Singapore Airlines flight diverted

[scooby5]

Some might have seen the following in the local paper

05:55 AM Feb 03, 2010A

Singapore Airlines flight from Hong Kong was diverted to Batam Airport yesterday. SQ863 was due to land at Changi Airport at 3.10pm. But parts of the tarmac were closed to accommodate the Singapore Airshow, resulting in a backlog of flights. An SIA spokesperson said the decision to divert the plane was made by the pilot. The plane set off for Changi after refuelling at about 8.55pm.

Okay so the pilot diverts to Batam, fair enough, but who at Singapore ATC didn't take the responibility to Fast Track an incoming bird running short of fuel???

I have no problem with the pilot making a decision to divert like this but it is obvious he got little in the way of help from anybody else. Let's face it, the crew also got home more than 6hrs late so we know they didn't take the decision easily.......given the original flight itself is even less than 4hrs.

[boing]

CAAS issued a NOTAM and notices to airlines operating out of Singapore about the impending airspace closure around Changi Airport for the airshow months in advance. So, it mustn't have been a surprise for the Capt as he will have seen this in his pre-flight NOTAM. SIA Flight Ops would have also taken this into account and scheduled their flights around the airspace closures.

http://www.caas.gov.sg/caasWeb/expor...PSUP191-09.pdf

My guess is that either the departure out of HKG got delayed for some reason or there was an unexpected headwind resulting in a later than expected ETA. Either way, SIN ATC is not at fault in this situation.

[Kyo]

I saw that and although not clued-in on the specifics, found that rather surprising.

Perhaps some pax could just take a ferry back...

[sqdazz]

but who at Singapore ATC didn't take the responibility to Fast Track an incoming bird running short of fuel???

Who said they were running short of fuel? I think this statement is a bit dramatic, yes they may have no had enough to hold for hours but that would be routine. The crew would have been well aware of the air show operations and the times they were scheduled. There must have been an unforeseen delay somewhere, if it were on the ground perhaps the crew should have considered delaying the departure.

Did you want them to cancel the airshow operations that were planned well in advance?

[SQflyergirl]

863 is a turn from 860... so they would have been on duty for a LONG time.....

[feb01mel]

863 is a turn from 860... so they would have been on duty for a LONG time.....

The crew has to report at 6.30am local time and they only land at 9.07pm (instead of scheduled arrival of 5.20pm).

Poor them, but I believe they may get extra allowance due to the delay

[SQflyergirl]

The crew has to report at 6.30am local time and they only land at 9.07pm (instead of scheduled arrival of 5.20pm).

Poor them, but I believe they may get extra allowance due to the delay

I hope they get something extra. I did an 860/863 turn, had time to wander a bit in HKG airport to stretch my legs and despite being on time, I felt knackered. This was in 77W F no less, so I can imagine how tiring it must have been for the crew.

[flyguy]

strange that the pilot elected to go to Batam instead of Senai - and in fact could even divert to KUL - and am sure these airports would allow the plane to be refuelled faster instead of the more than 4 hour being grounded in Batam.

[Thor]

It was mentioned the backlog of arriving aircrafts and pilot's decision to divert for refuel. Would be interesting to know if SIA compensates the passengers for the delay in arrival.

[boing]

Does anyone know whether this flight is operated with an additional set of flight crew ? If it was flown with a single set of flight crew as like most regional flights, there's a chance that the flight crew could have exceeded their flight duty time by the unscheduled diversion. Could this have anything to do with the unusually long delay( > 4hrs) ?

[scooby5]

Who said they were running short of fuel? I think this statement is a bit dramatic, yes they may have no had enough to hold for hours but that would be routine. The crew would have been well aware of the air show operations and the times they were scheduled. There must have been an unforeseen delay somewhere, if it were on the ground perhaps the crew should have considered delaying the departure.

Did you want them to cancel the airshow operations that were planned well in advance?

I don't think it's overly dramatic at all, the point is they diverted because they didn't have the fuel to outlast the wait..... hence were running short of fuel. Doesn't take a genius to work out the would have stayed in the air if they could.

Batam is what, just 3-min out? I'm sure some form of consession should have been given to allow his landing. Either that or the pilot waits until fuel is so low they have to announce a mayday, declare an emergency and force a landing anyway.

boing: the SG airshow is not new so yes i will also blame exceedingly bad planning or incompetance somewhere on top of an ATC that probably was going by the book. If the pilot is able to land in Batam, physically he is able to land in Singapore but the barriers were up.

There is far more in this than 4-lines tucked at the bottom of the local rag.

[flyguy]

as a turnaround flight and this 860/863 operates with 1 set of tech crew and carries its fuel ex-sin for the return leg as well - the tech crew operating hrs for the divertion and delay would make it just at the crew's max time and not sure if it exceeded the regulatory time fromt he media reported times.
However, it still seems very strange that Changi airport did not allowed the plane to land or flown back earlier as the restricted air time for the aerial displays would have been over before 6pm or earlier and with 2 runways - it should be able to clear even up to 30 aircraft back-logs pretty fast at 2 - 3 min intervals and indeed strange that this SQ 863 landed in SIN only past 9pm. Some ATC/CAAS inflexibilty or inefficiency somewhere?

[boing]

If the pilot is able to land in Batam, physically he is able to land in Singapore but the barriers were up.

Refer to CAAS AIP hyperlink on post #2. The airspace closure only affects Changi Airport. It's miles away from Batam airport. The advisories were out and they will not make an exception unless the pilot declares Mayday or Pan, Pan. Numerous a/cs were performing aerial stunts and on hold pattern around the vicinity and it would be a hassle to divert all of them somewhere for an a/c which didn't do its homework. Not to mention, it was the opening day and Singapore ministers along with foreign delegates and top militiary brass were at the airshow for the aerial performance. Imagine all these ppl's reactions when the announcement says that the aerial performance would be delayed due to an a/c's emergency landing. The ministers would have explaining to do to the delegates. There would be enquiries on ministerial level and it would have been blown way out of proportion.

And other carriers would also accuse SIN ATC of favouritism if that SQ flight was allowed to land while the others are burning $$$ waiting to land causing bad PR for Singapore.

End of the day, this was the right decision by SIN ATC. Although the pilots have some explaining to do.

[boing]

However, it still seems very strange that Changi airport did not allowed the plane to land or flown back earlier as the restricted air time for the aerial displays would have been over before 6pm or earlier and with 2 runways - it should be able to clear even up to 30 aircraft back-logs pretty fast at 2 - 3 min intervals and indeed strange that this SQ 863 landed in SIN only past 9pm. Some ATC/CAAS inflexibilty or inefficiency somewhere?

A few planes including a CX flight got diverted to Batam last year when Changi airport was closed due to bad weather. I do remember the CX landing back at Changi at least 2 hours later. One reason could be Indonesia's bureaucracy and red tapes in the form of numerous permits holding them back, I think.
Interestingly, I wonder whether SQ has ever taken into consideration of the idea to put Paya lebar airport as an alternate airport. It would have been much easier on the logistics side, that's for sure.

[scooby5]

boing, I still believe you are making the excuses in all the wrong places. From a personal point of view commercial aircraft using a commercial International Airport ought to be given priority. Diverting a flight to a foreign country, making them refuel and loose 6hrs is utter b@ll@cks.

And other carriers would also accuse SIN ATC of favouritism if that SQ flight was allowed to land while the others are burning $$$ waiting to land causing bad PR for Singapore.

It has nothing to do with favouritism to let a plane running lower on fuel land, provided said plane had already made the adequate provisions to carry the excess fuel in accordance to the CAAS directives.

It is fortunate, then, that it DID happen to SQ metal where it can be nice and neatly tucked under a carpet - no reputation lost, it appears at least from contents of this thread. The consiprocy theorist in me says other airlines may have been given priority over SQ for just such a reason.

Also the fact nobody seems to have learned anything from past events is nothing short of incompetant. It seems apt then that such a topic comes up when, making headlines in all the papers, is the declarion from government that a) SG needs to improve its efficiency and productivity after a decade of decline and b) it lower reliance on both Foreign Workers and Foreign Talent due to the side effect of ....see "a"

Batam is so bloody close that the aircraft had virtually made it to Singapore but, as i said, the door was closed. Much has to be explained and sorted out because it is hopeless.

There is far more wasted in monetary terms and reputation on this one incident than whether some sodding minister or VIP gets to see a display from an F16 on time, and not 5-min later. Wasted fuel from all those airlines circling overhead, the missed connections because the flight was 1hr or in this case 6hrs late, any hotel rooms required because of said lost connection and for what, a lousy 5-min of free air to let a plane land!