Hi Tech in post #440
Crew appears to have kept the engine running during their fly back to base, not aware of the massive fuel leak.
Had there have been a 'massive' fuel leak they would have known about it. The fact they asked permission to DUMP fuel - indicates that any leak was very small. It may have only been a pencil lead flow and that might not show up, especially once you start to dump.
It has been stated in this thread that the fire appears to be
ON the wing, not
OF the wing. That is, when you look at the during fire pictures - it looks like the whole wing is on fire. But the post fire pictures show that the wing is largely intact, indicating that the fire could have been caused by a thin (pencil lead thin) film of fuel
ON and around the wing.
3. Hydraulic fluid rarely catch fire like this.
True but if it was already a thin smear on the wing? Then the heat of the fuel fire would bring it rapidly up to a temperature when it can all burn together.
4. I doubt if the crew had declared an emergency landing.
Correct, they did not. We know that from the ATC that has been mentioned and linked, in this thread.
6. God was on the side of SQ and the Pax this time.
That's a different kind of opinion. For example, did God start the leak and frighten all the passengers for a laugh, an extra SIM test or a test of their love for him?
Hi Tech #443
This image shows the tarmac dry on left side of aircraft. So there was no fire on this side. Could pilot not evacuate from left side, instead of waiting for fire to be doused. All is well that ends well. A change in wind direction could have blown the fire on to the fuselage with deadly consequences.
You haven't read anything in this thread have you?
