SQ-368 (engine & wing on fire) final report out
There is a reason why this thread keeps on going. It is because:
1. They should have evacuated
2. The deafening silence out of singapore thereafter.
Hindsight has nothing to do with it.
1. They should have evacuated
2. The deafening silence out of singapore thereafter.
Hindsight has nothing to do with it.
Last edited by fox niner; 10th Jul 2016 at 07:26.
What I remember from decades back is that ARFF's primary mission is to provide a safe path for evacuation.
Minimising damage to the airframe and preventing fire spread comes after.
There have been many invocations in this thread of the hazards to the slides and evacuating pax from burning pooled fuel. But I can not recall any cases where evacuating pax suffered injuries from this particular hazard.
There is also the argument that in a timely evacuation, there will be less pooled fuel to worry about.
If anybody can let us know of any cases where pooled fuel imperiled an evacuation, it would be a useful contribution to the discussion.
There are of course a number of cases where pax succumbed because they did not evacuate in time.
Minimising damage to the airframe and preventing fire spread comes after.
There have been many invocations in this thread of the hazards to the slides and evacuating pax from burning pooled fuel. But I can not recall any cases where evacuating pax suffered injuries from this particular hazard.
There is also the argument that in a timely evacuation, there will be less pooled fuel to worry about.
If anybody can let us know of any cases where pooled fuel imperiled an evacuation, it would be a useful contribution to the discussion.
There are of course a number of cases where pax succumbed because they did not evacuate in time.
There is no simple formula in the case of ground fires.
I once was starting engines on pushback on a 4 eng heavy and the ground crew on the intercom shouted "engine fire". Company policy was evacuation if flame was positively sighted. I questioned the fire call as to its nature "smoke or flame" and he said "just showers of sparks". It turned out to be the starter motor disintegrating and the sparks stopped after about half a minute and no evac was necessary.
We need very positive guidelines but not absolute, blind rules. In the end, it comes down to experience, communication and judgement and even then there are no guarantees.
I once was starting engines on pushback on a 4 eng heavy and the ground crew on the intercom shouted "engine fire". Company policy was evacuation if flame was positively sighted. I questioned the fire call as to its nature "smoke or flame" and he said "just showers of sparks". It turned out to be the starter motor disintegrating and the sparks stopped after about half a minute and no evac was necessary.
We need very positive guidelines but not absolute, blind rules. In the end, it comes down to experience, communication and judgement and even then there are no guarantees.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: the City by the Bay
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If a whole wing and engine is on fire , not just smoking a little but great big flames that can be seen a mile away is not enough to evacuate then what is?
Wait till the wing actually explodes?
Raise your hand if you think any of these airlines (just to name a very few) in their home countries would NOT evacuate in this instance:
1. Lufthansa in Germany.
2. United Airlines in the USA.
3. British Airways in the UK.
4. Air France in France.
5. Japan Airlines in Japan.
6. Delta in the USA.
7. Southwest in the USA.
Just to name a few airlines that are as big as SQ.
Wait till the wing actually explodes?
Raise your hand if you think any of these airlines (just to name a very few) in their home countries would NOT evacuate in this instance:
1. Lufthansa in Germany.
2. United Airlines in the USA.
3. British Airways in the UK.
4. Air France in France.
5. Japan Airlines in Japan.
6. Delta in the USA.
7. Southwest in the USA.
Just to name a few airlines that are as big as SQ.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Not far from a big Lake
Age: 81
Posts: 1,454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Going back to comments made by a passenger on a link in the OP, they were smelling fuel fumes in the cabin during the flight.
For those who are regularly around aircraft, ask yourself, What would the most likely source of fuel fumes in the cabin be? Now add the background information that you have just had a problem with oil quantity indications and engine vibrations sufficient to pull the engine back to idle.
Maybe this crew didn't know their systems well enough to logic out the likely core problem, but maintenance should have been able to figure out the possibilities.
The core problem of fuel leaking from the nacelle was not suspected by the flight crew, thus they did not look for confirmation, they did not request that the fire trucks be at the ready, and they did not operate the aircraft in a way to minimize the possibility of fire.
As a result, the crew was blind-sided by a fire that they were not expecting. There must have been sufficient glare from the fire that they knew something big was wrong, even if they could not see the wing from the cockpit.
Normalcy bias set this crew up for a big error. Suppose the trucks had been at the fire house instead of out on the airfield proceeding to another event. Suppose in the urgency of the event, some trucks got stuck taking a shortcut. Each fire is different, and one cannot blithely expect that fighting the fire will proceed in a linear fashion. If the fire had breached the cabin, it would have become a high tech gas chamber. Evacuation is the only logical course with a large uncontained fire.
BA got it right at Las Vegas. SIA got lucky.
For those who are regularly around aircraft, ask yourself, What would the most likely source of fuel fumes in the cabin be? Now add the background information that you have just had a problem with oil quantity indications and engine vibrations sufficient to pull the engine back to idle.
Maybe this crew didn't know their systems well enough to logic out the likely core problem, but maintenance should have been able to figure out the possibilities.
The core problem of fuel leaking from the nacelle was not suspected by the flight crew, thus they did not look for confirmation, they did not request that the fire trucks be at the ready, and they did not operate the aircraft in a way to minimize the possibility of fire.
As a result, the crew was blind-sided by a fire that they were not expecting. There must have been sufficient glare from the fire that they knew something big was wrong, even if they could not see the wing from the cockpit.
Normalcy bias set this crew up for a big error. Suppose the trucks had been at the fire house instead of out on the airfield proceeding to another event. Suppose in the urgency of the event, some trucks got stuck taking a shortcut. Each fire is different, and one cannot blithely expect that fighting the fire will proceed in a linear fashion. If the fire had breached the cabin, it would have become a high tech gas chamber. Evacuation is the only logical course with a large uncontained fire.
BA got it right at Las Vegas. SIA got lucky.
As I said multiple posts back, I do not know definitively whether the pilot made the correct call or not.
But I suspect that, had I been a passenger, I might have been a bit vocal about getting the doors open ASAP.
But putting aside the pros and cons .... what do you all (or all the proponents of EVACUATE EVACUATE) expect to happen now, about this particular incident?
Do you expect SQ to stand up and admit negligent nonfeasance (thanks Huck, I like that set of phrases)?
I doubt that that will happen. Open a Pandora's box for litigation by passengers who are, at least physically, uninjured.
And besides, do you think any other major airline would stand up and make such an admission?
Genuine injury cases can still be fought without admission of guilt by SQ.
Do you expect SQ to make a public spectacle of the Captain? I doubt that that will happen either - it would be tantamount to admitting some level of culpability - refer previous point above.
Do you expect severe disciplinary action against the Captain, crew or anyone else?
Some have called for his head. I doubt that that is either a) appropriate or, b) will happen when there were no actual or readily-identified negative consequences arising from his decision.
Some review of procedures and re-training might come out of this, but I doubt that this forum will get to know those details either.
And finally, do you expect SQ to invoke a stream of public, self-flagellation?
Good luck with that one, too.
But I suspect that, had I been a passenger, I might have been a bit vocal about getting the doors open ASAP.
But putting aside the pros and cons .... what do you all (or all the proponents of EVACUATE EVACUATE) expect to happen now, about this particular incident?
Do you expect SQ to stand up and admit negligent nonfeasance (thanks Huck, I like that set of phrases)?
I doubt that that will happen. Open a Pandora's box for litigation by passengers who are, at least physically, uninjured.
And besides, do you think any other major airline would stand up and make such an admission?
Genuine injury cases can still be fought without admission of guilt by SQ.
Do you expect SQ to make a public spectacle of the Captain? I doubt that that will happen either - it would be tantamount to admitting some level of culpability - refer previous point above.
Do you expect severe disciplinary action against the Captain, crew or anyone else?
Some have called for his head. I doubt that that is either a) appropriate or, b) will happen when there were no actual or readily-identified negative consequences arising from his decision.
Some review of procedures and re-training might come out of this, but I doubt that this forum will get to know those details either.
And finally, do you expect SQ to invoke a stream of public, self-flagellation?
Good luck with that one, too.
Last edited by WingNut60; 10th Jul 2016 at 06:35.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: On the chopping board.
Posts: 929
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
Interesting to note in Jabawocky's video that the aircraft still appears to have electrical power available for cabin info signs and ife systems. Other engine still operating? I doubt they would have started the APU.
Surely if you had a fire that big and were for whatever reason mithering over calling an evacuation you'd run the evac checklist down to shutting off the engines so you're as ready as you can be - and if required can instantly make the "EVACUATE" call? Why would anyone not do that - unless the rabbit in the headlights scenario that I suggested a long way back was correct.
It strikes me as very odd indeed that either engine was still running - they surely weren't starting the APU...?
They don't seem to have even been ready for an evacuation, and that's very odd indeed.
It strikes me as very odd indeed that either engine was still running - they surely weren't starting the APU...?
They don't seem to have even been ready for an evacuation, and that's very odd indeed.
I'll bet the APU was running all the way back before landing. Problem with an Engine and you may have to shut it down? I'd have started it for sure.
Besides it takes 40 seconds to start and get online......
Besides it takes 40 seconds to start and get online......
Anyway, time to shutdown this thread as its running around in circles now chasing its tail because people here haven't read it all and are posting the same ideas/theories....
Let's now wait for the report shall we....
Let's now wait for the report shall we....
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting to note in Jabawocky's video that the aircraft still appears to have electrical power available for cabin info signs and ife systems
Probably powered from the hot battery bus, no engine or APU requirement, any engineers out there?
Regarding the Las Vegas evacuation, judging by the number of pax walking away with their carry-on baggage, just how well controlled was that evacuation? Since the engine catastophically failed the crew were never in any doubt about the seriousness of the event, were they?
Far too many people here ready to ignore all available information and evacuate regardless, thereby possibly increasing the danger to their passengers, even more disturbing is their utter contempt for any one who suggests otherwise, pending examination of the facts. Had the fire breached the cabin then no doubt, the CC would have initiated an evacuation if the captain didn't, as they are trained to do.
For those so ready to condem SQ I suggest you maybe ignoring the other major carriers records;
Lufthansa
British Airways
Air France
Just to name a few, (and two of which are on my 'No Fly' list.)
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 55
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Probably powered from the hot battery bus, no engine or APU requirement, any engineers out there?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Thailand
Age: 75
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, as SLF I know one thing: If I looked out of the window and saw that magnitude of fire under the wing, and, what, 3mm thick aluminium skin between the fire and several tons of kerosine...does this aircraft have a centre tank? ...another several tons of kerosine right under the cabin floor. I know that I would have wanted out of that cabin urgently, and I know I would have been a tad rude to anyone prohibiting my exit.
Last edited by TomU; 10th Jul 2016 at 13:44. Reason: Changed "obstructing" to "prohibiting".
I (hope to) have my license revalidated next week.
On the RTO or whatever evacuation drill i will wait....
and wait
and wait
I will let you know what the TRE says.....
On the RTO or whatever evacuation drill i will wait....
and wait
and wait
I will let you know what the TRE says.....
Had the fire breached the cabin then no doubt, the CC would have initiated an evacuation if the captain didn't, as they are trained to do.
Once there's smoke in the cabin, initiating evacuation at that point will prove too late for a significant proportion of pax.
I noted that the passengers remained mostly calm although concerned in this event.
From the Singapore locals, news etc. what is the status of the AAIB early report with a timeframe for updates?
Have interviews been completed and DFDR/CVR time lines released?
At least this part of the investigation would be of immediate use to other operators.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Reading
Age: 41
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and once they had opened a door there was sure to be smoke in the cabin.
I noted that the passengers remained mostly calm although concerned in this event.
From the Singapore locals, news etc. what is the status of the AAIB early report with a timeframe for updates?
Have interviews been completed and DFDR/CVR time lines released?
At least this part of the investigation would be of immediate use to other operators.
I noted that the passengers remained mostly calm although concerned in this event.
From the Singapore locals, news etc. what is the status of the AAIB early report with a timeframe for updates?
Have interviews been completed and DFDR/CVR time lines released?
At least this part of the investigation would be of immediate use to other operators.
They do seem to have a few more incidents and strangely handled events than you might expect from a seemingly top class operator. Food for thought. I say this as someone for whom they are my favourite airline to fly.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Reading
Age: 41
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Far too many people here ready to ignore all available information and evacuate regardless, thereby possibly increasing the danger to their passengers, even more disturbing is their utter contempt for any one who suggests otherwise, pending examination of the facts. Had the fire breached the cabin then no doubt, the CC would have initiated an evacuation if the captain didn't, as they are trained to do.
For those so ready to condem SQ I suggest you maybe ignoring the other major carriers records;
Lufthansa
British Airways
Air France
Just to name a few, (and two of which are on my 'No Fly' list.)
For those so ready to condem SQ I suggest you maybe ignoring the other major carriers records;
Lufthansa
British Airways
Air France
Just to name a few, (and two of which are on my 'No Fly' list.)
As has been pointed out, on the timeline involved other planes have been burning wrecks by the time fire services were on it. Fire spreads fast. It's pure luck it didn't end very badly, and you don't sit there with a fire burning crossing the fingers. Even with fire crew on the way, the fuselage could be aflame in seconds.
The videos also show a disturbing lack of direction from crew to pax. There seems to have been a collapse of authority and no-one wiling to make a decision.
I would normally agree we should wait for the report, but given the track record of SQ in this area and their government's efforts to protect the brand at all costs, (you won't get any Singaporean journalists asking tough questions) I think that's naive.