Investigation Summary
The accident occurred under the influence of Typhoon Xangsane, which brought heavy rain and strong winds (gusts up to 56 knots) to Taipei. The airport had issued a NOTAM stating that Runway 05R was closed for construction between taxiways N4 and N5. The crew was aware of the closure but failed to verify their position during taxi. Instead of continuing past the 05R threshold to reach 05L, the Captain made a continuous 180-degree turn from Taxiway NP into Runway 05R. A critical factor was that the green taxiway centerline lights continued through the entrance of 05R, providing a continuous visual path that led directly onto the closed runway. The Singaporean Ministry of Transport (MOT) dissent highlighted that the 'taxiway lead-in lights' for the correct runway (05L) were not visible or were significantly less salient than the lights leading to 05R. The crew was likely misled by these lights and the lack of physical barriers or 'closed' markings at the threshold. Despite the Para-Visual Display (PVD) and Primary Flight Display (PFD) indicating they were not aligned with the correct localizer for 05L, the crew commenced the takeoff roll, believing they were on the correct runway.
Final Conclusions
The Taiwan Aviation Safety Council (ASC) concluded the primary cause was the flight crew's failure to verify their taxi route, leading to a takeoff attempt on the wrong runway. Contributing factors included poor visibility due to the typhoon, the saliency of the lights leading to the wrong runway, and the crew's loss of situational awareness. However, the Singapore Ministry of Transport issued a dissenting report, emphasizing systemic failures at the airport. The Singaporean dissent noted that the airport's lighting configuration did not meet ICAO Annex 14 standards; specifically, the green centerline lights leading to the closed runway should have been deactivated. Furthermore, the lack of large yellow 'X' markings on the runway surface and the absence of physical barriers at the threshold of 05R were cited as violations of ICAO Annex 14 standards for closed runways, failing to provide the necessary visual cues to alert the crew.
Photographic Evidence (1)
Video Analysis
Singapore Airlines Flight 006: The Runway 05R Disaster — An analysis of the 2000 crash at Taoyuan International Airport where a Boeing 747 attempted takeoff from a closed runway during a typhoon. The video examines pilot error and poor visibility factors.
If playback is blocked, the owner has disabled embedding — use the link above.
Airframe & Maintenance
Crew Experience
Captain
Foong Chee Kong (Survived)
First Officer
Latiff Cyrano (Survived)
Relief Pilot
Ng Kheng Leng (Survived)
Systems & Failure Modes
Para-Visual Display (PVD)
A cockpit instrument designed to assist pilots in maintaining runway centerline during low-visibility takeoffs; it indicated the aircraft was not aligned with the 05L localizer.
Taxiway Centerline Lights
Green lights that inadvertently guided the crew onto the closed Runway 05R because they were not deactivated for the closed section.
NOTAM (Notice to Airmen)
Official notice A0606 had been issued regarding the closure of Runway 05R, which the crew had reviewed but failed to follow.
Interesting Facts
- 01This was the first fatal accident involving a Boeing 747-400.
- 02The aircraft was painted in a special 'Tropical' livery at the time of the crash.
- 03Runway 05R was scheduled to be re-designated as Taxiway NC the following day, November 1, 2000.
- 04The airport lacked ground radar (Surface Movement Radar) which could have alerted controllers to the aircraft's incorrect position.
- 05The Para-Visual Display (PVD) in the cockpit showed the aircraft was not aligned with the 05L localizer, but the crew proceeded regardless.
Safety Actions & Advisories
Airport Infrastructure Improvements
Source ↗Following the accident, the airport installed Surface Movement Radar and improved runway markings and lighting to clearly distinguish between active runways and taxiways.
Runway Closure Procedures
International standards were reinforced to require physical barriers (such as 'Jersey' barriers) and clear 'X' markings on closed runways to prevent accidental entry by aircraft.
Known Controversies & Unanswered Questions
Disputed Probable Cause
Reference ↗The Singapore Ministry of Transport (MOT) formally disputed the Taiwanese ASC report, arguing that the airport's failure to follow international standards for runway closures was the primary cause, rather than pilot error.