SQ 317 Diverted to Baku

[eminere™]

It seems that PVG has been selected to deal with the equipment swaps generated by an A380 out of action. SQ836/825 has been operated 5x weekly by A380 recently, which is now 'on hold' if flight records are anything to go by.

Obviously some unlucky port has to be chosen but I sure hope nobody was booked into suites last night when 9V-SRJ taxied up to the gate!

I'm hoping my flight back to Sydney on Saturday remains unaffected!

[yflyer]

Maybe now for the preferred seat selection for A380 emex rows, they will pay you USD50 if you choose to sit there...

On a more serious note, whatever the cause of the incident, the crew got the plane down safely, and I thought SQ responded well by sending an A380 to retrieve all pax at very short notice and bringing them all to Singapore a day later, bringing at least that chapter of the pax's experience to a close.

[kt74]

On a more serious note, whatever the cause of the incident, the crew got the plane down safely, and I thought SQ responded well by sending an A380 to retrieve all pax at very short notice and bringing them all to Singapore a day later, bringing at least that chapter of the pax's experience to a close.

Well, to be fair, that's their job, and that's the least they can do. That doesn't, however, make me feel any more confident about safety procedures on SQ

It is a sobering thought that, on the 25th anniversary of Kegworth, one of the key recommendations was about communication between the passengers, cabin crew and the cockpit

If the news articles are correct, SQ317 passenger voices safety concern about door 20 minutes after take off. Leading steward de-prioritises responding in favour of expediting the meal service, and, as we understand it, no cockpit crew (and I guess there are 4 of them between LHR and SIN) bother to check the door, putting it down to a previous known issue that was considered safe when last checked at LHR, several hours previously (at sea level, when the aircraft was not pressurised)

Personally, if those are the SOPs, then I'd be wary of flying SQ until they change

[boing]

Find it amusing that passengers are b*tching and whining that they are sleeping on the floor of the airport, no updates from tech crew during descent, etc etc.

They should be thankful that they are on terra firma in one piece and able to tweet and FB about it.

[flyguy]

Believed the pilots bringing the plane down to land at the nearest airport is not an issue - but seriously if SQ can do its internal investigation and see why the cabin crew and tech crew did not takeit seriously enough to warrant that one of the pilots - as there were 4 of them - did not bother to come down and have a look and ascertain the situation at that time - and merely putting it down that the ground mechanics have looked at the door already.
Was there such a lack of situational unawareness or a indifferent attitude - and especially so when the noise level was so alarming even to the passengers?
Do not think its a problem for one of the tech crew to just come down and look at it on the side of caution as passengers have raised their concerns to the cabin crew.

[TonyC]

Very surprised that none of the crew, all of whom most likely have flown many sectors before, did not recognise the seriousness of the situation when it first arose. It should be easy for any regular flyer to notice any unusual situations, especially during cruise. An incident like this should certainly warrant the pilots taking a closer look, and in this case the decision should have been made to return to LHR.

[CarbonMan]

Where did you both get the info that none of the flight crew gave a visual on the problem? I have been on some flights when the second set of flight crew were not in uniform.

... but seriously if SQ can do its internal investigation and see why the cabin crew and tech crew did not takeit seriously enough to warrant that one of the pilots - as there were 4 of them - did not bother to come down and have a look and ascertain the situation at that time - and merely putting it down that the ground mechanics have looked at the door already.
Was there such a lack of situational unawareness or a indifferent attitude - and especially so when the noise level was so alarming even to the passengers?
Do not think its a problem for one of the tech crew to just come down and look at it on the side of caution as passengers have raised their concerns to the cabin crew.

Very surprised that none of the crew, all of whom most likely have flown many sectors before, did not recognise the seriousness of the situation when it first arose. It should be easy for any regular flyer to notice any unusual situations, especially during cruise. An incident like this should certainly warrant the pilots taking a closer look, and in this case the decision should have been made to return to LHR.

[cscs1956]

Well, to be fair, that's their job, and that's the least they can do. That doesn't, however, make me feel any more confident about safety procedures on SQ

It is a sobering thought that, on the 25th anniversary of Kegworth, one of the key recommendations was about communication between the passengers, cabin crew and the cockpit

If the news articles are correct, SQ317 passenger voices safety concern about door 20 minutes after take off. Leading steward de-prioritises responding in favour of expediting the meal service, and, as we understand it, no cockpit crew (and I guess there are 4 of them between LHR and SIN) bother to check the door, putting it down to a previous known issue that was considered safe when last checked at LHR, several hours previously (at sea level, when the aircraft was not pressurised)

Personally, if those are the SOPs, then I'd be wary of flying SQ until they change

http://www.straitstimes.com/breaking...-mountains-201
"they had cleared the airplane as serviceable" This decision come from on board tech crew or airport ?

[flyguy]

We wont know whether any tech crew whether in uniform or not did come down and look at the "leaking" door. But from SIA's PR release this was not addressed or answered on whether the cabin and tech crew did anything about the complaints - and PR just maintained that "the ground engineers came up to look at the door seals and sign it off as ok to fly".

[Russ]

So we send a replacement aircraft without replacement crew?

1. There were 4 empty seats on SKE. If SQ flew SKD with a full crew, it would mean that the SKE crew would be stuck in Baku until they fix the door in SKE. Also, it means they need a real good fix too if there are going to be more people on board (vs just a few pilots). Or they would have to fly them back interline.

2. Getting 4 pilots together vs 4 pilots and 23 cabin crew is a different proposition. Priority was to get SKD to Baku ASAP and not wait until you managed to get 23 cabin crew.

3. As if losing 2 A388s for 24 hours and SKE for a week or two was not bad enough, why make the disruption to ops worse by having to pull together a full set of CC and possibly lose the other 23 CC for a few days whilst sorting out how to get them back ASAP.

It is easy to knock SQ for not sending a full set of CC but there are good reasons for it.

[FN-GM]

The pressure inside is significantly higher, so air should not leak in but out. The cold draught is just that air from the aircraft has higher velocity as it nears the leaking door seal. Plus the compressors working overtime to bring in air from the outside probably lacking the heating capacity. Am I making sense?

http://www.straitstimes.com/breaking...-mountains-201
"they had cleared the airplane as serviceable" This decision come from on board tech crew or airport ?

Hardly a credible source...

[astroboy]

So we send a replacement aircraft without replacement crew?

In the case of cabin crew for this particular incident, no.

[reddevil0728]

In the case of cabin crew for this particular incident, no.

Does that mean the original set of pilots will stay behind till they replace the door and fly the plane back?

If there's not going to be any cabin crew, who's going to serve them meals?

[Inflight Sup]

It is best to wait till after an investigation.

Pilots are trained to understand readings from their instruments. Modern aircrafts are complex and instruments are relied on to measure & monitor flight parameters.

Even if they were to have a look at the door, it would have presented itself as normal except for loud hissing sounds ( within the 1st hour of flight ) These sounds would indicate perhaps a rubber seal issue. The hissing sounds gives the impression of something urgent & dire, but the instruments that monitor pressure & temperature are within normal parameters.

Furthermore, there is a log book documenting that ground engineering did review that door and found it servicable.

At 30,000 feet, 2 hours airborne, full load, full fuel, on a very popular route, what would the decision be? Go on or turn back?

Go back based on gut feel or proceed based on available hard data?

On the 747 and some older models, first class travellers may hear grating sounds during the entire flight. Seasoned travellers may know that the sounds are made by the weather radar dish that swings from left to right... activated by the pilots to monitor weather conditions.

Should the pilot take a look, or trust his instruments?

[astroboy]

Does that mean the original set of pilots will stay behind till they replace the door and fly the plane back?

If there's not going to be any cabin crew, who's going to serve them meals?

There was a replacement set of pilots, but the original set of cabin crew (minus 4 crew who had to assist with the ground ops until the IST and DME ground staff arrived) operated the replacement flight back to SIN, which is why there was a more urgent need to step the crew down in order to meet the minimum rest requirements. After all, someone had to serve the meals, right?