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

[MrSnuggles]

I want to remind everybody that fire rescue did just fine. They can clearly be seen on this video, rushing towards the plane while it is still rolling. At 0:17 the airplane comes to a stop. The first firetruck starts dousing the ground before reaching the engine at 1:07 which would amount to 50 sec respond time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hf-QLDGgORk

Discussions about taking shortcuts crossing grass I will refer to this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jfOK8i-JKY
Fire rescue is heavy equipment. No use getting stuck in unknown territory.

And, why didn't they evacuate? Were they so confident in the aircraft they thought "it worked in Vegas, chill yo"? Another video from the cabin, brand new today!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZyrEvxiccQ

I mean, LOOK AT IT!!

[Heathrow Harry]

I'd have been sitting in the cafe at CK Tang's by the time that video finished....................

[Stu B]

Thanks. Interesting, then, (if it was serviceable) that there is no mention here of what the Captain might have seen on the installed camera system impacting on his "no evacuation" decision?
I was going to say the incident should strengthen the case for such camera systems to be fitted to all large aircraft - but if it was not used/not working/not seen to provide useful information in this case then in fact the incident rather erodes the case for fitting them a little.

[notapilot15]

Originally Posted by MrSnuggles

I want to remind everybody that fire rescue did just fine. They can clearly be seen on this video, rushing towards the plane while it is still rolling. At 0:17 the airplane comes to a stop. The first firetruck starts dousing the ground before reaching the engine at 1:07 which would amount to 50 sec respond time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hf-QLDGgORk

Discussions about taking shortcuts crossing grass I will refer to this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jfOK8i-JKY
Fire rescue is heavy equipment. No use getting stuck in unknown territory.

And, why didn't they evacuate? Were they so confident in the aircraft they thought "it worked in Vegas, chill yo"? Another video from the cabin, brand new today!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZyrEvxiccQ

I mean, LOOK AT IT!!

Every single day professional pilots are ordering evacuations even for minor brake fires. Because FIRE doesn't follow federal regulations, flight/cabin crew or fire chief's instructions.


Once cabin fills up with smoke evacuation becomes lot more harder. There will be lot more injuries.


The video you posted is of a city fire truck. airport fire trucks are made for off road. If an airport fire rescue member thinks his/her own airport where they trained is unknown territory, they shouldn't be on that team.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCEaFhSdo88
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qi4dfqH6baI

On the third video, it appears cabin crew member saying it was fuel, interesting it goes against the spin that it was just oil.

[MrSnuggles]

Stu B

There was a post earlier in this thread with a great picture of what it looks like from the cokcpit. Right now it seems I can't find this particular post, but I saved the picture for future references. Maybe I'll upload it here, I don't know what copyright says about that though.

[MrSnuggles]

Everybody that complains about Changi airport fire rescue. They did a good job.

Here you are: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fRBj2jw3-M

notapilot:

Impressive fire rescue trucks, I say! Do they have the same ones at Changi? I hope so. Anyway, taking the paved road is certainly safer.

--------------------

EDIT: Amazing, those fire trucks. Some information here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBvzlEbbDts

[2csonTriple7]

Wow,

lucky they didn't get the dreaded "WING OFF" EICAS message.

Maybe they will install a side rear-view mirror so we can see the nacelles and wings from the cockpit.

[Piltdown Man]

I agree Stu. We now have the screens in the flight deck but hooking up cameras appears to be a huge problem. Greedy, racpacious manufacturers and Euro-muppets in EASA (& their kind worldwide) mean that installing such useful things is prohibitively expensive. Other aids to safety would be simple mirrors on terminal buildings so we could monitor what is happening around us, but again these things are considered to be impossible. Maybe because these things might give us the information to make sensible descisions by ourselves without having to resort to others. After all, you can't give power away.

PM

[MrSnuggles]

A quick google search brought up these fine examples of what you see in the cockpit.





So, should look like this somewhat.

[PAX_Britannica]

Originally Posted by lurker999

QF32 never had a fire and had an engine that couldnt be shutdown.

seems a fair enough decision not to order an evac.

Easy to say after the fact.

QF32 crew didn't think it was entirely clear cut:

Originally Posted by BugSmasher1960

We had a discussion rather than an argument about it. Harry pointed at the last images to display: the wheels on the left body landing gear had reached 900 deg C - they were getting hotter, but there was no fire."

They'd had an uncontained engine failure, disabling multiple systems, and making a lot of holes in the wing.

Originally Posted by lurker999

this aircraft had most of one wing burning. i cant see many similarities here.

It's possible to make the best decision, based on rational evaluation of all available evidence, and still lose.
It's possible to make a poor decision, given all circumstances, and still walk away.

There isn't time for a conference call involving experts in Bayesian reasoning, but perhaps SOPs are a bit of a blunt instrument in such cases.

Regards,

[rog747]

looking at the underbody cockpit cameras in the post above
this FD crew would have a most clear view of the fire from the moment it started then seen the carnage that followed by the time they stopped - it was a pooling inferno under and in the RH ENG front to back and under

someone in the cockpit must have kept a very cool head to keep the pax on board and hope that the AFS who were there PDQ to put it out PDQ - which luckily for all concerned they did

AND dont forget the wind was 100% in their favour blowing the fire away from the fuselage - had the wind been in the opposite direction the cabin would have been breached in less than a minute with that intensity of flames


rog

[tdracer]

It's worth remembering that those camera views of the wing are NOT being displayed during landing - rather those displays are showing the stuff you actually need to, you know, LAND THE PLANE!


Now, after landing, and hearing that they may have a fire, it may have occurred to the flight crew to pull up the camera view - but that takes multiple keystrokes (it's not simple button push) at a time when they are dealing with an emergency and going through checklists.


My money is that checking the camera never occurred to the flight crew, or if it did it was after the event, when the fire was out, the passengers being safely evacuated, and their pulse rates had dropped below 100. Along the line of 'you know, if we'd thought about it, we could have pulled up the camera and seen just how bad the fire was'

[Hi_Tech]

Fuel leak

The massive fire after landing and the way the fire quickly engulfed the aircraft wing, clearly shows that there was a huge external fuel leak. The entire leading and trailing edges were on fire. As there are no external fuel lines in this area, how did the fuel get sprayed in all these areas. This raises the following questions.
1. Did the crew shutdown the engine on getting the "oil" low press warning.
2, If so why they elected to continue to fly to SIN when they were much closer to BKK. SOP demands that aircraft with one engine off must divert to the nearest suitable airport, which was BKK.
3. It is also possible that they did not shutdown the engine, but this resulted in the entire wing getting soaked in fuel and the ensuing fire after landing.
4. The decision not to evacuate was probably the pilot saw that the entire ground below the fuselage was on fire (as it can be seen by the stab mounted camera). There is no point in sending pax through the slides into a raging fire. If that was the reason for non-evacuation it was correct decision. But they have relied a lot on their luck, and the end result was fortunately a happy one.
5. One heck of a lucky plane load of passengers.

[PAXboy]

There are several interesting points on the phone cabin video posted by MrSnuggles. Firstly, we do not know how many seconds into the problem the recording starts but:-

• We see that CC are moving pax up to the front of the a/c away from centre of fire, which must be good.
• I was going to make a cynical comment, "It's good to see that the pax were taking their luggage" then heard a loud female voice say, "Take your luggage" I do hope that was not a CC.
• The rear cabin is already very dark from the soot deposits on the windows but folks seem to have been mostly moved out of this section.
• In the 1min 25seconds showing there are no PAs until the last second and we do not hear what it says. As stated first, we do not know what had elapsed before.

[ULMFlyer]

Watching the FLL video posted by MrSnuggles, it seems #2 was still running (see effect on L2 slide, smoke) when L1 was opened and the first passenger slid down. Soon after, it was shut down.

[ecureilx]

Originally Posted by skytrax

RFFT at Changi are very good. Well trained, good equipment and with solid procedures.
As it has been explained, RFFT will do their best outside and may recommend evacuation via radio or hand signals if radio is inop.

Originally Posted by rog747

if they had had to wait for the fire crews and engines to be readied and started up and leave the fire station then the 777 would have been well on fire by the time they had got there

In Changi, you can pretty much always see the ARFF engines with lights on, and, about half the time we landed, saw a couple of engines doing dry runs. I am sure they have enough crew there 100% switched on, considering the number of landings and take offs. I am sure they have the engines on and ready to roll.

[LookingForAJob]

It's not my area at all - and I wasn't there so I am not seeking to criticize those involved - but I wonder whether the RFFS response was as effective as it could be. The latest video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZyrEvxiccQ - even more clearly shows extinguishing media being deployed but not appearing to have great effect.

What is the RFFS protocol for fighting a fire with these characteristics? Was it followed? Are there any alternative protocols which may have been more effective in suppressing the fire - i.e. is there something that can be learned from this already?

[BugSmasher1960]

Originally Posted by notapilot15

airport fire trucks are made for off road.

My 4 wheel drive was made for off road too - but it sure went a lot faster on-road. And it didn't weigh 40 tonnes.

If an airport fire rescue member thinks his/her own airport where they trained is unknown territory, they shouldn't be on that team.

Or perhaps they DO know the terrain, which is why they avoided it?

When they're the ones who train for just these events - and no-doubt want to get to a serious fire ASAP - why do those who weren't there and aren't trained think that the professionals made such an obvious incompetent decision?

My suggestion is that they probably know more about their limitations and operational requirements than we do.

[BugSmasher1960]

Originally Posted by rog747

looking at the underbody cockpit cameras in the post above
this FD crew would have a most clear view of the fire from the moment it started then seen the carnage that followed by the time they stopped - it was a pooling inferno under and in the RH ENG front to back and under

I'm mindful of the fact that an evacuation takes time - so the decision maker has to not only take into account the conditions as they stand at that moment, but also try to anticipate what they might be in several minutes time (especially with pooling fuel).

I like to compare it to a military war zone where you're pinned down and taking fire; knowing that kick-arse help is seconds away, does one stay in their temporary shelter or make a run for it across what may be bloodbath territory by the time everyone gets across?

Not advocating either way, but one has to trust the leader to make the best decision he can with the info he has available. He made the call to stay - and as a result no injuries. Some may say that was just good luck; perhaps - or perhaps his judgement was better than some of ours?

[mickjoebill]

In Changi, you can pretty much always see the ARFF engines with lights on,

What color are the strobes you see in Changi?

All vehicles airside are required to display flashing amber lights.

Fire tenders when responding to a call, turn on blue strobes.


Mickjoebill