Now I'm not a firefighter but it seemed to me that the trucks were too far away, especially the rear one. It was very uneasy watching the video... how long is that foam going to last?

So, there's a known fire on the right side and possibly a fire on the left side. Yep, I think we'd all agree that no evacuation was a great decision.
If you can read the QRH by the glow of the fire, perhaps it's time to get out!

Interesting
 

Whilst not quite in the same class, there are parallels to the QF32 incident a few years ago. The aircraft sitting on the runway, leaking fuel, that fuel being atomised by the jet blast from an engine still running, near very hot brakes. A combination that could have caused a fully fueled A380 to combust at any time, however the passengers remained on the aircraft until the the engine was shut down by filling it with foam.

This is albeit a bit different with an uncontained fire engulfing the wing, however it could have happened. That wasn't a Singapore crew, that was an Australian crew. They probably didn't have any situational awareness of the damage that the airframe had sustained with the engine dropping it's internals all over Indonesia either.

As they say, time will tell. A forunate outcome nonetheless.

Engine shutdown when RFE onsite?
 

Ignorant SLF question: If airport RFE is onsite, would SOP be to shutdown any remaining running engines?
If so, it would remove one inhibitor for evacuation.
As SLF with an interest in aviation, and well aware of previous fire disasters, I would have been VERY concerned had I been aboard and aware of the fire.
The calm evident in these videos is amazing to me. At the very least I'd have been screaming at the cabin crew to evacuate, and if I'd been close enough to an exit...
I'm well aware that the crew might have information I don't pertinent to safety of evacuation, but I'm also well aware they might NOT be seeing what I'm seeing, or simply might be frozen. The past history of such incidents suggests that those who move fast are those who survive. It's a true dilemma.

ATC recording..., requesting fuel dump
 

Same recording offered assistance on landing, and says negative. Doesn't look like such a great decision in hindsight.

The link ITman provides does reveal the fuel dump but, also:

BWH Control: Singapore 368. Do you require any assistance upon landing?
SQ368: Negative, Singapore 368.

So they didn't think it was too bad at that time.

Interesting exchange ITman. The three times that I have had to dump fuel I had them roll the trucks for our landing. Best to have them in position if needed. Easy insurance.

The fire brigade wants to help. You are not discomfitting them by rolling them out.

For goodness sake, based on the info they probably had, they didn't need any!

Agree.

Do you need any assistance?
No.
Do you release that your right wing is going to catch fire after you land?
Oh, OK, request full services.
:rolleyes:

Blogs, they obviously knew something was wrong, (strong fuel smell in cabin, FL170, fuel dump). Clearly there was a high degree of uncertainty about the mechanical state of the aircraft in the crew's mind. What would be the risk/reward of assistance vs no assistance under such circumstances of uncertainty?

Cabin crew is always on alert. They are required to be alert on every landing let alone when you have a diversion due to a technical fault. They were continuously evaluating the inside and outside conditions and they were ready to evacuate.

No pax should ever try to take matters in their on hands as long as the cabin crew is not incapacitated.

Fair enough & quite sensible comments `Angry Rat`. Earlier on I raised the possibility of a Pax initiated evacuation, but I stress, this would have to be the very last resort, in the event of no crew input or action & a genuine & serious danger to your life & the lives of others. You would also have to justify your actions subsequently as well. As had been mentioned a number of times on this thread, do you stay on board & fry, or do you evacuate into a pool of fuel & also likely fry? At night & after a single engine approach & landing, not a nice situation to be in at all.
I would suggest though, a little more openness & info directly from SQ Airlines might be a help & might certainly calm any future pax, who right now are looking at Emirates, Qantas & others, as an alternative airline for them. In my opinion, Airlines from this part of the world seem to err very much on keeping `Mum` & not being as open as they might, when problems arise. Is this face saving, or just keeping problems in house, I would not know.

Evacuate??
 

Cabin crew should've initiated the evacuation, even if the fact that the fire was not yet known to the pilot.. They were saved by a mere luck and great job of the RFF team, not the crew. The fact that some people said it was safer on board, watch this
https://youtu.be/-qyZFASOAe0

It is highly probable that the crew were talking to the fire fighters and the decision not to evacuate may have been based on information from the fire fighters outside the aircraft and in a position to see what was happening.


Many spoon drains and culverts in the grass at Changi, add to that rain and the ground may have been too soft for fire engines. In any event, a fire engine over tarmac is likely to be faster than one over the grass.


So much rubbish posted here, sadly some from pilots. Fuel dump with a fuel leak?

The thing I find most interesting about that China Airlines video is how short was the 'window of opportunity' for evacuation. The passengers were not long off before there was burning fuel spreading all around the slides. Would I wait for the fire services in a similar situation? I'm sceptical about their chances of succes, and how long they'll take to arrive, or douse the fire. Seconds count here. If you lose your gamble - you're dead.

What rubbish. As others have already said, the pilots may not have shut down the engine(s) straight away if they weren't planning an emergency evacuation. I'd suggest that would be the case if "the fire was not yet known to the pilot". An evacuation initiated by the cabin crew in such circumstances could easily have resulted in people going down the slides right next to an engine that was still running. Is that a good idea? I think not.

@buzzbox

What you jst said is also rubbish. No offence.
Cabin crew can initiate evacuation if they belive that is necessary and are trained not to open a door with fire/smoke outside. They initially stand by and wait for a command from the Flight Deck, if during that time situation requires a evacuation than they can start without the command.
So, stop assuming nonsense.
SIA has experienced, well-trained cabin crew. Don't make assumptions that they would have opened a door with fire outside.

skytrax:

I am well aware of what cabin crew can and can't do in such situations, thank you. Try READING my post. It was about cabin crew initiating an evacuation next to a running engine.

Not directly comparable situations, the fire at Naha was allowed to burn unchecked for over five minutes. Once the first truck started spraying the fire on the right side was out within 30 seconds. Also note that throughout the entire video footage there is NO smoke coming from either forward or aft doors, meaning the fire did not spread inside the cabin.


That being said, the report will be an interesting read. I'll be very curious to read whether no evacuation was a conscious decision taking into account the various risks, or just a lack of action.

Sitting on top of a burning kerosene contrainer is a better idea for you? Well... To me, the crew gambled and win, nothing more..

Quote:

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGA2...ature=youtu.be

---

There is something odd about the link posted by ITman. Is it real?

Why is Butterworth Radar clearing them to land and then asking them to contact Kuala Lumpur Radar?

Hard to imagine the pilots were unaware with the first responding fire truck in line with the cockpit, and also one would assume tower advised them on the situation. However the beacon lights were on throughout the fire-fighting sequence, clearly seen on some videos, so possibly at least one engine was running...

ok45:
In my opinion, the cockpit crew should have initiated an evacuation, FULL STOP. The cabin crew would want to be damn sure the engines were shut down before self-initiating an evacuation unless the situation was catastrophic and there was an imminent risk to life.

Lomapaseo, I can completely see that theory working on the ground. Reports of kerosene smells in the cabin in flight seems rather odd considering the architecture of the engine and bleed system. It is a puzzle.

Perhaps the early reports of an 'oil pressure' problem precipitating the landing were wrong and it was in fact fuel pressure and the engine was not shut down.

It's Not That Bad - Until it suddenly gets worse
 

Human nature and wishful thinking can lead the crew to believe everything's under control. The fire truck crews may have been either overconfident in their capabilities or insufficiently assertive to the captain.

It all worked out this time; so niggling concerns might end up swept under the rug with kudos handed out to all involved.

If the fire fighters let it go a little farther or the wind is blowing the wrong direction next time, you might just wish the pax were outside the airframe instead of inside getting barbecued.

No pax should ever try to take matters in their on hands as long as the cabin crew is not incapacitated.

Best make them stop watching the videos....and take away those 'How to' cards as well, even the ones that indicate to look outside to see if there is a fire.... :}

Imagine a lack of contribution from pilots to a thread and topic that is speculative in every sense. It's been said a million times (possibly more) that unless you were on the flight deck, or intimately involved, it is very likely that you don't have visibility of all of the facts, hence no real point is trying to find answers or understanding at this point.

Time and further information will tell us if the flight crew earn were fantastic, or just lucky.

Do you think it better to land over-weight with a fuel leak or consider that it's not a good idea to dump with one?

It's absolutely bizarre that there is an incident in which no one was injured and there are people on this thread castigating the crew.

Do you honestly think that the crew would not order an evacuation if they thought they would lose 200 lives by not doing it? Why would you think that the flight crew is less competent than you in the same situation? It's a stupid idea and you're seriously inane for thinking that you are better placed to make a decision from this privileged vantage point of not having to deal with any of the consequences.

You don't know what communication went on between ground responders and the flight deck. You don't have any of the facts. Most of you, if not all of you, have no firefighting experience.

Possibly the crew were somewhere between fantastic and lucky, which is how it always works in real life.

When judging the performance of the firefighting - things like how close they were for example... how many of you know the ins and outs of aircraft firefighting? Of staging appliances, using first response foam, sizing up the incident site, access to water, efficient utilisation of firefighting resources in an unfolding incident? How do you know whether or not there were mechanical PTO problems, or pump problems, or if there were no problems at all?

Have any of you ever been in a situation like this, a situation about which you are spending hours and days second guessing decisions that were made in the space of five minutes?

Well said Bud.
A couple of things had occurred to me:
The thread keeps referring to a smell of fuel being reported in the cabin. Reported by whom? If a reliable source had reported that, surely they would have reported other salient points (such as crew announcements etc).
There are comments referring to landing with a fuel leak. I understood the Captain had reported an oil leak so where does the fuel leak idea come from?
Does anybody here have experience of the old paraffin blow torches? The damn stuff wouldn't light until the jet was pre-heated and the paraffin pressurised. If the fire was indeed fuel, how was it pressurised, given that the engine had apparently been stopped for quite some time (presumably in flight)?
On the other hand, the Saudia L-1011 disaster in 1980 has never been given a root cause of the fire that destroyed that aircraft and killed so many. But then, the accident report was compiled by the Presidency of Civil Aviation. Having worked for them at the time of this incident, I wouldn't have any faith in what they said anyway. However, I remember seeing a documentary some years ago covering an investigation by the UK AAIB into what could have initiated the fire. And the conclusion there was it was most likely due to a tiny leak in a hydraulic line, resulting in atomised fluid being sprayed onto and soaking the insulation cladding the centre engine exhaust where it was routed through the cargo hold. And in their tests, they replicated this theory and showed an extremely intense fire. So, is it possible the fire seen in the SIA videos could have been burning hydraulic fluid, rather than fuel? To the Captain and the fire crews, a fire is a fire and it would be natural to assume it was fuel that was burning. Perhaps it wasn't?

There have been a few posts regarding beacon lights and whether the engines are running or not. Trust me if you have a fire on the runway and assessing the situation the beacon light switch would never come into it. It would have as much relevance as whether you had put the rubbish bin out in the morning.

Guess that might be directed at me as I posted a while back.

My inference wasn't that they had or hadn't touched the switches rather an observation that they were being powered..

Either the APU which would be running on landing if they had shut down an engine (was it an engine fuel leak... we don't know), or the left was still running.



I do trust you but did you put the rubbish out this morning?

Are you obliged to keep all grass within the airport perimeters in a condition, which allows heavy vehicles to use it without getting stuck? Would not be an easy task in the tropics...

How many pax can tell the smell of jetfuel? Probably the typical smell of burned fuel people know from engine start with adverse wind.

It is agreed anyway, that it started inside the cabin. That is a completely different scenario, and it is hard to argue why not to evacuate immediately in that case.
Hopefully the 777 interior is a bit more modern / less toxic when burning than the L-1011 Interior designed in the late 60s

Fair point Capt Ecureuil,

I have never operated a 777, so if the beacon is not hot battery bussed you could obviously know either an engine or apu was running. Point taken, I guess a 777 driver can answer that. And no it wasn't particularly aimed at you, and I don't know, I forgot if I put the rubbish out.

Was this a genuine fastball or was time available beforehand to prepare with the crew for all possible eventualities?

Changi has drains on the grass perimeter.

Look, the wing is burning. I'm not going to wait for the facts from the investigation, I'm evacuating before even the relevant METARs are posted to PPRuNe.

Hmmm, that's an interesting question! I thought I knew the answer, but I don't. So I had a look at UK CAA's CAP 168 first, and Annexe 14 (incl Amendment 11) second, and failed to find any specific reference to unpaved surface maintenance and condition except where it is part of the manoeuvring area, ie runway, taxiway, apron etc.

That's not to say there isn't a reference; Annexe 14, and its Amendments, are very long! I only looked in the obvious places.

There is of course the RFFS requirement to get to any part of the airfield within a stated time. If the RFFS has to use paved areas only, either occasionally or every time, that requirement still applies.

"the Saudia L-1011 disaster in 1980 has never been given a root cause of the fire that destroyed that aircraft"

AFAIK the fire burnt through from the aft cargo through the aft cabin floor. The controls to the outflow valves were burnt through - they remained closed, keeping the cabin pressurized.
The pax stampeded into the cockpit crushing the crew and preventing the engines from being shutdown - they kept running and pressurizing the cabin.
The cabin crew could not open the doors due high diff.
E&OE

Reading the comments here you would think the new norm when sitting in a burning plane is to put your seat belt on and wait for rescue.I cannot imagine in any circumstances of not leaving a burning plane at the earliest possible time. This crew was so lucky most burning planes are totally destroyed even when the fire starts at an airport. If one of the wing or main fuselage tank had of exploded the death toll would have been horrendous.