9V-SPK From Hong Kong, joined Aug 2001, 1646 posts, RR: 6 Posted (12 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1931 times:
Just been informed by SQ staff that SQ1 on its way to Hong Kong from San Francisco has been discovered a pack of "White Powder".Crew found the White Powder in the toilet, and informed the pilot immediately, and Pilot informed SQ Singapore Quarter, and then to Hong Kong station.
All passengers have NOT been informed by this "White Powder" Suspicion.All passengers are safe at the moment and SQ1 is on its way to Hong Kong, arriving at normal scheldue 06:40am HKG time.Ground Staff os SIA HK station have been informed to standby at airport and office.However, SQ1 will not enter CLK as an emergency landing, but jsut a normal landing.All Passnegers will NOT be allowed to leave the plane after arrival due to safety reasons.
9V-SPK From Hong Kong, joined Aug 2001, 1646 posts, RR: 6 Reply 7, posted (12 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1705 times:
SQ1 didn't turn to HNL because the flights is already halfway.Not close to HNL i should say.Don't ask me why it's not heading for Taipei, Tokyo, Seoul etc.I've no idea.
Pilots make all the decisions, and i think we should believe him.Maybe heading straight for Hong Kong would be better.It's only the 2 pilots that could make the best decision.We here on the ground won't know for the time-being what's happening up there till the plane is on the ground.
Banco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 54 Reply 10, posted (12 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1657 times:
I suspect EGGD is correct. It will be something along those lines. There have already been cases where the alert has gone out about white powder in the toilets on board aircraft and surprise, surprise it turns out to be baby powder. There are so many innocuous substances that take the form of white powder but in such troubled times no-one can afford to take the risk that it's something more. Even then it's probably accidental, rather than a malicious hoax.
It's nothing new, whenever there is an event of such magnitude then "overreactions" take place. I put that in inverted commas because there isn't really much choice. Remember after Chernobyl there was a mass panic every time there was the slightest problem at a nuclear power plant. It's just the nature of the beast, everyone is hyper-sensitive at the moment.
I really hope this is just another example.
She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
Cx flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6454 posts, RR: 56 Reply 13, posted (12 years 1 month 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1516 times:
Another example of 'money comes first'. If they had really suspected that it was antrax then why not divert? Tokyo is a good few hours closer than Hong Kong, and if it was anthrax, a few hours could mean the difference between 100 people being infected, and 200 people being infected. If they did not suspect it was anthrax, then why bother telling the authorities at all? Either it was suspected or it wasn't.
I am not singling out SQ here, as I am sure many tight fisted money grabbing airlines would have done the same by continuing, but imagine that it was anthrax. Imagine the critisism that SQ would have got for not diverting immediately. When it comes to safety, there should be no compromise. Bad SQ.
Singapore 777 From Singapore, joined May 1999, 1008 posts, RR: 3 Reply 14, posted (12 years 1 month 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 1483 times:
You know CXflyboy, that was something along my lines of thought. The pilot knew the powder could be something potentially like anthrax...he should have diverted immediately. Whether or not it was really anthrax, such risks should not have been taken. Imagine the 400 or so people on board the aircraft who could have been infected once the "anthrax" spores went into the aircraft air-conditioning unit. An aircraft cabin is a claustrophobic area and any spores or infection would spread very very quickly.
"Money comes first..." unfortunately so. SQ has not learnt its lesson it seems from the Taipei tragedy.
Cx flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6454 posts, RR: 56 Reply 16, posted (12 years 1 month 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 1435 times:
I agree with you, my colleagues might have done the same. My management would quite possibly have applied pressure to the crew to continue to HKG. If I was on board I would make it very very clear that I think it is a very bad idea. If the commander decides to continue then so be it, however I would not be happy and I would make that known, and if there a real incident I would make that known in the report.
However, whats wrong with having the passengers alarmed? In this case there WAS cause for alarm. If a white powder is found in the White House, don't they evacuate it? Doesn't that alarm people? Yes, but it's for their safety. If I was a passenger on SQ1, I would be alarmed that we did not divert and that I had to spend an extra few hours breathing stuff which was suspected as possibly being harmful. I would be extremely pissed off right now and would be writing a few very strongly worded letters to the management and to the civil aviation authority of Singapore.
9V-SVA From Singapore, joined Aug 2001, 1859 posts, RR: 8 Reply 17, posted (12 years 1 month 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 1429 times:
Yes, there was cause for alarm, but the captain decided not to tell the people for fear that they might riot in the plane, which is NOT conducive. Anyway, the toilet was SEALED and all ventilation to it was cut off.
9V-SPK From Hong Kong, joined Aug 2001, 1646 posts, RR: 6 Reply 18, posted (12 years 1 month 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 1418 times:
It's very hard to say guys.
The powder was found ON the ground in the toilet, and was not spread over actually, but was in a bag.
In this situation, pilot could say that sealing the toilet would be already safe.And putting the powder in some box, or maybe the powder wasn't spread out.However, IF the powder was spread in the cabin, no doubt the pilot would make an emergency landing at the nearest airport!
And why did he not inform the passengers?Possibily because it was the CREW who found the powder.Also, it depends on lots of situations.I can't say who's wrong, who's right.But in my memories, SQ1 is the first airline to get this kind of "Threat" on such a long-haul route.
Sometimes the managements give pressure, but i heard that it was the pilot that made the decision.The powder was found after sometime, not just after takeoff.If SQ1 just left SFO, i'd agree with others turning the plane back to SFO.Also, if it was not the crew but a passenger that discovered the white powder...that'd be another story.So should it land or not?I can't tell.thank god everything was alright at the moment.
I also hope that SIA could make a news release.Media would be posting news of SQ1 tomorrow likely and i'll see what SIA HK station told the press.
Anyways, SQ1 departed for Singapore at 8:55, an hour behind scheldue.Thank god it was only a joke.
Singapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13722 posts, RR: 20 Reply 19, posted (12 years 1 month 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 1412 times:
I agree with 9V-SPK. The crew did what they thought was best. Diverting to Narita would have alarmed passengers and that would just cause panic and could provide unwanted sub-situations.
SQ has been targeted quite heavily it seems since September 11. Three terrorist hoazxes, including one in Germany where the Megatoppy was accompanied with 2 German fighters, and now this. It's very sick and sad.
CX_Flyboy: If you were an SQ passenger on that flight you would not have been alarmed. You would not have known what was hapenning.
Singapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13722 posts, RR: 20 Reply 21, posted (12 years 1 month 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 1403 times:
HKGSPOTTER1: HOW DARE YOU. Have you no heart whatsoever to our grievances? How dare you?! I cannot believe your lack of compassion and sympathy. How dare you! You horrible, nasty and totally out-of-order person.
Judging by your posts, I'd say that you were one of the people in the world that wanted Singapore Airlines to crash? Are you happy that 83 people perished.
How absurd! I cannot believe you! I am shocked. I just hope you're happy that 83 people died.
9V-SPK From Hong Kong, joined Aug 2001, 1646 posts, RR: 6 Reply 23, posted (12 years 1 month 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 1388 times:
Hey Singapore_Air, nevermind.He has every right to post his opinions here.
Actually i know Daryl.I think he's forgotten me because we haven't had contacts for quite some time.He told me himself that he'd never travel on SQ and told me SQ pilots always make dangerous landings at Kai Tak and also told me pilots were inexcperienced for SIA if i remember correctly.
Doesn't really matter i should say.Different people have different views, just there are fans of Korean Air, which i'm quite honest to say I'm not.So Singapore_Air, you don't have to argue with HKSPOTTER1 actually.Because there are lots who hates SIA because it's one of the greatest airline or one of the worst airline and you won't have that much time to explain!
Ah anyways, you don't have to explain.Look at SIA.Proitable airline...new aircrafts...lots of passengers choose SIA!I think that explains