SQ286 return to AKL with tail strike damage.
Bottums Up
UFO
I don't think the Concord(e) incident is a relevant comparison to this SQ incident.
I read a report, distributed by the Safety Dept of my employer I think, which was a real eye opener, and showed the Concord to be doomed from the start. A classic example of Reason's Swiss Cheese model.
From what I can remember the report alleged, in no particular order:[list=1][*]Aircraft planned to use one rwy with long taxi. Duty rwy changed short taxi, less fuel burn up to take off.[*]Change of runway meant aircraft was over RTOW BRW.[*]One bogie failed due maintenance error, causing directional control problems.[*]Aircraft rotated early to avoid leaving side of rwy and colliding with taxiing 747.[*]Flight Engineer shut down burning engine below accelleration altitude, without direction, thus leaving aircraft on only 2 engines.[/list=1]
I stand by my opinion that based on the info in this thread it seems highly probable that the haste to return to the ground, quite understandable though it was assuming a fire indication, led to a go around and thus the need for another approach.
I also stand by my stated hope that when I'm in a similar situation, I have the presence of mind to not rush.
I read a report, distributed by the Safety Dept of my employer I think, which was a real eye opener, and showed the Concord to be doomed from the start. A classic example of Reason's Swiss Cheese model.
From what I can remember the report alleged, in no particular order:[list=1][*]Aircraft planned to use one rwy with long taxi. Duty rwy changed short taxi, less fuel burn up to take off.[*]Change of runway meant aircraft was over RTOW BRW.[*]One bogie failed due maintenance error, causing directional control problems.[*]Aircraft rotated early to avoid leaving side of rwy and colliding with taxiing 747.[*]Flight Engineer shut down burning engine below accelleration altitude, without direction, thus leaving aircraft on only 2 engines.[/list=1]
I stand by my opinion that based on the info in this thread it seems highly probable that the haste to return to the ground, quite understandable though it was assuming a fire indication, led to a go around and thus the need for another approach.
I also stand by my stated hope that when I'm in a similar situation, I have the presence of mind to not rush.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: East of the West Island
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the topic of passenger interviews I was tickled by quote from the young lady who spoke with authority about the event because she was "sitting on the side with the engine".
Guest
Posts: n/a
Luke, the VASIS at most aerodromes gives an eye height at the threshold of around 50'. A variation on this was Rockhampton , which for a time had on on slope eye-height of 28' or thereabouts. An eye-height of 50' on a B747 means the body gear is crossing the threshold at ~4'; not good practice. For this reason, B747 crews fly 1 dot high and use an aimimg point at 450m. Using the "5 times GS" rule for rate of descent a GS of 200 knots would require 1000fpm. Clarrie, some Asians have been amongst the best stick and rudder guys I have seen.
Last edited by Ralph the Bong; 15th Mar 2003 at 10:34.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 811
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1 Dot on the VASIs (relating to a more distant 'eye' touchdown point)
PAPI is the 'eye' approach angle so it's a normal 2/2.
The glideslope it relative to the ILS receiver antennae, which is much lower than the eyes, so it's on glideslope all the way.
PAPI is the 'eye' approach angle so it's a normal 2/2.
The glideslope it relative to the ILS receiver antennae, which is much lower than the eyes, so it's on glideslope all the way.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sorry Capt Claret, I meant CLARENCE!! One dot high on VASIS, but on slope for PAPI. The reason being is that VASIS can provide a variable aim point with a constant glide slope. Whereas flying 3 reds or 3 whites on a PAPI changes the glide slope but gives a similar aim point. Personally, I think this is what makes VASIS the more usefull system. When gear is selected down on the B747, the GS is referenced from the antena on the nose gear, with gear up it is from the GS antena in the radome. Flying one dot high on the ILS GS will cause you to land long. Also not good practice!
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Sydney
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bonvol, you sure about that?...it is hard to see how such an error could occur unless they ignored the FMC weight presented after entering the ZFW, somehow electing to use a manual entered figure of 230T instead of 320T. Was there a fuel guage problem?
Either that or they entered a ZFW figure 90T lighter than the actual.
They would then have to use the FMC presented V speeds without question or crosscheck.
Then finally the error should have showed up with a check of the loadsheet.
That is a series of gross errors and/or non standard operation.
I am not saying this is what occurred, but if it is anything approximating the truth, the mind boggles.
Either that or they entered a ZFW figure 90T lighter than the actual.
They would then have to use the FMC presented V speeds without question or crosscheck.
Then finally the error should have showed up with a check of the loadsheet.
That is a series of gross errors and/or non standard operation.
I am not saying this is what occurred, but if it is anything approximating the truth, the mind boggles.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Sydney
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, I'm not sure about anything. Just what my Singas mates have told me.
I guess the investigation will tell but in this game ones mind gets more and more boggled everyday. Nothing much surprises anymore.
I guess the investigation will tell but in this game ones mind gets more and more boggled everyday. Nothing much surprises anymore.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I really hope I am not proved wrong on this one but from my experience on the 744 with SIA when the load sheet arrives the captain reads out the ZFW and the TOW to the F/O who is usually doing the bug card. The bug card is then checked, the ZFW entered in the FMC and a cross check of the FMC and Loadsheet weights is done. As this would have been a two F/O flight they usually cross check each others book work also.
In ten years I certainly saw a few bug card errors but I can honestly say never gross, life threatening ones.
In addition one gets a certain'feel' for the ball-park TO speeds. If the ZFW was entered 90k below actual it would possibly be rejected by the FMC anyway? I would certainly expect the trim to be a very strange number, if in the green at all.
Just for what it is worth, the V speeds for 230K are about 25-27 kts less than for 320k and should stand out like a dogs..........
In ten years I certainly saw a few bug card errors but I can honestly say never gross, life threatening ones.
In addition one gets a certain'feel' for the ball-park TO speeds. If the ZFW was entered 90k below actual it would possibly be rejected by the FMC anyway? I would certainly expect the trim to be a very strange number, if in the green at all.
Just for what it is worth, the V speeds for 230K are about 25-27 kts less than for 320k and should stand out like a dogs..........
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Usually Oz
Posts: 732
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since Casper raised the point..........
Bit of chat about this in the bar lately. Most appalled at the extent of the damage!
However, one chap pipes up that we had a potential for this when at MTOW, the guys loaded the V1 into the VR line and no-one noticed! [NB Normally V2 about 180 and VR 170. In this case V1 about 145 or so]
As PNF called Rotate , one of the S/O's shouted 'NO - too slow' and they held it till V2-10. The result would have been the same as this SIA incident, I guess.
So, there but for the grace of God go I, etc..................
We're ALL fallible!
G'day
Bit of chat about this in the bar lately. Most appalled at the extent of the damage!
However, one chap pipes up that we had a potential for this when at MTOW, the guys loaded the V1 into the VR line and no-one noticed!
[NB Normally V2 about 180 and VR 170. In this case V1 about 145 or so]As PNF called Rotate , one of the S/O's shouted 'NO - too slow' and they held it till V2-10. The result would have been the same as this SIA incident, I guess.
So, there but for the grace of God go I, etc..................
We're ALL fallible!
G'day
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: NZ
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I heard the Captain had 20 years experience. I was wondering if it was 5 years as a S/O followed by 15 years as either a F/O or a Captain.
Now I figure they do about 800 hours per year, this equals 15x800=12000 Hours.
The average longhaul sector being say 8 hours gives the guy about 1500 sectors. Two pilot crew means he only flies half of them (750). The aircraft no doubt did a large number of autolands lowering his total further.
Then SQ revealed he has low 747-400 experience. I am not trying to say he was a bunny but the result was not good.
Now I figure they do about 800 hours per year, this equals 15x800=12000 Hours.
The average longhaul sector being say 8 hours gives the guy about 1500 sectors. Two pilot crew means he only flies half of them (750). The aircraft no doubt did a large number of autolands lowering his total further.
Then SQ revealed he has low 747-400 experience. I am not trying to say he was a bunny but the result was not good.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: China
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captains experience
Not that it may have any bearing.............But.
I heard that the Captain even though he had 20 odd years experience had only recently converted to the Boeing from the AirBus with only a few hundred hours on the Boeing at the time of incident. That was one of the reasons he said that he was returning to CHC on the pax PA as the AirBus services CHC-SIN. When the **** hits the fan, you go back to what you know
From the talk of the takeoff weight, I did some checking at it was 385000kgs Brakes release weight. Makes for a pretty heavy landing doesnt it...
I heard that the Captain even though he had 20 odd years experience had only recently converted to the Boeing from the AirBus with only a few hundred hours on the Boeing at the time of incident. That was one of the reasons he said that he was returning to CHC on the pax PA as the AirBus services CHC-SIN. When the **** hits the fan, you go back to what you know
From the talk of the takeoff weight, I did some checking at it was 385000kgs Brakes release weight. Makes for a pretty heavy landing doesnt it...
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Copied form RP forum
This is a direct copy of a post from the reporting Points forum which may be of interest:
"Having returned from Singapore yesterday, word on the ground is that the aircraft had a large load sheet error, thus leading to the calculation of invalid takeoff data and V speeds insufficient to attain Vmu at a body angle of less than 12.5 deg.
Short of the flight crew supervising loading, you have to rely on the information provided by the Red Cap and load control."
"Having returned from Singapore yesterday, word on the ground is that the aircraft had a large load sheet error, thus leading to the calculation of invalid takeoff data and V speeds insufficient to attain Vmu at a body angle of less than 12.5 deg.
Short of the flight crew supervising loading, you have to rely on the information provided by the Red Cap and load control."
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Sydney
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If that is correct then it goes a long way to exonerating the crew from committing a long list of errors.
As an aside, it does go to illuminate how vulnerable an aircraft commander is to the incompetence of others... so mnay of his responsibilities are delegated to people that won't bear the ultimate sanction to a gross error of this kind.
As an aside, it does go to illuminate how vulnerable an aircraft commander is to the incompetence of others... so mnay of his responsibilities are delegated to people that won't bear the ultimate sanction to a gross error of this kind.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Downunder
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I recall from a sim session a few years ago, 370t takeoff followed by uncontrollable engine fire at Vr, and an immediate return to a 600m rvr runway. An interesting exercise as what was so importantly stressed was DONT RUSH. The idea was to get back onto the ground on the first attemp, the few extra track miles also allows you to run all the checklists you need plus warning the cabin etc etc.
As I wasn't there I'm not going to comment on what the guys did or didn't do.
Should it come out that it was a load sheet stuff up then they probibly did well to get airborne as I have heard that the scrap mark diverges towards the right hand edge of the runway.
Just my 2 cents worth.
As I wasn't there I'm not going to comment on what the guys did or didn't do.
Should it come out that it was a load sheet stuff up then they probibly did well to get airborne as I have heard that the scrap mark diverges towards the right hand edge of the runway.
Just my 2 cents worth.