Investigations into the crash of Singapore Airlines flight SQ 006 in Taipei about 14 months ago are complete and a report on the findings is likely to be released by the middle of next month.
Isnin Sohot, one of 13 surviving crew member aboard the plane, returned to the skies last May but not without some trepidation.
Isnin, an in-flight supervisor, said: "I did my first solo flight, if I'm not mistaken, to Brisbane. It departed from Singapore. It was at night and it was raining...but once airborne... it (fear) slowly subsided and back to normal."
Another SQ006 crew who has been given the green light to return to flying is Amir Husin.
He'll fly to Perth in Western Australia next week in his first flight since the crash in October 2000.
For the leading steward, it was never a question of whether he'd return to work, but when.
His family, however, doesn't share his enthusiasm.
He said: "At first they were very very against my intention to fly but as time can heal the wound.... I talked to them.....I said that all this is fate, and they started to realise that all I said are true."
But flight stewardess Charlynn Chua isn't so confident.
She said: "I feel a bit more pessimistic in life. I used to feel that accidents won't happen to me, like what everybody thinks. But now it's different. Actually it does happen to me so I'll get more pessimistic, like being afraid of accidents and things like that."
In fact, Charlynn is so afraid of loud noises and vibrations that she doesn't even take the MRT.
She hasn't decided if she'll return to flying or opt for a ground job with SIA.
In the meantime, she's pursuing a long-distance MBA at an Australian university.
Singapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13739 posts, RR: 19
Reply 1, posted (12 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 1750 times:
SQ 006 crew get on with their lives
Of the 13 who survived Taipei crash, one plans to do her MBA while another will join the two who have returned to work
By Krist Boo
FOURTEEN months after SQ 006 crashed on take-off in Taiwan, more of the 13 Singapore Airlines (SIA) crew who survived the tragedy are getting on with their lives.
One is taking up a Masters in Business Administration course, while another will join two other colleagues who have already returned to work.
The airline would not say how much it is spending to help the crew, but it is understood that for 19-year-old stewardess Farzana Abdul Razak alone, the carrier is picking up the US$150,000 tab (S$278,000) for her treatment at an American hospital.
Of the survivors, she was the most seriously hurt, with 45-per-cent burns.
SIA, it is understood, will also pay for her stay there and for a family member to remain with her for several months while she is treated.
It will also pay $16,000 for the two-year MBA course in Australia that former stewardess Charlynn Chua, 23, is pursuing, and will have a job for her when she finishes.
Leading steward Amir Husin, 35, will report next week for his first working flight - to Perth. SQ 006's chief steward Isnin Mohamed Sohot, 47, has since been promoted to inflight supervisor, and steward Shahrin Shah Kamarshah, 25, got back to work several months ago.
Mr Isnin, who has been with the airline for 22 years, was the first to ask to return to duty. 'Hopefully, my action will give inspiration to my other colleagues,' he said.
Four SIA cabin-crew members were among the 83 people who died as a result of the Oct 31, 2000 accident, when flight SQ 006, a Boeing 747-400, burst into flames after ploughing into construction equipment on a partly-closed runway in Taipei.
The surviving crew's unhappiness with SIA's move to stop paying them their allowances, which can come to 70 per cent of their total pay, made headlines last year.
SIA has since reinstated these allowances and, yesterday, said that the other crew still recuperating would continue to get their pay.
Monthly gatherings have helped the survivors deal with the trauma, but some still have nightmares. Said Miss Chua: 'I dream that I'm on a plane, and the plane is taking off; and I wake up very tense.'
Senatorto From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (12 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1729 times:
I would like to ask you that under what assumption(s) that make u believe the blame goes to the airport, not the airlines.
Would you share us with the facts that you known regarding the accident, or any expertise or qualification that you have in judging the casue of the accident. At least, i want to know you objective, as well as, subjective beliefs in aviation accident investigation.
Just a little test on yourself: Would you result in the same conclusion of your own if the accident happened in HKG.?
Jesseycy From New Zealand, joined Aug 2001, 343 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (12 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 1690 times:
I just want to make this clear once and for all, so please give me a fair answer, don't be prejudiced.
I heard on BBC, one evidence was the flight recorder, Air traffic control telling SQ to go on the runway 23L (I think I'm wrong with the number), but the pilots mistook it for 23R (I am wrong again, I'm sure, abt the runway numbers). So if the pilot misheard the runway numbers, when it's clear from air traffic control, doesn't the blame lie mainly with the pilot?
Any previous report I can read from? By the way, sorry about the runway numbers, I have a real short memory.
Carmy From Singapore, joined Oct 2001, 627 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (12 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1682 times:
Jesseycy: I don't remember the inccident you mentioned, but what I do remember is that the Captain had mistakenly gone to 02R when the instructions from the ATC was to go to 02L. Now we've got to put the inccident into context, which is that weather was terrible at the time of the accident and that the Captain had almost no way of knowing if he was going onto the correct runway or not, since visibility was poor. (Not too sure if the correct runway is L or R, relying on memory now)
So the Captain goes into the runway which he mistakenly thinks is 02L. Why did he make such a mistake? There're several reasons for this. Firstly, the Taiwanese airport authorities in their infinite wisdom left the runway lights on. So basically what you've got are two runways which both look open to the pilot. And of course there was a China Airlines pilot who witnessed the entire fiasco but made absolutely zero, nilch attempt to contact the ATC. Why did the Taiwanese airport authorities leave the runway lights on? Didn't they know that it would confuse the pilot?
Secondly, when a runway is closed, the airport is supposed to put a huge sign with a cross on it so that the plane cannot possibly enter the runway, unless of course the pilot hits the sign down. Again, our wise Taiwanese airport authorities didn't do that. They jolly well knew that there was construction debris on the runway, but they didn't bother to close it.
Thirdly, despite TPE being prone to heavy storms and bad weather, the Taiwanese haven't got any sort of ground radar in their airports. I remember reading in The Straits Times that the air traffic controllers sometimes cannot even see the runway when visibility is poor, and the only way they can know what is happening on the ground is through communication with the pilot.
And remember how the Taiwanese refused to release the pilots? How the pilots were kept under arrest? And they even threatened to charge the three pilots with manslaughter. And remember how they only grudgingly released the pilots when some international pilots' association threatened to boycott TPE. Their high handed way of handling the entire affair, IMHO, was simply just disgusting.
The pilots cannot be completely void of any sort of responsibility, but the airport authorities have to shoulder much of the responsibility in this entire affair.