This day 26 years ago: Flight from S’pore crashes after takeoff from stopover in Taiwan, killing 83

‘Something there!’: Crash during takeoff in Taipei airport leaves 83 dead, pilots blamed for error

26 years ago today, a flight preparing to transport 159 passengers from Chiang Kai-Shek (CKS) International Airport in Taipei, Taiwan, to Los Angeles broke apart during takeoff on the runway.

In the aftermath, Taiwan’s Aviation Safety Council (ASC) published a report that attributed the crash primarily to the errors of the pilots.

The possibility of criminal charges loomed over them.

But was it actually quite as simple as the faults of the flight crew?

Flight made stopover in Taiwan before crossing Pacific Ocean

On 31 Oct 2000, Halloween night, Singapore Airlines Flight 006 prepared for a lengthy journey across the Pacific to Los Angeles International Airport.

Having started the trip from Singapore’s Changi Airport, the plane had made a brief stopover at CKS International Airport in Taipei.

The plane that would be making this flight was a Boeing 747-400, registered as ‘9V-SPK’.

Perhaps the most recognisable airliner of all time, the ‘jumbo jet’ was known for its four engines and a ‘hump’ at the front that contained an upper deck area.

Flight was crewed by unproblematic pilots

The ‘Pilot Flying’ for this trip was Captain Foong Chee Kong, a 41-year-old Malaysian pilot with 11,235 flight hours.

According to the ASC report, the experienced airman was assessed as an above-average pilot with no recent disciplinary warnings.

 

Next to him was 36-year-old First Officer Cyrano Latiff, a Singaporean pilot with 2,442 flight hours.

His colleagues described him as someone who would not hesitate to speak up about safety issues on a flight.

38-year-old First Officer Ng Kheng Leng joined them in the cockpit as a relief pilot, who would take over for First Officer Latiff during the flight itself.

Before the takeoff, though, Ng would merely act as an observer in the cockpit.

Weather conditions worsened as typhoon approached

That night, the three pilots and 17 cabin crew would fly 159 passengers on their Boeing 747, for a total of 179 occupants.

The weather was far from ideal. Typhoon Xangsane was 360km south and approaching, bringing strong winds and heavy rain to CKS International Airport.

However, conditions were still above safety limits at the time.

Middle of airport runway closed for construction

Nonetheless, the crew completed the necessary pre-flight checks and received taxi clearance at 11.05pm.

The air traffic controller (ATC) gave them their taxi route, which would lead them to Runway 05 Left (05L).

Airport runways are assigned numbers based on compass headings, with parallel runways given Left and Right designations to separate them.

For various reasons, airport management intended to turn Runway 05R into a taxiway.

Amidst various delays, construction work also began on a section in the middle of the runway.

Takeoffs from Runway 05R would obviously be impossible due to this obstruction, but CKS International Airport did not close the entire runway.

Instead, it would be used as a taxiway for planes. Only the construction zone itself was cordoned off.

The plane’s assigned taxi route included them passing by the start of Runway 05R before making a right turn onto their assigned runway, 05L.

Pilots slow and cautious while navigating Taipei airport

Despite the pressure placed on them by Typhoon Xangsane’s approach, the crew seemed careful and professional.

“I am going to go very slow here, okay, because you going get skid,” the Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) picked up Captain Foong saying as the plane lumbered down the taxiways.

As high winds swept across the airport, the Captain had to apply rudder input to keep the plane going straight.

“A lot of rudder work, man, here…really ah,” he commented, to which relief pilot Ng replied, “Crosswind ah.”

The pilots also discussed the weather and planned ahead by considering what alternate airports they could divert to if the weather conditions were too poor after takeoff.

Eventually, the pilots made the turn onto Taxiway N1. Now, they just had to pass by Runway 05R and make the turn onto Runway 05L.

“It’s going to be very slippery, I am going to slow down a bit, slow turn here,” Captain Foong said, ever-cautious.

He followed the curve of the green taxiway lights, rumbling the plane over the white ‘piano keys’ markings that designated runways.

But Captain Foong did not realise that he had just made a terrible mistake. The plane had made a right turn onto Runway 05R instead.

Vital cockpit clue warns of runway error

“And the PVD hasn’t lined up ah,” First Officer Latiff noticed.

The para-visual display (PVDs) installed on some Boeing 747-400s detects a specific signal frequency and unshutters to reveal a black-and-white ‘barber pole’ design when the aircraft enters the assigned runway.

The unshuttered PVD will move in order to guide the pilots into aligning properly on the runway centreline.

First Officer Latiff thus found it odd that their PVDs had not yet unshuttered to start guiding them, not realising they were on the wrong runway.

“Not on yet, er, PVD,” Captain Foong replied. “Huh, never mind, we can see the runway, not so bad.”

The ASC report indicated that the visibility on Runway 05R was around 450 metres at the time.

When Captain Foong peered out into the night, he would have been unable to see the construction equipment through the downpour.

Plane impacts construction zone at 242.6km/h

Having already been cleared for takeoff, the pilots increased the throttle and began accelerating down the runway at 11.16pm.

Shortly after, First Officer Latiff called out that they had reached 80 knots (148km/h). Then, “V1”, indicating that it would no longer be possible to safely abort the takeoff at their speed.

Moving faster and faster, the plane’s lights suddenly illuminated the construction equipment on the runway.

“Shit, something there!” Captain Foong called out, but it was too late.

Just 33 seconds after beginning the takeoff roll, Flight 006 crashed into the construction zone at a ground speed of 131 knots (242.6km/h).

Plane suffers catastrophic damage ramming into construction vehicles

The plane first impacted a concrete jersey barrier, while several landing gear tyres failed upon hitting pits in the runway.

Then, it smashed into an excavator, dragging the heavy vehicle along and rolling it down the left side of the fuselage (plane body).

As the excavator finally came free, it crashed into the left horizontal stabiliser in the plane’s tail and destroyed it.

Engine #1 impacted a pile of rebar while engine #2 struck a second excavator. The forces ripped both engines off the left wing.

The collision and asymmetric thrust on the two right-wing engines caused the plane to veer to the left.

Engine #3 soon tore free from the wing as well, being flung towards the airport terminal.

Passengers terrified as plane breaks in half

Careening helplessly, the Boeing 747 smashed into two parked steamrollers, snapping the plane’s fuselage in half.

Fuel pouring out of the damaged wings ignited in a huge fireball that engulfed the aircraft.

On board, newlywed couple Elaine Tan and her husband Chok Fook Kiong were on their way to a honeymoon in the United States (US).

They described a loud bang, followed by a massive fire. Luggage tumbled out of the overhead compartments.

A horrified Ms Tan kept telling herself, “It’s not real” and “I don’t want to die” as all hell broke loose.

The final engine departed the right wing upon impact with a concrete pad. Spinning counterclockwise, the front fuselage section finally came to a stop, engulfed in flames and still spilling fuel.

Firefighters restrain pilots from running back into burning plane

The cabin crew rushed to evacuate the passengers as the plane burned. Thick, toxic smoke poured into the cabin, and visibility dropped drastically.

As crew members opened the exits and deployed the slides, the flames, fanned by strong winds, deflated several of them with their sheer heat.

At the 1L exit, a flight attendant had to direct eight passengers to jump off the plane.

Despite the efforts of the crew, many perished during the evacuation. 64 out of the 76 passengers in the middle of the cabin died in the explosion and ensuing fuel fire. The 12 others suffered serious injuries

Due to the “chimney effect”, thick smoke filled up the Boeing 747’s upper deck rapidly. 12 of the 19 passengers and one of the two flight attendants in this area died.

Other passengers seated towards the front of the plane had better odds of survival. All three pilots also made it out mostly unharmed.

As the firefighters arrived, one of the desperate pilots pleaded with them, crying, “Save my passengers and my crew! Help them! A lot of people inside!”

Emergency responders had to restrain the flight crew from reentering the burning wreckage to save more people.

18-year-old stewardess helps passengers despite burns over 45% of body

Meanwhile, the aft fuselage came to rest on its left side, just outside the inferno.

Flight attendants found the exits unusable due to the orientation. They instead led the passengers to evacuate through the break in the fuselage.

Two stewardesses became trapped in their seats and nearly suffocated by the sudden inflation of the emergency slides.

One of them, Farzana Abdul Razak at door 4R, suffered serious burns across 45% of her body due to the fire, but managed to escape when the heat deflated the slide.

Despite her severe injuries, to the point of her skin peeling off like torn stockings, the 18-year-old flight attendant continued helping the passengers.

She would later need to undergo 11 skin graft operations.

83 dead in crash, all in front half

Ms Tan and Mr Chok found themselves hanging by their seatbelts in the tilted plane. Mr Chok bruised his back from the fall after unbuckling himself, before helping his wife down.

The couple evacuated through the break in the fuselage and into the cold, pouring rain. The strong typhoon winds would later blow the aft fuselage back upright.

All 54 passengers and crew in the aft section survived.

In total, 79 passengers and four crew perished in the crash, leaving 96 survivors.

Among the dead was Chief Steward Suresh Anandan, a former national football team player and brother of famed lawyer Subhas Anandan.

“Just the other day, he was talking about holding a party after he moved into his new flat. We cannot believe that he is gone,” Mr Subhas Anandan said.

The Straits Times reported that flight attendant Irene Ang allegedly escaped the plane initially, but reentered the plane to help trapped passengers and died.

Taiwan ASC report blames pilot error for fatal accident

By 4 Oct 2000, Taiwan’s investigators concluded that Flight 006 had attempted to take off from the wrong runway.

“We accept this finding. We […] are deeply concerned and distressed and profoundly sorry,” stated Dr Cheong Choong Kong, Singapore Airlines’ then CEO.

Taiwan’s ASC released a thorough final report on the accident on 24 April 2002.

While the ASC found serious issues with CKS International Airport, they classified them under the lesser ‘Findings Related to Risk’.

Instead, they placed much more contributory weight on pilot error, under ‘Findings Related to Probable Causes’.

The ASC stated that the Flight 006 pilots had been notified that Runway 05R was only available for taxiing.

They found that the flight crew did not review the taxi route sufficiently, did not verify the taxi route when the plane made the turn onto Runway 05R, and did not orally confirm which runway they entered.

The pilots also failed to maintain situational awareness despite runway signage and markings, the unshuttered PVD, and Runway 05R’s centreline lights being green instead of white like a runway.

During interviews, Captain Foong said he had followed the green taxiway centreline lights and made a continuous turn onto Runway 05R, believing it to be 05L.

Furthermore, the ASC stated that the flight crew experienced pressure to take off before conditions got worse, despite Captain Foong’s caution.

Only four taxiway lights led to correct Runway 05L, breaking international standards

Singapore’s Ministry of Transport (MOT) disputed the ASC’s conclusions in a public statement on 26 April 2002 and in the final report’s appendix.

The MOT’s investigation team agreed that the flight crew took off from the wrong runway.

However, they argued that the airport had serious deficiencies that did not prevent the pilots from entering Runway 05R or alert them of the error once they did.

They accused the report of downplaying the weight of “significant systemic factors” found by the ASC in contributing to the deadly crash.

One such problem came with the green taxiway centreline lights.

The ASC found that the lights were spaced 7.5 metres apart for the curve that led from Taxiway NP, onto Taxiway N1, and then Runway 05R.

However, the runway lights on the straight section of Taxiway N1 that led to Runway 05L were spaced 30 metres apart.

As a result, there were only four centreline lights in that section leading to the correct runway, despite the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standards recommending 16.

To make things worse, of the two closest centreline lights, the first was out of order and the second too dim by ICAO standards.

In short, Captain Foong would have seen a tight curved line of lights leading him to Runway 05R, and a handful of lights over 138 metres away leading him to Runway 05L.

In his interview, the Captain even said he “did not notice any further green lights ahead and along the extension of [Taxiway] N1”.

MOT blames CKS International Airport for not blocking off Runway 05R despite construction

The Singapore MOT team also argued that, contrary to international practice, CKS International Airport did not use physical barriers at the start of the closed Runway 05R to prevent planes from accidentally taking off from it.

This was because the airport intended for it to be used as a taxiway.

In that case, MOT pointed out that none of the markings designating it to be a runway had been removed, despite CKS International Airport never intending to use it as one again.

Runway 05R still had its runway number, as well as the ‘piano keys’ marking that designates runways. Captain Foong specifically noticed the piano keys during the turn, as he tried to avoid skidding on them.

Ultimately, the MOT team argued that the airport’s deficiencies gave “powerful visual cues” to the pilots that indicated they were turning onto an operational runway.

In the minds of the pilots, these overpowered the cockpit cues that warned them of the mistake.

Pilots receive death threats, manslaughter charges

Mere days after the crash, grieving families who had lost loved ones in the crash demanded an apology from the pilots.

The three men and their own families reportedly received death threats.

Taiwan authorities detained the men, with criminal charges looming over them.

They were eventually released weeks later and returned to Singapore.

After the release of the final report, which labelled their errors as the probable cause of the crash, Taipei prosecutors summoned the pilots for an investigative hearing.

Captain Foong and First Officer Latiff received charges of “negligent killing”. Relief Pilot Ng did not have legal responsibility as his duties would only begin after takeoff.

On 14 June 2002, the Taipei prosecutors ultimately suspended the indictments due to the pilots’ cooperation with investigators and remorse.

One month later, Singapore Airlines fired both the Captain and the First Officer. The Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) criticised the decision as “harsh and inappropriate”.

Both Mr Foong and Mr Latiff were eventually re-certified to fly commercially and joined AirAsia, although they never fully shook off the blame cast at them for the crash.

‘A terrible, terrible accident’: Injured flight attendant forgives pilots

In an article, the family assistance organisation FAERF wrote about Mr Cyrano Latiff’s recount of the story at a symposium in 2005.

Mr Latiff expressed sorrow and regret over the deaths, and the struggle the pilots faced in coming to terms with how their error led to so much suffering.

“In his heartfelt account about the crash, there was never a time when Cyrano ducked the responsibility for his actions or tried to place blame on anyone else,” FAERF stated.

Madam Farzana, who had to go through immense physical and mental trauma on her long road to recovery, echoed similar words in an interview for The Newsmaker.

“Sometimes this kind of accident happens, and you can’t really plan for it. I think what I’m simply saying is that I forgive them,” she said.

I think we all agreed that it was just a terrible, terrible accident. I’m doing much better, and I hope they are too.

Also read: This day 35 years ago: SAF commandos saved hostages on hijacked SQ117 in Operation Thunderbolt

Have news you must share? Get in touch with us via email at news@mustsharenews.com.

Featured image adapted from ASC and Mayday via Smithsonian Channel on YouTube.