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

Pontius

27th Jun 2016, 03:30

I would have ordered an evacuation in that situation. ANY time you have fire you evacuate.

I agree with your first sentence and would, in this case, have done the same (using the left side slides, obviously). However, I do not agree with your second sentence and believe there should be more thought put into situations than any fire=evacuate. There are cases where an engine fire can be better dealt with than evacuating (and I'm not just talking while in the air) and since you say "ANY time", what about a galley fire or a toilet fire?

I definitely believe in sitting on my hands for a few seconds and doing nothing, rather than leaping into action with instant decisions but it does sound like these guys were frozen into indecision, rather than cooly assessing. As a regular SIA traveller that is a bit worrying.

HPSOV L

27th Jun 2016, 03:36

Ha ha, typical Pprune ...well it is Monday morning I suppose.

Quite apart from the fact that the wing is not visible from the flight deck, nobody here knows what indications or communications the flight crew had. At least the passengers got to take their carry on with them.

Jabawocky

27th Jun 2016, 03:44

I'm surprised the *cabin crew* didn't evac on their own initiative.

I am surprised……I am surprised non of the PAX didn't initiate it either, there is no way on earth I would sit in my seat with that lack of action.

The crew in the cabin should have been making the call to the Captain and if he ignored or neglected to act they should have. Sitting there like that is nothing like QF32 where it was not on fire. This was and the equipment was not there to meet it when it stopped.

Amazing alright.

Pontius

27th Jun 2016, 03:44

nobody here knows what indications or communications the flight crew had

Very true and having looked at the video taken by the passenger in the news article, it certainly doesn't look as dramatic as the photograph. Maybe the photo was the initial ignition and then it settled down into the more sedate and gentle flames we can see in the video. I believe I would have still evacuated but on further investigation I would retract my statement that the guys were 'frozen into indecision'.

InSoMnIaC

27th Jun 2016, 03:46

Its quite apparent that the fire was visible from inside the cabin. The crew knew about it, the pax knew about it and so did the tower. NO excuse. I wont even get into the 2-3 hour diversion with a fuel leak.

hotnhigh

27th Jun 2016, 03:47

How about....." The whole wing area is on fire"
Should focus everyone's, especially the captains, attention even if the pilots can't see the majority of the wing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s92TYaLJZew

BuzzBox

27th Jun 2016, 03:48

I am surprised……I am surprised non of the PAX didn't initiate it either, there is no way on earth I would sit in my seat with that lack of action.

The crew in the cabin should have been making the call to the Captain and if he ignored or neglected to act they should have.

You'd want to be damn sure the engines were shut down first!

Wingspar

27th Jun 2016, 03:54

There is no such thing as a 'good' fire!
Sure, wait to assess the situation first but the wing was on fire.
Get out!
" Sorry Sir for the friction burn but talk about what you're going to do to me over dinner with your family tonight!".

EternalNY1

27th Jun 2016, 03:58

The bottom line here is the RIGHT WING of a Boeing 777 EXTENDED RANGE is on fire. At least large portions of the leading edge, trailing edge, engine, and who knows what underneath.

The pilots know how much fuel is sitting in those wing tanks on a wide-body ER turn-back. It's going to come down to who knew what the exact situation was, when ... and how much longer it took to call for an evacuation.

As a commercial pilot, if I saw anything resembling the photo I posted earlier, that would be an IMMEDIATE evacuation, other side, at wheel stop.

https://i.imgur.com/DXbbjRd.jpg

InSoMnIaC

27th Jun 2016, 04:04

Was this the same airline that elected to continue to Pudong after a Dual Engine Flame out near HKG??

hoofie

27th Jun 2016, 04:08

As a non-pilot lurker [but with a technical interest etc] I have to say if I was on that flight I would be screaming at the crew to order an evacuation.

Yes I know there are fire bottles in the engine nacelles etc but all I can see is a fully loaded aircraft sitting on the ground with most of its right wing in flames.

All I can think of is the British Airtours disaster and how quickly that fire spread into the cabin.

I know that evacuating a fully loaded aircraft on the runway of an active airport is dangerous but Jesus Christ, this could have gone very badly the other way.

Tarq57

27th Jun 2016, 04:12

This video is taken from outside the aircraft. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jC-2NhU10Q
It shows that the entire wing is well involved with flame, and (concerningly) it takes over a minute and a half to knock back from the time the AFS first start hosing it. It takes over a minute for them to get foam on the wing, and a significant amount of that time is probably spend driving around the taxiways, rather than cutting across the grass.

That minute, with the fire intensifying, would seem like a very long time for a passenger. It seemed long to me, as a mere video viewer.

If I'd been on that plane, I'd be getting off. I wouldn't dick around waiting for the evac order.

motley flight crue

27th Jun 2016, 04:19

The pilots have the camera on a 777 300ER. Would have clearly showed the wing on fire. SIA idiots cannot think.

aviator_38

27th Jun 2016, 04:26

Hello,
I wonder whether any "emergency"was declared before the aircraft returned to Singapore.Surely this would have placed the fireservices on alert and respond in a much faster fashion than reported by some pax.?

Cheers

Yaw String

27th Jun 2016, 04:32

HPSOV L......That DV window is useful in more ways than one!..Unless of course it is raining!!!!!

Watching the video,incredible....unless the crew assessed that the rapid spread of fire around the complete airframe would present a higher risk to evacuating passengers,rather than awaiting the fire crew to douse the flames(benefit of the doubt here).
As some people may not realise,...every emergency situation comes with its own unique set of circumstances...Our trained reaction cannot,by virtue of the human condition,take into account ALL possibilities,therefore our company emergency procedures often,by necessity,tend to be generalised.

Human Perception is variable.CRM takes this into account,and we are taught to gather and incorporate all available information before making a final considered decision.

It would certainly seem that a passenger evacuation was the correct response here,incorporating already having emergency services on standby at the landing turnoff position(good training for them)...and..the non use of reverse thrust on the suspect engine,on landing.

In retrospect,no injuries,ergo..job well done...Hmmmmmmmmm.

Three Wire

27th Jun 2016, 04:48

The airfield plan calls for aircraft to land 02L and stop abeam the Fire Station at midpoint. The Fire Services wait on a very large pan adjacent to the runway. Ground Services wait on the opposite side where taxiways join the runway.

Most aircraft at MLW can stop just past the Fire Service PAN. I think that this would have been an overweight landing because he rolled well past midfield.

Pontius

27th Jun 2016, 05:07

I think that this would have been an overweight landing because he rolled well past midfield.

Just standing by for the relevance of that. In the meantime, we're missing the irrelevant METARs.

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that since they only just got past Langkawi before heading back they'd be overweight. My attempts at being Sherlock Holmes are also totally irrelevant.

Super VC-10

27th Jun 2016, 05:21

a significant amount of that time is probably spend driving around the taxiways, rather than cutting across the grass

A fire engine is of no use stuck in the grass/mud. Water is heavy; 1,000 litres weighs 1 tonne. Better to stick to the hard stuff methinks.

TRF4EVR

27th Jun 2016, 05:33

Re: Evac,waiting till the facts are all in, etc etc...I quite agree that it's unfair to pillory these guys just yet, but I also feel obliged to leave this little link here...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudia_Flight_163

flyhardmo

27th Jun 2016, 05:35

Hard call to make

Why?

Fuel smell, flames, most likely about 28-31t of fuel left in that wing alone (guestimate based on article). I'm sure the tower and RFF would have told the crew the wing was on fire. Who care if Pax get injured going down the slides. Better then everyone getting vaporized in an explosion.

Mrdeux

The flaps and LED's are not wet. Most liked fuel soaked or spray from some sort of leak. All the fuel is in the Amazon wing section and fuselage (centre tank). You can't see the wings from the cockpit but you do have the taxi camera. You can't see the wing tips from the taxi camera. Either way I'm sure cabin crew, tower and RFF informed the cockpit crew.

Cloudbase4812

27th Jun 2016, 05:38

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/SIA368/history/20160626/1805Z/WSSS/WSSS/tracklog

UTC
1845 TOC FL300
1921 last record at FL300 was heading NW, the next time stamp is over 2hrs later...
2127 FL170 heading SW
2226 FL170, then commenced descent for landing

The drop in altitude seems related to the turnaround and return to Singapore, why would they then stay at FL170 for an hour before making a final descent for landing? to burn off fuel? did they dump fuel? or just ATC directions? any other idea's?

autoflight

27th Jun 2016, 05:41

Aside from news media concerning "oil pressure" there seems no actual indication about the reason for the emergency landing. If the pax were actually smelling fuel during the flight, how does that become an oil pressure problem?

Do we know if the engine was still operating on landing?

t_cas

27th Jun 2016, 05:59

The fire was contained to the wing. The fire services continued to fight and gain control of the "contained" fire. As soon as an evacuation is communicated the RFF will pull back.
When a door opens the cabin becomes exposed to the fire that is no longer being either controlled or contained. There is no guarantee that a door or doors on the side of the burning plane will remain closed, thereby exposing the inside cabin to smoke, fumes, heat and flame. There was certainly potential for fatalities.
This outcome was excellent. I hope we learn the facts about the cause and can rectify any possible recurrence.
I am very glad it was not my arse sitting in that cockpit having to consider all of the immediate options whilst a fire was burning......
A reminder that what pilots and crew do every day is still actually dangerous and can kill you.

KRviator

27th Jun 2016, 06:28

Aside from news media concerning "oil pressure" there seems no actual indication about the reason for the emergency landing. If the pax were actually smelling fuel during the flight, how does that become an oil pressure problem?Reference Air Transat 236, a fuel leak caused excessive oil cooling that resulted in higher oil pressures in the engine with the leak.

KABOY

27th Jun 2016, 06:34

The fire was contained to the wing.

I'm sorry, I dont agree with the above statement.

A fire within an engine with extinguishing agents I would consider a contained fire, but once it hits the wing, that is a totally uncontained fire! Where that spreads is totally unpredictable.

Be interesting to see how close it ran to the fuselage, all photos show the wing but I did notice the inboard flap extensively damaged.

Flingwing47

27th Jun 2016, 06:47

Possibly a large amount of fuel burning under the aircraft, spreading to the left side ??
Has happened before - and would prevent an evacuation to the left side.

2dPilot

27th Jun 2016, 06:48

At least the external video does away with the 'minutes before the fire crew arrived' from a PAX. The aircraft was still rolling at the beginning and the first water-on within 45 seconds. Well within acceped response times I presume?

Vasco dePilot

27th Jun 2016, 06:59

The 777-300ER has 3 external cameras. the fin mounted camera gives a clear view of the wings.

Ngineer

27th Jun 2016, 07:05

I am not saying that they should not have evacuated, indeed I believe this could have ended disasterously, however could you imagine the pilot ordering an evacuation via the right or left hand doors only? From my own experience I have found that many hosties cannot differentiate between an aircrafts left or right hand side.

xyze

27th Jun 2016, 07:08

FLYHARDMO: " Better then everyone getting vaporized in an explosion"

The video of the China Airlines 737 burning to the ground as a result of a wing/engine fire is instructive. 'Explosions' when they occurred happened very late in the sequence. It also took quite some time for the fire to breach the cabin, as judged by smoke coming from the open doors.

In a situation where the fire services are very near at hand and the cabin has not been breached it seems very reasonable to hold off calling for evacuation, while continuously reassessing the safety of doing so. Judging by the almost universal calls of 'fire = evacuation' on this thread, I would suggest that this crew has definitely thought outside the box and the result was not one person injured.

capt.cynical

27th Jun 2016, 07:11

:(Good point Ngineer
considering aft facing jumpseats !!

DelayReducer

27th Jun 2016, 07:16

Does the fact that the wind was blowing smoke away from the fuselage have any impact on the decision here?

hoss183

27th Jun 2016, 07:24

Cloudbase - https://flightaware.com/live/flight/.../WSSS/tracklog any comments about why they descended hours earlier than the usual Top of Descent point.

Have a look at the data, there is none between 21:24 and 23:27, its just interpolated.
I do wish people would actually look at the FR24 or FA data before rushing in faster than a tabloid journo.

Freo

27th Jun 2016, 07:28

What a bunch of muppets!

EVACUATE EVACUATE EVACUATE

As the BA crew ordered in recent B777 fire in Las Vegas.

This could have ended so tragically.

jolihokistix

27th Jun 2016, 07:35

Ngineer, if all port doors were painted with a large red mark of some kind, and all starboard green?

Then, "Exit by the red doors!"

WHBM

27th Jun 2016, 07:39

also likely that evac command would see RH doors opened exposing cabin.
What part of "EVACUATE LEFT SIDE ONLY" would the Singapore cabin crew be unable to understand ?

armchairpilot94116

27th Jun 2016, 07:39

I would have been really hard pressed to stay in my seat as a passenger and not open a door and pop a slide myself after seeing the wing on fire.

The Ci incident in Okinawa with a 738 was fully on fire and exploded in the less then 6 mins it took fire trucks to arrive. Do you remember the flight crew jumping from the windows just one micro second before a major explosion? These people on this triple 7 were super lucky. I don't think had the flames gone on much longer it would have been the right decision not to evac. Amazing the whole wing did not explode.

Singapore is such a rigid society with rules up the ying yang. I would guess the flight crew were Singaporean? I think an American flight crew would have shouted eVAC EVAC after seeing that whole wing on fire.

9 year old 9V SWB is most likely a write off. The plane had been regularly busy in the days prior. So it didn't just come out of maintenance like the Ci 738.

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/9v-swb

Wonder if the fuel soaked wing caught fire from the heat of the engine (and/or brakes on landing) after the air speed reduced and fuel was getting in contact with the hot section. Or reverse thrust put the fuel onto the hot engine?

t_cas

27th Jun 2016, 07:42

I'm sorry, I dont agree with the above statement.

A fire within an engine with extinguishing agents I would consider a contained fire, but once it hits the wing, that is a totally uncontained fire! Where that spreads is totally unpredictable.

Be interesting to see how close it ran to the fuselage, all photos show the wing but I did notice the inboard flap extensively damaged.
RFF either can control or contain a fire. Otherwise it is out of control and unable to be contained to a general area.
I am not suggesting it was contained as a part of the aircrafts design.
RFF containment of a fire gives way to time to assess your next move with information and further communication.

t_cas

27th Jun 2016, 07:44

readywhenreaching

27th Jun 2016, 07:47

better not imagine this would have occured in any airborne phase..

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cl8OjmiUkAAT36x.jpg

Jacdec (http://www.jacdec.de/2016/06/27/2016-06-27-singapore-al-boeing-777-300-caught-fire-on-landing-at-singapore-changi/)

skytrax

27th Jun 2016, 07:47

Cabincrew are thought to initiate evacuation if the situation is catastrophic. That translates in: your life is endangered if you stay any longer. Than you don't need the captain to tell you to evacuate.
You look outside, if the outside conditions are good, open door and evacuate.

Having said that: was their lives in danger inside?! It turned out that no. They stayed and it was ok. Captain made that decision and cabincrew had to follow. As I explained, the cabincrew are only allowed to take action if the situation worsens in the cabin and becomes catastrophic.

I belive that it could have gone bad any moment but, luckily, it didn't.
If you ask me if I was on that flight what I would have done? ........I'd have probably strated to evacuate on the LHS......

Pinkman

27th Jun 2016, 07:55

As usual in Pprune everyone jumping to conclusions and some getting on their high horses without knowing the facts. Here's more speculation in true Pprune tradition. Without knowing the facts.

I suspect the actual duration of the fire was maybe 90 - 120 seconds tops and started when the aircraft entered ground effect causing the airflow pattern to change on landing and fuel vapour was ignited by hot gas. You can deduce this from the video which presumably started about a short while after the initiation of the fire. Aviation kero fires are typically very smoky but this looks worse than usual so maybe there was oil burning as well.

2 scenarios:

Benefit of the doubt scenario:

1. Raised oil pressure and leak as a result of the fuel leak (see earlier post) causing a return.
2. Crew judged that a return was safe and more cost effective at 90 - 120 minutes out than stranding the aircraft somewhere. Maybe even had a selcal and got told to do that. Yes boss.
3. They were initially unaware of the fuel leak which worsened during the return and they didn't go into the cabin where they would have smelled the fuel. The cabin crew likewise didnt think to report the smell of fuel vapour to the FD, not knowing the difference between the smell of oil and fuel. That kind of scenario has happened PLENTY of times
4. If the fire only started on or just after touchdown then it took maybe a minute or two. Not much different to the Vegas 777, got off lightly.
5. Both Cabin and FD crew need some serious training. Flammable vapour in the cabin is a serious and immediate danger.

I cant believe they did this scenario:

1. They knew they had a fuel leak but characterized it as an oil leakto stop the pax being alarmed.
2. They chose or were told not to divert to the nearest alternate (and there were plenty - Bangkok for example)
3. They got away with it. See 4 above.
4. The decision-making process that led them to that course of action should be investigated.

P

flyhardmo

27th Jun 2016, 07:55

XYZE and T cas

We can agree to disagree. Maybe an explosion won't happen soon or not at all. Why risk it based on another aircraft in a different scenario. The 777 holds a bucketload more of the flammable stuff than a 737.

In regards to evacuate left or right. No need to say anything other than evacuate. Cabin crew are. 'supposedly' trained to look out the window and assess. Just say evacuate and let them get on with it.

If you had been a pax on this flight what would your reaction be?

cooperplace

27th Jun 2016, 07:58

interesting that the crew chose to return to SIN, overflying Phuket and KL on the way. One presumes they didn't perceive this as being very serious -not intended as a criticism.

oriental flyer

27th Jun 2016, 07:58

Absolutely shocking , the whole crew should be suspended , this is another reason that I won't fly on SIA .
It's only by the grace of God that we aren't looking at hundreds of casualties
If the fuel tank had ignited it would have been all over
Personally had I been a passenger on that flight I would have deployed the slide on the LHS and got myself out immediately argue about it later
Why weren't the emergency services on standby along the runway ?
Obviously because the Capt failed to notify them of the situation .
As for the diversion , difficult to judge the extent of the fuel leak at night , so that was a judgement call . Had the aircraft not burst into flames we would never have heard about the incident .

Simple rule : If the aircraft is on fire and you are on the ground get the passengers off

Heimdallr

27th Jun 2016, 08:20

My first reaction on seeing the Guardian story this morning was the captain had made a difficult but correct call that the pax were—for the moment—safer inside the (unbreached) plane than evacuating, even if he'd ordered a port-side evac only. Slides always cause injuries, and getting run over by a fire appliance can ruin your whole day. ISTR a captain once saying of a not dissimilar situation, [not verbatim] "I decided the safest place was inside the aircraft, unless the situation changed for the worse". That said, how this captain knew that the situation wasn't about to get drastically and quickly worse I am not sure.

I agree that snap judgements lacking all the data that was available to crew are foolish, and I will follow this one with interest. When what looks like a dodgy decision leads to happy outcome, you always have to consider carefully, I think.

PS Did it really take that long for the fire units to turn up??

atpcliff

27th Jun 2016, 08:33

What part of "EVACUATE LEFT SIDE ONLY" would the Singapore cabin crew be unable to understand ?

If you are facing the tail, the left side is the Starboard side. If you are facing the nose, the left side is the Port side.

I like the idea of all Green doors on the Port side, and all Red doors on the Starboard side...maybe Black and White would be better for contrast...then "Evac via the ____ (colour) doors ONLY!"

In the airlines I have worked for, the Cabin Crew is trained to look out and asses the situation, and NOT evacuate into a bad scenario, like a fire. BUT, the pax at the overwing exits have no such training...

faheel

27th Jun 2016, 08:33

Don't you just love all these armchair critics
I flew 777,s for sia for 10 years and I for one will wait for the report to come out before opening my mouth.
All these wild accusations against the crew,without a doubt most if not all will be wrong.
As for the idiot that said the crew would not have informed the tower or fire crew.......

HPSOV L

27th Jun 2016, 08:36

Perhaps if the pilots had accessed Pprune and watched the passenger and bystander videos they may well have assessed the situation differently. However their only source of information would have been third party and it's possible that by the time they were ready to evacuate the fire was already contained.

RFF were on the scene with foam in about 45 seconds. As actual 777 pilots know; it takes all of that to properly assess the situation, carry out the correct non-normal checklist (eng fire involves a 30 second wait between extinguisher shots) and, if necessary, calmly carry out the passenger evacuation checklist (without screwing it up and forgetting the outflow valves).

As far as poking your head out the "DV window" ; well, maybe, but it has to be unlatched and wound open, harness undone, remove headset and awkwardly climb halfway out and I'm still not sure you'd see much of the wing. And in this case it was on the FO's side anyway.

Yes, 773's have a ground manoeuvre camera but it is low res and may not be useful depending on obscuration or sunlight etc.

320goat

27th Jun 2016, 08:36

As has been pointed out

When did the fire actually start?
What were the indications on the flight deck? EICAS messages, Engine indications (primary and secondary)
What information was being passed between flight deck and tower, or cabin crew?
Was it really 5 minutes for the fire services to arrive (all I see is a witness statement which can be unreliable at times)?
I believe decision making was aided in Vegas by the 3rd crew member going into the cabin to assess (how many crew on the SIA, I'm guessing 2)

But I'm with the other idiots on here as I'm not too bothered about waiting for facts, in fact I would go one step further.......this crew should not be immediately suspended.......fire them!

Regards,

With every passing day I truly hope this site is not frequented by professionals, otherwise this industry is beyond hope!

regional_flyer

27th Jun 2016, 08:38

If you are facing the tail, the left side is the Starboard side. If you are facing the nose, the left side is the Port side.

I like the idea of all Green doors on the Port side, and all Red doors on the Starboard side...maybe Black and White would be better for contrast...then "Evac via the ____ (colour) doors ONLY!"

You don't suppose this is why cabin doors are marked on the inside with not only a number, but a big "L" or "R", hmm?

grizzled

27th Jun 2016, 08:41

Ahhh.... Monday morning. PPrune Rumours and News contributors at their finest.

I suppose it's likely that the experienced captains (real life, I mean...), accident investigators, and aviation human factors folks reading this thread are the only people who understand the irony of so many of this morning's posts.

Sigh...

Ertimus

27th Jun 2016, 08:43

Looks like I will have to find another airline to travel on. Terrifying that the passengers were not evacuated immediately a fire was observed. What on earth was the crew thinking?????

VR-HFX

27th Jun 2016, 08:51

Pinkman

On the balance of probability, the "I can't believe they did this" scenario gets my vote. Albeit with a caveat, that being that I actually can believe they did this. It is commercial aviation in 2016.

If no one in the cabin can tell the difference between Jet A and Illy coffee and the third pilot was too lazy to go back and have a whiff then SIA has some real problems.

And what was the EICAS telling them?

Immediate diversion to BKK will likely turn out to have been the correct response from a safety point of view but as we all know commercial is in charge.

atpcliff

27th Jun 2016, 09:03

Originally Posted by atpcliff
If you are facing the tail, the left side is the Starboard side. If you are facing the nose, the left side is the Port side.

I like the idea of all Green doors on the Port side, and all Red doors on the Starboard side...maybe Black and White would be better for contrast...then "Evac via the ____ (colour) doors ONLY!"
You don't suppose this is why cabin doors are marked on the inside with not only a number, but a big "L" or "R", hmm?

That sounds like a great idea. I have not noticed that before. I do know the overwing exits I have sat next to do not have any L or R or any other marking on them...just plane doors...

Maybe the US has different rules for door markings than other areas of the world.

I will be looking for door markings starting tomorrow...

Capt Ecureuil

27th Jun 2016, 09:04

I admit to being a lurker on here but can't resist.

The cameras aren't the greatest but high enough resolution to see your wing on fire.

Wonder what power source is powering the anti-col and strobes which can been seen on the external video.

kaikohe76

27th Jun 2016, 09:08

OK folks, most of us were not on board & possibly do not have the full story. However, based on the videos & photos, is anyone likely to change their preferred airline from SVQ to some other operator, as a result of this incident? I use SVQ often & have done so for many years, but based on what I have seen to day & can likely understand, I wonder if any other potential SVQ pax might have some misgivings.
Question folks, if any pax on this or any aircraft, fully believing their life was in immediate danger, & little apparent action by the crew, what would be his/her legal position, if they operated or attempted to operate the emergency slides themselves & evacuated the aircraft. This assuming & as it appears (may not be the actual case I would admit), the SQ crew were impotent & did very little to at least be prepared for an immediate evacuation?

Mr Good Cat

27th Jun 2016, 09:15

The 777-300ER has 3 external cameras. the fin mounted camera gives a clear view of the wings.

The camera is mounted on the stabiliser leading edge and gives a view of the wing roots only.

The other camera is behind the nose wheel.

Momoe

27th Jun 2016, 09:21

Other posters have mentioned that the SOP for emergency landings is to land and end up opposite the waiting emergency vehicles.
Aircraft ended up some distance past the emergency vehicles suggesting this was a MLW or overweight landing.
No fuel dump?

spinex

27th Jun 2016, 09:21

Interesting contrast between this sit tight response to a fairly significant fire and the AA evacuation following smoke from a buggered APU at LHR. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but assuming the crew had the full gen on the extent of the fire, NOT calling the evac seems a rather bold move.

Capt Ecureuil

27th Jun 2016, 09:26

The camera is mounted on the stabiliser leading edge and gives a view of the wing roots only.

The other camera is behind the nose wheel.
The wing cameras have the engine midscreen and so a bit more than just the wing root.

skytrax

27th Jun 2016, 09:29

Some comments mention the overwing exits in the wrong context.
FYI, LR3 on B773 are manned by cabincrew. It's not like the overwing exits in 737, where you brief pax how to open in case of emergency.

They are normal sized doors fitted with escape slides. The only difference is that pax would get on the wing, turn aft, make few steps and jump and slide. The slide is belly-fairing mounted, not part of the door.

Pax should always follow crew instructions. My believe is that cabin crew were standing by to evacuate if the conditions got worse inside. As we can see in the video there was no
smoke inside. It was one of those 50/50 situations. Everyone was ready to evacuate but they waited to see if the RFFT puts the fire off fast enough not to initate an evacuation.

Also, cabincrew are very well trained on how to assess the situation in and out. The assumption that they could have opened the doors that had hazards outside it's a bit unrealistic. You need to know what training they get before you judge them.

The_Cutest_of_Borg

27th Jun 2016, 09:33

Passengers quoting that there was a fuel smell for a large proportion of the flight and the flight crew made a PA about returning due "not having enough fuel to continue to Milan".

Seems like they had a fuel leak.

The question to be asked then is was the leak from the wing or the engine? No mention of an engine being shut down so perhaps the crew suspected a leak from the wing.

The fire erupted just after landing, possibly caused by leaking fuel being ignited after being sprayed into the hot section during the application of reverse thrust.

Regardless of how it happened I would have initiated an evacuation. I don't understand why they didn't.

Ngineer

27th Jun 2016, 09:53

If you are facing the tail, the left side is the Starboard side. If you are facing the nose, the left side is the Port side.

The left side is always the Capt's side.

vapilot2004

27th Jun 2016, 10:02

I don't understand the mechanism of the leading and trailing edges burning. How much of the 777 wing is 'wet'?

Fore and aft, 777 wing tanks end less than a foot from the leading edge except at the root. Trailing edge boundaries are a little over a foot near, but shy of the outboard ailerons, and almost a meter at the root.

helen-damnation

27th Jun 2016, 10:05

If it's not glowing, it's not Boeing !

Hat, coat, taxi.....

Capn Bloggs

27th Jun 2016, 10:13

If it's not glowing, it's not Boeing !

Hat, coat, taxi.....
Uber!

Best post of the thread, Damn! :D

ManaAdaSystem

27th Jun 2016, 10:20

The fire was contained to the wing. The fire services continued to fight and gain control of the "contained" fire. As soon as an evacuation is communicated the RFF will pull back.
When a door opens the cabin becomes exposed to the fire that is no longer being either controlled or contained.

Really? I was told by an airport fire fighter that they can create a "tunnel" at an exit using water/foam to enable people to get off. To stop firefighting when an ecacuation starts sounds very strange to me.
I'm no 777 driver, but on the 737 there is only one way to control a fuel leak. You shut down the engine. What does the 777 tell you to do?
If the procedure is the same as on the 737, this whole scenario could have been avoided.
No evacuation when the whole wing is on fire? We are very lucky we are not reading about hundreds of charred bodies. Pure luck! And maybe another tick in the 777 quality box.

Short memory people?

How 1985 British Airtours disaster changed air travel - BBC News (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-33304675)

lurker999

27th Jun 2016, 10:20

Not sure an SLF on that flight I'd have been waiting for a evac order if I saw that.

My view would be if you want to chance that, good luck to you, but, see ya later, I'm out.

hunterboy

27th Jun 2016, 10:21

Makes you wonder what would have happened if it had been 180 mins away from a suitable alternate. How well do these things float?

Neptune262

27th Jun 2016, 10:30

A few questions about how this would be handled up front and onboard:

1. Wouldn't the crew have had ample opportunity to discuss and brief different scenarios before landing, including briefing the cabin crew for a possible evacuation.
2. If 1 above, then surely an evacuation on the good engine side would have also been prepared?
3. Can't the cabin be reorganised to move people away from the bad engine (free seats permitting) - or does this promote panic so is not recommended?

Amazing that people just sat in the window seats next to those flames and filmed it - the era of smart phones and you tube posting!!

Bring Back The Biff

27th Jun 2016, 10:44

In the event that a fuel leak is confirmed on the 777 - the suspected engine is shut down immediately to avoid an engine fire. Once the engine is shut down, then more fault finding is conducted to identify whether the leak is from the engine or wing.

If the leak is confirmed as from the wing, the engine may be restarted...

Capn Bloggs

27th Jun 2016, 10:53

And maybe another tick in the 777 quality box.
Dunno about that. Two in 12 months becoming flaming then smouldering wrecks...

notapilot15

27th Jun 2016, 10:59

Total flight time was 4hr 31m (18:17 UTC to 22:48 UTC)

Tracking suggests it maintained 17,000 ft altitude since 21:02 UTC (no tracking before that).

This being 12hr flight they either dumped or lost lot of fuel. FL suggests engine shutdown. Probably ignited on landing.

Fuel line rupture/failure inside the engine and fuel value failure(not able to shut off), may be.

Based on JACDEC track plot, BKK would be the closest major, but if they have to dump fuel SIN is not a bad option.

Assuming there is not much fuel left, I think it is too early to second guess crew's actions.

Airmann

27th Jun 2016, 11:09

Wow, what a contrast to the AA evacuation at LHR, where smoke alone caused an evacuation. From the video it looks like there's almost nothing wrong with the aircraft. And here we have an aeroplane engulfed in flames and no one is doing a thing. From the video's taken by pax they don't even seem in the least bit concerned.

ManaAdaSystem

27th Jun 2016, 11:11

Dunno about that. Two in 12 months becoming flaming then smouldering wrecks...

That would be the engines, no?
The airframe has so far done an excellent job in protecting it's passengers. Crash or fire.

bud leon

27th Jun 2016, 11:13

So many people here getting outraged without any knowledge of the situation aside from a couple of short videos, and also apparently without too much knowledge of fire behaviour.

Firstly a five minute response time is not a bad response time especially if the aircraft had to roll out being heavy. I've had personal experience getting fire appliances to work. It takes longer than you imagine. When you are doing it it feels like an eternity.

Secondly it's clear there is fuel leaking from the wing. That means it could easily spread under the fuselage and be present on the left side of the aircraft. The wing being freely on fire in this situation is much more stable than the kind of fire you see during a high speed landing. Actually in this situation you want either fuel to be burning or not able to burn and nothing in between. It's highly likely that there were considerations around the risks of inflating the emergency slides into a potential ground pool fuel fire. I think that would be a much more dangerous situation. There is also the issue of radiant heat. I'd say that evacuees in this instance may have been at risk of burns from radiant heat.

When you are responding to a fire situation you are generally responding to a novel situation and you need to assess the situation and make the best choices you can. None of us here have all the information, are not in a position to decide on what the best decision would be, and most have no experience in fire fighting.

The end result of this is that no one was hurt and I think the fire was extinguished relatively quickly.

ManaAdaSystem

27th Jun 2016, 11:21

3 minutes is the response time at my home airport.

blimey

27th Jun 2016, 11:21

capt.cynical

27th Jun 2016, 11:24

What you can bet on is that there will be 2 large cans of paint being primed at SIA HQ.
They being ARSE covering beige and FACE SAVING pink.:rolleyes::E:yuk:

subsonicsubic

27th Jun 2016, 11:45

Many crew members on both the flight deck and in the cabin learned lessons from this incident. I hope SIA incorporate the human factors data from this incident and apply it positively in the future.

bud leon

27th Jun 2016, 11:46

ManaAdaSystem, there is no confirmed information that the response took five minutes, nonetheless does your home airport have two 4km long runways? Is response time from dispatch to arrival at the fire scene or getting to work in a genuine emergency (not putting foam onto a practice hull in a known location)? And has it been tested in a real emergency? When the Asiana incident occurred there was a lot of criticism on this forum of imprudent fireground appliance management. The biggest mistake firefighters can make is rushing into a fire.

notapilot15

27th Jun 2016, 12:04

bud leon

There is a video showing wheel stop to first spray. Almost 60 seconds wasted because fire engines took only pavement.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZrgnnRf7YM

Something SIN/CAG need to rethink.

ManaAdaSystem

27th Jun 2016, 12:08

We have two runways and two fire stations in order to meet the 3 minute deadline.
Does SIN only have one fire station?

lomapaseo

27th Jun 2016, 12:10

As a passenger, I definitely would not have self evacuated into a fire, instead preferring to await assessment by trained crew looking out both sides for the extent of blowing flames and/or smoke.

On the other hand I would be very concerned if there was any signs of smoke in the cabin as that is the leading cause of fatalities.

Glad to see that this turned out OK with the actions chosen, now to get on with finding and fixing the causes

bud leon

27th Jun 2016, 12:16

notapilot - they certainly should and most likely will debrief the response and make recommendations like emergency response agencies always do. Airport firefighting equipment is designed for offroad. But I guess we don't know the exact circumstances and terrain they avoided (e.g. drainage and other infrastructure).

You know one of the biggest issues facing airport response crews is the relative infrequency of real incidents. You can drill all you want but there is no substitution for real world experience. It has been documented in peer reviewed research that stress levels for responders that respond infrequently are much higher than for frequent responders. Airport responders are some of the least experienced in their field. It's not their fault.

It's actually very rare for a response to run perfectly. It's humans dealing with novel situations under high stress.

The Ancient Geek

27th Jun 2016, 12:17

Which way was the wind blowing and how fast ?
If the captain positioned the aircraft correctly to put the fire downwind of the fuselage it was probably a good idea to hold the pax onboard and let the fire service professionals assess the risks. Having hundreds of people wandering around randomly at a firefighting scene is a very bad idea.
If and when the fire service considered the passengers to be at risk they could take appropriate action to protect and supervise an evacuation.

Let the professionals do thir job, it is what they are trained for.

bud leon

27th Jun 2016, 12:17

ManaAdaSystem I don't actually know. I think they have two, but you didn't answer all of my questions.

tatelyle

27th Jun 2016, 12:34

The new Boeing read-and-do evacuation checklist takes a lot longer than the previous memory drill. But I make that external video 4 minutes without an evacuation call. Not good with that size of raging fire (any fire).

The trouble would come when the fire engines run out of foam, like they did at Manchester. I did not see a foam tanker ready to reload the fire engines (or do they have runway reload points?). If the engines had run out of foam, that fire would have reenergised itself in a trice. With the passengers still onboard.

Ian W

27th Jun 2016, 13:03

Hell's teeth

If I'd have been a passenger I'd have ordered my own evacuation and no amount of 'sit down sir' would have stopped me.

Google: British Airtours Flight 28M if you want to know what could have been the outcome - I thought we'd learnt that lesson.

And possibly earned yourself a mention in the Accident Report as the person that breached the hull and allowed smoke and flame into the cabin from the fire you couldn't see under the aircraft, that led to an Air Tours level loss of life.

Sullenberger's ditching into the Hudson was good but the evacuation using overwing and forward exits only was almost a failure as "One rear door was opened by a panicking passenger, causing the A320 to fill more quickly with water. The flight attendant in the rear who attempted to reseal the rear door was unable to do so." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Airways_Flight_1549#Evacuation

As pax you do not have the information that the crew have - your panic could kill you and others. And yes I know that in most incidents 90 seconds to depart the aircraft is the magic figure for survival. But that is most incidents not all.

DX Wombat

27th Jun 2016, 13:10

Most of you already know I'm not a Commercial Pilot but I would like to ask a couple of questions without commenting on the rights, wrongs, why did/didn't he's? that have been put forward.
1 Some have asked why or if fuel was dumped. Would dumping fuel have possibly caught fire, similar to Concorde, resulting in a huge trail of burning fuel being blown backwards towards the cabin with catastrophic results?
2 Where space and time are available, would turning the aircraft 180degrees so that it is not pointing into wind help keep the flames away a little longer? I seem to recall some mention of this being a factor at Manchester.
As I have said, I am asking purely out of interest.

blimey

27th Jun 2016, 13:23

Simple question: How many of you professionals having cracked the window and looked back to the blazing wing wouldn't have initiated an evacuation?

If your answers no could you say who you fly for so I can avoid you.

notapilot15

27th Jun 2016, 13:27

DX Wombat

Dumping fuel wouldn't start a fire, it evaporates instantly. If there was already a fire crew wouldn't dump.

Looking at the altitude I am +ve engine was shutdown. 17,000 is well below single engine ceiling.

I think people are mistaking the flames coming out of engine as a running engine. That is probably just gushing fuel on fire. Flames on the flaps may be result of open jettison nozzles at the wing tip. Why they were still open, we don't know.

alainthailande

27th Jun 2016, 13:31

I haven't seen this posted yet, but apparently it's a GE90 engine just like BA2276.

Less Hair

27th Jun 2016, 13:52

This is the aircraft concerned:
https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20160627-0

And these are occurences with the engine:
https://aviation-safety.net/database/dblist.php?Engine=GE-90

bvcu

27th Jun 2016, 13:58

INCORRECT. that was a 94b this was a 115b , completely different apart from being a GE . bit like comparing a RR Trent with an earlier RB211 , same family but very different

ex-EGLL

27th Jun 2016, 14:30

Metro man

27th Jun 2016, 14:33

Fuel leaking in flight, in this case obviously kept away from the engine by the airflow. Aircraft stops, no more airflow, fuel finds its way onto a hot engine and ignites with the fire spreading back along the trail to the source of the leak.

Something about accidents happening in threes ?

AR1

27th Jun 2016, 14:45

Something about accidents happening in threes ?

My rudementary grasp of such stuff says that 'chance' doesn't have a memory.

Wageslave

27th Jun 2016, 14:48

Ex EGLL, none that know their job is the answer. The purpose of evacuating is to avoid the risk of more serious consequences by staying onboard, not to worry about being second-guessed later. No breach of the fuselage is simply not an appropriate criterion to judge an evacuation on.

A fire of a tenth of that magnitude is more than ample reason to evacuate in most pilots' view I think. We all know how fast a fire can turn into an inferno - unless the fire surrounds the aircraft the only safe place to be is outside and fast.

ACMS

27th Jun 2016, 14:53

Well time for me to add something i guess!!

I find it incredible, no amazing that they didn't evacuate given the size of the damn Fire and the fact that on the 777-300ER you CAN see the wing quite well in the Camera, so they would have seen it.

A lot of questions will be asked and hopefully we will get to the bottom of this event and ALL learn something from it.

Thanks goodness no one was hurt or died.

Just shows you how tough the mighty 777 is.

Capot

27th Jun 2016, 15:13

likelihood for serious pax injuries via evac command is almost a g'teedOn a point of order, no it isn't. Minor injuries, maybe, a broken ankle even; otherwise, show me some evidence of more than very, very few serious injuries in aircraft evacuation via slides, due to the evacuation itself.

By serious I (and everyone else, I think) mean life-threatening or close to that.

Press reporting tends to class every bruise or graze as an injury or "hurt"; but even in reports like the Mail's on the Jet2 evacuation at GLA (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2220041/17-injured-crew-passengers-evacuated-plane-Glasgow-Airport.html)didn't claim a "serious" injury.

I do not believe that the remote possibility of an injury to a passenger should stop a Captain from ordering an evacuation for a heartbeat. If it's needed, it's needed.

armchairpilot94116

27th Jun 2016, 15:25

Every emergency is not the same and it will be dangerous for passengers to be walking around when an aircraft is on fire. They could be run over by fire equipment (like the Asiana incident in SFO). I think in this SQ incident most people feel everyone was very lucky indeed.

May be good to view the Ci incident again. Less then 2 mins after the video started we had the first explosion. The actual fire may have started a minute or two before the vid began. The EVAC was called immediately as you can see the rear slide out and passengers exiting and the front slide was just inflating.

One brave ground crew even came around with a fire extinguisher. Brave but foolhardy move.

The Ci EVAC was a great call, had they been onboard during the first explosion, would not have been good.

By the time the trucks came around, they may as well have stayed back in the fire house, there was nothing to save.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qyZFASOAe0&list=PLUkrz-N1Mf92EBa9U6u1ZLM4p_VmMV3Uh

Wifey flying SQ 77W very soon. Lucky she is not concerned. There is a lot of trust in SQ. Its not Lion. The SQ crew also had nerves of steel to stay calm and NOT evacuate.

I would have busted open a door and possibly be jailed afterwards but I couldn't sit around especially if I saw the fire outside my window.

This fire seemed every bit as bad as the Ci Okinawa incident. It was just put out before the plane exploded...thank goodness.

KABOY

27th Jun 2016, 15:46

So, in a parallel universe, the same SQ 777 lands, same fire, same response time from AFS, same end result BUT the passengers were ordered to evacuate, how many of the armchair critics / experts would be lambasting the crew for needlessly putting peoples lives at risk by ordering an evacuation when the inside of the A/C was totally undamaged?

AMEN!

Maybe a sprain or broken bone, but i bet not one criticism for ordering the evacuation!

tatelyle

27th Jun 2016, 15:47

The Ci EVAC was a great call, had they been onboard during the first explosion, would not have been good.

The Ci evac was the only call. Fire = evacuation, no questions asked. As it should have been here.

And the Ci 'explosions' were not exactly explosions. As I understand it, these were tyre-hydraulic blowouts. But anything that stirs up a fuel fire looks like an explosion. Try blasting a dry powder extinguisher into a fuel bath and see what happens. It will not be the desired effect, that is for sure.

notapilot15

27th Jun 2016, 15:56

So, in a parallel universe, the same SQ 777 lands, same fire, same response time from AFS, same end result BUT the passengers were ordered to evacuate, how many of the armchair critics / experts would be lambasting the crew for needlessly putting peoples lives at risk by ordering an evacuation when the inside of the A/C was totally undamaged?

Fortunately fuel was not gushing towards the fuselage. Looking at what fire did to BA276 fuselage in few seconds, not evacuating 240+ ???

There will always be injuries with evacuation, I don't think crew would hesitate for one second to avoid such minor injuries.

jet grande

27th Jun 2016, 15:59

bloody idiots, sitting inside an aircraft with an uncontained fire.
On youtube clearly visible that after + 3 very long minute the Fire Services were not able to suppress the fire.

CCA

27th Jun 2016, 16:13

http://www.nycaviation.com/newspage/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/DSC_0329-620x410.jpg

The view assuming the camera worked.

PersonFromPorlock

27th Jun 2016, 16:29

Aviation kero fires are typically very smoky but this looks worse than usual so maybe there was oil burning as well.From the late appearance of the black smoke in the external video, I'd think maybe tires burning.

Capot

27th Jun 2016, 17:51

it will be dangerous for passengers to be walking around when an aircraft is on fire. Yes, I'll buy that, having been the person responsible for an annual CAP 148 airfield crash exercise at night, with 110 Casualty Union people and a full turn-out of all the services including the ladies serving tea, which was marred by a Local Authority fire tender running over the legs of a CU person feigning unconsciousness as briefed in the hope that some one would find him, 100m from the scene. The Risk Analysis didn't think of that one, which took a bit of explaining..

But severe injuries in the process of leaving the aircraft, apart from burns, are not common at all.

PS I just watched that China airline fire video. Long way from the Fire Station, was it? I'm sure that PPRuNe has been through all that, just a comment. Good evacuation, though. Makes you realise why overwing exit seats give a false sense of security; most fires involve engines/wings and the centre/wing fuel tanks, so that from the overwing seats you're in the back of the queue for the usable exits.

CCA

27th Jun 2016, 18:20

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Aa.b777-200er.n788an.mains.arp.jpg/1920px-Aa.b777-200er.n788an.mains.arp.jpg

The hydraulic lines from the engine route through the back of the pylon up onto the rear of the rear spar.

So I'm guessing a considerable internal pylon / front spar main fuel supply fuel leak flooding the pylon with fuel therefore allowing vapor to flood the leading and trailing edge cavities during the extended diversion.

Airflow prevents pylon fuel / vapor from contacting hot engine till roll out, kicking off the fire.

Engine change without new fuel line seals or incorrectly connected fuel line etc during maintenance.

Any maintenance carried out recently?

hoss183

27th Jun 2016, 18:38

Also surprised by the lack of evac, BUT the video i have seen from the terminal looks like there COULD have been fire under the a/c on the left side too. Possibly in the pilots cameras that looked too dangerous to evac on the left side. Dont hang them from your armchair without all of the facts, is all I say.

fox niner

27th Jun 2016, 18:41

I flew the 777-300 as an f/o. the tail mounted camera is actually pretty good. Even during night time. You can see quite an amazing amount of detail.
For example, whether the chocks are still in place. Or a small puff of smoke when you start up an engine.

DaveReidUK

27th Jun 2016, 19:03

Engine change without new fuel line seals or incorrectly connected fuel line etc during maintenance.

Any maintenance carried out recently?

Very unlikely that it was the first flight following an engine change, judging from the FR24 flight history.

pax britanica

27th Jun 2016, 19:35

Leaving aside the evac or not situation , and it does look very scary indeed with the whole wing alight if iwas a regualr SQ pax I would wonder about he diversion back to base.

it does seem quite common now to return to home or convenient airport rather than land asap. With the smell of fuel in the cabin shouldnt one of the flight deck come back for a nose around?

If there was clear evidence of a fuel leak surely a land asap is the wisest course since had this inferno broken out at FL170 everyone is dead for sure and it seems mere chance that airflow kept the flames away from the engine -if more and more fuel leaked sooner or later its going to find something hot . Is there a bit too much trust in the airframe at times or a bit too much emphasis on what it will cost to hotac 300 pax , provide a substitute plane and then recover this one.

it does seem to me to be a lucky escape but more from the diversion point of view than slides or no slides

Ian W

27th Jun 2016, 19:43

CCA

27th Jun 2016, 19:48

Very unlikely that it was the first flight following an engine change, judging from the FR24 flight history.

It doesn't have to occur after the first flight.

AA191 (engine departed) crashed 8 weeks after incorrect maintenance.

henra

27th Jun 2016, 20:24

When a door opens the cabin becomes exposed to the fire that is no longer being either controlled or contained.

Sorry, but you're joking, right?
This 1/8th inch Aluminum Foil will stand direct heat from 10.000 Gallons of Kerosene for maybe 2 or 3 seconds. You can almost ignore it is there from a Fire protection perspective. Had the wind turned around this would have ended in Tears. Lots of. Within seconds.

I'm completely at a loss how everyone sat there and didn't weither force the crew to evacuate or start self- evacuation. I can't fathom myself sitting there and waiting were I watching the scene outside window live and in real time.

coolbeans202

27th Jun 2016, 20:33

@Soundbarrier - another pax with very low information willing to hazard the entire passenger complement by taking unauthorized panic action and opening a door perhaps letting in the smoke from a fire you couldn't see.

And I bet you have the temerity to complain about people evacuating with carry-on.

As a passenger, in my mind it all depends on what kind of instruction was passed along from the flight deck. If no word from the flight deck, then I have to go on the little information I've got, which is an entire wing on fire. In that case, out the door I go. For all I know, the flight deck has been incapacitated.

JPJP

27th Jun 2016, 20:35

What part of "EVACUATE LEFT SIDE ONLY" would the Singapore cabin crew be unable to understand ?
A minor interesting point - If you are going to specify a side (left or right) or a direction (front or rear), it's useful to do so prior to commanding "evacuate".

Example - "Left side only, left side only, Evacuate, Evacuate".

The reasoning being that every word you say after the word "evacuate" will likely go unheeded and possibly unheard amongst the yelling.

I'm not trying to school anybody, nor am I picking on your post. I've always thought it was an interesting point given humans (passengers and flight attendants) reactions to stress.

blimey

27th Jun 2016, 20:57

Ian W

Most of my hours are 777. I've yet to hear of any situation where at least a pair of doors weren't usable. I want a long retirement - I wouldn't have that if I was a charcoal corpse in a burnt out hulk.

Sitting in an aluminium structure, part of which is uncontrollably on fire, and which contains a great deal of inflammable liquid, is not a good idea. The situation could, but for the grace of god, have quickly become unsurvivable. The AA or BA way is the only way.

Basil

27th Jun 2016, 21:20

Open door and wait for slide to deploy
- Look before jumping (assess for fire/water)
Yessss . . .
The preferred procedure is to check for fire BEFORE opening door.

flynerd

27th Jun 2016, 21:27

Passenger Initiated Evacuation

@SB and others. Watching the available videos of the AC on fire, the red flashing beacon was on. To me this indicates engine(s) still running.
Not a good idea to deplane when #1 may still be running.

As for those fearing the alum. foil skin will burn through in seconds, think again. Is it not an Aluminium alloy, designed to be much stronger than pure aluminum.

vector4fun

27th Jun 2016, 21:36

I keep seeing references to a "hot" engine igniting fuel. If the engine had been shut down for an hour, I can't imagine anything in it being hot enough to ignite a fire. Seems to me, the only thing that would ignite a fuel/oil leak would be hot brakes.

Metro man

27th Jun 2016, 21:49

Were both engines shut down immediately after landing ? If not a cabin crew initiated evacuation could have led to passengers evacuating on the left with an engine running. Were the cabin crew sure that the aircraft was not going to start moving forward if they deployed the slides without instruction from the flight deck ?

A perfect example of how vital good CRM and communication is during an emergency.

Initially in Singapore the procedure was for the flight deck to specify which side of the aircraft to evacuate from but that changed many years ago to having the cabin crew assess the situation outside and decide to use one or both.

blimey

27th Jun 2016, 22:13

Engines shut down as part of the pilot initiated evacuation sequence - due to it about to become a charred hulk. It's not rocket science.

At which point I'm out of here - as I would have been had I been in an jet with an uncontrolled fire with no one seemingly in control.

kaikohe76

27th Jun 2016, 22:18

After The QF 32 incident & the aircraft safely on the ground (after a superb effort by all the Crew of course), the Captain then took the time to go & speak to & with the passengers. I wonder if the Captain of SQ368 might have done the same & what might he have said to them?

I wonder if a polite letter to SQ HQ at SIN, asking them what their company rules & regulations are for initiating an aircraft evacuation. Can only the Captain make this call, can any CC make the call, if they consider the situation that serious & they have heard nothing from the F/D, or if the nasty stuff really hits the fan, with a definite clear danger to life & no action appears to be taken by any crew member, can any sensible passenger make this call & operate slides etc?

hotnhigh

27th Jun 2016, 22:23

For those advocating a non evacuation..... How much evidence do you require before you would have pulled the pin?
Secondly, the real threat indeed would have been for a passenger initiation of the evacuation. In this case it didn't but the thoughts and (in)actions of the captain, at the subsequent court of enquiry, would be illuminating in such an event.
I look forward to the open transcript from the Singapore authorities on this one.

vapilot2004

27th Jun 2016, 22:25

I checked the age of the plane and it's only 9 years old, which is relatively good for a 777. What would cause a 9 year old, 300 million dollar aircraft, to be suddenly leaking oil.. having fuel issues that can cause a fire such as this on landing?

Major maintenance snafu, undetected oil/fuel system component fatigue, or turbine disk/blade/burner can failure are some of the typical man-made causes.

Why the fire bottles failed to confine the fire to the nacelle is a big question - if they were discharged in time and there was no disk/blade failure, which seems unlikely as that event would have gotten everyone's attention pretty quickly.

CCA

27th Jun 2016, 22:25

Fuel line leaks don't work like that (if indeed that was the cause).

The point is maintenance errors pop up & not all are immediately post maintenance which is why I left the question of any recent maintenance in my original post. The AA191 was just to support the timing point, not the type of error. It could have been a fuel connection not tightened which took xyz sectors/hours/days to come loose.

RetiredTooEarly

27th Jun 2016, 22:39

Until the investigation reveals the real reasons for not evacuating the aircraft we are all guessing what was in the Captain's mind but he would most likely be concerned about a fuel fire spreading UNDER the aircraft - as has happened - and then bye bye to any extended chutes on the port side (full of deplaning passengers!)

And was he influenced by his knowledge of the five star fire fighting utilities at Changi? Tossing passengers out of a burning aircraft at night whilst not being totally sure of the external conditions presents a situation where you're damned if you do and damned if you don't!

Keep the pax on board and the aircraft explodes with huge loss of life or put them out and they possibly get incinerated in a spreading fuel fire?

Think I'd still opt for the first choice ......... sitting here with my Chardonnay in hand!

PAXboy

27th Jun 2016, 22:53

Earlier there was a question about flight crew visiting the cabin. As this was a 12 hour sector, they would have had a minimum of three crew. So someone could have walked and sniffed before/after the turnback.

lomapaseo

27th Jun 2016, 23:37

Why the fire bottles failed to confine the fire to the nacelle is a big question -

but we don't even know if it was a nacelle fire.

Quite possibly the fuel simply leaked while in a slipstream environment and wetted a lot of surfaces behind the nacelle in flight before dripping down and wetting the nacelle and the ground after it stopped and only then the ignition.

It's gonna be an interesting investigation to determine the links in the chain

Ritam

27th Jun 2016, 23:41

Without questioning the evacuation decision, I do have to wonder about those who are stating they would start their own evacuation. If the left engine is still running at idle power (just an assumption), which exits, if any, are safe to use to evacuate? My best guess is that maybe L1 would be safe, as it should be far enough forward to avoid being sucked into the air intake. I would worry that all other doors are unusable with an engine running -- those behind the engine might have their slides blown over by the jet blast, and those just in front of it might result in being blended by a GE90-115.

I'm not convinced a safe evacuation is *possible* without the cooperation of those in the pointy end.

notapilot15

27th Jun 2016, 23:48

I think CCA has some valid points.

Fire in mainly concentrated on leading/trailing edges of the wing, wing tip and engine exhaust. Fuel not evaporated is very valid reason.

May be right wing fuel tanks were empty by the time of landing.

misd-agin

27th Jun 2016, 23:53

Our evacuation checklist has the call to evacuate as step 5. That takes about 15-20 seconds after stopping. There is no 30 delay between selecting fire bottles during an evacuation.

If they had evacuated, and met the evacuate time criteria, everyone would have been off before the fire was under control.

The camera shows about 5'-10' of wing outboard of the engine.

The fire was at least 3 minutes based on the exterior video.

RatherBeFlying

28th Jun 2016, 00:01

ASN Aircraft accident Boeing 737-275 C-GQPW Calgary International Airport, AB (YYC) (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19840322-0)

PWA 501 went up in smoke shortly after turning on to a taxiway after a rejected takeoff.

News reports at the time said the pax initiated the evacuation just barely in time.

Yes there were injuries, but no charred bodies.

JammedStab

28th Jun 2016, 00:16

Pictures of P Dub 501

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/8a/cd/4a/8acd4a6f12717776a1d3eff5e70033e6.jpg

http://www.nna-ccj.ca/lb/gallery/winners/display_1984SN.jpg

http://www.calgaryfiremuseum.com/uploads/6/6/8/4/66843821/4093479.jpg?504

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/10/7d/39/107d39e5de40743b86d1dae2ee03a6f0.jpg

Capn Bloggs

28th Jun 2016, 00:22

On youtube clearly visible that after + 3 very long minute the Fire Services were not able to suppress the fire.
Now I'm not a firefighter but it seemed to me that the trucks were too far away, especially the rear one. It was very uneasy watching the video... how long is that foam going to last?

caneworm

28th Jun 2016, 01:10

Possibly in the pilots cameras that looked too dangerous to evac on the left side. Dont hang them from your armchair without all of the facts, is all I say.

So, there's a known fire on the right side and possibly a fire on the left side. Yep, I think we'd all agree that no evacuation was a great decision.
If you can read the QRH by the glow of the fire, perhaps it's time to get out!

yssy.ymel

28th Jun 2016, 01:35

Whilst not quite in the same class, there are parallels to the QF32 incident a few years ago. The aircraft sitting on the runway, leaking fuel, that fuel being atomised by the jet blast from an engine still running, near very hot brakes. A combination that could have caused a fully fueled A380 to combust at any time, however the passengers remained on the aircraft until the the engine was shut down by filling it with foam.

This is albeit a bit different with an uncontained fire engulfing the wing, however it could have happened. That wasn't a Singapore crew, that was an Australian crew. They probably didn't have any situational awareness of the damage that the airframe had sustained with the engine dropping it's internals all over Indonesia either.

As they say, time will tell. A forunate outcome nonetheless.

Interested_Layman

28th Jun 2016, 02:27

Ignorant SLF question: If airport RFE is onsite, would SOP be to shutdown any remaining running engines?
If so, it would remove one inhibitor for evacuation.
As SLF with an interest in aviation, and well aware of previous fire disasters, I would have been VERY concerned had I been aboard and aware of the fire.
The calm evident in these videos is amazing to me. At the very least I'd have been screaming at the cabin crew to evacuate, and if I'd been close enough to an exit...
I'm well aware that the crew might have information I don't pertinent to safety of evacuation, but I'm also well aware they might NOT be seeing what I'm seeing, or simply might be frozen. The past history of such incidents suggests that those who move fast are those who survive. It's a true dilemma.

ITman

28th Jun 2016, 02:32

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGA26MpJU9c&feature=youtu.be

CurtainTwitcher

28th Jun 2016, 02:43

ATC recording..., requesting fuel dump
Same recording offered assistance on landing, and says negative. Doesn't look like such a great decision in hindsight.

PAXboy

28th Jun 2016, 02:43

The link ITman provides does reveal the fuel dump but, also:

BWH Control: Singapore 368. Do you require any assistance upon landing?
SQ368: Negative, Singapore 368.

So they didn't think it was too bad at that time.

Uncle Fred

28th Jun 2016, 02:47

Interesting exchange ITman. The three times that I have had to dump fuel I had them roll the trucks for our landing. Best to have them in position if needed. Easy insurance.

The fire brigade wants to help. You are not discomfitting them by rolling them out.

Capn Bloggs

28th Jun 2016, 02:53

Same recording offered assistance on landing, and says negative. Doesn't look like such a great decision in hindsight.
For goodness sake, based on the info they probably had, they didn't need any!

So they didn't think it was too bad at that time.
Agree.

Do you need any assistance?
No.
Do you release that your right wing is going to catch fire after you land?
Oh, OK, request full services.
:rolleyes:

CurtainTwitcher

28th Jun 2016, 03:05

Blogs, they obviously knew something was wrong, (strong fuel smell in cabin, FL170, fuel dump). Clearly there was a high degree of uncertainty about the mechanical state of the aircraft in the crew's mind. What would be the risk/reward of assistance vs no assistance under such circumstances of uncertainty?

skytrax

28th Jun 2016, 03:23

Cabin crew is always on alert. They are required to be alert on every landing let alone when you have a diversion due to a technical fault. They were continuously evaluating the inside and outside conditions and they were ready to evacuate.

No pax should ever try to take matters in their on hands as long as the cabin crew is not incapacitated.

kaikohe76

28th Jun 2016, 03:29

Fair enough & quite sensible comments `Angry Rat`. Earlier on I raised the possibility of a Pax initiated evacuation, but I stress, this would have to be the very last resort, in the event of no crew input or action & a genuine & serious danger to your life & the lives of others. You would also have to justify your actions subsequently as well. As had been mentioned a number of times on this thread, do you stay on board & fry, or do you evacuate into a pool of fuel & also likely fry? At night & after a single engine approach & landing, not a nice situation to be in at all.
I would suggest though, a little more openness & info directly from SQ Airlines might be a help & might certainly calm any future pax, who right now are looking at Emirates, Qantas & others, as an alternative airline for them. In my opinion, Airlines from this part of the world seem to err very much on keeping `Mum` & not being as open as they might, when problems arise. Is this face saving, or just keeping problems in house, I would not know.

ok45

28th Jun 2016, 03:42

Cabin crew should've initiated the evacuation, even if the fact that the fire was not yet known to the pilot.. They were saved by a mere luck and great job of the RFF team, not the crew. The fact that some people said it was safer on board, watch this
https://youtu.be/-qyZFASOAe0

parabellum

28th Jun 2016, 04:02

It is highly probable that the crew were talking to the fire fighters and the decision not to evacuate may have been based on information from the fire fighters outside the aircraft and in a position to see what was happening.

Many spoon drains and culverts in the grass at Changi, add to that rain and the ground may have been too soft for fire engines. In any event, a fire engine over tarmac is likely to be faster than one over the grass.

So much rubbish posted here, sadly some from pilots. Fuel dump with a fuel leak?

Algol

28th Jun 2016, 04:07

The thing I find most interesting about that China Airlines video is how short was the 'window of opportunity' for evacuation. The passengers were not long off before there was burning fuel spreading all around the slides. Would I wait for the fire services in a similar situation? I'm sceptical about their chances of succes, and how long they'll take to arrive, or douse the fire. Seconds count here. If you lose your gamble - you're dead.

BuzzBox

28th Jun 2016, 04:08

Cabin crew should've initiated the evacuation, even if the fact that the fire was not yet known to the pilot..

What rubbish. As others have already said, the pilots may not have shut down the engine(s) straight away if they weren't planning an emergency evacuation. I'd suggest that would be the case if "the fire was not yet known to the pilot". An evacuation initiated by the cabin crew in such circumstances could easily have resulted in people going down the slides right next to an engine that was still running. Is that a good idea? I think not.

skytrax

28th Jun 2016, 04:23

@buzzbox

What you jst said is also rubbish. No offence.
Cabin crew can initiate evacuation if they belive that is necessary and are trained not to open a door with fire/smoke outside. They initially stand by and wait for a command from the Flight Deck, if during that time situation requires a evacuation than they can start without the command.
So, stop assuming nonsense.
SIA has experienced, well-trained cabin crew. Don't make assumptions that they would have opened a door with fire outside.

BuzzBox

28th Jun 2016, 04:45

skytrax:

I am well aware of what cabin crew can and can't do in such situations, thank you. Try READING my post. It was about cabin crew initiating an evacuation next to a running engine.

andrasz

28th Jun 2016, 04:45

The fact that some people said it was safer on board, watch this
https://youtu.be/-qyZFASOAe0 (https://youtu.be/-qyZFASOAe0 [/quote)

Not directly comparable situations, the fire at Naha was allowed to burn unchecked for over five minutes. Once the first truck started spraying the fire on the right side was out within 30 seconds. Also note that throughout the entire video footage there is NO smoke coming from either forward or aft doors, meaning the fire did not spread inside the cabin.

That being said, the report will be an interesting read. I'll be very curious to read whether no evacuation was a conscious decision taking into account the various risks, or just a lack of action.

ok45

28th Jun 2016, 04:58

What rubbish. As others have already said, the pilots may not have shut down the engine(s) straight away if they weren't planning an emergency evacuation. I'd suggest that would be the case if "the fire was not yet known to the pilot". An evacuation initiated by the cabin crew in such circumstances could easily have resulted in people going down the slides right next to an engine that was still running. Is that a good idea? I think not.

Sitting on top of a burning kerosene contrainer is a better idea for you? Well... To me, the crew gambled and win, nothing more..

India Four Two

28th Jun 2016, 05:08

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGA2...ature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGA2...ature=youtu.be)

There is something odd about the link posted by ITman. Is it real?

Why is Butterworth Radar clearing them to land and then asking them to contact Kuala Lumpur Radar?

andrasz

28th Jun 2016, 05:12

If the pilots knew there was fire and didn't evacuate...

Hard to imagine the pilots were unaware with the first responding fire truck in line with the cockpit, and also one would assume tower advised them on the situation. However the beacon lights were on throughout the fire-fighting sequence, clearly seen on some videos, so possibly at least one engine was running...

BuzzBox

28th Jun 2016, 05:14

ok45:
Sitting on top of a burning kerosene contrainer is a better idea for you?

In my opinion, the cockpit crew should have initiated an evacuation, FULL STOP. The cabin crew would want to be damn sure the engines were shut down before self-initiating an evacuation unless the situation was catastrophic and there was an imminent risk to life.

vapilot2004

28th Jun 2016, 05:16

Quite possibly the fuel simply leaked while in a slipstream environment and wetted a lot of surfaces behind the nacelle in flight before dripping down and wetting the nacelle and the ground after it stopped and only then the ignition.

Lomapaseo, I can completely see that theory working on the ground. Reports of kerosene smells in the cabin in flight seems rather odd considering the architecture of the engine and bleed system. It is a puzzle.

Perhaps the early reports of an 'oil pressure' problem precipitating the landing were wrong and it was in fact fuel pressure and the engine was not shut down.

RatherBeFlying

28th Jun 2016, 05:42

Human nature and wishful thinking can lead the crew to believe everything's under control. The fire truck crews may have been either overconfident in their capabilities or insufficiently assertive to the captain.

It all worked out this time; so niggling concerns might end up swept under the rug with kudos handed out to all involved.

If the fire fighters let it go a little farther or the wind is blowing the wrong direction next time, you might just wish the pax were outside the airframe instead of inside getting barbecued.

Fliegenmong

28th Jun 2016, 06:08

No pax should ever try to take matters in their on hands as long as the cabin crew is not incapacitated.

Best make them stop watching the videos....and take away those 'How to' cards as well, even the ones that indicate to look outside to see if there is a fire.... :}

ozsmac

28th Jun 2016, 06:36

Imagine a lack of contribution from pilots to a thread and topic that is speculative in every sense. It's been said a million times (possibly more) that unless you were on the flight deck, or intimately involved, it is very likely that you don't have visibility of all of the facts, hence no real point is trying to find answers or understanding at this point.

Time and further information will tell us if the flight crew earn were fantastic, or just lucky.

Capt Ecureuil

28th Jun 2016, 06:59

bud leon

28th Jun 2016, 07:12

It's absolutely bizarre that there is an incident in which no one was injured and there are people on this thread castigating the crew.

Do you honestly think that the crew would not order an evacuation if they thought they would lose 200 lives by not doing it? Why would you think that the flight crew is less competent than you in the same situation? It's a stupid idea and you're seriously inane for thinking that you are better placed to make a decision from this privileged vantage point of not having to deal with any of the consequences.

You don't know what communication went on between ground responders and the flight deck. You don't have any of the facts. Most of you, if not all of you, have no firefighting experience.

Possibly the crew were somewhere between fantastic and lucky, which is how it always works in real life.

When judging the performance of the firefighting - things like how close they were for example... how many of you know the ins and outs of aircraft firefighting? Of staging appliances, using first response foam, sizing up the incident site, access to water, efficient utilisation of firefighting resources in an unfolding incident? How do you know whether or not there were mechanical PTO problems, or pump problems, or if there were no problems at all?

Have any of you ever been in a situation like this, a situation about which you are spending hours and days second guessing decisions that were made in the space of five minutes?

KelvinD

28th Jun 2016, 07:37

Well said Bud.
A couple of things had occurred to me:
The thread keeps referring to a smell of fuel being reported in the cabin. Reported by whom? If a reliable source had reported that, surely they would have reported other salient points (such as crew announcements etc).
There are comments referring to landing with a fuel leak. I understood the Captain had reported an oil leak so where does the fuel leak idea come from?
Does anybody here have experience of the old paraffin blow torches? The damn stuff wouldn't light until the jet was pre-heated and the paraffin pressurised. If the fire was indeed fuel, how was it pressurised, given that the engine had apparently been stopped for quite some time (presumably in flight)?
On the other hand, the Saudia L-1011 disaster in 1980 has never been given a root cause of the fire that destroyed that aircraft and killed so many. But then, the accident report was compiled by the Presidency of Civil Aviation. Having worked for them at the time of this incident, I wouldn't have any faith in what they said anyway. However, I remember seeing a documentary some years ago covering an investigation by the UK AAIB into what could have initiated the fire. And the conclusion there was it was most likely due to a tiny leak in a hydraulic line, resulting in atomised fluid being sprayed onto and soaking the insulation cladding the centre engine exhaust where it was routed through the cargo hold. And in their tests, they replicated this theory and showed an extremely intense fire. So, is it possible the fire seen in the SIA videos could have been burning hydraulic fluid, rather than fuel? To the Captain and the fire crews, a fire is a fire and it would be natural to assume it was fuel that was burning. Perhaps it wasn't?

Angle of Attack

28th Jun 2016, 07:39

Capt Ecureuil

28th Jun 2016, 07:45

There have been a few posts regarding beacon lights and whether the engines are running or not. Trust me if you have a fire on the runway and assessing the situation the beacon light switch would never come into it. It would have as much relevance as whether you had put the rubbish bin out in the morning.
Guess that might be directed at me as I posted a while back.

My inference wasn't that they had or hadn't touched the switches rather an observation that they were being powered..

Either the APU which would be running on landing if they had shut down an engine (was it an engine fuel leak... we don't know), or the left was still running.

I do trust you but did you put the rubbish out this morning?

Volume

28th Jun 2016, 07:47

Almost 60 seconds wasted because fire engines took only pavementAre you obliged to keep all grass within the airport perimeters in a condition, which allows heavy vehicles to use it without getting stuck? Would not be an easy task in the tropics...

smell of fuel being reported in the cabinHow many pax can tell the smell of jetfuel? Probably the typical smell of burned fuel people know from engine start with adverse wind.

the Saudia L-1011 disaster in 1980 has never been given a root cause of the fire that destroyed that aircraft It is agreed anyway, that it started inside the cabin. That is a completely different scenario, and it is hard to argue why not to evacuate immediately in that case.
Hopefully the 777 interior is a bit more modern / less toxic when burning than the L-1011 Interior designed in the late 60s

Angle of Attack

28th Jun 2016, 08:00

Fair point Capt Ecureuil,

I have never operated a 777, so if the beacon is not hot battery bussed you could obviously know either an engine or apu was running. Point taken, I guess a 777 driver can answer that. And no it wasn't particularly aimed at you, and I don't know, I forgot if I put the rubbish out.

blimey

28th Jun 2016, 08:00

decisions that were made in the space of five minutes?

Was this a genuine fastball or was time available beforehand to prepare with the crew for all possible eventualities?

CodyBlade

28th Jun 2016, 08:04

Almost 60 seconds wasted because fire engines took only pavement

Changi has drains on the grass perimeter.

DingerX

28th Jun 2016, 08:05

Look, the wing is burning. I'm not going to wait for the facts from the investigation, I'm evacuating before even the relevant METARs are posted to PPRuNe.

Capot

28th Jun 2016, 08:11

Are you obliged to keep all grass within the airport perimeters in a condition, which allows heavy vehicles to use it without getting stuck?Hmmm, that's an interesting question! I thought I knew the answer, but I don't. So I had a look at UK CAA's CAP 168 first, and Annexe 14 (incl Amendment 11) second, and failed to find any specific reference to unpaved surface maintenance and condition except where it is part of the manoeuvring area, ie runway, taxiway, apron etc.

That's not to say there isn't a reference; Annexe 14, and its Amendments, are very long! I only looked in the obvious places.

There is of course the RFFS requirement to get to any part of the airfield within a stated time. If the RFFS has to use paved areas only, either occasionally or every time, that requirement still applies.

Flingwing47

28th Jun 2016, 08:16

"the Saudia L-1011 disaster in 1980 has never been given a root cause of the fire that destroyed that aircraft"

AFAIK the fire burnt through from the aft cargo through the aft cabin floor. The controls to the outflow valves were burnt through - they remained closed, keeping the cabin pressurized.
The pax stampeded into the cockpit crushing the crew and preventing the engines from being shutdown - they kept running and pressurizing the cabin.
The cabin crew could not open the doors due high diff.
E&OE

Ertimus

28th Jun 2016, 08:24

Reading the comments here you would think the new norm when sitting in a burning plane is to put your seat belt on and wait for rescue.I cannot imagine in any circumstances of not leaving a burning plane at the earliest possible time. This crew was so lucky most burning planes are totally destroyed even when the fire starts at an airport. If one of the wing or main fuselage tank had of exploded the death toll would have been horrendous.

Metro man

28th Jun 2016, 08:27

At the end of the day it will be exactly like any other inquiry. A team of experts, relaxed after a good weekend, with all the information available to them and not under any time pressure, going through a decision that had to be taken quickly with limited information available and deciding if it was correct.

CDRW

28th Jun 2016, 08:47

Probably the best post so far is by Bud...

But then then this is an open forum - unfortunately the first P in PPRUNE is not applied.

Metro - spot on - the expert team will have the FDR on play back - slow the replay down, scrutinize every decision made, comparing it with Part A, FCOM, SOP, FCTM, discuss, compare, question, research and decided. A month later they will have a decision.

DaveReidUK

28th Jun 2016, 08:49

Possibly the crew were somewhere between fantastic and lucky, which is how it always works in real life.

Few would disagree with that.

But the fact that, fortuitously, not all of the holes in the cheese lined up on this occasion doesn't mean there are no lessons to be learned from what happened.

grizzled

28th Jun 2016, 08:53

I don't know which is worse on these fora, posters with no information about the on-scene events and communications, condemning the actions and decisions of a real- life crew in a real-life occurrence, or posters who criticize and condemn actions for which there is known info, simply out of ignorance.

Re the flight deck decisions and actions: At this stage, we (the public) know nothing, nada, zip, sweet FA, about what took place. So, rational comment and discussion is appropriate; condemnation is not. A previous poster lamented the lack of qualified pilots commenting on this thread (or other threads for that matter). Why do you think that is?

Re ARFF: Again, there have been few if any comments by qualified ARFF experts on this thread. Why? The prime reason is simple: In the video shot from outside, from the starboard side, a qualified ARFF person sees the response vehicles following SOP exactly (in at least five or six ways). Most importantly, what we see is foam being applied effectively and accurately 55 seconds after wheels stop. If you think there was ANY delay due to routings, positioning, procedures, etc I respectfully suggest you know nothing about ARFF.

MrSnuggles

28th Jun 2016, 09:35

Captured from the inside (sounds surprisingly relaxed to me!). At 0:24 black smoke starts - some kind of rubber burning?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieF8CsJ1yNY

Here is plane still rolling in the beginning, seems to come to a stop at 0:15. At around 0:30 the black smoke is seen again, can be synced to the above video. Fire bridage is clearly already on its way when video starts, and the first fire truck starts dousing the engine at around 1:00.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jC-2NhU10Q

Here it is again, from another angle. Landing lights are still on. Wind blows the smoke away from the cabin.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyl1nBS-wVE

Apparently rescue services has been requested at some other point than the ATC snippet already posted. Unconfirmed information that fire started during landing, not in the air.

Wageslave

28th Jun 2016, 10:10

It's absolutely bizarre that there is an incident in which no one was injured and there are people on this thread castigating the crew.

Its absolutely bizarre that anyone thinks this irrational statement contains a single drop of logic. So no matter how rash or incorrect the action it is justified if no one gets hurt, is it? Apply this "rationale" to Russian Roulette please.

Also note that throughout the entire video footage there is NO smoke coming from either forward or aft doors, meaning the fire did not spread inside the cabin.

Not sure what that tells us, watch the China Airlines 737 fire at Osaka(?) - the fuselage finally gives way and the aft section collapses to the ground yet there is no smoke from the doors.

In the crew's defence they managed to park it, intentionally or not, with the fire downwind of the fuselage. It would be useful to know exactly where they stopped. Was it on the runway? Were they on runway QDM or did they make a turn? The videos suggest they might have done

Was this a genuine fastball or was time available beforehand to prepare with the crew for all possible eventualities
Blimey, no one knows yet but in the event of a fuel leak (if that is what they thought it was) you'd certainly be prepared for a fire on the ground if only because that is the inevitable sequel to dealing with that scenario in the sim. Fire would be at the forefront of your mind. It seems likely that the fire only broke out during the ground roll so in that sense, probably a fastball but given the above you'd expect them to be prepared for it. They had 2 hrs to think about the possibilities after all. If they weren't aware of a fuel leak then it probably was a really nasty fastball, though it's one every pilot should be prepared for every time he lands.

With a fire like that I'd still have initiated an evacuation the moment I'd stopped, as I suspect would every other European and American pilot without exception. Its what we're expected to do with an uncontained (ie not internal engine or perhaps brakes) fire or significant smoke of unknown or uncontrollable origin, as seen at LHR yesterday. It is drummed into us throught training, fire = evacuate. There have to be very, very special circumstances for this to be varied and with the fire downwind of the fuselage they seem to have been in an ideal position to get the pax out. After 2 hrs of thinking time just sitting there for minutes, lights on and with a big fire raging under an entire wing just looks like a rabbit-in-the-headlights scenario to me. The opportunity to evacuate was clearly there, they did not take it. Saying that no one was hurt in retrospect in no way justifies that peculiar situation. A different flick of fortunes tail and we'd have had another Saudia on our hands, that much is very clear.

Finally, does one usually ask "permission" to dump fuel rather than just doing it, or just telling them you're doing it?

fox niner

28th Jun 2016, 10:24

Originally Posted by bud leon
Possibly the crew were somewhere between fantastic and lucky, which is how it always works in real life.

Probably true, however....

If I have a situation like that, I am not going to wait around to find out how lucky I am that day. Not as a passenger, nor as a commander.

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?

skytrax

28th Jun 2016, 10:43

skytrax:

I am well aware of what cabin crew can and can't do in such situations, thank you. Try READING my post. It was about cabin crew initiating an evacuation next to a running engine.

Cc have no clue if the engines are on or not, other than the noise. With that situation going on outside it would be hard to determine that.

As mentioned, CC will initially wait for a FD command and they will try to contact them to seek instructions if there is no PA made. Asian airlines are highly hierarchical and individuals always look for the higher authority to make that decision.
They will however initiate the evacuation if there is no instructions from FD and if the conditions inside become life-threatening.
They will evaluate the outside conditions and if it's safe they will open.

To clarify: for example L1 or L5 cabin crew would have absolutely no means to check if the engines are on or not. Therefore, this is not part of their training because it is not realistic to be assessed by CC.
Engines should have been off and parking breaks set.

ACMS

28th Jun 2016, 10:43

fox niner:---- go for it, just hope the really big GE90 Engine Vacuum cleaner has been shut down......:sad:

MrSnuggles

28th Jun 2016, 10:53

Hmm, I was under the impression that if there is a fire in/on an airplane, you should

1) Land IMMEDIATELY

2) Evac ASAP

As I mentioned, rumours indicate that the fire started during landing. Videos of the incident shows green taxiway lights leading to the airplane, possibly indicating the airplane being on the runway.

Lets see, shall we?

Swissair 111
The China Air incident
Valuejet
National Air in Jeddah
BA 777 in Vegas
Air Canada 797
British Airtours
Saudi Air 163
Concorde

I think you get my point...

Oh, look at this damage!
http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.2689451.1467033594!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_1200/epaselect-singapore-aeroplane-fire.jpg

Tankengine

28th Jun 2016, 11:08

Hard to imagine the pilots were unaware with the first responding fire truck in line with the cockpit, and also one would assume tower advised them on the situation. However the beacon lights were on throughout the fire-fighting sequence, clearly seen on some videos, so possibly at least one engine was running...

So at exactly what part of the evacuation checklist does it say to turn off the beacon!?
You park the brakes, consider what to do next, if I was on fire I would then shutdown the engines and continue with checklist. Never flown the 777 but have flown 737/747/767 and A330, never, ever, seen an evacuation checklist that mentions the beacon. ;)

notapilot15

28th Jun 2016, 11:17

Are you obliged to keep all grass within the airport perimeters in a condition, which allows heavy vehicles to use it without getting stuck? Would not be an easy task in the tropics...Changi has drains on the grass perimeter.No but Panthers/Strikers are off-road capable. Looking at Google Earth terrain at SIN looks relatively flat.

I don't think there is any airport in the world without uneven terrain and water bodies within the perimeter.

It is kind of strange most vehicles formed one pavement hugging relatively slow beeline on a winding scenic route. Not one attempted to take shortest path. Most vehicles ended up one side of the fire.

These was also hesitation to move closer to the fire, these are what 60 meter spray capable trucks.

Crew didn't request for assistance, probably one of the reasons.

Kbboca

28th Jun 2016, 11:37

As lowly SLF, I just want to add I'm utterly astounded by the seeming calmness of the passengers in the 1st video posted by MrSnuggles. I think I would have been screaming. It will be very interesting to learn what announcements were made to the pax and to what extent they were informed about / briefed how to handle the emergency. The passenger composition (nationalities) may be of interest.

I can't imagine a plane full of Americans sitting calmly in this situation, but as others have stated, unless the engines were off, aggressive passenger response to initiate an evacuation (as I'm sure would have happened in the US in the absence of a crew-initiated one) could have proved very dangerous.

As someone fascinated by sociology, this makes me realize once again the complexity of emergencies. You have not only the technical aspects, but the social aspect too. The technical situation / facts & risks of the emergency may be identical in two contexts, but the decisions made may differ significantly based on cultural factors and training.

Kudos to the fire crews for their excellent response which helped save 200+ lives.

BuzzBox

28th Jun 2016, 11:39

Skytrax:
Cc have no clue if the engines are on or not, other than the noise. With that situation going on outside it would be hard to determine that.

Exactly, and that's why the cabin crew should NOT initiate an evacuation of their own accord UNLESS the situation in the cabin becomes life threatening. I replied to a post that suggested the cabin crew should have done so even though the situation inside the cabin had NOT become life threatening.

That post also suggested the cabin crew should have initiated an evacuation even if the pilots weren't aware there was a fire. The point that I was trying to make is that IF the pilots weren't aware there was a fire, then they may not have been planning an emergency evacuation. If that was the case, then they probably would not have started the emergency evacuation checklist, in which case the engines would NOT have been shut down. Mind you, I am not suggesting that's what actually happened here. At this point we simply don't know.

cbradio

28th Jun 2016, 11:50

I didn't catch the details but a news grab here in Oz just said passengers begged the crew to open the doors but were refused.

Machrihanish

28th Jun 2016, 12:03

To clarify: for example L1 or L5 cabin crew would have absolutely no means to check if the engines are on or not.

SIA use rotor markings (http://www.airplane-pictures.net/photo/691862/9v-swb-singapore-airlines-boeing-777-300er/) which are clearly distinguishable from quite a number of rows of the front fuselage and should suffice as a fall back to identify the engine's spinning down, if req'd.

MrMachfivepointfive

28th Jun 2016, 12:24

Cultural thing, I guess. Remember the Korean ferry that went down with two thirds of her passengers, because they were told to remain calm and stay in their cabins - while the ship took more than a hour to capsize?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_MV_Sewol

Capn Bloggs

28th Jun 2016, 12:43

So at exactly what part of the evacuation checklist does it say to turn off the beacon!?

Andrasz wasn't suggesting they missed or were waiting to switch off the beacons. What bus powers your beacons, Tank? On mine, they are AC, which indicates...

Ian W

28th Jun 2016, 12:51

I didn't catch the details but a news grab here in Oz just said passengers begged the crew to open the doors but were refused.
If that is the case it would seem that a specific decision was made to not evacuate for some reason rather than indecision and that the decision was passed to the rear crew.

PAXboy

28th Jun 2016, 13:33

Much has been made of the longer return to SIN, passing by BKK etc. However, if the damage to the machine and condition of fuel flow was the same, landing over MWL with nearly full tanks? There would have been a lot more fuel. All we know is that the mid-flight warnings were not serious enough to consider that and they had time to dump fuel. Given the fire on roll out, the correct choice. So it does seem that it's the last minute in roll out that caught them unawares.

King on a Wing

28th Jun 2016, 13:39

Whosoever made the decision, it would've been a joint decision.
What with four airmen on the deck.
And I DO FIRMLY believe that it was a decision NOT to evacuate !

ManaAdaSystem

28th Jun 2016, 13:40

If that is the case it would seem that a specific decision was made to not evacuate for some reason rather than indecision and that the decision was passed to the rear crew.

Or no information/order from the cockpit.

If we back up to the start, they turned back beacuse of ? Some say oil leak, some say fuel leak.
Both should normally lead to an engine shut down. They descended to FL 170, and that is an indication of an engine shut down.
My check list then says: Land at nearest suitable airport. This flight flew past a number of airports suitable for a 777. Unless the weather was crap at all of them, that was not a good decision, and in violation of SOP for a twin with one engine out.
Fuel dumping with an engine shut down and a possible fuel leak?
If the leak was contained, I don't see why not. If the leak was not contained? Not something I would do.

Now, lets throw something out there. The way this fire acted/spread, wouldn't it be a possible indication the fuel dump was forgotten, and fuel dumping was done all the way down to touchdown?
What puzzles me is how the fuel (leak or dump) was ignited.
A long landing indicates not so hot brakes. Was the right engine running and triggered the fire?
Did they fly with both engines running, a fuel leak and dumping fuel at the same time?

HDRW

28th Jun 2016, 13:54

I have a question:

If the FD crew didn't know there was a fire, why did they stop on the runway?

Surely they would have turned off and headed for the terminal, since without the fire it would just be a normal technical return?

skytrax

28th Jun 2016, 14:59

SIA use rotor markings (http://www.airplane-pictures.net/photo/691862/9v-swb-singapore-airlines-boeing-777-300er/) which are clearly distinguishable from quite a number of rows of the front fuselage and should suffice as a fall back to identify the engine's spinning down, if req'd.
Cabin Crew are required to stand by their station when they operate in emergency mode.
They shouldn't leave the area as pax can freak out and open a door. So they can't really check if the engines are on.

The viewing window of the cabin door and nearest pax window are the main means to check outside conditions for their respective door and, I repeat, no cabin crew is trained to check if engines are on or off. If the evacuation is required they would open any door that doesn't have a danger outside.

Also, there is absolutely no way FD crew didn't know about the fire. Details will soon emerge and we'll see what challenges they had to deal with.

tdracer

28th Jun 2016, 15:01

According to the 21.3 report, ~one hour after departure, oil quantity dropped to 1 quart and oil pressure was fluctuating (but still in acceptable range) - decision made to continue.
About an hour after that ATB due to unusual vibrations and possible oil smell in the cabin. Fire reportedly started after they deployed the reverser during landing roll.
So apparently they did not shut down the engine, and there is nothing in the report indicating they suspected they had a fuel leak.

Educated guess is the fuel/oil heat exchanger failed.

poorjohn

28th Jun 2016, 15:02

Whosoever made the decision, it would've been a joint decision.
What with four airmen on the deck.In some cultures there's only one voice.

andrasz

28th Jun 2016, 15:42

Almost 60 seconds wasted because fire engines took only pavement

Having driven many thousands of kilometres off-road, I can say with some authority that given a choice I would always take a paved road that is no more than twice the distance of the direct off-road route. Paved road is invariably faster and a known quantity. As soon as you leave pavement you can experience all sorts of surprises, even on a nice level grass field.

As for the time, from the videos posted one may verify that the first responding truck started spraying 45 seconds after the aircraft came to a full stop.

Cazalet33

28th Jun 2016, 15:58

According to the 21.3 report, ~one hour after departure, oil quantity dropped to 1 quart and oil pressure was fluctuating (but still in acceptable range) - decision made to continue.
About an hour after that ATB due to unusual vibrations and possible oil smell in the cabin. Fire reportedly started after they deployed the reverser during landing roll.
So apparently they did not shut down the engine

Oh, good grief.

In those circumstances they applied power, inc reverse thrust, on approach and landing?

Shome mishtake, shurely.

Machrihanish

28th Jun 2016, 16:03

I repeat no cabin crew is truained to check if engines are on or off. If the evacuation is required they would open any door that doesn't have a danger outside.

:ok:

___

Cazalet33

28th Jun 2016, 16:19

If the evacuation is required they would open any door that doesn't have a danger outside.

They'd look outside through the window first, of course.

http://www.australianfrequentflyer.com.au/community/attachments/travel-news/43063d1425522612-turkish-a330-runs-off-runway-qantas_x.jpg

As you do.

hr2pilot

28th Jun 2016, 16:36

Hey all you pros out there advocating not evacuating....during your next sim recurrent when your check airman tells you you have a wing on fire after landing, I dare you to turn to him and tell him you have to think about it for a while.

tdracer

28th Jun 2016, 16:45

In those circumstances they applied power, inc reverse thrust, on approach and landing?
Caz, you're assuming facts not in evidence - they may well have retarded the throttle to idle and left it there but not shut it down (which would have explained their drop in altitude).
As for using the TR, based on the report, why wouldn't they deploy the reverser after landing?

Wageslave

28th Jun 2016, 16:46

Low oil QTY along with a fluctuating pressure and leave the thing running? Not the way its usually done, is it?

tdracer

28th Jun 2016, 16:50

The instructions for low oil quantity are to monitor oil pressure and temperature - if they remain within the normal range, no action is required.
Speculating here, but it would appear that when they elected to turn back, they set the throttle to idle and continued to monitor to make sure it didn't get worse.

notapilot15

28th Jun 2016, 17:02

gatbusdriver

28th Jun 2016, 19:04

So after nearly 11 pages of absolute drivel (hopefully written by people who only turn right as they enter an aircraft), we still have not had any facts substantiated.

Just to clarify for some of you fantasists out there......facts are the things that actually occurred.

I will quite happily, from the comfort of my armchair, tell you exactly how I would have run the show that day once you provide me with a timeline of events, that would include EICAS messages, what information were the synoptic pages giving me, what did the camera show, what was I being told by the cabin crew, when did the fire start, what information was I given by he tower/RFF......plus a lot more. This is what we do as professional pilots (I am thinking of dropping the professional shortly), we gather information from all available resources so that we can make an informed decision. Now until someone can provide me with all the information I have asked for I would suggest you look like a complete imbecile passing judgement on the action of this crew.

Uncle Fred

28th Jun 2016, 19:15

Gents and Gentesses

There seems to be some confusion about what the fire brigade does and how it does it. Whilst I have no experience in working as a member of a brigade, I have used their good services more than once around and about the aerodrome and have been very impressed.

For those who are not familiar there are different ratings for the airports in terms of fire response and capability. For the big airports they have the most resources and quick responses--this is why at many of the big airports you see satellite fire houses. Frankfurt is an easy place to see this when one takes off from runway 18. This response in quick time coupled with robust equipment and other factors will earn the highest rating. This can be a factor (perhaps not the determining factor but certainly one of them) in taking a wounded aircraft into a certain field.

Second, there seems to be a lot of discussion of why the Singapore brigade did not take the off-road option of reach the aircraft. I would imagine, with some confidence, that that this brigade has done thousands of hours of training and planning in how to reach stricken aircraft at any point on the field. If they determined, on the fly, not to take the truck off-road then I would think that they did this deliberately. They can see the burning aircraft and they know the stakes.

Third, there seems also to be a question about why the crew did not turn off the runway. Even without an evac, after a fuel dump I want the brigade to take a look at the outside of the aircraft. This may or may not involve the maintenance troops, but the fire brigade is also well trained to spot spills/leakage/other problems. In my very humble opinion it is best to stop the aircraft and have it assessed. If the engines are shut down and it needs to be towed, well the tug crew is already on the clock so what is the loss in playing it safe?

The fire brigade is indeed your friend and they are startlingly effective, if you let them, in working with you to assess, and if need be, to act. As one of the other posters stated, it would be nice to have one of the ARFF team chime in as I think there are a lot of misconceptions creeping in about response times, response equipment, and who tells what to whom.

As a last point, some of the posters have timed the response to when dousing commenced. A minute is a very good response. Perhaps one can remind me (without the manuals at hand) what the response needs to be--I know it is more than a minute so in this case the brigade was quickly in force.

gatbusdriver

28th Jun 2016, 19:17

I believe it is 2, but stand to be corrected.

Capt Ecureuil

28th Jun 2016, 19:32

Mr Gatbusdriver,

Do you not discuss "what-if scenarios" with your number 1?

I do and that's pretty much what everyone has done on this thread.

CCA

28th Jun 2016, 19:33

They'd look outside through the window first, of course.

http://www.australianfrequentflyer.com.au/community/attachments/travel-news/43063d1425522612-turkish-a330-runs-off-runway-qantas_x.jpg

As you do.

Yes because when the landed it was CAVOK and daylight. :D

When actually it was pissing rain pitch black and absolutely no lights outside or inside the aircraft as the MEC had a nose gear in it and it was sitting next to a golf course which last time I checked aren't well lit.

CCA

28th Jun 2016, 19:39

FL170 does not prove the engine was shut down.

It may have been run at idle.

faheel

28th Jun 2016, 19:55

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:

langleybaston

28th Jun 2016, 20:42

so long as real pro pilots are experts in metallurgy, meteorology, medicine etc etc, that is a very reasonable stance.

Until then, its bollocks.

Global Nomad

28th Jun 2016, 20:59

Not sure what I find more incredulous. The lack of evacuation or the posts stating 'it was an excellent outcome, well done crew' or 'the fire was contained to the wing'.

FFS, pure luck prevented a tragedy.

I have no doubt an inquiry will find that an evacuation should have occurred and we will see this on CRM training for years to come.

No, the pilots can't see the wing. ATC, fire, cabin crew and pax could. I can't believe the pilots weren't advised by at least one of them.

Why didn't the cabin crew order the evacuate themselves, as a passenger I would have been gone.

Basic training, check outsidethe door before evacuating. The left side was clear, it's a fire, fire creates smoke, smoke kills, evacuate immediately.

A very dangerous precedent to praise the outcome as being 'successful' because no one was injured or killed.

KRviator

28th Jun 2016, 21:26

The fundamental issue with the decision not to evacuate before the situation becomes life-threatening is by the time it IS life-threatening, you have lost valuable time to get everyone off, alive.

We all know the certification requirements mandate a full 777 be capable of evacuation within 90 seconds with half the exits blocked, but how realistic is that with panicking passengers who insist they take their carry-on, or their wallet/passport/packet of smokes that is in their carry-on in an overhead locker? Not very.

It worked out this time, the investigation will show us why that was, but to automatically assume the "it's not dangerous enough, yet" mindset is in itself, inherently dangerous.

underfire

28th Jun 2016, 21:30

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

Frathouse

28th Jun 2016, 21:49

Also the tower/ARFF could have/should have told the crew that the wing is on fire as well......
The crew had the ability to look at the cameras mounted in the tailplane and clearly see that the entire wing and pod were on fire. The fact that fuel vapours in the cabin were also reported to the crew prior to landing suggests a lack of command judgement. Not evacuating was gross negligence!

vapilot2004

28th Jun 2016, 21:52

According to the 21.3 report, ~one hour after departure, oil quantity dropped to 1 quart and oil pressure was fluctuating (but still in acceptable range) - decision made to continue.
About an hour after that ATB due to unusual vibrations and possible oil smell in the cabin. Fire reportedly started after they deployed the reverser during landing roll.

Oil leak confirmed. That makes a lot more sense than a fuel leak (wing/pylon/internal to nacelle) detected in cabin air as there is no path to bleed air in flight. Engine oil, on the other hand, is right in the air path to bleeds via the compressor stage and fan bearing seals.

Thank you tdracer. :ok:

Bleve

28th Jun 2016, 22:10

Chinese whispers through the FA grapevine is that the CPT didn't order an evacuation because he was concerned about pax being evacuated into burning spilt fuel.

I don't have enough information about this incident to know if his concern and decision not to evacuate were justified or not, but it should be noted that in an evacuation, airport RFF will protect the slides as a priority.

tdracer

28th Jun 2016, 23:11

Oil leak confirmed. That makes a lot more sense than a fuel leak (wing/pylon/internal to nacelle) detected in cabin air as there is no path to bleed air in flight. Engine oil, on the other hand, is right in the air path to bleeds via the compressor stage and fan bearing seals.

Just speculating here - no inside information - but I'm thinking the fuel/oil heat exchanger failed in such a way that both fuel and oil were leaking overboard, but that fuel was also getting into the oil system - basically replacing the oil that was leaking out (the fuel is at a significantly higher pressure than the oil in the heat exchanger). That would explain the oil quantity not going to zero, and since Jet A doesn't lube as well as Mobil Jet it started causing bearing damage resulting in unusual vibes and oil/fuel fumes in the cabin.