Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Last Year's SQ6 Accident  
User currently offlineAI744LR From Thailand, joined May 2001, 106 posts, RR: 0
Posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 1904 times:

Is it true that the findings of the SQ6 accident in TPE have revealed that the TPE airport was at fault?? I've heard something recently that might have indicated that.

Can someone please calrify this?

Thanks.

37 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSingapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13737 posts, RR: 19
Reply 1, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 1825 times:

Well this is definately going to be a popular topic?

The threads below probably will prove me right.

AI744LR: I'll let others tell you their opinions first.



Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
User currently offlineSingapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13737 posts, RR: 19
Reply 2, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 1817 times:

Well this is definately going to be a popular topic!

The threads below probably will prove me right.

AI744LR: I'll let others tell you their opinions first.



Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
User currently offlinePhilB From Ireland, joined May 1999, 2915 posts, RR: 13
Reply 3, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 1813 times:

As the final report is still awaited anything you may have heard is either rumour, speculation or snippets from a very complex investigation.

There are likely to be a number of causes including airport operating procedures, airline procedures and CRM/human resource factors.

Until the full report comes out speculation is just a useless waste of time and bandwidth.


User currently offlineSingapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13737 posts, RR: 19
Reply 4, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 1803 times:

As I found out! Many pages of the reports didn't come out as they were corrupted!

At least the Australian Aviation Safety Board or whatever they're called can produce nice reports.



Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
User currently offlineJiml1126 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 1801 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.


User currently offlineJiml1126 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 1794 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.


User currently offlineHkgspotter1 From Hong Kong, joined Nov 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 1773 times:

I HAVE VERY STRONG VIEWS ON THIS ACCIDENT BUT I WILL KEEP COOL.

This accident was caused by the pilot. No other person or equipment was to blame. He used the WRONG runway to takeoff. Its that bloody simple.

Yes the report will say that TPE should get ground radar to stop this from ever happening again but the fact still stands that the pilot was in control and he should be to blame for the whole mess.



User currently offlinePhilB From Ireland, joined May 1999, 2915 posts, RR: 13
Reply 8, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1747 times:

Hkgspotter1,

You may have strong views (and to a point I agree with your view on this) but it is a very rare accident that has a single cause.

If the accident report concluded the accident was the pilot's fault, a whole raft of other issues would go uncorrected.

I'm not trying to guess the report's findings but they should be looking at:

1 Cockpit:

Reading of and aide memoirs re Notams.

Cross checking of position in the visibility available.

Decision to "go" given the conditions.

Agreement between the crew to go from hold position and means used to verify the position/Use of cockpit resource management procedures.


2 Airport

Lighting of closed runway

Lack of large, visible signage at start of closed runway

Lack of ground radar or temporary, localised control of access to closed runway


3 Airline.

CRM training/relationship between crew.

Briefing of crew prior to take off

Rules for operating in poor weather

It looks likely that any unbiased report will highlight all of these and other factors which "conspired" togethr to cause this accident


User currently offlineLGB From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1726 times:

What I found appauling in the initial reports was that it was said that pilots in at least a couple of other planes reported they had seen SQ 6 taxi onto the wrong runway.

1) Are those reports correct? Did other pilots see them take a wrong turn?

2) If so, did those other pilots try to alert SQ 6 or ATC?

3) If no, why not??? Is it standard procedure for pilots to just sit back and watch when they see another plane possibly heading for disaster?

Lars



User currently offlineCapt.Picard From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1719 times:

LGB,

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.

Just my opinion.

Rgds,
CP


User currently offlineSingapore 777 From Australia, joined May 1999, 1013 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1712 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.


User currently offlineGreg From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1689 times:

Let's see...you take off on the WRONG RUNWAY in a TYPHOON
And you think it's the airports fault?

SQ will not get damages from the airport. This accident is the result of only one factor: Poor Judgement from the Captain.


User currently offlineAI744LR From Thailand, joined May 2001, 106 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1684 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.

Are the pilots still in TPE?

 Confused


User currently offlineVirginA340 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 15 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1683 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.


"FUIMUS"
User currently offlineCapt.Picard From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1680 times:

Apologies if this link has already been provided:

http://www.asc.gov.tw/uw/uw_disp.exe/easc/home/asc/asc_disp.appl?asc_oid=@720|30|1

All files in .pdf format.

Rgds,
CP


User currently offlineSingapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13737 posts, RR: 19
Reply 16, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1668 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.

Well then! Look hear. My flaming cometh!



Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
User currently offlinePhilB From Ireland, joined May 1999, 2915 posts, RR: 13
Reply 17, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1643 times:

VirginA340,

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.



User currently offlineSingapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13737 posts, RR: 19
Reply 18, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1633 times:

Lovely PhilB. Please elaborate on the factors. I think you could contribute a lot to the thread.


Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
User currently offlinePhilB From Ireland, joined May 1999, 2915 posts, RR: 13
Reply 19, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1625 times:

Singapore Air,

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.


User currently offlineSingapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13737 posts, RR: 19
Reply 20, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1619 times:

PhilB: Yes.


Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
User currently offlineRed Panda From Hong Kong, joined Jun 2000, 1521 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1616 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.


my opinion
r panda


User currently offlineLGB From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1613 times:

Lights on rwy 05R cannot be turned off separately since there is only one switch to turn on/off both rwy 05R and 05R.

Is this a fact or a conjecture?


User currently offlineRed Panda From Hong Kong, joined Jun 2000, 1521 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1610 times:

this is what I heard from the press.

r panda


User currently offlinePhilB From Ireland, joined May 1999, 2915 posts, RR: 13
Reply 24, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1608 times:

Red Panda,

Then I'd take it with about a ton of salt. May be correct of course, but this highlights perfectly what I've been saying about speculation.


25 Post contains images LGB : I agree completely with what PhilB said about blame and condemnation having no place in this forum. However, speculation I think is fine within reason
26 AI744LR : Nobody can put a blame on anyone, at least before the investigation results are out. However, what Red Panda mentioned was kind of interesting. Why co
27 LGB : Why could other pilots take off from the correct runway? Why wouldn't they be able to? I don't think anyone has suggested that the lighting actively d
28 VirginA340 : PhilB;My conolensese to your people on board the JAL 747 crash. That Jal post was an error on my part; any one can make a mistake so just stop trying
29 Hkgspotter1 : Singapore_Air, 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, would not be enough if it was one of my loved ones that got killed by Singapore Airlines or any other ai
30 VirginA340 : Singapore Air; The money that SIA was giving out is not enough to cover for funeral costs, hospital bills, medication, rehabilitiaon, cost of stay at
31 Singapore_Air : HKGSpotter1 and VirginA340: Didn't I make myself clear in saying SIA didn't pay enough??????? HKGSpooter1: Compensation must be given within reason. O
32 Singapore 777 : Other planes may have taken off before SQ6 yes, but on the same runway? Runway 05L is commonly used for cargo aircraft. Commercial passenger aircraft
33 Singapore_Air : Hear Hear Singapore 777! A word of advice to people who want to download the crash Factual Report. Don't hold your breath 1) They take a long time to
34 PhilB : VirginA340, Its been 16 years since the JAL crash. If there were reports that it was a 747SP you have had plenty of time to establish the correct info
35 Capt.Picard : Singapore_Air Sorry, I only actually had a quick scan through the Human Factors section, which wasn't "corrupted". To be honest, as Phil says, you're
36 Ttt : Whenever the topic comes up for discussion, only two words describe it. I've spoken with many people and they also say these two words.. farking taiwa
37 Singapore_Air : Capt.Pciard: You shouldn't be apologising. It's those fools at the ASC who can't get a PDF file online!
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...
United 2nd Most Profitable Company In US Last Year posted Mon Apr 16 2007 22:15:41 by Xbraniffone
Mexican Aviation '06. Our Last Year's Predictions posted Mon Dec 4 2006 22:46:26 by Fly727
Teheran Crash Last Year posted Mon Oct 30 2006 21:08:58 by B741
SJD; Is Cabo Going To Be Like CUN Last Year? posted Sat Sep 2 2006 00:52:33 by SLCUT2777
Continental Express LAX-Queretaro (last Year) posted Sat Jul 29 2006 01:02:31 by Simairlinenet
Farnborough? Not As Fun As Last Year? posted Sun Jun 18 2006 02:06:27 by Okelleynyc
Rumor: Did A380 Ever Come To Hong Kong Last Year? posted Fri Nov 25 2005 16:41:58 by CaptainTim
Any News On The Pinnacle CRJ 200 Crash From Last Year? posted Fri Oct 21 2005 02:57:27 by Nwafflyer
Who Was The Highest-paid Airline Exec Last Year? posted Sun May 15 2005 20:22:33 by Eksath
Bomb Threat In DUS Last Year, Airport Will Sue posted Fri Feb 20 2004 19:47:17 by Sabena332