SIA Sacks SQ006 Pilots (merged)

[Senso]

This appeared in the Straits Times July 25th.

SINGAPORE -- The Singapore Airlines pilots who took a wrong turn at Taipei airport last week and hit objects in a parking bay have been suspended, the airline said on Thursday.

SIA said in a statement: 'The incident in Taipei involving flight SQ29 on July 19, 2002 is currently the subject of an investigation, and the pilots concerned have been suspended pending its outcome.'

The Boeing 747-400 hit two tailstands, devices used to stabilise planes during loading and unloading, as it moved through a parking bay instead of the designated taxiway before takeoff.

The incident, which occurred last Friday, caused minor damage to a right-wing panel and the pilot continued with the flight to Singapore.

SIA said: 'It was not until the aircraft was airborne that the captain was made aware that the tailstands may have been knocked over by the aircraft while taxiing.

'He received this information from air-traffic control, which in turn had received the information from one of the ground staff.

'It could not be verified at that stage whether the aircraft had, in fact, made contact with the tailstands.' -- AFP

Taiwan airport says it has been told about unclear tarmac markings

---------------------------

TAIPEI -- Taiwan airport authorities on Saturday confirmed they had received recent feedback that there were unclear taxi-line markings in the area where a Singapore Airlines (SIA) plane made a wrong turn on Friday.

The feedback letter, received about a month ago, was from a SIA pilot, said deputy director of the Chiang Kai Shek airport terminal Wei Sheng-tzi.

The airport had then sent a safety bulletin to airlines to pay special attention to taxi-line markings in the area.

This was because 'we were afraid that people might make a mistake', he said.

'We redrew the taxi lines in the area two weeks ago.'

A spokesman for SIA on Saturday confirmed that one of the airline's pilots had made a report last month about unclear markings at the airport and had asked the airport whether it wanted to review this.

The pilot had pointed out that the markings 'could cause misunderstanding'.

As for Friday's incident, Mr Wei suggested that the flight crew of SQ29, which had turned into a remote parking bay instead of a designated taxiway, could have mistakenly followed a taxi line that led into the parking bay.

Aviation Safety Council chief Yong Kay on Friday said checks by his investigators showed that signage for the designated taxiway was in accordance with international standards, but that he was not sure about other markings.

The Taipei Times newspaper on Saturday quoted airport officials as saying that SIA pilots were not familiar enough with the airport's layout.

SIA started using Terminal 2 of the airport in May. It had hitherto been using Terminal 1.

On Friday, the Singapore-bound SIA jet had pushed back from gate C6 at 7.18 am and taxied east along taxiway SS on its way to the runway.

It should have made a right turn into taxiway S5 and then a left into taxiway SP.

However, the Boeing 747-400 turned too early into a parking bay. The flight captain was told by air traffic control that he had made a wrong turn, and he apologised for it.

Both air traffic control and flight crew were unaware that the aircraft's right wing had brushed against two tailstands in an equipment area nearby, knocking them over.

The parking bay, meant for smaller aircraft such as B757s and is 57.4 m in width, did not have enough clearance for the 64-m wingspan of the SIA jet.

Ground crew nearby who saw the incident reported it to airport authorities who then notified the captain, seven minutes after takeoff.

After some checks, the captain decided to continue on to Singapore, where inspection of the plane showed slight damage to a wing panel.

Taiwan's Civil Aeronautics Administration is investigating the incident while SIA and the Transport Ministry of Singapore are also conducting their own investigation.

[Lithgow]

It's official. The 2 SQ006 pilots have been sacked.

The message is clear:

The Government / Government Linked Companies can do no wrong.

When they do, they brush them aside as "an honest mistake" (those in Singapore will know about the huge SGD338 million "honest mistake" committed by faceless civil servants).

Everyone else is alway to blame except themselves; in this case the Taipei airport authorities and also the SQ006 pilots.

In a company which is run top-down, they put in place the "Captain is always right" culture, leading to co-pilots being reluctant to contribute unless it is absolutely clear that someone is going to die (particularly so on the 747 fleet). Then when it is convenient for them, they just sack the manifestations of their problem.

It will not go away, SIA. Continue ducking the blame and expect another highly public mishap every 2 years just like the usual (other airline) suspects in Asia. The latest TPE taxiway cock-up is right on time.

Good luck.


http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/storyprintfriendly/0,1887,133995,00.html?

****************************************************

JULY 26, 2002

SIA sacks SQ006 pilots

THE two pilots at the controls of SQ006, which crashed in Taiwan two years ago killing 83 people, have been sacked by Singapore Airlines.

A statement from the airlines on Friday said: 'SIA has terminated the services of Captain Foong Chee Kong and First Officer Latiff Cyrano in accordance with their terms of employment.'

The third man in the cockpit -- First Officer Ng Kheng Leng -- has not been sacked.

The airline did not give any reasons for the sackings.

When asked, an SIA spokesman said that there was a clause in the pilots' contract that allows their services to be terminated with three months salary given in lieu of notice. 'The airline is exercising that clause now,' the spokesman said.

The statement also noted that the airline had received confirmation from Taiwan's High Prosecutor's Office in Taipei that it had agreed with the earlier decision by the Tao Yuan prosecutor to not prosecute the pilots.

There were several conditions attached to the decision to suspend prosecution for three years -- the pilots had to perform 240 community service in Singapore and not fly any aircraft into Taipei for one year.

But with Monday's announcement that the pilots have been sacked, it is not clear if they would still be bound by these conditions.

Copyright @ 2002 Singapore Press Holdings. All rights reserved.

****************************************************

Sacking inappropriate, harsh: Pilots Association

THE decision to sack the two pilots of SQ 006 is harsh and totally inappropriate, said a senior official from Air Line Pilots Association of Singapore (Alpa-S).

When contacted after Singapore Airlines announced on Friday day that Captain Foong Chee Kong and First Officers Latiff Cyrano had been sacked, the Alpa-S official told The Straits Times that he was shocked and in debelief.

'We had hoped that SIA would have acted in line with the findings of the Ministry of Transport investigation into the crash which had revealed that what it was an accident waiting to happen and that it could have happened to any pilot in those circumstances.

'There was no evidence to show that the pilots were reckless or had disregarded any rules.

'So this decision is harsh and inappropriate.'

The association had no official comment at this time as its senior officials wanted to meet before releasing a statement possibly later on Friday.

****************************************************

[Lee]

My sincere sympathies go out to you both, Capt Foong and F/O Latiff Cyrano.

[SuperRanger]

SO is this "3-month Notice" an Achilles' Heel in our contract? what can Alpa-S do? Are there any legal recourse? Guess we across the causeway are in the same predicament... Ideas? Mere sympathetic notes does no good. I can only imagine what stress both Capt. Foong & FO Latiff must be under now. Are we at the mercy of the powers-that-be? Remember, this could be anyone of us!! To quote from another posting "If we sack every pilot who makes a mistake, the wouldn't be anyone left to fly the planes"

[Senso]

SuperRanger for starters we Northerners who work here AND have paid our dues to be part of ALPA-S have no voting rights. This is SIN Gomen, they accuse our country of Corruption, Cronyism and Nepotism, it exists here in SIN except in a different form.

As I said in my earlier post, when 006 went down they were very so quick to point out that Captain Foong was a Northerner, in such situations, is it at all relivant what the nationality of the pilot is?

The public in SIN and TPE are still waiting for the report about 029, but my guess is that he was a local chap and his mistake and poor airmanship will be swept under the rug with a little slap on the wrist. There are many Northerners that make up more than 50% of the airline, then again what has nationality got to do with being a responsible person?

ALPA-S cannot do very much as they will be rapidly outlawed if they took any kind of stand "macam lalang" or action. I do admire the Hong Kong Pilots Association for what they did for the CX pilots, but that is very unlikely to happen here. ALPA-S will probably try and help the Capt and F/O find new jobs, but the extent of their efforts remains to be seen.

Unionism of any kind is not tolerated here in SIN, not one bit... call any sort of action and we'll find ourselves out on the tarmac, employment passes cancelled, naked (uniforms are company property), homeless (company paid homes) and without a job so quick. Being an outspoken Ba-yee (turbanless) from the North, I have been warned about being too outspoken. "Just do your job well, enjoy the benefits, get paid, look forward to your command, stay safe and stay out of trouble"

This is a SIN Gomen company, the soverign carrier and the machines we fly belong to the Gomen, we are in an essence Gomen employees. My own Gomen in KUL sold me out because of the NEP, but I got another job here...

Any action is just pointless as we'll be very rapidly replaced Northerners or not.... Nationality has nothing to do with it unless you are from SIN....

Peace....
Be safe
-------------------------
777 way to fly and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

[Slasher]

Certainley not defending the Standartenfurhers of Stalag SQ or the attendent ALPA-S camp guards, but Im wondering if its insurance-related? If Foong Chee Kong and/or Latiff Cyrano (who have my full sympathys I might add) were to continue to fly SQ aircraft, would Loyds blow out the SIA premium?

Again full sypathys to Foong and Latiff. Poor bastards. :(

[BlueEagle]

I think it would be fair to say that when SIA next went to the insurance market for a renewal of the insurance the Underwriters would expect nothing less than the action SIA has taken.

As has been mentioned, it would have happened just about anywhere else too, how would you justify continuing their employement if, sometime in the future, their luck was down and they were involved in another accident?

[Lee]

Senso

What you said makes sense, stay safe, and get your command. BTW, is Gomen an Indian word or just Inglish (Indian English)?

Cheers

[Senso]

Captain Lee Sir,

GOMEN - An Indian, Indish, word pronounced "Goh-Mern", its how the indians in malaysia pronounce the "word" for "establishment"

What resulted in the last "threat" of industrial action by ALPA-S the last round, were you around in the 80's? I was told that the senior minister told the pilots to get back to work or be replaced of which there were plenty...

Senso
--------------------
777 way to fly and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

[Rhumb Line]

What do you mean poor bastards !!! There actions were tantamount to criminal negligence. Maybe next time they will revert to their SOPs of reviewing the taxi to the departure runway

[Slasher]

Your PPRuNe profile matches your naive statement R.Line. Try gettin yourself out of your PA34 fair-weather run-about and into a wide-body (for starters), then try stickin it out workin for a misery mob like S.I.A. for 3 years. Then youll realise just how bloodey stupid you sound. I detest armchair PPLs who dont know the substance of what there criticising.

BTW anyone, did the poor bastards manage to get jobs somewhere else? I hope so.

[422]

God Bless to the SQ 6 fellas.... all the best in your new
found freedom.

As for Dear Rhumb line, hope you're not a another graticule..

I sincerely hope you're as perfect as the "big guy",

If not, you're in no position to pass such comments.

:mad:

[Rhumb Line]

I feel I am in a position as a fare paying passenger on airlines such as SIA to pass judgement. We are all guilty of making mistakes but surely no one can condone the magnitude of the mistake made by the flight deck crew of SQ 006.
I am guilty of being naive only to the point that I have not updated my details recently slasher. :cool:

[Slasher]

Thanks R.Line for furthering my point again. "As a fare-paying passenger..." says it all.

[Rhumb Line]

As well as my job as Virgin FO and part time flight instructor !

[Bob Hawke]

Ooooohhhhh!! I am impressed!

[Rhumb Line]

Thank you very much :cool:

[411A]

Have to agree with Rhumb Line.
If these guys cannot read the taxi chart, and assure themselves that the proper taxi route and departure runway are selected, they have positively no business in the pointy end of a jet airliner, period.

And, after having spent a rather longish time at SQ, can also say that they are certainly no worse (or much better) than the majority of airlines today.

However, if a pilot cannot cut the mustard, then out he/she should be...absolutely.:(

[twitchy]

Would any one be interested in knowing the fate of the SQ 286 pilots, who scraped their tail in AKL.

Yes the Captain is sacked and has returned to his motherland, I don't know the fate of the local chinese FO

Here SIA can never be wrong, these are the people who work for SIA goes wrong and they are taught a lesson here in Singapore.

SIA, What a sh*t place to work it must be. Sad things guys

Cheers!!!!!!!!!!

[G.Khan]

Regarding the Captain of the B744 in Auckland that scraped it's tail, sorry to say that the Captain could honestly expect nothing less than the sack, being on an expatriate contract, or a permanent return to the RHS if he were a local and that applies to any airline worldwide, not just SQ. IMHO.

(Don't ask me how the Captain of the QF in BKK managed to survive demotion for a much bigger repair bill as I don't see returning to line from a training job as such a big deal, except, of course, he is now unlikely to become Manager, Flight Training).

[Rockhound]

G. Khan,
Your parenthetical aside re QF1 in BKK is very much to the point. However, shouldn't you be asking, how did the commander mangae to avoid demotion? As far as I know, after virtually writing off an entire 744, he was allowed to continue flying in the LHS. If my information is faulty, I would appreciate a correction.
Rockhound

[Slasher]

Virgin FO huh R.L? I didnt know you were such a highly experienced wonderboy and in a position to pass still-uninformed judgement unchalenged! Man thats even worse than being a fare-paying pax or arm-chair PPL because you think you know what your talking about! When you become a skipper and dive into and out of TPE at night in a typhoon with 500M RVR, with its lousey incompetant ATC and non-standard runway lighting (and you do survive), youll be in a position to get on your high horse and judge your peers.

Having had plentey of experience with TPE and its typhoons, I still have sympathy for those 006 blokes, even though the P.I.C. must take blame since being a part of the chain of events. But then with 14,500 hours (8,200 command 737 in SEA) what the hell would I bloodey know anyway. If you ever survive unscathed to 10,000 hours R.L. me young 2 shiney-barred judgmental buck, youll start realising just how luckey youve been during the previus 9,999. Consequentley youll thereafter look upon prangs as learning opportuniteys to avoid the same outcome as those poor bastards should you ever end up in similar circumstances. I learned a few things myself from that accident, 14,500 hours or not.

And btw go join SQ, and learn what its like to work for a truley authoritarian dictatorship, where if you cost them any money or delays by making sound safety decisions theyll suspend you without pay indefinatley without benefit of recourse. Then youll apreciate what SIA-induced pressure the 006 crew were under that evening. I have no profesional doubts that if the crew had been flying for a safety-conscous airline the accident would not have happened. The boys wouldve called time out without fear of Company retribution lah.

PS 411a Im surprised you said that. I was in and out of TPE a couple of hours before the 006 prang. The place was its normal typhoon pandamonium except for 06R notamed as a taxyway but lit as a runway. Surely you would be another whod intimatley apreciate what the situation wouldve been like under those conditions?

[Rockhound]

On the subject of SQ 006, 411A is being unfair. The crew had read and understood the taxiway chart and they assured themselves that theywere on the threshold of the assigned runway . Unfortunately, while following the proper procedures, they made an error, which turned out to be fatal. Have you never made an error, 411A?
The SQ crew paid the price, the QF 1 skipper didn't. As I've asked before, was it because in the latter incident in BKK no one was killed?
Rockhound

[Rhumb Line]

That is fine Slasher that you condone such actions and religiously defend your peers. We are all free to our own opinion............just let me know when you are flying next and I will stay well away :cool:

[411A]

Slasher,
Yes, can appreciate the problems involved.
Have also operated into/out of TPE many times during very poor weather, and can say positively that the old airport was much worse during typhoon season...in fact bad .:mad:

[ClimbGodammitClimb]

Hi twitchy,

For your info, the Capt of SQ286 (the AKL incident) wasn't sacked. He was offered a position as a First Officer; which he didn't choose to accept. Please be aware of the facts before posrting. (I am not here to say who's wrong or right, just to state facts).

[jollyt]

Last I heard, he was offered back his old job on LHS in Air Lanka which was why he turned down the FO position.

[B Swan]

Don't we all know it all along ???
In our job, it's zero tolerance. Realistic or not, it's what we all strive for.
What is sad though, is that the people outside our profession will never be able to fully understand that.

With the present market climate, even some of our fellow aviator after spending too much time behind the desk tend to become myopic with the bottom line....

As commander, there is no running away from the responsibilty of any incident on his/her flight, whether there is other mitigating factors or not. All these incidents ( hopefully it stays as incidents )just emphasis and re-emphasis the importance of concerted effort ( CRM/Teamwork ) of each and everyone of us towards safety in our arena. Ultimately what any single one of us does will affect everyone else in time.

WRT SQ286 Captain - I am glad he is given a second chance and I wish him well.