Re: Evac,waiting till the facts are all in, etc etc...I quite agree that it's unfair to pillory these guys just yet, but I also feel obliged to leave this little link here...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudia_Flight_163

Why?

Fuel smell, flames, most likely about 28-31t of fuel left in that wing alone (guestimate based on article). I'm sure the tower and RFF would have told the crew the wing was on fire. Who care if Pax get injured going down the slides. Better then everyone getting vaporized in an explosion.

Mrdeux

The flaps and LED's are not wet. Most liked fuel soaked or spray from some sort of leak. All the fuel is in the Amazon wing section and fuselage (centre tank). You can't see the wings from the cockpit but you do have the taxi camera. You can't see the wing tips from the taxi camera. Either way I'm sure cabin crew, tower and RFF informed the cockpit crew.

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/.../WSSS/tracklog

UTC
1845 TOC FL300
1921 last record at FL300 was heading NW, the next time stamp is over 2hrs later...
2127 FL170 heading SW
2226 FL170, then commenced descent for landing

The drop in altitude seems related to the turnaround and return to Singapore, why would they then stay at FL170 for an hour before making a final descent for landing? to burn off fuel? did they dump fuel? or just ATC directions? any other idea's?

Diversion reason?
 

Aside from news media concerning "oil pressure" there seems no actual indication about the reason for the emergency landing. If the pax were actually smelling fuel during the flight, how does that become an oil pressure problem?

Do we know if the engine was still operating on landing?

The fire was contained to the wing. The fire services continued to fight and gain control of the "contained" fire. As soon as an evacuation is communicated the RFF will pull back.
When a door opens the cabin becomes exposed to the fire that is no longer being either controlled or contained. There is no guarantee that a door or doors on the side of the burning plane will remain closed, thereby exposing the inside cabin to smoke, fumes, heat and flame. There was certainly potential for fatalities.
This outcome was excellent. I hope we learn the facts about the cause and can rectify any possible recurrence.
I am very glad it was not my arse sitting in that cockpit having to consider all of the immediate options whilst a fire was burning......
A reminder that what pilots and crew do every day is still actually dangerous and can kill you.

Reference Air Transat 236, a fuel leak caused excessive oil cooling that resulted in higher oil pressures in the engine with the leak.

I'm sorry, I dont agree with the above statement.

A fire within an engine with extinguishing agents I would consider a contained fire, but once it hits the wing, that is a totally uncontained fire! Where that spreads is totally unpredictable.

Be interesting to see how close it ran to the fuselage, all photos show the wing but I did notice the inboard flap extensively damaged.

fuel spill under the fuselage
 

Possibly a large amount of fuel burning under the aircraft, spreading to the left side ??
Has happened before - and would prevent an evacuation to the left side.

At least the external video does away with the 'minutes before the fire crew arrived' from a PAX. The aircraft was still rolling at the beginning and the first water-on within 45 seconds. Well within acceped response times I presume?

The 777-300ER has 3 external cameras. the fin mounted camera gives a clear view of the wings.

I am not saying that they should not have evacuated, indeed I believe this could have ended disasterously, however could you imagine the pilot ordering an evacuation via the right or left hand doors only? From my own experience I have found that many hosties cannot differentiate between an aircrafts left or right hand side.

FLYHARDMO: " Better then everyone getting vaporized in an explosion"

The video of the China Airlines 737 burning to the ground as a result of a wing/engine fire is instructive. 'Explosions' when they occurred happened very late in the sequence. It also took quite some time for the fire to breach the cabin, as judged by smoke coming from the open doors.


In a situation where the fire services are very near at hand and the cabin has not been breached it seems very reasonable to hold off calling for evacuation, while continuously reassessing the safety of doing so. Judging by the almost universal calls of 'fire = evacuation' on this thread, I would suggest that this crew has definitely thought outside the box and the result was not one person injured.

:(Good point Ngineer
considering aft facing jumpseats !!

Does the fact that the wind was blowing smoke away from the fuselage have any impact on the decision here?

Have a look at the data, there is none between 21:24 and 23:27, its just interpolated.
I do wish people would actually look at the FR24 or FA data before rushing in faster than a tabloid journo.

What a bunch of muppets!

EVACUATE EVACUATE EVACUATE

As the BA crew ordered in recent B777 fire in Las Vegas.

This could have ended so tragically.

Ngineer, if all port doors were painted with a large red mark of some kind, and all starboard green?


Then, "Exit by the red doors!"

What part of "EVACUATE LEFT SIDE ONLY" would the Singapore cabin crew be unable to understand ?

I would have been really hard pressed to stay in my seat as a passenger and not open a door and pop a slide myself after seeing the wing on fire.

The Ci incident in Okinawa with a 738 was fully on fire and exploded in the less then 6 mins it took fire trucks to arrive. Do you remember the flight crew jumping from the windows just one micro second before a major explosion? These people on this triple 7 were super lucky. I don't think had the flames gone on much longer it would have been the right decision not to evac. Amazing the whole wing did not explode.

Singapore is such a rigid society with rules up the ying yang. I would guess the flight crew were Singaporean? I think an American flight crew would have shouted eVAC EVAC after seeing that whole wing on fire.

9 year old 9V SWB is most likely a write off. The plane had been regularly busy in the days prior. So it didn't just come out of maintenance like the Ci 738.

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/9v-swb

Wonder if the fuel soaked wing caught fire from the heat of the engine (and/or brakes on landing) after the air speed reduced and fuel was getting in contact with the hot section. Or reverse thrust put the fuel onto the hot engine?

RFF either can control or contain a fire. Otherwise it is out of control and unable to be contained to a general area.
I am not suggesting it was contained as a part of the aircrafts design.
RFF containment of a fire gives way to time to assess your next move with information and further communication.

What he said.

better not imagine this would have occured in any airborne phase..

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cl8OjmiUkAAT36x.jpg

Jacdec

Cabincrew are thought to initiate evacuation if the situation is catastrophic. That translates in: your life is endangered if you stay any longer. Than you don't need the captain to tell you to evacuate.
You look outside, if the outside conditions are good, open door and evacuate.

Having said that: was their lives in danger inside?! It turned out that no. They stayed and it was ok. Captain made that decision and cabincrew had to follow. As I explained, the cabincrew are only allowed to take action if the situation worsens in the cabin and becomes catastrophic.


I belive that it could have gone bad any moment but, luckily, it didn't.
If you ask me if I was on that flight what I would have done? ........I'd have probably strated to evacuate on the LHS......

As usual in Pprune everyone jumping to conclusions and some getting on their high horses without knowing the facts. Here's more speculation in true Pprune tradition. Without knowing the facts.

I suspect the actual duration of the fire was maybe 90 - 120 seconds tops and started when the aircraft entered ground effect causing the airflow pattern to change on landing and fuel vapour was ignited by hot gas. You can deduce this from the video which presumably started about a short while after the initiation of the fire. Aviation kero fires are typically very smoky but this looks worse than usual so maybe there was oil burning as well.

2 scenarios:

Benefit of the doubt scenario:

1. Raised oil pressure and leak as a result of the fuel leak (see earlier post) causing a return.
2. Crew judged that a return was safe and more cost effective at 90 - 120 minutes out than stranding the aircraft somewhere. Maybe even had a selcal and got told to do that. Yes boss.
3. They were initially unaware of the fuel leak which worsened during the return and they didn't go into the cabin where they would have smelled the fuel. The cabin crew likewise didnt think to report the smell of fuel vapour to the FD, not knowing the difference between the smell of oil and fuel. That kind of scenario has happened PLENTY of times
4. If the fire only started on or just after touchdown then it took maybe a minute or two. Not much different to the Vegas 777, got off lightly.
5. Both Cabin and FD crew need some serious training. Flammable vapour in the cabin is a serious and immediate danger.

I cant believe they did this scenario:

1. They knew they had a fuel leak but characterized it as an oil leakto stop the pax being alarmed.
2. They chose or were told not to divert to the nearest alternate (and there were plenty - Bangkok for example)
3. They got away with it. See 4 above.
4. The decision-making process that led them to that course of action should be investigated.

P

XYZE and T cas

We can agree to disagree. Maybe an explosion won't happen soon or not at all. Why risk it based on another aircraft in a different scenario. The 777 holds a bucketload more of the flammable stuff than a 737.

In regards to evacuate left or right. No need to say anything other than evacuate. Cabin crew are. 'supposedly' trained to look out the window and assess. Just say evacuate and let them get on with it.

If you had been a pax on this flight what would your reaction be?

interesting that the crew chose to return to SIN, overflying Phuket and KL on the way. One presumes they didn't perceive this as being very serious -not intended as a criticism.

Absolutely shocking , the whole crew should be suspended , this is another reason that I won't fly on SIA .
It's only by the grace of God that we aren't looking at hundreds of casualties
If the fuel tank had ignited it would have been all over
Personally had I been a passenger on that flight I would have deployed the slide on the LHS and got myself out immediately argue about it later
Why weren't the emergency services on standby along the runway ?
Obviously because the Capt failed to notify them of the situation .
As for the diversion , difficult to judge the extent of the fuel leak at night , so that was a judgement call . Had the aircraft not burst into flames we would never have heard about the incident .

Simple rule : If the aircraft is on fire and you are on the ground get the passengers off

My first reaction on seeing the Guardian story this morning was the captain had made a difficult but correct call that the pax were—for the moment—safer inside the (unbreached) plane than evacuating, even if he'd ordered a port-side evac only. Slides always cause injuries, and getting run over by a fire appliance can ruin your whole day. ISTR a captain once saying of a not dissimilar situation, [not verbatim] "I decided the safest place was inside the aircraft, unless the situation changed for the worse". That said, how this captain knew that the situation wasn't about to get drastically and quickly worse I am not sure.

I agree that snap judgements lacking all the data that was available to crew are foolish, and I will follow this one with interest. When what looks like a dodgy decision leads to happy outcome, you always have to consider carefully, I think.

PS Did it really take that long for the fire units to turn up??

If you are facing the tail, the left side is the Starboard side. If you are facing the nose, the left side is the Port side.

I like the idea of all Green doors on the Port side, and all Red doors on the Starboard side...maybe Black and White would be better for contrast...then "Evac via the ____ (colour) doors ONLY!"

In the airlines I have worked for, the Cabin Crew is trained to look out and asses the situation, and NOT evacuate into a bad scenario, like a fire. BUT, the pax at the overwing exits have no such training...

Don't you just love all these armchair critics
I flew 777,s for sia for 10 years and I for one will wait for the report to come out before opening my mouth.
All these wild accusations against the crew,without a doubt most if not all will be wrong.
As for the idiot that said the crew would not have informed the tower or fire crew.......

Perhaps if the pilots had accessed Pprune and watched the passenger and bystander videos they may well have assessed the situation differently. However their only source of information would have been third party and it's possible that by the time they were ready to evacuate the fire was already contained.

RFF were on the scene with foam in about 45 seconds. As actual 777 pilots know; it takes all of that to properly assess the situation, carry out the correct non-normal checklist (eng fire involves a 30 second wait between extinguisher shots) and, if necessary, calmly carry out the passenger evacuation checklist (without screwing it up and forgetting the outflow valves).

As far as poking your head out the "DV window" ; well, maybe, but it has to be unlatched and wound open, harness undone, remove headset and awkwardly climb halfway out and I'm still not sure you'd see much of the wing. And in this case it was on the FO's side anyway.

Yes, 773's have a ground manoeuvre camera but it is low res and may not be useful depending on obscuration or sunlight etc.

As has been pointed out

When did the fire actually start?
What were the indications on the flight deck? EICAS messages, Engine indications (primary and secondary)
What information was being passed between flight deck and tower, or cabin crew?
Was it really 5 minutes for the fire services to arrive (all I see is a witness statement which can be unreliable at times)?
I believe decision making was aided in Vegas by the 3rd crew member going into the cabin to assess (how many crew on the SIA, I'm guessing 2)

But I'm with the other idiots on here as I'm not too bothered about waiting for facts, in fact I would go one step further.......this crew should not be immediately suspended.......fire them!

Regards,

With every passing day I truly hope this site is not frequented by professionals, otherwise this industry is beyond hope!

You don't suppose this is why cabin doors are marked on the inside with not only a number, but a big "L" or "R", hmm?

Ahhh.... Monday morning. PPrune Rumours and News contributors at their finest.

I suppose it's likely that the experienced captains (real life, I mean...), accident investigators, and aviation human factors folks reading this thread are the only people who understand the irony of so many of this morning's posts.

Sigh...

Looks like I will have to find another airline to travel on. Terrifying that the passengers were not evacuated immediately a fire was observed. What on earth was the crew thinking?????

Pinkman

On the balance of probability, the "I can't believe they did this" scenario gets my vote. Albeit with a caveat, that being that I actually can believe they did this. It is commercial aviation in 2016.

If no one in the cabin can tell the difference between Jet A and Illy coffee and the third pilot was too lazy to go back and have a whiff then SIA has some real problems.

And what was the EICAS telling them?

Immediate diversion to BKK will likely turn out to have been the correct response from a safety point of view but as we all know commercial is in charge.

That sounds like a great idea. I have not noticed that before. I do know the overwing exits I have sat next to do not have any L or R or any other marking on them...just plane doors...

Maybe the US has different rules for door markings than other areas of the world.

I will be looking for door markings starting tomorrow...

I admit to being a lurker on here but can't resist.

The cameras aren't the greatest but high enough resolution to see your wing on fire.

Wonder what power source is powering the anti-col and strobes which can been seen on the external video.

OK folks, most of us were not on board & possibly do not have the full story. However, based on the videos & photos, is anyone likely to change their preferred airline from SVQ to some other operator, as a result of this incident? I use SVQ often & have done so for many years, but based on what I have seen to day & can likely understand, I wonder if any other potential SVQ pax might have some misgivings.
Question folks, if any pax on this or any aircraft, fully believing their life was in immediate danger, & little apparent action by the crew, what would be his/her legal position, if they operated or attempted to operate the emergency slides themselves & evacuated the aircraft. This assuming & as it appears (may not be the actual case I would admit), the SQ crew were impotent & did very little to at least be prepared for an immediate evacuation?

The camera is mounted on the stabiliser leading edge and gives a view of the wing roots only.

The other camera is behind the nose wheel.