Taiwan to prosecute SIA006 pilots?

[Murrelet]

Definitely in the rumours category, but worth knowing about:

Taiwanese authorities are apparently now more than ever determined to prosecute the 006 flight crew. This is partly a response to SIA?s attempt to dodge the legal consequences of the crash (they are now maintaining that it was ALL Taipei?s fault, because of lighting on the runway ? not that anyone believes this, it?s just a good way to avoid paying damages as long as possible).

Anyhow, the victims? lawyers have applied to interview the pilots, only to be refused ? the pilots have ?taken the fifth?, and are refusing to answer questions on the grounds that this may lead to self-incrimination. It may be a stalling tactic, but probably is not ? the Taiwanese are really ?unhappy? about SIA?s attempt to pass the buck.

So if I read it all correctly this is what is happening:
1. SIA is trying to save money, and blame someone else for their mistakes
2. The Taiwanese don?t like taking the bullet and are determined to pin the blame where it belongs
3. The pilots will get screwed to the wall
4. The victims will wait a long time for any redress

Does this sound like the SIA we know and love?

[Crockett]

In any airline crash...not just SIA, it is the victims of the crash, whether they be deceased passengers and crew,next of kin or survivors, who are the ones who wait the longest for some type of truth, compensation and satisfaction that lessons have been learnt and that an accident for the same reason will not happen again.

Not that financial compensation really helps that much emotionally anyway, considering that their entire life has been turned upside down, tragically never to be the same again. Dreams for the future, dissapeared forever.

Big Business and Politics will come first before the little people every time..

[addinfurnightem]

It is out of the hands of the airline and firmly in the hands of both the SIA and the Taipei Airport insurance underwriters (and their lawyers) who will have subrogated, i.e. insurancespeak for taking full financial and legal control.
Like it or not it would have been the same just about anywhere else in the world and with whatever airlines, simply standard pactice.
Although SIAs insurance is 'fronted' by a local company in Singapore the major decisions are quite likely taken in, for example, London where the bulk of the re-insurance will be placed and where underwriting control is ceded to by the Singapore company.

[ 07 August 2001: Message edited by: addinfurnightem ]

[thegypsy]

If this is true they ought to take the DFO of SIA to court as he is responsible mostly for this accident as the Captain put his fear of explaining to those on the 4th Floor why he did not get airborne that night ahead of airmanship which dictated that he should have stayed on the ground.

Yes expect SIA to put all the blame onto Taipei. If they say it often enough they might even start believing it themselves!!

Unlike the Silk Air accident they have no influence on the final report.!!!

[A-V-8R]

The First Thing We Do Is Kill All of The Lawyers.

[John Barnes]

You are hitting it right on the head Gypsy but not completely correct since it is actually Brupamurah, some third world Rubber company, and not SQ’s DFO who is fully responsible for the fate of SQ 6. You wonder why, let me try to explain. Brupamurah provides Unilever with Rubber, Unilever sells this rubber to Firestone. Firestone makes tires and sells them to Huyundai. Huyunday then produces a car which they import into Singapore. The DFO's grocer bought this car and got a flat tire on his way to the DFO trying to deliver his morning coffee. The man started that day without a coffee and had therefore a bad coffee day and as a result bad vibes radiated out of the DFO's lush office to Taipeh, and there you have it the rest is history. I hope you now have the full understanding why Brupahmurah was ultimately responsible.

[thegypsy]

John Barnes. Oh of course silly me for not realising that!!!

[twitchy]

Hi guys,
Is there any truth in what I heard other day from one of the junior fellow............
As per him 3 pilots in SIA on B777 fleet are suspended, one was a Management pilot other one training pilot (LIP etc.) and a F/O. On an inbound flight to Singapore under a line check flight for P1 and P2 they were forced to fly an airplane which was not supposed to be airworthy. I heard all the 3 are suspended, is it true.......... :rolleyes:

[twitchy]

what we hear these days is that SIA management has taken serious view of this B777 Crew Oxy incident and has taken serious action against the management pilot and the LIP....looks like they have been demoted........any truth in this...
comments please........

[GlueBall]

Mur:
TPE airport liability? There is no ICAO Annex that requires a closed runway to be barricaded, nor to have its runway lights switched off. But of course, SIA's insurance carriers will attempt to test every legal angle to reduce monetary liability.

[In the slot]

The B777 rumour is true, and is a sad case of what is happening and continuing to occur in SIA. The sky's the limit and I wonder if the changes everyone are waiting for from LG Bey will kick in soon enough before we get yet more egg on our faces. Sadly I think not.
A total revamp of hiring, training, and checking is required to get things back on track.
Be careful out there!

[oneilas]

ALL THE BEST 'AZIZO',AND GOOD LUCK.
YOU'LL NEED IT THIS TIME AROUND. :o

[leGrand]

Glueball,

ICAO Annex 14 will tell you the marking requirement of a close runway.