'100T lighter' Singapore Airlines 747 dragged its tails 500m

SN30952 · Post by **SN30952** » 15 Dec 2003, 21:13

Singapore Airlines tail-strike incident blamed on pilots.
A series of basic pilot errors led to a Singapore Airlines 747 dragging its tail about 500m along an Auckland Airport runway in March this year, a damning safety investigation has found.
The aircraft, flight SQ286 to Singapore, was forced to circle the airport on March 12 for about 20 minutes before making an emergency landing. None of the 369 passengers, 17 cabin crew, or three pilots was injured in the accident, but the tail of the plane was extensively damaged.
A Transport Accident Investigation Commission report, issued yesterday, says the aircraft's three pilots were almost completely to blame for the strike, which occurred when the captain tried to take off at too slow a speed.
It says the incident was the result of the first officer mistakenly entering an aircraft weight figure 100 tonnes lighter than that of the aircraft into his take-off speed calculations.
The captain then failed to pick up the error when he checked the calculation, the second officer did not check it and all three pilots failed to notice the difference between their own calculation and that of the flight management computer.
As a result, the captain "rotated" the plane to a takeoff angle at 123 knots (221km/h) rather than the correct 151 knots (272km/h).
With the plane failing to take off, it tilted 4 degrees more than normal, resulting in its tail striking the runway and dragging for 490m.
Singapore Airlines said yesterday that it accepted the report's findings in full and had demoted the captain.
"The safety recommendations of the TAIC to SIA have been, or are being, implemented in full," said the carrier's public relations manager, Stephen Forshaw. All three pilots had been reprimanded over the incident.
The captain was demoted and had since left the airline. The first officer was severely reprimanded and the third officer, who played no active part in the take-off, was "reminded of his obligations".

Post by **luchtzak** » 16 Dec 2003, 01:05

'Only' 100.000 kilograms miscalculation

EBAW_flyer · Post by **EBAW_flyer** » 16 Dec 2003, 10:30

Come on, 123kts for a full B747 on a rather long leg

. Sounds rather strange none of the pilots noticed it.

744rules · Post by **744rules** » 16 Dec 2003, 17:34

I wonder why I do my best to get my calculations right. We have to pass exams and have a score of +90%, anything less and you fail.

Lien · Post by **Lien** » 16 Dec 2003, 20:10

Quite a performance !

L-1011 · Post by **L-1011** » 17 Dec 2003, 10:55

Have they tested them for alcohol

'cause this performance sure seems strange!!!

It seems like none of them ever flied that route or that plane in "full" condition so that none knew what kind of speed was necessary.

Incredible:!:

I hope the other pilots in the air are better in math's than those two

ciao,
TriStar 8O

SN30952 · Post by **SN30952** » 17 Dec 2003, 16:24

EBAW_flyer wrote:Come on, 123kts for a full B747 on a rather long leg . Sounds rather strange none of the pilots noticed it.

a rather long leg? 10H15MIN
Singapore Airlines SQ 286
AKL 15:15 20:30 SIN Non-stop 744 flies 10h15min Daily.

And departure @ 15:15 is not a suspected hour. That means a late morning, a relaxed brunch and a beautiful drive to AKL Airport... on a autumn Wednesday.
And what was the weather there on that day? @15H00
Time Temperature Dew Point Humidity Pressure Visibility Wind Speed Gust Speed Precipitation Events Conditions
15:00 71.60 °F / 22.0 °C 60.80 °F / 16.0 °C 69% 29.77 in / 1008.0 hPa 43.5 miles / 70.0 kilometers 18.4 mph / 29.6 km/h N/A N/A Scattered Clouds

And Chinese New Year was long ago: February 1, 2003. for the Year of the Ram.

Too relaxed???

SN30952 · Post by **SN30952** » 25 Dec 2003, 07:13

This is a readers letter to the editor of TheStraitsTimes in Singapore.
It summarizes well the problem.
It was very disturbing to read the reports, 'SIA pilots to blame' and 'It was seconds away from disaster' (ST, Dec 16 and 17), about the Singapore Airlines pilots' mistake in the Auckland incident where they keyed in the take-off weight wrongly by some 100 tonnes, causing the tail of the aircraft to be severely damaged as it struggled to take off.
Luckily for the 369 passengers, 17 cabin-crew members and three pilots, the robust and forgiving Boeing 747 plane managed to take off without stalling.
It is hard to see why all three pilots failed to notice the serious discrepancy in the take-off weight entered. The incident reminds me of the SQ 006 crash in Taipei, where again the three pilots did not cross-check to see that they were indeed on the right runway.
Why were the pilots not cross-checking, a procedure laid down in the manual? Are there any shortcomings in the pilots' training programme or in the monitoring of cockpit procedures?
These are not isolated incidents. Shortly after SQ 006 crashed, another SIA Boeing 747 knocked down two pieces of airport ground equipment in Taipei, causing some minor damage to its wing. An SIA Airbus 310 overshot the runway in Kuching while another A310 dropped several hundred metres as the pilot inadvertently disengaged the auto-pilot.
All these incidents were the result of pilot errors. SIA should relook its training programmes, put more emphasis on safety and, most importantly, communication among pilots. SIA cannot afford to have another accident, as that would bring the company down and, with it, Singapore's image.

Is the image that Europe has of SIA, one of a past reputation?

Aviation24.be

'100T lighter' Singapore Airlines 747 dragged its tails 500m

'100T lighter' Singapore Airlines 747 dragged its tails 500m

a rather long leg?

SIA should ensure Auckland incident is the last in series..