SQ-368 (engine & wing on fire) final report out
rog.. fire trucks were on local stby.. cos the guys declared single eng apph coming inbound into sin.....where I got my facts will put some people in a difficult position... so once AAIB comes out with report .... it will be available for public viewing... but those are the facts... however what sq had going that morning as you rightly pointed out was the wind....had it been blowing in the opposite direction... the outcome would not have been favorable...
thank you for your info and I have no wish to comprise your provenance of that info - all I can say is yes that will all be a very good read in the report which I await with interest - my only query is that had the crew called on App they were now on one ENG why were the fire trucks not already in position or was the shutdown done shortly before landing and caught them out?
I am fascinated and of course shocked by this incident (I have been in airline Ops on and off ramp and some air safety area work since 1972)
The 1985 MAN 737 incidence with the wind factor there obviously is at everyone's forefront plus a PWA 737 that too burned with similarity
If i had been on board this one i would not have been too happy to be told to stay seated with my seat belt FASTENED (FACT - its on the video commentary) with no EVAC in progress and seeing the LHS is all clear.
I have shown many of my cabin crew and flight deck friends (mostly all old school rather like me LOL) and they are horrified at the videos
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: In a bottle
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rog.. they did not shut down the engine as advised from the airline… they informed ATC of this situation but did not declare anemergency as there was still thrust avaible on the broken engine, however theengine was running at idle power. ATC decided to put fire services on localstand by… why it wasn’t on full stand by- I guess at that time nobody had a crystalball as there were no fire indications throughthe flight nor was there fire indications during landing.
The hardest and most agonizing 5 minutes for any airlinecaptain with an aircraft on fire is to be told to hold off the evacuation. Cool heads prevailed that morning with bothfire chief and captain for a successful outcome. However, if we sit at home andlook through the plethora of manuals and books, I am sure we will be able topoke holes at the performance of all involved.. however as I mentioned US-AIR 1549had holes … but it didn’t matter as everybody was saved!—really guys that’s allthat matters..
Survivors=POB
The hardest and most agonizing 5 minutes for any airlinecaptain with an aircraft on fire is to be told to hold off the evacuation. Cool heads prevailed that morning with bothfire chief and captain for a successful outcome. However, if we sit at home andlook through the plethora of manuals and books, I am sure we will be able topoke holes at the performance of all involved.. however as I mentioned US-AIR 1549had holes … but it didn’t matter as everybody was saved!—really guys that’s allthat matters..
Survivors=POB
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Julio747
"Why never shoot"
"why going the long way"
"why shoot from so far"
"get closer"
"AFS is scared"
"All go to the front"
"No one behind"
"No one behind all in front"
"Pax will get a phobia from this"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKLbjPmOIq4
"Why never shoot"
"why going the long way"
"why shoot from so far"
"get closer"
"AFS is scared"
"All go to the front"
"No one behind"
"No one behind all in front"
"Pax will get a phobia from this"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKLbjPmOIq4
I do not believe that civilian craft have inserting systems, but even then you are now relying on the inerting system to be working properly in the presence of an uncontained fire.
However, to my knowledge it may be allowed to be inop for up to 120 days as per the MEL.
I do not know if this a/c was fitted with NGS. Or if it was in operation at the time.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slayer ;Fire fighter "telling" the CAPTAIN not to evacuate. Back to your armchair Dude ! You may not like it but the CAPTAIN has the full authority. If I'm on fire.....park brake set & evacuate evacuate. Dead simple really and in most professional outfits, well rehearsed, well trained, disciplined crews will jump & slide very efficiently. Fire fighters, ATC, etc are all there to help, NOT to ORDER a Captain. Good grief. Glad my kids are not behind some of you lot who listen to "orders" given by, er, even a CEO in that USA case currently doing the legal rounds !
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@slayerdude
I hope SAAIB report clearly states who decided not to evacuate. Once the world knows the brilliant thought process of SQ and CAG AES behind this decision, ICAO may update their rules.
Until then it is a bad decision. No doubt about it.
I hope SAAIB report clearly states who decided not to evacuate. Once the world knows the brilliant thought process of SQ and CAG AES behind this decision, ICAO may update their rules.
Until then it is a bad decision. No doubt about it.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: London
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Slayerdude
'so experience but sub standard SQ captain didn't evacuate despite raging fire on wing..... should have not listen to fire chief but listen to you arm chair captains.....then maybe ... just maybe everybody might walk out of this alive.....oh hang on... that happened. '
The issue with this is the Normalization of Deviance - It was successful this time, so with hindsight we think it was acceptable despite being against accepted procedures.
The difficulty is that there is a very fine line between an event such as this and total catastrophe - where all 280+ passengers could have ended up in a very bad way in a very short space of time. There are far too many real world examples of this happening, unfortunately.
So unless there is a very pressing and very present reason NOT to evacuate, the choice should always be TO evacuate. The downside is that to prevent the unthinkable from happening, we do need to accept the slight (comparative) risks such as sprains, breaks etc that come from performing the standard evacuation procedures. They will be far more preferable than deaths and serious injuries.
'so experience but sub standard SQ captain didn't evacuate despite raging fire on wing..... should have not listen to fire chief but listen to you arm chair captains.....then maybe ... just maybe everybody might walk out of this alive.....oh hang on... that happened. '
The issue with this is the Normalization of Deviance - It was successful this time, so with hindsight we think it was acceptable despite being against accepted procedures.
The difficulty is that there is a very fine line between an event such as this and total catastrophe - where all 280+ passengers could have ended up in a very bad way in a very short space of time. There are far too many real world examples of this happening, unfortunately.
So unless there is a very pressing and very present reason NOT to evacuate, the choice should always be TO evacuate. The downside is that to prevent the unthinkable from happening, we do need to accept the slight (comparative) risks such as sprains, breaks etc that come from performing the standard evacuation procedures. They will be far more preferable than deaths and serious injuries.
Legal position for the airline.
If fire fighter recognized as " Tender one" calls " no evacuation".
His professional training and expert advise must be licensed to give this instruction, like ATC clearances,
They must be fully legalized and responsible under the law.
This gives full unqualified responsibility and exposure to the courts.
That is highly unlikely.
The captain is the only recognized authority.
To change that is a big change and requires legislation.
If fire fighter recognized as " Tender one" calls " no evacuation".
His professional training and expert advise must be licensed to give this instruction, like ATC clearances,
They must be fully legalized and responsible under the law.
This gives full unqualified responsibility and exposure to the courts.
That is highly unlikely.
The captain is the only recognized authority.
To change that is a big change and requires legislation.
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Singapore
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Probabilities
You seem to have a problem in logic.
Given 2 choices A and B; each with risk of injury/death to passengers the captain makes choice B based on external expert advice and risk assessment with the known information.
At the time of the decision it is unknown whether that decision will be right or wrong.
The choice B made leads to no injuries to passengers.
Looking back (hindsight) the decision not to evacuate was the correct one. It was not known at the time (foresight) if the decision would be correct or not.
Given 2 choices A and B; each with risk of injury/death to passengers the captain makes choice B based on external expert advice and risk assessment with the known information.
At the time of the decision it is unknown whether that decision will be right or wrong.
The choice B made leads to no injuries to passengers.
Looking back (hindsight) the decision not to evacuate was the correct one. It was not known at the time (foresight) if the decision would be correct or not.
Let me explain it for you in simple terms.
Action A, probability of death = 50%.
Action B, probability of death = 0.1%.
You would pick B, right? But 50% of idiots that picked A had a happy outcome. And your logic says it was the right decision based on that!!??? Doh....
And guess what. Action A is crossing your fingers whilst watching the wing burn.... No need to explain action B. It is obvious.
This incident had a perfect outcome but there has been a lot of criticism of the PIC. Perhaps now you understand why?
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Singapore
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are ignoring the facts!
Neither you nor I know what the captain was told.
He may not have been dealing with just a balance of probabilities but professional advice from the fire service.
So you are making the assumption that if you were captain and on the ground with a wing on fire and no other inputs you would evacuate. Probably the captain in this case would have done so too. But if he knew the wing tanks were empty and had been told by the fire service that the fire was not too severe, was not spreading and they estimated less than a minute to extinguish if he did not evacuate you would presumably tell the fire service to wind their necks in and withdraw you were going to evacuate anyway as it was 'a no brainer decision'. Therefore you would not use your brain take no notice of input information tell the fire service to stop trying to kill the fire pull back and let you evacuate the pax on the slides (that is of course if the NonRevs who post on here had not already fought their way past the flight attendants and started the evacuation for you).
He may not have been dealing with just a balance of probabilities but professional advice from the fire service.
So you are making the assumption that if you were captain and on the ground with a wing on fire and no other inputs you would evacuate. Probably the captain in this case would have done so too. But if he knew the wing tanks were empty and had been told by the fire service that the fire was not too severe, was not spreading and they estimated less than a minute to extinguish if he did not evacuate you would presumably tell the fire service to wind their necks in and withdraw you were going to evacuate anyway as it was 'a no brainer decision'. Therefore you would not use your brain take no notice of input information tell the fire service to stop trying to kill the fire pull back and let you evacuate the pax on the slides (that is of course if the NonRevs who post on here had not already fought their way past the flight attendants and started the evacuation for you).
Your hypothesis does not fit the facts at all.
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Singapore
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Poor reporting
Lets put this is perspective: When sully ditched into the Hudson, no body questioned if the 'ditching-switch was on .obviously off as the rear slides were unusable and if 50 folks had drowned not being able to get out... they would be blaming you know who... but the outcome was favorable.
so aircraft on fire... no evacuation... everybody got out safe... like the Hudson... outcome is favorable... they didn't poke holes at the miracle on the Hudson... do we need it here?????
fact: fire engines were on standby and were by the a/c side the moment the a/c came to a stop. fire chief told the a/c captain not to evacuate , fire chief said this twice. Fire chief said the fire is under control and there is fuel spillage on the tarmac making an emergency evacuation unsafe.
so experience but sub standard SQ captain didn't evacuate despite raging fire on wing..... should have not listen to fire chief but listen to you arm chair captains.....then maybe ... just maybe everybody might walk out of this alive.....oh hang on... that happened.
so aircraft on fire... no evacuation... everybody got out safe... like the Hudson... outcome is favorable... they didn't poke holes at the miracle on the Hudson... do we need it here?????
fact: fire engines were on standby and were by the a/c side the moment the a/c came to a stop. fire chief told the a/c captain not to evacuate , fire chief said this twice. Fire chief said the fire is under control and there is fuel spillage on the tarmac making an emergency evacuation unsafe.
so experience but sub standard SQ captain didn't evacuate despite raging fire on wing..... should have not listen to fire chief but listen to you arm chair captains.....then maybe ... just maybe everybody might walk out of this alive.....oh hang on... that happened.
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Singapore
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks
Julio747
"Why never shoot"
"why going the long way"
"why shoot from so far"
"get closer"
"AFS is scared"
"All go to the front"
"No one behind"
"No one behind all in front"
"Pax will get a phobia from this"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKLbjPmOIq4
"Why never shoot"
"why going the long way"
"why shoot from so far"
"get closer"
"AFS is scared"
"All go to the front"
"No one behind"
"No one behind all in front"
"Pax will get a phobia from this"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKLbjPmOIq4
But the point I was making was more about the anxiety in his voice. As you point out, he is also concerned that (initially), the fire trucks are all in front (the direction they came from, presumably to save valuable seconds as the fire was already large by then).
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sweden
Age: 47
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's put this in perspective..... hmm?
Fire outside: "Please remain seated for your own safety."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUtYwY7igj4
Evacuation after putting the fire out. Notice where foam is and is not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AsH4rqhEeA
I still can't comprehend the lack of evacuation call.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0k7Kqd82EY
Information about fire would have been available through fire trucks, cabin crew, ATC, perhaps even tug drivers scared ****less. With all the freely available learning tools known as Previous Accidents Who Turned Out Deadly For No Good Reason I was under the impression that any fire would result in immediate EVACUATION because the seconds are of utmost importance.
Something about logic: To claim that "this was the right decision because noone died" is inconsistent logic. Following that logic you could also claim that landing at Sioux City was a wrong decision because people died. This is an easy logical trap to get caught in when you argue if decisions are good or bad depending on the number of survivors.
(Cases in point: BAD decision, China 611 fiddling with engines all survived, GOOD decision, ValueJet fire in cargo hold all lives lost)
Fire outside: "Please remain seated for your own safety."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUtYwY7igj4
Evacuation after putting the fire out. Notice where foam is and is not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AsH4rqhEeA
I still can't comprehend the lack of evacuation call.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0k7Kqd82EY
Information about fire would have been available through fire trucks, cabin crew, ATC, perhaps even tug drivers scared ****less. With all the freely available learning tools known as Previous Accidents Who Turned Out Deadly For No Good Reason I was under the impression that any fire would result in immediate EVACUATION because the seconds are of utmost importance.
Something about logic: To claim that "this was the right decision because noone died" is inconsistent logic. Following that logic you could also claim that landing at Sioux City was a wrong decision because people died. This is an easy logical trap to get caught in when you argue if decisions are good or bad depending on the number of survivors.
(Cases in point: BAD decision, China 611 fiddling with engines all survived, GOOD decision, ValueJet fire in cargo hold all lives lost)
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Singapore
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Locked down ? Oh .. and then they let all the videos and all fly around ? And let the passengers speak their mind instead of quarantining them and administering mind control substances ??
Nothing is locked down in Singapore. That's all I can say.
PS, a lot of CC forums are awash with more fine detail, if you can figure out the Singlish. If things were 'locked' down, nobody would post such stuff anywhere.
Nothing is locked down in Singapore. That's all I can say.
PS, a lot of CC forums are awash with more fine detail, if you can figure out the Singlish. If things were 'locked' down, nobody would post such stuff anywhere.
I just hope the cc used a VPN... Otherwise they may regret posting. They work for SQ after all...
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Reading
Age: 41
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sadly, it seems the propaganda and disinformation campaign has already begun. Zero questions being asked by Singapore journalists, information supressed. Given the track record of cover-ups over incidents, and the silence in this case, I really have to begin questioning whether I want to fly on this airline, which is a shame because it is the best on board experience out there. But there's a limit to how warm a service I want...
Lets put this is perspective: When sully ditched into the Hudson, no body questioned if the 'ditching-switch was on .obviously off as the rear slides were unusable and if 50 folks had drowned not being able to get out... they would be blaming you know who... but the outcome was favorable.
so aircraft on fire... no evacuation... everybody got out safe... like the Hudson... outcome is favorable... they didn't poke holes at the miracle on the Hudson... do we need it here???
so aircraft on fire... no evacuation... everybody got out safe... like the Hudson... outcome is favorable... they didn't poke holes at the miracle on the Hudson... do we need it here???
My guess is the water intrusion wasn't because the ditching switch was not activated.
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Singapore
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd just ignore slayerdude, the video clearly shows that fire support was not ready and waiting (indeed we know the captain didn't ask for it), and it was not there when the plane stopped. Given that he's lying about this, I wouldn't put any muster in the rest of the veracity of his post. I'm not sure who he thinks he's kidding given the videos are out there. The fire chief said the fire is under control?!. When he was over a minute away from the scene and the wing was already engulfed? Complete nonsense.
Sadly, it seems the propaganda and disinformation campaign has already begun. Zero questions being asked by Singapore journalists, information supressed. Given the track record of cover-ups over incidents, and the silence in this case, I really have to begin questioning whether I want to fly on this airline, which is a shame because it is the best on board experience out there. But there's a limit to how warm a service I want...
Sadly, it seems the propaganda and disinformation campaign has already begun. Zero questions being asked by Singapore journalists, information supressed. Given the track record of cover-ups over incidents, and the silence in this case, I really have to begin questioning whether I want to fly on this airline, which is a shame because it is the best on board experience out there. But there's a limit to how warm a service I want...
As I recall, the investigation team ran multiple sim runs to see if any pilot could get the powerless a/c back on a runway (either LGA or TEB). Some (about half) managed it, but it was argued that they knew what was coming and so made the turn immediately. Unrealistic. The point is, Sully's decision to ditch was questioned. And exonerated. Not just accepted because there were no casualties.
Paxing All Over The World
MrSnuggles
Very good point. At 0:25 the camer (quickly) pans the right wing and up to the evacuation at L1. Ar 0:40 it pans from the tail of the aircraft showing the ground under the aircraft and the #1 engine.
It appears that the foam has pooled from the RHS but, where slides would have opened at L1 + 2? The ground is dry.
Evacuation after putting the fire out. Notice where foam is and is not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AsH4rqhEeA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AsH4rqhEeA
It appears that the foam has pooled from the RHS but, where slides would have opened at L1 + 2? The ground is dry.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Worldwide
Posts: 1,468
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said! The point about Sully was also invalid.
As I recall, the investigation team ran multiple sim runs to see if any pilot could get the powerless a/c back on a runway (either LGA or TEB). Some (about half) managed it, but it was argued that they knew what was coming and so made the turn immediately. Unrealistic. The point is, Sully's decision to ditch was questioned. And exonerated. Not just accepted because there were no casualties.
As I recall, the investigation team ran multiple sim runs to see if any pilot could get the powerless a/c back on a runway (either LGA or TEB). Some (about half) managed it, but it was argued that they knew what was coming and so made the turn immediately. Unrealistic. The point is, Sully's decision to ditch was questioned. And exonerated. Not just accepted because there were no casualties.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Reading
Age: 41
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The SQ situation was a very well trained and known quantity, in which the SOP is very clear. And the videos show every point made by slayerdude to be untrue. Which makes one question their motives no? We also see the abscence of fuel under the aircraft in the evac video.
Mr Snuggles video shows pax being told to keep their seatbelts fastened You're told to keep them unfastened during boarding if fueling is taking case, in case evacuation is necessary, but with the wing on fire, hey strap yourself in and enjoy the show! The whole thing is a complete clusterf***.