SQ-368 (engine & wing on fire) final report out
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 929
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Says it all in this ridiculouse bean counter in charge world.
I wonder if SIA ops were involved.
I wonder if SIA ops were involved.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Worldwide
Posts: 1,468
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You have cameras that show you the outside?
You have a professional fire crew outside that you can get in touch with and get informations from?
You have real passengers and slides?
Pretty big training centre
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Singapore
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Singapore
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rabbits in the headlights is a better explanation. This time, given the timeline, it's hard to blame the bean counters...
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Singapore
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.)
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: Jun 2016
Location: Singapore
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
External video
The original external video (the landscape one) has been taken down. No doubt local pressure. (Copies still exist)
I am guessing from a member of ground staff, a local malay-speaking Singaporean (less likely) or a Malaysian (more likely). I can't tell the difference.
Even if you don't understand the Malay, the anxiety in his voice is clear. At one point, he says "they are going further away!", referring the the RFC that (wisely) took the long way around. Later he says "they are already close!" as they arrive. The change in tone is very noticeable at that point.
From the viewpoint he had, he could probably not tell if there was a LHS evac ongoing. He doesn't mention evac at all, as far as I can tell.
But what is clear is the fear and anxiety in his voice during the first minute (he mentions fire at least 5 or 6 times in the first minute).
Ironically, he seems a lot more fearful than many of the passengers. And the fc that seemingly tapped their fingers (or perhaps crossed their fingers) during the first couple of minutes...
I am guessing from a member of ground staff, a local malay-speaking Singaporean (less likely) or a Malaysian (more likely). I can't tell the difference.
Even if you don't understand the Malay, the anxiety in his voice is clear. At one point, he says "they are going further away!", referring the the RFC that (wisely) took the long way around. Later he says "they are already close!" as they arrive. The change in tone is very noticeable at that point.
From the viewpoint he had, he could probably not tell if there was a LHS evac ongoing. He doesn't mention evac at all, as far as I can tell.
But what is clear is the fear and anxiety in his voice during the first minute (he mentions fire at least 5 or 6 times in the first minute).
Ironically, he seems a lot more fearful than many of the passengers. And the fc that seemingly tapped their fingers (or perhaps crossed their fingers) during the first couple of minutes...
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You seem to have a problem in logic.
Given 2 choices A and B; each with risk of injury/death to passengers the captain makes choice B based on external expert advice and risk assessment with the known information.
At the time of the decision it is unknown whether that decision will be right or wrong.
The choice B made leads to no injuries to passengers.
Looking back (hindsight) the decision not to evacuate was the correct one. It was not known at the time (foresight) if the decision would be correct or not.
Given 2 choices A and B; each with risk of injury/death to passengers the captain makes choice B based on external expert advice and risk assessment with the known information.
At the time of the decision it is unknown whether that decision will be right or wrong.
The choice B made leads to no injuries to passengers.
Looking back (hindsight) the decision not to evacuate was the correct one. It was not known at the time (foresight) if the decision would be correct or not.
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Harbour Master Place
Posts: 662
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the captain makes choice B based on external expert advice and risk assessment with the known information.
I suggest waiting for the report before making such statements.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Reading
Age: 41
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looking back (hindsight) the decision not to evacuate was the correct one. It was not known at the time (foresight) if the decision would be correct or not.
Aviation did not become as safe as it is by working on a philosophy of 'well no-one got hurt so it's all fine, nothing to see here.' Or are you saying BA maintanence procedures were fine before the engine cowl incident? No-one died so maintanence made the right call. The pilot made the right decision not to check they were latched? It's absurd logic.
I can't imagine there are many actual pilots here who could honestly say they wouldn't evacuate in such a situation. There also seems to have been zero guidance or instruction given to passengers either from flight deck or cabin crew (who I guess were waiting for their orders). With a wing on fire, no-one could have blamed pax for taking matters into their own hands, which might have ended very badly.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And that's the point. It was not known it would be the correct one. That's why there are procedures in place, based on balance of probability, about what to do, if for example, a wing full of fuel is on fire. And those procedures are very clear. There is no risk assessment that could have said it would be safer to be on board, as soon as the fuselage is breached, people die. Unless the captain was recieving information from a psychic that that couldn't possible happen, it was the wrong call.
Aviation did not become as safe as it is by working on a philosophy of 'well no-one got hurt so it's all fine, nothing to see here.' Or are you saying BA maintanence procedures were fine before the engine cowl incident? No-one died so maintanence made the right call. The pilot made the right decision not to check they were latched? It's absurd logic.
I can't imagine there are many actual pilots here who could honestly say they wouldn't evacuate in such a situation. There also seems to have been zero guidance or instruction given to passengers either from flight deck or cabin crew (who I guess were waiting for their orders). With a wing on fire, no-one could have blamed pax for taking matters into their own hands, which might have ended very badly.
Aviation did not become as safe as it is by working on a philosophy of 'well no-one got hurt so it's all fine, nothing to see here.' Or are you saying BA maintanence procedures were fine before the engine cowl incident? No-one died so maintanence made the right call. The pilot made the right decision not to check they were latched? It's absurd logic.
I can't imagine there are many actual pilots here who could honestly say they wouldn't evacuate in such a situation. There also seems to have been zero guidance or instruction given to passengers either from flight deck or cabin crew (who I guess were waiting for their orders). With a wing on fire, no-one could have blamed pax for taking matters into their own hands, which might have ended very badly.
He may not have been dealing with just a balance of probabilities but professional advice from the fire service.
So you are making the assumption that if you were captain and on the ground with a wing on fire and no other inputs you would evacuate. Probably the captain in this case would have done so too. But if he knew the wing tanks were empty and had been told by the fire service that the fire was not too severe, was not spreading and they estimated less than a minute to extinguish if he did not evacuate you would presumably tell the fire service to wind their necks in and withdraw you were going to evacuate anyway as it was 'a no brainer decision'. Therefore you would not use your brain take no notice of input information tell the fire service to stop trying to kill the fire pull back and let you evacuate the pax on the slides (that is of course if the NonRevs who post on here had not already fought their way past the flight attendants and started the evacuation for you).
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Reading
Age: 41
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Neither you nor I know what the captain was told.
He may not have been dealing with just a balance of probabilities but professional advice from the fire service.
So you are making the assumption that if you were captain and on the ground with a wing on fire and no other inputs you would evacuate. Probably the captain in this case would have done so too. But if he knew the wing tanks were empty and had been told by the fire service that the fire was not too severe, was not spreading and they estimated less than a minute to extinguish if he did not evacuate you would presumably tell the fire service to wind their necks in and withdraw you were going to evacuate anyway as it was 'a no brainer decision'. Therefore you would not use your brain take no notice of input information tell the fire service to stop trying to kill the fire pull back and let you evacuate the pax on the slides (that is of course if the NonRevs who post on here had not already fought their way past the flight attendants and started the evacuation for you).
He may not have been dealing with just a balance of probabilities but professional advice from the fire service.
So you are making the assumption that if you were captain and on the ground with a wing on fire and no other inputs you would evacuate. Probably the captain in this case would have done so too. But if he knew the wing tanks were empty and had been told by the fire service that the fire was not too severe, was not spreading and they estimated less than a minute to extinguish if he did not evacuate you would presumably tell the fire service to wind their necks in and withdraw you were going to evacuate anyway as it was 'a no brainer decision'. Therefore you would not use your brain take no notice of input information tell the fire service to stop trying to kill the fire pull back and let you evacuate the pax on the slides (that is of course if the NonRevs who post on here had not already fought their way past the flight attendants and started the evacuation for you).
No I don't know what the captain was told. But fire crew were not at the scene when the plane stopped and there clearly was a severe fire. I will offer my apologies if proven wrong, but I don't believe the fire chief told the captain there wasn't a severe fire. Even if he did, cabin crew should have been providing very different information about what was actually happening...
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Washington state
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can you imagine defending this case in front of a jury if any passengers had died?
Another word for an empty wing tank is "bomb". Small amounts of fuel are more easily vaporized by heat from the fire, and vaporized fuel explodes rather than burns.
I do not believe that civilian craft have inserting systems, but even then you are now relying on the inerting system to be working properly in the presence of an uncontained fire.
Another word for an empty wing tank is "bomb". Small amounts of fuel are more easily vaporized by heat from the fire, and vaporized fuel explodes rather than burns.
I do not believe that civilian craft have inserting systems, but even then you are now relying on the inerting system to be working properly in the presence of an uncontained fire.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Reading
Age: 41
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can you imagine defending this case in front of a jury if any passengers had died?
Another word for an empty wing tank is "bomb". Small amounts of fuel are more easily vaporized by heat from the fire, and vaporized fuel explodes rather than burns.
I do not believe that civilian craft have inserting systems, but even then you are now relying on the inerting system to be working properly in the presence of an uncontained fire.
Another word for an empty wing tank is "bomb". Small amounts of fuel are more easily vaporized by heat from the fire, and vaporized fuel explodes rather than burns.
I do not believe that civilian craft have inserting systems, but even then you are now relying on the inerting system to be working properly in the presence of an uncontained fire.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: ???
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So you are making the assumption that if you were captain and on the ground with a wing on fire and no other inputs you would evacuate
On the ground, wing on fire = get the f out. I don't care what analysis anyone gives me about the state of the fire. get them out first. What is wrong with some People? How can this even be a discussion point at all!
i have read and followed all posts and commented a few times -
I cannot believe by now we do not have some solid info apart from social media from outside and inside the 777 (good videos, very good, showing clearly all that went on with a good timeline from the roll out and full stop to spraying foam on target)
I do not accept that the FD were not told immediately and most likely during the roll out by ATC that ''you have large flames on and under your Right wing and RH engine''
with that ONE call the FD would know they are in big trouble and by the time they had fully stopped they would have seen the fire trucks in front of them - what happened next in the flight deck is what i wait for in the report to tell me how they reacted and why
The crew were seemingly in a comfort zone of a non emergency turn around and return to SIN with a low oil pressure (thats for another debate) and with a decline to ATC for any assistance on arrival - that we do know
I cannot believe by now we do not have some solid info apart from social media from outside and inside the 777 (good videos, very good, showing clearly all that went on with a good timeline from the roll out and full stop to spraying foam on target)
I do not accept that the FD were not told immediately and most likely during the roll out by ATC that ''you have large flames on and under your Right wing and RH engine''
with that ONE call the FD would know they are in big trouble and by the time they had fully stopped they would have seen the fire trucks in front of them - what happened next in the flight deck is what i wait for in the report to tell me how they reacted and why
The crew were seemingly in a comfort zone of a non emergency turn around and return to SIN with a low oil pressure (thats for another debate) and with a decline to ATC for any assistance on arrival - that we do know
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: In a bottle
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets put this is perspective: When sully ditched into the Hudson, no body questioned if the 'ditching-switch was on .obviously off as the rear slides were unusable and if 50 folks had drowned not being able to get out... they would be blaming you know who... but the outcome was favorable.
so aircraft on fire... no evacuation... everybody got out safe... like the Hudson... outcome is favorable... they didn't poke holes at the miracle on the Hudson... do we need it here?????
fact: fire engines were on standby and were by the a/c side the moment the a/c came to a stop. fire chief told the a/c captain not to evacuate , fire chief said this twice. Fire chief said the fire is under control and there is fuel spillage on the tarmac making an emergency evacuation unsafe.
so experience but sub standard SQ captain didn't evacuate despite raging fire on wing..... should have not listen to fire chief but listen to you arm chair captains.....then maybe ... just maybe everybody might walk out of this alive.....oh hang on... that happened.
so aircraft on fire... no evacuation... everybody got out safe... like the Hudson... outcome is favorable... they didn't poke holes at the miracle on the Hudson... do we need it here?????
fact: fire engines were on standby and were by the a/c side the moment the a/c came to a stop. fire chief told the a/c captain not to evacuate , fire chief said this twice. Fire chief said the fire is under control and there is fuel spillage on the tarmac making an emergency evacuation unsafe.
so experience but sub standard SQ captain didn't evacuate despite raging fire on wing..... should have not listen to fire chief but listen to you arm chair captains.....then maybe ... just maybe everybody might walk out of this alive.....oh hang on... that happened.
Lets put this is perspective: When sully ditched into the Hudson, no body questioned if the 'ditching-switch was on .obviously off as the rear slides were unusable and if 50 folks had drowned not being able to get out... they would be blaming you know who... but the outcome was favorable.
so aircraft on fire... no evacuation... everybody got out safe... like the Hudson... outcome is favorable... they didn't poke holes at the miracle on the Hudson... do we need it here?????
fact: fire engines were on standby and were by the a/c side the moment the a/c came to a stop. fire chief told the a/c captain not to evacuate , fire chief said this twice. Fire chief said the fire is under control and there is fuel spillage on the tarmac making an emergency evacuation unsafe.
so experience but sub standard SQ captain didn't evacuate despite raging fire on wing..... should have not listen to fire chief but listen to you arm chair captains.....then maybe ... just maybe everybody might walk out of this alive.....oh hang on... that happened.
so aircraft on fire... no evacuation... everybody got out safe... like the Hudson... outcome is favorable... they didn't poke holes at the miracle on the Hudson... do we need it here?????
fact: fire engines were on standby and were by the a/c side the moment the a/c came to a stop. fire chief told the a/c captain not to evacuate , fire chief said this twice. Fire chief said the fire is under control and there is fuel spillage on the tarmac making an emergency evacuation unsafe.
so experience but sub standard SQ captain didn't evacuate despite raging fire on wing..... should have not listen to fire chief but listen to you arm chair captains.....then maybe ... just maybe everybody might walk out of this alive.....oh hang on... that happened.
i have followed this incident as carefully as poss.
re your ''facts''
where did you see/read/hear the fire chief told them not to EVAC, twice, you state? and that an EVAC was unsafe - sorry that is news to me....
the fire trucks were not on standby - they were out on another shout (or drill) and were diverted to the landing 777 by then on fire (lucky for them, saving a couple of minutes prep and drive)
yes they were pumping foam on target within 1 min 7 secs of a full stop with 3 trucks spraying by 2 min 50 secs
2 main factors that saved them from this being a major - the wind blew the fire away from cabin on the RHS (the LHS was all clear and no fire pooling there) and that the fire trucks were already on the field nearby and on the move already
if the trucks had been sitting in the station instead of being already out on the field or wind direction was not in their favour then the outcome here would have been rather different
Last edited by rog747; 11th Jul 2016 at 07:01.
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
The"radio silence" regarding the lack of post-event photographs and information for this particular event has been amazing. It demonstrates the Singaporean Authorities ability to lock down their people and media. It has also left a vacuum of information about what actually happened on the flight deck. Of course, nature (and humans) abhor such a vacuum so this thread has been filled with speculation.
Nothing is locked down in Singapore. That's all I can say.
PS, a lot of CC forums are awash with more fine detail, if you can figure out the Singlish. If things were 'locked' down, nobody would post such stuff anywhere.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Back of Beyond
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jesus wept; big difference slayer!
Sully screwed up slightly and forgot the 'ditch switch' in the rush. Yup, could've ended in tears if his luck wasn't on his side that day. But things went his way on that occasion.
These chaps decided not to evac when the bloody airplane was on FIRE!!!
Sully screwed up slightly and forgot the 'ditch switch' in the rush. Yup, could've ended in tears if his luck wasn't on his side that day. But things went his way on that occasion.
These chaps decided not to evac when the bloody airplane was on FIRE!!!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: In a bottle
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rog.. fire trucks were on local stby.. cos the guys declared single eng apph coming inbound into sin.....where I got my facts will put some people in a difficult position... so once AAIB comes out with report .... it will be available for public viewing... but those are the facts... however what sq had going that morning as you rightly pointed out was the wind....had it been blowing in the opposite direction... the outcome would not have been favorable...