Jiml1126 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (12 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1583 times:
According to 2001/5/16 edition of Taiwan's Udnnews.com (In Chinese), Tao-Yuan County's prosecutor has eliminated the error from Taipei's ATC.
And the reason why the lights of Runway 05R was bright, the prosecutor thinks it was the desing error 20 years ago.
The final report of SQ006 crash will be released in 2002.
Also, during Feburary, the prosecutor was thinking of sueing the pilots of SQ006 for the crash. However, during April, the pilots were complaning that some of the reports didn't reflects their answer which the prosecutors asked them previously.
Jiml1126 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (12 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1576 times:
Also, since the New Jersey fence and the construction machine (I forgot what is that thing called) are located in 1200m of the runway 05R. The prosecutors think that 727/737 can avoid the crash, cause 727/737 can take-off with using less than 1200m of runway.
A 747 needs 1300m+ runway in order to take off. So the prosecutors think it's not the fence and machines problem. They also stated that "SIA 747-400 enters the wrong runway, and that's the cause of the crash"
I think Taiwan's prosecutor is blaming SIA for the crash. (Currently)
A radio station from Singapore recently reported that SIA is going to ask Taiwan's Taipei International Airport should compensating the casualties' family as well. However, SIA has denied the report.
Few weeks ago, SIA was going to have similar aircrash drill, however, the weather was sunny, so SIA and Taipei airport gived up. They are going to wait another typhoon hits Taiwan and do the drill.
Capt.Picard From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (12 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1501 times:
I doubt other a/c would have actually seen the SQ a/c line-up on the wrong r/w (or any r/w).
Visibility was very poor at the time, and the most other aircrew might have been able to make of the SQ a/c, were some nav & strobe lights flashing in the distance.
Given the crappy visibility and the presence of parallel r/w's, I would have thought it would have been doubly difficult to see any a/c movements in the distance, let alone their exact postions with regards to the runways.
Apart from this, they may have been on different frequencies, they may have been utterly preoccupied with taxying & pre-TO checks, etc. etc.
When I taxy my a/c along to the r/w I pay very little attention to what's rolling, and keep my eyes on what's directly ahead or to the side of me-that's what the RAF have taught me anyway.
Singapore 777 From Singapore, joined May 1999, 1008 posts, RR: 3 Reply 11, posted (12 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1494 times:
If you read the CVR transcript, it says the pilot was taxying at something like 5 knots, which is pretty slow. I wouldn't think he was rushing for time and therefore entered into the wrong runway. And the report itself even said that it was a design error on the part of the lighting system...so how could the entire blame go onto the pilots?
I think they should share the blame something like 70 to the pilots and 30 to other factors.
AI744LR From Thailand, joined May 2001, 106 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (12 years 6 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 1466 times:
I don't know, but an article (I do not wish to disclose the source) mentioned that the TPE ATC may be at fault becuase the runways were "lit" incorrectly. These are not my views, but this is what I read. I think we did here about part of a runway being lit for taxiing purposes.
I don't know. I guess it's a complex investigation indeed. For those who think that the pilot is at fault: I'm sure that after commanding so many flights, a captain will be very sensitive about making sure whether he is on L or R. This is not to say that I am putting the blame on TPE ATC.
VirginA340 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 15 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (12 years 6 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 1465 times:
It is the fault of the flight crew for bad judgment. As a result they took off on a closed runway and hit a crane. The flight crew should be charged with manslaughter. The DELTA 727 flightcrew that crashed on take off from DFW shoud've also been charged. The jackasses forgot to set their flaps becasue they were too busy chatting with an FA. The coversation was the CO DC-9 crash in Denver. They were talking to an FA on how they should leave some jucy gossip so that the media can listen to as well as their families if the plane crashes. In that accident 13 pax died but the three pilots and that FA survived. Plain and simple you are incharged and responsible for those lives on board and are responsible when you mess up like that in that way then you should suffer the consequences. By the way. What ever happened to the 3 DL 727 pilots? I imagine that DL fired them because of the bad PR it would create if the still had their jobs.
Singapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13722 posts, RR: 20 Reply 16, posted (12 years 6 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 1450 times:
Ah my turn
Greg: How did I know you would post something in this???
Of course, everyone is entitled to their own view. However, may I point out some things in this argument.
1) There is more than one side to the argument. It's not only the flight crew
2) The lights on the taxiway were "inadequate" and were "below international standards" (Dr. Yong Kay (or is it Kay Yong???)). Therefore, the captain MAY (not did or didn't. MAY) have missed the first exit to runway 5L. Instead, he MAY have thought that the first exit he saw was 5R's instead of 5Ls
3) Weather: This is subjec is void
3) Mechanical faliure: This subject is void
4) Crew Factors: The biggest mistake the crew made (or more the Captain), was not using PVD. However this is a complicated fact. CKS Airport, whether you like it or not is a category 2 (not 3; 2) tehrefore PVD is not needed for takeoff in any sort of weather. HOWEVER, the co-pilot did decide to use it and it didn't work. Why?! Because 5R don't have PVD. However, the plane was not at a 45 degree angle and PVD wouldn't have worked anyway. The Captain couldn't have cared less as it wasn't a requirement, and therfore said "We can see the runway OK". It took off
5) ATC: They didn't look out the window for the SIA6 flight, and therefore didn't know where it was. It could have been in a ditch. They should have looked at where the planes were going. They do that at LHR!
5) CAL pilots: No blame on them. However, they could have (not SHOULD have; could have), called ATC and SIA6 to tell them that the plane was on the wrong runway.
6) Singapore Airlines: The report voids SIA at fault ( in the sense that you know about.)
7) International Regulations: I think that all airports must have a ground radar. They MUST. This must never happen again.
Singapore Airlines is resting the crew. I think they're doing ground duties while they "recover". They are on full pay.
SIA is being sued by 80+ victims and crew. I think hear hear up to a point. I think USD$2 000 000 per victim deceased and USD $750 000 per victim injured is sufficient financially.
That is my views so far. I hope I've made them clear enough and have used language that you can all understand. If you've just scanned this, then read it thoroughly. You'll miss some points that you'll probably accuse me of.
PhilB From Ireland, joined May 1999, 2915 posts, RR: 14 Reply 17, posted (12 years 6 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 1425 times:
After your marvelous post about JAL crashing a 747SP, we now have you as jury, judge and executioner for the SQ crew.
They may well end up charged with manslaughter but, if they are, both SQ and the airport authority should be equally charged with corporate manslaughter because there will be actions and ommissions by both which would contribute.
As I said before, there are many, complex, factors which influence actions and cause accidents. Wait for the report.
PhilB From Ireland, joined May 1999, 2915 posts, RR: 14 Reply 19, posted (12 years 6 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 1407 times:
I've said all that can be said in my previous posts.
Like everyone else here, I can only apply what is known of the factors that will be looked at and read the reports that are in the media (both trade and general) and, with experience of following many investigations over the last 40+ years or so, try to form an opinion by which I can look for fairness and balance in the final report.
But until that report is published, any "reasons" for the accident, speculation on who to blame or condemnation is vacuous.
Red Panda From Hong Kong, joined Jun 2000, 1521 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (12 years 6 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1398 times:
About the lighting of the rwys: Lights on rwy 05R cannot be turned off separately since there is only one switch to turn on/off both rwy 05R and 05R. So, lights on rwy 05R had to be on since 05L was the active rwy where lights were needed. Moreover, rwy 05R might have been used for taxi-ing, so the light must be on for this purprose.
I believe that this is the captain's fault because of his poor judgement. Even though there was no ground radar at TPE, the pilot in control still had to make sure they were at the right place.
Let's put it this way, if the lighting is to blame, then why didn't other a/cs turn onto the wrong rwy and crashed? It was just SQ6 had made the wrong judgement. Too bad, the pilots should be responsible.