Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

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

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

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

Old 28th Jun 2016, 05:08
  #181 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Manchester MAN
Posts: 6,642
Received 74 Likes on 46 Posts
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?
India Four Two is online now  
Old 28th Jun 2016, 05:12
  #182 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Where it is comfortable...
Age: 60
Posts: 911
Received 13 Likes on 2 Posts
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...
andrasz is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2016, 05:14
  #183 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Moved beyond
Posts: 1,174
Received 88 Likes on 50 Posts
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.
BuzzBox is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2016, 05:16
  #184 (permalink)  
 
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.
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.
vapilot2004 is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2016, 05:42
  #185 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,558
Received 38 Likes on 17 Posts
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.
RatherBeFlying is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2016, 06:08
  #186 (permalink)  
 
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....
Fliegenmong is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2016, 06:36
  #187 (permalink)  
 
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.
ozsmac is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2016, 06:59
  #188 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Within 3 hours of a suitable alternate
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by parabellum
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?
Do you think it better to land over-weight with a fuel leak or consider that it's not a good idea to dump with one?
Capt Ecureuil is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2016, 07:12
  #189 (permalink)  
 
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?
bud leon is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2016, 07:37
  #190 (permalink)  
 
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?
KelvinD is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2016, 07:39
  #191 (permalink)  
 
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.
Angle of Attack is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2016, 07:45
  #192 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Within 3 hours of a suitable alternate
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Angle of Attack
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?
Capt Ecureuil is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2016, 07:47
  #193 (permalink)  
 
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
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...

smell of fuel being reported in the cabin
How 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
Volume is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2016, 08:00
  #194 (permalink)  
 
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.
Angle of Attack is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2016, 08:00
  #195 (permalink)  
 
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?
Was this a genuine fastball or was time available beforehand to prepare with the crew for all possible eventualities?
blimey is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2016, 08:04
  #196 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 448
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Almost 60 seconds wasted because fire engines took only pavement
Changi has drains on the grass perimeter.
CodyBlade is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2016, 08:05
  #197 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Confusio Helvetica
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
DingerX is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2016, 08:11
  #198 (permalink)  
 
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?
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.
Capot is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2016, 08:16
  #199 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Victoria
Age: 77
Posts: 17
Received 6 Likes on 2 Posts
"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
Flingwing47 is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2016, 08:24
  #200 (permalink)  
 
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.
Ertimus is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.