Cargojock makes some valid points regarding most of the local F/O's in SIA. Through no fault of their own and due to the nature of the flying in SQ they do not get many sectors in each month and therefore are somewhat timid.

If I gave a F/O a sector into say Bali where the landing was on RW 27 with an ILS and where radar always vector the aircraft on a long right downwind to finals so the F/O has the RW on his side I used to say shall we tell them we have the RW in sight and we will go visual, not once did any F/O say yes despite having the ability to extend the centre line and know exactly the miles to touchdown.

I doubt if any of them would cope with a night visual into say Heraklion or a circling approach at Corfu to RW 17 or at Porta Plata circling to RW 09 at night.

Such a very sad incident could happen to anybody at any point in time. Lets not flog a dead horse here. It's just a question of the level of preparedness for this kind of a glitch at the end of a long Duty period and at the fag end of that too.
At no point will I deny the 'monitor and disconnect' mode of LV ops. But how does any one of us here know that he didn't do just that!
By what I see, the initial excursion on the LHS of the rwy occoured at low speed. Probably less than 60 kts. The rudder aerodynamic control must be close to zero at this point in time. He therefore chose to use the tiller, i reckon.
Over steered, cause obviously he saw the excursion a nano second too late(probably due low the vis/fog), and over reacted.
I, however, am of the firm belief that ALL of us here are in some learning phase or another, irrespective of the level(s) of experience we wield.
This incident should positively be highlighted as a learning experience for all of us here rather than the proverbial finger pointing attitude we choose to adopt. And in the process, grind our very old machettes.
I, for one, am changing my attitude for myself and my pupils from this moment on, towards LVP and Cat-2/3 training.
Needs some hard re thinking. Too many holes lined up already.
Off now..

Depends on the magnitude of the incident. (fatalities, injuries, cost to repair and public interest)

If there is a mechanical or systems fault, that all other operators need to know, then within weeks.

If its a CRM issue and or training, then it depends on the investigators workload to create a public report (mostly long after the public has forgotten about it.

as a PPruner, if this thread doesn't reveal the answer via leaks within a month, then you really don't need to know :E

meanwhile the "could ofs/ should ofs" among us will have a field day of posts to extend the thread life :)

- A380 (and all 'LVP'ers) where do you see this 'fog/low vis' at EDDM?

Corrected my post BOAC.
I assume it would suffice..
;)

We do not know the facts and the findings at this point of in time.
Autopilot failure? GS? antiskip?(unlikely) or failure to disengage, whatever?
But much have been speculated about unprotected ILS signal.
Have we ever questioned ourselves that "at which point" exactly - the localizer/lateral signal deviated and the RATE at which it deviated?

The results would be very different between at say-- 200ft and "just touch down" with reversers deploying? or charging down the runway at 130 knots with full reversers? etc.
Also not forgeting how fast or slow the rate of deviation is?

I can just imagine no pilot (although guarding controls at all times expecting the worst "at all times" like most pilots will) will be anticipating a; say; full force lateral deviation ; say;...at touch down? (imagine your FO suddenly went mad and kicked full rudder/bank at flare or at 100 knots?) Are we train for that? Hmmm... Why not just train a pilot for every god damn scenerio we can think of...(a mosquito nailing and sucking your di#k at roatation? a little humour wont kill)

I guess the pilot given the situation at THAT point in time did what he had to. Whether Hero or Zero... he had to face whatever it was with everything he had. Who are we to criticise what their training department;the pilot, their FOs their country did etc was it even RELEVANT? Come on guys... Assumptions are mother of all F###UPS. None of us know the facts but some are just quick to point the guns as if "Oh, it will never happen to me when i am at the controls(THE FAMOUS LAST WORDS)..
Utter Disgust for some.

- not really - I was wondering if you (and all the others who talk of 'LVPs'/ poor vis/;fog' etc) had seen a METAR showing that?

A380

Just for completeness of information and to allow people to judge what they read and understand here correctly. This is not a long flight duty. They fly MUC-MAN-MUC (fairly quick turn around in MAN). The aircraft is then re-crewed for MUC-SIN as SQ327. I would be surprised if they were fatigued. Just my input.

C-J. Glad to see that you agree with me on the level of LVP training in SQ(C). 777 and 744 fleets (particularly freighter) do find themselves operating in LVO's quite frequently.

BOAC--Nope I haven't seen it. Was assuming marginal Cat-1/2 ops. You have intel...?!
Neill--Am sorry. Assumed it was the Sin-Muc run. A lil jetlagged am I...:p

A380 jockey - you think the a/c generated all of that rubber/side loads/skidding, and traveled that far, from less than 60kts?

I don't, which is why we'll have to wait for the investigation. :ok:

What is the information source on the use of TOGA?

Hard Landing?? Immediate loss of directional control???

A thought occurs to me.... Did they actually have the autoland engaged?

Just a thought...

G/A due no FLARE? then TO/GA
 

ok, just my thoughts on slayerdude's NO FLARE followed by TO/GA "facts":

FLARE activates between 60 and 40 ft radio alt.

so, if you watch the modes you should notice it's not there by about 30 or 20 ft, which gives you enough time to disconnect and land manually or
if you don't watch them, you'll notice it on impact with the runway.

The TO/GA weren't pressed in the air, as this would have ended in a go-around, maybe with a brief touchdown during the procedure, but they would not have landed from this situation.

now if you then press TO/GA after touchdown you'll get nothing, as TO/GA is inhibited and Autothrottle is not available. Only way to reject a landing after touchdown is manually add thrust and hit the TOGA after getting airborne again.

So unless there was a severe malfunction (of TOGA inhibit, A/T inhibit, and you'd need 1 Eng failure followed by a Thrust Asymmetry compensation failure) I can't understand how pushing the TO/GA leads to a runway excursion....

Do you have any more details, as so far this TO/GA "fact" only creates more confusion...


from the picture it looks like a slow departure to the left followed by a violent correction to the right, not an immediate right turn...

so maybe a undetected no "ROLLOUT" only corrected after it got apparent that she won't come back to the centerline all by herself?

freightdog.... no flare... boeing says hit toga ..... boeing also says do not disconnect autopilot in no flare situation during autoland.....
however this I can only verify for the 777 training manual for low vis ops.

the source of info is as close as the fingers that hit the toga buttons....not offering any opinions... juz letting the forum know what i know.

still plenty of facts to be established...

a rumour heard is the uneven spool up of the right engine .... cant confirm fact yet but .... also it was a new right engine that just got slung under the wing the week before last... again to be substantiated.

and please gents ...really no need to reply to wind ups by CJ.... he needs a new thread call bash the mainliners.....nothing really of substance to think about with the CJ rave

fly safe blue side up.

Is the assumption that they were in reverse mode and slow enough for nosewheel steering ?

That would certainly place them in a dicey situation if at the same time they had significant asymetrical thrust.

Similar effect on PA flt 45 A310 landing at DTW (while in reverse it went in one direction and when reverse was cancelled it went in the opposite direction.)

thanks slayerdude.
I think the "no FLARE -> hit TOGA" and "do not disconnect the AP during Autoland" are valid only for actual LWMO ops, where it is required since you can't land manually without forward visibility.
Any other time you can disconnect and land manually, if you have the necessary visual clues..

frieghtdog....agreed ...being a boeing...one has manual control at anytime...and the do not disconnect autopilot for no flare is in the LVP procedures and nothing said about an autoland....so how this happened... jury still out...plz be advise that am speculating as the crew now have a gag order in force.....so information presented about the slow spool up was a rumour....

fly safe... blue side up

boofta.... SQ has killed 78 people in 64years of operations.....all 78 killed on a taxi way masquerading as a runway in tpe

Suspect you will never know why, the incident has been kept off all the media here in Singapore.....

Incident?

What incident?

Men vs. Autopilot?
 

The skid marks might come from a "fight" between the autopilot being in rollout mode and the pilots trying to steer the plane manually. They might not have realised that the autopilot was still engaged when they applied asymmetric brake forces or nose wheel steering inputs.

@GYS - thank you for the long and clear answer, I learn something new ever yady.

Slayer,
Correct me if I am wrong here. But a 'No flare' situation during a planned autoland would reflect at 500 ft Agl with a 'Land 2' or above 500 ft Agl with a 'No Autoland' message right.
Like I said correct me.
And FWIW, the correct procedure for a 'No flare' at 40 ft RA is a simple TOGA. Tail may strike, but that's the flea with the dog.
Any other malfunction after successful touchdown, disconnect the A/P.
And freightdog is right about the abort landing procedure. IF in fact that happened here for whatever reasons.

Turning Moment
 

@69Flight

My take on that is that it would take more than just the nosewheel steering to generate the turning moment as shown by the skid tracks. perhaps a stuck reverser.

FN

In fact, it was a closed runway (5R) choked with construction equipment, not a taxiway. And the pax death toll was actually 79.

Well, it was indeed normally used as a taxiway and had non-standard runway markings. Seems like it had circles instead of stripes in the touchdown zone. It is now strictly a taxiway, designated NC.

@A380 Jockey
 

The "flare" mode is indicated as armed at 500', but if this mode does not properly engage at 60'-40' (B744) then you still need to take some sort of action: either TOGA, or if enough visual clues are available take over manually.

I suppose it's not much different than on the A(irbus)380.

Thanks Tank.
I assumed if there was a malfunction detected at 500' which would not let the flare mode engage at say 50', then the flare armed would not indicate. Therefore triggering the 'Land 2'.
I however say this from memory ..
:)

How are you going to do any sort of autoland (Land 2 or 3) without a properly working and indicating flare mode? :confused:

That is exactly the problem in SIA's FO autoland procedure: Nobody is checking the FMA and the AP. They both look outside and are merely passengers.

That's why this procedure has to be removed. The investigation will hopefully show who was at the controls.


btw very unlikely they tried a go around. A 777 climbs from 0 ft even with only one engine.

'Land 3' annunciated > 500', fault detected in flare mode, will revert to 'Land 2'.
Then at 500' if flare fault remains, 'No Autoland'.
However this sequence will only be initiated once 'Land 3' is annunciated on the AFDS.
'No flare' then at 40' RA is a simple TOGA procedure. Provided of course(and this is a very important provided)the PM catches it AND announces it on time.
With ground effect altitude loss is about half the height at which GA is initiated. Therefore you still might get away with no tailstrike(especially on the -300 variants),if GA initiated exactly at 40' RA(impossible humanly).
But there is a very very small number of things that can go wrong in the flare mode IF the AFSEM has not annunciated 'No autoland' by 500'. There ARE some component malfunctions that still can't be caught in a fail operational system for a no flare fault. But they are very very few and can be counted on the fingers of one hand or less(the failable components that is).
Hope I managed to make some sense.

Dani :
How many times must it be stated on this thread that SIA FOs DO NOT CONDUCT AUTOLANDS AS A PF. IT IS ALWAYS THE CAPTAIN WHO IS THE PF, BOTH FOR PRACTICE AND ACTUAL AUTOLANDS.

Do-Me-Please - Is it written in the Ops manual that FOs are not allowed to do an auto-land in Cat 1 or better weather, or is that just a habit that has developed? In my time on the B744 FOs were allowed, but rarely did do an autoland, they needed the manual landings for promotion. They were encouraged to do them for the Capt. incapacitation scenario but this was sometimes addressed in the SIM. Quite important that an FO can carry out a satisfactory autoland as in the Capt. incapacitation case he may have to if the weather is crap, can't go flying all over the globe looking for an alternate that is VMC with a possibly dying colleague in the other seat.

R/W 05R TPE - At the time of the SQ006 accident this runway was promulgated as a runway and NOTAM'ed as 'closed - under repair', it became a taxiway when the repairs were completed. On the night in question there were no crosses at the threshold and the runway lights were on.

In the first Operations Manual of Tiger Airways, which was a 1:1 copy of SIA/SLK procedures, there was a very strange paragraph, saying that CMD should let the FO make autoland if they don't want to give him the landing - for whatever reason.

I don't know if this paragraph has been lifted in SIA/SLK, in Tiger it never came to execution and was deleted very soon, like many other non-western things coming from SIA...

that is a really strange policy. dani, did you manage to find out the reason for it?

The only reason why this thread remains is that it involved an Asian airline; all the skygods are trying to find fault and gloat about an Asian carrier. Had it been a western carrier this thread would have been merged with an existing one on the SEA forum and all would have been forgotten. There are many failed skygods who just can't live down the self perceived insult of having not been able to con their way into plum positions in SQ that they keep having the axes primed for grinding.

you mean like the Air France accident... ;)

Akali I think it is a shame you feel the way you do. I have just retired from SQ and have many Indian friends that I flew with. Great Guys and good pilots. As an Aussie I have never acted or felt like a "Sky God", far from it. We are all in this business together. As an ex-SQ employee I will not comment on this incident, except to say the FO never did the Auto-Land it was always the Captain, regardless of the weather. I go back to '98 on the 743. Sounds like you have met an Australian A-Hole, all nations have a few of them, we have a few in Parliament, it's called 'Human Nature'. Life would be dull without them.