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

[Julio747]

Lots of comments, please let me reply

@ nose cabin
Good question! Why were the lights out but the IFE still working? Engines still on is my best guess. But why?

@ parabellum
Arrogance or decisiveness? A fine line. But i question your assertion that photo & video evidence is unreliable! Really?? Is your head in the sand?

@ gatbusdriver
I hope you are not put in the same situation.

@ speedbird
Totally agree. I expect that. There is a brain between SOP and action. I like to think so.

@ sqrew
Oh, so a few bruises from the slide is better than the alternative? You must be a gambling man.... Bravo!

@ armchairpilot
Thanks for the vote of confidence!

[Ian W]

The lights out is an easy one. Many airlines put out cabin lights prior to landing with the apparent intention of ensuring that night vision is available to evacuating pax. They then ruin it by allowing pax to use overhead lights and personal electronics. Most of the flights I have been on recently the window seat pax shut the blinds on arrival at the seat and it is kept firmly shut till the flight attendants suggest that those that may be open are shut 'to keep the aircraft cool'. I doubt if anyone would have noticed a wing fire in most of my recent flights.

[SpeedBird2016]

I think it's important to point out that the FD crew don't have the benefit of hindsight; they can only make the best call that they can with the info they have available.

For all we know they might have had reason to THINK fuel was pooling under the aircraft (regardless of whether it was or wasn't) and thus may have felt that in that situation they were better off to sit tight until rescue services were in a better position to protect them if they evacuated into it.

Who knows? THEY DO - We don't. And it's not fair to judge them until we do.

[gatbusdriver]

FACT.....you do not know what information these guys were privy to before making their decision (or not as the case may be). You can use words like surely or they must have, but the fact is you do not know. What did the crew tell them? What did ATC tell them? ARFF? Did they use the GMCS? Was it even working? What cautions/ warnings were they getting? Just a few of the things I would be interested in knowing.

Until information is leaked or a report is out detailing everything from the start of the failure to the point the passengers disembarked i will refrain from stating my opinion as fact. When that information is released I will hopefully be able to learn from it.

I agree that I hope I never find myself in that position, but I also hope that if I were to find myself in that position my training and experience would stand the test and leave me alive to read the 36 pages of guaranteed drivel/opinions that will appear on PPRuNe written by armchair experts who really have no idea what went on in the flight deck that day (I know that's a little unfair as there are some very informative posts by some).

I am not defending their course of action/inaction, I just don't see how you can judge with absolutely certainty until you are aware of......here comes those words again........all the facts.

Regards,

GBD

[parabellum]

But i question your assertion that photo & video evidence is unreliable! Really?? Is your head in the sand?

Julio747 - No, my head is not in the sand but I do think you are blustering ahead with insufficient knowledge of the facts and are making some very rash, some would say dangerous, claims and statements of your probable actions.


For instance, are you aware of the construction of the top layer of asphalt on modern runways? Are you aware that the top layer is deliberately porous to allow the draining away of surface water, through a myriad of tiny tunnels? (A technique invented and developed in The Netherlands, also Singapore University has done some work on this subject, which involves the mixing of tyre rubber with tarmac to achieve the porous effect).


The fact that you can't see a shimmering pool of fuel under the aircraft doesn't mean it isn't there, if present it would be just below the surface and just as flammable.

[notapilot15]

So if kids call parents to say forest fire reached one side of the house, but other sides are good, should one say, "Don't leave the house, our city FD is top class, and fire chief is very competent".

Get over it. Irrespective of what story SAAIB writes 4 years from now, this incident showed different side of SQ and CAG.

They can release information what they have to change my opinion. Until then they stand incompetent.

[oicur12.again]

"For all we know they might have had reason to THINK fuel was pooling under the aircraft....."

Wouldnt given the knowledge of pooling fuel under the aircraft combined with a known fire give impetus to the "Lets get the f%$^# off this aeroplane" argument.

The assumption in the stay onboard argument is that the RFF WILL SUCCEED. As anyone who has been involved in fire fighting knows, it is not until you are standing around eating sandwiches after the fact that you can say with any certainty that the fire is under control.

[Machrihanish]

For instance, are you aware of the construction of the top layer of asphalt on modern runways? Are you aware that the top layer is deliberately porous to allow the draining away of surface water, through a myriad of tiny tunnels? (A technique invented and developed in The Netherlands, also Singapore University has done some work on this subject, which involves the mixing of tyre rubber with tarmac to achieve the porous effect).

Now that we tap into the delicacies of runway construction - how do you physically explain your pool of fuel on the crown of a monsoon zone runway which is sloped towards its edges? Fuel gushing from wing tanks so forcefully it creeps up-crown from where to drain to port?

777's port slides clearly reach into the left half of the runway, don't they.

Let's wait for some facts, right? How long?

[cee cee]

So if kids call parents to say forest fire reached one side of the house, but other sides are good, should one say, "Don't leave the house

Actually you picked an unfortunate example that disproves your point. Forest fires can move faster than you can run or drive. The radiant heat from the fire front will kill you if you are outside.

From https://www.dfes.wa.gov.au/safetyinf...ushfire.aspx#2This information will increase your chances of survival:

• Stay in the house when the fire front is passing, this usually takes five to fifteen minutes. You need to actively defend while sheltering

[pilot9249]

"The fact that you can't see a shimmering pool of fuel under the aircraft doesn't mean it isn't there"

There was a blazing fire on the wing.

How could they have established if the runway had fuel on it? Would that have made the evacuation more or less urgent? How could they decide? How long would all this have taken?

Your comment is seriously over-complicating this, and over-estimating the number of variables any crew could reliably deal with.

The only had time to deal with the actual known problem "wing on fire".

They didn't deal with it.

[lomapaseo]

Let's wait for some facts, right? How long?

http://www.mot.gov.sg/About-MOT/Air-...gation-Report/

Do they have something like a Preliminary to satisfy us somewhat?

It's always nice to know at least where the source of the leak was and wait later for the Why's

Again the same for the crew actions and only later for the in-actions why's

I will admit that if some of the key questions might be unique to this accident only, then there might be a longer wait in many states-of-occurance and registry

[notapilot15]

Originally Posted by cee cee

Stay in the house when the fire front is passing, this usually takes five to fifteen minutes. You need to actively defend while sheltering

Sounds odd but at least house owner has an options, but SQ pax don't have self evac option with 90 lbs guarding the exits and federal laws dictate pax follow crew instructions.

[Machinbird]

Heat Transfer

While we are waiting for some factual news from the Singapore investigation, would anyone else like to comment on the significance of the three, now Whitish color, hand hole access plates on the underside of the aircraft wing outboard of the starboard engine pylon?

To me, it looks like they got much hotter than the adjacent wing skin, but I have not had opportunity to get up close and personal with them. Suppose they had melted through. Would that have made things more interesting?

[Julio747]

Originally Posted by parabellum

Julio747 - No, my head is not in the sand but I do think you are blustering ahead with insufficient knowledge of the facts and are making some very rash, some would say dangerous, claims and statements of your probable actions.


For instance, are you aware of the construction of the top layer of asphalt on modern runways? Are you aware that the top layer is deliberately porous to allow the draining away of surface water, through a myriad of tiny tunnels? (A technique invented and developed in The Netherlands, also Singapore University has done some work on this subject, which involves the mixing of tyre rubber with tarmac to achieve the porous effect).


The fact that you can't see a shimmering pool of fuel under the aircraft doesn't mean it isn't there, if present it would be just below the surface and just as flammable.

I am fully conversant with runway design, my friend. And I have viewed every comment, every video, and every photograph on this thread.

The "after the event" shots (and I can't be bothered to find them in the thread for you) are crystal clear. After the event: LHS not a drop of foam...ergo????

So you can hypothesise all you want. But it didn't happen.

If they opened the LH doors, and said, ooh, not sure about that. I may have a different view. But they did not.

They hung on and crossed their fingers. The cc were traumatised to see the fire, and perplexed as to why they were not given an evac command. Let alone the pax....

But hey, let's try to blur the issue with runway design.... Dohhh...

30 tonnes of fuel under a raging fire..... Get the hell out is my view.

[armchairpilot94116]

I find it hard to believe that when you land and your engine and wing burst into flames that you should wait for the Fire Chief to tell you what you should do.

[Whinging Tinny]

Machinbird:
The 3 white access panels you see are impact resistant and of a different spec to the outer normal panels.I'd imagine if you could see inboard of the pylon, the panels there would look similar as they too are all impact resistant.
They are not hand holes as such, people can and do get into them to gain entry into the fuel tanks.

[Machinbird]

Originally Posted by Whinging Tinny

The 3 white access panels you see are impact resistant and of a different spec to the outer normal panels.

Thanks for that Tinny. I'm reading the whitish surface as burnt paint, so that would indicate a multi surface component that does not have fuel in direct contact with the external surface at that location, thus minimal heat sink effect from the fuel load.

They are not hand holes as such, people can and do get into them to gain entry into the fuel tanks.

I had wondered about that. Thanks.

[tdracer]

Machinbird, as Whinging pointed out, those are fuel tank access panels - rather large since a human has to be able to fit through. On the British Airtours 737 fire 30 years ago, an uncontained piece of the engine (part of a burner can) impacted one of those fuel tank access panel. The panel shattered (cast aluminum), resulting an a massive fuel leak onto an engine that had a hole in the burner (whoops).
One of the changes due to that accident is that now all fuel access panels that are within the engine 'burst zone' need to be impact resistant. On the 737 this was done by going to forged aluminum (instead of cast). I'm not sure what they use on the 777 but if I had to guess I'd say they are also forged aluminum.

[YRP]

To change topic slightly, I'm curious about the firefighting aspect of this.

From the videos, the fire is on the underside of the wing, doesn't appear to have spread to the ground. So the flammable fluid must be coating the wing.

The foam is being sprayed horizontally. It seems like the thin wing would give a narrow "target", meaning the foam would have to hit the leading or trailing edges else it just shoots past parallel to the flaming surface and wouldn't have much effect.

It seems like it would be easier to attack the a at an angle to the surface on fire, eg if the hose nozzle were closer to the ground aimed upwards. Then the foam/fluid spray can spread out across the surface as it were, getting more effect per unit of time/fluid.

Obviously they got the fire out so it worked. I'm just curious if anyone knowledgeable can speak to how they attack this kind of fire.

[aviator_38]

Ref post #716,

here is the preliminary report:

Cheers