SQ And KE Near Miss On Takeoff At ICN

Coal · Mon May 09, 2016 6:05 am

http://www.straitstimes.com/singapor...on-at-south-koreas-incheon-airport

KE 929 unauthorized runway incursion while SQ 16 was on takeoff roll.

777LRF · Mon May 09, 2016 6:12 am

Sounds quite close from the wording in the article but I'm interested to see how close of a call this really was. Regardless, any such incident where tower needs to abort a take off is definitely serious.

BreninTW · Mon May 09, 2016 6:26 am

Quoting 777LRF (Reply 1):
but I'm interested to see how close of a call this really was

The article says that the aircraft were separated by 1.7 km by the time the SQ aircraft stopped. At 100 km/h, that's around one minute of travel time -- too close for comfort!

BartSimpson · Mon May 09, 2016 7:36 am

From a layman's perspective (somebody who's always sitting in the back):

Why was the KE plane's departure delayed for two hours? What happened in between? Were the pilots dismissed and they needed to organise a replacement crew?

Thanks for enlighten me!

BreninTW · Mon May 09, 2016 8:38 am

Quoting BartSimpson (Reply 3):
Why was the KE plane's departure delayed for two hours? What happened in between? Were the pilots dismissed and they needed to organise a replacement crew?

I'm pretty sure that's almost exactly what happened. The crew would have been stood down for investigation, drug and alcohol testing, and interviewing (at the very least, a very uncomfortable carpet dance in the chief pilot's office, a conversation with ATC, and the investigators). There's no way the crew would have been allowed to fly immediately following an incursion like this one apparently was.

nitepilot79 · Mon May 09, 2016 9:54 am

SQ16 delayed 19 hours, due to burst tires according to the article. Glad nothing worse happened. There must have been have been some serious braking involved during the RTO:

http://www.straitstimes.com/singapor...on-at-south-koreas-incheon-airport

"The SIA spokesman said SQ16's departure was delayed for about 19 hours as the plane's tyres had to be replaced. Affected passengers were provided with accommodation."

nitepilot79 · Mon May 09, 2016 10:21 am

***Armchair expert*** Does the Auto Brakes system on a 777 default to the maximum setting during an RTO? If so, they must have been moving pretty swiftly on order to have burst tires?

[Edited 2016-05-09 03:25:27]

zkojq · Mon May 09, 2016 10:58 am

Quoting nitepilot79 (Reply 6):
***Armchair expert*** Does the Auto Brakes system on a 777 default to the maximum setting during an RTO? If so, they must have been moving pretty swiftly on order to have burst tires?

Yes. The autobrakes will provide maximum brake pressure when the thrust levers are retarded to idle above 85 kts. The Pilot Flying can of course cancel the autobrakes at any time by applying the brakes manually.

According to AVHerald, 9V-SWP was doing approximately 105 kts when its crew rejected the takeoff. With heavy braking, that's more than enough to cause the wheel fuse plugs to melt and thus for the tires to deflate.

[Edited 2016-05-09 04:07:12]

nitepilot79 · Mon May 09, 2016 11:11 am

Quoting zkojq (Reply 7):
Yes. The autobrakes will provide maximum brake pressure when the thrust levers are retarded to idle above 85 kts. The Pilot Flying can of course cancel the autobrakes at any time by applying the brakes manually.

Does manual brake manipulation cancel the whole automated RTO sequence as well? Or does it just free up the wheel brakes?

nitepilot79 · Mon May 09, 2016 11:22 am

Quoting zkojq (Reply 7):
Yes. The autobrakes will provide maximum brake pressure when the thrust levers are retarded to idle above 85 kts. The Pilot Flying can of course cancel the autobrakes at any time by applying the brakes manually.

According to AVHerald, 9V-SWP was doing approximately 105 kts when its crew rejected the takeoff. With heavy braking, that's more than enough to cause the wheel fuse plugs to melt and thus for the tires to deflate.

Thanks for the info

.

mandala499 · Mon May 09, 2016 12:17 pm

The incident happened as SQ16 was taking off 15R, and KE929 went beyond the hold short line on the other end of the runway. SQ taxied back to the holding point 15R but never made it as some tires deflated, it turned off taxiway B and then onto A, the next parallel taxiway (B is nearest parallel to runway)... then it stopped along B... disabled. The KE was at this time back on B and was taxiing to 15R... however as SQ was disabled, KE was turned to the runway and taxied back to the deicing pad near the taxiway it made the incident on, or back to the gate, not clear from the ADS-B replays on FR24

I'm trying to obtain ADS-B datalogs from feeders to see if higher timestamp resolution data can be obtained, then we'll see how fast it went and how "close" this was to a disaster (doesn't seem so, but it makes good exercise for us armchair experts)...

HeeseokKoo · Mon May 09, 2016 1:10 pm

http://news.naver.com/main/read.nhn?...ec&sid1=103&oid=081&aid=0002716009

Picture of blown tires after the incident.

zeke · Mon May 09, 2016 1:27 pm

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 10):

This do s not add up, according to the OP it was a low speed reject, does your data indicate the sped ?

Where did SQ get off the runway ? C2/C1 ?

Was the KE coming from the cargo ramp ?

7BOEING7 · Mon May 09, 2016 3:26 pm

Quoting nitepilot79 (Reply 6):
If so, they must have been moving pretty swiftly on order to have burst tires?

The tires didn't burst/blow out, the tire temperature got so high the fuse plugs melted deflating the tires and preventing a burst/blow out.

Quoting zkojq (Reply 7):
With heavy braking, that's more than enough to cause the wheel fuse plugs to melt and thus for the tires to deflate.

Not necessarily. The speed was 105 kts which is not what one would call a high speed abort. The fuse plugs melting were a combination of the heat put into the tires during initial taxi + the heat from the abort + the heat from the taxi after he abort. On a heavily loaded airplane on a hot day you can melt the fuse plugs just by taxing -- but we're talking about a distance not normally seen in service.

Quoting nitepilot79 (Reply 8):
Does manual brake manipulation cancel the whole automated RTO sequence as well? Or does it just free up the wheel brakes?

It just frees up the wheel brakes. The only other "automatic" part of the sequence is the speed brakes which deploy when the thrust reversers are activated irrespective of it being an RTO.

dfwjim1 · Mon May 09, 2016 3:36 pm

In an incident like this would Korean Air be financially responsible for the costs incurred by Singapore Airlines?

skyhawkmatthew · Mon May 09, 2016 3:55 pm

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 13):
The speed was 105 kts which is not what one would call a high speed abort.

That's most certainly a high speed abort in my manuals.

zeke · Mon May 09, 2016 4:54 pm

Quoting skyhawkmatthew (Reply 15):
That's most certainly a high speed abort in my manuals.

Same, dumb decision to taxi for takeoff again without having the aircraft checked.

Sooner787 · Mon May 09, 2016 4:59 pm

Quoting dfwjim1 (Reply 14):
In an incident like this would Korean Air be financially responsible for the costs incurred by Singapore Airlines?

Or at least have the KE pilots help change the SQ's tires

Tommy525 · Mon May 09, 2016 5:36 pm

Expensive tires. Don't know if insurance covers that or the party in the wrong will have to fork over the money .
Which in this case appears to be Korean.

alfa164 · Mon May 09, 2016 5:59 pm

Quoting Sooner787 (Reply 17):
Or at least have the KE pilots help change the SQ's tires

And serve them some nuts - in a bowl, of course

thekorean · Mon May 09, 2016 6:00 pm

Quoting Sooner787 (Reply 17):

Does Hankook Tires make aircraft tires?

Thunderboltdrgn · Mon May 09, 2016 6:10 pm

Quoting thekorean (Reply 20):
Does Hankook Tires make aircraft tires?

They say so on their website: http://www.hankooktire.com/global/ti...e/types-of-tires/tires-by-car.html

eal · Mon May 09, 2016 6:58 pm

I'm more taken aback about how small the loads are on the SQ flight. Only 186 passengers on a flight seems rather low, but then again this might be SQs heavy business configured 77W.

hivue · Mon May 09, 2016 7:44 pm

Quoting Tommy525 (Reply 18):
Expensive tires.

The fuse plugs are in the rim. If they melt are the tires generally a write-off?

SIA747Megatop · Mon May 09, 2016 10:07 pm

Quoting eal (Reply 22):
I'm more taken aback about how small the loads are on the SQ flight. Only 186 passengers on a flight seems rather low, but then again this might be SQs heavy business configured 77W.

264 seat 77W. 77Ws have either 42J/8F (without PEY) or 48J/4F config (with PEY). This is usually a busy route.

CCA · Mon May 09, 2016 11:13 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 16):
Same, dumb decision to taxi for takeoff again without having the aircraft checked.

There's no reason to have the aircraft checked as it wasn't an RTO for a technical reason.

The only thing to do is the review the QRH which leads you to refer to the brake cooling schedule, that will then give you the option to take off again or if the calculated brake energy lands in the caution zone delay the take off and consider the effects of hot brakes, fuse plus melting.

Agree poor decision to consider another takeoff.

Be nice to know the exact take off weight and RTO speed.

777Jet · Tue May 10, 2016 1:38 am

Quoting Coal (Thread starter):
KE 929 unauthorized runway incursion while SQ 16 was on takeoff roll.

I wonder if the 'nut rage' woman Heather Cho authorized the incursion... from prison... j/k

[Edited 2016-05-09 18:39:37]

sejtam · Tue May 10, 2016 2:41 am

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 13):
The tires didn't burst/blow out, the tire temperature got so high the fuse plugs melted deflating the tires and preventing a burst/blow out.

One thing I always wondered. How far do those tires deflate then? I cannot believe that a fully loaded place resting with the rims on fully deflated tires is better (for the tires) than bursting. The rims must be cutting into the rubber then anyway, so what is gained?

or do the fuse plugs only allow a certain amount of pressure to relieve (maybe repeatedly) but still keep the tires inflated sufficiently for the rims not to be a problem?

BreninTW · Tue May 10, 2016 2:55 am

Quoting sejtam (Reply 27):

One thing I always wondered. How far do those tires deflate then? I cannot believe that a fully loaded place resting with the rims on fully deflated tires is better (for the tires) than bursting. The rims must be cutting into the rubber then anyway, so what is gained?

The tires are inflated to immense pressures, and are of an extremely robust contruction. You don't want them to fail explosively -- you want them to fail in a controlled manner. Hence the fuse plugs.

At best, an uncontrolled failure would result in a very loud bang, and pieces of rubber and steel flying everywhere. At worst, you'd end up with another Concorde-esque failure resulting in multiple deaths.

While tires are in no way "cheap," they're a lot cheaper than the potential costs of an uncontrolled failure. The fuse plugs completely deflate the tires, so yes, the rims do cut into the tires and the tires are written off after a deflation.

7BOEING7 · Tue May 10, 2016 3:24 am

Quoting CCA (Reply 25):
The only thing to do is the review the QRH which leads you to refer to the brake cooling schedule, that will then give you the option to take off again or if the calculated brake energy lands in the caution zone delay the take off and consider the effects of hot brakes, fuse plus melting.

To be clear, there is no QRH procedure that leads you to the brake cooling schedule -- you just know to go there. A quick guess at cooling time would have had them sitting for over an hour based on the RTO alone and close to the "caution zone" . If you consider the long taxi to 15R initially and however far they traveled after clearing the runway - there was extra energy added in both those segments.

flyenthu · Tue May 10, 2016 4:13 am

Have flown on sq 16 a couple of times recently; just flew on March 22 on swm. Usually not much traffic at ICN that time in the evening. Aircraft was 9v-swj. Glad all are safe!! Big SQ fan here! Wonder if the same crew flew it to SFO.

zeke · Tue May 10, 2016 5:22 am

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 29):
To be clear, there is no QRH procedure that leads you to the brake cooling schedule -- you just know to go there. A quick guess at cooling time would have had them sitting for over an hour based on the RTO alone and close to the "caution zone" . If you consider the long taxi to 15R initially and however far they traveled after clearing the runway - there was extra energy added in both those segments.

And the inbound landing and taxi ????? That flight is scheduled for a 1 hours turnaround after arriving from SIN. If it only got onto bravo when they blew indicates they were a lot hotter than you are suggesting.

Norcal773 · Tue May 10, 2016 5:54 am

Quoting eal (Reply 22):

I'm more taken aback about how small the loads are on the SQ flight. Only 186 passengers on a flight seems rather low, but then again this might be SQs heavy business configured 77W.

I've taken this flight a lot over the last decade, mostly in J on business travel and in Y, as recent as a few months ago. This flight relies heavily on India traffic and I've seen that India traffic dwindle over the years, Thanks to EK, EY and now AI flying to SFO I am guessing. Having said that, it's a heavy J-route, it always seemed to be full whenever I flew the bus up front... Except one particular New years day on SQ 15 when we were 5 of us

mandala499 · Tue May 10, 2016 9:47 am

Quoting zeke (Reply 12):
This do s not add up, according to the OP it was a low speed reject, does your data indicate the sped ?

Where did SQ get off the runway ? C2/C1 ?

I haven't received the higher resolution data yet but from the basic replay at FR24:
On 15R, 115kts abeam B6, 135kts just after passing B5, 74kts just after passing B4, taxied off B3 normal speed. Went back along B, 12 - 33kts variable, turned into A5 at 18-24kts, taxied along A until it stops just before taxiway R18.

Quoting zeke (Reply 12):
Was the KE coming from the cargo ramp ?

KE929's data started at intersection B and A4, then next was in from 15R/33L onto B1, this was before and after the incursion sequence.
Then, taxied along B at 15-30kts variable, then K, 15R from K onto B4, then B then B1 then what appears to be stand 821 or 822 on the deicing pad...

Quoting zeke (Reply 16):
Same, dumb decision to taxi for takeoff again without having the aircraft checked.

It seems that they wanted to wait at A to let the brakes cool off, then realized some tires deflating...

flyenthu · Tue May 10, 2016 2:25 pm

Quoting flyenthu (Reply 30):
Aircraft was 9v-swj.

correction: 9v-swp

7BOEING7 · Tue May 10, 2016 3:05 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 31):
And the inbound landing and taxi ?????

True, there are a lot of variables to take into account. Were they tankering fuel on the first leg, etc, etc.

With the extra information "mandala" provided, especially the airspeed, they were in the "fuse plug melt zone" regardless.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 33):
It seems that they wanted to wait at A to let the brakes cool off, then realized some tires deflating...

Not a good feeling watching the brake temps climb towards 9.9 and then see the tire pressure indications (if installed) start going to "0".

mandala499 · Tue May 10, 2016 7:30 pm

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 35):
Not a good feeling watching the brake temps climb towards 9.9 and then see the tire pressure indications (if installed) start going to "0".

To which the first non-aircraft issue that comes to the crew's mind is, "am I going to be legal to continue with this screw up or will I be out of hours?"

SQ And KE Near Miss On Takeoff At ICN

SQ And KE Near Miss On Takeoff At ICN

RE: SQ And KE Near Miss On Takeoff At ICN

RE: SQ And KE Near Miss On Takeoff At ICN

RE: SQ And KE Near Miss On Takeoff At ICN

RE: SQ And KE Near Miss On Takeoff At ICN

RE: SQ And KE Near Miss On Takeoff At ICN

RE: SQ And KE Near Miss On Takeoff At ICN

RE: SQ And KE Near Miss On Takeoff At ICN

RE: SQ And KE Near Miss On Takeoff At ICN

RE: SQ And KE Near Miss On Takeoff At ICN

RE: SQ And KE Near Miss On Takeoff At ICN

RE: SQ And KE Near Miss On Takeoff At ICN

RE: SQ And KE Near Miss On Takeoff At ICN

RE: SQ And KE Near Miss On Takeoff At ICN

RE: SQ And KE Near Miss On Takeoff At ICN

RE: SQ And KE Near Miss On Takeoff At ICN

RE: SQ And KE Near Miss On Takeoff At ICN

RE: SQ And KE Near Miss On Takeoff At ICN

RE: SQ And KE Near Miss On Takeoff At ICN

RE: SQ And KE Near Miss On Takeoff At ICN

RE: SQ And KE Near Miss On Takeoff At ICN

RE: SQ And KE Near Miss On Takeoff At ICN

RE: SQ And KE Near Miss On Takeoff At ICN

RE: SQ And KE Near Miss On Takeoff At ICN

RE: SQ And KE Near Miss On Takeoff At ICN

RE: SQ And KE Near Miss On Takeoff At ICN

RE: SQ And KE Near Miss On Takeoff At ICN

RE: SQ And KE Near Miss On Takeoff At ICN

RE: SQ And KE Near Miss On Takeoff At ICN

RE: SQ And KE Near Miss On Takeoff At ICN

RE: SQ And KE Near Miss On Takeoff At ICN

RE: SQ And KE Near Miss On Takeoff At ICN

RE: SQ And KE Near Miss On Takeoff At ICN

RE: SQ And KE Near Miss On Takeoff At ICN

RE: SQ And KE Near Miss On Takeoff At ICN

RE: SQ And KE Near Miss On Takeoff At ICN

RE: SQ And KE Near Miss On Takeoff At ICN

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net