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 7th Aug 2016, 05:40
  #781 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Confusio Helvetica
Posts: 298
Yes, every case is different, and this case is one where the whole thing didn't burn down. But, given the available information, they got damn lucky.
The interim report says it all; if they had anything positive to contribute to the non-evacuation debate, they would have at least said something. The decision to defer such a discussion was their way of not pouring fuel on another fire.
Asiana was a very different accident. The flight crew there, by the way, sent the F/As to stations and left them there too (except, of course, for the F/As who'd been ejected already). They waited 90 seconds in a breached, broken, and eventually burning aircraft before initiating an evacuation on their own while the boys at front fiddled with their radios.
Here, on the other hand, we have a problem that developed some time before and that the crew seems to have decided to combat largely with the power of positive thinking. At every step, their actions suggest someone seeing something anomalous and thinking: what's the best possible scenario?
An optimist's brief existence ends in absolute disappointment.

Put another way, accidents can and do happen to the most competent crews. But an accident is a powerful moment of cognitive dissonance, and you could have folks up front so far behind that they're doing everything to convince themselves there is no fire. How do you train for that?
DingerX is offline  
Old 7th Aug 2016, 09:25
  #782 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: I used to know
Posts: 175
Lomapaseo,
My appologies if I atributed to you more than you wrote.
My main point is that a fire or other emergency situation is a very varied one where events can change extremely rapidly. The unbreached hull can appear relatively safe, however once a breach by fire or ingress of smoke occurs the situation can deteriorate extremely rapidly.
Evidence from Manchester shows that passengers were incapacitated with just 2 breaths. The second breath an uncontrollable reflex reaction by their bodies. Depending on where one is in relation to the smoke or fire, incapacitation or death can occur within seconds.
A panicing crowd with everyone fighting for their lives to get to an exit is not a good survival environment and eggress will be significantly slower than a calmer more orderly one.
It therefore makes sense to evacuate before actual fire and or smoke enters the cabin.
Your point that opening the doors will automatically cause an ingress of flames or smoke only holds true if the door is next to the flames.
However the cabin crew are trained to check for danger before opening a door. We can see this in the onboard video where a cabin crew can be seen blocking a door, outside of which there is clearly a fire.
(An exception would be a case like the rear right door at Manchester, however in this instance the main entry point for flames and smoke was the hull breach by the fire on the right hand side ).
Unless you are next to a usable exit survival time could be seconds not minutes, therefore maximum use of time by evacuating expeditiously is vital.
PT6Driver is offline  
Old 7th Aug 2016, 09:32
  #783 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Oztrailia
Posts: 2,725
PT6driver...... Well said....
ACMS is offline  
Old 7th Aug 2016, 14:50
  #784 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 5,207
PT6Driver

In your last post you have added value to the discussion by clarifying your opinions on the subject

To continue with my own views, following yours, the issue facing the crew (both Captain and cabin) is what doors and when and where is the fire and its spread. No doubt there is lots of info being generate when you add in a third party like an outside fire captain.

for me as a passenger I just wait until..

As for lessons learned I still await what info was really available to the three parties on the intercoms etc. (Captain, Cabin and fireman)
lomapaseo is offline  
Old 7th Aug 2016, 16:06
  #785 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Singapore
Posts: 72
Originally Posted by Needle Knocker View Post
Wheels stop to foam on it's way = 39 seconds by my stopwatch:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hf-QLDGgORk
At 39 seconds after wheels stop, foam starts spraying, but not on the plane alas, and certainly not on the windows.
Julio747 is offline  
Old 7th Aug 2016, 16:22
  #786 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Not far from a big Lake
Age: 77
Posts: 1,458
An Answer

Originally Posted by DingerX
But an accident is a powerful moment of cognitive dissonance, and you could have folks up front so far behind that they're doing everything to convince themselves there is no fire. How do you train for that?
The short and simple answer is to teach aircrews tactical or combat breathing techniques. Tactical Breathing Can Stop Stress on the Spot | On Resilience
You can use it anytime your stress begins to increase.... not just for accidents.

PT6Driver.
Machinbird is offline  
Old 7th Aug 2016, 16:49
  #787 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: England
Posts: 263
Originally Posted by Julio747 View Post
At 39 seconds after wheels stop, foam starts spraying, but not on the plane alas, and certainly not on the windows.
Why would they spray the fuselage or the windows? The fire was affecting only the wing, not the fuselage, as demonstrated by post-incident photos of the right-hand side of the fuselage which show that the fuselage is undamaged, the paint not even scorched.

http://i.ndtvimg.com/i/2016-06/singa...1466999595.jpg
OldLurker is offline  
Old 7th Aug 2016, 18:55
  #788 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 732
Hubnet, you say the examples are incomparable because of the cause? Are you kidding? It takes weeks to find that cause; how long do you want to sit in a burning aeroplane, cause unknown, before getting away? Likewise, prabellum, saying the Manchester is incomparable. Why? Aeroplane stopped on the runway, massive external fire... What is incomparable about that? Really, some people need to stop using little details to justify a bad big picture...

AS PT6 said, the crew are not at fault if they had not been made aware of the problem, but given fire crews rocking up and spraying, they must have been made aware at some point prior to the fire trucks arriving so that they didn't taxy.
Aluminium shuffler is offline  
Old 7th Aug 2016, 22:58
  #789 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Nederland
Posts: 4
Not seen linked earlier: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUtYwY7igj4
johdi is offline  
Old 8th Aug 2016, 01:08
  #790 (permalink)  
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,047
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britis...urs_Flight_28M


Aluminium shuffler, if you read this short report, (taken from the AAIB report), you will see there is no similarity between the Manchester incident and the SQ incident.
parabellum is offline  
Old 8th Aug 2016, 01:55
  #791 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Virginia
Posts: 318
Spraying the fuselage would cool it and help prevent a breach. I'd expect that with good boundary cooling, an intact fuselage could survive almost indefinitely even with a pretty hot fire nearby. Of course, that's not to say that the fire couldn't get too hot, or that the cooling wouldn't be interrupted, or . . . .
Chu Chu is offline  
Old 8th Aug 2016, 05:37
  #792 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Singapore
Posts: 72
Oldlurker...

Originally Posted by OldLurker View Post
Why would they spray the fuselage or the windows? The fire was affecting only the wing, not the fuselage, as demonstrated by post-incident photos of the right-hand side of the fuselage which show that the fuselage is undamaged, the paint not even scorched.

http://i.ndtvimg.com/i/2016-06/singa...1466999595.jpg
I was responding to an earlier post, regarding video from inside the a/c, where you can see foam landing on the windows. Of course, foam was going everywhere at that point. Well everywhere on the RHS that is.
Julio747 is offline  
Old 8th Aug 2016, 05:56
  #793 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 732
Apart from the whole issue we're concerned with, Parabellum, namely the huge external fire? What planet are you on? The exact cause of the fire may differ, but the external threat to the fuselage is the same! Huge, uncontained fire!
Aluminium shuffler is offline  
Old 8th Aug 2016, 09:05
  #794 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: London
Posts: 13
Engine fire

We are assuming this was an engine fire on this GE UNIT. It appears to resemble a breached oil sytem again? Anyone know the cause?
trickii is offline  
Old 8th Aug 2016, 09:47
  #795 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: PLanet Earth
Posts: 802
Originally Posted by parabellum View Post
The video evidence is totally unreliable, mainly taken from iPhones.

The quality of footage is sufficient for me to get an idea of the magnitude of the fire.
And that is huuuge.


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.
Deadheader might be a little bit direct in the way he states his opinion but I think there is quite some truth to it.


I have no idea why you are so heavily favoring staying in a wildly burning aircraft.
Yes I don't want to hang the crew, in hindsight it appears (rather clearly) they haven't judged the situation well. That happens when human beings face the big unexpected. In all fairness they probably didn't have a clear full picture immediately.
However, the trick is to learn from such things rather than desperately trying to justify it.
So: No I don't want to crucify the crew. But it should be taken as a learning opportunity. Rather than denial.
henra is offline  
Old 8th Aug 2016, 09:47
  #796 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: korat thailand
Age: 79
Posts: 136
if I might ask

as a SLF ! How far is it from the cabin to the nearest point of the fire? It looks a long way when you are sat in it , or waiting to board ' at remote stand ' !
crippen is offline  
Old 8th Aug 2016, 11:23
  #797 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Nearby
Posts: 59
A few things for you all to mull over...

1. SQ SOPs forbide CC to self initate an EVAC command. Only exception is if FD crew are incapacitated.

2. FD crew were in contact with RFF chief and he reckoned they (RFF) could contain the fire without the need to EVAC.

3. There was no engine fire warning - I wouldn't expect one either due to the fire beginning internally in the powerplant itself.

Trickii - the interim report states where the failure of the sytem occurred.People have explained how the system works previously in this thread.
Whinging Tinny is offline  
Old 8th Aug 2016, 11:30
  #798 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: BRS/GVA
Posts: 301
wrong thread, editied out.
hoss183 is offline  
Old 8th Aug 2016, 11:56
  #799 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,328
Originally Posted by Aluminium shuffler View Post
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.
The crew probably knew it wouldn't as the fire crew outside would have reported that the fire was at the engine and outboard and all smoke and fire was blowing away from the fuselage. They may even have added advice not to evacuate to give them full access to put the fire out. The examples you quote are precisely the opposite with fire being blown onto the fuselage.
Ian W is offline  
Old 8th Aug 2016, 18:28
  #800 (permalink)  
Paxing All Over The World
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hertfordshire, UK.
Age: 63
Posts: 8,985
Yet ... the video recording the pax leaving on the safety stairs show no sign of fuel or foam under the aircraft. The area some are talking about - was dry. The area where a chute from L1 door would have opened, was dry.
PAXboy 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.