SQ-368 (engine & wing on fire) final report out
"I am surprised nobody else posted this info yet. On Tue, 27JUL04, a UPS 752 caught on fire while under going maintenance for a fuel leak. I think it was a/c 410. I have got pics but I left my camera in my tool box at work, I will load some pics when I bring it home. The fire damaged the pylon, flaps, aileron, flap track fairings. Heat damage seemed to be the fillet fairing, and the lower fuel tank structure surrounding the pylon. The airport fire department responded very quickly and saved the rest of the a/c. Currently the a/c is parked inside DL's hangar, yesterday reps from UPS and Boeing spent the day examining/evaluating the a/c. I will post more info and pics as I get them. "
FWIW, I was involved in the investigation of that incident - in short it was the mother of all tailpipe fires.
Due to a procedural error while troubleshooting a strut fuel leak, they had managed to pool an estimated 10 to 20 gallons of fuel in the burner. They then decided to start the engine.
It doesn't take much fuel to make a good sized fire...
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lomapaseo (and parabellum),
I'm aware that the cabin didn't breach, but how could the crew have possibly known that it wouldn't? Look at how quickly the cabins have breached in most comparable situations, including Okinawa, Manchester, and the most recent case on the same type... To sit there and do nothing with a raging fire is extraordinary negligence. Had the fire penetrated, there is no way they could have evacuated everyone. It was blind luck that nobody was lost as a result of this failure to make a decision.
I'm aware that the cabin didn't breach, but how could the crew have possibly known that it wouldn't? Look at how quickly the cabins have breached in most comparable situations, including Okinawa, Manchester, and the most recent case on the same type... To sit there and do nothing with a raging fire is extraordinary negligence. Had the fire penetrated, there is no way they could have evacuated everyone. It was blind luck that nobody was lost as a result of this failure to make a decision.
I'm aware that the cabin didn't breach, but how could the crew have possibly known that it wouldn't? Look at how quickly the cabins have breached in most comparable situations, including Okinawa, Manchester, and the most recent case on the same type... To sit there and do nothing with a raging fire is extraordinary negligence. Had the fire penetrated, there is no way they could have evacuated everyone. It was blind luck that nobody was lost as a result of this failure to make a decision.
My point was a general comment on the data having to do with the significance of opening doors to evacuate and after that what you call a breach.
To me the burn through breach from a ground pool fire would look a lot different than the result pics that one sees along the top of the fuselage. I'm not saying an initiating fire breach never happens, but just that opening doors followed by a fire entrance happens more often in a time frame.
just thinking as a passenger, I like the time to think as long as I can still breathe good air. I make no judgments about the crew actions and leave that to the experts who trained them.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hawaii
Age: 76
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your comparables are not comparable.In Okinawa , a fuel tank was punctured by a slat upstop bolt and Manchester there was a fuel tank plate punctured that allowed the entire contents of the tank to pour out.The latest was a crash.
The paint on the fuselage of SIA wasn't even discolored.
The paint on the fuselage of SIA wasn't even discolored.
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Another FBO !
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Singapore
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Luckily...
The "evacs" are saying it should have been an evac, despite the hindsight that everyone survived.
Whilst you are saying the call was good because they all survived (in hindsight).
And then we have the fence sitters, who refuse to make a decision before they have all the facts. Much like the FC perhaps?Ideal, yes. Real life, no.
The pilots did not have 5 mins to collect facts. They probably had a tail camera view, they had a cabin crew with working eyes. They could see the RFF driving past them and away from them, out of the RHS cockpit window. They could probably sense thd glow from the cockpit at that time in the morning. The RFF had not yet arrived. You don't need fence sitters in that scenario...
If the RFF were in position at wheels stop, then maybe I it is debatable. But they were still a minute plus out. That's a long time when you have a wing fire and you have no idea why or what...
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Singapore
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My guess is around 3-4 minutes. You may notice the fire is well underway at the beginning of the video!
Yeah! Really sublime! The pax got to watch the plane burning for at least 3 mins. The "we need to run" quote at the beginning of the video says it all.
It is worrying that the pax can call it better than the cc or the fc. Okay, you can't see that from the cockpit but let's not forget that the fc have legs. That's why we land with the window shades up, right? So we can eyeball the wings and engines?
The cc should have called it, but this is Asia. What does "father" (boss) say?
I have no doubt the if one of the fc had got off their arse, and seen what the pax were seeing, it would have been an immediate evac..
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: I used to know
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To Lomapaseo and Parabellum
Firstly we as hindsight observers can see from the video a fire outside. At the time we would not have known what was burning, how effective the fire services would or wouldn't be, or how quickly the fire would burn through if at all etc. Based on that the majority here including myself would have ordered an evacuation.
The fire at Manchester breached the hull in a matter of seconds, fire did not enter through any open doors. The smoke that entered created a sense of panic in the passengers, this is all from the official report. Waiting until the fire breaches before ordering an evacuation is time wasted. Once smoke or flames enter the cabin it is almost a certainty that people will die. By 1 minute after stopping it is highly likely that pax had already died at Manchester. foam did not start in this case until after 1 minute.
Watch the video of the evacuation in Dubai, there is no sense of urgency to get out, rather pax are looking for a normal exit procedure, getting luggage etc. The aisles are blocked and initially there is very little movement towards the exits. Now imagine thick smoke or flames entering that scene. How do you think people would have reacted?
The next question is why did the Flightdeck not order the evacuation? Remember that they were not in fire mode. They had a technical problem, an engine was not shut down but at idle, a normal approach and landing was made, thrust reversers were used. All perfectly normal and non emergency. Why did they stop on the runway? Was it a fire warning or had they already decided to stop so the fire services could inspect for leaks? From the cockpit it could be that they were unaware of the fire. The engine fire warning may not have sounded. If so why look at the ctv? From an earlier post refrencing a cabin crew forum post a cc states she was very busy blocking her door dealing with anxious pax including a mother and her child. She was unable to inform the flight deck or the senior about the situation outside. What if none of the cabin crew informed the flight deck? What if the tower didn't? What if the initial fire crews didn't comunicate? All these what ifs mean that it is entirely possible that the Flightdeck were unaware of the fire or how serious it was. Given that scenario what would your decision making process be? How long would it take? However I would like to think that if they were made aware of the true situation then they would have chosen to evacuate. FWIW the Captain is the person who is responsible for initiating an evacuation not the Fire Chief.
Finally Lomapaseo (and parabellum), at Manchester how long would you have delayed opening the doors?
Firstly we as hindsight observers can see from the video a fire outside. At the time we would not have known what was burning, how effective the fire services would or wouldn't be, or how quickly the fire would burn through if at all etc. Based on that the majority here including myself would have ordered an evacuation.
The fire at Manchester breached the hull in a matter of seconds, fire did not enter through any open doors. The smoke that entered created a sense of panic in the passengers, this is all from the official report. Waiting until the fire breaches before ordering an evacuation is time wasted. Once smoke or flames enter the cabin it is almost a certainty that people will die. By 1 minute after stopping it is highly likely that pax had already died at Manchester. foam did not start in this case until after 1 minute.
Watch the video of the evacuation in Dubai, there is no sense of urgency to get out, rather pax are looking for a normal exit procedure, getting luggage etc. The aisles are blocked and initially there is very little movement towards the exits. Now imagine thick smoke or flames entering that scene. How do you think people would have reacted?
The next question is why did the Flightdeck not order the evacuation? Remember that they were not in fire mode. They had a technical problem, an engine was not shut down but at idle, a normal approach and landing was made, thrust reversers were used. All perfectly normal and non emergency. Why did they stop on the runway? Was it a fire warning or had they already decided to stop so the fire services could inspect for leaks? From the cockpit it could be that they were unaware of the fire. The engine fire warning may not have sounded. If so why look at the ctv? From an earlier post refrencing a cabin crew forum post a cc states she was very busy blocking her door dealing with anxious pax including a mother and her child. She was unable to inform the flight deck or the senior about the situation outside. What if none of the cabin crew informed the flight deck? What if the tower didn't? What if the initial fire crews didn't comunicate? All these what ifs mean that it is entirely possible that the Flightdeck were unaware of the fire or how serious it was. Given that scenario what would your decision making process be? How long would it take? However I would like to think that if they were made aware of the true situation then they would have chosen to evacuate. FWIW the Captain is the person who is responsible for initiating an evacuation not the Fire Chief.
Finally Lomapaseo (and parabellum), at Manchester how long would you have delayed opening the doors?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: south england
Posts: 393
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I apologise, I hadn't realised that PT6 and Julio etc are cabin crew, now I understand where you are coming from. You would have ordered the evacuation because you had a clear understanding of what was going on outside the aircraft.
As cabin crew would you make every effort to ensure the flight crew were aware of the situation unfolding or would you classify it as clearly catastrophic and innitiate the evacuation of your own accord? The only reason I ask is you need to be careful because in this situation if both engines have not been shut down prior to innitiating an evac from the cabin you could be putting peoples lives at risk.
Of course, if you are flight crew passing comment, you can assume as much as you like, but until you know what the flight crew knew on the day you cannot pass judgement (well ok, you have and will continue to do so, but to do so is foolish).
GBD
As cabin crew would you make every effort to ensure the flight crew were aware of the situation unfolding or would you classify it as clearly catastrophic and innitiate the evacuation of your own accord? The only reason I ask is you need to be careful because in this situation if both engines have not been shut down prior to innitiating an evac from the cabin you could be putting peoples lives at risk.
Of course, if you are flight crew passing comment, you can assume as much as you like, but until you know what the flight crew knew on the day you cannot pass judgement (well ok, you have and will continue to do so, but to do so is foolish).
GBD
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Singapore
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excellent post....
To Lomapaseo and Parabellum
Firstly we as hindsight observers can see from the video a fire outside. At the time we would not have known what was burning, how effective the fire services would or wouldn't be, or how quickly the fire would burn through if at all etc. Based on that the majority here including myself would have ordered an evacuation.
The fire at Manchester breached the hull in a matter of seconds, fire did not enter through any open doors. The smoke that entered created a sense of panic in the passengers, this is all from the official report. Waiting until the fire breaches before ordering an evacuation is time wasted. Once smoke or flames enter the cabin it is almost a certainty that people will die. By 1 minute after stopping it is highly likely that pax had already died at Manchester. foam did not start in this case until after 1 minute.
Watch the video of the evacuation in Dubai, there is no sense of urgency to get out, rather pax are looking for a normal exit procedure, getting luggage etc. The aisles are blocked and initially there is very little movement towards the exits. Now imagine thick smoke or flames entering that scene. How do you think people would have reacted?
The next question is why did the Flightdeck not order the evacuation? Remember that they were not in fire mode. They had a technical problem, an engine was not shut down but at idle, a normal approach and landing was made, thrust reversers were used. All perfectly normal and non emergency. Why did they stop on the runway? Was it a fire warning or had they already decided to stop so the fire services could inspect for leaks? From the cockpit it could be that they were unaware of the fire. The engine fire warning may not have sounded. If so why look at the ctv? From an earlier post refrencing a cabin crew forum post a cc states she was very busy blocking her door dealing with anxious pax including a mother and her child. She was unable to inform the flight deck or the senior about the situation outside. What if none of the cabin crew informed the flight deck? What if the tower didn't? What if the initial fire crews didn't comunicate? All these what ifs mean that it is entirely possible that the Flightdeck were unaware of the fire or how serious it was. Given that scenario what would your decision making process be? How long would it take? However I would like to think that if they were made aware of the true situation then they would have chosen to evacuate. FWIW the Captain is the person who is responsible for initiating an evacuation not the Fire Chief.
Finally Lomapaseo (and parabellum), at Manchester how long would you have delayed opening the doors?
Firstly we as hindsight observers can see from the video a fire outside. At the time we would not have known what was burning, how effective the fire services would or wouldn't be, or how quickly the fire would burn through if at all etc. Based on that the majority here including myself would have ordered an evacuation.
The fire at Manchester breached the hull in a matter of seconds, fire did not enter through any open doors. The smoke that entered created a sense of panic in the passengers, this is all from the official report. Waiting until the fire breaches before ordering an evacuation is time wasted. Once smoke or flames enter the cabin it is almost a certainty that people will die. By 1 minute after stopping it is highly likely that pax had already died at Manchester. foam did not start in this case until after 1 minute.
Watch the video of the evacuation in Dubai, there is no sense of urgency to get out, rather pax are looking for a normal exit procedure, getting luggage etc. The aisles are blocked and initially there is very little movement towards the exits. Now imagine thick smoke or flames entering that scene. How do you think people would have reacted?
The next question is why did the Flightdeck not order the evacuation? Remember that they were not in fire mode. They had a technical problem, an engine was not shut down but at idle, a normal approach and landing was made, thrust reversers were used. All perfectly normal and non emergency. Why did they stop on the runway? Was it a fire warning or had they already decided to stop so the fire services could inspect for leaks? From the cockpit it could be that they were unaware of the fire. The engine fire warning may not have sounded. If so why look at the ctv? From an earlier post refrencing a cabin crew forum post a cc states she was very busy blocking her door dealing with anxious pax including a mother and her child. She was unable to inform the flight deck or the senior about the situation outside. What if none of the cabin crew informed the flight deck? What if the tower didn't? What if the initial fire crews didn't comunicate? All these what ifs mean that it is entirely possible that the Flightdeck were unaware of the fire or how serious it was. Given that scenario what would your decision making process be? How long would it take? However I would like to think that if they were made aware of the true situation then they would have chosen to evacuate. FWIW the Captain is the person who is responsible for initiating an evacuation not the Fire Chief.
Finally Lomapaseo (and parabellum), at Manchester how long would you have delayed opening the doors?
So the tower would have said #2 is on fire to the fc. And when the a/c is already on the ground and stopped, my first instinct would be to send the FO to eyeball the situation and report.
OK, some conjecture I know. But if the fc did not see they were ablaze, someone did, and for sure that info got to the flight deck.
So here is the bottom line. You can either call evac on the news that #2 is on fire. Or you can send the FO back to take a look, and call evac when he reports the whole wing is on fire. These are the only two acceptable options. Doing nothing is not an option in that scenario.
If the cc tells you the same news, then evac is also the same answer. But I for one would send the FO back if I don't here anything from the cc.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: I used to know
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gatbus,
1 I did not say I was cabin crew and nowhere did I state that they should have initiated the evacuation on their own.
2. The main purpose of my posts has been to explicitly point out to those who say a decision to not evacuate was acceptable because the hull was not breached,is incorect
3. Nowhere in the above posts have I criticised the crew. Rather I have pointed out that we simply do not know what information the had available on which to make their decision.
4. I have highlighted above the fact that they could have been unaware of the fire and so did not consider evacuation.
5. Finally everyone here who states an evacuation would have been a good call bases that on the fact that we know the wing was on fire. There are some here who feel that the wing being on fire is insufficient evidence for an evacuation. I personally feel that if I had recieved the information thst the wing was on fire I would have evacuated.
1 I did not say I was cabin crew and nowhere did I state that they should have initiated the evacuation on their own.
2. The main purpose of my posts has been to explicitly point out to those who say a decision to not evacuate was acceptable because the hull was not breached,is incorect
3. Nowhere in the above posts have I criticised the crew. Rather I have pointed out that we simply do not know what information the had available on which to make their decision.
4. I have highlighted above the fact that they could have been unaware of the fire and so did not consider evacuation.
5. Finally everyone here who states an evacuation would have been a good call bases that on the fact that we know the wing was on fire. There are some here who feel that the wing being on fire is insufficient evidence for an evacuation. I personally feel that if I had recieved the information thst the wing was on fire I would have evacuated.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hf-QLDGgORk
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However I would like to think that if they were made aware of the true situation then they would have chosen to evacuate. FWIW the Captain is the person who is responsible for initiating an evacuation not the Fire Chief.
Having been made aware of the true situation they decided NOT to evacuate, the Fire Chief passes back up to date information from the scene of the fire and may add a recommendation. No one is arguing as to who makes the decision. Those that say they would have evacuated regardless of the information available are the ones who will deliver you out of the frying pan and literally, into the fire.
Finally, there is no comparison between the Manchester incident and the Singapore incident.
PT6Driver
You appear to ascribe to me more than was written in my posts.
I did not express an opinion about what the pilot did or should have done. I only expressed an opinion based on experience for myself as a passenger to start to panic (based on breathable air) and the knowledge that anything that breaks open the cabin with a fire letting smoke in means I need to get out in less than 2 mins.
You appear to ascribe to me more than was written in my posts.
I did not express an opinion about what the pilot did or should have done. I only expressed an opinion based on experience for myself as a passenger to start to panic (based on breathable air) and the knowledge that anything that breaks open the cabin with a fire letting smoke in means I need to get out in less than 2 mins.
anything that breaks open the cabin with a fire letting smoke in means I need to get out in less than 2 mins.
If you are fortunate enough to have a smoke hood in a cabin breach, all those between you and the exit will likely be prostrate in about 30 seconds.
Yesterday 13 young people were overcome in seconds before they could reach the exit
France Rouen fire kills 13 at birthday party - BBC News
Admittedly aircraft interiors are more carefully regulated, but once the cabin is breached, it will be too late for many.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Not far from a big Lake
Age: 81
Posts: 1,454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my personal opinion, this was clearly an evacuate situation at the moment the aircraft came to a stop. My past military training and actual experience in shipboard aircraft fire fighting lead me to that conclusion. This was no small fire. If the fire had proceeded unimpeded, it would be reasonable to expect the hull to be breached. The amount of fuel on the ground under the aircraft could not be known by the crew, but the scope of the fire clearly extended to one entire wing. There is no video or pictorial evidence to indicate that fire ever reached under the aircraft to the port side so it appears that an escape route was visibly available and that opening the doors on the port side of the aircraft would not have introduced fire or smoke.
Compare to:
Note that in the picture below, the burning engine fire was relatively small and localized and there were exits ahead and behind the source of the fire that were not scorched and apparently usable.
Compare to:
Originally Posted by NTSB Asiana Accident report.
After the airplane came to a stop, a fire initiated within the separated right engine, which came to rest adjacent to the right side of the fuselage. When one of the flight attendants became aware of the fire, he initiated an evacuation, and 98% of the passengers successfully self-evacuated. As the fire spread into the fuselage, firefighters entered the airplane and extricated five passengers (one of whom later died) who were injured and unable to evacuate. Overall, 99% of the airplane’s occupants survived
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Confusio Helvetica
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, every case is different, and this case is one where the whole thing didn't burn down. But, given the available information, they got damn lucky.
The interim report says it all; if they had anything positive to contribute to the non-evacuation debate, they would have at least said something. The decision to defer such a discussion was their way of not pouring fuel on another fire.
Asiana was a very different accident. The flight crew there, by the way, sent the F/As to stations and left them there too (except, of course, for the F/As who'd been ejected already). They waited 90 seconds in a breached, broken, and eventually burning aircraft before initiating an evacuation on their own while the boys at front fiddled with their radios.
Here, on the other hand, we have a problem that developed some time before and that the crew seems to have decided to combat largely with the power of positive thinking. At every step, their actions suggest someone seeing something anomalous and thinking: what's the best possible scenario?
An optimist's brief existence ends in absolute disappointment.
Put another way, accidents can and do happen to the most competent crews. But an accident is a powerful moment of cognitive dissonance, and you could have folks up front so far behind that they're doing everything to convince themselves there is no fire. How do you train for that?
The interim report says it all; if they had anything positive to contribute to the non-evacuation debate, they would have at least said something. The decision to defer such a discussion was their way of not pouring fuel on another fire.
Asiana was a very different accident. The flight crew there, by the way, sent the F/As to stations and left them there too (except, of course, for the F/As who'd been ejected already). They waited 90 seconds in a breached, broken, and eventually burning aircraft before initiating an evacuation on their own while the boys at front fiddled with their radios.
Here, on the other hand, we have a problem that developed some time before and that the crew seems to have decided to combat largely with the power of positive thinking. At every step, their actions suggest someone seeing something anomalous and thinking: what's the best possible scenario?
An optimist's brief existence ends in absolute disappointment.
Put another way, accidents can and do happen to the most competent crews. But an accident is a powerful moment of cognitive dissonance, and you could have folks up front so far behind that they're doing everything to convince themselves there is no fire. How do you train for that?
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: I used to know
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lomapaseo,
My appologies if I atributed to you more than you wrote.
My main point is that a fire or other emergency situation is a very varied one where events can change extremely rapidly. The unbreached hull can appear relatively safe, however once a breach by fire or ingress of smoke occurs the situation can deteriorate extremely rapidly.
Evidence from Manchester shows that passengers were incapacitated with just 2 breaths. The second breath an uncontrollable reflex reaction by their bodies. Depending on where one is in relation to the smoke or fire, incapacitation or death can occur within seconds.
A panicing crowd with everyone fighting for their lives to get to an exit is not a good survival environment and eggress will be significantly slower than a calmer more orderly one.
It therefore makes sense to evacuate before actual fire and or smoke enters the cabin.
Your point that opening the doors will automatically cause an ingress of flames or smoke only holds true if the door is next to the flames.
However the cabin crew are trained to check for danger before opening a door. We can see this in the onboard video where a cabin crew can be seen blocking a door, outside of which there is clearly a fire.
(An exception would be a case like the rear right door at Manchester, however in this instance the main entry point for flames and smoke was the hull breach by the fire on the right hand side ).
Unless you are next to a usable exit survival time could be seconds not minutes, therefore maximum use of time by evacuating expeditiously is vital.
My appologies if I atributed to you more than you wrote.
My main point is that a fire or other emergency situation is a very varied one where events can change extremely rapidly. The unbreached hull can appear relatively safe, however once a breach by fire or ingress of smoke occurs the situation can deteriorate extremely rapidly.
Evidence from Manchester shows that passengers were incapacitated with just 2 breaths. The second breath an uncontrollable reflex reaction by their bodies. Depending on where one is in relation to the smoke or fire, incapacitation or death can occur within seconds.
A panicing crowd with everyone fighting for their lives to get to an exit is not a good survival environment and eggress will be significantly slower than a calmer more orderly one.
It therefore makes sense to evacuate before actual fire and or smoke enters the cabin.
Your point that opening the doors will automatically cause an ingress of flames or smoke only holds true if the door is next to the flames.
However the cabin crew are trained to check for danger before opening a door. We can see this in the onboard video where a cabin crew can be seen blocking a door, outside of which there is clearly a fire.
(An exception would be a case like the rear right door at Manchester, however in this instance the main entry point for flames and smoke was the hull breach by the fire on the right hand side ).
Unless you are next to a usable exit survival time could be seconds not minutes, therefore maximum use of time by evacuating expeditiously is vital.