SQ29 Hits Object at Taipei Airport
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Asia
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the slot,
If the pilots involved in SQ6, where lives were lost and a jumbo was destroyed, did not get charged or even imprisioned, why would these pilots think that a MINOR incident would land them in gaol.
I think it was probably just a case of thinking that everything is ok now, so we might as well continue to home base.
Whether that was right or wrong is obviously easily debated now. With 20/20 hindsight, everything was ok.
I would imagine that the attitudes that many of the anti-SQ protagonists have are based on a culture of SQ past not SQ present. Lessons are being learnt and slowly applied.
If the pilots involved in SQ6, where lives were lost and a jumbo was destroyed, did not get charged or even imprisioned, why would these pilots think that a MINOR incident would land them in gaol.
I think it was probably just a case of thinking that everything is ok now, so we might as well continue to home base.
Whether that was right or wrong is obviously easily debated now. With 20/20 hindsight, everything was ok.
I would imagine that the attitudes that many of the anti-SQ protagonists have are based on a culture of SQ past not SQ present. Lessons are being learnt and slowly applied.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Asia
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kellykelpie,
I think you'll find the pace is a reflection of the thoroughness of the process. No "sacred cows" means that a lot of things are being reviewed and the hope is that they empty the small amount of dirty "bath water", but keep the baby well and truly in the bath tub.
Evolution is more effective and long lasting than revolution.
I think you'll find the pace is a reflection of the thoroughness of the process. No "sacred cows" means that a lot of things are being reviewed and the hope is that they empty the small amount of dirty "bath water", but keep the baby well and truly in the bath tub.
Evolution is more effective and long lasting than revolution.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: U.S.A
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NTSB records show an SIA B747-300 having wing tip contact on the ground in LAX in the 80s.
During the investigation it turns out that the Captain had told his first officer not to look outside, his words were, "don't look at it, the lights will blind you".
In early 90s an SIA B747-300 had a tailstrike on takeoff out of LAX. ATC informed the crew that sparks had been reported coming from the tail during rotation.
The Captain ignored the report and continued over the Pacific to NRT.
Indeed the culture and mentality of Singapore/SIA is the core of the problem. Common sense does not really exist. Common sense in Singaporean is only valid if it is in 'Singapore context'. Very dangerous when mixed with commercial transport.
This mentality works fine within the Island otherwise it falls apart every time.
BTW, in the reports I don't recall reading about any reference to the Captain's nationality. Does this then mean he is a Singaporean.
During the investigation it turns out that the Captain had told his first officer not to look outside, his words were, "don't look at it, the lights will blind you".
In early 90s an SIA B747-300 had a tailstrike on takeoff out of LAX. ATC informed the crew that sparks had been reported coming from the tail during rotation.
The Captain ignored the report and continued over the Pacific to NRT.
Indeed the culture and mentality of Singapore/SIA is the core of the problem. Common sense does not really exist. Common sense in Singaporean is only valid if it is in 'Singapore context'. Very dangerous when mixed with commercial transport.
This mentality works fine within the Island otherwise it falls apart every time.
BTW, in the reports I don't recall reading about any reference to the Captain's nationality. Does this then mean he is a Singaporean.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: New York
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi all
This was carried in the Singapore Straits Times on 25 July ( see below )
The question that comes to mind is this: If ATC had not verified initially that the aircraft had hit the tail stands, are then the actions of the pilots not unreasonable?
Cheers
QUOTE:
SQ29 captain carried out all necessary safety checks
I REFER to the letters, 'SIA should learn from past error' (ST, July 22) and 'SQ29 flier seeks explanation' (ST, July 24).
The incident in Taipei involving Flight SQ29 on July 19 is currently the subject of an investigation, and the pilots concerned have been suspended pending its outcome.
We wish to assure our customers that we are treating the incident seriously.
As reported in the media, 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 it from one of the ground-staff crew members. It could not be verified at that stage whether the aircraft had, in fact, made contact with the tailstands.
The captain conducted the necessary checks on board and found the aircraft to be performing normally. He therefore decided to proceed to Singapore as scheduled. As there was no abnormality in the performance of the aircraft, no announcement was made inflight.
On arrival in Singapore, the aircraft was inspected immediately and some minor damage to a wing panel was detected by ground engineers. The damage did not pose any safety hazard.
We understand and appreciate the concerns of the writers and wish to assure them and the public that Singapore Airlines will not compromise on safety at any time.
RICK CLEMENTS
Vice-President, Public Affairs
Singapore Airlines Limited Unquote
This was carried in the Singapore Straits Times on 25 July ( see below )
The question that comes to mind is this: If ATC had not verified initially that the aircraft had hit the tail stands, are then the actions of the pilots not unreasonable?
Cheers
QUOTE:
SQ29 captain carried out all necessary safety checks
I REFER to the letters, 'SIA should learn from past error' (ST, July 22) and 'SQ29 flier seeks explanation' (ST, July 24).
The incident in Taipei involving Flight SQ29 on July 19 is currently the subject of an investigation, and the pilots concerned have been suspended pending its outcome.
We wish to assure our customers that we are treating the incident seriously.
As reported in the media, 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 it from one of the ground-staff crew members. It could not be verified at that stage whether the aircraft had, in fact, made contact with the tailstands.
The captain conducted the necessary checks on board and found the aircraft to be performing normally. He therefore decided to proceed to Singapore as scheduled. As there was no abnormality in the performance of the aircraft, no announcement was made inflight.
On arrival in Singapore, the aircraft was inspected immediately and some minor damage to a wing panel was detected by ground engineers. The damage did not pose any safety hazard.
We understand and appreciate the concerns of the writers and wish to assure them and the public that Singapore Airlines will not compromise on safety at any time.
RICK CLEMENTS
Vice-President, Public Affairs
Singapore Airlines Limited Unquote
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Singapore
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry BlueEagle, have to disagree. In my mind to 'contact' something is to physically touch something. The lack of a precautionary landing with even the slightest possibility of unknown damage is inexcusable. Loose panels, ruptured fuel tank etc etc. The possible list is endless and the consequences potentially dire.
Also to address previous posts, if the crew were concerned about returning to TPE due to arrest, a better course of action would have been to land at Hong Kong or Manila rather than continue to Singapore.
If I was a passenger on this flight I would expect nothing less.
Also to address previous posts, if the crew were concerned about returning to TPE due to arrest, a better course of action would have been to land at Hong Kong or Manila rather than continue to Singapore.
If I was a passenger on this flight I would expect nothing less.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
I, on the other hand, expect a captain to be paid to make command decision based on his experience. If needs be, to be judged on his decisions by his peers afterwards - not the press or the public.
This seems like a non event. A possible ground incident, unconfirmed. The captain checking his aircraft using all information at his command, and making a decison to proceed.
If a professional body wishes to query that, well and good, but I won't.
It seems an attempt to make a mountain out of a molehill.
And I don't like people looking over my shoulder when I'm driving either.......
This seems like a non event. A possible ground incident, unconfirmed. The captain checking his aircraft using all information at his command, and making a decison to proceed.
If a professional body wishes to query that, well and good, but I won't.
It seems an attempt to make a mountain out of a molehill.
And I don't like people looking over my shoulder when I'm driving either.......
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have you seen those tailstands before Orac? They are massive, equipped with wheels and a hydraulic jack. They are also taller than the wing height (presuming they were 747 tailstands.) As he was manouvering in a confined area that he mistakenly entered, I would have thought one of them would be monitoring the wingtip clearance. You can see your wingtip from the cockpit side window.
I wonder if anything would have been said in Singapore if TPE hadn't informed the flight of the event?
I wonder if anything would have been said in Singapore if TPE hadn't informed the flight of the event?
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So what do you know about the seat Carruthers? I've been sitting in one for over 20,000 hours, albeit the F/E's seat. 10,000 in the 747 Classic so I feel I know what I'm talking about.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well they just sacked the SQ006 crew so I guess they believe that, that is that, end of story.
Gladiator I suspect you are right. Studies of the virtues of parrhesia and the thoughts of M. Foucault would not be allowed in the curriculum.
Gladiator I suspect you are right. Studies of the virtues of parrhesia and the thoughts of M. Foucault would not be allowed in the curriculum.
2nd post in 2 years on the same night! Gotta be mad, but this one gets me.
1. Se7ern; you are correct.
2. ORAC: B.S.
3. Carruthers: sorry old boy; rubbish.
End of story.
Spleener out.
1. Se7ern; you are correct.
2. ORAC: B.S.
3. Carruthers: sorry old boy; rubbish.
End of story.
Spleener out.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cracks me up that they only mention "The Captain" .
You can read that as the "National Captain".
An Expat would have been hung out to dry and had his nationality exposed !, two sets of rules Im afraid.
You can read that as the "National Captain".
An Expat would have been hung out to dry and had his nationality exposed !, two sets of rules Im afraid.
