thebry
Posts: 333
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2006 7:50 am

Singapore Airlines Safety Record?

Thu Mar 01, 2007 7:00 am

I was recently embroiled in an argument with my sister-in-law regarding the safety record of Singapore Airlines. She's an attorney and says she's handled claims against the carrier, and that they've got a reputation among "legals" as having a so-so safety record.

I argued that they have one of the youngest aircraft fleets in the industry, and have created super-high standards for service that other carriers try (and often fail) to match.

So what's the deal? Does she know what she's talking about, or was she just baiting me for an argument?
 
kiwiandrew

RE: Singapore Airlines Safety Record?

Thu Mar 01, 2007 7:09 am

SQ had one controversial fatal in late 2000 ( 744 at TPE taking off from a closed runway during a typhoon ) and their subsidiary MI had an 733 fatal crash which has been widely held to have been pilot suicide . to the best of my knowledge their record other than these two is exemplary

speaking for myself I would still happily fly with SQ
 
Oz777
Posts: 516
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2000 9:48 am

RE: Singapore Airlines Safety Record?

Thu Mar 01, 2007 8:33 am

Quoting Thebry (Thread starter):
Does she know what she's talking about, or was she just baiting me for an argument?

She has a point.

While you may just think in terms of 'fatals' sadly SQ's 'incident' frequency is a little abnormal. Simple recollections, tail strikes in AKL, numerous runway / taxiway incursions at SYD, HKG, LHR and LAX to name but a few.

New fleet they may have, but their pre disposition to hiring tech crew from military backgrounds and mixing them with DEC who have gained experience with other carriers creates some special flight deck dynamics.

Great carrier, with an excellent product, but a few questionable occurences that point to a problem.

OZ777
 
flyinghippo
Posts: 688
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 12:48 am

RE: Singapore Airlines Safety Record?

Thu Mar 01, 2007 8:39 am

Remember... I can sue SQ for simply bumping my head against the lav door during turbulence... Or have hot coffee/water spilled on my lap, etc, etc...

Not all lawsuits are safety related, nor are all valid.
 
Ryanair!!!
Posts: 4071
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2002 8:55 pm

RE: Singapore Airlines Safety Record?

Thu Mar 01, 2007 10:21 am

Quoting Oz777 (Reply 2):
New fleet they may have, but their pre disposition to hiring tech crew from military backgrounds and mixing them with DEC who have gained experience with other carriers creates some special flight deck dynamics.

I happened to be one of those that was hired with a "military background" as quoted by you. While SQ might have these incidents occuring to them, it is no different from any other airline because all these incidents can happen to anyone at anytime.

Although I didn't make it through my pilot training course (I was destined for the A320s in Silkair), I can give you a rough insight of what goes on inside.

SQ006 and MI185 were 2 crashes no one in the world would ever think would happen, especially to Singapore Airlines. You can imagine the shockwaves it send through the small population here in Singapore. While I do not want to get into an argument about who was right and worng, the point I am trying to make is that SQ is just another airline like many others.

CAAS which regulates the aviation safety rules here takes the best out of US and UK books, add some more into it and voila.... you have some of the most stringent operating environments you can ever get in Asia, and perhaps the world. SQ follows rather closely and adds some more to the already myriad of rules. So to say that SQ isn't safe, I can counter that with many other examples.

However, these rules are carried out by human beings. Even machines have a tolerance limit, what more a human being?

So fly away with SQ. Lawsuits will always be there especially after a crash and it can go on for years.
Welcome to my starry one world alliance, a team in the sky!
 
PhilSquares
Posts: 3371
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: Singapore Airlines Safety Record?

Thu Mar 01, 2007 3:48 pm

Quoting Oz777 (Reply 2):
New fleet they may have, but their pre disposition to hiring tech crew from military backgrounds and mixing them with DEC who have gained experience with other carriers creates some special flight deck dynamics.

Perhaps you would like to quantify your remarks. Could you please tell me what would make someone with a military background any better or worse? That's like saying Qantas has the same problem due to their mix of military and civilian pilots. Surely the civilian pilots have just a diversified background as the other pilots at SQ.

I suggest you don't have a clue as to what you're saying.

Quoting Oz777 (Reply 2):
While you may just think in terms of 'fatals' sadly SQ's 'incident' frequency is a little abnormal. Simple recollections, tail strikes in AKL, numerous runway / taxiway incursions at SYD, HKG, LHR and LAX to name but a few.

Again, perhaps you'd like to share your database. Yes there was a tailstrike at AKL, but the incidents of taxiway and runway incursion you mention isn't quantifiable.

See above comment!
Fly fast, live slow
 
GneissGuy
Posts: 169
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 6:42 pm

RE: Singapore Airlines Safety Record?

Thu Mar 01, 2007 4:17 pm

Yes, SQ did have a few mishaps, a couple with fatalities, but i don't think there is a link to pilot background or safety standards.

Come on, not many airlines are incident-free yeah?
 
kaitak744
Posts: 2084
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 1:32 pm

RE: Singapore Airlines Safety Record?

Thu Mar 01, 2007 4:32 pm

On Wikipedia's page, they had a complete list of all the incidents relating to Singapore Airlines, and I can tell you, there were 4 things on that list. (Some one deleted those things, along with a bunch of stuff regarding their fleet usage that I wrote Angry )

The SilkAir 737 crash, 744 crash in TPE, 744 tail strike in AKL, and 772 runway incursion in BKK. THAT WAS ALL.

Compared to the records of many other airlines, Singapore is a pretty safe airline.
 
ZKSUJ
Posts: 6804
Joined: Tue May 18, 2004 5:15 pm

RE: Singapore Airlines Safety Record?

Thu Mar 01, 2007 6:29 pm

SQ is no Different to any other well renouned carriers. Sure they have had their 'incidents' in the past and I'm sure we couldn't name them all properly on here. But every airline is run by human operators and humans do make mistakes.

It is not confined to SQ. In fact, most large airlines go through similar safety standards in forms of regular inspections etc etc...
 
ZKNZA
Posts: 46
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 1:10 am

RE: Singapore Airlines Safety Record?

Fri Mar 02, 2007 12:02 am

I witnessed the tail strike in AKL from the tarmac and was horrified at what I saw that day, all I can say is that it was lucky the aircraft was taking off towards the Manukau heads, because if it was taking off towards Manukau city, that aircraft would have certainly met its demise.For the flightcrew of a seemingly well regarded airline to miss calculate the aircrafts take off weight and the corresponding V1,V2 and Vr speeds by such a huge margin is completely irresponsible,and appalling I was shocked at the standard of airmanship I witnessed on that Take off.SQ got of extremely lightly that day, you will however never see me ever fly on SQ again.
 
GneissGuy
Posts: 169
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 6:42 pm

RE: Singapore Airlines Safety Record?

Fri Mar 02, 2007 12:09 am

Quoting ZKNZA (Reply 9):
you will however never see me ever fly on SQ again.

Then you don't know what you're missing? Just joking......
 
okay
Posts: 597
Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2006 10:11 pm

RE: Singapore Airlines Safety Record?

Fri Mar 02, 2007 12:37 am

What I have always wondered is how the SQ crew would handle an emergency situation. I mean as it is stated here, they have a young fleet. But when it comes to accidents, not always the age of the a/c is related to the incident.What I mean is that if a total catastrophy happens it does not matter how well the crew is trained or how old/new the plane is, if the tube comes crashig down, that is it, normally nothing can be done anymore then. But how would the SQ crew handle a situation like AF crew had to a few years ago in Toronto, where, they had to evacuate the a/c on the runway. AF crew did marvellous job evacuating the plane within a time frame. Would this be possible by the Singapore girl? Would she represent the authority required to get people to listen to her and follow her instructions? Maybe she would have no problems. But it makes me wonder, as the airline is so strongly emphasising the service on board, it really feels they have taken a way the most important role of an FA, to secure the safety of pax on board. I have never flown with them, but this idea of flying restaurant doesn't sound appealing to me. I would like to know those beautiful women and good looking men can and will adopt an other role, of shouting orders and commanding people to do as they're told in order to execute a sppedy evacuation which is crusial. Somehow i can not see this. But please do not flame me for this, as said I don't know what they're safety training is like, maybe very good.
For example when an airline is designing a uniform such aspects as how formal/authoritive it looks is also considered (for example a research revealed that a person wearing a hat is perceived as more authoritive than one without, reason why many airlines make their crew wear hats during take-off and landing [two occasions when the risk of accident is at the highest level]) But for me SQ unifrom does not look very authoritive, though very beautiful.
I want to know that on top of having a nice customer service experience, that the airline I have chosen is also safe and crew well trained. First requirement is surely met at SQ, but for the latter one, I just don't feel it there..At the end of the day for me most important aspect of air travelling is safety and getting best trained crew rather than the level of customer service.
 
Molykote
Posts: 1237
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 8:21 pm

RE: Singapore Airlines Safety Record?

Fri Mar 02, 2007 1:40 am

Quoting Thebry (Thread starter):
I was recently embroiled in an argument with my sister-in-law regarding the safety record of Singapore Airlines. She's an attorney and says she's handled claims against the carrier, and that they've got a reputation among "legals" as having a so-so safety record.

I do not think SQ has a so-so safety record.

Here's a relative comparison of major airlines:
http://www.airdisaster.com/statistics/

SQ's incident rate is roughly at the norm according to the data presented here. I have no knowledge of the sources or methods used to arrive at these numbers.

Lawyers profiting from an (alleged) so-so safety record may not be the best source to substantiate allegations of subpar safety. I've had discussions on this topic with a handful of lawyers (including a close uncle of mine) who have sued operators, aircraft manufacturers, and aircraft component manufacturers. Although I understand why many of these lawyers hold their opinions, most of them seem to be hung up on "gotcha" tidbits of information rather than expressing any desire to examine the macro view of an airline/aircraft incident/accident.

To use a rough example, one of these lawyers was unconditionally hung up on the fact that a component (after a destructive investigation) had left the factory with a crack. I responded that it did not surprise me in the least and that many components leave production with small cracks that are not apparent through NDT methods (they are simply too small). It is for this reason that damage tolerant design (coupled with inspection schedules) are required by the FAA.
My lawyer friend's opinion on this "crack" situation was simply that "no components should be allowed to leave the factory with any type of crack". Although she is entitled to her opinion, I believe that she lacks an appreciation for many of the technical issues at hand to accomodate such a demand. Nevertheless, a jury would probably be much mroe receptive to her "allow no cracks" stance than a technical team's illustration of NDT procedures, damage tolerance, and inspection intervals.

Perhaps I diverged a bit from addressing SQ's safety directly, but perhaps I've provided some insight as to why your sister-in-law may hold her opinion.
Speedtape - The aspirin of aviation!
 
1stfl94
Posts: 1082
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:33 am

RE: Singapore Airlines Safety Record?

Fri Mar 02, 2007 1:53 am

Quoting OkAY (Reply 11):
What I have always wondered is how the SQ crew would handle an emergency situation. I mean as it is stated here, they have a young fleet. But when it comes to accidents, not always the age of the a/c is related to the incident.What I mean is that if a total catastrophy happens it does not matter how well the crew is trained or how old/new the plane is, if the tube comes crashig down, that is it, normally nothing can be done anymore then. But how would the SQ crew handle a situation like AF crew had to a few years ago in Toronto, where, they had to evacuate the a/c on the runway. AF crew did marvellous job evacuating the plane within a time frame. Would this be possible by the Singapore girl? Would she represent the authority required to get people to listen to her and follow her instructions? Maybe she would have no problems. But it makes me wonder, as the airline is so strongly emphasising the service on board, it really feels they have taken a way the most important role of an FA, to secure the safety of pax on board. I have never flown with them, but this idea of flying restaurant doesn't sound appealing to me. I would like to know those beautiful women and good looking men can and will adopt an other role, of shouting orders and commanding people to do as they're told in order to execute a sppedy evacuation which is crusial. Somehow i can not see this. But please do not flame me for this, as said I don't know what they're safety training is like, maybe very good.
For example when an airline is designing a uniform such aspects as how formal/authoritive it looks is also considered (for example a research revealed that a person wearing a hat is perceived as more authoritive than one without, reason why many airlines make their crew wear hats during take-off and landing [two occasions when the risk of accident is at the highest level]) But for me SQ unifrom does not look very authoritive, though very beautiful.
I want to know that on top of having a nice customer service experience, that the airline I have chosen is also safe and crew well trained. First requirement is surely met at SQ, but for the latter one, I just don't feel it there..At the end of the day for me most important aspect of air travelling is safety and getting best trained crew rather than the level of customer service.

If you want answers to those questions I suggest you look up the SQ006 and the actions of the cabin crew then
 
cedarjet
Posts: 8101
Joined: Mon May 24, 1999 1:12 am

RE: Singapore Airlines Safety Record?

Fri Mar 02, 2007 2:01 am

SQ are certainly on my "no fly" list. I think they're on a par with China Air Lines or Koreanair, the difference being that every time a CAL or KE pilot did something stupid and incompetent, the plane crashed, whereas everytime an SQ pilot did same, they had luck behind them. SQ006 was a crash waiting to happen, I wasn't surprised by it at all. Completely standard SQ nonsense of poor or non-existent CRM and very poor airmanship. Comparing frequency of incidents isn't enough, you have to look at what happened in the tail strike in AKL - and in MEL, when they overran the runway and rotated off the grass at the far end, again lots of luck (like in AKL) avoiding a terrible crash. An SQ 747 stalled at 800 after takeoff from VIE a few years back and narrowly missed the ground during recovery (luckily the stall didn't happen at 700 feet), an A310 actually went into a SPIN over the Indian Ocean on a training mission in the 90s, a Lear crashed with the loss of all aboard on a training flight. Loads of stuff there which you won't generally find at Northwest, BA, MEA, All Nippon et al. SQ unquestionably have a cultural problem regarding safety and have been very very lucky.
fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
 
kiwiandrew

RE: Singapore Airlines Safety Record?

Fri Mar 02, 2007 2:07 am

Quoting Cedarjet (Reply 14):
Loads of stuff there which you won't generally find at Northwest , BA, MEA, All Nippon et al

wasn't Pinnacle a NW carrier ? It is pretty hard to imagine a much worse display of lack of basic airmanship than that crew - just as well it was a ferry flight and there were no pax on board .
 
timboflier215
Posts: 804
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 7:54 am

RE: Singapore Airlines Safety Record?

Fri Mar 02, 2007 2:56 am

Quoting 1stfl94 (Reply 13):
If you want answers to those questions I suggest you look up the SQ006 and the actions of the cabin crew then

Exactly what I was going to say. Several of the famous Singapore Girls lost their lives on that day, as they stayed in the burning a/c to get pax out. The pax who survived had nothing but praise for the cabin crew.

As for the other incidents, SQ006 is a controversial one as to whether it was the cockpit crew or control tower who were at fault. The pilots took off on the wrong runway, but the runway lights had been left on.

The Silk Air crash was, it is widely believed, the result of a suicidal pilot.

I'm not familiar with the other incidents, but don't forget, all major airlines have had problems now and again. Even QF had a jumbo over run the runway onto a golf course a few years back, that could have been catastrophic. But it doesn't mean that they are unsafe, or that I would refuse to fly them. I'd happily get on an SQ a/c 2mo, and feel very safe doing it.
 
cedarjet
Posts: 8101
Joined: Mon May 24, 1999 1:12 am

RE: Singapore Airlines Safety Record?

Fri Mar 02, 2007 3:39 am

Quoting Kiwiandrew (Reply 15):
wasn't Pinnacle a NW carrier ?

Yes - good point.

Quoting Kiwiandrew (Reply 15):
is pretty hard to imagine a much worse display of lack of basic airmanship than that crew

And yes indeed, too true. Where SQ fall down culturally with FOs not willing to question their elders, US carriers very occasionally fall down (AA587 being the other recent example) of their pilots thinking they're Chuck Yeager. Tomayto tomahto.
fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
 
luv2fly
Posts: 11056
Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 2:57 am

RE: Singapore Airlines Safety Record?

Fri Mar 02, 2007 3:45 am

Quoting Timboflier215 (Reply 16):
Exactly what I was going to say. Several of the famous Singapore Girls lost their lives on that day, as they stayed in the burning a/c to get pax out. The pax who survived had nothing but praise for the cabin crew.

I thought I read where passengers complained that the Singapore Girls actually froze and did not perform when this accident happened.
You can cut the irony with a knife
 
PhilSquares
Posts: 3371
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: Singapore Airlines Safety Record?

Fri Mar 02, 2007 4:57 am

Quoting Cedarjet (Reply 17):
And yes indeed, too true. Where SQ fall down culturally with FOs not willing to question their elders, US carriers very occasionally fall down (AA587 being the other recent example) of their pilots thinking they're Chuck Yeager. Tomayto tomahto.

Really??? Could you point to some reference to your statement. After flying for SQ and doing instruction/evaluation work for other carriers in the region, I'd say you're completely incorrect in your statement!

It's never good to generalize, but the FO's at SQ will question things because it's in their own best to do so. It's called command. The atmosphere in the cockpit is very open and feedback is encouraged. Is it perfect? No, just like not every BA, QF or CX cockpit. Put to say SQ is on the same level of CA or KE. In fact, that statement just shows your lack of knowledge about SQ. Just for the record my wife's brother's wife is from Beiruit. Her dad is a former MEA Capt. I don't know if I'd quite put MEA in the same league as BA!

Perhaps you could point to soe reference for all the other incidents you cite, the 310 spin, the incident in MEL....

Quoting OkAY (Reply 11):
First requirement is surely met at SQ, but for the latter one, I just don't feel it there..At the end of the day for me most important aspect of air travelling is safety and getting best trained crew rather than the level of customer service.

The level of safety training the FAs receive is considerably more than the other airlines receive, In fact, I just did my "wet SEP" last month and had the pleasure of going in the pool with a group of FA, all in their uniform. Beleive me, they can move just as well in the uniform as they can when they're wearing a jumpsuit to do the slides. I have never thought twice about the competency of the FAs.
Fly fast, live slow
 
thebry
Posts: 333
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2006 7:50 am

RE: Singapore Airlines Safety Record?

Fri Mar 02, 2007 6:08 am

Quoting Molykote (Reply 12):
Perhaps I diverged a bit from addressing SQ's safety directly, but perhaps I've provided some insight as to why your sister-in-law may hold her opinion.

Excellent insight Molykote... thanks for taking the time.
 
Ryanair!!!
Posts: 4071
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2002 8:55 pm

RE: Singapore Airlines Safety Record?

Fri Mar 02, 2007 8:20 am

Quoting OkAY (Reply 11):
But how would the SQ crew handle a situation like AF crew had to a few years ago in Toronto, where, they had to evacuate the a/c on the runway. AF crew did marvellous job evacuating the plane within a time frame. Would this be possible by the Singapore girl?

You are comparing an aircraft that overran the runway and came to a rest in one piece in daylight (although it was raining), to another that crashed into 3 pieces and blew up in flames in a night that was being lashed by a storm caused by an approaching typhoon. Completely 2 very DIFFERENT scenarios. Totally invalid comparison.

Quoting OkAY (Reply 11):
I would like to know those beautiful women and good looking men can and will adopt an other role, of shouting orders and commanding people to do as they're told in order to execute a sppedy evacuation which is crusial.

I assumed you have never flown SQ before and thus have never seen a kebaya clad stewardess tell off a demanding passenger, or a drunk molester, and win over a sceptic, ... all with a smile.

Quoting Cedarjet (Reply 14):
SQ are certainly on my "no fly" list. I think they're on a par with China Air Lines or Koreanair, the difference being that every time a CAL or KE pilot did something stupid and incompetent, the plane crashed, whereas everytime an SQ pilot did same, they had luck behind them.

And since SQ is on your "no-fly" list, how are you in any right frame of mind to compare? BA flew a 747 into a plume of volcanic ash, a F100 lost a part of the cockpit wndscreen, a 737 went up in flames in Manchester, another 747 flew with only 3 engines from LAX to LHR... and I believed it happened again.

I am sure BA is no different from SQ with all these "incidents" happening because it occurs to ALL airlines. So will I avoid BA? No, because they have been known to be a reliable airline and I have no doubt about their safety record.

It is the same for SQ. And for you to compare them with CI and KE, you obviously have not flown much in recent years and even if you have, your comparison is very flawed. That being said, the safety levels on those 2 mentioned airlines have improved tremendously and they have come a long way in the last decade, if you have been following the development trends in the aviation maket.

Quoting Luv2fly (Reply 18):
I thought I read where passengers complained that the Singapore Girls actually froze and did not perform when this accident happened.

Yes there were some girls that was scared out of their wits. With every crew, there's always a batch of junior crew flying with them so I am not surprised this happened. I have seen young FAs that clasp their hands in prayer during a turbulent flight on QF so young and inexperienced crew are always around the cabin whether we like it or not. But while the media did put a spotlight on the inexperienced juniors, there were also those girls that lost their lives that night running back into the burning aircraft to pull passengers out, and never came back to the smoking exits.
Welcome to my starry one world alliance, a team in the sky!
 
noelg
Posts: 2313
Joined: Fri Apr 26, 2002 11:39 pm

RE: Singapore Airlines Safety Record?

Fri Mar 02, 2007 8:41 am

Quoting Ryanair!!! (Reply 21):
a F100 lost a part of the cockpit wndscreen

Actually it was a BAC 1-11  Wink

I don't think that SQ has a bad safety record, I would put them on a par with BA/QF in terms of safety and service on board. Sure the stewardesses are a nice bit of totty for eye candy, but I read they have a far more intensive training course than on many other airlines. They can certainly hold their own when dealing with disruptive pax!

Most of the flightdeck crews I've had on SQ have consisted of at least one Brit/Aussie/Kiwi or South African, which always makes me feel a little more comfortable when flying on foreign carriers anyway, compared to hearing a deeply foreign accent on the P/A.
 
1stfl94
Posts: 1082
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:33 am

RE: Singapore Airlines Safety Record?

Fri Mar 02, 2007 9:29 am

All airlines have incidents, some more high profile than others. SQ, to my knowledge has had one major crash (Taipei) and then some smaller incidents. They certainly have a better safety record that other airlines in the region (Garuda, CI) and they're probably at about the same level as the majority of major West European and US airlines.

Quoting Ryanair!!! (Reply 21):
And since SQ is on your "no-fly" list, how are you in any right frame of mind to compare? BA flew a 747 into a plume of volcanic ash, a F100 lost a part of the cockpit wndscreen, a 737 went up in flames in Manchester, another 747 flew with only 3 engines from LAX to LHR... and I believed it happened again

And let's not forget BA landing a 747 in the middle of the Kuwait invasion
 
Markhkg
Posts: 838
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2005 4:13 pm

RE: Singapore Airlines Safety Record?

Fri Mar 02, 2007 10:05 am

Quoting Luv2fly (Reply 18):
I thought I read where passengers complained that the Singapore Girls actually froze and did not perform when this accident happened.

There is a statement in the formal report that a crewmember saw a weeping flight attendant who was shaking and had not yet evacuated. However, the Singapore team's review of the accident report noted that no such interview statement was recorded, and should have been deleted from the report. Even if it is true, it is ONE flight attendant that was seen to act like this, rather than numerous flight attendants as implied.

Other cabin crew members performed their assigned evacuation duties as they were trained. This included the upper deck crewmember who opened the upper deck exits and redirected passenger to the main cabin stairs after the exits became unusable (he would later be found dead), two crew members who was almost suffocated by slides that had inflated into the cabin, but managed to free themselves and still direct evacuation efforts, and another crew member who evacuated only after his section was empty. Generally, most cabin crew preformed as they would have been expected to do so, and some went beyond the call.

I would point out that the AF overrun is not a suitable comparison to the SQ crash as the SQ crash was far more catastrophic.

http://www.asc.gov.tw/author_files/SQ006_ENG.pdf

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 19):
The level of safety training the FAs receive is considerably more than the other airlines receive

I had access to a SQ SEP manual (pre SQ 006), and I can confirm this. Their emergency training is very thorough. On par with American Part 121 training programs for flight attendants.

Post SQ 006, you can see certain enhancements on SQ aircraft safety procedures. All window shades now must be up, and pax must wear their shoes according to the safety video, which is a new addition. The safety card now has the location of the manual inflation pull handle, and the exit row criteria is clearly posted. New footware for the female flight attendants were designed and introduced.
Release your seat-belts and get out! Leave everything!
 
Ryanair!!!
Posts: 4071
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2002 8:55 pm

RE: Singapore Airlines Safety Record?

Fri Mar 02, 2007 10:05 am

Quoting Noelg (Reply 22):
Actually it was a BAC 1-11

This incident only happened a decade ago. No BACs were in BA's fleet by then I believe.
Welcome to my starry one world alliance, a team in the sky!
 
Markhkg
Posts: 838
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2005 4:13 pm

RE: Singapore Airlines Safety Record?

Fri Mar 02, 2007 10:12 am

Quoting Ryanair!!! (Reply 25):
This incident only happened a decade ago. No BACs were in BA's fleet by then I believe.

It really was a BAC-1-11.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_5390
Release your seat-belts and get out! Leave everything!
 
TURNLEFTALWAYS
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2006 9:24 am

RE: Singapore Airlines Safety Record?

Fri Mar 02, 2007 10:28 am

Quoting OkAY (Reply 11):
I have never flown with them, but this idea of flying restaurant doesn't sound appealing to me.

Believe me you really should try there product, all I can say is that it is great. Have you seen there new Raffles (business) and first class product, second to none by a long long way (presently). The only question I would put forward regarding SQ is the outfits of there female FA's. They wear very tight skirts dresses, I have no problem with this (I am gay, I think this is relevant with regards my question) however the skirt is very tight and I wonder how easy it is to move around in there outfit? Are there rules regarding FA's clothing?

Anyway I love SQ and if you haven't tried them just do it they are great!
 
Ryanair!!!
Posts: 4071
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2002 8:55 pm

RE: Singapore Airlines Safety Record?

Fri Mar 02, 2007 11:09 am

Quoting Turnleftalways (Reply 27):
The only question I would put forward regarding SQ is the outfits of there female FA's. They wear very tight skirts dresses, I have no problem with this (I am gay, I think this is relevant with regards my question) however the skirt is very tight and I wonder how easy it is to move around in there outfit?

I am part of the rainbow crusade too my friend!  Wink

Anyway, there are splits along the kebaya that allows for easy movement. During an emergency (crash), parts of it can be folded up the legs for ease of movement although I do not recall any FAs during the TPE crash that had partially torn or folded kebayas. Maybe there were but it wasn't photographed.
Welcome to my starry one world alliance, a team in the sky!
 
TPEcanuck
Posts: 86
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2005 9:24 pm

RE: Singapore Airlines Safety Record?

Fri Mar 02, 2007 11:37 am

Quoting Ryanair!!! (Reply 21):
It is the same for SQ. And for you to compare them with CI and KE, you obviously have not flown much in recent years and even if you have, your comparison is very flawed. That being said, the safety levels on those 2 mentioned airlines have improved tremendously and they have come a long way in the last decade, if you have been following the development trends in the aviation maket.

I think the rather frequent comparisons made to CI or KE indicate a flawed understanding of safety records. Safety records are just that, records of PAST performance. Just like when you make an investment, past performance is no guarantee of future performance. Ryanair!!! is correct to point out how both of these airlines have changed their practices, and hopefully changed their safety performance going forward. Lack of safety comes from the safety culture of the organization and even the best risk becoming complacent. I offer the 3-engine BA flights as examples. Yes, I'm aware that issue has been debated ad nauseum and I agree the flights were conducted within an acceptable margin of safety, however I respectfully submit that a 3-engine 747 has a smaller safety margin than a 4 engine one, and the unplanned fuel diversion to Manchester proves that the 3 engine variant of the 747 involves unexpected outcomes!

Quoting Noelg (Reply 22):
Most of the flightdeck crews I've had on SQ have consisted of at least one Brit/Aussie/Kiwi or South African, which always makes me feel a little more comfortable when flying on foreign carriers anyway, compared to hearing a deeply foreign accent on the P/A.

This is the other line of criticism that comes out when it comes to Asian carriers. As a Caucasian living in Asia, I'm so tired of Caucasians thinking they are better in any way by virtue of their race or background. The race of the pilot has nothing to do with how he or she operates the flight. I hope people in the rest of the world realize and appreciate that competence and talents of all people and that safety and proficiency is not derived from the colour of one's skin or the sound of their English. I suppose if you don't like things foreign, air travel is really not for you, as it involves getting out there and meeting people different from you and yep, those damn accents!

As others have pointed out, Singaporean regulations are in fact tougher than UK and US ones. Also, given similar operating environments, training, regulations etc, I would choose an airline operating new planes over older ones. Again, I'm not arguing that an older plane is unsafe; simply pointing out the obvious, between a well-maintained new plane(defined by cycles and hours) operated by a professional and a well-maintained old plan operated by professionals, the new plane is safer due to design improvements made and less fatigue on crucial parts.
 
workflyer
Posts: 166
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 7:49 am

RE: Singapore Airlines Safety Record?

Fri Mar 02, 2007 11:48 am

I have flown SQ a few times in the last two years and overall I am happy with them and will fly them again (hopefully to Singapore and Malaysia later this year) But I too wonder about the restrictiveness of the Kebaya and the sandels that the crew wear. Not exactly practical in the event of an emergency. Movement does seem a bit restricted. Tucking it up to run would not be that helpful as the nylons the crew wear would then be exposed to flames and burns from the slides. Again not practical. Must say though damn good looking, never once seen a bad looking FA on a Singapore flight.
 
timboflier215
Posts: 804
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 7:54 am

RE: Singapore Airlines Safety Record?

Fri Mar 02, 2007 12:14 pm

Quoting WorkFlyer (Reply 30):

But think about the restrictive skirts VS cabin crew wear etc etc. I'm sure that SQ wouldn't put their crew in uniforms that compromise safety. Basically, you can do a lot worse than SQ safety wise. If you are still not sure about them, don't fly with them. It's your prerogative. However, I don't think that they are any more/less likely to have a major crash than BA or QF or CX or LH etc etc.
 
PhilSquares
Posts: 3371
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: Singapore Airlines Safety Record?

Fri Mar 02, 2007 12:29 pm

Quoting WorkFlyer (Reply 30):
But I too wonder about the restrictiveness of the Kebaya and the sandels that the crew wear. Not exactly practical in the event of an emergency.

Believe me, after watching them in both wet and dry SEP, I can assure you they can move pretty fast and get the job done!
Fly fast, live slow
 
SingaporeBoy
Posts: 110
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 1:19 am

RE: Singapore Airlines Safety Record?

Fri Mar 02, 2007 12:47 pm

That doesnt leave many airlines for you to fly on if u want a perfect safety record.The only airline i can think of that hasnt had a major incident is Qantas but then again they have had some minor ones...like over running in BKK a few years ago.And of course some of the new LCCs.....
 
boswashsprstar
Posts: 190
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 12:21 pm

RE: Singapore Airlines Safety Record?

Fri Mar 02, 2007 1:05 pm

Quoting Oz777 (Reply 2):
While you may just think in terms of 'fatals' sadly SQ's 'incident' frequency is a little abnormal. Simple recollections, tail strikes in AKL, numerous runway / taxiway incursions at SYD, HKG, LHR and LAX to name but a few.

Ultimately, though, can you really say that this means anything? There have been periodic stories in the news recently about various US-based airlines landing on taxiways or having runway incursions at especially busy and confusing airports like BOS and JFK. Yet their safety records are all good, if not spotless, and I think you would be hard-pressed to find someone who would say they would avoid any of the US majors on safety grounds.

Even QF, which has the best record of any established long-haul airline, can have these kinds of problems--for example, a damaged wingtip from hitting a fence at JFK last year, or several recent air turnarounds on Pacific routes due to strange noises/engine trouble/other issues.

Airlines, unfortunately, are still human products.
 
okay
Posts: 597
Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2006 10:11 pm

RE: Singapore Airlines Safety Record?

Fri Mar 02, 2007 5:42 pm

Quoting Ryanair!!! (Reply 21):
You are comparing an aircraft that overran the runway and came to a rest in one piece in daylight (although it was raining), to another that crashed into 3 pieces and blew up in flames in a night that was being lashed by a storm caused by an approaching typhoon. Completely 2 very DIFFERENT scenarios. Totally invalid comparison.

Actually if you read my original post, you will notice I did not compare the AF accident to ANY accident happened with SQ. I was told by another member to familiarize myself with the facts of SQ006, in order to find out how SQ cabin crew reacted in an emergency situation. I used the AF accident just as an example, not as a comparison.So please do read carefully what other has written before starting your barbeque. Thank you  Smile

Quoting Ryanair!!! (Reply 21):
I assumed you have never flown SQ before and thus have never seen a kebaya clad stewardess tell off a demanding passenger, or a drunk molester, and win over a sceptic, ... all with a smile.

Again, please read my post! I clearly state I have never flown with SQ, I only state the airline does not sound appealing to me. =)

Quoting Turnleftalways (Reply 27):

Ah, someone who did actually read my post =) There are rules and guidelines to be followed when a unifrom is designed, at least in the Finnish Aviation Regulations, I don't know how international these are, then.But for sure, a long tight dress is a no-no, as it will restrickt the person's movements. Also leather gloves are to be worn during take off and landind in order to protect the person's hands. These to mention a few, and I can only say for sure that these rules apply in Finland.
 
PhilSquares
Posts: 3371
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: Singapore Airlines Safety Record?

Fri Mar 02, 2007 5:53 pm

Quoting OkAY (Reply 35):
Again, please read my post! I clearly state I have never flown with SQ, I only state the airline does not sound appealing to me. =)

And you're basing this on?????????????

Quoting OkAY (Reply 35):
Ah, someone who did actually read my post =) There are rules and guidelines to be followed when a unifrom is designed, at least in the Finnish Aviation Regulations, I don't know how international these are, then.But for sure, a long tight dress is a no-no, as it will restrickt the person's movements. Also leather gloves are to be worn during take off and landind in order to protect the person's hands. These to mention a few, and I can only say for sure that these rules apply in Finland.

So, if you've never flown SQ, how do you know what the uniform is like? TIght fitting, not really. Tailored? Yes. However, they don't restrict movement as you imply. Again, I can assure you from watching them in training, they can do anything anyother flight attendant can do.

There is no requirement for leather gloves on an interantional level. I've flown Finnair and have NEVER seen them used!
Fly fast, live slow
 
jeffrysky
Posts: 177
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 12:56 pm

RE: Singapore Airlines Safety Record?

Fri Mar 02, 2007 6:00 pm

Quoting OkAY (Reply 11):
But how would the SQ crew handle a situation like AF crew had to a few years ago in Toronto, where, they had to evacuate the a/c on the runway. AF crew did marvellous job evacuating the plane within a time frame. Would this be possible by the Singapore girl? Would she represent the authority required to get people to listen to her and follow her instructions? Maybe she would have no problems. But it makes me wonder, as the airline is so strongly emphasising the service on board, it really feels they have taken a way the most important role of an FA, to secure the safety of pax on board.

I am sorry but I really have to question that last statement of yours. Are you suggesting that a strong service culture necessarily equates to safety taking a back-seat ? SQ/MH/CX/QR and many Asian carriers place utmost importance on customer service and personal decorum, but that certainly doesn't mean that the additional hours of make-up,grooming,deportment displace those of safety/evacuation drills. Many people, for some absurd reason, just can't accept the FACT that there are carriers that can offer a safe and congenial service, without requiring their staff to behave like Guantanamo Bay guards.

The question I leave you with is : If a crew member couldn't be even bothered to treat me with basic respect during 99% of flights which are thankfully incident-free, what makes you think that this same crew member would suddenly act as my life-saviour during times of emergency ?
 
okay
Posts: 597
Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2006 10:11 pm

RE: Singapore Airlines Safety Record?

Fri Mar 02, 2007 6:14 pm

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 36):
And you're basing this on?????????????

It is the feeling I have of the airline, based on what I have heard, read etc. about the airline.

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 36):
So, if you've never flown SQ, how do you know what the uniform is like? TIght fitting, not really. Tailored? Yes. However, they don't restrict movement as you imply. Again, I can assure you from watching them in training, they can do anything anyother flight attendant can do.

Err, where do you see me implying SQ uniform restricts movement. I state that the Finnish Regulations say that a long tight dress is not allowed, as it restricts movement. I do not make any comparison there to the SQ unifrom. And I do not think I would be able to answer such question (regarding tightness/ability to move) even if I had flown with them. At no point I have made assumptions/conclusions about the SQ training/uniform, only presented my thoughts, that I have over and over said are only my opinions and thoughts, not based on any fact. The only comment I have made about the SQ uniform is that IN MY OPINION it does not look authoritive, an aspect that should also be considered in uniform design, IN MY OPINION. I also state that however it looks beautiful on these beautiful women who wear it.

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 36):
There is no requirement for leather gloves on an interantional level. I've flown Finnair and have NEVER seen them used!

This is however a rule. If a crew member then decides to act against it, I can not do anything about it.
 
okay
Posts: 597
Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2006 10:11 pm

RE: Singapore Airlines Safety Record?

Fri Mar 02, 2007 6:34 pm

Quoting JeffrySkY (Reply 37):
The question I leave you with is : If a crew member couldn't be even bothered to treat me with basic respect during 99% of flights which are thankfully incident-free, what makes you think that this same crew member would suddenly act as my life-saviour during times of emergency ?

I am only wondering, not saying anything as a matter of fact. I have said, that maybe SQ crew would have no problem executing the safety aspect of their job. I have not compared SQ to any other airline, not their service nor their safety standards (only used AF as an example). You seem to be very keen on SQ, which is all good, but please accept not all see things with SQ as you do.
When it comes to service, we all have our own preferences of how we want to be served. Again, I do not know if I would prefer the SQ service over an other airline, as I don't have an experience with them, but I am at least happy with the "European" service style one gets on European carriers. Just my opinion, again.
 
flyjetstar
Posts: 678
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 6:37 am

RE: Singapore Airlines Safety Record?

Fri Mar 02, 2007 6:42 pm

Quoting ZKNZA (Reply 9):
you will however never see me ever fly on SQ again.

So which perfect airlines do you allow yourself to fly then?
 
Ryanair!!!
Posts: 4071
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2002 8:55 pm

RE: Singapore Airlines Safety Record?

Fri Mar 02, 2007 9:29 pm

Quoting OkAY (Reply 38):
It is the feeling I have of the airline, based on what I have heard, read etc. about the airline.

Once again, it is only based on what you have heard and not on what you have personally experienced. Therefore, don't you think that a person who haven't gone through the experience isn't really a good candidate to pass critique and judgement about the matter concerned? No one is spoiling for a fight, but you are opening doors for a barbeque sessions by contradictions.
Welcome to my starry one world alliance, a team in the sky!
 
okay
Posts: 597
Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2006 10:11 pm

RE: Singapore Airlines Safety Record?

Sat Mar 03, 2007 12:21 am

Quoting Ryanair!!! (Reply 41):

That is the whole thing, dear Ryanair!!! -member. I have not passed any critique or judged SQ. This is in your head. All I have done is asked and wondered. And always said at the end, I don't know, just my opinion, just my feeling etc. Never have I passed my words as a general truth. Many of you have just put yourself on the barricades to defend SQ like it was a matter of life or death.Why would I not be allowed to express here my thoughts about SQ? As long as I tell that they're my opinions and feelings, and not try to say to people that this is the way it is, I find my posts quite ok. I have concluded my opinions by saying that the airline does not appeal to me. This is by no means a judgement towards the airline's any aspect (service/safety training etc.). That is a conclusion of how I feel towards the airline..HOW I FEEL. I appreaciated the one comment where I was replied to my wondering of the actions of the crew in an emergency. It professionaly stated I should look into SQ006 accident in order to gain information on matters bothering me.
We all have opinions (exactly OPINIONS!) about service, security and safety regarding airlines, countries etc. These opinions can be based on many things, for example like mine are based on what I have heard other people telling. I am sure you have created a picture of some company in your mind through something someone else has told you. Or that you have avoided some company's services because a friend of yours has said it is not worth using the services of this company. So please read my posts more carefully before starting the barbeque. To be honest such fierce defending of a company makes me wonder why?!
 
okay
Posts: 597
Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2006 10:11 pm

RE: Singapore Airlines Safety Record?

Sat Mar 03, 2007 12:24 am

Quoting Ryanair!!! (Reply 41):
you are opening doors for a barbeque sessions by contradictions.

Can you please state what contradictions I have created?
 
Pieinthesky
Posts: 374
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 7:30 pm

RE: Singapore Airlines Safety Record?

Sat Mar 03, 2007 1:06 am

Quoting Ryanair!!! (Reply 41):
Once again, it is only based on what you have heard and not on what you have personally experienced. Therefore, don't you think that a person who haven't gone through the experience isn't really a good candidate to pass critique and judgement about the matter concerned?

Spot on. I do love some of the characters on here who give blase opinions on things they have never tried or experienced. Still, it's what makes the place a great source of amusement most of the time.
 
ZKNZA
Posts: 46
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 1:10 am

RE: Singapore Airlines Safety Record?

Sat Mar 03, 2007 2:02 am

Quoting Flyjetstar (Reply 40):
Quoting ZKNZA (Reply 9):
you will however never see me ever fly on SQ again.

So which perfect airlines do you allow yourself to fly then?

No airline is perfect, there will always be mistakes, however an airline with a high operational standard and a safety focused culture,should be able to eliminate these mistakes through effective training and open communication when dealing with operational ocurances, defects and incident reports.
The CI incidents in Nagoya and Taipei with identical aircraft ,in an almost the same situation is a very good example of a poor safety culture in an airline.They wouldn't learn,couldn't learn and most importantly didn't learn.Its sad, both of these incidents could have been avoided, whats sadder though is that after the first crash they didn't learn.

You will never find me flying on SQ again, after what I saw that day. I'm sure if you saw the same thing unfold before you, you would probably feel uncomfortable flying SQ again too.
I have always been impressed with the SQ flights I have been on, however for an incident like this to occur , is totally unacceptable.It didn't need to happen, it could have been avoided and SQ nearly lost an aircraft with nearly 400 people on board.
This points to a poor safety culture, why was their no cross checking done in the cockpit, with regards to take off weight and the correct v1,v2 and vr speeds.How hard could it be to miss the fact that the take off weight was miscalculated to be over 100t less than what the aircrafts actual take off weight was.Thats over 25% of a 744s max take off weight.
Totally unacceptable.
 
trex8
Posts: 4577
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: Singapore Airlines Safety Record?

Sat Mar 03, 2007 2:22 am

I can understand people's concerns about CI, KE etc but I doubt anyone would be concerned about say AA , yet we have pilots who don't input nav data properly, use rudder controls in possibly dangerous ways, tired pilots who are overscheduled by the company and mechanics who use non approved maintenance procedures which result in crashes but I don't think there is anyone out there who would blacklist AA! Is your life in more jeopardy on a CI flight than a AA one, statistically yes, but its still probably a whole lot safer than some other airlines and definitely safer than driving to the airport. In the whole scheme of things I'd take SQ anyday.

[Edited 2007-03-02 18:24:44]
 
jeffrysky
Posts: 177
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 12:56 pm

RE: Singapore Airlines Safety Record?

Sat Mar 03, 2007 3:21 am

Quoting ZKNZA (Reply 45):
You will never find me flying on SQ again, after what I saw that day. I'm sure if you saw the same thing unfold before you, you would probably feel uncomfortable flying SQ again too.

Well each to his own, and I figure it's probably pointless to enter an argument over this. After all, there are people who vehemently swear against flying with Emirates/Qatari because of the so-called association between the Middle East and terrorism ; there are people who scoff at the fact SriLankan Airlines is a preferred carrier after news of extremists infilitrating Colombo Airport, when the airline does offer fancy stopover deals ; there are people who still insist Korean Air is the still same Korean Air which got itself entangled in several fatal crashes, despite the airline's massive makeover and change in cockpit culture. Hell, there are people who would rather drive cross-country from LAX to JFK, than fly.

It's probably good that you established everything you said as a pure figment of your own opinion, which in all honesty, would probably remain as such, at least in the eyes of the majority of frequent flyers.
 
flyjetstar
Posts: 678
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 6:37 am

RE: Singapore Airlines Safety Record?

Sat Mar 03, 2007 3:54 am

Quoting ZKNZA (Reply 45):

You will never find me flying on SQ again, after what I saw that day. I'm sure if you saw the same thing unfold before you, you would probably feel uncomfortable flying SQ again too.
I have always been impressed with the SQ flights I have been on, however for an incident like this to occur , is totally unacceptable.It didn't need to happen, it could have been avoided and SQ nearly lost an aircraft with nearly 400 people on board.
This points to a poor safety culture, why was their no cross checking done in the cockpit, with regards to take off weight and the correct v1,v2 and vr speeds.How hard could it be to miss the fact that the take off weight was miscalculated to be over 100t less than what the aircrafts actual take off weight was.Thats over 25% of a 744s max take off weight.
Totally unacceptable.

OK so I wasn't at AKL to see it happen but the point is it could have been any airline, it just happened to be SQ. People make mistakes. It might have been a wake up call to you that flying can sometimes be hazardous to your health! You write off an entire airline on the actions of one cockpit crew. I think you might need to keep it in perspective. You don't allow for any changes the airline would have made since such an incident. I have flown SQ many times both before and after the tail strike and while I saw it on TV it didn't mean that I could no longer fly the airline. I think you would need to look for a long history of such incidents before concluding an airline is unsafe.

Your conclusion that it points to a culture of poor safety is drawing a long bow. Again my experiences lead me to feel safe when I am on an SQ flight.
 
PhilSquares
Posts: 3371
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: Singapore Airlines Safety Record?

Sat Mar 03, 2007 4:42 am

Well, after watching two torrent groups go back and forth, perhaps it's time we threw some real evidence into the discussions. First http://www.boeing.com/news/techissues/pdf/statsum.pdf a great document they provides a wealth of info for juts this type of discussion. Secondly one should really look at this PDF http://www.boeing.com/news/techissues/pdf/statsum.pdf if you want to have a meaningful discussion on softy and safety rates. Then get a hold of the tail strike investigation at AKL. Other than the gross error committed by the Pm and the PF the flight was under control. However the Accident board was very critical of the fact no one knew the relationship with the pre determined FMS speeds and the ones the crew actually used. The NZ accident board recommended the FMs hardware be up graded so the speeds in the FMS are more realistic compared to what they'll have without it.
Fly fast, live slow

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Google [Bot], ikolkyo, PanAm_DC10, Part147, RalXWB, sirtoby, TNST3B, ZKLOU, ZKOAB and 220 guests