Originally Posted by
Wageslave
A wing is on fire from tip to root and no evac is ordered - and we "have no reason whatsoever to question the...decision"
This must rate as one of the most astonishing assertions of the month.
Would you have evacuated the SIA PAX knowing there was a reasonable possibility that by the time the last PAX deplaned they'd be deplaning into a pool of burning Jet A1 when you had the option of keeping them safe in the cabin whilst rescue services shortly delivered a mother load of foam on the fire?
I'd suggest that the decision was far from clear cut.
How easily could we have been reading a report like this:
"Accident investigators are calling into question the decision of the captain to initiate an evacuation after 15 passengers died and 47 other were treated in hospital for extensive 2nd and 3rd degree burns after fuel flowing under the aircraft ignited shortly after the evacuation commenced. Unevacuated passengers remaining onboard were uninjured as rescue fire services quickly brought the fire under control".
And yes - I'll be the first to say that the report could have read completely differently again. It's a judgement call - one that one needed all the facts at the time to be available to have the best chance of making it correctly. He was there - we weren't. Yes - it's a gamble to keep people onboard - but it's also a gamble to evacuate. We're really not in a position to say which gamble had the best chance of success because we don't have all the information.
My money is on the guy (a) not being stupid (based on the assumption that stupid people never make it as far as captaining a bird that size) and (b) making what he thought was the best decision at the time, with the information he had available.