SQ-368 (engine & wing on fire) final report out

[Metro man]

At the end of the day it will be exactly like any other inquiry. A team of experts, relaxed after a good weekend, with all the information available to them and not under any time pressure, going through a decision that had to be taken quickly with limited information available and deciding if it was correct.

[CDRW]

Probably the best post so far is by Bud...

But then then this is an open forum - unfortunately the first P in PPRUNE is not applied.

Metro - spot on - the expert team will have the FDR on play back - slow the replay down, scrutinize every decision made, comparing it with Part A, FCOM, SOP, FCTM, discuss, compare, question, research and decided. A month later they will have a decision.

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by bud leon

Possibly the crew were somewhere between fantastic and lucky, which is how it always works in real life.

Few would disagree with that.

But the fact that, fortuitously, not all of the holes in the cheese lined up on this occasion doesn't mean there are no lessons to be learned from what happened.

[grizzled]

Information and lack of information

I don't know which is worse on these fora, posters with no information about the on-scene events and communications, condemning the actions and decisions of a real- life crew in a real-life occurrence, or posters who criticize and condemn actions for which there is known info, simply out of ignorance.

Re the flight deck decisions and actions: At this stage, we (the public) know nothing, nada, zip, sweet FA, about what took place. So, rational comment and discussion is appropriate; condemnation is not. A previous poster lamented the lack of qualified pilots commenting on this thread (or other threads for that matter). Why do you think that is?

Re ARFF: Again, there have been few if any comments by qualified ARFF experts on this thread. Why? The prime reason is simple: In the video shot from outside, from the starboard side, a qualified ARFF person sees the response vehicles following SOP exactly (in at least five or six ways). Most importantly, what we see is foam being applied effectively and accurately 55 seconds after wheels stop. If you think there was ANY delay due to routings, positioning, procedures, etc I respectfully suggest you know nothing about ARFF.

[MrSnuggles]

Captured from the inside (sounds surprisingly relaxed to me!). At 0:24 black smoke starts - some kind of rubber burning?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieF8CsJ1yNY

Here is plane still rolling in the beginning, seems to come to a stop at 0:15. At around 0:30 the black smoke is seen again, can be synced to the above video. Fire bridage is clearly already on its way when video starts, and the first fire truck starts dousing the engine at around 1:00.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jC-2NhU10Q

Here it is again, from another angle. Landing lights are still on. Wind blows the smoke away from the cabin.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyl1nBS-wVE

Apparently rescue services has been requested at some other point than the ATC snippet already posted. Unconfirmed information that fire started during landing, not in the air.

[Wageslave]

It's absolutely bizarre that there is an incident in which no one was injured and there are people on this thread castigating the crew.

Its absolutely bizarre that anyone thinks this irrational statement contains a single drop of logic. So no matter how rash or incorrect the action it is justified if no one gets hurt, is it? Apply this "rationale" to Russian Roulette please.

Also note that throughout the entire video footage there is NO smoke coming from either forward or aft doors, meaning the fire did not spread inside the cabin.

Not sure what that tells us, watch the China Airlines 737 fire at Osaka(?) - the fuselage finally gives way and the aft section collapses to the ground yet there is no smoke from the doors.

In the crew's defence they managed to park it, intentionally or not, with the fire downwind of the fuselage. It would be useful to know exactly where they stopped. Was it on the runway? Were they on runway QDM or did they make a turn? The videos suggest they might have done

Was this a genuine fastball or was time available beforehand to prepare with the crew for all possible eventualities

Blimey, no one knows yet but in the event of a fuel leak (if that is what they thought it was) you'd certainly be prepared for a fire on the ground if only because that is the inevitable sequel to dealing with that scenario in the sim. Fire would be at the forefront of your mind. It seems likely that the fire only broke out during the ground roll so in that sense, probably a fastball but given the above you'd expect them to be prepared for it. They had 2 hrs to think about the possibilities after all. If they weren't aware of a fuel leak then it probably was a really nasty fastball, though it's one every pilot should be prepared for every time he lands.

With a fire like that I'd still have initiated an evacuation the moment I'd stopped, as I suspect would every other European and American pilot without exception. Its what we're expected to do with an uncontained (ie not internal engine or perhaps brakes) fire or significant smoke of unknown or uncontrollable origin, as seen at LHR yesterday. It is drummed into us throught training, fire = evacuate. There have to be very, very special circumstances for this to be varied and with the fire downwind of the fuselage they seem to have been in an ideal position to get the pax out. After 2 hrs of thinking time just sitting there for minutes, lights on and with a big fire raging under an entire wing just looks like a rabbit-in-the-headlights scenario to me. The opportunity to evacuate was clearly there, they did not take it. Saying that no one was hurt in retrospect in no way justifies that peculiar situation. A different flick of fortunes tail and we'd have had another Saudia on our hands, that much is very clear.

Finally, does one usually ask "permission" to dump fuel rather than just doing it, or just telling them you're doing it?

[fox niner]

Originally Posted by bud leon
Possibly the crew were somewhere between fantastic and lucky, which is how it always works in real life.

Probably true, however....

If I have a situation like that, I am not going to wait around to find out how lucky I am that day. Not as a passenger, nor as a commander.

Come to think of it, with all the strict laws in Singapore and all, would I get into trouble (jail/arrested) if I opened a flight door as a pax in this situation?
Simply trying to save my life?

[skytrax]

Originally Posted by BuzzBox

skytrax:

I am well aware of what cabin crew can and can't do in such situations, thank you. Try READING my post. It was about cabin crew initiating an evacuation next to a running engine.

Cc have no clue if the engines are on or not, other than the noise. With that situation going on outside it would be hard to determine that.

As mentioned, CC will initially wait for a FD command and they will try to contact them to seek instructions if there is no PA made. Asian airlines are highly hierarchical and individuals always look for the higher authority to make that decision.
They will however initiate the evacuation if there is no instructions from FD and if the conditions inside become life-threatening.
They will evaluate the outside conditions and if it's safe they will open.


To clarify: for example L1 or L5 cabin crew would have absolutely no means to check if the engines are on or not. Therefore, this is not part of their training because it is not realistic to be assessed by CC.
Engines should have been off and parking breaks set.

[ACMS]

fox niner:---- go for it, just hope the really big GE90 Engine Vacuum cleaner has been shut down......

[MrSnuggles]

Hmm, I was under the impression that if there is a fire in/on an airplane, you should

1) Land IMMEDIATELY

2) Evac ASAP

As I mentioned, rumours indicate that the fire started during landing. Videos of the incident shows green taxiway lights leading to the airplane, possibly indicating the airplane being on the runway.

Lets see, shall we?

Swissair 111
The China Air incident
Valuejet
National Air in Jeddah
BA 777 in Vegas
Air Canada 797
British Airtours
Saudi Air 163
Concorde

I think you get my point...

Oh, look at this damage!
http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopo...plane-fire.jpg

[Tankengine]

Originally Posted by andrasz

Hard to imagine the pilots were unaware with the first responding fire truck in line with the cockpit, and also one would assume tower advised them on the situation. However the beacon lights were on throughout the fire-fighting sequence, clearly seen on some videos, so possibly at least one engine was running...

So at exactly what part of the evacuation checklist does it say to turn off the beacon!?
You park the brakes, consider what to do next, if I was on fire I would then shutdown the engines and continue with checklist. Never flown the 777 but have flown 737/747/767 and A330, never, ever, seen an evacuation checklist that mentions the beacon.

[notapilot15]

Are you obliged to keep all grass within the airport perimeters in a condition, which allows heavy vehicles to use it without getting stuck? Would not be an easy task in the tropics...

Changi has drains on the grass perimeter.

No but Panthers/Strikers are off-road capable. Looking at Google Earth terrain at SIN looks relatively flat.

I don't think there is any airport in the world without uneven terrain and water bodies within the perimeter.

It is kind of strange most vehicles formed one pavement hugging relatively slow beeline on a winding scenic route. Not one attempted to take shortest path. Most vehicles ended up one side of the fire.

These was also hesitation to move closer to the fire, these are what 60 meter spray capable trucks.

Crew didn't request for assistance, probably one of the reasons.

[Kbboca]

As lowly SLF, I just want to add I'm utterly astounded by the seeming calmness of the passengers in the 1st video posted by MrSnuggles. I think I would have been screaming. It will be very interesting to learn what announcements were made to the pax and to what extent they were informed about / briefed how to handle the emergency. The passenger composition (nationalities) may be of interest.

I can't imagine a plane full of Americans sitting calmly in this situation, but as others have stated, unless the engines were off, aggressive passenger response to initiate an evacuation (as I'm sure would have happened in the US in the absence of a crew-initiated one) could have proved very dangerous.

As someone fascinated by sociology, this makes me realize once again the complexity of emergencies. You have not only the technical aspects, but the social aspect too. The technical situation / facts & risks of the emergency may be identical in two contexts, but the decisions made may differ significantly based on cultural factors and training.

Kudos to the fire crews for their excellent response which helped save 200+ lives.

[BuzzBox]

Skytrax:

Cc have no clue if the engines are on or not, other than the noise. With that situation going on outside it would be hard to determine that.

Exactly, and that's why the cabin crew should NOT initiate an evacuation of their own accord UNLESS the situation in the cabin becomes life threatening. I replied to a post that suggested the cabin crew should have done so even though the situation inside the cabin had NOT become life threatening.

That post also suggested the cabin crew should have initiated an evacuation even if the pilots weren't aware there was a fire. The point that I was trying to make is that IF the pilots weren't aware there was a fire, then they may not have been planning an emergency evacuation. If that was the case, then they probably would not have started the emergency evacuation checklist, in which case the engines would NOT have been shut down. Mind you, I am not suggesting that's what actually happened here. At this point we simply don't know.

[cbradio]

I didn't catch the details but a news grab here in Oz just said passengers begged the crew to open the doors but were refused.

[Machrihanish]

Originally Posted by skytrax

To clarify: for example L1 or L5 cabin crew would have absolutely no means to check if the engines are on or not.

SIA use rotor markings which are clearly distinguishable from quite a number of rows of the front fuselage and should suffice as a fall back to identify the engine's spinning down, if req'd.

[MrMachfivepointfive]

Cultural thing, I guess. Remember the Korean ferry that went down with two thirds of her passengers, because they were told to remain calm and stay in their cabins - while the ship took more than a hour to capsize?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_MV_Sewol

[Capn Bloggs]

Originally Posted by Tankengine

So at exactly what part of the evacuation checklist does it say to turn off the beacon!?

Andrasz wasn't suggesting they missed or were waiting to switch off the beacons. What bus powers your beacons, Tank? On mine, they are AC, which indicates...

[Ian W]

Originally Posted by cbradio

I didn't catch the details but a news grab here in Oz just said passengers begged the crew to open the doors but were refused.

If that is the case it would seem that a specific decision was made to not evacuate for some reason rather than indecision and that the decision was passed to the rear crew.

[PAXboy]

Much has been made of the longer return to SIN, passing by BKK etc. However, if the damage to the machine and condition of fuel flow was the same, landing over MWL with nearly full tanks? There would have been a lot more fuel. All we know is that the mid-flight warnings were not serious enough to consider that and they had time to dump fuel. Given the fire on roll out, the correct choice. So it does seem that it's the last minute in roll out that caught them unawares.