Singapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13748 posts, RR: 18 Posted (14 years 3 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 4482 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
Virgin744 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 921 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (14 years 3 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 4356 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.
Jubilee777 From Singapore, joined May 1999, 528 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (14 years 3 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 4301 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.
Hkgspotter1 From Hong Kong, joined Nov 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (14 years 3 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 4299 times:
The airport may have made mistakes and they should be punished for that.
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 ??
Singapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13748 posts, RR: 18
Reply 11, posted (14 years 3 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 4225 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!
InitRef From India, joined Nov 2000, 118 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (14 years 3 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 4208 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)
Chiawei From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 958 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (14 years 3 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 4193 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.
Jubilee777 From Singapore, joined May 1999, 528 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (14 years 3 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 4168 times:
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.
Red Panda From Hong Kong, joined Jun 2000, 1521 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (14 years 3 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4135 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.
Airbus A380 From Singapore, joined Jan 2001, 522 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (14 years 3 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 4110 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!!!!
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.