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 3rd Aug 2016, 18:02
  #741 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 64
Posts: 2,453
if you suspect a fuel leak in or around the Engine ( which they did ) SOP requires Reverse thrust NOT TO BE USED

I've yet to see anything that suggests the crew suspected a fuel leak - there's nothing to that effect in the 21.3 report or the preliminary accident report.
tdracer is online now  
Old 3rd Aug 2016, 18:11
  #742 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Singapore
Posts: 72
Agreed.

But having pulled the #2 engine to idle 2 hours earlier, because it obviously had problems, would you use it for powered reverse on landing? I am not saying they did. We don't know. I am saying that to do so would be unwise in my view.
Julio747 is offline  
Old 3rd Aug 2016, 18:15
  #743 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Yes.
Posts: 237
I guess at least one pilot will be looking for a job after this. Why? The Captain of the B777 accident aircraft at LHR, was out of a job for a while. He applied to "the Emirates" and was turned down because he had been involved in an aircraft accident.
Dan_Brown is offline  
Old 3rd Aug 2016, 19:38
  #744 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Geneva, Switzerland
Age: 50
Posts: 1,430
is that a fact? After receiving a medal for his heroic actions?
atakacs is offline  
Old 3rd Aug 2016, 22:37
  #745 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Not far from a big Lake
Age: 77
Posts: 1,458
Originally Posted by tdracer
I've yet to see anything that suggests the crew suspected a fuel leak - there's nothing to that effect in the 21.3 report or the preliminary accident report.
I have to agree that the crew did not suspect a fuel leak. That was the reason they were (apparently) blind sided by the fire.

However, a little forward thinking, using a clue that was not on their EICAS, should have given them reason to suspect a fuel leak. The clue was the fuel smell in the cabin that some of the passengers reported in some of the OP links.

If the majority of current pilots do not think they could have drawn that conclusion, then there is probably a training issue that needs addressing.
Of course, the clue is NA to the 787.
Machinbird is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2016, 01:39
  #746 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: new york
Posts: 1
Originally Posted by Machinbird View Post
I have to agree that the crew did not suspect a fuel leak. That was the reason they were (apparently) blind sided by the fire.

However, a little forward thinking, using a clue that was not on their EICAS, should have given them reason to suspect a fuel leak. The clue was the fuel smell in the cabin that some of the passengers reported in some of the OP links.

If the majority of current pilots do not think they could have drawn that conclusion, then there is probably a training issue that needs addressing.
Of course, the clue is NA to the 787.
It seems unlikely that a crew who would not evacuate on the occasion of a raging fire would be able to process such relatively subtle hints even if they were provided.

People who are awaiting further facts are waiting for second and third order information.

The crew failed to deal with the primary issue.

How effectively they dealt with second and third order issues is moot.

Respectfully, training must focus on the obvious before the non obvious.
sptraveller is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2016, 04:52
  #747 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Here & there
Posts: 743
ACMS:
Buzz, if you suspect a fuel leak in or around the Engine ( which they did ) SOP requires Reverse thrust NOT TO BE USED as it can spread or spray the fuel all around the inside of the Engine cowling and it can ignite..............
So, they should not have even selected idle reverse at all on that Engine....
Julio747:
That is a normal landing. But #2 was set to idle already, 2 hours before landing. On the advice of engineers I understand. That is a very different scenario...
Having operated the B777 for over 10 years, I'm well aware of the SOPs. My understanding is the #2 engine was operated at idle thrust because of an oil pressure problem. Rightly or wrongly, the crew did NOT suspect there was a fuel leak associated with that problem. Under such circumstances why would you not apply IDLE reverse on landing?

ACMS, while we're on the topic of SOPs, the Fuel Leak NNC calls for the engine to be shut down in the event of an engine fuel leak such as you described. Clearly, the crew did not suspect an engine fuel leak, otherwise the engine would have been shut down, not left running at idle thrust.

Last edited by BuzzBox; 4th Aug 2016 at 05:26.
BuzzBox is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2016, 05:49
  #748 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,330
But they did fly for a long time with one engine at idle.
I question that decision.
ManaAdaSystem is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2016, 13:59
  #749 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: directly below the zenith
Posts: 45
Wow. A very lucky escape for all involved.

Wow. Aviation 'professionals' here advocating no evac necessary despite seeing the video evidence. Appalling. One can only hope none of whom are pilots, cabin crew or regulators. In the real world, not a single flight deck, cabin crew or ground crew member I have polled has said anything other than evacuate immediately, without question, irrespective of any other factors. Very very surprised no-one initiated their own evac in the absence of a commanded one, including any of the cabin crew. Where there is fire, get out. If in doubt, get out. Anything other than an evacuation when stationary, if confronted with a wing consumed by fire, is a gross dereliction of duty (and arguably common sense), regardless of the eventual outcome.

Anyone promoting a non-evacuation in such circumstances is unfit for the world of commercial aviation.

IMHO.
deadheader is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2016, 09:26
  #750 (permalink)  
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,043
despite seeing the video evidence.

The video evidence is totally unreliable, mainly taken from iPhones.


Sorry deadheader but you are quite wrong, your bull-headed actions might well cause more deaths than action based on all the information available. There was no gross negligence or dereliction of duty on anyone's part. A passenger who initiates there own evacuation, (possibly you?), are a serious danger if they don't have the full facts available to them.


"Anyone promoting a non-evacuation in such circumstances is unfit for the world of commercial aviation."


Utter stuff and nonsense deadhheader, I doubt, from your post, you are qualified to make such a statement. (From a forty year professional in the industry).
parabellum is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2016, 10:50
  #751 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: directly below the zenith
Posts: 45
That wing's not ablaze, it's merely iphone glare!

You're of course more than entitled to your opinion, Parabellum, but it does not reflect the views of airline professionals I work with, even if some anonymous internet posters agree with you. To reiterate:

Given:
1- a stationary aircraft;
2- 200+ souls onboard;
3- a wing engulfed in fire

The only course of action is immediate evacuation. The risk of remaining onboard in such circumstances far outweighs the risk of evacuating. That holds true regardless of any other factors and therefore to not evacuate in such circumstances is madness.
deadheader is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2016, 11:57
  #752 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: south england
Posts: 395
I don't think you will find people defending the decision one way of another. You have 20/20 hindsight looking at videos taken from inside and outside the aircraft but what you don't know is what the flight crew in question were aware of on the day or what information they received to make the decision that they made. Until we know everything I believe it is premature for people to say the crew got it wrong on the day or they would do it differently..........in fact I would go as far to say it makes some look a touch new to the industry (if involved at all).

Why not wait until all the facts are out, then if you choose to spout your opinion on here on what you would have done differently then at least you have based your point of view on the facts.

You could of course just learn from someone else's misfortune and avoid trashing fellow professionals on public forums, but what do I know.

Regards,

GBD
gatbusdriver is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2016, 13:04
  #753 (permalink)  
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,043
The only course of action is immediate evacuation. The risk of remaining onboard in such circumstances far outweighs the risk of evacuating. That holds true regardless of any other factors and therefore to not evacuate in such circumstances is madness.

You are so totally wrong deadheader, gatbusdriver has had a go at pointing that out to you, as have I, but we obviously waste our time. Reading back over your last two posts I am now fairly convinced that you are just a troll and not worth bothering with, so I won't.
parabellum is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2016, 15:17
  #754 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 732
Parabellum, it is you who is wrong, and bullying and name calling won't change that. It was only luck that the cabin wasn't breached like in many another incident, and it would have been over inside that cabin in seconds if it had breached. The crew were grossly negligent in their assumptions that the fire could be contained so quickly - there was nothing other than blind hope/faith that it could be contained at all.

Last edited by Aluminium shuffler; 5th Aug 2016 at 15:27.
Aluminium shuffler is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2016, 15:56
  #755 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 5,172
Parabellum, it is you who is wrong, and bullying and name calling won't change that. It was only luck that the cabin wasn't breached like in many another incident, and it would have been over inside that cabin in seconds if it had breached. The crew were grossly negligent in their assumptions that the fire could be contained so quickly - there was nothing other than blind hope/faith that it could be contained at all.
But the cabin wasn't breached !

Let's deal in facts, because that 's what immediate decisions are based on.

This should not be a paint brush discussion of what the crew did not do, based on our armchair viewing, but why did they act the way they did
lomapaseo is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2016, 16:19
  #756 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,330
So how much of the aircraft should be on fire if one wing was not enough to trigger an evacuation?
ManaAdaSystem is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2016, 16:55
  #757 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hawaii
Age: 72
Posts: 32
I'm not sure if this picture had been posted but does anyone see any fire damage to the fuselage ?
Probe of Singapore Air Jetliner Fire Focuses on Oil Cooler - WSJ
The fire was caused by the thinned out and fuel laden oil exiting the engine breather.When the A/C decelerated after landing the mist of fuel caught up with the A/C and caused the rather large fire on the wing surfaces There was no giant leak and that fire could have probably burned out on its own.
Here is a picture of a similar A/C with a breather fire.
Incident: Emirates B773 at Boston on Aug 10th 2014, engine fire after landing
hunbet is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2016, 17:50
  #758 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sweden
Age: 43
Posts: 443
Some of you are falling into the clever trap of

Decision A was correct because noone died.

This is assuming that the only correct decision is the one where noone dies. This also assumes that any decision where people do suffer fatal injuries are incorrect. However you can not keep this logically consistent.

How about the recent crash of Emirates. Many people leaving with carry on luggage. Noone of the passengers died. Logical conclusion following above reasoning: Decision to bring carry on luggage was correct because noone died.

To apply some kind of logical consistency to the debate, one needs to consider the available scenarios. This includes factoring in survival possibilities and possibilities of injuries "if"/"not if".

If people stay in the cabin of a plane on fire, history tells us that the risks for injuries and/or fatalaties are very great.
If people are evacuated from the cabin of a plane on fire, history tells us that the risk for injuries and/or fatalaties greatly diminishes.

"Not if"s are: no fire chief in his/her sane mind would ever claim to know exactly how long a fire would take to extinguish: noone can accurately predict the probability, location, placement or duration of explosions when aircraft are on fire: the probability of survival for people staying in the cabin diminishes very quickly the larger the flames and the larger the affected area of the plane is engulfed in flames.

To reason that a decision is correct because noone died is logically inferior in this case.

Also, I hear many of you often say "better safe than sorry" and "if in doubt, there are no doubts". In this particular case I would say that both these statements logically contradicts the events on this particular flight.

It is very lucky that everyone got out alive. I am satisfied with that.
MrSnuggles is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2016, 19:09
  #759 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 5,172
If people stay in the cabin of a plane on fire, history tells us that the risks for injuries and/or fatalaties are very great.
If people are evacuated from the cabin of a plane on fire, history tells us that the risk for injuries and/or fatalaties greatly diminishes.
not so simple,

One needs to parse the data down a few clicks with other historical combinations

The same history shows that most (never all) fatalities are associated with fire that reaches into the cabin creating things like deadly smoke.


Theory :As long as the cabins stays smoke free you have time for considered decision making.

Once you open doors you create the entranceway for an external fire to enter.

As such you may notice in photos that the fire runs along the top inside (thermal effects) concentrating visible damage near open doors.

As a passenger I expect that once the doors are opened and fire starts to come in with smoke I have less than two minutes left to get out. As such I'm quite willing to listen for instructions of when that two minutes starts my personal panic clock.
lomapaseo is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2016, 22:12
  #760 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: NEW YORK
Posts: 561
Originally Posted by hunbet View Post
I'm not sure if this picture had been posted but does anyone see any fire damage to the fuselage ?
Probe of Singapore Air Jetliner Fire Focuses on Oil Cooler - WSJ
The fire was caused by the thinned out and fuel laden oil exiting the engine breather.When the A/C decelerated after landing the mist of fuel caught up with the A/C and caused the rather large fire on the wing surfaces There was no giant leak and that fire could have probably burned out on its own.
Here is a picture of a similar A/C with a breather fire.
Incident: Emirates B773 at Boston on Aug 10th 2014, engine fire after landing


The scale of the Emirates fire shown is of a different magnitude from that of the Singapore Airlines jet. So there may be doubt that the 'fire could probably have burned out on its own'.
I'll wait for the inquiry results but right now I believe the happy outcome borders on the miraculous.
etudiant is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

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