Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Singapore Airlines Safety Record?  
User currently offlineThebry From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 375 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 26459 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I was recently embroiled in an argument with my sister-in-law regarding the safety record of Singapore Airlines. She's an attorney and says she's handled claims against the carrier, and that they've got a reputation among "legals" as having a so-so safety record.

I argued that they have one of the youngest aircraft fleets in the industry, and have created super-high standards for service that other carriers try (and often fail) to match.

So what's the deal? Does she know what she's talking about, or was she just baiting me for an argument?

54 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineKiwiandrew From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 8549 posts, RR: 13
Reply 1, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 26445 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

SQ had one controversial fatal in late 2000 ( 744 at TPE taking off from a closed runway during a typhoon ) and their subsidiary MI had an 733 fatal crash which has been widely held to have been pilot suicide . to the best of my knowledge their record other than these two is exemplary

speaking for myself I would still happily fly with SQ



Moderation in all things ... including moderation ;-)
User currently offlineOz777 From Australia, joined Jun 2000, 521 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 26371 times:

Quoting Thebry (Thread starter):
Does she know what she's talking about, or was she just baiting me for an argument?

She has a point.

While you may just think in terms of 'fatals' sadly SQ's 'incident' frequency is a little abnormal. Simple recollections, tail strikes in AKL, numerous runway / taxiway incursions at SYD, HKG, LHR and LAX to name but a few.

New fleet they may have, but their pre disposition to hiring tech crew from military backgrounds and mixing them with DEC who have gained experience with other carriers creates some special flight deck dynamics.

Great carrier, with an excellent product, but a few questionable occurences that point to a problem.

OZ777


User currently offlineFlyingHippo From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 684 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 26363 times:

Remember... I can sue SQ for simply bumping my head against the lav door during turbulence... Or have hot coffee/water spilled on my lap, etc, etc...

Not all lawsuits are safety related, nor are all valid.


User currently offlineRyanair!!! From Australia, joined Mar 2002, 4753 posts, RR: 26
Reply 4, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 26250 times:

Quoting Oz777 (Reply 2):
New fleet they may have, but their pre disposition to hiring tech crew from military backgrounds and mixing them with DEC who have gained experience with other carriers creates some special flight deck dynamics.

I happened to be one of those that was hired with a "military background" as quoted by you. While SQ might have these incidents occuring to them, it is no different from any other airline because all these incidents can happen to anyone at anytime.

Although I didn't make it through my pilot training course (I was destined for the A320s in Silkair), I can give you a rough insight of what goes on inside.

SQ006 and MI185 were 2 crashes no one in the world would ever think would happen, especially to Singapore Airlines. You can imagine the shockwaves it send through the small population here in Singapore. While I do not want to get into an argument about who was right and worng, the point I am trying to make is that SQ is just another airline like many others.

CAAS which regulates the aviation safety rules here takes the best out of US and UK books, add some more into it and voila.... you have some of the most stringent operating environments you can ever get in Asia, and perhaps the world. SQ follows rather closely and adds some more to the already myriad of rules. So to say that SQ isn't safe, I can counter that with many other examples.

However, these rules are carried out by human beings. Even machines have a tolerance limit, what more a human being?

So fly away with SQ. Lawsuits will always be there especially after a crash and it can go on for years.



Welcome to my starry one world alliance, a team in the sky!
User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 26042 times:

Quoting Oz777 (Reply 2):
New fleet they may have, but their pre disposition to hiring tech crew from military backgrounds and mixing them with DEC who have gained experience with other carriers creates some special flight deck dynamics.

Perhaps you would like to quantify your remarks. Could you please tell me what would make someone with a military background any better or worse? That's like saying Qantas has the same problem due to their mix of military and civilian pilots. Surely the civilian pilots have just a diversified background as the other pilots at SQ.

I suggest you don't have a clue as to what you're saying.

Quoting Oz777 (Reply 2):
While you may just think in terms of 'fatals' sadly SQ's 'incident' frequency is a little abnormal. Simple recollections, tail strikes in AKL, numerous runway / taxiway incursions at SYD, HKG, LHR and LAX to name but a few.

Again, perhaps you'd like to share your database. Yes there was a tailstrike at AKL, but the incidents of taxiway and runway incursion you mention isn't quantifiable.

See above comment!


User currently offlineGneissGuy From Singapore, joined Jul 2006, 200 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 26006 times:

Yes, SQ did have a few mishaps, a couple with fatalities, but i don't think there is a link to pilot background or safety standards.

Come on, not many airlines are incident-free yeah?


User currently offlineKaitak744 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2368 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 25990 times:

On Wikipedia's page, they had a complete list of all the incidents relating to Singapore Airlines, and I can tell you, there were 4 things on that list. (Some one deleted those things, along with a bunch of stuff regarding their fleet usage that I wrote Angry )

The SilkAir 737 crash, 744 crash in TPE, 744 tail strike in AKL, and 772 runway incursion in BKK. THAT WAS ALL.

Compared to the records of many other airlines, Singapore is a pretty safe airline.


User currently offlineZKSUJ From New Zealand, joined May 2004, 7092 posts, RR: 12
Reply 8, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 25878 times:

SQ is no Different to any other well renouned carriers. Sure they have had their 'incidents' in the past and I'm sure we couldn't name them all properly on here. But every airline is run by human operators and humans do make mistakes.

It is not confined to SQ. In fact, most large airlines go through similar safety standards in forms of regular inspections etc etc...


User currently offlineZKNZA From New Zealand, joined Feb 2007, 69 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 25662 times:

I witnessed the tail strike in AKL from the tarmac and was horrified at what I saw that day, all I can say is that it was lucky the aircraft was taking off towards the Manukau heads, because if it was taking off towards Manukau city, that aircraft would have certainly met its demise.For the flightcrew of a seemingly well regarded airline to miss calculate the aircrafts take off weight and the corresponding V1,V2 and Vr speeds by such a huge margin is completely irresponsible,and appalling I was shocked at the standard of airmanship I witnessed on that Take off.SQ got of extremely lightly that day, you will however never see me ever fly on SQ again.

User currently offlineGneissGuy From Singapore, joined Jul 2006, 200 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 25654 times:

Quoting ZKNZA (Reply 9):
you will however never see me ever fly on SQ again.

Then you don't know what you're missing? Just joking......


User currently offlineOkAY From Finland, joined Dec 2006, 652 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 25619 times:

What I have always wondered is how the SQ crew would handle an emergency situation. I mean as it is stated here, they have a young fleet. But when it comes to accidents, not always the age of the a/c is related to the incident.What I mean is that if a total catastrophy happens it does not matter how well the crew is trained or how old/new the plane is, if the tube comes crashig down, that is it, normally nothing can be done anymore then. But how would the SQ crew handle a situation like AF crew had to a few years ago in Toronto, where, they had to evacuate the a/c on the runway. AF crew did marvellous job evacuating the plane within a time frame. Would this be possible by the Singapore girl? Would she represent the authority required to get people to listen to her and follow her instructions? Maybe she would have no problems. But it makes me wonder, as the airline is so strongly emphasising the service on board, it really feels they have taken a way the most important role of an FA, to secure the safety of pax on board. I have never flown with them, but this idea of flying restaurant doesn't sound appealing to me. I would like to know those beautiful women and good looking men can and will adopt an other role, of shouting orders and commanding people to do as they're told in order to execute a sppedy evacuation which is crusial. Somehow i can not see this. But please do not flame me for this, as said I don't know what they're safety training is like, maybe very good.
For example when an airline is designing a uniform such aspects as how formal/authoritive it looks is also considered (for example a research revealed that a person wearing a hat is perceived as more authoritive than one without, reason why many airlines make their crew wear hats during take-off and landing [two occasions when the risk of accident is at the highest level]) But for me SQ unifrom does not look very authoritive, though very beautiful.
I want to know that on top of having a nice customer service experience, that the airline I have chosen is also safe and crew well trained. First requirement is surely met at SQ, but for the latter one, I just don't feel it there..At the end of the day for me most important aspect of air travelling is safety and getting best trained crew rather than the level of customer service.


User currently offlineMolykote From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 1340 posts, RR: 29
Reply 12, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 25548 times:

Quoting Thebry (Thread starter):
I was recently embroiled in an argument with my sister-in-law regarding the safety record of Singapore Airlines. She's an attorney and says she's handled claims against the carrier, and that they've got a reputation among "legals" as having a so-so safety record.

I do not think SQ has a so-so safety record.

Here's a relative comparison of major airlines:
http://www.airdisaster.com/statistics/

SQ's incident rate is roughly at the norm according to the data presented here. I have no knowledge of the sources or methods used to arrive at these numbers.

Lawyers profiting from an (alleged) so-so safety record may not be the best source to substantiate allegations of subpar safety. I've had discussions on this topic with a handful of lawyers (including a close uncle of mine) who have sued operators, aircraft manufacturers, and aircraft component manufacturers. Although I understand why many of these lawyers hold their opinions, most of them seem to be hung up on "gotcha" tidbits of information rather than expressing any desire to examine the macro view of an airline/aircraft incident/accident.

To use a rough example, one of these lawyers was unconditionally hung up on the fact that a component (after a destructive investigation) had left the factory with a crack. I responded that it did not surprise me in the least and that many components leave production with small cracks that are not apparent through NDT methods (they are simply too small). It is for this reason that damage tolerant design (coupled with inspection schedules) are required by the FAA.
My lawyer friend's opinion on this "crack" situation was simply that "no components should be allowed to leave the factory with any type of crack". Although she is entitled to her opinion, I believe that she lacks an appreciation for many of the technical issues at hand to accomodate such a demand. Nevertheless, a jury would probably be much mroe receptive to her "allow no cracks" stance than a technical team's illustration of NDT procedures, damage tolerance, and inspection intervals.

Perhaps I diverged a bit from addressing SQ's safety directly, but perhaps I've provided some insight as to why your sister-in-law may hold her opinion.



Speedtape - The asprin of aviation!
User currently offline1stfl94 From United Kingdom, joined May 2006, 1455 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 25527 times:

Quoting OkAY (Reply 11):
What I have always wondered is how the SQ crew would handle an emergency situation. I mean as it is stated here, they have a young fleet. But when it comes to accidents, not always the age of the a/c is related to the incident.What I mean is that if a total catastrophy happens it does not matter how well the crew is trained or how old/new the plane is, if the tube comes crashig down, that is it, normally nothing can be done anymore then. But how would the SQ crew handle a situation like AF crew had to a few years ago in Toronto, where, they had to evacuate the a/c on the runway. AF crew did marvellous job evacuating the plane within a time frame. Would this be possible by the Singapore girl? Would she represent the authority required to get people to listen to her and follow her instructions? Maybe she would have no problems. But it makes me wonder, as the airline is so strongly emphasising the service on board, it really feels they have taken a way the most important role of an FA, to secure the safety of pax on board. I have never flown with them, but this idea of flying restaurant doesn't sound appealing to me. I would like to know those beautiful women and good looking men can and will adopt an other role, of shouting orders and commanding people to do as they're told in order to execute a sppedy evacuation which is crusial. Somehow i can not see this. But please do not flame me for this, as said I don't know what they're safety training is like, maybe very good.
For example when an airline is designing a uniform such aspects as how formal/authoritive it looks is also considered (for example a research revealed that a person wearing a hat is perceived as more authoritive than one without, reason why many airlines make their crew wear hats during take-off and landing [two occasions when the risk of accident is at the highest level]) But for me SQ unifrom does not look very authoritive, though very beautiful.
I want to know that on top of having a nice customer service experience, that the airline I have chosen is also safe and crew well trained. First requirement is surely met at SQ, but for the latter one, I just don't feel it there..At the end of the day for me most important aspect of air travelling is safety and getting best trained crew rather than the level of customer service.

If you want answers to those questions I suggest you look up the SQ006 and the actions of the cabin crew then


User currently offlineCedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8086 posts, RR: 54
Reply 14, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 25510 times:

SQ are certainly on my "no fly" list. I think they're on a par with China Air Lines or Koreanair, the difference being that every time a CAL or KE pilot did something stupid and incompetent, the plane crashed, whereas everytime an SQ pilot did same, they had luck behind them. SQ006 was a crash waiting to happen, I wasn't surprised by it at all. Completely standard SQ nonsense of poor or non-existent CRM and very poor airmanship. Comparing frequency of incidents isn't enough, you have to look at what happened in the tail strike in AKL - and in MEL, when they overran the runway and rotated off the grass at the far end, again lots of luck (like in AKL) avoiding a terrible crash. An SQ 747 stalled at 800 after takeoff from VIE a few years back and narrowly missed the ground during recovery (luckily the stall didn't happen at 700 feet), an A310 actually went into a SPIN over the Indian Ocean on a training mission in the 90s, a Lear crashed with the loss of all aboard on a training flight. Loads of stuff there which you won't generally find at Northwest, BA, MEA, All Nippon et al. SQ unquestionably have a cultural problem regarding safety and have been very very lucky.


fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
User currently offlineKiwiandrew From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 8549 posts, RR: 13
Reply 15, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 25500 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Cedarjet (Reply 14):
Loads of stuff there which you won't generally find at Northwest , BA, MEA, All Nippon et al

wasn't Pinnacle a NW carrier ? It is pretty hard to imagine a much worse display of lack of basic airmanship than that crew - just as well it was a ferry flight and there were no pax on board .



Moderation in all things ... including moderation ;-)
User currently offlineTimboflier215 From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 1334 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 25442 times:

Quoting 1stfl94 (Reply 13):
If you want answers to those questions I suggest you look up the SQ006 and the actions of the cabin crew then

Exactly what I was going to say. Several of the famous Singapore Girls lost their lives on that day, as they stayed in the burning a/c to get pax out. The pax who survived had nothing but praise for the cabin crew.

As for the other incidents, SQ006 is a controversial one as to whether it was the cockpit crew or control tower who were at fault. The pilots took off on the wrong runway, but the runway lights had been left on.

The Silk Air crash was, it is widely believed, the result of a suicidal pilot.

I'm not familiar with the other incidents, but don't forget, all major airlines have had problems now and again. Even QF had a jumbo over run the runway onto a golf course a few years back, that could have been catastrophic. But it doesn't mean that they are unsafe, or that I would refuse to fly them. I'd happily get on an SQ a/c 2mo, and feel very safe doing it.


User currently offlineCedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8086 posts, RR: 54
Reply 17, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 25383 times:

Quoting Kiwiandrew (Reply 15):
wasn't Pinnacle a NW carrier ?

Yes - good point.

Quoting Kiwiandrew (Reply 15):
is pretty hard to imagine a much worse display of lack of basic airmanship than that crew

And yes indeed, too true. Where SQ fall down culturally with FOs not willing to question their elders, US carriers very occasionally fall down (AA587 being the other recent example) of their pilots thinking they're Chuck Yeager. Tomayto tomahto.



fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
User currently offlineLuv2fly From United States of America, joined May 2003, 12090 posts, RR: 49
Reply 18, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 25376 times:

Quoting Timboflier215 (Reply 16):
Exactly what I was going to say. Several of the famous Singapore Girls lost their lives on that day, as they stayed in the burning a/c to get pax out. The pax who survived had nothing but praise for the cabin crew.

I thought I read where passengers complained that the Singapore Girls actually froze and did not perform when this accident happened.



You can cut the irony with a knife
User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 25320 times:

Quoting Cedarjet (Reply 17):
And yes indeed, too true. Where SQ fall down culturally with FOs not willing to question their elders, US carriers very occasionally fall down (AA587 being the other recent example) of their pilots thinking they're Chuck Yeager. Tomayto tomahto.

Really??? Could you point to some reference to your statement. After flying for SQ and doing instruction/evaluation work for other carriers in the region, I'd say you're completely incorrect in your statement!

It's never good to generalize, but the FO's at SQ will question things because it's in their own best to do so. It's called command. The atmosphere in the cockpit is very open and feedback is encouraged. Is it perfect? No, just like not every BA, QF or CX cockpit. Put to say SQ is on the same level of CA or KE. In fact, that statement just shows your lack of knowledge about SQ. Just for the record my wife's brother's wife is from Beiruit. Her dad is a former MEA Capt. I don't know if I'd quite put MEA in the same league as BA!

Perhaps you could point to soe reference for all the other incidents you cite, the 310 spin, the incident in MEL....

Quoting OkAY (Reply 11):
First requirement is surely met at SQ, but for the latter one, I just don't feel it there..At the end of the day for me most important aspect of air travelling is safety and getting best trained crew rather than the level of customer service.

The level of safety training the FAs receive is considerably more than the other airlines receive, In fact, I just did my "wet SEP" last month and had the pleasure of going in the pool with a group of FA, all in their uniform. Beleive me, they can move just as well in the uniform as they can when they're wearing a jumpsuit to do the slides. I have never thought twice about the competency of the FAs.


User currently offlineThebry From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 375 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 25260 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Molykote (Reply 12):
Perhaps I diverged a bit from addressing SQ's safety directly, but perhaps I've provided some insight as to why your sister-in-law may hold her opinion.

Excellent insight Molykote... thanks for taking the time.


User currently offlineRyanair!!! From Australia, joined Mar 2002, 4753 posts, RR: 26
Reply 21, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 25197 times:

Quoting OkAY (Reply 11):
But how would the SQ crew handle a situation like AF crew had to a few years ago in Toronto, where, they had to evacuate the a/c on the runway. AF crew did marvellous job evacuating the plane within a time frame. Would this be possible by the Singapore girl?

You are comparing an aircraft that overran the runway and came to a rest in one piece in daylight (although it was raining), to another that crashed into 3 pieces and blew up in flames in a night that was being lashed by a storm caused by an approaching typhoon. Completely 2 very DIFFERENT scenarios. Totally invalid comparison.

Quoting OkAY (Reply 11):
I would like to know those beautiful women and good looking men can and will adopt an other role, of shouting orders and commanding people to do as they're told in order to execute a sppedy evacuation which is crusial.

I assumed you have never flown SQ before and thus have never seen a kebaya clad stewardess tell off a demanding passenger, or a drunk molester, and win over a sceptic, ... all with a smile.

Quoting Cedarjet (Reply 14):
SQ are certainly on my "no fly" list. I think they're on a par with China Air Lines or Koreanair, the difference being that every time a CAL or KE pilot did something stupid and incompetent, the plane crashed, whereas everytime an SQ pilot did same, they had luck behind them.

And since SQ is on your "no-fly" list, how are you in any right frame of mind to compare? BA flew a 747 into a plume of volcanic ash, a F100 lost a part of the cockpit wndscreen, a 737 went up in flames in Manchester, another 747 flew with only 3 engines from LAX to LHR... and I believed it happened again.

I am sure BA is no different from SQ with all these "incidents" happening because it occurs to ALL airlines. So will I avoid BA? No, because they have been known to be a reliable airline and I have no doubt about their safety record.

It is the same for SQ. And for you to compare them with CI and KE, you obviously have not flown much in recent years and even if you have, your comparison is very flawed. That being said, the safety levels on those 2 mentioned airlines have improved tremendously and they have come a long way in the last decade, if you have been following the development trends in the aviation maket.

Quoting Luv2fly (Reply 18):
I thought I read where passengers complained that the Singapore Girls actually froze and did not perform when this accident happened.

Yes there were some girls that was scared out of their wits. With every crew, there's always a batch of junior crew flying with them so I am not surprised this happened. I have seen young FAs that clasp their hands in prayer during a turbulent flight on QF so young and inexperienced crew are always around the cabin whether we like it or not. But while the media did put a spotlight on the inexperienced juniors, there were also those girls that lost their lives that night running back into the burning aircraft to pull passengers out, and never came back to the smoking exits.



Welcome to my starry one world alliance, a team in the sky!
User currently offlineNoelg From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 25170 times:

Quoting Ryanair!!! (Reply 21):
a F100 lost a part of the cockpit wndscreen

Actually it was a BAC 1-11  Wink

I don't think that SQ has a bad safety record, I would put them on a par with BA/QF in terms of safety and service on board. Sure the stewardesses are a nice bit of totty for eye candy, but I read they have a far more intensive training course than on many other airlines. They can certainly hold their own when dealing with disruptive pax!

Most of the flightdeck crews I've had on SQ have consisted of at least one Brit/Aussie/Kiwi or South African, which always makes me feel a little more comfortable when flying on foreign carriers anyway, compared to hearing a deeply foreign accent on the P/A.


User currently offline1stfl94 From United Kingdom, joined May 2006, 1455 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 25124 times:

All airlines have incidents, some more high profile than others. SQ, to my knowledge has had one major crash (Taipei) and then some smaller incidents. They certainly have a better safety record that other airlines in the region (Garuda, CI) and they're probably at about the same level as the majority of major West European and US airlines.

Quoting Ryanair!!! (Reply 21):
And since SQ is on your "no-fly" list, how are you in any right frame of mind to compare? BA flew a 747 into a plume of volcanic ash, a F100 lost a part of the cockpit wndscreen, a 737 went up in flames in Manchester, another 747 flew with only 3 engines from LAX to LHR... and I believed it happened again

And let's not forget BA landing a 747 in the middle of the Kuwait invasion


User currently offlineMarkHKG From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 960 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 25087 times:

Quoting Luv2fly (Reply 18):
I thought I read where passengers complained that the Singapore Girls actually froze and did not perform when this accident happened.

There is a statement in the formal report that a crewmember saw a weeping flight attendant who was shaking and had not yet evacuated. However, the Singapore team's review of the accident report noted that no such interview statement was recorded, and should have been deleted from the report. Even if it is true, it is ONE flight attendant that was seen to act like this, rather than numerous flight attendants as implied.

Other cabin crew members performed their assigned evacuation duties as they were trained. This included the upper deck crewmember who opened the upper deck exits and redirected passenger to the main cabin stairs after the exits became unusable (he would later be found dead), two crew members who was almost suffocated by slides that had inflated into the cabin, but managed to free themselves and still direct evacuation efforts, and another crew member who evacuated only after his section was empty. Generally, most cabin crew preformed as they would have been expected to do so, and some went beyond the call.

I would point out that the AF overrun is not a suitable comparison to the SQ crash as the SQ crash was far more catastrophic.

http://www.asc.gov.tw/author_files/SQ006_ENG.pdf

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 19):
The level of safety training the FAs receive is considerably more than the other airlines receive

I had access to a SQ SEP manual (pre SQ 006), and I can confirm this. Their emergency training is very thorough. On par with American Part 121 training programs for flight attendants.

Post SQ 006, you can see certain enhancements on SQ aircraft safety procedures. All window shades now must be up, and pax must wear their shoes according to the safety video, which is a new addition. The safety card now has the location of the manual inflation pull handle, and the exit row criteria is clearly posted. New footware for the female flight attendants were designed and introduced.



Release your seat-belts and get out! Leave everything!
25 Ryanair!!! : This incident only happened a decade ago. No BACs were in BA's fleet by then I believe.
26 Post contains links MarkHKG : It really was a BAC-1-11. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_5390
27 Turnleftalways : Believe me you really should try there product, all I can say is that it is great. Have you seen there new Raffles (business) and first class product
28 Post contains images Ryanair!!! : I am part of the rainbow crusade too my friend! Anyway, there are splits along the kebaya that allows for easy movement. During an emergency (crash),
29 TPEcanuck : I think the rather frequent comparisons made to CI or KE indicate a flawed understanding of safety records. Safety records are just that, records of
30 WorkFlyer : I have flown SQ a few times in the last two years and overall I am happy with them and will fly them again (hopefully to Singapore and Malaysia later
31 Timboflier215 : But think about the restrictive skirts VS cabin crew wear etc etc. I'm sure that SQ wouldn't put their crew in uniforms that compromise safety. Basic
32 PhilSquares : Believe me, after watching them in both wet and dry SEP, I can assure you they can move pretty fast and get the job done!
33 SingaporeBoy : That doesnt leave many airlines for you to fly on if u want a perfect safety record.The only airline i can think of that hasnt had a major incident is
34 BosWashSprStar : Ultimately, though, can you really say that this means anything? There have been periodic stories in the news recently about various US-based airline
35 Post contains images OkAY : Actually if you read my original post, you will notice I did not compare the AF accident to ANY accident happened with SQ. I was told by another memb
36 PhilSquares : And you're basing this on????????????? So, if you've never flown SQ, how do you know what the uniform is like? TIght fitting, not really. Tailored? Y
37 JeffrySkY : I am sorry but I really have to question that last statement of yours. Are you suggesting that a strong service culture necessarily equates to safety
38 OkAY : It is the feeling I have of the airline, based on what I have heard, read etc. about the airline. Err, where do you see me implying SQ uniform restri
39 OkAY : I am only wondering, not saying anything as a matter of fact. I have said, that maybe SQ crew would have no problem executing the safety aspect of th
40 Flyjetstar : So which perfect airlines do you allow yourself to fly then?
41 Ryanair!!! : Once again, it is only based on what you have heard and not on what you have personally experienced. Therefore, don't you think that a person who hav
42 OkAY : That is the whole thing, dear Ryanair!!! -member. I have not passed any critique or judged SQ. This is in your head. All I have done is asked and won
43 OkAY : Can you please state what contradictions I have created?
44 Pieinthesky : Spot on. I do love some of the characters on here who give blase opinions on things they have never tried or experienced. Still, it's what makes the
45 ZKNZA : No airline is perfect, there will always be mistakes, however an airline with a high operational standard and a safety focused culture,should be able
46 Trex8 : I can understand people's concerns about CI, KE etc but I doubt anyone would be concerned about say AA , yet we have pilots who don't input nav data p
47 JeffrySkY : Well each to his own, and I figure it's probably pointless to enter an argument over this. After all, there are people who vehemently swear against f
48 Flyjetstar : OK so I wasn't at AKL to see it happen but the point is it could have been any airline, it just happened to be SQ. People make mistakes. It might hav
49 Post contains links PhilSquares : Well, after watching two torrent groups go back and forth, perhaps it's time we threw some real evidence into the discussions. First http://www.boeing
50 JeffrySkY : Amen to that. You get my respect for that. Actually they do wear these black leather gloves, especially during boarding at HEL. It was not always con
51 VHXLR8 : I don't think experience or seniority have much to do with the way in which crews would handle an emergency. A flight attendant may have been flying
52 Ryanair!!! : Which is a great example to certain members of the forum that just because an airline encounters an "incident", it should not be written off as unsaf
53 Post contains links ZKNZA : Here's the actual report, this is some real evidence. http://www2.taic.org.nz/InvDetail/03-003.aspx What I have been trying to say in previous posts i
54 PhilSquares : While a very serious incident, it is an incident that could happen to all carriers. After working for Boeing a number of years, you see a pattern. In
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...
US Airlines Safety Record posted Mon Dec 5 2011 18:05:53 by rjm777ual
Singapore Airlines Safety Video Music posted Sat Sep 9 2006 00:55:05 by ZKSUJ
Airlines In China - Safety Record posted Wed May 23 2007 15:04:08 by BizFlyer
American Airlines 707 Safety Record posted Tue Dec 21 2004 05:00:40 by B741
Singapore Airlines Final 747 Flights posted Wed Feb 22 2012 20:03:19 by AA94
Singapore Airlines Tribute To The B747 posted Thu Feb 16 2012 18:35:29 by 9V-SPJ
Singapore Airlines History In NZ (question) posted Sat Nov 26 2011 23:05:43 by 28L28L
SAS In Collaboration With Singapore Airlines? posted Sun Nov 20 2011 13:00:26 by Mortyman
Singapore Airlines Firms (8) 77W posted Thu Nov 17 2011 12:44:03 by boeingfever777
Allegiant Airlines Safety posted Wed Sep 21 2011 13:24:40 by johnnymcvee