Metro man
 

Isn't that the point? If he's Singaporean he won't be questioning himself at all probably.
From my aviation related dealings with them, they are extremely confident of their abilities, to the point of over-confidence.
On paper they look to be one of the leaders but when put to the test, they fail miserably.

Metro Man

I agree with you completely. Even though I love Singapore it'self & the people, I would also have to agree with the post from Lap Sap,which mentions the question of over confidence on some issues.

Isn't there a certain irony here?

An entire race of pilots has been judged as having "confidence to the point of over-confidence" and yet - without having been involved in this particular situation - or having had access to the information he did - or even knowing the guy - you feel over-confident enough to pass judgement on him as if to say "your judgement is better than his".

20 pages down the line we still don' have the slightest clue about the key question:
Was there a conscious decision not to evacuate, or was this a case of lack of action with nobody making a decision ?


We all get paid to make informed and educated decisions in unexpected and sometimes stressful situations, a part of that is also to think outside the box if necessary. If the first were the case, the occupants of the pointy end will certainly have some explaining to do, but until the circumstances are known they would have my full benefit of doubt. The second case however in inexcusable.

Potential Outcome
 

The Saudi Air L1011 accident in 1980 could potentially been repeated in Changi. It may have been previously mentioned on this thread. If so I apologise. If not, the link below will take you to the lesson to be learned.
http://lessonslearned.faa.gov/ll_mai...abID=3&LLID=27

http://www.safetyinengineering.com/F...69664909_2.pdf

L1011 Saudia incident was not the same. Flames and smoke already evident inside by the time the plane landed. The crew may already have been compromised mentally and not working at optimum.

The SQ flight crew were not compromised mentally by smoke. But the worry is if they "froze" and didn't make a conscious decision to NOT evacuate and LET things happen without taking the event into their own hands.

I've stayed out of second-guessing the flight deck and I'm not agreeing nor disagreeing as I have no access to all of the facts as were known at the time, but I would imagine the decision was made to Hold to evacuate with previously briefed Fire Services on the way and emergency stairs enroute.

Boy I love this talk about those wonderful emergency stairs as if they are the answer to all your prayers in EVAC situations.....

I realize even a wide set of stairs will be slower to a degree, but clearly safer than slides, ACMS, if you have the time and access to a set or two. Perhaps Utility Stairs would be a better term for the sake of argument.

Meanwhile, no smoke in the cabin, seemed all pretty orderly to me, CC standing by doors. That said, I also agree with previous comments that they were all pretty lucky, considering.

Funny old thing and maybe it is paleoflatus but I've been musing over the differing stances people here take over the evac buisness.

Until a week ago, before this incident, I am quite certain that out of every 100 Professional pilots who have had sim training something like 98% would have evacuated at the first sign of fire (and the other 2% would have failed the sim check) yet here we are with (apart from far too many punters, spotters and groupies) Professional pilots in their droves questioning the Holy Cow of evacuation in the event of fire. Why the sudden change of mind? Could it be that pilots are just as easily led as the general public and as soon as they see an event - even in the work environment that apparently does not conform to their norms and laws but works OK they chuck out the norm/law and embrace the lottery-win process instead? Could it be ant-establishmentarianism aka basic human cussedness? Either way its a bit of a worry that so many seem to feel the unquestioned norm is suddenly so faulty. Why hadn't they vocalised their beliefs before this event? If evacuation is felt optional in the face of a massive fire how come we never even knew anyone thought this before? (Please don't mention pilot's discretion, that's not the issue)

Something for the psychologists to look at perhaps.

Which countries allow fire trucks to manoeuvre with blue lights in non emergency situations?

I could image Italy(!)

Mickjoebill

:D I agree.
I get the feeling I now have to assess how small a fire is before I decide to evacuate. The smaller the fire, the greater the urgency?
A lot of things don't add up in this very lucky escape.
The words: Accidental hero, springs to mind.

This discussion reminds me of the collision of two Northwest Airlines aircraft in Detroit in 1990.

The aircraft on takeoff roll, a 727, sustained damage on one wingtip. The captain brought the aircraft to a stop and immediately ordered the flight engineer down the rear airstairs to make a visual inspection. The FE reported no flames or fuel leaks, so the captain did not order an emergency evacuation.

The captain was subsequently violated by the FAA for that decision.

And that compares to the SIA accident how?

A captain decided not to immediately evacuate, and was punished for it. Too oblique?

Yes. Two very different situations.
He had a spare set of eyes to use, good call, but all he had to do was open the window and look.
A lot of pilots seem to think the cockpit windows are welded shut.

Did they use lube?

It was meant to hurt.

Not sure where you would place me,in the group of commenters...

22,000 plus hours..and here is my final one...

OMG!!!!!!!

Old Fella,
Yes, I mentioned it way back in post #195.
Someone responded with a remark that the fire started in the passenger cabin. It didn't. It started in a cargo hold.
I made my comment on the grounds that it seems possible the SIA pilot had no idea of a fuel leak when he landed. And it may not have been a fuel fire (equally, it may have been). A separate investigation here in the UK showed the cause of that fire may well have been down to a pin-hole leak in a hydraulic line, resulting in hydraulic fluid spraying out as a high pressure aerosol, soaking in to the lagging/insulation surrounding a duct that ran through the cargo hold, starting a fire that was sustained by the continued aerosol of hydraulic fluid. So, it is possible the fire seen along the wing may have been fuelled by leaking hydraulic fluid.
Armchairpilot; the Saudia crew certainly were compromised, but not by smoke. One of the 3 crew on the flight deck was dyslexic.
I know because I was there.

Slides and Fire
 

The YT of the 37 fire in Okinawa posted several times on this thread offers several observations:

• The slides do not ignite easily:ok: Note the starboard rear slide remains inflated adjacent to the flaming fuel pool until well after fuselage collapse.
• The flaming fuel pool at the beginning of the evacuation is a mere fraction of the size it reaches after evacuation has been completed.
• Slides on both sides were used. Again the small extent of the fire early on allowed this whereas later on at least two exits were compromised.
• All pax and crew were mobile after taking a slide.
• Many pax had no idea where to go and quite a few headed into unappreciated hazard areas.
• Waiting for clearance from the fire crew before initiating evacuation in this case would have resulted in many fatalities.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5B8QrpudpA

Very clear view of what was happening. These passengers were brave ! I would most likely have thought it would be a good time to panic.

Notice the smiling stewardess blocking the door.
(good call that)

IF that fire wasn't big enough for an evac, what would be?

Blimey! :ooh:

KelvinD, were you in the airline, or did you just happen know of that crew member's problem?

Lessons for us all.
This forum is very thought provoking. Many excellent posts.

Unlike some airlines the policy of an initial ( before engine start ) Captains'. "welcome on board " PA.
By the captain introducing himself and his voice is then recognized, is a wise practice.

Imagine if a passenger decided to call out loudly "evacuate "
No one would know the sound of the captains' voice if no introduction was made.

I just don't get it, cabin crew member has her best "there is no problem but I'm S&^^$^G myself smile on, people are nonchalantly taking there baggage down from the overhead stowages. I do hear one or two people, quite anxiously saying "we need to move", so some of them get it.

They were VERY lucky this did not escalate into a catastrophic event with many fatalities.

having said that, I believe the crew cannot see the wing from the flight deck, so they are reliant on reports/observations from the cabin and the tower/RFF staff.

I wonder how much info the crew were getting, I don't believe Boeing have got a "wing on fire" warning on the 777 just yet.

It has cameras pointing at the wings. See above.

Hello

Ref #424

Is it possible that the "fire along the wing" may actually be flames from a fire on the ground, showing through the gaps of the extended slats ? Just a thought.

Cheers

1/ Passengers have said the reason the pilot gave for the turnback was an oil leak.
2/ The fire started on landing.

3/ We have heard (and assume) from ATC recording that there was no call for fire tenders prior to landing.

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)

It seems logical that both passengers and pilot considered the fire an engine oil fire, rather than a more volitile fuel fire.

Perhaps this is why passengers were not panicked?

If this was the case and given the pilots could see that fire tenders were 60 seconds away it seems the initial decision not to evacuate was based on these factors.

If the engine with the leak had been shut down, presumably it would not have been used for braking, if so what could have been the source of ignition?


Mickjoebill

Source of Fire
 

KelvinD, thank you. I am aware of the history of the Saudi L1011 accident, not because I was there but because in an earlier time in my life I was a L1011 Flight Engineer. I note the comment where it is said that the SIA crew may have been compromised. They may have been, but they should not have been. If there was any hint of smoke in the cockpit they should have donned their O2 masks as an immediate action. Not knowing the facts makes it unwise to judge the crew, however it is difficult to understand why an evacuation was not ordered.

Dimmed for landing
 

Comparing all the onboard videos, the cabin strip lights appear to be in standard dimmed/off mode after landing.

So it was dim but not "pitch black" as suggested earlier. The giveaway is that the video screens and exit signs are under exposed.

One of the reasons cabin lights are dimmed is to allow a clearer view outside to assess hazards, by eliminating reflections from the cabin.
The other reason is to allow eyes to adapt to dim light so crew or passengers can better see outside to assess hazards.

But the images of SIA passengers being moved away from the effected part of the cabin in such dim light, draws attention to the compromises of the current arrangements.

Namely, one has to untangle oneself from headphones seatbelts and get to the door without tripping.

One video has a passenger using his cellphone led light, perhaps as much to find his way as to aid filming. You will note he says sorry as he goes back to his seat and so blocks the aisle. He blocks the aisle again 30 seconds later in business class.
http://youtu.be/dAUwItTw4AI

It takes 5-10 minutes for a 100x increase in our Night vision, but this can be lost in a few seconds by just a brief flash of light.

So allowing passengers to view the bright screens from smartphones during a night landing makes a mockery of the existing procedures!

Also passengers will use the cellphone inbuilt torch during a lights out emergency, dazzling each other and resetting eyes to day vision.

It is only the area adjacent doors that need to be dimmed to prevent reflections.

Time for a rethink?

Mickjoebill

MickJoeBill:
"One of the reasons cabin lights are dimmed is to allow a clearer view outside to assess hazards, by eliminating reflections from the cabin.
The other reason is to allow eyes to adapt to dim light so crew or passengers can better see outside to assess hazards."

The cabin crew in summer routinely tell pax to close the blinds so the aircraft stays cool. Any blinds that are left open are shut by the first pax boarding so their view of their tablet/smartphone is not compromised. When the lights go off taxiing out for takeoff, pax are told they can switch on their overhead lights if they want to continue reading.

It would seem that the flight safety aspects that you quote are routinely disregarded by the aircraft operators. Ideally, blinds should all be open for takeoff and landing and no lights apart from dimmed guide lights illuminated in the cabin.

Flying these days is more like being in the cargo hold with people holding flashlights with big screens. The average pax have no situational awareness after pushback.

I'm not convinced of that.

IF the fire had been left burning for an extended length of time (a-la Air China) then yes - absolutely - no question about it.

BUT - that WASN'T the situation here. The difference being FD crew knew that rescue services were just seconds away, with the mother-load of fire-fighting capability.

Watching the Air China video the tank explosion happened MUCH later into the burn.

So:

1. Knowing that passengers & CC were safe at that moment

2. Knowing that very capable rescue was only seconds behind (I think they were spraying foam in under a minute)

3. Not knowing if outside the aircraft would still be a safe environment as the last of the passengers evacuated (if they were to evacuate immediately)

4. Knowing that the window of opportunity for an evacuation was still open (and with rescue services assistance) if they "sat tight" (watching the Air China evacuation demonstrates that)

I think it adds up to a reasonable decision on the basis of the incomplete information that we have. I doubt it can ever be a 100% "safe" decision either way - but I dispute that this excellent outcome was down to just "luck" (reinforced to me by the photos I saw of the damage (a lot less than I expected) leading me to suspect that the fire wasn't as intense as it looked on the various videos due in part to the way cameras over-expose the bright portions of scenes like that).

I'll be especially interested to read if there was A1 fuel burning or just oil, or a mixture of both.

I remember watching a video years ago during an EP's course, of an aircraft with a brake fire after landing. The video had an audio track of the conversation between the flight deck & the fire commander. The captain held off on the evacuation under the advice of the fire commander, as the fire crews worked to get the fire out. It took over 10 minutes as I recall. A heck of a long time for the people on board to be wondering what was going on.


However, it was lauded as the correct thing to do in the circumstances & that was why we were watching the video.


Funny how things have changed over the years & now all the 'experts' on here have a different opinion. Sure, everyone has the right to an opinion & the right to express it. However, being so dogmatic about it to the point of ridiculing anyone with a different opinion is not only arrogant & uncalled for, it shows a distinct lack of one of the main attributes of a good pilot - being willing to consider other ways of doing things & therefore being willing to learn.


Everyone on here has zero knowledge of what went on in the flight deck & some should back off & wait for more information before strutting around with their chests puffed out declaring how much better they are at commanding an airliner than the guy in the hot seat on this occasion, along with any on here who happen to disagree with them.

As someone whose past job description included having to face the cameras and next of kin, I find one aspect of this incident particularly noteworthy and potentially disturbing:

I'm sure this forum is monitored by SQ communications department, and they are well aware that many of the posts are, to put it mildly, somewhat negatively biased against the fine carrier. The way to put that right is to issue a statement that the decision not to evacuate was made by the crew in communication with ARFF taking all factors into consideration, in the interest of safety for all on board (never mind if not entirely true, press statements are not given under oath). Given the unquestionable professionalism of the SQ PR team, the only reason I can imagine this is not being made is that the truth is far more embarassing than keeping silent and letting all the quibble go on. It is highly unusual for a major airline not to make any comment whatsoever following an incident of this magnitude.

Well said Oakape..... unless anyone here was sitting in the flight deck that day, then your opinion is irrelevant at this stage. Wait for the safety report to be released, then come back. :rolleyes:

Is there no one on this site from SIA? Even after a week there is no insider info?
Typical Singapore. No one wants their tiny state name to be tarnished --understandable. We have wait for the final smudged report. Few points to note as I have raised before on this thread.
1. Crew appears to have kept the engine running during their fly back to base, not aware of the massive fuel leak. They could have even reversed the engine on landing and the air flow turbulence could have spread the fuel along the wing.
3. Hydraulic fluid rarely catch fire like this. There are no hydraulic lines in the wing leading edge any way. Even if that was Hyd fluid, there is only about 30 Gal. that can leak out any way. So it was more like a massive fuel leak & fire.
4. I doubt if the crew had declared an emergency landing. My observation is from the fire tenders driving from the tarmac to the runway. If it was a declared emergency, they normally wait on the edge of the runway in a taxiway at mid point and end of runway for quick access to the aircraft. Seconds count in such incidents. Still their action was quick compared to the Okinawa video where they took five minutes to get there though the aircraft was parked in front of the terminal.
5. The calmness inside the cabin and smiling stewardess are unbelievable. A slight wind direction change could have melted the acrylic window pane in no time and fire could have spread inside the cabin in a flash. (Remember Manchester)
6. God was on the side of SQ and the Pax this time.

There is not enough engine oil to support the kind of fire we've seen on the wing, Bugs and Skydrol will not burn easily without being aerosolised. Flames appeared to be too widespread across the wing to be anything but a fire fed by the wing tanks.

A potential problem is that under stress, people's voices tend to rise in pitch and become clipped. The Captain, calm, may not sound a lot like the Captain, pressed.

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. All is well that ends well. A change in wind direction could have blown the fire on to the fuselage with deadly consequences.

Hands down the most diplomatic and on-point post I've read on this thread yet.