SQ-368 (engine & wing on fire) final report out
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: pluto
Posts: 202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hell's teeth
If I'd have been a passenger I'd have ordered my own evacuation and no amount of 'sit down sir' would have stopped me.
Google: British Airtours Flight 28M if you want to know what could have been the outcome - I thought we'd learnt that lesson.
If I'd have been a passenger I'd have ordered my own evacuation and no amount of 'sit down sir' would have stopped me.
Google: British Airtours Flight 28M if you want to know what could have been the outcome - I thought we'd learnt that lesson.
paint
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: hong kong
Age: 49
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many crew members on both the flight deck and in the cabin learned lessons from this incident. I hope SIA incorporate the human factors data from this incident and apply it positively in the future.
Last edited by subsonicsubic; 27th Jun 2016 at 11:46. Reason: Terrible punctuation :(
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Asia
Age: 62
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ManaAdaSystem, there is no confirmed information that the response took five minutes, nonetheless does your home airport have two 4km long runways? Is response time from dispatch to arrival at the fire scene or getting to work in a genuine emergency (not putting foam onto a practice hull in a known location)? And has it been tested in a real emergency? When the Asiana incident occurred there was a lot of criticism on this forum of imprudent fireground appliance management. The biggest mistake firefighters can make is rushing into a fire.
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bud leon
There is a video showing wheel stop to first spray. Almost 60 seconds wasted because fire engines took only pavement.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZrgnnRf7YM
Something SIN/CAG need to rethink.
There is a video showing wheel stop to first spray. Almost 60 seconds wasted because fire engines took only pavement.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZrgnnRf7YM
Something SIN/CAG need to rethink.
As a passenger, I definitely would not have self evacuated into a fire, instead preferring to await assessment by trained crew looking out both sides for the extent of blowing flames and/or smoke.
On the other hand I would be very concerned if there was any signs of smoke in the cabin as that is the leading cause of fatalities.
Glad to see that this turned out OK with the actions chosen, now to get on with finding and fixing the causes
On the other hand I would be very concerned if there was any signs of smoke in the cabin as that is the leading cause of fatalities.
Glad to see that this turned out OK with the actions chosen, now to get on with finding and fixing the causes
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Asia
Age: 62
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
notapilot - they certainly should and most likely will debrief the response and make recommendations like emergency response agencies always do. Airport firefighting equipment is designed for offroad. But I guess we don't know the exact circumstances and terrain they avoided (e.g. drainage and other infrastructure).
You know one of the biggest issues facing airport response crews is the relative infrequency of real incidents. You can drill all you want but there is no substitution for real world experience. It has been documented in peer reviewed research that stress levels for responders that respond infrequently are much higher than for frequent responders. Airport responders are some of the least experienced in their field. It's not their fault.
It's actually very rare for a response to run perfectly. It's humans dealing with novel situations under high stress.
You know one of the biggest issues facing airport response crews is the relative infrequency of real incidents. You can drill all you want but there is no substitution for real world experience. It has been documented in peer reviewed research that stress levels for responders that respond infrequently are much higher than for frequent responders. Airport responders are some of the least experienced in their field. It's not their fault.
It's actually very rare for a response to run perfectly. It's humans dealing with novel situations under high stress.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Age: 79
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which way was the wind blowing and how fast ?
If the captain positioned the aircraft correctly to put the fire downwind of the fuselage it was probably a good idea to hold the pax onboard and let the fire service professionals assess the risks. Having hundreds of people wandering around randomly at a firefighting scene is a very bad idea.
If and when the fire service considered the passengers to be at risk they could take appropriate action to protect and supervise an evacuation.
Let the professionals do thir job, it is what they are trained for.
If the captain positioned the aircraft correctly to put the fire downwind of the fuselage it was probably a good idea to hold the pax onboard and let the fire service professionals assess the risks. Having hundreds of people wandering around randomly at a firefighting scene is a very bad idea.
If and when the fire service considered the passengers to be at risk they could take appropriate action to protect and supervise an evacuation.
Let the professionals do thir job, it is what they are trained for.
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Nice
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The new Boeing read-and-do evacuation checklist takes a lot longer than the previous memory drill. But I make that external video 4 minutes without an evacuation call. Not good with that size of raging fire (any fire).
The trouble would come when the fire engines run out of foam, like they did at Manchester. I did not see a foam tanker ready to reload the fire engines (or do they have runway reload points?). If the engines had run out of foam, that fire would have reenergised itself in a trice. With the passengers still onboard.
The trouble would come when the fire engines run out of foam, like they did at Manchester. I did not see a foam tanker ready to reload the fire engines (or do they have runway reload points?). If the engines had run out of foam, that fire would have reenergised itself in a trice. With the passengers still onboard.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sullenberger's ditching into the Hudson was good but the evacuation using overwing and forward exits only was almost a failure as "One rear door was opened by a panicking passenger, causing the A320 to fill more quickly with water. The flight attendant in the rear who attempted to reseal the rear door was unable to do so." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Air...549#Evacuation
As pax you do not have the information that the crew have - your panic could kill you and others. And yes I know that in most incidents 90 seconds to depart the aircraft is the magic figure for survival. But that is most incidents not all.
Last edited by Ian W; 27th Jun 2016 at 13:11. Reason: grammar
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The Burrow, N53:48:02 W1:48:57, The Tin Tent - EGBS, EGBO
Posts: 2,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most of you already know I'm not a Commercial Pilot but I would like to ask a couple of questions without commenting on the rights, wrongs, why did/didn't he's? that have been put forward.
1 Some have asked why or if fuel was dumped. Would dumping fuel have possibly caught fire, similar to Concorde, resulting in a huge trail of burning fuel being blown backwards towards the cabin with catastrophic results?
2 Where space and time are available, would turning the aircraft 180degrees so that it is not pointing into wind help keep the flames away a little longer? I seem to recall some mention of this being a factor at Manchester.
As I have said, I am asking purely out of interest.
1 Some have asked why or if fuel was dumped. Would dumping fuel have possibly caught fire, similar to Concorde, resulting in a huge trail of burning fuel being blown backwards towards the cabin with catastrophic results?
2 Where space and time are available, would turning the aircraft 180degrees so that it is not pointing into wind help keep the flames away a little longer? I seem to recall some mention of this being a factor at Manchester.
As I have said, I am asking purely out of interest.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: pluto
Posts: 202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Simple question: How many of you professionals having cracked the window and looked back to the blazing wing wouldn't have initiated an evacuation?
If your answers no could you say who you fly for so I can avoid you.
If your answers no could you say who you fly for so I can avoid you.
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DX Wombat
Dumping fuel wouldn't start a fire, it evaporates instantly. If there was already a fire crew wouldn't dump.
Looking at the altitude I am +ve engine was shutdown. 17,000 is well below single engine ceiling.
I think people are mistaking the flames coming out of engine as a running engine. That is probably just gushing fuel on fire. Flames on the flaps may be result of open jettison nozzles at the wing tip. Why they were still open, we don't know.
Dumping fuel wouldn't start a fire, it evaporates instantly. If there was already a fire crew wouldn't dump.
Looking at the altitude I am +ve engine was shutdown. 17,000 is well below single engine ceiling.
I think people are mistaking the flames coming out of engine as a running engine. That is probably just gushing fuel on fire. Flames on the flaps may be result of open jettison nozzles at the wing tip. Why they were still open, we don't know.
This is the aircraft concerned:
https://aviation-safety.net/database...?id=20160627-0
And these are occurences with the engine:
https://aviation-safety.net/database...p?Engine=GE-90
https://aviation-safety.net/database...?id=20160627-0
And these are occurences with the engine:
https://aviation-safety.net/database...p?Engine=GE-90
INCORRECT. that was a 94b this was a 115b , completely different apart from being a GE . bit like comparing a RR Trent with an earlier RB211 , same family but very different
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Age: 70
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, in a parallel universe, the same SQ 777 lands, same fire, same response time from AFS, same end result BUT the passengers were ordered to evacuate, how many of the armchair critics / experts would be lambasting the crew for needlessly putting peoples lives at risk by ordering an evacuation when the inside of the A/C was totally undamaged?
Just wondering.
Just wondering.
Fuel leaking in flight, in this case obviously kept away from the engine by the airflow. Aircraft stops, no more airflow, fuel finds its way onto a hot engine and ignites with the fire spreading back along the trail to the source of the leak.
Something about accidents happening in threes ?
Something about accidents happening in threes ?