On the face of it & having viewed the video (Jabawocky post), surely one could safely conclude, this was a major stuff up by SQ & could so easily have resulted in numerous fatalities. I agree, there would have been risks in evacuating, there always are of course & injuries or worse may well have occurred, but to me, keeping the pax & crew on the aircraft in this instance, could so easily & so very quickly, have ended up a disaster.
No axe to grind at all & I still include SQ among my airlines of choice, but this was a very poor show by them & still no open & in depth announcements from them.
Not my own view in particular folks, but, In a case such as this, law suits in Singapore of course would not work, but how about in the US, against both the Company & also the Captain, for needless endangerment of the pax??
Any thoughts from the many legal experts out there.

A good judge will examine all the evidence before giving a verdict. People could well be right - or wrong - but either way, in the interests of professional courtesy if noting else, we need a lot more information.

The real danger is. if there is another incident similar to this one, in SQ or elsewhere, crew might decide not to evacuate based on this incident, and end up roasting all passengers. In this incident the crew judgement was correct or luck was on their side. In fire incidents on landing or take off, (Of which there are several every year), the recommended and safe action is always evacuate first. I am sure airlines will closely review this incident advise crew the correct action.

BugSmasher

Fair comment & I understand the points you make. I would agree, that if we had more information as to what actually happened, was an evacuation considered by the F/D & Crew & in particular, why was it not carried out in this incident? Such information I suppose is very unlikely to be forthcoming from most airlines & in particular a major world operator like SQ. Until such information is made known to the general public, most of us I think, will be highly suspicious to say the least. Where as, had SQ taken the bold option to go public, many potential pax may well be reassured & understand the actions of the Crew.

As has been pointed out in this thread, in real life (as compared to in the sim) no emergency incident is really similar to another one. I hope that a professional crew would assess the actual conditions in which they find themselves, and judge what to do without reference to any other incident that they might think is superficially similar, especially one that hasn't been analysed and about which the full facts are not known.

At the start of Jabawocky's video (#482) there's fire outside but not inside. By the end (only 1:26) the fire outside seems to have been suppressed. A CC member can be seen sensibly preventing panicing pax from opening a door on the side where the fire was. What does the video prove?

agree :ok:

This thread is not developing but rather just rehashing the same subjective opinions about the same videos reposted over and over.

Sure the decision process is in question, but key facts are not as yet offered by the authorities in Singapore.

I wonder why is it that we the uninformed always seem to offer conclusions so early in an investigation?

Why some are questioning so early in the investigation?

1) Fire evacuation is a no brainer decision
2) Too many gaffes with boat load of luck
3) City Nation CAA's don't have reputation of conducting a fair investigation
4) Too many folks praising the decision, somehow that is acceptable

In earlier cases fire rescue helped crew with which slides can be open while they kept the fire under control during evacuation. Even without outside help crew should be able to decide which slides can be used.

This may be the first time pax were forced to stay. Unique indeed.

Sorry, I don't agree we need more info...
 

Welcome to the age of mobile phones with video cameras, and the internet, ladies and gentlemen.

I for one need no more facts to decide that the flight crew screwed up on this one. The screamingly obvious is staring us in the face...

The silence from SQ is equally as obvious. They are also aware the captain made a bad call. So staying stumm. I hope he has a good pension plan.

I feel sorry for him. Evac evac would be a blameless call. The wing was on fire after all. But...

The real issue here is about Singapore culture, and at the heart, the education system. They pat themselves on the back for getting some of the best exam results in Asia.. But this is achieved through rote learning and following the model answer. None of them are encouraged to think for themselves. They tend to rely on others.

****, the wing is on fire. But help is on its way. Let's trust in them... Luckily it turned out well. But probably not for the poor captain.

Ok then I see your point but it will be the same culture that conducts the investigation and then acts. So if the CN made that decision after years of training in that organization then there is a good chance the boss will think the same way.....

"None of them are encouraged to think for themselves."

Having spent several years flying for a Singaporean airline, I gotta say, I suspect this could come into play.

It MAY have been a calculated decision made by a skipper who sought all information from all sources and made a sound command decision for the benefit of all crew, pax,cargo and plane.

HOWEVER..............

Asiana precedent
 

Since the fire truck ran over pax in SFO... it seems some people think it may be safer to keep pax in a burning plane than risk getting run over by a fire truck. Doh!

Are you suggesting that consideration was part of the SIA captain's thought process?

If not, what's the relevance?

Am I the only one who sees the irony of this post? Julio747 suggests that the automatic (ie by rote) thing to do should have been to start an evacuation immediately, then suggests the reason that the captain did not do that is because of Singapore's culture of always following rules by rote?

I wonder what would happen if the captain turns out to be a Caucasian with an Anglo/American upbringing?

I think it could be possible, the event happened at 6:50am. That is just before sunrise at around 7am at this time of the year. So it is not very bright and passengers normally do not wear high-vis clothes when they travel by plane.

No, cee cee, you are not the only one. In fact I think it goes a little further that irony. Some of these posts are outright racist.

If it had been an all white Western crew, no one would be talking about 'cultural' issues amongst the ... ahem ... 'other' people.

It's both a little sad and a little sickening, but hey, who cares? It's not as though we're dissing Europeans or Americans, is it? The're like ... you know ... Asians (maybe, assumes facts not yet in evidence, but hey, it's a rumour blog)

“If it had been an all white Western crew, no one would be talking about 'cultural' issues”

Maybe not, but they should be.

Culture affects everything we do from our gait when we walk to the different reasons we crash planes.

Should we discuss how western culture has been the cause of several western-crewed airliners to crash recently?

Or should we discuss that cultural issue on the thread associated with that crash.

Culture plays a big part in what motivates our decision-making and inaction is often viewed as the path of least resistance, often the result of a (company maybe???)blame culture.

It is also possible that the reason for the non-evacuation by slide was not due to cultural factors.

It may be quite difficult to assess the severity of an under wing fire from the cockpit, quickly. The British Airtours case suggests this. Yes the 777 has cameras but when a camera serves up an unbelievable image our instinct is not to believe it but to doubt the camera.

The cabin crew may see the fire, but it may not be visible from all cabin crew stations. It may not have been visible from the CP's position. There is another point, too - cabin crew members are taught not to create alarm and despondency in the passengers - yelling "THERE'S A HUGE FIRE ON THE STARBOARD WING!" into a phone goes against this training, but the time needed to quietly inform the cockpit crew, eg by sidling up to the CP and leaving the CP to make the call and inform the cockpit, in a discreet and non pax-scaring manner, that the starboard wing is ablaze from root to tip, will be rather longer...

I'm not a pilot, but "Willit Run", who is, makes this point at post 19 on this thread...

"white", "racism", these concepts are different from "cultural issues", as anyone may notice by observing all the countries on this planet. I'd even say that mapping some cultural issue with skin color *is* a subtle expression of racism (but that was not your intention, I'm 100% sure).

Perfect, now with the culture card played no one comment here. Is slow driving of Oshkosh Strikers also related???

BTT

SAAIB one page SQ836 interim report after one full year investigation had less information than what French BEA and Airbus said 20 days after incident. Interesting, isn't it.

AFAIK SFO ARFF didn't rundown a walking passenger, teenager was laying down on the ground and initially one fire rescue member was guarding her, but she was covered with foam and was ran over twice. SFO ARFF owned its mistakes.

Changi Airport Group published the official timeline:

0649h — Aircraft landed

0651h — Fire fighters arrive

0654h — Fire brought under control

0710h — Passengers disembark

0818h — Aircraft towed to remote parking bay

0820h — Clean-up and repair of runway begins

1059h — Replacement flight (SQ368D) departs

1130h — Runway 2 reopens following inspection

s: todayonline

Presumably a more closely spaced and detailed time line will be published by the agency in charge of the investigation, the AAIB as that is the only one that is pertinent to the accident/incident.

Since the question of the possible influence of the crews 'culture' has arisen I make the following point; I was a captain with SIA for ten years and it is my belief that there would have been absolutely no delay to an evacuation decision by the Captain unless he was receiving advice from the fire fighters. As a qualified fire fighter said, earlier in this thread, had the doors opened and the slides deployed the foam delivering appliances would have had to back off and leave the fire, which may then have spread to the slides, as it was they were able to knock it down in good time.

@ parabellum...

How does opening the doors on the left side of the aircraft affect firefighting on the right side?

Wasn't there a flow of fuel from right to left?

@ Chris2303...

There is no evidence of this and none of the videos suggest there was. And there was one why would they keep the LH engine running?

I have to express dismay at the comments made by those purporting to be professional pilots. inviting evacuation due to fire into a "discussion" arena is a further example of how Captain's authority has been degraded resulting in some very weak command decisions in our industry in recent years. CRM pundits love all this. That lot would have us use "all available resources" and damn us for not calling Mummy on the HF prior to making decisions.

Way back, in my experience, we stopped making evacuation a discussion item. Captain made the call "Evacuate, evacuate" and informed control. That was it. Cabin crew made the decision as to the use of all , or , selected exits.They were in a far better position to make this judgement. In my last company, cabin crew were also given full authority to order the evacuation if it looked necessary and no call by the captain had been made. No, they did not rush up to the Flight Deck & enter into any discussion. Fire, lots of smoke , the latter being the real quick killer............evacuate, evacuate.

All this nonsense about cosy little discussions with Fire Fighters,cabin crew, Tower etc, Good grief............jump & slide people. Oh, & preferably not into a burning engine. The BA incident, recently, much applauded, looked to me as though evacuation was guided straight into the burning side . I might be wrong and apologise if that was not the case.

A different thread describing the disgraceful plight of one of our US Colleagues facing dismissal for ordering an evacuation highlights this trend of undermining Commander's authority. Stop it & we might resist the trend towards appallingly weak command judgements.

It make me so angry watching that video - the thought of my family being on board.

The captain should show his face and explain his actions.

No excuses - evacuate

Re: requesting fire service support.

If an aircraft requests fuel dump, then landing will be near max weight. Irrespective of cause, there is usually going to be a serious reason for this - technical, medical, etc. So:

1. What are the disincentives on a crew where they would decline fire service attendence beyond, I dunno, not wanting to bother them
2. What are the disincentives on ATC in respect of "our airport, our call", telling the inbound "we'll have services on hand" for max weight landings. Would it really be a significant imposition at an airport like SIN?

It would be highly improbable (on the same level as finding the Yeti) for Singapore Airlines to officially comment on this forum. Or for it to discuss in public what they thought of the pilots actions at this time. Or for the pilots to explain themselves in public why they did or didn't do something.

They are holding discussions behind closed doors. The final report will outline any wrong doings if any. And any recommendations , if any.

I think keeping passengers on a burning aircraft is a wrong move. Engine and wing on fire? EVAC makes sense.

Culture is culture
 

Okay, I was not intending to start a cultural debate... Just commenting on what I see around me

I have lived in SEA for 16 years, and my partner is an Indonesian Muslim. No one can call me racist...

But anyone who thinks that culture doesn't play a role in the cockpit is sadly mistaken. From KLM in Tenerife, to Korean airlines shot down in china....

So CRM is old hat now... But just think for a second how CRM is influenced by culture.

Been in Singapore 5 years... Not 5 days....

Suitable Airport??
 

In addition to the evacuation question, how many airports did they pass returning to Changi???

Indeed!
On the other hand personally I don't need an explanation from them. One more Airline on my personal 'Avoid' list. Bit of a shame but in situations like these the true nature comes through.
No one will ever know how close that wing tanks came to exploding. And it will always remain a mystery how any one here can assume the guys on the flight deck had any information that gave them a clear indication there was no risk for overpressure and explosive rupture of the wing tanks. Had the latter occurred we would have had>200 bodies charred beyond recognition. Taking this gamble in order to avoid some minor scratches from evacuating... Unbelievable.

From the reports the engine problem was low oil pressure. The decision was made to turn back rather than continue to Milan. The aircraft did not have a major problem and was not on fire until after it landed. I presume you would carry out an immediate diversion with an oil pressure low indication?

It seems that there are a lot of posters who would have applauded a decision to evacuate and send a dozen or so pax to the hospital but find a problem with a decision to not evacuate presumably on the advice of the airport fire crew, which resulted in no injured pax. This actually was the right decision in hindsight probably based on a risk assessment from fire crew experts actually on the scene.
The 'no-brain' automatons would presumably disregard fire crew advice and evacuate anyway. An interesting position to take if pax are subsequently injured in what the experts on the scene felt was an unnecessary use of the slides.

That's a contradiction in terms.

The "right" decision is the one taken at the time after consideration of all the information available and is not dependent on the consequences (intended or otherwise). No amount of 20/20 hindsight has any bearing on that.

The fact that after 500+ posts there is no consensus on what decision would have been "right" demonstrates only that we don't have access to all the available information.

21 minutes from wheel stop to passenger disembark. Were they serving pre-landing snack?

Within 4 minutes no living thing should be in that thin metal tube and only fire rescue professionals should be anywhere near that.

This is not a camp fire or barbecue to be safe once you hose it down by professionals.

Let me repeat one more time. Every day professional pilots order evacuations for minor fumes, smoke, tire burst and brake fires. Few pax get injured. So what, it is the right decision. It will be a shame to question them.

@Ian W

So what would your response be if the reverse had happened and the cabin had been breached with dense smoke and fire?

Which situation is worse, and how do you avoid the potential for catastrophe with better predictability?

Hindsight is a wonderful thing...
 

This is a false analysis. Sure, everyone is happy that there were no injuries. But....

The captain is in charge, not the fire crew. And the fire crew was one minute out when the wheels stopped. And the right wing and #2 were on fire! After one minute (the plane wasn't full) most pax would have been out. Before the services arrived. At 1.5 mins, they would all have been out.

Meanwhile, at 3 mins (about the time when China Air went boom) the fire is not out and the crew is crossing their fingers!

That's what you call a no brainer.

As for the apparent paradox about Singaporean culture and rote learning (my earlier post). I agree I wasn't clear. The point is, when the situation is outside of their comfort zone, they look to someone else to make a decision. Rabbits frozen in the headlights.

Lastly, a pax evac on LHS would not have diminished the ability to fire fight on the rhs. Oh, and everyone would have been out 30 seconds later anyway.

Really IanW? That's easy to say sitting here now knowing with 20/20 hindsight the Jet didn't go boom.....

At the time sitting there for THREE long minutes it must have been excruciating........just wondering if the RFF could get that big Fire under control, especially knowing there was a safe escape route on the left and at the very worst a few Pax would probably get sprained ankles off the slide......but would live.

They were either very brave or very reckless.........

Big gamble to make with other people's lives. IMHO

Evac or not?
 

I generally lurk here and say nothing. In this case, I feel compelled tosay that, as a passenger, I would like to trust the captain to make the right decision based on the circumstances at the time.

To my mind, the reason we still have pilots is that computers cannot think. The decision that fire=evac is a binary one and does not need a pilot. If that is the case, why is it not programmed into the myriad of computers on modern aircraft? To answer my own question - simply because there are circumstances that a computer cannot "hear or see or evaluate" that a human can.

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.

Whether or not the captain should have automatically evacuated the aircraft or not is something we actually don’t know at this time. Many have said fire=evac. They may well be correct, but until we KNOW what information the captain had we cannot be certain whether or not he did the right or wrong thing.

As for me, I have no idea whether or not he did the right thing. The outcome was excellent, but whether or not it was good luck or good judgement we won’t know until the report – probably.