Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Flt. Commander Of SQ6 Fatal Accident Flying Again?  
User currently offlineAirbus Lover From Malaysia, joined Apr 2000, 3248 posts, RR: 9
Posted (12 years 8 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 2227 times:

I would like to know if Capt. C K Foong, a veteran Malaysian pilot, is flying again. If yes , for SQ?

He was the capt. of SQ006 which crashed at TPE last halloween. (9V-SPK)

23 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineSingapore 777 From Australia, joined May 1999, 1013 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (12 years 8 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 2134 times:

I don't think so he is.

User currently offlineAirbus Lover From Malaysia, joined Apr 2000, 3248 posts, RR: 9
Reply 2, posted (12 years 8 months 2 weeks ago) and read 2075 times:

But why not? I mean its not like he can never ever fly for the rest of his life... wat abt other airlines? do they allow pilots who crashed an airliner to fly again? I know Vietnam Airlines does... hehe

User currently offlineMr.BA From Singapore, joined Sep 2000, 3423 posts, RR: 22
Reply 3, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2045 times:

Nope, he is not flying with Singapore Airlines anymore. Not too sure if he does fly for other airlines. Anyway, SQ said they will consider offering Capt Foong and crew other jobs in SQ. Not too sure if SQ did.

alvin



Boeing747 万岁!
User currently offlineEddgge From Sweden, joined Jul 2001, 123 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 2031 times:

Why would he loose his job for that crash? Wasn´t it the ATC who made a misstake? I have heard that the weather was really bad so the pilots couldn´t see the construction site on the runway!?

Best regards,
Gustaf


User currently offlineAirbus Lover From Malaysia, joined Apr 2000, 3248 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 1994 times:

am on the flt. crews' side.

User currently offlineSoundtrack From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 284 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1939 times:


The CAPTAIN of the ship takes responsibility when he takes off on the wrong runway. There is really little excuse for this... although Taipei airport authority are idiots for not having a "CLOSED" sign CLEAR and CONCISE for pilots to see.


User currently offlineHkgspotter1 From Hong Kong, joined Nov 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1944 times:

If the tower told him the L runway and he used the R that is his problem, even the other crew told the pilot something was wrong.

User currently offlineSingapore 777 From Australia, joined May 1999, 1013 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1903 times:

While I agree with you that if the tower told him to use 5L and he used 5R, he is at fault, we have to be objective. You people know it's not totally his fault but still want to put the entire blame on him. Even Dr. Yong Kay in his review in March this year had mentioned that certain areas of the airport apron were not up to International standard.

A lot of factors have to be taken into account including the fact that SIA pressurizes their pilots to depart on time, the conditions that night and how the lights on the runway were lighted. And you might like to know that it's more or less confirmed that the lights on 5R were lighted that night. I have to say though the controllers bear little or no responsibility for this accident.


User currently offlineMr.BA From Singapore, joined Sep 2000, 3423 posts, RR: 22
Reply 9, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1896 times:

My views are the runway lights of 05R must be fully lited up. A pilot which has 10,000+ hours of flying experience will not take off from a half lited or incomplete lited runway.

alvin



Boeing747 万岁!
User currently offlineSingapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13735 posts, RR: 19
Reply 10, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1892 times:

We all have to explain to narrow-minded people like HKGSpotter1.

As Singapore777 kindly pointed out to you, you cannot just blame it on one thing. Well duh. Say you broke a window but you tripped up on the ball. People can't blame you as it was the ball that tripped you up. See? Oh well, at least I tried.

Dr Yong Kay pointed out that lighting was dim and some lighting on the taxiway leading to the runways were "below international standards". Would you like me to explain to you what that means? I would be happy to, just tell me.

Next, the Captain decided not to use PVD. This is the cause of much heated argument. if he did use the PVD fully, then he would realise that he was on the wrong runway as 5R does not have ILS (used to activate the PVD which tells the captain what runway he's on using the runway's ILS system)(ILS - Instrument Landing System, if I need to explain that to you again, just tell). However PVD must be used on Category 3 airports and is optional for use at Cat 1 and 2 airports. TPE is Category 2 which means that he was not forced to use PVD. However, this could have saved the flight.

China Airline pilots saw that SQ6 was on the wrong runway but did not tell ATC. Why not? This should be investigated.

FInally, the airport did not have a ground radar meaning that it could not see where aircraft are. If it did, then SQ6 would probably have been saved. One article which was commenting about the new ground radar at SFO said that the same could have helped SQ6 at Taipei. USA Today or some major paper over there in the States.

There we go.




Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
User currently offlineHkgspotter1 From Hong Kong, joined Nov 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1890 times:

Singapore Air,

Narrow Minded is you my friend, in love with SQ and cant accept that it was 100% that idiot captains fault.

CAPTAIN, That means he is in charge and he takes the risks. He assumed he was on the correct runway when he was not.

There is nothing to talk about anymore on this topic. Captain Foong's mistake cost many people their lives.

What I still find most sick of all was when the boss of SQ came out within 2 hours of the crash to tell the world that NOT ONE person had died.


User currently offlineSingapore 777 From Australia, joined May 1999, 1013 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1875 times:

I also find it most sick of the Taiwanese authorities to tell SQ that no one had perished in the incident and that NOT ONE person had died!

Go figure!

SQ does not release information until the Taiwanese authorities have released it. The first word from them was that only 30-odd passengers were injured.

There are mitigating factors but the Captain must bear some of the responsibility.


User currently offlineSingapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13735 posts, RR: 19
Reply 13, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1868 times:

"There are mitigating factors but the Captain must bear some of the responsibility."

But of course. However, would you agree that if the PVD wasn't touched at all, he would have less responsibility? I would say so, but not much blame would really have been let off his shoulders.

HKGSpotter1: This post is sure to be deleted some time or another in the next week so let's just get one thing clear.
You are the narrow-minded one. You are the SIA-hater who responds to SIA posts. EG: When SIA received an 772ER, you said what's different. Well I could say the same for you when you report about new deliveries of CX A340s.

SO by your understanding, you do not think that the lights that guide pilots to the runway did not have a part to play? Probably in your case yes. The lights were too dim to guide him onto the runway and that's why he was on 5R. Do you think that he wanted to crash the plane?? (That was a rhetorical question)

"There is nothing to talk about anymore on this topic" WHat you trying to do? Shut people up so that they cannot try and try and try again to show you the broader picture? Seems so my dear.

We shall meet again I'm sure.



Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
User currently offlineDelta777-XXX From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1017 posts, RR: 8
Reply 14, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1849 times:

Hkgspotter1...

Singapore_Air puts out facts and you call him narrow-minded??

You call a 747-400 captain with no telling how many thousands of hours an idiot??

I think it is you that is the narrow-minded idiot when you make comments on things of which you obviously have no knowledge of.



User currently offlineChiawei From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 938 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1835 times:

>Dr Yong Kay pointed out that lighting was dim and some lighting on the taxiway leading to the runways were "below international standards". Would you like me to explain to you what that means? I would be happy to, just tell me. <

1. Taht's because the light were not bright enough. But still irrevalant, since he still turned on to the wrong runway. Also, the international standard would have required runway 5R to have i believe different color of light.

>Next, the Captain decided not to use PVD. This is the cause of much heated argument. if he did use the PVD fully, then he would realise that he was on the wrong runway as 5R does not have ILS (used to activate the PVD which tells the captain what runway he's on using the runway's ILS system)(ILS - Instrument Landing System, if I need to explain that to you again, just tell). However PVD must be used on Category 3 airports and is optional for use at Cat 1 and 2 airports. TPE is Category 2 which means that he was not forced to use PVD. However, this could have saved the flight. <

Again, this is the captain's call. However, under such poor weather condition it is his duty to switch on the PVD. But he choose not to. Hence it is his responsitility.

>China Airline pilots saw that SQ6 was on the wrong runway but did not tell ATC. Why not? This should be investigated. <
China Airlines has no right to interrupt SQ006's communication with tower. As they are probably on different frequencies. And CI simply can't jump in and interrupt crucial conversation between the tower and SQ006. The same thing happened to the Pan Am and KLM crew in teneferie. Which KLM crew heard nothing but static.

>FInally, the airport did not have a ground radar meaning that it could not see where aircraft are. If it did, then SQ6 would probably have been saved. One article which was commenting about the new ground radar at SFO said that the same could have helped SQ6 at Taipei. USA Today or some major paper over there in the States. <

Not all the airport has ground radar. Therefore should not be used as an excuse.

The fact is that the captain made the decision to takeoff under such poor weather and decided not to use all tools available to him. So it is him that has to bear the full blame.

There we go.


User currently offlineChiawei From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 938 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1834 times:

1. The captain knew that lighting and visibility was poor.
2. The captain should have decided to use all available tool to decide what to do. But in this case he decided to forgo the use of PVD.
3. It's not like he has not flown into CKS before. He should know that runway 05R is never used for takeoff.
4. He is cleared to takeoff on runway 05L no 05R.
5. It does not take a mathmatical genius to count how many exit to turn. Obviously he was not paying attention and was eager to leave ASAP to be on time.
6. So what if he has tons of experience. Look at what KLM captain did in teneferie. People make mistakes.
He just made one that caused 93 people to lost their lives.

Again, the environment was poor that day. Everything was against him. But he decided to takeoff. He is the one that decide not to use all tools available to him. He did not pay attention to his surrounding and made a wrong turn. What really puzzles me is that if CI004 was able to see SQ006 on wrong runway, means that the visibility is good enought for SQ006 crew to notice there is a much brighter runway to their left. And someone should have already questioned the captain the lack of full runway light.

I strongly believe that the crew was simply under a lot of pressure to leave on time. Therefore did not use necessary caution that resulted in this accident.


User currently offlineSingapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13735 posts, RR: 19
Reply 17, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1831 times:

1. Taht's because the light were not bright enough. But still irrevalant, since he still turned on to the wrong runway. Also, the international standard would have required runway 5R to have i believe different color of light.
----
Not irrelevant actually as lights guide people. You believe the colour of the lights are different, however do you know that?

2.Again, this is the captain's call. However, under such poor weather condition it is his duty to switch on the PVD. But he choose not to. Hence it is his responsitility.
----
Do Airline and International Air rules state that the Captain must use a PVD for category 1 and 2 airports in bad environmental conditions? Someone find out plesae.
-----
China Airlines has no right to interrupt SQ006's communication with tower. As they are probably on different frequencies. And CI simply can't jump in and interrupt crucial conversation between the tower and SQ006

Would you have done the same Chiawei?
----
Not all the airport has ground radar. Therefore should not be used as an excuse.

But it would have helped would it not?
----
POst2, point 5.

Not everyone remembers an airport layout. That's why taxilights are used to guide the pilot to the runway. Lights are turned on for that matter, not switched off so the plane can take off in a wet ditch.

The points you made are good, and are better than what other people have written, however I disagree with most of them and the way you have written off other "factors" and are nearly trying to put all the blame on the flight crew. I think this is unfair, and is uncalled for as as I've said many times, there are more reasons to the crash.

Post2 point 3
This was the first time he flew into CKS for a long time and the first time he has flown into the apt., where the runway 05R was closed. Also the map he was given was old and showed 05R active. However i will disregard that as 05R should not have been used anyway. Also, why weren't international CLOSED signs put on 05R? If that was so and the pilot again went onto 05R, I would be one of the first to say that the crew were in the wrong. Completely. Well duh the plane just hit a closed sign at the middle of the start of a runway and it was the wrong runway. How can you not blame a crew for that.

Delta777-XXX:Thank you



Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
User currently offlineSingapore 777 From Australia, joined May 1999, 1013 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1820 times:

CI4 was able to see SQ6 taxy onto the wrong runway, granted. That does not however mean that the SQ6 crew could see the brighter (it's should be the same dimness) runway on their left. Like Dr. Yong Kay said after simulation tests, one light was NOT bright enough to be seen and this crucial light would have led them to the correct runway.

I find it most amusing how the lights of 5R and 5L cannot be controlled independently of each other. And just for your information, many other aircraft have turned onto the wrong runway before even in broad daylight, need an explanation for that?


User currently offlineQantasA3XX From Singapore, joined Dec 2000, 218 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1807 times:

HKspotter

I feel sorry for you because you are such a pathetic soul who no one will sympthasise . I am one of those folks that will severly comdamned your WORLD CLASS Moronic attitute .

First is Geminijets ( you claim they are the best ) , now u say SQ KE and whoeever else pilots are lousy , what do u know about planes ? U know nothing and an advice for you , just shut your stupid comments pls

HKspotter i despised you sincerely ( i think i not the only one )

Singapore Airlines - A great way to fly



User currently offlineTtt From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1805 times:

So Hkgspotter1 - if you think the Captain is to be fully blamed then it is your privilege. The rest of the civilised world thinks that responsibility has to be shared. The whole event is over, so let's put the matter to rest.

User currently offlineMr.BA From Singapore, joined Sep 2000, 3423 posts, RR: 22
Reply 21, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 1799 times:

I agree the pilot should share part of the responsibility. Singapore_Air, Chiawei and Singapore777 has very good points out there.

Not to intentionally pick on Taipei airport, but i will have to point out, Taipei Chiang Kai-shek airport should shoulder part of responsibility. It is totally not fair to blame it on the pilot. I agree, it is not wrong not to have ground radar.. etc. But an airport which encounters typhoons quite frequently with lights not working properly or not working at all, without proper markings to indicate a closed runway? Been there once, the surface of taxiways are runways are really quite bad. I think it is totally ridiculous, i think it needs much more improvement to be certified as an international airport. I guess there are much more domestic airports around safer... just look at the amount of accidents occured before in the airport.

HKGspotter, you might not like SQ or KE very much but i don't think you need to post criticms in posts like "SQ orders new B777s" or make comments on KE pilots are lousy? If you can't fly a plane yourself, i don't think you shoulld say a pilot is lousy. I don't think you can do what the pilots can do. At least they deserve our respect.

alvin




Boeing747 万岁!
User currently offlineSoundtrack From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 284 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 1790 times:

First of all;

The pilot does bare the ultimate responsibility NO MATTER WHAT, he is the captain of the ship and makes the FINAL decision - this is what he is paid to do. He is in command and if there is blame - he gets the first dose.
Second dose goes to the airport authority who due to their lack of planning and neglect helped lead to the pilot making the mistake. A clear marking would have prevented or reminded the pilot and would have avoided this mishap.
Someone above mentioned the possible pressure by SQ mgmt to pilots to be on time... and if true, they should share the blame as this subconsciously affected the pilots decision making... although again, he is the leader - he makes the final decision. I am sure SQ mgmt has since changed their attitude following this.

Last, the weather played a key role and from looking at the weather on that day... a mishap is much greater considering the elements. It was obvious decisions were greatly clouded (pilot view, ATC view) and I really question flying in these conditions even if it passes the rulebook.

I ask this, if a Typhoon of the exact same magnitude hits Taiwan again - will planes be taking off? If so - I greatly question this. If not, then the decision makers at the airport were wrong to allow takeoffs in prior times which signals to me that SQ should not have been allowed to leave in the first place.


User currently offlineSingapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13735 posts, RR: 19
Reply 23, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1781 times:

The weather did not have any effet on the crash. That was clearly stated by Dr Yong Kay in the factual report and media releases. Boeing has also said that the weather at the time of the crash was within the Megatop's operational parameters.

We could argue if the airport should have been closed. But considering the weather was within the 747 (don't know about other planes) operational parameters they had the right to leave it open.

All airlines pressurise pilots to get on time, and if you look at SIA's operational statistics, they hardly match JAL's 99.5% punctuality rating :-P

Soundtrack: He may get the first dose of the blame and as you say he has ultimate responsibility but I agree with you that although he will get blamed first, others will get blame, maybe even more, later.
-------
The Crash Report comes out in December 2001



Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
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...
Are Flt Numbers "retired" After A Fatal Accident? posted Mon Jun 4 2001 23:18:58 by FlagshipAZ
Canjet Flying Again! posted Fri Nov 3 2006 03:11:16 by RicardoFG
Aerocalifornia Flying Again? posted Thu Aug 17 2006 05:02:18 by B757
Aero Asia Flying Again With New Look And Owners posted Fri Jul 14 2006 21:22:24 by 777way
Is Surinam's MD82 Flying Again? posted Wed Jun 21 2006 14:14:01 by River747
Is Sosoliso Flying Again? posted Sat Apr 8 2006 16:54:48 by 717fan
United Flies Out Of Bankruptcy:UA Flies High Again posted Fri Feb 3 2006 23:07:21 by Dsa
Concorde Flying Again In 2009? posted Wed Jan 25 2006 02:58:14 by Noah008
Bellview Airlines Flying Again posted Tue Dec 27 2005 18:00:45 by Soups
What Counts As A Fatal Accident? posted Fri Dec 9 2005 19:55:05 by RobertS975