SQ B777 Incident Changi

[Going Boeing]

During heavy rain at Changi airport, a SQ B777 partially left the runway last night ending up with three burst tyres. Vis at the time was reported to be 800m with braking action "medium". Runway 20R was closed for a few hours resulting in delays for many flights as the heavy rain persisted and operations on 20L became very congested. Changi runways are no longer grooved (pavement now lasts longer).

[OhBehave]

Bloody Malasians again no doubt.

It wont be SQ's fault.

It never is.

[faheel]

Well this must be something of a record on pprune, OhBehave and his asinine comment managing to turn the thread into a racist one after only one posting !!!

I suggest OhBehave you confine your purile remarks to yourself.
:mad:

[Left2primary]

faheel,

relaaaaaaaaaax...................It is a form of Irony directed at SQ not at Malasians.

I do believe that Ohbehave's comments relate to the official statement made by SQ hours after the Taipei accident that," the Captain wasn't Singaporean".


Perhaps the most distastful, inappropriate and bizarre statements that I have ever heard. I'll never forget it.

[OhBehave]

Faheel,

My comments were in no way racist. I appologize if my tongue in cheek approach misled you.

The SQ Stuff ups at TPE, TPE again, AKL, KCH and others have all been examples of where SQ management have an uncanny ability to take the easy option of blaming the outcome on a few individuals (especially non Singaporeans lah) instead of taking a closer look at the more important and often causal issues of employment, training standards, flight operations and general operational culture.

I hope that last nights effort (about which I have no info) results in a detailed investigation intended to ensure all involved are striving for worlds best safety practice's.

But I highly doubt it.

[mo_gravy]

yeah faheel... like duhhh.... :rolleyes: it was pretty obvious to everyone else... you got "small mans" or something??? :E :eek:

feel like a fa (kin) heel now?!?!?!?! ;) ;) :=

gravy™

[hadagutful]

Leaving aside any supposedv racist allegations etc. .......... SQ has a very good safety record (if you exclude Silkair) but it appears the Company may now need to look at some appropriate changes in the light of recent incidents.

For example, it is hard to believe that the Auckland error could ever have occured, i.e. weight calc 100 Ton under actual, leading to a Vr of 33kt under what should have been.

Then I read on Pprune that F/O was very low TT and Captain who apparently has since left SQ, had very low time on 744.

Surely SQ doesn't have a shortage of experienced 747 Captains?

[SMOC]

hadagutful,

Have you forgotten about 31st October 2000 in Taipei?


http://www.airliners.net/open.file/119957/L/

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/119706/L/

[hadagutful]

SMOC,

No, I hadn't forgotten about Taipei, in fact I was suggesting the safety record was good up until then and then there have been the subsequent incidents/accidents.

[faheel]

OK, I must admit the the "tongue in cheek" part escaped me at the time I replied.

and I do agree with this part of your reply obehave

"I hope that last nights effort (about which I have no info) results in a detailed investigation intended to ensure all involved are striving for worlds best safety practice's."

In any case I would like to know where Going Boeing got his info, because I have not seen anything on the news or in the papers about this incident
:confused:

[Keg]

So the barrell roll over the Bay of Bengal and not reporting it until an engineer discovers structural damage on the aircraft days later doesn't count then? What about turning off the hydraulics in climb, realising you've stuffed up, turning them back on, banging people on the ceiling and THEN reporting it to the authorities as 'turbulence'? Does that count as part of the 'very good'. What about a couple of stalls over Iran due to being too heavy and climbing too high? What about landing in Thunderstorms at Changi whilst EVERYONE else is holding. (I just love it when ATC tell me that 'SQ just got in'! :rolleyes: :D )

Sure, we all make mistakes and I'm certainly not saying that QF (or DJ or AN before them) is without blemish but if you're going to make a statements like 'SQ has a very good safety record' then you need to be sure of what you're talking about. Reality or the public's perception of it!

Regards,

[TIMMEEEE]

Keg, words well said.

Have seen the same thing at Changi whilst ourselves and many others were holding, but SQ just fires on in through what was displayed on not only our radar (but everyone elses) as a well defined scalloping magenta return (heavy storm) on finals 02L.

Also we would depart SIN at MTOW ahead of SQ going to LHR with these guys on the same route and same weight (judging by the LHR weather and them being full also).

These guys would climb 2000 ft above us and overtake us while we were at a height and speed which I would feel just comfortable at - no more in smooth air.

Do these guys have different parameters programmed into their software for buffet boundary calculation or OPTIMUM/MAX altitude calculations?

Lets not forget the supposed SQ Captain being marched from the hotel in London by the Met Police for supposedly landing with only a few tonnes of fuel - way below the minimum mandatory Fixed Reserve requirements.

That one never made the press either did it??

[The_Cutest_of_Borg]

Not trying to defend SQ here as KEG has hit it on the head re public perception and ACTUAL safety record, however SQ do operate to tighter stall margins than a company like QF (1.2G v 1.3G).

Also, I believe that due to SQ having a dedicated freighters, that they may be at lower weights than other airlines on the same route in many cases.

(Why am I defending SQ??? I gotta up the dosage!!):oh:

[faheel]

Timee said'

Lets not forget the supposed SQ Captain being marched from the hotel in London by the Met Police for supposedly landing with only a few tonnes of fuel - way below the minimum mandatory Fixed Reserve requirements.

Thats a new one on me, since when do the police come and haul you off for landing with less then min fuel in your tanks?

There have been a number of cases at Heathrow where a/c declare an emergency because they have less then min fuel in tanks, Concord springs to mind for one.

Are you telling me that the police go to the Cpts home and haul him off to police station for a please explain?

Sounds like an urban myth to me.
I am not defending SQ, but never let the facts get in the way of a good story huh?

[BlueEagle]

1. It was Malaysian that had the arrival fuel problem, like QF before it SQ actually followed their SOP and were legal.

2. Correct, Vs1.2 as oppose to QF Vs1.3 and when heavy that will give a cruise speed of .86.

3. Only one case of buffet and it wasn't altitude it was a failed CADC on the Capt's side that wasn't picked up as quickly as it should have been, it was a very subtle failure and didn't immediately produce the usual warnings.

Nothing like a good yarn though, is there!:D

[compressor stall]

The wording in the press release published on the Singapore Airlines official website in the hours folling the crash stated along the lines of:

"SQ reget to announce the accident at Tapei....(phone number etc etc for relatives).....

The Captain, who had 12000 hours of flying expereince was Malaysian."

[outtacontrol]

I think the standards need to start at the begining at a certain training school of rote learning. Ask anyone who has worked there, im sure they have a story or 10 to tell ! As I understand some of the Malaysians actually were the better pilots for no other reason then they wanted to fly, unlike their singaporean counterparts that probably wished they had been doctors. I understand at one time weeding the chilli patch was a good career move.

[flyingkiwi]

Yes the error on the t/o data in AKL could off and has happened in other airlines.

I believe the big mistake was during the following approach to land, yes he thought he had a tail pipe fire but he just about lost it over Manakau city and because he was trying to rush a landing he had to carry out a goaround. Waisting far more time than if he had just done a normal circuit/ ILS and landed.

Edited to sound more humble lest it happen to me one day!

[Capt Fathom]

All the 'armchair experts' starting to appear!

It is easy to be critical with hindsight. We all like to think that given the same set of circumstances, we would perform like an ace. In 28 years of flying, I have never been faced with a 'real emergency'. I hope that I can handle it well when and if that day ever comes.
Despite all the training, unless faced with these situations regularly, none of us knows what we will do on the day.
Although one thing is certain. There will be plenty of experts prepared to tell you what you should have done!

[Capt Claret]

Well said Fathom. I too hope that it's handled well when it happens. :}

[glastar]

After six years at SQ it is my opinion that Sq is not the safest airline, just the luckiest.
It also practises institutionalised racisim. Don't go there as an F/O.

[hadagutful]

Flyingkiwi

(Re the SQ incident at AKL),

Quote: " the t/o data error........... has happened on other airlines"

Bit surprised to hear that although I suppose anything is possible with some of the standards that exist in some countries, i.e. training, CRM, company management, etc.

It wouldn't happen here with the domestics in Oz would it ?

[404 Titan]

hadagutful

(Re the SQ incident at AKL),

This type of mistake is unfortunately a product of the times. While the bean counters that run airlines worldwide continue to have this obsession of continually driving down costs, (translation: cutting costs), accidents like this are going to happen more frequently. Australia is not immune to this. Infact the direction the Australian aviation seen has taken over the last three years in particular has me worried that it is only a matter of time before a major incident or accident occurs here. :sad:

[hadagutful]

404 Titan

Interesting to read your comments on suggestion that recent trend to cut costs may lead to a major accident here.

Certainly this could be true if cost cutting applied to crew training, a/c maintenance etc.

However, I suspect our Regulations and airworthiness standards are such that it is not possible to indulge in 'cost cutting' to the extent that air safety is unduly compromised.

Also while there is certainly renewed pressure on airlines to be competitive and keep costs down, it is not an entirely recent phenomenon. Overseas 'no frills' operators have been at it for some time and as far as I can ascertain, their safety record is no worse than 'bells and whistles' airlines.

In short, cutting costs and becoming more efficient doesn't necessarily mean 'cutting' safety.

Back to SQ in AKL, it appears that there was a combination of inexperience, crew distraction and some breakdown in procedure.
Probably a bit arbitrary to suggest, in this case at least,
that cost cutting was a causal factor.

[Don Esson]

Keg (and others),

Its is accepted that SQ, along with quite a few others, leaves a lot to be desired with respect to standards and management. However, there are skeltons in every airline's closet, no matter how big or small. Her're a couple from the Qantas closet to contemplate:

1. The 'hero' who tried to land at john waynes (Orange County?) when he thought he was trying to land at LAX. From meory, the driver blamed the sun in his eyes!
2. The infamous occasion when a B747 made an unsched diversion to KL when operating from Bahrain to Singapore. Aircrfat was powered by P&W's but flight was planned as an RR powered with fuel ordered and loaded according. Thjis was about 10+% less than needed as the RR consumed that much less gas than the P&W. At a point west of KL, expletives were heard from the flight deck, with the outcome being the excursion to KL for gas. None ot the pilots, nor FEO or flight planner nor any management took the rap.

Moral: people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Better to stick to the real issues rather than dredge up a bit of old and tired salacious gossip as I have just done. What does it prove? Look at me mummy, I am better? Leave it to the bar..

[Feather #3]

Just to set the record straight, Don , in #1 above;

LAX TWR thought that that a/c was making an approach to Hughes airport [down the escarpment Nth of LAX near Marina Del Rey with a runway parallel to 24R.] In fact, the F/O on the classic had incorrectly set the reciprocal QDM in the Capt's ILS and thus an attempt at intercept caused chaos. They flew parallel to the 24R LLZ while sorting the problem [the track coincidentally taking them toward Hughes a/p] and the mistake they made [and for which they were disciplined!] was descending below 2,500' without being on the LLZ.

It was a great trip for all; starting when they attempted to taxi on the centreline blue taxiway lighting leaving the [then] Sth'n apron at SKSA!!:ooh:

The Capt was demoted for a short time and the F/O [a known worry] finished his career as a permanent S/O.

Nobody's perfect [and he's retired too!]

G'day ;)

PS You'll find that John Wayne Orange County is a considerable distance away!!!!:ok:

[Capn Bloggs]

Hadagutful,
I disagree. Cheap Charlie Airlines that pay peanuts to their drivers have a lower standard of driver (unless said drviers like the place they are living in). The good ones nick off to better/bigger/more pay.

Safety is reduced as cost pressures are increased. I don't know what outfit you're working for, but I've seen it time and again. Things get fixed less, MELs last longer, pilots and engineers work harder...

The problem with you economic rationalists is that is doesn't stop until there is an accident, and then the pilots get blamed. Like Dick and his midairs. Who's going to get the blame? The pilots, for contravening CAR 163. @#$%^&!! It won't have anything to do with the system, oh no.

[Keg]

Don, for the record, I'm not throwing stones at SQ. I was merely trying to point out the error of a statement that someone else had made which was along the lines of 'up until Taipei, SQ was a very safe airline'.

I'm well aware of QFs past history. I could throw a few more pearlers around too- and not all of them ancient history such as PW and RR 747s!! :eek:. My point is is that to deny reality is slightly stupid. I don't deny it with QF but some do with SQ. The statement made about the SQ record prior to TPE confirms that!

[hadagutful]

Capn Bloggs,

Interesting comment you make on paying 'peanuts' and getting lower standard drivers.

I wonder what lower paid Virgin pilots, our friends at QF Link and those about to start with Jetstar would have to say about that ?

Surely you are not really saying that there is a proven correlation between remuneration and safety.

(P.S. I am not currently receiving any remuneration as a pilot).

[Next Generation]

Capn Bloggs

I disagree. Cheap Charlie Airlines that pay peanuts to their drivers have a lower standard of driver

That's interesting.

Independent audits have found that Virgin Pilots operate at a higher standard than their QANTAS counterparts.

So basically, you are talking utter crap with your assumption of pay being linked to standards.

NG

[Keg]

So you guys have been LOSA'd NG? That's the only independant audit that I'm aware of and even then some (not all, but some) of the methodology is suspect depending on how rigourous your SOPs are. IE, very directive SOPs provide a greater chance for 'error'. EG, if your manual says that a crosscheck shall be made at (say) 20000 on climb then a hand wave, etc will suffice. If your SOP requires a particular phrase, the 'acknowledgment' not being the complete and correct phrase (more or less) will not only reflect an error but an intentional non compliance. The hand wave which is entirely acceptable under one set of SOPs in one airline will be unacceptable and listed as an INC in the other.

What you can essentially have is two aircraft operated identically but because they are utilising different SOPs, get a completely skewed error rate. Incidentally, QFs threat identification/ awareness and strategy development (if you know LOSA, you know what I'm talking about) was considered to be very good.

So, I guess what I'm saying is lets not make throw away lines that can't be backed up. Let's actually compare the apples rather than make grandfather statements that mean nothing and were 'heard'. Remember 50% of statistics have been made up! ;) :p

[Next Generation]

Keg

So what!!!!! The point here is that wages are not related to standards.

If you were to receive a pay cut tomorrow, are you saying that you would become a lower standard driver, and conversely, if you received an increase in pay, your standards would improve???

I fail to see the connection between pilot's wages and their standards.

[Keg]

Whoa. Back up a bit here. That's YOUR hobby horse, not mine.

You made an unsubstantiated claim about an airline that you don't fly for. Back it up or retract the statement. If you want to go head to head with some other drongo about HIS poor statements in terms of pilot pay and skills, then use some FACTS rather than crew room scuttle butt.

What the other drongo said isn't necessarily true (although I've seen some surveys that WOULD point that out- methodology wasn't real solid in the ones I saw though and wouldn't hold up to serious scrutiny). IT deserves to be refuted but your unsubstantiated crap in your other post is EQUALLY as bad. Truth is, you don't know the basis of your statement.

In that case I offer this line similar to yours to Cap'n bloggs.

'So basically you are talking utter crap with your bit about 'independant' audits'.

BTW, I'll ask the question again. Has DJ been LOSA'd?

[bonvol]

I think Keg has you well and truly nailed NG.

[PPRuNe Towers]

So that's Keg, Bloggs and bonvol now obviously all the same person huh????

Someone really needs to get this site under control:} :} :}

Regards
Rob

[TIMMEEEE]

Independent audits have found that Virgin Pilots operate at a higher standard than their QANTAS counterparts.

Next Generation

Oh yeah - and just what Independent report" would that be you speak of?

What organisation did this direct comparison and when?
I'd love to read the results.

The only way to directly compare apples with bananas is to have the same individuals audit both airlines objectively using the identical parameters as to just what is a "targeted" item in terms of threats or violations.

[rockarpee]

I doubt NG would know what a LOSA was anyway!!!!!

[hadagutful]

Next Generation

Don't worry about all the waffle, I totally agree with you, getting back to the original point - I don't believe there is any connection between a pilot's salary and standard of safety.
If that were the case I would like my driver to be on a $million a year ! No, make that $10 mil.

But seriously, no-one can suggest that somewhat lower remunerated pilots flying for 'no frills' carriers have a lower safety standard or even a lower level of skill or decision making ability.
This is not borne out by the accident/incident statistics.

[Keg]

Actually hada, the 'statistics' support that exact theory very clearly if you want to be a little fast and loose with what you define 'no frills'. We hear the word and we think DJ and Impulse. By and large the standards between all three Aussie airlines will be similar.

HOWEVER, the 'statistics' CLEARLY show that the 'no frills' carriers throughout the world make up a significant number of the crash statistics. Why? Because they are all African/Russian/Chinese 'no frills' carriers. IE, they are lowly paid, no conditions, no service, no safety, etc, etc. THOSE were the studies that I was alluding to earlier and my first paragraph shows why a throw away line like 'no frills= no safety' doesn't tend to hold up in Australia. It all hinges on how you define 'no frills'. To take the analogy further, whether you like it or not, 'lowly paid' pilots crash aeroplanes at a far greater rate than their better paid bretheren. To link the reason they do to their pay scale isn't quite good research though. It's probably due to poor training, poor SOPs, poor management oversight, etc, etc, etc.

If we REALLY want to start comparing things then we leave money (as in 'pay) aside and the areas above are the issues to target- and I'm not talking minimum standard, meets CASA requirements here. Unfortunately, where the discussion takes a sojourn is that training, SOPs and oversight cost money and the boss that isn't going to pay his drivers a half decent wage probably isn't going to spend a great deal on the others either. Hence, that is where people start to connect the dots that lie between poor pilot pay and pranging aircraft.

You've been pretty quite NG. Cat got your tongue? I know you're out there. You've responded on other threads! :D :p

[oicur12]

Keg,

I recall from numerous pprune debates from the past that Qantas 767 pilots have often referred to themselves as the “lowest paid 767 pilots in the world”. I have also heard this comment in general conversation with Qantas pilots.

Wouldn’t such a statement therefore imply that because Qantas “isn't going to pay his drivers a half decent wage” (as judged by, say, a Delta or ANA pilot) he “probably isn't going to spend a great deal on the others either”.

[oldhasbeen]

This,people, would have to be the most childish, half-witted schoolyard crap I have seen on this website.
Grow up the lot of you!

[Next Generation]

Keg,

If we REALLY want to start comparing things then we leave money (as in 'pay) aside

I originally entered this discussion in response to Capn Bloggs comment:Cheap Charlie Airlines that pay peanuts to their drivers have a lower standard of driver

You can take this thread off on a different tangent to suit your argument, but I reiterate my point that wages are not related to standards.

However, I will buy into your argument regarding training.

VB has some of the most experienced 737 drivers in the world, with a wealth of overseas experience as well as domestically. This knowledge is passed on through structured training, and one only has to look at the amount of money that has been invested in the new simulator centre in Brisbane.

Over to you.

NG

[The_Cutest_of_Borg]

NG... I believe KEG asked you to back up your statement about Independent audits have found that Virgin Pilots operate at a higher standard than their QANTAS counterparts ...

I see you have chosen to ignore that..

[Keg]

OK NG, I'll spell it out for you. I've just proved your case against Cap'n Bloggs WRT low wages= low standards- and I did it without making a BS statement like your 'independant audits...DJ better...' crap. Indeed, a close look at most first world 'low cost' carriers will show that standards are broadly the same. I can't be bothered looking up the specific research in my texts but I've seen it, it does exist. If you'd like I WILL track it down. Can we let that go now? I mostly agree with you on that point-- and always did- but was never going to let your BS 'independant audit' crap slip by without being challenged.

So, I'd like to know of this 'indendant audit' that you claim puts DJ pilots in a better light than QF! Was it LOSA? Was it some other form of audit? Surely you can tell us! If you're going to make such a grand statement about the skills of all DJ crew you should at least be able to tell us who it was that was independant. Do you know? Have you seen the data or was this something that was passed along in the crew room or in the pub or at a BBQ at a mates place? Your previous silence on the matter despite being asked a number of times doesn't inspire me with confidence either way! In fact, your silence on the issue altogether suggests that you don't even know what LOSA is let alone threat/error management in the context of LOSA.

So, what was the 'independant audit' that you claim occurred or were you just grand standing and making yourself and others feel good? Believe me, I'd have much more respect for you if you just admitted that you had nothing and it was crew room scuttlebutt. If it WAS LOSA then see my earlier post about SOPs and so on. Given that you won't answer, I'll assume for the time being you just didn't and don't know. In that case, your comment at the time WAS purely grand standing. :ouch:

Have a nice day. :E

[rockarpee]

Still waiting NG....

[Next Generation]

Keg,
I've just proved your case against Cap'n Bloggs WRT low wages= low standards

Did I miss that bit ??????.........:confused:

[Keg]

Obviously. Go back and read it all again.

The stats I alluded to about world wide low cost being less safe don't hold up to close scrutiny. Once you take out third world airlines, Russia and China, the crash statistics between low cost and non is almost negligible.

Answer the question. Were you grand standing when you made your 'independant audit' statement? Avoid it much longer and I'll email it to Woomera to make it a poll and you'll be voted off the island! :E

[Next Generation]

Keg,

Avoid it much longer and I'll email it to Woomera to make it a poll and you'll be voted off the island!

E-mail it to your Mummy and Daddy too, for all I care.
I am enjoying your frustration so much, especially when you seem to be the expert on audits. You have rambled on about the audit comment, as a diversion from the real issue.

Go cry to Woomera you little sook.
:{ :{ :{ :{ :{ :{

[Keg]

Frustrated NG? Not at all digger. You duck and weave but you can't avoid the fact that EVERYONE knows that your 'independant audit' statement was grand standing BS based on zilch!!

That's not frustrating, it's hilarious. The fact you don't pick sarcasm and respond with venom is just as funny. I dunno why you don't just bite the bullet and admit it! You may regain the credibility you're losing! :E

[The_Cutest_of_Borg]

NG... independent audits have found that you are back-pedalling light-weight with zero credibility!!

When you back up your independent audits, I will back up mine!!:hmm:

[faheel]

Listen up Keg and NG !

If you want to continue slagging each other off do it in private will you?

This has got absolutely nothing to do with the 777 incident

c'mon guys show a tiny bit of professionalism here :hmm:

[Keg]

Fair point faheel but it was professionalism I was trying to get out of NG by him justifying his BS, grand standing statements. You can't let crap like that just go through to the keeper without being challenged

Alas, it was not to be. NG remains a coward. :E :yuk: :p

Done and done.

[Kaptin M]

It might be time to quit while you're ahead, Keg.

IndependEnt (there's no "a" in there) can very well mean INDEPENDENT... the COD definiton - or part thereof being, Not depending on others for one's opinion or conduct.
Therefore it is quite plausible that NG may well have conducted his own, independent survey to arrive at the conclusion he has.

In real (aviation) life it is also reasonable to assume that if an employee feels that s/he is being paid less than fair market value, then s/he may well feel less than s/he believes s/he is expected to feel in terms of employee-employer responsibility, ie. the "give-take" factor.
Safety, for professional pilots, will not be a factor, however cost saving/costing strategies may well be.
Swings and roundabouts.

A conscientious, company minded pilot can - in ONE month - make savings equivalent to at least 6 months salary, if so motivated.
According to a recently conducted "independent survey"!!

[Spotlight]

I wouldn't put up with that NG! Kaptin M is being sarcastic to you.

[Spelling_Man!]

Spelling Man LEAPS into action... thrusting his hips at the offending word... ooops too late!....KAPTIN M has already corrected the error!!!

Come, Punctuation Boy, my firm buttocked buddy..... Lets us not tarry and delay the good citizens of PPRUNE!!!

....... AWAY!!!

:ooh:

[Red Hot Chili Pepper]

Kaptin M- would you be so kind as to give me a brief run down as to how I can save my company 6 months salary in one month.

Waiting in anticipation.

[Kaptin M]

Consider hourly cost rates of the aircraft you fly - let's assume it's a 737 costing $6,500/hour.

In a month of (say) 65 hours blocked flying it is possible to save about 5% (say 3 hours) - or alternatively to increase by about the same amount. A total of 6 hours...actually about 6.5.

Brief enough?

Wait over, RHCP!

[Kaptin M]

Quite correct, DA.

Unfortunately (or fortunately), that sort of opportunity (to SAVE the company $$'s) doesn't arise on a daily basis, month in-month out. :ok: