Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Singapore Airlines SQ006 Report  
User currently offlineSingapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13738 posts, RR: 19
Posted (13 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3848 times:

83 Killed In Singapore Air Crash

TAIPEI (AP)--Airport officials didn't properly mark a closed runway that a Singapore Airlines (Singapore: SIAL.SI - news) (P.SAL) jumbo jet tried to use when it slammed into construction debris and burst into flames in Taiwan, killing 83 people, investigators said Friday.

(MORE) Dow Jones Newswires 23-02-01

0748GMT One Runway Light Broken

One runway light was broken and another wasn't bright enough when the Los Angeles-bound Singapore Airlines Flight SQ006 tried to take off on the wrong runway during a fierce rainstorm caused by an approaching typhoon, Taiwan's chief crash investigator Kay Yong said in a preliminary report on the Oct. 31 accident.

Kay also said that the runway, closed for construction, should have had big cross marked on the runway, warning planes not to use it.

"There should have been a marking that the runway was closed. But there was not," said Kay, director of the Aviation Safety Council.

(MORE) Dow Jones Newswires 23-02-01

From Dow Jones. Not officially from the Yong Kay thingy. Hold on


Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineVirgin744 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 919 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (13 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3722 times:

From BBC News this morning;

Investigations into October's airport runway crash in Taiwan have revealed that airport officials failed to mark a closed runway properly.
Eighty-three people died after the Singapore Airlines Boeing 747 crashed into construction debris on a runway which had been closed for repairs at Taipei's Chiang Kai-shek airport.

A preliminary report indicates that one runway light was broken and the other not bright enough at the time of the accident, which happened after the aircraft took a wrong turning on its way to take off.



The accident occurred amid reduced visibility caused by a heavy rainstorm.

"There should have been a marking that the runway was closed. But there was not," said Kay Yong, director of Taiwan's Aviation Safety Council.

The aircraft, with 179 people on board was taking off for Los Angeles when it collided and burst into flames.



User currently offlineSingapore 777 From Australia, joined May 1999, 1014 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (13 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3710 times:

So were the lights on 05R on or off??

User currently offlineSingapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13738 posts, RR: 19
Reply 3, posted (13 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3706 times:

Let me say this!

TAiwans Aviation Safety Council are irresponsible, immature, thick , dumb, and should get it web designers that

1) Can handle bandwidth for demand
2) Upload PDFS THAT CAN ACTUALLY BE F-WORDING READ.

www.asc.gov.tw

They are so stupid. What's the point if parts of the document are missing.


Dumbos.



Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
User currently offlineBabyChamp From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (13 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3698 times:

I could not read the reports at all! They could not download. How idiotic.

User currently offlineAirnewzealand From New Zealand, joined Oct 2000, 2542 posts, RR: 6
Reply 5, posted (13 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3691 times:

I am glad that the truth is coming out now!!

Cheers
mikey


User currently offlineNa From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10654 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (13 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 3680 times:

So we´ll see some Taiwanese going into prison instead of the SIA-cockpit-crew? Another case of: First lets blame the pilot, then wait and see.

User currently offlineJubilee777 From Singapore, joined May 1999, 528 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (13 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 3667 times:

We are not saying who is going to jail or who is at fault in this report. It's just information for us on what happened.

SQ pilots cannot totally avoid the blame and neither can CKS airport officials.

Acorrding to the report, and have understood:

1) Runway wasn't marked properly, and the runway signs of 05L and 05R was not clear...indicated by the report on "flight ops".

2) PVD - Parellel Visual display which was on display was somehow ignored by the pilots. I am not an expert here, but it has something to do which some "transmitter" that activates the PVD. Apparently the PVD will work only if the runway 05L was correct as 05R has not "transmitter". The pilots didn't realise that the PVD were still off.

3) Something about the taxi lights report is rather confusing. It had stated something about the taxi lights leading to 05L was NOT on......it was only on till runway 05R.....To be confirmed with clearer information.

4) Report #4 showed that on October 22nd, SQ7694 did a go around 05L cuz cannot see runway lights. Controller said forgot to switch on the lights and apologized (how nice). And numerous times, planes had taxied into closed taxiways.

Rest of report to come later........still need to download and read.

J777



User currently offlineHkgspotter1 From Hong Kong, joined Nov 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (13 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 3665 times:

The airport may have made mistakes and they should be punished for that.

HOWEVER.

SQ006 tried to takeoff on a closed runway, if the tower tells you your clear for takeoff on 05L you use 05L, not 05R !!!.

Whats more other flight deck crew told the pilot something was wrong with the instrument (Dont know the name) that tells you if your lined up on the ILS/taiway. The pilot said its OK I can see the runway.

If you dont read your dials whats the point in having them ??


User currently offlineSingapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13738 posts, RR: 19
Reply 9, posted (13 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 3627 times:

I'm still reading the report and downlaoding them. However most of it is full of junk and parts are corrupted and therefore unreadable.

Jubilee777: has obviously read more than me so I can't give you any new details.

Hold the line...



Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
User currently offlineSingapore 777 From Australia, joined May 1999, 1014 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (13 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3598 times:

There is a lot of irregularities on the part of the airport authorities regarding whether the runway light was turned on or not...cuz if 05R was on, 05L would be on also...

It looks like they want to shield Singapore Airlines from what I observed.


User currently offlineSingapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13738 posts, RR: 19
Reply 11, posted (13 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3591 times:

I hardly think he Taiwanese would even consider shielding Singapore Airlines!!!

THe PVD is set to the ILS of a runway, in this case 05L, for some reason it was on when they were on 05R. Also, it is apparently only on when the plane is a an angle of 45 degrees?? As in the plane takes off or something, I dunno. 45 degrees is steep. I know, I have FS98!

Singapore Airlines - A Safe Way To Fly



Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
User currently offlineSingapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13738 posts, RR: 19
Reply 12, posted (13 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 3585 times:

Breaking news!

SIA Crash Investigator's family name is Yong, not Kay!!!!!!!



Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
User currently offlineAirbus A380 From Singapore, joined Jan 2001, 522 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (13 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 3579 times:

Hi guys,

To know more about the SQ006 report, please log on to http://www.channelnewsasia.com

Thank you.

It's Still Safe To Fly With SIA. KEEP THAT IN MIND.


User currently offlineAirbus A380 From Singapore, joined Jan 2001, 522 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (13 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 3575 times:

More info on this site....

http://202.95.103.190/sq006/reports.htm


User currently offlineSingapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13738 posts, RR: 19
Reply 15, posted (13 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3576 times:

Yes, keep up to date at Channel news Asia.

Both sites mentioned above are of ChannelNewsAsia

AirbusA380: Your comments were very thoughtful. Thank you



Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
User currently offlineInitRef From India, joined Nov 2000, 118 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (13 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3574 times:

I am not commenting on the report - but to clarify the PVD issue:

There are typically 3 ways to verify runway alignment/position during takeoff on the 744:

Map mode on the Navigation Display - this shows the position of the aircraft (a triangular symbol) overlaid on a rwy symbol. This would have shown the aircraft displaced to the right of 05L

Localizer on PFD or ND. when tuned to the ILS freq of the rwy, the localizer signal will show acft/rwy alignment -similar to Localizer displays during approach and landing.

PVD - this is an electro-mechanical device on the glareshield - used to display rwy alignment in low vis T/O operations. The comment you are referring to was made by the relief pilot - since the acft was still turning onto 5R he explained that until the ac was turned to within 45deg of the rwy heading it will not display. after completing the turn, it would most likely still have not been active due to the fact that it did not sense being within 2deg of the localizer of 05L.
(Note: the 45 deg mentioned here is not a bank angle, but rather a heading deviation from the rwy heading. In any case, I doubt MSFS simulates a PVD)

Cheers


User currently offlineChiawei From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 942 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (13 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3559 times:

Just read the official report.

Here is what the report officially stated.

1. SQ006 Pilot in command and second officer has not departed from runway 05L in 3 years.
2. All 3 crews were aware that runway 05R was closed for take off but open for taxi.
3. All 3 crews were aware that confirmed take off runway was 05L.
4. First officer was concerned that SQ006 still has not picked up PVD signal while entering the runway. Captain disrupted the concern and stated his intention to line up on the runway without PVD signal. The second official requested that the plane to be turned 45 degree in attempt to pick up the PVD. This was also overruled by the captain. Captain's comment was that the weather is not that bad and he can still see the runway, so PVD was completely ignored. (IMHO, the captain was in a hurry to take off can completly ignored the proper procedure to takeoff)

5.The report also find following faults at CKS. The lights leading to runway 05L and 05R are too dimm.

6. Even though runway 05R is open for taxi, the airport shoud have placed warning lights.

7. runway 05R should be clearly marked as inactive runway.

8. The report stated that at this time they can't determine if runway lights were open for runway 05R. Two set of sample were taken from 05R. One set has signs of electrical arching (meaning that they were on), but another set taken on the right side did not have any evidence supporting that they were on.

The report stated that no cause has been determined for the crash.


User currently offlineJubilee777 From Singapore, joined May 1999, 528 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (13 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3534 times:

Chiawei,

Your fourth statement is rather contrary to the report.

Captain disrupted the concern and stated his intention to line up on the runway without PVD signal.

The PVD will not be activated unless it fulfills 4 requirements.
(1) The PVD must be on (but not activated).
(2) The 45 degress of runway heading
(3) 2 degree from the center line of runway 05L (it was 3.6 degree from runway 05R
(4) Must be on the ground.

But according to the report, CKS was a Category 2 airport, and PVD was NOT a requirement for lining up on the runway. Only Category 3 airport need to fulfill the PVD requirement. Therefore, the pilot can decide NOT to use the PVD, as it wasn't part of a formal procedure.

Not disputing your words, but just more points on your part 4.

J777


User currently offlineRed Panda From Hong Kong, joined Jun 2000, 1521 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (13 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3501 times:

Some of the rwy lights were broken by another a/c earlier in the day. I think even tho the lights were not broken, SQ6 would still crashed. I understand that there is NO SINGLE CAUSE of disaster. Every disaster is a combination of diff. causes and conditions. However, the fact that the captain cut off the first officier's conservsation was a fatal move.

regards,
r panda


User currently offlineSingapore 777 From Australia, joined May 1999, 1014 posts, RR: 3
Reply 20, posted (13 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3492 times:

When did the captain cut off the First Officer's conversation? Go and read up the CVR transcript please before you make any statements!

User currently offlineSingapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13738 posts, RR: 19
Reply 21, posted (13 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3476 times:

I agree. I think he's confusing that with the captain not switching on the PVD>


Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
User currently offlineAirbus A380 From Singapore, joined Jan 2001, 522 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (13 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3476 times:

Think Think Think Think Think before you make any statements. Pure pilot error? Puhleeeze, who are you to make such a remark? Are you one of the investigators, or are you being biased, without knowing the full facts about the accident!!!!  Pissed

The report is just about factual findings of the airport and the accident, not the FULL INVESTIGATION REPORT, which will not be out until this December. So lemme tell ya this, keep ya fingers from dwelling with those keys on the keyboard, unless you know the whole truth. Refrain from accusing the pilots that it is their fault. Never do they thought that this tragic accident would happen to them. This goes to everyone too, who just can't keep their fingers to them.


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...
Singapore Offers Views On SQ006 Report posted Tue Mar 26 2002 00:12:40 by Singapore_Air
A Question To The Singapore Airlines Management posted Sun Nov 19 2006 11:28:41 by Shinkai
How Is Singapore Airlines An Industry Leader? posted Sun Nov 5 2006 09:03:50 by Shinkai
Singapore Airlines To MAN - Quick Question posted Sun Oct 29 2006 15:50:12 by B742
Singapore Airlines Fleet posted Fri Oct 27 2006 12:44:06 by Sfilipowicz
Singapore Airlines Takes Delivery Of B747-400BCF posted Thu Oct 26 2006 18:46:47 by Singapore_Air
Singapore Airlines' Longest Nonstop Flight? posted Mon Oct 23 2006 12:39:18 by Anirudhvs
Singapore Airlines IN Loss? posted Mon Oct 16 2006 17:27:47 by Anirudhvs
Singapore Airlines Upgrade Award Confirmation posted Sun Oct 15 2006 18:21:04 by Deaphen
Singapore Airlines Statement On A380 Delays posted Wed Oct 4 2006 07:22:17 by Singapore_Air