SQ-368 (engine & wing on fire) final report out
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: NZ
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/...6995884586.jpg
This image shows the tarmac dry on left side of aircraft. So there was no fire on this side. Could pilot not evacuate from left side, instead of waiting for fire to be doused.
This image shows the tarmac dry on left side of aircraft. So there was no fire on this side. Could pilot not evacuate from left side, instead of waiting for fire to be doused.
If you're only 90% sure that 100% of your pax and CC are going to be safe and yet - with information to hand - judge that they might be safer sitting tight knowing that a mother-load of foam will be going onto that wing in less than a minute - then that (in my small mind anyway) makes the decision they made seem far more reasonable.
Each case is different. It's not like the China Air example where rescue services took around 5 minutes to get there. And it's not like examples where the fire has started in the cabin, tail, or hold.
Captain in USA fired.
different re. SQ. but it is a similar topic as in all Captains' decision making.
Smoke in the cabin, observed and reported , is a threat to any aircraft and passengers, in my opinion.
The industry needs a standardization, not left to information gathering post events. Not Weeks later.
Captain decides if to evacuate, in seconds and not weeks.he relies heavily on good and reliable information given to him.
This is interesting reading.
allegiant-fires-pilot-after-ordering-emergency-evacuation.
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...vacuation.html
Smoke in the cabin, observed and reported , is a threat to any aircraft and passengers, in my opinion.
The industry needs a standardization, not left to information gathering post events. Not Weeks later.
Captain decides if to evacuate, in seconds and not weeks.he relies heavily on good and reliable information given to him.
This is interesting reading.
allegiant-fires-pilot-after-ordering-emergency-evacuation.
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...vacuation.html
Originally Posted by Oakape View Post
I remember watching a video years ago during an EP's course, of an aircraft with a brake fire after landing.
I remember watching a video years ago during an EP's course, of an aircraft with a brake fire after landing.
The failure of Toulouse's inept fire crews to obtain more than a trickle of water when finally required added to the farcical atmosphere, as did the antics of various firemen surprised by bursting tyres. As they say in France, "Quel bordel!"
If test pilots evacuated in an adrenaline filled hurry for that, comparatively minor and very early-days fire I think it tells us something about the whens and whys of an evac.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUMuOyMTQ8Y
Last edited by Wageslave; 4th Jul 2016 at 14:16.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sweden
Age: 47
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When there is doubt there is no doubt.
This is what y'all are saying.
So why wasn't there doubt this time, with flames lighting up the entire cabin for everyone to see. That is the puzzle here.
Did they rely on the aircraft to save them from fire?
Goddamn lucky bastards whatever the case. Sudden wind change - totally different outcome.
This is what y'all are saying.
So why wasn't there doubt this time, with flames lighting up the entire cabin for everyone to see. That is the puzzle here.
Did they rely on the aircraft to save them from fire?
Goddamn lucky bastards whatever the case. Sudden wind change - totally different outcome.
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am sure airlines are updating their training manuals after this incident. But any professional with common sense would already have done it differently.
1hr - low oil warning -
Action: Monitor oil pressure
Possible action: 1hr into 12hr flight, go back to SIN and get it checked.
2hr - engine vibrations -
Action: Idle, monitor fly for another 2 hours with idled engine
Possible action: Idle and land immediately
3.5hrs - Dump fuel
Action: Say "Negative" to assistance
Possible action: Ask for assistance.
They took three perfectly valid (sans commonsense) decisions, non-evac is just icing on the cake.
IMHO professional pilots and silent because that would be like GOP commenting on Trump scenario.
1hr - low oil warning -
Action: Monitor oil pressure
Possible action: 1hr into 12hr flight, go back to SIN and get it checked.
2hr - engine vibrations -
Action: Idle, monitor fly for another 2 hours with idled engine
Possible action: Idle and land immediately
3.5hrs - Dump fuel
Action: Say "Negative" to assistance
Possible action: Ask for assistance.
They took three perfectly valid (sans commonsense) decisions, non-evac is just icing on the cake.
IMHO professional pilots and silent because that would be like GOP commenting on Trump scenario.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wouldn't be too sure on the "negative on assistance" bit.
That comes from an ATC recording soon after the turn-around (not sure exactly when) when they are still something like 200nm from SIN still at FL170, i.e. before any descent into SIN. The crew wouldn't be thinking about ARFF equipment at that point. They might have interpreted the question as ATC asking if there is anything else they need right at the time.
They might well have asked for equipment closer in. We just don't know.
That comes from an ATC recording soon after the turn-around (not sure exactly when) when they are still something like 200nm from SIN still at FL170, i.e. before any descent into SIN. The crew wouldn't be thinking about ARFF equipment at that point. They might have interpreted the question as ATC asking if there is anything else they need right at the time.
They might well have asked for equipment closer in. We just don't know.
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Singapore
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A few more answers from Singapore
A few things from my perspective.
(1) SQ did give a press release, it was in the local press here. Basically engine caught fire on landing, fire put out in less than 5 mins, passengers disembarked with no injury. Full stop. The lack of evac was also questioned in the local press (not by SQ of course).
(2) You cannot write off the China Air as being irrelevant because the ARFF took 5 mins. The plane exploded well before that time and the passengers would have been toast at 3 minutes in. By 5 mins it was a burning wreck.
(3) it took slight over a minute for the fire services to arrive by my reckoning. Now add 90 seconds for an evac, and you are at 2.5 minutes. Check China Air at that time stamp!
(4) My impression is that the first flames are aviation fuel, not oil. Not enough smoke. Maybe oil gets involved later on. Someone suggested that the pilot forgot to stop dumping fuel, that I think is highly unlikely.
(5) As has been pointed out, these tenders do not carry a "motherload" of foam, just 90 seconds worth. And after 90 seconds of foam (so 2.5 mins after stopping), the fire was still at a dangerous level. So that is one minute after a full evac would have been completed.... As has been pointed out, a LHS evac would have been safe.
(6) my response to "an evac might have been dangerous" is, it is the job of the crew (front and/or back) to make a sound judgement PDQ. Not cross your fingers and hope the services put it out before it goes boom.
Luckily, thank god, no one was hurt. I would have accepted a few broken ankles as a good outcome too though.
(1) SQ did give a press release, it was in the local press here. Basically engine caught fire on landing, fire put out in less than 5 mins, passengers disembarked with no injury. Full stop. The lack of evac was also questioned in the local press (not by SQ of course).
(2) You cannot write off the China Air as being irrelevant because the ARFF took 5 mins. The plane exploded well before that time and the passengers would have been toast at 3 minutes in. By 5 mins it was a burning wreck.
(3) it took slight over a minute for the fire services to arrive by my reckoning. Now add 90 seconds for an evac, and you are at 2.5 minutes. Check China Air at that time stamp!
(4) My impression is that the first flames are aviation fuel, not oil. Not enough smoke. Maybe oil gets involved later on. Someone suggested that the pilot forgot to stop dumping fuel, that I think is highly unlikely.
(5) As has been pointed out, these tenders do not carry a "motherload" of foam, just 90 seconds worth. And after 90 seconds of foam (so 2.5 mins after stopping), the fire was still at a dangerous level. So that is one minute after a full evac would have been completed.... As has been pointed out, a LHS evac would have been safe.
(6) my response to "an evac might have been dangerous" is, it is the job of the crew (front and/or back) to make a sound judgement PDQ. Not cross your fingers and hope the services put it out before it goes boom.
Luckily, thank god, no one was hurt. I would have accepted a few broken ankles as a good outcome too though.
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Western Pacific
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WTF YRP? So, what you are trying to say is that by not asking for assistance 200 miles out they would be avoiding confusion? Meanwhile the poor controllers have no idea whether this is a "big deal" or not - leaving them in a very akward situation. Sounds confusing to me.
Paxing All Over The World
Hi Tech in post #440
Had there have been a 'massive' fuel leak they would have known about it. The fact they asked permission to DUMP fuel - indicates that any leak was very small. It may have only been a pencil lead flow and that might not show up, especially once you start to dump.
It has been stated in this thread that the fire appears to be ON the wing, not OF the wing. That is, when you look at the during fire pictures - it looks like the whole wing is on fire. But the post fire pictures show that the wing is largely intact, indicating that the fire could have been caused by a thin (pencil lead thin) film of fuel ON and around the wing.
True but if it was already a thin smear on the wing? Then the heat of the fuel fire would bring it rapidly up to a temperature when it can all burn together.
Correct, they did not. We know that from the ATC that has been mentioned and linked, in this thread.
That's a different kind of opinion. For example, did God start the leak and frighten all the passengers for a laugh, an extra SIM test or a test of their love for him?
Hi Tech #443
You haven't read anything in this thread have you? 
Crew appears to have kept the engine running during their fly back to base, not aware of the massive fuel leak.
It has been stated in this thread that the fire appears to be ON the wing, not OF the wing. That is, when you look at the during fire pictures - it looks like the whole wing is on fire. But the post fire pictures show that the wing is largely intact, indicating that the fire could have been caused by a thin (pencil lead thin) film of fuel ON and around the wing.
3. Hydraulic fluid rarely catch fire like this.
4. I doubt if the crew had declared an emergency landing.
6. God was on the side of SQ and the Pax this time.
Hi Tech #443
This image shows the tarmac dry on left side of aircraft. So there was no fire on this side. Could pilot not evacuate from left side, instead of waiting for fire to be doused. All is well that ends well. A change in wind direction could have blown the fire on to the fuselage with deadly consequences.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 1°21'10.20"N - 103°56'36.21"E
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Saw this on a SQ CC Blog These are Not my words !!!!!
Now, the next 3 to 4 minutes was the craziest and probably what I'm still reeling from.
By this time - where i was, I could get a full view of what was happening. Passengers seated closest to the fire at D3R window seat were jumping out of their seats and scrambling for their bags and just running towards the door. People were shouting "FIRE!" "THERE IS A FIRE!" "DO SOMETHING!" "OPEN YOUR DOOR NOW!" "WHAT ARE YOU DOING?!"
Passengers at D3L were all running forward as well to my door - jumping over people. By this time i couldn't call anyone although i wanted to inform either SXXX or TYYY that there was a fire. But with all the pax wanting to open my door i had to guard the door instead.
My passenger on XXG was a mother with a 7 months baby. Throughout the flight she was telling me how anxious she was cause she was travelling alone. Her husband was waiting for her in Milan. You know when this was happening - she ran towards me and held my hands.. her eyes full of fear and she was holding her baby.. already in tears asking me what to do.
Parents were holding their kids and looking at me hoping that I can save them. But I myself can't guarantee my own life. And although my voice and face is normal and I'm telling them to calm down .. only God knew how much i was shaking inside and desperate to do the right thing while knowing at the back of my mind this airplane might explode anytime."
Our SEP training definitely has really played a part in the way ssss and cccc had reacted, confirm condition outside, alert pilots and crowd control.
I couldn't imagine what they are going through now, because I am not exposed to what they are exposed to. And I'm telling you, I felt the impact on me later in the evening after the adrenaline wears off.
The question of whether or not to evacuate keep popping up in my head! Did we or did not make the right decision...
With the help of sleeping aid, I forced myself to sleep. However woke up with my body and hands trembling.
Later in the day, we went to CAAS at T2 to present our statements on the incident. Reliving the incident is not a nice feeling at all.
Took ourselves off our flights and waiting for our counselling session. Some of the crew had requested for a one to one counselling session today and their request were attended immediately.
I'm looking forward to our group counselling session. Hopefully it will stop the tremors felt in my body.
Certainly hope that we can come back to work with confidence and not fear.
Last edited by ecureilx; 5th Jul 2016 at 19:55.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Onesixty2four, that last line is exactly the point. Plenty of posts on here are claiming the crew didn't ask for equipment standing by on landing based on ATC recordings from a long ways out. We don't have the recordings from closer in and they could have asked at any point.
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: NZ
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(2) You cannot write off the China Air as being irrelevant because the ARFF took 5 mins. The plane exploded well before that time and the passengers would have been toast at 3 minutes in. By 5 mins it was a burning wreck.
(3) it took slight over a minute for the fire services to arrive by my reckoning. Now add 90 seconds for an evac, and you are at 2.5 minutes. Check China Air at that time stamp!
(3) it took slight over a minute for the fire services to arrive by my reckoning. Now add 90 seconds for an evac, and you are at 2.5 minutes. Check China Air at that time stamp!
The Air China aircraft had no ARFF intervention at that point and thus the danger of (an inevitable) tank involvement was rapidly INCREASING.
That's the difference.
If SIA aircraft had initiated an evacuation immediately then they would have had no ARFF to watch their backs if something happened inside that first minute and passengers were exposed outside of the aircraft. If I'm ever safe but trapped behind enemy lines - with the enemy advancing - I think I'd be safer staying put if I knew the calvary were only 1 minute away.
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Harbour Master Place
Posts: 662
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by mickjoebill
4/The Fire service's fast response was rumoured to be due to a coincidence, because they were already responding to another call.
(Indeed they were in motion before the aircraft stopped)
(Indeed they were in motion before the aircraft stopped)
If this turns out to be correct then this could have very large implications for this incident. If it turns out the ARFF response was abnormally fast, then serendipity played a large part in this outcome, and any "lessons learned" should be viewed through that prism.
It cannot not be assumed that ARFF will be close by as the brakes are parked and the they will "have your back". It could have been a very different outcome if the the ARFF had to go from a standing start in their shed.
We have to wait for the report, but this event could well turn out to be the exception rather than the rule when all the facts are known.
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: NZ
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
post #432 (my BOLD)
If this turns out to be correct then this could have very large implications for this incident. If it turns out the ARFF response was abnormally fast, then serendipity played a large part in this outcome, and any "lessons learned" should be viewed through that prism.
It cannot not be assumed that ARFF will be close by as the brakes are parked and the they will "have your back". It could have been a very different outcome if the the ARFF had to go from a standing start in their shed.
We have to wait for the report, but this event could well turn out to be the exception rather than the rule when all the facts are known.
If this turns out to be correct then this could have very large implications for this incident. If it turns out the ARFF response was abnormally fast, then serendipity played a large part in this outcome, and any "lessons learned" should be viewed through that prism.
It cannot not be assumed that ARFF will be close by as the brakes are parked and the they will "have your back". It could have been a very different outcome if the the ARFF had to go from a standing start in their shed.
We have to wait for the report, but this event could well turn out to be the exception rather than the rule when all the facts are known.
In summary, "we all need to wait for the FACTS to come out before we either hang the bastard or nominate him for saint-hood".
During the BA evacuation in Las Vegas, fourteen passengers suffered minor injuries. The ARFF were able to put out the fire before the aircraft was destroyed. In this case should the Captain have kept the passengers on board ? (Rethorical question)
Does the level of capability of the ARFF need to be considered in the decision ? In many countries I wouldn't trust the fire engines to arrive within the specified time or be able to extinguish a major fire once the got there. The SQ and BA incidents both occurred at major airports in first world countries. Narrow bodies go into airports which were never designed with the size of aircraft or volume of traffic currently being handled in mind.
Having the emergency services on standby for even a supposedly minor problem could save a critical minute or two compared to a cold start. I landed a turboprop with an engine shut down early one morning at an airport that handled scheduled A320/B737 operations. The airport was unmanned at my arrival time but ATC arranged for the local police to be in attendance just incase.
Does the level of capability of the ARFF need to be considered in the decision ? In many countries I wouldn't trust the fire engines to arrive within the specified time or be able to extinguish a major fire once the got there. The SQ and BA incidents both occurred at major airports in first world countries. Narrow bodies go into airports which were never designed with the size of aircraft or volume of traffic currently being handled in mind.
Having the emergency services on standby for even a supposedly minor problem could save a critical minute or two compared to a cold start. I landed a turboprop with an engine shut down early one morning at an airport that handled scheduled A320/B737 operations. The airport was unmanned at my arrival time but ATC arranged for the local police to be in attendance just incase.
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: NZ
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't really comment on your question, but judging by the amount of smoke, I'm wondering if there would be any advantage to passengers having access to smoke hoods in situations like this?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: the City by the Bay
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A very quick review if I may:
1. A genuine EMERGENCY situation developed upon landing with one engine and nearly the whole wing on the same side catching fire. A situation that could have resulted in the loss of the aircraft and its occupants in very short order. In a matter of mere MINUTES if the fire was left unattended.
2. Fire services put the fire out quite quickly and no one was harmed or injured. They were later commended for their speedy action, rightly so. The plane may not make it, but that is ok.
3. No evacuation was ordered or attempted. Cabin attendants apparently actively discouraged an EVAC. An apparently organized intent to NOT evac.
4. The questions:
a. Is there an SOP for this Situ? What does it say? Does it say EVAC ASAP?
b. Is it mandatory to follow company SOP ,always or sometimes or it depends?
c. Should crew follow company SOP in a genuine emergency situ? Or should they always assess the situation themselves and act accordingly in the heat of the moment, rightly or wrongly?
d. What do you think your airline is going to do when you don't follow SOP in an emergency situation, even if you proved later that it was OK not to?
e. What do you think the airline's lawyers and insurance company would insist on? Following SOP in Emergencies or Ad Hoc decision making?
f. Do you think they may be forced to fire you even if you were a "hero" ? What happened to the CX Ace that did a low fly by on acceptance of that brand new 777 at Paine Field?
g. Should you care if they fire you or not? You are going to do what you think is the very best in each situation regardless of what the "book" says?
Lives WERE at stake here in this situation, should you SOP or should you play it by ear? Or perhaps that was not true, lives were not at stake at all with the firemen right alongside within 2 mins. Everyone was going to be fine , ALWAYS.
1. A genuine EMERGENCY situation developed upon landing with one engine and nearly the whole wing on the same side catching fire. A situation that could have resulted in the loss of the aircraft and its occupants in very short order. In a matter of mere MINUTES if the fire was left unattended.
2. Fire services put the fire out quite quickly and no one was harmed or injured. They were later commended for their speedy action, rightly so. The plane may not make it, but that is ok.
3. No evacuation was ordered or attempted. Cabin attendants apparently actively discouraged an EVAC. An apparently organized intent to NOT evac.
4. The questions:
a. Is there an SOP for this Situ? What does it say? Does it say EVAC ASAP?
b. Is it mandatory to follow company SOP ,always or sometimes or it depends?
c. Should crew follow company SOP in a genuine emergency situ? Or should they always assess the situation themselves and act accordingly in the heat of the moment, rightly or wrongly?
d. What do you think your airline is going to do when you don't follow SOP in an emergency situation, even if you proved later that it was OK not to?
e. What do you think the airline's lawyers and insurance company would insist on? Following SOP in Emergencies or Ad Hoc decision making?
f. Do you think they may be forced to fire you even if you were a "hero" ? What happened to the CX Ace that did a low fly by on acceptance of that brand new 777 at Paine Field?
g. Should you care if they fire you or not? You are going to do what you think is the very best in each situation regardless of what the "book" says?
Lives WERE at stake here in this situation, should you SOP or should you play it by ear? Or perhaps that was not true, lives were not at stake at all with the firemen right alongside within 2 mins. Everyone was going to be fine , ALWAYS.
Well worth reading.