Singapore Airlines "evacuation"

[aviator's_anonymous]

Hi all, having seen the pictures of the "wing on fire" of Singapore airlines recently, i am shocked to hear that the crew elected to have the pax wait onboard for 5 minutes while the fire services arrived, and another 5-10 minutes while the fire was being put out.

Would there be any reason why the crew elected not to evacuate, rather than take their chances of having the fire spread? I know this is a very "what if" scenario and we may not be aware of all the facts, but if you were in the same situation, would you have evacuated the aircraft?

[donpizmeov]

You mean in the same situation, but as you stated, not knowing all the facts?

[Icarus2001]

Please lock this.

There is a thread already.

Flight sim pilots giving us their opinion is getting tedious.

Have a nice day.

[Roj approved]

The perfect evac is a co ordinated event between the Captain and the Fire Commander on the outside. These guys are trying to control the fire with foam, while the pilots will shutdown all engines/apu and prepare for an evac.

From the cockpit it is very difficult to gauge the extent of the fire, so reliance on input from the fire commander/cabin crew is an important part of building up the picture to evac or not.

The initial response team may not have the manpower to fight the fire and manage the passengers, so it is a lot easier to manage the situation without distressed passengers coming down the slides and running around without being marshalled into a safe area.

That being said, if things are getting hot/smoky in the cabin, there may not be the time to wait for more manpower on the ground.

I was once shown an old movie by the RFS of a DC10 in the USA with a similar uncontrollable fire, the skipper was pleading to evac the pax, the fire commander kept asking to wait so they could control the fire and get more personnel, they eventually did evac, the aircraft continued to burn, and it was a very successful outcome (except for the aircraft, it continued to burn for 20mins)

[tail wheel]

The results - no loss of life or serious injuries - confirm the aircraft's commander made the correct decision under the circumstances that existed at that time and in that incident.

[Keg]

G'day Tailwheel,

Fair enough on the locking of the SQ evac thread on Dunnunda but I just wanted to pick you up on your statement that no injuries meant the right decision had been made.

That's false logic. The outcome doesn't determine whether the decision making process and indeed the ultimate decision was the right one. There are plenty of examples where great decision making processes have resulted in people still dying (though possibly less than would have otherwise) and poor decision making resulting in a favourable outcome.

My concern is that your comments on the thread will result in some younger pilots will accepting your authority as fact when it's not a true statement at all.

If you want to lock the thread then by all means do so but your editorial comment is incorrect in principle and may turn out to be incorrect once the investigation is complete.

A great outcome doesn't mean a good decision.

Thanks for re-opening the thread so I could say my bit.

[Kubin rock climber]

+1, An ill considered contribution from the moderator, please remove or correct. Very very lucky the results weren't serious loss of life and serious injuries.

[Cloud Cutter]

If you want to lock the thread then by all means do so but your editorial comment is incorrect in principle and may turn out to be incorrect once the investigation is complete.

My thoughts exactly! I'm pleased I wasn't the only one that was a little alarmed by that statement.

[doug606]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jC-2NhU10Q

Looks more like 1 minute from when the aircraft stop moving to when the first truck is spraying foam. :D

[Capt Fathom]

In fact, Post #5 should be deleted!

[BB97]

The decision to evacuate is made by the Commander or next in command in the event of incapacitation, extending all the way down the chain to the most junior cabin crew member in the extreme case of a major accident.

With a wing on fire, it really is a no brainer. The logic (as has been reported) that the crew considered that fuel spilt on the ground and possibly igniting could have been a hazard to passengers, does not make any sense. The by far greater danger was the very real possibility that the whole aircraft could have exploded in an inferno at any time. It is not too different to the flawed logic used by the Australian B747 crew in Bangkok that "no fuel vapours could be detected in the cabin" as an excuse not to evacuate, when clearly the No. 3 engine had separated from the wing and fuel, hydraulic fluid and oil could have been discharging.

The passengers must have been terrified that they would be burned alive. That alone is a reason to allow them the option of getting out on the other side of the aircraft, despite the wind conditions and the possibility of having to dodge a few patches of burning fuel after coming down the escape slides.

The other consideration, is that they overflew a few perfectly acceptable airports on the way back, when in fact Boeing recommend to "Land at the nearest suitable airport" in the event of an engine failure on the B777.

Why did the cabin crew not use their initiative? Watching passengers take video for uploading to You Tube when at anytime they could have been in an inferno just makes no sense.

[tail wheel]

Hi Keg. Thanks for your comments. :ok:

I locked the thread principally because:

1. It is not within our forum area, Australia, NZ and the Pacific. PPRuNe does not want "parallel threads" running in various regional forums. The thread rightfully belongs in the Asian forum.

Rumour & News: http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/580854-sia-plane-catches-fire.html

Fragrant Harbour: http://www.pprune.org/fragrant-harbour/580858-sia-fire.html

2. I anticipated the usual arm chair expert in love with the sound of their own keyboard would probably post dumb or irrelevant comment or theory.

3. Until FULL details are known following the investigation, no one is really qualified to comment. Derogatory comments are appearing in the media about the delay in evacuating the aircraft; whilst perhaps unusual, there may have been excellent safety reasons for that decision, made by those most qualified to judge at the time.

I'll leave all comments posted in this thread so people may make their own decisions.

[neville_nobody]

After watching that video above I cannot fathom why you would sit there with a fire like that. Even if there was fuel on the ground on the opposite side surely you could at least find one clear exit to get everyone out of.

After seeing that video I think it's a case of good luck rather than good management.

[ACMS]

I think you broke #2 yourself Taily.......:D

[Sicofit]

Having flown for a number of airlines,there are two issues here as I see it which seem to conflict with their SOP's.Firstly,the report said he was two hours out after departure and secondly,while there was an obvious raging fire, the pilot elected not to evacuate.
Company Ops manuals that I am familiar with,all state; in the event of fire or possible fire,land at nearest suitable airport.
Also, with an on ground fire, evacuate the aircraft.I have never seen where it says you should establish communication with the fire chief. You would have already advised the tower of that problem before bringing the aircraft to a stop,giving them the relevant information and your intentions.
They were lucky the fire or smoke hadn't entered the cabin or it would have been a possible different outcome.
By the way, I flew for that airline many years back and would be interested to see if they have developed any new procedures with respect to these emergencies.
This is about rumour and news which is good and even though some posts may be incorrect,you can learn a lot.
As for the moderator, he is entitled to comment as well,but he is no more the authority than others who submit a post.:cool:

[mattyj]

They should've evacuated

[Dale Hardale]

ditto


......Evacuate, Evacuate, Evacuate

[empacher48]

I like how everyone here thinks they know better than the guys up the front.

Right now:

We don't know what the discussion was on the flight deck
We don't know what the discussion was between the flight deck and the fire fighters
We don't know what the discussion was between the flight deck and the passenger cabin


Until we do, then we can't do any second guessing. Everybody got off the aircraft alive and uninjured, the pilots will have their chance to explain their decision making process to the investigators.

[Dale Hardale]

I would be surprised if firefighters told the Captain that everyone should remain on board with a fire of such clearly significant magnitude.

Ultimately, it is the Captain's responsibility to determine if an evacuation should be completed.

It will be interesting to see if a true account of the flight crew decision making process ever reaches the light of day given the location of the event and the company.


Too bad lah :mad:

[Metro man]

If an evacuation had been ordered, no one would have questioned the decision to vacate a burning aircraft, and even if there had been injuries there wouldn't be a single post on the entire message board suggesting they should have stayed onboard.

Try to imagine how the Captain must be questioning himself at the moment over his decision.

[Keg]

interesting to see if a true account of the flight crew decision making process ever reaches the light of day given the location of the event and the company.


Such a discussion wasn't covered particularly deeply in the ATSB report for the QF32 incident either. :(

[Chris2303]

Talk about damned if you do and damned if you don't!

[Old Fella]

My only comment is that to me it seems this incident was potentially a repeat of the Saudi L1011 event at Riyadh in 1980 where everyone onboard perished. Different circumstances I know, an internal fire v's an external one, however delays in ordering an evacuation led to an avoidable loss of 301 lives.

[Oakape]

Strong fuel fumes reported in the cabin?


I once had strong fuel fumes reported in the cabin by the cabin crew. They could not identify the source & the concern was that it was coming from a fuel leak or a spill in the cargo holds.


After landing one of the pax mentioned to the F/A as he left the aircraft that they may have been looking for his fuel soaked jumper. Turns out he was a refueller. I don't know why he didn't identify himself & the jumper earlier.


Things are usually not as clear cut as they would appear in hindsight. Pontificating on this site does not really address the issue in such a manner that all can learn from the event & perhaps handle things better if it ever happens again. Rather, it shows a lack of experience or a mindset that is set in concrete, or both.


Aviation eventually catches up with those who feel they can do things by rote, as things never happen exactly the same way twice. Those who use a blend of their own experience, the experience of others, SOP's & systems knowledge to manage both normal everyday situations & non-normal situations as they occur, tend to do better throughout their aviation careers.

[C441]

Two things I pondered….

Did the crew advise ATC that they had a problem? From one video it appears that the fire services were not standing by in close proximity, possibly as they had no prior warning and:

Was a visual inspection made of the suspect engine to see if there was fuel leaking prior to commencing the approach? An engine problem I was involved in on a 744 some years ago was initially identified by an increased fuel flow and the smell of fumes in the cabin. The fuel leak was clearly visible as a stream of vapour behind the engine. Even at night with the strobes flashing, a vapour trail would be easily seen.
We did shut the engine down as a result and the fuel leak stopped but we still had the firies nearby on landing, just in case.

[Oakape]

From the main thread -


From the reports the engine problem was low oil pressure. The decision was made to turn back rather than continue to Milan. The aircraft did not have a major problem and was not on fire until after it landed.


If this is actually true, I find it amazing that some posters would have had the RFS turned out & a full cabin preparation done prior to the landing. It also is a good lesson in waiting for all the facts before forming a definite position on what should or should not have been done.

[The The]

If this is actually true, I find it amazing that some posters would have had the RFS turned out & a full cabin preparation done prior to the landing. It also is a good lesson in waiting for all the facts before forming a definite position on what should or should not have been done.

Yep! I would have done that. A pan call which will activate on site emergency services. Better to have them there ready than later wishing you'd given them notice. Give me a single reason why it would not be prudent to have airport emergency services alerted and ready?

As far as the cabin. I would not be giving brace commands, but would certainly brief the crew on exactly the situation (engine problem/failure, returning to land in x minutes, emergency services standing by, may stop on runway or just off, may end up in alert/emergency phase). I would also brief the passengers.

I would be closely monitoring the engine indications (if not completely shutdown) and also fuel burn/qty to determine if possible fuel leak.

I find it amazing that anyone would not do that!

[Oakape]

OK, you are entitled to do that. However, I would not be calling for emergency services for a single indication - low oil pressure.

[Oakape]

No Eclan, I wasn't referring specifically to you. But if the cap fits.


Everyone is entitled to their opinion, including you. All I am saying is that things are almost always not as simple as some would like to believe. Those who are willing to rush in & imply that the captain is incompetent based on some newspaper reports & a video, would do well to not be so definite about things. No-one on here has all the information, particularly what went on, on the flight deck.


By the way, I don't do 'pissing contests' as you call them, but you go right ahead. And, I strongly suspect you do not know how much you do not know. Which makes you dangerous. is pretty good for pontification.