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 16th Jul 2016, 10:29
  #641 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: PLanet Earth
Posts: 801
Originally Posted by MrSnuggles View Post
There is a reason you evacuate your house if the forest fire flames are touching your windows.

That sums it up nicely.
Couldn't have put it any better!
henra is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2016, 11:29
  #642 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: EU
Posts: 586
I've worked for various airlines; only 1 had an SOP of NOT to use T/R on and engine with a fire warning. Some had a 'beware' 'consider' philosophy. Some had never thought about it.
Interesting, I never thought about that.
Just for my info, is it "no reverse" or "not more then idle"?
golfyankeesierra is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2016, 13:53
  #643 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 5,205
I have concerns about using assymetric reverse thrust on an emergency return to land. It adds more pressure on the pilot in an already stressful situation.

I would rather put the mitigation priority on this postulated cause towards addressing the amount of fuel leaked.
lomapaseo is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2016, 14:15
  #644 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: uae
Posts: 2,377
I've been doing this for 40 years . Training and checking for a majority. This was the incorrect decision , period. They got lucky. This could have gone so bad.
fatbus is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2016, 17:10
  #645 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: India
Age: 81
Posts: 10
Reply Machinbird: A two hour return flight after an oil temperature warning, is aremarkable feat!
mayam13 is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2016, 01:46
  #646 (permalink)  
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,047
and total luck that the fire crews happened to be there.
Apart from one statement, much earlier on, (which many people have jumped on as fact and quoted ), I have seen no verification that the fire crews were out and about for other than attending this incident. The telemetry from the aircraft would have been monitored by the SQ engineers as soon as the aircraft turned back, if the fuel leak was spotted then, in all probability ATC were advised and would have taken the decision to have fire services standing by, regardless of what the crew said.
We have no idea at all what communication there was, by various means, between the aircraft and SQ Ops and Engineering, as well as ATC, so much of what has been posted here is wild speculation.


Reply Machinbird: A two hour return flight after an oil temperature warning, is aremarkable feat!

Most aircraft engines allow for a reduction in thrust to maintain oil temps. and pressure within limits, if it cannot be kept within limits then it must be shut down.
parabellum is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2016, 05:59
  #647 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 641
On a positive note: since they didn't shut down the engine in flight, this incident does not negatively affect the IFSD rate and ETOPS rating of this airframe/engine.
Well done! 👍
fox niner is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2016, 18:11
  #648 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: PLanet Earth
Posts: 801
Originally Posted by fox niner View Post
since they didn't shut down the engine in flight, this incident does not negatively affect the IFSD rate and ETOPS rating of this airframe/engine.
Well done! 👍
I sincerely hope this was a joke!
Sarcasm detector reports: undecided
henra is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2016, 18:32
  #649 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Wherever someone will pay me to do fun stuff
Posts: 1,126
I sincerely hope this was a joke!
Maybe, maybe not..........but it made me smile.
LookingForAJob is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2016, 18:36
  #650 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: NEW YORK
Posts: 590
It seems pretty clear that the more experienced voices on this site consider it a mistake to not have ordered passenger evacuation.
I'd like to know what conceivable inputs the crew might have received that would make them decide to have everyone sit tight in a burning and generously fuelled airplane.
etudiant is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2016, 20:50
  #651 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Not far from a big Lake
Age: 77
Posts: 1,458
I'd like to know what conceivable inputs the crew might have received that would make them decide to have everyone sit tight in a burning and generously fuelled airplane.
You can bet that being blind sided by this fire after a successful but tiring night mission abort and successful landing counted for at least 30 seconds of delay in recognition of the fire. Then follows confusion about which procedures to implement. By then, the fire department is there. I expect the CVR will pretty much confirm this pathway to a passive decision.

In an earlier post, I mentioned the significance of the fuel odor reported in the cabin. Since the pressurization system on the triple 7 takes its air from the engines, that implies fuel may be getting into the bleed air. How? Leakage from an engine lube system that has become contaminated with fuel. The point of this comment is to suggest that the EICAS system should not be the exclusive input to your decision making process regarding status of aircraft systems.

I'm in substantial agreement with the following analysis by Whinging Tinny :
Main Fuel/Oil Heat Exchanger failure (Known fault on GE engines)
Higher presssure fuel enters the oil system and circulates around the oil system - hence the oil system parameters changing.
Fuel/oil vapour/mist vents out the central vent system and to atmosphere.
Due to cold stream airflow/forward speed of the aircraft nothing happens.
Flaps down on approach and lowering airspeed, venting fuel/oil vapour impinges on the lower wing surface.
Selecting reverse thrust plus decaying forward speed due to landing, no more airflow to draw the vapour away.
Engine central vent system vapour ignites and spreads to the contaminated lower surface.
Even after engine shutdown, system still pressurised and venting adding to problem.
Where we differ is that I expect the accident investigation will find a cascaded failure of the vent system/oil system in/adjacent to the engine pylon. The pattern of fire indicates to me that the pylon became awash in fuel and transmitted fuel into the leading and trailing edge flap spaces under the influence of local airflow which I expect will run from wing root to tip. The amount of fuel would likely be in excess of 5000 lb over the course the the 2+ hour return trip, with the bulk of the fuel being lost overboard. On landing, any fuel going down the core will cause an immediate compressor stall and start things burning. The unusual pattern of this fire and the external physical design and location of the engine pylon lead me in this direction. Note that in the first picture below, there is no leading edge fire inboard of the engine pylon.

Machinbird is online now  
Old 17th Jul 2016, 23:15
  #652 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: australia
Age: 70
Posts: 24
-machinbird
Good thinking sir.

I did read on earlier post of reported, low or decreasing oil quantity indication.
From my recollection an oil/heater exchanger leak resulted in increasing oil quantity indication and QRH checklist dealing with that.

By your hypothesis , With the return flight leaking oil/ fuel exchanger, over a longer period of 2 hours, possibly your theory would produce a fuel imbalance in the wrong wing
ie right engine at idle and decreasing fuel inside the tanks. Except the center tank would still be used until jettison.
Hence no way to discover where the leak was from.
nose,cabin is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2016, 00:17
  #653 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Not far from a big Lake
Age: 77
Posts: 1,458
Hence no way to discover where the leak was from.
I was thinking that a little careful flashlight work on the starboard engine as suggested by the bad oil quantity indication, oil pressure indications and rough engine indications plus fuel fumes might reveal a fuel plume or fuel actually running on the surface in any stagnated airflow area. Should you see that, the engine should be shut down and valves closed until the flow is stopped.
Machinbird is online now  
Old 18th Jul 2016, 07:56
  #654 (permalink)  
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,047
I'd like to know what conceivable inputs the crew might have received that would make them decide to have everyone sit tight in a burning and generously fuelled airplane.

etudiant - You are not a profesional aviator I'm assuming? It is SOP in a situation such as the one here for the flight crew to contact the emergency services ASAP after landing on the emergency services frequency, which is normally, in ICAO countries, only one click away from 121.5. If the fire chief is on the spot he is in a position to pass invaluable info to the flight crew, particularly where burning fuel may be flowing.
Lots of guesses made here from poor quality photos that fuel did not flow under this aircraft, nothing verified, the fire chief would have been able to to pass an assessment to the Captain. Evacuating passengers into an area where the slides could land in burning fuel, or spilled fuel that may subsequently ignite, is the action that will kill passengers.


It seems pretty clear that the more experienced voices on this site consider it a mistake to not have ordered passenger evacuation.

Not so, the split is about fifty/fifty of experienced voices. Each professional is the master of his own game, pilots don't fight fires and fire chiefs don't fly. A pilot who would evacuate and be damned , choosing to contradict qualified professional advice from outside when it is available, is, I believe, the real safety hazard here.

Last edited by parabellum; 18th Jul 2016 at 09:51.
parabellum is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2016, 11:30
  #655 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: NEW YORK
Posts: 590
Originally Posted by parabellum View Post
etudiant - You are not a profesional aviator I'm assuming? It is SOP in a situation such as the one here for the flight crew to contact the emergency services ASAP after landing on the emergency services frequency, which is normally, in ICAO countries, only one click away from 121.5. If the fire chief is on the spot he is in a position to pass invaluable info to the flight crew, particularly where burning fuel may be flowing.
Lots of guesses made here from poor quality photos that fuel did not flow under this aircraft, nothing verified, the fire chief would have been able to to pass an assessment to the Captain. Evacuating passengers into an area where the slides could land in burning fuel, or spilled fuel that may subsequently ignite, is the action that will kill passengers.


Not so, the split is about fifty/fifty of experienced voices. Each professional is the master of his own game, pilots don't fight fires and fire chiefs don't fly. A pilot who would evacuate and be damned , choosing to contradict qualified professional advice from outside when it is available, is, I believe, the real safety hazard here.

The issue is that the fire was not manifest until the airplane had completed a successful landing on a non emergency basis. They had a mechanical problem that was non threatening enough for the crew to fly home rather than divert. On landing, there was no fire chief available to assess the situation. So the decision to sit tight cannot be attributed to a fire chief, he was not there.
While the fire crew arrived with commendable speed, the video at least suggests that this was a very near run thing.
etudiant is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2016, 12:16
  #656 (permalink)  
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,047
On landing, there was no fire chief available to assess the situation. So the decision to sit tight cannot be attributed to a fire chief, he was not there.

That is where we beg to differ. From the time the aircraft came to a standstill until the time the fire chief arrived would have been the time the flight deck crew were fully occupied assimilating their unexpected situation, (no fire warnings prior to landing), and completing the emergency check lists.


Myself included I believe we are all guilty of reckless speculation without having access to any of the facts.
parabellum is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2016, 12:57
  #657 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: CYUL
Posts: 841
I'm sorry I find it hard to believe the pilots did not know there was a raging fire on the right side of the aircraft.

IF the fire trucks were already out for some sort of exercise and just happened to be in the vicinity of the stricken aircraft, could it be there was no Fire Chief in the trucks that made it to the aircraft initially?
Jet Jockey A4 is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2016, 12:59
  #658 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: everywhere
Posts: 507
On a positive note: since they didn't shut down the engine in flight, this incident does not negatively affect the IFSD rate and ETOPS rating of this airframe/engine.
Probably closer to the truth than you might think. I've know this to happen with other 777 operators that have flown an engine at idle for several hours to destination. Not shutting it down means you don't have to Land at nearest suitable airport and it doesn't count as an IFSD affecting ETOP's.
flyhardmo is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2016, 13:15
  #659 (permalink)  
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,047
I'm sorry I find it hard to believe the pilots did not know there was a raging fire on the right side of the aircraft.

IF the fire trucks were already out for some sort of exercise and just happened to be in the vicinity of the stricken aircraft, could it be there was no Fire Chief in the trucks that made it to the aircraft initially?

Jet Jockey A4 - Please read the previous posts, the fire broke out after landing. We are now just adding to the uncontrolled, unfounded speculation.
parabellum is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2016, 13:38
  #660 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 5,205
On a positive note: since they didn't shut down the engine in flight, this incident does not negatively affect the IFSD rate and ETOPS rating of this airframe/engine.
Probably closer to the truth than you might think. I've know this to happen with other 777 operators that have flown an engine at idle for several hours to destination. Not shutting it down means you don't have to Land at nearest suitable airport and it doesn't count as an IFSD affecting ETOP's.
This should not be part of the discussion about this incident as IFSD numbers are just that and meaningless as single incidents.

The FAA will be all over this event when the details are known
lomapaseo 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.