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, 19:39
  #241 (permalink)  
CCA
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Up there
Posts: 202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
FL170 does not prove the engine was shut down.

It may have been run at idle.
CCA is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2016, 19:55
  #242 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: woop woop
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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
faheel is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2016, 20:42
  #243 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Baston
Posts: 3,240
Received 607 Likes on 219 Posts
so long as real pro pilots are experts in metallurgy, meteorology, medicine etc etc, that is a very reasonable stance.

Until then, its bollocks.
langleybaston is online now  
Old 28th Jun 2016, 20:59
  #244 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Global Nomad
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
Global Nomad is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2016, 21:26
  #245 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Cab of a Freight Train
Posts: 1,215
Received 117 Likes on 61 Posts
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.
KRviator is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2016, 21:30
  #246 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Videos from inside the ac show that the passengers were screaming and begging to get out. Other parts of the video show a significant amount of fire....

http://yahoo7g-a.akamaihd.net/237698...8409403001.mp4
underfire is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2016, 21:49
  #247 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Visibility

Originally Posted by Comoman
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!
Frathouse is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2016, 21:52
  #248 (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
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.
vapilot2004 is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2016, 22:10
  #249 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Terra Firma
Posts: 224
Received 15 Likes on 5 Posts
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.

Last edited by Bleve; 28th Jun 2016 at 22:27.
Bleve is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2016, 23:11
  #250 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 68
Posts: 4,386
Received 177 Likes on 87 Posts
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.
tdracer is online now  
Old 28th Jun 2016, 23:17
  #251 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: australia
Age: 74
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Lessons for us all

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do not risk the possibility of any fire and treat all fires as very deadly.
Ask any older wartime pilots and crews.
nose,cabin is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2016, 00:29
  #252 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Australia the Awesome
Posts: 399
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The perfect evac is a co ordinated event between the Captain and the Fire Commander on the outside. These guys are trying to control the fire with foam, while the pilots will shutdown all engines/apu and prepare for an evac.

From the cockpit it is very difficult to gauge the extent of the fire, so reliance on input from the fire commander/cabin crew is an important part of building up the picture to evac or not.

The initial response team may not have the manpower to fight the fire and manage the passengers, so it is a lot easier to manage the situation without distressed passengers coming down the slides and running around without being marshalled into a safe area.

That being said, if things are getting hot/smoky in the cabin, there may not be the time to wait for more manpower on the ground.

I was once shown an old movie by the RFS of a DC10 in the USA with a similar uncontrollable fire, the skipper was pleading to evac the pax, the fire commander kept asking to wait so they could control the fire and get more personnel, they eventually did evac, the aircraft continued to burn, and it was a very successful outcome (except for the aircraft, it continued to burn for 20mins)
Roj approved is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2016, 00:30
  #253 (permalink)  
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Come to think of it, with all the strict laws in Singapore and all, would I get into trouble (jail/arrested) if I opened a flight door as a pax in this situation?
Simply trying to save my life?

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


I mentioned in an earlier post that it is highly likely that the crew were in contact with the fire fighters and it is quite possible that the decision not to evacuate came as a result of what the fire fighters could see and the crew, (and pax), couldn't.
parabellum is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2016, 02:51
  #254 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 570
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Sorry folks, placing everything else to one side, I still can not understand, just why an immediate evacuation on the ` relatively safer` side was not immediately carried out. I would fully accept, that by evacuating in this particular case, you might possibly fry, but by remaining on the aircraft in such a situation, had it suddenly got worse as they so often can, you are almost bound to fry. No winners here & SQ as a major world airline, should front up themselves, just to reassure their customers. Forget the face saving culture that exists in their part of the world, be up front & we might be able to understand, just why things played out here as they did.
kaikohe76 is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2016, 03:17
  #255 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: south england
Posts: 393
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Please do not take my post as advocating the crews decision, the fact is I don't have the facts to say whether what they did was right or wrong (in my eyes).

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

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

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

Regards,

GBD
gatbusdriver is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2016, 03:32
  #256 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by gatbusdriver
(in my eyes).
Apparently your eyes didn't see this post (above) by "underfire"

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...ml#post9423848
NSEU is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2016, 04:17
  #257 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: south england
Posts: 393
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thank you, missed the link.

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

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

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

Regards,

GBD

Last edited by gatbusdriver; 29th Jun 2016 at 04:29.
gatbusdriver is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2016, 05:15
  #258 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 108
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Touch wood, but i would rather be sitting in an inquest explaining why i evacuated and maybe caused a few injuries, than explaining why i didn't and caused people to burn alive... we were always taught you dont take chances with fire and an aircraft.. just because you can't see it doesn't mean it isn't burning or festering... any sign of a fire should be treated with the highest priority and not take chances.
aviator's_anonymous is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2016, 05:49
  #259 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,558
Received 37 Likes on 16 Posts
The fire 90 seconds from now

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

Once the cabin is breached by smoke and concomitant incapacitating substances, some if not all the pax will succumb in the certification standard 90 seconds before evacuation is completed.
RatherBeFlying is online now  
Old 29th Jun 2016, 06:04
  #260 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: NZ
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by RatherBeFlying
Can you absolutely guarantee that 90 seconds from now there will not be any fire, smoke or incapacitating chemicals in the cabin?

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

IMHO it's a judgement call - one best made by the captain whilst communicating with other key players (eg RFF).
BugSmasher1960 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.