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.