Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

SQ836 incident

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • SQ836 incident

    Worrying...

    http://www.avherald.com/h?article=486d5637&opt=0

  • #2
    Glad it landed safely.

    Sounds similar to this incident:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Transat_Flight_236

    Comment


    • #3
      Seems to have been covered up a bit. Did not see the story till several days after it occurred.

      Surprised the crew did not squawk 7700 either.
      Fly well,
      Travel safe,
      And have a pleasant journey.

      Comment


      • #4
        Oh bad News , I going to fly back to SIN from PVG on 30 may with A330

        Comment


        • #5
          SQ836

          what's most surprising, in the era of twitter, snapshat and instant-everything, is that it took 3 day to surface... not talking about the airline, but the passengers...

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Durian View Post
            what's most surprising, in the era of twitter, snapshat and instant-everything, is that it took 3 day to surface... not talking about the airline, but the passengers...
            If the presumption that the bulk of the pax is Chinese then one needs to check weibo, et al.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by CarbonMan View Post
              If the presumption that the bulk of the pax is Chinese then one needs to check weibo, et al.
              That's what I thought too, but this is not a China domestic flight between 2 3rd-tier cities, it's between SIN and PVG, there must have been loads of S'poreans and Caucasians in J in particular... and even on weibo, information flies fast... When Tony Tan is spotted in LHR SQ lounge, it is on SQtalk the day after... but this news takes 3 days to surface... strange...

              Comment


              • #8
                Well, it could be that the passengers assume it is just a normal turbulence. They didn't mention anything about the announcement made to the passengers.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by orionmiz View Post
                  Well, it could be that the passengers assume it is just a normal turbulence. They didn't mention anything about the announcement made to the passengers.
                  Yes, from the news it is not clear if any of the pax knew there was an issue. Given our propensity to post any kind news on social media/twitter/Stomp, some passenger would surely have tweeted/posted about it if they knew what had happened.

                  Then again, it would have been quite obvious on the Airshow flight info display that things weren't right re altitude.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Business Class pax must be wondering if their Bose headphones has improved noise cancellation

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Anyone with insights if this was a complete loss of power in both engines or partial? Also, 9V-SSF is pretty much just off the delivery line right ...

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by jonleong View Post
                        Anyone with insights if this was a complete loss of power in both engines or partial? Also, 9V-SSF is pretty much just off the delivery line right ...
                        The AVHerald article says "pilots followed operational procedures to restore normal operation of the engines" whereas BusinessInsider (General press not aviation industry specialists) is the only one I saw which said "restart the engines" which means something completely different...I am sceptical of anything the non-specialist press reports on aviation, and will wait for the actual investigation report before reaching any conclusions.

                        That said, the pilots who flew the plane back from Shanghai to Singapore must have had nerves of steel, and complete trust in their engineering/maintenance colleagues.
                        Last edited by yflyer; 27 May 2015, 07:08 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by jonleong View Post
                          Also, 9V-SSF is pretty much just off the delivery line right ...
                          Correct. It is SQ's newest addition, having flown for around 7 weeks before the incident.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            It's surpising the pilots did not divert to the first available diversion airport. If I am not mistaken, HKG was close.When both engines shut down mid flight unexpectedly, it's an emergency, as pointed out by @SQ747. The protocol should be to a) perform restart and pray they fire up, then b) set that baby down safely as soon as possible at diversion field. Deciding to continue to operate the flight onwards to PVG, business as usual, seems ridiculous.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              No squawk 7700, no mayday, delayed news release... Even other SQ A330 pilots got the news on Sunday itself, and just as much news as we've been given - no more than that. My friend's dad is an FO on the A333 and from what my friend told me, they've not had any special briefings either.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X