SQ-368 (engine & wing on fire) final report out
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?
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...
ok45:
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.
Sitting on top of a burning kerosene contrainer is a better idea for you?
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 55
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
It's Not That Bad - Until it suddenly gets worse
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Fliegensville, Gold Coast Australia
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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....
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....
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: iBKAC
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Time and further information will tell us if the flight crew earn were fantastic, or just lucky.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Within 3 hours of a suitable alternate
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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?
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?
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Asia
Age: 62
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Hampshire
Age: 76
Posts: 821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: I prefer to remain north of a direct line BNE-ADL
Age: 48
Posts: 1,286
Likes: 0
Received 33 Likes
on
10 Posts
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.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Within 3 hours of a suitable alternate
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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.
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?
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: what U.S. calls Žold EuropeŽ
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Almost 60 seconds wasted because fire engines took only pavement
smell of fuel being reported in the cabin
the Saudia L-1011 disaster in 1980 has never been given a root cause of the fire that destroyed that aircraft
Hopefully the 777 interior is a bit more modern / less toxic when burning than the L-1011 Interior designed in the late 60s
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: I prefer to remain north of a direct line BNE-ADL
Age: 48
Posts: 1,286
Likes: 0
Received 33 Likes
on
10 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: pluto
Posts: 202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
decisions that were made in the space of five minutes?
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are you obliged to keep all grass within the airport perimeters in a condition, which allows heavy vehicles to use it without getting stuck?
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.
"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
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
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Australia
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.