Actually damage is not that significant because fire was concentrated on leading and trailing edges of the wing and engine.

On last count SIAEC has 9 different joint ventures for MRO. My take it will be back in service rather quickly.

And here's me thinking it was about to blow sky-high at any moment...

not just stay seated but keep your seat belts FASTENED

ugh beggars belief to me

I have been reading this thread since it started and would like to comment.

At my company, in our sim checks the process for an on ground evacuation is pretty strait forward. Bring the aircraft to a stop carry out whatever procedure needs to be done and then ASK the RFF services if they still see a fire, or take a look at the Fire PB to see if it is still lit.

The only interaction that we have with the Cabin is to prep them for an evacuation and then to either call an evacuation or tell them to stand down. At no point do we liaise with them.

Therefore with RFF not on the scene and with no fire lights illuminated what should a captain do? And at a company with little thinking outside the box procedure and training rule.

There is still the chance that the CC could call an evacuation and we activate the EVAC command button in the cabin. However, not all airlines do this. And when you are from a country/airline where you blindly trust in your pilots and are told that you are just there to look pretty and serve coffee do you think you'll have the confidence to initiate an evacuation? And can you, when you've been trained all these years to wait for the captain's command.

Haven't said a word til now, but my first--and persisting--reaction, is the plane should have been evacuated immediately.

These feelings were reinforced by the fact that the pilots, apparently flying on one engine ("FL170"), did not during their two-hour deturn to Changi, land as they may have been required to do, at any of the other suitable airports along the route. To me, this suggested that their wish to save face or please their superiors must have overcome any impulse to divert.

In any case, as a passenger, I couldn't have sat their complacently taking snapshots of the wing burning, anchored to my seat by the faith that the wind would continue blowing in the right direction and all the big guys have everything under control.

Is there any information as to who these pilots were?

I mean, there are a bunch of non-Singaporeans living and working in Singapore, no?

May I ask a question? Why did not the pilot shutdown the RHS engine before touch down

If there was no known fuel leak there is no need to shutdown. In this case crew seem to be unaware of fuel leak, later PR teams tried to spin it as ~10 gallons of hidden OIL plus composites caused such big fire. When no one believed that spin was dropped.

Sinister side of me thinks, probably crew are not comfortable on just one engine. We don't know what happened with SQ836 both engine failure non-incident also TransAsia 235 fear, shutdown wrong engine.

ATC recording
 

The pilot talking to ATC (post #165) sounds Singaporean, ah?

Can't tell is that was cptn or fo....

SQ 743 had an engine fire out of MEL long ago and the PR spin from SIN was that the setting sun reflecting on the exhaust can may have LOOKED like a fire. But they returned anyway.

Decision making does not appear to be a strong point in SQ. Take a read of the AAIB report on the 330 cargo fire in BKK.

Back in the late 1980's I was FO on an early ETOPS flight and we were about to go feet wet out of JFK for Europe. A passenger reported seeing flames coming out of an engine, it was just after sunset in the summertime. The third pilot said 'it's just the strobe reflecting off the engine nacelle, I'll go back and talk with them'. He took a look and came back saying there were indeed intermittent flashes of flame in the exhaust. We throttled the engine back to idle to avoid a negative ETOPS shutdown statistic and returned uneventfully back to JFK for a tail swap.

And, a colleague told me about seeing a sunrise at noon on a 737-200 when he was brand new in the plane doing IOE (now OE). He was starting an engine and somehow the igniters were not on due to breakers out or wrong switch position. The check airman spotted the mistake and announced 'watch and learn!' as he turned on the sparklers. The flight attendants said flame came out of both ends of the fuel soaked JT8D as it lit off and the pax were duly impressed. :D

The B-727 APU with the exhaust on the right wing caused a lot of pax evacuations, some pax initiated, back in the day. I watched one at DTW years ago as we were taxiing out in another plane.

The NTSB issued this bulletin to address the dangers of a pax initiated evac on the 727 due to APU torching:

http://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-re...rs/A93_125.pdf

Obviously, the recent SQ fire was far more serious than momentary APU torching.

It would appear that now more facts are coming to light that this could have been handled better .

I am still disheartened by the fact that so called professionals/colleagues, who I am sure would want to experience a just culture when it comes to their stuff up being put under the microscope by their company/fellow professionals, are so quick to judge without being in receipt of all the facts before condemning this crews actions. None of us go to work with the intention of effing up, we all just want to act professionally and go home to our families. If we do mess up hopefully we all walk away and learn from our mistakes.

Regards,

GBD

Could you clarify your statement please and tell us more on these new facts.

Thank you.

That would be good, the last dozen pages of posts have simply been rehashing the same old arguments ad nauseam in the absence of any new information.

Sad to see people bagging Singaporeans. I flew with them as an ex-pat for ten years, their training is good, their standards are good and they are a nice bunch of guys. On first glance, I would have evacuated, it will be interesting to see the facts and any reason that influenced the decision to 'sit on it'.

Training and standards are good, but sometimes the aircraft is just bad, lah!
I press and I press, but nothing, lah!

Incident: Singapore B773 at Munich on Nov 3rd 2011, runway excursion

ManaAdaSystem: what does that incident have to do with this one? (Thanks for the link, that was an interesting read).
SQ, 777, OK, but ... what else is in common? No Fire. (And apparently, no damage to the aircraft).
This thread and this incident has to do with a fire involving an aircraft on the ground, and before that a malfunction that the crew determined was important enough that they not proceed to destination but instead return to base.


Absent new information from SQ or investigators, this thread is at risk of becoming an SQ or 777 catch all.
I did a quick search and did not find any new info released by investigators: did anyone come across new information?

Regarding manadasytem's link :

The Triple 7 is an amazing plane ! Can go off road , back to tarmac and off road again with no damage. Tarmac or OffRoad, all good with it's All Wheel Drive .

It's about SQ training and standards, and decision making. Or lack of.
What would you do, Lonewolf, if you did an autoland and the aircraft started to bank and drift off to the left?
Sit on your hands and wait for the autopilot to fix itself, or disconnect the autopilot and land yourself/go around?
This incident is why I don't fly with SQ. It's just a slightly polished version of Asiana.

For what it's worth

Airline Safety Ranking 2015 » JACDEC

If there was no known fuel leak there is no need to shutdown. In this case crew seem to be unaware of fuel leak, later PR teams tried to spin it as ~10 gallons of hidden oil.

Look at the fire photo posted, evenly intense to the tip.take a close look at the flame pattern.

My theory and speculation is the fuel leaked during fuel jettison from the wing tip jettison.
Perhaps the wing filled the empty cavities with fuel during the fuel jettison approx 35 tons guessing. That is 17.5 tons each wing jettison point dumped in 20 minutes.

The ignition was on selecting idle reverse thrust.

Fire services at Singapore are definitely world class as is the airport.
If the fire services reported fire is "under control " within the first minutes.

It is hard to believe but possible especially if that fire went out after a short time, expending all the pooled fuel.

"No fire" means no evacuation after the first 2 minutes.

Just a theory but worth considering for those who speculate prior to investigation release.

Well answered, thanks. :ok:

A little devil's advocate: Once you jettison, your chances of identifying a fuel leak are effectively zero. If it had started as a small one, within the normal variation of fuel indications, but progressively increased in flow while the crew managed the return and later opened the overboards ...

And why CAT 1 Autoland?

TOGA pressed when wheels are planted.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRtSEbf7Iac

SQ is capable of calling out the fire trucks before landing and capable of considering evac via slides as shown in this incident. Fire indication in aft cargo hold and emergency landing.

Mana Ada System has an axe to grind with SQ. oh well….stick to you original airline then mate-

Main Fuel/Oil Heat Exchanger failure (Known fault on GE engines)
Higher presssure fuel enters the oil system and circulates around the oil system - hence the oil system parameters changing.
Fuel/oil vapour/mist vents out the central vent system and to atmosphere.
Due to cold stream airflow/forward speed of the aircraft nothing happens.
Flaps down on approach and lowering airspeed, venting fuel/oil vapour impinges on the lower wing surface.
Selecting reverse thrust plus decaying forward speed due to landing, no more airflow to draw the vapour away.
Engine central vent system vapour ignites and spreads to the contaminated lower surface.
Even after engine shutdown, system still pressurised and venting adding to problem.

Fuel dumping is such a common occurrence, why wings and engines are not engulfed in flames in other cases.

Simple answer, 'notapilot15' - There was no issue with the fuel dumping/jettison system which never caught fire.
The engine and wing caught alight after landing..
As someone earlier posted about the NGS system being installed, this aircraft has it fitted.
ATA 47 if you are interested.

post 632

But why the quantity? as the big difference in this event?. Else there would have been earlier fires in the data bank.

What's the postulated lesson learned here? or is this just a theory?

Lomapaseo,

I have no idea about the full facts and figures from the fuel and oil systems and haven't seen them.
I believe you know (from past postings) the engine oil system is still pressurised up to 10 minutes after shutdown.
So the theory is until then, the contaminated oil system by being pressurised and venting could be feeding the fire.
If there was another issue to compound the problem, IE a fuel leak in the pylon, that I do not know.

So TeamEvac conjuncture is less valid than TeamKudos conjuncture.

Theory is external leak in jettison system. Copy from FCTM follows
"
Significant fuel leaks, although fairly rare, are difficult to detect. The Fuel Leak NNC includes steps for a leak that is between the front spar and the engine (an “engine fuel leak”) or a leak from the tank to the outside (a “tank leak”). The NNC for the 777-200 non-ER airplane includes steps for a leak into the center wing dry bay area. An engine fuel leak is the most common type of fuel leak since fuel lines are exposed in the strut. Most other fuel lines, such as a crossfeed manifold, are contained within the tanks. A significant fuel leak directly from a tank to the outside is very rare due to the substantial wing structure that forms the tanks.
There is no specific fuel leak annunciation on the flight deck. A leak must be detected by discrepancies in the fuel log, by visual confirmation, or by some annunciation that occurs because of a leak. Any unexpected change in fuel quantity or fuel balance should alert the crew to the possibility of a leak. If a leak is suspected, it is imperative to follow the NNC.
The NNC leads the crew through steps to determine if the fuel leak is from the strut or the engine area. If an engine fuel leak is confirmed, the NNC directs the crew to shutdown the affected engine. There are two reasons for the shutdown. The first is to close the spar valve, which stops the leak. This prevents the loss of fuel which could result in a low fuel state. The second reason is that the fire potential is increased when fuel is leaking around the engine. The risk of fire increases further when the thrust reverser is used during landing. The thrust reverser significantly changes the flow of air around the engine which can disperse fuel over a wider area.

Input from insider
 

The following from a friend in the industry:




"Some more info. Probably not the greatest idea to use it for reverse. Fuel Oil cooler failed internally Oil pressure dropped oil quantity also erratic. Engine return to idle for last 2 hours of the flight.
Pilot lands but applies full reverse thrust. Engine burst into flames and heat melts fuel tank access panels. More fire than can be handled by on board systems PAX sit and watch the show."


Photos in following post.

Photos
 

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-K...nt%2B00013.jpg



https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-i...nt%2B00019.jpg
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-S...nt%2B00022.jpg

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Z...nt%2B00016.jpg

Probably not the greatest idea to use it for reverse.

This is a topic that has both divided opinion & ignorance. I've worked for various airlines; only 1 had an SOP of NOT to use T/R on and engine with a fire warning. Some had a 'beware' 'consider' philosophy. Some had never thought about it. None of the FCTM addressed the problem. Given that T/R's are a bonus in the stopping calculations IMHO it would be good airmanship not to use T/R with a Fire RTO nor to use T/R with a damaged running engine for RTO or landing.
My point is that there is so little guidance, and in this day where in-depth airmanship is a diminishing element under the onslaught of rigid SOP's, lack of guidance can lead to lax and dormant thinking in NNC's.

Photos from Minimbah are very interesting!

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...ml#post9441497

Two photos clearly show that it was the wing that was on fire, sooting the fuselage. Tyres are fine so absolutely no reason to keep pax on board in this case, and total luck that the fire crews happened to be there.

I need to repeat the earlier statement: You can not say that this was a good decision because noone got hurt.

Keeping people in anything that burns is never a good idea. Best case scenario is that they get lucky because of circumstances (like wind direction), but mostly they are not that lucky. Be it boats, helis, airplanes, cars or houses. There is a reason you evacuate your house if the forest fire flames are touching your windows.

:E That sums it up nicely.
Couldn't have put it any better!

Interesting, I never thought about that.
Just for my info, is it "no reverse" or "not more then idle"?

I have concerns about using assymetric reverse thrust on an emergency return to land. It adds more pressure on the pilot in an already stressful situation.

I would rather put the mitigation priority on this postulated cause towards addressing the amount of fuel leaked.