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 8th Aug 2016, 19:14
  #801 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Not far from a big Lake
Age: 77
Posts: 1,458
Originally Posted by Ian W
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.
In the below picture despite the favorable cross wind from the left, the soot goes right up to the corner of the TE Flap cutout in the wing and the entire Flap appears to be trashed. That is all well inboard of the engine pylon.

Then there is the non-linearity factor that fires exhibit. One minute you are fighting a localized fire, the next instant something explodes in your face like the wing on the Emirates T7. No one can really predict exactly how a particular fire is going to behave in advance. They are as predictable as a pet rattlesnake.
Machinbird is offline  
Old 8th Aug 2016, 20:21
  #802 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 5,207
It's not the soot that worry me, it's the stuff towards the center (ala the bunsen burner effect in school labs)

Flickering flame is one thing but steady concentrated flame is what causes metal burnthrough.

Much of the visible damage in today's planes is the non-metalics losing their binders
lomapaseo is offline  
Old 9th Aug 2016, 00:13
  #803 (permalink)  
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,047
I have no idea why you are so heavily favoring staying in a wildly burning aircraft.

Henra - Please go back and read all my posts again. I have only advocated making sure the crew have made use of all the information available to them before making their decision and in this case information from the fire fighters on the scene, quickly, is likely to be valuable. I have also criticised people who would evacuate regardless of available information, as these are the people who may well turn an incident into a catastrophe. There are incidents where the decision to evacuate is obvious, Manchester and Dubai for example, Manchester the engine had blown up and Dubai was a catastrophic crash.




PAXboy - The fact that any area may look dry doesn't mean that there is no fuel present, the top surface of the runway is deliberately porous to allow rapid dispersal of moisture.
parabellum is offline  
Old 9th Aug 2016, 00:18
  #804 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: NEW YORK
Posts: 599
As SLF, I fear this precedent will encourage crews to sit tight and wait in other burning airplanes rather than to exit asap. That is a very damaging shift imho.
Will it take a planeload of dead people for the priorities to be reset?


As is, even though all went well, I would be more reluctant to use this carrier, because the safety of the passengers does not appear to have been the primary consideration.
etudiant is offline  
Old 9th Aug 2016, 19:31
  #805 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: the City by the Bay
Posts: 511
1 + 1 = 2
2 + 2 = 4
FIRE = EVAC

Any other reasoning is illogical
and in the case of fire tempts fate.
armchairpilot94116 is offline  
Old 9th Aug 2016, 21:45
  #806 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Singapore
Posts: 72
This thread goes on and on

But, the right answer is staring you in the face if you have seen the vids, inside and outside.

Dont tell me the RFF said stay put, we will control it, when they were driving away from the burning a/c to stay on tarmac. No way.

The pilots can use the tail cam. Even the tower could see it from afar (hence the fire crew without request). And as the FC has legs, they can eyeball the situation any time they want to.

So sorry, no excuses. Bad call. Lucky escape.
Julio747 is offline  
Old 10th Aug 2016, 02:13
  #807 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: south england
Posts: 395
I'm sorry

I truly am sorry. I clearly have been missing the facts.

So when were the flight crew aware of the state of their aeroplane?

The only reason I ask is I'm just trying to learn from the event.
gatbusdriver is offline  
Old 10th Aug 2016, 07:24
  #808 (permalink)  
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,047
hence the fire crew without request

Already tried to explain it to you once Julio747 but you seem impervious to anything except your own, totally fact free, assessment.


Once the a/c turned back the engineers would have been studying the telemetry from the aircraft and may well have advised fire and/or tower of a possible fuel leak. We have no idea at all of the communication between the aircraft and Singapore Ops/ATC/Fire services, from the time it turned back until it spoke to Singapore tower on arrival, none whatsoever.
parabellum is offline  
Old 10th Aug 2016, 08:01
  #809 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 641
Are they going to fix her, or is it a write-off?
fox niner is online now  
Old 10th Aug 2016, 08:37
  #810 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Away from the sand misery
Posts: 20
i really expect that "captain" get his license cancelled with immediate effect...ZERO judgement
maligno is offline  
Old 10th Aug 2016, 18:34
  #811 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Singapore
Posts: 72
I can't say for certain...

Originally Posted by gatbusdriver View Post
I truly am sorry. I clearly have been missing the facts.

So when were the flight crew aware of the state of their aeroplane?

The only reason I ask is I'm just trying to learn from the event.
But for sure the cc could see it before wheels stop. Are you suggesting they may not have informed the flight deck?

The RFF was on the move before wheels stop. Did they omit to tell anyone do you think?

Each of these is highly unlikely.

Even in the absence of any comms, the RFF racing past might have been a clue that something was awry.

And as at was twilight, the huge glow on the RHS might have been another clue.

The fact that they stopped on the runway and didn't taxi to gate suggests maybe they knew they had a fire before wheels stop. What do you think, GBD?

So you are right. I dont know for sure when they first learnt of the fire. I am making educated guesses and opining. I will be happy to admit I was wrong if it turns out the FD was blissfully unaware of the raging inferno because they were busy with other stuff and simply forgot to clear the runway....
Julio747 is offline  
Old 10th Aug 2016, 21:34
  #812 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 298
Singapore AAIB released an interim statement (pdf)

AAIB:
3. The investigation is still in the preliminary stage. These are the key findings so
far:
• Fuel was found present in the oil system of the right engine, which is not a
normal condition. Investigators have determined that fuel entered the oil
system as a result of a crack in a tube in the engine’s main fuel oil heat
exchanger (MFOHE).
• GE Aviation had issued a Service Bulletin (SB) in December 2014 identifying
certain MFOHEs to be removed from the engines, inspected for cracks in the
fuel tubes, and for repair actions and improvement works to be undertaken.
GE Aviation had recommended that the actions called for by the SB be
carried out no later than the next occasion when the engine is sent for
maintenance work in an engine shop.
• The engine of flight SQ368 which had caught fire had last undergone an
engine shop visit in March 2014, just before the SB was issued.
4. The AAIB has issued interim safety recommendations to the following parties:
• GE Aviation, as the engine manufacturer and holder of the engine type
certificate, to review the need to accelerate the implementation of the
recommendations in its main fuel oil heat exchanger Service Bulletin of
December 2014, to prevent another fire or other hazardous incident from
arising as a result of fuel leakage into the engine oil system.
The information provided herein is of an interim nature. Readers are
advised that new information may become available that may alter this
interim statement prior to the publication of the Final report
• The Boeing Company, as the aircraft manufacturer, to review the need for
operational procedures in the event a flight crew encounters a similar fuel
leak situation in flight.
• US Federal Aviation Administration
o to require the Boeing Company to review the need for operational
procedures in the event a flight crew encounters a similar fuel leak
situation in flight; and
o to require GE Aviation to review the need to accelerate the implementation
of the recommendations in its main fuel oil heat exchanger Service
Bulletin of December 2014.
readywhenreaching is offline  
Old 11th Aug 2016, 07:08
  #813 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Land of 1,000 Dances
Age: 59
Posts: 68
...and not a word about the non-evacuation.

But props to tdracer for correctly picking the heat exchanger as the culprit in post #229.
HighAndFlighty is offline  
Old 11th Aug 2016, 19:52
  #814 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Singapore
Posts: 72
Old news

That report was issued long ago, 3rd august as I recall, and posted long ago...

And point 5 is missing, other factors related to the incident are still being investigated.

Please try to read the thread and keep up.
Julio747 is offline  
Old 22nd Aug 2016, 13:54
  #815 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: australia
Posts: 10
SIA --WING FIRE

They say the investigation will take months - download the engine data computer-- cvr -- the flight recorder-- or -----turn on the fuel boost pumps and see where the leak is ----
bigal cessna is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2016, 18:29
  #816 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Third planet from the sun
Posts: 383
Any news yet about the investigation of this incident and the decision not to evacuate?
sabenaboy is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2016, 19:34
  #817 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: on a blue balloon
Posts: 324
Any news yet about the investigation of this incident and the decision not to evacuate?

Probably plenty of "news" for those who really need to know ...
oldchina is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2016, 13:53
  #818 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Third planet from the sun
Posts: 383
Probably plenty of "news" for those who really need to know...
We discussed the Singapore368 incident in a recurrent CRM course last week in our company. All the crewmembers (cabin and cockpit) that were attending were amazed that there was no evacuation. I think this case will be interesting for all cabin and flight crews! Was there a good reason NOT to evacuate or were there mistakes made? (communication)

One could say that all crewmembers wordwide "really" needs to know!
The outcome and final report will become a very interesting CRM learning tool!
sabenaboy is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2016, 17:16
  #819 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Estonia
Posts: 132
The outcome and final report will become a very interesting CRM learning tool!
I agree. I'm glad they are taking their time though; as always, it would be too easy to just write it up as crew failure and not bother to dig any deeper.
akaSylvia is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2017, 18:13
  #820 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cyberspace
Posts: 123
Final Report out:

https://www.mot.gov.sg/uploadedFiles...l%20Report.pdf
Non-Driver 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.