SQ29 Hits Object at Taipei Airport
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Asia
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SQ29 Hits Object at Taipei Airport
As long as you can see two wings out of the cockpit, I guess it will fly.
Taipei, July 19 (Bloomberg) -- Singapore Airlines Ltd. is
inspecting one of its aircraft after Taiwan's air traffic control
said the plane hit an object before take-off from Taipei's
international airport.
Air traffic control at the Chiang Kai-shek International
Airport had informed flight SQ29 that the plane's wings had made
contact with two tail stands, which are used to support an
airplane's tails when it unloads or undergoes maintenance, when it
was taxiing, Singapore Air said in a statement.
OMIT PARA REF SQ006
Taiwan's Central News Agency said the airport authority plans
to refer the incident for investigation to the Taiwan Aviation
Safety Council. It cited unidentified airport officials as saying
that SQ29 had hit the tail stands after it turned into a wrong
part of the airfield.
Singapore Air said today's flight landed safely and was under
inspection.
"Based on the checks conducted in flight, the captain found
no abnormality with the aircraft performance and decided to
continue to Singapore,'' the airline said in a statement. The
plane landed at 11:15 a.m. in Singapore.
Taipei, July 19 (Bloomberg) -- Singapore Airlines Ltd. is
inspecting one of its aircraft after Taiwan's air traffic control
said the plane hit an object before take-off from Taipei's
international airport.
Air traffic control at the Chiang Kai-shek International
Airport had informed flight SQ29 that the plane's wings had made
contact with two tail stands, which are used to support an
airplane's tails when it unloads or undergoes maintenance, when it
was taxiing, Singapore Air said in a statement.
OMIT PARA REF SQ006
Taiwan's Central News Agency said the airport authority plans
to refer the incident for investigation to the Taiwan Aviation
Safety Council. It cited unidentified airport officials as saying
that SQ29 had hit the tail stands after it turned into a wrong
part of the airfield.
Singapore Air said today's flight landed safely and was under
inspection.
"Based on the checks conducted in flight, the captain found
no abnormality with the aircraft performance and decided to
continue to Singapore,'' the airline said in a statement. The
plane landed at 11:15 a.m. in Singapore.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Up there
Posts: 202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Singapore Airlines jet uses the wrong taxi route and hits object in Taipei, officials say
Fri Jul 19, 1:08 AM ET
TAIPEI, Taiwan - The wing of a Singapore Airlines jet hit a piece of equipment Friday morning as the jet took an unauthorized turn while taxiing to a runway at Taipei's international airport, Taiwanese airport officials said.
The control tower informed the pilots, and they decided that it was not serious enough to stop the Singapore-bound flight, airport police said. The plane landed safely in Singapore.
The minor incident attracted wide attention because Singapore Airlines has previously used the wrong runway in Taipei. Two years ago, a Los Angeles-bound jumbo jet tried to take off on a runway closed for construction. The plane smashed into equipment and debris, killing 83 people.
Singapore Airlines did not immediately comment on Friday's incident.
Taiwanese officials reported the incident to Taiwan's Aviation Safety Council, which was still investigating and would not comment.
Airport official Wang Teh-ho told reporters that the tip of the plane's wing hit a piece of equipment as it took a wrong turn while taxiing to its runway.
Wang said officials did not know why the plane deviated from its authorized route.
"The plane might have mistaken the tarmac for the taxi runway," he said.
Singapore Airlines has a reputation for being one of the world's safest carriers. The Taipei crash in October 2000 was its first fatal crash in about three decades of service.
Fri Jul 19, 1:08 AM ET
TAIPEI, Taiwan - The wing of a Singapore Airlines jet hit a piece of equipment Friday morning as the jet took an unauthorized turn while taxiing to a runway at Taipei's international airport, Taiwanese airport officials said.
The control tower informed the pilots, and they decided that it was not serious enough to stop the Singapore-bound flight, airport police said. The plane landed safely in Singapore.
The minor incident attracted wide attention because Singapore Airlines has previously used the wrong runway in Taipei. Two years ago, a Los Angeles-bound jumbo jet tried to take off on a runway closed for construction. The plane smashed into equipment and debris, killing 83 people.
Singapore Airlines did not immediately comment on Friday's incident.
Taiwanese officials reported the incident to Taiwan's Aviation Safety Council, which was still investigating and would not comment.
Airport official Wang Teh-ho told reporters that the tip of the plane's wing hit a piece of equipment as it took a wrong turn while taxiing to its runway.
Wang said officials did not know why the plane deviated from its authorized route.
"The plane might have mistaken the tarmac for the taxi runway," he said.
Singapore Airlines has a reputation for being one of the world's safest carriers. The Taipei crash in October 2000 was its first fatal crash in about three decades of service.
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the "world's safest carriers" also took off on the wrong runway in Melbourne once and in a separate incident carried on to Singapore after a tailstrike plus a lot of other incidents that were kept out of the press but well known in house.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The control tower informed the pilots, and they decided that it was not serious enough to stop the Singapore-bound flight, airport police said. The plane landed safely in Singapore.
This seems like the right forum to get a perspective on this from big-iron pilots.
How big a deal is this?
1) How often do planes stray off the correct taxiway. Is it a once a day, once a week, once a month worldwide?
2) Is the continuation of the flight after an ATC advisory of something struck on taxi an unusual occurrence?
On the surface the outcome was safe and I would think that there have been many other similar safe outcomes.
Comments?
How big a deal is this?
1) How often do planes stray off the correct taxiway. Is it a once a day, once a week, once a month worldwide?
2) Is the continuation of the flight after an ATC advisory of something struck on taxi an unusual occurrence?
On the surface the outcome was safe and I would think that there have been many other similar safe outcomes.
Comments?
Chief PPRuNe Pilot
Once again, this is why good grammar can 'uncomplicate' a thread such as this. I think they meant that "...the crew were informed that they had hit something whilst taxying" and not "...the crew were informed that they had hit something, whilst taxying". Note the placing of the comma!
It is most likely that they received a message that they may have hit something whilst taxying, after they were airborne, performed a controlability check and then decided that they could continue in the absence of any indications of abnormalities and a possible lack off any a/c debris at the scene of the incident. So before the 'shock, horror' brigade dive in with the (Victor Meldrew voice) "I don't believe it!" comments perhaps some clarification would be useful from someone closer to the source.
It is most likely that they received a message that they may have hit something whilst taxying, after they were airborne, performed a controlability check and then decided that they could continue in the absence of any indications of abnormalities and a possible lack off any a/c debris at the scene of the incident. So before the 'shock, horror' brigade dive in with the (Victor Meldrew voice) "I don't believe it!" comments perhaps some clarification would be useful from someone closer to the source.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Age: 69
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Taiwan authorities (CAA) are reporting that the aircraft was not air-borne when informed of the collision, "the air traffic controllers informed the pilots that it had hit something and it was not advisable to take off."
Once again SIA are muddying the waters and attempting to re-interpret the facts to mitigate what is tantamount to criminal negligence.
Unfortunately 7x7, it is not innacurate reporting. The culture of intimidation is apparently so strong at SIA that this crew continued to operate the flight after an on ground collision. ANY aircraft damage has to be inspected and signed off before continuation of a flight, without exception.
With reference to CaptPPrune I am non-plussed that you apparently advocate ignoring the implications of an on ground collision. I don't think I would like my family flying in an aircraft commanded by a pilot that is required to initiate a FULL control check in flight and who follow that procedure only because there is lack of aircraft debris lying around after a collision.
Perhaps it is time SIA called in the experts to re-appraise the systemic problems exhibited in the airlines culture of intimidation. Safe operation of complex socio-technical systems requires more than a set of inflexible rules and blind coherence.
In my best Victor Meldrew voice I can only say "shock horror this can't be true."
Once again SIA are muddying the waters and attempting to re-interpret the facts to mitigate what is tantamount to criminal negligence.
Unfortunately 7x7, it is not innacurate reporting. The culture of intimidation is apparently so strong at SIA that this crew continued to operate the flight after an on ground collision. ANY aircraft damage has to be inspected and signed off before continuation of a flight, without exception.
With reference to CaptPPrune I am non-plussed that you apparently advocate ignoring the implications of an on ground collision. I don't think I would like my family flying in an aircraft commanded by a pilot that is required to initiate a FULL control check in flight and who follow that procedure only because there is lack of aircraft debris lying around after a collision.
Perhaps it is time SIA called in the experts to re-appraise the systemic problems exhibited in the airlines culture of intimidation. Safe operation of complex socio-technical systems requires more than a set of inflexible rules and blind coherence.
In my best Victor Meldrew voice I can only say "shock horror this can't be true."
"The Taiwan authorities (CAA) are reporting that the aircraft was not air-borne when informed of the collision, "the air traffic controllers informed the pilots that it had hit something and it was not advisable to take off."
Has this been verified?
Has this been verified?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Singapore
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nothing surprises me with SIA they seem to fly by the seat of their pants with one goal to depart on time. On the SIN - HKG flight on the 16th of July the pax. flight display showed the aircraft going to TPE. When I queried this with the cabin crew their was a rush to the front, the display was shut down for 10 minutes and then re-appeared with the destination as HKG. Perhaps the experts could confirm but I thought this display was receiving data from the aircrafts (B744) navigation system..?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The display in the cabin has been known to have a mind of its own and not conform to the information plugged into the FMC.
The flight deck have no control over this cabin display so the 'rush forward' would not have helped. The IFS, in the cabin, controls the cabin display, including the input of departure point and destination.
The flight deck have no control over this cabin display so the 'rush forward' would not have helped. The IFS, in the cabin, controls the cabin display, including the input of departure point and destination.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Zealand
Age: 73
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blue Eagle is essentially correct. But as this one has come up before it might as well be clarified here and now.
The IFS/CIC/ISD (delete as required) inputs Flight Number / Departure Point / Destination / Gross Flight Time / GMT variation at Destination - from the cabin computer.
The Moving Map then picks up data from the FMC/Flight Data bus as follows :
Take Off Time
Distance to Go
Altitude
Wind
AirSpeed
GroundSpeed
Aircraft Heading/Track
Current Lat/Long
ETA
All these are selectively converted to metric values (or whatever) as defined by a selectable customer option.
From all these the Display software just displays what it gets from the FMC. Thus you will often see the ETA change as winds change / crew input data is absorbed etc.
The aircraft symbol is aligned to represent heading/track and position from the FMC.
However - as correctly mentioned previously. This system does sometimes have a mind of its' own and can be confusing. It is just a piece of Disneyworld by and bye. It is a clever piece of software and is improving all the time. There are many versions out there - even on the same airplanes/companies. Some are better than others. It sure beats sending back the little maps with the position and flight data on; to be passed around as in the distant past.
MG
The IFS/CIC/ISD (delete as required) inputs Flight Number / Departure Point / Destination / Gross Flight Time / GMT variation at Destination - from the cabin computer.
The Moving Map then picks up data from the FMC/Flight Data bus as follows :
Take Off Time
Distance to Go
Altitude
Wind
AirSpeed
GroundSpeed
Aircraft Heading/Track
Current Lat/Long
ETA
All these are selectively converted to metric values (or whatever) as defined by a selectable customer option.
From all these the Display software just displays what it gets from the FMC. Thus you will often see the ETA change as winds change / crew input data is absorbed etc.
The aircraft symbol is aligned to represent heading/track and position from the FMC.
However - as correctly mentioned previously. This system does sometimes have a mind of its' own and can be confusing. It is just a piece of Disneyworld by and bye. It is a clever piece of software and is improving all the time. There are many versions out there - even on the same airplanes/companies. Some are better than others. It sure beats sending back the little maps with the position and flight data on; to be passed around as in the distant past.
MG
grammar? how many of us have a pass in our o level english?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: the bar at the end of the universe
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I did hear a similar story regarding a Varig flight departing Paris some years ago. Allegedly, he hit something with a wingtip, was denied take off clearance but went anyway. Is this true or just a vicious rumour?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seasiadriver, on the Far East forum states, as fact, that the aircraft wrongly taxied through a parking area, where it is reported that it hit some ground equipment, and was airborne for seven minutes before it was advised by ATC that it had struck ground obstacles.
Without the full ATC/Cockpit transcript it would be wrong to draw, (or jump to), too many conclusions.
Without the full ATC/Cockpit transcript it would be wrong to draw, (or jump to), too many conclusions.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: western europe
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
to go or not to go ......
I cannot believe that any professional pilot would continue his departure after being told that his aircraft had collided with ground equipment ..... its imposssible!!!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, quite wrong to depart. (We are told SQ29 had been airborne for seven minutes).
Chocks are ground equipment, as are GPU's and sets of aircraft steps etc. If I had run over a set of chocks then where I next landed would, subject to all systems showing normal, be up to me, the consequences the same be it Taipei or Singapore. If I had run into a set of steps then obviously a very different story.
Still waiting for an accurate transcript from the ATC/cockpit exchanges.
Still too soon to draw any conclusions.
Chocks are ground equipment, as are GPU's and sets of aircraft steps etc. If I had run over a set of chocks then where I next landed would, subject to all systems showing normal, be up to me, the consequences the same be it Taipei or Singapore. If I had run into a set of steps then obviously a very different story.
Still waiting for an accurate transcript from the ATC/cockpit exchanges.
Still too soon to draw any conclusions.
Last edited by BlueEagle; 20th Jul 2002 at 12:02.
Trash du Blanc
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: KBHM
Posts: 1,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is the runway still closed in Taipei? They had a very long and interesting taxi route - involving about 7000' down a closed runway, as I recall (this is from the freight ramp). Had to keep one finger on the ground chart.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: New York
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As usual, people are getting excitied with very sketchy information.
RELIABLE INFORMATION........
Yes the aircraft hit 2 tail stands
Yes it was taxying contrary to clearance, across a remote bay.
No they did not know they had hit them.
They were not informed by ATC until approx 10 minutes after departure.
No they did not return to Taipei.
There are already suggestions that they would have been arrested on the spot if they HAD returned to Taipei, so consider that in their thought process as well.
I'm not making excuses, merely stating facts.
If YOU had hit something minor, and there was no debris at the scene, and the aircraft was behaving normally, would YOU return to Taipei with the high likelihood of your arrest bearing in mind the treatment of the SQ6 crew?? Maybe not as easy a decision as you may think???
With regards to the error in the first place, well take a look at the chart and decide for yourself. If you havent been to taipei, then pass judgement cautiously!
RELIABLE INFORMATION........
Yes the aircraft hit 2 tail stands
Yes it was taxying contrary to clearance, across a remote bay.
No they did not know they had hit them.
They were not informed by ATC until approx 10 minutes after departure.
No they did not return to Taipei.
There are already suggestions that they would have been arrested on the spot if they HAD returned to Taipei, so consider that in their thought process as well.
I'm not making excuses, merely stating facts.
If YOU had hit something minor, and there was no debris at the scene, and the aircraft was behaving normally, would YOU return to Taipei with the high likelihood of your arrest bearing in mind the treatment of the SQ6 crew?? Maybe not as easy a decision as you may think???
With regards to the error in the first place, well take a look at the chart and decide for yourself. If you havent been to taipei, then pass judgement cautiously!
" There are already suggestions that they would have been arrested on the spot if they HAD returned to Taipei, so consider that in their thought process as well. "
This kind of suggestion must not be allowed to fester within the aviation community. It must be dispelled at the earliest time. To feel otherwise would affect the safety of all flights operating out of Taiwan.
I feel that it is the responsiibility of IFALPA to correct this impression if it is widely held.
This kind of suggestion must not be allowed to fester within the aviation community. It must be dispelled at the earliest time. To feel otherwise would affect the safety of all flights operating out of Taiwan.
I feel that it is the responsiibility of IFALPA to correct this impression if it is widely held.