ASN Wikibase Occurrence # 314282
This information is added by users of ASN. Neither ASN nor the Flight Safety Foundation are responsible for the completeness or correctness of this information.
If you feel this information is incomplete or incorrect, you can submit corrected information.
| Date: | Thursday 3 October 2013 |
| Time: | 11:26 LT |
| Type: |  Boeing 777-312ER |
| Owner/operator: | Singapore Airlines |
| Registration: | 9V-SWG |
| MSN: | 34572/604 |
| Year of manufacture: | 2006 |
| Fatalities: | Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: 209 |
| Aircraft damage: | None |
| Category: | Serious incident |
| Location: | Singapore-Changi International Airport (SIN/WSSS) -
 Singapore
|
| Phase: | Landing |
| Nature: | Passenger - Scheduled |
| Departure airport: | |
| Singapore-Changi International Airport (SIN/WSSS) | |
| Investigating agency: | NTSB |
| Confidence Rating: |  Accident investigation report completed and information captured |
An aerodrome maintenance vehicle was tasked by Changi Tower to remove a bird carcass on Runway 02/20C. It entered the runway at 11:25 hours and stopped on the eastern edge of the runway between Rapid Exit Taxiways E4 and E5.
At 11:26 hours, Changi Tower cleared a Boeing 777 aircraft to land on the runway. Changi Tower noticed the presence of the vehicle on the runway just after the aircraft had touched down and issued an urgent instruction to the vehicle to vacate the runway. However, there was insufficient time for the maintenance crew in the vehicle to vacate the runway.
As the aircraft rolled down the runway towards the south after touchdown, the flight crew sighted the maintenance vehicle on the left (eastern) edge of the runway and manoeuvred the aircraft slightly to the right. The left wing of the aircraft was above the top of the vehicle as the aircraft rolled past the vehicle. Thereafter, the aircraft and the maintenance vehicle vacated the runway safely.
There was no damage to the aircraft or injury to any person in this occurrence.
CONCLUSIONS
1 The runway incursion resulted from a miscommunication between Controller 3 and Rover 39. Rover 39 apparently heard only half of Controller 3’s message and interpreted the partial message as a
clearance for it to enter the runway. The co-worker of Rover 39 was not qualified to perform radio-telephony communication with ATC and did not read back Controller 3’s message in a proper manner. This improper readback was not challenged by Controller 3 and an opportunity to stop
Rover 39 from entering the runway was missed.
2 Controller 2 did not spot Rover 39 on the runway despite having scanned the runway before issuing the landing clearance to the approaching aircraft. He did not refer to the A-SMCGS which was at that time displaying the visual warning due to the runway incursion by Rover 39.
3 The air navigation service provider had made the A-SMCGS available to the controllers as an equipment to augment visual observation of traffic on the manoeuvring area. Had there been a more systematic approach to utilise the full capabilities of the system, the controllers might have been alerted by the aural and visual warnings of Rover 39’s runway incursion.
Accident investigation:
 |
|
Sources:
NTSB DCA14WA004
Revision history:
| Date/time | Contributor | Updates |
|---|---|---|
| 02-Jun-2023 15:34 | ASN Update Bot | Added |
| 04-Jun-2023 08:36 | harro | Updated |
Corrections or additions? ... Edit this accident description
The Aviation Safety Network is an exclusive service provided by:
Quick Links:
| ASN Home | Send Correction / Feedback |
| FSF Home | Disclaimer | Copyright |
| Contact Us | Privacy Policy |
| Press / Media |
CONNECT WITH US:
©2024 Flight Safety Foundation