal you do not want to do it in your socks.

Very good advice. Also, no flip-flops should be the footwear of choice on the plane for the same reason.
In almost every flight, my shoes would come off immediately after the seat belt signs went out and I would put them back on only upon the announcement for the crew to prepare for landing. Of course they would also be on if I have to go to the loo.

Topic: RE: Ill Fated Singapore Flt 6...Flight Crew?
Username: sankaps
Posted 2013-06-25 09:47:29 and read 2907 times.

Quoting neutrino (Reply 50):
Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 47):BTW--insider crew advice--NEVER take your shoes off during takeoff or landing. If you have to climb over hot and torn metal you do not want to do it in your socks.
Very good advice. Also, no flip-flops should be the footwear of choice on the plane for the same reason.
In almost every flight

Some airlines, CX for one, require shoes to be on for take-off and landing. It can get complicated too, for example if a woman is wearing sharp heels -- these can puncture the slide and need to be taken off.

Topic: RE: Ill Fated Singapore Flt 6...Flight Crew?
Username: DTWPurserBoy
Posted 2013-06-25 12:52:34 and read 2638 times.

Quoting neutrino (Reply 50):
That's very noble of you.
My personal thanks to you on behalf of airline passengers. May we be served by more of your type.

Aw, shucks. Thank you for the compliment.

Topic: RE: Ill Fated Singapore Flt 6...Flight Crew?
Username: trex8
Posted 2013-06-25 12:53:07 and read 2643 times.

Quoting sankaps (Reply 44):
but it certainly could be categorized as gross negligence / incompetence and the pilot could justifiably be barred from ever flying an aircraft again.

I could possibly see barring someone from holding an ATPL but even a PPL??? Even then I think you would have to show a repeated pattern of behaviour.


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/