Monday 23 July 2012

For today's (23/7/2012) lesson,

1. Read this news article about an accident involving an SIA plane in Taiwan.
    http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/nov2000/air-07n.shtml
2. Write out 5 main points from the article on why you think the accident occurred and in your opinion, whether the pilots were at fault. Remember to provide EVIDENCE.
3. Your points should be added as comments to this post. If I do not see your comments added by the end of the lesson, expect to receive a YELLOW form tomorrow.


Once you are done with this, you can study for tomorrow's paper.

26 comments:

  1. 1. The airline claims that crosswinds were blowing at no more than 27.2 kph when flight SQ006 tried to take off. But a Taiwan Aviation Safety Council report stated that the winds were between 43.2 kph and 49.6 kph.
    2. The airport is not equipped with ground radar so the control tower could not visually check if the plane was on the correct runway.
    3. At the time, tropical storm Xangsan, which had caused devastation across the Philippines, was approaching Taiwan. Winds of up to 144kph and heavy rain were lashing the airport and causing poor visibility.
    4. The intended runway was near the one under repair and the two had almost identical identification numbers, adding to the chance of confusion.
    5. While the centre lights were operating, investigators have yet to determine whether the “edge lights” running along the sides of the closed runway were on or off. “If the lights on the runway were not on, then the runway would not have looked like a runway,”

    ReplyDelete
  2. In my opinion, the pilots were not at fault. The airport does not have enough safety measure, i.e. Ground radar. The runway should have very different identification numbers and the lights of the runway off-ed. So essentially, it is the Taiwan Airport's incompetence that lead to the accident.

    ReplyDelete
  3. 1) At the time, tropical storm Xangsan, which had caused devastation across the Philippines, was approaching Taiwan. Winds of up to 144kph and heavy rain were lashing the airport and causing poor visibility. The intended runway was near the one under repair and the two had almost identical identification numbers, adding to the chance of confusion.

    2) A barrier of concrete blocks had been erected 1,000 metres down the runway at the beginning of the construction zone and marked with a light. Airport authorities have confirmed that visibility on the evening was below 500 to 600 metres. “The pilots might not have been able to see the signal,” because of the weather conditions, CAA deputy director-general Billy Chang admitted.

    3) The airport is not equipped with ground radar so the control tower could not visually check if the plane was on the correct runway. Yong said that on the night “visibility was too low to physically see the jet from the tower”. Ground radar is in operation at many large airports internationally but like all sophisticated electronic monitoring equipment it is expensive.

    4) Singapore Airlines follows Boeing's guideline of allowing takeoffs if crosswinds are lower than 55.2 kph. The airline claims that crosswinds were blowing at no more than 27.2 kph when flight SQ006 tried to take off. But a Taiwan Aviation Safety Council report stated that the winds were between 43.2 kph and 49.6 kph.

    5) While the centre lights were operating, investigators have yet to determine whether the “edge lights” running along the sides of the closed runway were on or off. “If the lights on the runway were not on, then the runway would not have looked like a runway,”

    ReplyDelete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. In my opinion, it is not entirely fair to only criticise the pilots. Sure, they were at fault for not ensuring safety before takeoff, but I feel that the airport does not have measures to counter such conditions. For example, they do not have ground radars. This will lead to the pilots' mistakes which eventually leads to the accident.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The main points of the article are:
    1. An LA-bound Singapore Airlines plane from Taiwan crashed.
    2. Singapore Airlines has accepted full responsibility, claiming that it was a case of pilot error.
    3. However, other factors may have been involved, one of it being weather conditions.
    4. Another factor is that the plane took off from a runway under repair.
    5. The airport itself did not follow through with procedures, such as warning the pilots about the runway under construction and letting them fly in bad conditions.

    The pilots were partially at fault, because they were the ones who decided to fly during the occurrence of typhoon winds. However, Taiwan airport has to shoulder some of the responsibility too. In trying to be cost-effective, they compromised the safety as well as the maintenance of the aircrafts and airport.

    ReplyDelete
  7. 5 main points of the cause of the accident:
    1. Poor visibility due to the heavy rain brought about by the tropical storm
    2. Intended runway was near the one under repair and had almost identical identification numbers
    3. The runway under repair was not blocked off to prevent serious delays for plane departures
    4. Absence of ground radar hence position of plane could not be checked
    5. Failure of the control tower to warn the pilots regarding the closed runway

    In my opinion, I don't think that the pilots should be fully blamed for the crash. Although pilots do have the responsibility to delay the flight if weather conditions are not suitable for flying, they do have varied judgements based on the information given by the control tower. Due to the failure of the control tower to inform accurate weather readings to the aircrew, they were not able to make a proper judgement as to whether the weather is suitable for takeoff. Furthermore, the control tower failed to relay the message to the aircrew regarding the runway that was being repaired thus the aircrew thought that it was safe to takeoff. Hence, due to the inefficiency of the control tower, the aircrew was forced to make inaccurate judgements and thus leading to the crash.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Catherine Lim7/23/2012 1:39 pm

    The accident occurred mainly because of the terrible weather as seen from the article that told us that the flight "had attempted take off in typhoon conditions" which contributed to "poor visibility".

    Bad planning and failed judgements also contributed to the accident as the flight took off "from a runway that had been closed for repair" and it was only made possible because "intended runway was near the one under repair and the two had almost identical identification numbers, adding to the chance of confusion" and the runway "had not been completely blocked off". The invisibility due to the weather and the similarities between both runways would cause confusion to the pilots, leading to a failed judgement and the crash.

    The inadequate infrastructures also led to the accident as "airport is not equipped with ground radar so the control tower could not visually check if the plane was on the correct runway". If the control towers were built at a right angle which enables people to view the runways entirely, this accident could have been avoided.

    The employers in the airport also contributed to the tragic event as "conditions the control tower should have warned the pilots by radio about the closed runway" yet it wasn't warned to the pilots on the flight involved in the accident. If it was, the situation could have been avoided.

    Another reason why the accident occurred might be because of the badly-lit runway. It is suggested in the article that the runway might not have been lit, "investigators have yet to determine whether the “edge lights” running along the sides of the closed runway were on or off", the pilots of the plane might have been befuddled by this and hence, lost control of the flight or went in the wrong direction.

    In my opinion, the pilots were not totally at fault as the evidence suggests so. Thought the pilots were in fact the ones controlling the flight, the issues that led up to the incident were not directly or indirectly caused by them. Hence, I believe that the pilots were not the only ones at fault.

    ReplyDelete
  9. 1) The tropical storm Xangsan was fast approaching Taiwan and caused winds of up to 144kph and heavy rain, resulting in poor visibility, therefore the pilots may not have seen the concrete barrier that it hit, leading to the accident.
    2) The intended runway for the plane was near another which was under repair and both had almost identical runway numbers, so the pilots may have confused one for the other.
    3) The runway under repair had instead not been cordoned off, but had concrete blocks erected and marked with a light. The weather conditions may have made that hard for the pilots to see.
    4) The airport did not have ground radars for the control tower to check if the plane was on the right runway.
    5) The control tower did not warn the pilots that there was a closed runway and they should avoid it.
    Therefore with the facts stated above, most of the blame for the crash should be placed on the air traffic controllers and not the pilots, as the pilots were trying to take off in poor weather conditions, and were also not told about a closed runway, neither did the control tower check that the plane was on the right runway. If the weather was poor, the control tower should have cancelled or delayed the flight instead of letting the pilots proceed. The control tower should also have provided the information about the closed runway.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Rayner Tan(21)

    In my opinion, it was the airport's fault as:
    1) They did not warn the pilots about the closed down runway.
    2) They did opened part of the closed down runway in the interest of reducing losses, not following safety regulations
    3) They did not stop operations under such extreme weather conditions.

    Therefore it was the Taiwan Airport who has a higher weight age of the responsibility as if they had not wanted to reduce their losses and invested more in safety, this incident wouldn't have happened.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Point 1: The accident occurred due to the weather conditions. This is supported as tropical storm Xangsan was approaching Taiwan with winds of up to 144 kilometers per hour along with heavy rain. The heavy rain and winds resulted in poor visibility which could have led the pilots to land on the wrong pathway.

    Point 2: Another possibility is the pilot’s failure to distinguish the runways. The intended runway and the one under repair has similar identification numbers. The runway under repair was not totally blocked off because it was frequently used for taxi-ing aircraft. A barrier of concrete blocks was erected 1000 meters down the runway at the beginning of the construction zone and marked with a light. Authorities confirmed that the visibility on the evening was below 500 to 600 meters. Therefore, the pilot could have mistook the repairing runway for the actual runway, which precipitated the incident.

    Point 3: The airport was also not equipped with ground radar so the control tower could not visually check if the planes were on the right runway. Also, the incident occurred at night where visibility was very poor. Therefore, the control tower would not be able to inform the pilots that they were on the wrong runway if they can’t see it themselves. This resulted in utter confusion and thus lead to the incident.

    Point 4: The control tower did not inform the pilots via radio about the closed runway as proven by the “black box” cockpit recorder. Therefore, the pilots had not knowledge of the runway’s construction. Therefore, the pilots could have mistook the runway under construction for the actual runway, which ultimately lead to the incident’s occurrence.

    Point 5: In my opinion, it is certain that the pilots were not at fault. Technical problems, miscommunications as well as ill-equipped control towers were all underlying problems that instigated the disaster. The pilots themselves had absolutely no control over any of these. The weather, unpredictable as it is would not have affected the result if the control towers were equipped with ground radars and had informed the pilots of the runway under construction. The pilots were just doing their job. The mistakes they made could have been overridden if the control tower was able to detect their location as well as actively communicate with them to make sure they are on the right runway. Therefore, the airport authorities are at fault, not the pilots.

    ReplyDelete
  12. In my opinion, I think the accident occurred because:

    1) The weather conditions. This is evident because the article states that, “At the time, tropical storm Xangsan, which had caused devastation across the Philippines, was approaching Taiwan. Winds of up to 144kph and heavy rain were lashing the airport and causing poor visibility.”.

    2) The similar identification numbers. This is evident because the articles states that, “The intended runway was near the one under repair and the two had almost identical identification numbers, adding to the chance of confusion.”.

    3)The runway under repair was half opened for use. This is evident because the articles states that, “International airport regulations require a runway under repair to be cordoned off. But the disused strip at Taipei had not been completely blocked off because it was frequently used for taxi-ing aircraft.”.

    4)The airport authorities are not doing their job. This is evident because the articles states that, “Eckes pointed out that unlike the pilots, the airport authority has the benefit of advanced radar technology and other instrumentation on which to base a decision.”.

    5)The airport does not have ground radar. This is evident because the articles states that, “The airport is not equipped with ground radar so the control tower could not visually check if the plane was on the correct runway.”.

    In my opinion, the pilots were not at fault. The runways had similar identification numbers, the runway under repair was not cordoned off, the plane does not advanced radar technology that the airport would have and the airport was not equipped with ground radar. Thus with these factors, it shows that the pilots were not at fault but rather the airport authorities are at fault.

    ReplyDelete
  13. 1.) The flight attempted to take off in typhoon conditions from a runway that had been closed for repair.

    2.) Winds up to 144kph and heavy rain were lashing the airport causing poor visibility thus the pilots might not have seen the construction zone signal.

    3.) The airport is not equipped with ground radar so the control tower could not visually check if the plane was on the correct runway.

    4.) It is not know if the lights on the runway were properly lit and it might have caused the accident.

    5.) The pilots were under pressure from the airlines to maintain tight schedules and avoid costly delays thus the flight was rushed and resulted in the accident.

    I think the pilots were not at fault the captain of the plain was a highly competent pilot with more than 11,000 hours flying time. He knew the airport, having used it 10 times before the accident. The runway where the accident occurred was not properly blocked off by the airport. Also, the airport did not have ground radar and was did not give clear instructions to whether or not the pilot was supposed to take off. Thus, I belief that the aircrew was made the scapegoat for the SQ006 crash and it was the crew's fault for the incident.

    ReplyDelete
  14. 1) The accident had occurred due to the heavy rain caused by tropical storm Xangsan, which lowered visibility for the pilots and control tower, preventing them from seeing that they had gone onto the wrong runway. This is evident in the passage as it states "Winds of up to 144kph and heavy rain were lashing the airport and causing poor visibility. The intended runway was near the one under repair and the two had almost identical identification numbers, adding to the chance of confusion."

    2) The accident would not have occurred if the choice to close the runway was given to the control tower, rather than the pilot, as pilots are usually pressured into flying even in unsafe circumstances. This is evident as the article states that "Significantly, at Taipei and many other airports around the world, the pilot decides whether or not to take off in bad weather. Runways are only closed if pilots insist on flying in conditions that the airport authorities feel present an “immediate danger to the aircraft”. Airport operations are maintained even when wind conditions are higher than the safety levels recommended by aircraft manufacturers."

    3) The accident had occurred due to the pressure that airlines gave to the pilots to maintain tight schedules, which would be costly if there was a delay, thereby convincing the pilot to fly the plane regardless of bad weather conditions. This is evident in the passage when it states that "Obviously pilots are under pressure from airlines to maintain tight schedules and avoid costly delays."

    4) The accident had happened after the plane had gone onto the wrong runway, which was due to improper cordoning of the runway that was under repair to prevent delays at the airport, low visibility, and similar identification numbers. This can be seen in the passage as it says "The disused strip at Taipei had not been completely blocked off because it was frequently used for taxi-ing aircraft" and "Airport authorities have confirmed that visibility on the evening was below 500 to 600 metres"

    5) The accident was not due to pilot error, but rather a combination of many factors, such as cost savings by airlines and airports, bad weather conditions, improper cordoning of runway that was under repair. This can be proven as the article states that "Malaysian captain C.K. Foong who was in charge of the aircraft was a highly competent pilot with more than 11,000 hours flying time. He knew the airport, having used it 10 times before the accident."

    ReplyDelete
  15. Rayner Tan(21)

    1) The plane took off under extreme weather conditions which caused it to crash and burn. This is evident from the passage,"...the Los Angeles-bound flight had attempted to take off in typhoon conditions from a runway that had been closed for repair. As it was leaving the ground, the plane struck a metre-high concrete barrier and some construction equipment, split into three pieces and crashed, bursting into flames."

    2) The underlying reason for the crash was probably not the pilot’s error but something else. This is evident from the passage, “...how could experienced pilots make such a fundamental and fatal mistake?” This shows that it was highly unlikely that it was the pilots fault as they had been doing the same routine for a long time.

    3) It wasn’t the pilot’s fault as the supposed unde repair runway was supposed to be blocked off. However in order to increase business and reduce delay times, the Taiwan airport did not follow safety regulations and partially opened part of the under-repair runway to taxi aircrafts. This is evident from the source, “International airport regulations require a runway under repair to be cordoned off. But the disused strip at Taipei had not been completely blocked off because it was frequently used for taxi-ing aircraft. CAA assistant director Chang Kuo-cheng said closing down the runway entirely “would have created serious delays for planes lining up for departure”.”

    4) It was also partially the Taiwanese control tower’s fault as they did not warn the pilots of the crashed flight about the runway under repair, thus they could not have known before hand. Furthurmore, visibility was also poor, thus the pilots were unable to see the runway under repair. This is evident from the passage, “According to San Francisco-based attorney Gerald Sterns, who specialises in representing air crash victims' families, under such conditions the control tower should have warned the pilots by radio about the closed runway. “The ‘black box' cockpit recorder indicated that wasn't done with the Singapore Airlines flight,”...” Therefore it was partially the Taiwanese control tower’s fault for not warning unaware pilots about the runway which was under construction.

    5) It was partially also the airport’s fault for not exercising correct judgement and shutting down operations under such extreme weather, which could have prevented the accident altogether. This is evident from the source, “…the pilot decides whether or not to take off in bad weather. Runways are only closed if pilots insist on flying in conditions that the airport authorities feel present an “immediate danger to the aircraft”. Airport operations are maintained even when wind conditions are higher than the safety levels recommended by aircraft manufacturers. Obviously pilots are under pressure from airlines to maintain tight schedules and avoid costly delays.” Therefore as the pilots are already under pressure from airlines, the airport should be responsible and make the call to temporarily delay flights for safety reasons.

    ReplyDelete
  16. 1. The weather was rough and visibility was low, causing the pilots to enter the wrong runway. At the time, tropical storm Xangsan was approaching Taiwan. Winds of up to 144kph and heavy rain were causing poor visibility. The intended runway was near the one under repair and the two had almost identical identification numbers, adding to the chance of confusion.

    2. The runway under repair was not blocked off, which could have prevented the accident. International airport regulations require a runway under repair to be cordoned off. But the disused strip at Taipei had not been completely blocked off, being frequently used for taxi-ing aircraft.
    Instead, a barrier of concrete blocks had been erected 1,000 metres down the runway at the beginning of the construction zone and marked with a light. Airport authorities have confirmed that visibility on the evening was below 500 to 600 metres. “

    3. There may have been a light confusion, deceiving the pilots to believe the runway under repair was a normal runway. According to CAA spokesman Kay Yong, the centre lights—green on the closed runway and white on the active one—were on. The centre lights were operating but investigators have yet to determine whether the “edge lights” running along the sides of the closed runway were on or off. “If the lights on the runway were not on, then the runway would not have looked like a runway,” Yong said.

    4. The lack of ground radar meant that the airport could not check where the plane was, which could have prevented the accident. Yong said that on the night “visibility was too low to physically see the jet from the tower”.

    5. If the place avoided taking off in bad weather, the accident would not have happened. Singapore Airlines follows Boeing's guideline of allowing takeoffs if crosswinds are lower than 55.2 kph, claiming that crosswinds were blowing at no more than 27.2 kph at the time. But a Taiwan Aviation Safety Council report stated that the winds were between 43.2 kph and 49.6 kph. While the Taipei control tower provides the most precise weather data available, the airport authority acknowledged that the information is not “real time”—that is, it is dated.


    ------


    In my opinion, the pilots were not at fault. They were likely deceived due to poor visibility but could have avoided the accident if the airport had ensured the runway under repair would not be mistaken for another and if the airport stuck to weather guidelines.

    ReplyDelete
  17. After reading the news article, I do not believe that the crash was due fully to the errors of the aircrew. There were a number of other factors that contributed significantly to the accident. One is the weather condition, the other being the mistakes of the control tower authorities.


    Firstly, the accident can be attributed to the pilots in a small extent. Theoretically, according to Boeing's guidelines, SQ006 was able to take off because the crossover wind speed did not exceed the maximum. However, even if the pilots had total freedom over whether they chose to take flight or not, they were unable to fully grasp the weather situation using the aircraft's system. The control towers had the most information on the traffic conditions. However, that is not to say that the main culprit at hand are the aircraft authorities. The weather plays the biggest part in causing this tragedy to happen. If not for the low visibility, the authorities would have been able to alert the aircraft that they were in the wrong lane. Even the aircraft crew would have a perfect view of the runway had the weather been fine, as there was a large concrete wall erected on the runway with warning lights on.

    Other factors also contributed to the causing of the tragedy. For instance, international airport guidelines state that runways that required servicing are to be cordoned off, but the runway that caused the accident was not. The reason given is that it was regularly used by taxi-ing aircrafts and helped with the smooth transition of planes. In addition, there was a lack of effective communication between the aircraft crew and the authorities. The authorities should have warned of the closed runway, which was near the intended one and with almost identical identification numbers.

    Hence, I disagree with the statement that the Singapore Airlines crew was at fault. There are several factors that attributed to the accident in larger extents than the errors made by the aircrew.

    ReplyDelete
  18. 1) Bad weather with winds up to 144 kph and heavy rain caused poor visibility. As the intended runway was near the one under repairs, and the two have almost identical identification numbers, it added to the change of confusion.

    2) Normally, a runway under repair is cordoned off. However, the one in Taipei was not completely blocked off as it was used to taxi aircraft. Cordoning it off would cause major delays for planes lining up for departure.

    3) The airport was not equipped with ground radar. Because of the bad weather conditions, visibility was too low to physically see the jet from the tower. As a result, the control tower could not check if the plane was on the correct runway.

    4) According to Boeing's guideline, takeoffs could only be made when crosswinds are lower than 55.2 kph. Thought the airline claims that crosswinds were blowing at no more than 27.2 kph when SQ006 tried to take off, a Taiwan Acistion Safety Council report stated that the winds were between 43.2 kph and 49.6kph.

    5) The runways might not have been correctly lit. Though the centre lights have been reported to be lit, it has yet to be determined whether the 'edge lights' running along the sides of the closed runway were on or off. "If the lights on the runway were not on, then the runway would not have looked like a runway," CAA spokesman Kay Yong said.

    In my opinion, the pilots were at fault as they failed to confirm that they were taking off on the correct runway, and the ones who decided to fly despite bad weather conditions. However, it is also the airport's fault as by attempting to be cost-efficient, they compromised the safety of their passages.

    ReplyDelete
  19. 1. A tropical storm approaching from Philippines caused bad weather conditions at the Taiwan airport, with winds of up to 144kph and heavy rain leading to poor visibility.

    "Weather conditions played a significant role. At the time, tropical storm Xangsan, which had caused devastation across the Philippines, was approaching Taiwan. Winds of up to 144kph and heavy rain were lashing the airport and causing poor visibility."

    2. The runway intended for landing was near another runway closed down for repair, and this could have caused some confusion.

    "The intended runway was near the one under repair and the two had almost identical identification numbers, adding to the chance of confusion. International airport regulations require a runway under repair to be cordoned off. But the disused strip at Taipei had not been completely blocked off because it was frequently used for taxi-ing aircraft."

    3. A runway under repair is required to be cordoned off, by international airport regulation, but this was not done so as it was frequently used for taxi-ing aircraft. Instead concrete blocks had been erected 1000m down, and airport authorities have confirmed that visibility was below 500 to 600 meters

    "Instead, a barrier of concrete blocks had been erected 1,000 metres down the runway at the beginning of the construction zone and marked with a light. Airport authorities have confirmed that visibility on the evening was below 500 to 600 metres."

    4. Despite bad weather conditions, pilots still decided to fly(pilots are given authority to decide whether to fly or not) and furthermore, the airport was not closed despite the incoming typhoon.

    "the pilot decides whether or not to take off in bad weather. Runways are only closed if pilots insist on flying in conditions that the airport authorities feel present an “immediate danger to the aircraft”. Airport operations are maintained even when wind conditions are higher than the safety levels recommended by aircraft manufacturers."

    5. Ground radars not used to check where flights are landing, and weather conditions that night made it difficult to check physically from the control tower when the flights landed.

    "The airport is not equipped with ground radar so the control tower could not visually check if the plane was on the correct runway. Yong said that on the night “visibility was too low to physically see the jet from the tower”. Ground radar is in operation at many large airports internationally but like all sophisticated electronic monitoring equipment it is expensive. The installation of ground radar at Taipei airport would have been costly and would have required an additional air traffic controller to constantly monitor it."

    In my opinion, it is partially the pilot's fault for taking off in such weather, but the responsibility should not be fully taken by the pilots, instead also from the Taiwan airport authorities for not informing the pilots about the closed runway, for not installing ground radar, and also for not closing down the airport due to extreme weathers, and SIA, for not informing pilots about taking off at such precarious weather conditions.

    ReplyDelete
  20. 5 main points of the cause of the accident:
    1. The heavy rain brought about by the tropical storm caused poor visibility the the runways
    2. The intended runway was near the one under repair and had similar identification numbers
    3. The runway under repair was not blocked off
    4. The airport was not equipped with ground radar. hence, the control tower was unable to visually check if the plane was on the right runway
    5. The officers at the airport/control tower did not do their job to warn all pilots of the closed runway.

    In my opinion, it was not the pilots' fault for the accident. Clearly, the officers failed to warn the pilots of the closed runway which was also not blocked off. The identification numbers for each runway should not be similar in anyway. It should be unique to tell obvious differences. Also, the bad weather caused poor visibility.

    Khim Tan (08)
    S302'12

    ReplyDelete
  21. 1)Bad weather conditions which caused the tropical storm to hit Taiwan with the winds at a speed of 144kph and heavy rain. This factor lead to the poor visibility.

    2) Poor visibility due to the storm. This reduced the pilots' visibility and they might not be able to see the signal marked with the light on the runway.

    3) Absence of ground radar installed in the airport. Without the ground radar, the control tower is not able to visually check whether the place is on the correct runway, leading to the crash.

    4) Miscommunication with the international airport officers and the Singapore Airlines' pilots about the runway. The intended runway was near to the repaired runway hence, leading to confusion. Both had almost same identification number.

    5) Negligence of the control tower's staff to warn the pilots by the radio of the closed runway. As evidence, it stated that the black cockpit recorder was not done with the SIA flight. Without warning, the plane still proceeded on the repaired runway, leading to the incident.

    In my opinion, the pilots are partially at fault. This is because they are the ones who made the decision to fly the plane even though the weather worsened. The pilot should not have continue with the flight if he had known that the weather was worsening. However, the international airport officers were also greatly at fault. This is so as there are not much precautions taking into place at the airport such as the absence of the ground radar and also the negligence of the staffs to warn the pilots. With these small loopholes, it led to miscommunication. If the officers worked together with the pilots, the security measures will be more tightened and hence, reducing the chances of the crash.

    ReplyDelete
  22. 1.) The accident could have occurred due to weather conditions. Winds were blowing between 43.2 kph and 49.6 kph.
    2.) Pilots are under pressure to from airlines to maintain tight schedules and avoid costly delays.
    3.) Airport is not equipped with ground radar thus control tower could not check whether the aircraft was on the correct runway. The disused strip at Taipei had not been completely blocked off because it was frequently used for taxi-ing aircraft. The intended runway was near the one under repair and the two had almost identical identification numbers, adding to the chance of confusion.
    4.) The runway might not be not properly lit. If the lights on the runway were not on, then the runway would not have looked like a runway due to low visibility.
    5.) The control tower should have warned the pilots but the ‘black box' cockpit recorder indicated that wasn't done with the Singapore Airlines flight.

    In my opinion, the pilots are not at fault because these were experienced pilots and they could not have made such as simple mistake. The captain was a highly competent pilot with more than 11,000 hours flying time. He knew the airport, having used it 10 times before the accident. Also, it is probable that the fault could lie in the airport or the airline. As from the passage “Air safety is being compromised by cost-cutting, economic restructuring and privatisation throughout the industry, driven by intense rivalry between airlines. In many cases, aircraft maintenance programs are being wound back, aircrew are being put under pressure to work longer hours and the latest safety technology is not used as a matter of course...to block off a runway, to install ground radar, and bad weather takeoffs and landings—it is profit that very often decides.”

    ReplyDelete
  23. 1) The weather conditions was bad, as it states in the article that there was a tropical storm at that time, "Winds of up to 144kph and heavy rain were lashing the airport ..." This lead to poor visibility, of about 500-600 meters only. Thus the pilots did not know that they were on the wrong runway, causing the accident to happen.

    2) The intended runway was very near to the runway under repair, and they also had identical numbers, leading to confusion. The pilots were had no idea that they were on the wrong runway.

    3) The runway under repair was not cordoned off, as it was still used for other stuff. Though there were 1meter high barriers placed, it was only place 1000meters from the start of the runway. As the visibility was very low due to the storm, the pilots were unable to spot the barriers.

    4) There was no ground radar to monitor if the plane was on the right track, as the airport did not want to spend on such expensive equipments. Thus this caused miscommunications, and the pilots were unaware that they were on the wrong runway.

    5) The workers at the control tower did not inform the pilots of the closed runway, and thus the pilots did not expect any barriers or closed runways. They were totally unaware of the situation. It is the airport's responsibility to make sure that such repairs are taking place, but they did not.

    In my opinion, I feel that the pilots are not at fault as many of the factors that lead to this accident were due to the errors of the airport. The airport should have been better prepared when runways are under repair, and they should give proper informations to the pilots in order to avoid confusion. Also, it should not be the pilot's fault as the airport did not invest in equipments like the ground radar as they felt it is too expensive. However, I feel that it is alright to spend such money rather than causing more accidents to happen in future.

    ReplyDelete
  24. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  25. For this accident to occur, a host of factors and reasons have to occur in order to produce the perfect conditions for an accident like this to happen.

    First of all, the weather conditions, at the time of the accident, were far from ideal for the taking off of planes. Winds of up to 144kph and heavy rains were batting down on the airport causing poor visibility and hazardous take off conditions. The poor visibility made it difficult to distinguish between two almost identically numbered runways, one of which was closed for repairs, thus increasing the chances of confusion.

    Secondly, the disused strip at the Taipei airport, which was under construction and supposed to be cordoned off, was not completely blocked off. In fact, it was frequently used for taxi-ing aircraft. A barrier of concrete was blocks had been erected a kilometer down the disused runway marked with a light, signaling the construction zone. Due to the poor visibility, the pilots might not have been able to see it.

    Thirdly, there has been questions raised regarding whether the runways were appropriately lit. It is under speculation if the "edge lights" running along the side of the runway were on or off. With the absence of these lights and the poor visibility, pilots would have a hard time determining where the runway was.

    Fourthly, ground radars, which are used by the control tower to check if the plane was on the correct runway in the event of poor visibility, was not equipped by the airport. This would make it difficult for the tower controllers to tell if the plane was on the right runway.

    Finally, the pressure that pilots are put under to maintain tight schedules and avoid costly delays might have result in rash decision making leading to this disaster. Unlike airport authorities, who have advanced radar technology and other instrumentation to base their decisions, pilots only can base their decisions on information relayed by air control operators.

    In my opinion, I feel that although pilot error was one of the factors to contribute to the cause of this disaster, it is not the only factor at play. Combined with poor weather conditions, poor airport maintenance and, poor lighting, lack of proper airport equipment and work pressure, it will be foolish to blame this entire incident purely on pilot error. The airport has to take some of the blame for this accident. With better equipment and maintenance, perhaps this disaster could have been completely avoided, saving lives.

    Lucas Chia

    ReplyDelete
  26. Write out 5 main points from the article on:

    1) Why you think the accident occurred?
    2) In your opinion, whether the pilots were at fault. Remember to provide EVIDENCE.

    Q1) I think that the accident occurred due to the cost-saving measures taken by the airlines and airport authorities, which actually compromises Air Safety. Secondly, it would be the Bad Weather Conditions that led to poor visibility. Examples of cost-saving measures would be how the airport at Taiwan is not equipped with ground radar so the control tower could not visually check if the plane was on the correct runway. This was because the installation of ground radar at Taipei airport would have been costly and would have required an additional air traffic controller to constantly monitor it. Such cost to the airport authorities was unnecessary and this led to tragic accident. It was indeed not a cost worth saving.

    Furthermore, the weather conditions made matters worst as at the time, the tropical storm Xangsan, which had caused devastation across the Philippines, was approaching Taiwan whereby winds of up to 144kph and heavy rain were lashing the airport which caused poor visibility.
    The intended runway was near the one that was under repair and the two had almost identical identification numbers, adding to the chance of confusion of being on the wrong runway. This led to the the major accident on the supposedly repairing runway.

    Q2) In my opinion, “pilot error” is a convenient way of making the aircrew the scapegoat for the SQ006 crash, especially when the pilot decides whether or not to take off in bad weather. Furthermore, it was Malaysian captain C.K. Foong who was in charge of the aircraft. He was a highly competent pilot with more than 11,000 hours flying time. He knew the airport, having used it 10 times before the accident. Thus, such fundamental accident would not actually occur.

    Additionally, the airport authority has the benefit of advanced radar technology and other instrumentation on which to base a decision. the airport authority has the benefit of advanced radar technology and other instrumentation on which to base a decision, which is what the pilots do not have. In such bad weather conditions, there are turbulence or wind shear problems which the plane's system does not indicate.

    Therefore, I can conclude that the pilots were in control of the situation, but due to the bad weather conditions, their decision made were blinded especially when they do not have good visibility, which led to the cause of the accident, having left off on the repairing runway. This major accident was totally in the control of the authorities who should have been more alert of the situation and immediately inform the pilots of the upcoming strong wind. This way, the flight could have maybe been called off in time.

    Wei Chern

    ReplyDelete