SQ-368 (engine & wing on fire) final report out
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On a Wing!
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whosoever made the decision, it would've been a joint decision.
What with four airmen on the deck.
And I DO FIRMLY believe that it was a decision NOT to evacuate !
What with four airmen on the deck.
And I DO FIRMLY believe that it was a decision NOT to evacuate !
Last edited by King on a Wing; 28th Jun 2016 at 13:40. Reason: Wrong Emoji
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,501
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
If we back up to the start, they turned back beacuse of ? Some say oil leak, some say fuel leak.
Both should normally lead to an engine shut down. They descended to FL 170, and that is an indication of an engine shut down.
My check list then says: Land at nearest suitable airport. This flight flew past a number of airports suitable for a 777. Unless the weather was crap at all of them, that was not a good decision, and in violation of SOP for a twin with one engine out.
Fuel dumping with an engine shut down and a possible fuel leak?
If the leak was contained, I don't see why not. If the leak was not contained? Not something I would do.
Now, lets throw something out there. The way this fire acted/spread, wouldn't it be a possible indication the fuel dump was forgotten, and fuel dumping was done all the way down to touchdown?
What puzzles me is how the fuel (leak or dump) was ignited.
A long landing indicates not so hot brakes. Was the right engine running and triggered the fire?
Did they fly with both engines running, a fuel leak and dumping fuel at the same time?
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: South East England
Age: 70
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a question:
If the FD crew didn't know there was a fire, why did they stop on the runway?
Surely they would have turned off and headed for the terminal, since without the fire it would just be a normal technical return?
If the FD crew didn't know there was a fire, why did they stop on the runway?
Surely they would have turned off and headed for the terminal, since without the fire it would just be a normal technical return?
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: here and there
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
They shouldn't leave the area as pax can freak out and open a door. So they can't really check if the engines are on.
The viewing window of the cabin door and nearest pax window are the main means to check outside conditions for their respective door and, I repeat, no cabin crew is trained to check if engines are on or off. If the evacuation is required they would open any door that doesn't have a danger outside.
Also, there is absolutely no way FD crew didn't know about the fire. Details will soon emerge and we'll see what challenges they had to deal with.
Last edited by skytrax; 28th Jun 2016 at 16:46. Reason: Spelling
According to the 21.3 report, ~one hour after departure, oil quantity dropped to 1 quart and oil pressure was fluctuating (but still in acceptable range) - decision made to continue.
About an hour after that ATB due to unusual vibrations and possible oil smell in the cabin. Fire reportedly started after they deployed the reverser during landing roll.
So apparently they did not shut down the engine, and there is nothing in the report indicating they suspected they had a fuel leak.
Educated guess is the fuel/oil heat exchanger failed.
About an hour after that ATB due to unusual vibrations and possible oil smell in the cabin. Fire reportedly started after they deployed the reverser during landing roll.
So apparently they did not shut down the engine, and there is nothing in the report indicating they suspected they had a fuel leak.
Educated guess is the fuel/oil heat exchanger failed.
Almost 60 seconds wasted because fire engines took only pavement
Having driven many thousands of kilometres off-road, I can say with some authority that given a choice I would always take a paved road that is no more than twice the distance of the direct off-road route. Paved road is invariably faster and a known quantity. As soon as you leave pavement you can experience all sorts of surprises, even on a nice level grass field.
As for the time, from the videos posted one may verify that the first responding truck started spraying 45 seconds after the aircraft came to a full stop.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: North Up
Posts: 489
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to the 21.3 report, ~one hour after departure, oil quantity dropped to 1 quart and oil pressure was fluctuating (but still in acceptable range) - decision made to continue.
About an hour after that ATB due to unusual vibrations and possible oil smell in the cabin. Fire reportedly started after they deployed the reverser during landing roll.
So apparently they did not shut down the engine
About an hour after that ATB due to unusual vibrations and possible oil smell in the cabin. Fire reportedly started after they deployed the reverser during landing roll.
So apparently they did not shut down the engine
In those circumstances they applied power, inc reverse thrust, on approach and landing?
Shome mishtake, shurely.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: TOF
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Wet Coast, Canuckland
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey all you pros out there advocating not evacuating....during your next sim recurrent when your check airman tells you you have a wing on fire after landing, I dare you to turn to him and tell him you have to think about it for a while.
In those circumstances they applied power, inc reverse thrust, on approach and landing?
As for using the TR, based on the report, why wouldn't they deploy the reverser after landing?
The instructions for low oil quantity are to monitor oil pressure and temperature - if they remain within the normal range, no action is required.
Speculating here, but it would appear that when they elected to turn back, they set the throttle to idle and continued to monitor to make sure it didn't get worse.
Speculating here, but it would appear that when they elected to turn back, they set the throttle to idle and continued to monitor to make sure it didn't get worse.
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to the 21.3 report, ~one hour after departure, oil quantity dropped to 1 quart and oil pressure was fluctuating (but still in acceptable range) - decision made to continue.
About an hour after that ATB due to unusual vibrations and possible oil smell in the cabin. Fire reportedly started after they deployed the reverser during landing roll.
So apparently they did not shut down the engine, and there is nothing in the report indicating they suspected they had a fuel leak.
Educated guess is the fuel/oil heat exchanger failed.
About an hour after that ATB due to unusual vibrations and possible oil smell in the cabin. Fire reportedly started after they deployed the reverser during landing roll.
So apparently they did not shut down the engine, and there is nothing in the report indicating they suspected they had a fuel leak.
Educated guess is the fuel/oil heat exchanger failed.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: south england
Posts: 393
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So after nearly 11 pages of absolute drivel (hopefully written by people who only turn right as they enter an aircraft), we still have not had any facts substantiated.
Just to clarify for some of you fantasists out there......facts are the things that actually occurred.
I will quite happily, from the comfort of my armchair, tell you exactly how I would have run the show that day once you provide me with a timeline of events, that would include EICAS messages, what information were the synoptic pages giving me, what did the camera show, what was I being told by the cabin crew, when did the fire start, what information was I given by he tower/RFF......plus a lot more. This is what we do as professional pilots (I am thinking of dropping the professional shortly), we gather information from all available resources so that we can make an informed decision. Now until someone can provide me with all the information I have asked for I would suggest you look like a complete imbecile passing judgement on the action of this crew.
Just to clarify for some of you fantasists out there......facts are the things that actually occurred.
I will quite happily, from the comfort of my armchair, tell you exactly how I would have run the show that day once you provide me with a timeline of events, that would include EICAS messages, what information were the synoptic pages giving me, what did the camera show, what was I being told by the cabin crew, when did the fire start, what information was I given by he tower/RFF......plus a lot more. This is what we do as professional pilots (I am thinking of dropping the professional shortly), we gather information from all available resources so that we can make an informed decision. Now until someone can provide me with all the information I have asked for I would suggest you look like a complete imbecile passing judgement on the action of this crew.
Gents and Gentesses
There seems to be some confusion about what the fire brigade does and how it does it. Whilst I have no experience in working as a member of a brigade, I have used their good services more than once around and about the aerodrome and have been very impressed.
For those who are not familiar there are different ratings for the airports in terms of fire response and capability. For the big airports they have the most resources and quick responses--this is why at many of the big airports you see satellite fire houses. Frankfurt is an easy place to see this when one takes off from runway 18. This response in quick time coupled with robust equipment and other factors will earn the highest rating. This can be a factor (perhaps not the determining factor but certainly one of them) in taking a wounded aircraft into a certain field.
Second, there seems to be a lot of discussion of why the Singapore brigade did not take the off-road option of reach the aircraft. I would imagine, with some confidence, that that this brigade has done thousands of hours of training and planning in how to reach stricken aircraft at any point on the field. If they determined, on the fly, not to take the truck off-road then I would think that they did this deliberately. They can see the burning aircraft and they know the stakes.
Third, there seems also to be a question about why the crew did not turn off the runway. Even without an evac, after a fuel dump I want the brigade to take a look at the outside of the aircraft. This may or may not involve the maintenance troops, but the fire brigade is also well trained to spot spills/leakage/other problems. In my very humble opinion it is best to stop the aircraft and have it assessed. If the engines are shut down and it needs to be towed, well the tug crew is already on the clock so what is the loss in playing it safe?
The fire brigade is indeed your friend and they are startlingly effective, if you let them, in working with you to assess, and if need be, to act. As one of the other posters stated, it would be nice to have one of the ARFF team chime in as I think there are a lot of misconceptions creeping in about response times, response equipment, and who tells what to whom.
As a last point, some of the posters have timed the response to when dousing commenced. A minute is a very good response. Perhaps one can remind me (without the manuals at hand) what the response needs to be--I know it is more than a minute so in this case the brigade was quickly in force.
There seems to be some confusion about what the fire brigade does and how it does it. Whilst I have no experience in working as a member of a brigade, I have used their good services more than once around and about the aerodrome and have been very impressed.
For those who are not familiar there are different ratings for the airports in terms of fire response and capability. For the big airports they have the most resources and quick responses--this is why at many of the big airports you see satellite fire houses. Frankfurt is an easy place to see this when one takes off from runway 18. This response in quick time coupled with robust equipment and other factors will earn the highest rating. This can be a factor (perhaps not the determining factor but certainly one of them) in taking a wounded aircraft into a certain field.
Second, there seems to be a lot of discussion of why the Singapore brigade did not take the off-road option of reach the aircraft. I would imagine, with some confidence, that that this brigade has done thousands of hours of training and planning in how to reach stricken aircraft at any point on the field. If they determined, on the fly, not to take the truck off-road then I would think that they did this deliberately. They can see the burning aircraft and they know the stakes.
Third, there seems also to be a question about why the crew did not turn off the runway. Even without an evac, after a fuel dump I want the brigade to take a look at the outside of the aircraft. This may or may not involve the maintenance troops, but the fire brigade is also well trained to spot spills/leakage/other problems. In my very humble opinion it is best to stop the aircraft and have it assessed. If the engines are shut down and it needs to be towed, well the tug crew is already on the clock so what is the loss in playing it safe?
The fire brigade is indeed your friend and they are startlingly effective, if you let them, in working with you to assess, and if need be, to act. As one of the other posters stated, it would be nice to have one of the ARFF team chime in as I think there are a lot of misconceptions creeping in about response times, response equipment, and who tells what to whom.
As a last point, some of the posters have timed the response to when dousing commenced. A minute is a very good response. Perhaps one can remind me (without the manuals at hand) what the response needs to be--I know it is more than a minute so in this case the brigade was quickly in force.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Within 3 hours of a suitable alternate
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Mr Gatbusdriver,
Do you not discuss "what-if scenarios" with your number 1?
I do and that's pretty much what everyone has done on this thread.
Do you not discuss "what-if scenarios" with your number 1?
I do and that's pretty much what everyone has done on this thread.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Up there
Posts: 202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes because when the landed it was CAVOK and daylight. 
When actually it was pissing rain pitch black and absolutely no lights outside or inside the aircraft as the MEC had a nose gear in it and it was sitting next to a golf course which last time I checked aren't well lit.
When actually it was pissing rain pitch black and absolutely no lights outside or inside the aircraft as the MEC had a nose gear in it and it was sitting next to a golf course which last time I checked aren't well lit.