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..