PT6Driver

In your last post you have added value to the discussion by clarifying your opinions on the subject :ok:

To continue with my own views, following yours, the issue facing the crew (both Captain and cabin) is what doors and when and where is the fire and its spread. No doubt there is lots of info being generate when you add in a third party like an outside fire captain.

for me as a passenger I just wait until..

As for lessons learned I still await what info was really available to the three parties on the intercoms etc. (Captain, Cabin and fireman)

At 39 seconds after wheels stop, foam starts spraying, but not on the plane alas, and certainly not on the windows.

An Answer
 

The short and simple answer is to teach aircrews tactical or combat breathing techniques. Tactical Breathing Can Stop Stress on the Spot | On Resilience
You can use it anytime your stress begins to increase.... not just for accidents.

PT6Driver. :ok:

Why would they spray the fuselage or the windows? The fire was affecting only the wing, not the fuselage, as demonstrated by post-incident photos of the right-hand side of the fuselage which show that the fuselage is undamaged, the paint not even scorched.

http://i.ndtvimg.com/i/2016-06/singa...1466999595.jpg

Hubnet, you say the examples are incomparable because of the cause? Are you kidding? It takes weeks to find that cause; how long do you want to sit in a burning aeroplane, cause unknown, before getting away? Likewise, prabellum, saying the Manchester is incomparable. Why? Aeroplane stopped on the runway, massive external fire... What is incomparable about that? Really, some people need to stop using little details to justify a bad big picture...

AS PT6 said, the crew are not at fault if they had not been made aware of the problem, but given fire crews rocking up and spraying, they must have been made aware at some point prior to the fire trucks arriving so that they didn't taxy.

Not seen linked earlier: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUtYwY7igj4

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britis...urs_Flight_28M


Aluminium shuffler, if you read this short report, (taken from the AAIB report), you will see there is no similarity between the Manchester incident and the SQ incident.

Spraying the fuselage would cool it and help prevent a breach. I'd expect that with good boundary cooling, an intact fuselage could survive almost indefinitely even with a pretty hot fire nearby. Of course, that's not to say that the fire couldn't get too hot, or that the cooling wouldn't be interrupted, or . . . .

Oldlurker...
 

I was responding to an earlier post, regarding video from inside the a/c, where you can see foam landing on the windows. Of course, foam was going everywhere at that point. Well everywhere on the RHS that is.

Apart from the whole issue we're concerned with, Parabellum, namely the huge external fire? What planet are you on? The exact cause of the fire may differ, but the external threat to the fuselage is the same! Huge, uncontained fire!

Engine fire
 

We are assuming this was an engine fire on this GE UNIT. It appears to resemble a breached oil sytem again? Anyone know the cause?

The quality of footage is sufficient for me to get an idea of the magnitude of the fire.
And that is huuuge.


Deadheader might be a little bit direct in the way he states his opinion but I think there is quite some truth to it.


I have no idea why you are so heavily favoring staying in a wildly burning aircraft.
Yes I don't want to hang the crew, in hindsight it appears (rather clearly) they haven't judged the situation well. That happens when human beings face the big unexpected. In all fairness they probably didn't have a clear full picture immediately.
However, the trick is to learn from such things rather than desperately trying to justify it.
So: No I don't want to crucify the crew. But it should be taken as a learning opportunity. Rather than denial.

if I might ask
 

as a SLF ! How far is it from the cabin to the nearest point of the fire? It looks a long way when you are sat in it , or waiting to board ' at remote stand ' !

A few things for you all to mull over...

1. SQ SOPs forbide CC to self initate an EVAC command. Only exception is if FD crew are incapacitated.

2. FD crew were in contact with RFF chief and he reckoned they (RFF) could contain the fire without the need to EVAC.

3. There was no engine fire warning - I wouldn't expect one either due to the fire beginning internally in the powerplant itself.

Trickii - the interim report states where the failure of the sytem occurred.People have explained how the system works previously in this thread.

wrong thread, editied out.

The crew probably knew it wouldn't as the fire crew outside would have reported that the fire was at the engine and outboard and all smoke and fire was blowing away from the fuselage. They may even have added advice not to evacuate to give them full access to put the fire out. The examples you quote are precisely the opposite with fire being blown onto the fuselage.

Yet ... the video recording the pax leaving on the safety stairs show no sign of fuel or foam under the aircraft. The area some are talking about - was dry. The area where a chute from L1 door would have opened, was dry.

In the below picture despite the favorable cross wind from the left, the soot goes right up to the corner of the TE Flap cutout in the wing and the entire Flap appears to be trashed. That is all well inboard of the engine pylon.

Then there is the non-linearity factor that fires exhibit. One minute you are fighting a localized fire, the next instant something explodes in your face like the wing on the Emirates T7. No one can really predict exactly how a particular fire is going to behave in advance. They are as predictable as a pet rattlesnake.

It's not the soot that worry me, it's the stuff towards the center (ala the bunsen burner effect in school labs)

Flickering flame is one thing but steady concentrated flame is what causes metal burnthrough.

Much of the visible damage in today's planes is the non-metalics losing their binders

Henra - Please go back and read all my posts again. I have only advocated making sure the crew have made use of all the information available to them before making their decision and in this case information from the fire fighters on the scene, quickly, is likely to be valuable. I have also criticised people who would evacuate regardless of available information, as these are the people who may well turn an incident into a catastrophe. There are incidents where the decision to evacuate is obvious, Manchester and Dubai for example, Manchester the engine had blown up and Dubai was a catastrophic crash.




PAXboy - The fact that any area may look dry doesn't mean that there is no fuel present, the top surface of the runway is deliberately porous to allow rapid dispersal of moisture.