SQ-368 (engine & wing on fire) final report out
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.
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.
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.
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.
Information and lack of information
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sweden
Age: 47
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
Last edited by Wageslave; 28th Jun 2016 at 10:31.
Originally Posted by bud leon
Possibly the crew were somewhere between fantastic and lucky, which is how it always works in real life.
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?
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: here and there
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sweden
Age: 47
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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/polopo...plane-fire.jpg
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/polopo...plane-fire.jpg
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
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.
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 415
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? Would not be an easy task in the tropics...
Changi has drains on the grass perimeter.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: West Africa
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Skytrax:
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: TOF
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: KUL
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_MV_Sewol
Originally Posted by Tankengine
So at exactly what part of the evacuation checklist does it say to turn off the beacon!?
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Paxing All Over The World
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.