Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
White Knuckle Moments On Singapore Airlines Flight  
User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 59
Posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 7128 times:

Did a search and didn't find it on the boards so I figured that I post it..

"SAN FRANCISCO -- Passengers aboard a Singapore Airlines flight had a few anxious moments early Wednesday when their 747-400 enroute to Hong Kong was forced to return to SFO because it blew out two tires on the left main landing gear during takeoff.

Video On Demand: Priya David Reports On Singapore Flight


The plane -- with 237 passengers and a crew of 21 aboard -- lifted off at 12:05 a.m. The captain radioed the tower a short time later when it was determined the tires had exploded and a return to the airport was necessary. The jet dumped most of its fuel over the Pacific so it could be light enough to land."


my questions are:
1) why didn't the continue the journey, since there was no more apparent problems with the flight in terms of any malfunctions (I assume the wheels were retracted by now),so why not just not fly to their destination point, they would not have had to dump all that fuel..., and they probably would have saved much more money by flying their passenegers to the arrival airport (i'm not saying its a money issue, but with only the tires blown, they could have flown the plane -unless they didn't know it was a couple of blown tires)

2)is it because of the BA occurences the past few weeks and SQ decided to take a more cautious approach?

rest of the story can be found at..

http://www.ktvu.com/news/4267593/detail.html


"Up the Irons!"
26 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineIowa744fan From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 931 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 7024 times:

I am more surprised that SQ1 only had 237 passengers on it.

I see your point that it would be better to fly onto HKG and land there instead of dumping the fuel and landing back at SFO unless there was another issue with the aircraft. Not sure.


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17118 posts, RR: 66
Reply 2, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 7017 times:

Quoting Jacobin777 (Thread starter):
my questions are:
1) why didn't the continue the journey, since there was no more apparent problems with the flight in terms of any malfunctions (I assume the wheels were retracted by now),so why not just not fly to their destination point, they would not have had to dump all that fuel..., and they probably would have saved much more money by flying their passenegers to the arrival airport (i'm not saying its a money issue, but with only the tires blown, they could have flown the plane -unless they didn't know it was a couple of blown tires)

Several reasons are possible. One of them being that maybe they have a maintenance base at SFO or they could more easily rebook the pax from there than from HGK.

As for the BA factor, that may well have been considered.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineSATL382G From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 6992 times:

Tire blowouts at takeoff speed can damage an aircraft. Better to go back to SFO and inspect for damage.

User currently offlineKLMA330 From Canada, joined Feb 2005, 697 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 6983 times:

"I am more surprised that SQ1 only had 237 passengers on it."

The same thought went through my head..

With the price of fuel as it is now, it would have made more sense.. perhaps the BA incidents played a role, for although the BA flights landed without incident, it was a PR disaster which I'm sure SQ didn't want to duplicate!


User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 59
Reply 5, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 6936 times:

Quoting Iowa744fan (Reply 1):
I am more surprised that SQ1 only had 237 passengers on it.

that was the first thing which I thought of too..

Quoting SATL382G (Reply 5):
Tire blowouts at takeoff speed can damage an aircraft. Better to go back to SFO / KSFO), USA - California">SFO and inspect for damage.

what struck me was the reporter had stated the flight returned after 90 minutes from take off (according to the story, they contacted their "New Zealand" base), which is quite some time after takeoff....


Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 2):
One of them being that maybe they have a maintenance base at SFO / KSFO), USA - California">SFO / KSFO), USA - California">SFO / KSFO), USA - California">SFO

I know United has a large maintenance base there, and I've seen a few AA's being serviced there, but nothing in terms of SQ.

[Edited 2005-03-11 01:16:28]

[Edited 2005-03-11 01:17:47]


"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 6905 times:

There are a number of reasons why it made more sense to dump fuel and return to SFO, and I don't think the BA incident at SFO had anything to do with it.

The details from the news story still lack some specific info, but assuming that the tire(s) blew on the takeoff roll, one can also assume that they didn't want to retract the landing gear as would normally be the case. The tires that blew out may not have been in their original round shape, and may not have fit into the gear wells upon retraction. The crew may also been concerned about additional tires (on the same gear truck) also blowing once inside the wells, and creating damage to items inside the well.

If the gear couldn't be retracted due to any of the above, the flight sure wasn't going to make it to the original destination due to the increased drag of the extended gear adversely affecting fuel consumption. (Remember Hapag-Lloyd 3378 at VIE?)

Additionally, any gear/tire issues aside, why not deal with the emergency landing NOW, while the crew is still "fresh" versus making them do the emergency landing later, at the end of a long flight when they're more apt to be fatigued?

I'm not trained on the 747, and don't have access to the QRH for it, but these are a couple of things that came immediately to mind...


User currently offlinePlanespotting From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3533 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 6867 times:

think of it this way

would you feel comfortable flying in a 747 across 6000 miles of water with a broken landing gear? It's a very real possibility that the aircraft could have sustained damage because of the landing gear breaking up on takeoff. What if that damage had caused some other problem that didn't show up until they were half way over the pacific? What if the have to divert to some field that doesn't really have that long of a runway? Definitely the safest option was to fly it back to SFO. Think if they would have flown it on to HKG and something else happened? Then everyone would be wondering why they didn't just land it back at SFO....



Do you like movies about gladiators?
User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 59
Reply 8, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 6793 times:

The comments about returning to SFO may be true, but why after such a long period of time? I can understand maybe 10-15 minutes, but it was a 90 minute journey, which means it took them 45 minutes (approximately) to decide to return back...


"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineMarcus From Mexico, joined Apr 2001, 1808 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 6764 times:

What is the BA incident people keep reffering to?


Kids!....we are going to the happiest place on earth...TIJUANA! signed: Krusty the Clown
User currently offlineAfricawings From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 112 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 6750 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

"The comments about returning to SFO may be true, but why after such a long period of time? I can understand maybe 10-15 minutes, but it was a 90 minute journey, which means it took them 45 minutes (approximately) to decide to return back..."

Answer:
Keep in mind that it would take a while to dump that much fuel even in an emergency. Dumping fuel for a 13 hour flight would take over an hour.

(happened to me once; London to Washington. 777 had to dump fuel and land in Shannon Ireland. Took about 90 minutes from time of incidence being reported (smoke in cabin) to actually landing.


User currently offlineCol From Malaysia, joined Nov 2003, 2129 posts, RR: 22
Reply 11, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 6498 times:

Africawings,

Yep, takes quite a bit of time to dump the fuel. And they dump most of it, less chance of fire on landing if it goes wrong.

Only 237 pax, but all first and biz class!!


User currently offlineSkywatch From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 923 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 6419 times:

Marcus: The BA incident occurred recently. A British Airways 747 took off from LAX and experienced engine overheating 100ft. above the runway. The pilot was forced to shut down one engine, but he decided to continue his flight to LHR. He could not reach his filed cruising FL360, and only made it to FL290. Therefore, he could not get into the jetstream as well as planned. The aircraft eventually had to make an emergency landing in Manchester because of low fuel. This same aircraft, after being fitted with a new engine, had the same thing happen 3hrs. after departure from Singnapore. The pilot continued on for the remainder of the 13-hour flight, and arrived in Heathrow only 15 minutes late! British Airways has since changed their policies!

BA 744 Flies LAX-MAN With 3 Engines...WITH Pax! (by Pacific Feb 25 2005 in Civil Aviation)4/
British Airways 747 Flies Again On Three Engines (by Jacobin777 Mar 4 2005 in Civil Aviation)4/



------Forever Watchin' The Sky------
User currently offlineN754PR From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 6371 times:

I'm shocked he retuned, after the 744 in Taipei that hit a tail stand denting the wing and still departed!!

User currently offlineKukkudrill From Malta, joined Dec 2004, 1123 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 6224 times:

Tyre blow-outs happened on a couple of Air Malta flights, from Glasgow and Moscow respectively to Malta if I remember right. In both cases the pilots dumped fuel and turned back rather than fly all the way to Malta. I think it was said at the time that this is a standing requirement in such cases, no doubt for the reasons OPNLguy gave. This was before the BA incident.


Make the most of the available light ... a lesson of photography that applies to life
User currently offlineStall From Switzerland, joined Apr 2004, 257 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 6080 times:

Maybe the extend of the damage was unclear to the crew. So imagine that they kept going and when they are in the middle of the ocean they have to divert to an alternate (engine failure, medical emergency ... you name it). So now the crew have to land on one engine with maybe a damaged landing gear.
Better safe than sorry.



Flying is fun
User currently offlineTockeyhockey From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 952 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 5875 times:


Several reasons are possible. One of them being that maybe they have a maintenance base at SFO or they could more easily rebook the pax from there than from HGK.


how is it easier to rebook the pax at SFO than in HKG when HKG was the destination city? man, that's some crazy logic!


User currently offlineCosmicCruiser From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2255 posts, RR: 15
Reply 17, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 5873 times:

Quoting SATL382G (Reply 3):
Tire blowouts at takeoff speed can damage an aircraft. Better to go back to SFO and inspect for damage.

SATL382G and OPNLguy have the only pertinent answers. That's always the main concern with a tire failure on T/O. A shredded tire can damage flaps, rupture hydraulic brake lines, damage other tires and brakes and in some cases be injested into the eng. As OPNLguy pointed out we don't know if the gear was retracted or not. I don't know about the 747 but on the MD-11, ironically, the tire failure CAWS alert is inhibited from V1-20 kts to 400 feet RA. Luckily, on mine the tire stayed round so there was no damage and the flight continued.
As far as dump goes, a 747 driver can provide the avg. dump rate but till then the MD-11 is 5000lbs./min so a heavy jet can take along time dumping.


User currently offlineAirbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8577 posts, RR: 10
Reply 18, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 5851 times:

Quoting Col (Reply 11):
Only 237 pax, but all first and biz class!!

And that's how you make money. Who cares if cattle class is half empty, as long as first and business are full or nearly full that's all that matters. Not to mention cargo.


User currently offlinePanAm747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4242 posts, RR: 8
Reply 19, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 5848 times:

http://www.aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19860331-1

http://www.aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19780301-0

These are two incidents relevant to the topic. The first is a blown tire with fatal consequences, and the second an aborted take-off. Either way, there is no such thing as a "safe" incident - every time something like this occurs, the potential is there for harm.



Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
User currently offlineFlybyguy From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 1801 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 5848 times:

The BA incident has everything to do with this decision. I believe the only other reason why the flight commander would have turned around was if he suspected the tire blowouts may have damaged the fuel tanks. Singapore Airlines would have had his head on a spike if he continued even if no significant damage was sustained. After the SARS scare, Singapore Airlines does not want any westerners fearing to fly Asian carriers for safety issues.

Singapore Airlines is uber rich anyway. In the time that they dumped all of that expensive fuel, booked passengers on new flights and put them up in hotels for the night, SQ would have at least broken even through operations elsewhere. Such costs are a drop in the bucket for an airline with such immense cash reserves.



"Are you a pretender... or a thoroughbred?!" - Professor Matt Miller
User currently offlineTod From Denmark, joined Aug 2004, 1729 posts, RR: 3
Reply 21, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 5838 times:

And they dump most of it, less chance of fire on landing if it goes wrong.


nope

they dump fuel because the plane exceeds max landing weight.


User currently offlineWbmech From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 5832 times:

Safety, that is why the aircraft turned back. That is also why the BA flight should have turned back as well. When you lose an engine on takeoff with a bang and flames or sparks coming out of the exhaust, sure it might just be that engine having a compressor stall or maybe damaged due to FOD. How did they know if it was FOD damage that it didn't damage the aircraft in any other way that may appear later on in flight?

User currently offlineKhenleyDIA From Sweden, joined Feb 2005, 427 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 5619 times:

Quoting SATL382G (Reply 3):
Tire blowouts at takeoff speed can damage an aircraft. Better to go back to SFO and inspect for damage.

Just remember, that is what they think caused the Concorde to catch fire then crash.

KhenleyDIA



Why sit at home and do nothing when you can travel the world.
User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13170 posts, RR: 15
Reply 24, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 5492 times:

SQ made the right and proper decision here. There was a serious problem. They couldn't fully determine what damage they had incurred, which as noted could have included engine, flaps, landing gear structure, and so on. They apparently followed SQ SOP here. They had just departed from a major airport with high quality emergency facilities that could be needed if the damage would affect the ability to make a normal landing. Yes, SQ is one of the more profitable airlines in the world, but one reason they are is by providing safe service to all their passanger/customers, and here they were more concerned about the safety of them over money.

25 Avek00 : While I commend the SQ001 crew for returning the plane safely to SFO, the SQ safety propaganda kick some a.netters are spouting is unwarranted - this
26 Sfojfk : AA used to have their own maintenance base at SFO for the 767. They used to perform B checks in the midfield hangar. The UA MOC is on the northern en
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Aboulafia On Singapore Airlines A350XWB/A380 Order posted Sat Jul 22 2006 08:13:25 by Leelaw
Email And Sms On Singapore Airlines posted Sun Oct 23 2005 16:00:40 by Matt24wigan
Email And Sms On Singapore Airlines posted Mon Sep 26 2005 20:48:51 by Matt24wigan
Email And Sms On Singapore Airlines posted Mon Aug 22 2005 21:46:36 by Matt24wigan
Email And Sms On Singapore Airlines posted Mon Aug 8 2005 16:06:00 by Matt24wigan
Email And Sms On Singapore Airlines posted Sat Aug 6 2005 17:50:05 by Matt24wigan
Email And Sms On Singapore Airlines posted Sun Jul 31 2005 18:04:17 by Matt24wigan
PC Power On Singapore Airlines - Plug? Adapter? posted Sat Jun 4 2005 15:12:28 by Mozart
Question About Singapore Airlines' Flight To NY posted Fri May 6 2005 03:17:58 by BG777300ER
Extra Frequencies On Singapore Airlines To London? posted Mon Mar 21 2005 04:18:43 by Airtropolis