SIN SAT 12th AT 1630 local

[GE90115BL2]

Sin 1630 today, RWY 02C for Departure
A large Thunderstorm was dumping down heavy rain, vis was about 1000m, 10 kt tailwind, WINDSHEAR observed and reported. Lightning strikes all around the field.
Almost standing water on the rwy.


Most guys, including us ( CX in a 777) and SQ in a A340-500 elected to wait out the Ts

Not Jetstar and Air India.

Those heroes decided to depart, and they used an intersection to do it.

WHY DO GUYS DO THIS?
WHAT HAPPENED TO COMMON AIRMANSHIP


Not only that, just minutes before Jetstar called for taxi clearance while the tug and crew were still connected ( from taxyway N2 at 1630, you know who you are ) very bad habit to get into. One day you'll taxi over the tug. It's been done many times.

[speedtwoten]

WHAT HAPPENED TO COMMON AIRMANSHIP

Dear Sir, you must come and work in India about this, they do have prinsip about 1,2 billion people indians in the country, so if an aircraft crash it is only minus some inside the plane so, whats the problem:{

[GE90115BL2]

Thanks for the intelligent reply.........

[Clive]

GE, let me try to provide a more measured comment.

Firstly, I agree with your sentiments.... poor operational risk management (a more contemporary name for "airmanship").

However, you are running the risk of suffering from "holyer than thou" syndrome. As a probationary Ppruner you need to understand you'll receive a lot of stick for such posts. Particularly given you are from from one of the "majors". This is an obsevation rather than a criticism! I personally think you would be better to consider this situation as such.....

Lets look at the facts:

1. Heavy Rain - Doesn't neccessarily stop a flight if vis is acceptable and standing water is considered in the takeoff calculations. It does of course increase risk.

2. 10kt tailwind. Right on the limit of most airline operations I have been involed in over the last 30 odd years, but not OVER the limit. However, once again increased risk - particularly combined with the rain and an intersection departure.

3. Lightning strikes around the field. This indicates that the thunderstorm is certainly deemed to be "at the station". Some airlines prohibit operations when TS are at, or near, the field however not all. We would need to have insight into the airline SOP's to pass judgement here.

4. "Almost" standing water on the field - there either is or is not standing water. You can't be just a little bit pregnant. Most performance charts I have used have standing water allowances. Again, however, if standing water was indeed evident risk has again increased - hugely, given tailwind, intersection departure and TS.

5. Windshear. I have never been able to "observe" windshear so I'll substitute that for "Forecast and Reported". This is the most damning factor in my view. I don't know any airlines that do not prohibit departure in reported windshear, but again I'm not familiar with both of these airline's SOP's. Certainly the risks associated are in the very high to extreme range if operatring around windshear.

6. Vis - about 1,000m. Well above most takeoff limitations I am aware of for jet operations. At least double the low vis crteria. Risk increased? - certainly, particularly combined with all the above.

7. Finally, asking for taxi clearance whilst still connected to a tug. Never seen any SOP's prohibiting this. Most "checkies" would jump on you for this, but this relates only to "technique" not "procedure" - unless your airline precludes it via SOP. In fact many operators regard this practice as a mitigator agaist a very busy ATC on the ground frequency. However, risk of not ensuring the ground personnel are disconnected before taxi is higher - but managable by most crew with good SA and common sense. The problem here, I guess, is that common sense is the least common of all senses.

So the point of my post is that it is possible that these operators were within SOP's. As a consequence your "preaching" to them could well fall on deaf ears. It could just result in "us and them" mud slinging.

I will support your premise, however, that these sort of activities can indicate questionable "airmanship", and are certainly indicative of a less than mature safety culture.

We deal with risk everyday in our industry ("threat and error" we normally call it). Having the ability to recognize that risk is accumulating, and applying mitigators to control it, is often the most poorly executed aspect of our job.

Having said all that.... great to hear that your approach to the conditions indicates a mature approach to safety. I'm just suggesting you take a similar approach to your posts to avoid a "pprune attack" resulting in the message being lost, which is often the result in this place.

Stay safe!

[GE90115BL2]

I get your point Clive but................

I may be a new poster in this forum but I've been flying in Asia for 18 years in all sorts of WX.

It was dangerous and cavallier to take off in such WX. Especially from an intersection.:=:=:= The F/O and I couldn't believe what we were seeing.

How many crashes have been as a result of operations in or around Ts?
Well One 2 Go in Phuket comes to mind firstly, not to mention a Delta L1011 in Dallas etc etc..............

Don't forget the SQ A340-500 was number 1 at the full length and wouldn't accept the conditions, the Jetstar and Air India heroes then used an intersection to get by him. It's a very bold Captain that goes when others say they wont. ( bold, igorant or just plain dumb )

Glad I wasn't on those aircraft.

[GE90115BL2]

A 10 kt tailwind by itself is not a problem
1000m by itself is not a problem

But these were associated with a very active Thunderstorm overhead the field and dumping rain, lightening and wind shifts all over the shop.

What does it take for guys to open up their eyes?

We are not paid to take risks, leave that to NASA and Test Pilots

Did they configure their aircraft for "if windshear conditions are expected"
I'll bet they used a derate to save the company money!!

[armchairpilot94116]

As SLF I certainly appreciate the "meek" (and very sensible) pilots rather then those that risk our lives.

Many years ago , while on a Swissair DC-9 , the pilot attempted landing in Madrid during a tremendous TS (reportedly the worst in a decade) . Everyone else had diverted except us. Luckily we hit a tremendous updraft and sailed back into the blue!! I was happy the captain announced he had given up and we were going to join everyone else in Barcelona.

Upon landing I let him know that I didn't appreciate him risking our lives like that !! He had nothing to say. He knew it.

[ausflyer]

GE,

Pls check your PM's

Aus':ok:

[OCNL Ts]

Can you quote a reference where these operation were illegal??? As far as I can see these operations were within legal limits and SOP's.

You should climb down from your high horse and get the complete story before you start having a cheap dig at other pilots with your 'hollier than thou' attitude.

P.S. For you information the SQ A340-500 was take off limited due to the tail wind component. They were not unable to depart due to the other prevailing conditions.

:ugh:

[Chrome]

Assuming those pilots used derated takeoff in short says it all about you and your intentions. I wouldn't do it all the time myself but taking off in those conditions are within limits. TOGA would be preferable and I'm sure that's what they used.

[GE90115BL2]

I never said they were "illegal" just dumb

You heroes do whatever you want to do, just don't rain heavy aluminium down on my head.

I mean do you guys even have the slightest comprehension about what Thunderstorms can and do bring?

ATC didn't even know which runway to use as the wind was 180 deg opposite at each end of the field for a short while as the cell arrived.

How did you know that the wind wasn't going to increase the a lot more than 10 kts tailwind due to downdrafts from the rapidly approaching cell?
Would you like to encounter a 20 kt tailwind on rotate?
Would you like to get hit by lightening on the roll or at 100' after T/O?
Would you like to fly straight into large hail stones at 100'?
Would you like to encounter mod to sev turb at 100'?

This was quite a large active cell located dead smack over the threshold of 02C and moving north ALONG the runway.

And you want to risk yourselves and your Pax for what? a bigger bonus? a pat on the back from the boss?

Why do you take the obvious risk?:D
There was no reason NOT to wait.

I guess you "won the bet" and were right, the WX was ok for T/O.
next time???????????????

[GE90115BL2]

OCNL Ts: I suppose you were the Aussie in the Jetstar Bus?

The one that called for Taxi while the engineer and tow bar were still connected?

What was the rush?

A good way to set yourself up for a real cockup.

[CAPTAIN WOOBLAH]

Hey there GE,

Cool down, you'll give yourself a heart attack. As a total chicken I hear what you are saying. I too have been flying heavy jets for decades. But raving and ranting will not get your point across. Just as raving and ranting will not get a student pilot to learn faster or act correctly under pressure.

You have made valid points regarding windshear, contaminated runways etc. and, we all strive toward safety. Sometimes we all can and do make bad decisions, perhaps because we are human and are after all, considered the weakest link in the safety chain. Don't you remember scaring your goodself at least once in your illustrious career. And didn't you learn from that bad decision! I know I have, and I believe this has made me a safer and better operator. Perhaps you like I had a chance to make most of our mistakes in Cessna's, Pipers and Barons hauling bank cheques and news papers all alone in some remote part of the world where nobody cared if a tiny piece of aluminium fell out of the sky. But the young ones these days learn on the 737 or 320. And unfortunately they did not have a chance to make mistakes on the little ones but due to the nature of aviation today make those same mistakes on the jets.

I constantly dream of a perfect world with perfect rules and an aviation industry with a perfect record. But its not going to happen and we will sadly have to learn from the mistakes of others.

Wooblah.

[veloo maniam]

Dear Capt Wooblah...I always knew there was a soft spot in you.
I like the cool down and heart attack...nice to read.
Keep it up Capt Woo...your blahs are getting better.. I know you can and will contribute a lot to a society of matured and safe aviators.
You are trainer and a teacher..that's in your blood man...use it to the max.:ok:

[GE90115BL2]

Capt Wooblah: yeah ok......:)........I'm settled. I too have seen cockups from within my own flight deck. Been there done that !!

As Professional Flight Crew we are the last line of defence, the last hole in the swiss cheese. etc etc We cannot afford to become flippant about such things, in the past Crews have become flippant and they AND their pax paid the ultimate price.

Anyway I think I made my point.

Don't F:mad: with mother nature.:ok:

[CAPTAIN WOOBLAH]

Dear Veloo,

Thanks for the kind words, It means a lot coming from you.


Dear GE,

Keep looking after the young ones and pass on the knowledge.

Wooblah.:)

[Dani]

I wasn't there this day, but as far as I remember:

SIN can be very rainy in TS, but it goes by quickly. They might have planned to taxi on the runway and then check their radars. Most of the time I was there, the XXTS was away earlier than I could roll on the RWY.

There are wind shears sometimes, but they are never that extreme like in the northern hemisphere. Biggest problem is the heavy rainfall taking away your visibility. If you stay low out of the cells, you might escape the red thingies on the radar.

But, as I mentioned, I wasn't there, so I couldn't decide...

Dani

[GE90115BL2]

Yes Dani you weren't there.

Granted Ts Cells in the Tropics can be all bark and no bite but this one was pretty good. We had a good look on the Radar when turning through a SE HDG whilst joining taxyway EP early on before it hit the field ( and yes it was clear in front of us for half the airfield ) and it was very red with majenta turb areas as well. 5 mins later we couldn't turn on the radar again as there were aircraft in front.

On this day they got away with it, but one day they wont..........

The Pilot of the One Two Go in Phuket obviously thought the same as them, and look what happened on that day.

[Cripple 7]

Experience counts.

[Left Coaster]

OCNL Ts...you sound like my old boss! Always right and always in the office...we called him the "Seagull" (you had to throw rocks at him to get him to fly!) Stay out of my jet will ya?

[Static in the Attic]

Considering this is a PROFESSIONAL pilots forum I am dismayed at the total lack of common sense / airmanship being exhibited by some. (I have to add that I assume the conditions exactly described as GE existed.) We have had the calm / considered / tutoring approaches - all very easy when its not your wife & kids are not sat behind the four clowns in charge - & the politically correct postings where 'no blame' can exist. To the idiots who point out no rules were broken I point out that an Ops manual cannot cover every conceivable combination of operational issues - hence the Captain on board, who (is supposed to) assimilate the information into one big picture & make a SAFE decision. For those of you who don't understand what a Swiss cheese is think 'Russian Roulette', and for every difficulty with the departure add a round into the chamber. Pretty soon its full up. To dumb it all down further a previous airline CRM used the "3 ambers" method - ie to STOP when those were achieved. (eg XXRA + lightning + TWC)

I recently experience an Oz airport closing down on me for an hour or so recently due TSRA - peeved me a little as a Capt having the departure desicion taken out of my hands - but given the professionalism raised by this thread now begin to understand why.

I can see the danger of Pprune 'rants' agains colleagues doing daft things - that said surely no drama for any respective Flt Safety / training dept to dig a little as a result - & retrain / issue guidance to their inexperienced crews if found lacking before someone gets seriously hurt.

[The Reverend N]

Legal has nothing to do with it, its just too much of a risk.Stupid.

[wayan]

GE..I agree with your posts.
Clive.....what a load of old twaddle.Nicely syntaxed etc but please...how many holes in the Swiss Cheese do you want lined up?
And an intersection departure!




Heavy Rain, Tailwind ON limit, Lightning, Windshear.....
And you seriously considering a takeoff?


One question......why?


Suggest drug tests for Jetstar and the other outfit that departed from the intersection on said day....Because you must of been high.






If so...one question.....why?

[Clive]

Wayan,

Seems you have either misread my post, or have read it early in your research and mixed my message with those of others.

Before relegating my post to that of "a lot of old twaddle" can I respectfully request that you read it again.

My motive was to warn the "thread starter" that as a new contributor to this place he/she should be careful how such "preaching" is formulated as there was a risk that the approach taken could bury a very important message within the usual mud-slinging seen here.

Given the tone of a great number of the posts which followed - I rest my case on that point. :ugh:

In answer to your question.... No, there is no way I would consider a takeoff in the conditions stated. In fact during my 30 years in Airlines I have been faced with many similar decisions, within Australia, Asia The Americas and Europe, and have taken the same risk averse stance as suggested in the opening post. Hence my praise of GE's mature approach to the conditions!

In support of my case, let me quote from my own post.....

"Having said all that.... great to hear that your approach to the conditions indicates a mature approach to safety. I'm just suggesting you take a similar approach to your posts to avoid a "pprune attack" resulting in the message being lost, which is often the result in this place".

In hindsight, now knowing GE's experience level, I'm sure I do not need to counsel him/her on the pitfalls of the use of this forum as I'm sure he/she can handle him/herself.

I will now gracefully retire from the argument in the hope that my stance is clear.

“There is nothing that will stop the free flow of information as quickly as a dead messenger” (Huntzinger, D. L., 1996. Safety saves money. Flight Safety Australia, 14 – 17.).

[wayan]

There you have it.

I do believe though having operated big tin into and out of Asia for a few years now, the type of incident described by GE is a wake up for some.

If you have two out of three (Rain so loud you struggle to hear the FO, Lightning,Crosswind/Tailwind) I would imagine staying put to be very prudent.
Sounded like there was more than two of these elements present.

Loss of face, OTD etc etc is never an excuse for running of the end of the runway or worse.
If anyone reads Ge's post and does not get the hairs on the back of their neck standing up, you are to jaded or stupid to be making these kind of decisions

[Dani]

While I agree that policies and procedures have strictly adhered to, weather isn't a matter you always can squeeze into paragraphs.

I can imagine that GE is absolutely correct, I just want to point out it could also be different. I saw too many "clowns" in the tropics, having not really a great idea about how the local weather behaves, thus executing strange decisions, which didn't grant them necessarily more safety.

I remember a crew in front of us from a well renowned international Australian carrier, doing all kind of maneuvres, starting with an approach from the north, asking for vectors all around the airport, just because he saw some red on his radars, ending up trying a bit from the south, realizing he was much too close to the runway and executing a go around. Meanwhile he was blocking everyone else behind him doing a real planned approach, i.e. slip under the first few build ups and discovering that behind there was a clear blue sky.

I see nothing wrong in taxiing through a XXTS, lining up and checking his radar. If you still see nothing but red, then maybe I would wait a few minutes. If you see nothing but red it might also be just plain rain. And if you were not there lined up on the RWY and checked your radar you have no objective reason to blame them. Period. They are responsible for themselves - you didn't have to fly with them. We know that flight safety isn't everywhere the same. I could also tell you stories about airlines in HKG which sound strange to me.

Dani

[wayan]

Dani,

All agreed.
Besides the rain with associated bad vis, in most Asian airports, 1000m of rain will mean a contaminated riunway-Another factor.
This was coup[led with a 1okt crosswind, windshear(associated wind shifts I am assuming) and my favourite-The intersection departure.
All these factors on one departure spells HALFWIT

[SnowPanda]

I found this thread quite interesting to read. And theres just a few small points id like to add.

I can't help but feel from reading the posts that the words 'I assume' and similar expressions seem to be being used a lot, then followed by a opinion stated virtually as fact. Just as an example, in the post above. Perhaps, if the information you're using to base your opinion on is not rock solid, your opinion should not be either. Particularly if you're going to make outlanish statements (eg. the pilots should be tested for drugs) which seems a little far fetched to me, particularly when much of your arguement is based on speculation.

The 'intersection departure' point also seems to be coming up a lot. Just a note that the intersection departure you're talking about is from a taxiway RIGHT beside the full length depature entry point. And for an A320 on a 4,000m runway its not as limiting as the words 'intersection departure' imply, particuarly when the offset is so minor aircraft often roll past this 'intersection departure' point before even applying thrust.

Also, a statement was made above, something along the lines of 'legal has nothing to do with it', and I noticed this sentiment echoed a few times, though not quite so bluntly, through out the thread. To me this statement is a complete anomoly. To my mind, the reason aviation bodies provide us with laws, and companies then add ontop company limitations, is to provide us as pilots a basis on which to make our decisions. If when discussing this incident, legal has nothing to do with it, whats the point of having laws/minimas/company policies at all?

I'm not trying to say that this particular crew made a good, or a bad decision. I was not there on the day, and the information this crew had may have been different to the information we have available to us. The poster of the thread even said he was not able to switch the weather radar on at the time of this aircrafts departure. My comments, though using this thread as an example, are not specifically aimed at this incident, rather looking at the concept as a whole. While I appreciate the value of discussion so we can learn from each other, the extra assumptions/opinions that seem to find their way in and eventually become stated as 'facts' I feel detract from the positive outcomes that would otherwise take place.

In the end, my main point is, perhaps, seated at home in front of our computers, with second hand/incomplete information infront of us, we should not be so hasty to think we are in a position to make a better decision than any crew who is actually there with all peripheral information available.

[CAPTAIN WOOBLAH]

Bravo Snow Panda,

My sentiments exactly. :ok:

Wooblah.

[Hermie]

I can't remember if it was the same day but roughly about the same time. BA15 was on arrival with a Trainer 441 and a Cathay 7**. The weather condition was as such described by GE90115BL2.

CAT III Condition if I was not mistaken. Trainer 441 opted to hold over SAMKO while BA15 flew the entire approach. I guess based on that extreme weather conditions, the pilots deemed it safe to come in for the approach and landed followed by the Cathay and then when the weather had improved Trainer 441 requested for the approach.

So i guess its based on the pilots discretion to do what is safe within those limits.

>>Correct me if I am wrong

[SnowPanda]

Hi KJSM,

Just a quick reply to your post.

I completely agree with what you're saying that what is the point in having these forums if anyone who wasnt there at the time is not able to comment. That however was not exactly my point. There are lots of positive outcomes that come from discussing incidents like these, and gives us a way to see things from another point of view. I dont, however, believe that excessive speculation and cristicism creates any positive outcomes. Comments such as GE saying something along the lines of 'I bet they used de rate to save the company' is when I believe much of the educational value is lost and people are just making comments for the sake of it. That was my point, not that anyone who wasnt there doesn't have a right to comment.

In regards to the legal aspect, i find it quite ironic that you said that the law isn't black and white. To me its about as black and white as you get. If conditions are above the minimums the law says you can take off, if they're below the law says you cant. Its the airmanship/common sense aspect that to me is where things dont become so black and white. My thought is, what would YOU then consider acceptable? Would 800m vis and 10kts tailwind with no TS be acceptable conditions for you? Or, if the aircraft allowed 20kts tailwind, would that with 5000m vis be acceptable? Perhaps these conditions might be acceptable to you, but un acceptable for someone else. Does that make them wrong? Or you? Or infact, are NEITHER of you wrong, or stupid? That was my point. This crew, on this day, believed the conditions they were presented with acceptable. Whether or not you or I agree with them doesn't make their decision wrong. Although, I agree with you, the reverse is also true, just because its above minimas doesn't make it right. My point being the decision isn't necessarily as black and white as some people seem to think. And as you said why these threads provide us with so much educational value giving us an oppertunity to be able to look at things from another persons perspective.

Snowie

[rdr]

Hi fella's, there's one rule above all the training, legalities, policies and procedures etc...........
Its called CFS...............Common F:mad:g Sense