KoreanAir ATC violation
 

Korean Air KE929 has entered rwy without ATC clearance and SQ 9016 made RTO to avoid collision.
Due to RTO, SQ 9016(bound for SFO) had flat tires and had significant delay of 19 hours at incheon airport, Korea.

Did this occur around 0900Z on Thursday, 5 May 2016, perhaps?

Looks like Korean got airborne on time even if SQ had to get new tires.

Kudos to the Singapore Air pilots for averting that disaster!

https://i.imgur.com/nssWIA5.jpg

http://www.airlive.net/breaking-sing...sion-at-seoul/

Any truth that SQ was taxiing back for a second takeoff when the plugs began to melt?

CCA

Not true. The 77W had to replace those tires and it was delayed for 19 hours.

Was told that it was ATC that told SQ to abort T/O as KE passed over a red bar.
Not confirmed however.

I heard that the KE crew that caused this where not replaced and continued the flight to St Petersburg.

I can't read the Korean in the diagram posted above but I believe that this was the KE flight involved in the runway conflict:

Korean Air Lines Co. (KE) #929 05-May-2016 ICN / RKSI - LED / ULLI FlightAware

Out of interest, is there an official form of words for ATC to use in these circumstances?

The UK CAP413 here (PDF download link) details the phraseology to be used in Chapter 4, point 4.41 (page 18) and states:

I doubt they use CAP413 in Korea..........!

I find it interesting that the Military take a completely different approach.

Civil ATCO cancels clearance or instructs the pilot to stop immediately.
Mil ATCO cancels clearance or informs the pilot for him to decide.

I always thought that it was a/c captain that had the final say, if so, why the directive STOP IMMEDIATELY from ATC with no info as to why.

When I did ATC it was ATC in overall charge of an airfield and not 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 etc. aircraft commanders.

I dread to imagine 2 or more commanders realising there is a problem and both making conflicting decisions whereas ATC is in a position to make one decision upon behalf of everybody concerned.

Your Call, My Ass :)

Here's a snapshot from the ICAO Doc 9432 "Manual of Radiotelephony".

:ok:

Isn't it a bit like when you're on finals and PNF suddenly says "Go Around"? It's not something that would be said without good reason so the default is to do as instructed and sort out the reason why later. In this case the reason might have been apparent by looking out the front, assuming visibility was adequate but the extra second required to do that, identify the problem and then act might be the difference between a simple change of underwear and waking up the fire department.

If ATC had to give the reason for the instruction before the flight crew acted then the delay might be critical.

Precisely.

19 HR delay. Ridiculous on the part of SQ.

I thought my airline was bad and alienating the public with our delays. 19 hrs for tires. Either it had to be something larger or that company suffers from serious operational mis-management.

Damage assessment, source and supply possibly 12 new wheels, transport to Korea, ( 6 hours), and fix, 19 hours sounds fair to me, what is your gripe Geebz?

I thought there are agreements on technical support so damage assessment and a handling of AOG would take less than that. Maybe get the new tires from a source closer Singapore.