SIA, Yet another incident brushed up under the rug?

[freightdriver]

Just last week we were eyewitnesses to an incident involving an SQ Boeing 777 in Changi that left the gate apparently what we can make out from where we parked is that: chalks were not inplace and it went rearward untill it went in to the ditch about 200-300 meters behind it.

We were parked at bay 307 in the remote East Apron and we could see the whole thing from where we were, there was commotion to say the least and from what I understood from our ground handler it took them the whole night to get the airplane out of the ditch....this happened around 3 am in the morning...mind you.

We didn't hear any news about it, can anybody share any other info on this....

:confused:

[aviator_38]

Hi all,

Have taken the liberty of reproducing this from the main reporting point forum.........my apologies to Possum .


Cheers



==============================================
Possum 15
Just another number

Click here to order your Personal Title

posted 22nd March 2003 07:14
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SQ having a bad run, as airlines often do. This morning at approx 0300 local one of their B777s gently rolled off stand D48 (?) at WSSS and into the grass. Either unattended, or attended by someone who couldn't manufacture brake pressure!



Report this post to a moderator

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 26 | From: Middle East | Registered: Sep 2002 | Status: Offline | IP:

[John Barnes]

Yeah and a taxidriver in New York hit a dustbin while backing up. Big F*** deal!!

[freightdriver]

Indeed a NYC Taxi driver backing up into something is no big deal...

But a 777 in an Int'l airport is a big deal, I have flown with SQ forever as a pax and I must say that the service is second to none...I am not trying to start a negative discussion regarding the airline, just curious of the fact or the absence of one...can anyone share?????:confused:

[BarryMonday]

Freightdriver - You say you are frequent flyer with SIA etc. So, then, why the very evocative title to this thread? Very negative I would have thought?

It was a very unforunate ground handling incident with no flight safety element whatsoever and no reported injuries. I doubt if there is an airline in the whole wide world who would bother to make a press release on the subject.

[Foreign Worker]

A "very unforunate ground handling incident.."?
More like carelessness or irresponsibility on someone's part, than "unfortunate", I would venture.

And as for "..with no flight safety element whatsoever.."! - that is debatable.
An out of control B777 rolling 200 to 300 metres - and you don't consider that constitutes a safety risk, admittedly not flight!

Some of the responses from John Barnes and barry Monday make me wonder what sort of mindset some people have (or DON'T) :confused:

How much damage, in dollar terms and down time, was done to this "taxi" through carelessness?

[BarryMonday]

Well Foreign Worker at least you admit I could have a mindset, whether you like it or not, your post leaves me wondering if you have anything between the ears to generate a mind set?

I specifically said FLIGHT SAFETY , you note this as an after thought.

There is nothing about the term "unfortunate incident' that precludes the possibility of carelessness or irresposibility, simple basic English OK?

I see you have already attributed this incident to 'carelessness' - and on what do you base this assumption please? Ever heard of a brake system failure?

Suggest in future you read, think, read again and think again before you rush into print and start slagging people - you are obviously far from perfect.

[Foreign Worker]

Ever heard of a brake system failure?
Yes, I have.
If it was a failure of the brake system that caused this accident, can we expect an ADD from Boeing shortly, Mr Monday?

Ever heard of a failure to SET the brakes? And chocks? Were they not sufficient to stop the aircraft rolling?
Or weren't they used?

What sort of pea brain is going to try to infer that a GROUND ACCIDENT could in some way become a FLIGHT SAFETY issue? My "after thought", as you phrase it, was to highlight the ludicrous inclusion of "flight" in what is OBVIOUSLY to all (except OBVIOUSLY BarryMonday) a GROUND event.

Unfortunate incident - yes, for Singapore Airlines, because of the damage done to one of their newest aircraft.

[freightdriver]

Barry Monday, you're right perhaps I should have consider a better tittle for this post. But considering past habits of SIA handling incidents reporting causes some concerns personally.

An incidents however minute still warrant a report where we can evaluate the failing of operational safety issues. One of the few things I had hope to get from this post is to get a better view of what actually took place, especially from people that has fist hand knowledge of the event. We're in an industry that demmands a high level of safety, 99.99% just doesn't cut it. What we can learn from our past mistakes or in this case other people's mistakes will help us aim for that 100% safety, flight safety or ground safety.

Of course it was not my intention to offend anyone, my sincere apology.

:(

[BarryMonday]

freigthtdriver Nothing more than a minor misunderstanding, no apology required! I can't see how anyone could be seriously offended, just an unfortunate choice of thread title! No big deal.

I do agree that the more people that know the full details of this incident the better, if they are within avaition and could benefit from the outcome of an enquiry. As it is an incident that will cause embarrassment to the operator and the handling agent, if not the manufacturer, and as it does not involve the safety of the travelling public you cannot reasonably expect it to receive much publicity!

If you have ever parked an aircraft on the pasenger stands at Bombay(Mumbai) airport you will know all about the possibility of an aircraft rolling backwards, once parked!

If it is a defective valve or a manufacturing problem you can expect to hear about it via notices from, in this case, Boeing.

When an aircraft rolls away from the chocks it is usually the result of there being no positive brake pressure. This can be caused by a multitude of things that involve both mechanical and human failure, for example, park brake left ON, No chocks, systems depressurised, accumulator pressure dissipates, result? aircraft moves. This example takes no account of mechanical failure that could also influence the situation of an aircraft parked on a stand with either insufficient or no chocks.

There are many, many variations of possible causes for this scenario which is why it is very unwise for anyone to spout "carelessness, irresponsibility" or similar phrases until the full enquiry has taken place.

[captainsnoopy]

To ya all'

But there are bigger fish to fry in a hot pan rather than human is the place to blame.

Was that a mechanical suicide? but you're gonna have to trust me in this one, an expensive toy unintended push back out of the gate of course no push back clearance from the dark cockpit.


Ok bro share yer comments


Captain snoopy

[stable approach]

Could someone please translate for me.......

[John Barnes]

Update on Taxi incident.

Taxidriver: Fired, 10 strokes of the cane and no $200,-
Taxi: Repainted
Gabage bin : Full of garbage.

[freightdriver]

As you all can see I am not getting anywhere with this post, so can you guys inquire from within coz I am curious to know what happen.

Trust in me when I say it's for educational purpose only.

Thanks!:confused:

[Techman]

When an aircraft rolls away from the chocks it is usually the result of there being no positive brake pressure.
Not really. When chocks are place correctly it doesn't matter one bit how much brake pressure you have.
That's why the chocks are there in the first place.

[BarryMonday]

Yes Techman you are, of course, quite right. I worded that part very badly, it should have said something like, "when an aircraft rolls away from an area where it would normally be chocked, but wasn't". Thanks.