SQ-368 (engine & wing on fire) final report out
Metro man
Isn't that the point? If he's Singaporean he won't be questioning himself at all probably.
From my aviation related dealings with them, they are extremely confident of their abilities, to the point of over-confidence.
On paper they look to be one of the leaders but when put to the test, they fail miserably.
From my aviation related dealings with them, they are extremely confident of their abilities, to the point of over-confidence.
On paper they look to be one of the leaders but when put to the test, they fail miserably.
Metro Man
I agree with you completely. Even though I love Singapore it'self & the people, I would also have to agree with the post from Lap Sap,which mentions the question of over confidence on some issues.
I agree with you completely. Even though I love Singapore it'self & the people, I would also have to agree with the post from Lap Sap,which mentions the question of over confidence on some issues.
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: NZ
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't that the point? If he's Singaporean he won't be questioning himself at all probably.
From my aviation related dealings with them, they are extremely confident of their abilities, to the point of over-confidence.
On paper they look to be one of the leaders but when put to the test, they fail miserably.
From my aviation related dealings with them, they are extremely confident of their abilities, to the point of over-confidence.
On paper they look to be one of the leaders but when put to the test, they fail miserably.
An entire race of pilots has been judged as having "confidence to the point of over-confidence" and yet - without having been involved in this particular situation - or having had access to the information he did - or even knowing the guy - you feel over-confident enough to pass judgement on him as if to say "your judgement is better than his".
20 pages down the line we still don' have the slightest clue about the key question:
Was there a conscious decision not to evacuate, or was this a case of lack of action with nobody making a decision ?
We all get paid to make informed and educated decisions in unexpected and sometimes stressful situations, a part of that is also to think outside the box if necessary. If the first were the case, the occupants of the pointy end will certainly have some explaining to do, but until the circumstances are known they would have my full benefit of doubt. The second case however in inexcusable.
Was there a conscious decision not to evacuate, or was this a case of lack of action with nobody making a decision ?
We all get paid to make informed and educated decisions in unexpected and sometimes stressful situations, a part of that is also to think outside the box if necessary. If the first were the case, the occupants of the pointy end will certainly have some explaining to do, but until the circumstances are known they would have my full benefit of doubt. The second case however in inexcusable.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wingham NSW Australia
Age: 83
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Potential Outcome
The Saudi Air L1011 accident in 1980 could potentially been repeated in Changi. It may have been previously mentioned on this thread. If so I apologise. If not, the link below will take you to the lesson to be learned.
http://lessonslearned.faa.gov/ll_mai...abID=3&LLID=27
http://lessonslearned.faa.gov/ll_mai...abID=3&LLID=27
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: the City by the Bay
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.safetyinengineering.com/F...69664909_2.pdf
L1011 Saudia incident was not the same. Flames and smoke already evident inside by the time the plane landed. The crew may already have been compromised mentally and not working at optimum.
The SQ flight crew were not compromised mentally by smoke. But the worry is if they "froze" and didn't make a conscious decision to NOT evacuate and LET things happen without taking the event into their own hands.
L1011 Saudia incident was not the same. Flames and smoke already evident inside by the time the plane landed. The crew may already have been compromised mentally and not working at optimum.
The SQ flight crew were not compromised mentally by smoke. But the worry is if they "froze" and didn't make a conscious decision to NOT evacuate and LET things happen without taking the event into their own hands.
Last edited by armchairpilot94116; 3rd Jul 2016 at 16:23.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 55
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was there a conscious decision not to evacuate, or was this a case of lack of action with nobody making a decision ?
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 55
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boy I love this talk about those wonderful emergency stairs as if they are the answer to all your prayers in EVAC situations.....
Meanwhile, no smoke in the cabin, seemed all pretty orderly to me, CC standing by doors. That said, I also agree with previous comments that they were all pretty lucky, considering.
Funny old thing and maybe it is paleoflatus but I've been musing over the differing stances people here take over the evac buisness.
Until a week ago, before this incident, I am quite certain that out of every 100 Professional pilots who have had sim training something like 98% would have evacuated at the first sign of fire (and the other 2% would have failed the sim check) yet here we are with (apart from far too many punters, spotters and groupies) Professional pilots in their droves questioning the Holy Cow of evacuation in the event of fire. Why the sudden change of mind? Could it be that pilots are just as easily led as the general public and as soon as they see an event - even in the work environment that apparently does not conform to their norms and laws but works OK they chuck out the norm/law and embrace the lottery-win process instead? Could it be ant-establishmentarianism aka basic human cussedness? Either way its a bit of a worry that so many seem to feel the unquestioned norm is suddenly so faulty. Why hadn't they vocalised their beliefs before this event? If evacuation is felt optional in the face of a massive fire how come we never even knew anyone thought this before? (Please don't mention pilot's discretion, that's not the issue)
Something for the psychologists to look at perhaps.
Until a week ago, before this incident, I am quite certain that out of every 100 Professional pilots who have had sim training something like 98% would have evacuated at the first sign of fire (and the other 2% would have failed the sim check) yet here we are with (apart from far too many punters, spotters and groupies) Professional pilots in their droves questioning the Holy Cow of evacuation in the event of fire. Why the sudden change of mind? Could it be that pilots are just as easily led as the general public and as soon as they see an event - even in the work environment that apparently does not conform to their norms and laws but works OK they chuck out the norm/law and embrace the lottery-win process instead? Could it be ant-establishmentarianism aka basic human cussedness? Either way its a bit of a worry that so many seem to feel the unquestioned norm is suddenly so faulty. Why hadn't they vocalised their beliefs before this event? If evacuation is felt optional in the face of a massive fire how come we never even knew anyone thought this before? (Please don't mention pilot's discretion, that's not the issue)
Something for the psychologists to look at perhaps.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,501
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Until a week ago, before this incident, I am quite certain that out of every 100 Professional pilots who have had sim training something like 98% would have evacuated at the first sign of fire (and the other 2% would have failed the sim check) yet here we are with (apart from far too many punters, spotters and groupies) Professional pilots in their droves questioning the Holy Cow of evacuation in the event of fire. Why the sudden change of mind? Could it be that pilots are just as easily led as the general public and as soon as they see an event - even in the work environment that apparently does not conform to their norms and laws but works OK they chuck out the norm/law and embrace the lottery-win process instead? Could it be ant-establishmentarianism aka basic human cussedness? Either way its a bit of a worry that so many seem to feel the unquestioned norm is suddenly so faulty. Why hadn't they vocalised their beliefs before this event? If evacuation is felt optional in the face of a massive fire how come we never even knew anyone thought this before? (Please don't mention pilot's discretion, that's not the issue)
I agree.I get the feeling I now have to assess how small a fire is before I decide to evacuate. The smaller the fire, the greater the urgency?
A lot of things don't add up in this very lucky escape.
The words: Accidental hero, springs to mind.
Trash du Blanc
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: KBHM
Posts: 1,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This discussion reminds me of the collision of two Northwest Airlines aircraft in Detroit in 1990.
The aircraft on takeoff roll, a 727, sustained damage on one wingtip. The captain brought the aircraft to a stop and immediately ordered the flight engineer down the rear airstairs to make a visual inspection. The FE reported no flames or fuel leaks, so the captain did not order an emergency evacuation.
The captain was subsequently violated by the FAA for that decision.
The aircraft on takeoff roll, a 727, sustained damage on one wingtip. The captain brought the aircraft to a stop and immediately ordered the flight engineer down the rear airstairs to make a visual inspection. The FE reported no flames or fuel leaks, so the captain did not order an emergency evacuation.
The captain was subsequently violated by the FAA for that decision.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,501
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes. Two very different situations.
He had a spare set of eyes to use, good call, but all he had to do was open the window and look.
A lot of pilots seem to think the cockpit windows are welded shut.
He had a spare set of eyes to use, good call, but all he had to do was open the window and look.
A lot of pilots seem to think the cockpit windows are welded shut.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nirvana..HAHA..just kidding but,if you can tell me where it is!
Posts: 350
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure where you would place me,in the group of commenters...
22,000 plus hours..and here is my final one...
OMG!!!!!!!
22,000 plus hours..and here is my final one...
OMG!!!!!!!
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Hampshire
Age: 76
Posts: 821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Old Fella,
Yes, I mentioned it way back in post #195.
Someone responded with a remark that the fire started in the passenger cabin. It didn't. It started in a cargo hold.
I made my comment on the grounds that it seems possible the SIA pilot had no idea of a fuel leak when he landed. And it may not have been a fuel fire (equally, it may have been). A separate investigation here in the UK showed the cause of that fire may well have been down to a pin-hole leak in a hydraulic line, resulting in hydraulic fluid spraying out as a high pressure aerosol, soaking in to the lagging/insulation surrounding a duct that ran through the cargo hold, starting a fire that was sustained by the continued aerosol of hydraulic fluid. So, it is possible the fire seen along the wing may have been fuelled by leaking hydraulic fluid.
Armchairpilot; the Saudia crew certainly were compromised, but not by smoke. One of the 3 crew on the flight deck was dyslexic.
I know because I was there.
Yes, I mentioned it way back in post #195.
Someone responded with a remark that the fire started in the passenger cabin. It didn't. It started in a cargo hold.
I made my comment on the grounds that it seems possible the SIA pilot had no idea of a fuel leak when he landed. And it may not have been a fuel fire (equally, it may have been). A separate investigation here in the UK showed the cause of that fire may well have been down to a pin-hole leak in a hydraulic line, resulting in hydraulic fluid spraying out as a high pressure aerosol, soaking in to the lagging/insulation surrounding a duct that ran through the cargo hold, starting a fire that was sustained by the continued aerosol of hydraulic fluid. So, it is possible the fire seen along the wing may have been fuelled by leaking hydraulic fluid.
Armchairpilot; the Saudia crew certainly were compromised, but not by smoke. One of the 3 crew on the flight deck was dyslexic.
I know because I was there.