My rudementary grasp of such stuff says that 'chance' doesn't have a memory.

Ex EGLL, none that know their job is the answer. The purpose of evacuating is to avoid the risk of more serious consequences by staying onboard, not to worry about being second-guessed later. No breach of the fuselage is simply not an appropriate criterion to judge an evacuation on.

A fire of a tenth of that magnitude is more than ample reason to evacuate in most pilots' view I think. We all know how fast a fire can turn into an inferno - unless the fire surrounds the aircraft the only safe place to be is outside and fast.

Well time for me to add something i guess!!

I find it incredible, no amazing that they didn't evacuate given the size of the damn Fire and the fact that on the 777-300ER you CAN see the wing quite well in the Camera, so they would have seen it.

A lot of questions will be asked and hopefully we will get to the bottom of this event and ALL learn something from it.

Thanks goodness no one was hurt or died.

Just shows you how tough the mighty 777 is.

On a point of order, no it isn't. Minor injuries, maybe, a broken ankle even; otherwise, show me some evidence of more than very, very few serious injuries in aircraft evacuation via slides, due to the evacuation itself.

By serious I (and everyone else, I think) mean life-threatening or close to that.

Press reporting tends to class every bruise or graze as an injury or "hurt"; but even in reports like the Mail's on the Jet2 evacuation at GLA didn't claim a "serious" injury.

I do not believe that the remote possibility of an injury to a passenger should stop a Captain from ordering an evacuation for a heartbeat. If it's needed, it's needed.

Every emergency is not the same and it will be dangerous for passengers to be walking around when an aircraft is on fire. They could be run over by fire equipment (like the Asiana incident in SFO). I think in this SQ incident most people feel everyone was very lucky indeed.

May be good to view the Ci incident again. Less then 2 mins after the video started we had the first explosion. The actual fire may have started a minute or two before the vid began. The EVAC was called immediately as you can see the rear slide out and passengers exiting and the front slide was just inflating.

One brave ground crew even came around with a fire extinguisher. Brave but foolhardy move.

The Ci EVAC was a great call, had they been onboard during the first explosion, would not have been good.

By the time the trucks came around, they may as well have stayed back in the fire house, there was nothing to save.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qyZ...1ZLM4p_VmMV3Uh

Wifey flying SQ 77W very soon. Lucky she is not concerned. There is a lot of trust in SQ. Its not Lion. The SQ crew also had nerves of steel to stay calm and NOT evacuate.

I would have busted open a door and possibly be jailed afterwards but I couldn't sit around especially if I saw the fire outside my window.

This fire seemed every bit as bad as the Ci Okinawa incident. It was just put out before the plane exploded...thank goodness.

AMEN!

Maybe a sprain or broken bone, but i bet not one criticism for ordering the evacuation!

The Ci evac was the only call. Fire = evacuation, no questions asked. As it should have been here.

And the Ci 'explosions' were not exactly explosions. As I understand it, these were tyre-hydraulic blowouts. But anything that stirs up a fuel fire looks like an explosion. Try blasting a dry powder extinguisher into a fuel bath and see what happens. It will not be the desired effect, that is for sure.

Fortunately fuel was not gushing towards the fuselage. Looking at what fire did to BA276 fuselage in few seconds, not evacuating 240+ ???

There will always be injuries with evacuation, I don't think crew would hesitate for one second to avoid such minor injuries.

bloody idiots, sitting inside an aircraft with an uncontained fire.
On youtube clearly visible that after + 3 very long minute the Fire Services were not able to suppress the fire.

http://www.nycaviation.com/newspage/...29-620x410.jpg

The view assuming the camera worked.

From the late appearance of the black smoke in the external video, I'd think maybe tires burning.

Yes, I'll buy that, having been the person responsible for an annual CAP 148 airfield crash exercise at night, with 110 Casualty Union people and a full turn-out of all the services including the ladies serving tea, which was marred by a Local Authority fire tender running over the legs of a CU person feigning unconsciousness as briefed in the hope that some one would find him, 100m from the scene. The Risk Analysis didn't think of that one, which took a bit of explaining..

But severe injuries in the process of leaving the aircraft, apart from burns, are not common at all.

PS I just watched that China airline fire video. Long way from the Fire Station, was it? I'm sure that PPRuNe has been through all that, just a comment. Good evacuation, though. Makes you realise why overwing exit seats give a false sense of security; most fires involve engines/wings and the centre/wing fuel tanks, so that from the overwing seats you're in the back of the queue for the usable exits.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped....mains.arp.jpg

The hydraulic lines from the engine route through the back of the pylon up onto the rear of the rear spar.

So I'm guessing a considerable internal pylon / front spar main fuel supply fuel leak flooding the pylon with fuel therefore allowing vapor to flood the leading and trailing edge cavities during the extended diversion.

Airflow prevents pylon fuel / vapor from contacting hot engine till roll out, kicking off the fire.

Engine change without new fuel line seals or incorrectly connected fuel line etc during maintenance.

Any maintenance carried out recently?

Also surprised by the lack of evac, BUT the video i have seen from the terminal looks like there COULD have been fire under the a/c on the left side too. Possibly in the pilots cameras that looked too dangerous to evac on the left side. Dont hang them from your armchair without all of the facts, is all I say.

I flew the 777-300 as an f/o. the tail mounted camera is actually pretty good. Even during night time. You can see quite an amazing amount of detail.
For example, whether the chocks are still in place. Or a small puff of smoke when you start up an engine.

Very unlikely that it was the first flight following an engine change, judging from the FR24 flight history.

Leaving aside the evac or not situation , and it does look very scary indeed with the whole wing alight if iwas a regualr SQ pax I would wonder about he diversion back to base.

it does seem quite common now to return to home or convenient airport rather than land asap. With the smell of fuel in the cabin shouldnt one of the flight deck come back for a nose around?

If there was clear evidence of a fuel leak surely a land asap is the wisest course since had this inferno broken out at FL170 everyone is dead for sure and it seems mere chance that airflow kept the flames away from the engine -if more and more fuel leaked sooner or later its going to find something hot . Is there a bit too much trust in the airframe at times or a bit too much emphasis on what it will cost to hotac 300 pax , provide a substitute plane and then recover this one.

it does seem to me to be a lucky escape but more from the diversion point of view than slides or no slides

@Soundbarrier - another pax with very low information willing to hazard the entire passenger complement by taking unauthorized panic action and opening a door perhaps letting in the smoke from a fire you couldn't see.

And I bet you have the temerity to complain about people evacuating with carry-on.

It doesn't have to occur after the first flight.

AA191 (engine departed) crashed 8 weeks after incorrect maintenance.

Sorry, but you're joking, right?
This 1/8th inch Aluminum Foil will stand direct heat from 10.000 Gallons of Kerosene for maybe 2 or 3 seconds. You can almost ignore it is there from a Fire protection perspective. Had the wind turned around this would have ended in Tears. Lots of. Within seconds.


I'm completely at a loss how everyone sat there and didn't weither force the crew to evacuate or start self- evacuation. I can't fathom myself sitting there and waiting were I watching the scene outside window live and in real time.

As a passenger, in my mind it all depends on what kind of instruction was passed along from the flight deck. If no word from the flight deck, then I have to go on the little information I've got, which is an entire wing on fire. In that case, out the door I go. For all I know, the flight deck has been incapacitated.

A minor interesting point - If you are going to specify a side (left or right) or a direction (front or rear), it's useful to do so prior to commanding "evacuate".

Example - "Left side only, left side only, Evacuate, Evacuate".

The reasoning being that every word you say after the word "evacuate" will likely go unheeded and possibly unheard amongst the yelling.

I'm not trying to school anybody, nor am I picking on your post. I've always thought it was an interesting point given humans (passengers and flight attendants) reactions to stress.

Ian W

Most of my hours are 777. I've yet to hear of any situation where at least a pair of doors weren't usable. I want a long retirement - I wouldn't have that if I was a charcoal corpse in a burnt out hulk.

Sitting in an aluminium structure, part of which is uncontrollably on fire, and which contains a great deal of inflammable liquid, is not a good idea. The situation could, but for the grace of god, have quickly become unsurvivable. The AA or BA way is the only way.

Yessss . . .
The preferred procedure is to check for fire BEFORE opening door.

Passenger Initiated Evacuation


@SB and others. Watching the available videos of the AC on fire, the red flashing beacon was on. To me this indicates engine(s) still running.
Not a good idea to deplane when #1 may still be running.

As for those fearing the alum. foil skin will burn through in seconds, think again. Is it not an Aluminium alloy, designed to be much stronger than pure aluminum.

I keep seeing references to a "hot" engine igniting fuel. If the engine had been shut down for an hour, I can't imagine anything in it being hot enough to ignite a fire. Seems to me, the only thing that would ignite a fuel/oil leak would be hot brakes.

Were both engines shut down immediately after landing ? If not a cabin crew initiated evacuation could have led to passengers evacuating on the left with an engine running. Were the cabin crew sure that the aircraft was not going to start moving forward if they deployed the slides without instruction from the flight deck ?

A perfect example of how vital good CRM and communication is during an emergency.

Initially in Singapore the procedure was for the flight deck to specify which side of the aircraft to evacuate from but that changed many years ago to having the cabin crew assess the situation outside and decide to use one or both.

Engines shut down as part of the pilot initiated evacuation sequence - due to it about to become a charred hulk. It's not rocket science.

At which point I'm out of here - as I would have been had I been in an jet with an uncontrolled fire with no one seemingly in control.

After The QF 32 incident & the aircraft safely on the ground (after a superb effort by all the Crew of course), the Captain then took the time to go & speak to & with the passengers. I wonder if the Captain of SQ368 might have done the same & what might he have said to them?

I wonder if a polite letter to SQ HQ at SIN, asking them what their company rules & regulations are for initiating an aircraft evacuation. Can only the Captain make this call, can any CC make the call, if they consider the situation that serious & they have heard nothing from the F/D, or if the nasty stuff really hits the fan, with a definite clear danger to life & no action appears to be taken by any crew member, can any sensible passenger make this call & operate slides etc?

For those advocating a non evacuation..... How much evidence do you require before you would have pulled the pin?
Secondly, the real threat indeed would have been for a passenger initiation of the evacuation. In this case it didn't but the thoughts and (in)actions of the captain, at the subsequent court of enquiry, would be illuminating in such an event.
I look forward to the open transcript from the Singapore authorities on this one.

Major maintenance snafu, undetected oil/fuel system component fatigue, or turbine disk/blade/burner can failure are some of the typical man-made causes.

Why the fire bottles failed to confine the fire to the nacelle is a big question - if they were discharged in time and there was no disk/blade failure, which seems unlikely as that event would have gotten everyone's attention pretty quickly.

The point is maintenance errors pop up & not all are immediately post maintenance which is why I left the question of any recent maintenance in my original post. The AA191 was just to support the timing point, not the type of error. It could have been a fuel connection not tightened which took xyz sectors/hours/days to come loose.

Time will tell .........
 

Until the investigation reveals the real reasons for not evacuating the aircraft we are all guessing what was in the Captain's mind but he would most likely be concerned about a fuel fire spreading UNDER the aircraft - as has happened - and then bye bye to any extended chutes on the port side (full of deplaning passengers!)

And was he influenced by his knowledge of the five star fire fighting utilities at Changi? Tossing passengers out of a burning aircraft at night whilst not being totally sure of the external conditions presents a situation where you're damned if you do and damned if you don't!

Keep the pax on board and the aircraft explodes with huge loss of life or put them out and they possibly get incinerated in a spreading fuel fire?

Think I'd still opt for the first choice ......... sitting here with my Chardonnay in hand!

Earlier there was a question about flight crew visiting the cabin. As this was a 12 hour sector, they would have had a minimum of three crew. So someone could have walked and sniffed before/after the turnback.

but we don't even know if it was a nacelle fire.

Quite possibly the fuel simply leaked while in a slipstream environment and wetted a lot of surfaces behind the nacelle in flight before dripping down and wetting the nacelle and the ground after it stopped and only then the ignition.

It's gonna be an interesting investigation to determine the links in the chain

Without questioning the evacuation decision, I do have to wonder about those who are stating they would start their own evacuation. If the left engine is still running at idle power (just an assumption), which exits, if any, are safe to use to evacuate? My best guess is that maybe L1 would be safe, as it should be far enough forward to avoid being sucked into the air intake. I would worry that all other doors are unusable with an engine running -- those behind the engine might have their slides blown over by the jet blast, and those just in front of it might result in being blended by a GE90-115.

I'm not convinced a safe evacuation is *possible* without the cooperation of those in the pointy end.

I think CCA has some valid points.

Fire in mainly concentrated on leading/trailing edges of the wing, wing tip and engine exhaust. Fuel not evaporated is very valid reason.

May be right wing fuel tanks were empty by the time of landing.

Our evacuation checklist has the call to evacuate as step 5. That takes about 15-20 seconds after stopping. There is no 30 delay between selecting fire bottles during an evacuation.

If they had evacuated, and met the evacuate time criteria, everyone would have been off before the fire was under control.

The camera shows about 5'-10' of wing outboard of the engine.

The fire was at least 3 minutes based on the exterior video.

ASN Aircraft accident Boeing 737-275 C-GQPW Calgary International Airport, AB (YYC)

PWA 501 went up in smoke shortly after turning on to a taxiway after a rejected takeoff.

News reports at the time said the pax initiated the evacuation just barely in time.

Yes there were injuries, but no charred bodies.

Pictures of P Dub 501

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...f5e70033e6.jpg

http://www.nna-ccj.ca/lb/gallery/win...lay_1984SN.jpg

http://www.calgaryfiremuseum.com/upl...093479.jpg?504

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...e2ee03a6f0.jpg