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 13th Jul 2016, 00:06
  #601 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: the City by the Bay
Posts: 530
Maybe time to re-read PPRuNe thread on this:

http://www.pprune.org/south-asia-far...peaks-out.html
armchairpilot94116 is online now  
Old 13th Jul 2016, 02:07
  #602 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,820
Originally Posted by CodyBlade View Post
I recall headline was "Malaysian Pilot" of SQ 006...
As the New York Times put it:

The plane's pilot, a Malaysian, Foong Chee Kong, and the co-pilots, Latiff Cyrano and Ng Kheng Leng, all survived the crash.
Pilots' 'Dreadful Mistake' in Taiwan May Lead to Jail - NYTimes.com

Originally Posted by rain5 View Post
armchairpilot:

"TPE was wrong to NOT shut down earlier. It generally shuts down for major storms. It was also wrong to use the closed runway as a taxiway for part of it. Leads to confusion.

IIRC the Captain and co-pilot of SQ006 never flew again."

Your facts are wrong.

Both the Crew have their 4 BARS and one has been an instructor pilot for years .

" now everyone can fly " - AGAIN.
Some of my former expat colleagues have their four bars in Angeles City.

Whether the crew of this recent SQ fire on landing gets in trouble will probably depend on who the crew is and whether they were given guidance from the company, the fire crew or the manuals that can justify the decision to delay evacuation.

I'd like to think that we will soon know more so we can all learn from this incident but often little is publically said these days citing pending litigation and personnel privacy protections.
Airbubba is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2016, 02:27
  #603 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Wanaka, NZ
Posts: 2,235
Excuse me if this has already been mentioned, but in the absence of trawling through 31 pages prior, I'm curious what might happen to the aircraft in so far as repair or scrap? Presumably the whole wing would need to be replaced before it can fly again? Can they do a wing change in the field? I imagine it would need a jig of some sort. Or could they do a repair to get it flyable to relocate it back to the factory. Or take both wings off and put it on a boat back to the factory. Or will it just get turned into parts?
gulliBell is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2016, 03:05
  #604 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 415
Actually damage is not that significant because fire was concentrated on leading and trailing edges of the wing and engine.

On last count SIAEC has 9 different joint ventures for MRO. My take it will be back in service rather quickly.
notapilot15 is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2016, 04:38
  #605 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 8,020
Actually damage is not that significant because fire was concentrated on leading and trailing edges of the wing and engine.
And here's me thinking it was about to blow sky-high at any moment...
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2016, 07:39
  #606 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Age: 63
Posts: 130
Originally Posted by henra View Post
That could be a bit of Monty Python's. Pure comedy gold if it weren't so serious.
Plane at standstill. Fire raging a few feet adjacent to the 1/10 of an Inch Aluminum foil. Instruction: For your own safety stay close to the fire and fasten your seatbelts....
That makes it probably easier to identify the charred remains afterwards if everyone stayed in their seat. Saves you the expensive DNA analysis
not just stay seated but keep your seat belts FASTENED

ugh beggars belief to me
rog747 is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2016, 08:46
  #607 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 540
I have been reading this thread since it started and would like to comment.

At my company, in our sim checks the process for an on ground evacuation is pretty strait forward. Bring the aircraft to a stop carry out whatever procedure needs to be done and then ASK the RFF services if they still see a fire, or take a look at the Fire PB to see if it is still lit.

The only interaction that we have with the Cabin is to prep them for an evacuation and then to either call an evacuation or tell them to stand down. At no point do we liaise with them.

Therefore with RFF not on the scene and with no fire lights illuminated what should a captain do? And at a company with little thinking outside the box procedure and training rule.

There is still the chance that the CC could call an evacuation and we activate the EVAC command button in the cabin. However, not all airlines do this. And when you are from a country/airline where you blindly trust in your pilots and are told that you are just there to look pretty and serve coffee do you think you'll have the confidence to initiate an evacuation? And can you, when you've been trained all these years to wait for the captain's command.
Airmann is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2016, 09:33
  #608 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Montreal
Posts: 9
Haven't said a word til now, but my first--and persisting--reaction, is the plane should have been evacuated immediately.

These feelings were reinforced by the fact that the pilots, apparently flying on one engine ("FL170"), did not during their two-hour deturn to Changi, land as they may have been required to do, at any of the other suitable airports along the route. To me, this suggested that their wish to save face or please their superiors must have overcome any impulse to divert.

In any case, as a passenger, I couldn't have sat their complacently taking snapshots of the wing burning, anchored to my seat by the faith that the wind would continue blowing in the right direction and all the big guys have everything under control.
comcomtech is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2016, 12:17
  #609 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sweden
Age: 44
Posts: 443
Is there any information as to who these pilots were?

I mean, there are a bunch of non-Singaporeans living and working in Singapore, no?
MrSnuggles is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2016, 14:46
  #610 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: India
Age: 82
Posts: 18
May I ask a question? Why did not the pilot shutdown the RHS engine before touch down
mayam13 is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2016, 15:36
  #611 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 415
Originally Posted by mayam13 View Post
May I ask a question? Why did not the pilot shutdown the RHS engine before touch down
If there was no known fuel leak there is no need to shutdown. In this case crew seem to be unaware of fuel leak, later PR teams tried to spin it as ~10 gallons of hidden OIL plus composites caused such big fire. When no one believed that spin was dropped.

Sinister side of me thinks, probably crew are not comfortable on just one engine. We don't know what happened with SQ836 both engine failure non-incident also TransAsia 235 fear, shutdown wrong engine.
notapilot15 is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2016, 16:06
  #612 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Singapore
Posts: 72
ATC recording

Originally Posted by MrSnuggles View Post
Is there any information as to who these pilots were?

I mean, there are a bunch of non-Singaporeans living and working in Singapore, no?
The pilot talking to ATC (post #165) sounds Singaporean, ah?

Can't tell is that was cptn or fo....
Julio747 is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2016, 16:59
  #613 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: U.S.A
Age: 52
Posts: 462
SQ 743 had an engine fire out of MEL long ago and the PR spin from SIN was that the setting sun reflecting on the exhaust can may have LOOKED like a fire. But they returned anyway.

Decision making does not appear to be a strong point in SQ. Take a read of the AAIB report on the 330 cargo fire in BKK.
oicur12.again is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2016, 19:42
  #614 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,820
Originally Posted by oicur12.again View Post
SQ 743 had an engine fire out of MEL long ago and the PR spin from SIN was that the setting sun reflecting on the exhaust can may have LOOKED like a fire. But they returned anyway.
Back in the late 1980's I was FO on an early ETOPS flight and we were about to go feet wet out of JFK for Europe. A passenger reported seeing flames coming out of an engine, it was just after sunset in the summertime. The third pilot said 'it's just the strobe reflecting off the engine nacelle, I'll go back and talk with them'. He took a look and came back saying there were indeed intermittent flashes of flame in the exhaust. We throttled the engine back to idle to avoid a negative ETOPS shutdown statistic and returned uneventfully back to JFK for a tail swap.

And, a colleague told me about seeing a sunrise at noon on a 737-200 when he was brand new in the plane doing IOE (now OE). He was starting an engine and somehow the igniters were not on due to breakers out or wrong switch position. The check airman spotted the mistake and announced 'watch and learn!' as he turned on the sparklers. The flight attendants said flame came out of both ends of the fuel soaked JT8D as it lit off and the pax were duly impressed.

The B-727 APU with the exhaust on the right wing caused a lot of pax evacuations, some pax initiated, back in the day. I watched one at DTW years ago as we were taxiing out in another plane.

The NTSB issued this bulletin to address the dangers of a pax initiated evac on the 727 due to APU torching:

http://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-re...rs/A93_125.pdf

Obviously, the recent SQ fire was far more serious than momentary APU torching.
Airbubba is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2016, 07:35
  #615 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: south england
Posts: 395
It would appear that now more facts are coming to light that this could have been handled better .

I am still disheartened by the fact that so called professionals/colleagues, who I am sure would want to experience a just culture when it comes to their stuff up being put under the microscope by their company/fellow professionals, are so quick to judge without being in receipt of all the facts before condemning this crews actions. None of us go to work with the intention of effing up, we all just want to act professionally and go home to our families. If we do mess up hopefully we all walk away and learn from our mistakes.

Regards,

GBD

Last edited by gatbusdriver; 5th Aug 2016 at 10:59.
gatbusdriver is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2016, 08:15
  #616 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: CYUL
Posts: 855
@ gatbusdriver... It would appear that now more fact are coming to light that this could have been handled better.
Could you clarify your statement please and tell us more on these new facts.

Thank you.
Jet Jockey A4 is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2016, 08:54
  #617 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 12,079
Originally Posted by gatbusdriver View Post
It would appear that now more fact are coming to light
That would be good, the last dozen pages of posts have simply been rehashing the same old arguments ad nauseam in the absence of any new information.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2016, 09:01
  #618 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 485
Sad to see people bagging Singaporeans. I flew with them as an ex-pat for ten years, their training is good, their standards are good and they are a nice bunch of guys. On first glance, I would have evacuated, it will be interesting to see the facts and any reason that influenced the decision to 'sit on it'.
By George is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2016, 09:59
  #619 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,393
Training and standards are good, but sometimes the aircraft is just bad, lah!
I press and I press, but nothing, lah!

Incident: Singapore B773 at Munich on Nov 3rd 2011, runway excursion
ManaAdaSystem is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2016, 12:54
  #620 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 61
Posts: 5,594
ManaAdaSystem: what does that incident have to do with this one? (Thanks for the link, that was an interesting read).
SQ, 777, OK, but ... what else is in common? No Fire. (And apparently, no damage to the aircraft).
This thread and this incident has to do with a fire involving an aircraft on the ground, and before that a malfunction that the crew determined was important enough that they not proceed to destination but instead return to base.


Absent new information from SQ or investigators, this thread is at risk of becoming an SQ or 777 catch all.
I did a quick search and did not find any new info released by investigators: did anyone come across new information?
Lonewolf_50 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.