Singapore Airlines Flight 006

On October 31, 2000, Singapore Airlines Flight 006, a Boeing 747-400, crashed while attempting to take off from Taiwan’s Taoyuan International Airport. The crash resulted in 83 fatalities and 71 injuries among the 179 passengers and crew. The accident occurred during adverse weather caused by a typhoon, and miscommunication between the crew and ground control played a significant role.

The flight was scheduled to depart for Los Angeles but encountered visibility issues due to heavy rain and strong winds. As the crew prepared for takeoff, they mistakenly aligned the aircraft with a closed runway (Runway 05R) instead of the designated active runway (05L). The closed runway was under construction and littered with heavy equipment.

The confusion arose partly from poor signage and lighting at the airport. However, a critical factor was the breakdown in communication between the cockpit and ATC. The tower had cleared the flight for takeoff on 05L, but the crew misinterpreted the instructions, and their deviation went unnoticed by ATC.

As the aircraft accelerated, it collided with construction equipment on the closed runway, resulting in a catastrophic fire and structural damage. Many passengers were trapped in the fuselage, and the chaotic evacuation was hindered by the severity of the fire and the destruction of exit routes.

Investigators found that the captain’s overconfidence and the lack of cross-checking by the first officer and flight engineer contributed to the error. Additionally, ATC did not monitor the aircraft’s movements closely after issuing the takeoff clearance, missing an opportunity to intervene.

The accident led to significant changes in airport safety protocols, including improved signage, lighting, and procedures for managing runway closures. Singapore Airlines also enhanced its training programs to address situational awareness and CRM.

Singapore Airlines Flight 006 (October 31, 2000)

Singapore Airlines Flight 006 mistakenly attempted to take off from a closed runway at Taiwan’s Taoyuan International Airport during typhoon conditions. The collision with construction equipment resulted in 83 fatalities.

Language-Related Issues

1. Misinterpretation of ATC Clearance:
   ATC had cleared the aircraft for takeoff on Runway 05L, but the crew mistakenly aligned the aircraft with 05R, which was closed. The clearance phraseology from ATC, although technically correct, was not reinforced with explicit warnings about the closure of 05R:

   • ATC: “Cleared for takeoff, Runway 05L.”
   • Captain: (to the first officer) “Takeoff on 05R?”

   The question was not addressed explicitly by the crew, and they proceeded with their incorrect assumption.

2. Lack of Challenge by Crew Members:
   The hierarchical nature of cockpit communication led to a lack of assertiveness by the first officer and flight engineer, who failed to correct the captain’s mistaken alignment with the wrong runway. For example:

   • First Officer: “Captain, is it not 05L?”
   • Captain: “It’s fine; we’re good.”

   The ambiguity in the first officer’s challenge and the captain’s dismissive response reflected poor cockpit resource management (CRM).

3. ATC Monitoring Deficiency:
   ATC did not verify the aircraft’s position visually or electronically after issuing takeoff clearance. A phrase such as, “Confirm Runway 05L position,” might have prompted the crew to recheck their alignment.

4. Non-Standard Cockpit Communications:
   The cockpit crew used informal and vague language among themselves. Clear callouts like “Runway alignment checked” were absent, which could have caught the error before acceleration began.