Another disaster averted
 

If this report doesn't disturb, little else will. Amazingly, it’s not been picked up by the media, especially in the bastion of free speech - Singapore. SQ take 280 souls to death's door and there's silence. Incredibly, the report fails to mention the actual fuel remaining at the end of the landing roll but perhaps there wasn’t any to report. At least the service on board is good and the girls are so pretty!

https://www.mot.gov.sg/docs/default-...nal-report.pdf

So does SQ just autoland everywhere?

edit: FO with 2900 hours TT and 2900 on type. Probably never performed a visual approach in their career.

Not their fault. And if this was a crash management would probably use this to reinforce automation.

They did 2 missed approaches after declaring Mayday Fuel, and touched down 26 minutes later. A passenger commented on AvHerald that all power was lost (engines and APU) due lack of fuel shortly after taxiing off the runway. They probably had 4 minutes or so of fuel remaining on touchdown - lucky there was enough in the tanks to still be able to pumped to the engines on their final approach.

Ken did you know that Qantas landed at Munich in a 747 below fixed reserve minimum because there were unforecast storms at Frankfurt? Does that disturb you or is it only when Asian carriers do it that your airmanship sensibilities are outraged.

LL,

Erm, no!

So how much did they actually land with? The report simply says "fuel remaining significantly below the FRF of 3,024 kg" without giving an actual figure. If the AvH comment mentioned in dr dre 's post is accurate, would have been less than 100kg on touchdown?

Seems to be contradicted from the report though which says they taxied to the bay

A lot of large airlines now have powerhouse PR departments, with a scale of operations that infringe on monopolies with power well beyond just market control. Their sphere of litigious influence not only causes the media to think twice on reporting minor transgressions but also regulatory investigations will be kept hush hush for long periods. Large airlines have the ability to hide investigations and delay them until much after the event, which markedly reduces the negative public perception of the incident. I can think of several ATSB investigations into certain airline incidents that have been behind closed doors due to 'not being in the public interest'.

As for SQ is any more dangerous that any other airline in the region, I think something happened in Bangkok a few years back to a local airline, the Rome incident, Munich incident, Perth incident, Mildura etc etc etc. There was also a foreign airline that comes here often that managed to wheels up a 777 during a go-round, and another scrape its arse through a field after the end of the runway. Nobodies perfect as they say...

Some type of record. 5th post in, and you play the racism card to what was a legitimate discussion starting thread.
Start your own thread on the QF flight landing at Munich if it interests you so much. It would even out your 'racism' ledger.
Also wondering LL? Would it blow your mind if the Munich QF PIC was Asian Australian? Or do you just assume.

SQ is majority owned by the Singapore government. Who are the ones who investigated them. Its the Singaporean government protecting the image of their national asset. I see this incident has barely made a ripple in any media, Singapore or abroad even though SQ is one of the biggest international carriers in this country. The media is only interested in attacking one carrier at the moment.

I don't believe SQ are any better or worse than most reputable airlines operating to and through Australia. However there is something of a difference between the aforementioned incidents/accidents and SQ006 23 years ago this month that claimed 83 lives after the Captain and two other pilots misidentified (or didn't attempt to identify at all) the fact that they were on the closed and obstacle loaded runway 05R instead of 05L in poor vis in Taipei.

At the time, that local bastion of media significance, The Straits Times, were full of praise for the Singaporean cabin crew who'd saved countless survivors and not so thinly veiled blame-apportioning to the apparently 'non-Singaporean' Captain. The airline were to be highly praised according to the local rag.

The QF excursion at Bangkok was pure luck that there was no fire and no loss of life for exactly the same brain fart that led to an experienced crew taking off on the wrong runway in a typhoon. QF 1 was just an experienced crew screwing up a landing in similar conditions. The Qf crew were just extremely lucky there were not more substancial obstacles in the overshoot, the torrential rain subdued any fire and so on. Australia really is the lucky country in some respects as we have had a number of seriously close calls that didn't translate into loss of life. This could easily have been a Tenerife style disaster at Sydney airport, (years before the actual Tenerife) the baggage hold was ripped open and luggage strewn across the runway: https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications.../aair197101202

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/i...lgY3w&usqp=CAU
That's the damage to VH-TJA after the impact in flight with the tail of the DC-8.

They gleefully reported him as Malaysian.

It was somewhat sickening to read in Monday’s StraitsTimes a full page spread on the wonderful job done by SIA preparing for and managing disruptions. A near perfect example of propaganda, not unlike Pravda or the Peoples Daily. Comparatively, the Australian and UK media are paragons of objectivity and virtue.

Yet another thread hijacked by Qaintas.

Its always best to not take in too much alcohol before posting. Legitimate thread, really? On what planet do you live on where an incident involving an SQ aircraft in Singapore is legitimate on the Australia New Zealand and Pacific forum? If Ken was so concerned about public safety standards then why not post it on Rumours and News or even Accident and Close Calls? Why should the Australian media be at all interested. The fact that its an Asian carrier might be enough to peak the interest of the Australian media. To finish his rant he states: If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck .... you know the rest.

​​​​​​​LL
Well, you answered one question. You assume. So thanks for that.
Don’t bother about answering the others, I’d imagine it’d be a stretch having to define an argument on top of all the ideological luggage you heft around. Take it up with the Moderators if you think this thread is misplaced - better still, become one, although collaboration with others around censorship may impinge on your Andrews-esk authoritarian streak.
Nevermind eh, there’s always tomorrow’s FO to boss around and confect outrage on.

Back to the thread.

I doubt it, but the reported visibility at the time was 500m (below the 800m visibility required for the approach :ooh:). An autoland might have been sensible IF it had been approved, but it wasn't.

Haven’t seen it mentioned elsewhere in the Aus and NZ forum ….but speaking of close calls:

https://australianaviation.com.au/20...bourne-runway/

This topic is as very relevant in this forum, especially as Singapore Airlines operates more wide-body services to/from Australia than any other foreign carrier. Just sayin'.