KrisworldB777 From Australia, joined Nov 2000, 571 posts, RR: 3 Posted (13 years 1 month 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 1435 times:
TAIPEI - Conflicting views between Taiwanese and foreign air-safety investigators about the cause of a Singapore Airlines crash just over a year ago will delay the release of a final report, Taiwan's chief safety official said yesterday.
The report on the crash of Flight SQ 006 - which took off on the wrong runway, slammed into construction equipment and killed 83 passengers - was originally slated to be released next month. But now, Taiwanese investigators do not expect any conclusions until April.
Foreign investigators - from Singapore, the United States and Australia - disagreed with so many points in the 250-page preliminary report that Taiwanese investigators need an extra two months to hammer out their final draft, said Taiwan's chief investigator, Mr Kay Yong.
Mr Yong, who is the managing director of Taiwan's Aviation Safety Council, would not elaborate on which areas other investigators who reviewed the report disagreed with, but said their differing opinions would be included in the final report.
One flight-safety expert, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that investigators were likely to have disagreements over the human factors involved - like the responsibility of the pilots and airport management.
Taiwan's final draft will be sent to foreign investigators tomorrow and will not be released to the public.
Foreign agencies are expected to revert with their comments by March 31 at the latest, said Mr Yong.
He would not say what Taiwanese officials believe the cause of the crash of Flight SQ 006 on Oct 31, 2000 to be.
In February last year, Taiwanese investigators released a fact-finding report that said the pilots told the tower five times they believed they were on the correct runway.
The pilots were also warned in a pre-flight briefing that the runway had been closed, the report said.
It also painted a troubling picture of Taipei's airport, referring to lights that were broken and markers that were missing for the runway which should have been used by the Singapore Airlines jet.
Singapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13747 posts, RR: 19
Reply 1, posted (13 years 1 month 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 1371 times:
It has now ended...
Taiwan ends inquiry on Singapore jet crash
TAIPEI, Jan 30 (AFP) -
Taiwan's air safety authorities have completed the inquiry on the October 2000 Singapore Airlines jet crash in which 83 people were killed, a leading investigator said Wednesday.
The investigation report will be disclosed in April after seeking views from Singapore, the United States and Australia, said Kay Yong, managing director of Aviation Safety Council.
Eighty-three passengers and crew were killed when Singapore Airlines Boeing 747-400 crashed in stormy weather during takeoff on the wrong runway at Taipei's international airport on October 31, 2000.
Ninety-six people survived the tragedy.
"We have completed a final draft of the investigation which will be sent to Singapore, the US and Australia for review," he said, adding aviation authorities from the three countries had participated in the inquiry.
"We anticipate that every party would present their views after reviewing the draft."
Amendments would be made if necessary after putting together their opinions, Yong said.
The flight SQ006 bound for Los Angeles broke apart and burst into flames at Chiang Kai-shek airport after it smashed into construction materials during the takeoff.
Preliminary findings by the council showed the use of the wrong runway was the main factor in the tragedy. But Taiwan aviation authorities also admitted shortcomings in their airport facilities.
The three pilots, who survived unharmed, returned to Singapore in December 2000 after preliminary investigation.
Cx flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6669 posts, RR: 55
Reply 4, posted (13 years 1 month 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1313 times:
It's always the case when you have several international bodies all working on the same investigation that there will be conflicting views. Taiwanese authorities will obviously want to put the blame solely on the crew and not admit liability over possible airport inadequacies. Singapore will obviously want to blame the Taipei airport authority...I mean, it can't be SQ's fault. They're perfect. It's good having the FAA and CASA there to ensure the thruth comes out.
Docpepz From Singapore, joined May 2001, 1971 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (13 years 1 month 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1256 times:
you have posted many posts prior to this which were intelligent, matured and void of any stereotypical comments and I had greatly respected and admired you for your constructive views in many debates that have taken place here, be it pertaining to airlines, world affairs or why America should rightfully be the world's superpower. However, your last post here:
"If anyone is to blame here, its SQ management for ordering 3 very tired individuals to take off in a typhoon before they exceeded their hour limits.
has somewhat changed my perception of you. That was rather immature. Hopefully it was just an abberation.
Anyway, SQ management never ordered 3 very tired individuals to take off in a typhoon. A flight had taken off 15 minutes before SQ006 and a China Airlines plane was queueing behind it.
And they had just started their duty at Taipei! The crew who had flown the aircraft in from SIN disembarked at TPE and were probably in their hotel rooms by the time SQ006 departed.
The point is, those pilots took off at the wrong runway. That was THEIR mistake. Kiasuism had nothing to do with it.
Go bash the pilots for all I care, but PLEASE do not imply that the lifestyle and attitudes of Singapore had anything to do with the SQ006 crash.
You do know how utterly irritating it is when narrow-minded people stereotype Americans. Likewise, that's the way I feel about the attitudes of such people towards my country.
And Cx_flyboy, since SQ assumed full responsibility for the incident on the second day after the crash, I don't see how you get the idea that Singapore will try to blame the Taiwanese authorities for EVERYTHING since SQ is PERFECT. Since SQ themselves admitted to the mistake.
Anyway this is rather political as airlines kind of represent the govt/people of their respective countries. Singapore will naturally try to shift the larger part of the blame to Taiwan and Taiwan to Singapore. It's therefore good to have independant third party investigators from Taiwan and Australia. The quibbling is obviously still going on.
Now, on to the issue. No matter how bad the markings were at Chiang Kai Shek, the decision to take off is ULTIMATELY the pilots'. Call this a technicality or whatever, but based on this technicality, the three pilots are to shoulder the larger part of the blame. Such is the sad fact of life, where people in senior positions have to assume responsibility for major blunders, despite having utterly incompetent people under them (of course in this case, as we will find out in two months, perhaps the pilots themselves were incompetent at that moment in time, but we have yet to find out)
Please guys, let's demonstrate some maturity here when we put foward our views!!
Carmy From Singapore, joined Oct 2001, 627 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (13 years 1 month 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1236 times:
Well I don't know, but what were the TPE authorities thinking when they left the lights on the closed runway switched on? Why wasn't the runway marked with a huge board with a cross on it? It's obvious to me that obviously the guys at TPE made a number of errors which ultimately led to the accident. I'm not saying that the three pilots are rid of all responsibility, but obviously TPE will have to share a fair bit of the blame.
The decision to take off is of course, ultimately the decision of the pilot, but in the context of the situation then, TPE shouldn't have left the runway lights on the closed runway on, as this would obviously mislead the pilots. And it just so happened in this particular situation, it was SQ pilots who were misled.