Air Crash Investigation episode on SQ006

[CarbonMan]

My colleague was flying on this particular SQ006 on that fateful day but he disembarked in Taipei, as he was on a biz trip there. He was quite traumatized after that event as he had walked past many pax who were going onwards to LAX while disembarking the plane. Very sad memories, no matter what the cause was.

[cscs1956]

Here's the Air Crash Investigation episode on MI185.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7MCCjJtjkQ

It does seem one sided, pinning all the blame on the pilot(suicide).

This is another show that explores both sides of the MI185 crash giving a balanced and unbiased view of the crash.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8eHB...eature=related

Back to SQ006, CKS runway lighting pertaining to runway closure didn't meet the ICAO standards at the time of accident and this was just glanced through in the accident report. Individuals make better scapegoats than organizations.

The Taiwanese authorities were actually considering prosecuting and charging the pilots in court, leaving them liable to be jailed in Taiwanese jail.
That is until the International Pilots Union stepped in and threatened that their pilots worldwide, flying for various carriers, would not fly into Taiwan unless the pilots involved are released soon.

And not many people may know this, but two aircrafts almost met the same fate as SQ006 right here in Singapore Changi Airport a few years ago. One was just metres away from certain disaster. And this two incidents occurred just days apart.

Think the video did comment to both party. Accident is always both way. But the key is the last part when the signal did not aligned before take off and capton choose to "ignore" it.
When you mention " runway closure didn't meet the ICAO standards " that was very suprised to me. Why did SQ choose to fly to a airport that did not meet ICAO standards ? Do you implies SQ auditor has failed to do their job?

I remember the capton lost his job after the event is closed, what does this means?

[lingua101]

Think the video did comment to both party. Accident is always both way. But the key is the last part when the signal did not aligned before take off and capton choose to "ignore" it.
When you mention " runway closure didn't meet the ICAO standards " that was very suprised to me. Why did SQ choose to fly to a airport that did not meet ICAO standards ? Do you implies SQ auditor has failed to do their job?

I remember the capton lost his job after the event is closed, what does this means?

Of course thr signal thata was not aligned before take off should have not been ignored. But given the tense situation, I think the pilot never able to belueve that the close runway will be led.

During the interview you can see that Captain Foong cannot believe it that they were inthe wrong runway.

If that closed runway was not led, I doubt that SQ006 will turn into it.

I think it is a political, the Taiwanese investigator wants to save CKS face

[b777jubilee]

Of course thr signal thata was not aligned before take off should have not been ignored. But given the tense situation, I think the pilot never able to belueve that the close runway will be led.

During the interview you can see that Captain Foong cannot believe it that they were inthe wrong runway.

If that closed runway was not led, I doubt that SQ006 will turn into it.

I think it is a political, the Taiwanese investigator wants to save CKS face

i remember during that period there as a report saying that Para VIsual Display is an aid to align the runway, if the pilots can see the runway clearly, that can override the PVD. Clearly in this case the crew can see the runway clearly via the lights.

It comes down to procedures, not right or wrong but i would believe the crew followed procedures that visual overrights instruments in this case

[KC*]

i remember during that period there as a report saying that Para VIsual Display is an aid to align the runway, if the pilots can see the runway clearly, that can override the PVD. Clearly in this case the crew can see the runway clearly via the lights.

It comes down to procedures, not right or wrong but i would believe the crew followed procedures that visual overrights instruments in this case

I am not a pilot but as a driver of a car with parking sensor - if I can see a parking space clearly, I'd ignore the silly bleeping sensor telling me otherwise.

In this case (wrongly so), the pilot may have felt it was fine to ignore the PVD in favour of his eyes. A very human thing to do.

But I guess, history now tells us that in aviation, one does need to be quite "anal" about some things (pardon the language).

[cscs1956]

Of course thr signal thata was not aligned before take off should have not been ignored. But given the tense situation, I think the pilot never able to belueve that the close runway will be led.

During the interview you can see that Captain Foong cannot believe it that they were inthe wrong runway.

If that closed runway was not led, I doubt that SQ006 will turn into it.

I think it is a political, the Taiwanese investigator wants to save CKS face

You are right, because of his strong believe that break the SQ record. This is many issues along the way, but the key is the last check before take off that can safe many people life.

Sure, both SQ and CKS want the save their face using your word. But then, why both pilot lost their job in the end? Does it means do agree their pilot also play a important role in this event?

[cscs1956]

I am not a pilot but as a driver of a car with parking sensor - if I can see a parking space clearly, I'd ignore the silly bleeping sensor telling me otherwise.

In this case (wrongly so), the pilot may have felt it was fine to ignore the PVD in favour of his eyes. A very human thing to do.

But I guess, history now tells us that in aviation, one does need to be quite "anal" about some things (pardon the language).

A very good example. Especially the capton was actually reminded about it by co-pilot. Sometime, over confident can make accident like this and drained company's image.

By the way, at that kind of weather, It is quite questionable when the pilot say he can see the runway clearly. Otherwise he should see the truck there too !

[lingua101]

A very good example. Especially the capton was actually reminded about it by co-pilot. Sometime, over confident can make accident like this and drained company's image.

By the way, at that kind of weather, It is quite questionable when the pilot say he can see the runway clearly. Otherwise he should see the truck there too !

Well the pilot did indeed see he runway light. The visibility may not be far enough. But actually the pilot indeed saw the truck hence he tried to pull the break (well at least that's what shown).

May be if he did not, may be just some part of the aircraft hit the truck.

[boing]

As RHG pointed out, air crashes are rarely the result of a single factor and mostly occur because of multiple contributing factors snowballing into a disaster. There are several walls, comprising of multiple parties, checklists, procedures and technology, built into every aspect of aviation to prevent an accident. And if an accident occurs, it means these walls have been breached A.K.A Swiss Cheese Model. A confluence of events that transpired into a disaster.

I read the full report and found that's what exactly happened.
http://www.asc.gov.tw/downfile/SQ006_ENG.pdf

Just to name a few.

• Runway 05R not properly marked as closed for operation.( piano keys still on the runway, no warnings ahead of the runway)
• Two green taxi lights leading into the correct runway being unserviceable.
• Flight crew not verifying if they are in the correct runway after both the PFD display shows runway off centre and PVD not aligning.
• Assuming Tower is watching them.

These investigation reports and shows are there to see what went wrong and discover ways to prevent them from happening and be a lesson to others. They should not be viewed as a list to go witch hunting.

Just my 2 cents !

[cscs1956]

Is good that you bring up this report that I had read serveral time. But you pick some and ignore those important one ...

Page 213 Section 2.5.4.1
Page 220 Section 2.5.6.3.1
Page 227 Section 2.5.7.2.1
and the summary
Page 239 Section 2.5.7.8 <<- the most important part of this report

and many more if one would read the report objectively.

This is like what it takes to win a gold in Olympic. Is not how many time you broke the world record. Is the monment when you are in the game that count.

Otherwise I can always blame LTA for a defective traffic light causing an accident (which is actually true).

My question is always ..why we fly there if they are not complied in the first place? So there is no point to defence other then taking these none complied item as a improvement.

Also, I believe SQ get CKS as answerable party in the court after the event. However, I lost track of the outcome. Did CKS authority lost the case and become part of the compensation party?

Once again, thanks for the report. It did say all about this incident. (actually very similar to the way we work in the recent SMRT case).