Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
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.
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
Okie wrote:B777-300ER= GE90-115B I believe.
Okie wrote:The BA engine fire at LAS was a GE as well.
Okie
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
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).
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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!!
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).
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.
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
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
SIACelestar wrote:Jet fuel in itself is not explosive
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
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.
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.
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
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.
SIACelestar wrote:Jet fuel in itself is not explosive
thunderchief200 wrote:
Could the cabin still have been pressurized?
SIACelestar wrote:Jet fuel in itself is not explosive