SQ-368 (engine & wing on fire) final report out
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: England
Age: 65
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Other posters have mentioned that the SOP for emergency landings is to land and end up opposite the waiting emergency vehicles.
Aircraft ended up some distance past the emergency vehicles suggesting this was a MLW or overweight landing.
No fuel dump?
Aircraft ended up some distance past the emergency vehicles suggesting this was a MLW or overweight landing.
No fuel dump?
Interesting contrast between this sit tight response to a fairly significant fire and the AA evacuation following smoke from a buggered APU at LHR. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but assuming the crew had the full gen on the extent of the fire, NOT calling the evac seems a rather bold move.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Within 3 hours of a suitable alternate
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: here and there
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some comments mention the overwing exits in the wrong context.
FYI, LR3 on B773 are manned by cabincrew. It's not like the overwing exits in 737, where you brief pax how to open in case of emergency.
They are normal sized doors fitted with escape slides. The only difference is that pax would get on the wing, turn aft, make few steps and jump and slide. The slide is belly-fairing mounted, not part of the door.
Pax should always follow crew instructions. My believe is that cabin crew were standing by to evacuate if the conditions got worse inside. As we can see in the video there was no
smoke inside. It was one of those 50/50 situations. Everyone was ready to evacuate but they waited to see if the RFFT puts the fire off fast enough not to initate an evacuation.
Also, cabincrew are very well trained on how to assess the situation in and out. The assumption that they could have opened the doors that had hazards outside it's a bit unrealistic. You need to know what training they get before you judge them.
FYI, LR3 on B773 are manned by cabincrew. It's not like the overwing exits in 737, where you brief pax how to open in case of emergency.
They are normal sized doors fitted with escape slides. The only difference is that pax would get on the wing, turn aft, make few steps and jump and slide. The slide is belly-fairing mounted, not part of the door.
Pax should always follow crew instructions. My believe is that cabin crew were standing by to evacuate if the conditions got worse inside. As we can see in the video there was no
smoke inside. It was one of those 50/50 situations. Everyone was ready to evacuate but they waited to see if the RFFT puts the fire off fast enough not to initate an evacuation.
Also, cabincrew are very well trained on how to assess the situation in and out. The assumption that they could have opened the doors that had hazards outside it's a bit unrealistic. You need to know what training they get before you judge them.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Sydney
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Passengers quoting that there was a fuel smell for a large proportion of the flight and the flight crew made a PA about returning due "not having enough fuel to continue to Milan".
Seems like they had a fuel leak.
The question to be asked then is was the leak from the wing or the engine? No mention of an engine being shut down so perhaps the crew suspected a leak from the wing.
The fire erupted just after landing, possibly caused by leaking fuel being ignited after being sprayed into the hot section during the application of reverse thrust.
Regardless of how it happened I would have initiated an evacuation. I don't understand why they didn't.
Seems like they had a fuel leak.
The question to be asked then is was the leak from the wing or the engine? No mention of an engine being shut down so perhaps the crew suspected a leak from the wing.
The fire erupted just after landing, possibly caused by leaking fuel being ignited after being sprayed into the hot section during the application of reverse thrust.
Regardless of how it happened I would have initiated an evacuation. I don't understand why they didn't.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: On the chopping board.
Posts: 929
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
If you are facing the tail, the left side is the Starboard side. If you are facing the nose, the left side is the Port side.
The left side is always the Capt's side.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 55
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fore and aft, 777 wing tanks end less than a foot from the leading edge except at the root. Trailing edge boundaries are a little over a foot near, but shy of the outboard ailerons, and almost a meter at the root.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fire was contained to the wing. The fire services continued to fight and gain control of the "contained" fire. As soon as an evacuation is communicated the RFF will pull back.
When a door opens the cabin becomes exposed to the fire that is no longer being either controlled or contained.
When a door opens the cabin becomes exposed to the fire that is no longer being either controlled or contained.
I'm no 777 driver, but on the 737 there is only one way to control a fuel leak. You shut down the engine. What does the 777 tell you to do?
If the procedure is the same as on the 737, this whole scenario could have been avoided.
No evacuation when the whole wing is on fire? We are very lucky we are not reading about hundreds of charred bodies. Pure luck! And maybe another tick in the 777 quality box.
Short memory people?
How 1985 British Airtours disaster changed air travel - BBC News
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: earth
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure an SLF on that flight I'd have been waiting for a evac order if I saw that.
My view would be if you want to chance that, good luck to you, but, see ya later, I'm out.
My view would be if you want to chance that, good luck to you, but, see ya later, I'm out.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A few questions about how this would be handled up front and onboard:
1. Wouldn't the crew have had ample opportunity to discuss and brief different scenarios before landing, including briefing the cabin crew for a possible evacuation.
2. If 1 above, then surely an evacuation on the good engine side would have also been prepared?
3. Can't the cabin be reorganised to move people away from the bad engine (free seats permitting) - or does this promote panic so is not recommended?
Amazing that people just sat in the window seats next to those flames and filmed it - the era of smart phones and you tube posting!!
1. Wouldn't the crew have had ample opportunity to discuss and brief different scenarios before landing, including briefing the cabin crew for a possible evacuation.
2. If 1 above, then surely an evacuation on the good engine side would have also been prepared?
3. Can't the cabin be reorganised to move people away from the bad engine (free seats permitting) - or does this promote panic so is not recommended?
Amazing that people just sat in the window seats next to those flames and filmed it - the era of smart phones and you tube posting!!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Straya
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the event that a fuel leak is confirmed on the 777 - the suspected engine is shut down immediately to avoid an engine fire. Once the engine is shut down, then more fault finding is conducted to identify whether the leak is from the engine or wing.
If the leak is confirmed as from the wing, the engine may be restarted...
If the leak is confirmed as from the wing, the engine may be restarted...
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Total flight time was 4hr 31m (18:17 UTC to 22:48 UTC)
Tracking suggests it maintained 17,000 ft altitude since 21:02 UTC (no tracking before that).
This being 12hr flight they either dumped or lost lot of fuel. FL suggests engine shutdown. Probably ignited on landing.
Fuel line rupture/failure inside the engine and fuel value failure(not able to shut off), may be.
Based on JACDEC track plot, BKK would be the closest major, but if they have to dump fuel SIN is not a bad option.
Assuming there is not much fuel left, I think it is too early to second guess crew's actions.
Tracking suggests it maintained 17,000 ft altitude since 21:02 UTC (no tracking before that).
This being 12hr flight they either dumped or lost lot of fuel. FL suggests engine shutdown. Probably ignited on landing.
Fuel line rupture/failure inside the engine and fuel value failure(not able to shut off), may be.
Based on JACDEC track plot, BKK would be the closest major, but if they have to dump fuel SIN is not a bad option.
Assuming there is not much fuel left, I think it is too early to second guess crew's actions.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow, what a contrast to the AA evacuation at LHR, where smoke alone caused an evacuation. From the video it looks like there's almost nothing wrong with the aircraft. And here we have an aeroplane engulfed in flames and no one is doing a thing. From the video's taken by pax they don't even seem in the least bit concerned.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dunno about that. Two in 12 months becoming flaming then smouldering wrecks...
The airframe has so far done an excellent job in protecting it's passengers. Crash or fire.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Asia
Age: 62
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So many people here getting outraged without any knowledge of the situation aside from a couple of short videos, and also apparently without too much knowledge of fire behaviour.
Firstly a five minute response time is not a bad response time especially if the aircraft had to roll out being heavy. I've had personal experience getting fire appliances to work. It takes longer than you imagine. When you are doing it it feels like an eternity.
Secondly it's clear there is fuel leaking from the wing. That means it could easily spread under the fuselage and be present on the left side of the aircraft. The wing being freely on fire in this situation is much more stable than the kind of fire you see during a high speed landing. Actually in this situation you want either fuel to be burning or not able to burn and nothing in between. It's highly likely that there were considerations around the risks of inflating the emergency slides into a potential ground pool fuel fire. I think that would be a much more dangerous situation. There is also the issue of radiant heat. I'd say that evacuees in this instance may have been at risk of burns from radiant heat.
When you are responding to a fire situation you are generally responding to a novel situation and you need to assess the situation and make the best choices you can. None of us here have all the information, are not in a position to decide on what the best decision would be, and most have no experience in fire fighting.
The end result of this is that no one was hurt and I think the fire was extinguished relatively quickly.
Firstly a five minute response time is not a bad response time especially if the aircraft had to roll out being heavy. I've had personal experience getting fire appliances to work. It takes longer than you imagine. When you are doing it it feels like an eternity.
Secondly it's clear there is fuel leaking from the wing. That means it could easily spread under the fuselage and be present on the left side of the aircraft. The wing being freely on fire in this situation is much more stable than the kind of fire you see during a high speed landing. Actually in this situation you want either fuel to be burning or not able to burn and nothing in between. It's highly likely that there were considerations around the risks of inflating the emergency slides into a potential ground pool fuel fire. I think that would be a much more dangerous situation. There is also the issue of radiant heat. I'd say that evacuees in this instance may have been at risk of burns from radiant heat.
When you are responding to a fire situation you are generally responding to a novel situation and you need to assess the situation and make the best choices you can. None of us here have all the information, are not in a position to decide on what the best decision would be, and most have no experience in fire fighting.
The end result of this is that no one was hurt and I think the fire was extinguished relatively quickly.