\n<\/p>\n
Mr John Tan, lead professional officer of aviation management at the Institution of Engineers Singapore, said the report contains no “conclusive evidence” of a hardware failure.\u00a0<\/p>\n
He said pilots are trained to rely on their instruments, not just visual observation.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cThis is probably a situation where they don\u2019t actually have timely information to make a correct decision \u2026 they don\u2019t have enough clear warning of what was actually the weather risk ahead,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis is different from saying that the pilot made a straightforward error, or one of the hardware components had definitely failed.\u201d<\/p>\n
Transport analyst Terence Fan from Singapore Management University agreed, noting that it is difficult for pilots to monitor all conditions across a long flight.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cBecause the flight is very long, sometimes you don\u2019t expect the crew to be looking out every minute, because they also have to look at the instrumentation, and they also have to plan the route, so it\u2019s not possible for them to at all times scan everything,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
On the wider implications of weather under-reporting, Mr Tan said a radar that understates risk robs the crew of crucial warning time.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cThe fair question is not whether the pilots can predict the exact turbulence, the fair question is whether the system, the entire safety system, has provided enough warning for the pilot to react in a more timely manner.\u201d<\/p>\n
He added that while weather radars are generally efficient, they have limits: turbulence, in particular, remains difficult to detect.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cUnfortunately, they won\u2019t actually detect everything out there, particularly in this case of SQ321, it\u2019s actually turbulence, and the technology at this point of time cannot capture turbulence,\u201d \u00a0he said. \u201cThat could potentially be the problem.\u201d<\/p>\n
Asst Prof Fan said the airline could not be faulted for missing the earlier radar defects, as their frequency fell below the threshold of three incidents in 10 days and had not resulted in any adverse outcomes.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cSo you cannot also fault the airline, because they would have to do this for every flight, for every radar, and that\u2019s a lot of work.\u201d<\/p>\n
The investigation findings noted that since the incident, SIA has taken several safety actions, including sending reports of similar radar issues on its Boeing 777 fleet to Boeing and the radar manufacturer.<\/p>\n
\u201cGiven that this has happened, it certainly makes sense to do a bit more testing,\u201d said Asst Prof Fan.\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/div>\n