SQ-368 (engine & wing on fire) final report out
As SLF, I fear this precedent will encourage crews to sit tight and wait in other burning airplanes rather than to exit asap. That is a very damaging shift imho.
Will it take a planeload of dead people for the priorities to be reset?
As is, even though all went well, I would be more reluctant to use this carrier, because the safety of the passengers does not appear to have been the primary consideration.
Will it take a planeload of dead people for the priorities to be reset?
As is, even though all went well, I would be more reluctant to use this carrier, because the safety of the passengers does not appear to have been the primary consideration.
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Singapore
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread goes on and on
But, the right answer is staring you in the face if you have seen the vids, inside and outside.
Dont tell me the RFF said stay put, we will control it, when they were driving away from the burning a/c to stay on tarmac. No way.
The pilots can use the tail cam. Even the tower could see it from afar (hence the fire crew without request). And as the FC has legs, they can eyeball the situation any time they want to.
So sorry, no excuses. Bad call. Lucky escape.
Dont tell me the RFF said stay put, we will control it, when they were driving away from the burning a/c to stay on tarmac. No way.
The pilots can use the tail cam. Even the tower could see it from afar (hence the fire crew without request). And as the FC has legs, they can eyeball the situation any time they want to.
So sorry, no excuses. Bad call. Lucky escape.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: south england
Posts: 393
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sorry
I truly am sorry. I clearly have been missing the facts.
So when were the flight crew aware of the state of their aeroplane?
The only reason I ask is I'm just trying to learn from the event.
So when were the flight crew aware of the state of their aeroplane?
The only reason I ask is I'm just trying to learn from the event.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hence the fire crew without request
Already tried to explain it to you once Julio747 but you seem impervious to anything except your own, totally fact free, assessment.
Once the a/c turned back the engineers would have been studying the telemetry from the aircraft and may well have advised fire and/or tower of a possible fuel leak. We have no idea at all of the communication between the aircraft and Singapore Ops/ATC/Fire services, from the time it turned back until it spoke to Singapore tower on arrival, none whatsoever.
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Singapore
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't say for certain...
The RFF was on the move before wheels stop. Did they omit to tell anyone do you think?
Each of these is highly unlikely.
Even in the absence of any comms, the RFF racing past might have been a clue that something was awry.
And as at was twilight, the huge glow on the RHS might have been another clue.
The fact that they stopped on the runway and didn't taxi to gate suggests maybe they knew they had a fire before wheels stop. What do you think, GBD?
So you are right. I dont know for sure when they first learnt of the fire. I am making educated guesses and opining. I will be happy to admit I was wrong if it turns out the FD was blissfully unaware of the raging inferno because they were busy with other stuff and simply forgot to clear the runway....
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Singapore AAIB released an interim statement (pdf)
AAIB:
3. The investigation is still in the preliminary stage. These are the key findings so
far:
• Fuel was found present in the oil system of the right engine, which is not a
normal condition. Investigators have determined that fuel entered the oil
system as a result of a crack in a tube in the engine’s main fuel oil heat
exchanger (MFOHE).
• GE Aviation had issued a Service Bulletin (SB) in December 2014 identifying
certain MFOHEs to be removed from the engines, inspected for cracks in the
fuel tubes, and for repair actions and improvement works to be undertaken.
GE Aviation had recommended that the actions called for by the SB be
carried out no later than the next occasion when the engine is sent for
maintenance work in an engine shop.
• The engine of flight SQ368 which had caught fire had last undergone an
engine shop visit in March 2014, just before the SB was issued.
4. The AAIB has issued interim safety recommendations to the following parties:
• GE Aviation, as the engine manufacturer and holder of the engine type
certificate, to review the need to accelerate the implementation of the
recommendations in its main fuel oil heat exchanger Service Bulletin of
December 2014, to prevent another fire or other hazardous incident from
arising as a result of fuel leakage into the engine oil system.
The information provided herein is of an interim nature. Readers are
advised that new information may become available that may alter this
interim statement prior to the publication of the Final report
• The Boeing Company, as the aircraft manufacturer, to review the need for
operational procedures in the event a flight crew encounters a similar fuel
leak situation in flight.
• US Federal Aviation Administration
o to require the Boeing Company to review the need for operational
procedures in the event a flight crew encounters a similar fuel leak
situation in flight; and
o to require GE Aviation to review the need to accelerate the implementation
of the recommendations in its main fuel oil heat exchanger Service
Bulletin of December 2014.
AAIB:
3. The investigation is still in the preliminary stage. These are the key findings so
far:
• Fuel was found present in the oil system of the right engine, which is not a
normal condition. Investigators have determined that fuel entered the oil
system as a result of a crack in a tube in the engine’s main fuel oil heat
exchanger (MFOHE).
• GE Aviation had issued a Service Bulletin (SB) in December 2014 identifying
certain MFOHEs to be removed from the engines, inspected for cracks in the
fuel tubes, and for repair actions and improvement works to be undertaken.
GE Aviation had recommended that the actions called for by the SB be
carried out no later than the next occasion when the engine is sent for
maintenance work in an engine shop.
• The engine of flight SQ368 which had caught fire had last undergone an
engine shop visit in March 2014, just before the SB was issued.
4. The AAIB has issued interim safety recommendations to the following parties:
• GE Aviation, as the engine manufacturer and holder of the engine type
certificate, to review the need to accelerate the implementation of the
recommendations in its main fuel oil heat exchanger Service Bulletin of
December 2014, to prevent another fire or other hazardous incident from
arising as a result of fuel leakage into the engine oil system.
The information provided herein is of an interim nature. Readers are
advised that new information may become available that may alter this
interim statement prior to the publication of the Final report
• The Boeing Company, as the aircraft manufacturer, to review the need for
operational procedures in the event a flight crew encounters a similar fuel
leak situation in flight.
• US Federal Aviation Administration
o to require the Boeing Company to review the need for operational
procedures in the event a flight crew encounters a similar fuel leak
situation in flight; and
o to require GE Aviation to review the need to accelerate the implementation
of the recommendations in its main fuel oil heat exchanger Service
Bulletin of December 2014.
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Singapore
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Old news
That report was issued long ago, 3rd august as I recall, and posted long ago...
And point 5 is missing, other factors related to the incident are still being investigated.
Please try to read the thread and keep up.
And point 5 is missing, other factors related to the incident are still being investigated.
Please try to read the thread and keep up.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: australia
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SIA --WING FIRE
They say the investigation will take months - download the engine data computer-- cvr -- the flight recorder-- or -----turn on the fuel boost pumps and see where the leak is ----
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Third planet from the sun
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Probably plenty of "news" for those who really need to know...
One could say that all crewmembers wordwide "really" needs to know!
The outcome and final report will become a very interesting CRM learning tool!
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Estonia
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The outcome and final report will become a very interesting CRM learning tool!
final report
up to page 17 good griefas for page 18 - blimey
excuse me if you are told by ATC then again by the AFC that you have a big fire just as you are coming to a halt plus the CC are calling you like mad saying heat in the cabin but you have no fire warning in the cockpit do you still dither on an EVAC decision when you have already made your mind up it seems ?
then eventually taking instructions to not do so from the AFC who by the way have kept you hanging on for what seems an age
i knew this would be the outcome notwithstanding the RH offending engine was not shut down during the return to SIN despite showing several signs saying I'm not very well
Last edited by rog747; 14th Mar 2017 at 18:45.
SQ-368 (engine & wing on fire) final report out
https://www.mot.gov.sg/uploadedFiles...l%20Report.pdf
As expected the report delicately tiptoes around all the questions we have been asking, not offering too many answers.
As expected the report delicately tiptoes around all the questions we have been asking, not offering too many answers.