heart of asia

Found this on another website:

"SQ232 had a tailstrike on November 8th out of Sydney. It has been reported that the Boeing 777 aircraft continued on to Singapore instead of returning for a structural inspection.
So, what is the story then? Did the tail strike occur or not? If it did and the crew knew about it and yet did not land asap, then what are we to make of this further evidence of SQ pilot culture?"

AC*SE

This is not the first case like this at SQ.

A number of years ago, an SQ pilot began a takeoff roll on the wrong runway (sound familiar) and realized after V1 that he was going to run out of room.

He carried on, finished his take off roll on the grass, and successfully rotated. Then he carried on to Singapore rather than return to MEL to inspect the gear.

Apparantly the photos of the ruts in the grass beyond the threshold are quite impressive.

Gaucho100K

Im still amazed about what appears to be pilot error in the SQ 006 case, but are we all not giving SQ too much of a hard time about this? Im not sure its safe to generalize about the whole company based on the attitudes of some FA's after the crash, or for that matter, the mistake of one pilot.

I still fly and will continue to fly SQ.


------------------
Gaucho100K

AC*SE

No airline is immune from human error--even the best carriers face these problems.

However, if these human errors are the result of poor management, then that deserves scrutiny.

SQ are the subject of litigation from at least one former pilot alleging a poisonous managment culture. The majority of their female cabin crew lose their job after 8 years (two contracts), generally around age 30.

It is difficult to objectively tie these things to specific events. However, it is intuitive that bad crew management can contribute to fatal errors or omissions in extreme circumstances.

transpac

I continue to feel confident and comfortable flying on SQ. One major incident in 25 years seems pretty good to me? (none would be better for all, agreed) I know how proud Singaporeans (I hope that's correct) are of their country, and they should be, and they should be proud of their national carrier. I give them grief about the WHOPPER Airbus, in jest, however I continue to fly as many miles with them as I can because I feel safe with them. A tail-strike here and an overshoot on a take off (vs. sliding into god knows what) there (so two more incidents in 25 years) also seem reasonable. I do not have any knowledge of the management atmosphere nor do I have knowledge of the contracts for FA's so I cannot comment on those topics. I sense that many are envious of SQ's position and reputation hence the need to knock them down a notch when the opportunity arises. I thank the *A Gods daily for adding SQ.

Steve M

Regarding AC*SE's post about a SQ flight running off the end of the wrong runway upon takeoff, and not returning to the takeoff airfield considering the questionable landing gear, I have to ask the following question:

Considering the situation of the possibility that the landing gear was damaged upon takeoff, why does it matter if the flight continued to the scheduled destination or returned to the departure airport? If the landing gear is broken and will result in a difficult (or catastrophic) landing, does it make a difference whether this occurs at the scheduled departure or arrival airport? And, if the landing gear is not damaged, would the passengers not be better served with landing at the arrival airport? The only reason I can think of that would make returning to the departure airport prefereable in this situation is where the passengers are aware of potential damage to the landing gear, so that continuing the flight prolongs passenger distress. But then again, I'm not a pilot. Perhaps I'm overlooking something.

AC*SE

1) The pilot is absconding. He could be legally responsible to local jurisdiction for negligence. He is legally obliged to remain in the jurisdiction.

2) Damage to the gear might prevent retraction, thus preventing normal flight.

Koru Flyer

Interesting, a couple of years ago I was on a QF jet from Hawaii that broke something in the landing gear on takeoff, they just flew to SYD and landed there after circling for control tower to assess damage.

Sorry cannot be more accurate as to what happened due to father time and lack of reports from QF.

Seems to be fairly common to fly onwards?

Mark

TravelinWilly

What was the attitude of the FA's after the crash?



------------------
Willy!

AC*SE

Having done a flypast and a visual, they can confirm correct gear retraction and fly on.

As long as local jurisdiction releases them, and the pilot in command is satisfied with the aircraft, you're good to go (on).

YVR Cockroach

FWIW, remember what caused the crash of that JL 747SR in the 1980s. The bulkhead cracked due to a tail strike and was improperly repaired causing it to decompress, blow out the vertical fin/rudder and resulted in loss of hydraulics.

Methinks SQ's financial incentives to pilots to maintain punctuality performance has a lot to do with it.