SQ-368 (engine & wing on fire) final report out
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Singapore
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cognitive dissonance
Try looking it up. It goes like this.
Pilots are human and make mistakes. I am a pilot. If I make a mistake people will die. Including me. That cant be right. >> Denial >> pilots are always right and never make mistakes....
Simple psychology. But if this is you, then don't fly. Its pretty unhealrhy.
Air travel is pretty safe these days, thanks to a combination of pilots (better and worse) and computers (more reliable than many pilots).
Air Asia captain... pulls the circuit breakers on the flight computer... FlyDubai, 12 seconds nose down trim (just ease off on the thrust, dude), KLM no clearance to take off. Pilots make errors, one could list hundreds if not thousands.
This guy made a mistake and thankfully got away with it. I care little what the report will say...
Pilots are human and make mistakes. I am a pilot. If I make a mistake people will die. Including me. That cant be right. >> Denial >> pilots are always right and never make mistakes....
Simple psychology. But if this is you, then don't fly. Its pretty unhealrhy.
Air travel is pretty safe these days, thanks to a combination of pilots (better and worse) and computers (more reliable than many pilots).
Air Asia captain... pulls the circuit breakers on the flight computer... FlyDubai, 12 seconds nose down trim (just ease off on the thrust, dude), KLM no clearance to take off. Pilots make errors, one could list hundreds if not thousands.
This guy made a mistake and thankfully got away with it. I care little what the report will say...
Trying to keep an open mind
might the pilot judge from initial cabin reports that it was only a tailpipe fire and as such continued to operate the rh engine in idle with reversers stowed to blow the fire straight back?
Under this scenario (absent any decent facts) the cabin crew would not have put passengers out the slides.
decisions decisions vs timing and then there is hindsight
might the pilot judge from initial cabin reports that it was only a tailpipe fire and as such continued to operate the rh engine in idle with reversers stowed to blow the fire straight back?
Under this scenario (absent any decent facts) the cabin crew would not have put passengers out the slides.
decisions decisions vs timing and then there is hindsight
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Case in point: QF32. One very busy FO was actioning ECAM messages - one of which instructed the transfer of fuel between wings to balance the aircraft. Had his hand reaching up to the cross-feed valves when de Crespigny stopped him. Not a great idea to transfer good fuel to a wing that's leaking it as fast as it could be pumped (in the short-term anyway) - even though normally it's the logical thing to do.
Lets wait until we have the same information the SIA crew had before reaching our own conclusions. Lets call it a professional courtesy.
Sorry to be the one doing this but is there a point of keeping this thread open (while locking down many others)?
If (big if) the Air Accident Investigation Bureau of Singapore (AAIB) commes up with an informed report it will be time to review this topic... Until then I guess it has become the proverbial hamsterwhell
If (big if) the Air Accident Investigation Bureau of Singapore (AAIB) commes up with an informed report it will be time to review this topic... Until then I guess it has become the proverbial hamsterwhell
Paxing All Over The World
lomapaseo Looking at the videos, from the start of flames to the wing being engulfed seems too short a time for a report of 'small fire' to reach the FD and then be followed by further information. It turned into 'big fire' very rapidly.
Last edited by PAXboy; 24th Jul 2016 at 00:52.
PAX boy. Rapid fire is most likely and (my theory) extinguished just as rapidly.
Singapore is RFF 10
Any " fire fighters" input on the time required to extinguish a fire like this?
When the fire department practice fire drills at the airport on the fire trainer fuselage it seems a minute passes only before extinguishing the practice fire assuming zero additional fuel sources. Ie tank ruptured.
What if the fire was reported (from fire tender one) "under control" within a minute? My guess and speculation .
A Shorter time than completing the evacuation checklist.
What then?
Singapore is RFF 10
Any " fire fighters" input on the time required to extinguish a fire like this?
When the fire department practice fire drills at the airport on the fire trainer fuselage it seems a minute passes only before extinguishing the practice fire assuming zero additional fuel sources. Ie tank ruptured.
What if the fire was reported (from fire tender one) "under control" within a minute? My guess and speculation .
A Shorter time than completing the evacuation checklist.
What then?
Paxing All Over The World
nose,cabin I was referring to this by lomapaseo:
That is: A warning call from the cabin would have been overtaken by the rapidity of the fire. If they needed to call to say 'there is a tailpipe fire' by the time they were speaking to them, the fire would have been fully established and their report uprated.
It is possible that the flow of warnings to the FC from tower, fire truck and cabin arrived close on top of each other. How they were handled - and acted upon - would depend upon the sequence of answering by the three flight crew. (We know it was at least three due to the length of the sector.) Only the voice and data recorders can answer that clearly, for the flight crew's own memories of the event may not be in sequence - as we know from other events.
might the pilot judge from initial cabin reports that it was only a tailpipe fire and as such continued to operate the rh engine in idle with reversers stowed to blow the fire straight back?
It is possible that the flow of warnings to the FC from tower, fire truck and cabin arrived close on top of each other. How they were handled - and acted upon - would depend upon the sequence of answering by the three flight crew. (We know it was at least three due to the length of the sector.) Only the voice and data recorders can answer that clearly, for the flight crew's own memories of the event may not be in sequence - as we know from other events.
Is the one month-report a legal obligation as far as accident investigation is concerned or it can be omitted like in the case of MS804? If it must be published then we are only a few days away from some probably unseen info.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Not far from a big Lake
Age: 81
Posts: 1,454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by lomapaseo
Trying to keep an open mind
might the pilot judge from initial cabin reports that it was only a tailpipe fire and as such continued to operate the rh engine in idle with reversers stowed to blow the fire straight back?
might the pilot judge from initial cabin reports that it was only a tailpipe fire and as such continued to operate the rh engine in idle with reversers stowed to blow the fire straight back?
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Singapore
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not quite that simple...
Blindly following a SOP without thinking is dangerous. The best reason for having a human instead of a machine execute a NNCL is that the human can intelligently decide based on available information when a step is (and is not) a good idea.
Case in point: QF32. One very busy FO was actioning ECAM messages - one of which instructed the transfer of fuel between wings to balance the aircraft. Had his hand reaching up to the cross-feed valves when de Crespigny stopped him. Not a great idea to transfer good fuel to a wing that's leaking it as fast as it could be pumped (in the short-term anyway) - even though normally it's the logical thing to do.
Lets wait until we have the same information the SIA crew had before reaching our own conclusions. Lets call it a professional courtesy.
Case in point: QF32. One very busy FO was actioning ECAM messages - one of which instructed the transfer of fuel between wings to balance the aircraft. Had his hand reaching up to the cross-feed valves when de Crespigny stopped him. Not a great idea to transfer good fuel to a wing that's leaking it as fast as it could be pumped (in the short-term anyway) - even though normally it's the logical thing to do.
Lets wait until we have the same information the SIA crew had before reaching our own conclusions. Lets call it a professional courtesy.
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Singapore
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Try watching the video!
PAX boy. Rapid fire is most likely and (my theory) extinguished just as rapidly.
Singapore is RFF 10
Any " fire fighters" input on the time required to extinguish a fire like this?
When the fire department practice fire drills at the airport on the fire trainer fuselage it seems a minute passes only before extinguishing the practice fire assuming zero additional fuel sources. Ie tank ruptured.
What if the fire was reported (from fire tender one) "under control" within a minute? My guess and speculation .
A Shorter time than completing the evacuation checklist.
What then?
Singapore is RFF 10
Any " fire fighters" input on the time required to extinguish a fire like this?
When the fire department practice fire drills at the airport on the fire trainer fuselage it seems a minute passes only before extinguishing the practice fire assuming zero additional fuel sources. Ie tank ruptured.
What if the fire was reported (from fire tender one) "under control" within a minute? My guess and speculation .
A Shorter time than completing the evacuation checklist.
What then?
The point I am making is why guess that the fire might have been in control within a minute when we have hard, video evidence that is certainly was not?
The tower could certainly see what the video captured (I am talking about the one shot from afar by a malaysian speaking ground staff) but the rff were driving in the opposite direction for the first 30-40 seconds, and so could not see it. The cc and pax clearly could see it.
By the way, the darkness on some videos is an exposure effect inside the AC vs the huge flare outside. At the time the ac landed, it was not pitch black. This can be judged by the distant video. It was 20 mins before sunrise (07.06), and it pops up in an instant here on the equator. Best described as half-light at the time of landing. Like a grey day in the UK.
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Singapore
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why this thread should stay open
The reason I believe this thread has, and should, stay open is this.
In the absence of a report that says the fc made an error of judgement, it is encumbent upon the "evac evac evac" (majority i believe) to persuade the fence sitters that it was an error.
Doing so might save some lives. Tomorrow. Or the next day.
Yes, with all the caveats. Evac LHS and check for hazards first (trust the cc training). In this case, there is clear evidence a LHS evac would have been safe. Staying onboard endangered the lives of pax and crew.
In the absence of a report that says the fc made an error of judgement, it is encumbent upon the "evac evac evac" (majority i believe) to persuade the fence sitters that it was an error.
Doing so might save some lives. Tomorrow. Or the next day.
Yes, with all the caveats. Evac LHS and check for hazards first (trust the cc training). In this case, there is clear evidence a LHS evac would have been safe. Staying onboard endangered the lives of pax and crew.
Fire
(they reported 6 minutes in the Singapore press)
If the press are correct it is a "no brainer" to evacuate as you write.
That seems a very long time.
If 6 minutes after touchdown (is correct) to get the fire "under control " with a fire like that, they are very lucky indeed.
Why did they not evacuate.?
My initial reaction was obvious , " no brainer" to evacuate.
The aircraft landed (guessing) flap15 VRef 170 knot MLW 240 tons approx landing distance say over 2000 meters no heavy braking. (A guess).
This landing roll would take 40 seconds say while burning wing is being photographed.
I expect the tech., Crew were informed by tower immediately, and engine fire warning, the cabin crew call (perhaps )was answered after PARK BRAKE set.
My guess , Captain calls for EVACUATION checklist after setting park brake.
Initial PA "cabin crew at stations" ( SOP)
This evacuation checklist is practiced by all crew repeatedly in simulator License renewals worldwide.
A cabin video shows entertainment screens illuminated in the cabin, IFE was still powered by AC bus, hence the engine or APU, still running, hence evacuation checklist was not completed. At that time.
Why not? it was a "no brainer" as we agree.
All I can think of is the efficiency of the fire trucks do get the fire "extinguished " or "under control" in a very short time. Less than time required to complete the evacuation checklist , hard to believe for sure. 6 minutes is too long.
This needs to be discussed as it could easily happen to anyone on any evacuation in future.
See USA threads re sacking a captain.
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...vacuation.html
How important is this area if "fire crew " do call off the evacuation ?
Have the fire services confirmed and accepted full responsibility for the aircraft?
The wing fuel tank ( I guess.) 20 tons of fuel and is possibly weakened by heat. I would not trust the FIre services, "under control " report, because too many passengers lives in danger and no legislation to protect and recognize this call from fire services. Have they been licensed to make this important decision?.
It is overdue time for the worlds' regulators and airlines flight operations management , to show some leadership.
They need to make a directive immediately.
I hope this is not viewed by some, as "wild speculation" after all this is a forum to read and think. And learn !
(they reported 6 minutes in the Singapore press)
If the press are correct it is a "no brainer" to evacuate as you write.
That seems a very long time.
If 6 minutes after touchdown (is correct) to get the fire "under control " with a fire like that, they are very lucky indeed.
Why did they not evacuate.?
My initial reaction was obvious , " no brainer" to evacuate.
The aircraft landed (guessing) flap15 VRef 170 knot MLW 240 tons approx landing distance say over 2000 meters no heavy braking. (A guess).
This landing roll would take 40 seconds say while burning wing is being photographed.
I expect the tech., Crew were informed by tower immediately, and engine fire warning, the cabin crew call (perhaps )was answered after PARK BRAKE set.
My guess , Captain calls for EVACUATION checklist after setting park brake.
Initial PA "cabin crew at stations" ( SOP)
This evacuation checklist is practiced by all crew repeatedly in simulator License renewals worldwide.
A cabin video shows entertainment screens illuminated in the cabin, IFE was still powered by AC bus, hence the engine or APU, still running, hence evacuation checklist was not completed. At that time.
Why not? it was a "no brainer" as we agree.
All I can think of is the efficiency of the fire trucks do get the fire "extinguished " or "under control" in a very short time. Less than time required to complete the evacuation checklist , hard to believe for sure. 6 minutes is too long.
This needs to be discussed as it could easily happen to anyone on any evacuation in future.
See USA threads re sacking a captain.
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...vacuation.html
How important is this area if "fire crew " do call off the evacuation ?
Have the fire services confirmed and accepted full responsibility for the aircraft?
The wing fuel tank ( I guess.) 20 tons of fuel and is possibly weakened by heat. I would not trust the FIre services, "under control " report, because too many passengers lives in danger and no legislation to protect and recognize this call from fire services. Have they been licensed to make this important decision?.
It is overdue time for the worlds' regulators and airlines flight operations management , to show some leadership.
They need to make a directive immediately.
I hope this is not viewed by some, as "wild speculation" after all this is a forum to read and think. And learn !
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reason I believe this thread has, and should, stay open is this.
In the absence of a report that says the fc made an error of judgement, it is encumbent upon the "evac evac evac" (majority i believe) to persuade the fence sitters that it was an error.
Doing so might save some lives. Tomorrow. Or the next day.
Yes, with all the caveats. Evac LHS and check for hazards first (trust the cc training). In this case, there is clear evidence a LHS evac would have been safe. Staying onboard endangered the lives of pax and crew.
In the absence of a report that says the fc made an error of judgement, it is encumbent upon the "evac evac evac" (majority i believe) to persuade the fence sitters that it was an error.
Doing so might save some lives. Tomorrow. Or the next day.
Yes, with all the caveats. Evac LHS and check for hazards first (trust the cc training). In this case, there is clear evidence a LHS evac would have been safe. Staying onboard endangered the lives of pax and crew.
Julio747 - What unbelievable arrogance, the assumption that you are right and everyone who disagrees with you is wrong. So far the photo/video evidence is completely unreliable and you most certainly do NOT have any clear evidence that a LHS evacuation would have been safe. I don't want you in command of any aircraft my family or I are on.
It is overdue time for the worlds' regulators and airlines flight operations management , to show some leadership.
They need to make a directive immediately.
They need to make a directive immediately.
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Need for regulations
Allegiant argues that Nevada does not have a public policy prohibiting termination of at-will employment based on compliance or non-compliance with FARs.
Allegiant also made some arguments based on the Airline Deregulation Act, which was not very convincing.
Unfortunately for us spectators, there have been no further info from on what actually happened that fateful day.
At this point, the arguments from both sides have lots of holes in them.
The Captain's lawyers want the case to be remanded back to Nevada state court and/or decided under Nevada labor laws. Allegiant's lawyers want the case dismissed, or failing that, for the case stay in the U.S. district court and be decided under preempting Federal laws.
The PIC really needs to think which of those two scenarios they'd rather be justifying at an inquest .
It's the combustion byproducts (CO, HCL...) that can incapacitate in seconds. Demise from inhaling toxic fumes generally precedes combustion.
The real question in considering evacuation is less the state of the fire 90 seconds from now than the survivability of the cabin atmosphere 90 seconds from now.
"Under Control"
: Fire or spill etc. is no longer spreading. The situation is contained. This term should not be confused with a report that the fire is extinguished.
Allegiant argues that Nevada does not have a public policy prohibiting termination of at-will employment based on compliance or non-compliance with FARs.
Allegiant also made some arguments based on the Airline Deregulation Act, which was not very convincing.
Unfortunately for us spectators, there have been no further info from on what actually happened that fateful day.
At this point, the arguments from both sides have lots of holes in them.
The Captain's lawyers want the case to be remanded back to Nevada state court and/or decided under Nevada labor laws. Allegiant's lawyers want the case dismissed, or failing that, for the case stay in the U.S. district court and be decided under preempting Federal laws.
The PIC really needs to think which of those two scenarios they'd rather be justifying at an inquest .
It's the combustion byproducts (CO, HCL...) that can incapacitate in seconds. Demise from inhaling toxic fumes generally precedes combustion.
The real question in considering evacuation is less the state of the fire 90 seconds from now than the survivability of the cabin atmosphere 90 seconds from now.
"Under Control"
: Fire or spill etc. is no longer spreading. The situation is contained. This term should not be confused with a report that the fire is extinguished.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: the City by the Bay
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I want Julio on that plane if I was on it.
I fail to see why a fire that big was not enough to evacuate
Staying on the aircraft with doors closed is playing a very bad hand.
Playing with the lives of all on board.
If there were fatalities I wonder how many would say it was the right call to stay put and not evac soon as the wheels stopped rolling and brakes set and engines off.
I would not want to stay on a burning plane.
Would you honestly if you were onboard?
I fail to see why a fire that big was not enough to evacuate
Staying on the aircraft with doors closed is playing a very bad hand.
Playing with the lives of all on board.
If there were fatalities I wonder how many would say it was the right call to stay put and not evac soon as the wheels stopped rolling and brakes set and engines off.
I would not want to stay on a burning plane.
Would you honestly if you were onboard?