Jump to content

SIA and Korean Air planes almost collide at Incheon on May 5


Stooky
 Share

Recommended Posts

KR also alot lar..... just that many reconstruction happened behind the scene. So make it seem like the runways are a rarity in KR.

 

 

 

 

Unfortunately , its pretty true SG has many runway .... Go anywhere and u will see runway  :XD:

 

↡ Advertisement
  • Praise 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

bec our stewardess all slim slim like paper ..... scare they break . Im good man you know :grin:

 

 

Man ! KR got short one ....... SG mine one is longer . :D

 

They should have ABS on plane [thumbsup]

Deploy 'airbags' lor . . Surely got drilled on this?

  • Praise 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1.7km apart is extremely far . . . No danger lah unless stopped 1.7m apart then it is indeed a close shave!

 

Got typo or not?

 

SQ pilot kia si ba ... jam brake all the way without thinking how many implants will be affected .... sigh 

  • Praise 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Twincharged

1.7km apart is extremely far . . . No danger lah unless stopped 1.7m apart then it is indeed a close shave!

 

Got typo or not?

1.7km for planes i think quite near leh. Cuz their stopping distance is very long. They also need the control tower to tell them to ebrake cuz they cannot see so far ahead. If the communication between the planes and control tower took 1 min longer, they would have collided...

SQ pilot kia si ba ... jam brake all the way without thinking how many implants will be affected .... sigh 

 

They can't see ma. They do ebrake is the control tower tell them to abort takeoff and ebrake one leh. I don't think the pilot can see so far.

  • Praise 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

SQ16 was accelerating for takeoff at 120km/h when a Korean Air Airbus plane KE929  unexpectedly taxied onto the runway. SQ16 did an emergency braking following instructions that were received from air traffic control, damaging its tyres. The two planes were about 1.7km apart when both came to a complete stop, 

 

SQ16's departure was delayed for about 19 hours as the plane's tyres had to be replaced.  KE929, meanwhile, was diverted back to the apron and took off about two hours after the incident. Its pilots were said to have ignored earlier instructions from the air traffic controller. 

 

South Korea's Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport is investigating and is expected to release its report in 2 to 3 weeks.
 
 

 

 

The news reports say 120 miles per hour which is close to 200 kmh. 1.7 km for planes is like 1.7 cm for cars

  • Praise 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hypersonic

The news reports say 120 miles per hour which is close to 200 kmh. 1.7 km for planes is like 1.7 cm for cars

 

Considering that takeoff speed for a 777 maybe somewhere around 340 km/hr, 1.7km would be roughly covered in around 17 seconds.

So it wasn't a super close call but it's a close call nonetheless.

  • Praise 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Turbocharged

Thank goodness there was time to react.

reminds me of SQ006 runway accident at Taipei airport on 31 Oct 2000....

 

20140314_SIA2000planecrash_st.jpg?itok=a

  • Praise 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering that takeoff speed for a 777 maybe somewhere around 340 km/hr, 1.7km would be roughly covered in around 17 seconds.

So it wasn't a super close call but it's a close call nonetheless.

 

no la ... the speed was at 120km/hr then  . After coming to a stop , the distance betw them was 1.7km away. If I read the report correctly.  :D  

  • Praise 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hypersonic

no la ... the speed was at 120km/hr then  . After coming to a stop , the distance betw them was 1.7km away. If I read the report correctly.  :D  

 

Yeah i think just started the take off procedure only. Yeah it would have been longer since the planes were still far away. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hypersonic

anyway the visibility was good. I think the tenerife accident was partly because of poor visibility and the absence of airport radar during that time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dun think ABS will be applied to planes.

it actually increases braking distance since the runways are well drained and taken care off.ABS 

 

ABS is first employed in air craft rather than automobiles, if my memory serves me right.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Supersonic
(edited)

very scary and very sad ... salute the pilot had done what he could to avoid a collision

simi 1.7km apart ... a runway supposely clear for take off ...

 

https://youtu.be/kjLrZ2SDDaU

 

This was what was avoided.

Edited by Wt_know
Link to post
Share on other sites

Turbocharged

ABS is first employed in air craft rather than automobiles, if my memory serves me right.

Wiki seems to mention the concord. But I can't seem to find it once on the page.

ABS is first employed in air craft rather than automobiles, if my memory serves me right.

Wiki seems to mention the concord. But I can't seem to find it once on the page.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Twincharged

Some things I read.

 

1). Before every flight, the amount of fuel is calculated so that when the plane lands, it lands with minimal fuel plus reserve fuel. This is safety measure as the pilot wants to land a plane as light as possible for safe braking. This means that on take off, it has the maximum weight and hence an emergency brake is actually risky. By the way, if immediately after take off the plane needs to land, the pilot will have to dump fuel first before landing.

 

2). Far or near is subjective. Depends on stakes. If a doomsday asteroid miss earth by twice the distance to the moon, would you consider that far or a close shave?

 

3). It is because pilots have the training and the reflexes to perform in such a situation that they deserve the high pay and that little swagger and prestige that comes along with being a pilot. Unfortunately, the pay, swagger and prestige probably contributed to the near miss if it was found that the Korean pilots were too proud to listen to instructions.

 

4). I hope the report will be fair but I will not hold my breath seeing that it was a Korean plane in Korea. Might end up printing a factual report with a slant against SQ.

 

5). NO one should be injured in this incident, at least not seriously. This assumes that everyone followed instructions and were seated and belted. This also shows why we need to listen to instructions, even as passengers. They are not there for fun.

 

My 2 cents.

↡ Advertisement
  • Praise 9
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...