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 6th Aug 2016, 00:37
  #761 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,210
Theory :As long as the cabins stays smoke free you have time for considered decision making.
Question: Once fire breaches the cabin, what proportion of people still inside the cabin will succumb?
RatherBeFlying is offline  
Old 6th Aug 2016, 02:04
  #762 (permalink)  
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,043
Parabellum, it is you who is wrong, and bullying and name calling won't change that

I disagree with everything you say in your post Aluminium Shuffler and I am not a bully. I called deadheader a troll because I believe that is what he is, it is not an insult, it is a description.
parabellum is offline  
Old 6th Aug 2016, 03:14
  #763 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hawaii
Age: 72
Posts: 31
The difference is the photo I posted shows an A/C that had the engine operating within normal parameters while in flight.

The SIA A/C was operating with an engine at idle for about 2 hours.The fuel and oil was pooling in the engine exhaust tail cone and when they put it in reverse all of that fuel and oil was expelled out of there .

That A/C will probably fly again.The damage is all to flight controls and secondary structure !

I saw this A/c and the damage was far worse than SIA !



"I am surprised nobody else posted this info yet. On Tue, 27JUL04, a UPS 752 caught on fire while under going maintenance for a fuel leak. I think it was a/c 410. I have got pics but I left my camera in my tool box at work, I will load some pics when I bring it home. The fire damaged the pylon, flaps, aileron, flap track fairings. Heat damage seemed to be the fillet fairing, and the lower fuel tank structure surrounding the pylon. The airport fire department responded very quickly and saved the rest of the a/c. Currently the a/c is parked inside DL's hangar, yesterday reps from UPS and Boeing spent the day examining/evaluating the a/c. I will post more info and pics as I get them. "

It was repaired and flew away !
hunbet is offline  
Old 6th Aug 2016, 05:36
  #764 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 64
Posts: 2,419
"I am surprised nobody else posted this info yet. On Tue, 27JUL04, a UPS 752 caught on fire while under going maintenance for a fuel leak. I think it was a/c 410. I have got pics but I left my camera in my tool box at work, I will load some pics when I bring it home. The fire damaged the pylon, flaps, aileron, flap track fairings. Heat damage seemed to be the fillet fairing, and the lower fuel tank structure surrounding the pylon. The airport fire department responded very quickly and saved the rest of the a/c. Currently the a/c is parked inside DL's hangar, yesterday reps from UPS and Boeing spent the day examining/evaluating the a/c. I will post more info and pics as I get them. "

FWIW, I was involved in the investigation of that incident - in short it was the mother of all tailpipe fires.
Due to a procedural error while troubleshooting a strut fuel leak, they had managed to pool an estimated 10 to 20 gallons of fuel in the burner. They then decided to start the engine.
It doesn't take much fuel to make a good sized fire...
tdracer is offline  
Old 6th Aug 2016, 12:29
  #765 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 732
Lomapaseo (and parabellum),

I'm aware that the cabin didn't breach, but how could the crew have possibly known that it wouldn't? Look at how quickly the cabins have breached in most comparable situations, including Okinawa, Manchester, and the most recent case on the same type... To sit there and do nothing with a raging fire is extraordinary negligence. Had the fire penetrated, there is no way they could have evacuated everyone. It was blind luck that nobody was lost as a result of this failure to make a decision.
Aluminium shuffler is offline  
Old 6th Aug 2016, 13:45
  #766 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 5,155
I'm aware that the cabin didn't breach, but how could the crew have possibly known that it wouldn't? Look at how quickly the cabins have breached in most comparable situations, including Okinawa, Manchester, and the most recent case on the same type... To sit there and do nothing with a raging fire is extraordinary negligence. Had the fire penetrated, there is no way they could have evacuated everyone. It was blind luck that nobody was lost as a result of this failure to make a decision.
Single events are always open to variations in causes and results.

My point was a general comment on the data having to do with the significance of opening doors to evacuate and after that what you call a breach.

To me the burn through breach from a ground pool fire would look a lot different than the result pics that one sees along the top of the fuselage. I'm not saying an initiating fire breach never happens, but just that opening doors followed by a fire entrance happens more often in a time frame.

just thinking as a passenger, I like the time to think as long as I can still breathe good air. I make no judgments about the crew actions and leave that to the experts who trained them.
lomapaseo is offline  
Old 6th Aug 2016, 17:33
  #767 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hawaii
Age: 72
Posts: 31
Your comparables are not comparable.In Okinawa , a fuel tank was punctured by a slat upstop bolt and Manchester there was a fuel tank plate punctured that allowed the entire contents of the tank to pour out.The latest was a crash.
The paint on the fuselage of SIA wasn't even discolored.
hunbet is offline  
Old 6th Aug 2016, 17:50
  #768 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Another FBO !
Posts: 22
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5B8QrpudpA

Sublime !
ArchieBabe is offline  
Old 6th Aug 2016, 18:04
  #769 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Singapore
Posts: 72
Luckily...

Originally Posted by lomapaseo View Post
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
Now, remind me, who is using 20/20 hindsight?

The "evacs" are saying it should have been an evac, despite the hindsight that everyone survived.

Whilst you are saying the call was good because they all survived (in hindsight).

And then we have the fence sitters, who refuse to make a decision before they have all the facts. Much like the FC perhaps?Ideal, yes. Real life, no.

The pilots did not have 5 mins to collect facts. They probably had a tail camera view, they had a cabin crew with working eyes. They could see the RFF driving past them and away from them, out of the RHS cockpit window. They could probably sense thd glow from the cockpit at that time in the morning. The RFF had not yet arrived. You don't need fence sitters in that scenario...

If the RFF were in position at wheels stop, then maybe I it is debatable. But they were still a minute plus out. That's a long time when you have a wing fire and you have no idea why or what...
Julio747 is offline  
Old 6th Aug 2016, 18:05
  #770 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hawaii
Age: 72
Posts: 31
Do you notice that 34 seconds into that video the windows are covered with foam?
hunbet is offline  
Old 6th Aug 2016, 18:21
  #771 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Singapore
Posts: 72
Originally Posted by hunbet View Post
Do you notice that 34 seconds into that video the windows are covered with foam?
And how long after wheels stop was that???

My guess is around 3-4 minutes. You may notice the fire is well underway at the beginning of the video!

Yeah! Really sublime! The pax got to watch the plane burning for at least 3 mins. The "we need to run" quote at the beginning of the video says it all.

It is worrying that the pax can call it better than the cc or the fc. Okay, you can't see that from the cockpit but let's not forget that the fc have legs. That's why we land with the window shades up, right? So we can eyeball the wings and engines?

The cc should have called it, but this is Asia. What does "father" (boss) say?

I have no doubt the if one of the fc had got off their arse, and seen what the pax were seeing, it would have been an immediate evac..
Julio747 is offline  
Old 6th Aug 2016, 20:39
  #772 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: I used to know
Posts: 175
To Lomapaseo and Parabellum
Firstly we as hindsight observers can see from the video a fire outside. At the time we would not have known what was burning, how effective the fire services would or wouldn't be, or how quickly the fire would burn through if at all etc. Based on that the majority here including myself would have ordered an evacuation.
The fire at Manchester breached the hull in a matter of seconds, fire did not enter through any open doors. The smoke that entered created a sense of panic in the passengers, this is all from the official report. Waiting until the fire breaches before ordering an evacuation is time wasted. Once smoke or flames enter the cabin it is almost a certainty that people will die. By 1 minute after stopping it is highly likely that pax had already died at Manchester. foam did not start in this case until after 1 minute.
Watch the video of the evacuation in Dubai, there is no sense of urgency to get out, rather pax are looking for a normal exit procedure, getting luggage etc. The aisles are blocked and initially there is very little movement towards the exits. Now imagine thick smoke or flames entering that scene. How do you think people would have reacted?
The next question is why did the Flightdeck not order the evacuation? Remember that they were not in fire mode. They had a technical problem, an engine was not shut down but at idle, a normal approach and landing was made, thrust reversers were used. All perfectly normal and non emergency. Why did they stop on the runway? Was it a fire warning or had they already decided to stop so the fire services could inspect for leaks? From the cockpit it could be that they were unaware of the fire. The engine fire warning may not have sounded. If so why look at the ctv? From an earlier post refrencing a cabin crew forum post a cc states she was very busy blocking her door dealing with anxious pax including a mother and her child. She was unable to inform the flight deck or the senior about the situation outside. What if none of the cabin crew informed the flight deck? What if the tower didn't? What if the initial fire crews didn't comunicate? All these what ifs mean that it is entirely possible that the Flightdeck were unaware of the fire or how serious it was. Given that scenario what would your decision making process be? How long would it take? However I would like to think that if they were made aware of the true situation then they would have chosen to evacuate. FWIW the Captain is the person who is responsible for initiating an evacuation not the Fire Chief.
Finally Lomapaseo (and parabellum), at Manchester how long would you have delayed opening the doors?
PT6Driver is offline  
Old 6th Aug 2016, 21:05
  #773 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: south england
Posts: 395
I apologise, I hadn't realised that PT6 and Julio etc are cabin crew, now I understand where you are coming from. You would have ordered the evacuation because you had a clear understanding of what was going on outside the aircraft.

As cabin crew would you make every effort to ensure the flight crew were aware of the situation unfolding or would you classify it as clearly catastrophic and innitiate the evacuation of your own accord? The only reason I ask is you need to be careful because in this situation if both engines have not been shut down prior to innitiating an evac from the cabin you could be putting peoples lives at risk.

Of course, if you are flight crew passing comment, you can assume as much as you like, but until you know what the flight crew knew on the day you cannot pass judgement (well ok, you have and will continue to do so, but to do so is foolish).

GBD
gatbusdriver is offline  
Old 6th Aug 2016, 21:28
  #774 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Singapore
Posts: 72
Excellent post....

Originally Posted by PT6Driver View Post
To Lomapaseo and Parabellum
Firstly we as hindsight observers can see from the video a fire outside. At the time we would not have known what was burning, how effective the fire services would or wouldn't be, or how quickly the fire would burn through if at all etc. Based on that the majority here including myself would have ordered an evacuation.
The fire at Manchester breached the hull in a matter of seconds, fire did not enter through any open doors. The smoke that entered created a sense of panic in the passengers, this is all from the official report. Waiting until the fire breaches before ordering an evacuation is time wasted. Once smoke or flames enter the cabin it is almost a certainty that people will die. By 1 minute after stopping it is highly likely that pax had already died at Manchester. foam did not start in this case until after 1 minute.
Watch the video of the evacuation in Dubai, there is no sense of urgency to get out, rather pax are looking for a normal exit procedure, getting luggage etc. The aisles are blocked and initially there is very little movement towards the exits. Now imagine thick smoke or flames entering that scene. How do you think people would have reacted?
The next question is why did the Flightdeck not order the evacuation? Remember that they were not in fire mode. They had a technical problem, an engine was not shut down but at idle, a normal approach and landing was made, thrust reversers were used. All perfectly normal and non emergency. Why did they stop on the runway? Was it a fire warning or had they already decided to stop so the fire services could inspect for leaks? From the cockpit it could be that they were unaware of the fire. The engine fire warning may not have sounded. If so why look at the ctv? From an earlier post refrencing a cabin crew forum post a cc states she was very busy blocking her door dealing with anxious pax including a mother and her child. She was unable to inform the flight deck or the senior about the situation outside. What if none of the cabin crew informed the flight deck? What if the tower didn't? What if the initial fire crews didn't comunicate? All these what ifs mean that it is entirely possible that the Flightdeck were unaware of the fire or how serious it was. Given that scenario what would your decision making process be? How long would it take? However I would like to think that if they were made aware of the true situation then they would have chosen to evacuate. FWIW the Captain is the person who is responsible for initiating an evacuation not the Fire Chief.
Finally Lomapaseo (and parabellum), at Manchester how long would you have delayed opening the doors?
The only thing I would add to that is that if the fc did not order the RFF before landing (understandably, at that point they did not think they had a fire problem), then who did? It has been said that the RFF was already out (for whatever reason). Regardless, someone sent them to the SQ plane. I would imagine it was the tower that saw #2 on fire, given the response time. It was an emergency landing so attention was raised after all. And in the half light, it would be easy to see.

So the tower would have said #2 is on fire to the fc. And when the a/c is already on the ground and stopped, my first instinct would be to send the FO to eyeball the situation and report.

OK, some conjecture I know. But if the fc did not see they were ablaze, someone did, and for sure that info got to the flight deck.

So here is the bottom line. You can either call evac on the news that #2 is on fire. Or you can send the FO back to take a look, and call evac when he reports the whole wing is on fire. These are the only two acceptable options. Doing nothing is not an option in that scenario.

If the cc tells you the same news, then evac is also the same answer. But I for one would send the FO back if I don't here anything from the cc.
Julio747 is offline  
Old 6th Aug 2016, 22:10
  #775 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: I used to know
Posts: 175
Gatbus,
1 I did not say I was cabin crew and nowhere did I state that they should have initiated the evacuation on their own.
2. The main purpose of my posts has been to explicitly point out to those who say a decision to not evacuate was acceptable because the hull was not breached,is incorect
3. Nowhere in the above posts have I criticised the crew. Rather I have pointed out that we simply do not know what information the had available on which to make their decision.
4. I have highlighted above the fact that they could have been unaware of the fire and so did not consider evacuation.
5. Finally everyone here who states an evacuation would have been a good call bases that on the fact that we know the wing was on fire. There are some here who feel that the wing being on fire is insufficient evidence for an evacuation. I personally feel that if I had recieved the information thst the wing was on fire I would have evacuated.
PT6Driver is offline  
Old 6th Aug 2016, 22:52
  #776 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: NZ
Posts: 22
Originally Posted by Julio747 View Post
And how long after wheels stop was that???

My guess is around 3-4 minutes. You may notice the fire is well underway at the beginning of the video!
Wheels stop to foam on it's way = 39 seconds by my stopwatch:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hf-QLDGgORk
Needle Knocker is offline  
Old 7th Aug 2016, 00:51
  #777 (permalink)  
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,043
However I would like to think that if they were made aware of the true situation then they would have chosen to evacuate. FWIW the Captain is the person who is responsible for initiating an evacuation not the Fire Chief.

Having been made aware of the true situation they decided NOT to evacuate, the Fire Chief passes back up to date information from the scene of the fire and may add a recommendation. No one is arguing as to who makes the decision. Those that say they would have evacuated regardless of the information available are the ones who will deliver you out of the frying pan and literally, into the fire.


Finally, there is no comparison between the Manchester incident and the Singapore incident.
parabellum is offline  
Old 7th Aug 2016, 00:55
  #778 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 5,155
PT6Driver

You appear to ascribe to me more than was written in my posts.

I did not express an opinion about what the pilot did or should have done. I only expressed an opinion based on experience for myself as a passenger to start to panic (based on breathable air) and the knowledge that anything that breaks open the cabin with a fire letting smoke in means I need to get out in less than 2 mins.
lomapaseo is offline  
Old 7th Aug 2016, 02:20
  #779 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,210
anything that breaks open the cabin with a fire letting smoke in means I need to get out in less than 2 mins.
Typically smoke and toxic combustion products will incapacitate in much less than 2 mins.

If you are fortunate enough to have a smoke hood in a cabin breach, all those between you and the exit will likely be prostrate in about 30 seconds.

Yesterday 13 young people were overcome in seconds before they could reach the exit

France Rouen fire kills 13 at birthday party - BBC News

Admittedly aircraft interiors are more carefully regulated, but once the cabin is breached, it will be too late for many.
RatherBeFlying is offline  
Old 7th Aug 2016, 03:41
  #780 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Not far from a big Lake
Age: 77
Posts: 1,458
In my personal opinion, this was clearly an evacuate situation at the moment the aircraft came to a stop. My past military training and actual experience in shipboard aircraft fire fighting lead me to that conclusion. This was no small fire. If the fire had proceeded unimpeded, it would be reasonable to expect the hull to be breached. The amount of fuel on the ground under the aircraft could not be known by the crew, but the scope of the fire clearly extended to one entire wing. There is no video or pictorial evidence to indicate that fire ever reached under the aircraft to the port side so it appears that an escape route was visibly available and that opening the doors on the port side of the aircraft would not have introduced fire or smoke.

Compare to:
Originally Posted by NTSB Asiana Accident report.
After the airplane came to a stop, a fire initiated within the separated right engine, which came to rest adjacent to the right side of the fuselage. When one of the flight attendants became aware of the fire, he initiated an evacuation, and 98% of the passengers successfully self-evacuated. As the fire spread into the fuselage, firefighters entered the airplane and extricated five passengers (one of whom later died) who were injured and unable to evacuate. Overall, 99% of the airplane’s occupants survived
Note that in the picture below, the burning engine fire was relatively small and localized and there were exits ahead and behind the source of the fire that were not scorched and apparently usable.
Machinbird 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.