SQ-368 (engine & wing on fire) final report out [Archive] - Page 2

nose,cabin

28th Jun 2016, 23:17

Watching the video,incredible....
Human Perception is variable.CRM takes this into account,and we are taught to gather and incorporate all available information.
SADIE
Share, analyse, develope,initiate,evaluate.
A picture speaks a thousand words.
Non interuption communication cabin to cockpit is overridden in emergency.
Any threat to the aircraft calls for land ASAP and evacuate if a threat still exists.

A call to the cockpit 3 chimes " captain....the right wing is on fire completely from engine to the end, at the front and back"
The cockpit may not have a warning from the engine, nacelle and gear, fire loops.

This would also apply for a bad and obvious cargo compartment, brake/ wheel fire. Evacuate immediately .

The temperature increases to an enormous amount resulting in temperatures greater than 1000 degrees in seconds.
The fuel in the wing might be released rapidly in a few seconds.either melted metal and ruptured or/and boiling.

Evacuate is risky but threat management would clearly favour the slides risk from a "full on fire " risk.
With fuel tanks on fire.

Even without a fire the risk still exists. In a crash, bad fuel leak, structural damage.

Do not risk the possibility of any fire and treat all fires as very deadly.
Ask any older wartime pilots and crews.

Roj approved

29th Jun 2016, 00:29

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)

parabellum

29th Jun 2016, 00:30

Come to think of it, with all the strict laws in Singapore and all, would I get into trouble (jail/arrested) if I opened a flight door as a pax in this situation?
Simply trying to save my life?

Can't answer for Singapore but if, by opening the door, you caused the fire to spread, burnt the slide and people died, all as a result of your action, I think you will certainly be called to account in the USA, not just in the criminal court but also the relatives would be queuing up to sue you!

I mentioned in an earlier post that it is highly likely that the crew were in contact with the fire fighters and it is quite possible that the decision not to evacuate came as a result of what the fire fighters could see and the crew, (and pax), couldn't.

kaikohe76

29th Jun 2016, 02:51

Sorry folks, placing everything else to one side, I still can not understand, just why an immediate evacuation on the ` relatively safer` side was not immediately carried out. I would fully accept, that by evacuating in this particular case, you might possibly fry, but by remaining on the aircraft in such a situation, had it suddenly got worse as they so often can, you are almost bound to fry. No winners here & SQ as a major world airline, should front up themselves, just to reassure their customers. Forget the face saving culture that exists in their part of the world, be up front & we might be able to understand, just why things played out here as they did.

gatbusdriver

29th Jun 2016, 03:17

Please do not take my post as advocating the crews decision, the fact is I don't have the facts to say whether what they did was right or wrong (in my eyes).

We have all seen the video, the aircraft was pretty full in the economy section that had a very good view of the fire and I didn't hear anyone panic at all, so I would say that the passengers who were actually on board that flight thought that the situation was in hand (at least during the short clip that we saw).

Someone asked if I discuss what if scenarios. Of course I do, it's an important part of TEM and also the decision making process when considering various options. If we don't think about the 'what ifs' then we shouldn't be sat in the flight deck.

Anyway enough from me, my 2 pence worth (used to be £2 but since Brexit it has devalued) will be swallowed up by another 10 pages of posts predominantly stating things that, currently, will not be backed by having all the facts, but I guess that is the PPRuNe way these days.

Regards,

GBD

NSEU

29th Jun 2016, 03:32

(in my eyes).

Apparently your eyes didn't see this post (above) by "underfire"

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/580854-sia-plane-catches-fire-13.html#post9423848

gatbusdriver

29th Jun 2016, 04:17

Thank you, missed the link.

Still didn't see any evidence of screaming or panic, maybe there will be some as more mobile phone footage comes out. The original video taken of the wing burning appears very calm in the cabin. As for the clip in the cabin with people asking to be let out, was that during the fire or after the fire was put out and they were waiting for steps to deplane?

Again, all I am suggesting is gather all the facts first.

Saying that why let facts get in the way of a good lynching.

Regards,

GBD

aviator's_anonymous

29th Jun 2016, 05:15

Touch wood, but i would rather be sitting in an inquest explaining why i evacuated and maybe caused a few injuries, than explaining why i didn't and caused people to burn alive... we were always taught you dont take chances with fire and an aircraft.. just because you can't see it doesn't mean it isn't burning or festering... any sign of a fire should be treated with the highest priority and not take chances.

RatherBeFlying

29th Jun 2016, 05:49

BugSmasher1960

29th Jun 2016, 06:04

Can you absolutely guarantee that 90 seconds from now there will not be any fire, smoke or incapacitating chemicals in the cabin?

Once the cabin is breached by smoke and concomitant incapacitating substances, some if not all the pax will succumb in the certification standard 90 seconds before evacuation is completed.
Can you absolutely guarantee that 90 seconds from now that passengers won't deplaning into burning fuel?

IMHO it's a judgement call - one best made by the captain whilst communicating with other key players (eg RFF).

AmuDarya

29th Jun 2016, 06:10

Videos from inside the ac show that the passengers were screaming and begging to get out. Other parts of the video show a significant amount of fire....

http://yahoo7g-a.akamaihd.net/237698...8409403001.mp4 (http://yahoo7g-a.akamaihd.net/2376984109001/201606/2670/2376984109001_4998417745001_4998409403001.mp4)

I didn't hear much urgency. Just an Aussie sounding voice drawling, saying "open the door, please."

The earlier video of the burning wing was even more chilled out-the background chatter seemed to have as much urgency as an office cafeteria at lunchtime. Strange.

FlightDetent

29th Jun 2016, 06:28

It's the toxic fumes ...

India Four Two

29th Jun 2016, 06:32

"open the door, please."

I wouldn't have been saying that. After checking through the window, I would have been opening a door on the left side myself. No 40 Kg "Singapore Girl" would have stopped me!

Just out of interest, I checked the press releases on the SQ website. No mention of the accident. It doesn't surprise me.

typhoonpilot

29th Jun 2016, 06:33

Can you absolutely guarantee that 90 seconds from now that passengers won't deplaning into burning fuel?

IMHO it's a judgement call - one best made by the captain whilst communicating with other key players (eg RFF).

Good grief!!

This "new concept" of second guessing possible injuries from an evacuation when an entire wing is on fire must be nipped in the bud ASAP before an entire plane load of passengers dies from the shear stupidity of that concept.

The precedents being set industry wide should be a cause for serious concern and dialogue. An Allegiant Airlines captain was terminated for ordering an evacuation when there were reports of smoke in the cabin and RFF stated there was smoke coming from an engine. Safe decision by all accounts, but management did not agree.

Had this SIA crew seen the news about the Allegiant captain thus worried about the consequences of an evacuation?

I think we are all far better off with the occasional unnecessary evacuation with a few sprained ankles than the alternative analysis paralysis that could lead to a future disaster with a delayed evacuation (or decision not to evacuate) when an immediate evacuation was warranted.

Typhoonpilot

mickjoebill

29th Jun 2016, 06:47

From my experience with firefighting..

The passengers don't appear to have felt much radiant heat. The flames are a good distance from the cabin in this respect. The wing sheilds the cabin from the greater fireball under the wing.

Perhaps the passengers were fairly chilled because they presumed there was no risk as after the turn back, they had been airborn for so long.

Also there was no communally felt bump or bang nor smoke in the cabin.
No chorus of arhhhh to get the adrenaline going.
So only those near the windows on one side would initially be aware of the scale of the fire.

So prolonged flight after the turn back, no bump or bang, no smell and no radiant heat effects, reduced the chance of panic.

Perhaps a light by each door that indicates if the nearby engine is running would be an aide to cabin crew to asses saftey of slide deployment? Especially if passengers are becoming rowdy and the sound of engines may be drowned out?

Mickjoebill

underfire

29th Jun 2016, 06:49

Still didn't see any evidence of screaming or panic,

The video and commentary by pax says that they were screaming to get out.

Aside from that, what would you be doing, sitting there while the ac burns? Looking at the video from the outside, that engine fire is significant.

EDIT: watching this again, the original news video has been edited, originally there was a segment from inside the ac, it was dark, and people were screaming....that segment is no longer there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hf-QLDGgORk thankfully, much shorter response than 5 minutes...

ACMS

29th Jun 2016, 07:05

I'd certainly move to the nearest exit and wait I think.

Phileas Fogg

29th Jun 2016, 07:12

IMHO it's a judgement call - one best made by the captain

If the pax weren't jumping down the slides then the crew wouldn't be following them down the slides ... If the Captain was taking an unnecessary gamble then he was taking the same unnecessary gamble with his own life!

TRey

29th Jun 2016, 07:17

2 cents from the cheap seats...and like everything else on here, its just an opinion

As has been alluded to several times...as a Captain, it is incumbent on us to gather all the facts before we make ANY decision. Sitting on your hands for a moment or grabbing a piece of gum to chew on while you gather info from the available sources during a emergency is paramount to NOT making a rash emotional, decision. These things don't happen in a vacuum...it is fluid and ever evolving. I know what I would have done...I think I do, at least as I sit here at groundspeed zero, I do. But as much as we drill and rehearse these things in our mind...we never really know how we will react in the "heat of the moment"...no pun intended. We can only hope we make the right decision...whatever they may be

As for the so-called drivel that people are posting about...I find a tremendous amount of learning available in it...mostly as a study in Human Factors. We know that some will sit there waiting for direction and some will take it into their own hands to do what they perceive needs to be done to survive. All of these things represent something to keep in mind and account for if I should ever be faced with the choice that the Captain and crew were faced with in this situation. Survival has never been based on rash decisions...only on thought out ones...albeit sometimes they need to made in VERY short order.

A Captain is obligated to gather the information in committee and act in the best interest of his passengers and crew...A Captain is not beholden to, or is it suggested that in the course of his decision making process to consider the collective desires of the keyboard warriors on any public opinion forum. If faced with a similar situation, I can tell you that "what PPrune thinks" will not factor in the decision making process.

I guarantee you that at the end of the day...as the Captain played this out over and over in his mind...if he screwed up, he knows it. If he got lucky...he knows it. I will say this about the Captain though...clearly being the salty dog that he is...is in possession of the biggest set of balls on the planet.

One last thought ...and this is just a little rant item...if you are a Captain or First Officer for a passenger carrier, and you are posting on here saying that if you were in the back as a "passenger" on this flight, in this situation...you would have got up and blown the slide yourself on your own volition...that is pure Bulls##t and you know it! To make such a statement represents a tremendously hazardous attitude...Offer assistance, but you are not in command...as a professional you SHOULD know this. Rant done!

Thanks for allowing me to post my opinion...I do enjoy all of the other opinions posted here as well...no matter where they come from.

Be safe out there!

Jabawocky

29th Jun 2016, 07:44

Hf-QLDGgORk

That fire was not a small event. It did not seem to respond well to the number of appliances and took a while to get under control. The RFF did not appear to be attacking the base of the fire as aggressively as i would like. Certainly nothing like what I have been taught. I will concede to not having training on airliner fires like they should have.

I would have been OUT. For the avoidance of doubt, OUT. They put windows and viewing ports in doors for a good reason. Use them.

I am sure others will have an alternate view of the world.

ACMS

29th Jun 2016, 08:09

That's a hell of a long time to sit there hoping that HUGE Fire will be contained..........

He's certainly a braver man than me.

mickjoebill

29th Jun 2016, 08:15

Video shows fire tenders underway before aircraft stopped.
Reports suggest fire started when thrust reverses were deployed so the fire response was good, particularly if they were in station at time of the call.

Passengers were told by Captain that the reason for the turn back was an oil leak, not a fuel leak.
So the passengers were not pre stressed for an emergency on landing.

There was no smoke or heat or communally felt bump on landing, so it was only a minority of passengers, those with a view of the fire, that would have fed the panic.

I would hope if I was on board that I wouldn't rush the doors, praying that the captain knew the source of the fire was oil and not fuel and he had a stop watch on the fire tenders.

Perhaps "engine on" warning lights by the doors would help crew decide the safe deployment of slides?
Useful if passengers are rowdy and for four engine craft.

Mickjoebill

Less Hair

29th Jun 2016, 08:19

All the right hand side exits had been unusuable (use of door 1R would have interfered with the fire brigade intervention) The fire brigade arrived fast enough to put special wide and easy to use rescue stairs on the left hand side in time to avoid some dangerous slide evacuation. Can't see any wrong decision. Nobody got hurt.

BugSmasher1960

29th Jun 2016, 08:24

Good grief!!

This "new concept" of second guessing possible injuries from an evacuation when an entire wing is on fire must be nipped in the bud ASAP before an entire plane load of passengers dies from the shear stupidity of that concept.

Again, we don't know the full situation. Some observations that I've noted:

- The fire appears to have been at a time when ambient light levels were low. Cameras generally evaluate the light level of the entire scene, and when something with high relative brightness occurs in the scene, the camera tends to over-expose it and make it look worse than it would at normal daylight levels when being recorded.

- Fuel feeds fires in different ways; to me this looked like a smaller quantity of fuel that had spread over a larger area resulting in a larger but less intense flame front. As undesirable as it was (putting it mildly, don't get me wrong!), I don't believe the chances of it quickly progressing to something larger were great in the immediate short term (being the a time needed for RFF to get on to it). Having seen photos of the (relative) lack of damage reinforces that. And yes I do know what's in the wings (I come from a military aircraft servicing background). I've also watched the complete meltdown and destruction of the (Chinese?) aircraft linked here - comparing the two I'm left with the feeling that they had a little bit of time to "sit tight" in this case - especially knowing the RFF capability.

Did the Captain get it right or wrong? In all honesty, I don't have enough information to answer (and I have as much as everybody else here). If in fact he did have reason to believe that there may have been fuel flowing to the port side - and knowing that RFF were only seconds away then who's to say that an evacuation presented more risk of serious injury and death? At this stage how do we even know that he wasn't in contact with the RFF commander - stating his preference for an evacuation - only to be advised that RFF recommend sitting tight for the next minute whilst they get some serious quantities of foam on it? Has anyone stopped to think "perhaps the guy isn't stupid - what reasons may he have had to NOT initiate an evacuation"?

I just think it's really bad form for any judge to pronounce the accused guilty without hearing from the defense. We seem to get this time and time again in this wonderful internet world - and more often than I care to admit, I'm embarrassed to say I got it wrong when I didn't have other pertinent information; what seemed so clear cut when I didn't have all the facts suddenly did a 180 when I did.

I'm guessing that one doesn't get to command one of these fine birds if one is a complete idiot - and on that basis I'll give him the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise.

Bergerie1

29th Jun 2016, 08:29

BugSmasher,

You are absolutely right. I wish more people on PPRuNe would follow your lead.

ACMS

29th Jun 2016, 08:29

"Special ready to use rescue stairs"? They may be painted Red and have Airport Emergency Services on the side but I'd hardly think they would be fast getting in place at the door. In fact it would be a brave Driver to approach an Armed door in those circumstances where he could end up with a slide in his face any second.

Pax going down a dual channel slide raft would exit the Jet much quicker as well if it developed and the stairs would only hinder a full EVAC.

So I'd be telling them to keep clear until the time when the Fire is under control and we are then not using the slides. i.e. After the Fire is out and not before...

Good Business Sense

29th Jun 2016, 08:36

Having evacuated hundreds of pax from a wide body ........

... you've got to do it unless you control the situation and KNOW exactly what's going on .... Anything else is gambling.

Less Hair

29th Jun 2016, 09:24

These oversized stairs have pipes for foam and water pre installed and can use prestored cabin levels for faster operation. They are safer to use than slides and don't interfere with the firefight. These are regular fire brigade vehicles with comms and everything onboard and they are operated by trained firemen in some coordinated way.

That's not your old rusty pickup with aftermarked stairs mounted on top.

http://www.rosenbauer.com/en/de/rosenbauer-world/vehicles/arff-vehicles/escape-stair.html

ACMS

29th Jun 2016, 09:29

Don't agree that they'd be faster, people slide down 2 at a time much faster than trying to stumble run down stairs.......I can just imagine the people falling over themselves trying to run down steps!!

If the Fire is contained/out and the threat is known by all means use those stairs, if the Fire is not under control then keep those stairs AWAY from my Aircraft as I'll be using the certified slides that came with my $200 million dollar Jet thanks all the same.

As an operator that frequently flies into WSSS I've never been informed by anyone that they have stairs they'd like me to use and not my slides in an EVAC.

EMER EVAC required, SLIDES.

PRECAUTIONARY DISEMARKATION required, by all means use those wonderful stairs.

Capn Bloggs

29th Jun 2016, 09:36

Passengers opened the emergency exit after observing a tailpipe fire during engine start.

Presumably the PA would made before the pax jumped up and offed...

I wonder if the very first reaction from Row Zero, to a call from Ground that there's a few flames coming out the tailpipe, is to jump on the PA and shout "Cabin Crew At Stations!" (as poor englissshhh as it is...) :cool:

What about the cabin crew telling the pax who are up and running about to sit down immediately?

OldLurker

29th Jun 2016, 09:47

Some posters here have said that as pax in such a situation, they would have opened a door and fled without waiting for a call to evacuate (even suggesting that they'd assault cabin crew in order to do so - #268 (http://www.pprune.org/9424133-post268.html), I hope he was trying to be ironic).

Someone on an earlier page already cited the Airbus that ditched in the Hudson, where a panicing passenger opened a rear door, endangering everyone on board.

Have there been cases of aircraft fires where passengers initiated evacuation uncommanded? If so with what results - positive or negative?

Jetstream67

29th Jun 2016, 09:52

I guess the escape stairs are good if they arrive instantly, the aircraft is not on the grass / at an unusual attitude due to gear failure etc and the slides are not activated when the door opens. . . It's a lot of if's

MrSnuggles

29th Jun 2016, 10:09

Little snippet from Singapore (?) TV with some experts speculating about what may have happened to the engine and where the fire came from.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9zAUpEyVxs

I still don't understand completely why they did not evac. Learning about all those past fires with untimely evacuations where people died for no good reason makes me question this, very sorry about that.

One thing I find peculiar is that the BA Heathrow crash, the Asiana cartwheel and the BA Vegas engine fire shows that the 777 is built like a tank with capabilities we, the flying public, didn't really know an airplane could have. Is this confidence in the airplane maybe maybe turning a little tiny bit towards arrogance up in the cockpit for some carriers? As in "well, they made it just fine in Vegas, the airplane will save us, no need to worry"?

Oldlurker
There have been several passenger initiated evacuations. The one I have ingrained in my brain is the horrible horrible crash of an ASA plane in the US - I don't remember the flight number or the year it happened. It was a small commuter plane that crashed in a meadow outside nowhere. The FO survived the crash but almost died in the fire. I remember his words about trying to break the cockpit window with a fireaxe that was soooo bad it broke! He was saved by a passenger and a police officer who came to the scene later, they managed to break the glass.

Many survived the initial crash that time, but there was a big fire and people died before they could get out. Cabin crew were in disarray and everyone was left to fend for themselves.

Another example of passenger initiated evacuation was the Air Inter crash in France.

But, did you only mean evacuations due to engine fire while still on the runway? In that case I can't think of any right now.

aviator's_anonymous

29th Jun 2016, 10:47

Are there any recordings of the radio communications of this flight?

notapilot15

29th Jun 2016, 10:49

The only fact is it is mere luck no one died.

Rest is somewhere between total ignorance to total incompetence.

There are so many actions by everyone, individually each action is within SOP limits, collectively it would have been a disaster.

Few more seconds delay in response (or) stars are not aligned properly we would be having a different discussion.

Pure conjuncture on my part, Yes.

Ian W

29th Jun 2016, 11:22

well said gatbusdriver.
And when the report comes out and proves that most of what was posted here was complete drivel will this lot apologise for deriding and villifying the crews actions ?
Pprune stopped being a professional pilots forum a very long time ago,all it now is is a place for the uneducated ...at least in aviation to say how they would do it better!!!
Someone a very long time ago proposed that only actual real pro pilots be permitted to post, unfortunately that never came to pass.
The result is what pprune has become, nowhere more evident than in this thread:ugh:
I presume you are referring to the 'professional' pilots who are misusing the emergency frequencies? (see the thread below this). You are part of a No True Scotsman fallacy

Huck

29th Jun 2016, 11:30

The one I have ingrained in my brain is the horrible horrible crash of an ASA plane in the US - I don't remember the flight number or the year it happened. It was a small commuter plane that crashed in a meadow outside nowhere. The FO survived the crash but almost died in the fire. I remember his words about trying to break the cockpit window with a fireaxe that was soooo bad it broke! He was saved by a passenger and a police officer who came to the scene later, they managed to break the glass.

ASA 7529, Carrolton Georgia. I was working there, and flying Brasilias then.

The copilot survived and, after many surgeries, is an RJ captain today.

The captain perished.

rog747

29th Jun 2016, 12:53

Videos from inside the ac show that the passengers were screaming and begging to get out. Other parts of the video show a significant amount of fire....

http://yahoo7g-a.akamaihd.net/2376984109001/201606/2670/2376984109001_4998417745001_4998409403001.mp4
perfect video - strong wind is blowing flames and smoke AWAY from cabin (good) once 777 stopped.

another video shows the fire developing on the roll out and taking huge hold as it stops - the fire was not happening prior to landing but happened during the landing it seems.

ATC would/should surely in the roll out have said to FD ''your right wing/engine has large flames'' - THINK Concorde CDG T/O
until that point and in the APP and T/D the crew were obviously relaxed in their manner prior to T/D as they had not called for the AFS to meet them and were seen confident on R/T all would be OK by negating assistance.

crew Must :ugh: have got a call from ATC during the landing they were on fire -- As they then rolled to a full stop and did not turn off (thankfully, think MAN KT 737) AND the AFS was half way to the 777 during the landing roll having been ordered there
thus shut ENG down should have been immediate having already been told you have large flames right side and call should be CC told EVAC LHS doors only.

aircraft would have been EVAC'D all OK from all L side doors and pax getting off by the time the first AFS vehicles were getting into position and spraying first foam.

(and dont give me this crap about how do we define L or R? - L1 is an L1 door and R1 is R1 door in 'our speak' so do you expect me to believe an airline prof or ground crew could mess that up? NOT UGH)

OK I am fully are of the Eastern hierarchy culture that has existed and still does and did that play a part here in some or all areas of comms? FD CC ATC and even AFS??

the photos on a post above of the PWA B737 wreck that burned on landing are remarkably similar to the KT B737 that burned out at MAN in 1985

rog747

29th Jun 2016, 13:31

further to my post above

this clear video does show a QR from the AFS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hf-QLDGgORk

and this is shot at a head on angle https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYyh10HA7VY

at 10s in of the top mentioned video
the 777 is slowing to a final stop on fire in RH ENG and the fire trucks are half way to the a/c

by 30s the fire is immense and now pooling under what looks like the RH ENG.

by 1m 6s the first truck is spraying on target - others getting in position

at 1m 20s
a pair of rapid access air stairs are on their way BUT by this time the 777 using the LHS chutes many pax could be out of the a/c had EVAC been called

at 3m in the rapid airstairs have still not been positioned at the fwd door - -by this time all pax and crew could have been off the plane (who are still on board at this time)
whats the point of these steps???

240 pax and crew with 4 or 5 double width doors fitted with uber big dual lane slides could have been off PDQ

Heathrow Harry

29th Jun 2016, 13:36

still looked as if they could have got there quicker by going off tarmac and direct - but Godf knows what the ground conditions were

skytrax

29th Jun 2016, 14:26

All planes are tested and certified to evacuate a full load of pax in 90 seconds using only half of the cabin doors.
So it could have been done easy on the LHS only.

I am repeating this, CC are very well trained to evaluate the outside conditions and respond to commands. They were already in state of alert. A command to evacuate on the LHS would have been perfectly understood as they were all aware of the RHS fire.

Stop discrediting cabin crew's abilities, decision making and training. Unless you know very well what a cabin crew training is like in a major airline you would better refrain.....

rog747

29th Jun 2016, 14:32

skytrax, totally agree to that,

to whom is ''you'' that you refer to please?

i cannot see any recent post where any CC are getting slagged off #justsaying

ta

ExSp33db1rd

29th Jun 2016, 15:09

All planes are tested and certified to evacuate a full load of pax in 90 seconds using only half of the cabin doors.
So it could have been done easy on the LHS only.

But as has already been stated, this test is done with "passengers" not stopping to block the aisles whilst they unload the overhead bins to claim all their cr*p, and .... they were 'staff ' loaded for this purpose, so they were pre-warned AND there was no fire for the test.

Has anyone knowledge of a genuine total emergency bring completed in the required 90 secs ?

Just sayin'.

Beanbag

29th Jun 2016, 15:19

pax britanica

29th Jun 2016, 15:56

I think the AF 340 crash in Toronto saw the cabin Crew do a great job and get every one off in close to 90 secs. No fire tho'-that would have been a horror story landing long and running into a huge ditch leaking fuel everywhere which then ignites-doesnt bear thinking about, But the point about the tests being done with pre warned staff no frail old people, young babies, pregnant mums, mobility impaired, panic, fire, smoke etc etc remains very valid

rog747

29th Jun 2016, 17:11

Pax Britannica

The AF A340-300 over run at YYZ resulted in a prompt post large out of control crash fire that caused the a/c to burn out within minutes
http://www.cnt-f.org/subrp/IMG/jpg/airfrance.jpg?825/75fe5ef55d653d6a46f796e5c7589f07abaf38c0

the pax had to escape into pools of fuel and dodge fires and broken metal in a ditch and many slides were inop or failed
https://www.thestar.com/content/dam/thestar/news/gta/2010/05/29/legal_battle_erupts_over_air_france_black_box_from_pearson_c rash/air_france_crash_atpearson.jpeg

an amazing evacuation in such circumstances which was much heralded to the fantastic cabin crew

mnttech

29th Jun 2016, 17:22

But as has already been stated, this test is done with "passengers" not stopping to block the aisles whilst they unload the overhead bins to claim all their cr*p, and .... they were 'staff ' loaded for this purpose, so they were pre-warned AND there was no fire for the test.

Has anyone knowledge of a genuine total emergency bring completed in the required 90 secs ?

Just sayin'.
Appendix J to Part 25—Emergency Evacuation
The following test criteria and procedures must be used for showing compliance with §25.803:

(a) The emergency evacuation must be conducted with exterior ambient light levels of no greater than 0.3 foot-candles prior to the activation of the airplane emergency lighting system. ...

(b) The airplane must be in a normal attitude with landing gear extended.

(c) Unless the airplane is equipped with an off-wing descent means, stands or ramps may be used for descent from the wing to the ground. Safety equipment such as mats or inverted life rafts may be placed on the floor or ground to protect participants. No other equipment that is not part of the emergency evacuation equipment of the airplane may be used to aid the participants in reaching the ground.

(d) Except as provided in paragraph (a) of this appendix, only the airplane's emergency lighting system may provide illumination.

(e) All emergency equipment required for the planned operation of the airplane must be installed.

(f) Each internal door or curtain must be in the takeoff configuration.

(g) Each crewmember must be seated in the normally assigned seat for takeoff and must remain in the seat until receiving the signal for commencement of the demonstration. Each crewmember must be a person having knowledge of the operation of exits and emergency equipment and, if compliance with §121.291 is also being demonstrated, each flight attendant must be a member of a regularly scheduled line crew.

(h) A representative passenger load of persons in normal health must be used as follows:

(1) At least 40 percent of the passenger load must be female.

(2) At least 35 percent of the passenger load must be over 50 years of age.

(3) At least 15 percent of the passenger load must be female and over 50 years of age.

(4) Three life-size dolls, not included as part of the total passenger load, must be carried by passengers to simulate live infants 2 years old or younger.

(5) Crewmembers, mechanics, and training personnel, who maintain or operate the airplane in the normal course of their duties, may not be used as passengers.

(i) No passenger may be assigned a specific seat except as the Administrator may require. Except as required by subparagraph (g) of this paragraph, no employee of the applicant may be seated next to an emergency exit.

(j) Seat belts and shoulder harnesses (as required) must be fastened.

(k) Before the start of the demonstration, approximately one-half of the total average amount of carry-on baggage, blankets, pillows, and other similar articles must be distributed at several locations in aisles and emergency exit access ways to create minor obstructions.

(l) No prior indication may be given to any crewmember or passenger of the particular exits to be used in the demonstration.

(m) The applicant may not practice, rehearse, or describe the demonstration for the participants nor may any participant have taken part in this type of demonstration within the preceding 6 months.

(n) Prior to entering the demonstration aircraft, the passengers may also be advised to follow directions of crewmembers but may not be instructed on the procedures to be followed in the demonstration, except with respect to safety procedures in place for the demonstration or which have to do with the demonstration site. Prior to the start of the demonstration, the pre-takeoff passenger briefing required by §121.571 may be given. Flight attendants may assign demonstration subjects to assist persons from the bottom of a slide, consistent with their approved training program.

(o) The airplane must be configured to prevent disclosure of the active emergency exits to demonstration participants in the airplane until the start of the demonstration.

(p) Exits used in the demonstration must consist of one exit from each exit pair. The demonstration may be conducted with the escape slides, if provided, inflated and the exits open at the beginning of the demonstration. In this case, all exits must be configured such that the active exits are not disclosed to the occupants. If this method is used, the exit preparation time for each exit utilized must be accounted for, and exits that are not to be used in the demonstration must not be indicated before the demonstration has started. The exits to be used must be representative of all of the emergency exits on the airplane and must be designated by the applicant, subject to approval by the Administrator. At least one floor level exit must be used.

(q) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, all evacuees must leave the airplane by a means provided as part of the airplane's equipment.

(r) The applicant's approved procedures must be fully utilized, except the flightcrew must take no active role in assisting others inside the cabin during the demonstration.

(s) The evacuation time period is completed when the last occupant has evacuated the airplane and is on the ground. Provided that the acceptance rate of the stand or ramp is no greater than the acceptance rate of the means available on the airplane for descent from the wing during an actual crash situation, evacuees using stands or ramps allowed by paragraph (c) of this appendix are considered to be on the ground when they are on the stand or ramp.
Well, short of just grabbing xxx people off the street and burning the aircraft, this good start.

DaveReidUK

29th Jun 2016, 18:44

pumpkin53

29th Jun 2016, 18:48

DaveReidUK

29th Jun 2016, 19:27

The 767 at KFLL last year had a 20+ % casualty rate coming down the slides with one engine alight. On hard tarmac and went "well" according to 1st hand witnesses. Just under 100 souls, ~ 20 were transported to hospitals. On video you can see one chap was blown off the slide by jet wash, and didn't look so active upon landing...

Media reports at the time suggested that the sole serious injury was to a passenger who had successfully negotiated the slide and who then tripped and fell, hitting his head, while running from the aircraft.

But however it happened, a 1 in 100 chance of serious injury sounds like pretty good odds to me, compared to the alternative.

RatherBeFlying

29th Jun 2016, 19:52

Fire events in undamaged aircraft these days have been leaving plenty of time either for fire services to bring the fire under control and evacuate via steps, or for evacuation via slides in their absence:ok:

It's all working to plan and we don't have to worry about pax wandering about where they shouldn't.

In many outfits, this state of affairs will continue happily until another airframe is incinerated with pax inside, whereupon the SOPs will be revised.

In the interim, prospective pax deserve to know whether they are expected to remain seated for how long while the fire is doing its unpredictable thing.

Those who post a SOP that anything more than a brake fire (tested during certification) warrants an immediate evacuation might enjoy a well deserved marketing advantage;)

lomapaseo

29th Jun 2016, 20:22

One can not design and certify an aircraft to do all things. The concept within the measure of mans freedom to exist, provides a means for passengers to minimize specific risk to themselves..

The means is the egress possibilities in a survivable accident/incident.
Some people of less than average abilities may incur a higher risk.

The same goes with many other risks including hypoxia etc. etc.

That,s why they put safety placards in your seat pocket

YRP

29th Jun 2016, 21:43

I have to say, if the captain thought it safer to keep on board with that kind of flame under the wing (and perhaps he had good reasons, maybe judged the risk of fuel/flame spreading to the LHS under the fuselage perhaps), he must be one cool cucumber to sit there while the ARFF did their work.

nose,cabin

29th Jun 2016, 21:43

Retherbeflying I agree with your post.

Fire.
Brake fires are not common, these days but should be treated as potentially very dangerous.

Difficult if impossible to extinguish .
The wheel well has hydraulic oil and grease flammable.
If not extinguished quickly, it undoubtedly can get worse fast.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=E4yJpUu6o8o

RatherBeFlying

29th Jun 2016, 22:52

Brake fires are not common, these days but should be treated as potentially very dangerous.

Certification RTO tests require five minutes after stop at maximum weight before firefighters can intervene:

https://youtu.be/f4LFErD-yls

Note no extra fuel or engine oil added, nor do I believe there's any certification test of cabin integrity for any duration of a pooled fuel fire.

The 777 RTO video notes a cost of $750K for wheel assembly replacement. Likely it would be considerably more expensive to replace partially melted engine, nacelles, wing and fuselage components from a pooled fuel fire test, but BA has not shared the repair costs of the 777 RTO at Vegas.

vapilot2004

29th Jun 2016, 22:53

The wheel well has hydraulic oil and grease flammable.

The hydraulic oil used today on the majority of commercial airliners (Skydrol) is fire resistant unless aerosolized.

ACMS

30th Jun 2016, 00:08

A question was asked about how long real world evacuations have taken.
CX had a full 744 EVAC at Kai Tak July 1995. Pax all off inside 2 mins, by the time the cockpit crew finished their checks and left the cockpit the Jet was empty.

Fire jet exceeded landing weight | South China Morning Post (http://m.scmp.com/article/122880/fire-jet-exceeded-landing-weight)

TURIN

30th Jun 2016, 00:32

Log entry for a sniff check when topping up the oil seems to be the order of the day.
I assume its the result of this mess. Another heat exchanger problem on a 777.

WHBM

30th Jun 2016, 00:32

The 767 at KFLL last year had a 20+ % casualty rate coming down the slides with one engine alight. On hard tarmac and went "well" according to 1st hand witnesses. Just under 100 souls, ~ 20 were transported to hospitals.
Do not conflate transportation to hospital with serious injuries. In several developed countries now there is a great desire to hike people off to hospital after incidents. Road traffic accident statistics in the UK for "serious" injuries have been distorted by this.

Has anyone knowledge of a genuine total emergency bring completed in the required 90 secs ?Against this, the tests (which are required to have a representative age range rather than a load of athletes) are done at maximum certified passenger capacity, something from the IT world. But a long-haul major carrier would have little more than about 60% of this number of seats, and furthermore not all would often be sold on many flights. So many evacuations should come in actually under the target.

Did I once read that a manufacturer's evac test offered US$ 100 extra to the first hundred out, to encourage pushing and shoving, as in reality ?

KRviator

30th Jun 2016, 00:36

it was $50USD for the first 25% of people off, and yes, it did happen. "Do whatever you want to get in that 25%, without hurting yourself or someone else" was the suggestion.

It resulted in people climbing over seats, etc. I have seen the video but can't find it on YouTube. Here (http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a311257.pdf) is the study that conducted it.

Nubian Major

30th Jun 2016, 01:39

There has been a few questions asking what the ARFFS response would be to this incident, it is standard sop to stay on the paved surfaces if at all possible, the appliances all have off road capability but at between 32 to 40+ tons the drivers have to be confident that if they go off paved surfaces they will reach the aircraft and be able to produce foam if required at approximately 6000 litres a minute, or if they fail to get to the aircraft, deploy sidelines at 450 litres a minute! Depending on what part of the world this happens, the appliances could be operated by one firefighter, in the uk this doesn't happen at the moment! There has been many comments on evacuate or not, in the event of an aircraft accident/incident it is our aim to create survivable conditions for pax to evacuate, remember we can only produce water/foam for around 2 minutes to 2 minutes 30 at full output from the monitors (turrets). We do communicate with the flight deck and advise the a/c commander of the situation but it is his/her decision to evacuate.

skytrax

30th Jun 2016, 02:19

Well, short of just grabbing xxx people off the street and burning the aircraft, this good start.
Thank you for that reply. It saved me from looking for the info and posting.
The wikipedia experts are hard to convince.

The big majority of the evacuations carried out by the cabin crew have been successful.
They always did what they had to and most of the time went beyond duty.

Statistically, CC are doing an amazing job at getting ppl out in less than 2 minutes. A huge amount of time is spent on door operation and evacuation during training.

If you see the cabin crew taking no action it is because they know better. Do you think they want to put themselves and you in any danger!?
Always follow their instructions and as long as they are at their stations and not incapacitated, never attempt to take over.

In this case, captain was in charge and everyone was waiting for his/her instructions. Captain's decision was that it was safer inside while RFFT attended the fire......
Even so, CC would have initiated the evacuation would the inside conditions have changed during the firefighting process.

RFFT at Changi are very good. Well trained, good equipment and with solid procedures.
As it has been explained, RFFT will do their best outside and may recommend evacuation via radio or hand signals if radio is inop.
The decision rests with Captain. I personally won't comment on that. I leave it to other Captains.

mickjoebill

30th Jun 2016, 02:59

This report about a psychologist onboard the flight.
She says fumes were very bad before the turn back.

Also says fire trucks were waiting as they landed.

Mickjoebill

Most Popular: Singapore Airlines wing fire: Melbourne woman describes 'horrific' flight as fumes filled cabin http://abc.net.au/news/7555376

spinex

30th Jun 2016, 05:31

Thanks Nubian Major, that provided some much needed context to the discussion. Strikes me that if it is expected to take up to 90 secs to get all pax and crew off, and the fire fighting capacity is likely to diminish dramatically within 150 seconds of deployment, there isn't a great deal of time to chew on the decision if things go against you. A bold decision to sit tight when there is a ball of flame around a wing with at least some fuel still in the tanks, imo.

aviator's_anonymous

30th Jun 2016, 05:52

I think people seem to be down playing the seriousness of the fire... how could you know it wouldn't go out of control?
It will be very interesting to find out the investigation and to hear the actual cockpit voice recordings of this incident... was there any evacuation talk, and who's decision it was to keep people on board..
On a side note - if people want to see how quick a fire can go out of control - china airlines landing in Japan - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qyZFASOAe0

flyhardmo

30th Jun 2016, 06:32

It will be very interesting to find out the investigation and to hear the actual cockpit voice recordings of this incident...

There will be a lot of face saving aspects to this incident and we will probably get a skewed version of events putting 100% blame on the aircraft manufacturer.

OldLurker

30th Jun 2016, 09:19

There will be a lot of face saving aspects to this incident and we will probably get a skewed version of events putting 100% blame on the aircraft manufacturer.Regardless of face saving, it's very likely that passengers' lawyers will try to blame the aircraft manufacturer, simply because there's more money to be had from suing a US company (Boeing) in a US court than from suing a Singapore company in Singapore. No doubt SIA's insurers will try it too, to avoid having to pay up.

kaikohe76

30th Jun 2016, 09:54

Still whatever the various theories presented here, for me, there is no excuse whatsoever I can see, for not instigating an immediate evacuation using the slides on the safe side. SQ could well have had to deal with multiple fatalities as a result of this incident, in this case prevented by sheer luck, rather than any action of personnel.

casablanca

30th Jun 2016, 10:14

The video posted above showing the China Airlines jet burn up in Okinawa is an eye opener.
It is what I would have expected in Singapore and with 10x the amount of fuel in the wings it could have gotten pretty warm really quick".........I think we can all agree they were very lucky.

notapilot15

30th Jun 2016, 10:55

It is still not clear if crew ever suspected a fuel leak. Looks to me this was treated as simple oil leak or a false warning until ATC initiated fire rescue response.

PAXboy

30th Jun 2016, 12:26

If there was a fuel leak, it would have had to have been small. They were 2 hours out when they turned back and (it appears) fuel did not show as a problem. Whilst evaluating how much to dump, they would have checked levels closely and a leak should have shown up.

So, again, the question might be: If it's only an oil leak, should you have RFF waiting for you ... Whatever the current thinking is, it will now change, at least at SQ.

A0283

30th Jun 2016, 12:57

I thought that the 1985 Manchester 737 disaster had provided the global aerospace community with the following clear main lessons:

1. When a fire is detected (or even 'reasonably assumed'),
2. The pilots have to:
2.1 stop the plane as fast as they can, right where they are, so NO turning off the runway and certainly NO taxiing,
2.2 have to take into account the wind direction on the ground in deciding the heading at that stop !!
2.3 mayday,
3. Immediately prepare for and order the evacuation,
4. ...

Later 'airborne fire' related accidents have added:
1. Take all actions required to land at the nearest airport, even consider 'any reasonable' airport instead of back to the origin or planned alternate, even if that has less fire fighting equipment and services,
2. Go to the list above on landing,

This both for inside and outside fires.
The Saudi and cargo plane cases can be used for example to check the items above.

Based on this I just don't understand why they did not immediately evacuate. And think they were all very very very lucky.

Important question is - did they take the wind direction into account. Or was this just plain luck too. Losing just one window or a small hole in the fuselage ... Read the Manchester report for example.

212man

30th Jun 2016, 12:58

So, again, the question might be: If it's only an oil leak, should you have RFF waiting for you

They were waiting - you can see them in the video, and in the newspaper interview with the passenger she states they were.

notapilot15

30th Jun 2016, 13:56

rog747

30th Jun 2016, 14:10

re fire service already waiting ----

another post here states that the AFS were already going out to another job and were immediately diverted to the landing SQ 777 which had just caught fire as it rolled out and they chased it as it as it was slowing
but note they were spraying foam on target within 1 min 07 secs of the aircraft coming to a full stop

at 1 min 14 secs a second foam appliance starts spraying
and at 2 min 45 sec a third one sprays rather much more effectively from behind the wing and at just under 3 mins the fire is still alight albeit much smaller & seemingly getting under control - however at this point everyone could have been off down the left chutes

had the AFS NOT been well on their way already to 777 as she was slowing to a stop and were another minute longer then the huge fire pooling under the aircraft in my opinion would have seen a very different outcome - pure luck the fire service was already on a shout and were half way to the runway as they were called to attend the 777

if they had had to wait for the fire crews and engines to be readied and started up and leave the fire station then the 777 would have been well on fire by the time they had got there

the SQ crew had given a negative reply on descent to ATC if they wanted the emergency services waiting for their the return to Changi

Orange future

30th Jun 2016, 18:03

Its interesting to read several posters here suggesting that remaining onboard may be a safer option during an external fire than evacuating pax into a hazardous situation. I guess it puts a lot of faith in the RFF.

The various training events/sims/crm's etc I have been involved in with several airlines over the years have only ever trained to evacuate in the event of fire.

Can someone point me in the direction of some study/document/guidance/publication that argues that it may be safer in some circumstances to remain onboard? When exactly is a fire considered under control?

I first became aware of this line of thinking when reading the report into the QF 380 incident in SIN. Apparently the skipper did no want to evac the pax because of the possibility of fire breaking out. But isnt that the exact reason you would WANT to evacuate?

Piltdown Man

30th Jun 2016, 18:51

...have only ever trained to evacuate in the event of fire.

Unfortunately, this is the case for most of us. But I believe a 'one-size-fits-all' approach to fire is not appropriate. An evacuation is one possibility, sitting tight is another. The important thing is that for the former to be a viable solution you need to have information about the location and extent of your fire and have faith in the RFF crew attending.

But isn't that the exact reason you would WANT to evacuate?

Yes and no. The basic problem is that it is very difficult for the fire crews to put out fires whilst people are evacuating an aircraft. At a CAT 10 airport foam is capable of being discharged at a rate in excess of 11,000 litres per minute. That may have to stop to prevent evacuating passengers from being injured, thus jeopardising those still on board. Fire or frying pan?

PM

PAXboy

30th Jun 2016, 18:55

The only certainty is that the Changi RFF are good.

Looking again at the China 120 at Naha, the video recording is at 4.29 before the first appliance shows up and the 738 was well alight before the recording starts. To be fair, once they are on site, they operate extremely well and contain the fire within the first two minutes.

BugSmasher1960

30th Jun 2016, 20:42

I first became aware of this line of thinking when reading the report into the QF 380 incident in SIN. Apparently the skipper did no want to evac the pax because of the possibility of fire breaking out. But isnt that the exact reason you would WANT to evacuate?

From the captain of that flight's book:

"Behind me, one of the pilots asked why we weren't doing an emergency evacuation. It was a good question. We looked at all the threats and considered all our options, and we ultimately came to a conclusion and I made the decision. My decision was simple: where are the passengers safest right now; inside or outside? Given the current situation with no fire I thought the passengers and crew were safer inside the fuselage than evacuating down the slides onto the dangerous runway.

We had wheelchair passengers and babies onboard, and I knew the elderly passengers would be injured descending the slides and some would break their legs and hips as the slid to the bottom of the steep evacuation slides. Other passengers in a panic would jump from the aircraft, down the same slides, the concertina into the injured. I figured that 5% of the passengers would have fractures escaping from the lower deck slides, 10 percent from the upper deck slides; that would equate to 30 fracture cases with our 440 passenger load. But it gets worse. The passengers who survived the slides would run the risk of slipping over on fuel or foam, or could become confused and walk in front of engine 1 that was still running and be sucked into it. Passengers who had survived to this stage might walk through jet fuel, creating a spark or taking flash photography and igniting the fuel. Even if all passengers did get off safely, then we would have the dangerous situation of all the passengers being outside and all the supervising staff being inside the aircraft. Who would be monitoring the passengers at this time? A friend of mine commanded an evacuation of his aircraft in Osaka. After the passengers cleared the slides they ran away from the aircraft and some ran on to an active runway where a Boeing 747 was making another emergency landing.

We had a discussion rather than an argument about it. Harry pointed at the last images to display: the wheels on the left body landing gear had reached 900 deg C - they were getting hotter, but there was no fire."

HamishMcBush

30th Jun 2016, 21:00

Off-road or not, they were driving very slow on the pavement, as if they were positioning.

Probably because they had been advised that the plane had already radioed in to say that emergency services were not required on landing. At that time, little did anybody know that just after touching down a fire would start. Maybe with an update that the AFS were already "in action" on the ground, the decision was made that it would be safer to keep all PAX onboard so that the fire could be tackled with maximum effect and without having to worry about stray (and possibly disoriented) people around the plane.

Full details of the whole drama are needed before we can criticise or commend those on the flight deck for not ordering an evacuation

SloppyJoe

30th Jun 2016, 21:51

You have got to be kidding right? Look at the picture taken by a passenger on the first page of this thread.

I really hope you are not in a job where making any sort of critical decision is required.

tonytales

30th Jun 2016, 22:04

Let me write as a Tech Manager who personally stopped and evacuation:
An EAL DC8-51 had a RMLG downlock failure coming into KJFK. I went out to a runway with the NY Port Authority Fire Chief and viewed a flypast with binoculars and saw the right gear swinging free. So a landing was planned. Crash trucks all lined up and I with the Fire Chief at approach end of the runway. It was then I realized, to avoid blocking the active, they were landing on a runway with a stiff crosswind that was blowing the aircraft toward the bad gear. I protested to the Chief but things were all gelled.
The aircraft went by us and we turned and followed it at full bore. A/C touched smoothly, rolled for a bit and then the RMLG walked in under the fuselage and down she went on Nbr. 3 and 4 engines still going at a fair rate of speed.
Sparks, smoke bits but the plane stayed straight and as it came to a stop Nbr 4 engine decided to catch fire. By then the PONYA fire people had caught up and the engine disappeared under a mountain of foam. I mean that literally.
I jumped out of the car and saw the chutes properly coming out on the port (windward) side and none on the fire side. However, the stiff wind blew them under the fuselage before they really inflated so essentially, there was no usable chute as they were curled under the fuselage. I happened to be Chief of my local volunteer fire department so had some understanding of when a fire is out. I looked up and saw (a DC-8 was a tall aircraft) that it was impossible to use them chutes but I could see the pax upstairs were ready to go. A Flight Attendant was in the door looking horrified. I waved my arms, screamed at them - "Stay - Stay - there is no fire". - I was at the aft slide, I ran forward and stopped the forward evacuation too, they had the same problem. Some people were on the wing and I yelled for them to stay there, no danger.
Later, the Fire Chief asked me if I had the authority to stop an evacuation. I told him I was the Senior Ground Person (a General Foreman) from Eastern Air Lines on the ground and that he would have had dead bodies or extreme trauma victims now if I hadn't stopped them.
Each situation is unique. You have to use some judgment. However if there had been an active fire (say a puncture in the wing feeding fuel) I would have grabbed the bottom of the chutes and pulled them out to the port side so they could have been used.
Staying in a plane with an exterior fire is daft unless the exterior fire surrounds the aircraft. Then you can only pray the fire service can make a path.
And I say God Bless the Fire Services.

Stu B

30th Jun 2016, 23:12

Seems a good reason for installing fin-mounted (and other) external surveillance cameras so the Captain has the best possible understanding of what is really happening outside.

BugSmasher1960

30th Jun 2016, 23:18

Staying in a plane with an exterior fire is daft unless the exterior fire surrounds the aircraft.

Perhaps.

Would it still be daft to initiate an evacuation if you had grounds to believe there was more than a slight chance of fire surrounding the slides before everyone could have been evacuated?

In the situation where the captain knew there was a fire - had every reason to conclude that it was due to leaking fuel (which spreads on ground contact) - knew that help from an extremely capable response unit was around a minute away - why is it not a logical decision to use the short-term safety of the cabin knowing that (a) rescue services are capable of delivering a mother-load of foam on the fire and (b) knowing that rescue services will prioritize the safety of the evacuees should they need to leave the safety of the cabin?

In summary:

EVACUATION:

- Known fuel leakage

- Rescue services not on scene yet

- Unknown if passengers will be engulfed in pool of burning fuel before evacuation completed

- Unknown if opening door will expose them to more danger

NON-EVACUATION

- Known that hull is sealed and can provide short-term protection

- Known that extremely capable rescue services are seconds away.

End of the day it's a judgement call. Risks either way. In the case of a cabin / cargo fire then for sure - get the heck out of there. In the case of a wing fire - not necessarily that cut and dried IMHO. If anything that Chinese example impressed me as to how well the cabin held up for quite some time; one of the big differences there being the length of time it took for rescue services to start the foam.

YRP

1st Jul 2016, 01:06

I seriously doubt fire rescue was waiting, they would be much closer standing by.

There is one fire station to their left on Changi Road. But initial response came from terminal side using rapid taxiway in the opposite direction, making it a long drive.

Off-road or not, they were driving very slow on the pavement, as if they were positioning.

It is really hard to judge speed in a video taken from such a low angle. Something can cover a lot of distance in the towards/away from camera direction without much change in angular position.

I'll bet they was motorin' it.

ACMS

1st Jul 2016, 02:09

Stu B:--- It's been said before many times but I'll say it again.
The 777-300ER IS fitted with a ground manoeuvre camera system that allows the crew to see the inboard section of the right wing. They would have been able to see that fire ok. Unless the GMCS was inop.......

armchairpilot94116

1st Jul 2016, 06:17

Remaining on this Ci plane and waiting for the trucks to put out the fire wouldn't have worked. There is very little time to spare when on fire.

https://www.google.com/search?q=pictures+of+china+airlines+naha+fire&espv=2&biw=960&bih=528&tbm=isch&imgil=spCH204bx0S9FM%253A%253BxpbtnPGNNtntXM%253Bhttp%25253A %25252F%25252Fwww.gettyimages.com%25252Fdetail%25252Fnews-photo%25252Ffire-fighters-in-fire-extinguish-operation-on-the-china-news-photo%25252F498005168&source=iu&pf=m&fir=spCH204bx0S9FM%253A%252CxpbtnPGNNtntXM%252C_&usg=__iyZLQz1QIygVfcAQbTxX8ewPwp4%3D&ved=0ahUKEwjAjOrJx9HNAhWL64MKHZS0AZAQyjcIPQ&ei=IAN2V8D8LYvXjwSU6YaACQ#imgrc=spCH204bx0S9FM%3A

https://s31.postimg.org/a54ct14uz/498005168.jpg (https://postimage.org/)image upload no compression (https://postimage.org/)

Perhaps it should be standard procedure in an EMERGENCY / NON STANDARD landing to :

1. Come to complete stop on runway ASAP. No bothering exiting the active.
2. Shut all engines immediately.
3. Assess Situ, no fire, sit tight till Fire and Rescue can examine the aircraft.
4. Fire? EVAC ASAP even before Fire equipment arrive, at the first notice of fire, from Tower, Cabin Crew, Ground crew.

CodyBlade

1st Jul 2016, 07:41

I concur.
One cannot invent own SOP.

PAX_Britannica

1st Jul 2016, 07:58

From the captain of that flight's book:

"Behind me, one of the pilots asked why we weren't doing an emergency evacuation. It was a good question. We looked at all the threats and considered all our options, and we ultimately came to a conclusion and I made the decision. My decision was simple: where are the passengers safest right now; inside or outside? Given the current situation with no fire I thought the passengers and crew were safer inside the fuselage than evacuating down the slides onto the dangerous runway.

We had wheelchair passengers and babies onboard, and I knew the elderly passengers would be injured descending the slides and some would break their legs and hips as the slid to the bottom of the steep evacuation slides. Other passengers in a panic would jump from the aircraft, down the same slides, the concertina into the injured. I figured that 5% of the passengers would have fractures escaping from the lower deck slides, 10 percent from the upper deck slides; that would equate to 30 fracture cases with our 440 passenger load. But it gets worse. The passengers who survived the slides would run the risk of slipping over on fuel or foam, or could become confused and walk in front of engine 1 that was still running and be sucked into it. Passengers who had survived to this stage might walk through jet fuel, creating a spark or taking flash photography and igniting the fuel. Even if all passengers did get off safely, then we would have the dangerous situation of all the passengers being outside and all the supervising staff being inside the aircraft. Who would be monitoring the passengers at this time? A friend of mine commanded an evacuation of his aircraft in Osaka. After the passengers cleared the slides they ran away from the aircraft and some ran on to an active runway where a Boeing 747 was making another emergency landing.

We had a discussion rather than an argument about it. Harry pointed at the last images to display: the wheels on the left body landing gear had reached 900 deg C - they were getting hotter, but there was no fire."

Unless I missed something, the ATSB QF32 report is very thin on the subject of the evacuation decision, focussing almost entirely on the oil feed stub pipe.

All we seem to get is:
The crew’s decision to perform a precautionary disembarkation via the stairs likely provided the safest option, particularly given the low immediate safety threat and the elevated risks associated with an emergency evacuation into a potentially hazardous external environment.

Is there any more detailed review out there ?

P.s. - I mean: There is more discussion in the report of what was done, but not so much evaluation of what was done.

lurker999

1st Jul 2016, 08:28

QF32 never had a fire and had an engine that couldnt be shutdown.

seems a fair enough decision not to order an evac.

this aircraft had most of one wing burning. i cant see many similarities here.

MrSnuggles

1st Jul 2016, 09:16

Heathrow Harry

1st Jul 2016, 09:46

I'd have been sitting in the cafe at CK Tang's by the time that video finished....................

Stu B

1st Jul 2016, 11:07

Thanks. Interesting, then, (if it was serviceable) that there is no mention here of what the Captain might have seen on the installed camera system impacting on his "no evacuation" decision?
I was going to say the incident should strengthen the case for such camera systems to be fitted to all large aircraft - but if it was not used/not working/not seen to provide useful information in this case then in fact the incident rather erodes the case for fitting them a little.

notapilot15

1st Jul 2016, 11:25

I want to remind everybody that fire rescue did just fine. They can clearly be seen on this video, rushing towards the plane while it is still rolling. At 0:17 the airplane comes to a stop. The first firetruck starts dousing the ground before reaching the engine at 1:07 which would amount to 50 sec respond time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hf-QLDGgORk

Discussions about taking shortcuts crossing grass I will refer to this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jfOK8i-JKY
Fire rescue is heavy equipment. No use getting stuck in unknown territory.

And, why didn't they evacuate? Were they so confident in the aircraft they thought "it worked in Vegas, chill yo"? Another video from the cabin, brand new today!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZyrEvxiccQ

I mean, LOOK AT IT!!
Every single day professional pilots are ordering evacuations even for minor brake fires. Because FIRE doesn't follow federal regulations, flight/cabin crew or fire chief's instructions.

Once cabin fills up with smoke evacuation becomes lot more harder. There will be lot more injuries.

The video you posted is of a city fire truck. airport fire trucks are made for off road. If an airport fire rescue member thinks his/her own airport where they trained is unknown territory, they shouldn't be on that team.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCEaFhSdo88
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qi4dfqH6baI

On the third video, it appears cabin crew member saying it was fuel, interesting it goes against the spin that it was just oil.

MrSnuggles

1st Jul 2016, 11:32

Stu B

There was a post earlier in this thread with a great picture of what it looks like from the cokcpit. Right now it seems I can't find this particular post, but I saved the picture for future references. Maybe I'll upload it here, I don't know what copyright says about that though.

MrSnuggles

1st Jul 2016, 11:35

Everybody that complains about Changi airport fire rescue. They did a good job.

Here you are: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fRBj2jw3-M

notapilot:

Impressive fire rescue trucks, I say! Do they have the same ones at Changi? I hope so. Anyway, taking the paved road is certainly safer.

--------------------

EDIT: Amazing, those fire trucks. Some information here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBvzlEbbDts

2csonTriple7

1st Jul 2016, 11:36

Wow,

lucky they didn't get the dreaded "WING OFF" EICAS message.

Maybe they will install a side rear-view mirror so we can see the nacelles and wings from the cockpit.

Piltdown Man

1st Jul 2016, 11:37

I agree Stu. We now have the screens in the flight deck but hooking up cameras appears to be a huge problem. Greedy, racpacious manufacturers and Euro-muppets in EASA (& their kind worldwide) mean that installing such useful things is prohibitively expensive. Other aids to safety would be simple mirrors on terminal buildings so we could monitor what is happening around us, but again these things are considered to be impossible. Maybe because these things might give us the information to make sensible descisions by ourselves without having to resort to others. After all, you can't give power away.

PM

MrSnuggles

1st Jul 2016, 12:14

A quick google search brought up these fine examples of what you see in the cockpit.

http://www.historyofpia.com/apbhv_gs98c.jpg

http://www.swaynemartin.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/tumblr_inline_mn9ktvXuLH1rf19pb.jpg

So, should look like this somewhat.

PAX_Britannica

1st Jul 2016, 13:58

QF32 never had a fire and had an engine that couldnt be shutdown.

seems a fair enough decision not to order an evac.

Easy to say after the fact.

QF32 crew didn't think it was entirely clear cut:
We had a discussion rather than an argument about it. Harry pointed at the last images to display: the wheels on the left body landing gear had reached 900 deg C - they were getting hotter, but there was no fire."
They'd had an uncontained engine failure, disabling multiple systems, and making a lot of holes in the wing.

this aircraft had most of one wing burning. i cant see many similarities here.

It's possible to make the best decision, based on rational evaluation of all available evidence, and still lose.
It's possible to make a poor decision, given all circumstances, and still walk away.

There isn't time for a conference call involving experts in Bayesian reasoning, but perhaps SOPs are a bit of a blunt instrument in such cases.

Regards,

rog747

1st Jul 2016, 15:07

tdracer

1st Jul 2016, 16:37

It's worth remembering that those camera views of the wing are NOT being displayed during landing - rather those displays are showing the stuff you actually need to, you know, LAND THE PLANE!:ugh:

Now, after landing, and hearing that they may have a fire, it may have occurred to the flight crew to pull up the camera view - but that takes multiple keystrokes (it's not simple button push) at a time when they are dealing with an emergency and going through checklists.

My money is that checking the camera never occurred to the flight crew, or if it did it was after the event, when the fire was out, the passengers being safely evacuated, and their pulse rates had dropped below 100. Along the line of 'you know, if we'd thought about it, we could have pulled up the camera and seen just how bad the fire was' :rolleyes:

Hi_Tech

1st Jul 2016, 17:58

The massive fire after landing and the way the fire quickly engulfed the aircraft wing, clearly shows that there was a huge external fuel leak. The entire leading and trailing edges were on fire. As there are no external fuel lines in this area, how did the fuel get sprayed in all these areas. This raises the following questions.
1. Did the crew shutdown the engine on getting the "oil" low press warning.
2, If so why they elected to continue to fly to SIN when they were much closer to BKK. SOP demands that aircraft with one engine off must divert to the nearest suitable airport, which was BKK.
3. It is also possible that they did not shutdown the engine, but this resulted in the entire wing getting soaked in fuel and the ensuing fire after landing.
4. The decision not to evacuate was probably the pilot saw that the entire ground below the fuselage was on fire (as it can be seen by the stab mounted camera). There is no point in sending pax through the slides into a raging fire. If that was the reason for non-evacuation it was correct decision. But they have relied a lot on their luck, and the end result was fortunately a happy one.
5. One heck of a lucky plane load of passengers.

PAXboy

1st Jul 2016, 18:26

There are several interesting points on the phone cabin video posted by MrSnuggles. Firstly, we do not know how many seconds into the problem the recording starts but:-

We see that CC are moving pax up to the front of the a/c away from centre of fire, which must be good.
I was going to make a cynical comment, "It's good to see that the pax were taking their luggage" then heard a loud female voice say, "Take your luggage" I do hope that was not a CC.
The rear cabin is already very dark from the soot deposits on the windows but folks seem to have been mostly moved out of this section.
In the 1min 25seconds showing there are no PAs until the last second and we do not hear what it says. As stated first, we do not know what had elapsed before.

ULMFlyer

1st Jul 2016, 18:37

Watching the FLL video posted by MrSnuggles, it seems #2 was still running (see effect on L2 slide, smoke) when L1 was opened and the first passenger slid down. Soon after, it was shut down.

ecureilx

1st Jul 2016, 19:15

RFFT at Changi are very good. Well trained, good equipment and with solid procedures.
As it has been explained, RFFT will do their best outside and may recommend evacuation via radio or hand signals if radio is inop.

if they had had to wait for the fire crews and engines to be readied and started up and leave the fire station then the 777 would have been well on fire by the time they had got there

In Changi, you can pretty much always see the ARFF engines with lights on, and, about half the time we landed, saw a couple of engines doing dry runs. I am sure they have enough crew there 100% switched on, considering the number of landings and take offs. I am sure they have the engines on and ready to roll.

LookingForAJob

1st Jul 2016, 19:33

It's not my area at all - and I wasn't there so I am not seeking to criticize those involved - but I wonder whether the RFFS response was as effective as it could be. The latest video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZyrEvxiccQ - even more clearly shows extinguishing media being deployed but not appearing to have great effect.

What is the RFFS protocol for fighting a fire with these characteristics? Was it followed? Are there any alternative protocols which may have been more effective in suppressing the fire - i.e. is there something that can be learned from this already?

BugSmasher1960

1st Jul 2016, 22:06

airport fire trucks are made for off road.

My 4 wheel drive was made for off road too - but it sure went a lot faster on-road. And it didn't weigh 40 tonnes.

If an airport fire rescue member thinks his/her own airport where they trained is unknown territory, they shouldn't be on that team.

Or perhaps they DO know the terrain, which is why they avoided it?

When they're the ones who train for just these events - and no-doubt want to get to a serious fire ASAP - why do those who weren't there and aren't trained think that the professionals made such an obvious incompetent decision?

My suggestion is that they probably know more about their limitations and operational requirements than we do.

BugSmasher1960

1st Jul 2016, 22:29

looking at the underbody cockpit cameras in the post above
this FD crew would have a most clear view of the fire from the moment it started then seen the carnage that followed by the time they stopped - it was a pooling inferno under and in the RH ENG front to back and under

I'm mindful of the fact that an evacuation takes time - so the decision maker has to not only take into account the conditions as they stand at that moment, but also try to anticipate what they might be in several minutes time (especially with pooling fuel).

I like to compare it to a military war zone where you're pinned down and taking fire; knowing that kick-arse help is seconds away, does one stay in their temporary shelter or make a run for it across what may be bloodbath territory by the time everyone gets across?

Not advocating either way, but one has to trust the leader to make the best decision he can with the info he has available. He made the call to stay - and as a result no injuries. Some may say that was just good luck; perhaps - or perhaps his judgement was better than some of ours?

mickjoebill

1st Jul 2016, 22:35

In Changi, you can pretty much always see the ARFF engines with lights on,
What color are the strobes you see in Changi?

All vehicles airside are required to display flashing amber lights.

Fire tenders when responding to a call, turn on blue strobes.

Mickjoebill

parabellum

1st Jul 2016, 22:54

All good points Bugsmasher.

But they have relied a lot on their luck, and the end result was fortunately a happy one.

I believe they relied a lot on the information they had, including reports from the Fire Fighters who were on the spot and could see just what was happening.
Good and bad luck can enter any situation. Try this scenario, one of our 'heros', on this thread, who have said they would not have waited for any instructions or information but would have opened a Left door and gone. 'Hero' probably makes it down the slide as it catches fire and gets away, remaining 221 pax not so lucky, a burnt slide that, as the top end burns, will probably introduce fire into the cabin. Pax only options, either jump or open a Right door and trust their luck. Inevitably many serious injuries and possible deaths. The bad luck is having an 'Hero' on board who, despite knowing nothing, thinks they know enough to commence an evacuation that precipitates the injury and deaths of many. The good luck was that no such 'hero' was on board.

Bankstown Boy

1st Jul 2016, 23:17

I am not qualified to comment on the go/no-go decision to evacuate but having been SLF in and out of Changi hundreds of times I can state one thing with absolute clarity.

Changi is in a tropical/monsoonal climatic region. When it rains there you are not left in any doubt that rain has commenced. The volume of water is immense. Accordingly everywhere around Singapore has large and deep concrete culverts to carry the water away, Changi Airport is no exception. In fact the main channels around Changi are probably 10m wide and 4m deep.

Any fire response truck that went off-piste would probably never be useable again. I doubt you could get a main battle tank around the 'off-road' areas of Changi without an attendant Corp of army bridging engineers.

It just annoys me to read all of the ignorant tripe on here.

I have long held the view that opinions are like a..eholes - everyone has one, but they are generally only useful for one thing.

splashman

2nd Jul 2016, 00:34

Note to self, stop reading this tripe !

Capn Bloggs

2nd Jul 2016, 01:24

Note to self, stop reading this tripe !
Agree, it's like a drug, isn't it? Fuselage's going to be breached after a minute, Geez, lucky the wind was blowing that way, why aren't those idiots driving straight across the grass, surely they would have seen the fire on the screens (no, they were watching Harry Potter on the DVD)... I'm hooked, give me more!

rog747

2nd Jul 2016, 07:17

i'm mindful of the fact the under body cameras would not have been on during the landing and thanks for the heads up on that to the chap above for reminding me - but ATC would have def told them they are on fire before they had stopped so we do not know if they then switched them on but so much would have been going on who knows

i do not think many of the posts on this incident have been tripe apart from discussing crew not knowing the left/right door issue -

for once most Ppruners like me and my fellow old FD and CC crew friends have been quite shocked but kept calm about this one and we are eager to see what reports come out of it - a huge learning exercise and the videos are clearly quite gob smacking

ACMS

2nd Jul 2016, 07:57

Oh come on fellas.......if I suspected a fuel leak or Eng Fire in any Aircraft fitted with a GMCS ( Ground Manoeuvre Camera system ) of course I will switch it on ASAP after landing and most likely have had a really close look at it in flight too.

It is SOP on the 777 ( 300 300ER ) to select it on the PF's ND after landing anyway for the taxy in. It would take precisely 2 seconds to select and is a vital tool to help the decision making process for anything effecting that part of the Aircraft at any time.

mickjoebill

2nd Jul 2016, 08:09

Any fire response truck that went off-piste would probably never be useable again.

A fire tender rolled over at Gatwick 20 or so years ago when, at night, the truck inadvertently went into a drainage ditch between apron and runway.

Mickjoebill

LookingForAJob

2nd Jul 2016, 09:54

All vehicles airside are required to display flashing amber lights.

Fire tenders when responding to a call, turn on blue strobes.This is common practise but not universal. There may only be blue lights.

WingNut60

2nd Jul 2016, 10:10

My 4 wheel drive was made for off road too - but it sure went a lot faster on-road. And it didn't weigh 40 tonnes.

There are two points to the seemingly-popular "Dukes of Hazzard" approach:

1. Off tarmac at Changi at any time of the year is likely to get you into a lot of trouble - 6 x 6, 8 x 8 or whatever.
I've seen bigger machines with much lower ground bearing pressure than those fire tenders bogged to the a...hole in similar circumstances.

2. Any time-saving realised from heading off-road on the diagonal is likely to be absolutely minimal, at best. Or worse, negative advantage. And worst scenario, no-show.

I think those guys made a SAFE decision when choosing their route - probably exactly as they were trained to do.

TURIN

2nd Jul 2016, 10:12

ACMS

2nd Jul 2016, 11:00

Tdracer:--- ever flown the 777? The use of the camera is very very familiar and as said above is only ONE push of a button.

I will guarantee you unless it was INOP they used it.

If they didn't then ..........

Wild blue yonder

2nd Jul 2016, 11:17

After multiple posts it would seem that the majority of professional crew are in accord that there was the potential for an unmitigated disaster in this event. Bursting fuel and hydraulic lines coupled with exploding tyres could have seen this over in a flash... literally. Better out than in.
This is a rumor network and as such is open to opinions at all ends of the spectrum. But it be open only to professional aircrew. In my opinion I have trouble envisaging the reasons why the crew didn't put the aeroplane down at the nearest suitable airport. Period. Talk about the consequences later. And why they didn't prepare for a possible problem on arrival is mystifying. I have had 2 situations where I arranged for DD services to be available at SIN...... just in case.... suspected blown tyre and a flight control problem. Landed on 02L and 20 R respectively. Both no problem in the end but the services where there ready to do the job they train for. Mystifying.

InfrequentFlier511

2nd Jul 2016, 11:55

... extinguishing media being deployed but not appearing to have great effect.

Don't know exactly what they use, but AFFF is excellent for controlling fires involving pools of flammable liquid (where it can act true to name and form a film that smothers the flame and contains the vapour), and about as effective as water when it comes to fighting a fire within a structure. With the right equipment and provided conditions aren't too unfavourable, it can be launched over a considerable distance, which is a definite bonus when approaching a pool of burning jet fuel. A fire within a structure is always going to be a challenge, as the structure prevents the extinguishing agent from cooling or smothering what's actually burning. Off-hand, I can't think of any other agent that would have worked better in that set of circumstances.

Capt Ecureuil

2nd Jul 2016, 12:02

Dunno if anyone has posted this one but I haven't seen it before.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5B8QrpudpA

avionimc

2nd Jul 2016, 12:30

Everybody that complains about Changi airport fire rescue. They did a good job.
Here you are: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fRBj2jw3-M
Absolutely! Great job and perfect outcome.

What is striking in the above 2015 Ft. Lauderdale evacuation video is that the PAX are all over the taxiway, directly in the way of the fast moving fire rescue trucks, and at great risk of being hit or run-over.

Separately, at about 2 min 06 sec in the video, the fire truck arriving on the LH side of the screen, does not seem to be very effective, as its foam jet doesn't appear to reach the aircraft. Any insight on this?

MrSnuggles

2nd Jul 2016, 12:39

Wild blue yonder
In my opinion I have trouble envisaging the reasons why the crew didn't put the aeroplane down at the nearest suitable airport. Period. Talk about the consequences later. And why they didn't prepare for a possible problem on arrival is mystifying. I have had 2 situations where I arranged for DD services to be available at SIN...... just in case.... suspected blown tyre and a flight control problem. Landed on 02L and 20 R respectively.

Simple answer. The first hint of a problem was an engine oil warning. The fire started when the airplane was on the verge of touching down, or had already touched down (informations are a bit unclear on this). On multiple occasions I have concluded that from total stop until first dousing of engine it took about 50 sec. Obviously the crew had demanded some aid.

There is an ATC snippet in one of these posts where the crew does not seem overly concerned. However, if you follow their path, you can conclude that this exchange took place around the time they decided to turn back. Obviously, again, more information could arrive at the flight deck during the flight back to base. We have NOT heard any ATC conversation between airplane and tower/ground/rescue services yet.

The only thing that is really really puzzling is why the #€%&" there was no evacuation. From several cabin shots, the latest provided by Capt Ecureuil, it is clearly obvious that the fire was plain and easy for all cabin crew to see and there could be no doubts that an emergency was unfolding. Unfortunately the link from Capt Ecureuil ends just when the PA announcement starts. I really hope someone has caught that announcement on another video!

lomapaseo

2nd Jul 2016, 14:12

Jet Jockey A4

2nd Jul 2016, 15:15

Capt Ecureuil's link to a new video from inside the aircraft is very disturbing...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5B8QrpudpA

It starts out by a shouting FA saying "we need to move", later that same person says "leave your luggage and move straight up ????"

You can clearly see a FA blocking the way to an exit where the fire is raging and I have to assume she was probably the one giving commands to the passengers.

What I can't understand is why it is pitch black in the aircraft?

Why were the lights or even the emergency lights not turned on?

Although it is pitch black, the entertainment systems are still operational leaving me to believe there was some AC power on the aircraft, why?

Near the end of the video as the person moves forward, is that the left hand engine that we hear?

And it almost seems to me that a door must be open to hear in that way, so was one of the left hand side doors opened at some point?

Why would that engine still be running? Is that a B777-300 emergency check list requirement?

I find this incident and the way the crew responded to it very unusual and disturbing and it leaves more questions to be answered.

Although I'm glad no one got hurt or died from it I think there was a lot of luck involved.

Hoping that all the facts will be forthcoming soon.

MrSnuggles

2nd Jul 2016, 16:03

Ok, more information for those in need:

Fire in engine:

http://www.flight.org/r/2015/09/540/b777-engine-fire-checklist.jpg

And evacuation:

http://www.flight.org/r/2015/09/540/boeing-777-avacuation-checklist.jpg

Both checklists found from the Vegas incident. Obviously the evacuation checklist wasn't used here.

Jet Jockey A4

2nd Jul 2016, 16:08

Wouldn't be more prudent in this case to have shut down both engines and started the EVAC Check list?

rcsa

2nd Jul 2016, 17:28

It seems to me that the commenting community on this thread breaks down broadly into three groups:

1) A large majority of non-professionals who can't understand why the Captain didn't order an evac, don't know why the fire trucks didn't go over the grass, can't imagine why the pax didn't beat the CC out of the way and exit pronto...

2) An (assumed, since silent) number of professionals who are not saying anything at all.

3) A very small number of professionals who are saying, well, why don't we wait till we have had a chance to hear from the chap who actually made the decision, and the facts he had at his disposal when he made that decision, before we leap to any hasty conclusions...

I'm not a professional pilot, or firefighter, or AT Controller, or airport manager. But I think I know how to listen. Fun as it is to follow the thread, personally, I'm with (3) on this one. The most important thing is that, whether by luck, good judgement, or a combination of both, no one died.

MrSnuggles

2nd Jul 2016, 17:58

NEW FOOTAGE FROM THIS INCIDENT!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_O4QGpq0O5A

Pitch black in the cabin - except for fire light!

PA announcements to remain seated "for your safety". Surprisingly relaxed cabin.

Inflight entertainment system appears still working.

Julio747

2nd Jul 2016, 20:07

Nowadays SLF but before, UK RAF.

But as someone who lives in sing I can tell you that fire trucks taking a short cut would not have turned out well.

I can also say, re the latest videos posted, the voice attributed to an FA is not an FA. That is a filipina accent. SQ uses sing staff. Totally different accent. It was a passenger. Good point she made, but not an SQ FA.

Bottom line. Me. Evac evac. There is no escaping the obvious. What the report might say is one thing. But I am 99.9% sure the guys at the pointy end will be looking for new jobs..... Rightly so.

PersonFromPorlock

2nd Jul 2016, 21:54

Wageslave

2nd Jul 2016, 21:54

Pitch black cabin indicates both engines were shut down. In a fire drill only the affected engine is shut down. The only logical explanation I can see for both engines to be shut down (or have I got this wrong??) is that the evac checklist was taken at least to that point.

Where does that leave us?

rcsa

2nd Jul 2016, 22:23

Since the other videos shot in the cabin don't show a pitch black cabin, my guess (as an ex professional cameraman) is that this most recent video was shot on a camera that had the exposure set to manual, and on a high f-stop (the digital equivalent, obviously). But now I am speculating, which is precisely what I whinged about others doing just now..

And my apologies, MrSnuggles, I wasn't barking at you in particular. I wasn't really barking at all...

Jet Jockey A4

2nd Jul 2016, 22:29

@ Wageslave

How are you sure the left engine was shut down?

External videos seem to show, that the landing lights are ON, the beacon is ON etc.

In the latest video in my previous post it sure seems the LH engine is running because you can hear what I think is an engine. Also if the onboard entertainment system is still operational, would you not need AC power on the aircraft? Could it be the APU is running?

In any case, if there is any AC power on the aircraft, why were the interior lights not turned ON?

Jet Jockey A4

2nd Jul 2016, 22:42

@ rcsa...

Don't want to get into a pissing contest with you but that cabin is pitch black except for a few lights.

rcsa

2nd Jul 2016, 23:20

Jet Jockey, exposure is a funny thing, especially on phone cameras. I suspect it wasn't as dark in the cabin as that vid makes it look, having seen the other videos of the incident shot both internally and externally. Early morning and overcast, for sure, so it wasn't bright daylight. But the human eye is (if I recall) something like a thousand times more sensitive to light than a phone camera. Just because the camera shows the scene as dark, doesn't mean the human eye would see it like that.

That said, the billowing black smoke from the starboard side would certainly have reduced the ambient light. But have a look at the images on this video SIA flight catches fire while making emergency landing in Singapore - Channel NewsAsia (http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/sia-flight-catches-fire/2907544.html) - there are some better-exposed stills from inside the cabin around 00:30.

Of course I don't know what it was really like in the cabin, and I absolutely don't want to get into a pissing contest! My point is simply that we shouldn't necessarily trust phone camera footage on youtube, shot by someone under extreme duress, to give a true indication of light levels in the cabin as they were actually perceived by the human eye.

BugSmasher1960

2nd Jul 2016, 23:26

I wouldn't have asked this forty years ago, but: Suppose so many of the PAX were calm because it simply didn't occur to them that they were in danger? A great many of the comments I see on line (but not here) show a delusion that the physical world is so thoroughly under human control that if somebody doesn't make or allow something to happen, it doesn't happen. So while a fire outside is a problem for people outside, nobody is going to let it come inside - so, no problem inside.

Or am I just a paleoflatus grumbling about 'kids these days'?

Here's the $6,000,000 question: "How much danger WHERE these passengers in, in this SPECIFIC set of circumstances"?

- KNOWING that (up to 6?) state of the art fire-fighting appliances - capable of delivering a mother-load of foam to the fire - are less than a minute away.

- KNOWING that the cabin would provide protection for a short-time (odds on until rescue services were on-scene)

- NOT KNOWING if passengers may be killed by burning pooling fuel by the time the evacuation was COMPLETE (not initiated; one has to try and extrapolate what conditions will be like in a couple of minutes time)

I'd suggest that in this case that there may be a greater chance of passengers being safer the way it was done.

In my opinion, it's not comparable to the Air China B738 where fire-services took around FIVE minutes to get the foam flowing.

If the captain DIDN'T know that fire services would be there in a matter of a few seconds then - in my opinion - that would be a game changer and an evacuation would be the obvious choice. But if he DID know how close they were then to me that changes things.

I'm reminded of a pyromaniac running our local fire dept ragged by lighting plastic rubbish bins - one after the other. Brigade went through the same "SOP" - turn-up - on-board hose reel - extinguish - about 6 in a row. When attending the 7th, did he do the same thing? Nope - he grabbed a dry powder extinguisher this time. Why? This bin was attached to a pole with 230v running through a cable for an overhead light. Point I'm trying to make is that he had the presence of mind to break from the obvious & common solution and realise that in this specific set of circumstances things needed to be done slightly differently.

blimey

2nd Jul 2016, 23:37

Kiwiconehead

2nd Jul 2016, 23:43

But as someone who lives in sing I can tell you that fire trucks taking a short cut would not have turned out well.

I would have to agree with that - I remember many years ago at Hobsonville (grass field) in Auckland, a Bell 47 messed up an auto and chopped the tailboom off - the fire appliance at Hobby was one of the Unipower tender rather than the off road appliance normally there.

The appliance launched out of the fire station straight across the grass where it became bogged up to it's axles and there it remained for a day until it was dug out.

Those fire crews know that airport, if none of them drove on the grass it was for a good reason.

BugSmasher1960

2nd Jul 2016, 23:43

@ rcsa...

Don't want to get into a pissing contest with you but that cabin is pitch black except for a few lights.

Most cameras will bias the exposure to limit over-exposure of the brightest portion of the scene (put someone in front of a window and then take a photo to see what I mean).

But with fires, typically you'll get a lot of yellow (as the red channel in the camera saturates, but the exposure is set with the expectation of a more even colour temperature). Inside where the ambient light is shielded by the majority of the cabin - it will appear very dark unless cabin lighting is on to balance the shot.

In essence, what you're seeing is under-exposure of the cabin and over-exposure of the flames.

(professional photographer here)

BugSmasher1960

2nd Jul 2016, 23:50

As a pro, it doesn't matter what the fire services may at some stage be capable of, you have an uncontained fire, you're sat in an aluminium tube, you have lots of flammable liquids contained therein. You have to evacuate. No ifs no buts, you have to get out. There is no other advice doing the training rounds which is contrary to that.

Except that a lot of that "flammable liquid contained within" may not actually be contained within (it may be running out and under the aircraft).

Here's a question: "If you had reason to believe that the fuel was pooling under the aircraft - and was on fire - and was spreading - would you still initiate an evacuation if you knew that the slides would be burning almost immediately, or would you "tough it out" and remain inside if you could see 6 state of the art appliances 500m away"?

737er

3rd Jul 2016, 00:04

https://youtu.be/-qyZFASOAe0

spinex

3rd Jul 2016, 00:26

Quoting rcsa It seems to me that the commenting community on this thread breaks down broadly into three groups:

I take it you know the old aviator's saw in relation to assuming things? My straw poll of professional pilots has the majority saying that unless there was some circumstance or information which no-one has yet disclosed, they would have evacuated - the potential downside of sitting tight outweighing the risks of an evacuation. Admittedly these are people who fly for a variety of major, first world airlines, your mileage may vary elsewhere in the world.

BugSmasher1960

3rd Jul 2016, 00:34

https://youtu.be/-qyZFASOAe0

Out of curiosity, anyone know why the pilots exited via the cockpit windows rather than take the fwd slides?

vapilot2004

3rd Jul 2016, 00:43

Cabin light comments:

The videos suggest either one engine or the APU is running as IFE is powered (AC only).

Emergency lights on the 777 are self powered and come on automatically if the main DC busses lose power. They can be manually activated by CC or from the flight deck. Since the aircraft appears to have AC power, the DC busses are also powered, so the automatic function would not activate. While the cabin emergency lights are not all that bright, the parts of the videos that show the dividers and seats along the aisle suggest definitively they are not on.

WingNut60

3rd Jul 2016, 00:58

Nowadays SLF but before, UK RAF.

............. I am 99.9% sure the guys at the pointy end will be looking for new jobs..... Rightly so.

Julio, you are quite correct about the fire tender routing and the possible / probable consequences of off-roading at Changi.

And I have no idea whether the crew made the right decision concerning evacuation, or not. I do not know all the circumstances.
But, do you really think that termination of employment is the appropriate outcome for a crew that makes a judgement call that may later be analysed to have been incorrect or inappropriate under the circumstances, even though the only real consequence from that judgement call was that nobody broke a hip?

Metro man

3rd Jul 2016, 04:30

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.

LapSap

3rd Jul 2016, 04:49

kaikohe76

3rd Jul 2016, 05:37

Metro Man

I agree with you completely. Even though I love Singapore it'self & the people, I would also have to agree with the post from Lap Sap,which mentions the question of over confidence on some issues.

BugSmasher1960

3rd Jul 2016, 06:01

Isn't that the point? If he's Singaporean he won't be questioning himself at all probably.
From my aviation related dealings with them, they are extremely confident of their abilities, to the point of over-confidence.
On paper they look to be one of the leaders but when put to the test, they fail miserably.

Isn't there a certain irony here?

An entire race of pilots has been judged as having "confidence to the point of over-confidence" and yet - without having been involved in this particular situation - or having had access to the information he did - or even knowing the guy - you feel over-confident enough to pass judgement on him as if to say "your judgement is better than his".

andrasz

3rd Jul 2016, 06:10

20 pages down the line we still don' have the slightest clue about the key question:
Was there a conscious decision not to evacuate, or was this a case of lack of action with nobody making a decision ?

We all get paid to make informed and educated decisions in unexpected and sometimes stressful situations, a part of that is also to think outside the box if necessary. If the first were the case, the occupants of the pointy end will certainly have some explaining to do, but until the circumstances are known they would have my full benefit of doubt. The second case however in inexcusable.

Old Fella

3rd Jul 2016, 06:51

The Saudi Air L1011 accident in 1980 could potentially been repeated in Changi. It may have been previously mentioned on this thread. If so I apologise. If not, the link below will take you to the lesson to be learned.
http://lessonslearned.faa.gov/ll_main.cfm?TabID=3&LLID=27

armchairpilot94116

3rd Jul 2016, 07:58

http://www.safetyinengineering.com/FileUploads/Human%20behaviour%20in%20a%20crisis%20-%20Saudia%20163_1369664909_2.pdf

L1011 Saudia incident was not the same. Flames and smoke already evident inside by the time the plane landed. The crew may already have been compromised mentally and not working at optimum.

The SQ flight crew were not compromised mentally by smoke. But the worry is if they "froze" and didn't make a conscious decision to NOT evacuate and LET things happen without taking the event into their own hands.

vapilot2004

3rd Jul 2016, 07:59

Was there a conscious decision not to evacuate, or was this a case of lack of action with nobody making a decision ?

I've stayed out of second-guessing the flight deck and I'm not agreeing nor disagreeing as I have no access to all of the facts as were known at the time, but I would imagine the decision was made to Hold to evacuate with previously briefed Fire Services on the way and emergency stairs enroute.

ACMS

3rd Jul 2016, 08:02

Boy I love this talk about those wonderful emergency stairs as if they are the answer to all your prayers in EVAC situations.....

vapilot2004

3rd Jul 2016, 09:11

Boy I love this talk about those wonderful emergency stairs as if they are the answer to all your prayers in EVAC situations.....

I realize even a wide set of stairs will be slower to a degree, but clearly safer than slides, ACMS, if you have the time and access to a set or two. Perhaps Utility Stairs would be a better term for the sake of argument.

Meanwhile, no smoke in the cabin, seemed all pretty orderly to me, CC standing by doors. That said, I also agree with previous comments that they were all pretty lucky, considering.

Wageslave

3rd Jul 2016, 09:26

Funny old thing and maybe it is paleoflatus but I've been musing over the differing stances people here take over the evac buisness.

Until a week ago, before this incident, I am quite certain that out of every 100 Professional pilots who have had sim training something like 98% would have evacuated at the first sign of fire (and the other 2% would have failed the sim check) yet here we are with (apart from far too many punters, spotters and groupies) Professional pilots in their droves questioning the Holy Cow of evacuation in the event of fire. Why the sudden change of mind? Could it be that pilots are just as easily led as the general public and as soon as they see an event - even in the work environment that apparently does not conform to their norms and laws but works OK they chuck out the norm/law and embrace the lottery-win process instead? Could it be ant-establishmentarianism aka basic human cussedness? Either way its a bit of a worry that so many seem to feel the unquestioned norm is suddenly so faulty. Why hadn't they vocalised their beliefs before this event? If evacuation is felt optional in the face of a massive fire how come we never even knew anyone thought this before? (Please don't mention pilot's discretion, that's not the issue)

Something for the psychologists to look at perhaps.

mickjoebill

3rd Jul 2016, 09:31

This is common practise but not universal. There may only be blue lights.

Which countries allow fire trucks to manoeuvre with blue lights in non emergency situations?

I could image Italy(!)

Mickjoebill

ManaAdaSystem

3rd Jul 2016, 10:15

Until a week ago, before this incident, I am quite certain that out of every 100 Professional pilots who have had sim training something like 98% would have evacuated at the first sign of fire (and the other 2% would have failed the sim check) yet here we are with (apart from far too many punters, spotters and groupies) Professional pilots in their droves questioning the Holy Cow of evacuation in the event of fire. Why the sudden change of mind? Could it be that pilots are just as easily led as the general public and as soon as they see an event - even in the work environment that apparently does not conform to their norms and laws but works OK they chuck out the norm/law and embrace the lottery-win process instead? Could it be ant-establishmentarianism aka basic human cussedness? Either way its a bit of a worry that so many seem to feel the unquestioned norm is suddenly so faulty. Why hadn't they vocalised their beliefs before this event? If evacuation is felt optional in the face of a massive fire how come we never even knew anyone thought this before? (Please don't mention pilot's discretion, that's not the issue)

:D I agree.
I get the feeling I now have to assess how small a fire is before I decide to evacuate. The smaller the fire, the greater the urgency?
A lot of things don't add up in this very lucky escape.
The words: Accidental hero, springs to mind.

Huck

3rd Jul 2016, 10:37

This discussion reminds me of the collision of two Northwest Airlines aircraft in Detroit in 1990.

The aircraft on takeoff roll, a 727, sustained damage on one wingtip. The captain brought the aircraft to a stop and immediately ordered the flight engineer down the rear airstairs to make a visual inspection. The FE reported no flames or fuel leaks, so the captain did not order an emergency evacuation.

The captain was subsequently violated by the FAA for that decision.

ManaAdaSystem

3rd Jul 2016, 10:48

And that compares to the SIA accident how?

Huck

3rd Jul 2016, 10:54

A captain decided not to immediately evacuate, and was punished for it. Too oblique?

ManaAdaSystem

3rd Jul 2016, 11:01

Yes. Two very different situations.
He had a spare set of eyes to use, good call, but all he had to do was open the window and look.
A lot of pilots seem to think the cockpit windows are welded shut.

Farrell

3rd Jul 2016, 13:46

The captain was subsequently violated by the FAA for that decision.

Did they use lube?

Machrihanish

3rd Jul 2016, 13:53

It was meant to hurt.

Yaw String

3rd Jul 2016, 16:13

Not sure where you would place me,in the group of commenters...

22,000 plus hours..and here is my final one...

OMG!!!!!!!

KelvinD

3rd Jul 2016, 18:25

Old Fella,
Yes, I mentioned it way back in post #195.
Someone responded with a remark that the fire started in the passenger cabin. It didn't. It started in a cargo hold.
I made my comment on the grounds that it seems possible the SIA pilot had no idea of a fuel leak when he landed. And it may not have been a fuel fire (equally, it may have been). A separate investigation here in the UK showed the cause of that fire may well have been down to a pin-hole leak in a hydraulic line, resulting in hydraulic fluid spraying out as a high pressure aerosol, soaking in to the lagging/insulation surrounding a duct that ran through the cargo hold, starting a fire that was sustained by the continued aerosol of hydraulic fluid. So, it is possible the fire seen along the wing may have been fuelled by leaking hydraulic fluid.
Armchairpilot; the Saudia crew certainly were compromised, but not by smoke. One of the 3 crew on the flight deck was dyslexic.
I know because I was there.

RatherBeFlying

3rd Jul 2016, 20:24

The YT of the 37 fire in Okinawa posted several times on this thread offers several observations:

The slides do not ignite easily:ok: Note the starboard rear slide remains inflated adjacent to the flaming fuel pool until well after fuselage collapse.
The flaming fuel pool at the beginning of the evacuation is a mere fraction of the size it reaches after evacuation has been completed.
Slides on both sides were used. Again the small extent of the fire early on allowed this whereas later on at least two exits were compromised.
All pax and crew were mobile after taking a slide.
Many pax had no idea where to go and quite a few headed into unappreciated hazard areas.
Waiting for clearance from the fire crew before initiating evacuation in this case would have resulted in many fatalities.

armchairpilot94116

3rd Jul 2016, 22:01

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5B8QrpudpA

Very clear view of what was happening. These passengers were brave ! I would most likely have thought it would be a good time to panic.

Notice the smiling stewardess blocking the door.
(good call that)

IF that fire wasn't big enough for an evac, what would be?

Stuart Sutcliffe

3rd Jul 2016, 22:33

... the Saudia crew certainly were compromised, but not by smoke. One of the 3 crew on the flight deck was dyslexic.
I know because I was there. Blimey! :ooh:

KelvinD, were you in the airline, or did you just happen know of that crew member's problem?

nose,cabin

3rd Jul 2016, 23:15

Lessons for us all.
This forum is very thought provoking. Many excellent posts.

Unlike some airlines the policy of an initial ( before engine start ) Captains'. "welcome on board " PA.
By the captain introducing himself and his voice is then recognized, is a wise practice.

Imagine if a passenger decided to call out loudly "evacuate "
No one would know the sound of the captains' voice if no introduction was made.

gtseraf

4th Jul 2016, 00:58

I just don't get it, cabin crew member has her best "there is no problem but I'm S&^^$^G myself smile on, people are nonchalantly taking there baggage down from the overhead stowages. I do hear one or two people, quite anxiously saying "we need to move", so some of them get it.

They were VERY lucky this did not escalate into a catastrophic event with many fatalities.

having said that, I believe the crew cannot see the wing from the flight deck, so they are reliant on reports/observations from the cabin and the tower/RFF staff.

I wonder how much info the crew were getting, I don't believe Boeing have got a "wing on fire" warning on the 777 just yet.

TURIN

4th Jul 2016, 01:19

It has cameras pointing at the wings. See above.

aviator_38

4th Jul 2016, 01:36

Hello

Ref #424

Is it possible that the "fire along the wing" may actually be flames from a fire on the ground, showing through the gaps of the extended slats ? Just a thought.

Cheers

mickjoebill

4th Jul 2016, 01:36

1/ Passengers have said the reason the pilot gave for the turnback was an oil leak.
2/ The fire started on landing.

3/ We have heard (and assume) from ATC recording that there was no call for fire tenders prior to landing.

4/The Fire service's fast response was rumoured to be due to a coincidence, because they were already responding to another call.
(Indeed they were in motion before the aircraft stopped)

It seems logical that both passengers and pilot considered the fire an engine oil fire, rather than a more volitile fuel fire.

Perhaps this is why passengers were not panicked?

If this was the case and given the pilots could see that fire tenders were 60 seconds away it seems the initial decision not to evacuate was based on these factors.

If the engine with the leak had been shut down, presumably it would not have been used for braking, if so what could have been the source of ignition?

Mickjoebill

Old Fella

4th Jul 2016, 01:44

KelvinD, thank you. I am aware of the history of the Saudi L1011 accident, not because I was there but because in an earlier time in my life I was a L1011 Flight Engineer. I note the comment where it is said that the SIA crew may have been compromised. They may have been, but they should not have been. If there was any hint of smoke in the cockpit they should have donned their O2 masks as an immediate action. Not knowing the facts makes it unwise to judge the crew, however it is difficult to understand why an evacuation was not ordered.

mickjoebill

4th Jul 2016, 03:05

Comparing all the onboard videos, the cabin strip lights appear to be in standard dimmed/off mode after landing.

So it was dim but not "pitch black" as suggested earlier. The giveaway is that the video screens and exit signs are under exposed.

One of the reasons cabin lights are dimmed is to allow a clearer view outside to assess hazards, by eliminating reflections from the cabin.
The other reason is to allow eyes to adapt to dim light so crew or passengers can better see outside to assess hazards.

But the images of SIA passengers being moved away from the effected part of the cabin in such dim light, draws attention to the compromises of the current arrangements.

Namely, one has to untangle oneself from headphones seatbelts and get to the door without tripping.

One video has a passenger using his cellphone led light, perhaps as much to find his way as to aid filming. You will note he says sorry as he goes back to his seat and so blocks the aisle. He blocks the aisle again 30 seconds later in business class.
http://youtu.be/dAUwItTw4AI

It takes 5-10 minutes for a 100x increase in our Night vision, but this can be lost in a few seconds by just a brief flash of light.

So allowing passengers to view the bright screens from smartphones during a night landing makes a mockery of the existing procedures!

Also passengers will use the cellphone inbuilt torch during a lights out emergency, dazzling each other and resetting eyes to day vision.

It is only the area adjacent doors that need to be dimmed to prevent reflections.

Time for a rethink?

Mickjoebill

Ian W

4th Jul 2016, 03:16

MickJoeBill:
"One of the reasons cabin lights are dimmed is to allow a clearer view outside to assess hazards, by eliminating reflections from the cabin.
The other reason is to allow eyes to adapt to dim light so crew or passengers can better see outside to assess hazards."

The cabin crew in summer routinely tell pax to close the blinds so the aircraft stays cool. Any blinds that are left open are shut by the first pax boarding so their view of their tablet/smartphone is not compromised. When the lights go off taxiing out for takeoff, pax are told they can switch on their overhead lights if they want to continue reading.

It would seem that the flight safety aspects that you quote are routinely disregarded by the aircraft operators. Ideally, blinds should all be open for takeoff and landing and no lights apart from dimmed guide lights illuminated in the cabin.

Flying these days is more like being in the cargo hold with people holding flashlights with big screens. The average pax have no situational awareness after pushback.

BugSmasher1960

4th Jul 2016, 03:52

They were VERY lucky this did not escalate into a catastrophic event with many fatalities.

I'm not convinced of that.

IF the fire had been left burning for an extended length of time (a-la Air China) then yes - absolutely - no question about it.

BUT - that WASN'T the situation here. The difference being FD crew knew that rescue services were just seconds away, with the mother-load of fire-fighting capability.

Watching the Air China video the tank explosion happened MUCH later into the burn.

So:

1. Knowing that passengers & CC were safe at that moment

2. Knowing that very capable rescue was only seconds behind (I think they were spraying foam in under a minute)

3. Not knowing if outside the aircraft would still be a safe environment as the last of the passengers evacuated (if they were to evacuate immediately)

4. Knowing that the window of opportunity for an evacuation was still open (and with rescue services assistance) if they "sat tight" (watching the Air China evacuation demonstrates that)

I think it adds up to a reasonable decision on the basis of the incomplete information that we have. I doubt it can ever be a 100% "safe" decision either way - but I dispute that this excellent outcome was down to just "luck" (reinforced to me by the photos I saw of the damage (a lot less than I expected) leading me to suspect that the fire wasn't as intense as it looked on the various videos due in part to the way cameras over-expose the bright portions of scenes like that).

I'll be especially interested to read if there was A1 fuel burning or just oil, or a mixture of both.

Oakape

4th Jul 2016, 05:05

I remember watching a video years ago during an EP's course, of an aircraft with a brake fire after landing. The video had an audio track of the conversation between the flight deck & the fire commander. The captain held off on the evacuation under the advice of the fire commander, as the fire crews worked to get the fire out. It took over 10 minutes as I recall. A heck of a long time for the people on board to be wondering what was going on.

However, it was lauded as the correct thing to do in the circumstances & that was why we were watching the video.

Funny how things have changed over the years & now all the 'experts' on here have a different opinion. Sure, everyone has the right to an opinion & the right to express it. However, being so dogmatic about it to the point of ridiculing anyone with a different opinion is not only arrogant & uncalled for, it shows a distinct lack of one of the main attributes of a good pilot - being willing to consider other ways of doing things & therefore being willing to learn.

Everyone on here has zero knowledge of what went on in the flight deck & some should back off & wait for more information before strutting around with their chests puffed out declaring how much better they are at commanding an airliner than the guy in the hot seat on this occasion, along with any on here who happen to disagree with them.

andrasz

4th Jul 2016, 05:40

As someone whose past job description included having to face the cameras and next of kin, I find one aspect of this incident particularly noteworthy and potentially disturbing:

I'm sure this forum is monitored by SQ communications department, and they are well aware that many of the posts are, to put it mildly, somewhat negatively biased against the fine carrier. The way to put that right is to issue a statement that the decision not to evacuate was made by the crew in communication with ARFF taking all factors into consideration, in the interest of safety for all on board (never mind if not entirely true, press statements are not given under oath). Given the unquestionable professionalism of the SQ PR team, the only reason I can imagine this is not being made is that the truth is far more embarassing than keeping silent and letting all the quibble go on. It is highly unusual for a major airline not to make any comment whatsoever following an incident of this magnitude.

atlas12

4th Jul 2016, 05:43

Well said Oakape..... unless anyone here was sitting in the flight deck that day, then your opinion is irrelevant at this stage. Wait for the safety report to be released, then come back. :rolleyes:

Hi_Tech

4th Jul 2016, 05:50

Is there no one on this site from SIA? Even after a week there is no insider info?
Typical Singapore. No one wants their tiny state name to be tarnished --understandable. We have wait for the final smudged report. Few points to note as I have raised before on this thread.
1. Crew appears to have kept the engine running during their fly back to base, not aware of the massive fuel leak. They could have even reversed the engine on landing and the air flow turbulence could have spread the fuel along the wing.
3. Hydraulic fluid rarely catch fire like this. There are no hydraulic lines in the wing leading edge any way. Even if that was Hyd fluid, there is only about 30 Gal. that can leak out any way. So it was more like a massive fuel leak & fire.
4. I doubt if the crew had declared an emergency landing. My observation is from the fire tenders driving from the tarmac to the runway. If it was a declared emergency, they normally wait on the edge of the runway in a taxiway at mid point and end of runway for quick access to the aircraft. Seconds count in such incidents. Still their action was quick compared to the Okinawa video where they took five minutes to get there though the aircraft was parked in front of the terminal.
5. The calmness inside the cabin and smiling stewardess are unbelievable. A slight wind direction change could have melted the acrylic window pane in no time and fire could have spread inside the cabin in a flash. (Remember Manchester)
6. God was on the side of SQ and the Pax this time.

vapilot2004

4th Jul 2016, 06:14

I'll be especially interested to read if there was A1 fuel burning or just oil, or a mixture of both.

There is not enough engine oil to support the kind of fire we've seen on the wing, Bugs and Skydrol will not burn easily without being aerosolised. Flames appeared to be too widespread across the wing to be anything but a fire fed by the wing tanks.

PersonFromPorlock

4th Jul 2016, 06:24

No one would know the sound of the captains' voice if no introduction was made. A potential problem is that under stress, people's voices tend to rise in pitch and become clipped. The Captain, calm, may not sound a lot like the Captain, pressed.

Hi_Tech

4th Jul 2016, 06:41

BugSmasher1960

4th Jul 2016, 08:25

BugSmasher1960

4th Jul 2016, 08:36

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/06/27/03/35B4E17D00000578-3661493-image-a-63_1466995884586.jpg

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.

The rub is though that it's not only the conditions that you have before ordering an evacuation, but trying to anticipate what they're likely to be like (and erring on the side of caution) as the LAST passengers get off.

If you're only 90% sure that 100% of your pax and CC are going to be safe and yet - with information to hand - judge that they might be safer sitting tight knowing that a mother-load of foam will be going onto that wing in less than a minute - then that (in my small mind anyway) makes the decision they made seem far more reasonable.

Each case is different. It's not like the China Air example where rescue services took around 5 minutes to get there. And it's not like examples where the fire has started in the cabin, tail, or hold.

nose,cabin

4th Jul 2016, 09:33

different re. SQ. but it is a similar topic as in all Captains' decision making.

Smoke in the cabin, observed and reported , is a threat to any aircraft and passengers, in my opinion.

The industry needs a standardization, not left to information gathering post events. Not Weeks later.
Captain decides if to evacuate, in seconds and not weeks.he relies heavily on good and reliable information given to him.

This is interesting reading.
allegiant-fires-pilot-after-ordering-emergency-evacuation.

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/570566-allegiant-fires-pilot-after-ordering-emergency-evacuation.html

Wageslave

4th Jul 2016, 12:04

Originally Posted by Oakape View Post
I remember watching a video years ago during an EP's course, of an aircraft with a brake fire after landing.

Would that be the imfamous Airbus A340 certification trial video? They sat there surrounded by firemen waiting the mandatory 5 minutes and watching as the u/c slowly burned higher and higher until eventually the super-cool test-pilots' tone of voice went up an octave as they realised they had a proper fire on their hands (or rather under their arses) and an evacuation was required but the muppets on the ground hadn't provided any stairs. The urgency in their voices is clear to hear. And that was a fire a fraction the size of this one with fire crews in droves surrounding the aircraft from the start.
The failure of Toulouse's inept fire crews to obtain more than a trickle of water when finally required added to the farcical atmosphere, as did the antics of various firemen surprised by bursting tyres. As they say in France, "Quel bordel!"

If test pilots evacuated in an adrenaline filled hurry for that, comparatively minor and very early-days fire I think it tells us something about the whens and whys of an evac.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUMuOyMTQ8Y

MrSnuggles

4th Jul 2016, 14:12

When there is doubt there is no doubt.

This is what y'all are saying.

So why wasn't there doubt this time, with flames lighting up the entire cabin for everyone to see. That is the puzzle here.

Did they rely on the aircraft to save them from fire?

Goddamn lucky bastards whatever the case. Sudden wind change - totally different outcome.

notapilot15

4th Jul 2016, 14:32

I am sure airlines are updating their training manuals after this incident. But any professional with common sense would already have done it differently.

1hr - low oil warning -
Action: Monitor oil pressure
Possible action: 1hr into 12hr flight, go back to SIN and get it checked.

2hr - engine vibrations -
Action: Idle, monitor fly for another 2 hours with idled engine
Possible action: Idle and land immediately

3.5hrs - Dump fuel
Action: Say "Negative" to assistance
Possible action: Ask for assistance.

They took three perfectly valid (sans commonsense) decisions, non-evac is just icing on the cake.

IMHO professional pilots and silent because that would be like GOP commenting on Trump scenario.

YRP

4th Jul 2016, 15:48

I wouldn't be too sure on the "negative on assistance" bit.

That comes from an ATC recording soon after the turn-around (not sure exactly when) when they are still something like 200nm from SIN still at FL170, i.e. before any descent into SIN. The crew wouldn't be thinking about ARFF equipment at that point. They might have interpreted the question as ATC asking if there is anything else they need right at the time.

They might well have asked for equipment closer in. We just don't know.

Julio747

4th Jul 2016, 16:11

A few things from my perspective.

(1) SQ did give a press release, it was in the local press here. Basically engine caught fire on landing, fire put out in less than 5 mins, passengers disembarked with no injury. Full stop. The lack of evac was also questioned in the local press (not by SQ of course).

(2) You cannot write off the China Air as being irrelevant because the ARFF took 5 mins. The plane exploded well before that time and the passengers would have been toast at 3 minutes in. By 5 mins it was a burning wreck.

(3) it took slight over a minute for the fire services to arrive by my reckoning. Now add 90 seconds for an evac, and you are at 2.5 minutes. Check China Air at that time stamp!

(4) My impression is that the first flames are aviation fuel, not oil. Not enough smoke. Maybe oil gets involved later on. Someone suggested that the pilot forgot to stop dumping fuel, that I think is highly unlikely.

(5) As has been pointed out, these tenders do not carry a "motherload" of foam, just 90 seconds worth. And after 90 seconds of foam (so 2.5 mins after stopping), the fire was still at a dangerous level. So that is one minute after a full evac would have been completed.... As has been pointed out, a LHS evac would have been safe.

(6) my response to "an evac might have been dangerous" is, it is the job of the crew (front and/or back) to make a sound judgement PDQ. Not cross your fingers and hope the services put it out before it goes boom.

Luckily, thank god, no one was hurt. I would have accepted a few broken ankles as a good outcome too though.

Onesixty2four

4th Jul 2016, 16:21

WTF YRP? So, what you are trying to say is that by not asking for assistance 200 miles out they would be avoiding confusion? Meanwhile the poor controllers have no idea whether this is a "big deal" or not - leaving them in a very akward situation. Sounds confusing to me.

Onesixty2four

4th Jul 2016, 16:24

Sorry YRP, your last line says it all - we just don't know.

PAXboy

4th Jul 2016, 17:04

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? :rolleyes: :ugh: :hmm:

ecureilx

4th Jul 2016, 17:07

What color are the strobes you see in Changi?

All vehicles airside are required to display flashing amber lights.

Fire tenders when responding to a call, turn on blue strobes.

Mickjoebill

When they were doing dry runs, rolling out of the ARFF point, they were on blue lights.

Saw this on a SQ CC Blog These are Not my words !!!!!

Now, the next 3 to 4 minutes was the craziest and probably what I'm still reeling from.

By this time - where i was, I could get a full view of what was happening. Passengers seated closest to the fire at D3R window seat were jumping out of their seats and scrambling for their bags and just running towards the door. People were shouting "FIRE!" "THERE IS A FIRE!" "DO SOMETHING!" "OPEN YOUR DOOR NOW!" "WHAT ARE YOU DOING?!"

Passengers at D3L were all running forward as well to my door - jumping over people. By this time i couldn't call anyone although i wanted to inform either SXXX or TYYY that there was a fire. But with all the pax wanting to open my door i had to guard the door instead.

My passenger on XXG was a mother with a 7 months baby. Throughout the flight she was telling me how anxious she was cause she was travelling alone. Her husband was waiting for her in Milan. You know when this was happening - she ran towards me and held my hands.. her eyes full of fear and she was holding her baby.. already in tears asking me what to do.

Parents were holding their kids and looking at me hoping that I can save them. But I myself can't guarantee my own life. And although my voice and face is normal and I'm telling them to calm down .. only God knew how much i was shaking inside and desperate to do the right thing while knowing at the back of my mind this airplane might explode anytime."

Our SEP training definitely has really played a part in the way ssss and cccc had reacted, confirm condition outside, alert pilots and crowd control.

I couldn't imagine what they are going through now, because I am not exposed to what they are exposed to. And I'm telling you, I felt the impact on me later in the evening after the adrenaline wears off.

The question of whether or not to evacuate keep popping up in my head! Did we or did not make the right decision...

With the help of sleeping aid, I forced myself to sleep. However woke up with my body and hands trembling.

Later in the day, we went to CAAS at T2 to present our statements on the incident. Reliving the incident is not a nice feeling at all.

Took ourselves off our flights and waiting for our counselling session. Some of the crew had requested for a one to one counselling session today and their request were attended immediately.

I'm looking forward to our group counselling session. Hopefully it will stop the tremors felt in my body.

Certainly hope that we can come back to work with confidence and not fear.

YRP

4th Jul 2016, 17:59

Onesixty2four, that last line is exactly the point. Plenty of posts on here are claiming the crew didn't ask for equipment standing by on landing based on ATC recordings from a long ways out. We don't have the recordings from closer in and they could have asked at any point.

BugSmasher1960

5th Jul 2016, 00:46

(2) You cannot write off the China Air as being irrelevant because the ARFF took 5 mins. The plane exploded well before that time and the passengers would have been toast at 3 minutes in. By 5 mins it was a burning wreck.

(3) it took slight over a minute for the fire services to arrive by my reckoning. Now add 90 seconds for an evac, and you are at 2.5 minutes. Check China Air at that time stamp!

At the 2.5 minutes stage the SIA flight had had a mother-load of foam being sprayed onto it for over 1.5 minutes and thus the danger of a tank involvement was rapidly DECREASING.

The Air China aircraft had no ARFF intervention at that point and thus the danger of (an inevitable) tank involvement was rapidly INCREASING.

That's the difference.

If SIA aircraft had initiated an evacuation immediately then they would have had no ARFF to watch their backs if something happened inside that first minute and passengers were exposed outside of the aircraft. If I'm ever safe but trapped behind enemy lines - with the enemy advancing - I think I'd be safer staying put if I knew the calvary were only 1 minute away.

CurtainTwitcher

5th Jul 2016, 01:10

4/The Fire service's fast response was rumoured to be due to a coincidence, because they were already responding to another call.
(Indeed they were in motion before the aircraft stopped)
post #432 (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/580854-sia-plane-catches-fire-22.html#post9429227) (my BOLD)

If this turns out to be correct then this could have very large implications for this incident. If it turns out the ARFF response was abnormally fast, then serendipity played a large part in this outcome, and any "lessons learned" should be viewed through that prism.

It cannot not be assumed that ARFF will be close by as the brakes are parked and the they will "have your back". It could have been a very different outcome if the the ARFF had to go from a standing start in their shed.

We have to wait for the report, but this event could well turn out to be the exception rather than the rule when all the facts are known.

BugSmasher1960

5th Jul 2016, 01:19

post #432 (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/580854-sia-plane-catches-fire-22.html#post9429227) (my BOLD)

If this turns out to be correct then this could have very large implications for this incident. If it turns out the ARFF response was abnormally fast, then serendipity played a large part in this outcome, and any "lessons learned" should be viewed through that prism.

It cannot not be assumed that ARFF will be close by as the brakes are parked and the they will "have your back". It could have been a very different outcome if the the ARFF had to go from a standing start in their shed.

We have to wait for the report, but this event could well turn out to be the exception rather than the rule when all the facts are known.

All great points.

In summary, "we all need to wait for the FACTS to come out before we either hang the bastard or nominate him for saint-hood".

Metro man

5th Jul 2016, 04:55

During the BA evacuation in Las Vegas, fourteen passengers suffered minor injuries. The ARFF were able to put out the fire before the aircraft was destroyed. In this case should the Captain have kept the passengers on board ? (Rethorical question)

Does the level of capability of the ARFF need to be considered in the decision ? In many countries I wouldn't trust the fire engines to arrive within the specified time or be able to extinguish a major fire once the got there. The SQ and BA incidents both occurred at major airports in first world countries. Narrow bodies go into airports which were never designed with the size of aircraft or volume of traffic currently being handled in mind.

Having the emergency services on standby for even a supposedly minor problem could save a critical minute or two compared to a cold start. I landed a turboprop with an engine shut down early one morning at an airport that handled scheduled A320/B737 operations. The airport was unmanned at my arrival time but ATC arranged for the local police to be in attendance just incase.

BugSmasher1960

5th Jul 2016, 05:04

During the BA evacuation in Las Vegas, fourteen passengers suffered minor injuries. The ARFF were able to put out the fire before the aircraft was destroyed. In this case should the Captain have kept the passengers on board ? (Rethorical question)

Looking at a video of it now.

I can't really comment on your question, but judging by the amount of smoke, I'm wondering if there would be any advantage to passengers having access to smoke hoods in situations like this?

armchairpilot94116

5th Jul 2016, 06:27

A very quick review if I may:

1. A genuine EMERGENCY situation developed upon landing with one engine and nearly the whole wing on the same side catching fire. A situation that could have resulted in the loss of the aircraft and its occupants in very short order. In a matter of mere MINUTES if the fire was left unattended.

2. Fire services put the fire out quite quickly and no one was harmed or injured. They were later commended for their speedy action, rightly so. The plane may not make it, but that is ok.

3. No evacuation was ordered or attempted. Cabin attendants apparently actively discouraged an EVAC. An apparently organized intent to NOT evac.

4. The questions:
a. Is there an SOP for this Situ? What does it say? Does it say EVAC ASAP?

b. Is it mandatory to follow company SOP ,always or sometimes or it depends?

c. Should crew follow company SOP in a genuine emergency situ? Or should they always assess the situation themselves and act accordingly in the heat of the moment, rightly or wrongly?

d. What do you think your airline is going to do when you don't follow SOP in an emergency situation, even if you proved later that it was OK not to?

e. What do you think the airline's lawyers and insurance company would insist on? Following SOP in Emergencies or Ad Hoc decision making?

f. Do you think they may be forced to fire you even if you were a "hero" ? What happened to the CX Ace that did a low fly by on acceptance of that brand new 777 at Paine Field?

g. Should you care if they fire you or not? You are going to do what you think is the very best in each situation regardless of what the "book" says?

Lives WERE at stake here in this situation, should you SOP or should you play it by ear? Or perhaps that was not true, lives were not at stake at all with the firemen right alongside within 2 mins. Everyone was going to be fine , ALWAYS.

DaveReidUK

5th Jul 2016, 06:34

I can't really comment on your question, but judging by the amount of smoke, I'm wondering if there would be any advantage to passengers having access to smoke hoods in situations like this?

The report on the 1985 Manchester accident includes 10 pages of discussion about the pros and cons of smoke hoods.

Well worth reading.

fox niner

5th Jul 2016, 06:38

Has there been any comment about this incident from SQ? Or are they pretending it didn't happen?

BugSmasher1960

5th Jul 2016, 06:43

The report on the 1985 Manchester accident includes 10 pages of discussion about the pros and cons of smoke hoods.

Well worth reading.

Thanks for that - I'll look it up.

I guess that safety-conscious passengers could always carry their own if they felt so inclined.

kaikohe76

5th Jul 2016, 09:02

fox niner,

Unfortunately they are quite likely pretending it did not happen. Great pity, at least some constructive information would be a help.

InSoMnIaC

5th Jul 2016, 09:05

Ian W

5th Jul 2016, 09:54

Luck was on their side this time but still very reckless decision not to evacuate.

Everyone defending the decision to keep pax on board a BURNING aircraft is mad. It is clear that this was a total cock up from beginning to end.
I don't care if the Fire services were so close. EVACUATE! Your aircraft is on fire and there are available emergency exits. use them! its a no brainer.:ugh:

Many a true word - a 'no brainer' - in other words do not use your brain. So what are the flight crew for? This could be automated - the aircraft automatics identify fire on the ground, turn the aircraft so fire is downwind of fuselage, stop the aircraft immediately and doors and slides on the upwind side away from any fire are automatically deploy. Simple. :ok:
Oh so now some of you will be thinking no not quite there may be exceptions. I would suggest that all those saying always evacuate; never think; no brains required; should really never be captain. There are times when it may be a simple decision; but it should always be a decision not an unthinking reaction - or for that matter unthinking lack of action.

The Air China, and British Air Tours at Manchester are repeatedly cited but these were different cases. No emergency is ever a cookie cutter version of a previous one. Unfortunately, no information is available -yet- on why this captain decided in this particular case that waiting and using 'fire stairs' was a better option. The automatons on this board should perhaps wait until the facts are known: they may realize that being an automaton is not always the best option. A real learning opportunity.

notapilot15

5th Jul 2016, 10:40

It is kind of funny when folks say "Situation was bought under control so passengers can use ES and no need for slide evac".

Imagine a scenario where everyone lined up with their cabin baggage to use ES and fire restarts.

There is no evidence the leak and ignition sources were identified and fixed.
Fire tenders have no more fire retardants left in their tanks.
Door (or doors) are probably disarmed.
It would have been a major disaster if fire restarts.

Bottom line, don't play with fire (first/third/old/new worlds doesn't matter). Evac pax even with one slide and move pax as far way from the fire, doesn't matter what fire crew is doing.

BA@LAS or DY@FLL, saving pax is priority not metal.

Hi_Tech

5th Jul 2016, 16:50

Post #455
A chilling account of what went on in the cabin. Brave crew. So it was not all calm inside the cabin as I thought from the videos.

Julio747

5th Jul 2016, 18:32

And the sooner you recognise that, the safer and better pilot you will be.

I think every pilot would agree that TOGA thrust and 12 seconds nose down trim on a 737NG GA not far from the ground is pretty much curtains....

Yes, let's put our head in the sand and wait for the full report.

Or we can say pilots are human too and they can make errors.

The flydubai crash is another issue, but in this case there is already enough evidence to call pilot error. There can be no mitigating factors we don't know about that could persuade otherwise. Luckily on this occasion there were no injuries.

"Maybe we don't know the facts. Let's wait". >> Bad pilots in my book.

"Engine and wing on fire, they should have evac'd". I want these guys up front. Or me.

oicur12.again

5th Jul 2016, 18:59

The older I get the more I try my best to be open to alternative points of view that are contrary to my “conventional wisdom”.

I am trying to be open minded with the line of thinking that it may in certain situations be safer to remain inside a burning aircraft.

The video below shows a truck spraying a continuous stream of foam into the fire for over a minute without any noticeable decrease in the size of the fire.

Obviously the fire crews were victorious as there is ample video showing foam dripping from the windows and the fire clearly out, but only with 20/20 hindsight.

However, having completed the evac checklist and pausing with a finger on the PA ready to say those magic words, it would take nurries of steel to sit and watch that fire for over a minute patiently waiting for the fire to be bought under control.

What exactly could the fire crews say to you over the radio that would convince you that the best course of action would be to NOT evacuate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZyrEvxiccQ

Ian W,

You really have taken the argument to the extreme. No one is suggesting that the decision is to be conducted without thinking.

But this was a significant fire that was not easy to knock down.

BugSmasher1960

5th Jul 2016, 20:23

Many a true word - a 'no brainer' - in other words do not use your brain. So what are the flight crew for? This could be automated - the aircraft automatics identify fire on the ground, turn the aircraft so fire is downwind of fuselage, stop the aircraft immediately and doors and slides on the upwind side away from any fire are automatically deploy. Simple. :ok:
Oh so now some of you will be thinking no not quite there may be exceptions. I would suggest that all those saying always evacuate; never think; no brains required; should really never be captain. There are times when it may be a simple decision; but it should always be a decision not an unthinking reaction - or for that matter unthinking lack of action.

The Air China, and British Air Tours at Manchester are repeatedly cited but these were different cases. No emergency is ever a cookie cutter version of a previous one. Unfortunately, no information is available -yet- on why this captain decided in this particular case that waiting and using 'fire stairs' was a better option. The automatons on this board should perhaps wait until the facts are known: they may realize that being an automaton is not always the best option. A real learning opportunity.

Well said Ian.

I posted something similar, but it "disappeared" for some reason.

FlightDetent

5th Jul 2016, 20:44

Is it an established fact that the #2 engine had been shutdown for the landing?

BugSmasher1960

5th Jul 2016, 20:47

Is it an established fact that the #2 engine had been shutdown for the landing?

I think the only established facts so far are that there was a fire on and/or in the RH wing and/or engine, and that there was no evacuation.

gatbusdriver

6th Jul 2016, 01:13

It's nice to see some people agree with my sentiments, if not put them across in a more reasoned fashion!

Julio, I will tell you the type of pilot I would like on my flight.....I would like a pilot that uses all of his available resources to ensure a safe outcome. That includes communication, communication with the tower, RFF, cabin crew and anyone else that can offer valuable information. Once this pilot has collected all the available info to hand (camera, EICAS messages etc) they will possibly use DODAR or some other decision making tool to come up with their decision, which will, by virtue of the R, be reviewed so there should be an assessment of the initial decision.

Once again I reiterate......until we are in possession of all the facts how can you dismiss this Captains decision not to evacuate?

Regards,

GBD

InSoMnIaC

6th Jul 2016, 01:38

What help would DODAR be when the aircraft with all the occupants in it explodes. come on get real. This is not a classroom exercise. Peoples lives are at stake. You may get a few broken bones during the Evacuation process but that is a far better outcome than the alternative if luck wasn't on their side.

Yes we are paid to think as pilots. This particular incident though is black and white. there is no excuse for endangering everyone on board.

Ian W

6th Jul 2016, 02:04

Ian W,

You really have taken the argument to the extreme. No one is suggesting that the decision is to be conducted without thinking.

But this was a significant fire that was not easy to knock down.

But that is just the point. Multiple contributors have stated do not think - fire=evacuate no exceptions. Several have said they cannot think of any occurrence that evacuation would not be required, and several have said if they were in an aircraft as pax they would disregard any direction from the front and rear crew and deploy the slides themselves. :=

So fair enough - no need for captain's involvement at all. If there is a fire automatics, brake to a halt fire on downwind side, escape slides deploy automatically as soon as the aircraft is at halt on the side away from the fire if appropriate.

If there is a decision to be made on evacuation - it means there are alternatives. It is illogical to require the captain make a decision but then say that there is no alternative to immediate evacuation. Hence there is no decision to make.

Yet, in this case instead of say 5% of pax evacuating having to be hospitalized, no-one was injured. For those worried about the short length of time to discharge a fire tender's load of fire retardant foam, have a look at how many were in the immediate response and how many Changi can get to an emergency rather than just those initial (very rapid) responders.

As I said before, none of us know what information and advice the captain had in this case that led to his decision not to evacuate. When or if we receive that information the decision can be assessed, but in this case by the results it was the right decision.

InSoMnIaC

6th Jul 2016, 02:12

but in this case by the results it was the right decision

pure gold there.

So if I decided to shut both engines down and glide her in, would it be the right decision as long as everyone walks away?

was it also the right decision not to declare a Mayday?

InSoMnIaC

6th Jul 2016, 02:14

I guess it was also the right decision to continue beyond HKG to PVG after a dual eng flame out which the pilots were responsible for in the first place. after all the result was ok

golfyankeesierra

6th Jul 2016, 04:18

Well said, Ian. I agree there is a real learning opportunity here (as always).
And to enhance the learning opportunity, I admit that until recently I had no clue of the ICAO RFSS hand signals for indicating fire (location) and recommended evacuation (or not)...
See them here: Emergency Hand Signals (http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Emergency_Hand_Signals)

Jabawocky

6th Jul 2016, 04:38

Anybody posted this video yet. :eek:

D5B8QrpudpA

fox niner

6th Jul 2016, 06:56

Dammit Jabawocky,

That is a superb video. Unbelievably shocking. And yes, the most shocking part is the absence of an evacuation command.
Where is SQ with a comment on this incident? I certainly don't expect the local journo's in Singapore to dare ask some difficult questions regarding this.

LeadSled

6th Jul 2016, 07:48

b. Is it mandatory to follow company SOP ,always or sometimes or it depends?Folks,
I don't know if there are any wrinkles to the contrary under Singapore Air Law, but I certainly know what the law is in Australia, based on not just the air law, but at least one full bench of a Court of Appeal decision, the power of the pilot in command overrides any other consideration in an emergency, including any provision of an AFM/FCOM etc. to the contrary.

The relevant ICAO Annex, and the laws of CA/NZ/US/EU say more or less the same thing, but I can't quote any particular superior court precedents outside of Australia to confirm the conventional interpretation of the powers of the PIC.

As for this accident, based on half a century of knowledge (including fires on the ground) and experience, this aircraft should have been evacuated as soon as it came to a stop.

Tootle pip!!

PS: The CASA draft CASR Part 91 muddies the waters, surprise! surprise!!

kaikohe76

6th Jul 2016, 08:25

On the face of it & having viewed the video (Jabawocky post), surely one could safely conclude, this was a major stuff up by SQ & could so easily have resulted in numerous fatalities. I agree, there would have been risks in evacuating, there always are of course & injuries or worse may well have occurred, but to me, keeping the pax & crew on the aircraft in this instance, could so easily & so very quickly, have ended up a disaster.
No axe to grind at all & I still include SQ among my airlines of choice, but this was a very poor show by them & still no open & in depth announcements from them.
Not my own view in particular folks, but, In a case such as this, law suits in Singapore of course would not work, but how about in the US, against both the Company & also the Captain, for needless endangerment of the pax??
Any thoughts from the many legal experts out there.

BugSmasher1960

6th Jul 2016, 09:49

On the face of it & having viewed the video (Jabawocky post), surely one could safely conclude, this was a major stuff up by SQ & could so easily have resulted in numerous fatalities. I agree, there would have been risks in evacuating, there always are of course & injuries or worse may well have occurred, but to me, keeping the pax & crew on the aircraft in this instance, could so easily & so very quickly, have ended up a disaster.

A good judge will examine all the evidence before giving a verdict. People could well be right - or wrong - but either way, in the interests of professional courtesy if noting else, we need a lot more information.

Hi_Tech

6th Jul 2016, 10:32

CodyBlade

6th Jul 2016, 10:47

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-1ra6uMLs4

kaikohe76

6th Jul 2016, 10:51

BugSmasher

Fair comment & I understand the points you make. I would agree, that if we had more information as to what actually happened, was an evacuation considered by the F/D & Crew & in particular, why was it not carried out in this incident? Such information I suppose is very unlikely to be forthcoming from most airlines & in particular a major world operator like SQ. Until such information is made known to the general public, most of us I think, will be highly suspicious to say the least. Where as, had SQ taken the bold option to go public, many potential pax may well be reassured & understand the actions of the Crew.

OldLurker

6th Jul 2016, 11:24

The real danger is. if there is another incident similar to this one, in SQ or elsewhere, crew might decide not to evacuate based on this incident, and end up roasting all passengers. In this incident the crew judgement was correct or luck was on their side. In fire incidents on landing or take off, (Of which there are several every year), the recommended and safe action is always evacuate first. I am sure airlines will closely review this incident advise crew the correct action. As has been pointed out in this thread, in real life (as compared to in the sim) no emergency incident is really similar to another one. I hope that a professional crew would assess the actual conditions in which they find themselves, and judge what to do without reference to any other incident that they might think is superficially similar, especially one that hasn't been analysed and about which the full facts are not known.

OldLurker

6th Jul 2016, 11:27

lomapaseo

6th Jul 2016, 15:19

At the start of Jabawocky's video (#482) there's fire outside but not inside. By the end (only 1:26) the fire outside seems to have been suppressed. A CC member can be seen sensibly preventing panicing pax from opening a door on the side where the fire was. What does the video prove?

agree :ok:

This thread is not developing but rather just rehashing the same subjective opinions about the same videos reposted over and over.

Sure the decision process is in question, but key facts are not as yet offered by the authorities in Singapore.

I wonder why is it that we the uninformed always seem to offer conclusions so early in an investigation?

notapilot15

6th Jul 2016, 16:26

Why some are questioning so early in the investigation?

1) Fire evacuation is a no brainer decision
2) Too many gaffes with boat load of luck
3) City Nation CAA's don't have reputation of conducting a fair investigation
4) Too many folks praising the decision, somehow that is acceptable

In earlier cases fire rescue helped crew with which slides can be open while they kept the fire under control during evacuation. Even without outside help crew should be able to decide which slides can be used.

This may be the first time pax were forced to stay. Unique indeed.

Julio747

6th Jul 2016, 18:20

Welcome to the age of mobile phones with video cameras, and the internet, ladies and gentlemen.

I for one need no more facts to decide that the flight crew screwed up on this one. The screamingly obvious is staring us in the face...

The silence from SQ is equally as obvious. They are also aware the captain made a bad call. So staying stumm. I hope he has a good pension plan.

I feel sorry for him. Evac evac would be a blameless call. The wing was on fire after all. But...

The real issue here is about Singapore culture, and at the heart, the education system. They pat themselves on the back for getting some of the best exam results in Asia.. But this is achieved through rote learning and following the model answer. None of them are encouraged to think for themselves. They tend to rely on others.

****, the wing is on fire. But help is on its way. Let's trust in them... Luckily it turned out well. But probably not for the poor captain.

ACMS

7th Jul 2016, 01:43

Ok then I see your point but it will be the same culture that conducts the investigation and then acts. So if the CN made that decision after years of training in that organization then there is a good chance the boss will think the same way.....

oicur12.again

7th Jul 2016, 02:47

"None of them are encouraged to think for themselves."

Having spent several years flying for a Singaporean airline, I gotta say, I suspect this could come into play.

It MAY have been a calculated decision made by a skipper who sought all information from all sources and made a sound command decision for the benefit of all crew, pax,cargo and plane.

HOWEVER..............

Arrowhead

7th Jul 2016, 02:55

Since the fire truck ran over pax in SFO... it seems some people think it may be safer to keep pax in a burning plane than risk getting run over by a fire truck. Doh!

DaveReidUK

7th Jul 2016, 07:33

Since the fire truck ran over pax in SFO... it seems some people think it may be safer to keep pax in a burning plane than risk getting run over by a fire truck. Doh!

Are you suggesting that consideration was part of the SIA captain's thought process?

If not, what's the relevance?

cee cee

7th Jul 2016, 11:31

I for one need no more facts to decide that the flight crew screwed up on this one. The screamingly obvious is staring us in the face...

I feel sorry for him [the captain]. Evac evac would be a blameless call. The wing was on fire after all. But...

The real issue here is about Singapore culture, and at the heart, the education system. They pat themselves on the back for getting some of the best exam results in Asia.. But this is achieved through rote learning and following the model answer. None of them are encouraged to think for themselves. They tend to rely on others.

Am I the only one who sees the irony of this post? Julio747 suggests that the automatic (ie by rote) thing to do should have been to start an evacuation immediately, then suggests the reason that the captain did not do that is because of Singapore's culture of always following rules by rote?

I wonder what would happen if the captain turns out to be a Caucasian with an Anglo/American upbringing?

Are you suggesting that consideration was part of the SIA captain's thought process?

I think it could be possible, the event happened at 6:50am. That is just before sunrise at around 7am at this time of the year. So it is not very bright and passengers normally do not wear high-vis clothes when they travel by plane.