SQ 368 engine catches fire

infinit · Mon Jun 27, 2016 12:20 am

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/sin ... 07544.html

Two hours into SQ 368's journey to Milan, the captain announced the plane would be turning back due to engine problems. Apprarently the engine caught fire but it is unclear at what point it did.

loalq · Mon Jun 27, 2016 12:39 am

Damage seem quite extensive. Ive seen engines on fire before, not full wings burning!

infinit · Mon Jun 27, 2016 12:47 am

Gosh.
Yahoo Singapore posted a video of the wing on fire taken by someone onboard the flight-
https://sg.news.yahoo.com/singapore-air ... 52201.html

AngMoh · Mon Jun 27, 2016 12:48 am

Link with Video.

http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/s ... s-reported

It was more than just an engine fire.

Aircraft was a 9 year old 777-300ER 9V-SWB.

Spacepope · Mon Jun 27, 2016 12:50 am

That'll buff right out.

enilria · Mon Jun 27, 2016 12:51 am

Why was there no evacuation out the other side? The plane could have exploded fairly quickly. Seems crazy to be recording the wing burning all the way to the point the fire was put out. They should have been out.

whywhyzee · Mon Jun 27, 2016 12:52 am

Just curious, why was there no evacuation? I would think it would make sense to get everyone off fast in case the fire spread.

AngMoh · Mon Jun 27, 2016 12:57 am

Maybe because there was leaking fuel. If there is leaking fuel, evacuation might have been just ask risky as staying in the plane.

DocLightning · Mon Jun 27, 2016 12:58 am

OK, that's one of the most hair-raising things I've ever seen with respect to a modern airliner that didn't result in everyone dying. One of the fuel tanks is on fire, why are they not evacuating out of the left-side doors?

Also, is it just me or does it seem like the 777 has been having a lot of engine issues in the last few years? Odd to see this popping up in such a mature type.

AMSYUL · Mon Jun 27, 2016 1:26 am

DocLightning wrote:
OK, that's one of the most hair-raising things I've ever seen with respect to a modern airliner that didn't result in everyone dying. One of the fuel tanks is on fire, why are they not evacuating out of the left-side doors?

Also, is it just me or does it seem like the 777 has been having a lot of engine issues in the last few years? Odd to see this popping up in such a mature type.

My first thought was also: "why are they not evacuating?", however as an ex-F/A I believe that the crew was probably waiting for instructions from the flight deck. Pilots were probably waiting info from the firefighters, last thing you want is to evacuate PAX in a huge puddle of fuel!

Agree on the 777 issues, however it might be just like the series of AF 777 engine shutdowns some years ago, bunch of problems in a short while then nothing until these recent incidents.

Cheers!

P.S.: First post on a.net after reading the forums daily since 2002!

trumpet205 · Mon Jun 27, 2016 1:34 am

This reminds me of that CI plane that caught fire at Naha (fuel leak followed by fire once the plane came to a stop).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSUNzpmE-Rk

Since the news article says the fire only started after they landed, maybe the leaked fuel landed at hot engine and caught fire, just like the CI fire?

coolian2 · Mon Jun 27, 2016 1:38 am

That's not so much an engine fire as it is a fire.

vivekman2006 · Mon Jun 27, 2016 1:38 am

That looks like a pretty serious fire, with extensive damage to the wing! :shock:

This bird is going to be out of action for quite some time. Even I wonder why the pax were not evacuated; or maybe they were?

Vivek

TVNWZ · Mon Jun 27, 2016 1:45 am

If the 777 has had engine problems lately, does that mean G4 may be about to buy a few?

Sooner787 · Mon Jun 27, 2016 1:49 am

I agree, I can't believe they didn't pop the slides on the port side.

Also , was there a suitable divert airport that would not require a
2 hour return to SIN? If they had a fuel leak in the wing, I would
think that would be reason enough to get on the ground asap :shock:

Okie · Mon Jun 27, 2016 2:01 am

B777-300ER= GE90-115B I believe.

Also, is it just me or does it seem like the 777 has been having a lot of engine issues in the last few years? Odd to see this popping up in such a mature type

The BA engine fire at LAS was a GE as well.

Okie

33lspotter · Mon Jun 27, 2016 2:06 am

Okie wrote:
B777-300ER= GE90-115B I believe.

Yup, the GE90 is the exclusive powerplant of the 77W.

Okie wrote:
The BA engine fire at LAS was a GE as well.
Okie

That was a 772ER as opposed to a 77W, but, interestingly enough, BA has some RR-powered 772ERs mixed in (the G-YMM series).

KrustyTheKlown · Mon Jun 27, 2016 2:19 am

vivekman2006 wrote:
That looks like a pretty serious fire, with extensive damage to the wing!

This bird is going to be out of action for quite some time. Even I wonder why the pax were not evacuated; or maybe they were?

Vivek

Following an old tradition (of this forum) I proclaim that the aircraft is going to be scrapped.

Stitch · Mon Jun 27, 2016 2:20 am

33lspotter wrote:
Okie wrote:
The BA engine fire at LAS was a GE as well.

That was a 772ER as opposed to a 77W, but, interestingly enough, BA has some RR-powered 772ERs mixed in (the G-YMM series).

I believe the bulk of BA's 777-200ER fleet is RR-powered. They started with GE, but the engine had some serious teething issues so BA moved to RR for the later deliveries.

cpd · Mon Jun 27, 2016 2:25 am

AngMoh wrote:
Link with Video.

http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/s ... s-reported

It was more than just an engine fire.

Aircraft was a 9 year old 777-300ER 9V-SWB.

Interesting how there is quite a raging fire going and someones primary concern is filming it, rather than being alert for instructions from the crew/staff on the plane.

TheFlyingDisk · Mon Jun 27, 2016 2:28 am

Sooner787 wrote:
I agree, I can't believe they didn't pop the slides on the port side.

Also , was there a suitable divert airport that would not require a
2 hour return to SIN? If they had a fuel leak in the wing, I would
think that would be reason enough to get on the ground asap

There's HKT & KBV in Thailand which I would think is closed. LGK & PEN in Malaysia would also be closed, and by the time they reached the vicinity of KUL might as well continue on to SIN where passenger handling would be much easier.

wrongwayup · Mon Jun 27, 2016 2:37 am

Fuselage primary structure is generally more straightforward to repair than wing. My bet is she never flies again. 777-312ER MSN 33377 Del 2006-11-29 49,285FH/6,125FC as of 2015-12-31.

kanban · Mon Jun 27, 2016 2:46 am

wrongwayup wrote:
Fuselage primary structure is generally more straightforward to repair than wing. My bet is she never flies again. 777-312ER MSN 33377 Del 2006-11-29 49,285FH/6,125FC as of 2015-12-31.

if there was sufficient heat to weaken or distort the rear spar or the lower wing skin, you're probably correct.. I can not think of any rear spar replacements in the field.

phatfarmlines · Mon Jun 27, 2016 2:49 am

cpd wrote:
Interesting how there is quite a raging fire going and someones primary concern is filming it, rather than being alert for instructions from the crew/staff on the plane.

My bigger concern is said flight crew not being aware of a fire of this magnitude, to give the correct call to evacuate.

AngMoh wrote:
Maybe because there was leaking fuel. If there is leaking fuel, evacuation might have been just ask risky as staying in the plane.

But I don't know that I want to be trapped with flames surrounded by both sides. Best to have used the left-hand side exits IMO.

UA444 · Mon Jun 27, 2016 2:59 am

The wing can be repaired. The first that comes to mind is the DL MD-11 that had a wing fire that was replaced and the DC-9 that had the wings from the AC DC-9 that caught fire in CVG.

Armodeen · Mon Jun 27, 2016 3:03 am

This link has all the videos and pics so far: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/sin ... 07544.html

I cannot believe they didn't evacuate, that was a very serious fire. Although it would seem the decision is vindicated by the lack of casualties, but some serious balls of steel if the crew knew the extent of the fire and chose not to go.

a36001 · Mon Jun 27, 2016 3:07 am

Obviously there are valid reasons why they didn't evacuate. Question is what in the hell were they? I would think having half your plane on fire would warrant an evacuation! Wings are great things up until the point they are full of fuel AND on fire!! EVACUATE!! :shock:

AngMoh · Mon Jun 27, 2016 3:21 am

a36001 wrote:
:shock:Obviously there are valid reasons why they didn't evacuate. Question is what in the hell were they? I would think having half your plane on fire would warrant an evacuation! Wings are great things up until the point they are full of fuel AND on fire!! EVACUATE!!

My wild (unprofessional) guess is that they knew there was leaking fuel but no real idea how serious that leak was. If you evacuate into a burning pool of fuel it is not very good either. Also, a full fuel tank is not explosive - only empty tanks are - so maybe you are better off waiting in an unbleached hull if the fire brigade is 1 min away (the location of the aircraft is very close to the fire station - almost next to it).

Coal · Mon Jun 27, 2016 3:26 am

Was on SQ 998 this morning which had a 20 min pushback delay due to only Rwy 02L/20R in operation. Saw the remainder of the foam on 02C/20C and some fire trucks still around at about 8:20am local.

hongkongflyer · Mon Jun 27, 2016 3:31 am

AngMoh wrote:
a36001 wrote:
:shock:Obviously there are valid reasons why they didn't evacuate. Question is what in the hell were they? I would think having half your plane on fire would warrant an evacuation! Wings are great things up until the point they are full of fuel AND on fire!! EVACUATE!!

My wild (unprofessional) guess is that they knew there was leaking fuel but no real idea how serious that leak was. If you evacuate into a burning pool of fuel it is not very good either. Also, a full fuel tank is not explosive - only empty tanks are - so maybe you are better off waiting in an unbleached hull if the fire brigade is 1 min away (the location of the aircraft is very close to the fire station - almost next to it).

According to a airport footage, fire frighters are already rushing to the plane before the plane has came to complete stop. Even 2 mins after the fire services were on site, the plane was still burning. I found no vaild reason to hold the passangers for 2 mins while the wing was buring seriously.

flyenthu · Mon Jun 27, 2016 3:38 am

Wow, scary/dramatic images. Two recent SQ 777-300ERs involved in incidents. One in ICN and now in SIN. And, several incidents involving the 777 engines. What gives?

My question is, were the fire engines requested ahead of time given the situation? I would hope so because of the nature of the issue-fuel leak. It appears that it took 2-3 mins (per pax) for fire engines to arrive at scene, which seems like an awfully long time given the situation. Fire could have been ignited from external source(s), such as, hot brakes.

f/e

flyenthu · Mon Jun 27, 2016 3:40 am

hongkongflyer wrote:
AngMoh wrote:
a36001 wrote:
:shock:Obviously there are valid reasons why they didn't evacuate. Question is what in the hell were they? I would think having half your plane on fire would warrant an evacuation! Wings are great things up until the point they are full of fuel AND on fire!! EVACUATE!!

My wild (unprofessional) guess is that they knew there was leaking fuel but no real idea how serious that leak was. If you evacuate into a burning pool of fuel it is not very good either. Also, a full fuel tank is not explosive - only empty tanks are - so maybe you are better off waiting in an unbleached hull if the fire brigade is 1 min away (the location of the aircraft is very close to the fire station - almost next to it).

According to a airport footage, fire frighters are already rushing to the plane before the plane has came to complete stop. Even 2 mins after the fire services were on site, the plane was still burning. I found no vaild reason to hold the passangers for 2 mins while the wing was buring seriously.

Couldn't they have evacuated from the other side (left)?

Argustuft · Mon Jun 27, 2016 3:43 am

I just love the media spin on this - one female passenger was quoted as saying she "smelt petrol" before the aircraft took off :lol:

cpd · Mon Jun 27, 2016 3:57 am

flyenthu wrote:
Wow, scary/dramatic images. Two recent SQ 777-300ERs involved in incidents. One in ICN and now in SIN. And, several incidents involving the 777 engines. What gives?

My question is, were the fire engines requested ahead of time given the situation? I would hope so because of the nature of the issue-fuel leak. It appears that it took 2-3 mins (per pax) for fire engines to arrive at scene, which seems like an awfully long time given the situation. Fire could have been ignited from external source(s), such as, hot brakes.

f/e

If I remember right, the QF32 crew (who also had a dangerous situation) requested that the fire-tenders be at the end of the runway where the plane would be likely to stop, rather than following them down the runway.

I can think of a few reasons why the crew might have kept the passengers on board rather than evacuating, but it's probably better I say nothing in that regard.

CaptainKramer · Mon Jun 27, 2016 4:20 am

The Captain and First Officer would have been aware of the magnitude of the fire by one, viewing the fire on the EICAS, from cameras mounted on the horizontal stabilisers, usually used for navigating on the ground, giving a relatively good view of both the port and starboard engine and inboard section of wing, and two communicating with the emergency response teams near the aircraft and ATC Control Tower, providing another view of the situation.

SIACelestar · Mon Jun 27, 2016 4:21 am

Jet fuel in itself is not explosive

rbavfan · Mon Jun 27, 2016 4:49 am

infinit wrote:
Gosh.
Yahoo Singapore posted a video of the wing on fire taken by someone onboard the flight-
https://sg.news.yahoo.com/singapore-air ... 52201.html

Did anyone notice from the video. They removed passengers after the wing was put out. No exit slides. FU the planes on fire I'm out the other side down the slide and getting clear. the whole wing was on fire and they left everyone on board.

thunderchief200 · Mon Jun 27, 2016 4:51 am

SIACelestar wrote:
Jet fuel in itself is not explosive

Ya, but it flares up pretty quick if say, a burning wing loses structural integrity. Given a fire like that, there is no way I am sticking around to see how things turn out. I'm popping a door. Doesnt even need to be the left side. The rearmost right side door, and the forward one... seems like they are probably clear of the blaze.

Could the cabin still have been pressurized?

rbavfan · Mon Jun 27, 2016 4:52 am

vivekman2006 wrote:
That looks like a pretty serious fire, with extensive damage to the wing!

This bird is going to be out of action for quite some time. Even I wonder why the pax were not evacuated; or maybe they were?

Vivek

The video shows them offloading the passengers after the fire was out. Using a rescue unit stairway. No slides used.

rbavfan · Mon Jun 27, 2016 4:54 am

KrustyTheKlown wrote:
vivekman2006 wrote:
That looks like a pretty serious fire, with extensive damage to the wing!

This bird is going to be out of action for quite some time. Even I wonder why the pax were not evacuated; or maybe they were?

Vivek

Following an old tradition (of this forum) I proclaim that the aircraft is going to be scrapped.

With that much wing & possible fuselage damage it wont be worth fixing,

rbavfan · Mon Jun 27, 2016 5:01 am

UA444 wrote:
The wing can be repaired. The first that comes to mind is the DL MD-11 that had a wing fire that was replaced and the DC-9 that had the wings from the AC DC-9 that caught fire in CVG.

I would be surprised if the DC-9 wings from the CVG flight were used on another airframe. Damage was extensive & they tend to not used parts from a plane that had a fatal accident due to peoples superstition.

sierrakilo44 · Mon Jun 27, 2016 5:02 am

AngMoh wrote:
a36001 wrote:
:shock:Obviously there are valid reasons why they didn't evacuate. Question is what in the hell were they? I would think having half your plane on fire would warrant an evacuation! Wings are great things up until the point they are full of fuel AND on fire!! EVACUATE!!

My wild (unprofessional) guess is that they knew there was leaking fuel but no real idea how serious that leak was. If you evacuate into a burning pool of fuel it is not very good either. Also, a full fuel tank is not explosive - only empty tanks are - so maybe you are better off waiting in an unbleached hull if the fire brigade is 1 min away (the location of the aircraft is very close to the fire station - almost next to it).

SIACelestar wrote:
Jet fuel in itself is not explosive

Errrrr, no:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qyZFASOAe0

CaptainKramer wrote:
The Captain and First Officer would have been aware of the magnitude of the fire by one, viewing the fire on the EICAS, from cameras mounted on the horizontal stabilisers, usually used for navigating on the ground, giving a relatively good view of both the port and starboard engine and inboard section of wing, and two communicating with the emergency response teams near the aircraft and ATC Control Tower, providing another view of the situation.

Actually no, the number one source of information about that fire should have been the one of the many flight attendants (you know the crew who supposed to be there for your safety) positioned at the right hand doors who are staring directly at it. A quick interphone call to the flight deck of "there are huge flames coming from the right hand engine and all along the right hand wing" should have prompted an immediate evacuation from any sensible flight crew.

DocLightning · Mon Jun 27, 2016 5:06 am

SIACelestar wrote:
Jet fuel in itself is not explosive

No, but its vapor is. And with a fire like that there would be a lot of hot jet fuel.

zeke · Mon Jun 27, 2016 5:42 am

I will be very interested to read this report when it comes out. This will have some human factors lessons as well lessons regarding materials usage.

Clearly the crews actions by keeping them inside the aircraft protected them from the fire with a physical barrier while at the same time the fast response I would expect in SIN from the RFF ensured a favourable outcome.

From the video it would appear they had the fire under control very promptly once on scene.

Don't see pax carrying hand luggage either.

OneSexyL1011 · Mon Jun 27, 2016 5:55 am

YIKES

skygirl1990 · Mon Jun 27, 2016 6:04 am

thunderchief200 wrote:

Could the cabin still have been pressurized?

No. Cabin is depressurised well before landing (in fact any time below 10,000 ft AMSL), for exactly that reason. If there is an evacuation on landing, there is no time to wait for depressurisation, and the fog it would induce (in being an immediate depressurisation) would only hamper visibility.

dubaiamman243 · Mon Jun 27, 2016 6:18 am

The Capt made an emergency landing due to an engine oil warning message in the right engine.

a36001 · Mon Jun 27, 2016 6:26 am

SIACelestar wrote:
Jet fuel in itself is not explosive

I appreciate that, however if I am on a plane with a burning wing and very probably hot breaks, I'd feel a lot more comfortable getting off than staying on! and I'd also imagine you would also

In fact I am surprised the cabin crew didn't initiate an evacuation themselves. Cabin crew can do that...right?

BoeingVista · Mon Jun 27, 2016 6:30 am

OneSexyL1011 wrote:
YIKES

I'll see your YIKES and raise you a WTF

SIACelestar · Mon Jun 27, 2016 6:48 am

There's a video on YouTube on a swiss 340 by Justplanes or something and the pilot actually shutdown the engine inflight because of engine oil temp, wonder if the crew should have done the same?

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net