Singapore Airlines Jetliner Bound for Los Angeles Crashes in Storm

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Grassroots Information Coordination Center (GICC) : One Thread

Oct 31, 2000 - 10:56 AM

Singapore Airlines Jetliner Bound for Los Angeles Crashes in Storm The Associated Press

TAIPEI, Taiwan (AP) - A Singapore Airlines jetliner bound for Los Angeles crashed Tuesday night after taking off in a storm, a Taiwanese official said. It was not immediately known how many people were on board.

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGAJZ3QRZEC.html

-- Carl Jenkins (Somewherepress@aol.com), October 31, 2000

Answers

10/31 11:14 Singapore Airlines Jet Crashes in Storm at Taipei Airport By Alex Armitage

Princeton, New Jersey, Oct. 31 (Bloomberg) -- A Singapore Airlines Ltd. jet crashed at the Chiang Kai-Shek International Airport in Taipei during a storm and collided with a plane on the ground, news reports said.

The Associated Press said it wasn't immediately know how many people were aboard the planes.

Singapore Airlines Flight 006 collided with a China Airlines jet at the Taipei airport on its way to Los Angeles, California, CNN said.

-- Carl Jenkins (Somewherepress@aol.com), October 31, 2000.


UPDATE: The 747 crash in Taiwan is being attributed to the plane taking off on a runway under construction. When you read the preliminary details below, this is certainly consistent with a multifactorial etiology: see Charles Perrow's wonderful book _Normal Errors_. Consider all the factors: poor visibility due to weather; no radar to monitor planes on the ground; decision to take off anyhow (not necessarily a wrong decision by itself); pilot knows which runway he is supposed to use but makes a wrong turn; no barrier on runway under constuction; and runway lights were turned on even though runway was closed...Any *one* of these factors being absent *might* have meant no crash, but they apparently combined and half the people on the plane died. ******************* Headline: Singapore Airlines Jet Used Wrong Runway Source: New York Times, 3 November 2000

[relevant excerpts follow:] TAIPEI, Taiwan -- A Singapore Airlines jumbo jet was on the wrong runway when it started to take off for Los Angeles and crashed this week, killing 81 people, the chief investigator said Friday.

The pilot realized at the last moment he was on a strip closed for repairs and tried to lift off but plowed into construction equipment.

The statement by Kay Yong, Taiwan's Aviation Safety Council managing director, confirmed that pilot error played a major role in the crash of the Boeing 747-400, which had 179 people aboard when it tried to take off during a storm at Taipei's airport late Tuesday night...

...He said the pilot, who survived the crash with injuries, knew which runway he was supposed to be on and was not misdirected by the control tower. Before taking off, he told the tower that he was at runway 5-L, when actually he was at the one alongside it, 5-R.

Still, Yong said it was too early in the investigation to conclude that the pilot was responsible for the accident.

Earlier Friday, Taiwanese civil aviation officials said that all airlines had been notified in an Aug. 31 letter about the runway repairs.

However, the officials also admitted that there was no barrier had been set up to block a pilot from taxiing onto the closed runway and that its lights were switched on Tuesday night, when the typhoon was bearing down on Taiwan with strong winds and heavy rains.

Yong also said Chiang Kai-shek Airport has no ground radar, so there is no way for the control tower to monitor the movement of the aircraft on the runways when the weather is bad...

-- Andre Weltman (aweltman@state.pa.us), November 03, 2000.


Were lights on at the closed runway?

Civil-aviation authorities in Taipei not ruling out possibility that the runway was lit to aid vision, given bad weather

Despite the best training, there may be factors beyond the pilot's control that could have lead to tragic crashes, such as the one in Taipei. -- REUTERS

AIRLINE pilots using Chiang Kai-shek International Airport would normally get clear warnings if they taxi their aircraft to the wrong runway, said aviation experts and pilots familiar with the operations of the Taiwanese airport.

The pilot of a plane starting at the bay would be told exactly which runway to go to. Those familiar with the Taiwanese airport would have taken extra precautions to avoid runway 05R, which had been closed intermittently over the past six to eight months.

The pilot would then take the plane through a taxiing path marked by green marker lights running down the centre of the path and blue marker lights along both edges.

As he approached runway 05R from the side, Captain Foong Chee Kong, 41, at the controls of the ill-fated SQ 006, would have seen that the runway was not at the end of the taxiing path -- runway 05L, the right one, would have been straight ahead of him, marked by bright white lights running down the centre and both edges.

Normally, closed runways are left unlit to make it clear which runways are or are not in use.

But latest reports suggest otherwise. Taiwanese civil-aviation authorities conducting the investigation into the SQ 006 flight are checking if the marker lights on the closed runway were left on to aid vision amid the bad weather.

If Capt Foong had been misled by the lights and turned into the wrong runway, he might still have received another warning sign from a navigation system that guides jumbo jets down the exact centre of a pre-determined runway.

Experienced pilots say the veteran pilot would have activated the para-visual display, as this device is called, due to the bad weather and reduced visibility.

And, if the airport had a ground radar, the control tower would have warned him if he had strayed.

All these should stem speculation that Capt Foong used the runway which was not in operation for the fateful take-off of flight SQ 006 late on Tuesday night.

But the comment from the civil-aviation authorities in Taipei that the lights might have been switched on along the closed runway is keeping the controversy in the spotlight.

Taiwan's Aviation Safety Council's chief investigator, who said this in Taipei yesterday, added that his team would verify this later.

Singapore Airlines had earlier dismissed speculations that Capt Foong had used the wrong runway, as did experts and pilots interviewed by The Straits Times.

The location of wreckage debris on the closed runway had sparked these speculations.

Another theory that strong winds might have caused the airliner to veer into the closed runway was put in doubt with latest reports saying that no tyre marks were found on the grass strip separating the two runways.

Still, an expert said the plane might have been hit by a gusty crosswind just at take-off point, and was pushed over to the closed runway, thus leaving no tyre marks on the grass.

"What could have happened is that the crosswinds blew the plane to one side, so that the debris ended up on the adjacent runway,'' he said.

http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/primenews/pri10_1103.html

-- Doris (reaper@pacifier.com), November 03, 2000.


Doris, in reading the numerous articles re this topic this a.m., debate seems to be coming down to which lights were on and which colour they were. Apparently, runway 05L, which was open, had white lights in the centre of the runway, while 05R, which was closed for construction, had green lights in the centre of the runway. Apparently, both runways had the white lights at the sides of the runways on.

So far, I've read one 747 pilot saying it is the green lights on the centre of the runway that tell the pilot where to taxi/land/take off. In addition, given the amount of water lying on the runways and the reduced visibility because of darkness and sheets of rain coming down, one wonders how clearly white lights were distinguishable from green, no?

Gives one even more confidence in flying.

-- Rachel Gibson (rgibson@hotmail.com), November 03, 2000.


Sorry, in my comments above I mis-stated the title of Perrow's book: it is _Normal Accidents_ not "Errors."

-- Andre Weltman (aweltman@state.pa.us), November 03, 2000.


Rachel, appreciate you food for thought. What gets me is that there was no reference to a baracade of some type blocking a runway under major construction with cranes on deck. Maybe a little common sense could have created a whole different ending to this incident.

Regardless of any of our assumptions, I believe that this disaster is ultimately going to come down to a problem with air traffic control whether they have a runway radar or not, they are responsible and they have a problem.

-- Doris (reaper@pacifier.com), November 03, 2000.


Well, here's my answer regarding a barricade on the runway. Too bad they put it at the end instead of the beginning.

Pilot Saw Barrier on Closed Runway Too Late, Jet Crash Inquiry Reveals Disaster: Singapore Airlines accepts finding that crew took wrong turn while taxiing.

By HENRY CHU, Times Staff Writer

TAIPEI, Taiwan--The pilot of Singapore Airlines Flight 006 tried to take off from the wrong runway Tuesday night, causing the jumbo jet to hit a concrete barrier and other objects before breaking apart in flames, investigators here said Friday. Just one second before impact, flight Capt. C.K. Foong shouted, "Something there!" and tried to pull the jet up to avoid a crash, said chief investigator Kay Yong. He quoted from a transcript of the last few moments inside the cockpit, caught on the aircraft's voice recorder. But the Boeing 747-400 could not clear the obstacle in time, ramming into it at a speed of at least 163 mph. An unintelligible remark and more impact noises sounded, Yong said, and then the recording went dead. The retelling supported mounting signs that pilot error lay behind the fiery crash, which killed 81 of the 179 passengers and crew members on board. The victims included 24 Americans, whose relatives, in both grief and disbelief, began arriving Friday to identify and claim the remains. It was the first major accident for Singapore Airlines in 28 years of operation. Earlier this week, the carrier had dismissed the theory that Foong, a veteran pilot from Malaysia, steered his craft onto the wrong runway, which was under repair and is adjacent to the runway in use. On Friday, however, the airline accepted the investigators' findings. Foong survived the crash. "They are our pilots. That was our aircraft. The aircraft should not be on that runway," Cheong Choong Kong, chief executive and deputy chairman of Singapore Airlines, said at a news conference in Singapore. "We accept full responsibility." But significant questions remain as to whether something may have misled Foong into turning onto the wrong runway, known as runway 05R, and why its entrance had not been sealed off. Foong was assigned to take off on runway 05L. The 05 indicates that the runways point about 50 degrees magnetic on the compass, or roughly northeast; the R and L stand for right and left. "The next step is to ask the whys," Yong said. "We haven't done any of that yet." One of the biggest issues centers on whether the lights lining either side of 05R were switched on at the time. The green lights down its center were lighted, but accounts by witnesses conflict over the status of the side lamps. Crew members of the plane have told investigators that the side lights were on, which might have confused the captain into thinking that the runway was available. But employees in the control tower, who could not see the runway because of poor visibility caused by an approaching typhoon, said the switch was turned off.

Runway Assignment Was Understood Whatever the case, the cockpit voice recorder makes clear that Foong knew which runway he was supposed to use. At 11:15 p.m., as the plane taxied toward the runways, traffic controllers advised him of wind conditions--gusts up to 57 mph--and told him that he was cleared to take off from runway 05L. Foong repeated the instructions back to the tower and, a minute later, said in English, "We can see the runway not so bad." But at that point, he was making a right turn onto 05R, which the taxiing plane reached first, rather than bypassing it and going on to the correct runway. With no ground radar at Chiang Kai-shek International Airport and reduced visibility because of the bad weather, the control tower was not aware of the mistake. At 11:17 p.m., one of Foong's two first officers indicated that the jetliner had accelerated to 163 mph, a speed at which Foong could no longer abort the takeoff. Just four seconds later, Foong uttered an expletive, which was followed by his exclamation of "Something there!" He was able to pull the nose of the aircraft up by about 6 feet, Yong said, when the first major impact sounded. That occurred about 3,000 feet down the 9,000-foot runway, where concrete blocks guarded the edge of the repair site. The plane ultimately broke into three major pieces, with one section coming to rest more than half a mile down the runway from the initial point of impact. Two excavators in the runway's construction area also showed signs of damage. Investigators are still trying to map the wreckage, which was strewn over a large area. Runway 05R has been undergoing repairs since Sept. 13, with construction due to be completed by Nov. 22. Taiwanese aviation officials said notification of the runway's planned closure went out Aug. 31. In addition, every pilot is supposed to receive a briefing on all relevant conditions--from runway availability to weather reports-- from a dispatcher here within a few hours before the pilot's scheduled flight. The dispatcher assigned to Foong was interviewed by investigators Friday.

No Clear Explanation for Wrong Turn Foong told investigators that he knew 05R was not in use, Yong said. But he has given no clear explanation as to why he turned onto the closed runway. "The pilot is under a lot of pressure [right now], so there are a lot of things he can't reply to completely clearly," Yong said. Besides questions surrounding the lighting on 05R, experts are looking into whether signage on the runway was clear enough for Foong to know where he was, even with the diminished visibility brought on by rain and strong winds. At least two signs at the threshold of 05R specify which runway it is, Yong said: a small, elevated electronic red sign that was illuminated at the time and large white letters painted directly on the runway. "We're not certain whether the crew saw that or not," Yong said. Furthermore, the runway's narrower width and green center lights should help distinguish it from 05L, which is wider by about 50 feet and has only yellow and white lights, Yong said. Investigators are now asking whether there had been any reports of pilot confusion over the two runways before Tuesday's accident. It is also not clear whether Foong made one of his 10 previous trips to Chiang Kai-shek International Airport after construction on 05R had begun. A preliminary report on the crash will be published in a month. Taiwanese investigators are being assisted by a team of eight experts from the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board and by investigators from Singapore.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/updates2/lat_crash001104.htm



-- Doris (reaper@pacifier.com), November 04, 2000.


Doris, this BBC article has a diagram of the runways that indicates the SQ taxiway was actually at an angle to the two runways. What is hard to understand is that the pilots didn't notice the taxiway continuing as they turned right onto runway 05R; they must certainly have known that 05L was the northernmost runway, the one at the end of the taxiway.

This, and the runway lights, sure makes things confusing. I wouldn't be surprised if, though, in the end the airport itself might actually harbour some of the responsibility for what occurred.

-- Rachel Gibson (rgibson@hotmail.com), November 04, 2000.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ